I doubt one would find any educated person that is famililar with the mlpa's who thinks that this process in its current form is resonable and/or enforceable.

The only thing I have seem them enforce is having a license to fish.
When landing at the beach, how can they know where I caught the fish?
Maybe they'll be setting up cameras up by the cove along the western boundary and aim it north. But then what? Sit someone in front of a screen watching 24hrs a day?

JD's report has the link to the detailed maps.

No one in this town could catch any fish except this one man

The game warden asked him how he did it so the man told the game warden that he would take him fishing the next day...

Once they got to the fishing spot the man took out a stick of dynamite, lit it, and threw it in the water. After the explosion fish started floating to the top of the water. The man took out a net and started picking up the fish.

The game warden told him that this was illegal. The man took out another stick of dynamite and lit it. He then handed it to the game warden and said " are you going to fish or talk?"

Personally, I don't think the state or the DFG's for that matter realize what they are going up against. The burden of proof will be on the wardens writing the tickets, so if you do decide to fight it, they would have to show up at court.

Now, follow this for a bit, count the number of wardens vs the number of police. How much would it affect them to have a warden and quite possibly his partner take a day off to attend court?

I doubt that initially wardens will be going out solo.

What would be the deciding factor that would allow them to secure a conviction based on the burden of proof? There would have to be an absolute certainty that a violation did occur, and they would have to be prepared to prove it.

The reason I pose this is that I love the challenges of our legal system.

The most glaring example is that of a 'red light' ticket. We all know what they are about, yet few choose to fight it. Simple to do actually, and even easier to show up at court to have them dismiss it when they know you plan to contest it. Why? Too many variables, too many loopholes.

The same applies here. But it just gets better...

There are ways to challenge the system and not only have fun doing it, but frustrate the hell out of them.

By fun, things like exercising your rights. If you know you plan to contest a ticket that you got in, say, Oceanside, ask that the hearing be held at the county seat (downtown SD). It would be assumed that you would want to go to the Vista courthouse, but maybe SD is more convenient for you, thus less convenient for them. That is your right.

As is rescheduling your court date due to an unforeseen inconvenience. You can always reschedule, better yet, you can reschedule again and again according to your schedule, and not the officer's, who may have that certain day off.

And if it just happens to be his day off, he would have to clear it with his supervisor to attend said court date. Remember, everything would have to be cleared, and they would have to pay them for attending. I wonder it the state is prepared to grant overtime in non-emergency situations.

Best part, if they are a no-show, case dismissed...:cheers1:

BTW, clean DMV, fought a red light ticket, a radar ticket doing 65 in a 45, and beat a CC debt with attorney fees and court fees included to the tune of 32K...even sent a bill to the attorney to cover the $45 filing fee...:the_finger:

Thanks for the laugh Joe!

You can cruise the closures at http://southcoast.marinemap.org/marinemap/.

You can also wait a day or two for the cheat sheet that'll be up at the Western Outdoor News webpage. I submitted it just a few minutes ago.

http://www.wonews.com/

that is funny