CDFG

[Silbaugh4liberty]

Originally Posted by wiredantz

Someone go find a recently graduated college kid that wants to make a name for himself!

By the way, Mark Stevens sort of bursted my bubble yesterday when I was on a conference call with him and he stated that those case laws such as shuttles worth v. Birmingham, and those other cases stating that you can't license a right are referring to Federal rights, so he advised that the state can issue a license. So the angle you need to approach it from its if they have jurisdiction over you. So there's still remedy, just not in the way that I thought you could approach it apparently. However I did read through a lot of those papers they sent you and everything in there is relating to Commerce. Which is obvious proof that they don't know what they're talking about since we are not trying to fish to sell them. Just like driver's license relates to Commerce and yet most of us don't drive to make money. It's just a matter of looking up the legal definition of words in Black's Law Dictionary, because they are different than what we think they mean

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[wiredantz]

Originally Posted by Silbaugh4liberty

By the way, Mark Stevens sort of bursted my bubble yesterday when I was on a conference call with him and he stated that those case laws such as shuttles worth v. Birmingham, and those other cases stating that you can't license a right are referring to Federal rights, so he advised that the state can issue a license.

Here is the angle, on the condition that the state uses taxpayer money to plant fish in the pacific ocean....:

"CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


Section 25. The people shall have the right to fish upon and from
the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof, excepting
upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the
State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the
people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be
passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public
lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water
containing fish that have been planted therein by the State;
provided, that the legislature may by statute, provide for the season
when and the conditions under which the different species of fish
may be taken."



Isn't that essentially what they have done... they have made it a crime to fish coastal water...


Pay me, CDFW, for your right to fish, or its a crime!

This does not apply to county owned land, as it is described in the same case.


I don't know if this angle would work, just a theory.






The real question is what year was the State Fish Exchange Act written; how long ago have CA people been required to buy a fishing license?

[LSmoot]

Originally Posted by Silbaugh4liberty

I sure will. See, people are too used to being comfortable, and afraid of a challenge. Without taking risks in life, you're already dead in the mind. With every single risk you take, you build confidence, then you're willing to take more risks, and it creates the snowball effect, and you're more capable of achieving your goals. My goal= Freedom (hence my screen name is made over 2 years ago). You can have safety and security (in a jail cell, and most are already there mentally because they're scared). The choice is yours.

"Give me liberty, or give me death" ~Patrick Henry~



Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

x2

[wiredantz]

The interpretation of the Supreme Court of CA was that we the people do not have an abolute right to fish by Article 1 section 25.



They concluded that the Fishing License was a protection for the fish and it was upheld.

Case Closed.



https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Publications/history


Department of Fish and Game celebrates 130 years of serving California

From Outdoor California, November - December 1999

Original Article with Photos (PDF)

In 1970, the Department of Fish and Game turned 100 years old. At that time, a history of significant events over that 100 years was published. A frequently requested item, the history was updated in 1980, and now we have another 20 years to add. We look forward to seeing where fish and wildlife activities lead us in the next millennium. —Editor, Outdoor California Magazine

1849. California Territorial Legislature adopts common law of England as the rule in all state courts. Before this, Spanish and then Mexican laws applied. Most significant legal incident was the Mexican government decree in 1830 that California “mountain men” were illegally hunting and fishing. Captain John Sutter, among others, had been responsible for enforcing Mexican fish and game laws.
1851. State of California enacts first law specifically dealing with fish and game matters. This concerned the right to take oysters and the protection of property rights of persons planting oysters. 1852. First California game law is enacted for 12 counties. It protected elk, antelope, deer, quail, mallard, and wood ducks for six months of each year. Also passed was the first law protecting salmon runs. Enforcement was the responsibility of local authorities.
1854. Game laws are extended to all counties in the state.
1860. The beginning of statewide control. First license act provides that no Chinese or Mongolian could take fish in state waters without a four-dollar monthly license. Collectors of fees were appointed by the governor.
1861. Closed seasons for trout are established.
1869. Lake Merritt (City of Oakland) is made the first state game refuge, believed to be the first in the country.
1870. The Board of Fish Commissioners, forerunner of the Fish and Game Commission, is established “to provide for the restoration and preservation” of fish in California waters. This was the first wildlife conservation agency in the country, even predating the U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries. Ca1ifornia’s three “fish commissioners,” appointed by the Governor, received no compensation, but the Legislature appropriated $5,000 to the board for the first two years’ operations. This same year the first fish ladder is built on a tributary of the Truckee River, and a state hatching house is established at the University of California in Berkeley.
1871. First importation of fish-1,500 young shad. Two full-time deputies (wardens) are appointed, one to patrol San Francisco Bay and the other the Lake Tahoe area.
1872. The Legislature passes an act enabling the commission to require fishways or “in-lieu” hatcheries where dams or other obstacles impede or prevent fish passage.
1878. The authority of the Fish Commission is expanded to include game as well as fish.
1879. Striped bass are introduced from New Jersey and planted at Carquinez Strait. 1883. Commissioners establish a Bureau of Patrol and Law Enforcement. Jack London switches sides from oyster pirate to Commission deputy. His forays form the basis for his novel, Tales of the Fish Patrol.
1885. First compilation of California fish and game laws is published. The first fish and game marine patrol is instituted with the placing in operation of the 46-foot patrol boat Governor Stoneman.
1887. Market fishing boats and crews are licensed.
1889. The commission is authorized to import game birds.
1893. The commission engages its first attorney.
1901. After the turn of the century, the administration of fish and game laws was strengthened and expanded. The deputy force reaches 50 men, and the first bag limits are set-deer, three bucks; ducks and doves, 50; quail, 25. Night hunting is outlawed.
1907. First hunting licenses are issued at $1 for everyone hunting certain game birds and animals. Money from the license sale and from fines was credited to the Fish and Game Preservation Fund. The deputy (warden) force expands to 73.
1908. One of the first expenditures from the Preservation Fund is for the establishment of a game farm at Hayward.
1909. Name is changed from the Board of Fish Commissioners to the Fish and Game Commission, which reflects the growing importance of game conservation. The complex fish and game administration of today dates from these years when the commission was given more authority to expand and to undertake new responsibilities. This year marks the last legislative appropriation for fish and game administration. Commercial licenses for fishermen are inaugurated (commercial fishing boats had been licensed in 1887).
1913. The first general angling license ($1) is required for all persons over 18. A law is adopted prohibiting the taking of the endangered sea otter. The first field study of duck disease (botulism) is conducted.
1914. The Commission creates the Bureau of Education, Publicity and Research because of the need for development in these areas. Publication of a quarterly journal, California Fish and Game, starts.





After all this researching, i never want to see this case law again

I am surprised that the anglers who stood up were able to stop MLPA from taking everything,
this is how much power they have to protect the fish.

[Hunters Pa]

Originally Posted by wiredantz

After all this researching, i never want to see this case law again

I am surprised that the anglers who stood up were able to stop MLPA from taking everything,
this is how much power they have to protect the fish.

MLPA wasn't about protecting fish. It was about rich Malibu residents not wanting to have to see people fishing in their view. It was about rich corporations trying to ease their social conscience for past transgressions (Packard). It was about Laguna residents trying to restrict more non-residents' activities to make it less attractive to come to THEIR beach (yeah, protecting the "natural state"? How much SAND do they truck in to cover up what is TRULY the natural state of that coastline?). It was about animal rights activists trying to stop the "killing of ocean-puppies". It was about Surfrider taking it out on fishermen that there have been conflicts around piers.

If it was about the fish then someone should tell the fish to stay in the MLPA. What's that? They migrate out? Hmm, doesn't fit the "science" presented.

Yeah it was painful to watch the process proceed according to the bought and paid for commission.

[wiredantz]

BLAST FROM THE PAST


One of my friends just pointed out, that the supreme court cases they gave me, never addressed the issue if the fishing license was deemed appropriate for the protection of fish.... the only thing that was determined was that that its not an absolute right!!!!

AND IM NOT FISHING FOR PROFIT!!!!!!!!!




I emailed DFG , i want to know what the money for the ocean enhancement stamp is used for, and how the money for the fishing licenses are distributed.



I have a right to know how these fish are being protected if they want to use that excuse in court!

[Silbaugh4liberty]

uploadfromtaptalk1473375370350.jpg

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[alanw]

I think they'd say that keeping your recreational catch is for profit because you profited dinner, which has monetary value.

[Silbaugh4liberty]

Originally Posted by alanw

I think they'd say that keeping your recreational catch is for profit because you profited dinner, which has monetary value.

It's because they treat you (the living soul, living breathing flesh, person), as a corporation. Look up the legal definition of "person", and they categorize it the same as a corporation. Watch this video, it'll explain it better. Keep in mind, Article 1 Section 25 went into effect nearly 30 years before they made this transition to converting us into corporations in this country (before our bankruptcy in 1933).

https://youtu.be/-Cmc12Dvqhs

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[wiredantz]

Just wanted to keep you guys all updated:


Mr. Don Bird went to court and fought his right to fish. He was found liable and cited $740.00 by the judge and granted no jury.

http://www.redbluffdailynews.com/art...NEWS/150619853

http://www.redbluffdailynews.com/art...NEWS/130908131

and by the way he did not get a trail by Jury because the Court said : Infractions do not get Jury Trials.

http://law.justia.com/cases/californ.../42/supp4.html


by the way if you start fighting the state and system, they can declare you a Vexatious Litigant. A Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action.

[Silbaugh4liberty]

Originally Posted by wiredantz

Just wanted to keep you guys all updated:


Mr. Don Bird went to court and fought his right to fish. He was found liable and cited $740.00 by the judge and granted no jury.

http://www.redbluffdailynews.com/art...NEWS/150619853

http://www.redbluffdailynews.com/art...NEWS/130908131

and by the way he did not get a trail by Jury because the Court said : Infractions do not get Jury Trials.

http://law.justia.com/cases/californ.../42/supp4.html


by the way if you start fighting the state and system, they can declare you a Vexatious Litigant. A Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action.

https://youtu.be/Gil5ZtLO4po

https://youtu.be/Pi_3qP5ZLt8

https://youtu.be/zGNJ7ma-NHE


Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[jorluivil]

This thread is like herpes.........................just when you think its gone

[Silbaugh4liberty]

Originally Posted by jorluivil

This thread is like herpes.........................just when you think its gone

It's just proof that statists and slaves are still the majority in this country. We just need to "drain the swamp"

Either that, or my buddy Kevin suggests that we need a Purge!!

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[DPevin]

Just drop links to the free thought project and its social media outlets so people can go see their memes and catch phrases for themselves and we can stop beating this dead horse...

I agree with the sentiment that government is run by corporations and doesn't give two rips about its people (or those that actually do aren't able to get anything done regardless of their efforts due to said gov corruption.)

Points have been made, minds ultimately won't change....

You all are better than most for standing by your convictions and taking action on them.

Originally Posted by Silbaugh4liberty

It's just proof that statists and slaves are still the majority in this country. We just need to "drain the swamp"

Either that, or my buddy Kevin suggests that we need a Purge!!

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[monstahfish]

Someone cited section 25 stating it gives the state the right to set the conditions and restrictions. Sounds like an open and shut case to me. It's the same thing as the second amendment argument where people either due to ignorance or willfulness forget the first part about a well regulated militia. Would a well regulated militia have an unchecked armory? I'm not anti gun, I own guns, but I went through a background check and show my id when I buy ammo and follow storage regulations. I don't feel like my rights have been infringed and if I were to read the 2nd amendment in a textualist manner, I would imagine I should have to be a member of a local militia, which I would imagine if it's well regulated would also have safety training etc...

[MITCHELL]

Originally Posted by Sully1

CDFG checked my license yesterday at LJ, it was the first time, outside of diving, I've been checked while fishing on a kayak. Make sure to bring that fishing license ladies and gents.

But I was working a combination of three poles fishing for a trout limit of 5 after that I move on to another fish species. So one pole soaking and the other 2 being rotated with bait and lures. Well the game warden had binoculars on me.
And went and got a boat to come out to me and wrote me up for to many poles. Not knowing if I broke the law or not. I signed the ticket and thought to my self a $150 fine no big deal. Well hi way fking robbery the fine was $1180.00 who's the crook here. So I decided to go to court and fight it. The game warden didn't show and it was dropped. I would have paid $150 or $200. But I got off
Scott free

[JohnMckroidJr]

Originally Posted by MITCHELL

But I was working a combination of three poles fishing for a trout limit of 5 after that I move on to another fish species. So one pole soaking and the other 2 being rotated with bait and lures. Well the game warden had binoculars on me.
And went and got a boat to come out to me and wrote me up for to many poles. Not knowing if I broke the law or not. I signed the ticket and thought to my self a $150 fine no big deal. Well hi way fking robbery the fine was $1180.00 who's the crook here. So I decided to go to court and fight it. The game warden didn't show and it was dropped. I would have paid $150 or $200. But I got off
Scott free

Wow, that would have sucked to pay $1180.0 for using an extra rod! Good thing the warden was a no-show.

Glad they don't have any rules like that in Florida, I routinely drag 2 live baits while casting ahead with a lure. We do get visited on the water periodically to check licenses and catches, but all the wardens I have dealt with have been very courteous.

Wardens do monitor YouTube in Florida. A fellow yaker was ticketed for what the warden though was an offense on a video, but we had email correspondences from his headquarters to prove him wrong, so the ticket was invalidated.