Commercial Fishermen Say Someone's Mssing with Their Boats

[DAndrews]

This in the local news on the Shore.....

http://www.wboc.com/Global/story.asp?S=13949133

[Hockleyneck]

Sounds like Big Bro is watching. Wonder if these boats are known or possible poachers?

[Gerald]

http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/processDisclaimer.jis

[drewzim]

http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/processDisclaimer.jis

Hhhmmmm....... Probably is just what it looks like. Mr Price doesn't have a long rap sheet at all. :rolleyes:

Only shame is he found the tracking device.

[Harlan seller]

Only shame is he found the tracking device.

X2

Hopefully the reporter of the original story might do a little digging and put two and two together as to why a device might have been attached to his boat.

[Z28YJ]

I get that he is a poacher, but I have a problem with the state attaching a monitoring device to his property without giving notice, if that is what actually happened.

[ROCKFISH_GAMEFISH]

The amounts of cases that guy has already faced in his young "waterman" career, he should be thankful that DNR doesn't ride in his boat with him. They probably should, that way they could hand out the tickets faster.

Good work DNR - keep up the good work!!!!!!!!

[Francis]

If they were able to attain a warrent and then track their boats, more power to them. I actually wondered why they do not automatically do this for commercial watermen who have been convicted of poaching. Sort of like after you get arrested for DWI you have to breathe before you drive. After you get arrested for poaching you have to live with a tracking device on your boat for a few seasons.

[Barefoot]

After you get convicted for poaching, you shouldn't have a boat...

[Capt. John Deering]

what is going on..seems every 3rd post deals with a poacher doing something.

use g-mans link and run the waterman (price) through the court web site. talk about a rap sheet.

[bring_em_on]

The scary thing is that Price's rap sheet only includes what he was actually CAUGHT doing. I believe in killing child molesters and taking boats from career poachers.

[Z28YJ]

I'm fine with required surveillance of convicted poachers. I'm fine with confiscation of their boats. That stuff is done to/on private property in the open and with notice. I am fine with secret surveillance of poachers...if DNR wants to send Scuba Steve to follow boats around, that's fine. The problem I have is when the state affixes secret tracking equipment to private property without notice. And I'm not saying that's what happened here. The fact of the matter is, I don't know. All I know is what the (criminal) waterman bitched about to the media, so I'm certain we are not getting the full story. The secret tracking equipment on private property is a little too Big Brother for me. But again, I don't really know in this case whether it was secret or not, just what one side of the story tells us.

[27 sailfish]

Bet a lot of poachers are looking under their boats this morning. I heard through the grapevine DNR had some tricks up their sleeves for poachers.

Be interesting to see exactly what the device was and how it was hooked to the boat.

Assume it was done from underwater - no easy task in dark , very cold water.

IMHO - convicted poachers should be monitored by some type GPS unit. They are criminals - some criminals have to wear tracking devices.

[LTF]

As I understand it, currently police do not need a warrant to track a vehicle using a GPS device as long as it is attached to the vehicle when it is in a public place and no wires are attached directly to the vehicle for things such as power. Being in a public place means that there is no expectation of privacy, and the use of the device is considered the same thing as visually tracking a suspect.

That being said, this guys has a long history, so the police probably have a warrant. If not, they most definately have reason to follow him.

This reminds me of a recent story from California. This guy, Yasir Afifi found a GPS tracker on his car and claimed that the FBI was harrassing him. Of course, if you know more about the story, you know that they probably had good cause if not a warrant, which again is legal. Afifi is a 20-year-old full-time college student. He also works full-time as sales director at a computer shop. He supports two brothers and makes trips to Egypt about once a year and at the time of the story was planning a trip to Dubai. He is US citizen, but lived in Egypt for a time, and his father was a known high-profile "Islamic-American community leader" who travelled regularly to Egypt and to other parts of the Middle East. He died in Egypt last year. Also, Afifi admitted that he is on a federal watch list.

There is more to the story than we know.

Besides, after yesterday's report of poachers' nets found with 529 striped bass weighing 5,721lbs valued at about $15,000, it is obvious that there is a major problem that needs to be stopped. These guys aren't just commercial fisherman trying to make a living. They are criminals that are breaking multiple laws and robbing us all of a valuable natural resource.

[paxfish]

The problem I have is when the state affixes secret tracking equipment to private property without notice. The secret tracking equipment on private property is a little too Big Brother for me. But again, I don't really know in this case whether it was secret or not, just what one side of the story tells us.

If in fact the state did this, there were no laws broken. It could be argued that the installation of the device damaged the boat perhaps, and the state could be liable for damages. But there's no current law against this type of surveillance.

[hippie]

Love to fish, I have to agree with you. You can track anyone, it says nothing in a law book concerning that. Now if you audibly record via a VCR or tape recorder, lookout, that violates (in Pa.) the states' wire tapping law.

As to watching these convicted poachers, that is only common sense. You still need probable cause to stop them. As to stopping them from owning a boat, not allowing them to buy a liscence to fish, etc. during the remainder of their lives cannot be done. Say the maximum sentence is 5 to 10 yrs. A judge may tell the defendant during sentencing that he cannot purchase a liscence or fish for a 20 yr. period. This is past the 10 yr. maximum so it would be overturned. For punishment, the poacher stole from all of society therefore he should repay society by community service (working digging ditches, fixing roads, whatever) saving us members of society money. Say a laborer makes $30,000.00/yr. This poacher is then going to work for 6 months without pay of any kind. This equals the $15,000.00 the fish were valued at. And of course he additionally pays (in money) all court costs and fines OR he sits in the cage!

[DAndrews]

It kind of makes sense if the DNR put it there and they are using it for tracking purposes. I don't recall all of the details but it was recently announced that DNR will have the ability (this summer I think) through a deployment of cameras around the bay to be able to read a boats reg number from two miles away. If they know when and where they are, they can watch them from a far (maybe their office, laptop, etc.

[BayViews]

Look at the public "comments" listed just below the newspaper article after clicking on the link in the first post. There are still folks out there who view those watermen as the hard working good people just trying to earn a living - and the DNR as the evil empire.

[drewzim]

If they were able to attain a warrent and then track their boats, more power to them. I actually wondered why they do not automatically do this for commercial watermen who have been convicted of poaching. Sort of like after you get arrested for DWI you have to breathe before you drive. After you get arrested for poaching you have to live with a tracking device on your boat for a few seasons.

I agree, can't imagine they would do this without a warrant. Not a lawyer but probably wouldn't stand up in court without it.

Was thinking the same thing. Be a great idea for offenders. No different then an ankle bracelet.

[fly flinger]

I get that he is a poacher, but I have a problem with the state attaching a monitoring device to his property without giving notice, if that is what actually happened.

WHAT? Say dude, do you mind if we track your illegal activities?

[fly flinger]

I agree, can't imagine they would do this without a warrant. Not a lawyer but probably wouldn't stand up in court without it.

Was thinking the same thing. Be a great idea for offenders. No different then an ankle bracelet.

How about...hmmmm...a two hundred pound neck bracelet?

[Dashaway]

It's EZ Pass.... nothing to see here...move along....

[35Duffy]

If in fact the state did this, there were no laws broken. It could be argued that the installation of the device damaged the boat perhaps, and the state could be liable for damages. But there's no current law against this type of surveillance.

No???? The Constitution doesn't apply? Can you tell me why the State is allowed to violate a person's right to privacy as afforded by the US Constitution?

Would any of you be OK with the State Police puttng a tracking device on your truck? No big deal right..... if you have nothing to hid, you won't mind a little invasion of privacy would you?

Next, the FBI will want to do a search of your garage because the neighbor reported taht you had a few too many shotguns and you might be up to something no-good. So the FBI wants to have a look around your house. You don't mind do you?

What about your 16 y/o teenaged daughter? Wouldn't it be a good idea to allow the State Police the ability to implant a GPS tracking device on her just to be certain taht she doesn't go into any "illegal" locations such as parties that serve beer.

You guys are on a slippery slope and you knuckheads better learn to stand for universal principles as opposed to individual cases.

[LTF]

No???? The Constitution doesn't apply? Can you tell me why the State is allowed to violate a person's right to privacy as afforded by the US Constitution?

Paxfish is right. There is no law that states that tracking a vehicle with a GPS device violates a person's right to privacy. The argument is that if a vehicle(a boat in this example) is parked in a public place, that there is no expectation of privacy. Kind of the same thing as the fact that if something illegal is seen through the window of a vehicle, the police do not need a warrant to search the vehicle. Now, to support your argument, there is talk of the Supreme Court reviewing the law, so it may change in the future.

[35Duffy]

^^^ You are kidding right?

Am I really having this conversation?

[35Duffy]

Paxfish is right. There is no law that states that tracking a vehicle with a GPS device violates a person's right to privacy. The argument is that if a vehicle(a boat in this example) is parked in a public place, that there is no expectation of privacy. Kind of the same thing as the fact that if something illegal is seen through the window of a vehicle, the police do not need a warrant to search the vehicle. Now, to support your argument, there is talk of the Supreme Court reviewing the law, so it may change in the future.

Are you citing this single case in the 9th Circuit (the Western US?)

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html

If so, that only applies to the States falling under the jurisdiction of the left-leaning 9th Circuit Court which has a long history of really creating some wacky decision in the past 20 years. These decision do not apply to MD.

[uno]

There is one little problem that you guys who think no laws were broken might have overlooked. Whoever planted the tracking device (I happen to believe it was the DNR) had to TRESPASS on the boat to place it. Without a court order, I doubt that is legal. There were also mounting plates on several other boats, so it would appear that there was quite a bit of criminal trespass going on.

[LTF]

Are you citing this single case in the 9th Circuit (the Western US?)

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html

If so, that only applies to the States falling under the jurisdiction of the left-leaning 9th Circuit Court which has a long history of really creating some wacky decision in the past 20 years. These decision do not apply to MD.

Actually, the state and federal courts are split, and a decision has yet to be made by the US Supreme Courth. Except for the Ninth, I cannot find anything proving that the other courts have made any specific ruling. Yes, a few cases have been dismissed based on evidence provided by warrantless GPS tracking, but no final ruling on the legallity of warrantless GPS tracking has been made by any other than the 9th Circuit Court. Many lawmakers are trying to push the decision to the Supreme Court, but that has not happened yet.

[goose70]

Are you citing this single case in the 9th Circuit (the Western US?)

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html

If so, that only applies to the States falling under the jurisdiction of the left-leaning 9th Circuit Court which has a long history of really creating some wacky decision in the past 20 years. These decision do not apply to MD.

Duffy, the CA9 case may not be binding, but it is incorrect to say that it "doesn't apply." Any MD judge can consider and choose to follow it, as I am sure you know. MD judges follow federal precedent often, both in and out of the Fourth Circuit.

Sidebar: You seem to have much to add to this discussion, which is great, but calling people “knuckleheads” is typically a fast track to being written off in any serious debate.

[Southern Grin]

Hey 35DUFFY, I am with ya. The stupidity of someone thinking it is OK to mount a tracking device on a boat is absolutely way too much government. When will it end. The State of Maryland is totally out of control with their enforcement activities !!

[Worm]

you know, I had a problem once with a guy and a big mouth. Told my buddy about it, and he said, dag gum worm, all you need is a set of balls, a ski mask, and a ball bat, oh alluminum. Oh and make sure theres no cameras. Problem solved. He said alluminum because it made a pinging sound.

[crabby and son]

I don't think DNR should be able to drill holes in a poacher's boat and mount a GPS device. I think they should just drill a couple 4" hole and not mount anything. Then they would KNOW where the boat was.:hysterical:..........Gary

[johnnylaw]

i dont think dnr should be able to mount anything without notice, however our penalties for poaching are not strict enough!!! when convicted they should definetly be watched for a minimum of 5 yrs after and you cant put dnr guys everywhere so what would be easiest is to watch them with gps!! no sneaking around in the dark and doing the BS that they are doing! i have read plenty of arguments from both sides and i believe that many career watermen poach and then play like they are the ones hurting! im sorry to those who may get offended but if you cant support your family doing it legal then you need to get a differant job!

[35Duffy]

You guys are way too liberal. I don't think that any of you State sympathizers have any core values at all; I don't believe that you have any universally held, guiding principles.

Since when did the notion that an individual might break the law be reason to invade Constitutional Rights to privacy? Yes ...... as of today, in the State of MD, you still have the luxury of being protected by the Constitution.

[C-Hawk18]

If in fact the state did this, there were no laws broken. It could be argued that the installation of the device damaged the boat perhaps, and the state could be liable for damages. But there's no current law against this type of surveillance.

hey Pax - How about Title 14-104 of the Maryland Vehicle Laws

§ 14-104. Damaging or tampering with vehicle.
(a) In general.- A person may not willfully damage or tamper with any vehicle without the consent of its owner.

[SteveL]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vessel_monitoring_system

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ole/vms.html

VMS is used successfully in a number of US fisheries under federal management. It may be time to enter the 21st century regarding technological solutions to address finfish and shellfish poaching in the Bay. MD could consider making it a legal requirement for commercial fishermen in MD to install and maintain a VMS on all fishing vessels.

This technology makes sense for oyster harvest since they are sessile (i.e., they are attached to the substrate and don't move) and since recent history has demonstrated that oysters are very prone to poaching under the current MD management system.

Given the tons of stripers in the illegal nets discovered in recent days, a requirement to install VMS on all commercial fishing boats in MD may be an idea worth considering.

[paxfish]

No???? The Constitution doesn't apply? Can you tell me why the State is allowed to violate a person's right to privacy as afforded by the US Constitution?

Would any of you be OK with the State Police puttng a tracking device on your truck? No big deal right..... if you have nothing to hid, you won't mind a little invasion of privacy would you?

Next, the FBI will want to do a search of your garage because the neighbor reported taht you had a few too many shotguns and you might be up to something no-good. So the FBI wants to have a look around your house. You don't mind do you?

What about your 16 y/o teenaged daughter? Wouldn't it be a good idea to allow the State Police the ability to implant a GPS tracking device on her just to be certain taht she doesn't go into any "illegal" locations such as parties that serve beer.

You guys are on a slippery slope and you knuckheads better learn to stand for universal principles as opposed to individual cases.

Duffy - I didn't say I agreed with it. Just that their actions were legal.

Since you seem to feel strongly about it, go fight for a Supreme Court ruling that says this is unconstitutional.

[hackeyfly]

There is one little problem that you guys who think no laws were broken might have overlooked. Whoever planted the tracking device (I happen to believe it was the DNR) had to TRESPASS on the boat to place it. Without a court order, I doubt that is legal. There were also mounting plates on several other boats, so it would appear that there was quite a bit of criminal trespass going on.
I don't think so. Plenty of opportunities to place the device on the craft without actually boarding the craft. And there is no legal expectation of privacy on the water, it's public space. Based on what has been reported regarding illegal equipment(anchored unmarked gill nets), and other practices(midnight oyster harvesting in sanctuaries) lately, I believe it may be time to distribute a transponder with every commercial harvest permit. It seems that temptation is getting the better of our commercial seafood harvesters. Don't want law enforcement attaching tracking devices to your boats? Get your house in order and STOP THE DAMN POACHING!
Pat in Joppa

[goose70]

You guys are way too liberal. I don't think that any of you State sympathizers have any core values at all; I don't believe that you have any universally held, guiding principles.

Since when did the notion that an individual might break the law be reason to invade Constitutional Rights to privacy? Yes ...... as of today, in the State of MD, you still have the luxury of being protected by the Constitution.

Actually, hi-tech surveillance has been pushed the hardest by more conservative-leaning administrations at both the state and federal levels, and opposed by many left-leaning organizations such as the ACLU. Regarding core values, please define. Using broad statements, firing off scattergun insults and flinging other ad hominem attacks has done nothing to advance your argument. It paints a picture of someone who is frustrated with his/her inability to articulate a position.

For starters, you continually refer to the U.S. Constitution’s “right to privacy.” The Constitution expresses no such right. Rather, it contains amendments that, collectively, courts have interpreted to provide individuals with certain QUALIFIED protections from government intrusion. For example, the Fourth Amendment is qualified by the terms “unreasonable” and “probable cause.” This is similar to what holds true for the Maryland Constitution. Whatever “core value” you reference may be clear in your mind, but it is not yet the law of this country, nor has it ever been.

Regarding the legal standard for the state placing this device in the boat -- if that is indeed what happened -- do you know whether law enforcement obtained a valid warrant? If it did, do you know what the officers had to demonstrate to the judge in order to obtain that warrant? I doubt that they walked into court, explained that so-and-so waterman "might break a law," and convinced the judge to sign off. We need to know much more about the warrant before we can make informed arguments about this particular situation.

As for the idea of privacy and government intrusion, in general, I may end up agreeing with you, although I have learned to take legal issues on a case-by-case basis and not fall back on inflexible positions -- especially positions based on such subjective things as "morals" and "core values." I recently wrote an article that criticized a government practice of warrant-based searches. One division of the DOJ stopped its practice of similar intrusions as a result. Another division simply decided to become entrenched, although even it knows that corporations and individuals are now better educated to resist such practices. I wrote the article not based on some self-inflated moral high ground, but based on the practical harm that this practice causes to corporate and individual function, and by demonstrating the availability of less intrusive, equally effective means of law enforcement. May I politely suggest that you take the same approach to this issue?

[fly flinger]

No???? The Constitution doesn't apply? Can you tell me why the State is allowed to violate a person's right to privacy as afforded by the US Constitution?

Would any of you be OK with the State Police puttng a tracking device on your truck? No big deal right..... if you have nothing to hid, you won't mind a little invasion of privacy would you?

Next, the FBI will want to do a search of your garage because the neighbor reported taht you had a few too many shotguns and you might be up to something no-good. So the FBI wants to have a look around your house. You don't mind do you?

What about your 16 y/o teenaged daughter? Wouldn't it be a good idea to allow the State Police the ability to implant a GPS tracking device on her just to be certain taht she doesn't go into any "illegal" locations such as parties that serve beer.

You guys are on a slippery slope and you knuckheads better learn to stand for universal principles as opposed to individual cases.

This knucklehead doesn't like cool aide or full moon parties.

[hollywood9s]

Actually, hi-tech surveillance has been pushed the hardest by more conservative-leaning administrations at both the state and federal levels, and opposed by many left-leaning organizations such as the ACLU. Regarding core values, please define. Using broad statements, firing off scattergun insults and flinging other ad hominem attacks has done nothing to advance your argument. It paints a picture of someone who is frustrated with his/her inability to articulate a position.

For starters, you continually refer to the U.S. Constitution’s “right to privacy.” The Constitution expresses no such right. Rather, it contains amendments that, collectively, courts have interpreted to provide individuals with certain QUALIFIED protections from government intrusion. For example, the Fourth Amendment is qualified by the terms “unreasonable” and “probable cause.” This is similar to what holds true for the Maryland Constitution. Whatever “core value” you reference may be clear in your mind, but it is not yet the law of this country, nor has it ever been.

Regarding the legal standard for the state placing this device in the boat -- if that is indeed what happened -- do you know whether law enforcement obtained a valid warrant? If it did, do you know what the officers had to demonstrate to the judge in order to obtain that warrant? I doubt that they walked into court, explained that so-and-so waterman "might break a law," and convinced the judge to sign off. We need to know much more about the warrant before we can make informed arguments about this particular situation.

As for the idea of privacy and government intrusion, in general, I may end up agreeing with you, although I have learned to take legal issues on a case-by-case basis and not fall back on inflexible positions -- especially positions based on such subjective things as "morals" and "core values." I recently wrote an article that criticized a government practice of warrant-based searches. One division of the DOJ stopped its practice of similar intrusions as a result. Another division simply decided to become entrenched, although even it knows that corporations and individuals are now better educated to resist such practices. I wrote the article not based on some self-inflated moral high ground, but based on the practical harm that this practice causes to corporate and individual function, and by demonstrating the availability of less intrusive, equally effective means of law enforcement. May I politely suggest that you take the same approach to this issue?
I don't always agree with you, but this is a well thought out and articulated response, of which i mostly agree.
There has been increasing precedent set in various surrounding states recently, requiring a warrant to place GPS tracking devices on a suspects pov's.......
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/court-strikes-down-gps-tracking-without-warrant/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/judge-warns-orwellian-state-gps/#

On another note, Duffy makes some very valid points, regardless of his "ability to articulate his positions". For someone who passes himself off as a "superior intellect", deciphering Duffy's positions shouldn't be all that difficult; the egotistical attitude is so unbecoming.
Note the judges response in the Delaware case........
"In striking down evidence obtained through warrantless GPS tracking, Delaware Judge Jan R. Jurden wrote that "an Orwellian state is now technologically feasible," adding that "without adequate judicial preservation of privacy, there is nothing to protect our citizens from being tracked 24/7."
We are undoubtedly on a slippery slope of losing personal liberties, and if you believe the founders would condone the current constant invasion of personal privacy than perhaps it's time to put down the law books and time to pick up a history book.

[goose70]

Hollywood,

Thanks for the compliment.

I agree regarding the slippery slope; it’s a valid concern. As I mentioned, Duffy and I may ultimately agree on many of these issues, as well. My post addressed government intrusion pursuant to a warrant. Even then, I noted that I do not agree with every instance of government intrusion, warrant or not. And let me be clear, where the government does not obtain a warrant, I have even greater concerns.

On the history issue, law and history go hand in hand. I would no sooner put down my history books than my law book. I’d have a tough time being competent with one without the other. And yes, I appreciate that the Founding Fathers were very concerned about government intrusion into our private lives. You could make a strong argument that it was their chief concern. However, security and the rule of law were also a concern and no right or protection is unqualified. This is why I believe that we have to meet these issues on a case-by-case basis, understanding the practical implications of each decision.

This leads me to your comment about Duffy and my “egotistical” attitude. Duffy’s posts convey a better than average understanding of our judicial system, in my opinion. My posts in response did nothing more than challenge the basis for his broad, insulting, name-calling statements, not his underlying concerns (which I do understand). He could have made all of his points without calling other posters “knuckleheads,” tossing around broad labels in a disparaging way or accusing everyone who disagrees with him as lacking in core values. Despite this, I responded respectfully, clearly and as thoroughly as time allowed. If you believe that it was “egotistical,” I’m sorry but that was not my intention, nor do I agree with your assessment.

[hollywood9s]

Fair enough, perhaps i was a slightly amiss on my "egotistical" assessment, if so i apologize, but there does seem to be a considerable amount of condescension on this site towards anyone who leans to the "right". Regardless, i do appreciate the civil and intelligent discourse from you.



Even then, I noted that I do not agree with every instance of government intrusion, warrant or not. And let me be clear, where the government does not obtain a warrant, I have even greater concerns.
This is why I believe that we have to meet these issues on a case-by-case basis, understanding the practical implications of each decision.
I agree. From another that has over 13 years in the system there are things that legitimately concern me. It's good to see another rational perspective on these issues.

If the watermen are habitual poachers, and DNR has prior reason to believe they are continuing to poach through proper investigative techniques, i have little opposition to the gps tracking, so long as they obtain a warrant. It is my personal opinion, however, that they should be required to have a warrant before planting a gps tracking device on anyones boat/vehicle. Doing so without a warrant opens up a possible gross abuse of privacy infringements that i hope to never see.

[Matt]

Good discussion. Personally I think tracking devices are a waste of tax dollars. Rules for commercial violations in Maryland don't amount to much. Small fines and minor suspensions...? Maybe I'm missing something but the number or repeat offenders would strongly suggest the penalties aren't stiff enough to deter crime. If we want to get serious about fixing this, we need stiffer penalties. In a system of crime deterring penalties, I believe a new kind of waterman would emerge. We would see the kind fisherman who could rely on his government to get the "bad apples" off the water once and for all. In that system, the honest watermen would probably help identify and convict the bad apples. The way it is today, our system of fishing non-justice allows the bad apples to infect everything, from the honest watermen who would rather fish around their criminal peers than help bring them to justice, to the buyers and wholesalers, who are willing to take chances buying lower cost commodities from criminals, to law enforcement officials who can't possibly be satisfied their effort is resulting in something worthwhile. In my opinion the whole deals stinks and I have a hard time finding a better culprit than the agency that we pay to protect marine wildlife. They are notorious for lulling people into never-ending inaction, by making promises that "it will be different this time" over and over. Then when its not different they get to pretend they didn't make the promise. I used to blame the fishing clubs for not making people accountable, but now its pretty clear these clubs are mostly run by retirees who simply don't have the education, experience, or desire to light fires where fires need to be lit. They tell us things like "write your legislator" when indeed the last 30 similar legislative campaigns failed for the same reason. Bottomline is if you want a better outcome you have to be willing to try something different. If you keep doing what you did, you'll keep getting what you got.

[BILL H]

hollywood9s,

"there does seem to be a considerable amount of condescension on this site towards anyone who leans to the "right".

Thanks. That is one of the best laughs I had all week.

Goose,
Thanks once again for some reasoned statements from someone who engages brain first and then engages keyboard.

[goose70]

Thanks guys…great discussion.

It’s funny how, on this topic among others, I often have difficulty pinpointing what position is “left” and what position is “right.” This is an overgeneralization, but my experience has been that I have more agreement with Democratic administrations on privacy/confidentiality issues, but have had some very serious head-butting (on behalf of clients) with liberal members of congress on the same issues while getting far more support from moderate and right-leaning members. And by head-butting, I mean the kind where committee members do things like threaten contempt citations and jail time (my kids thought that was cool). I also thought that I was one of the few registered Republicans to represent the ACLU in litigation, but that turns out to be more common than I thought.

Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), the thing that I was sitting around, waiting to happen on a case has happened, meaning I’m off TF for the next week at least, just as the discussion were getting interesting. Time to re-focus the adrenaline on an outlet that pays the bills.:))reading8

[hollywood9s]

Good discussion. Personally I think tracking devices are a waste of tax dollars. Rules for commercial violations in Maryland don't amount to much. Small fines and minor suspensions...? Maybe I'm missing something but the number or repeat offenders would strongly suggest the penalties aren't stiff enough to deter crime. If we want to get serious about fixing this, we need stiffer penalties.
And there you have it..........the penalty needs to far exceed the risk if you really want to remove the incentive. This is the case in far more than just poaching.



hollywood9s,

"there does seem to be a considerable amount of condescension on this site towards anyone who leans to the "right".

Thanks. That is one of the best laughs I had all week.


Then you have one of two possible problems..........
1) You haven't been reading the same site i have for the last several years, or...
2) You have a comprehension problem
Perhape you have something useful to add to the discussion..........or not?



Thanks guys…great discussion.

It’s funny how, on this topic among others, I often have difficulty pinpointing what position is “left” and what position is “right.” This is an overgeneralization, but my experience has been that I have more agreement with Democratic administrations on privacy/confidentiality issues, but have had some very serious head-butting (on behalf of clients) with liberal members of congress on the same issues while getting far more support from moderate and right-leaning members. And by head-butting, I mean the kind where committee members do things like threaten contempt citations and jail time (my kids thought that was cool). I also thought that I was one of the few registered Republicans to represent the ACLU in litigation, but that turns out to be more common than I thought.

Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), the thing that I was sitting around, waiting to happen on a case has happened, meaning I’m off TF for the next week at least, just as the discussion were getting interesting. Time to re-focus the adrenaline on an outlet that pays the bills.:))reading8
You'll get no arguments from me in regard to violation of privacy rights from the Pubs. The Patriot Act is a prime example, i've found both parties to be equal offenders of infringing on privacy when it comes to supporting their agendas.
It never ceases to amaze me just how much invasion of privacy many will accept in the name of safety and security, fighting crime, or a number of other excuses . The number of "well, if you have nothing to hide" responses here are a prime example, i find it extremely disconcerting.
It appears we may be more in agreement on a number of isues than i originally assessed.
Good luck with the case!:thumbup:

[BILL H]

Hollywood,
I have been on this site since 2001, and I do not have any comprehension problems.
You and I have obvious differences in interpretations, but I don't think we have to be particularly nasty about it.
I also am not convinced that you are the most qualified "contribution cop" for the forum.

[kwk]

DC Circuit took a different view ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080604946.html

[Matt]

And there you have it..........the penalty needs to far exceed the risk if you really want to remove the incentive. This is the case in far more than just poaching.

true but we're talking about poaching in the chesapeake. The penalties ENcourage bad behavior.

[SteveL]

true but we're talking about poaching in the chesapeake. The penalties do not discourage bad behavior.

I strongly agree with you Matt, it is rational behavior for some MD Chesapeake Bay commercial fishermen to poach because from a strictly business perspective the expected postive economic gains outweigh the expected economic losses from fines and penalties.

I stated a new Conservation Board thread on this--I posted a peer-reviewed article on this topic.

[DAndrews]

Some really good points on this thread. I have a friend that is close to the commercial waterman community although he doesn't fish himself. He says the poaching won't stop until the penalties are much, much more severe. He tells me that getting fined is just part of doing business for the watermen. In other words, If a waterman makes 15K illegally over a season but has to pay a 3k fine he's still in the black 12k. The reward is worth the risk.

I used to have alot of sympathy for commercial watermen but not anymore. I don't believe there is an honest one in the whole lott. Look at what has taken place off Bloody Pt. and down in N.C. It's time to shut them down. There are plenty of fish farms that can meet the need of the seafood consumer.

[hollywood9s]

true but we're talking about poaching in the chesapeake. The penalties ENcourage bad behavior.


I strongly agree with you Matt, it is rational behavior for some MD Chesapeake Bay commercial fishermen to poach because from a strictly business perspective the expected postive economic gains outweigh the expected economic losses from fines and penalties.



Some really good points on this thread. I have a friend that is close to the commercial waterman community although he doesn't fish himself. He says the poaching won't stop until the penalties are much, much more severe. He tells me that getting fined is just part of doing business for the watermen. In other words, If a waterman makes 15K illegally over a season but has to pay a 3k fine he's still in the black 12k. The reward is worth the risk.

I used to have alot of sympathy for commercial watermen but not anymore. I don't believe there is an honest one in the whole lott. Look at what has taken place off Bloody Pt. and down in N.C. It's time to shut them down. There are plenty of fish farms that can meet the need of the seafood consumer.
You gentlemen nailed it! I had this very discussion tonight with a friend of mine that grew up in Tilghman. His response was that the watermen are forced to break the law because of the heavy regulations. I explained to him that the watermen aren't owed a living at the expense of the bay, and that they are pillaging the natural resources that the rest of us wish to enjoy, and work to conserve in order to manage and maintain a healthy fishery and bay.

I just got around to reading about all the poaching violations over the last week, and it is appalling! They need to drop the hammer on these guys.

[DAndrews]

You always hear the commercial guys saying they are just trying to make a living but what about the familys that are put out of business (ie b&t shops) when there's a moratorium because the commercial guys have poached the fish to the point the fishery is closed.

[DAndrews]

I forgot to add the local tv station is saying the DNR is admitting to placing the devices and it was approved by the courts.

[27 sailfish]

I'd love to see the IRS get involved when a poacher is caught.

Might be tough explaining a reported $7,500.00 income when you are driving a brand new F -250 ( $35,000.00 ) , supporting a work boat , food , house , credit cards , etc.

Must be nice being paid in cash and not losing about 30% to taxes.

[Matt]

usually I agree with you but when we need to bring in govt to solve the inadequacy of govt...seems like throwing good money after bad. Why not just stick it to violators. Get caught poaching and lose your privilege to harvest seafood. Get caught again and go to jail. Again, prison. Make fines grow too. First time its hard. Second time you lose your boat. Third time you lose your house. Poacher in prison, his family on the street. Its been done. Over and over, in this country. Somehow our marine fisheries exist in some obsolete day gone by, where ignorance and apathy rule, down is up, red is black. Govt is not positioned to solve this. Govt is the problem. DNR exclaims how they are lowering the boom. Three weeks punishment! Blah. DNR is the enabler. Fire them all. “That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that History has to teach” Aldous Huxley.

[Luv2fishCB]

I'd love to see the IRS get involved when a poacher is caught.

Might be tough explaining a reported $7,500.00 income when you are driving a brand new F -250 ( $35,000.00 ) , supporting a work boat , food , house , credit cards , etc.

Must be nice being paid in cash and not losing about 30% to taxes.

I think that is a great idea. On the vast majority of IRS actions they have no need to obtain a warrant or even to present the results in a court of law. They just take your money!

I guess I could be considered on the "right" since I'm retired law enforcement. I could not imagine some individual DNR guy just arbitrarily making the decision to place a GPS on these boats. I have to believe this took several levels of coordination and approvals based upon the presentation of facts that would support these suspects were continuing a criminal activity.

That being said our legal system is designed to "shape" the law over time as new circumstances, abuses or technology evolve. If these actions were truly outrageous, shocking to the conscience and a violation of our constitutional rights (as determined by several levels of legal reviews and court systems, not a fishing forum), then laws will be put in place to require a process (legal or procedural) to obtain some level of probable cause or legal authorization in order to place these GPS tracking systems in the future.

I couldn't resist sitting on the sideline any longer.

NOTE: I tried very hard not to be condescending, bash any individual or group and just present my thoughts based upon the limited (and probably biased) information contained in the media reports and on the Internet. I'm sure there is a lot more to this story than we can find in these sources.

[SteveL]

http://www.wboc.com/Global/story.asp?S=13972588&clienttype=printable

DNR Admits Placing Devices on Boats of Watermen
Updated: Feb 05, 2011 10:20 AM EST
ANNAPOLIS, Md.- The Maryland Department of Natural Resources on Friday took responsibility for placing tracking devices on the boats of several watermen.

During Friday's meeting with the Eastern Shore delegation of state lawmakers in Annapolis, the DNR admitted its police force placed the boxes there legally to track repeat violators.

Rep. Michael Smigiel asked DNR Secretary John R. Griffin, "Were court orders obtained before any tracking devices obtained before placing?"

Griffin replied, "I think my best answer is we followed all necessary law and procedures."

Smiegel asked Griffin if the DNR when to court to get permission. Griffin replied to the affirmative.

Sen. Richard Colburn express concerned about the devices and said he has heard of talk that the DNR is planning on expanding its use of the devices.

"The overall issue I'm concerned about is tracking all watermen. It's like '1984,' and George Orwell's big brother. Somebody's private property's going to have a tracking device on it."

Secretary Griffin noted that the DNR's police force has been dramatically reduced over the years.

Colburn countered that it would be better to add more officers instead of attaching more devices onto watermen's boats.

[Matt]

Matt - DNR does not set the penalties nor render judgments. I'm sure they are more frustrated by the leniency than any of the stakeholders.

If they are so frustrated why not use a little airtime pitching tougher penalties? Recall the Agency Secretary talking about a relatively mild suspension like the State is getting tough on poaching. Clearly DNR is pitching a weak reply to poaching. People can suggest DNR be absolved, but in fact they are the governing body for Maryland's inshore salt water fisheries. If the executive agency (the wildlife expert) isn't pitching tougher penalties, who will?

[DonQx]

what about the familys that are put out of business (ie b&t shops) when there's a moratorium because the commercial guys have poached the fish to the point the fishery is closed.Sorry, but that's quite a stretch. Mom and pop bait and tackles have been dropping like flies for years, even when fishing was great. If you need to blame someone for that, blame Sam Walton and/or Bass Pro.:wink44:

[DAndrews]

Mom and pop bait and tackles have been dropping like flies for years, even when fishing was great. If you need to blame someone for that, blame Sam Walton and/or Bass Pro.:wink44:

I agree 100% but alot of mom and pop b&t rely heavily on striper fishing and another moratotium could be the final nail in the coffin.

[goose70]

DC Circuit took a different view ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080604946.html

Thanks, KWK...beat me to the punch. Art is a friend and occasional co-counsel. I'm sure that his amicus brief lent a lot of credibility to the argument (especially since he engaged excellent outside counsel to draft it). Ron is a friend and former colleague. I'm sure that his office argued its position well, too. As you probably know, Judge Ginsburg is one of the more highly respected federal appellate judges. The opinion should hold some weight, although three circuit decisions doesn't necessarily make the kind of split that causes the Supremes to grant cert. On the other hand, they love their 4th amendment cases.