# Fishing in MI Waters



## AlanJ (Aug 16, 2003)

I bought a MI license this year and fish MI waters with my son.
In the lake we are allowed 3 rods each.

Scenario 
Say I have a non-licensed in MI waters friend in the boat driving, and my son and I have 6 rods out.

Will we be hassled by the DNR for having a non-licensed, non-fisher in the boat ?

The friend is not fishing. 

I am not trying to get around have a friend buy a MI license, but if we are fishing in Canadian water and the fishing is poor so we decide to try the Lakeport area. 

I am of the opinion that we are legal. 
Now if we put out 9 rods in MI water we would be illegal.


----------



## TrailFndr (Feb 12, 2002)

I would believe that you would be legal, as long as the NON-Licesened person NEVER touches a rod. If he touches a rod...he is Fishing, even if you only have 2 rods out

Not sure about helping with Netting...but that MAY be considered fishing also


----------



## Steven Arend (Jun 27, 2003)

You are legal as long as your friend does not touch a rod at any time.


----------



## Jason Adam (Jun 27, 2001)

At that point, your freind is "boating" for which no license is required. Just stay at or below your rod and possetion limit for two people and you'll be good. Also, although you said you left Canadian because the fishing was slow, if you have fish that you caught in canadian waters in your possetion, and you stop and fish in michigan waters, you cannot be over the michigan possetion limit for licensed anglers on your boat.


----------



## Pequod (Jun 18, 2002)

If he is driving the boat while you are trolling he is considered fishing . Better to have him sit away from the steering wheel and not touch any rods or assit in netting . Bob


----------



## Sixshooter (Mar 16, 2003)

You might want to toss this thread over into the Questions about Hunting and Fishing Law Forumn...There is a resident CO that moderates the forumn and will tell you the correct letters of the law.

Driving a boat to me does not mean somebody is fishing...

Netting a fish to me does not mean somebody is fishing.

Holding a rod and fighting a fish...that is fishing.


----------



## MSUICEMAN (Jan 9, 2002)

I believe you would be fine as long as you have the legal number of rods out for the licensed people and at or under the legal limit of fish for the two persons licensed (in MI waters follow michigan limits). It would be the same if a guy and his wife goes out, she wants to just get out for some sun, etc. she can still drive the boat, but should not handle lines, reel in fish, etc. I also think this goes even for netting fish, but you'd really have to be in the wrong for someone to nail ya on that, IMO.

Think about it, the question really comes down to whether or not you can have non-licensed people onboard a fishing vessel while other people are fishing.... how many people have gone out with their families and wetted a line while other people are partying, eating, etc. etc.... all the other people don't need to be licensed because you are fishing.

steve


----------



## fishlkmich (Sep 18, 2002)

I was "in this boat", so to speak. I had my license. One of my friends had his. The third guy left his in the truck. We were running six rods for Salmon on Lake Michigan. The guy without a license in possession was sitting in the passenger seat. We were asked for licenses while trolling - didn't have to pull rods. Two of us produced licenses, but they could only see the color. The guy in the passenger seat explained that his was in the truck. I explained that we were legally fishing with three rods for each licensed fisherman even if the other guy didn't have one. They asked for the usual safety equipment, which was produced on demand. They then asked for the third guys name, SS #, address... They opened up their rig and raced about 50 yards out, then stopped. After about five minutes they took off again. I'm 99% sure that they were running #3 guy through lein. We could have been just as guilty as the guy without a license for some offense, but he got the third degree.

This is the problem that I have with law enforcement having the right to check safety equipment, board your boat, whatever, with NO PROBABLE CAUSE! If he had been run through lein and had an outstanding warrant they would have come back and picked him up and all that he was doing was sitting in a chair on a boat. No different from walking down the street, or driving without committing an offense and getting asked for ID and run through lein. There should be a law against it.

Mark


----------



## Pequod (Jun 18, 2002)

Several years ago (when the rod limit was two ) I took my friend and his wife out salmon fishing out of Harbor Beach . We both had license's , she did not .We were running 4 rods and she was driving the boat while we were trolling . A C.O. pulled up and asked to see everyones license , my friends wife told the C.O. she did not have one but she was not fishing . The C.O. told us since we were trolling and she was driving the boat she was attempting to catch a fish because she was driving . He ended up letting us go with just a warning .


----------



## suppa roosta (Oct 3, 2003)

fishlkmich,

That would be the risk your friend chooses to take for having outstanding warrants against him.
If you were to get sucked up in the process, then maybe a little more discretion in who you "hang" with is in order.

At any rate it's all hypothetical, and reeks of anti-authority.

Maybe Dr. Phil can set your torrid fears free...


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

fishlkmich said:


> '.... The guy in the passenger seat explained that his was in the truck. ...... They then asked for the third guys name, SS #, address... They opened up their rig and raced about 50 yards out, then stopped. After about five minutes they took off again. I'm 99% sure that they were running #3 guy through lein. We could have been just as guilty as the guy without a license for some offense, but he got the third degree.
> 
> Mark


Did you stop to think, 1%, that they were checking to see if he ((third guy))really had a fishing lic? Just in case they came back by and you had rods out for three men ??? In that case they would NOT have to board you again  

Been there, done that.....on the L/E side that is....

ferg....
uscg/ret
running boat numbers/ids through NCIC or state is a lot about officer safety more than harrasment of the people - the officer is always at a disadvantage because he doesn't know what he's getting into - any information he can obtain prior is an attempt to keep him from getting killed ....


----------



## fishlkmich (Sep 18, 2002)

Ah, Mr. Roosta,

Not "anti-authority", pro Bill of Rights:
____________________________________________________________
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 
____________________________________________________________

You see, we were all completely legal and none of us had a darn thing to worry about. We were complying with every law on the books. None of us had an outstanding warrant. Yet, one person was singled out from the group and treated as a potential criminal, just because he didn't have a fishing license in his possesion. He didn't need one because he was only sitting in a chair on a boat. The law enforcement officials violated his Fourth Amendment right. He was not "secure in his person" and they did not have "probable cause". His information was seized without a warrant for this search.

Since not every person with an outstanding warrant makes it public knowledge how do you know if a guy that you "hang" with doesn't have one? If a guy falls on hard time and misses ONE child support payment he may end up with a warrant. Are you dead sure that nobody that you "hang with" has ever had an outstanding warrant? You cannot be sure because some folks just don't want the folks that they "hang with" to know that they have a warrant.

Tell me how you would feel if you wre eating lunch at Wendys and two police officers approached you and told you to put down your food and produce ID. You just happened to be sitting at the first table that they saw. If you left your ID in your car they then demanded your name, SS#, address... and then ran you through the system to check you out how would you feel? 

At any rate it's all hypothetical, and reeks of Hitler's goon squads to me. But, there is no difference in this comparison to my experience.

Perhaps you would be just as happy living in Communist China.

Ferg,

Again, since no law was being violated I do not believe that:

1) The officers had a right to ask the passenger for personal information.

2) The officers were in fear of any danger. My boat couldn't catch theirs if for some reason I wanted to pull lines and go after them, anyway.
__________________________________________________________

By your reasoning any police officer should be able to pull your car over to check your ID/personal information just in case he sees you violating a traffic law some day.

Mark


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

fishlkmich said:


> Ah, Mr. Roosta,
> 
> Not "anti-authority", pro Bill of Rights:
> ____________________________________________________________
> ...


I'll have to let boar speak for the CO's but the fourth ammendment does NOT apply to the Coast Guard .....

REF: Federal Statute, 14 U.S.C. 89 

Here is a little light reading 

In general, here's how it works:

The Fourth Amendment does not bar all searches and seizures, only unreasonable ones. What's reasonable varies according to circumstances. A search of a building must meet a higher standard than a search of a boat, car or airplane because these objects can be quickly removed from the jurisdiction. Such highly mobile items can usually be searched without a warrant but the officer still needs probable cause. 
A car for example: The officer cannot stop your car because he wants to search it, but if he has lawfully stopped your car for say, speeding, he can look into the car and inspect, visually, whatever is in plain view. If he spots something in plain view--a bag of dope, an illegal gun--he can arrest. Also, if he has a suspicion that something illegal is afoot he may, for his own safety, pull the driver and occupants out of the car for a "Terry Frisk" (from Terry v. Ohio). This reasonable suspicion is something considerably less than probable cause but is allowed because the officer's safety is involved. He can also search the areas in the immediate vicinity of the suspect (under the driver's seat or in the glove box) because a weapon could easily be concealed there and the suspect could get at it. 

Another exception to the warrant requirement is the Chimel Sweep (from California v. Chimel). Again, the justification is the safety of the officers. If officers are otherwise lawfully in a house or building, they can quickly sweep through the place, checking in closets, under beds and other places where a hidden assailant might be lurking. 

Another exception to the warrant requirement is the administrative or regulatory search. (Camarra v. San Francisco, See v. City of Seattle) The regulatory officer (usually not a cop, but a safety inspector or civil servant) can go into a building or other place as part of a scheme of random safety inspections or health inspections or whatever as long as the scheme is truly random. While there, if he sees any contraband in plain view he may or may not report it to the police who may or may not come back with a warrant. 

Now here's what happens with the Coast Guard.
The CG has authority to enforce federal boating safety standards, vessel documentation schemes and marine pollution and fisheries regulations (random regulatory search). To accomplish these inspections, they have authority under 14 USC 89 to go onboard any vessel in US waters and any US vessel on the high seas. But under 14 USC 89, Coast Guardsmen are not mere regulatory officials--they are full blown cops with all the authority of the FBI, Secret Service or ATF to make arrests, etc. 
So under 14 USC 89, the Coast Guardsman can lawfully board any vessel in US waters since he is not only a cop but a regulatory officer. But once on board he is also a cop so that if in the course of his regulatory inspection he sees, in plain view, some contraband, he can seize it and arrest the crew. Because the Coast Guard has so many regulatory functions, the Coast Guardsman as regulatory inspector can go almost anywhere in the vessel and inspect almost anything. Once he is lawfully in a place and he spots any contraband in plain view, he becomes a Customs Officer or DEA agent, or Border Patrol Officer and seizes the evidence and starts arresting people. 

To do a document check, he has to see the main beam number. So he can lawfully go down into the hold. To do a pollution check, he can get down into the bilge or in the head. For fisheries he can look in the fish hold; for a boating safety check, he can open engine compartments. He is trained to do all these things and to OMIT NONE OF THEM IN EVERY BOARDING HE DOES. If the crew starts acting strange, making the officer feel uneasy, he can also do a Chimel sweep, and a Terry frisk. 

No other law enforcement officer, federal or state, has such sweeping authority. None. Someone in this email usernet thread suggested that local cops are sometimes deputized as federal officers and they then get the same power, at least when they are on the water. Not true. ONLY THE COAST GUARD OFFICER, WARRANT OFFICER OR PETTY OFFICER has this authority. All other federal and state officers (except maybe customs) need probable cause to get on board your vessel. And even though Customs might be able to get on board without probable cause, they cannot go anywhere and do anything. Customs has no authority to check Marine Sanitation Devices so they can't inspect the head. They have no safety authority so they cannot check for fire extinguishers, life jackets, flame arresters, VHF-Radio, etc. 

In short, the Coast Guardsman's regulatory authority makes it lawful for him to go on board any vessel and while there go into every part of the vessel and minutely inspect it. If in the course of this extremely thorough inspection, the Coast Guardsman spots any contraband "in plain view" he can seize it and arrest the master and crew. Also, if during the course of this extremely intrusive search, the master or crew start acting surly or "suspicious" the Coast Guardsman can do a Chimel Sweep and a Terry Frisk. 

Each of these exceptions to the warrant or probable cause requirement seem reasonable enough when taken by itself, but because the Coast Guardsman has such wide responsibility under federal environmental, vessel documentation, fisheries, commercial vessel safety, boating safety and marine pollution, the Coast Guardsman is the only officer who is in a position to use all of the exceptions at once. Essentially, what this means is that the Coast Guardsman is the only law enforcement officer in America to whom the Fourth Amendment does not apply, at least when he is on a vessel. 

HTH's

ferg....
uscg/retired....


----------



## brdhntr (Oct 1, 2003)

fishlkmich said:


> -snip
> Again, since no law was being violated I do not believe that:
> 
> 1) The officers had a right to ask the passenger for personal information.


But they can ask anything they want. If you had decided against answering and they had insisted, then you would have a reason to gripe. Asking you for information that you willingly gave to them does not violate any of your rights.


----------



## fishlkmich (Sep 18, 2002)

Ferg,

Thanks for the info. I had no idea that the Coast Guard had such power. But, being part of the new Homeland Security Department I don't doubt it a bit. Our government is the only entity that is exempt from the Migratory Bird Treaty Act because they "need" to kill birds during bombing practice. Our government can make up new terms for POWs (enemy combatants) to circumvent the Geneva Convention rules and our own Bill of Rights to provide legal counsel and have the right to a fair and speedy trial (Article six). Even if they were not under the Homeland Security Department they would still be a branch of the service, which would give them more power than your typical police officer, C.O., etc. Anyway, it wasn't the Coast Guard that I was involved with, but it was still great information.

brdhntr,

Good observation. It's a catch 22, though. If my buddy would have told them to F off they would have made our day one to remember, even more so. Even when you are "nice" about telling an officer of the law that you will not cooperate with their request you may as well be pleading guilty for whatever they find to charge you with. I can see it now. No, I won't give you my name... OK, that will be an Obstruction of Justice charge, then. Or, we will just follow you back into port right now and you can show us your license. 

Mark


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

The CG has had that authority sense around 1820 (or so) - Homeland security had nothing to do with it .....nor do I expect that it will in future either....


The Authority has transended all departments that the CG as been assigned, RCS, Treasury, Justice, Transportation, Defence and now HLS.

ferg.....
uscg/ret - department surviver 


PS: Just for the record.(part two).the military has NO, Zero, Zip, Nada - Law Enforcment authority - in fact they are strictly prohibited from being used in a law enforcment roll - DOD military that is  (unless martial law as been delcared)

That's the main reason that most DOD vessels crusing around the Carribb. carry a Coast Guard 'detachment' - so they can do drug interdiction from a DOD platform


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

AlanJ said:


> Say I have a non-licensed in MI waters friend in the boat driving, and my son and I have 6 rods out.
> 
> Will we be hassled by the DNR for having a non-licensed, non-fisher in the boat ?
> 
> ...


Good Lord, a few days away and a fishing question turns into the Bill of Rights. Must have some sea lawyers around.  

To answer the question you are correct in your thinking. You would be perfectly legal with the correct number of poles (3 lines per person in Great Lakes while trolling for trout and salmon only, 2 lines per licensed anglers for all other species) for two licensed anglers and the third person never touched a pole. No, you don't need a fishing license to drive the boat, never have in Michigan. (I believe in Wisconsin you do.)

If being hassled means will a CO check you then yea I guess you will be hassled, that is their job. 

As for the rest of the thread, I think we will just closed it before it goes crazy as this thread has served it purpose.


----------

