(concurring). Following an eviden-tiary hearing, the trial court dismissed the actions because the warden had trespassed when he issued the citations, his trespass was not privileged in that he had no articulable suspicion that a violation of law had occurred, might occur or was occurring when he entered the land, and the game law violations were minor.
Whether trespass by a warden on private land without such a suspicion is a defense in a forfeiture action by the state for violation of the game laws requires application of the law to those facts. That raises a question of law. See State v. Maloney, 161 Wis. 2d 127, 128, 467 N.W.2d 215, 216 (Ct. App. 1991) (application of law to undisputed facts is question of law).
The defendants, however, concede that a warden's trespass does not always mandate dismissal of a forfeiture action. They contend that a trial court should dismiss such an action if the harm the government caused by the trespass outweighs the cost to society in precluding prosecution and no lesser remedial action is *797available. This raises a question of public policy. Public policy questions are issues of law. Hass v. Chicago & N. W. Ry., 48 Wis. 2d 321, 326-27, 179 N.W.2d 885, 888 (1970).
I reject the defendants' public policy argument. Every year thousands of hunters enter privately-owned land in Wisconsin. The benefits to hunters and the public from enforcing our game laws substantially exceed the inconsequential harm caused by a warden's trespass. The law of trespass should not make privately-owned lands havens for violators.