Write to your Rep - Change this Law!

[Swamp Puppy]

This is not a forwarded spam email. I heard about this and looked the info up myself. Links provided.

This is a section from HB3089 for the OR 2009 Regular Session. It was amended just before the vote to read that ANY person who is convicted of ANY wildlife violation WILL have any/all licenses and permits suspended. The amendment replaced the wording “may” with “shall”, which takes the decision to suspend your hunting and fishing/crabbing/clamming license out of the judge’s hands and makes it automatic. Additionally, if you get a violation in a different state, you will also lose you license(s) in OR.


SECTION 4. ORS 497.415 is amended to read:
497.415. (1) { - Except as provided in ORS 497.435, - } When
any person is convicted of a violation of law or any rule adopted
pursuant thereto or otherwise fails to comply with the
requirements of a citation in connection with such violation as
provided in subsection (2) of this section, the court
{ - may - } { + shall + } order the State Fish and Wildlife
Commission to revoke { - such of the - } { + all + }
licenses, tags and permits issued to that person pursuant to the
wildlife laws { - as the court considers appropriate - } .
Revocation of licenses, tags and permits is in addition to and
not in lieu of other penalties provided by law.


Please write to your state/district representative and let them know we want this repealed (it passed and went into effect as law Jan 1 2010).

This link will allow you to look up all of the Oregon state contacts and direct email/mail/fax your message to them. Easy!

http://capwiz.com/ussportsmen/home/


This is the response i received from my district Rep. Please let your Rep know that you want House Bill 3708 passed so we can get the current law changed.


Dear Mr. Johnston,

Thank you for the comment regarding recent statutory changes that would require mandatory fishing and hunting license suspension for all violators of any fishing or hunting regulation.

This mandate has recently come to my attention and I am working with my colleagues to address the issue. The House Rules Committee has introduced House Bill 3708 which will give the courts the ability to suspend licenses at their discretion. If adopted as proposed, HB 3708 would be effective immediately. We are hopeful that HB 3708 makes it through this short session.

Thanks again for your email.

Brad Witt

 

[Throbbit _Shane]

I read about this in the Medford Mail Tribune 2 weeks ago. To me its complete BS. I hope i never have a accidental violation while fishing.

 

[Thuggin4Life]

So give me the address and names and i will do it. This should be taken by a case by case basis and judged arcordingly. Laws are getting to strick these days. Also how does something like this pass? I as a voter never seen this come across my desk.

 

[joesnuffy]

So i forget to pinch a barb and now I've lost my license?

I'll be looking into this a bit more.

 

[Irishrover]

Ditto message sent to my rep!

 

[Swamp Puppy]

So give me the address and names and i will do it. This should be taken by a case by case basis and judged arcordingly. Laws are getting to strick these days. Also how does something like this pass? I as a voter never seen this come across my desk.

the last link in my post will direct you to a site that will automatically look up your rep and give you a easy auto-fill form to email or fax him/her.

Here is a list of people involved with introducing the original bill / law.



HB 3089 By Representatives KRIEGER, SCHAUFLER; Representatives BARKER, BOONE, BRUUN, WEIDNER, WITT, Senator METSGER (at the request of Oregon Anglers) (at the request of Oregon Anglers) -- Relating to wildlife.

I emailed the Oregon Anglers last week in an attempt to find out what their involvement was. I have not received a response as of yet, but i am leaning towards the assumption that they supported this. Why they supported it is beyond me, but apparently they do not feel compelled to defend/explain their position.

 

[gordo]

This is from the Oregon Anglers' home page:

Large scale poaching and other destruction of our natural resources must be appropriately punished. Upgrading these egregious acts to mandatory prosecution status was accomplished with the passage of House Bill 3089 in the 2009 Legislative Session, at the request of Oregon Anglers with the Oregon Hunters Association, Trout Unlimited, the Oregon State Police, ODFW, and the Audabon [sic] Society joining us. The key is MANDATORY economic penalties and suspensions of fishing and hunting privileges, plus ODFW can pursue civil suits to be reinbursed [sic] for the value of the fish or game lost.

I agree large scale poaching should be appropriately punished, but like the rest of you said, this bill seems to capture everything, including less egregious infractions and honest, simple mistakes. The punishment won't always seem to fit the crime by these rules.

 

[Swamp Puppy]

I absolutely agree that those who are blatantly out there violating wildlife laws ie: large scale poaching, willful disregard for regulations (waaaay over limits, hunting/fishing out of season, etc. etc.), and all the other serious types of violations that we hear/read about should have the book thown at them and their licenses suspended.

The way this is currently set up however is akin to getting a minor speeding ticket and having the courts automatically suspend your divers license.

Bottom line is, it needs to be up to the courts to determine how a particular situation should be dealt with. Even if they sometimes get it wrong and someone gets off too easy, this sort of harsh zero tolerance law making simply isn't right.

With regards to the quote from the Oregon Anglers page, I just cannt wrap my head around why ANY sportsperson would support this sort of thing. I mean seriously, aside from a few hundred people on IFish , how many of us are so perfect that even the thought that we might fall victim to a simple mistake or accidental infraction is just not possible....and why would i want to support anything that will ensure that i will be punished to the full extent of the law if/when that day comes?

 

[Thuggin4Life]

I sent one to peter defazio should I send more to others on this list?

President & Congress Governor & State Legislators

President
• Barack Obama (D)

Senators
• Ron Wyden (D)
• Jeff Merkley (D)

Representatives
• Peter DeFazio (D-4)


Governor
• Ted Kulongoski (D)

Senate
• William Morrisette (D-6)

House of Representatives
• Phil Barnhart (D-11)

Also what should I say I said I can't believe they would use a one size fits all aproach to hunting/fishing and want the HB3089 reapealled. Should I say more or say it better this is bs and we need to do something about.

 

[Swamp Puppy]

I would recommend sending emails/faxes to Morrisette and Barnhart as they are the State legislators.

Honestly, a simple message is the best. No need for 5 dollar words when a ten cent one will do, as my grandfather used to say.

Just tell them that you feel very disappointed that HB3089 ever passed and that you want them to support HB 3708 in order to put the decision to suspend hunting/fishing licenses back in the hands of the courts.

If you are feeling a little saucy, you may toss in a little note that you feel very un-represented as a sportsperson and if the current elected officials will not support you, then next election you will vote for someone you feel will do a better job. I have found that threats are not usually the way to go about getting the results you want....but they do make a good last resort. lol.

 

[beaverfan]

While I don't support this as it is too broad but I would be all for stricter punishments and even suspensions for things like using bait in waters where bait isn't allowed, for fishing past deadlines, keeping more than your limit, fishing in closed waters and probably many more. The fact is that it's poaching whether you are doing it intentionally or not. I don't know about you guys but one of the first things I was taught about fishing was make sure you read and UNDERSTAND the regs for the water your fishing. Ignorance is not an excuse! The regs are regs for a reason and it's usually to protect native or spawning fish. However suspending a fisherman because he doesn't have his license on his person, it's in his coat 50ft down the shoreline is a little extreme. But if you screw up and forget they changed how you measure Sturgeon and keep an illegal fish I see nothing wrong with that fisherperson losing the priveledge to fish for the rest of that year, afterall you would have broken the golden rule sportsmen should follow by not reading and understanding the regs! If you are uncertain of the regs simple DON'T fish!

 

[Swamp Puppy]

Fair enough Beav, i understand your position and for the most part don't disagree with it.

Let me lay 2 scenarios on ya... and hopefully no one will be too harsh with the judgements. I have been issued 2 wildlife violations in my life (30 years of hunting/fishing under my belt). Both were in Oregon and both occurred in the past 8 years. In both instances i was technically in the wrong, but neither event was intentional.

1) Ticketed for shooting before legal shoot light on Sauvie Island (waterfowl) - I was hunting alone and had forgotten my cell phone in the truck. I knew exactly when legal shoot light was, but had no way to tell the time. It was more than light enough out which was deceiving. I decided that it would be prudent to wait until i heard others shooting before lighting off myself. After letting a few flights go through the decoys (knowing i HAD to be legal) i finally heard some shots from the other side of the island. I decided to pass on the next flight though and wait until i heard another volley. That volley came soon enough and a few minutes later when the next birds came in, i popped one. Before i even got back to the shore with my bird (no dog at this time) ODFW was there waiting for me to inform me i had shot 7 minutes early. A bit later the State'er showed up to give me my ticket. My bad..i had no excuse and no reason to fight it. sent in my 75 bucks and wrote it off to bad luck.

2) borrowed a buddy of mine's boat to go hunting down on the lower river and take a couple of new guys out with me to help intro them to the sport. He had been hunting the day i picked up his boat and was asleep in the evening when i got there. i put his gear in his barn for him, hooked up the boat, and went home. The next day the four of us went out and put a serious hurt on the birds. As their bird ID skills were poor, to say the least, i told them that i was going to call all the shots we took. I did, and we ended up the day with limits of all legal birds. out of our 7 total birds, each of us had 1 pintail (limit is 1 per person). At the ramp we were met by two feds that gave us a pretty thorough checking over. 1 guy asked to look in the boat, and me not having any reason NOT to let him look, told him that was fine. As it turns out, my buddy had stashed a pintail from his hunt the day before in the livewell to keep the dogs from getting to it. (he wanted to take it to the taxidermist). Well, you can imagine my surprise when the fed pulled out that bird.... uh-oh. we now had 5 pintails with us and that is one too many. I tried to laugh off the situation and explain to him what happened and that it was not our bird....no dice. He told me that "someone was getting a ticket and he didn't care who." well, being that i took these fellas out to show them a good time and also assumed responsibility to ensure we were legal, i wasn't going to let one of them take a ticket, so i "volunteered".

I did take this one to federal court and put on one helluva defense. The judge commended me for how i handled myself and even sympathised with me. however, he said, the bottom line was that there was one too many birds and that is that. he reduced the fine to the minimum 150 bucks (which my buddy paid for me due to his guilty feelings) and that was that.


now tell me, do you feel that in either of these instances i should have lost my hunting, fishing, and clamming/crabbing licenses for my "crimes"? Under this current law, i would have.

 

[Thuggin4Life]

Exactly why I don't agree with the changes you could forget you watch or something and end up fishing a few minutes after last legal or something similar to you situation with first legal going of your best educated guess knowing the legal time. There are several other small things that could happen to ruin an entire year for a small mistake.

 

[beaverfan]

In the first instance I would see no problem with you losing the priveledge to hunt for the rest of the year. Because like I stated earlier, if unsure then don't even think about it. Also for the officer and the judge it would be very difficult to discern whether you were telling the truth or just playing dumb. The second instance is why I don't support this thing, the judge should have the right to impose whatever sentence they want within reason. What I am all for is stricter fines/suspensions and actually enforcing the regs. Perhaps then it would cut back on the idiots fishing in closed water, or using bait where they're not supposed to.

Now back to the issue at hand, I've emailed my local rep's about this!

 

[Irishrover]

Just got a reply from my state represenative and she understood the bill. HB 3708 will remove the shall and put may back into the law. It will give the court descretion to revoke or not revoke a license. If the law had been writen to make major violation the key to a revocation then it would make more sence. If you compare it to the traffic laws; you dont get your odl revoked for a red light violation, or an improper left turn. Heck even on your first DUII you can go deversion. To yank a guys license for a honest mistake or a minor violation seems over the top. If some guy is out there spotlighting deer or elk or some other from of poaching then toss the book at him. Believe me after working the streets for 30 years you realize good people make mistakes and descretions goes a long way. Sometimes a waring will have a far more reaching impact than a citation. Swamp Puppy your situation is a good example. If the Stater could have made a quick phone call to your buddy he could have cleared that one up without all the fuss. Some folks might say that not his job, I know I would have made that call because it's the criminal JUSTICE system not the rock in the box system. At anyrate my rep is on board for the change.

 

[joesnuffy]

I sent an email yesterday and I received this back today.

Justin: I think that I agree with you, but you are the first person to contact me about this bill. It seems to me that the Court should not be ordered to terminate all licenses and tags, so my inclination is to support the bill. Do you have others who support your position? Thanks for bringing this bill to my attention. I very much appreciate hearing from you. Rep. Bentz.

 

[Swamp Puppy]

I sent an email yesterday and I received this back today.

This illustrates just how important it is for people to let their elected reps know how they feel. They can't represent us if they don't know what we want to be represented on. Nice job Joe, looks like you single handedly got us one more vote that we may not have had!

 

[gordo]

I received this back from my Rep:

Yes, your understanding is correct. HB 3089 needed to be fixed. Both the House and Senate have now passed HB 3708, correcting that. I did vote YES.
Thanks for your interest and comments.

Sincerely,

Carolyn Tomei

So, it sounds like a done deal?

 

[joesnuffy]

That would be great if it was passed.

When did they vote?