I'm not getting the impression from the article that wildlife officers, a whole group of people, are running roughshod over the US Constitution.

Yes, definitely. This case seems like it really hinges on the particular officer who should lose his commission and be individually held liable.

In the general case however, I'm not sure they should have the powers that the statute implies without proportionate limits.

If the power isn't being widely abused, then updating the law to better respect private property rights shouldn't be a problem. The state may actually gain some small amount of goodwill from the electorate by agreeing with the plaintiff.

Sure. Now let's turn that same energy on cops that regularly violate US Constitutional rights of their victims.

Did you read this section?

“In open court, out loud, Officer Moon said he wasn’t bound by no-trespassing signs, and said he had a mandate to go anywhere. He is wrong because private property is sacred. The Fourth Amendment and its protection from search and seizure is the only thing standing between us and tyranny.”

No Monetary Gain

According to 12 words of Pennsylvania state code, PFBC officials have authority to “enter upon any land or water in the performance of their duties.” The statue provides wide latitude for PFBC to enter onto any property without consent, probable cause, or warrant—with no limits on duration, frequency, or scope.