• 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

SJ wrote: 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.

Sorry SJ, as a trapper and hunter and fisherman it is, an agreed to stipulation when you purchase any game/fish license. It states: License and proper identification must be in your possession at ALL times while trapping,hunting, or transporting game, and must be exhibited upon demand by ANY PERSON.

That means law enforcement or private citizen, has the right to check your license with no further questions needed. If not, your breaking the law. This is something every hunter/trapper and fisherman agrees to when purchasing there license. So there is zero discrimination as everyone is held to the same standards.
 
SJ was not the author of the statement you attributed to her. However, the statement is right. Marie didn't say that it was not legal for anyone to do a license check; she said it was discriminatory for the CO to be picking and choosing to check only certain hunters found on private land while not checking every hunter at highway checkpoints.

You also missed her point completely. Marie, and a whole lot of folks like her, was objecting to the CO trespassing on private property, without the landowner's knowledge or consent, to do license checks that could just as easily be done on public roadways.

If the game warden had bothered to get permission from the landowner before he did those license checks, we would not have a problem with his actions.
 
Public or private all hunters must obey the laws, and to better serve wildlife for all people of SD, the open fields is in place and has been for along time. It's funny laws are like the bible, for each one who has a different mission, you get a different interpratation of what "it" states clearly. "It" meaning law or verse! Good Day
 
Serve wildlife? Why would anyone "serve wildlife" unless it is garnished with parsley and served hot with gravy? Sorry…just couldn't resist that.

Kidding aside, your idea of the Open Fields Doctrine has me puzzled. Could you please tell me what you think it is and how it "serves wildlife"?

Everyone must obey the law, whether they are hunters, landowners or game wardens and it really doesn't matter how an individual interprets the law. If his interpretation is different than the courts interpretation, and he breaks that law he'll be arrested, as he should be. What's your point?
 
SH (previous): "Most Department reps will tell you what you want to hear where I will tell you the truth."


SJ (in response): "Are you also telling me that Most of the Dept. Reps. are less than truthful?"

Typical spin job!

This response is exactly what I have come to expect from you Cave Hill Dwellers.

What I am telling you is that this Department caters to the small portion of landowners that are "chronic complainers" where I wouldn't.

The Department listens to your relentless complaining about the same issues over and over and over. Even after you have lost in the legislation. I get tired of wasting time on issues that the public has already voted on.

I don't give "chronic complainers" any satisfaction.

You wouldn't want me running GF&P because I couldn't handle listening to the same people complain about the same things over and over and over when the public has already voted on it.


Where can I get a copy of the landowners that have supposedly closed their land to public hunting?

Until I see it firsthand, I won't believe it.


~SH~
 
SH: "You wouldn't want me running GF&P because I couldn't handle listening to the same people complain about the same things over and over and over when the public has already voted on it."

Well, thank God we won't have that to worry about on top of everything else!

Someone should try again to explain to SH that the "public" did NOT vote on Open Fields. The legislature did and defeated it because of intensive lobbying from the governor and the GF&P. I have given up on trying to explain anything to him. Who said, "There are none so blind as those who will not see"?
 
LB: " Someone should try again to explain to SH that the "public" did NOT vote on Open Fields. The legislature did and defeated it because of intensive lobbying from the governor and the GF&P."

Oh, so you are saying the public has no influence on the political process unless they vote themselves?

With that line of thinking we should just get rid of both the congress and the senate and do all the voting ourselves then huh?

There are none so blind as those who will not see is exactly right!



~SH~
 
SH--"Most Department reps will tell you what you want to hear "


Is telling people what they want to hear truth or lie? Your words SH I didn't have to spin at all.

I think most all of the landowners are listed in the phone book put your finger to the buttons.


I think it would be rather refreshing to be told the truth than to be told they are going to do it one way and then they do it the other.

That kind of communication only breeds disturst.
 
SH

"You wouldn't want me running GF&P because I couldn't handle listening to the same people complain about the same things over and over and over when the public has already voted on it."

"Oh, so you are saying the public has no influence on the political process unless they vote themselves?

With that line of thinking we should just get rid of both the congress and the senate and do all the voting ourselves then huh? "


Soooo, SH, with this line of thinking, then why are you fighting about the Canadian Border being closes to live cattle imports? Or any other matter that is all ready law or policy?

I guess if we all felt like this we could roll over and let the folks in government do as they wished and never give any input or thoughts as to we, the represented parties, feelings on matter of law or policy, whether we like it or not. They are there to do a job for us and represent us. If we are in the minority, we can still try to change the majorities opinion. It's done all the time.

I notice that you are advocating for the re-opening of the border, even tho' law says it has to be closed, for now. But you don't have any time for things that people have all ready voted or decided on. BS!
 
You have some good points there jinglebob! What are you trying to do, send SH over the edge? You know he can't handle that much truth and logic at one time, don't you?

Did you get a chance to hear the Open Fields forum on KBHB this morning? I thought both Rep. Rhoden and Larry Nelson did a good job presenting the landowner's position. GF&P didn't seem to have any answers. All they could do was repeat the same old song and dance, although Emmett Keyser gave it his best shot.
 
No I missed it. Just as well, from the sounds of things.

The one thing that troubles me about the lockout, we all need to lock everyone out. Even ourselves. We shouldn't buy lisences and we shouldn't hunt either. If we don't stop all hunters and hunting, it rings kind of hollow, doesn't it?
 
I listened to the forum on KBHB and I thought they did a great job and it was very informative.

Larry Rhoden wondered if a misdemeanor such as hunting without a license was worth taking people rights away.

Larry Nelson made it very clear that there is a big difference between public land and private land.


I thought there were many good points made as far as the landowners rights.
 
JB: "Soooo, SH, with this line of thinking, then why are you fighting about the Canadian Border being closes to live cattle imports? Or any other matter that is all ready law or policy?"

With what line of thinking?

I simply stated that I would not want to listen to a vocal minority of people complain about the same issues over and over that the majority have already decided on. I enjoy having the choice to decide which issues I am going to address and make a priority. If I was the head of GF&P, I would not have that luxury. That's what I meant. I don't have a lot of tolerance for "chronic complainers" who think that I need to hear the same thing twenty times to comprehend it. I also don't have a lot of time for those who lie and mislead to further their agenda.

I never said they didn't have the right to complain, just that I don't care to listen to people when I know they are not telling the truth or not telling the whole story.

What lies you ask?

"Conservation officers can come on to private property and do whatever they want".

That's a perfect example of telling a lie to further your agenda.


The closing of the Canadian border has nothing to do with food safety and that is the lie that is being told by the people using BSE as a catalyst to stop Canadian imports of live cattle. The closing of the Canadian is based on ignorance of the impact of Canadian live cattle on our market being spouted by those who will lie and deceive at every turn to further their agenda, R-CALF.

In both cases, I am correcting lies with truth and will continue to do so.


"Canada is still processing downer cows"

That's R-CALF's latest lie on the Canadian border being closed.


JB: "I guess if we all felt like this we could roll over and let the folks in government do as they wished and never give any input or thoughts as to we, the represented parties, feelings on matter of law or policy, whether we like it or not."

Oh cry me a river!

I didn't say you didn't have the right to voice your opinion.

I only said that I didn't care to listen to the same complaints over and over after they have already been decided on and I won't let lies and misleading information stand uncorrected.

Typical spin job on your part.


JB: "They are there to do a job for us and represent us. If we are in the minority, we can still try to change the majorities opinion. It's done all the time."

That's right, as long as you tell the truth and have enough common sense to realize that if you are talking to the same person for the twentieth time on the same issue they probably already know where you stand.


JB: "I notice that you are advocating for the re-opening of the border, even tho' law says it has to be closed, for now. But you don't have any time for things that people have all ready voted or decided on. BS!"

I don't have any time for lies and deception and I don't need to hear the same thing twenty times to know where someone stands.

The difference between me and a lot of people is that I am going to tell you exactly what I think and I will tell you the cold hard truth. I'm not going to stand there and listen to you tell me things that aren't true without correcting it. I won't stand there and pretend that your opinion is important to me if you are lying to me. I don't care how offended you get either.


The Open Fields Doctrine is a two sided issue.

Protection of private property rights vs. protection of public wildlife resources on private property. Those are the two sides. Any good debate would acknowledge both sides, not just the side that supports their bias.

I thought KBHB did an excellent job of presenting both sides of the issue and unlike SJ and LB, I thought all the speakers did a good job of presenting their side.

Larry Rhoden made it very plain that it was more important to him to have Conservation Officers require permission before accessing private land than the inevitable game violations that would occur as a result that he considered misdemeanors.

Larry Nelson cited court cases that were not applicable to the open fields doctrine and was corrected by the opposition for this. Larry also stated that a state can be more restrictive but not less restrictive than the Federal Government. While he is referring to private property rights in that statement, I see it as states being allowed to be more restrictive about wildlife protection than the Federal government. It all depends on your bias as to which law should be more restrictive. The law governing law enforcement or the laws protecting our wildlife resources?

Law is always subject to "INTENT" and "INTERPRETATION".

Again, I thought KBHB did an excellent job of presenting both sides of the debate. Nobody can ask for more than that!


~SH~
 
SH: "Larry Rhoden made it very plain that it was more important to him to have Conservation Officers require permission before accessing private land than the inevitable game violations that would occur as a result that he considered misdemeanors."

Rep. Rhoden didn't "consider them misdemeanors", they are by legal definition misdemeanors and as such are not nearly as important as the violation of the landowners constitutionally guaranteed rights.

SH: "I see it as states being allowed to be more restrictive about wildlife protection than the Federal government. It all depends on your bias as to which law should be more restrictive. The law governing law enforcement or the laws protecting our wildlife resources?"

It all boils down to protecting the property rights of our citizens or protecting the "right" of government agents to trespass at will to violate those rights. We feel that the rights of the citizenry trumps the right of the government to trample on those rights. The "protection" of wildlife is a side issue being used as a smoke screen by GF&P to retain control over the landowners who raise that wildlife for the public.
 
LB: "We feel that the rights of the citizenry trumps the right of the government to trample on those rights."

The majority feel that the protection of the public's wildlife trumps the concern with the occassional CO accessing private land without permission, during hunting seasons, to check hunters.


LB: "The "protection" of wildlife is a side issue being used as a smoke screen by GF&P to retain control over the landowners who raise that wildlife for the public."

Larry Nelson stated that "we (the lockout folks) do not want to mange wildlife". He said that "wildlife management was GF&P's job". If I am to take Larry Nelson at his word, which I will, then why would "retaining control over landowners who raise that wildlife for the public" be an issue with you?

You folks need to keep your stories straight if you want to have any credibility.

The protection of wildlife is NOT a side issue. It's the sole motive for CO's accessing private land. If GF&P's concern was not about wildlife law enforcement, they would have no reason to access private land.

Your consideration of "protection of wildlife" as being a GF&P smoke screen IS THE REAL SMOKESCREEN.

There is no reason for COs to access private land other than to enforce game laws.

Talk about divertion!



~SH~
 
A second offense of hunting big game without a license is a felony, not a misdemeanor.
 
sandgrubber said:
A second offense of hunting big game without a license is a felony, not a misdemeanor.
Click to expand...

I used to always love how some of those laws were set up--Some game violations on second offense are a felony- same with some laws on mistreating animals-- But for beating your wife it took a third offense to be a Felony :???: :roll: :wink:

Years ago a young native American was murdered- Government put up a $5000 reward for info--At the same time a bull elk in Yellowstone was killed- Government put up a $50,000 reward--Go Figure.... :shock:
 
Is SH really this obtuse or does he have to work at it?

If the majority felt that SH should be tarred and feathered would that negate his constitutional rights? No. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights clearly state that the rights of an individual are inviolable, regardless of how the majority feels.

In this great nation of ours, you can not negate individual rights with a majority vote, even if the vote is 99% in favor of whatever action it is that violates that individual's rights.

SH: "Larry Nelson stated that "we (the lockout folks) do not want to mange wildlife". He said that "wildlife management was GF&P's job"."

I wholeheartedly agree with Larry. I don't have either the time or the inclination to manage wildlife; that is supposed to be the function of GF&P, management of me and my land is not their job. That is MY responsibility. It is also NOT the function of GF&P to trespass on private land without the permission of the individual who owns that land.

SH: "The protection of wildlife is NOT a side issue. It's the sole motive for CO's accessing private land. If GF&P's concern was not about wildlife law enforcement, they would have no reason to access private land."

GF&P has no reason to trespass on private land. Period. No matter how much spin SH tries to put on it, wildlife IS a side issue and a handy smoke screen for GF&P to use to justify their trespass. It would very easy for them to work with the landowner to gain access to private land. The fact that they refuse to even try to obtain landowner permission tells us a lot about the true motives behind their bull-headed stance. Incidentally, GF&P trespass has not always been used either to protect wildlife or to enforce game regulations, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

Oldtimer, I agree with you. The public does seem to put a much greater value on animals than it does on people, doesn't it? $5,000 for a human being and $50,000 for an elk? Absolutely unbelievable. Too bad it's true...
 

Latest posts

Back
Top