# Sheriffs doing Coast Guard like inspections



## Healeyboy81 (Jul 16, 2013)

We went to east bay this past Sunday, launched at Stingaree Marina. We came back to get a bite, I left my wallet in the boat and went back to get it and two Sheriffs popped up. Said they're doing safety inspections. They asked for life jackets, a throw able flotation device, fire extinguisher, whistle/horn and my registration. 

I didn't have my reg card, was short a life jacket and didn't have a noise maker and they still let me off with a warning! I was honest, my friends were in the restaurant and I could of lied and said there were only two of us for the two life jackets I had.

I hate to sound ungrateful & apologize for making this political but I think there is too much overlap with law enforcement. When I'm out enjoying myself I don't need someone popping up on me for an inspection when I'm docked unless it's the coast guard or tpwd. Hell, the marina manager (might have been the owner) checked up us after when we were eating and asked if they gave me a ticket. He said he takes care of them so he doesn't like if he tickets people on his dock.

Has this happened to anyone? Opinions? Thanks!


----------



## Timemachine (Nov 25, 2008)

IMHO....The reason they did not write you a ticket is because they were out of their jurisdiction. 

I agree with your comment about overlap. They need to get their butts out on the road and stop drunk driver (who are out in force and kill 12,000 people a year). You do not see the Coast Guard out on I45 pulling cars over.


----------



## WillieT (Aug 25, 2010)

I think they are doing their job. It sounds like they were nice and did not give you a ticket when they could have. Just my thoughts though.


----------



## MEGABITE (May 21, 2004)

It's an excuse to talk to you to see if you've been drinking


----------



## captMike (Jan 30, 2006)

If they remind you to keep your safety stuff all there and enough they did their job, it might be your life it could save. I have brought in many people and keep extra jackets on board just for that reason. We did have ( I haven't seen them this year) had all 3 local counties on the water doing this. With the shortage of gw on the water, if they remind 1 person to keep his stuff together that is great it could be your life it saved.


----------



## bigfishtx (Jul 17, 2007)

Throwable flotation device? Huh? How big of a boat do you have?


----------



## Outearly (Nov 17, 2009)

If there's an accident, they get pulled in to do search and rescue, etc. It's a legitimate function, IMO, to try to get in front of issues.


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

The S.O. does have a Marine Division.......Were they part of it?


----------



## Moe Lassus (Oct 12, 2015)

Chambers County sheriff has two former game wardens working for them. They have air boats and bay boats.

I can understand them overlapping with just two game wardens in the area trying to cover the bays, lakes, and hunting. Same may apply for Galveston county too.


----------



## BATWING (May 9, 2008)

bigfishtx said:


> Throwable flotation device? Huh? How big of a boat do you have?


*Vessels 16 feet and longer*, in addition to the Type I, II, III or V for each person on board, *must have one Type IV throwable device which must be readily accessible.* Canoes and kayaks over 16 feet are exempt from the Type IV requirement.

Link


----------



## Salty-Noob (Jun 9, 2015)

Timemachine said:


> IMHO....The reason they did not write you a ticket is because they were out of their jurisdiction.
> 
> I agree with your comment about overlap. They need to get their butts out on the road and stop drunk driver (who are out in force and kill 12,000 people a year). You do not see the Coast Guard out on I45 pulling cars over.


They are well within their jurisdiction.

They are out in full force on Lake Conroe and Lake Houston as well

The county don't end at the coastline


----------



## bearwhiz (Jan 30, 2011)

I was assigned to a Marine Division unit when working as a Deputy Sheriff. We enforced the Texas Water Safety Act and provided security at various events on the water. We didn't go looking for game violations but would certainly hold you for a game warden if we suspected there were violations. Game wardens are spread awfully thin and in all my years on the water have never been checked by the Coast Guard.
It doesn't surprise me that even though they did an inspection on you, found violations and only gave you a warning you still feel a need to ***** about it.


----------



## Capt.Schenk (Aug 10, 2005)

From what I understand, Galveston County Sheriff's Office has a Marine unit in its Reserve Division. According to their website, the deputies in this division are Marine Safety Enforcement Officers, which means they are certified by TPWD to enforce the Water Safety Act.

http://www.co.galveston.tx.us/sheriff/divisions/reserve/index.asp

https://tpwd.texas.gov/fishboat/boat/marine_safety_enforcement_officer/


----------



## Timemachine (Nov 25, 2008)

Capt.Schenk said:


> From what I understand, Galveston County Sheriff's Office has a Marine unit in its Reserve Division. According to their website, the deputies in this division are Marine Safety Enforcement Officers, which means they are certified by TPWD to enforce the Water Safety Act.
> 
> http://www.co.galveston.tx.us/sheriff/divisions/reserve/index.asp
> 
> http://tpwd.texas.gov/fishboat/boat/marine_safety_enforcement_officer/


This is the best reply to any post. The reply that teaches us something. I stand corrected and did not know about the MSEO positions. Thanks for sharing and green to Ya!:walkingsm
*"Marine:* This division is the second largest division within the reserves. This division mans patrol boats that respond to crimes and calls for assistance on waters within the county and adjacent counties with a written mutual aid agreement. This division also hosts a dive team of full time and reserve deputies who are trained in underwater rescue and recovery. Deputies in this service are trained in marine issues/laws and are certified as Marine Safety Enforcement Officers."
"


----------



## shek5974 (Jun 8, 2012)

I think everyone should be grateful that LEO's are out risking their neck for our safety. No LEO goes on duty just to "mess" with people. They all have a specific task-driven objective that is important, no matter how it is viewed.


----------



## schoalbeast101 (Oct 23, 2014)

First off there are Sheriff boats on the water everywhere. Second, he was extremely nice if you didn't get a ticket for not having enough life jackets. TPWD officers even the nice ones give tickets for that so it hopefully won't happen again. They don't give out tickets because they are mean, they like DPS really are concerned with you and any other people on your boat safety.


----------



## LongTallTexan (May 19, 2009)

I could be way off, but I think I remember hearing that a number of them are deputized as Federal Game Wardens at certain times.


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

It may be "legit", and they may be within their jurisdiction. But if you want to know why the whole country is drowning in debt, to the point of being bankrupt - this is one of the reasons. Every town, city, county, state, school district, and anything else you can think of... they're all crying for lack of funds. The OP mentioned "overlap" in government functions, and he's right. B******* him for not having a throw-able PFD is childish. He stood up and admitted it, to talk about another problem.

Okay, so the website says that they have a marine division. That makes it official and "legit". But it doesn't mean that it's necessary to have deputies out conducting boat safety inspections.

Here's the problem: you can't have it both ways. You can't cry about the SO's limited budget, and how hard it is to police a whole county with limited resources - and at the same time have two deputies looking for noise makers on fishing boats. While those two deputies are conducting boat inspections, something else isn't getting done. Or... if nothing is going un-done, it means that they have more than enough resources.

Or maybe the SO is over-staffed, that they have some slack man-hours available to "lend" to another agency? You can't get around it. There was a law enforcement division created specifically for this purpose. When we start letting agencies define their own scope, we have to expect that their budgets will grow and grow.

While I'm on a roll - it seems like every school district and college in the country has its own police force. Don't all those towns already have police forces? But since they can't get the taxpayers to give them more money, they just hide the money in our school taxes?

I'm anything but anti-law enforcement. But we have a government that believes we exist to fund them. And that they can decide to spend OUR money any way they want, any time they want, while we all have to live within our ever-decreasing budgets. I would bet that if you polled the entire county and asked, "Is THIS how we want our deputies spending their time vs. patrolling the county?" there would be very few "yes" answers. A few of the usual suspects will argue with me, like they always do. But the rest of you know it's true.


----------



## GreatWhite4591 (Sep 7, 2005)

I began my career as a reserve in the marine division, went full time as a deputy and maintained a part time/reserve deputy status in that division and retired after 31 years as the supervisor in charge of that division â€“ it was my full time job. I know of reserve deputies who worked in that division dating back to the 60â€™s. Marine division deputies are cross designated with Texas Parks and Wildlife through the Marine Safety Enforcement Officer training provided by TP&W, and their function is boater safety. With a few hundred miles of waterfront in Galveston County, Marine Division deputies have the capability to respond quickly to any waterfront in the county. They will detain you with illegal catches for TP&W to handle, but the deputies work many accidents and handle many boating while intoxicated cases.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

He couldn't give a ticket for the PFD if your guys are not in the boat. Possibly could have ticketed you for the whistle, but I agree with MB...he was checking you for alcohol


----------



## topdawg jr (Nov 4, 2009)

Timemachine said:


> IMHO....The reason they did not write you a ticket is because they were out of their jurisdiction.
> 
> I agree with your comment about overlap. They need to get their butts out on the road and stop drunk driver (who are out in force and kill 12,000 people a year). You do not see the Coast Guard out on I45 pulling cars over.


"You do not see the Coast Guard out on I45 pulling cars over."

God help us, I wish they would. The number of drunks heading to Glaveston on Friday afternoon and on the weekends is mind blowing. The number of 30 year old rusted out piece of **** trailers and campers being pulled by illegals has skyrocketed. Every morning there are at least two to three multi car fender bender collisions from jack***** texting during rush hour. The list goes on and on...yet you never see anyone pulled over by law enforcement on I45 South.


----------



## ToddyTrout (Mar 15, 2005)

You don't have to have a sound making device on board unless conditions warrant one. Just like you don't have to have running lights unless it's dark! If they are checking for a horn or sound making device when conditions don't warrant, they don't know their job!


----------



## justletmein (Feb 11, 2006)

Enforcing the law is enforcing the law, who cares what branch does the checks?



jampen said:


> He couldn't give a ticket for the PFD if your guys are not in the boat. Possibly could have ticketed you for the whistle, but I agree with MB...he was checking you for alcohol


This. No physical bodies in the boat to count.


----------



## Healeyboy81 (Jul 16, 2013)

I didn't think this thread would take off like this lol. Thanks for chiming in.

I just think it's arrogant to bust someone's chops and then go upstairs and eat a free meal. I can't prove they ate but they were up there for a while. Also, when I told them I was short a life jacket. One of them said "what do you mean you're short a life jacket", come on, I'm maning up. Then they say they're in a good mood and are gonna let me go but their tone was like they let me off for a felony. Lastly, when I was coming back from the bait house one of them comes up to me *again* and lectures me more on how strict the Coast Guard is and that they're looking.

I want to give a BIG shout out to the folks at Stingaree for checking up on us and the gentleman at the bait house especialy. He gave us a life jacket and a whistle!


----------



## stdreb27 (Aug 15, 2011)

They're checking stuff under state law, it's within their purview

Quite frankly, I'd be glad they let you off.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

"Let him off"?? 

He was getting his wallet out of his boat. 

Kudos to the Stingaree crew...Love that place


----------



## Mad Mike (Dec 28, 2005)

Galveston County Sheriffs Department has been checking boats since the 1980's that I know of. I have been checked by them many more times than the Coast Guard.


----------



## BATWING (May 9, 2008)

The guys making contacts at a restaurant and shaking down patrons is bad for business. The Sheriff Dept does not need a marine division. They can do safety checks at the boat ramps of their choice if that is what they are after. Texas can take that money and hire more GW's. They are already spread thin enough as it is. 90% of the burglaries, theft are not even followed up on. There are so many laws on the books now its hard to keep up with which ones they are deciding to enforce from their new progressive boss.

The entire coast line is riddled with meth heads stealing stuff out of vehicles and homes they want to shake down a guy for a whistle on the water in their fancy new marine division cruiser. Im sorry but this is beyond stupid.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

IMO They were there for lunch, not writing tickets


----------



## Spec-Rig.006 (Nov 2, 2007)

Mad Mike said:


> Galveston County Sheriffs Department has been checking boats since the 1980's that I know of. I have been checked by them many more times than the Coast Guard.


Yup! As they do in Clear Lake, and in S. Louisiana and in all parts of the country where they have the equipment and personnel to do so.

Speaking of crossover. Game Wardens - are Game Wardens yes - but wear State Police insignia for a reason. Personal friend of mine is a Game Warden and when he's not on duty in season laser micro-phoning your deer camps, he's on the Border running down drug mules, working with INS, and running around rural areas busting high school kids drinking and driving.

Plenty of crossover exists in LE agencies ...


----------



## stdreb27 (Aug 15, 2011)

jampen said:


> "Let him off"??
> 
> He was getting his wallet out of his boat.
> 
> Kudos to the Stingaree crew...Love that place


I guess you're right. He didn't have anyone in the boat be hard to ticket someone for no life vests.

but

Never self incriminate yourself. 5th is there for a reason.


----------



## letsgofishin (Sep 28, 2009)

*and!!!*



BATWING said:


> *Vessels 16 feet and longer*, in addition to the Type I, II, III or V for each person on board, *must have one Type IV throwable device which must be readily accessible.* Canoes and kayaks over 16 feet are exempt from the Type IV requirement.
> 
> Link


I try to wear an inflatable most of the time. Inflatables only count if you are wearing them so I keep at least 4 regular lifejackets on board and a throwable.
And they will give you a scolding because your life jackets are stowed. If I didn't keep them stowed they would blow out and get lost!
:texasflag


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

ToddyTrout said:


> You don't have to have a sound making device on board unless conditions warrant one. If they are checking for a horn or sound making device when conditions don't warrant, they don't know their job!


I'm calling BS on this one!


----------



## BATWING (May 9, 2008)

letsgofishin said:


> I try to wear an inflatable most of the time. Inflatables only count if you are wearing them so I keep at least 4 regular lifejackets on board and a throwable.
> And they will give you a scolding because your life jackets are stowed. If I didn't keep them stowed they would blow out and get lost!
> :texasflag


I hear ya. It gets complicated. I forgot and had to look up why i have to keep a throw-able. LOL Mine is still in the plastic wrapper stowed under compartment.


----------



## justletmein (Feb 11, 2006)

Blk Jck 224 said:


> I'm calling BS on this one!


That's the thing about a sound making device, you kinda can't predict when you'll need one. It's not like you plan your trip to go out and blow a horn at people. LOL


----------



## abu_dude (Sep 24, 2015)

Blk Jck 224 said:


> I'm calling BS on this one!


I am definitely not one to say I know all the laws but here it is. Doesn't sound optional to me but not sure what is required per Coast Guard.

31.065. Sound-Producing Devices -
A motorboat must have an efficient whistle or other sound-producing device if one is required by the commandant of the Coast Guard.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Trouthappy (Jun 12, 2008)

Sounds like there are too many cops and not enough to do. Or they just like hanging around Stingaree until people stumble out of the restaurant and try to drive.


----------



## Trouthappy (Jun 12, 2008)

Sounds like there are too many cops and not enough to do. Or they just like hanging around Stingaree until people stumble out of the restaurant and try to drive.


----------



## Steve H (Jul 25, 2010)

If you think that was bad stay out of Clear Lake. Every city that is on the lake has patrol divisions, there are several. Harris and Galveston County Sheriff as well as Coast Guard and TP&W.


----------



## Captain Dave (Jul 19, 2006)

I was boarded on Saturday at TCD and also met them at EP. I welcomed them aboard and had everything ready. Found out my Fire Extinguisher is half charged.. Fixed. They were quick and to the point and were nice about the inspection.

Now I have been boarded by all 3 of the common Law enforcement agencies. I see only good coming out of it. Lots of warnings with corrections being made and the drunks would be getting attended to.

They were not interested in the fecching...lol

https://tpwd.texas.gov/fishboat/boat/safety/vessel_requirements/

Sound Producing Devices

Any vessel less than 12 meters in length (39.4 ft.) is required to carry a whistle or horn, or some other means to make an efficient sound to signal intentions and position in periods of reduced visibility.
Vessels 12 meters or more in length are required to carry a whistle or horn, and a bell.


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

Healeyboy81 said:


> We went to east bay this past Sunday, launched at Stingaree Marina. We came back to get a bite, I left my wallet in the boat and went back to get it and two Sheriffs popped up. Said they're doing safety inspections. They asked for life jackets, a throw able flotation device, fire extinguisher, whistle/horn and my registration.
> 
> I didn't have my reg card, was short a life jacket and didn't have a noise maker and they still let me off with a warning! I was honest, my friends were in the restaurant and I could of lied and said there were only two of us for the two life jackets I had.
> 
> ...


Couple of things. You should have been given a ticket for not having enough life jackets and I believe you would have had it been a TPW GW or the CG that was inspecting you. That is one of the most important if not the most important things you as a captain and responsible party for your friends while on your boat should be aware of.

I don't care how many times I am checked or by whatever agency. They are there to make sure we are safe on the water. Go take the boater education course. They offer it online and you will learn a lot.


----------



## CAPSIZED (Aug 10, 2004)

I always carry a Whistle.............





A Fish Whistle


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

The CG gave me a whistle. Put a string on it and everything so I could tie it to my boat. Very nice group of guys.


----------



## WillieT (Aug 25, 2010)

Healeyboy81 said:


> I didn't think this thread would take off like this lol. Thanks for chiming in.
> 
> I just think it's arrogant to bust someone's chops and then go upstairs and eat a free meal. I can't prove they ate but they were up there for a while. Also, when I told them I was short a life jacket. One of them said "what do you mean you're short a life jacket", come on, I'm maning up. Then they say they're in a good mood and are gonna let me go but their tone was like they let me off for a felony. Lastly, when I was coming back from the bait house one of them comes up to me *again* and lectures me more on how strict the Coast Guard is and that they're looking.
> 
> I want to give a BIG shout out to the folks at Stingaree for checking up on us and the gentleman at the bait house especialy. He gave us a life jacket and a whistle!


What a great attitude you have. Not. I think they could have been much harder on you than they were. You should appreciate the fact that they did not ticket you, even though they could have. Sorry, but I think they were there to help keep people safe.


----------



## DA REEL DADDY (Jun 7, 2005)

I don't think there is enough enforcement on the water on times.


----------



## Jamaica Cove (Apr 2, 2008)

Go run your boat in jamaica Beach canals-the LEOS (Marine Certified) sit in their Police Car/Truck and wave you over-plus they have a Marine Division and two boats to run in the water. 

Moral of the Story: ALWAYS make sure you are LEGAL and no issues will happen-pretty darn simple. Someday, you may need the horn/whistle or life jackets and since you're the Captain, you darn well better be ready to give yours up and go down with the ship if YOU failed to properly equip your boat!


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

All the nanny state, "glad they're watching out for you" stuff is getting too hard to swallow these days.
Personal responsibility has left the building.
If I choose to not wear or have a life jacket and something happens to me, that is on ME. 
It is not the government's job to keep me safe from myself. It is mine.
It is MY job to keep my family safe, not theirs.
If you believe otherwise, then why, have you not yet contacted your elected representative to pass legislation that would require the government to provide armed details outside of each and every doorway in the US? An armed detail to accompany you to work? A personal safety/security staff for very citizen? Why?


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Hardly ever agree with your positions but I'm with you on this one.

It's not their job to shake down fisherman at the dock on their lunch break.


----------



## dbarham (Aug 13, 2005)

MEGABITE said:


> It's an excuse to talk to you to see if you've been drinking


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

jampen said:


> Hardly ever agree with your positions but I'm with you on this one.
> 
> It's not their job to shake down fisherman at the dock on their lunch break.


Likewise, Jampen.
I'm okay with laws to protect children such as life vests, car seats, seat belts, and such. Some parents are just dumb, don't understand or appreciate the children's lives, and shouldn't have bred in the first place.
My son is an accomplished swimmer at his age. He's still REQUIRED by me, much less TPWD to have his LV on when underway.


----------



## boatmanjohn (Mar 18, 2009)

The officers who make contact with boaters on a regular basis (MSEOs) have two priorities: your safety and the safety of those around you. Yes, they were likely well within their "rights" by being there and talking to you about boat safety equipment. To paraphrase a little sample of the legislation that dictates where these specially certified officers may operate and what gives them the authority: if you pass through, start from, or complete your journey in their jurisdiction, they have the authority to cite you for safety violations in the TPWD code. Note that they probably didn't ask for your fishing license or to see any fish, unless they were making conversation by asking about the fish. Any law enforcement agency can send officers to the TPWD class to obtain that certification. Those officers do not enjoy going out and searching for your bloated, crab riddled body to float after a boating accident. Especially when that might be avoided by a brief safety check at the dock. If you were one PFD short, I hope you determined who would die before you left the dock again with your friends. It might save some confusion at some future time when all hell breaks loose on the water and everyone is scrambling for anything that floats. I'm not saying that to be callous or hateful, I just want folks to really think about the possibility of what will happen if you really did need a PFD. Don't lie to yourself that you would never need one, or if you do, rename your boat the Titanic. 
Please be safe.


----------



## DuckFever (Nov 4, 2013)

This reminds me of my favorite sailboat story.

We are out sailing (17ft Hobie) July 4th weekend when we have a center console Sherrif's boat pull alongside us and ask us to "pull over". I tried to calmly explain that a Cat can't just stop in the middle of the water, but he wasn't having any of it. Finally his partner leans over and whispers to him, and the initial guy finally yells out "I see your have your lifejackets (we had them on) you're good" and pulls away.

Still cracks me up,I'm the only person I know to be "pulled over" on a motor-less sailboat.


----------



## Profish00 (May 21, 2004)

Call me stupid but if i'm on you're boat I want my own life jacket, and you're responsibility to make sure I have one as the captain.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Profish00 said:


> Call me stupid but if i'm on you're boat I want my own life jacket, and you're responsibility to make sure I have one as the captain.


And if I don't have one, its your responsibility as an adult to decline that trip, correct? Or do we also need to add a decision maker to the payroll of federal nannies?


----------



## Profish00 (May 21, 2004)

spurgersalty said:


> And if I don't have one, its your responsibility as an adult to decline that trip, correct? Or do we also need to add a decision maker to the payroll of federal nannies?


It's his job to not let me on the boat IMHO, as a boat owner you are the Captain and it comes with a responsibility. Not your average JOE think about these things. Perfect example why you should need a licence to operate a boat, Thanks

hwell:


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

A responsible party brings their own lunch, drinks and PFD. That way they know they got one that fits. 

Also rod and reel and a few baits that they like.

Then pays for fuel


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

I keep a 4-pack of the cheap orange jobs just for legal purposes but I would never expect any adult to wear one.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Profish00 said:


> It's his job to not let me on the boat IMHO, as a boat owner you are the Captain and it comes with a responsibility.
> 
> hwell:


No, his actions in handling the boat safely are his responsibility, unless you're referring to a REGISTERED or CERTIFIED captain with the USCG.
You're safety is your own responsibility. It's your responsibility to ask questions to determine if the trip is safe.


----------



## Salty-Noob (Jun 9, 2015)

spurgersalty said:


> And if I don't have one, its your responsibility as an adult to decline that trip, correct? Or do we also need to add a decision maker to the payroll of federal nannies?


Not my responsibility to check and make sure YOUR boat is coast guard 
legal

They are not ticketing YOUR passenger for lack of life jacket

Maybe you shouldn't own a boat since you think the laws don't apply to you


----------



## Salty-Noob (Jun 9, 2015)

spurgersalty said:


> No, his actions in handling the boat safely are his responsibility, unless you're referring to a REGISTERED or CERTIFIED captain with the USCG.
> You're safety is your own responsibility. It's your responsibility to ask questions to determine if the trip is safe.


Be sure And tell that to the judge


----------



## Profish00 (May 21, 2004)

spurgersalty said:


> No, his actions in handling the boat safely are his responsibility, unless you're referring to a REGISTERED or CERTIFIED captain with the USCG.
> You're safety is your own responsibility. It's your responsibility to ask questions to determine if the trip is safe.


ok, run with that.:headknock and give you time to re-think you're decision.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Salty-Noob said:


> Not my responsibility to check and make sure YOUR boat is coast guard
> legal
> 
> They are not ticketing YOUR passenger for lack of life jacket
> ...


Another democrat looking to make everyone safe.
So your life isn't worth a question? You would unwittingly step on a boat without knowing it's "safe" for all passengers?....or at least yourself?
Call me cold, but you should be issued a superman Tee shirt without the warning label. Save us some trouble.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Salty-Noob said:


> Be sure And tell that to the judge


My exact reason for these replies.
Personal responsibility is gone. We'd rather find someone else to blame than accept our own shortcomings. Especially in frivolous lawsuits.


----------



## Profish00 (May 21, 2004)

spurgersalty said:


> Another democrat looking to make everyone safe.
> So your life isn't worth a question? You would unwittingly step on a boat without knowing it's "safe" for all passengers?....or at least yourself?
> Call me cold, but you should be issued a superman Tee shirt without the warning label. Save us some trouble.


You are wrong on so many counts, bail now and save yourself:dance::rotfl:


----------



## Profish00 (May 21, 2004)

spurgersalty said:


> My exact reason for these replies.
> Personal responsibility is gone. We'd rather find someone else to blame than accept our own shortcomings. Especially in frivolous lawsuits.


Tell that to a non boater looking just to ride or a 9 year old. again as a captain it's you're responsible!!!! And the definition of captain is boat ownership. No licence required.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Profish00 said:


> You are wrong on so many counts, bail now and save yourself:dance::rotfl:


No, I'm not. 
I am extremely blunt and vocal about stupid choices.
I've made mine, and now I'm ready to deal with them.
The question is; when will we, as a nation, let people make their own choices and accept them and their consequences?


----------



## Boatflounder (Mar 12, 2007)

youre both right,as the captain of my boat it is my responsiblity to provide for your safe passage, and would be no matter what my profession, if i ask you on my boat you should expect to be safe, howe ver since i also have a coast guard license my passengers may hae a higher expectation but any boat owner should meet these standards.


----------



## Profish00 (May 21, 2004)

I hope your drunk, cause.... #forgetit


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

spurgersalty said:


> Likewise, Jampen.
> I'm okay with laws to protect children such as life vests, car seats, seat belts, and such. Some parents are just dumb, don't understand or appreciate the children's lives, and shouldn't have bred in the first place.
> My son is an accomplished swimmer at his age. He's still REQUIRED by me, much less TPWD to have his LV on when underway.





Profish00 said:


> Tell that to a non boater looking just to ride or a 9 year old. again as a captain it's you're responsible!!!! And the definition of captain is boat ownership. No licence required.


Re-read. Your missing salient points.
Boat ownership=captain?? Okay, I own a couple of boats. Been operating them (alone) since I was 12 or so. Always knew to look or ask about the jackets. Are you smarter than a 12 year old?


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Profish00 said:


> I hope your drunk, cause.... #forgetit


Nope. Can't drink for a while:headknock: 
P'd Off about that though.


----------



## Profish00 (May 21, 2004)

Ok, well if on my boat I'm solely responsible 100%. Just raised that way I guess. Anyone reading this can use it in court against me.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Sheriff*



pocjetty said:


> It may be "legit", and they may be within their jurisdiction. But if you want to know why the whole country is drowning in debt, to the point of being bankrupt - this is one of the reasons. Every town, city, county, state, school district, and anything else you can think of... they're all crying for lack of funds. The OP mentioned "overlap" in government functions, and he's right. B******* him for not having a throw-able PFD is childish. He stood up and admitted it, to talk about another problem.
> 
> Okay, so the website says that they have a marine division. That makes it official and "legit". But it doesn't mean that it's necessary to have deputies out conducting boat safety inspections.
> 
> ...


It's the Reserves unit, most law enforcement agencies I'm familiar with don't pay thier reserves. And yes I'm grateful they are there, who else is going to do it.
The Galveston Bay complex covers over 600 square miles and is home to 75% of the entire Texas coast population. Do you really expect the 8 Game Wardens assigned here to cover all of that. I've seen these guys dive in some pretty ****ty
conditions risking thier own lives for nothing to recover a body so some family can some closure. Know one likes to be inconvenienced while on the water but it sure is good to know at least someone is out there checking because there are is not a shortage of idiots running around within that 600 square miles.


----------



## Fishin' Texas Aggie 05 (May 27, 2012)

MEGABITE said:


> It's an excuse to talk to you to see if you've been drinking


We have a winner


----------



## crawdaddct (Sep 14, 2011)

All this talk about personal responsibility, True the Government should not protect people from themselves, but when someone else is in your boat, they are your responsibility. 

Everyone on my boat wears their PFD while underway, no matter your age. If you bring your own, good, if not, I have the old orange ones that probably smell a little. I've had two family members drown. Both were very accomplished swimmers and had been on the water their whole life. Both were not wearing their PFD. 

I get checked by Houston PD all the time on Lake Houston. I'm glad they are there. Usually offer them some water on those hot days. All these jet skis and ski boats need to be kept in check. Have known several people who died on the water (boating accidents) and have witnessed major accidents myself. Im glad to have officers out on the water, no matter who they work for.


----------



## Jamaica Cove (Apr 2, 2008)

spurgersalty said:


> Another democrat looking to make everyone safe.
> So your life isn't worth a question? You would unwittingly step on a boat without knowing it's "safe" for all passengers?....or at least yourself?
> Call me cold, but you should be issued a superman Tee shirt without the warning label. Save us some trouble.


I'm a certified hard-headed, anti-dummycrat, anti-gimmedat Conservative.

I've boated and fished for over 50 years and NEVER ONCE did I feel the need to ask the captain if he had:
1. A Fire extinguisher.
2. A farking whistle.
3. Life jackets.
4. Gas
5. Oil
6. A float plan.

I think you are being absolutely ridiculous in your responses and if YOU ever break down or sink, I'll still tow you in or pick you up while you flounder and or nearly drown in the water. I'll even hand you a spare life jacket.

Just wait until some jackazz on a jetski or powerboat runs into you and sinks your boat and YOUR friends (or children) are injured and you FAILED to do a safety check as *CAPTAIN* and watch your friends or family perish because YOU didn't NEED to comply with BASIC SAFETY REQUIREMENTS because Big Brother said you must meet certain minimums. You sir, are amazing.

Do you ascertain whether the Captain on a 737 Boeing did his pre-flight check, fuel levels, tire pressure and wear, wings, flaps, fuselage, baggage compartment, doors, evac ramps and do you ask if the Flight Attendant has X number of meals for each X number of passengers? Do you personally check if the oxygen will work if the cabin depressurizes and the black box is recording and if the radar sensor is working as well as the radios?

Do you ask your buddy driving you in his car or truck to the golf course/bar/store/movie or wherever if he checked his tires, spare tire, gas, oil, radiator, hoses, belts, transmission fluid, safety inspection, registration and inspect his car prior to getting into it?

Do you ask the bus driver if the spare is the proper inflation as well as the other tires and personally do a full inspection prior to boarding the bus for the HLS&R or game?

I'll bet $1000 the answer is NO. Take your response and go look in a mirror and ask how dumb it was. :headknock


----------



## WillieT (Aug 25, 2010)

Jamaica Cove said:


> I'm a certified hard-headed, anti-dummycrat, anti-gimmedat Conservative.
> 
> I've boated and fished for over 50 years and NEVER ONCE did I feel the need to ask the captain if he had:
> 1. A Fire extinguisher.
> ...


Here, Here. Very well spoken. Some people just don't get it. Thank you.


----------



## ROBOWADER (May 22, 2004)

*I want to hear more about this....*



Spec-Rig.006 said:


> Yup! As they do in Clear Lake, and in S. Louisiana and in all parts of the country where they have the equipment and personnel to do so.
> 
> Speaking of crossover. Game Wardens - are Game Wardens yes - but wear State Police insignia for a reason. Personal friend of mine is a Game Warden and when he's not on duty in season* laser micro-phoning your deer camps*, he's on the Border running down drug mules, working with INS, and running around rural areas busting high school kids drinking and driving.
> 
> Plenty of crossover exists in LE agencies ...


What???? Is this even legal??

Not at all trying to stir the pot, I just want to know more about it.

Thanks


----------



## Jamaica Cove (Apr 2, 2008)

ROBOWADER said:


> What???? Is this even legal??
> 
> Not at all trying to stir the pot, I just want to know more about it.
> 
> Thanks


Yeppir, my understanding is the GW has rights to search your house, auto, camp and whatever else w/o a search warrant-same authority as Border Patrol.

Best be aware that he can sneak up or 'listen' anytime and he aint a dummy (in 99.99999% of the time). I have old college buddies that were imbibing on illegal smoke and GW saw that and got em, then searched their camp and vehicles-they went to jail, court and got probation-they never saw the GW until he was 'on them' and he'd been watching them for about an hour.


----------



## Spec-Rig.006 (Nov 2, 2007)

ROBOWADER said:


> What???? Is this even legal??
> 
> Not at all trying to stir the pot, I just want to know more about it ...


It is.

The law allows game wardens to conduct certain types of searches with or without search warrants. I believe in Texas for instance the law states in part that any commissioned wildlife agent may "visit, inspect, and examine, with or without search warrant, records, any cold storage plant, warehouse, boat, store, car, conveyance, automobile or other vehicle, airplane or other aircraft, basket or other receptacle, or any place of deposit for wild birds, wild quadrupeds, fish or other aquatic life or any parts thereof whenever there is probable cause to believe that a violation has occurred."

"Believe" being interpret-able by the agent ...

These exceptions are granted to game wardens but are still considered to fall within the constitutional limits of search and seizure as outlined in the U.S. Constitution. Therefore - you may catch a case and get away with it per say, but by the time you get out of the court system you'll be broke.


----------



## MEGABITE (May 21, 2004)

Crank up the jams at camp so they can't eavedrop on ya. :slimer: :dance:


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Jamaica Cove said:


> I'm a certified hard-headed, anti-dummycrat, anti-gimmedat Conservative.
> 
> I've boated and fished for over 50 years and NEVER ONCE did I feel the need to ask the captain if he had:
> 1. A Fire extinguisher.
> ...


When did I ever say I or my family wasn't going to wear a life jacket? Even if the laws weren't in place they still would be wearing them. 
You just stay in lock step with your handlers, I'll break rank to keep my freedoms. I don't need the government in my life telling me how to live it.
If you're too lazy or complacent to ask questions don't assume everyone else is, 
*superman t-shirt ordered for JC*


----------



## Trouthunter (Dec 18, 1998)

> Yeppir, my understanding is the GW has rights to search your house


Not without a warrant they can't. No LEO can.

TH


----------



## trackatrout (Aug 10, 2010)

We just need a few floating donut shops... then we will only have to deal with the GW.


----------



## BBCAT (Feb 2, 2010)

Keep up the good GCSO.


----------



## Timemachine (Nov 25, 2008)

Trouthunter said:


> Not without a warrant they can't. No LEO can.
> 
> TH


This is INCORRECT. Check the law books. A game Warden is the ONE entity that CAN search your house without a warrant if they have probable cause.

Not trying to bust anybody chops or start an argument but this is a fact that, quiet frankly, shocks me that outdoorsman seem to know nothing about. This argument (and law) is decades old.

http://www.answers.com/Q/Can_a_game_warden_enter_your_house_without_a_search_warrant


----------



## j wadd (Sep 21, 2009)

fuuny how all this thread has been about from most people is how the sheriff shuldt be allowed to do this or that... but I can promise everybody that's dogging the SO that if something were to happen to then on the water they will be very delighted to have the sheriff pull up and offer there help or services


----------



## monkeyman1 (Dec 30, 2007)

spurgersalty said:


> All the nanny state, "glad they're watching out for you" stuff is getting too hard to swallow these days.
> Personal responsibility has left the building.
> If I choose to not wear or have a life jacket and something happens to me, that is on ME.
> It is not the government's job to keep me safe from myself. It is mine.
> ...





jampen said:


> It's not their job to shake down fisherman at the dock on their lunch break.


^^^


----------



## monkeyman1 (Dec 30, 2007)

j wadd said:


> fuuny how all this thread has been about from most people is how the sheriff shuldt be allowed to do this or that... but I can promise everybody that's dogging the SO that if something were to happen to then on the water they will be very delighted to have the sheriff pull up and offer there help or services


But that wasn't the case at all. They called in a boat check so they could spend another hour stuffing their faces with free food and drink at Stingaree's expense.


----------



## Salty-Noob (Jun 9, 2015)

Trouthunter said:


> Not without a warrant they can't. No LEO can.
> 
> TH


Actually they can. If they believe you are hiding your ill-gotten gains.

PARKS AND WILDLIFE CODE
TITLE 2. PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT
CHAPTER 12. POWERS AND DUTIES CONCERNING WILDLIFE
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES
Sec. 12.104. RIGHT TO SEARCH AND INSPECT. (a) A game warden or other peace officer commissioned by the department may search a game bag, vehicle, vessel, or other receptacle if the game warden or peace officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the game bag, vehicle, vessel, or receptacle contains a wildlife resource that has been unlawfully killed or taken.


----------



## wal1809 (May 27, 2005)

captMike said:


> If they remind you to keep your safety stuff all there and enough they did their job, it might be your life it could save. I have brought in many people and keep extra jackets on board just for that reason. We did have ( I haven't seen them this year) had all 3 local counties on the water doing this. With the shortage of gw on the water, if they remind 1 person to keep his stuff together that is great it could be your life it saved.


I don't need the gov keeping me safe, reminding me of anything and in general digging into my life. Safety inspections in my mind are nothing more than a direct violation of my guaranteed constitutional rights. How about you ask the police to pull over anyone at random to make sure you have a driver's license, insurance and while they are at it, conduct a sobriety test just to make sure you're safe. I have been the police for over 25 years and don't like where government has been headed.


----------



## j wadd (Sep 21, 2009)

It's not their job to shake down fisherman at the dock on their lunch break.[/QUOTE]
lunch break?? last ive heard and seen from many many officers, fire dept and ambulance personnel they don't have a so called lunch break.. they eat when they can because as soon as dispatch calls or radio goes off its time to go.. in reference there at work they whole time there in uniform period... 
its a simple solution, keep all your required equipment on the bat and be legit on everything and youll never have a problem.. that simple


----------



## Jamaica Cove (Apr 2, 2008)

spurgersalty said:


> When did I ever say I or my family wasn't going to wear a life jacket? Even if the laws weren't in place they still would be wearing them.
> You just stay in lock step with your handlers, I'll break rank to keep my freedoms. I don't need the government in my life telling me how to live it.
> If you're too lazy or complacent to ask questions don't assume everyone else is,
> *superman t-shirt ordered for JC*


Thanks-make it a 2XLT please. You fail to grasp that many laws are made from common sense. Some people apparently cannot fathom that it is YOUR responsibility to ensure safety for YOUR passengers and that is one reason for regulation. They can be congruent. Many laws do make sense because some "Bubba" thinks he knows it all but doesn't and that is a dang good reason for laws-social responsibility is the basis of many if not most laws. If you don't like having Big Brother tell you what is required for safety on a boat/vehicle or plane, then good luck to you driving, boating or flying anywhere without being in jeopardy because obviously someone will be in violation of common sense and cause harm to others that expected compliance and common sense to prevail.

Based on your post, I expect it is your family and friends duty to inspect your boat to ensure they are 'protected and safe' to venture out with you. I'm certain your wife asks if you checked all fluids, tires, lugnuts, bolts, nuts, wiring and equipment in your vehicle before taking her to the restaurant.

I expect you check any plane, car, boat, bus or truck that you ride in-hope you have you IFR Rating and single person aircraft since I doubt you'll be allowed to leave the walkway to do your pre-flight check at IAH or Hobby on a Commercial Airliner-oh wait, you don't need FAA telling you if you can and how to fly a plane I guess.

Laws have a purpose whether you like them or not. Not all people are 'all knowing' and that is evidenced daily on here by folks asking great questions, such as how navigable is West bay for a novice that never been through west bay.

Many laws I don't care for exist, but I do my best to comply as much as able-it's just a part of society and has been happening for 1000s of years.


----------



## WillieT (Aug 25, 2010)

If you don't like the laws of the land, change them or move to another land.


----------



## Jamaica Cove (Apr 2, 2008)

spurgersalty said:


> No, I'm not.
> I am extremely blunt and vocal about stupid choices.
> I've made mine, and now I'm ready to deal with them.
> The question is; *when will we, as a nation, let people make their own choices and accept them and their consequences?*


That happens daily. I guess you don't live in The United States of America. I do. I make choices everyday and accept them as well as their consequences.

Even criminals/murderers/rapists/politicians/workers/welfare scammers/ill-prepared boaters/drunk drivers/sober drivers/all people make 'choices' everyday-just some are really bad choices and hopefully have really bad consequences for THEM personally and it'd be great if their innocent victim had a better choice than being violated/killed or injured, whether physically, mentally or both.

I think you have Libertarianism (sp?) mixed up with social responsibility. In any thriving society, laws exist-period.


----------



## BATWING (May 9, 2008)

Two New Enforced Laws of the Land Put Into Place by Rogue Politicians and un-elected Judges:

Obamacare
Homosexual Marriage


----------



## Z (Sep 22, 2014)

the affordable care act is actually pretty neat. not sure why you dislike it.


----------



## juan valdez (Jun 21, 2014)

Timemachine said:


> This is INCORRECT. Check the law books. A game Warden is the ONE entity that CAN search your house without a warrant if they have probable cause.
> 
> Not trying to bust anybody chops or start an argument but this is a fact that, quiet frankly, shocks me that outdoorsman seem to know nothing about. This argument (and law) is decades old.
> 
> http://www.answers.com/Q/Can_a_game_warden_enter_your_house_without_a_search_warrant


I thought the probable cause deal applied to all LEO?



Salty-Noob said:


> Actually they can. If they believe you are hiding your ill-gotten gains.
> 
> PARKS AND WILDLIFE CODE
> TITLE 2. PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT
> ...


where does it say they can come in my house?


----------



## Timemachine (Nov 25, 2008)

juan valdez said:


> where does it say they can come in my house?


"receptacle contains a wildlife resource"

Your freezer and refrigerator are "receptacles".


----------



## MEGABITE (May 21, 2004)

Timemachine said:


> "receptacle contains a wildlife resource"
> 
> Your freezer and refrigerator are "receptacles".


http://www.statesman.com/news/sports/leggett-game-wardens-powers-shrouded-in-mystery/nSspp/

â€œThe Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has interpreted the 4th amendment to mean that the provision of the Parks and Wildlife Code allowing entry on private property does not apply to residences,â€


----------



## MEGABITE (May 21, 2004)

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PW/htm/PW.12.htm

Sec. 12.102. INSPECTION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES. (a) In this section:
(1) "Residence" means a person's principal or ordinary home or dwelling place.
(2) "Temporary residence" means a place where a person temporarily dwells or seeks shelter. The term does not include a hunting blind. The term does include a:
(A) hunting club or lodge;
(B) clubhouse;
(C) cabin;
(D) tent;
(E) manufactured home used as a hunting club or lodge; and
(F) hotel room, motel room, or room in a boardinghouse used during a hunting trip.
(3) "Wildlife resource" means any animal, bird, reptile, amphibian, fish, or form of aquatic life or any part of an animal, bird, reptile, amphibian, fish, or form of aquatic life the hunting, catching, or possession of which is regulated by this code.
(b) Except as provided by Subsection (d), a game warden or other peace officer commissioned by the department who observes a person engaged in an activity regulated by this code or under the jurisdiction of the commission or reasonably believes that a person is or has been engaged in an activity regulated by this code or under the jurisdiction of the commission may inspect:
(1) any license, permit, tag, or other document issued by the department and required by this code of a person hunting or catching wildlife resources;
(2) any device that may be used to hunt or catch a wildlife resource;
(3) any wildlife resource in the person's possession; and
(4) the contents of any container or receptacle that is commonly used to store or conceal a wildlife resource.
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), a game warden or other peace officer commissioned by the department may inspect any wildlife resource that has been taken by a person and is in plain view of the game warden or other peace officer.
(d) * Nothing in this section authorizes a game warden or other peace officer commissioned by the department to conduct a search otherwise authorized by this section:
(1) in a person's residence or temporary residence*; or
(2) on a publicly maintained road or way that is:
(A) improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular traffic;
(B) open to the public; and
(C) distinguishable from a shoulder, berm, or other area not intended for vehicular traffic.
Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 558, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.


----------



## Salty-Noob (Jun 9, 2015)

juan valdez said:


> I thought the probable cause deal applied to all LEO?
> 
> where does it say they can come in my house?


He said if they HAVE probable cause.

That "other receptacle" is your fridge or freezer inside your house


----------



## MEGABITE (May 21, 2004)

Salty-Noob said:


> He said if they HAVE probable cause.
> 
> That "other receptacle" is your fridge or freezer inside your house


Statute authorizing warrantless search of a residence?


----------



## juan valdez (Jun 21, 2014)

Salty-Noob said:


> He said if they HAVE probable cause.
> 
> That "other receptacle" is your fridge or freezer inside your house


who says i own a fridge or freezer?:walkingsm
on a serious note, i'd think megabite's post ends that part of the discussion

as far as probable cause, i was agreeing with him, just expanding that to include all LEO. the guy i quoted said ONLY game wardens have that authorization. let me dumb it down for you, "I thought _any/all_ LEO is authorized to come inside, warrantless if they have probable cause"


----------



## Jamaica Cove (Apr 2, 2008)

wal1809 said:


> I don't need the gov keeping me safe, reminding me of anything and in general digging into my life. *Safety inspections in my mind are nothing more than a direct violation of my guaranteed constitutional rights. How about you ask the police to pull over anyone at random to make sure you have a driver's license, insurance and while they are at it, conduct a sobriety test just to make sure you're safe. *I have been the police for over 25 years and don't like where government has been headed.


I guess you weren't involved in the DWI/Safety Check Points on Richmond and even HWY 59 back in the 70s and 80s (even 90s) or remember how the HPD commonly went into regular bars and busted 20-30 folks for P.I.-they just grabbed folks whether they were drunk or not-think of the old Yellow Rose Saloon on San Felipe and Voss and the bars by Gessner and Westheimer.

Vermilion Parish La and Abbeville routinely (about once a month) post 'check points' on weekends now.

I agree with your last sentence; however, it's been going on for at least 45 years and still happens today, so not sheeeit has been done about it. Must not be unconstitutional if it still goes on today.


----------



## Timemachine (Nov 25, 2008)

"""(d) Nothing in this section authorizes a game warden or other peace officer commissioned by the department to conduct a search otherwise authorized by this section:
(1) in a person's residence or temporary residence; or
(2) on a publicly maintained road or way that is:
(A) improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular traffic;
(B) open to the public; and
(C) distinguishable from a shoulder, berm, or other area not intended for vehicular traffic.
Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 558, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.



Now isn't that interesting? Once again 2Cool pulls thru by having enough eyes looking to finally get to the truth. Not only was I wrong, i been wrong for about 35 years......OUCH!!


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

GW absolutely conduct searches on public roadways and other "open to the public" areas


----------



## MEGABITE (May 21, 2004)

Timemachine said:


> Now isn't that interesting? Once again 2Cool pulls thru by having enough eyes looking to finally get to the truth. Not only was I wrong, i been wrong for about 35 years......OUCH!!


I had always heard and believed they could enter habitations too. Decided to look it up this time. Now we know. :cheers:


----------



## justletmein (Feb 11, 2006)

> *Nothing in this section authorizes* a game warden or other peace officer commissioned by the department to conduct a search *otherwise authorized by this section*


Why does that lingo bother me? Looks weird.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Looks like an add-on to address search authorization in residences and in public roadway. 

It does read funny, because it doesn't prohibit those searches. It just does not authorize them? Seems like the wording leaves the door cracked open a tad.


----------



## justletmein (Feb 11, 2006)

I'm reading it as "Nothing in this section authorizes something that's already authorized." So in my mind that means it's still authorized... Am I nuts?


----------



## MEGABITE (May 21, 2004)

IMO, "does not authorize" = prohibits...them from searching your home or vehicle (while on a public roadway) without a warrant if you decline the search. I wish there was a resident 2cool GW we could ask. ha


----------



## GoneSouth (Jun 4, 2010)

spurgersalty said:


> All the nanny state, "glad they're watching out for you" stuff is getting too hard to swallow these days.
> Personal responsibility has left the building.
> If I choose to not wear or have a life jacket and something happens to me, that is on ME.
> It is not the government's job to keep me safe from myself. It is mine.
> ...


This.

I have had more thefts in the past two years in Houston than all of my life. I don't need someone to keep me safe.

2008 Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, the state had 1,913 law enforcement agencies, the most of any state.

Less government and less of a police state.

Out.


----------



## OffShore Man (Jan 10, 2005)

Jamaica Cove said:


> I guess you weren't involved in the DWI/Safety Check Points on Richmond and even HWY 59 back in the 70s and 80s (even 90s) or remember how the HPD commonly went into regular bars and busted 20-30 folks for P.I.-they just grabbed folks whether they were drunk or not-think of the old Yellow Rose Saloon on San Felipe and Voss and the bars by Gessner and Westheimer.
> 
> Vermilion Parish La and Abbeville routinely (about once a month) post 'check points' on weekends now.
> 
> I agree with your last sentence; however, it's been going on for at least 45 years and still happens today, so not sheeeit has been done about it. Must not be unconstitutional if it still goes on today.


Good times!! It's a 100 times better than 30 years ago. Especially since so few dry countys and "membership clubs" exsist. or as we called it "get beat with a night stick clubs"


----------



## juan valdez (Jun 21, 2014)

justletmein said:


> I'm reading it as "Nothing in this section authorizes something that's already authorized." So in my mind that means it's still authorized... Am I nuts?


Yeah I hear ya. That is worded terribly. No real surprise though

I've heard the same thing about owning class 3 weapons and ATF agents. Even had a retired cop tell me that. I think it's another one of those old wives tales but honestly I forget. I wasn't real concerned about it and on the off chance I went ahead and built that sbr, I've got nothing to hide. Not that I did build it. :ac550:


----------



## juan valdez (Jun 21, 2014)

MEGABITE said:


> IMO, "does not authorize" = prohibits...them from searching your home or vehicle (while on a public roadway) without a warrant if you decline the search. I wish there was a resident 2cool GW we could ask. ha


I could be off base, not sure if you're being sarcastic, but I thought there was one or two here? I seem to recall them posting in the great debacle of a thread about boats going past the sign at CB?


----------



## seber (Aug 11, 2014)

Actually the law on searches is very clear and has been adjudicated many times. Enforcement personnel must have "eyes on" a suspicious item to search your vehicle. Your residence requires a warrant. Period. Personally, anyone trying to search my house without one had better have a shotgun proof suit.


----------



## jaime1982 (Aug 25, 2009)

justletmein said:


> Enforcing the law is enforcing the law, who cares what branch does the checks?
> 
> This. No physical bodies in the boat to count.


This is a very dangerous way of thinking, I sure as heck do care what branch checks.


----------



## Jamaica Cove (Apr 2, 2008)

jaime1982 said:


> This is a very dangerous way of thinking, I sure as heck do care what branch checks.


Why? Seems to me the Marine Divisions have existed for a dang long time. I never have seen a GW pulling in dead bodies at Lake Conroe-only Sheriff's.

I prefer enforcement-would have let me fish more instead of hauling in some hurt boater that failed to do a safety check or act responsibly. I hate when I'm nailing fish only having to stop and render aid because some jackwad dummy never should have been on the water. BTW, I understand rendering is a law-at least in my Book of Common Sense Laws.


----------



## justletmein (Feb 11, 2006)

jaime1982 said:


> This is a very dangerous way of thinking, I sure as heck do care what branch checks.


So you want Sheriff dept to not be able to write tickets for 50 bull reds in the back of a truck on I10? Game Wardens might not be able to bust a thief stealing a Yeti in Academy parking lot? How is it dangerous? The law is the law and people should follow the law (usually), so what difference does it make which peace officer busts you?


----------



## jaime1982 (Aug 25, 2009)

justletmein said:


> So you want Sheriff dept to not be able to write tickets for 50 bull reds in the back of a truck on I10? Game Wardens might not be able to bust a thief stealing a Yeti in Academy parking lot? How is it dangerous? The law is the law and people should follow the law (usually), so what difference does it make which peace officer busts you?


Why dont we just nationalize the police forces? Then we wouldnt have anything to worry about right? Would that make you feel warm and fuzzy??

Game wardens arent homicide detectives, homicide detectives arent game wardens. We have different departments ao they can train and do the best they can in a specific field.


----------



## jaime1982 (Aug 25, 2009)

jaime1982 said:


> Why dont we just nationalize the police forces? Then we wouldnt have anything to worry about right? Would that make you feel warm and fuzzy??
> 
> Game wardens arent homicide detectives, homicide detectives arent game wardens. We have different departments ao they can train and do the best they can in a specific field.


Ps: i also think them just randomly checking boaters to see if they are drinking is BS! So are random dui, i mean "insurance checkpoints".


----------



## stinkypete (Oct 2, 2015)

Wow theres alot of bad info here about searches. First the Border Patrol does not have the authority to just come in and search your house without a warrant or probable cause WITH certain exigent circumstances, such as hot pursuit, belief that evidence will be destroyed, or saving life or property. Certain outbuildings within 25 miles of the border are slightly different but still require RS or PC. 
Fish and Game wardens are no more exempt than any other LE agency regardless of state law. Sorry but the 4th amendment still trumps state regulation. Most states seem to grant wildlife officers more latitude but the Supreme Court does not. Private property is still private property regardless of being used for hunting camp and still requires probable cause with exigent circumstances and or a warrant in order to enter and search. Any officer/agent worth a [email protected] is going to get a warrant instead of risking any evidence being tossed. Also the standards for probable cause are based on what a reasonable person with common knowledge of the law would consider cause, not what another officer would consider it.

There are to many different agencies doing supposed safety checks, in TX weve been stopped by as many as 3 different agencies in one day. In FL the total was 5. Its a bit ridiculous.


----------



## WillieT (Aug 25, 2010)

jaime1982 said:


> Ps: i also think them just randomly checking boaters to see if they are drinking is BS! So are random dui, i mean "insurance checkpoints".


That "random check" may take someone off of the water that may have T-boned your boat and killed one of your loved ones.

It is obvious that some on the site have little to no respect for authority. I have nothing to hide, I have no problem with them checking.


----------



## jaime1982 (Aug 25, 2009)

shaggydog said:


> That "random check" may take someone off of the water that may have T-boned your boat and killed one of your loved ones.
> 
> It is obvious that some on the site have little to no respect for authority. I have nothing to hide, I have no problem with them checking.


I hope youre not implying that I dont have much respect for LE, maybe you should look up my thread where I take local LE fishing for free.

As far as the illegal searches go , maybe we should just let them search our vehicles and houses for anything illegal or dangerous, perhaps im might just save a life right? I believe in safety and following the law but being checked for no reason and questioned is not for me.

I never thought we would have so many sheeple on here just willing to comply. The nanny state loves you guys.


----------



## fritz423 (Jul 4, 2015)

I love it when people start talking about how if only we would give up our rights we'd be a lot safer.

It's not the government's job to keep me or my family safe. That's my job.


----------



## WillieT (Aug 25, 2010)

jaime1982 said:


> I hope youre not implying that I dont have much respect for LE, maybe you should look up my thread where I take local LE fishing for free.
> 
> As far as the illegal searches go , maybe we should just let them search our vehicles and houses for anything illegal or dangerous, perhaps im might just save a life right? I believe in safety and following the law but being checked for no reason and questioned is not for me.
> 
> I never thought we would have so many sheeple on here just willing to comply. The nanny state loves you guys.


I was speaking in general, but if it applies, you should make the application. It is really all about perspective. If you take as "they are out here to get me" and your attitude is bad, things could very well work out bad for you. If you look at it as "they are out here to help me", and your attitude is good, chances are it will be a good experience. Perspective and attitude make such a difference. Remember they are not out to target you, they are there to do a job. You can make it hard or easy on both them and yourself.


----------



## jaime1982 (Aug 25, 2009)

shaggydog said:


> I was speaking in general, but if it applies, you should make the application. It is really all about perspective. If you take as "they are out here to get me" and your attitude is bad, things could very well work out bad for you. If you look at it as "they are out here to help me", and your attitude is good, chances are it will be a good experience. Perspective and attitude make such a difference. Remember they are not out to target you, they are there to do a job. You can make it hard or easy on both them and yourself.


It can be about perspective,What they are doing is conditioning you to think this is normal and acceptable. Random checkpoints and inspections are becoming the norm and most people just laydown and take it. Maybe we need weekend bar and garage inspections just to make sure no one is drunk with keys in their pockets, it just may save a life. Im not doing anything wrong and have nothing to hide right?

Maybe we should just let the state take bodily fluids (against my will) to try and incriminate me regardless of 4th amendment rights.Ow wait we already do that.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Random DUI checks*



jaime1982 said:


> Ps: i also think them just randomly checking boaters to see if they are drinking is BS! So are random dui, i mean "insurance checkpoints".


No they are not, in my opinion they need more of them. Until you have pulled the body of a dead child out if mangled car because of some drunk sob hit them head on I would just keep my stupid comments to myself.

We are not in the 70's anymore! Ignorant law breaking people are everywhere, on the water, behind the wheel, in your driveway stealing your Yeti. I welcome the extra effort, all branches of law enforcement are spread thin, I don't have an issue with them helping each other.


----------



## jaime1982 (Aug 25, 2009)

gater said:


> No they are not, in my opinion they need more of them. Until you have pulled the body of a dead child out if mangled car because of some drunk sob hit them head on I would just keep my stupid comments to myself.
> 
> We are not in the 70's anymore! Ignorant law breaking people are everywhere, on the water, behind the wheel, in your driveway stealing your Yeti. I welcome the extra effort, all branches of law enforcement are spread thin, I don't have an issue with them helping each other.


You are certainly entitled to your opinion, as far as stupid comments come on man. I dont think I can ever take that from you lol, I think the Marathon thread proves that.

What the Heck does (its not the 70s anymore) mean? Were there not ignorant law breakers then?

A bit off topic: As much as I fell bad for DUI victims and their families, you cant save everyone everywhere. As far as the safety check, thats not a big deal as most of us already have all that stuff on board and are happy to show you are in compliance but where does it end. Thats my concern really not the safety checks. If they are spread so thin they need to keep taking more $ from us to inflate their budgets some more and get good well trained wardens.

Just to be clear: I dont condone drinking and driving!!


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

There is a reason why lawless countries are the worse ****hoes on Earth. People are idiots. There idiotness kills and maims the innocents. That's why laws are created and many,many support a mandated minimum of safety requirements for the idiots to participate. Until the Hunan race evolves to a point where the idiots and irresonsiblie are no longer a threat to other humans, these laws will exist in the more evolved societies. There is a line somewhere, but as someone that lives among the idiots , I am ok with this.


----------



## justletmein (Feb 11, 2006)

jaime1982 said:


> Why dont we just nationalize the police forces? Then we wouldnt have anything to worry about right? Would that make you feel warm and fuzzy??
> 
> Game wardens arent homicide detectives, homicide detectives arent game wardens. We have different departments ao they can train and do the best they can in a specific field.


No need to nationalize a police force if a sheriff can write a ticket for life jackets, we're good.

If a homicide detective sees a thief absconding with my Yeti it sure would be nice if he'd put a stop to it, but I guess if you have your way he'll just watch him and call the trained professionals to handle things. I guess while we're at it we'd better give the game wardens a memo to call 911 if they're witnessing a murder, don't want them getting involved where they don't belong.

:headknock


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

As long as they try to steal it at the lunch place, at lunch time, you might have a shot


----------



## Healeyboy81 (Jul 16, 2013)

Ok so they were MSEO's. Stopping someone without probable cause like this is the same as DUI checkpoints IMO. Is that considered being detained? Hard to answer but, it's not like I could have just walked away from them so in my book it's a form of detainment! With no probable cause whatsoever. Mind you I was docked, not operating.

My main frustration is how they acted. When I told them I was short a jacket one of them said "what do you mean you're short a jacket". I was thinking 'ok, I'm being strait up with these guys and they're gonna pull this'. Then like I said they act like they stayed and execution by letting me off and then approached me again (one of them) and lectured me some more.

I'm sure I sound like a jerk to some since I was let go but I have had enough bad experiences with law enforcement officers to have a tainted view of them. I know there are way more good ones than bad ones but when I get pulled over I'm already on edge as to how the officer is going to present his/herself.


----------



## WillieT (Aug 25, 2010)

Healeyboy81 said:


> Ok so they were MSEO's. Stopping someone without probable cause like this is the same as DUI checkpoints IMO. Is that considered being detained? Hard to answer but, it's not like I could have just walked away from them so in my book it's a form of detainment! With no probable cause whatsoever. Mind you I was docked, not operating.
> 
> My main frustration is how they acted. When I told them I was short a jacket one of them said "what do you mean you're short a jacket". I was thinking 'ok, I'm being strait up with these guys and they're gonna pull this'. Then like I said they act like they stayed and execution by letting me off and then approached me again (one of them) and lectured me some more.
> 
> I'm sure I sound like a jerk to some since I was let go but I have had enough bad experiences with law enforcement officers to have a tainted view of them. I know there are way more good ones than bad ones but when I get pulled over I'm already on edge as to how the officer is going to present his/herself.


I would rather get a lecture than a ticket. You were in the wrong, and it seems like you were more concerned with how they presented themselves than you putting your friends in a possibly precarious situation, by not having a life jacket for everyone. It is all in how you look at things.


----------



## Dick Hanks (Aug 16, 2007)

shaggydog said:


> I would rather get a lecture than a ticket. You were in the wrong, and it seems like you were more concerned with how they presented themselves than you putting your friends in a possibly precarious situation, by not having a life jacket for everyone. It is all in how you look at things.


I live in another state, so maybe Texas is different. In Minnesota, they wouldn't be able to ticket you for equipment missing from a docked, unoccupied boat. They can't prove that you wouldn't be buying and/or bringing all of the required safety equipment with you as you boarded the boat. They can ticket an unoccupied boat for an expired sticker, even if it is sitting on a boatlift above the water.









Many of the different views expressed on this thread have their merit. I also question laws that protect me only from myself. Like the seatbelt law. Laws to protect me from others, seem more logical.

In our State, the Sheriff's Reserve Dept. patrols our lakes. The are unpaid volunteers, that are furnished with all of the Dept. equipment to do their job. As Megabite mention, they often do more "safely checks" on boats that they suspect that the driver may be intoxicated. Almost all of their volunteer work is on weekends, when they aren't at their paying jobs.

Our game wardens are also vastly understaff, so these are the only enforcement to protect boaters from intoxicated boat drivers. We've had our share of swimmers, and people falling off boats that get chopped up by props. Several boats that have been T-boned at high speed. Usually alcohol is involved. These Volunteers are the only enforcement that keeps this from getting really crazy. I think that we need them out there.

However, I total agree with the OP that their arrogance was uncalled for. Unfortunately, some of these guys wear the badge for the wrong reason. In this case, I also question if they really knew the law. Is an unoccupied boat in Texas really required to have this equipment onboard at all times?


----------



## H2 (Jan 11, 2005)

pocjetty said:


> It may be "legit", and they may be within their jurisdiction. But if you want to know why the whole country is drowning in debt, to the point of being bankrupt - this is one of the reasons. Every town, city, county, state, school district, and anything else you can think of... they're all crying for lack of funds. The OP mentioned "overlap" in government functions, and he's right. B******* him for not having a throw-able PFD is childish. He stood up and admitted it, to talk about another problem.
> 
> Okay, so the website says that they have a marine division. That makes it official and "legit". But it doesn't mean that it's necessary to have deputies out conducting boat safety inspections.
> 
> ...


Ignorance is bliss !

Even though my wife is now retired I kind of like the fact that the Angleton ISD police department is there for the protection of the kid's, teachers and administrators. Oh, and they carry real guns too!


----------



## justletmein (Feb 11, 2006)

Healeyboy81 said:


> I'm sure I sound like a jerk to some since I was let go *but I have had enough bad experiences with law enforcement officers to have a tainted view of them*. I know there are way more good ones than bad ones *but when I get pulled over I'm already on edge as to how the officer is going to present his/herself.*


...and there we go, this is the real reason for this thread and everything else. I'm not blaming you as I have pretty much the same mentality, but that is exactly what's going on here.


----------



## sea hunt 202 (Nov 24, 2011)

I have been stopped by so many that it is just part of my outing, have never been sited by them but was laughed at for my whistle that sounds like a train whistle


----------



## Skavatar (May 24, 2004)

to my knowledge any law enforcement officer that is TCLEOSE or now TCOLE certified is sworn to up hold all Texas laws. the jurisdiction thing is more about bragging rights on who gets on the news about capturing the dangerous criminals, and who gets the revenues from traffic fines, etc.

generally class C misdemeanors are "officer's discretion" whether or not they make a stop or write a ticket. its like when people complain about a speeding ticket or not wearing their seat belt, or expired registration sticker, or dwi, or broken tail light. its the law, and they're law enforcement. complain to the legislators who make the laws. if you're guilty man up. don't be like these pusee asz criminals that whine and cry in the courtroom.

http://tpwd.texas.gov/education/boater-education/additional-resources/boating-facts
"Nearly 85% of boating fatality drowning victims were not wearing a life jacket."
don't be that guy.


----------

