• 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:

rancher: "How do they know on the license, well they check them on a county road or highway with deer checks."

That doesn't tell them WHERE they were hunting and WHO was hunting, that only tells them that someone was hunting somewhere.


rancher: "Most of the ones caught are caught on block management checks."

Yeh, so what?

Meanwhile those who are not checked during hunting without a license are home free.


rancher: "Most landowners are not going to lose their place over letting some hunters hunt with out license."

Hahaha!

Nobody loses their place over a hunting violation.


rancher: "On the tips program you have, how many were false tips compared to legit tips?"

Over 30% of the investigations resulted in arrests.



rancher: "We don't get paid to turn in hunters, it is just common sense and trying to protect our private property from slob hunters."

Unfortunately, not all landowners hunt legally.


~SH~
 
~SH~ said:
rancher: "How do they know on the license, well they check them on a county road or highway with deer checks."

That doesn't tell them WHERE they were hunting and WHO was hunting, that only tells them that someone was hunting somewhere.


rancher: "Most of the ones caught are caught on block management checks."

Yeh, so what?

Meanwhile those who are not checked during hunting without a license are home free.


rancher: "Most landowners are not going to lose their place over letting some hunters hunt with out license."

Hahaha!

Nobody loses their place over a hunting violation.


rancher: "On the tips program you have, how many were false tips compared to legit tips?"

Over 30% of the investigations resulted in arrests.



rancher: "We don't get paid to turn in hunters, it is just common sense and trying to protect our private property from slob hunters."

Unfortunately, not all landowners hunt legally.


~SH~
Click to expand...

Montana lost the open fields doctrine about 10 years ago because of Fish and Game overzealousness--Montana Supreme Court ruled against it in a Fish and Game ruling that anyone in law enforcement knew was borderline illegal and stupid to push...But Game Wardens everywhere have the same outlook- 1 dead hen pheasant or 1 hunter that is in a wrong area is more important than any felony crime on the book-- God forgive if you drive the roads and wear hunter orange- you have designated yourself to be a criminal- talk about profiling.... But Since the out lawing of the open fields doctrine I have not seen any massive invasion of poachers or illegal hunters.... But I have seen a Fish and Game that is more responsive to the landowner... They have actually spent time coming around each year to visit with landowners, find out the problems and concerns while getting permission slips signed- and if they don't catch you at home have mailed info and permission slips to the landowner or called to set up a time to get together.....

The only thing Fish and Game did in its normal overzealous, above the law way of thinking was to wipe out a law that was actually meant for and being used against real felony criminal activity, and give an inroad to the meth labs and grow operations.....Sounds like the same will come to be in South Dakota unless things change.......
 
You cannot compare the circumstances in one state to the circumstances in another. Eastern South Dakota is hardly comparable to Montana.


~SH~
 
Sounds to me like it isn't the land owners who are crooks, and it is the hunters that are. So why not chip the tags and track them satelite. I can see why there is a lockup of land, not worth the chance of weeds drug in from the game wardens running all over. Most people only allow hunters on their land if the outfits are power washed
 
rancher: "Montana lost the open fields doctrine about 10 years ago because of Fish and Game overzealousness--Montana Supreme Court ruled against it in a Fish and Game ruling that anyone in law enforcement knew was borderline illegal and stupid to push...But Game Wardens everywhere have the same outlook- 1 dead hen pheasant or 1 hunter that is in a wrong area is more important than any felony crime on the book-- God forgive if you drive the roads and wear hunter orange- you have designated yourself to be a criminal- talk about profiling.... But Since the out lawing of the open fields doctrine I have not seen any massive invasion of poachers or illegal hunters.... But I have seen a Fish and Game that is more responsive to the landowner... They have actually spent time coming around each year to visit with landowners, find out the problems and concerns while getting permission slips signed- and if they don't catch you at home have mailed info and permission slips to the landowner or called to set up a time to get together.....

The only thing Fish and Game did in its normal overzealous, above the law way of thinking was to wipe out a law that was actually meant for and being used against real felony criminal activity, and give an inroad to the meth labs and grow operations.....Sounds like the same will come to be in South Dakota unless things change......."

Good post rancher! GF&P Sec. Cooper testified at a hearing on the bill to stop Open Fields that Montana had lost complete control of hunting and fishing law enforcement. He made it sound like you guys were running wild out there and according to one of your game & fish guys, who supposedly had talked to Cooper, there was a major hunting crime wave sweeping the state. Is that true?

I didn't think so...

SH: "You cannot compare the circumstances in one state to the circumstances in another. Eastern South Dakota is hardly comparable to Montana."

Why not? What is so different that the landowner's rights have to be violated here and not in Montana? Are we a more lawless bunch? Does a smaller acreage bring more hunting violations? I'd sure like you to explain this one to me!


SH: "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?
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."

And these are worthy reasons to violate private property rights? I don't think so! Just to make sure a hunter is in the right unit, you would trample on the constitution? Do you suppose the reason that GF&P are called "brown shirts" and "jack booted thugs" is because that is what they are acting like?


rancher: "On the tips program you have, how many were false tips compared to legit tips?"

SH: "Over 30% of the investigations resulted in arrests."

What were the other 70%? Crank calls and personal vendettas?


rancher: "Sounds to me like it isn't the land owners who are crooks, and it is the hunters that are. So why not chip the tags and track them satellite."

Great idea! GF&P already has the technology and, goodness knows, they have both the time and the manpower.
 
Oldtimer donated the best part, the top info in your last post, but you can thank me if you want and I will pass it on. Thanks, Oldtimer :)
 
LB: "Does a smaller acreage bring more hunting violations?"

More hunters bring more hunting violations. There is more hunters associated with both smaller acreages and more roads.

Need proof?

Compare the number of hunting violation tickets writtern per conservation officer east of the river vs. west of the river. There is no comparison.

There is far more tickets written where there is more landowners with smaller acreages and more roads contributing to more road hunting.


LB: "Just to make sure a hunter is in the right unit, you would trample on the constitution?"

To make sure someone hunting and fishing is doing it legally I support conservation officers checking hunters and fishermen on private land without permission.


LB: "Do you suppose the reason that GF&P are called "brown shirts" and "jack booted thugs" is because that is what they are acting like?"

No I think the reason that GF&P are being called "brown shirts" and "jack booted thugs" by some is because that is their level of intelligence.


LB: "What were the other 70%? Crank calls and personal vendettas?"

In a conspiring mind perhaps.


Rancher: "So why not chip the tags and track them satellite."

LB (in response): "Great idea!"

You are talking about private property rights in one breath than advocating tracking people via satellite in the next????

Absolutely amazing!


~SH~
 
LB: "Does a smaller acreage bring more hunting violations?"

SH: "More hunters bring more hunting violations. There is more hunters associated with both smaller acreages and more roads.
Need proof?
Compare the number of hunting violation tickets writtern per conservation officer east of the river vs. west of the river. There is no comparison.
There is far more tickets written where there is more landowners with smaller acreages and more roads contributing to more road hunting."

Let me get this straight – the last I knew we had a law allowing road hunting, although I gotta tell you, we have a big problem with slob hunters shooting across private land. That is also a violation of private property rights. I am reasonably well traveled and have actually driven across this state a time or two. The acreage you are talking about east river is mostly flat and small enough that a CO sitting on the road can see all activities on several different landowners. GF&P doesn't even need to use open fields in most of east river.

LB: "Just to make sure a hunter is in the right unit, you would trample on the constitution?"

SH: "To make sure someone hunting and fishing is doing it legally I support conservation officers checking hunters and fishermen on private land without permission."

So, the wrong tag on a deer is more important to you than the right to stop trespassers on your private land? You're right – we will never agree on this one.


LB: "Do you suppose the reason that GF&P are called "brown shirts" and "jack booted thugs" is because that is what they are acting like?"

SH: "No I think the reason that GF&P are being called "brown shirts" and "jack booted thugs" by some is because that is their level of intelligence."

I think that these folks have made some astute observations and intelligent comparisons. You really don't need a Ph. D. to be able to think for yourself.


LB: "What were the other 70%? Crank calls and personal vendettas?"

SH: "In a conspiring mind perhaps."

Make that an inquiring mind. That was a serious question. What were the other 70%?


Rancher: "So why not chip the tags and track them satellite."
LB (in response): "Great idea!"

SH: "You are talking about private property rights in one breath than advocating tracking people via satellite in the next????
Absolutely amazing!"

Who said anything about tracking people? Rancher said "CHIP THE TAGS". Where did you get people out of that? And what has that to do with private property rights? Are the tags considered private property?
 
LB: "The acreage you are talking about east river is mostly flat and small enough that a CO sitting on the road can see all activities on several different landowners. GF&P doesn't even need to use open fields in most of east river."

I suppose a CO sitting on the road can read the hunting or fishing license in a hunter or fisherman's pocket from the road huh?

Pretty impressive vision!


LB: "So, the wrong tag on a deer is more important to you than the right to stop trespassers on your private land?"

Of course not, I can stop trespassers but a CO checking hunting and fishing licenses in the line of his duties is not trespassing as far as I'm concerned.


LB: "What were the other 70%?"

The other 70% were calls that did not result in arrests. Not enough evidence or calls after the fact.


LB: "Who said anything about tracking people? Rancher said "CHIP THE TAGS".

Yeh, you are right. If they left their tags at home and weren't carrying them, it would only track the tag and not the person. Silly me! What was I thinking? Picture me rolling my eyes while shaking my head muttering "sheeesh" in a CHERMAN accent.


~SH~
 
LB: "The acreage you are talking about east river is mostly flat and small enough that a CO sitting on the road can see all activities on several different landowners. GF&P doesn't even need to use open fields in most of east river."

SH: "I suppose a CO sitting on the road can read the hunting or fishing license in a hunter or fisherman's pocket from the road huh?
Pretty impressive vision!"

There's also a road every quarter mile, so just stop them on the highway. Or would that be too easy?


LB: "So, the wrong tag on a deer is more important to you than the right to stop trespassers on your private land?"

SH "Of course not, I can stop trespassers but a CO checking hunting and fishing licenses in the line of his duties is not trespassing as far as I'm concerned."

As far as we are concerned, the GF&P IS trespassing and we're not going to stand for it. You do whatever you want and we'll run our place to suit ourselves. Its still a free country, although I'm sure that galls Cooper.


LB: "Who said anything about tracking people? Rancher said "CHIP THE TAGS".

SH: "Yeh, you are right. If they left their tags at home and weren't carrying them, it would only track the tag and not the person. Silly me! What was I thinking? Picture me rolling my eyes while shaking my head muttering "sheeesh" in a CHERMAN accent."
Click to expand...

That's quite a picture! How do you say UFFDA in German?
 
Yeh, you are right. If they left their tags at home and weren't carrying them, it would only track the tag and not the person.

I am sure the Fish and Game already have the address of the people who buy the tag, so tracking them to their house is not taking and rights away. If they shot a deer and forgot the tags at home you could catch them as they drive off the private land. Anyway if it is the hunter that is cheating the system, I say track them.
 
Couldn't you just call their CO or law enforcement!!!!!!!! The cost of a telephone call.
 
We had a hunter that did the no-no and was traced to Minn., found out where he was staying and got his address from the motel and they called the law down there and they interviewed him and fined him for the Fish and Game up here. Took one phone call, I am sure they could have made it hard and made the trip themselves.
 
Did everyone hear about the kids (young men) that were caught with I think 100 game violations arround Valentine. Point is they were done with their mischief and mayhem (they did stupid crap like hanging entrails from signs in town), but they were caught because of cooperation between private citizens and game wardens. This cooperation is absolutely necessary to carryout law enforcement. When law enforcement alienates law and order citizens like those involved in the lockout, humble decent government employees would backtrack to where the cooperation was lost. Its fairly clear that absent this reaction, the government employees are heavy handed, inept, and out of control, and likely stupid (not that government employees are all stupid or anything). If these government employees worked for Walmart, their lack of consideration would see someone else getting their $8/hr bonanza
 

Latest posts

Top