I'm also going to post an article from the Rapid City Journal explaining both sides of the issue. Read this and the language in the bill and then explain to us how GF&P would be hindered in the performance of their duties by this legislation. We left them loopholes big enough to drive a Mack truck through, but that wasn't good enough for Herr Cooper.
Open fields bill moves ahead
By Denise Ross, Journal Staff Writer
PIERRE -- A bill that would require game wardens to obtain permission to enter a privately owned farm or ranch gained the approval of a legislative committee Tuesday.
SB122 is the most recent piece of a robust policy debate over private-property rights, hunting and the demeanor of state Game, Fish & Parks officers in South Dakota.
The Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee sided squarely with disgruntled landowners with a 7-2 vote to send SB122 to the full Senate.
SB122 sponsor Sen. Jay Duenwald, R-Hoven, said the state's interpretation of a legal theory called the open fields doctrine has left landowners legitimately upset about the erosion of private-property rights.
"Without property rights, the other rights virtually do not exist," Duenwald said.
Under the open fields doctrine, game wardens may enter farm or ranch property to check hunters' licenses and the number of animals they have killed.
GF&P Secretary John Cooper said he relies on a state attorney general's opinion that says a pair of U.S. Supreme Court rulings allow law enforcement officers to enter open fields to enforce the law rather than obtaining the owner's permission or a search warrant required to enter a building.
Cooper said current GF&P policy requires a warden to observe hunting, fishing or trapping activity before entering private property to check licenses.
Under SB122, the officers would be able to enter private land without permission in four situations.
n If reasonable suspicion or probable cause exists that a violation of a law that the conservation officer is authorized to enforce has been, is being or is about to be committed.
n To investigate a report of illegal hunting, fishing or trapping activity.
n To dispatch crippled or distressed wildlife.
n To respond to emergency situations, accidents or other threats to public safety.
Much of Tuesday's debate centered on complicated court cases and the interpretation of legal rulings and opinions.
Harding County rancher Larry Nelson said the two U.S. Supreme Court cases the state relies on involved searches that were challenged after law enforcement officers observed possible illegal activity. South Dakota's practice requires no such probable cause, making the legal underpinnings for the state's policy tenuous, he argued.
"In none of these cases anywhere does it talk about the ability to do compliance checks," Nelson said.
Chuck Schroyer, lobbyist for the South Dakota State's Attorneys Association, said the state has its own property rights to protect.
"The purpose of the open fields doctrine is to protect the property owned by the state of South Dakota in the form of wildlife. That's a property right just as strongly as for an owner of real estate," Schroyer said. "You've effectively diminished the ability of law enforcement to handle that property."
Rancher and former state criminal investigator Richard Meyer said that when they enter land without permission, game wardens are guilty of trespassing.
"They're breaking a law to enforce a law," he said.
Lynn A. Johnson of Florence said he wants conservation officers to be able to enter his property to do their job and that he often won't be around to give them permission.
"If the COs suspect something, I want them to be able to go out there and protect me," he said.
Those on both sides of the issue agreed that attitudes have changed when it comes to hunting in South Dakota.
Sturgis area rancher Anita Lee said she believes hunters have lost respect for the landowners on whose property they hunt.
"Hunters have the attitude they don't have to ask. They own the game and are taxpayers, and they're damn well going to hunt. That's the point where we put up signs and say, 'No hunters. Go to hell,'" Lee told the committee. "Our attitudes have changed. I wish we could find a way to go back to the way things were 35 years ago."
Sen. Jim Lintz, R-Hermosa, said he believes the attitudes of some GF&P officers have forced the situation.
"We are here today because there's been abuse, and I think there's going to be further abuse," Lintz told Cooper. "It's because of the attitude of a very few of your people."
Lintz gave Cooper credit for setting up a working group to try to deal with the open fields doctrine and other issues but said he does not believe that will be enough.
Without a resolution, some predicted the practice of private landowners forbidding hunting is likely to grow.
"A viable hunting industry takes balanced cooperation from landowners, the Game, Fish & Parks and hunters," Bob Mack of Watertown said. "We're going to see the lockout spread across this state. That will make it a difficult job of managing and harvesting game if this conflict continues."
Sen. Ken McNenny, R-Sturgis, said the lockout might spread whether or not relations between land owners, hunters and game wardens improve. A lockout is the only tool available to landowners who believe the open fields doctrine is unjust, he said.
"By letting hunters on, they're encouraging the loss of property rights because someone can come out and check what they're doing," McNenny said.
Sen. John Koskan, R-Wood, agreed, saying the choice is between the preservation of private-property rights and convenience for law enforcement.
"I'm not sure that compliance checks to make sure somebody has a license outweighs private-property rights," Koskan said.
The full Senate could take up SB122 as soon as today.
Contact Denise Ross at 394-8438 or
[email protected].
February 2, 2005
http://rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2005/02/02/front/top/news01.txt
:lol: 8) 