A question for R.S.B.
08-16-2006 | 05:32 PM
#72
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
From:
RE: A question for R.S.B.
Perhaps you'd enjoy the company more at "Wolf Pile" or "Slaughterpa". Things must be getting a bit dull at those places. There have been many good points brought up on this thread. Notice that several questions have gone unanswered by "RSB." Several people have brought up facts about former Executive Director Don Madl. It's obvious that "RSB" does not wish to address this matter. Clearly it was/is an embarrasment to the agency. WasMadl given preferential treatment while he held office?It certainly appears that way. Strangely, no one within the agency knew anything about his transgressions over a period of 6 years. Obviously no one checked his license or questionedhis kills in all that time.It begs the question, who else in the upper ranks of the agency has taken advantage of their position and has gone unchallanged by the Law Enforcement arm of the agency?
Also, remember that Don Madl sued the agency. Did he win the law suit? Was the suit settled out of court? "RSB" surely must know the result of that matter. Has he been sworn to secrecy, or could speaking the truth be detrimental to his career? If I were in his shoes I'm not so sure I'd open my mouth either.
I suppose that last question will be ignored also. As for citing constitutional rights such as the right to refuse unreasonable searches and seizures, well thank God they still call this place America. We do have the right to question authority, and should always do so.
I don't think "RSB" is a bad guy. I believe that he's an honorable man and a conscientious Game Warden. Unfortunately there are a few Wardens who damage the reputation of the whole group.
I will reiterate that I've never been stopped and checked and had the Warden say that he was doing the check because there had been a report of someone breaking the game law in the area. They have always said "It's my duty to check you." or "It's my job to check you."
That kind of treatment is unacceptable to me and I make it known to them. As I said previously, they still call this place America.
Also, remember that Don Madl sued the agency. Did he win the law suit? Was the suit settled out of court? "RSB" surely must know the result of that matter. Has he been sworn to secrecy, or could speaking the truth be detrimental to his career? If I were in his shoes I'm not so sure I'd open my mouth either.
I suppose that last question will be ignored also. As for citing constitutional rights such as the right to refuse unreasonable searches and seizures, well thank God they still call this place America. We do have the right to question authority, and should always do so.
I don't think "RSB" is a bad guy. I believe that he's an honorable man and a conscientious Game Warden. Unfortunately there are a few Wardens who damage the reputation of the whole group.
I will reiterate that I've never been stopped and checked and had the Warden say that he was doing the check because there had been a report of someone breaking the game law in the area. They have always said "It's my duty to check you." or "It's my job to check you."
That kind of treatment is unacceptable to me and I make it known to them. As I said previously, they still call this place America.
08-16-2006 | 09:16 PM
#73
Typical Buck
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
RE: A question for R.S.B.
"Perhaps you'd enjoy the company more at "Wolf Pile" or "Slaughterpa". Things must be getting a bit dull at those places. There have been many good points brought up on this thread. Notice that several questions have gone unanswered by "RSB." Several people have brought up facts about former Executive Director Don Madl. It's obvious that "RSB" does not wish to address this matter. Clearly it was/is an embarrasment to the agency. WasMadl given preferential treatment while he held office?It certainly appears that way. Strangely, no one within the agency knew anything about his transgressions over a period of 6 years. Obviously no one checked his license or questionedhis kills in all that time.It begs the question, who else in the upper ranks of the agency has taken advantage of their position and has gone unchallanged by the Law Enforcement arm of the agency?"
I answered that question for you before so I figure if you didn’t get it the last time I explained it you wouldn’t get be able to understand it a second time either.
The answer is very simple. The highest law enforcement investigative agency in this state was provided all of the facts and evidence that anyone within the agency had concerning Don Madl and the allegations against him.
I was not part of that investigation nor was I questioned by any of the investigators because I had no information about any violations of any kind. I never even talked to anyone that had any first hand knowledge of the alleged violations.
What I do know is that after the top investigative agency in the state was finished with their investigation into the allegation they had not found sufficient evidence to support the allegations against Madl.
In my opinion that probably means that the allegation had no merit.
Now let’s suppose I were to tell everyone a bunch of make up allegations about you and had it put into print all across the state. Then let’s suppose those allegations were investigated and it was found that the allegations had no supporting evidence. How fair do you think it would be if a few misguided people just refused to led the allegations die and we just kept telling everyone that it must be true or it wouldn’t have been blasted all over the new papers?
"Also, remember that Don Madl sued the agency. Did he win the law suit? Was the suit settled out of court? "RSB" surely must know the result of that matter. Has he been sworn to secrecy, or could speaking the truth be detrimental to his career? If I were in his shoes I'm not so sure I'd open my mouth either."
I don’t have any problems with speaking the truth and I surely don’t see anything about speaking of what I do know that could be harmful to my career.
You seem to know a lot more about that then I do, but then I am not much into looking for rumors or goofy conspiracies that don’t really have any evidence of even existing. I have never heard about a Madl law suit though it could well be true for all I know. If it is true that he sued and there was a settlement then I would expect that was just more proof that the original allegations were not only unfounded but malicious in nature.
"I will reiterate that I've never been stopped and checked and had the Warden say that he was doing the check because there had been a report of someone breaking the game law in the area. They have always said "It's my duty to check you." or "It's my job to check you."
That kind of treatment is unacceptable to me and I make it known to them. As I said previously, they still call this place America."
It might be unacceptable to you and some of the other radicals but it isn’t unacceptable in the eyes of the courts of this nation or this state. They have ruled on that issue and determined we don’t even need to have reasonable suspicion to check a hunting license or in some cases even a game bag. We do need probable cause to do most other searches and we do need to state a reason for a stop if indeed we actually made a stop instead of just experiencing a mere encounter with a hunter participating in a highly regulated sport.
Dick Bodenhorn
WCO, Elk County
I answered that question for you before so I figure if you didn’t get it the last time I explained it you wouldn’t get be able to understand it a second time either.
The answer is very simple. The highest law enforcement investigative agency in this state was provided all of the facts and evidence that anyone within the agency had concerning Don Madl and the allegations against him.
I was not part of that investigation nor was I questioned by any of the investigators because I had no information about any violations of any kind. I never even talked to anyone that had any first hand knowledge of the alleged violations.
What I do know is that after the top investigative agency in the state was finished with their investigation into the allegation they had not found sufficient evidence to support the allegations against Madl.
In my opinion that probably means that the allegation had no merit.
Now let’s suppose I were to tell everyone a bunch of make up allegations about you and had it put into print all across the state. Then let’s suppose those allegations were investigated and it was found that the allegations had no supporting evidence. How fair do you think it would be if a few misguided people just refused to led the allegations die and we just kept telling everyone that it must be true or it wouldn’t have been blasted all over the new papers?
"Also, remember that Don Madl sued the agency. Did he win the law suit? Was the suit settled out of court? "RSB" surely must know the result of that matter. Has he been sworn to secrecy, or could speaking the truth be detrimental to his career? If I were in his shoes I'm not so sure I'd open my mouth either."
I don’t have any problems with speaking the truth and I surely don’t see anything about speaking of what I do know that could be harmful to my career.
You seem to know a lot more about that then I do, but then I am not much into looking for rumors or goofy conspiracies that don’t really have any evidence of even existing. I have never heard about a Madl law suit though it could well be true for all I know. If it is true that he sued and there was a settlement then I would expect that was just more proof that the original allegations were not only unfounded but malicious in nature.
"I will reiterate that I've never been stopped and checked and had the Warden say that he was doing the check because there had been a report of someone breaking the game law in the area. They have always said "It's my duty to check you." or "It's my job to check you."
That kind of treatment is unacceptable to me and I make it known to them. As I said previously, they still call this place America."
It might be unacceptable to you and some of the other radicals but it isn’t unacceptable in the eyes of the courts of this nation or this state. They have ruled on that issue and determined we don’t even need to have reasonable suspicion to check a hunting license or in some cases even a game bag. We do need probable cause to do most other searches and we do need to state a reason for a stop if indeed we actually made a stop instead of just experiencing a mere encounter with a hunter participating in a highly regulated sport.
Dick Bodenhorn
WCO, Elk County
08-16-2006 | 09:49 PM
#74
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
From:
RE: A question for R.S.B.
R.S.B.:
What I do know is that after the top investigative agency in the state was finished with their investigation into the allegation they had not found sufficient evidence to support the allegations against Madl.
In my opinion that probably means that the allegation had no merit.
What I do know is that after the top investigative agency in the state was finished with their investigation into the allegation they had not found sufficient evidence to support the allegations against Madl.
In my opinion that probably means that the allegation had no merit.
You mean to say that PGC Executive Director VernonRoss and the Inspector General Robert DeSouza lied when they made those charges; that they invented them out of whole cloth; that the person charged with running the PGC made meritless allegations? Do you also mean to say that all the honest PGC employees who came forward and blew the whistle were just a bunch of radical conspirators?
I don’t have any problems with speaking the truth and I surely don’t see anything about speaking of what I do know that could be harmful to my career.
[align=left]Release # 67 – 99 Dec. 15, 1999 HARRISBURG - At a Capitol Hill news briefing, the following statement was released on behalf of Pennsylvania Game Commission Executive Director Vern Ross: [/align][align=left][/align]"Just prior to taking over as executive director, I received evidence alleging that Madl had unlawfully taken Commission property. Shortly after being sworn-in as executive director, I turned this information over to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and requested a thorough investigation of the allegations," Ross said.
"Based on an examination of invoice, inventory and computer records furnished to the OIG by the Game Commission, the OIG report concluded that, from January 1993 through April 1999, Madl abused the Commission's ordering system. The OIG report concluded that Madl ordered on his personal inventory account and the Executive Office account: 67 pairs of black socks and 69 pairs of boot socks; 4 pairs of rubber boots, 14 pairs of summer boots, 8 pairs of winter boots and 7 pairs of dress shoes, all in a variety of sizes; and 6 insulated vests.
...
"The OIG report also concluded that when Madl retired as executive director on April 30, he failed to return equipment and supplies issued to him, including: 12 tires; 2 computerized Global Positioning Systems; 11 Game Commission badges; 1 Sharp Wizard Organizer; 1 Pentax camera; 1 Motorola radio; and 1 Sony voice-operated recorder. Once the OIG initiated its investigation, Madl returned many of these items to the Commission.
"Based on interviews with Commission employees, the OIG also concluded that, between 1988 and 1998, Madl used Commission employees and equipment to perform personal services during normal working hours, including: skinning 123 deer shot by Madl; skinning 52 deer shot by Madl's friends and family; plowing the driveway to Madl's house approximately 10 to 12 times; and repairing Madl's hunting trailer approximately 6 times. Additionally, the OIG discovered that between 50 and 60 of the deer Madl brought into the office for skinning were not properly tagged, which is a violation of the Game and Wildlife Code.
"While the statute of limitations has expired on prosecuting any alleged violations of the Game and Wildlife Code, we have been informed that the Office of General Counsel has transmitted a copy of the OIG report to the Office of Attorney General for possible further action.
...
"This truly is a sad day in the history of the Pennsylvania Game Commission. But the OIG report has sparked positive changes within the agency."
...
"Based on the conclusions of the Inspector General's report, I believe it is clear that Mr. Madl acted with little regard for the reputation of the Game Commission or the morale of its employees.
08-16-2006 | 10:13 PM
#75
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
From: Northeast PA
RE: A question for R.S.B.
ORIGINAL: R.S.B.
"I will reiterate that I've never been stopped and checked and had the Warden say that he was doing the check because there had been a report of someone breaking the game law in the area. They have always said "It's my duty to check you." or "It's my job to check you."
That kind of treatment is unacceptable to me and I make it known to them. As I said previously, they still call this place America."
It might be unacceptable to you and some of the other radicals but it isn’t unacceptable in the eyes of the courts of this nation or this state. They have ruled on that issue and determined we don’t even need to have reasonable suspicion to check a hunting license or in some cases even a game bag. We do need probable cause to do most other searches and we do need to state a reason for a stop if indeed we actually made a stop instead of just experiencing a mere encounter with a hunter participating in a highly regulated sport.
Dick Bodenhorn
WCO, Elk County
"I will reiterate that I've never been stopped and checked and had the Warden say that he was doing the check because there had been a report of someone breaking the game law in the area. They have always said "It's my duty to check you." or "It's my job to check you."
That kind of treatment is unacceptable to me and I make it known to them. As I said previously, they still call this place America."
It might be unacceptable to you and some of the other radicals but it isn’t unacceptable in the eyes of the courts of this nation or this state. They have ruled on that issue and determined we don’t even need to have reasonable suspicion to check a hunting license or in some cases even a game bag. We do need probable cause to do most other searches and we do need to state a reason for a stop if indeed we actually made a stop instead of just experiencing a mere encounter with a hunter participating in a highly regulated sport.
Dick Bodenhorn
WCO, Elk County
If you asked people at large, including non-hunters, what they would think of any Officer answering only with "It's my duty/job to check you", you would get the same result, "that is NOT a proper answer", not just people that you very easily and quickly call "radicals". (radicals like those who threw all of that tea into Boston Harbor?)
You also quickly point to "acceptable in the eyes of the court.....", but do not address the impression that said answer makes in the eyes of the people, and that DOES matter. What he is trying to point out is that a phrase like that IS what sets the course of the encounter and could be completly avoided by the Officer saying "Weare investigating X, so we are doing routine checks", etc. That is courtesy and public relations. Just because you don'tneed a reason does not mean you can't be polite about it. That seems to be the big difference to another LEO. That is being polite even during a traffic stop, where you are stopped because you didviolate a law. It IS all a case of attitude. But unfortunatly, it seems that the one with attitude never thinks that they have one.
08-17-2006 | 03:14 AM
#76
Spike
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
RE: A question for R.S.B.
ORIGINAL: ChuckS
Because the exclosures are located on SGL, state forest land and federal land, I doubt if there is a list of them anywhere. I don’t think that a visit would reveal much insight to you with out info on the “background” of the plot anyway. Without knowing the before and after condition of the forest, how it was cut, when, when the fence was put up, any treatments before and after cutting, I don’t believe you would glean much from just a look at them. That’s where the tours come in…
Because the exclosures are located on SGL, state forest land and federal land, I doubt if there is a list of them anywhere. I don’t think that a visit would reveal much insight to you with out info on the “background” of the plot anyway. Without knowing the before and after condition of the forest, how it was cut, when, when the fence was put up, any treatments before and after cutting, I don’t believe you would glean much from just a look at them. That’s where the tours come in…
08-17-2006 | 05:18 AM
#77
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
From: Erie Co. PA
RE: A question for R.S.B.
ORIGINAL: yano
Chuck, I don't see any reason a complete listing of all the exclosures, along with their history/etc., and even directions to them coudn't simply be put on-line at the PGC website. That would afford folks a better opertunity to visit them as their schedules allowed.
Chuck, I don't see any reason a complete listing of all the exclosures, along with their history/etc., and even directions to them coudn't simply be put on-line at the PGC website. That would afford folks a better opertunity to visit them as their schedules allowed.
ORIGINAL: R.S.B.
It might be unacceptable to you and some of the other radicals but it isn’t unacceptable in the eyes of the courts of this nation or this state. They have ruled on that issue and determined we don’t even need to have reasonable suspicion to check a hunting license or in some cases even a game bag. We do need probable cause to do [color:red]most other searches and we do need to state a reason for a stop if indeed we actually made a stop instead of just experiencing a mere encounter with a hunter participating in a highly regulated sport.
Dick Bodenhorn
WCO, Elk County[/color]
It might be unacceptable to you and some of the other radicals but it isn’t unacceptable in the eyes of the courts of this nation or this state. They have ruled on that issue and determined we don’t even need to have reasonable suspicion to check a hunting license or in some cases even a game bag. We do need probable cause to do [color:red]most other searches and we do need to state a reason for a stop if indeed we actually made a stop instead of just experiencing a mere encounter with a hunter participating in a highly regulated sport.
Dick Bodenhorn
WCO, Elk County[/color]
ChuckS
08-17-2006 | 07:09 AM
#78
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
From:
RE: A question for R.S.B.
"RSB" you seem to have "Selective" memory. Madl had at least ten years of game law abuse, yet in a closedsociety such as Law Enforcement,you nor any other LE Officer ever heard of any abuse of office or infraction of law. Truely amazing.
You may label me as "radical", but by the same token I would have to label you as "ignorant" of the world around you.It would appear the the observation skills of PGC Law Enforcement Officers is severely lacking. Especially so in the case of Don Madl.
Never-the-less, we certainly appreciate your effort to find all those Pennsylvania hunters who neglect to sign their hunting licenses. The fields and forests of Pennsylvania are a much safer place for your effort.
You may label me as "radical", but by the same token I would have to label you as "ignorant" of the world around you.It would appear the the observation skills of PGC Law Enforcement Officers is severely lacking. Especially so in the case of Don Madl.
Never-the-less, we certainly appreciate your effort to find all those Pennsylvania hunters who neglect to sign their hunting licenses. The fields and forests of Pennsylvania are a much safer place for your effort.
08-17-2006 | 09:15 AM
#79
Spike
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
RE: A question for R.S.B.
Sincehunting is such a "highly regulated sport", how come the "regulators" don't provide the "regulatees" with a complete up-to-date set of the regulations when they purchase a license ?
Unfortunately, here is the current revision status of the on-line regs:
TITLE 34 Game and Wildlife Code
An unabridged listing of Pennsylvania Game and Wildlife Code
*** Updated November 22, 2004 ***
Unfortunately, here is the current revision status of the on-line regs:
TITLE 34 Game and Wildlife Code
An unabridged listing of Pennsylvania Game and Wildlife Code
*** Updated November 22, 2004 ***
08-17-2006 | 09:54 AM
#80
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
From:
RE: A question for R.S.B.
Anyone who thinks it is OK to be stopped and searched or questioned for absolutely no reason is a complete moron. If you like that, I'll bet you would love living in China. It's not a "Radical" idea to treat people as if the were innocent until proven guilty. By searching me or questioning me for no reason you are assuming I am guilty and I have to prove I'm innocent. Stop harassing us and catch real criminals.