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

Former GF&P Commissioner chides Sec. Cooper and Gov. Rou

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
4
Location
northwestern South Dakota
About property rights

What is seen as a problem (landowners revolt) is the result of policies implemented by the secretary of the GF&P. It gets worse every year and presently has closed four million acres to the hunting public, and the lockout increases every month.

Landowners ask only that a game warden ask permission to enter private land. What is so hard to understand about that? It's all about property rights.

Ken Barker's reflection of his GF&P Commission term, Journal (April 29), refers to the real problem (Cooper) as doing a "tremendous job" and that losing Cooper would be a "tremendous loss to our state."

How ridiculous! Here we have the secretary of the GF&P, Mr. Cooper, and his boss, Mr. Rounds, ignoring landowner concerns, which only deprives the general public hunting access to private land. Mr. Cooper should be required to seek other employment, and Mr. Rounds should put the responsibility of the GF&P back in the hands of the GF&P Commission.

The commission should decide what the public wants, not a governor. Hunters should be allowed a place to hunt, and landowners should be given the same private property rights that Rounds and Cooper enjoy.

RICHARD MEYER

Sturgis
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The legislation voted to maintain a Conservation Officer's right to check hunters on private land while in the act of hunting. In this case, the public saw the protection of the public's wildlife as being more important than the rare case of a conservation officer entering private land to check hunters without permission.

Even LB and SJ admitted they had never seen a Conservation Officer on their place. Must be quite a problem huh? LOL!

SYMBOLISM OVER SUBSTANCE!


Most land that is "SUPPOSEDLY" closed to hunting is either still allowing commercial hunting or coyote hunting. That's why nobody will provide a list of the landowners that have "SUPPOSEDLY" closed their lands to hunting. It's easier to site the acerage than it is to back this claim up with names which would reveal those who "supposedly" closed their land to hunting that still allow commerical hunting. Most recreational hunters didn't have access to that land anyway.

SYMBOLISM OVER SUBSTANCE!


~SH~
 

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
4
Location
northwestern South Dakota
SH: “Most land that is "SUPPOSEDLY" closed to hunting is either still allowing commercial hunting or coyote hunting.”

As usual, SH is setting himself up as an authority on an issue he knows absolutely nothing about. Symbolism over substance, my foot! Stop at our place and ask to hunt any game that has a hunting season on it if you want to find out if we’re really locked out.

Anyone is welcome to shoot coyotes here anytime, the only thing we ask is that you ask permission from us first so we know who you are and what you’re doing, which is all we have been asking GF&P to do. This has never been a hardship for our hunters and you’ll never convince me that it is a hardship for GF&P to treat landowners with the same respect.

Most of those involved in the lockout have never charged anyone to hunt and if we ever get this property rights issue resolved, I doubt that will change. We’ve enjoyed having hunters. Most of the hunters we have hosted became good friends down through the years. This issue has nothing to do with hunters and everything to do with protection of our private property rights from violation by our “public servants”.
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
5,962
Reaction score
0
Location
Western South Dakota
When you hire someone to do a job and pay them a fair wage, you should be able to expect that they perform the services that you want, the way you want.

Too bad the GF&P doesn't have to answer to the people who pay their wage.

"public servant" my butt! :mad:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Jinglebob: "Too bad the GF&P doesn't have to answer to the people who pay their wage."

Pretty hard to make everyone happy when Rancher A says he doesn't have enough deer and Rancher B says he has too many deer when they share the same deer herd.

Both claim that "noboty ebba wistens to dem".



~SH~
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
You have to factor other things in if A rancher doesn't have enough deer and B rancher has too many. Maybe A rancher over grazes and B rancher doesn't, deer will move into B rancher's place. Maybe A rancher needs as many deer he can get for his outfitting business and deer won't hang a ranch that is over hunted.
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
5,962
Reaction score
0
Location
Western South Dakota
~SH~ said:
Both claim that "noboty ebba wistens to dem".


To bad poor ol' SH has a speech impediment. Or maybe it's just a writing impediment! :lol:

As far as rancher A and rancher B, maybe they ought to just leave it up to each rancher to run as many wildlife as he wants. If he wants less, get rid of them, if he wants more, run his ranch and/or plant things to make the wildlife come onto his ranch.

I've never had a problem with too many deer for years. The last time the Best GF&P guy we ever had, gave me candy striper tags and said to fill them as needed and give them to people in town who wanted the meat. Since I quit having' good alfalfa hay around, the deer haven't been a problem.

I got some neighbors who bitch about them, but evidently they ain't figured out a way to control them! :lol:
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
5,962
Reaction score
0
Location
Western South Dakota
Kevin;

Don't see as it's your concern, but my ass has been kicked quite a few times over the years.

You a buddy of SH's or what?

I've never thought anyone who can dish it out, shouldn't be able to take it too.

As far as that goes, I don't think SH probably needs you to defend him. He seems to be pretty capable of defending himself.

Or were you refering to SH?
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
5,962
Reaction score
0
Location
Western South Dakota
Sorry Kevin, I must be snow blind! :shock: :lol:

But good luck pickin' a fight with SH. He can't be reasoned with and has a hard time spelling at times! :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
rancher: "You have to factor other things in if A rancher doesn't have enough deer and B rancher has too many. Maybe A rancher over grazes and B rancher doesn't, deer will move into B rancher's place. Maybe A rancher needs as many deer he can get for his outfitting business and deer won't hang a ranch that is over hunted."

"Why" each wants something different does not change the fact that GF&P cannot satisfy either if you find a happy medium between the two.


JB: "As far as rancher A and rancher B, maybe they ought to just leave it up to each rancher to run as many wildlife as he wants. If he wants less, get rid of them, if he wants more, run his ranch and/or plant things to make the wildlife come onto his ranch."

You said yourself the deer don't stay on one ranch. Well, with that understanding and knowing that by law the wildlife belongs to the public, I don't think that's going to happen until wildlife is privately owned and fenced. Fat chance of that happening in the near future!


JB: "I got some neighbors who bitch about them, but evidently they ain't figured out a way to control them!"

How's that?


Kevin: "How many times have you had your ass kicked over the years??????"

Not once!


Kevin: "You wouldn't last long in my neck of the woods."

What would your "neck of the woods", a blamer's convention where everyone sits around and tells eachother how bad they have it and makes up reasons why?

Have another beer and go back to your cave. I don't have any time for necktie grabbing Neanderthals.




~SH~
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
5,962
Reaction score
0
Location
Western South Dakota
~SH~ said:
Have another beer and go back to your cave. I don't have any time for necktie grabbing Neanderthals.

OOOOOOO, good one there SH! But now your gonn'a get it from him! Oh you two, what fun to watch! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You claim you never had your butt kicked? Maybe thats why you turned out the way you did and you work for the GF&P? If your Mom or Dad had kicked your butt, maybe they would have taught you better manners! :shock: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Just teasin' you a little SH! :oops: :lol:
 

SJ

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
282
Reaction score
0
Location
ludlow, SD
SH--Both claim that "noboty ebba wistens to dem".

I don’t know if this is a showing of SH’s education or he is trying to show what he believes is our education.

If it is the latter, I guess he doesn’t realize that most of us are educated in the English language. WE were definitely taught manners and respect. I guess I shouldn’t expect respect from a government employee, when the top people in our state have made such statements as this; “with out the open fields landowners would conduct illegal activity” or the one in the Rapid City Journal May 7 “ If you eliminate open fields, the guy who has a large parcel of land is free to do what he wants to.”


First of all we do live in America and we should be able to do what we want to on our land within the law.


I didn't realize that by owning a large parcel of land the government would categorize us as second-class citizens (high-risk individuals who want to break the law). If your parcel of land is the right size you are consider innocent until proven guilty, if it is large you are guilty until proven innocent.


Evidently, The size of your property gives a government agency enough reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause to enter your land, without a warrant or asking permission.

My Dad wrote the following;
Reading how GF&P has been the hero for the game west river, is a stretch of the facts.
I grew up in Harding County and remember riding horse back with my grandfather looking for a bunch of seven mule deer in the South Cave hills and that was the total sum of them. There were no white tail deer seen in that region until years later. My grandfather homesteaded in 1909 and there were very few deer. He really enjoyed looking for them but they never increased until after world war two when a number of men that had become pilots in the service came home and purchased Piper Cub aircraft and started hunting the coyotes mainly for the fur and bounty. The sheep men had to have herders with their sheep at all times or they would endure heavy losses. It was not hard to see coyotes almost every day some where on your way around doing your work. With the sheep men paying trappers to trap and the airplanes hunting, it soon became easier to have sheep and Harding County had, large numbers of sheep. Game Fish and Parks weren’t the ones who helped manage the coyotes or control them, it was the landowner and hunters working together that decreased the number so that you could run sheep, without a herder. The deer and antelope immediately started to increase and in a few years we had seasons to hunt them. During those first seasons there was no trouble with people asking permission to hunt on private land. I ranched for many years and never charged a soul for hunting on my property but still wanted to know who was out there hunting which I thought was a small price for the privilege to hunt. My family is still operating this ranch and has never charged anyone but I still think they deserve to know who is on their land. During the time I ranched the Game Wardens would let me know that they wanted to enter my land mostly to check on the game. They checked the hunters at various places on the roads in the county. It seems reading the comments of the game and fish people they don’t want to let the landowner know they are on his property. The private landowners pay pretty dear for the privilege of others to enter their private land. I don’t think our constitution ever meant for this to happen. The landowner puts up with damage to crops and use of forage through the year that would pay better if he could use it for livestock. Many of the hunters feel they are entitled to hunt anywhere and not pay any attention to the owner’s property rights. I don’t mean to label all hunters, as there are many good hunters that do recognize the property rights of others. The Lockout west river was formed to try and retain the property rights of these taxpayer property owners with some common sense respect. The only ones that will be hurt in the end will be the hunter because the property owner has the key to the gate. The public will miss the private land that has been hunted in the past, as there is a lot more private land than public land to access.
 

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
4
Location
northwestern South Dakota
SJ,
Your Dad did a really good job with this piece. For those on this board who don't know him, SJ's Dad is a former long time legislator who was instrumental in helping his friend Mike Rounds get elected to be our governor. He and a lot of other folks out here (me included!) are very disappointed in the way Rounds handled the open fields fiasco. We had high hopes for what we thought was someone we could count on. Boy, were we wrong!
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
5,962
Reaction score
0
Location
Western South Dakota
Liberty Belle said:
SJ,
Your Dad did a really good job with this piece. For those on this board who don't know him, SJ's Dad is a former long time legislator who was instrumental in helping his friend Mike Rounds get elected to be our governor. He and a lot of other folks out here (me included!) are very disappointed in the way Rounds handled the open fields fiasco. We had high hopes for what we thought was someone we could count on. Boy, were we wrong!

Kind'a like some of us feel about GW! :mad:

Guess he is still better than the opposition. Sure would like to vote for someone sometime instead of against someone! :mad:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
JB: "You claim you never had your butt kicked? Maybe thats why you turned out the way you did and you work for the GF&P?"

What would explain the way you turned out?

If you are referring to my lack of tolerance for whiners, blamers, liars or pshychoanalyzers, I don't think having my butt kicked would change that.

Perhaps you'd be more comfortable with someone who told you what you wanted to hear.

"Yes Jinglebob, you are so right, yes Jinglebob, we really do need to consider that, yes Jinglebob.........what was your point again?"

You still cannot grasp the fact that I could care less what you think of me can you?


SJ: "I don’t know if this is a showing of SH’s education or he is trying to show what he believes is our education."

Neither, it's more my attitude towards GF&P "chronic complainers". There is no way to reason with the unreasonable.

I know how badly you needed something to peg on me SJ so you can take that quote and splash it around on your internet circles and claim it as GF&P's attitudes towards landowners. I would expect nothing less!



~SH~
 

SJ

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
282
Reaction score
0
Location
ludlow, SD
You are doing a pretty good job yourself with promoting GF&P's attitudes toward landowners.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
SJ: "You are doing a pretty good job yourself with promoting GF&P's attitudes toward landowners."

My attitudes towards the "chronic complaining" segment of landowners (vocal minority) are my own, not the departments. To the contrary, this department reacts to the vocal minority and "chronic complainers", which I would not. My views hardly reflect that of the Department. Most Department reps will tell you what you want to hear where I will tell you the truth.

You also need to understand that the views of the "vocal minority" are not the views of the majority of landowners so for you to assume that my views are towards all landowners shows the desperate levels you will reach in order to further your anti GF&P agenda.

Circulate that!


~SH~
 

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
4
Location
northwestern South Dakota
There will be a radio form on the Open Fields Doctrine over KBHB Radio, 810 on the dial, this Saturday at 11:05. If you have questions about what the open fields doctrine is and the problems landowners have with the way Game Fish and Parks is using the doctrine, tune in tomorrow.
 

Itrap4u

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2005
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
Location
Where the Sun rises in the East and sets in the We
JB: Remember you or I or anyone else as an individual don't own our natural resources! There owned by all of us and are to be managed in that manner! Each state has the right to manage "most species" for the betterment of the people in there respective state. The states Game Depts are the ones that have that burden for good reason. " In facing our conservation problems,we must learn when to distrust our own snap judgment and when to insist on expert opinion" end quote! Arthur N. Pack.
Good Day!
 

SJ

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
282
Reaction score
0
Location
ludlow, SD
SH--My attitudes towards the "chronic complaining" segment of landowners (vocal minority) are my own, not the departments. To the contrary, this department reacts to the vocal minority and "chronic complainers", which I would not. My views hardly reflect that of the Department. Most Department reps will tell you what you want to hear where I will tell you the truth.


We have already been told by the Aberdeen sportsmen that they have the votes and the SD landowners are a minority. Are you also telling me that Most of the Dept. Reps. are less than truthful?

I hope that you will listen tomorrow and give us the truth or aleast your truth on the open fields.

There will be a radio form on the Open Fields Doctrine over KBHB Radio, 810 on the dial, this Saturday at 11:05. If you have questions about what the open fields doctrine is and the problems landowners have with the way Game Fish and Parks is using the doctrine, tune in tomorrow.



I also thought these two post on the sdlockout page were quite interesting and frankly hit the nail on the head.

I wish that everyone that thinks the open fields doctrine, as the GF&P interprets it, is a good thing, would carefully study the doctrine as it applies to all other law enforcement agencies. The intention was to give law enforcement reasonable access to private property as long as reasonable cause was present as part of the decision to go onto private property. I believe that in a nutshell it provides access based on if a person (primarily a law enforcement officer) is in a lawful place at a lawful time and has reasonable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, is being committed or is about to be committed that individual may enter private property to investigate the circumstances or make an arrest associated with the observation. I believe the courts have stated that a lawful place is a public place such as a public road or a place that the public would normally have access to including open section lines, or a place that the individual has access to by permission. It has never been the intention to allow access to see "if" a crime is being or has been committed, such as would be the case of compliance checks. Furthermore one of the elements of making a misdemeanor arrest is that the misdemeanor must be witnessed or by the way of a warrant issued based on evidence. No other law enforcement agency is allowed to enter private property in the way the GF&P does. We must be very careful in allowing agencies to interpret such important private property issues to fit their own particular needs. Furthermore an Attorney Generals opinion is just that, an opinion. Many AG opinions are proven erronious. Montana has put limitations on the open fields doctrine as the Montana Fish and Feathers was interpreting it. If the lockout is the way to bring this agency under control then so be it. I do my small part by not purchasing hunting licenses. This will be my third year of not hunting even though I love hunting and miss all that goes with it. Darwin



Marie:Darwin, Thank you for presenting an intelligent straight forward explanation of the Open Fields Doctrine and the necessity for probable cause or suspicion. I hope more people, including all you hunters, can see this is not only an intrusion on the rights of the property owner but an intrusion on your rights. A game check or a compliance check on a puiblic road is for all passersby, a compliance check out in the the field without the landowners permission and no probable suspicion or cause is discriminatory.
 

Latest posts

Top