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

Comments on South Dakota property rights issue

Help Support Ranchers.net:

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~
 
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
 
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!
 
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.
 

Latest posts

Top