Re: NANFA-- an article regarding the bait dealer

Todd Crail (
Fri, 12 Mar 2004 13:24:42 -0500

I can understand confiscating it at the crime's point (it was an accessory
just the same as a vehicle in any other violation of the law). But he did
what he was supposed to on bond. I'll agree that it's _complete_ BS that
they want it back now.

I do still feel he should have bought the permit or driven around
Minnesota... Which ever would cost his business less.

I sincerely doubt the DNR is going to _look_ for would be fish shippers who
have coolers in their back seat. That's not the point of the law. The
point of the law was to get their take on an industry important to their
state's revenues.

If anyone should be suing anyone... It's the states adjacent to Minnesota.
Maybe they will now, that a court in MN has ruled the law unconstitutional.

----- Original Message -----
From: "R. W. Wolff" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 12:58 PM
Subject: NANFA-- an article regarding the bait dealer

> This article seems to cover all the aspects of both sides.
> The part that disturbs me is the confiscation of this guys truck.
> Confiscation is just wrong, barring severe crimes. I mean, you obviously
> take away someones weapon of choice if they are murdering people with it.
> Maybe not in this case, but in most, take away the truck or other
> how do they expect people to pay their fines?
/"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes
/ Association"
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association
/ To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
/ subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
/ For a digest version, send the command to
/ instead.
/ For more information about NANFA, visit our web page,