Hunter vandalism targets SD Lockout

[Liberty Belle]

HAYMAKER:This thread aint about hunters,its about private property rights...........good luck.

Exactly right.

For those of you in South Dakota, this article in today's Rapid City Journal tells of another 25,000 acres of land locked to hunting because of GF&P. The deer police seem to be on some sort of power trip and they are on a roll....

Rancher closes land over GF&P dispute
By Kevin Woster, Journal Staff Writer

A Haakon County rancher has closed the gate to hunting on his 25,000-acre ranch because his son was stopped and ticketed at a state Game, Fish & Parks Department road check.
Mark Foland, who ranches north of Midland, said his 19-year-old son, Fred, was unnecessarily fined $116 after being stopped by GF&P officers at an Oct. 2 game check west of Pierre. Fred Foland was traveling with two other college students back to South Dakota State University in Brookings. He and one of the other students were ticketed for transporting antelope meat without the head and hide or the proper GF&P license tag.

Foland admits that his son violated the transportation law. But he said it was an honest mistake, that the antelope was legally taken and that one of the conservation officers at the game check knew that.

"My son had been at the taxidermist in Philip with the antelope the night before and saw the game warden from Philip there," Mark Foland said. "I don't think it's ethical for somebody to know that a person has taken something legally and then fine him for doing it."

GF&P regional supervisor Mike Kintigh of Rapid City said he wouldn't argue whether or not the antelope had been legally taken. But Fred Foland and his friend were clearly transporting it illegally, Kintigh said.

"They had no heads, no hide, no tags and a pretty weak story as to where the antelope came from," Kintigh said. "They said they had left it at taxidermists but couldn't even give us the taxidermist's name. They had antelope and no evidence that they could legally possess them."

Kintigh said the normal charge for such a violation was a Class 1 misdemeanor, with a maximum penalty of one year in jail, a $1,000 fine and one-year suspension of hunting privileges. But because Philip conservation officer Todd Enders was at the scene and recognized Fred Foland as the person he saw at the taxidermist the day before, officers reduced the charges to a Class 2 misdemeanor.

That avoids the license suspension and has a maximum penalty of $200 and 30 days in jail, Kintigh said. It also allowed them to settle the case by sending in a bond payment of $116 rather than appearing in court, he said.

"They got a really big break. The penalties were reduced; they were allowed to pay through the mail, and there was no license suspension," Kintigh said.

Mark Folan said a real break would have been a warning. His son and his friends are young and didn't understand the transportation requirements, Foland said. Now, rather than learning a lesson, they are upset at the way they were treated, and GF&P has further damaged its image in the farm and ranch community, Foland said.

"These are young kids. They are our future. What did Game, Fish & Parks accomplish by this? They made those two kids mad," Foland said. "They've got no use for Game, Fish & Parks anymore."

Foland took out an advertisement in a series of weekly papers announcing the land closure and criticizing Enders and GF&P. GF&P responded with its own advertisement, defending the actions of Enders and the other officers.

Foland said his son deserves an apology from GF&P. He said Enders could have given his son a transportation permit to take the antelope meat without the tag, hide and head.

But Kintigh said Fred Foland never asked Enders for such a permit when they were together at the taxidermist's shop. The next day, Enders simply did his job, as did the other officers at the game check, Kintigh said.

"Is Mr. Foland asking us to read people's minds and anticipate what they're going to do and need? It's not possible," Kintigh said. "In the youth hunters safety course, they teach you that if you're going to transport big game, it needs to be tagged or you need a transportation permit."

Kintigh said it is always unfortunate when landowners deny people a chance to hunt. But the public probably won't lose that much hunting access in this instance, he said.

"My understanding is that he didn't allow much hunting prior to this anyway," Kintigh said.

Foland said he was selective about who hunted on his property but did allow hunting, at no charge.

"I had people in here hunting antelope the day before this," he said. "They won't do that again. They won't hunt anything else, either."

Contact Kevin Woster at 394-8413 or kevin.woster@rapidcityjournal.com.
October 24, 2005
http://rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2005/10/24/news/local/news02.txt

 

[Liberty Belle]

Here's the ad Foland ran in local newspapers across the state.

 

[Northern Rancher]

It's not about property rights it's about landowners breaking the game laws and not wanting to get caught-just like I thought. I sure hope these lockout ranchers don't expect help when they get an overpopulation problem. If my son got caught breaking a game law I'd expect him to face the consequences-ignorance of regulations is not a defence.

 

[pknoeber]

It's not about property rights it's about landowners breaking the game laws and not wanting to get caught-just like I thought. I sure hope these lockout ranchers don't expect help when they get an overpopulation problem. If my son got caught breaking a game law I'd expect him to face the consequences-ignorance of regulations is not a defence.

If they get an overpopulation problem then I'm guessing that a .243 will cure it in about 2 days. Drop 'em and let 'em lay. If hunter's want the privilege of hunting maybe they need to put the pressure on the right people, not the landowner's who've fought hard to buy and pay for land. I don't hunt, takes WAAAAY to much patience for me but that doesn't mean I want every Tom Dick & Harry thinking that they have the RIGHT to hunt on our land, that's a privilege that's reserved for those friends of mine that do hunt, or (GASP) for the outfitters that lease the hunting rights (no, I don't lease those out, but in today's climate that's another income stream that might have to be looked at). And I sure don't think the Parks wardens should have the right to enter at any time. You keep chipping away at private property rights and pretty soon you have none.
Phil

EDIT: I just read Northern Rancher's next post & realized what I "said". What I meant was that the wardens should have limited access, not the "no access" that it sounds like above. By any time I meant that they must have probable cause, i.e. seeing 3 deer in the back of a pickup w/ 1 hunter traversing the property, but they shouldn't be allowed to simply drive onto the landowner's property just to check that hunter unless, like here in KS, the land is marked that they can do that. And even though I'm a K-State fan I sure as he@@ won't be painting any posts purple.

 

[Northern Rancher]

Realistically how do you expect game wardens to do their job without being allowed access-I'm not saying hunter's should be allowed unlimited access but you have to allow the game laws to be enforced. I've guided enough Americans to know their respect for hunting rules can be pretty lax at times. It's a pretty rude awakening for some of them when they get told that the rules are followed in Canada. Another way to lose rights is to abuse them.

 

[Anonymous]

This is so typical of "SOME" of the lockout crowd. They don't think the laws should apply to them or their families. When they get caught for game violations, in this case illegal trasportation of an antelope, then they retailiate by closing their land. "POOR ME".

I have talked to many ranchers in this area that support Todd Enders for doing his job.

Bottom line, IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE FOR BREAKING IT.

According to some sources, these boys were even told by others in their hunting party that they had to have a transportation permit. They tried to get away with breaking the law and got caught at it. Now they are pouting and their parents rush to their rescue to close their land. How pathetic.

Todd Enders did his job and even cut them a break because he knew that Fred had a license. For that reason the fine was reduced. That doesn't mean that Todd could prove that this meat belonged to that tag without doing DNA. Regardless, these kids broke the law by illegally transporting big game.

Todd enders is exactly the type of Conservation Officer this outfit needs with his friendly demeanor and ranch background but some people will accept nothing short of warning tickets for blatant game violations. This incident proved to me that some folks expect Conservation Officers not to enforce any laws.

Foland admits that his son violated the transportation law. But he said it was an honest mistake, that the antelope was legally taken and that one of the conservation officers at the game check knew that.

"My son had been at the taxidermist in Philip with the antelope the night before and saw the game warden from Philip there," Mark Foland said. "I don't think it's ethical for somebody to know that a person has taken something legally and then fine him for doing it."

Legally taking an antelope has nothing to do with legally transporting it. The taking of the antelope was not the issue. That's a "RED HERRING". The illegal transportation of the antelope was the issue.

There was nothing to tie that meat to any particular antelope tag. This was blatant disregard for big game transportation laws.

"Mark Foland said a real break would have been a warning. His son and his friends are young and didn't understand the transportation requirements, Foland said. Now, rather than learning a lesson, they are upset at the way they were treated, and GF&P has further damaged its image in the farm and ranch community, Foland said."

Ignorance is no excuse to break the law. According to some sources, they knew they had to have a transportation permit because other members of their hunting party had told them.


At least Betty found another anti GF&P friend but most everyone around here knows what happened and support Todd on his decision. The only support Folands will get will be from someone else that broke the law and got caught and also now has an axe to grind with GF&P.



~SH~

 

[Liberty Belle]

Northern Rancher: It's not about property rights it's about landowners breaking the game laws and not wanting to get caught-just like I thought. I sure hope these lockout ranchers don't expect help when they get an overpopulation problem. If my son got caught breaking a game law I'd expect him to face the consequences-ignorance of regulations is not a defence.

Au Contaire mon ami, this contretemps had nothing to do with the South Dakota Lockout. None of the lockout folks had ever heard of Mr. Foland before we read his ad in the local papers. I just posted it and the story from the RCJ as an illustration of how heavy-handed GF&P has become. They have evolved from an organization designed to protect and manage game to a "letter-of-the-law" law enforcement agency almost devoid of both common sense and courtesy.

I do feel sorry for Mike Kintigh and the rest of the guys taking heat from the bleeding hearts bemoaning the hunting of the "poor mountain lions" though, and I support what GF&P is trying to do to control those dangerous predators.

SH: This is so typical of "SOME" of the lockout crowd. They don't think the laws should apply to them or their families. When they get caught for game violations, in this case illegal trasportation of an antelope, then they retailiate by closing their land. "POOR ME".
At least Betty found another anti GF&P friend but most everyone around here knows what happened and support Todd on his decision. The only support Folands will get will be from someone else that broke the law and got caught and also now has an axe to grind with GF&P.

Which of the lockout crowd are you referring to? Me? You won't find a stronger supporter of the law and law enforcement than I am, although I will admit to gathering a few speeding tickets down through the years.

None of us in the lockout have locked out land to hunters in retaliation because we've been caught in hunting violations. You need to pay attention here, Scott - the issue is PROTECTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, no more and no less. Until we get that protection written into state law, our land will stay locked to hunters and thus to GF&P trespass. This issue is as simple as that.

 

[Northern Rancher]

All I know if game wardens aren't allowed to do their jobs-game violations will happen lol.

 

[Liberty Belle]

All I know if game wardens aren't allowed to do their jobs-game violations will happen lol.

Do you speak from personal experience perhaps? :?

No one in the lockout has even suggested that they want to hinder the game wardens from doing their jobs. We are simply asking them to visit with us weeks, months or even years before they want to access our private land to obtain our permission to come on our land. Our predator control hunters have to have written permission even from the folks who call them to hunt and it has to be obtained before they hunt. Why shouldn't the CO follow the same proceedure?

The law we're are trying to get passed gives the wardens the right to come on private land without the landowner's knowledge or consent if:
1) the CO sees a violation being committed, 2) the CO gets a tip that there has been a violation or, 3) the CO is called to an emergency of any kind.

Can you explain to me how this would hinder law enforcement?

 

[Anonymous]

The only way to know if a hunter or fisherman is hunting with a license is to check that hunter or fisherman. Nobody is going to grant permission for a Conservation Officer to check hunters and fisherman if they are conducting those activities illegally. The whole notion of Conservation Officers asking permission to check hunters and fisherman diminishes any chance of effective law enforcement because those who are conducting those activities illegally will not grant permission for their arrest.

LB: "I just posted it and the story from the RCJ as an illustration of how heavy-handed GF&P has become."

LB: "You won't find a stronger supporter of the law and law enforcement than I am,....."

A direct contradiction. How can you be a strong supporter of the law if you do not support the laws governing the illegal transportation of wildlife?


There was nothing "heavy handed" about Todd's approach to this situation. He could have been "heavy handed" but he wasn't. He gave Fred a break and that is a fact!


~SH~

 

[Liberty Belle]

The only way to know if a hunter or fisherman is hunting with a license is to check that hunter or fisherman. Nobody is going to grant permission for a Conservation Officer to check hunters and fisherman if they are conducting those activities illegally.

Oh come on Scott, it is the LANDOWNER who needs to give permission, not the hunters and fishermen, or are you implying that because we are private landowners, we are therefore lawbreakers? If the game warden had any idea at all that the landowner or anyone else was breaking the law, he would be allowed access without the landowner's permission, had SB122 passed.

Did I say that I don't support any law concerning illegal transportation? I do support using some common sense when enforcing the law though. A warning ticket and a reminder of what the law says would have been a much more effective method of dealing with the violation they discussed in that article, don't you think? Or do you think maybe the kid should have been locked up for such a heinous crime?

I'd like to refer you to this article with quotes from our esteemed governor. Seems like he was thinking along the same lines as I am, or was this just more hot air on his part?

Rounds Says Game Wardens Will Improve Relations With Landowners
By CHET BROKAW
Associated Press
PIERRE -- Gov. Mike Rounds remembers two meetings with conservation officers when he was a teenager learning to hunt.
In the first meeting, a gruff game warden threatened to write tickets and slap fines on Rounds' father and everyone else in the hunting party because the bait shop owner who issued their hunting licenses put stickers on the documents instead of signing them.
But a year later, Rounds and a friend were hunting grouse in the same place when another conservation officer asked them how they were doing and took the time to show them the difference between and a sharptail grouse and a prairie chicken. He never bothered to check their licenses because he believed them when they said they had licenses.
"What he did there was to totally turn around the attitudes of a couple of young hunters," Rounds said Friday.
"Which of those two officers would you want representing the state of South Dakota or the Game, Fish and Parks Department?"
Rounds said he and supervisors in the department agree that conservation officers should exhibit the kindness and friendliness of the second warden he remembers from his youth.
A plan to limit game wardens' ability to enter private lands was rejected by the Legislature this week, partly because Rounds, hunters and officials of the Game, Fish and Parks Department opposed the bill.
Rounds said even though the bill was defeated, new policies will seek to improve relations between game wardens, landowners and hunters.
The bill would have repealed the open-fields doctrine, which is based on court decisions and laws that give game wardens authority to enter private lands, away from houses, to check hunters without getting permission from landowners.
Some farmers and ranchers said the practice violates their rights as landowners to control access to their fields.
But Rounds said game wardens need the legal ability to enter private lands to check whether hunters have licenses and are complying with other laws.
Under new state policies, game wardens will get more time to talk with landowners and they will seek advance permission to check if they see hunters on those landowners' fields.
February 12, 2005
Yankton Daily Press and Dakotan

 

[Northern Rancher]

Liberty Belle so in the vastness of South Dakota a game warden is supposed to be driving down one of the few roads in ranch country and actually observe a violation. As for your insuation that I'd break fish and game laws-nice try sunshine. I've been lucky enough to spend a fair amount of time in your great state and your wildlife there deseves the protection and respect that the game laws provide.

 

[rancher]

Liberty Belle so in the vastness of South Dakota a game warden is supposed to be driving down one of the few roads in ranch country and actually observe a violation. As for your insuation that I'd break fish and game laws-nice try sunshine. I've been lucky enough to spend a fair amount of time in your great state and your wildlife there deseves the protection and respect that the game laws provide.

What makes Montana so different, they sure can get the violators with out trespassing. Landowners in SD must be crooked I guess. We still have a fair amount of wildlife without the SD game and fish wardens taking care of them. hmmmm

 

[Liberty Belle]

Liberty Belle so in the vastness of South Dakota a game warden is supposed to be driving down one of the few roads in ranch country and actually observe a violation.

Did you miss the part about getting permission from the landowner even years in advance of needing it? If the CO can't see a violation from the road, what kind of luck do you think he is going to have finding violators by randomly driving willy-nilly through our pastures, unbeknownst to us?

As for your insuation that I'd break fish and game laws-nice try sunshine. I've been lucky enough to spend a fair amount of time in your great state and your wildlife there deseves the protection and respect that the game laws provide.

And landowners, who are obviously lawbreakers simply because "they own large parcels of land" to paraphrase our governor, don't deserve any protection?

I thought you said you were a landowner. Using your logic here, by extension this means YOU are obviously a lawbreaker and cannot be trusted. You can't have it both ways.

By the way, who do you think raises the state's game for hunters and fishermen to harvest? At great expense to the landowner and with no compensation, I might add.

 

[Northern Rancher]

I'm a rancher,a landowner and a hunter and if a game warden has to enter my land to check someone I have no problem with that. We have a little thing up here called hunter ethics-if there is nothing on your place to hide why deny entrance.

 

[Anonymous]

LB: "Oh come on Scott, it is the LANDOWNER who needs to give permission, not the hunters and fishermen, or are you implying that because we are private landowners, we are therefore lawbreakers?"

Where did you get that from anything I stated? I never said or even implied that the hunters and fisherman need to give permission. That doesn't even make sense. If a landowner knew that someone on his land was hunting illegally, he would not grant permission for a CO to enter his land making law enforcement virtually worthless.

LB: "If the game warden had any idea at all that the landowner or anyone else was breaking the law, he would be allowed access without the landowner's permission, had SB122 passed."

The game warden cannot see from the road if a hunter or fisherman has a license or is hunting in the right unit without checking that license.

LB: "A warning ticket and a reminder of what the law says would have been a much more effective method of dealing with the violation they discussed in that article, don't you think?"

Illegal transportation of big game deserves more than a warning particularly when the violater was told that a transportation permit was required.


So what is Rounds implying? That a good conservation officer should trust everyone to have a license? Give me a break! Sounds like Rounds is playing both sides on this one. If threatening to write tickets and slap fines on Round's father and everyone else in the party is worthy of criticism, the CO should have wrote the ticket. This "how dare you tell me what the law reads" attitude is a much bigger problem than a "so called" gruff game warden giving someone a warning.

LB: "If the CO can't see a violation from the road, what kind of luck do you think he is going to have finding violators by randomly driving willy-nilly through our pastures, unbeknownst to us?"

Nobody is randomly driving willy-nilly through anyone's pastures. By your own admittance, you have never even seen a Conservation Officer on your place. The fact that Conservation Officers can drive out and check someone for their license keeps hunters in compliance. I suppose everyone would continue to obey the speed limit if the highway patrols only wrote warning tickets huh?

LB: "By the way, who do you think raises the state's game for hunters and fishermen to harvest? At great expense to the landowner and with no compensation, I might add."

That is absolutely untrue. GF&P has contributed a huge amount of money to the ADC program, they have funded deer proof stack fences in cases of deer depredation, landowners are issued preference on license allocations, and they have issued checks for thousands of acres to landowners participating in the Walk-In hunting program. Landowners may not be compensated what they think they deserve for feeding the public's wildlife but there is compensation in many forms.


I agree with you Northern Rancher. A Conservation Officer is welcome to check hunters on my property anytime but then again, I have nothing to hide.



~SH~

 

[Liberty Belle]

Northern Rancher: I'm a rancher, a landowner and a hunter and if a game warden has to enter my land to check someone I have no problem with that. We have a little thing up here called hunter ethics-if there is nothing on your place to hide why deny entrance.

We are not talking about hunters!!! Again, this is a property rights issue and the right to control and access my private property is MY right, not GF&P, not the local sheriff, and not the hunter or fisherman. The President of the United States himself does not have the right to come on to my private property if I don't give him permission. It has nothing to do with hiding anything.

What do you think we have to hide anyway? If law enforcement has reason to believe that we are breaking the law, any law, not just game violations, they can come in here and slap the cuffs on us, but REAL law enforcement officers will have to get a search warrant or a court order because, unlike game wardens, they also have to abide by the law.

SH: The game warden cannot see from the road if a hunter or fisherman has a license or is hunting in the right unit without checking that license.

So you think it's all right for the CO to come driving across my grass just to see if there might be someone hunting here that they can't see from the road? What is to prevent him from doing those license checks on the main roads? Is there going to be a big crime wave if the CO waits until the hunter is on his way home? You know how big our pastures are out here and you know that there is no way on God's green earth that the CO can police each ranch even if he were allowed to do so, so why would they even attempt such a stupid and inefficient move?

SH: So what is Rounds implying? That a good conservation officer should trust everyone to have a license? Give me a break! Sounds like Rounds is playing both sides on this one. If threatening to write tickets and slap fines on Round's father and everyone else in the party is worthy of criticism, the CO should have wrote the ticket. This "how dare you tell me what the law reads" attitude is a much bigger problem than a "so called" gruff game warden giving someone a warning.

I can't believe it! Scott doesn't agree with the governor? Hope your boss doesn't hear about this... :shock:

I can only say that with the attitude you have towards law enforcement, it's a good thing you are a trapper and not a game warden or GF&P would have another huge PR problem on their hands.

SH: GF&P has contributed a huge amount of money to the ADC program, they have funded deer proof stack fences in cases of deer depredation, landowners are issued preference on license allocations, and they have issued checks for thousands of acres to landowners participating in the Walk-In hunting program. Landowners may not be compensated what they think they deserve for feeding the public's wildlife but there is compensation in many forms.

This statement is a pile of bovine feces if I've ever seen one! Don't talk about money from the ADC program to those of us in Harding County who aren't on the local trapper's really short list of folks he'll work with. We tax ourselves and pay for our own predator control, helping to protect the state's game animals in the process at no charge to them.

Deer proof stack fences? GF&P furnishes the wire and the rancher does the labor and in exchange, you have to allow hunters so the GF&P can trespass to check their licenses? Give me a break! And what good would a license allocation preference do me? I don't hunt, I wouldn't eat it if someone gave it to me, and our hunters have always had to get their own license.

As to those checks for the walk-in program – that also doesn't apply here and won't until our property rights are protected by law. I will not "sell my birthright for a mess of pottage" as the Good Book says.

SH: I agree with you Northern Rancher. A Conservation Officer is welcome to check hunters on my property anytime but then again, I have nothing to hide.

And we do? What exactly? Or is it just that fact that we own property that makes us suspect, as our governor has suggested?

 

[mrj]

People with a chip on their shoulders are probably most of the problem between landowners and GFP and hunters, IMO.

I don't really approve of anyone coming onto my land without permission. With a handy cell phone, a conservation officer could do the courtesy of calling the landowner and pointing out a possible violation and asking permission to check it out. Even with the law on their side, it couldn't help but improve public relations to do that. We do need to admit, there are SOME landowners who are not honest and who do not follow the law strictly.....so, how to deal with that problem?

SOME people get quite a "Napoleon" complex when you pin a badge on them, including the rare conservation officer, IMO.

SOME hunters DO have an attitude that they are owed a place to hunt free of cost.......yet don't quibble about paying to play golf, go bowling, play pool, or whatever other form of recreation they choose. Do they really believe landowners have no cost in raising the game......or that running all over the grass has no cost to the landowner depending on that grass to feed his cattle?

Maybe there should be several aerial game counts per year, then some sort of tax rebate equivalent to the actual cost of raising deer, antelope, or other game for the average number of animals living on the ranchers' property. This would spread the costs over ALL the people making the claim of game being owned by THE PEOPLE more honest. As it is now, landowners bear all the costs, while THE PEOPLE have all the ownership. Also, the "strings" of access tied to any mitigation of damages/costs of raising the game is not at all fair to landowners. Maybe landowners should be allowed to take a reasonable number of does with no license, only a report of how many they take for food for their family. Just some random thoughts on the subject.

MRJ

 

[Anonymous]

LB: "So you think it's all right for the CO to come driving across my grass just to see if there might be someone hunting here that they can't see from the road? What is to prevent him from doing those license checks on the main roads? Is there going to be a big crime wave if the CO waits until the hunter is on his way home? You know how big our pastures are out here and you know that there is no way on God's green earth that the CO can police each ranch even if he were allowed to do so, so why would they even attempt such a stupid and inefficient move?"

That's not what I said. You just make it up as you go don't you?

I don't know of any Conservation Officer that is driving across anyone's pasture looking for hunters or fisherman. They drive out to the hunters and fisherman THEY HAVE SEEN actively hunting and fishing. These compliance checks are while the fisherman are fishing and after the hunters have finished their hunts to see if THOSE WHO WERE ACTUALLY HUNTING OR FISHING had licenses to do so. That is hardly driving around looking for hunters. Another of your many exaggerations.

Do you actually think someone who is hunting or fishing without a license, within a group of hunters or fisherman in a vehicle, is going to admit to hunting or fishing without a license? Good grief!

The reason you check hunters and fisherman while they are hunting or fishing is because you can see who is hunting or fishing. You don't know who was hunting and fishing when they are all packed in a vehicle.

LB: "I can only say that with the attitude you have towards law enforcement, it's a good thing you are a trapper and not a game warden or GF&P would have another huge PR problem on their hands."

I can only say that I am glad more citizens do not share your backwards theories on wildlife law enforcement.

LB: "Don't talk about money from the ADC program to those of us in Harding County who aren't on the local trapper's really short list of folks he'll work with. We tax ourselves and pay for our own predator control, helping to protect the state's game animals in the process at no charge to them."

RY has never refused service to anyone. Just because you prefer to throw everyone's predator district money at JJ without anyone trapping and calling on the ground is your own choice. I'd like to see JJ take care of Harding Co. totally from the air. Talk about being financially inefficient. By the number of coyote tracks I saw in the Slim Buttes this past winter, I'd say he's missing more than a few. There is no better system than a trapper and pilot working together. Both are only half as effective working seperately AND THAT'S A FACT!

LB: "Deer proof stack fences? GF&P furnishes the wire and the rancher does the labor and in exchange, you have to allow hunters so the GF&P can trespass to check their licenses? Give me a break! And what good would a license allocation preference do me? I don't hunt, I wouldn't eat it if someone gave it to me, and our hunters have always had to get their own license."

GF&P furnishes the wire AND THE POSTS. In some cases they erect them and some cases they let the landowners do it who want it done a certain way.

Just because you don't hunt doesn't mean other landowners are not given landowner preferences.

LB: "As to those checks for the walk-in program – that also doesn't apply here and won't until our property rights are protected by law."

Just because the Walk-In program doesn't apply to you doesn't mean it doesn't apply to others. While you are busy pouting and closing your land, your more resourceful neighbors are collecting their checks.


~SH~

 

[SDSteve]

I can't believe I am going to say this but here goes. Well said SH!!! On this issue I agree with everything you have had to say.