Yes, but what do you do with that license? After you kill a deer, you attach your tag to it, and you're done, unless you want to buy another one. Logically, the license applies to the animal, not the activity. Therefore, the law should be enforced based on the animal, not the activity.
Same way with fish limits. You're allowed XX number of fish over XX size. Once you hit that limit, you're done. So, the law has more to do with the fish than the pole, and that is how it should be enforced.
IMO, convicting a guy because of what you think he might do is just lazy and corrupt. The only way a CO should be able to cite someone is if he catches you with too many fish, deer, squirrels, whatever, or he catches you killing them in an illegal manner.
I know there aren't a ton of COs out there, so catching people in the act is hard, which is why they've changed the regulations to allow them to cite people for intent in order to "head it off at the pass."
That's just not right, it's too much. I know my opinion doesn't matter much, but I believe I'm right. I'd rather be on the side of Liberty than tyranny.
Same way with fish limits. You're allowed XX number of fish over XX size. Once you hit that limit, you're done. So, the law has more to do with the fish than the pole, and that is how it should be enforced.
IMO, convicting a guy because of what you think he might do is just lazy and corrupt. The only way a CO should be able to cite someone is if he catches you with too many fish, deer, squirrels, whatever, or he catches you killing them in an illegal manner.
I know there aren't a ton of COs out there, so catching people in the act is hard, which is why they've changed the regulations to allow them to cite people for intent in order to "head it off at the pass."
That's just not right, it's too much. I know my opinion doesn't matter much, but I believe I'm right. I'd rather be on the side of Liberty than tyranny.