A committee of state lawmakers heard five hours of testimony this week from dozens of hunters, campers and other outdoor enthusiasts, alleging that game officers harassed them, conducted illegal searches and lied to them about their rights.

Clearly, there is enough information for lawmakers — in this case the state House Game and Fisheries Committee — to delve further into these allegations.

Game officers are, in essence, police charged with upholding the game laws of the state. They carry guns, wear uniforms and have the authority to investigate suspicious activities when they have sufficient probable cause of wrongdoing before them. Like any other law enforcement officer, their duties are not easy, nor always pleasant.

There is no question that the state has to maintain vigorous enforcement of its game laws to prevent poaching and other activities that appeal to the criminal mind. Our natural resources — in this case game that is pursued by law-abiding hunters (and subsidized through hunting licenses, etc.) — must be protected.

But that does not give game officers carte blanche powers to seek out wrongdoing. The state panel heard one story that insults one's sensibilities: One woman, accused of killing a doe found near the cabin where she had been staying, testified she was sexually and verbally harassed and threatened while she was detained in the car of a state game official for nine hours last year.

Other witnesses offered other tales of abuse.

One can only hope that these were isolated instances. But we won't know that until lawmakers look into the allegations.

The game commission is an independent state agency that derives more than half of its $55 million budget from hunting license fees. That constitutes an enforcement agency of some size that in some remote areas is the only police agency accessible to outdoor enthusiasts.

It is imperative its officers operate under the constitutional guidelines that separate our country from those where personal freedoms are only a dream. Otherwise, without reasonable checks and balances, authority can be abused.

On a related matter, game officers are allowed to fine offenders on the spot, meaning that the offender must pay up immediately. This practice, which is ripe for abuse, should be abolished. Fines should be paid to district justices, who, as lower court judges, have the resources to collect fines and account for them in a professional way.

The committee of lawmakers is considering a package of legislation that would remedy the shortcomings in the rules governing game officers' conduct and duties. The proposal also would institute a review process for those citizens with complaints. That legislation should be given very serious consideration.