Northern Rancher
Well-known member
Yeah I think the conservation officers could use some psychology training after reading some of the posts here.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Hunter vandalism targets SD Lockout
- Thread starter Liberty Belle
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
A
Anonymous
Guest
Let me remind everyone that LB admitted having never seen a Conservation Officer on her place, EVER.
Let's look at how Janvrin's story changed:
As anyone can plainly see, why would JJ be concerned about the sun in his eyes to see the boundary or finishing off a cripple IF HE HAD PERMISSION????
JJ knew he didn't have permission or the sun in his eyes or the crippled coyote excuse would not have been an issue.
He was trespassing and was convicted of trespassing by a jury. This was the incident that reunited the Lock Out crowd.
Lex Burgduff's personal problems is a "red herring" to Janvrin's trespassing.
Obviously the Sherrif's department that hired you didn't so why would you expect it from any other department. I suppose you would only want to hire heel clicking conformist packer blamers huh?
HAR HAR, The empty packer blaming head from BOARNE, TX BY GAWD puts in his half a cent. Such brilliance. Did you post anyone else's thoughts today?
~SH~
Let's look at how Janvrin's story changed:
"At that point, he changed his story, and he said that the first coyote, he ended up killing it there because the sun was in his eyes and he couldn't see the fence line boundary, and the second coyote was wounded so he flew up there and shot it," he said.
"His reason for hunting on Lex Burghduff's was that four or five years ago Lex had allegedly given him permission," Prieksat said.
As anyone can plainly see, why would JJ be concerned about the sun in his eyes to see the boundary or finishing off a cripple IF HE HAD PERMISSION????
JJ knew he didn't have permission or the sun in his eyes or the crippled coyote excuse would not have been an issue.
He was trespassing and was convicted of trespassing by a jury. This was the incident that reunited the Lock Out crowd.
Lex Burgduff's personal problems is a "red herring" to Janvrin's trespassing.
OT: "Does South Dakota Fish and Game not have a physcological testing program for their hiring of game wardens, trappers, and employees?."
Obviously the Sherrif's department that hired you didn't so why would you expect it from any other department. I suppose you would only want to hire heel clicking conformist packer blamers huh?
Haymaker: "I believe SH is living proof of the fact they dont............good luck OT"
HAR HAR, The empty packer blaming head from BOARNE, TX BY GAWD puts in his half a cent. Such brilliance. Did you post anyone else's thoughts today?
~SH~
Itrap4u
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 46
- Reaction score
- 0
Rancher please explain on what I'm full of BS and no ax to grind with landowners at all, the facts are their to show just the opposite of what I have stated. Please define on what I'm actually full of BS on? Their are good land stewerts and bad just as in all other walks of life!
I urge you to read the story about the guy that shutoff his land because his son received a ticket and who has what to grind with who in that case? It clearly shows a childish attitude on the part of that guy! Laws are their for ALL to conform with! Ignorance of the laws is not a justified reason to be a law breaker, if you feel different explain it to me.
I urge you to read the story about the guy that shutoff his land because his son received a ticket and who has what to grind with who in that case? It clearly shows a childish attitude on the part of that guy! Laws are their for ALL to conform with! Ignorance of the laws is not a justified reason to be a law breaker, if you feel different explain it to me.
This county must be a lot more populated than my county. We have a very small town near our land that has a gas station & bar. It is miles to the next town. Both of these places have been closed twice. The local farmers & ranchers realize these places cannot stay open without hunters. There just isn't enough local people. Some landowners charge for hunting and the majority does not. It makes no difference as hunters are welcome here. We have a place to BS over a cup of coffee while getting a tire fixed or picking up milk, eggs, ect. We also have a place to go to and take the edge off the day in the local saloon. (I quit alcohol many years ago but still love to bs and unwind!)
Without these hunters, (some who have become close friends of over 20 years) these places would close. Yes, we have an occasional slob but that doesn't get everyone up in arms to close the area to hunting because the last two times that wire has been cut or gates have been left open, it was done by local ranchers sons on their snowmobiles.
We are forced against our will to wear seatbelts & in my state, shop owners cannot smoke in their own stores, we can site many instances of these things until we are blue in the face. The bottom line is that it is the law and in the majority of cases we cannot change it. (or it would never have passed in the first place!) If there is a goal or end in mind for this instance, I do not see it coming. I would be willing to bet that when a coyote problem starts, the G&F and hunters will be the first to be called. The same people who are being told they are not welcome. (It doesn't matter how you word it, the end result is the same).
We are also fortunate in this area as when a rancher gets hurt, half the town is out there helping him. When there are problems in town or an event, the ranchers show up with trucks, loaders etc. and are the first to help. We had 4 hunters come from over 500 miles to help haul bales when one of the ranchers had to be away with his daughter in the hospital. It is all about respect for each other! That is something that I don't see a lot of on this forum. This has been an excellent discussion. A lot of points have been made by those on both sides of this issue. I don't totally disagree or agree with all of you on this, but I don't believe any of you are "full of BS, blamers, liars, morons, forum police, or stupid" because your opinion is different than mine! LOL!
Without these hunters, (some who have become close friends of over 20 years) these places would close. Yes, we have an occasional slob but that doesn't get everyone up in arms to close the area to hunting because the last two times that wire has been cut or gates have been left open, it was done by local ranchers sons on their snowmobiles.
We are forced against our will to wear seatbelts & in my state, shop owners cannot smoke in their own stores, we can site many instances of these things until we are blue in the face. The bottom line is that it is the law and in the majority of cases we cannot change it. (or it would never have passed in the first place!) If there is a goal or end in mind for this instance, I do not see it coming. I would be willing to bet that when a coyote problem starts, the G&F and hunters will be the first to be called. The same people who are being told they are not welcome. (It doesn't matter how you word it, the end result is the same).
We are also fortunate in this area as when a rancher gets hurt, half the town is out there helping him. When there are problems in town or an event, the ranchers show up with trucks, loaders etc. and are the first to help. We had 4 hunters come from over 500 miles to help haul bales when one of the ranchers had to be away with his daughter in the hospital. It is all about respect for each other! That is something that I don't see a lot of on this forum. This has been an excellent discussion. A lot of points have been made by those on both sides of this issue. I don't totally disagree or agree with all of you on this, but I don't believe any of you are "full of BS, blamers, liars, morons, forum police, or stupid" because your opinion is different than mine! LOL!
A
Anonymous
Guest
This thread has went way beyond the reason for the lockout. It is not about hunters, ranchers, Conservation Officers or anything else but private property rights. I have my own opinions on the situation between the parties involved in the coyote killing controversy, but the reason I support the lockout is entirely about property rights.
Are game violations more important than the law as it applies to humans? I think LB pointed out that a game check or DUI check applies to everyone equally. That is a very good point, although I wish someone would challenge it's constititutionality.
Brad S. did a very good job of pointing out that probable cause allows a search, as the law change supported by the folks in the lockout also leaves that in effect.
fedup 2, I think our county that you mentioned has as few of residents as any county anywhere. 2500 sq. miles, and 16-1700 residents, maybe.
With the lockout, the ranchers only way of making our point is to stop hunting to get the attention of the GF&P. We are powerless in any other way. I don't think it is unreasonable that we host enough wildlife to possibly run another 100 or more head of livestock on our ranch, that we should have a tiny bit to say about what goes on here. For the record, we have never charged for hunting, we have let in a reasonable number of hunters in the past, but until we prove our point we will probably remain locked out. My opinion is that as long as the GF& P only has to answer to the governor, that there will not be a long lasting change.
This need not be more complicated than a property rights issue. That is all it is to me.
We had some slob hunters set up camp at a private site on our ranch this summer, they knew they were not supposed to be there, and the sheriff and I removed them (I requested that they not be ticketed unless they got beligerent). That takes a lot of balls, and lessened my respect for some hunters. I have a lot of good friends that I like to see every year at hunting season, but the GF&P have denied them the chance to hunt until they change policy, or the law is changed preferrably.
Are game violations more important than the law as it applies to humans? I think LB pointed out that a game check or DUI check applies to everyone equally. That is a very good point, although I wish someone would challenge it's constititutionality.
Brad S. did a very good job of pointing out that probable cause allows a search, as the law change supported by the folks in the lockout also leaves that in effect.
fedup 2, I think our county that you mentioned has as few of residents as any county anywhere. 2500 sq. miles, and 16-1700 residents, maybe.
With the lockout, the ranchers only way of making our point is to stop hunting to get the attention of the GF&P. We are powerless in any other way. I don't think it is unreasonable that we host enough wildlife to possibly run another 100 or more head of livestock on our ranch, that we should have a tiny bit to say about what goes on here. For the record, we have never charged for hunting, we have let in a reasonable number of hunters in the past, but until we prove our point we will probably remain locked out. My opinion is that as long as the GF& P only has to answer to the governor, that there will not be a long lasting change.
This need not be more complicated than a property rights issue. That is all it is to me.
We had some slob hunters set up camp at a private site on our ranch this summer, they knew they were not supposed to be there, and the sheriff and I removed them (I requested that they not be ticketed unless they got beligerent). That takes a lot of balls, and lessened my respect for some hunters. I have a lot of good friends that I like to see every year at hunting season, but the GF&P have denied them the chance to hunt until they change policy, or the law is changed preferrably.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Jake,
The bottom line is that you are going to have to get game laws relaxed in favor of private property rights at the legislative level. At this point, the public places a higher priority with wildlife law enforcement than having a CO gain permission to access private property to check hunters and fisherman. The lockout vote is in the minority. Locking your land will not change the views of the voting public.
~SH~
The bottom line is that you are going to have to get game laws relaxed in favor of private property rights at the legislative level. At this point, the public places a higher priority with wildlife law enforcement than having a CO gain permission to access private property to check hunters and fisherman. The lockout vote is in the minority. Locking your land will not change the views of the voting public.
~SH~
A
Anonymous
Guest
SH, to give you some evidence of why I am for a change in policy, I have a couple stories for you.
First off, I will not mention names, but years ago we were patrolling the hiway during hunting season (necessary evil) and we witnessed the game warden then, driving out into our deeded pasture to check licenses. The hunters, which we had given permission to hunt, were stalking some antelope and the warden was driving out to check them out. He couldn't wait a few minutes till they finished their hunt, he wanted to check them now. My dad got to him and told him to "get his ass back to the hiway now", and the warden didn't like it at all, but he did it. Had he gone out it would have wrecked their hunt, and left a bad impression with the hunters as well as us. The warden didn't ask us if he could go out, as we were right there, or anything, he just went ahead anyway, with no probable cause. What was his point?
Secondly, some friends of mine were hunting near my house on this side of the hiway. They were watching a buck deer that was trying to come across the hiway to this side. They had a good spot to wait out the buck, when someone that was supposed to be patrolling the slim buttes pulls in on my private road, and drives to the top of a hill away from the road so as to watch the buck. The buck then wanted nothing to do with coming over to this side, and left. This GF&P official of some sort screwed up their hunt, then drove off. He may not have even known about the hunters, but he was clearly tresspassing. I was not here, but asked th CO if is was him, and he said no. He asked if I wanted to take it further, but I said that they need to ask next time no matter what. If this were to happen now, I probably would ask for them to be arrested for tresspassing.
So you can see why I have a personal problem with this business, and even if LB hasn't seen a CO on her property, that proves nothing. For an example; even if we haven't had land confiscated for something like an endangered species, does that mean that I should not care about those who have? That is poor logic.
First off, I will not mention names, but years ago we were patrolling the hiway during hunting season (necessary evil) and we witnessed the game warden then, driving out into our deeded pasture to check licenses. The hunters, which we had given permission to hunt, were stalking some antelope and the warden was driving out to check them out. He couldn't wait a few minutes till they finished their hunt, he wanted to check them now. My dad got to him and told him to "get his ass back to the hiway now", and the warden didn't like it at all, but he did it. Had he gone out it would have wrecked their hunt, and left a bad impression with the hunters as well as us. The warden didn't ask us if he could go out, as we were right there, or anything, he just went ahead anyway, with no probable cause. What was his point?
Secondly, some friends of mine were hunting near my house on this side of the hiway. They were watching a buck deer that was trying to come across the hiway to this side. They had a good spot to wait out the buck, when someone that was supposed to be patrolling the slim buttes pulls in on my private road, and drives to the top of a hill away from the road so as to watch the buck. The buck then wanted nothing to do with coming over to this side, and left. This GF&P official of some sort screwed up their hunt, then drove off. He may not have even known about the hunters, but he was clearly tresspassing. I was not here, but asked th CO if is was him, and he said no. He asked if I wanted to take it further, but I said that they need to ask next time no matter what. If this were to happen now, I probably would ask for them to be arrested for tresspassing.
So you can see why I have a personal problem with this business, and even if LB hasn't seen a CO on her property, that proves nothing. For an example; even if we haven't had land confiscated for something like an endangered species, does that mean that I should not care about those who have? That is poor logic.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 1:06 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jake,
The bottom line is that you are going to have to get game laws relaxed in favor of private property rights at the legislative level. At this point, the public places a higher priority with wildlife law enforcement than having a CO gain permission to access private property to check hunters and fisherman. The lockout vote is in the minority. Locking your land will not change the views of the voting public.
SH, with all due respect, I don't know if you are right or not about the voting public, but when does that have anthing to do with our constitutional rights? I can see where you are coming from, but I think that is paramount in a free society. And as I said, I do not expect the attourney general of our state to find any differently than he already has as long as the GF&P is under the governor's office.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Jake,
Those instances, assuming they happened the way you say they did, have to be weighed against poaching of the public's wildlife resources on private land. Like I said, to this point, the public has voted to allow conservation officers to effectively enforce our game laws on private land by allowing them access to check hunters and fisherman. Most of the CO's that I know try to avoid disturbing hunters while they are actively hunting.
~SH~
Those instances, assuming they happened the way you say they did, have to be weighed against poaching of the public's wildlife resources on private land. Like I said, to this point, the public has voted to allow conservation officers to effectively enforce our game laws on private land by allowing them access to check hunters and fisherman. Most of the CO's that I know try to avoid disturbing hunters while they are actively hunting.
~SH~
Thanks for sharing those stories jake. Here is a little something I found.
-----------------------------------
"Modern property rights conceive of ownership and possession as belonging to legal individuals, even if the legal individual is not a real person. Thus, corporations, governments and other collective forms of ownership are framed in terms of individual ownership. Exceptions to this pattern include the "commons", which belong to a defined community, and the "public domain", to which access is unlimited.
Property rights are found in the oldest laws written down, and equate the expectation of use or profit to some payment from the very beginning. Modern property rights can be said to begin with the transition from ownership by entities as being the primary form of property right, to the theory that property rights are to promote the general good, and specifically encourage economic development and utilization of property.
Property is usually thought of in terms of a bundle of rights as defined and protected by the local sovereignty. Ownership, however, does not necessarily equate with sovereignty. If ownership gave supreme authority it would be sovereignty, not ownership. These are two different concepts."
-------------------------
We still have to abide by the rules and laws of this land whether we like it or not. Even those who claim to have the rights of a sovereign nation have to answer to someone.
-----------------------------------
"Modern property rights conceive of ownership and possession as belonging to legal individuals, even if the legal individual is not a real person. Thus, corporations, governments and other collective forms of ownership are framed in terms of individual ownership. Exceptions to this pattern include the "commons", which belong to a defined community, and the "public domain", to which access is unlimited.
Property rights are found in the oldest laws written down, and equate the expectation of use or profit to some payment from the very beginning. Modern property rights can be said to begin with the transition from ownership by entities as being the primary form of property right, to the theory that property rights are to promote the general good, and specifically encourage economic development and utilization of property.
Property is usually thought of in terms of a bundle of rights as defined and protected by the local sovereignty. Ownership, however, does not necessarily equate with sovereignty. If ownership gave supreme authority it would be sovereignty, not ownership. These are two different concepts."
-------------------------
We still have to abide by the rules and laws of this land whether we like it or not. Even those who claim to have the rights of a sovereign nation have to answer to someone.
A
Anonymous
Guest
In Montana, the Fish & Game overused and abused the open fields doctrine to the point that the State Supreme Court pretty much threw it out.....You better have permission or a search warrant- and depending on the circumstances, permission given today may not be permission for tommorrow......
But Montana and Alaska are two of the stongest states for private property rights.......
But Montana and Alaska are two of the stongest states for private property rights.......
Mike
Well-known member
Oldtimer said:In Montana, the Fish & Game overused and abused the open fields doctrine to the point that the State Supreme Court pretty much threw it out.....You better have permission or a search warrant- and depending on the circumstances, permission given today may not be permission for tommorrow......
But Montana and Alaska are two of the stongest states for private property rights.......
In Alabama ALL land is posted against hunting and fishing by intruders. You must have written permission and all the i's must be dotted on the permission slip or you will get a ticket.
Definitely no "Open Fields Doctrine" here! Also, the "Possum Sheriff" may not come onto your place any time he wants to but can wait on the road until you come out.
A
Anonymous
Guest
fedup2 said:Just curious Oldtimer, are things like this article under control now or is there still a lot going on.
http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2004/03/28/build/state/35-poaching.inc
fedup2-- I'm sure their is still some of it happening--Wherever their is big money to be made, someone will take advantage of it...But like the article says- quite a few of them get caught... Most of that type can't keep their mouths shut and end up trapping themselves (where have I heard that before :lol: )...F & G are still working the stings-The state has a good TIPS reward program- and since Fish and Game recognized the importance of private land and landowners for supporting game and hunting and opened the block management program, I've seen a much better relationship locally between Fish and Game and most landowners....
Personally I think the bigger problem I see is the land either being bought up by hunters or leased up by outfitters for their private clients-- Only kill a few trophy bucks and end up with no does being harvested- which ends up with overpopulation, worse game damage, bad winter kills and disease epidemics....
My local Fish and Game Block Management rep has been to the house 3 times in the last couple months and I've talked to him by phone once and a couple times on the road-- just checking to see if I was having any problems or had any ideas on what more they could do... At least makes you feel like you count in the whole scheme of things......
Jinglebob
Well-known member
~SH~ said:Jake,
Those instances, assuming they happened the way you say they did, have to be weighed against poaching of the public's wildlife resources on private land. Like I said, to this point, the public has voted to allow conservation officers to effectively enforce our game laws on private land by allowing them access to check hunters and fisherman. Most of the CO's that I know try to avoid disturbing hunters while they are actively hunting.
~SH~
Hell SH, why don't you just come out and call Jake a liar?
As for the GF&P being worried about poaching, poaching what?
They don't even begin to get all of the deer harvested in this area. There are always left over tags. So why would they be worried about poaching? Because they won't get paid for every dead deer?
What about all of the dead deer on the hiways? Maybe they are going to have to sell tags to every motorist, just in case they would hit and kill one of the states deer.
This smells a lot like King John in the story of Robin Hood. "They are the governments deer and you must not shoot or harm one unless you pay the apropriate amount of money to the royal coffers to allow it, so as to enrich the kings coffers!"
They must not get enough killed in the hills either as they are always bitching about all of the deer in the towns and cities that need to be killed.
I agree 100% with Jake. This is a private property rights issue and those who don't see it that way are just unaware of what all this could lead to down the road. And to think some people are worried about the patriot act. Hell, this is worse! Only on a smaller scale.
How about we open a deer season in town, as that seems to be where most of the deer problem is? I promise to not shoot anyone or harm any yards or houses. :wink:
I understand where a warden could figure out who owns the land in a county with only 1600 residents who own land in sections and tens of thousands of acres, but what about the eastern 2/3 of SD where you can't figure out who owns each 10, 20 or 40 acre block and the ownership changes hands daily?
A section of land could have a couple hundred landowners. Much of that land is owned by people who either don't live in the area, or don't live in the state, with no way to even contact those people.
Some of those people who don't live in state would gladly not buy one of those expensive licenses and just say they weren't hunting when they got to the road. It might not bother you if GFP doesn't get paid, but I follow the law and it should apply to everyone. I know some big ranches have been bought by the Turners etc. Wouldn't it bother you if some rich guy came in with no appreciation for local community, bought the land at bank busting prices raising taxes way up and then turned around and sold unlicensed poacher hunts to whoever could pay enough. Especially if it affected the hunting on your place enough so your pay hunters or worse, family couldn't hunt decent animals because the neighbor poached them all for $$.
I think that is a heck of a lot more of a violation of property rights.
On a different subject completely, there are more deer than people want in some areas. What would you do differently to solve the problem?
If no one buys doe licenses and hunters refuse to shoot does, how would you solve the problem?
That being said, you still have to take into account the guy/neighbor who charges for deer hunting and wants as many deer as he can get on his land.
In my opinion, I think the landowner decides how many critters they have on their own land and they have ultimate control of their land. If you want more deer, don't shoot does and strictly limit hunters. If you don't want deer, shoot only does and take some kids hunting. If you want birds, leave some habitat.
I'll restate the question, because I would like as many opinions as possible. What would you do differently to solve the problem?
A section of land could have a couple hundred landowners. Much of that land is owned by people who either don't live in the area, or don't live in the state, with no way to even contact those people.
Some of those people who don't live in state would gladly not buy one of those expensive licenses and just say they weren't hunting when they got to the road. It might not bother you if GFP doesn't get paid, but I follow the law and it should apply to everyone. I know some big ranches have been bought by the Turners etc. Wouldn't it bother you if some rich guy came in with no appreciation for local community, bought the land at bank busting prices raising taxes way up and then turned around and sold unlicensed poacher hunts to whoever could pay enough. Especially if it affected the hunting on your place enough so your pay hunters or worse, family couldn't hunt decent animals because the neighbor poached them all for $$.
I think that is a heck of a lot more of a violation of property rights.
On a different subject completely, there are more deer than people want in some areas. What would you do differently to solve the problem?
If no one buys doe licenses and hunters refuse to shoot does, how would you solve the problem?
That being said, you still have to take into account the guy/neighbor who charges for deer hunting and wants as many deer as he can get on his land.
In my opinion, I think the landowner decides how many critters they have on their own land and they have ultimate control of their land. If you want more deer, don't shoot does and strictly limit hunters. If you don't want deer, shoot only does and take some kids hunting. If you want birds, leave some habitat.
I'll restate the question, because I would like as many opinions as possible. What would you do differently to solve the problem?
Jinglebob
Well-known member
I've tried to get guys to shoot does, but they all want is horns. Doesn't even have to be big horns, just as long as it's horns.
I've never turned anyone down who wanted to shoot does, but we sure have a lot of them. They don't bother me, but the neighbors sure cuss them for getting into their second cutting alfalfa.
If we need to cut down deer numbers, I'd let the land owners deal with it, after season. If the GF&P would tell the landowners how many and of what sex, I think it would be taken care of cleanly and efficiently.
And by the way, I think we need to have game laws and some enforcement, I just ain't real keen on the way it's being handled now.
How come the head of the GF&P can't be a political office so we all have a say in who runs the show. Instead of having the governor appoint who ever his buddy is or who ever can kiss his butt the best?
I've never turned anyone down who wanted to shoot does, but we sure have a lot of them. They don't bother me, but the neighbors sure cuss them for getting into their second cutting alfalfa.
If we need to cut down deer numbers, I'd let the land owners deal with it, after season. If the GF&P would tell the landowners how many and of what sex, I think it would be taken care of cleanly and efficiently.
And by the way, I think we need to have game laws and some enforcement, I just ain't real keen on the way it's being handled now.
How come the head of the GF&P can't be a political office so we all have a say in who runs the show. Instead of having the governor appoint who ever his buddy is or who ever can kiss his butt the best?
A
Anonymous
Guest
I don't feel exactly like SH was calling me a liar Jinglebob, but I don't care if he was either, because I know how it all happened. I explained it as accurate as I know how to.
And SH, in my second example Brian checked it out and told me he knew who drove in my road, but I never felt like taking it any further at the time than to let them know how I felt about it. So he did know that it happened.
You know SH, a little appreciation shown from the GF&P might be OK once in a while for what ranchers provide for feeding the States wildlife. We feed them all year, don't charge for hunting, and we better shut up and like it. How many places can one still hunt big game for free in the US? That will probably change also in some cases as a result of this.
And SH, in my second example Brian checked it out and told me he knew who drove in my road, but I never felt like taking it any further at the time than to let them know how I felt about it. So he did know that it happened.
You know SH, a little appreciation shown from the GF&P might be OK once in a while for what ranchers provide for feeding the States wildlife. We feed them all year, don't charge for hunting, and we better shut up and like it. How many places can one still hunt big game for free in the US? That will probably change also in some cases as a result of this.
--How come the head of the GF&P can't be a political office so we all have a say in who runs the show.
That's a good question. There are a lot of Departments in state government. Larry Gabriel should be elected along with Judith Payne the Sec of Transportation also then. If we could elect individual secretaries, them would that be any more protection against someone getting in and doing a disastrously lousy job?
I think Governor Rounds is ultimately responsible for who he chooses for his administration. Isn't it the same as who the Pres. chooses for cabinet? He is the man who makes the decisions and we do have a say in that. It's probably not much comfort, but that might be a state constitution issue. You have to go a lot higher than GFP and the Gov to change who appoints the Secretaries. That means educating all of SD to change it.
--If we need to cut down deer numbers, I'd let the land owners deal with it, after season. If the GF&P would tell the landowners how many and of what sex, I think it would be taken care of cleanly and efficiently.
You started to explain, but please go further. Who decides how many deer get shot, the landowners or GFP? Who shoots them, hunters, landowners or GFP? What happens to the deer? You shouldn't just leave them lay. What happens if I have too many deer, but my neighbor refuses to let anyone shoot them on their land?
By the way, if you want a depredation hunt to kill deer on your land after the season, GFP already can do that. I applied for a chance to hunt once for $5. The hunter does all the work on their dime and guts the deer and takes it home. At least its cost effective!
I don't envy anyone trying to make decisions to please everyone. In my opinion (Yeah, I know what they say) I think we have to discuss these things and try to come up with a solution that works for as many people as possible. We also have to work out the bugs too. If you come up with a plan you and your neighbors like, take it to the CO and the Commissioners and beat it out. You do have a say, use it.
Have you ever talked to your CO?
Without talking there is either screaming or silence
That's a good question. There are a lot of Departments in state government. Larry Gabriel should be elected along with Judith Payne the Sec of Transportation also then. If we could elect individual secretaries, them would that be any more protection against someone getting in and doing a disastrously lousy job?
I think Governor Rounds is ultimately responsible for who he chooses for his administration. Isn't it the same as who the Pres. chooses for cabinet? He is the man who makes the decisions and we do have a say in that. It's probably not much comfort, but that might be a state constitution issue. You have to go a lot higher than GFP and the Gov to change who appoints the Secretaries. That means educating all of SD to change it.
--If we need to cut down deer numbers, I'd let the land owners deal with it, after season. If the GF&P would tell the landowners how many and of what sex, I think it would be taken care of cleanly and efficiently.
You started to explain, but please go further. Who decides how many deer get shot, the landowners or GFP? Who shoots them, hunters, landowners or GFP? What happens to the deer? You shouldn't just leave them lay. What happens if I have too many deer, but my neighbor refuses to let anyone shoot them on their land?
By the way, if you want a depredation hunt to kill deer on your land after the season, GFP already can do that. I applied for a chance to hunt once for $5. The hunter does all the work on their dime and guts the deer and takes it home. At least its cost effective!
I don't envy anyone trying to make decisions to please everyone. In my opinion (Yeah, I know what they say) I think we have to discuss these things and try to come up with a solution that works for as many people as possible. We also have to work out the bugs too. If you come up with a plan you and your neighbors like, take it to the CO and the Commissioners and beat it out. You do have a say, use it.
Have you ever talked to your CO?
Without talking there is either screaming or silence
Itrap4u
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 46
- Reaction score
- 0
Jingle Bob, paoching deer is against the law to protect the resource! it doesn't matter the population, it is against the law, were not talking of spot lighting on does for the most part, poachers shoot the big bucks to sell the antlers, and leave the rest. Hunters are the ones who have helped bring back many species and help them thrive. Pittman/robertson funds have went along ways, and every license sold helps with public hunting access and habitat value!
I don't know why so many think that Game depts are out to turn a buck on everything. In fact looking at government agencys alot of Game Depts are self supporting, that should be something all would like to see continue, if not it means that the tax payers will be footing a much,much larger bill for our wildlife. So people should be happy with the revenue hunting generates for their states, it not only saves tax payers dollars, in fact it also goes many ways from all the other revenue, private buisness owners do well, exspecially small busiiness owners in many small towns make from legal hunting seasons.
The deer issue is tough in many states look at Wis they have 60+ deer per sq mile and it is tough to break the big buck mentality and get hunters to shoot does, the tags are cheap enough in most states, yet the majority of left overs are doe tags. Wis went with a check in deal were you can't get a buck tag until you check in a dead doe. Insurance companys spend millions in claims against deer numbers, someone needs to come up with a good way to get does in many western and Midwest states, but look at where we are today with deer numbers comapired to the 70's and early 80's! it shows what sound conservation and largely the CRP program has done to help wildlife, pheasants are another great success of programs as well.
The ability to protect the resource has been job one og Game Depts for many,many years reguardless of the numbers, you have more liberail seasons now than at anytime in the past!
I don't know why so many think that Game depts are out to turn a buck on everything. In fact looking at government agencys alot of Game Depts are self supporting, that should be something all would like to see continue, if not it means that the tax payers will be footing a much,much larger bill for our wildlife. So people should be happy with the revenue hunting generates for their states, it not only saves tax payers dollars, in fact it also goes many ways from all the other revenue, private buisness owners do well, exspecially small busiiness owners in many small towns make from legal hunting seasons.
The deer issue is tough in many states look at Wis they have 60+ deer per sq mile and it is tough to break the big buck mentality and get hunters to shoot does, the tags are cheap enough in most states, yet the majority of left overs are doe tags. Wis went with a check in deal were you can't get a buck tag until you check in a dead doe. Insurance companys spend millions in claims against deer numbers, someone needs to come up with a good way to get does in many western and Midwest states, but look at where we are today with deer numbers comapired to the 70's and early 80's! it shows what sound conservation and largely the CRP program has done to help wildlife, pheasants are another great success of programs as well.
The ability to protect the resource has been job one og Game Depts for many,many years reguardless of the numbers, you have more liberail seasons now than at anytime in the past!