The MN DNR just announced a new policy/regulation yesterday via email to me. If they don't want this sort of thing announced in places like this first, they'll just have to come up with a more rational, controlled process.
Since I am sure that the DNR wants to avoid discrimination, it must want this policy to apply to everyone. So the decision needs to be announced publicly even though it was made up instantly right in the field.
By the way, I would never blame the conservation officer for making up the policy subjecting me to the rule of men, not law. Since the regs are not clear, or even rational in some cases, and since the legal department may be slow in responding, what can the field officer do except tell you, directly, what to do? In fact, I am increasingly convinced that both the conservation officers and we, the people, are victims of the natural tendency of any government unit to assume power through fog. The field conservation officers have a rough job, made rougher by regulations that may be irrational, ambiguous, over complicated, overly intrusive. See the other postings in this blog. Don't ever imagine that I am criticizing the field officers in this blog. I am blaming the DNR leadership. I also think the legislature is responsible. The legislature should make sure that the DNR is actually serving people, not lording it over people.
My property was searched by the DNR, while I was not there, without a warrant. I wonder if the DNR even asks its trainees to read the constitution. I take it for granted that DNR lawyers would dismiss out of hand the idea that there is any constitutional violation. But in the end, all that matters is whether or not we, the people, think there is a constitutional violation. If the legal department does not convey concern about unwarranted search and seizure to the officers in the field, then why would they worry about it?
And if the the DNR, as a consequence, starts meddling in the details of the deportment of my private property, maybe the only solution will be legislative.
The new policy is that if you are hunting bear on your private property, you will have to move non-biodegradable bait storage containers at least 100 yards from your hunting station. This ad hoc policy results from two inputs:
1. The regs do not distinguish between private and public property when prohibiting unattended and non-biodegradable bait containers.
2. Of course you can still have non-biodegradable containers on your private property.
So the idea is that the containers must be far enough away from a hunting location on private property so as not to be mistaken for a bait station.
Now on the face of it, the farther away these containers are from one bait station, the more likely, it seems to me, they would be mistaken for another bait station. So is this a another irrational policy? Once again, don't blame the field officer. What can he/she do without rational regulations to begin with?
Here's a few other problems:
What if someone has only a few acres of private land? What if they don't have 100 yards to separate the containers from the hunting station? Or, what if this new rule would necessitate placing the containers someplace far from the driveway? My barrels are 400+ pounds. Are people supposed to move that sort of thing into the brush on the far corner of their property by hand to squeeze out 100 yards of separation? If the private property is next to public property should the hunter move the barrels onto public property to comply with the new regulation? Is it okay under these circumstances to in fact leave non-biodegradable containers on the public land? Which reg trumps which reg?
Obviously what's happening here, by virtue of naturally craving a hands-on approach to private property, the DNR ends up meddling in the details of the deportment of our private property. The DNR should have nothing to say about where I store bait on my private property. As soon as it thinks it should have something to say, the intrusion starts to grow.
Some people rightly complain that the government should stay out of their bedrooms. I feel just as violated by an agency that will search my property without a warrant, when I am not even there, and which starts handing down ad hoc policies about the details of the deportment of my private property. This is NOT working. And the people need to do something about it.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
DNR Announces New Policy Impacting Your Private Property
Labels:
bear hunting,
hunting regulations,
Minnesota DNR,
MN,
MN DNR,
Regulations,
Review
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment