• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Clearing up some inaccuracies in SH's responses

Help Support Ranchers.net:

SJ

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
282
Reaction score
0
Location
ludlow, SD
SH Your responses on the ranchers net have been widely circulated. I had a person call and ask me to convey some of his thoughts about your inaccuracies.

SH stated;-The majority have spoken and the majority want our wildlife resources protected from orpoachers which requires access to private land.

Response--You would have been more accurate if you had said a few or one for sure killed the bill. The GF&P website “ Tony Dean outdoors” helped legislature by putting out untrue garbage about the landowners. GF&P will say it isn’t their website and Tony Dean is just Tony Dean but GF&P writes to it. To this day GF&P has never cleared up the incident(that never happen) between Mark DeVries and John Cooper and neither has Mr. Dean. Mr. Dean came out with a fictitious “landowner road hunting bill” at an opportune time also and as usual GF&P never cleared that up either. In fact GF&P has never stood up for the landowner when untrue statements have been put out, by Dean or Newspapers, when these things were brought up at the working group meetings GF&P would say it wasn’t there thinking but it must have been beneficial to them or you would have thought GF&P would have been man enough to set the record straight. I always thought GF&P was made up of three entities GF&P as management, the sportsman and the landowner with GF&P staying neutral during legislature but that was not the case when the open fields bill came to the house floor. They were out in numbers, I am sure no one was left to answer the phone. When GF&P couldn’t get the job done the governors aides came out in force and when the aides couldn’t get the job done the Governor had to come out and pull legislators off the floor and convince them to vote against it. It took the governor coming out to stop the bill against three landowners lobbying that day. It took a majority all right the majority of GF&P and the majority of the governors office and then the Governor himself to stop three landowners. You can twist actual events and mislead with the best, with Tony Dean being the best. Access has never been denied with probable cause or a WARRANT, CO’s just need to communicate with the landowners instead of just coming on. After the bill failed Cooper came out and publicly said it was a slap in the face, with all that he has been doing to address the problem. I would like to say this; if I were to run my household or business as Cooper runs his department I would be in a world of hurt. He has been working on better communication for two years without any results. If I told my child or hired man that this is my house and it will be my way as long as you are in my house and then couldn’t enforce it for two years it would be an out of control house hold. Who did you say spoke? What majority? It was a majority al right but not a majority of people it was a majority of POWER. Did you see the polls?


SH Stated;The world you envision..........

Conservation Officer to landowner: "Hello Mr. private property rights, I received a TIPS call that your son was out spotlighting the other night and may have shot a deer and left it lay. Considering the importance of your private property rights, I was wondering if you cared whether I drove on to your land to check your son if I happen to see him spotlighting again, PLEASE!" Mr. Private Property: "Why yes, most certainly, if my son is spotlighting and shooting deer, you have every right to drive out across my land and check my precious little deer poacher" Conservation: "Why thank you very much. I'll be sure to cut the back straps out for you"
Yup, that's the kind of wildlife law enforcement we need!

REsponse--That would be a start instead of there I can and you can’t stop me attitude. Further more if they had a tip they have probable cause or they could get a WARRANT. One thing wonderful about TIPS program is that they can just dream it up, come on and never be questioned or have to reveal their source. I call it the “Think-up Invalid Probable-cause to Search program.

My envision--The world that is here and in effect as we speak…………….
South Dakota Landowner to Conservation Officer; Hello Mr. Invader of private property rights, the landowners of South Dakota have been following and watching you on your daily duties and found that you had been on private property without permission and for no apparent reason or probable cause. Since you are an agency that makes its own rules, with its own law enforcement that enforce these rules as law and your own internal investigative and justice dept., which contains its own judge and jury and penalty provider covered by HIPA, (if there is a complaint made against a GF&P employee). This leaves no one except the landowners of South Dakota to watch and make sure you are following your rules and not conducting illegal activity on private land. I was wondering if you would mind if I took your gun and placed you under citizen arrest for trespassing, until it could be decided by the justice system of the land instead of the GF&P justice system.
Mr. Invader of private property rights; why yes most certainly, if I am on your land for no reason or probable cause you have every right to arrest me and ask what I am doing or have been doing on your land without permission.
South Dakota Landowner; Why thank you very much. I’ll take good care of you gun, flac jacket, pepper spray etc. until this matter is resolved.




SH stated;I know all about deer depredation. We finally had to put up a deer proof fence to save our second cutting alfalfa. The fence was supplied with sportsman's dollars.

Response--Most dollars that change hands, change ownership but not the sportsman’s dollars. Everyone Urban and Rural person pays a depredation tax, so to say all fence supplied was sportsmen’s dollars is far from the right. The landowners dollars lost (feeding, housing wildlife etc.) are never mentioned. The sportsman’s dollar could never deer proof all landowners hay and other feed. Before the surcharge came into effect GF&P paid the CO and the trapper and when the surcharge was added, it now pays for CO and trapper. It was a great deception to both the landowner and the hunter. I know of no other circumstance where money spent it is still in the control of the spender.
1. GF&P couldn’t begin to generate enough sportsman’s dollars, to sustain wildlife or hunting in South Dakota if;
2. Landowner’s didn’t supply 80% of the feed and housing of wildlife and many other costs.
3. Landowner’s didn’t enjoy the wildlife.

SH stated---NO! The best bang for the livestock producers buck is to have a trapper and a pilot that work together BAR NONE. Each working seperately, will only be 50% as efficient and cost effective as they could be by working together

Response to SH---Nice picture but if you have a trapper unwilling and isn’t required to do so and is never subject to losing his job or ending up in Court and made to stand accountable, he has no reason to get along, he doesn’t have to and he doesn’t want to and he doesn’t need to. When complaints were made it seemed to me they are never addressed.. RY was written a letter, by GF&P, and told to get along but knew nothing would happen if he didn’t and therefore he chose not to. Then he just made a point to get even and do what he could to get rid of the pilot knowing his job would never be in jeopardy. Maybe the pilot did some things wrong but he paid the price something the trapper has never and will never do with his agency being investigator and judge and jury.



SH stated---To just have a pilot flying helter skelter looking for coyotes in Nov. - Jan. is a waste of money unless actual killing is occuring.

Response--Is it really a waste of money getting the coyotes before they den and have pups in them or is the real reason because GF&P trappers like to trap when furs are prime in a state vehicle on state time with state traps and receive the money from the furs. GF&P trappers can compete with the Trappers of South Dakota with no personal expense. GF&P in general has lost a great amount of trust and it will take along time to regain it. They need to tell the whole truth when asked. They use scare tactics with people by talking of complaints or tips that are never produced. GF&P let you believe that para planes were downed because of complaints to FAA and GF&P had nothing to do with it, but when investigated GF&P was the only one to bring it to FAA. That is just one thing and there are many others.

SH states--Those same coyotes can be killed in those areas prior to denning by flying in Feb. through April once coyotes settle into their denning areas. I have seen predator districts burn up their funding flying winter "maintenance" and not having enough money to fly pre denning when it would have done far more good. There aren’t enough state planes to come in a timely manner at that time of year to do the job effectively when coyotes are killing. The areas that are flown during prime fur season are filled back in by denning time. To fly an area during the peak of the immigration (prime fur season) then turn around and fly it again in two weeks and again in two weeks is a complete and total waste of money when you can fly it in Feb. through April once the coyotes that are going to be a problem get locked into their territories. That is when you get the most bang for your buck.

Response--What buck, they are sportsman’s dollars remember. That’s your opinion and that is all. Tell me why the losses in Harding County are one of the lowest?

SH stated---My sheep numbers are way down from what they used to be.

Question SH--Why are your sheep numbers down and could you give the names of these people who have cut numbers?

Sh states--If your contract pilot is controlling the numbers, why is he taking so many coyotes????? Hmmmm???? Sounds to me like your pilot is letting the coyote population get out of hand if he's taking so many.

REsponse---He has a large area.

SH states--Looks to me like the reason your trapper doesn't take as many coyotes as your pilot is because your trapper is obviously keeping the coyote numbers in check in the areas he is working.

Response--When I last checked RY’s permission slips (12) I would hope the coyote numbers were in check in the area that he covers. I think just about anyone, professional or amateur, could keep that size an area in check. The money that Harding and Butte put in is certainly not getting much of a bang for their buck. Pretty high priced trapper doing very little for what the counties put in.You also stated once that no one could look you in the eye and tell you RY wasn’t doing a good job either you only hear what you want or you haven’t talked too many. I remember when he first came and we tried to get to know him and get along he asked us not to do anything with the small prairie dog town as he would keep it in check and he liked to trap on them, needless to say he never did either and never bothered to call and let us know. We could see it was growing and when we tried to call it seem he was never available. It also like he told another guy that was losing livestock, and the guy could never get hold of him so he called the pilot in and RY told him he would never come back because he called the pilot. I can also tell you other stories but you won’t believe them and you will make excuses all landowners are wrong to question or ask why something is done the way it is. GF&P employees are above mistake and never found wrong because of their actions. If crossed they always have the tips program and the open fields to get even. They may not win in court but why should they care it isn’t money out of their pocket but the landowner has to defend himself with his own hard earned money.RY will tell you he has always had current permission slips but that is not true, he doesn’t always and doesn’t need to and will never stand accountable or responsible for any thing he does. He has never grown beyond his adolescent years as far as attitude and will never have to.


You continue to bring up JJ but he has stood accountable and responsible paid his fine and will probably always be on the look out for the next sting brought on by the “untouchables” GF&P.

Landowners pay for the use of STATE LAND, which goes to the school fund, what does GF&P pay for their use of the STATE LAND? If GF&P did pay for their use would it be sportsmen’s dollars only to be used for true-blue sportsman decided by sportsmen.


Now that I have really got your coyote dander up.

I’ll leave you with one last thought.

When Chris Hesla was asked at a working group meeting what have hunters given up? His response was as follows: Hunters gave up the right to trespass on private land when legislature made all land automatically posted.
 

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
4
Location
northwestern South Dakota
You've certainly given SH plenty to think about with this post. I don't know if he will (or can) give you any answers, but thanks for posting. I checked the lockout website: www.sdlockout.com this morning and see that 3,265,000 acres are listed in the lockout as of yesterday. I think Gov. Rounds and GF&P Sec. Cooper are going to be working overtime on this public relations disaster. I don’t think even Tony Dean and Chris Hesla are going to be able to help them out of this mess.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
SJ: "SH Your responses on the ranchers net have been widely circulated."

Wonderful!

The more people exposed to the truth the better.

I know how badly you need someone from GF&P to fight with so I'll be your Huckleberry.


SJ: "I had a person call and ask me to convey some of his thoughts about your inaccuracies."

My inaccuracies??? Haha!

Talk is cheap!

Let's find out shall we?


Some alias from Harding Co. in response: " One thing wonderful about TIPS program is that they can just dream it up, come on and never be questioned or have to reveal their source. I call it the “Think-up Invalid Probable-cause to Search program."

Yeh, I suppose that would explain all the fines and arrests that have been made since TIP's inception wouldn't it???

Strike one!


SH: "I know all about deer depredation. We finally had to put up a deer proof fence to save our second cutting alfalfa. The fence was supplied with sportsman's dollars."

Some alias from Harding Co. (in response): "Everyone Urban and Rural person pays a depredation tax, so to say all fence supplied was sportsmen’s dollars is far from the right."

WRONG!

Everyone urban and rural AT THE COUNTY LEVEL pays into the ADC program with sportsman's dollars picking up the bulk of that tab with a $2 to $1 match to these county funds. In addition to that, there is Federal dollars added to the ADC program. Those ADC dollars do not fund deer proof stack fences.

The deer proof stack fences come from the depredation surcharge that was added to hunting licenses which is paid for by sportsman's dollars.

Lets see what else you are wrong about.


Some alias from Harding Co.: "The landowners dollars lost (feeding, housing wildlife etc.) are never mentioned."

WRONG AGAIN!

I just got done mentioning the fact that I have experienced deer depredation myself didn't I?

Must have missed that one huh?


Some alias from Harding Co.: "The sportsman’s dollar could never deer proof all landowners hay and other feed."

Nobody said they could. Nobody even made such a foolish request. What the GF&P department has done is to prioritize with the worst deer depredation problems first.


Some alias from Harding Co.: "Before the surcharge came into effect GF&P paid the CO and the trapper and when the surcharge was added, it now pays for CO and trapper."

Now wait a minute, you just got done saying......

"Everyone Urban and Rural person pays a depredation tax, so to say all fence supplied was sportsmen’s dollars is far from the right."

Now you acknowledge the surcharge? LOL!

WRONG AGAIN!

The surcharge does not pay for the CO and the trapper. That is absolutely untrue. Those surcharge dollars pay for wildlife depredation. A lot of it goes towards fencing and food plots.

Instead of shooting from the hip why don 't you get the facts?


Some alias from Harding Co.: "It was a great deception to both the landowner and the hunter."

It's obvious where the deception is coming from.


Some alias from Harding Co.: "I know of no other circumstance where money spent it is still in the control of the spender."

The bottom line is whether or not GF&P surcharge money is going towards wildlife depredation on private land or whether it's not.

Why don't you prove your claim that surcharge money is paying for the trappers and CO's rather than going towards wildlife depredation? Hmmmm???? Just think what a hero you would be to those who have an axe to grind with GF&P statewide. Why with a "conspiracy" of that magnitude, just think what you could accomplish?

Go get the proof to back your allegation that CO's and Trappers are paid with the surcharge money.

Happy Hunting!


Some alias from Harding Co.: "Nice picture but if you have a trapper unwilling and isn’t required to do so and is never subject to losing his job or ending up in Court and made to stand accountable, he has no reason to get along, he doesn’t have to and he doesn’t want to and he doesn’t need to."
I would sure like to hear your definition of "getting along".

"Getting along" requires two parties.


Some alias from Harding Co.: "Then he just made a point to get even and do what he could to get rid of the pilot knowing his job would never be in jeopardy. Maybe the pilot did some things wrong but he paid the price something the trapper has never and will never do with his agency being investigator and judge and jury."

How did he "get even"???

EXPLAIN IT!!!!!

Who was caught trespassing hmmmm????

Who was CONVICTED OF trespassing in a court of law hmmmm????

WHO FILED THE TRESPASS COMPLAINT hmmmmmm????

"getting even"????

Yeh, you bet! You want a GF&P fall guy, admit it!

ANOTHER SHOT FROM THE HARDING CO. GRASSY KNOLL ("get even") and you want to lecture about "getting along"??????

I'll tell you right now if your definition of "getting along" is having a puppet that will put up with baseless allegations like this, it probably isn't going to happen.

What you need is someone who is willing to look you in the eye and call "bull" when they see it and hear it.

He paid the price you say????

Tell that to the guys that have lost their airplanes in the past for the same offense.


SH (previous): "SH stated---To just have a pilot flying helter skelter looking for coyotes in Nov. - Jan. is a waste of money unless actual killing is occuring."

Some alias from Harding Co.: "Is it really a waste of money getting the coyotes before they den and have pups in them or is the real reason because GF&P trappers like to trap when furs are prime in a state vehicle on state time with state traps and receive the money from the furs."

I specifically stated that the "best bang for the buck" is killing coyote pairs prior to denning. How many coyotes are bred from Nov. - Jan.??? Hmmm???

I stand by my statement because it's a fact!

You say GF&P trappers like to trap when furs are prime in a state vehicle on state time with state traps and receive the money for the furs huh???

THAT IS AN OUT AND OUT LIE

Circulate that!

ANOTHER SHOT FROM THE HARDING CO. GRASSY KNOLL!

That is grounds for immediate termination.

PROVE YOUR ALLEGATION!!!!! DO IT!!!!

Start your investigation with me.


some alias from Harding Co.: "GF&P trappers can compete with the Trappers of South Dakota with no personal expense."

You just got done responding to my comments about Nov. - Jan. coyote killing being a waste of time UNLESS ACTUAL KILLING WAS OCCURING AT THAT TIME, and now you are complaining about competing with the trappers of South Dakota.

WHICH WAY IS IT GOING TO BE?????

Isn't your private pilot who is killing coyotes from Nov. - Jan. with predator district funds COMPETING WITH THOSE SAME TRAPPERS???

HMMMM????

Do you see how backwards and inconsistant your arguments are???

The fact is that I do not compete with private trappers unless I have actual killing occuring from Nov. - Jan. I start my preventative measures in Feb. when the furs are already rubbing. That is also the time when killing coyotes does the most good. A WIN WIN SITUATION!!!

Can you say the same thing about your private pilot funded with predator district fund dollars? Hmmmmm????

I didn't think so!


some alias in Harding Co.: "GF&P in general has lost a great amount of trust and it will take along time to regain it. They need to tell the whole truth when asked."

You want the truth, ASK! I'll tell you right here in black and white for the whole world to see and I'll sign my name to it. You can continue to hide behind your alias.

You want it straight, YOU BRING IT STRAIGHT!


Some alias in Harding Co.: "GF&P let you believe that para planes were downed because of complaints to FAA and GF&P had nothing to do with it, but when investigated GF&P was the only one to bring it to FAA. That is just one thing and there are many others."

Game Fish & Parks made the mistake of licensing para planes thinking they were legal. Unfortunately for all of us, we found out later that they were not legal for aerial hunting. Yup, GF&P made a wrong assumption that para planes were legal on behalf of landowners.

How ironic that this mistake was in the landowners favor and you still complain about it. Says a lot more than I could say.


SH (previous):"Those same coyotes can be killed in those areas prior to denning by flying in Feb. through April once coyotes settle into their denning areas. I have seen predator districts burn up their funding flying winter "maintenance" and not having enough money to fly pre denning when it would have done far more good. There aren’t enough state planes to come in a timely manner at that time of year to do the job effectively when coyotes are killing. The areas that are flown during prime fur season are filled back in by denning time. To fly an area during the peak of the immigration (prime fur season) then turn around and fly it again in two weeks and again in two weeks is a complete and total waste of money when you can fly it in Feb. through April once the coyotes that are going to be a problem get locked into their territories. That is when you get the most bang for your buck."

Some alias in Harding Co.: "What buck, they are sportsman’s dollars remember."

They are matched $2 tro $1 with county dollars remember?

I don't care whether they are sportsman's dollars, county dollars, federal dollars, or predator district dollars. Feb. - April is when you get the most bang for your buck.


Some alias in Harding Co.: "That’s your opinion and that is all."

WRONG AGAIN!

It is an absolute fact that Feb. - April coyote control is the "best bang for your buck"! That topic is not even debatable! You want to make your argument to the contrary, bring it. There is no subject I understand better than this one.


Some alias in Harding Co.: "Tell me why the losses in Harding County are one of the lowest?"

Wait a second, didn't DN state in Pierre that he was experiencing heavy losses?

Why don' t you guys pick a position and stick with it for once instead of constantly contradicting yourselves.


If Harding Co. losses are some of the lowest, I would guess it's because you have a lot of sheep to tax creating a large tax base from both the county level into the state program and also into predator district funds. This in turn allows for the funding of both a private pilot and a state trapper.


Some alias in Harding Co.: "Why are your sheep numbers down and could you give the names of these people who have cut numbers?"

Why are sheep numbers down statewide? Wool markets and lamb markets in recent years? The number one reason I hear is cheap imports from New Zealand.

You tell me!

No I am not going to drop producer names on the internet. I can't believe you would even ask. If I did you would just turn around and complain about me dropping names on the internet after you finished with your witch hunt.


SH (previous): "If your contract pilot is controlling the numbers, why is he taking so many coyotes????? Hmmmm???? Sounds to me like your pilot is letting the coyote population get out of hand if he's taking so many."

Some alias in Harding Co. in response: "He has a large area."

He's still not controlling the numbers or the numbers wouldn't be there to take.

Try again!


Some alias in Harding Co.: The money that Harding and Butte put in is certainly not getting much of a bang for their buck."

You just got done asking: "Tell me why the losses in Harding County are one of the lowest?"

Now how can Harding County losses be lowest if they are not getting much of a bang for their buck???

Go ahead, I'll give you time to pull your pants back up!


Some alias in Harding Co.: "Pretty high priced trapper doing very little for what the counties put in."

High priced trapper??? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! You're a funny guy!

What the County puts in is matched $2 to $1 with sportsman's dollars and nobody works harder in this outfit than RY. The fact that you have chosen to run a private pilot program only is your own doings. I don't know what you are complaining about? You seem to think JJ is doing such a wonderful job so what's your problem?

BTW, does JJ fly for everyone that pays in to the predator districts or just a select few??? Hmmmmm????


Some alias in Harding Co.: "It also like he told another guy that was losing livestock, and the guy could never get hold of him so he called the pilot in and RY told him he would never come back because he called the pilot."

I'm supposed to take your word for this after the crap you just hurled against the wall?

Yeh, you bet!


Some alias in Harding Co.: "I can also tell you other stories but you won’t believe them and you will make excuses all landowners are wrong to question or ask why something is done the way it is."

Stories is right.

Like I said, you want it straight, you bring it straight.

I'm not going to tell you what you want to hear. I'm going to tell you the truth.

If you can't handle it, that's your problem not mine.


Some alias in Harding Co.: "GF&P employees are above mistake and never found wrong because of their actions."

WRONG AGAIN!

There has been state employees dismissed over the years for inappropriate actions.


I'm not going to address your personal attacks on RY. If you don't have the spine to address your problems with him personally and you think you need to smear his name on a public forum, that says more about you than anything I could say.



~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hat: "Wow, what a long post, lots of time on your hands. How can I get a Government Trapper Job?"

Sorry, requires more than a third grade education.


~SH~
 

SJ

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
282
Reaction score
0
Location
ludlow, SD
Before assuming some one is from some where you had better check your own back yard. I have sent it on and we will see if they want to respond. As far as I am concerned I wouldn't waste my breath as you are wrong. I would be willing to wager a bet on the depredation tax but no matter what you would find a way to get out of it or have misunderstood the question etc.



I found your last line the best
I'm not going to address your personal attacks on RY. If you don't have the spine to address your problems with him personally and you think you need to smear his name on a public forum, that says more about you than anything I could say.

You have a lot of room to talk just how many times have you visited with JJ. Don't talk about a back bone until you get one of your own.
 

SJ

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
282
Reaction score
0
Location
ludlow, SD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before assuming this some one is still from harding County and harding county is the only ones who have these feeling you had better check your own back yard.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
SJ: "Before assuming some one is from some where you had better check your own back yard."

19 minutes later.......

SJ: "Before assuming this some one is still from harding County and harding county is the only ones who have these feeling you had better check your own back yard."

some alias in Harding Co. (previous): "When I last checked RY’s permission slips (12) I would hope the coyote numbers were in check in the area that he covers."

Safe assumption???

Could you provide for me the quote where I "supposedly" assumed that a few ranchers in Harding county are the only ones who have "these feelings"? Whatever "these feelings" happens to mean?

There is a few folks in every part of the state that have an axe to grind with GF&P for one reason or another if that is what you meant by "these feelings". Not once have I ever suggested otherwise.


SJ: "As far as I am concerned I wouldn't waste my breath as you are wrong."

Talk is cheap!

It is certainly easier to say that I am wrong than prove it isn't it?



SJ: "I would be willing to wager a bet on the depredation tax but no matter what you would find a way to get out of it or have misunderstood the question etc."

Name the bet.

The allegation was "THE SURCHARGE THAT WAS ADDED TO THE LICENSE SALES NOW PAYS FOR THE CO AND TRAPPER".

Here's the allegation...........

Some alias from Harding Co.: "Before the surcharge came into effect GF&P paid the CO and the trapper and when the surcharge was added, it now pays for CO and trapper."

Name your bet!


SJ: "You have a lot of room to talk just how many times have you visited with JJ."

If you think I have "smeared" JJ, why don't you provide the quote? With such "wide circulation" of my statements, you should have no trouble recalling it.

I have not stated anything about JJ that wasn't public information in the RCJ regarding the court case.

I have visited with JJ and I have no problem with him personally nor do I hold his court case against him. Unlike some people, I don't make other's problems, my problems. I form my own opinions about everyone.

I already told you that I have mistakenly ended up somewhere that I wasn't supposed to be either and I owned up to it when confronted. We all make mistakes.

I'll visit with JJ anywhere and anytime and will not hesitate to say anything I have said about him to him personally.

Admit it, you folks like having someone to fight with. LOL!

Try to have a nice day and here's hoping you are getting some much needed moisture.



~SH~
 

koj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
103
Reaction score
0
Location
Former North West SD
Previous: Hat: "Wow, what a long post, lots of time on your hands. How can I get a Government Trapper Job?"

Previous: SH: "Sorry, requires more than a third grade education."

Yeah, try two years of light undergraduate classes followed by two years of field "research." I know what the wildlife students did. I took some of those classes too. Bringing up education here only shows your ignorance.
 

SJ

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
282
Reaction score
0
Location
ludlow, SD
I would be willing to wager a bet on the depredation tax but no matter what you would find a way to get out of it or have misunderstood the question etc.


My bet is on the depredation tax?

All who pay tax(the real estate tax which I thought was a given) urban or rural pays a depredation tax. I'll stand by that and I will wager a bet.

You said I was wrong tell me where and how?

As far as the surcharge, you are wrong about that also, I will find the report and give you the break down.

Will still bet on depredation tax.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
SJ: "All who pay tax(the real estate tax which I thought was a given) urban or rural pays a depredation tax. I'll stand by that and I will wager a bet."


Here's a quick recap so you don't start drifting off the road........


Some alias from Harding Co. (in response): "Everyone Urban and Rural person pays a depredation tax, so to say all fence supplied was sportsmen’s dollars is far from the right."


SH (in response): "Everyone urban and rural AT THE COUNTY LEVEL pays into the ADC program with sportsman's dollars picking up the bulk of that tab with a $2 to $1 match to these county funds. In addition to that, there is Federal dollars added to the ADC program."

SH (in response): "Those ADC dollars do not fund deer proof stack fences."

Sh (in response): "The deer proof stack fences come from the depredation surcharge that was added to hunting licenses which is paid for by sportsman's dollars."

I have never heard of a "depredation tax" that funds deer proof stack fences seperate from the "surcharge" on license sales. I think you have the ADC fund and the surcharge on license sales confused.

If I am wrong about a depredation tax, seperate from the surcharge on license sales, that funds deer proof stack fences, I will gladly admit it.


SJ: "You said I was wrong tell me where and how?"

I said the alias you quoted was wrong about a depredation tax funding deer proof stack fences.

You have offered no proof to the contrary.


SJ: "As far as the surcharge, you are wrong about that also, I will find the report and give you the break down."

Here's a quick recap so you drift off the road on this one either.......

The allegation was "THE SURCHARGE THAT WAS ADDED TO THE LICENSE SALES NOW PAYS FOR THE CO AND TRAPPER".

Here's the actual allegation...........

Some alias from Harding Co.: "Before the surcharge came into effect GF&P paid the CO and the trapper and when the surcharge was added, it now pays for CO and trapper."

Don't try to spin this.


There is two challenges on the table here.

1. Whether there is a depredation tax that both rural and urban people pay that funds deer proof stack fences that is seperate from the surcharge on license sales.

2. Whether the surcharge that was added to license sales pays for the CO and the trapper.


You challenged me on the first and you said I was wrong on the second.

Look forward to seeing your proof to back those assertions.



~SH~
 

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
4
Location
northwestern South Dakota
I find all this very interesting, but mostly beside the point. This began as a lively discussion of private property rights and GF&P abuses of those rights. SH, I would still like to have you tell me what is wrong with this scenario that I'll repost from Craig Shaver for you. Shaver presented a solution that could have saved the governor a lot of future political headaches:

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
 

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
4
Location
northwestern South Dakota
More property involved in lockout
STURGIS, S.D. - Ranchers angry over the unauthorized intrusion of game wardens onto their private property are fighting back by entering into lockouts across the western part of the state.
In Perkins County the lockout is growing, and for good reason according to Llewellyn Englehart.
"To date we have about 180-thousand acres. The Senate Bill 122, if they're not familiar with it, and House bill 1103, it is the Open Fields, we had the votes to pass the bill and due to the people, the Game, Fish and Parks and the governor, took and horn-swaggled everyone into voting the other way, so that's the way that went and consequently that where this got started."
Those involved in the lockout maintain that it is not that they are against hunters; after all many of them are hunters themselves. Englehart says it is a property rights issue.
"What it does is the game warden has to have permission to come on your land and he has to have a search warrant if he's going to search your property. And I don't think that is too much to ask at all so that's what the whole discussion is about. I think its going to catch on because we've had a lot of interest to what's going on and every day we get somebody wondering on how they can join."
The lockout is not an organization, there are no fees, dues, budgets or board of directors.
They have, however, ordered over 800 signs which they sold at cost. And they are currently working on making bumper stickers available to participants and supporters.

KBHB Radio
Story by: Chase Adams
 

SJ

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
282
Reaction score
0
Location
ludlow, SD
SH was right I was wrong. The peson, I posted for, called and said SH was right that I had confused the ADC and depredation which is no excuse I should have listen better before posting. Sh you should have put some money up you would have won.

Everyone who owns real estate pays into the ADC. the ADC gets federal dollars and sportsman's dollars and where there are predetor districts the district also contributes. As soon as he gets me the break down I will post it.


The surcharge goes into depredation and probably some other monies, but the depredation fund pays for , Man hours, mileage, equipment and supplies and access. As soon as I get this break down I will post it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
LB: "SH, I would still like to have you tell me what is wrong with this scenario that I'll repost from Craig Shaver for you."

I already told you. Landowners who are prone to violate game laws will not grant permission for COs to arrest them. Having to ask permission to access private land prior to checking hunters and fisherman for their licenses will render wildlife law enforcement virtually ineffective. Nobody is going to give CO's permission to arrest them. That concept is absolutely foolish.


SJ, Thank you for your admission that the information I presented was accurate. This isn't about being right, this is about being accurate.



~SH~
 

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
4
Location
northwestern South Dakota
LB: "SH, I would still like to have you tell me what is wrong with this scenario that I'll repost from Craig Shaver for you."

SH: “I already told you. Landowners who are prone to violate game laws will not grant permission for COs to arrest them. Having to ask permission to access private land prior to checking hunters and fisherman for their licenses will render wildlife law enforcement virtually ineffective. Nobody is going to give CO's permission to arrest them. That concept is absolutely foolish.”


Need I remind you that under SB122, if the CO had reason to think that the landowner needed to be arrested (probable cause), he certainly would NOT have to get the landowner’s permission to do so? Just the idea that you think any law enforcement officer, even the deer police, would need to ask permission before arresting anyone shows how little you understand what the law would have done, had it been passed. It would NOT stop a game warden from coming on private property if he had probable cause, not matter how loud and long the landowner protested.

Now I may be a little slow, but explain to me how getting acquainted with the landowners in the area he serves and obtaining prior permission is going to render “wildlife law enforcement virtually ineffective”? Game wardens can still set up license checks along the highway, which is, incidentally, much more effective than driving across the land on individual ranches and farms. One of the many problems that landowners and hunters have with the attitude of the GF&P personnel is that both landowners and hunters are automatically assumed to be guilty of something until they can prove to the deer police that they are not hiding anything or breaking any law. GF&P and the IRS are government entities with much in common.

And what about Cooper’s vaunted “landowner – game warden communications”? I must have missed something here. Has there been ANY communications between the two? Anywhere? Our CO had a column in the local paper last week, in an expressed effort toward “broadening communications” and all he wrote about were a couple incidents of dead deer that landowners had found in road ditches. I fail to see how this helps anything, but at least it shows that landowners were willing to communicate with him.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
How do you know if a hunter or fisherman has a license if you don't check them while they are in the act of hunting and fishing?

YOU DON'T!

Game checks on the road will not tell you WHO IN THE PARTY WAS HUNTING OR FISHING, IF ANYONE!

Like I said, your recommendation would render wildlife law enforcement virtually worthless from the standpoint of checking to see if everyone in the act of hunting and fishing has a proper license and whether or not they are hunting in the correct unit. Nor can you see if their deer are properly tagged or if they have overbagged on fish.

A landowner that did not have a valid hunting or fishing license would not grant permission to a conservation officer to check him.

That would be like the highway patrol asking permission to weigh a grain truck to see if it was overweight.

There is no sense to keep going over this and over this. I will never agree with your form of wildlife law enforcement.


~SH~
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
SH, why does what you say won't work for SD, work for Montana? Our landowners turn in any illegal hunting that they see and the game warden catches them. We have deer checks on the highway that they catch lots more. I don't understand what makes SD, so much different in hunting. Well have last load of caking just showing up, so best get to it and finish my feeding. Will be glad when the time changes, still be getting up at day light, but the clock will read a bit better.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
rancher: "Our landowners turn in any illegal hunting that they see and the game warden catches them."

How do you know if someone is hunting without a license unless you check their license while they are hunting???

What you say "works in Montana" works better in SD for that reason.



~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
some alias from Harding Co.: "One thing wonderful about TIPS program is that they can just dream it up, come on and never be questioned or have to reveal their source. I call it the “Think-up Invalid Probable-cause to Search program."


TIPs SUMMARY - July 1, 2004 to March 1, 2005

433 INVESTIGATIONS
153 ARRESTS
DISPOSITIONS:
$39,044 fines
$1,750 civil penalties
858 days of jail (430 suspended)
0 hours of community service
$4,700 REWARDS PAID

PROGRAM TOTALS 1984 – March 1, 2005

7,153 INVESTIGATIONS
2,471 ARRESTS
DISPOSITIONS:
$476,333 fines
$311,193 civil penalties
24,995 days of jail (23,175 suspended)
2,204 hours of community service
$85,955 REWARDS PAID


Since TIPs inception, a little over 1/3 of the investigations resulted in arrests. So much for "thinking up invalid probable cause".


NEXT!



~SH~
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
~SH~ said:
rancher: "Our landowners turn in any illegal hunting that they see and the game warden catches them."

How do you know if someone is hunting without a license unless you check their license while they are hunting???

What you say "works in Montana" works better in SD for that reason.



~SH~

How do they know on the license, well they check them on a county road or highway with deer checks. Most of the ones caught are caught on block management checks. Most landowners are not going to lose their place over letting some hunters hunt with out license. On the tips program you have, how many were false tips compared to legit tips? We don't get paid to turn in hunters, it is just common sense and trying to protect our private property from slob hunters.
 

Latest posts

Top