Comments on South Dakota property rights issue

[Jinglebob]

Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 6:38 am    Post subject:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LB: "Scott, don’t be surprised when someone holds you accountable for what you say."

Happens here everyday.


LB: "I offer you a quote of your own from an earlier post, “WORDS MEAN THINGS!” When something is not the truth it must, by definition, be a lie."

SH: No that is wrong LB!
A lie is saying something that is not true WITH THE INTENT TO MISLEAD.

Hey SH, notice the quotes. This is something that you posted earlier. So which way is it? Oh, I forgot, you can't handle the truth, so never mind! LOL


Brad: "If a few fellas are walking out a pheasant hunt, there is no legal reason to search until an unlawful act is committed."

SH:There is no way to know whether or not someone hunting has a hunting license unless he's checked. In South Dakota, Conservation Officers have the legal right to enter private land to check hunters and fisherman for their licenses.

Guess we should just change their names to "the Gestapo" then!

[~SH~]

JB: "So which way is it?"

Did you actually think you saw a contradiction there?

Perhaps you'd like to explain it.

If you had a point, what was it or did you just feel the need to say something in response even if it didn't make sense?


JB: "Guess we should just change their names to "the Gestapo" then!"

If you think that will add credibility to the points you obviously don't have!




~SH~

[Liberty Belle]

SH: “You said (paraphrasing) "CO's could come on private land and do whatever they wanted to". You also defended the same implication by Ken Knuppe and Joe Logue. Both were wrong!”

You are wrong. The only thing stopping a CO from coming onto private land without permission is a GF&P “policy” which does not have the force of law and can be changed at any time at the whim of Mr. Cooper. After a couple years of listening to Cooper saying one thing and doing the opposite, we have found that we cannot trust the man.

LB (in response): "Hog wash. What’s stopping them? Certainly not the Open Fields Doctrine!"

SH: “You were clearly wrong. There is laws that protect citizens from illegal searches.
Why don't you just admit that if you can create the "ILLUSION" that Conservation Officers can do whatever they want, when ever they want, including illegal searches, it furthers your agenda. You know it and I know it. That's why you wrongly stated that Ken Knuppe was right and that's why you posted Joe Logue's letter to the editor.”

Where do I even start with this? Pay attention now. I’ll type really slowly and maybe you can follow this: Game wardens can come on private land any time that want to, at any time of the year, for any reason they see fit and there is nothing a landowner can do about it. A game warden can’t legally search my house or anything within the curtilage (the immediate surroundings of the house), but he can drive across my grass, without my permission or my knowledge, and traipse through my pastures with impunity because, as our attorney general said in his opinion, a conservation officer is “special”. An opinion shared by many CO’s across the state.

You know full well that neither I, Knuppe or Logue said anything about the game wardens being able to make illegal, warrantless searches. Get off that mule before you ride it to death.

My agenda? The only agenda here is protection of a landowner’s private property rights from trespass and there are lots of us pushing for that. In case you haven’t noticed, there are quite a few landowners who are upset with the high handed policies of both GF&P Sec. Cooper and Gov. Rounds.

SH: “There is no way to know whether or not someone hunting has a hunting license unless he's checked. In South Dakota, Conservation Officers have the legal right to enter private land to check hunters and fisherman for their licenses.”

Yup, they’re a lawless bunch, those hunters and they just can’t be trusted to obey the licensing rules. With a crime wave like that going on, it’s no wonder the landowners need to have their rights trampled on! Why, can you imagine the horror of someone putting the wrong tag on the wrong antelope? Or worse, brazenly shooting a buck while walking through my pasture wearing hunter orange, and only having a doe license? No wonder GF&P feels that it needs to violate landowner's rights. What's a little trespass compared to a couple more pheasants or fish than the law allows? Especially when you can't be bothered to do license and limit checks on the public highway.

That’s worse than a fellow driving a two-ton pickup truck seventy-five mph down the Interstate without a driver’s license? Logue did note that the Highway Patrol can’t stop a guy just to check for a driver’s license. How many more people are killed by bad drivers than by bad hunters? Something is really out of whack here.

Gestapo? If the shoe fits....

[SJ]

GF&P is the only Government agency, that makes rules, that are enforced as law by a law enforcement agency of their own. If a complaint against a GF&P employee is made, GF&P does its own internal investigation,which does not usually include the one making the complaint, and they are judge and jury with the penalty phase being confidential.

If I am picked up by a patrolman for speeding it is public information and usually put in the paper.

[Brad S]

Brad: "If a few fellas are walking out a pheasant hunt, there is no legal reason to search until an unlawful act is committed."

SH, "There is no way to know whether or not someone hunting has a hunting license unless he's checked. In South Dakota, Conservation Officers have the legal right to enter private land to check hunters and fisherman for their licenses. "


AND WHAT THE F#$% GIVES CONSERVATION OFFICERS THE LEGAL RIGHT TO TRESPASS. Don't even say open fields doctrine or I'll be forced to prove AGAIN Open Fields Doctrine means the evidence of a trespass search is not supressed. The jackbooted thugs merely seize the access not because its legal but because the remedy or cost to such wrongful acts is insignificant.

By the way, the legal right to seize private property rights is a colossall outrage to all of America's freedom fighters. Sorta makes those flag burning punks look like amatures.

[~SH~]

SH to LB (previous): “You said (paraphrasing) "CO's could come on private land and do whatever they wanted to". You also defended the same implication by Ken Knuppe and Joe Logue. Both were wrong!”

LB (in response): "You are wrong."

No, once again you are wrong and here's the proof.


HERE'S YOUR OWN WORDS LB...........

LB (previous): "Sorry SH, I should have clarified my statement to say that GF&P game wardens can go wherever they want and do whatever they want without landowner knowledge or consent."

LB (previous): "Under the Open Fields Doctrine, you have the right to allow the game warden to do anything he wants on your land."


You have clearly contradicted yourself ("do whatever they want whenever they want") by admitting that CO's cannot conduct illegal searches.

Your admission: "A game warden can’t legally search my house or anything within the curtilage (the immediate surroundings of the house)...."



LB: "You know full well that neither I, Knuppe or Logue said anything about the game wardens being able to make illegal, warrantless searches."

Hahaha!

RECAP...............

Ken Knuppe (previous): "Those businesses don't want law enforcement officers entering their premises and performing searches at any time for no apparent reason and neither do we."

Joe Logue (previous): "What they don't want is unwarranted search and seizure, with disregard of private property rights."


Ken and Joe both clearly created the illusion that CO's can conduct illegal searches and both are clearly wrong on that as are you to suggest they never said it.


LB: "Why, can you imagine the horror of someone putting the wrong tag on the wrong antelope? Or worse, brazenly shooting a buck while walking through my pasture wearing hunter orange, and only having a doe license?"

Oh, I see, now lets pick and choose which laws we are going to enforce.

Heck it's just a little marijuana.

Heck I was only going 10 MPH over the speed limit, what's that going to hurt?

Heck, I'm going to be 21 next month, so what if I am having a few beers?

Yup, let's just annually review which laws we are going to enforce.





~SH~

[Brad S]

LB, "Under the Open Fields Doctrine, you have the right to allow the game warden to do anything he wants on your land."

If LB posted this, she is mistaken. Private ownership rights allow a landowner to GIVE access - something we call cooperation in the free world.


SH, "In South Dakota, Conservation Officers have the legal right to enter private land"

SH, quotes, Ken Knuppe (previous): "Those businesses don't want law enforcement officers entering their premises and performing searches at any time for no apparent reason and neither do we."

SH quotes Joe Logue (previous): "What they don't want is unwarranted search and seizure, with disregard of private property rights."


SH, "Ken and Joe both clearly created the illusion that CO's can conduct illegal searches and both are clearly wrong on that as are you to suggest they never said it."

A private property trespass is a taking and NO STATE can overide the US Constitution. Ken and Joe agree with me and Thomas Jefferson that leo wandering arround private property looking for something that might lead to the discovery of a legal infraction is rediculous. Some dullards would trade private property rights to make sure everyone hunts with a magazine plug - yeah that's a good trade.

The only way to stop jackbooted thugs from trespassing is sue for their trespass. It simply costs too much to defend many trespass suits.

Contrary to SH's legal scholarship, SD can't take surface property rights from landowners.

[Liberty Belle]

SH: “You have clearly contradicted yourself ("do whatever they want whenever they want") by admitting that CO's cannot conduct illegal searches.”

Contradiction? I don’t think so. Please read these former posts:

LB: ““A CO cannot search the house without a search warrant. They CAN search buildings outside of the immediate surroundings of the home, including any sheds, barns, cellars, etc., without a warrant.”

SH: “A conservation officer cannot do whatever he wants on your land. Open Fields is specific to checking hunters in the line of duty and assisting with human health and safety issues.”

LB: “Oh for pete’s sake! Of course he, or anyone else, can do anything on my land, provided it’s legal, if I agree to let him. Where on earth did you get that idea?”

Hopefully, I’ve made my position clear.


SH: “Ken and Joe both clearly created the illusion that CO's can conduct illegal searches and both are clearly wrong on that as are you to suggest they never said it.”

Would you please quit putting words in other folk’s mouths? They said what they said. No more. No less. Give it a rest!


SH: “Oh, I see, now lets pick and choose which laws we are going to enforce.”

Tut, tut, tut. You’ve got it wrong again. It’s landowners who are insisting on laws being enforced and GF&P that is trying to circumvent the constitution. We have great respect for the laws of the land and we wish that GF&P did too.

Brad S: “LB, "Under the Open Fields Doctrine, you have the right to allow the game warden to do anything he wants on your land."
If LB posted this, she is mistaken. Private ownership rights allow a landowner to GIVE access - something we call cooperation in the free world.”

I don’t remember saying it that way, if I did, I misspoke because I can’t give anyone, not even a game warden, permission to break the law. I DID say: “Of course he, or anyone else, can do anything on my land, provided it’s legal, if I agree to let him,” and I stand by that statement.

Brad S: “Contrary to SH's legal scholarship, SD can't take surface property rights from landowners.”

Exactly!!

[~SH~]

LB: "Contradiction? I don’t think so."

Once again.........

LB (previous): "Sorry SH, I should have clarified my statement to say that GF&P game wardens can go wherever they want and do whatever they want without landowner knowledge or consent."

That statement is not true LB.

We both went on to point out the circumstances of illegal searches.


LB: "Hopefully, I’ve made my position clear."

We are clear on what constitutes "illegal searches" which contradicts your statement above that CO's can do whatever they want, whenever they want.


LB: "Would you please quit putting words in other folk’s mouths? They said what they said. No more. No less. Give it a rest"

How can I put words in other folk's mouth WHEN USING THEIR EXACT QUOTES????? Pretty hard to do!

As long as folks like you, Joe, and Ken create the "ILLUSION" that CO's can, in your own words, "go wherever they want and do whatever they want" I'll be correcting it.

You may get away with that deception in other avenues but it won't happen here. Truth matters here!


~SH~

[Liberty Belle]

LB: "Would you please quit putting words in other folk’s mouths? They said what they said. No more. No less. Give it a rest"

SH: “How can I put words in other folk's mouth WHEN USING THEIR EXACT QUOTES????? Pretty hard to do!
As long as folks like you, Joe, and Ken create the "ILLUSION" that CO's can, in your own words, "go wherever they want and do whatever they want" I'll be correcting it.
You may get away with that deception in other avenues but it won't happen here. Truth matters here!”

Truth matters? It darn sure does to me, and if you’d just leave it alone without putting your own twist on it to make it mean what you want people to say, I’ll quit correcting you!

Now, not to change the subject or anything, but you haven’t said a word about Craig Shaver’s scenario that I posted. I’m going to repost it for you here and would love to have you tell me where what Shaver presents is wrong. I especially like his last two paragraphs:

If I were Secretary of GF&P or Governor

If I were Secretary of GF&P or Governor I would have embraced the proposed legislation limiting the open fields doctrine. Here is why:
A group called the west river issues working group met several times over the last year. There was diversity of opinions in the group, but one thing topped the list of concerns, the lack of communication between the GF&P Dept. and landowners.
After viewing legislative committee hearings it appeared that the primary concern of the GF&P Dept. opposing the open fields bill was compliance checking of bag limits and licenses. There is nothing to prevent game officer from seeking prior permission to enter private land for those purposes. Current GPS and mapping technology already in place in many counties, soon in all, make landowner identification as easy as pushing a button. The scenario could have unfolded like this:

1. The bill limiting the open fields doctrine passed.

2. The Governor signs it.

3. A million, possibly two million, acres are reopened to hunting.

4. GF&P management using the open fields statute as a motivator establishes competition among districts and individual game officers to see who can obtain the highest percentage of landowner prior permissions for compliance checking.

5. GF&P dept discovers that addressing predator and pest control, game depredation and limiting game numbers at responsible levels garner them the highest prior permission levels.

6. The communication problem topping the list of working group concerns has evaporated.

7. Socialists who claimed property rights and game management weren’t compatible are proven wrong.

Statesmen in leadership positions accept new ideas and information and change their minds accordingly. Politicians in positions of power entrench, dispute new ideas and continue to expand their power.

When a Governor interferes with the legislative process to side with the power and convenience of a bureaucratic agency and sides against producer property rights it is time for a change in executive branch leadership.

Craig Shaver

[JoseyWales]

Interesting discussion.

Actually I believe patrolmen can and do stop vehicles without any probable cause. One example would be sobriety checks. Another would be safty inspections on trucks. Obviously drunk driving and truck safety would be seen by most as more important than making sure one has a shotgun plugged, but the point remains.

LB...excellent points and explanation of the OFD.

Personally, as both a property owner and supporter of wildlife law enforcement, I can see both sides on this issue. Each camp has some valid issues and concerns.

Folks, in any debate people will often misspeak, and/or reword their points when they restate them. May I suggest that everyone involved in this debate focus on the real questions and issues instead of wasting countless keystrokes trying to catch others in a "contradiction." These serve only as distractors and contribute nothing to the questions at hand.

One thing I have learned over the years is to get out of my own way and actually listen to other's opinions rather than constantly trying to defend my own. This helps me get a broader perspective and at times I actually learn something. At the very least, it helps me soften my stance and become a more tolerable person.

Virgin poster.....be gentle!

[Liberty Belle]

Welcome to the board Josey. You are right, patrolmen can stop cars for sobriety checks, but only if they stop all cars. Same thing with driver's license checks. Truck drivers are another matter. Because the trucking industry is commercial and heavily regulated, a patrolmen is allowed to stop any truck at any time without a specific reason or what is known as probable cause.

You are also right about keeping focused on the real issue at hand, which is landowners' private property rights and the GF&P’s abuse of those rights. You may have noticed that sometimes it’s really hard to keep some posters from jumping on any other bandwagon to avoid discussing what the real problem is and trying to find a solution.

We are also both property owners and supporters of wildlife. Without the diligent efforts of ranchers and farmers in this state, there would be no wildlife for the GF&P to regulate. I often wonder if our grandparents and parents had foreseen the troubles brought on by overreaching government agencies to “control” and regulate that same wildlife, would they have bothered to saddle their children and grandchildren with this mixed blessing?

I hope you’ll keep reading and keep posting. We need folks like you on this board.