|
| Author |
Message |
Brad S
Rancher
Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 1190
Location: west of Soapweed
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:51 am Post subject: |
 |
|
You can quit laughing already. The law in Kansas is no roadhunting without written permiission from both sides of the road.
There really is something admirable about SD not needing laws that other states have, but for this to continue, people need to be respectful and courteous of others. Road hunting isn't respectful or courteous.
I wonder if the atty general of SD has ever considered the state's liability when it allows a dangerous practice to be legal. No doubt the state will say the road is the property of the adjacent landowners - they have liability. I GUARANDAMNTEE no SD legislature is going to pass legislation holding adjacent landowners harmless in the event of an accident involving legal road hunting and legal road driving.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Southdakotahunter
Member
Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 497
Location: Southeast rural South Dakota
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
First Brad, You can look at all the hunting accidents that occur in SD. It is printed yearly. To tell you the truth, i dont remember seeing any that occured during road hunting. Most all (pheasant anyway) occur when there are large partys walking areas and people dont know where each and every one is at and someone shoots someone else.
The liable issue is no different than on Public Hunting Areas.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Liberty Belle
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 1817
Location: northwestern South Dakota
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You're just as much a "sportsmen" as me LB. And I am just as much a rancher as you. Take a look around, just because I don't follow you "hair" brain ideas, doesn't mean I'm in the wrong. I would think it was made pretty obvious to you this spring, that I'm not the one in the minority of thinking! |
No P Joe, I’m not a “sportsmen”. First thing – I’m the wrong gender and I haven't hunted game in years.
Second – I doubt very much if you are as much a rancher as I am or we wouldn’t be having this discussion. 
| Quote: |
You never did answer my other question. I'll post it again so you can dodge it one more time.
| Quote: |
P Joe wrote:
YOU claim you have a good relationship with you GFP officer. How can that be? If you don't allow hunting, and do not hunt,(maybe not buy licenses would be more applicable here ) then in what situation have you ever had to deal with them? That answer I am TRUELY interested in. |
|
Does one have to allow hunting to have a good relationship with your local conservation officer? I don’t, but I’m perfectly capable of sitting down over a cup of coffee with either of our new COs and having a good conversation. These kids, and they are both kids, are really nice guys. One of them had a major health problem this spring and I’m on his call list to take him to the doctor if he gets in trouble again. He has a life-threatening allergy and I give him plenty of free motherly medical advice for that.
The other one is going to come out here to have my oldest son teach him to steer wrestle at the unofficial bull dogging school these guys have every Tuesday night all summer.
Neither of these guys will come driving on my land without my permission, but the lockout will continue here until we have some protection under the law from rogue GF&P and USFW employees like the ones that caused these problems. It’s the principle of the thing, but I doubt you understand much about principle.
| Quote: |
| PS: I could really give 2 cents if you ever opened your land up to hunting again. You'll die, or sell out to the highest bidder and it will be hunted again. Maybe not in my lifetime, but that's what will happen. And It just makes a good breeding ground and safe haven to make bigger racks. I can understand why you probably did get dumped on by some hunters. Can't say I really blame them. |
Did I say I’d been dumped on by hunters? No. I have said numerous times that our problems were not with hunters. Can’t you read?
It’s amazing to me how much having my land locked to hunters to prevent abuse by GF&P bugs you!!
Yes, the racks on the bucks here are getting pretty darn impressive after four years of being locked out. The big bucks seem to enjoy lying up in the rocks on the butte near the highway and letting the orange hats look at them when they drive by during hunting season. We kind of get a kick out of it too.
| Quote: |
| I bet you're one of those "Locked Out" ranchers that calls the GFP to rid the beavers and other unwanted pests. You always get back what you give LB, just remember that! |
No, we don’t call GF&P to take care of our pest problems for us. GF&P IS the pest problem. We take care of any four legged varmint problems ourselves with the help of the predator control pilots we tax ourselves to hire.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Happy go lucky
Member
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 205
Location: America
|
|
| Back to top |
|
SJ
Member
Joined: 26 Feb 2005
Posts: 282
Location: ludlow, SD
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| LB__No, we don’t call GF&P to take care of our pest problems for us. GF&P IS the pest problem. We take care of any four legged varmint problems ourselves with the help of the predator control pilots we tax ourselves to hire. |
Which is also beneficial to wildlife existence.
In the 40's and early 50's it was rare to even see a deer. After the pilots came home and put the predators in check is when deer and other wildlife came back into the area.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Liberty Belle
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 1817
Location: northwestern South Dakota
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Happy go lucky
Member
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 205
Location: America
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
SJ I agree it is benefical to wildlife, but you can't say we have way more deer now than at the turn of the century because of coyote control either, it is a part, but edge and not mono habitat, is a bigger key. Also having little in the way of winter kills and species adapting to human encroachment helps as well. CRP has been a big boon for many species of wildlife and again all tax payers help support this great program not just landowners by any means.
Look at large forest stands or large tracts of any one cover type or food source and you will have less ungulate species, break up the cover and food types and create the edge and then you have habitat that can sustain far more species of wildlife and larger numbers within those species as well.
Delta waterfowl has done some great research on how benefical removal of predators are when waterfowl species are in the nesting phase and how that attributes to the overall nesting success. It again is a part of the whole and without food,cover or water the nesting rate even with predator control suffers. It is a balance between many groups as to why and how we create more and sound wildlife numbers in the US that has been my point all along.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
P Joe
Member
Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Posts: 418
Location: Central SD
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SJ wrote: |
Publichunter---I think I understood you quite well, the bird or the hunt is more important than any risk(public safety)? But what I don’t understand is why we allow hunting the ditch when there are places available to hunt other than the ditch? Was road hunting part of the easement contract?
I also did some calling and found the biggest complaint the property owners have with road hunting, is the hunter bringing kids out as blockers(flushing the birds back to the ditch) yet whenever they are questioned they claim they are retrieving? To me it is teaching kids to lie and hunt illegally. You are right there is a rub but probably no different than if someone was trespassing on your property. Now before you all get everything in a bunch and take offense to my opinion, remember it is just my opinion. If you feel this is a must and are willing to take responsibility for whatever you may cause because of your want (not necessity), so be it. It is just not for me.
I wouldn’t think of having my bird watching group camp (bird watchers with binoculars) in front of your house because it is free and it belongs to all. Parking their campers on both sides of the street leaving only your driveways open, with their kids, bikes, balls and pets (when there are campgrounds available). One reason would be the risk of some child being run over with that kind of congestion. Two-- because I respect the privacy of your neighborhood and I also respect your property. |
Ok, I'm not going to get in a big arugment over this, but if you look out on SD GFP website, their is not one accident from road hunting. Sure, something probably did happen during that time, but not to the extent you guys are making it out to be. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
SJ, I would do some more calling if I were you. The biggest complaint from landowners is the hunters not following the 660 feet rule.
And road hunting is not a group of 1000 hunters walking ditches for miles on end. It is 2 guys driving down a country backroad, see a rooster and get out and shoot it. This is no different if you are driving along your pasture and stop to shoot a coyote.
If you have any facts otherwise, please post. I would be interested to read those links. But if I am correct, I would imagine you won't find much to support your argument.
And just a question but do you pay the business and residents of your local town to walk on the side walk??? Suppose that would be trespassing according to LB and Brad J's theory???
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Happy go lucky
Member
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 205
Location: America
|
|
| Back to top |
|
P Joe
Member
Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Posts: 418
Location: Central SD
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Liberty Belle wrote: |
Second – I doubt very much if you are as much a rancher as I am or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
It’s amazing to me how much having my land locked to hunters to prevent abuse by GF&P bugs you!!
|
1st, why doesn't the lock out publish it's land of 4.3 million acres locked out? Since you continue to dodge that question, I'll take a stab at it.
Maybe because it isn't really 4.3?
Maybe because there are so many holes of land within the "4.3" that are open to hunting, that it would be counter productive to do so?
Maybe because ALL your neighbors don't agree with your actions either?
Maybe because, over half of your 'locked out' ranchers still allow hunting even though they claim "locked out"and it would be too embarrassing.
Weather it be them or their siblings or paid hunts, they allow hunting. Yes I understand that YOU are really Locked out and yes thats their choice to do so, but then how can THEY claim "locked out"?
I'll tell you why, because neighbors like you bully them into this "lockout" so you group looks big. So you can claim your 4.3, when really nothing ever changed for 2.2 million of those acres. Really, under your theory, I would be considered part of your 'lock out' as well, because I don't allow the general public to hunt my land.
2nd, like I said I don't care if you land is 'lock out'. It really doesn't bug me. You have your right to what you want to do. Still doesn't give you the right to impose your ideas on the rest of the state. I'm sure the hunters on the neighbors land appeciate what you do. After all, you have only improved the deer numbers for them. Deer move, they are not always on your land, and I would bet that some of those nice bucks have been shot over on the neighbors. 
I don't care if I ever get to hunt out there again. I have plenty here in my own cozy part of the state. It was just nice to get away and bullsh!t with the ranchers on the other side of the state. But if your attitudes and ways are going to be so greedy and narrow minded, I won't miss it one bit.
Have you ever looked at the Deed to you property? You should read it sometime. I'm sure it won't change your mind on anything, but maybe it might bring some light to the subject for you. I for one would find it extremly funny if the government needed your little parcel of land back for something or another one day and sent you packing. 
But enough about this lock out. Lets agree to disagree on that subject and move on. Friends? 
I hope that they do get Prieksat "canned", "tanked" "sent packing" or what ever. Maybe GFP will get a clue and decide to be a little more cooperative with us landowners.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
SJ
Member
Joined: 26 Feb 2005
Posts: 282
Location: ludlow, SD
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| PJOE--And just a question but do you pay the business and residents of your local town to walk on the side walk??? Suppose that would be trespassing according to LB and Brad J's theory??? |
Yes and so do you, I think they might call it a city sales tax. Some times when the city has something big coming into town, that draws people from outside, they double the price of the room which in turn brings in more city tax. I remember when my son-in-law was in the hospital in Rapid City and we were staying in a hotel, close to the hospital. We had been there 23 days and the rally was coming to town. We were told we would have to find other lodging. I asked if all the rooms were reserved for the rally they answered no but were sure that they could fill them. We could stay, but the room would have been over 250 dollars a night. We ate, filled with fuel, shopped and took our 2 year old grandson to many different things to entertain him for 23 days and we paid for all of them.
My son-in-law was very ill. Was it trespassing NO, I paid for my access. Do you want to talk about camaraderie.
I am still answering your other questions and will post them later.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
SJ
Member
Joined: 26 Feb 2005
Posts: 282
Location: ludlow, SD
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Pjoe--Ok, I'm not going to get in a big arugment over this, but if you look out on SD GFP website, their is not one accident from road hunting. Sure, something probably did happen during that time, but not to the extent you guys are making it out to be. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. |
I stated before I was basing my reason on my experiences. I never said anything happen I said it could have. It is just my opinion and you have yours which is fine. I am not going to road hunt and you choose to road hunt. I am fine with that. If you want my approval I can’t give it. I am not arguing just stating an opinion.
GF&P will also tell you where Mountain lions are gotten but the hunter that got the lion might tell you otherwise, why do you suppose that is? GF&P will tell you that they are going to take your pet deer to a refuge area or at least away from your place and it will live happily ever after. Do you really think that is what they do? If a rancher called and said he had more than one mountain lion killing on his place they came out and took care of the problem do you think GF&P would put that on their website or in the paper? Why do you think that is? Is it wrong I don’t know, maybe public fear or outrage is a factor? Have you ever had to shoot the family dog? I have, I don’t like having to tell them and would rather tell them it ran away. I don’t because my mother always told me that it took 10 lies to cover one and a 100 to cover the 10, my memory isn’t that good but I will always remember the truth.
I was trying to find the handbook that addressed GF&P liability. It would make you think they are just going to take liability, when I asked GF&P-- if they would just pay a liability claim without going to court. They said probably not. Depending on what the liability claim is would determine probably whether the property owner would go to court or not. You see the property owner is paying for his legal counsel and the legal counsel against him and everyone else in that court room. You have a 50/50 chance of winning. It becomes a game of how much do you want to gamble, Hold them or fold them.
| Quote: |
| Pjoe--SJ, I would do some more calling if I were you. The biggest complaint from landowners is the hunters not following the 660 feet rule. |
Okay I will, but don’t property owners have a right to complain about the hunters not following the 660 feet rule. Is the 660 rule just a suggestion like policy?
| Quote: |
| Pjoe--And road hunting is not a group of 1000 hunters walking ditches for miles on end. It is 2 guys driving down a country backroad, see a rooster and get out and shoot it. This is no different if you are driving along your pasture and stop to shoot a coyote. |
You are right. But it is my pasture, the land that the ditch and road sits on, I pay the taxes and still share in the maintenance costs. I cannot in all the years that I have been here remember doing that. If I am on the road I am late getting somewhere. We don’t usually check the pasture from the road but we do fence. To say it couldn’t happen or never, can’t say that.
| Quote: |
PJoe--If you have any facts otherwise, please post. I would be interested to read those links. But if I am correct, I would imagine you won't find much to support your argument. |
I don’t have any hard facts and never said I did, I am just using my common sense. If you were running an enterprise what facts would you publish?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
