Wake Boats Effecting our Wisconsin Waters

Brent you do have the right to deny access.The question will always be do they have the cause to supercede that and search anyway? Once you give consent that goes out the window. So yeah, if they see someone wakeboarding and then said boat comes in and they ask to check the ballast, maybe that is cause. Now if they just check every boat that they didn't see does that constitute cause? Especially if the owners object. I don't know and my guess is they don't either. 4A becomes a very slippery slope in many cases. Again, this is why LE will generally feed you all sorts of BS to get your consent if they REALLY want a search but dont have cause.

Angler's have to (must, shall, etc.) allow a creel clerk (an agent of the State conducting a survey of what angler's are catching) to count and measure their fish.  They cannot deny the State access to the fish they have in their possession.  How then cannot a Warden check a ballast tank?

I understand that lawyers and judges and courts can do kinds of fancy legalese, but State law is State law and Wardens have a job to do and all kinds of investigative and enforcement powers to do their jobs.

Fair enough...

So a warden sees a guy fishing, and decides to check his live well. All fine and well...

How is it any different when a warden sees a wake boat actively wake boarding and making a huge wake (meaning ballast tank is full as they can't make a wake with it empty)

How is watching someone fish an acceptable reason for probable cause to search a live well, but actively wake boarding would be a 4a issue (to search the ballast tank after watching said boat use the ballast tank)

I'm missing it....

Seems like selective enforcement.  If a wake boat can deny access, then a fisherman should be able to as well.

What's good for the goose... Enforce the law or don't... 

You basically have to look at it from an attorneys perspective. Sure, I can be out in my boat cruising, have rods sitting all over the deck. DNR can stop me and check me for life jackets, extinguisher etc. They never actually saw me fishing. I can refuse a search etc, they can do what they want and I can then take it to court and feed the court any line of BS i want that i was not fishing that day. It may or may not be found they had cause to search. There is a reason wardens generally watch from distance then do checks. They can see who is throwing things in their livewell, what baits people are fishing with, who is actively fishing etc before they make contact. Trust me they are seldom approaching people blind. They want to make a clean case for the court with proof. Again wardens can make decisions in the field that may or may not hold up in court, and if your talking the 4A the court will make that decision. As far as coming on your property, that's different. They aren't searching anything. If they came on your property and your actively hunting they can check you for a license and such. Now if they want to search your cabin or truck that becomes a 4A issue as what is their cause for doing so?

If a Warden suspects that I'm a deer hunter and suspects that I hunt my private property.  They can come on my property without my permission (and even without my knowledge) to check if I'm hunting legally and see if I'm placing illegal bait or hunting over bait.

Bodhi, If they can constitutionaly do that as part of their legal investigation and enforcement powers, why can they not investigate and enforce a water ballast regulation on the books?  I don't follow your reasoning.

Understood Bodhi.

So what are your thoughts on my 2:08 PM post?

Why is probable cause for a fishing boat with fishing poles any different than a wake boat who is wake boarding?

Both are likely to have water in their live well. Why does a fishing pole serve as probable cause, and actively wake boarding does not?

What is the difference in your opinion?

If there are 4a concerns wouldn't it apply to both? Why just 1 or the other?

I'm genuinely interested in other's perspective.

I'm not looking for my opinion to be correct, just want to understand the hesitancy of equal enforcement. 

I'm sure the quote JC provided has something to do with 4A in some capacity regardless who it's coming from. Contrary to what people say, wardens are not God and still must abide by the Constitution. LE officers can and do lie to the public all the time to get consent and this can get them around probable cause. The reason they ask is generally people aren't doing anything wrong so they give consent, and people generally do not know their rights. People do have rights regardless of what we think of wake boats, and with such a public isssue, im sure the DNR knows at some point consent will not be given. They can ask for a search, be refused and do it anyway, but they then better hope the court sees it as legal search. It becomes alot more complicated once you get the courts involved.

Amen prj.

Also, my father (God rest his soul) taught me as a child that my right to play baseball stops when my ball goes through the neighbors window.

Same can be said here. The invasive issue aside, you ever see a yak, canoe, or paddleboard when a wake boat goes by.  It's just crazy!

I generally lean personal choice over govt regulations, however wake boats need some common sense legislation like  Vermont has in the works

Thanks for that JC, it satisfies my direct question.  That said, and as Gillespie notes, Olson is a citizen leading a petition effort.  Perhaps he's spoken with the DNR, but the statement leaves much to be desired.  Frankly, its BS, and if thats what the conservation wardens are stating, its either mealy mouthed or coming from on high.  Neither is acceptable considering the stakes here.  "Local officials cannot enforce the rule because..."   

The very existence of a wake boat on any WI water, considering what we know, would appear to be probable cause.  Just as possession of fishing rods, or a long gun, would open your person and possessions to regulations and enforcement.  Thanks Brent, that appears to overcome "probably cause" concerns.

All things considered, this problem seems eminently solvable with just a little intervention from the Sec'y, or some law making by the Legislature.  Are we all contacting our legislators?

I also want to emphasize Gillespies earlier point.  The ballast water law breaking is only the obvious entry point to establish regulations on these activities to prevent further harm like shoreline erosion and lakebed scouring.  There is remarkably little lake community benefit in wake boats.

Here is a satellite photo showing the bottom substrate in front of a residence who wakeboats weekly in the summer.

JC-
Curious on your thoughts...

If a fishing boat has fishing poles in it, a game warden can reasonably assume you have fish and/or water in your live well, and therefore within their rights to ask to see your live well. If you don't have any fishing poles in your boat, and are out for a sunset cruise, they have no reason to ask to see in your live well. Makes good sense!

The same logic should apply to a wake boat. If a wake boat is not actively wakeboarding, no reason to ask to see their ballast tank. However if they are wakeboarding, it would be reasonable to assume that they have water in their ballast tank.

What is the difference between one or the other?

Genuinely trying to understand the thought process or hesitation on treating all watercraft equally.

JC,

The Olson quote in that media reference......Olson does not work for the DNR or the State of Wisconsin to my knowledge.  He is not speaking in any official capacity or for the DNR or the State.  Posting that as an "official" statement is misleading.

I feel ya Bodhi!!!

So frustrating.  

I won't go into too much detail, as I posted it earlier. A ballast tank or live well could be inspected through the vent in a matter of seconds. 

Probable cause would be you were out wakeboarding. Inspecting the ballast tank with a flexible camera wand wouldn't take any more time than a warden physically looking in a live well of a fishing boat. 

I'm pretty passionate about our lakes! Spiny water fleas in Plum Lake didn't show up until the wake boats did.

Makes me sick that as a state we're not further along on a solution. 

You answered your own question Brent. A wake boat owner can simply go to court and say they have never put water in their ballast. We all know that's BS but the burden of proof is on the state to show there was water in the ballast. Without some kind of proof that citation gets tossed. And if they are checking, they are running into 4A again. Hopefully the state gets some good attorneys involved to come up with some kind of solution that would satisfy both sides and protect our waterways.