GOSH there is so much balderdash here it's tough to know where to begin, and this is way off the original thread and pushing toward the limit of the forum too.
You have to remember that the CPO is trained to LIE in his investigation in order to obtain evidence and a conviction. If you lie to him it is a crime.
While there is a charge of "false statement to a police officer" it ONLY applies when
you approach an LEO to make a report, or use a false name. Lying to the police happens in just about 90% of all arrests (and gee they don't add a charge for that, duh) and you have a constitutional right not to incriminate yourself, so you can lie to a cop, or simply refuse to answer the question. It happens to me almost every day.
It is also important to remember that most game laws have nothing to do with conservation and everything to do with which group has the most political power. Example: How many on this forum would ban inlines and smokeless ML if they had the political power? The kind of firearm used has nothing to do with conservation.
That's a fine theoretical question, NOW how about you do a survey of all the game regulations and show how the actual game laws aren't about conservation and safety? Until then, this is a gratuitous assumption that is asserted as fact. It also takes a very negative view of this community. I certainly would not ban inlines of any sort, for that would not only have me infringe on person's personal choice for harvesting game, as well as impact hundreds of jobs. I would modify the current laws and create a situation at a point in the season that favors traditional firearms.
If it did have something to do with who has the actual political power..., in blue states where you have a large city, such as New York, hunting would be banned, period, because of New York City's voting power. The DNR would in that state would then hold "controlled harvest operations" and the rich guys would then "volunteer" to help thin the deer herd, or your tax money would go to hiring "professional" hunters to do the job and nobody would hunt.
You have to remember that tags and limits are for having an "equitable" distribution of the kill in the hunting community and that in reality 5% of the hunters take 95% of the kill and tags/limits are the only way to keep the best hunters from taking the most of the deer or whatever.
NO, actually it is a method used to avoid over harvesting of the game species and thus causing the numbers to drop to dangerously low levels. A
real example when this should've been applied but wasn't: The Passenger Pigeon. For most of the history of deer limits the only harvested deer were bucks. A single buck will service several does, and thus severly reducing the numbers of bucks would have reduced deer numbers overall. This is still true and you will find much lower limits for bucks than for does when does are allowed for harvest.
So, in areas where the deer population has exploded, due to "no hunting zones", there are so many deer that harvesting of large numbers of does is allowed. The limit system is often behind the actuall needs in many parts of the country these days, but it's not about "equitable distribution" of animals.
And in many rural areas where the people are poorer mostly and the good hunters are the %5 the game laws are viewed as just part of the rich guys using "the man" to keep you down and keep the game all to themselves, like Robin Hood and "the kings deer, how dare you kill one!"
So by your argument, the rich guys what??, fence in their property to keep the deer? OR is it all property in rural areas is owned by "rich guys" who prohibit anybody using the land but them?
Either you own property or you do not. If you don't, like me, you have to either get permission to hunt, or you have to hunt public lands, or you get a stamp for a controlled-harvest from a state park. Forty years ago as a kid, most of my county was farms, and would fall into your "mostly poorer rural" category..., and the situation was the same. The land owner had the right to allow you to hunt or to deny you permission. Guess what, since I didn't live in their town nor attended their church they didn't know me or my dad, so no permission was given when we asked. We didn't like it, but it was their right. It had nothing to do with the economic level of the owner. We didn't whine and say things like "
boo hoo the selfish farmer is hogging all of his land and won't let folks hunt deer there". We didn't complain that it wasn't "fair", or fall into the trap of "equal distribution".
Today, farmers lease land and they charge large amounts of money. The same families that were there 40 years ago are leasing
their land to folks who can meet the asking price. HELLO? The farmer has the land to ...wait for it..., provide an income to himself and his family. Are the rich guys at fault or is the farmer "greedy" for leasing the land instead of farming it and allowing you to hunt on it? (neither). How about the farmers who give hunting permission only to the farm hands as one of the benefits of working there? You and I still can't hunt there..., doesn't matter if its rich-guy-leased or employees-only, we can't use it.
You complaint sounds like something coming from Washington DC, where the mantra is "redistribution to make things more equal"... a.k.a "equal distribution".
LD