NJ Fined because of physical location

[quincy]

Because you were not cited for a violation of state law or under the regulation, you are not in a position to argue the unreasonableness or vagueness of the regulation in court. What you CAN do is contact your state legislators to express your concerns.

Here is a link to contact information for your New Jersey legislators:
https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/roster.asp

 

[chlsbrns]

Because you were not cited for a violation of state law or under the regulation, you are not in a position to argue the unreasonableness or vagueness of the regulation in court. What you CAN do is contact your state legislators to express your concerns.

Here is a link to contact information for your New Jersey legislators:
https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/roster.asp

Yes... thank you again!

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Here's my last attempt at an explanation.

The law and regulation you cite prohibit certain actions. Nothing allows any actions. They are merely prohibitions.

The law prohibits A. The regulation prohibits A,B, and C. the law does not permit B and C, it only prohibits A.

There would be a conflict if the law specifically permitted B and C, but it doesn't. It only prohibits A. Since the regulation prohibits A (which is exactly that the law does) as well as prohibits B and C, there is not conflict.

Now, if a law prohibits X and a regulation required X, there is a conflict. If one law permits Y and another prohibits Y, there is a conflict. The example you cited has a law that prohibits A, and a regulation that prohibits A,B, and C. There is no conflict.

As to the argument that possession of a firearm constitutes hunting, I refer you to the following:

A couple went on vacation to a resort up north. The husband liked to fish, and the wife liked to read. One morning the husband came back from fishing after getting up really early that morning and took a nap. While he slept, the wife decided to take the boat out. She was not familiar with the lake, so she rowed out and anchored the boat, and started reading her book. Along comes the Game Warden in his boat, pulls up alongside the woman's boat and asks her what she's doing? She says, "Reading my book." The Game Warden tells her she is in a restricted fishing area and she explains that she's not fishing. To which he replied, "But you have all this equipment. I will have to take you in and write you up!" Angry that the warden was being so unreasonable, the lady told the warden, "If you do that, I will charge you with rape." The warden, shocked by her statement, replied, "But I didn't even touch you." To which the lady replied, "Yeah, but you have all the equipment!"

Last note:

A turkey is defined as a game bird.

Here, in the people's republik of Massachusetts, a turkey is defined a "big game" (so they can charge you for a big game permit when you go turkey hunting)

 

[chlsbrns]

Here's my last attempt at an explanation.

The law and regulation you cite prohibit certain actions. Nothing allows any actions. They are merely prohibitions.

The law prohibits A. The regulation prohibits A,B, and C. the law does not permit B and C, it only prohibits A.

There would be a conflict if the law specifically permitted B and C, but it doesn't. It only prohibits A. Since the regulation prohibits A (which is exactly that the law does) as well as prohibits B and C, there is not conflict.

Now, if a law prohibits X and a regulation required X, there is a conflict. If one law permits Y and another prohibits Y, there is a conflict. The example you cited has a law that prohibits A, and a regulation that prohibits A,B, and C. There is no conflict.

As to the argument that possession of a firearm constitutes hunting, I refer you to the following:



Last note:


Here, in the people's republik of Massachusetts, a turkey is defined a "big game" (so they can charge you for a big game permit when you go turkey hunting)

The fishing story is funny!

I think that I get what you are saying but I don't think that you get what I am saying. A regulation must be attached to a law. The Regulation must interpret and/or implement a law. A regulation must be reasonable. The regulation in question does not implement or interpret any law. I also do not think that it is reasonable that innocent people can be fined and lose hunting privileges for being within 300' of bait that they do not know is there.

Elected legislators make laws, agencies make regulations based on the laws. Agencies can not make laws only regulations based on the laws.

The law as written protects us from innocently walking within 300' of bait that we do not know is there. Anyone hunting from a treestand with bait would not be a problem with a reasonable game warden if I was hunting on the ground less than 300' of the baited tree stand or ground blind. (Structure) A warden would see the stand near the bait. Why would I bother to bait a tree stand and then hunt on the ground away from the bait? We can bait when deer hunting. We can be any distance from the bait. We can be on the ground, in a tree and in a structure. The bait is within eyesight. Buckshot can easily and ethically kill a deer at 50 yards.

My shotgun, choke and shells are an awesome combination! I am confident that I can ethically bag a turkey at 150'. Most are lucky to confidently shoot and ethically bag a turkey at 90' . Turkey hunters aim and shoot at the head. At 50 yards a turkey head is a very small target. It's small at 30 yards.

It seems to me that the Dept wants to do what they fine us for. They ignore the laws and regulations that they are required to follow to make a regulation. They do it the easy way! Legislation takes time. It's hard to bag a turkey. I personally do not think hunting turkeys close to bait is hunting it is shooting or killing. It's easy to bag a turkey close to bait just like it's easy to ignore laws to make regulations that do not comply with the laws that they must follow to make the regulations.

To make a regulation the Dept MUST do scientific studies and research it's required by law. These are all regulations.
No more than 5 Turkey hunters can hunt together.
A turkey hunter must possess a turkey call.
A turkey hunter is allowed to shoot coyote but can not possess a coyote call.
A turkey hunter does not have to wear hunter orange. (A definite violation of the law)
We can not use an electronic calling device.
We can not stalk a turkey
We can not chase turkeys in the direction of a hunter
The use of dogs is prohibited during the spring season and allowed in the fall season

Do you think they did scientific studies and research to make these regulations? Not to mention practically none of the above is in a Statute. How do you do a scientific study and research and determine that it is ok for 5 hunters to hunt together but no more? ECT, ect, ect.

 

[quincy]

The fishing story is funny!

I think that I get what you are saying but I don't think that you get what I am saying. A regulation must be attached to a law. The Regulation must interpret and/or implement a law. A regulation must be reasonable. The regulation in question does not implement or interpret any law. I also do not think that it is reasonable that innocent people can be fined and lose hunting privileges for being within 300' of bait that they do not know is there.

Elected legislators make laws, agencies make regulations based on the laws. Agencies can not make laws only regulations based on the laws.

The law as written protects us from innocently walking within 300' of bait that we do not know is there. Anyone hunting from a treestand with bait would not be a problem with a reasonable game warden if I was hunting on the ground less than 300' of the baited tree stand or ground blind. (Structure) A warden would see the stand near the bait. Why would I bother to bait a tree stand and then hunt on the ground away from the bait? We can bait when deer hunting. We can be any distance from the bait. We can be on the ground, in a tree and in a structure. The bait is within eyesight. Buckshot can easily and ethically kill a deer at 50 yards.

My shotgun, choke and shells are an awesome combination! I am confident that I can ethically bag a turkey at 150'. Most are lucky to confidently shoot and ethically bag a turkey at 90' . Turkey hunters aim and shoot at the head. At 50 yards a turkey head is a very small target. It's small at 30 yards.

It seems to me that the Dept wants to do what they fine us for. They ignore the laws and regulations that they are required to follow to make a regulation. They do it the easy way! Legislation takes time. It's hard to bag a turkey. I personally do not think hunting turkeys close to bait is hunting it is shooting or killing. It's easy to bag a turkey close to bait just like it's easy to ignore laws to make regulations that do not comply with the laws that they must follow to make the regulations.

To make a regulation the Dept MUST do scientific studies and research it's required by law. These are all regulations.
No more than 5 Turkey hunters can hunt together.
A turkey hunter must possess a turkey call.
A turkey hunter is allowed to shoot coyote but can not possess a coyote call.
A turkey hunter does not have to wear hunter orange. (A definite violation of the law)
We can not use an electronic calling device.
We can not stalk a turkey
We can not chase turkeys in the direction of a hunter
The use of dogs is prohibited during the spring season and allowed in the fall season

Do you think they did scientific studies and research to make these regulations? Not to mention practically none of the above is in a Statute. How do you do a scientific study and research and determine that it is ok for 5 hunters to hunt together but no more? ECT, ect, ect.

Here is a link to information on the New Jersey Fish and Wildlife Councils and Committees:
https://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/councils.htm
The Game Codes and Fish Codes are borne from these Councils and Committees through powers granted them by the Legislature.

I DO agree with you that the 300' ground bait regulation could use some clarifying language - but I really don't see how forum members can make the answer to your "law versus regulation" question any clearer than they already have.

 

[Taxing Matters]

The wearing hunter fluorescent orange thing... the Statute says that hunter orange is required when hunting game birds the regulations says it isn't required. The Regulation is basically saying that it is ok to violate the law.

No, the regulation does not say it's ok to violate the law. The regulation simply does not require it like the statute does. Of course, even though the regulation does not require it, since the statute does you still must follow that requirement.

 

[quincy]

The statute doesn't require it. The statute makes exceptions on wearing hunter orange for hunting waterfowl, hunting wild turkeys and for bow hunters. The regulation does not, in other words, violate the state law.

 

[chlsbrns]

Here is a link to information on the New Jersey Fish and Wildlife Councils and Committees:
https://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/councils.htm
The Game Codes and Fish Codes are borne from these Councils and Committees through powers granted them by the Legislature.

I DO agree with you that the 300' ground bait regulation could use some clarifying language - but I really don't see how forum members can make the answer to your "law versus regulation" question any clearer than they already have.

I already wrote to the game counsel. I read all of the Administrative Proceedures Act, The Fish and Game Code, the State Statutes, the minutes to the Fish Game Counsel monthly meetings going back to the 70's, the NJ Constitution and case histories. I filed a petition to repeal the regulation. The petition is six pages of laws, regulations and other things showing that the rule was not made legally and should be repealed. And I should listen to people here? Lawyers who are probably the ones who deleted their posts?

 

[chlsbrns]

The statute doesn't require it. The statute makes exceptions on wearing hunter orange for hunting waterfowl, hunting wild turkeys and for bow hunters. The regulation does not, in other words, violate the state law.

This is a quote of the Law/Statute...

23:4-13.1. Clothing; outer garment of fluorescent hunter's orange
a. Any person while hunting deer, rabbit, hare, squirrel, fox, or game birds, other than waterfowl, with firearms in this State, shall wear a cap of fluorescent hunter's orange or some other outer garment containing at least 200 square inches of fluorescent hunter's orange material which shall be visible from all sides. The penalty for violation of this section shall be $50.00 for each offense.

b. "Hunter's orange" means a daylight fluorescent orange color with a dominant wave length between 595 and 605 nanometers, excitation purity not less than 85%, and luminance factor of not less than 40%.

 

[ShyCat]

And I should listen to people here?

No one is keeping you here.

 

[quincy]

This is a quote of the Law/Statute...

23:4-13.1. Clothing; outer garment of fluorescent hunter's orange
a. Any person while hunting deer, rabbit, hare, squirrel, fox, or game birds, other than waterfowl, with firearms in this State, shall wear a cap of fluorescent hunter's orange or some other outer garment containing at least 200 square inches of fluorescent hunter's orange material which shall be visible from all sides. The penalty for violation of this section shall be $50.00 for each offense.

b. "Hunter's orange" means a daylight fluorescent orange color with a dominant wave length between 595 and 605 nanometers, excitation purity not less than 85%, and luminance factor of not less than 40%.

See pages 29 and 30 on Hunter Orange exceptions:
https://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/pdf/2018/dighnt18.pdf
See the New Jersey Game Code, NJAC 7:25-5.

I am not sure what you mean by your last questions in Post #53. You of course don't have to listen to anyone here. This is just a forum.

 

[chlsbrns]

See pages 29 and 30 on Hunter Orange exceptions:
https://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/pdf/2018/dighnt18.pdf
I am not sure what you mean by your last questions. You of course don't have to listen to anyone here. This is just a forum.

Yes those are the regulations that clearly conflict with the law. Regulations are required to implement and interpret law. I posted the law above. Do you think those regulations implement or interpret the law?

 

[quincy]

You don't want to listen to anyone here ... right?

 

[chlsbrns]

You don't want to listen to anyone here ... right?

I read what a State Agency is required to Do to make a regulation. A regulation/ administrative rule is defined by the administrative procedures act as ""Administrative rule" means each agency statement of general applicability and continuing effect that implements or interprets law"
Do you think that the hunter orange regulations are an accurate interpretation of the law?

 

[cbg]

Do you think you can take your questions to an attorney in your state and pay him to answer you since you're paying no attention to what anyone here has to say?