quote:
Originally posted by AvuncularBen
**Outside of the official SC code and official DNR regulations, person cannot rely on DNR publications, websites, or even oral advice of DNR as to what the law is. codes and regs are the ultimate authorities. DNR’s publications or oral advice are just interpretations or explanations meant as tool for help, but each person is required to know and understand regs and code for himself and cannot rely on DNR’s interpretation (unless an official, written interpretation of a regulation in the form of an published agency opinion document. some agencies, like SCDOR, do these alot; not sure if DNR has any). Often, publications or pamphlets seem to contain info that conflicts w/ or is inconsistent w/ the wording of regulations or code statutes. Statues and regulations win, and the excuse that the pamphlet or “somebody at DNR” told me different is not good enough.
This is extremely interesting that you wrote this. As a lawyer, do you have any first hand experience you could share with the CF.com community concerning this? I’ve often wandered about this as it seems in my experience that interpretation of the law by different officers varies. What specific information should a private citizen arm himself with if you can’t trust LEO’s to know the law which they are expected to uphold?
in the regs i saw that baited hooks are not allowed. also cant shoot untethered gator except i think under specific circumstances. they don’t want gators getting physically hurt or restrained w/out a person present supervising/controlling.
ideally, laws supposed to be written in a way that is clear and accessible to everyone. when it comes to bare reading comprehension, an officer of DNR or another agency should have no more authority to pick a “correct” interpretation than a regular citizen or a judge. the law is what it is, and a person can’t get around it by saying that he chose to rely on what randy from the simpsonville dnr office thought the law meant. MOreover, it would be problematic if an agency couldnt enforce a validly enacted law because some employee somewhere said something he shouldnt have:
“[T]he doctrine of estoppel will not be applied to deprive the government of the due exercise of its police power, or to effect public revenues or property rights, or to frustrate the purpose of its laws or thwart its public policy.” Heyward v. S.C. Tax Comm’n, 240 S.C. 347, 351, 126 S.E.2d 15, 17 (1962); State v. Peake, 353 S.C. 499, 505, 579 S.E.2d 297, 300 (2003). Numerous other jurisdictions also follow the rule that the government cannot be estopped when acting in its sovereign capacity. See 28 Am. Jur. 2d Estoppel and Waiver § 139 n. 82 (2010). The rule is a natural corollary to the requirement of traditional estoppel that the party estopped must make a false representation of fact. 7 S.C. Jur. Estoppel and Waiver § 10 (2010). Courts conversely reject estoppel based on mistaken statements of law; thus, the government in attempting to enforce the law cannot be estopped based on an official’s misstatement of the law. See, e.g., Quail Hill, 387 S.C. at 236, 692 S.E.2d at 506 (“[E]stoppel will not lie against a government entity where a government employee gives erroneous information in contradiction of statute. Simply stated, equity follows the law.” (quoting Morgan v. S.C. Budget and Con
You can fish with me anytime. Thank you.
We had 3/4 DNR agents shake us down at our dock in MI last year. I know this is different than a nuisance Gator, but it’s still relevant. Few to none of the DNR officers knew all of the regulations. It was a fun fishing trip on a charter boat so that blew their minds. They couldn’t identify a few Deepwater species, the list goes on and on. We got a 2k ticket that was totally dropped.
What was the $2k ticket for?