# Over Limit in Ramsey County



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Heard only part of the story on the 10pm news. 165 ducks taken? Any details?


----------



## Sasha and Abby (May 11, 2004)

Holy smoke...


----------



## woodpecker (Mar 2, 2005)

Sounds like they shot way over their limit while the GW was watching them in the field! The GW confronted them as they were leaving the field and at that time they were carrying their limit only. A dog was sent in and the extra birds were found! Then on follow up at their motel, the remainder of the birds were found!! I'm not sure of fines but I did hear up to 1000 for at least one of them!!
Also I believe it was Missouri and Georgia people!!


----------



## dosch (May 20, 2003)

Duck poachers pay fines, lose privileges
Brad Dokken Grand Forks Herald
Published Saturday, December 06, 2008

Three Mississippi hunters and three Alabama hunters have been convicted in Ramsey County, N.D., for shooting too many ducks during an early October trip to the Devils Lake area.

Glen Vaughn, 38, Mathiston, Miss., and Samuel McMinn, 45, Sturgis, Miss., each were fined $1,000 and ordered to pay $225 in court costs and $300 in restitution for exceeding the possession limit of ducks and failing to retain custody of waterfowl when required.

Jeff Vickers, 50, Sturgis, was fined $500 and ordered to pay $225 in court costs and $300 restitution for exceeding the possession limit of ducks. He also paid a $500 fine for failing to retain custody of waterfowl when required.

RELATED CONTENT 
Brad Dokken Archive 
Zachary Moore, 26, Kennedy, Ala; Ricky Carroll, 20, Fayette, Ala.; and James Upton, 46, Arab., Ala., each were fined $600 plus $225 in court costs and ordered to pay $300 restitution for exceeding the possession limit of ducks.

All six of the hunters have lost their hunting privileges for a year. A seventh member of the group charged with exceeding the possession limit of ducks is set to appear in Ramsey County Court on Dec. 15.

According to Bruce Burkett, a warden investigator for the North Dakota Game and Fish Department in Bismarck, the charges resulted after an Oct. 8 encounter, in which he and district game warden Courtney Poland of Elgin, N.D., observed the three Mississippi hunters shoot more than their daily limit of five ducks each while hunting in a marsh near Devils Lake.

The three hunters came out carrying 13 ducks, Burkett said, but a subsequent check turned up 10 additional birds the men had breasted, wrapped in plastic bags and hidden in the marsh to retrieve later.

Burkett said his golden Lab, who's trained to detect firearms and game, found the field-dressed birds the hunters had stowed in the marsh, and the hunters were cited for exceeding the daily limit and failing to retain custody of the remaining 10 birds.

Figuring the hunters might have more ducks, Burkett contacted district game warden Chris Knutson, Devils Lake, who conducted a search of the motel where the Mississippi hunters and the Alabama hunters were staying. That search produced 96 ducks that were breasted and bagged, Burkett said.

After a final count, the seven hunters had 123 ducks in their possession - 53 more than their possession limit of 10 birds each allowed.

The Alabama hunters were part of the same group, Burkett said, but they weren't hunting together that day. That's why they weren't charged with failing to retain custody of waterfowl when required.

Burkett said wardens couldn't determine the species of the ducks back at the room because the birds were breasted, and all wings or other identifying marks had been removed.

Without the dog, he said, the wardens might not have found the birds the Mississippi hunters had hidden.

"She's generally with me all the time," Burkett said. "When I do a field inspection, I ask if there are any birds here, then I let the dog out and we do a sweep.

"It's an important tool if used right," he said.

Dokken reports on outdoors. Reach him at (701) 780-1148; (


----------



## woodpecker (Mar 2, 2005)

woodpecker said:


> Also I believe it was Missouri and Georgia people!!


Apologies to Missouri and Georgia hunters!!!!  
Mississippi and Alabama 
by Dosch's article he posted!!!


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

If the wardens sat and watched them shoot even just one bird over the limit then the wardens are just as guilty for not stopping them right away. Sure if they sit and watch they will get a bigger bust but what does that do and say for the ducks. It says to me the amount of ducks killed really isn't important and if the wardens themselves don't care why should we?

One bird over like one drink over will get you a fine. No discussion just a ticket. It absurd the wardens would watch them shoot illegal bird after illegal bird, the wardens should help pay the fines. :evil:


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

I for one am shocked.........................................

that they were not from Sota or Wisconson.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

4CurlRedleg said:


> I for one am shocked.........................................
> 
> that they were not from Sota or Wisconson.


 :eyeroll: uke: :eyeroll: uke: :eyeroll: uke:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> After a final count, the seven hunters had 123 ducks in their possession - 53 more than their possession limit of 10 birds each allowed.


 Thanks dosch.
This seems like another case of fines set too low. If one bird over is $200, shouldn't the fine be like $10,600? Unless it was plea bargined down? I hope they lost their gear?

North Dakota needs a *Wildlife Gross Violations Law* in the next session. Maybe manditory fines. Double limit, double the fine per bird. Tripple limit, triple the fine. Same with loss of hunting privilages. Make it hurt. :******:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> North Dakota needs a Wildlife Gross Violations Law in the next session. Maybe manditory fines. Double limit, double the fine per bird. Tripple limit, triple the fine. Same with loss of hunting privilages. Make it hurt


Bad answer!! The wardens would all sit and wait for it to become officially gross then wouldn't they. They all ready lay in the weeds and don't stop poachers as soon as they can or even before a violation occurs. Are the wardens not out there to protect the wildlife. How is sitting watching people shoot over their limits helping anything?? :evil:


----------



## dosch (May 20, 2003)

> North Dakota needs a Wildlife Gross Violations Law in the next session. Maybe manditory fines. Double limit, double the fine per bird. Tripple limit, triple the fine. Same with loss of hunting privilages. Make it hurt.


What a joke of a fine. They put it on the news and in the paper like they have this big bust. Then they describe the fines and charge and it makes it even worse.

Even at a $1000.00 dollar fine total. Big deal!


----------



## 9manfan (Oct 22, 2008)

Don't really think it matters what state they are from, each state needs tougher laws against these people that take way over there limit of ducks or fish, until they make the fine really tough I believe we will continue to see these kind of hunters(they really should not be called hunters), I'm sure each state has hunters who have done this.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

One thing the wardens need is evidence. So that is why they watch. They need to make sure the # of people, # of ducks shot, etc. Because they could see what they think is a bird dropping, then bird could have dropped but regained flight later and escaped.....that would equal no violation. That is why they don't just let people get 1 over the limit and bust them. Because they could also have miss counted people or birds.

Now in this case they watched the guys shoot 10 over the limit. That is not watching them pile up 100's of birds. They wanted to make a case.

Plus one thing to look at is how lax judges are towards game violations. If a guy came in with 1 bird over the limit....the judge would think it is a waste of time.

I would like to see all waterfowl and game violations be heard by a judge specifically for them. Think about it. These judges would had out stiffer fines because that is the laws they are concerned about because it is their job.

Other judges think game violations are not that big of a deal.

Just my two pennies.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

blhunter3 said:


> :eyeroll: uke: :eyeroll: uke: :eyeroll: uke:


Wipe the puke from your chin and change your diaper, facts are facts. With the most non-residents being sotans and sconnys they create the most trouble.

I am with Buckseye, why in the world would they let them punk that many and then lay it on them other than the fact of trying to put the wood to them with the grossly soft penalties we deal out.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

4CurlRedleg said:


> blhunter3 said:
> 
> 
> > :eyeroll: uke: :eyeroll: uke: :eyeroll: uke:
> ...


With what you just said shows your ignorance.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Violators place of orgin has nothing to do with it. There are enough ND'ers doing the same. Repeat offeners too. Add them onto the bill too.

The increased fine should have to be mandatory. The problem is not the warden. It's the shooter behind the trigger.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

ND has really set the bar low in fining violaters. ND needs to get some new judges who care about wildlife, and then maybe stronger fines will follow.


----------



## water_swater (Sep 19, 2006)

Just to add to the point made by the other post, poaching is just like any other crime crime, they let offenders commit enough of a crime until they can bust them for something that will lock them em. Its not the wardens job to stop people from breaking laws thats the hunters job. The wardens job is to find and arrest people who break laws especially people like those.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

MN goose killa said:


> stupid $hits should stay out of our state.


  
Says *MN* goose killa. :huh:

I do agree with having a gross over limit law in place. I would also like to see ALL fines doubled. $1,000 plus some meager court fees? Its hardly a slap on the wrist. I too hope the fine state of ND acquired some shotguns and pickups that day as well.

The wardens arent there to stop the violation. Their there to punish the violation. They have to "sit in the weeds" to gather evidence and make certain there is a violation of the law in progress. Had the wardens charged right in after the first over limit bird fell, the outcome may have been much different. Its alot easier to hide one bird over the limit versus ten or twenty (not that I would know).


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

water_swater said:


> Just to add to the point made by the other post, poaching is just like any other crime crime, they let offenders commit enough of a crime until they can bust them for something that will lock them em. Its not the wardens job to stop people from breaking laws thats the hunters job. The wardens job is to find and arrest people who break laws especially people like those.


Exactly.....every sting operation goes beyond the first offense to get evidence.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> Had the wardens charged right in after the first over limit bird fell, the outcome may have been much different


Yes different... not as many dead ducks!



> Exactly.....every sting operation goes beyond the first offense to get evidence.


How do you spell entrapment?? No wonder they always get thrown out of court.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

buckseye said:


> If the wardens sat and watched them shoot even just one bird over the limit then the wardens are just as guilty for not stopping them right away. Sure if they sit and watch they will get a bigger bust but what does that do and say for the ducks. It says to me the amount of ducks killed really isn't important and if the wardens themselves don't care why should we?
> 
> One bird over like one drink over will get you a fine. No discussion just a ticket. It absurd the wardens would watch them shoot illegal bird after illegal bird, the wardens should help pay the fines. :evil:


Buckseye.

The issue here is *not* the warden(s).

I love how these stories always get twisted into something "bigger" and out of context. You are given a short version of the story via the newspaper, you know none of the extenuating circumstances surrounding this particular bust, and yet you feel compelled and righteous enough to come here and blast ND G&F for a legit bust on guys who clearly didn't care to follow the law. :huh:

Let me help you out here a bit...

First of all ...

The amount of ducks is important. In order to have a rock solid case, they need to make sure that what they were dealing with was much more than an "accident". Anything involving a wildlife violation such as this is going to go to court. In court the defendants will employ an number of excuses/alibi's in order to skate from the charge entirely or have it knocked down to nothing. (BOTH of which I'm assuming would pizz off the masses here even more than the paltry fines they ACTUALLY received...) therefore, they need to prove/convince a judge that this wasn't just a ooopss and rather a gross misdemeanor. Therefore they have to have a case that rises up above the standard for a harsher penalty, stiffer fine. They have make sure that since our justice system refuses to throw the book at them, that they have a significant case that forces the justice systems hand, and that they hand out the stiffest penalty currently possible.

Would you like to have seen them get off entirely? One/two ducks over would have done it. And that also might not have given them enough probable cause to do a room search 20 miles away (see below).

No. We want to see these guys get their azzes nailed. Hard.

So to that end the G&F ensures they have a rock solid case.

Now... continuing on with this scenario... it is likely that there was a reason _Bruce_ was there. Possibly a tip. Something you don't/can't know about (there are many informants working in/around Devils Lake motels). But.. When he is around... it is a very strong possibility... in case all of you didn't know.. Bruce was a (supervising) warden there for 30+ years and has 1 or 2 (or 150) contacts who have his cell number.

Further providing you a few tidbits of info... Courtney was with him. She is a new warden. Her home turf is Elgin. That should tell you something. Why is the Elgin warden working Devils Lake? Ding ding ding!~ Any lights going off yet? It is likely that Bruce being a former Warden supervisor(and from the Devils Lake region), was teaching Courtney some invaluable on the job training techniques. Ever wonder how they do what they do? Being a warden trying to decide on the fly what you need to do while in the middle of something potentially big is a daunting task. What evidence are you gathering at that moment? What is the number of the judge? Ohh wait? How many ducks did we see fall? Where are my evidence tags? Did I remember to sign them correctly for evidenciary purposes? etc etc

It is possible that Courtney witnessed something and wanted to make sure that she had a lock solid case. She might have called Bruce over to where she was to make sure that they had their "ducks in a row", or that she believed that they might be stuffing ducks in the weeds, so she called Bruce over from whereever he was so that Jacie (his dog) could work the field for any "hidden treasure".

Anyways guys... the point I"m trying to make, is that there is any one of a hundred nuances as to the "why" they waited longer to bust them.

Note that they were only a handful of ducks over limit... 25 ducks for 3 guys? The limit is 5 right? That is 10 ducks over for 3 guys.. nothing earth shattering...

At first.

However ding ding ding... something was either known, or said.. something that tipped them off to have their hotel room searched. This "hunt" that was busted in the field, might have been a small part of a bigger sting. They might have needed rock solid probable cause to get a search warrant for the hotel room.

THEN they discovered another hundred ducks...

:eyeroll:

The wheels of justice have turn in a certain fashion. Their hands are often tied as to what they can do also.

And there is SO much more you haven't the foggiest clue about. Let's stop the wild speculation... mmmm k? How many cases you think he's seen get off on a technicality over the last 30+ years?



buckseye said:


> > Had the wardens charged right in after the first over limit bird fell, the outcome may have been much different
> 
> 
> Yes different... not as many dead ducks!
> ...


Entrapment is not even in play here. Look at what the definition of entrapment is...

Geeshhhh

I'm all for nailin' em to the wall too... just understand that the wardens are out there doing an extremely tough job. If you had any clue how many hours Bruce puts in 3 months...

I'll stop now. I'm beginning to get a bit :******:


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

R y a n said:


> Now... continuing on with this scenario... it is likely that there was a reason Bruce was there. Possibly a tip. Something you don't/can't know about (there are many informants working in/around Devils Lake motels). When Bruce is around... it is a very strong possibility... in case all of you didn't know.. Bruce was a (supervising) warden there for 30+ years and has 1 or 2 (or 150) contacts who have his cell number.


Shhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!

Dont be divulging all the secrets!


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

buckseye said:


> > Had the wardens charged right in after the first over limit bird fell, the outcome may have been much different
> 
> 
> Yes different... not as many dead ducks!


Your dwelling on the wrong point.

Its terrible that it happened. But id rather a hundred ducks died, and these guys got busted than the wardens charging in at the first sign of a possible violation and not having enough evidence to get a conviction.

Now if only the punishment for the crime had been more substantial we'd be getting somewhere.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

barebackjack said:


> R y a n said:
> 
> 
> > Now... continuing on with this scenario... it is likely that there was a reason Bruce was there. Possibly a tip. Something you don't/can't know about (there are many informants working in/around Devils Lake motels). When Bruce is around... it is a very strong possibility... in case all of you didn't know.. Bruce was a (supervising) warden there for 30+ years and has 1 or 2 (or 150) contacts who have his cell number.
> ...


I'll be yanking this by the end of the day...

for that very reason.


----------



## 9manfan (Oct 22, 2008)

Why dont states put tougher penalties on these types of offences, if a flock of ducks come into the decoys and the person accidently shoots two ducks when only needing one for a limit and it was an accident I can see a lower fine, but when these people continue to shoot ducks or catch fish after there limit is obtained and know what they are doing is completely wrong I just dont understand why they dont have stiffer penalties for this.


----------



## bretts (Feb 24, 2004)

buckseye said:


> If the wardens sat and watched them shoot even just one bird over the limit then the wardens are just as guilty for not stopping them right away. Sure if they sit and watch they will get a bigger bust but what does that do and say for the ducks. It says to me the amount of ducks killed really isn't important and if the wardens themselves don't care why should we?
> 
> One bird over like one drink over will get you a fine. No discussion just a ticket. It absurd the wardens would watch them shoot illegal bird after illegal bird, the wardens should help pay the fines. :evil:


--Couldn't agree more--Why would they wait and watch them keep shooting well past their limit? Is a warden going to wait and watch a guy shoot fifty deer before he does something? What horrible judgement error on the wardens end. On another hand, make that fine so damn steep a guy doesn't even consider shooting over their limit. Nothing bugs me more is when somebody takes advantage of their hunting priveledges and our ND wildlife. On a game violation such as this these guys should be permently banned from being allowed to hunt in ND again, hell hunt again!


----------



## bretts (Feb 24, 2004)

barebackjack said:


> buckseye said:
> 
> 
> > > Had the wardens charged right in after the first over limit bird fell, the outcome may have been much different
> ...


--Bareback I think your missing the point. They had more than enough evidence once they shot twenty ducks over the limit. Why wait till around a hundred?! I'll bet you'd be a lot more pi$$ed off if it was deer! Just think a few guys from down south come shoot a hundred deer and only had a couple tags. IMO a violation no matter what the species should be viewed just as serious.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

One thing everyone is missing or a few are......

The first stop they were only *10 birds* over the limit. What might have triggered the hotel search was that the birds found in the field were already breasted out....no head or wing attached.

If any of you are questioning how wardens work.....sit down and talk with them. One thing you have to realize is that they are a cop, investigator, crime scene specialist, evidence collector, and they also have to go to court and prepare the documents. They just don't write tickets and pass the buck to someone else!

That is why they have to watch, wait, and yes let people keep committing the crime. This way they have more ammo to go at these people.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> That is why they have to watch, wait, and yes let people keep committing the crime. This way they have more ammo to go at these people.


That is neither rational or realistic.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

ummm... so for all of you clairvoyants out there...

did the warden arrive ahead of... or maybe at the same time ... and then said "Go!"?

Or is it just possible that the hunters had been in that location for X hours prior to ANY warden arriving?

e.g.,If the warden arrived at say.. 11 AM after having checked 10 other groups... and by then the guys had been hunting for 5 hours...

Maybe she ONLY witnessed 5 or 6 over limit in the hour he/she watched them? Maybe by the time a second warden arrived they had shot another 10? How long does it take to go from being 5 over your limit to being 20 if the ducks are piling in? If for example a violation was witnessed, and you see a bunch of guys in the field shooting, you will call for backup. That backup could be 10-100 miles away, depending on the number of wardens in the area. On that type of bust, you want backup.... if only so that additional law enforcement witnesses are around.

So while that backup is flying over to assist, ... in the mean time the ducks are piling in... like I said.. how long would it take to go a dozen or two over the limit if you have 3-4 guys shooting their guns hot?

It is a very real possibility that they had been shooting for 2 + hours prior to the warden's arrival, and the warden(s) would have no clue how far along into their "limit" they were... think about it!

Geesshhhh and it continues... You armchair quarterbacks are hilarious...

And for any of you to call Bruce's character or judgement into question... you'd be laughed out of the state by law enforcement folks..

:******:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> The issue here is not the warden(s).


For the less than clairvoyant people who live a thousand miles away...

If the wardens watch people break laws and don't stop them immediately they are just as guilty or even more so. We pay those people to protect wildlife not go to court with spectacular headlines.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

bretts said:


> barebackjack said:
> 
> 
> > buckseye said:
> ...


Ducks and deer, all the same to me.

Like Chuck just said, they were only ten over their limit at the initial check in the field. Which prompted a motel search that yielded the rest of the violations.

Its all about evidence. Had they gone in after the first over limit duck was felled, it could have been passed off as an accident (whether it was or not). But ten birds over is a bit hard to explain.

What matters to me is they got a conviction, which they may not have gotten had they gone in at the first sign of a violation.


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

Along with the multitude of reasons already given for watching instead of rushing in, think about what we do and don't know. No where in the story, so we don't know, does it say how many birds the wardens watched these guys shoot. Here is what the story says.

1. These folks were observed shooting more than their limit. How many more than the limit were they actually observed shooting? Doesn't say.

2. These folks came out of the field carrying 13 ducks.

3. The warden's dog found 10 more birds breasted out and hidden in the marsh.

4. A subsequent search of their hotel room turned up another 96 ducks.

That is it. No where does the story say how many of these birds the wardens saw them shot other than it was more than their limit on the 8th of Oct.

The warden's did fine. The judge...that is another issue.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

buckseye said:


> > The issue here is not the warden(s).
> 
> 
> If the wardens watch people break laws and don't stop them immediately they are just as guilty or even more so. We pay those people to protect wildlife not go to court with spectacular headlines.


You really think Bruce _wants_ headlines?

Have you ever met him?

Ever seen his picture either in the paper or on the news in the last 3-4 years? Wonder why? Even when he won another law enforcement award this past year his photo was kept out of the article.... intentionally.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

buckseye said:


> > The issue here is not the warden(s).
> 
> 
> If the wardens watch people break laws and don't stop them immediately they are just as guilty or even more so. We pay those people to protect wildlife not go to court with spectacular headlines.


So your saying drug enforcement, which may watch people for months or YEARS before compiling enough evidence to ensure a conviction is no better than the skum dealing the drugs? :eyeroll:

To make a difference and to punish the perpetrators you need a conviction, to get a conviction you need EVIDENCE. And in this day and age, you need substantial evidence it seems.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Dak said:


> Along with the multitude of reasons already given for watching instead of rushing in, think about what we do and don't know. No where in the story, so we don't know, does it say how many birds the wardens watched these guys shoot. Here is what the story says.
> 
> 1. These folks were observed shooting more than their limit. How many more than the limit were they actually observed shooting? Doesn't say.
> 
> ...


Thanks Dak.

_PRECISELY_ my point.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> The warden's did fine. The judge...that is another issue.


How about the States Attorney who is supposed to bring up charges and make a good case. I say leave the judge alone and concentrate on the ethics of the wardens and concern of the States Attorneys.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> So your saying drug enforcement, which may watch people for months or YEARS before compiling enough evidence to ensure a conviction is no better than the skum dealing the drugs?


Thanks but no thanks.. we are not talking about drugs.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

buckseye said:


> > The warden's did fine. The judge...that is another issue.
> 
> 
> How about the States Attorney who is supposed to bring up charges and make a good case. I say leave the judge alone and concentrate on the ethics of the wardens and concern of the States Attorneys.


You can't touch my logic.

Nor can you even begin to impune the integrity of Bruce/Courtney in this matter.

Simply. Not. Possible.

And yes my scenarios are spot on accurate, and often exactly what happens in many similar cases every single year.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Actually Ryan only you think you know so much.... :lol:

Now I'm even going off track... so if you and a couple wardens were sitting around watching a couple guys rape a teenage girl you would wait until they surely raped her repeatedly then maybe it would or would not stand up in court..some puns in there so beware :lol:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

buckseye said:


> Actually Ryan only you think you know so much.... :lol:


:lol:

I think you know what I meant to imply... ask me how I have arrived at the scenarios I've described in this thread...

We both know we enjoy a good fair exchange of ideas.. and we are on the same level in many things...

I think you can connect a few dots..


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

Wardens did fine. States Attorney did fine...note the convictions. Judge...note the lame sentences.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

How can you say the States Attorney did fine... they lost if the penalties didn't fit the crime. The states Attorney makes recommendations to the judge, the judge then weighs out who has made the best case and sets the penalty accordingly. That is if you opted to let the Judge decide and gave up your right to a jury trial.


----------



## Doogie (Feb 23, 2007)

North Dakota, Mississppi and Alabama along with 26 other states are part of the Interstate Wildlife Compact

If someone looses their hunting privilges in one of those 29 states they loose them in all 29



> The Wildlife Violator Compact (WVC) assures non-resident violators receiving citations for certain wildlife violations in participating states the same treatment accorded residents who are in violation. Procedures are established which cause a non-resident violator who fails to comply with the terms of a citation issued in a participating state to face the possibility of the suspension of his wildlife license privileges in his home state until the terms of the citation are met. Safeguards are built into the WVC to assure that a non-resident violator is afforded all due process protection.
> 
> The WVC provides for the reciprocal recognition of the suspension of license privileges by participating states. The reciprocal recognition of suspensions is intended to address the problems associated with the mobility of many violators.
> 
> Finally, the WVC provides that information on convictions in participating states shall be forwarded to the home state of the violator. The home state shall treat such convictions as if they had occurred in that state for the purposes of license suspension actions. The WVC not only assures equal treatment of residents and non-residents of participating states, but also enhances the law enforcement services and deterrent value of time spent patrolling by uniformed officers


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Glad the warden issue (nonissue) is settled.

If you go back in the archives this same over-limit and repeated violation is surfacing again and again. It is time for a gross violation law and repeat offender law....with costly teeth.

It would benifit commerical operators, individual hunters, and the public at large.


----------



## martin_shooter (Sep 27, 2008)

wow every one of ryans posts were right on. there should be way stiffer penalties for game violations. chances are (im not saying its true in all cases, but some yes) if they come up here for a hunt, they have some money since it wouldnt be a cheap trip.  lets say they pull in high 5 or 6 digits a year, 1000 plus court fees rrally is a little less than a slap on the wrist.


----------



## NDH2Ofowler (Nov 20, 2008)

I am in no way putting down bruce or any other warden. I was not out there with them just like everybody else so i do not know the situation. I fully support what they did.
But in general, I know it happens that some wardens will wait and wait and wait for the the group/individual to shoot as many ducks as they can and then bust them possibly for a bigger headline or publicity. Im just saying, in my opinion, a game wardens first priority in their job is to protect wildlife and then comes putting away inconsiderate people who disregard the value of wildlife. It is just painful to me to see more ducks and geese shot than need to be just to make sure that they exceeded their limit. Any law abiding sportsman will not have will not throw too big of fit if the warden comes just to say hi and check the amount of birds. Its their job and most people realize that. I would rather be checked 100 times than see ducks and geese go to waste when it could have been avoided.


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

Jacie makes another case! Long ago I told Bruce she should be getting a salary.

Jacie is the mother of my Josie (Jacie's Dakota Gold), pictured on my avatar...

BTW, if there's one CO on whose radar a poacher doesn't want to show up, it's Bruce. I've been a LEO for getting onto 30 years, andhe is one of the absolute top officers I've ever known in any branch or agency.

Chris is no slouch either. He often has Josie's brother (Titan) with when he's working...

This was a textbook case of developing PC and investigation off the initial arrest. Literally an airtight case that could be used to teach rookies in the academy How To Do It Right...


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

Hunting has been and should be a self policed sport.

There are several reasons why they don't stop them at the first one.

1. there is a big difference between accidentally shooting one over the limit and keeping on hunting for ten birds more. If many wardens saw a group of guys shoot one accidentally over the limit, they may just take the birds and let you know what you would have got for fines. When they see many more, they know it is intentional.

2. The fines and penalties are a joke, especially for minor infractions. So with the legal system the way it is, the only way for a warden to recoup the states costs, both legal and in personnel, is to get large infractions. Most single infractions also would probably just get thrown out as a waste of time.

3. Wardens aren't there to bust every accidental infraction that happens, they are there to get the poachers that ruin the sport.

4. The warden did this perfectly, saw a law being broke on purpose, investigated it further, and found an even larger infraction. Those who are wanting to blame the warden for something either have it out for wardens in general, or don't understand how our stupid legal system works at all.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

Wow, this is the first time I have seen this. I am shocked by the stupidity of what was said by the folks who think the wardens have any fault.(probably why I don't read the hot topics very often) You would think a person should have some idea of how a warden or SA works, and how they are already handcuffed, so to speak, in the course of doing those jobs before they say things like that!!!

Those wardens have jobs to do, and they do them well. They don't come to your place of business or school or what have you and tell you how to do your jobs.

By the way, SA's don't make up the fines. If the fines aren't that stiff, call some one who can make them that way. Don't go blaming people who are doing their jobs and doing them very well.

RYAN, excellent job of trying to enlighten these folks!!!


----------



## duckmander (Aug 25, 2008)

I THINK THEY MISUNDERSTOOD THE TERM

DUCKS UNLIMITED.

TAXEM AND TAXEM GOOD.


----------



## fhalum (Oct 7, 2008)

I know this thread's probably at its end with regards to comments, but I just wanted to throw one thing in that's been bothering me about it.

Not that people necessarily do, but PLEASE don't think that everyone from Mississippi and/or Alabama (or any other state for that matter) are like the guys in question.

I was really sad to read where they were from. I grew up down south, and have personal connections to most of the towns listed in the article. One of my best friends used to live in Fayette, I've got family friends that live in Arab, and I've attended church services in Mathiston. Heck, I used to be a math teacher at the high school in Sturgis! Very, very sad to see that guys from these places did something so stupid. 

Just remember that all Southerners aren't like those guys. In fact, very, very few of us are.

I know the thread is mostly dead, and this is kind of off-topic, but I just wanted to get that off my chest.

Thanks.


----------



## celebrationmm (Oct 20, 2005)

One more thought as I jump into this conversation late. Do ND GF Wardens carry firearms? If yes or If not... IF I were a CO observing something like this, I would be a little hesitant to trudge out to these people who have loaded guns to bust them. I'm not saying anything would happen, but after reading some of the stories in the past year of people driving and shooting through others decoy spreads while hunters are in the field, one never knows. It only takes one bad situation to end in tragedy. Granted, I have no law enforcement experience or expertise, and have no idea what protocol calls for in this situation. It's unfortunate so many birds were illegally taken, but since the COs are the experts, I'll give them the beneift of the doubt in this case. I'm confident they did what they judged to be right. My .02


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

celebrationmm said:


> One more thought as I jump into this conversation late. Do ND GF Wardens carry firearms? If yes or If not... IF I were a CO observing something like this, I would be a little hesitant to trudge out to these people who have loaded guns to bust them. I'm not saying anything would happen, but after reading some of the stories in the past year of people driving and shooting through others decoy spreads while hunters are in the field, one never knows. It only takes one bad situation to end in tragedy. Granted, I have no law enforcement experience or expertise, and have no idea what protocol calls for in this situation. It's unfortunate so many birds were illegally taken, but since the COs are the experts, I'll give them the beneift of the doubt in this case. I'm confident they did what they judged to be right. My .02


Yes. Warden in every state are certified Law Enforcement Officers, empowered to carry out all the laws in their state. As such, they all carry weapons, and can arrest you for any violation, including crimes not directly related to wildlife law enforcement.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> By the way, SA's don't make up the fines. If the fines aren't that stiff, call some one who can make them that way. Don't go blaming people who are doing their jobs and doing them very well.





> I am shocked by the stupidity of what was said by the folks who think the wardens have any fault


I am shocked by the stupidity of people who think every Game Warden and SA are equal. Just like Doctors and Lawyers some graduated at the bottom of the class ya know. :beer:


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

buckseye said:


> I am shocked by the stupidity of people who think every Game Warden and SA are equal. Just like Doctors and Lawyers some graduated at the bottom of the class ya know. :beer:


What do you call the person who graduated last at med school?

Doctor.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

buckseye said:


> > By the way, SA's don't make up the fines. If the fines aren't that stiff, call some one who can make them that way. Don't go blaming people who are doing their jobs and doing them very well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes Buckseye very true.

Only problem you have with your analogy is that Bruce is considered to be one of the best Game Wardens in the entire country, and _*the*_ best in North Dakota.

As far as State's Attorney's go, Lonnie is also considered one of the best in North Dakota. Hell he trains officers at the North Dakota Law Enfocement academy for F's sake.

SA's and G&F have to work within the parameters of the laws and rules set forth by North Dakota Century Code. Frustrating I know, but if you want to help them out, contact your North Dakota legislator and demand that teeth be put into existing laws, and that a repetive offender law and/or gross intentional poaching law be put into place that sets a fine of $150,000 be enacted into law. That is the way to combat these hunting slobs.

Furthermore Buckseye, you should demand that your taxes be increased in general, or on North Dakota licenses, to fully fund the addition of 10 extra wardens for the state. If this state of North Dakota truly is a waterfowl Mecca, we need to do all we can to make sure everyone comes here to participate fairly. Bruce and the rest of the ND G&F are fighting an uphill battle with the extra onslaught of additional NR licenses. There is only a few dozen wardens in North Dakota to police 30,000 sportsmen and slobs. Imagine trying to police the entire population of Jamestown, Valley City, and Devils Lake with 20? people.... ohh.. and don't forgot those 30,000 people are spread out across 500,000 square miles. Think about it. They are doing an extremely tough job.

Sorry Buckseye. You are way off on this one. You have two other law enforcement officers from Ramsey county who agree with me completely. (NDTerminator and Laite319)

Fight the battle. Just make sure you attack the right problem from the right angle like Dick Monson said above.

Peace.

Ryan


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> Only problem you have with your analogy is that Bruce is considered to be one of the best Game Wardens in the entire country, and the best in North Dakota.
> 
> As far as State's Attorney's go, Lonnie is also considered one of the best in North Dakota. Hell he trains officers at the North Dakota Law Enfocement academy for F's sake.


Hey Ryan.. so who is doing all this considering you write of. There are in house opinions and of course the regular joes opinions too. I guess I'm a regular joe and base my opinion on what I see and hear with my own eyes and ears. I don't think you get the point Ryan, you seem to be looking at this from a holier than thou stance like most enforcement folks do.

Peace homeslice!!

I'm not going to edit anything out, just saying a lot of cops have a noticeable attitude. :lol:


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Well for F's sakes!! :lol:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

buckseye said:


> > Only problem you have with your analogy is that Bruce is considered to be one of the best Game Wardens in the entire country, and the best in North Dakota.
> >
> > As far as State's Attorney's go, Lonnie is also considered one of the best in North Dakota. Hell he trains officers at the North Dakota Law Enfocement academy for F's sake.
> 
> ...


This "considering" is a combination of factors. For Bruce, it comes from a widely known and respected perception of every officer who has ever had the honor to know, worked with, worked for, or prosecuted cases with him. He holds more enforcement awards both state and national than anyone else in the state. He has been promoted from district warden, to Warden Supervisor, to Commercial Enforcement Chief Warden over the course of a 36? year career. Did I mention he gets invited by the Federal US Fish and Wildlife service to participate in undercover stings across the country including Mississippi, Arkansas and Texas? Did I mention that the Border Patrol contacted him as a respected LEO to do flyovers of the North Dakota border directly after 9/11, to officially monitor any crossing in remote areas? I could go on and on with his credentials, but I digress.. Just remember what you "see and hear" is often hearsay without knowledge of the actual facts. By its very nature that hearsay is suspect.

In regards to Lonnie, it also comes from a widely held perception of his body of work over his career. I can't remember how long he has been Ramsey SA, but sufficient to say for at least 10+ years that I know of. When I was at the Law Enforcement academy, he taught our Criminal Law class, including parts about evidenciary requirements and ND Case law. From the case law of his that I have read it is top notch. I could give additional information, but I'll leave it at that, as some knowledge I have is proprietary and confidential.... but know this.. the line officers in Ramsey county do respect his work. They are the ones who depend on him to get the felons into the slammer at the end of the day. His office is the one responsible for sealing the deal. And from what I have seen in the past, he is no slouch.

I don't think having precise personal knowledge of a situation makes it an automatic "holier than thou" attitude. It just gives me a better perspective of the reality of a given situation. I don't blindly support people I have never met and only "hear about". But as far as Bruce and Lonnie, I've trained with, met, socialized with them. I know them.

You still aren't connecting all the dots with my bread crumbs Buckseye.

And yes I do get the point.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> You still aren't connecting all the dots with my bread crumbs Buckseye.
> 
> And yes I do get the point.


Nice bio's on these guys thanks. All I know is a law is a law whether you are a warden or not. If I sit and watch people shoot a ton of ducks over their limit then report them what does that make me. Or maybe thats the standard, if so I missed that one. Thats my point, who is setting examples here good or bad??


----------



## MN goose killa (Sep 19, 2008)

i am setting the examples..... very good.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Buckeye......

In this situation they watched the people only shot 10 over the limit. What you are saying is that is 9 too many. But things that you have to factor in....

*Did the warden know exactly how many people where in the group?*
The answer is maybe....I am sure they had an idea....but what if someone was concealed and did not notice them.

*Did the warden see them shoot all the ducks?*
Again....Maybe or did the warden show up 1/2 way through the hunt.

*Did the warden see 10 fall past the limit?* 
Again is a maybe.....because I know I have hit ducks that have dropped then hit the water or ground....then get back up and fly away.

Like I said in an earlier post......if you want to see how a warden works go on a ride along. They work very differently than other law enforcement agencies. But I get your point.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

Buckseye, I have agreed with you in many posts on here, but on this one you are way out of line. On this matter you speak from a position of TOTAL IGNORANCE!!!!

The only thing you are accomplishing here is to make yourself look like a fool. I think you need a little more of the lord's hand over your mouth!

I can and will say that Lonnie and Bruce are 2 of the best, no question about it. As you said yourself, buckseye, not all wardens or SA's are equal, these guys are definately on a higher level.

Again, RYAN, thank you for the info and for trying to enlighten people!!!


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> Buckseye, I have agreed with you in many posts on here, but on this one you are way out of line. On this matter you speak from a position of TOTAL IGNORANCE!!!!


Not true Ryan informed me what the code words "bread crumbs" meant, so my ignorance was alleviated. :lol:


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

It may sound harsh, but attacking and putting down two upstanding and outstanding people whom you really know nothing about is, to me at least, ignorant.

I respect these people very much and I think it is justifiable for any person who knows and or works with the Bruce and Lonnie to be very ****** when some one attacks their character. If it makes us "holier than thou" to tell you that you are wrong in your assumptions, so be it. Don't trust us...... we are only telling the truth.

I would hardly call defending some one(who has done nothing wrong) you respect egotistical.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I didn't say anything bad about the government employees I said bad stuff about their methods. So you can pipe down on your ignorant talk or risk proving your own ignorance.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

> So you can pipe down on your ignorant talk or risk proving your own ignorance.


Good come back, did you think of that one all by yourself?

You are stomping on the good name of these people and especially in the case of the wardens you are attempting to call their integrity into question.
If you can't figure that out, the rest of us can't help you.

If you think typing this kind of crap about people is entertainment, you need a new hobby.

Kinda funny that you cry about me calling people names in a PM but yet you call me F'ing nuts, and sycho. Good spelling by the way.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

This appears to be getting to personal. I have watched it with interest since I know Bruce. I don't claim to know him well, but I know him. Jamestown is his home town, so I know his family and I know him personally. I guess I know his father better than the kids.

I have no problem with anyone's opinion in this thread, but I do have an opinion on how you speak to each other. Since this would be a conflict for Ryan I thought I should speak up and say something.

Step back, take a deep breath, calm down. I'm betting all of you are 99% on the same page, your just dwelling on the one percent. I'm guessing Chris is busy with something or he would have said the same thing.

Is there anything else constructive to add? Not a smart *** remark, just asking. If it keeps going the way it is I will lock it. Not to punish anyone, but rather so you guys will not build grudges. I'm hoping you are all tired of this and agree with my call. :thumb:


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

Just callin it like I see it, Plainsman.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

laite319 said:


> Just callin it like I see it, Plainsman.


I'm sure you all were. No doubt in my mind. 

I hope I was tactful enough not to offend anyone.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

No worries!!! Probably good time to end the thread. When a guy is dead wrong and can't admit it, there is no need to keep trying.


----------

