Landwehr's Reason for No Teal Season

[Fish Felon]

FF I think you are headed in the right direction. The comparison to their staunch stance on wolf hunting, then to so blissfully, gleefully, ignorantly pour us all this chit stained cup of coolaid, with just food coloring to mask the look of it, yet it has a familiar, stench of their repugnant, repetitive, same old same old manure.

Thank you for the vote of confidence but after further legal review the Commissioner can pretty much do whatever he wants. The laws are set up to make sure they follow proper procedure; the format for how they're worded.

Here's the closest applicable statutes that still probably don't cut muster. Besides 'Petition for Adoption of a Rule' there isn't a lot of options. Under (f) of the 'Scope of Judicial Review' I'd certainly argue the department's decision was 'arbitrary or capricious.' From a legal standpoint I think it'd be a stretch.

There's basically nothing unlawful by determining laws using an inconsistent set of parameters as long as they follow the legal rule making process. The rules have nothing to do with ethically being consistent. By reading through the entire rule making process it's clear that it'd be much easier to reverse a rule that's been adopted versus a rule that there essentially was no formal executive decision documented and make it happen. It's similar to why the Indians wanted to be cited for breaking the law, to fight the law they needed a documented legal decision (like a ticket) to argue as a starting point.

The teal season had no legal decision due to it's nature. It's actually pretty unique from that standpoint. There are things I will do prior to next season to make the teal season a documented legal decision so even if the Commissioner opposes it there will be a way to fight it. If for nothing else it'll stop them from quietly skirting the issue.

Most likely the only court the Commish can be held accountable in is the court of public opinion right now, sadly.

2015 Minnesota Statutes


14.001 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.
The purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act are:
(1) to provide oversight of powers and duties delegated to administrative agencies;
(2) to increase public accountability of administrative agencies;
(3) to ensure a uniform minimum procedure;
(4) to increase public access to governmental information;
(5) to increase public participation in the formulation of administrative rules;
(6) to increase the fairness of agencies in their conduct of contested case proceedings; and
(7) to simplify the process of judicial review of agency action as well as increase its ease and availability.
In accomplishing its objectives, the intention of this chapter is to strike a fair balance between these purposes and the need for efficient, economical, and effective government administration. The chapter is not meant to alter the substantive rights of any person or agency. Its impact is limited to procedural rights with the expectation that better substantive results will be achieved in the everyday conduct of state government by improving the process by which those results are attained.
History: 1990 c 422 s 1


14.09 PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF RULE.
Any person may petition an agency requesting the adoption, amendment, or repeal of any rule. The petition shall be specific as to what action is requested and the need for the action. Upon receiving a petition an agency shall have 60 days in which to make a specific and detailed reply in writing as to its planned disposition of the request and the reasons for its planned disposition of the request. If the agency states its intention to hold a public hearing on the subject of the request, it shall proceed according to sections 14.05 to 14.28. The chief administrative law judge shall prescribe by rule the form for all petitions under this section and may prescribe further procedures for their submission, consideration, and disposition.
History: 1945 c 452 s 3; 1957 c 806 s 5; 1975 c 380 s 6; 1981 c 253 s 21; 1982 c 424 s 130; 1995 c 233 art 2 s 10

14.06 REQUIRED RULES.
(a) Each agency shall adopt rules, in the form prescribed by the revisor of statutes, setting forth the nature and requirements of all formal and informal procedures related to the administration of official agency duties to the extent that those procedures directly affect the rights of or procedures available to the public.
(b) Upon the request of any person, and as soon as feasible and to the extent practicable, each agency shall adopt rules to supersede those principles of law or policy lawfully declared by the agency as the basis for its decisions in particular cases it intends to rely on as precedents in future cases. This paragraph does not apply to the Public Utilities Commission.
History: 1957 c 806 s 2; 1975 c 380 s 2; 1977 c 443 s 2; 1980 c 615 s 41; 1982 c 424 s 130; 1995 c 233 art 2 s 8

14.69 SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.
In a judicial review under sections 14.63 to 14.68, the court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings; or it may reverse or modify the decision if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the administrative finding, inferences, conclusion, or decisions are:
(a) in violation of constitutional provisions; or
(b) in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or
(c) made upon unlawful procedure; or
(d) affected by other error of law; or
(e) unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or
(f) arbitrary or capricious.
History: 1963 c 809 s 2; 1980 c 615 s 22; 1982 c 424 s 130
C

[Bailey]

[quote="get-n-birdy"]I'm seeing FF hatred for the MWA currently. Mn's ubber politeness is retarded. He just asks a legitimate question on their involvement in something they've taken credit for, with some fact checking, and he's somehow an ass hat? Why is keeping the MWA in check a bad thing, by just asking them to prove or provide information on how exactly, or what role they played in something?

It goes back to my thoughts on YWD and unwarranted concern for local ducks. Accountability is a bad thing only to insecure people wanting to congratulate themselves for a perception they've bought into and made positive like "doing it for the kids" or "doing it for the ducks" that they aren't willing to see questioned because the reality is they're "doing it for themselves."

It's the same thing as people who go to church just to be seen going to church. They don't go to follow the rules of God or the teachings of Jesus. They go because church is perceived to be good and if others in their community see them going it helps reinforce to themselves that they're a good person....even if they're not. It's the same reason why most attend the MWA symposiums and other meetings and events.

That's how asking legitimate questions are viewed as "attacking." These people are too insecure at even the thought of finding out something they've used as a crutch to feel better about themselves might not be what they've built it up as.[/quote]
And they wonder why people go to the Dakotas in droves to hunt. Heck landwehr won't ever admit we have a habitat issue. Talk about being out of touch.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[gimpfinger]

[quote="Fish Felon"][quote="get-n-birdy"]I'm seeing FF hatred for the MWA currently. Mn's ubber politeness is retarded. He just asks a legitimate question on their involvement in something they've taken credit for, with some fact checking, and he's somehow an ass hat? Why is keeping the MWA in check a bad thing, by just asking them to prove or provide information on how exactly, or what role they played in something?

It goes back to my thoughts on YWD and unwarranted concern for local ducks. Accountability is a bad thing only to insecure people wanting to congratulate themselves for a perception they've bought into and made positive like "doing it for the kids" or "doing it for the ducks" that they aren't willing to see questioned because the reality is they're "doing it for themselves."

It's the same thing as people who go to church just to be seen going to church. They don't go to follow the rules of God or the teachings of Jesus. They go because church is perceived to be good and if others in their community see them going it helps reinforce to themselves that they're a good person....even if they're not. It's the same reason why most attend the MWA symposiums and other meetings and events.

That's how asking legitimate questions are viewed as "attacking." These people are too insecure at even the thought of finding out something they've used as a crutch to feel better about themselves might not be what they've built it up as.[/quote]
And they wonder why people go to the Dakotas in droves to hunt. Heck landwehr won't ever admit we have a habitat issue. Talk about being out of touch.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk[/quote]
Him saying habitat isn't the main issue kinda blew my mind.

Team Power Dump

[Nershi]

Him saying habitat isn't the main issue kinda blew my mind.

Team Power Dump

Yea me too.

It's clearly hunting pressure since we have so many more duck hunters than we used to....oh wait never mind.

My guess is Landwher and his old timer buddies hold opener as some holy day that must be protected. They decided they don't want to hunt early teal so they felt no one else should be able to because it might affect the all mighty opener. Most duck hunters I know that are against early teal are so because they don't want to participate therefor they don't want anyone else to participate because it might affect "their ducks". I'm guessing Landwher feels the same way but he couldn't flat out tell us that. He had to use the "ethics" line to rationalize it to himself....which still isn't a good excuse.

Like FF said, we need a commissioner who doesn't hunt so this type of chit doesn't come in to their decision making process. I'm guessing Landwher or his buddies like to deer hunt, and the wolf hunting decision was probably made on the basis of helping the deer but he conveniently was able to use the scientific reasoning against the anti's.

[Fish Felon]

My guess is Landwher and his old timer buddies hold opener as some holy day that must be protected. They decided they don't want to hunt early teal so they felt no one else should be able to because it might affect the all mighty opener.

From a personal standpoint I wouldn't be opposed to limiting water hunting to protect the quality of opener...but we're so far past that there's no way you could argue that concept against a teal season.

With open water for early goose, YWD and intensive harvest zone goose hunting beginning in August over a large chunk of the state's best producing duck habitat how can you argue against a teal season because of the pressure it'd cause on local ducks?

You can't. Plus it's odd that the DNR never mentioned these same concerns for when they implemented the intensive goose zone. No surveys, no talk of how it'd effect local ducks, no wondering if the opportunities beyond what was already in effect warranted it. It was almost like they did it at the behest of a bunch of farmers pissed about geese eating their crops???

Funny how that works.

[Bailey]

Lanfwerh

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[Bailey]

Landwehr and myself both live in shoreview. Maybe I can over to his house and have a beer summit! Lol.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[Fish Felon]

Bag limits need to reflect sustainable harvest, but also – I believe – ethical sportsmanship, allowing for a bag that can be completely used by the hunter and their family.

He must have some great wolf recipes.

No way would a guy with that mentality push through a wolf season if he thought any hunter and their family wouldn't be completely using a wolf by throwing the meat away and just keeping the the pelt. That would be despicable.

[gimpfinger]

[quote="Tom Landwerh DNR Commissioner"]Bag limits need to reflect sustainable harvest, but also – I believe – ethical sportsmanship, allowing for a bag that can be completely used by the hunter and their family.

He must have some great wolf recipes.

No way would a guy with that mentality push through a wolf season if he thought any hunter and their family wouldn't be completely using a wolf by throwing the meat away and just keeping the the pelt. That would be despicable.[/quote]
Guess he's never heard or a freezer either.

Hell I can eat six bwt in one sitting.

Team Power Dump

[Fish Felon]

Hell I can eat six bwt in one sitting.

I was confused by that too. Is he talking about 5-6 for the season or daily?

Why would he mention that 6 is on the top of the spectrum and most hunters are satisfied with 5-6 but many think 6 is too much? What does he even mean?

limits need to reflect sustainable harvest, but also – I believe – ethical sportsmanship, allowing for a bag that can be completely used by the hunter and their family. I think 6 ducks is on the top end of that spectrum, and past surveys have shown that most duck hunters are satisfied with 5-6 ducks. Many think 6 is too much.