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:
Jinglebob
Well-known member
Green e said:--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
I have talked to my CO and he lied to me about getting a tree belt put in. Other than that , I've never dealt with him. We've had some good ones in the past. I don't have a problem with any CO persay, just the policies of the GF&P.
As for the over population, I would say let the experts decide and then after the season, let the land owners know how many to eliminate and if they want the deer, come and get them. If the landowner doesn't want to deal with it, let the GF&P. They all know how to shoot, I assume. Then there would be no waste. Although, if the coyotes and fox and skunks and others get to eat the dead lones, is it really waste?
It's like the law about wasting a deer. If I pay for the license and want to let the wildlife or my dogs and cats eat it, where is the waste? Or if I want to let someone else have it or the privledge of shooting my deer, whats the problem with that. One tag, one deer, does it really matter who shoots it?
As far as Larry Gabriel or any others, yes, lets vote for them. Or give more control to our county commisioners. Keep the control local, with state wide over sight.
As for the comment somewhere else about the smaller parcels in the eastern part of the state, lets deal with it on a county by county basis. What is wrong with Game Wardens setting up game checks on the roads? I would prefer that to driving around looking for poachers or those who are breaking the law. They used to do it. It would seem to be more cost efficient. They don't go around checking over loaded trucks at random, but set up portable scales when and/or if there is a problem.
Northern Rancher
Well-known member
I can't imagine what a goat roping that would be if they let every rancher manage the deer herd -tooo funny. The deer lovers would feed them-the deer haters would slaughter them and so on. A rancher up here got a major hate on for mulies and got the natives to clean them out one winter-worked really well except the coyotes switched to calves the next spring. We have large populations of deer here too but we allow our wardens to do their jobs-a more thankless one I can't imagine. As for hunters not shooting does there are several states who manage this by having an earn a buck system. You have to turn in two cancelled doe tags before you get your buck tag. Saskatchewan is world renowned for the quality of our deer hunting-maybe some South Dakotans should come up on a fact finding mission.
A
Anonymous
Guest
JB: "Hell SH, why don't you just come out and call Jake a liar?"
If I knew Jake was lying I would call him a liar. Same goes for you. I gave Jake the benefit of the doubt by saying, "assuming it happened the way you say it did". You Jake's spokesperson now?
JB: "As for the GF&P being worried about poaching, poaching what?"
Ahh....gee mosquitos?
The public's wildlife, WHAT ELSE?
JB: "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?"
Gosh, you got a point there. I'll bring that up at the next meeting. SINCE WE DIDN'T SELL ALL OUR LICENSES THIS YEAR, JINGLEBOB WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE A "POACHING SEASON". Great idea Jinglebob!
JB: "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."
Landowners and the Dept. need to force hunters to kill does prior to taking a buck. If I wanted does harvested nobody would shoot a buck until they had harvested a doe.
JB: "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!"
Do your deer never leave your property? Well, if they are not confined to your property, how can they be your deer?
JB: "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."
JB: "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.
Perhaps you'd like to present the Rapid City Council with your proposals at their next meeting. Of course you never bitch about anything do you?
JB: "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."
Get a little backbone JB and tell them if they don't shoot does, they won't be hunting instead of criticising them here. Put your foot down.
JB: "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."
Never mind my previous question on whether the deer are confined to your property. I suppose your neighbor wants the deer managed the same way you do? If not, then I guess it's impossible to satisfy everyone isn't it?
JB: "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."
There might be some opportunity for a regulated doe reduction season where all the landowners who shared the same herd agreed on the number to reduce it by and the meat was utilized.
JB: "I have talked to my CO and he lied to me about getting a tree belt put in."
So you are saying BB tried to intentionally mislead you? I'll bet there is two sides to this "STORY". I believe BB lying to you is a lie, so there!
A lie is not saying something that is untrue, a lie is saying something that is untrue WITH THE INTENT TO MISLEAD.
JB: "As for the over population, I would say let the experts decide and then after the season, let the land owners know how many to eliminate and if they want the deer, come and get them. If the landowner doesn't want to deal with it, let the GF&P."
Whose the experts if not the GF&P biologists and the conservation officers?
A minute ago you were critical of GF&P policy.
JB: "It's like the law about wasting a deer. If I pay for the license and want to let the wildlife or my dogs and cats eat it, where is the waste? Or if I want to let someone else have it or the privledge of shooting my deer, whats the problem with that. One tag, one deer, does it really matter who shoots it?"
Most people believe that deer meat is too valuable to feed to pets. If you don't want to eat it, give it to someone who does.
As far as shooting someone else's deer, if you don't like the law, get it changed.
JB: "What is wrong with Game Wardens setting up game checks on the roads? I would prefer that to driving around looking for poachers or those who are breaking the law. They used to do it. It would seem to be more cost efficient."
They do that to but that doesn't tell you who was hunting and fishing without a license or whether they were hunting where they were supposed to be hunting based on their license.
Nobody is driving around looking for hunters. Hunters are spotted from the road then approached USUALLY as they are finishing their hunt. Funny how "DRIVING ALL OVER MY LAND" becomes an issue with the game wardens but not the hunters that are "DRIVING ALL OVER MY LAND".
Cheers Jinglebob!
~SH~
Jinglebob
Well-known member
:lol:~SH~ said:JB: "Hell SH, why don't you just come out and call Jake a liar?"
If I knew Jake was lying I would call him a liar. Same goes for you. I gave Jake the benefit of the doubt by saying, "assuming it happened the way you say it did". You Jake's spokesperson now?
NO, I CAN TELL BY JAKES POSTS THAT HE IS ARTICULATE AND INTELLEGENT. HE NEEDS NO HELP FROM ME, BUT THANKS FOR CLEARING THAT UP!
JB: "As for the GF&P being worried about poaching, poaching what?"
Ahh....gee mosquitos?
The public's wildlife, WHAT ELSE?
I CAN SEE THAT YOU ARE TOO UNINTELLEGENT TO UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, SO I'LL ASK AGAIN, IF THE GF&P CAN'T FILL THEIR HARVEST QUOTA'S, THEN WHY WOULD THEY BE WORRIED ABOUT SOMEONE SHOOTING ONE, WITHOUT A LICENSE, OTHER THAN THE FACT, THEY WON'T GET PAID FOR SAID, DEAD DEER?
JB: "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?"
Gosh, you got a point there. I'll bring that up at the next meeting. SINCE WE DIDN'T SELL ALL OUR LICENSES THIS YEAR, JINGLEBOB WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE A "POACHING SEASON". Great idea Jinglebob!
NOTHING WAS SAID ABOUT A POACHING SEASON. RE-READ THE ABOVE!
JB: "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."
Landowners and the Dept. need to force hunters to kill does prior to taking a buck. If I wanted does harvested nobody would shoot a buck until they had harvested a doe.
GOOD LUCK WITH THAT ONE. HASN'T WORKED REAL SUCCESSFULLY HERE. MANY HUNTERS WOULD NOT BUY A DOE TAG AND WOULD JUST WAIT UNTIL THEWY COULD BUY A BUCK TAG OR GO TO ANOTHER STATE TO HUNT ITTY BITTY BUCKS. I AGREE WITH YOUR IDEA, BUT I DON'T THINK THE GF&P WANTS THE DOES KILLED AS BAD AS THE LANDOWNERS. HENCE, ONE OF MY PROBLEMS WITH THE GF&P. LACK OF COMUNICATIONS. MAYBE THEY NEED TO MEET WITH THE LANDOWNERS AND ASK THE LANDOWNERS OPINIONS ABOUT THE DEER HERD SIZE? OH WAIT, THAT'S RIGHT, YOU DON'T THINK LANDOWNERS HAVE ENOUGH INTELLIGENCE TO MAKE RATIONAL, INFORMED OPINIONS.
JB: "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!"
Do your deer never leave your property? Well, if they are not confined to your property, how can they be your deer?
SO, USING YOUR ARGUMENT, WHEN THEY DEER ARE ON MY PROPERTY DO THEY BELONG TO ME AND WHEN THEY MOVE TO SOMEONE ELSES PROPERTY DO THEY BELONG TO THAT LANDOWNER AND WHEN THEY ARE ON PUBLIC LAND DO THEY BELONG TO THE STATE?????????
I DIDN'T THINK SO.
IF THEY ARE NEVER ON THE STATES PROPERTY, HOW CAN THEY BELONG TO THE STATE?
JB: "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."
JB: "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.
Perhaps you'd like to present the Rapid City Council with your proposals at their next meeting. Of course you never bitch about anything do you?
NO, I DON'T BITCH, I WHINE!
BUT GOOD IDEA ABOUT TALKING TO THE COUNCIL. OF COURSE, I DON'T REALLY ENJOY HUNTING ENOUGH TO DRIVE THAT FAR TO HUNT, BUT I'LL JUST BET THERE WOULD BE QUITE A FEW BOW HUNTERS WHO WOULD GO FOR IT.
JB: "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."
Get a little backbone JB and tell them if they don't shoot does, they won't be hunting instead of criticising them here. Put your foot down.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE DONE AND THERE HAVE BEEN FEW TAKERS. SO IF I WANT DOES SHOT, I MUST DO IT MYSELF. WITH A LICENSE OF COURSE, AS I WOULDN'T WANT TO BE ACCUSED OF BEING A LAWBREAKING LANDOWNER, BY OUR GOVERNOR!
JB: "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."
Never mind my previous question on whether the deer are confined to your property. I suppose your neighbor wants the deer managed the same way you do? If not, then I guess it's impossible to satisfy everyone isn't it?
AS FAR AS I KNOW, MOST OF THE NEIGHBORS WANT THE LITTLE BUCKS KILLED AND WANT TO WHINE ABOUT NO ONE SHOOTING DOES AND WONDER WHY THEY CAN'T HAVE BIGGER BUCKS. I GUESS THEY FIGURE THAT ONE LESS DEER TO FEED IS ONE LESS DEER TO FEED, SO THAT IS AS FAR AS THEY THINK. PRETTY SHORT SIGHTED, BUT HEY, IT'S THEIR LAND!
JB: "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."
There might be some opportunity for a regulated doe reduction season where all the landowners who shared the same herd agreed on the number to reduce it by and the meat was utilized.
LET US KNOW HOW TO SET THAT UP, WOULD YOU? I HAVE NO IDEA OF WHO TO CONTACT ABOUT IT, BUT IT WOULD SEEM TO BE AN IDEA WHO'S TIME HAS COME.
JB: "I have talked to my CO and he lied to me about getting a tree belt put in."
So you are saying BB tried to intentionally mislead you? I'll bet there is two sides to this "STORY". I believe BB lying to you is a lie, so there!
A lie is not saying something that is untrue, a lie is saying something that is untrue WITH THE INTENT TO MISLEAD.
HE TOLD ME THAT HE WOULD SEE THAT I GOT TREES TO PLANT FOR A WILDLIFE SHELTER BELT, AND THAT WAS THE LAST I HEARD FROM HIM AND COULD NOT CONTACT HIM OR ANYONE ELSE HE TOLD ME TOO. AFTER MANY LONG DISTANCE PHONE CALLS, I GAVE UP.
YOUR INTERPRATATION OF LYING AND MINE ARE QUITE A WAYS APART. WHEN SOMEONE DOESN'T FULLFILL THEIR END OF AN AGREEMENT AND DOESN'T GIVE A VALID EXPLANATIOON, I FIGURE THAT THEY LIED. IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME AND I HATE IT!
JB: "As for the over population, I would say let the experts decide and then after the season, let the land owners know how many to eliminate and if they want the deer, come and get them. If the landowner doesn't want to deal with it, let the GF&P."
Whose the experts if not the GF&P biologists and the conservation officers?
A minute ago you were critical of GF&P policy.
DID YOU SEE OR RTEAD ME SAY ANYWHERE THAT THE BIOLIGISTS WEREN'T EXPERTDS. I MEARLY STATED THAT I DON'T LIKE SOME OF THE GF&P'S POLICIES. I ALSO STATED THAT I DON'T HATE ANY CO AND THAT I THINK WE NEED AN OVERSIGHT GROUP TO DEAL WITH WILDLIFE.
I SUPPOSE YOU AGREE WITH EVERY THING THAT ANY OFFICIAL OF THE STATE SAYS OR DOES?
YOU MUST BE LYING HERE AS YOU SEEM TO BE TRYING TO MISLEAD EVERYONER READING THIS POST, BY TWISTING MY WORDS AND TAKING THEM OUT OF CONTEXT.
JB: "It's like the law about wasting a deer. If I pay for the license and want to let the wildlife or my dogs and cats eat it, where is the waste? Or if I want to let someone else have it or the privledge of shooting my deer, whats the problem with that. One tag, one deer, does it really matter who shoots it?"
Most people believe that deer meat is too valuable to feed to pets. If you don't want to eat it, give it to someone who does.
As far as shooting someone else's deer, if you don't like the law, get it changed.
IF DEER MEAT IS SO GREAT AND SO VALUABLE, WHY DOESN'T THE STATE GET RIGHT OUT THERE AND SAVE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE FROM ALL THE DEAD DEER ON THE ROADS? AS MUCH AS THEY PATROL AND AS HIGH AS THEY ARE IN PEOPLES ESTEEM, I WOULD THINK THAT ANY MOTORIST WHO HIT A DEER WOULD CONTACT THE LOCAL CO AND INFORM THEM OF THE DEAD DEER. MOTORIST COULD EVEN GUT AND SALVAGE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE AND DROP OFF THE MEAT AT LOCAL DEER MEAT CENTERS, AND THE CO OR SOMEONE DESIGNATED, COULD PICK IT UP AND DELIVER IT.
I'VE HAD LIVESTOCK GET HURT WITH BROKEN BONES AND WE'VE DONE OUR BEST TO SAVE AS MUCH PALATABLE MEAT AS POSSIBLE. MAYBE THE STATE SHOULD DO THE SAME AND GIVE IT TO HOMELESS SHELTERS.
JB: "What is wrong with Game Wardens setting up game checks on the roads? I would prefer that to driving around looking for poachers or those who are breaking the law. They used to do it. It would seem to be more cost efficient."
They do that to but that doesn't tell you who was hunting and fishing without a license or whether they were hunting where they were supposed to be hunting based on their license.
Nobody is driving around looking for hunters. Hunters are spotted from the road then approached USUALLY as they are finishing their hunt. Funny how "DRIVING ALL OVER MY LAND" becomes an issue with the game wardens but not the hunters that are "DRIVING ALL OVER MY LAND".
I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ANYONE WHO DRIVES ALL OVER MY LAND. EVEN THE PEOPLE WHO I RUN CATTLE FOR. GRASS COSTS MONEY AND I DON'T WANT ANY MORE GRASS RUN OVER THAN IS POSSIBLE. IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO RIDE HORSEBACK OR WALK, I SURE WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
AND I'LL STATE AGAIN, I'VE NEVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH CO'S COMING INTO OR ONTO MY LAND. THEY ARE WELCOME, BUT IT WOULD BE NICE TO KNOW ABOUT THE VISIT EITHER BEFOREHAND OR AFTER THE FACT. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO BE TREATED AS A NEIGHBOR AND NOT A FUGITIVE. I SURE WOULDN'T THINK OF DRIVING ACROSS THE CO'S LAND WITHOUT HIS PERMISSION. AND IF THERE WAS AN EMERGANCY AND I HAD TO, I WOULD CONTACT HIM TO LET HIM KNOW I HAD BEEN THERE AND WHY I HAD DONE IT. I WOULD LIKE THE SAME RESPECT.
Cheers Jinglebob!
CHEERS TO YOU TO, LITTLE BUDDY!
~SH~
Northern--"As for hunters not shooting does there are several states who manage this by having an earn a buck system. You have to turn in two cancelled doe tags before you get your buck tag. "
What's wrong with leaving the landowner who has too many deer to make their hunters shoot does first before they can earn a buck? I believe that is taking personal responsibility on your land. If you can manage a ranch, you can make some hunters buy doe tags and fill a double before they can buck hunt. Otherwise I think they should find somewhere else to hunt. Neighbors getting together is the best way to manage deer.
What about the landowner who manages their deer personally? If they have a big blue-tongue die off then their whitetail numbers might be way down and they don't want to shoot does. You are also then taking away their right to go out opening morning and shoot that big buck they have been raising and watching for 5 years. Then that person is breaking another law we had to create.
In counties where there is one warden, or one warden to two counties, they can't check in those deer so you have to rely on businesses. If the county has only 1 or 2 towns you are forcing people to drive 50 miles or more to check in a doe. It's good for the business though.
Don't get me wrong, I know it works, but there are simpler answers if we can change behavior. It stinks to have to Legislate behavior when we shouldn't have to. You can say that about a lot of topics.
JB --"As for the comment somewhere else about the smaller parcels in the eastern part of the state, lets deal with it on a county by county basis."
If you do away with the Open Fields everywhere, you have to think about the consequences everwhere and the trade-offs that come with it. If you change state law, it affects the whole state, not just a county. There are areas where that just simply wouldn't work and the landowners lose property rights in a lot bigger fashion.
JB --"It's like the law about wasting a deer. If I pay for the license and want to let the wildlife or my dogs and cats eat it, where is the waste? Or if I want to let someone else have it or the privledge of shooting my deer, whats the problem with that. One tag, one deer, does it really matter who shoots it?"
You are talking about state law again. The Legislature makes those decisions, not GFP or COs. The Sheriff has the same ability to enforce those laws and more, but chooses not to. Wardens, HPs, Sheriff, Police get their orders from the Legislature. Thats why they are called Law Enforcement. If you don't like the transportation laws, the waste laws and the party hunting laws, talk to your legislators. They are the only ones who can change the laws. If you think Secretaries should be elected, get it changed in the State Constitution or Legislature.
I still have to ask if you think electing people, whether by county or by state gives us any more protection against them doing a lousy job. I just don't see that distinction, especially when you have to choose the lesser of two evils.
What's wrong with leaving the landowner who has too many deer to make their hunters shoot does first before they can earn a buck? I believe that is taking personal responsibility on your land. If you can manage a ranch, you can make some hunters buy doe tags and fill a double before they can buck hunt. Otherwise I think they should find somewhere else to hunt. Neighbors getting together is the best way to manage deer.
What about the landowner who manages their deer personally? If they have a big blue-tongue die off then their whitetail numbers might be way down and they don't want to shoot does. You are also then taking away their right to go out opening morning and shoot that big buck they have been raising and watching for 5 years. Then that person is breaking another law we had to create.
In counties where there is one warden, or one warden to two counties, they can't check in those deer so you have to rely on businesses. If the county has only 1 or 2 towns you are forcing people to drive 50 miles or more to check in a doe. It's good for the business though.
Don't get me wrong, I know it works, but there are simpler answers if we can change behavior. It stinks to have to Legislate behavior when we shouldn't have to. You can say that about a lot of topics.
JB --"As for the comment somewhere else about the smaller parcels in the eastern part of the state, lets deal with it on a county by county basis."
If you do away with the Open Fields everywhere, you have to think about the consequences everwhere and the trade-offs that come with it. If you change state law, it affects the whole state, not just a county. There are areas where that just simply wouldn't work and the landowners lose property rights in a lot bigger fashion.
JB --"It's like the law about wasting a deer. If I pay for the license and want to let the wildlife or my dogs and cats eat it, where is the waste? Or if I want to let someone else have it or the privledge of shooting my deer, whats the problem with that. One tag, one deer, does it really matter who shoots it?"
You are talking about state law again. The Legislature makes those decisions, not GFP or COs. The Sheriff has the same ability to enforce those laws and more, but chooses not to. Wardens, HPs, Sheriff, Police get their orders from the Legislature. Thats why they are called Law Enforcement. If you don't like the transportation laws, the waste laws and the party hunting laws, talk to your legislators. They are the only ones who can change the laws. If you think Secretaries should be elected, get it changed in the State Constitution or Legislature.
I still have to ask if you think electing people, whether by county or by state gives us any more protection against them doing a lousy job. I just don't see that distinction, especially when you have to choose the lesser of two evils.
A
Anonymous
Guest
JB: "I CAN SEE THAT YOU ARE TOO UNINTELLEGENT TO UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, SO I'LL ASK AGAIN, IF THE GF&P CAN'T FILL THEIR HARVEST QUOTA'S, THEN WHY WOULD THEY BE WORRIED ABOUT SOMEONE SHOOTING ONE, WITHOUT A LICENSE, OTHER THAN THE FACT, THEY WON'T GET PAID FOR SAID, DEAD DEER?"
If you were un-unintelligent you wouldn't need to ask that question.
First off, the harvest quota shortfall has to do with unharvested does, not trophy bucks. The poaching that occurs mostly deals with trophy bucks. If a hunter cannot afford to buy 2 does for $30, or whatever the price is now for a double doe tag, WHY WOULD HE POACH ONE?
Lecture me on intelligence again JB!
JB: "I DON'T THINK THE GF&P WANTS THE DOES KILLED AS BAD AS THE LANDOWNERS. HENCE, ONE OF MY PROBLEMS WITH THE GF&P. LACK OF COMUNICATIONS. MAYBE THEY NEED TO MEET WITH THE LANDOWNERS AND ASK THE LANDOWNERS OPINIONS ABOUT THE DEER HERD SIZE? OH WAIT, THAT'S RIGHT, YOU DON'T THINK LANDOWNERS HAVE ENOUGH INTELLIGENCE TO MAKE RATIONAL, INFORMED OPINIONS."
First, GF&P does want does killed.
Second, GF&P continually receives landowner input.
Thirdly, where in the hell did I ever say landowners don't have the intelligence to make rational informed opinions? That is definitely a lie on your part. Quite thumbsucking too I might add.
JB: "SO, USING YOUR ARGUMENT, WHEN THEY DEER ARE ON MY PROPERTY DO THEY BELONG TO ME AND WHEN THEY MOVE TO SOMEONE ELSES PROPERTY DO THEY BELONG TO THAT LANDOWNER AND WHEN THEY ARE ON PUBLIC LAND DO THEY BELONG TO THE STATE????????? I DIDN'T THINK SO."
The deer, BY LAW, belong to the public, period.
JB: "NO, I DON'T BITCH, I WHINE!"
You certainly do!
JB: ".....I'LL JUST BET THERE WOULD BE QUITE A FEW BOW HUNTERS WHO WOULD GO FOR IT."
That has been discussed at the city council meetings many times.
JB: "AS FAR AS I KNOW, MOST OF THE NEIGHBORS WANT THE LITTLE BUCKS KILLED AND WANT TO WHINE ABOUT NO ONE SHOOTING DOES AND WONDER WHY THEY CAN'T HAVE BIGGER BUCKS. I GUESS THEY FIGURE THAT ONE LESS DEER TO FEED IS ONE LESS DEER TO FEED, SO THAT IS AS FAR AS THEY THINK. PRETTY SHORT SIGHTED, BUT HEY, IT'S THEIR LAND!"
So you disagree with your neighbors on how to manage the deer herd you share yet you wonder why GF&P doesn't manage your deer herd the way you think it should be managed. Pretty short sighted!
JB: "LET US KNOW HOW TO SET THAT UP, WOULD YOU? I HAVE NO IDEA OF WHO TO CONTACT ABOUT IT, BUT IT WOULD SEEM TO BE AN IDEA WHO'S TIME HAS COME."
Don't take my statement out of context. I didn't say there "WOULD BE" and opportunity, I said there "MIGHT BE". Start by contacting your CO and the local members of your GF&P game commisssion. Don't be so helpless.
JB: "HE TOLD ME THAT HE WOULD SEE THAT I GOT TREES TO PLANT FOR A WILDLIFE SHELTER BELT, AND THAT WAS THE LAST I HEARD FROM HIM AND COULD NOT CONTACT HIM OR ANYONE ELSE HE TOLD ME TOO. AFTER MANY LONG DISTANCE PHONE CALLS, I GAVE UP."
I'll bet he has a different version of the story.
JB: "YOUR INTERPRATATION OF LYING AND MINE ARE QUITE A WAYS APART. WHEN SOMEONE DOESN'T FULLFILL THEIR END OF AN AGREEMENT AND DOESN'T GIVE A VALID EXPLANATIOON, I FIGURE THAT THEY LIED. IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME AND I HATE IT!"
I gave the definition of lying, not an interpretation of it. Yours is the interpretation.
JB: "I SUPPOSE YOU AGREE WITH EVERY THING THAT ANY OFFICIAL OF THE STATE SAYS OR DOES?"
Hahaha! If I was a blind follower and couldn't think for myself I would probably be a member of R-CALF. Nobody pulls my strings.
JB: "YOU MUST BE LYING HERE AS YOU SEEM TO BE TRYING TO MISLEAD EVERYONER READING THIS POST, BY TWISTING MY WORDS AND TAKING THEM OUT OF CONTEXT."
You always accuse me of twisting your words and taking them out of context WHEN I RESPOND TO YOUR DIRECT QUOTES. Pretty hard to twist words and take them out of context WHEN RESPONDING TO YOUR DIRECT REPOSTED QUOTES.
JB: "IF DEER MEAT IS SO GREAT AND SO VALUABLE, WHY DOESN'T THE STATE GET RIGHT OUT THERE AND SAVE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE FROM ALL THE DEAD DEER ON THE ROADS? AS MUCH AS THEY PATROL AND AS HIGH AS THEY ARE IN PEOPLES ESTEEM, I WOULD THINK THAT ANY MOTORIST WHO HIT A DEER WOULD CONTACT THE LOCAL CO AND INFORM THEM OF THE DEAD DEER. MOTORIST COULD EVEN GUT AND SALVAGE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE AND DROP OFF THE MEAT AT LOCAL DEER MEAT CENTERS, AND THE CO OR SOMEONE DESIGNATED, COULD PICK IT UP AND DELIVER IT."
JB: "I'VE HAD LIVESTOCK GET HURT WITH BROKEN BONES AND WE'VE DONE OUR BEST TO SAVE AS MUCH PALATABLE MEAT AS POSSIBLE. MAYBE THE STATE SHOULD DO THE SAME AND GIVE IT TO HOMELESS SHELTERS."
I can't believe what I just read. HEADLINES: "GAME FISH AND PARKS DEPARTMENT GIVES ROAD KILL DEER MEAT TO HOMELESS SHELTER".
Use your head!
~SH~
Northern Rancher
Well-known member
Allowing conservation officers access to do their jobs isn't taking away anybodies rights-heck you should be happy you can charge for hunting access-something we can't do-but I'll repeat again I'll see more good bucks on a half hour drive in Sask. than I have in the 1,000's of miles I've driven across South Dakota.
SJ
Well-known member
The lockout is a property right issue. The lockout does not condone breaking the law.
I don't know much about the Foland case other than what I have read in the paper. To me it seemed like a missed opportunity as far as communication and a place where a warning ticket would have been justified. The CO knew it was legal meat. If they could reduce it from 1000 to 116 why couldn't they reduce it to a warning?
A few years ago a landowner called a CO about trespassing, he came out and nothing was done. He was called back because the same hunters were trespassing again. Nothing was done. He was even called back a third time on the same hunters and nothing was done. Why would nothing being done three times be justified and a warning ticket not justified in the Foland case? The landowner in this instance took the hunters to court and they were found guilty.
Looks to me as though the CO was in violation of the compounding law with the trespass incident. Maybe CO's are exempt. Only landowners and hunters can be in violation of the compounding law?
SH is right in the fact that policy is that they can only come on if they see someone actively hunting.
Actively hunting is not necessarily illegal activity but the hunter has signed a contract with GF&P giving them the right to check them or in essence giving up their right to privacy for the privilege to hunt. No contract has been signed between the landowner and GF&P giving up the landowners right to privacy or right to know who is on his land to allow hunting on private land.
GF&P's interpretation of the open fields doctrine is that Hunters and landowners are high risk as far as criminal activity and for GF&P to control this high risk recreation they must be able to consider actively hunting as a crime in progress, which justifies breaking one law (trespassing) to enforce a maybe crime. I don't believe all landowners and hunters should be punished for a few lawbreakers.
My only question is this; Lets say a CO is caught on your land and no one actively hunting and the landowner decides to prosecute. Will GF&P back the landowner with policy or the CO with their interpretation of the open fields doctrine?
The open fields doctrine is based on case law and all the cases given to us by GF&P and other cases we have read have loads of probable cause and reasonable suspicion before law enforcement entered. All the cases, we have read, supporting the open fields doctrine involve the actual owner of the land. Most of the cases involve highly illegal activity such as drug dealing, moon shiners and illegal betting. I don't believe hunters and landowners fit in this category.
By the way SH we are not keeping hunters off our land, GF&P is when they tell us if we allow hunting we give up our right to privacy and our right to request permission before entering.
I see you are back on Itrap4u—I still would like to know where this has happened.
Quote:
Itrap4u--These areas are deemed multi use areas, and are managed for such, problem being more hunters get closed out of some of these areas, so cattle can be kept in there longer!!!
Tell me where this has happened?
Our numbers have been cut.
In the Black Hills there is supposedly 8000 (GF&P claims) head of Elk on the public ground and private land 365 days a year. There is supposedly 12000 units for domestic livestock for 120 days per year on public ground. The 8000 head of elk are not fenced out of the private land EVER but the domestic livestock is fenced out of the public land for 245 days!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yet overgrazing is always blamed on the livestock owner. The landowner is also responsible for the fencing of his livestock on these leases and part of any water development.
I don't know much about the Foland case other than what I have read in the paper. To me it seemed like a missed opportunity as far as communication and a place where a warning ticket would have been justified. The CO knew it was legal meat. If they could reduce it from 1000 to 116 why couldn't they reduce it to a warning?
A few years ago a landowner called a CO about trespassing, he came out and nothing was done. He was called back because the same hunters were trespassing again. Nothing was done. He was even called back a third time on the same hunters and nothing was done. Why would nothing being done three times be justified and a warning ticket not justified in the Foland case? The landowner in this instance took the hunters to court and they were found guilty.
Looks to me as though the CO was in violation of the compounding law with the trespass incident. Maybe CO's are exempt. Only landowners and hunters can be in violation of the compounding law?
SH is right in the fact that policy is that they can only come on if they see someone actively hunting.
Actively hunting is not necessarily illegal activity but the hunter has signed a contract with GF&P giving them the right to check them or in essence giving up their right to privacy for the privilege to hunt. No contract has been signed between the landowner and GF&P giving up the landowners right to privacy or right to know who is on his land to allow hunting on private land.
GF&P's interpretation of the open fields doctrine is that Hunters and landowners are high risk as far as criminal activity and for GF&P to control this high risk recreation they must be able to consider actively hunting as a crime in progress, which justifies breaking one law (trespassing) to enforce a maybe crime. I don't believe all landowners and hunters should be punished for a few lawbreakers.
My only question is this; Lets say a CO is caught on your land and no one actively hunting and the landowner decides to prosecute. Will GF&P back the landowner with policy or the CO with their interpretation of the open fields doctrine?
The open fields doctrine is based on case law and all the cases given to us by GF&P and other cases we have read have loads of probable cause and reasonable suspicion before law enforcement entered. All the cases, we have read, supporting the open fields doctrine involve the actual owner of the land. Most of the cases involve highly illegal activity such as drug dealing, moon shiners and illegal betting. I don't believe hunters and landowners fit in this category.
By the way SH we are not keeping hunters off our land, GF&P is when they tell us if we allow hunting we give up our right to privacy and our right to request permission before entering.
I see you are back on Itrap4u—I still would like to know where this has happened.
Quote:
Itrap4u--These areas are deemed multi use areas, and are managed for such, problem being more hunters get closed out of some of these areas, so cattle can be kept in there longer!!!
Tell me where this has happened?
Our numbers have been cut.
In the Black Hills there is supposedly 8000 (GF&P claims) head of Elk on the public ground and private land 365 days a year. There is supposedly 12000 units for domestic livestock for 120 days per year on public ground. The 8000 head of elk are not fenced out of the private land EVER but the domestic livestock is fenced out of the public land for 245 days!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yet overgrazing is always blamed on the livestock owner. The landowner is also responsible for the fencing of his livestock on these leases and part of any water development.
Jinglebob
Well-known member
I give up trying to post my thoughts on this issue or any others that sh or northern rancher want to argue about. It is just too frustrating. The rest of you have fun with them. I realize that those two will take this as a sign of addmission to their superior intellect. So be it.
A
Anonymous
Guest
SJ: "I don't know much about the Foland case other than what I have read in the paper."
That's right, you don't know much about the Foland case. If any mistake was made it was cutting them a break.
SJ: "The CO knew it was legal meat."
Foland was transporting the meat illegally so it was not legal meat.
SJ: "A few years ago a landowner called a CO about trespassing, he came out and nothing was done. He was called back because the same hunters were trespassing again. Nothing was done. He was even called back a third time on the same hunters and nothing was done. Why would nothing being done three times be justified and a warning ticket not justified in the Foland case? The landowner in this instance took the hunters to court and they were found guilty."
Like most stories that come from the Lockout crowd, I have absolutely no doubts there is another side to this one as well. Nobody would come out three times and not do anything IF SOMETHING COULD BE DONE. Until proven otherwise, I'll take this as just another misrepresentation of the facts by someone with an axe to grind.
SJ: "Actively hunting is not necessarily illegal activity but the hunter has signed a contract with GF&P giving them the right to check them or in essence giving up their right to privacy for the privilege to hunt. No contract has been signed between the landowner and GF&P giving up the landowners right to privacy or right to know who is on his land to allow hunting on private land."
That doesn't even make sense!
SJ: "GF&P's interpretation of the open fields doctrine is that Hunters and landowners are high risk as far as criminal activity and for GF&P to control this high risk recreation they must be able to consider actively hunting as a crime in progress, which justifies breaking one law (trespassing) to enforce a maybe crime. I don't believe all landowners and hunters should be punished for a few lawbreakers."
That's your interpretation. That's not how most people see it.
SJ: "My only question is this; Lets say a CO is caught on your land and no one actively hunting and the landowner decides to prosecute. Will GF&P back the landowner with policy or the CO with their interpretation of the open fields doctrine?"
Test it and find out!
SJ: "By the way SH we are not keeping hunters off our land, GF&P is when they tell us if we allow hunting we give up our right to privacy and our right to request permission before entering."
Naturally!
~SH~
Northern Rancher
Well-known member
Awww Jinglebob just because I don't agree with your opinion-I tell you what if I was a game warden in South Dakota I'd be mighty slow responding to a landowner who caused me as much grief as some of you want to. I'm just stating how things are done up here and despite our differances it seems to work-I'm beginning to think some rancher's down there just like keeping lawyers well fed.
I can't see how anyone with values can defend Foland. I was taught that if I did something wrong, I admitted to it like an adult and took my punishment. These laws are in the handbook and are easy to find. Besides the fine $$ sure isn't going to bankrupt them.
These kids are not kids, they are college aged adults who should be held responsible for their actions regardless of who they are. The old man is setting a very poor example for his adult offspring.
Crying and whining and closing his land to those who cannot pay enough is a good attempt to take the attention off himself and his son who broke the law and got caught.
Its pathetic. This is the same kind of guy who would try to get a HP or deputy fired for writing him a ticket for speeding. If you don't like the laws that everyone has to follow, get them changed with your legislators.
Don't talk about loss of values and turn around and defend someone like this.
These kids are not kids, they are college aged adults who should be held responsible for their actions regardless of who they are. The old man is setting a very poor example for his adult offspring.
Crying and whining and closing his land to those who cannot pay enough is a good attempt to take the attention off himself and his son who broke the law and got caught.
Its pathetic. This is the same kind of guy who would try to get a HP or deputy fired for writing him a ticket for speeding. If you don't like the laws that everyone has to follow, get them changed with your legislators.
Don't talk about loss of values and turn around and defend someone like this.
SJ
Well-known member
First of all I want to say that I do not support anyone breaking the law, for any reason. Just because I feel it could have been handled differently with what I had read in the paper and the end result being the same does not mean I support or condone or think everyone should get a break for breaking the law. The end result being, they are made aware of their mistake and will not do it again. I am talking about the Foland case. Yes they did transport the meat of a legally killed antelope, without a permit. I have a couple of questions; how did the CO know they were transporting meat and how did he know it was meat from an antelope? I am guessing, when these boys were asked they told the truth. Like I said before I don't know all the circumstances of this incident but I don't think they would have reduced the fine if they had lied.
Most wild meat taken is going to be transported so maybe there should be a meat transport permit sent with each license, which has to be signed by a CO.
The more commonly recognized law enforcement (highway patrol) gives a break for speeding and they give that break knowing that every few miles there will be a warning sign (speed limit 65 or speed zone ahead or a flashing sign showing your speed) yet they may only give a warning ticket. I do not support illegal activities, but even I like it when I get pulled over for speeding and given a warning ticket. For all those people who say breaking the law is breaking the law and their should be no breaks, I assume you would never accept a warning ticket and if issued one you would look up the penalty, check your self into jail and insist on paying the fine. We are letting sex offenders; thieves etc. out everyday because of no housing in our jails. Where are we going to house these minor violators? Does anyone out there know how many new laws are written every year and claim to know and understand all?
SH has spoken strong and repeated himself many times by saying policy is actively hunting. I have found a remedy for the taking of my personal property rights, I don't allow hunting. Although, when I asked SH the question, what would prevail policy or open fields? SH states "test it and find out".
I received a couple of personal emails and decided to answer them here. The people within GF&P are doing what they believe is right. They are good people. Just because I disagree with them or the way things are done, does not generate hate for these people. If they hate that is their choice. I don't hate and I don't consider people enemies if they disagree with me.
Most wild meat taken is going to be transported so maybe there should be a meat transport permit sent with each license, which has to be signed by a CO.
The more commonly recognized law enforcement (highway patrol) gives a break for speeding and they give that break knowing that every few miles there will be a warning sign (speed limit 65 or speed zone ahead or a flashing sign showing your speed) yet they may only give a warning ticket. I do not support illegal activities, but even I like it when I get pulled over for speeding and given a warning ticket. For all those people who say breaking the law is breaking the law and their should be no breaks, I assume you would never accept a warning ticket and if issued one you would look up the penalty, check your self into jail and insist on paying the fine. We are letting sex offenders; thieves etc. out everyday because of no housing in our jails. Where are we going to house these minor violators? Does anyone out there know how many new laws are written every year and claim to know and understand all?
SH has spoken strong and repeated himself many times by saying policy is actively hunting. I have found a remedy for the taking of my personal property rights, I don't allow hunting. Although, when I asked SH the question, what would prevail policy or open fields? SH states "test it and find out".
I received a couple of personal emails and decided to answer them here. The people within GF&P are doing what they believe is right. They are good people. Just because I disagree with them or the way things are done, does not generate hate for these people. If they hate that is their choice. I don't hate and I don't consider people enemies if they disagree with me.
gotta agree with SH on this one. We cannot if we want any credibility, break laws. It is unfortunate that it happened and that the rancher in question used the lockout publicly for his personal vendetta. I am surprised though at Belle's use of it for this discussion purpose. Ignorance of the law in the case of the young hunter does not excuse the penalty for breaking it.
SJ
Well-known member
I agree with you smalltime and SH, we cannot if we want any credibility, break laws. Like I said before the lockout is a property rights issue and the lockout doesn't condone breaking the law.
I don't agree with SH when he stated: "If any mistake was made it was cutting them a break." The penalty being-- fine should have been left at 1000 dollars a year in jail and loose thier hunting rights for one year.
This example is hypothetical:
My Son Johnny got his first deer on Saturday morning and it just so happened the CO stopped by and checked everything out. We processed the meat that night and Sunday morning I decide to transport it to the food drive at church. On the way church I had to go through a game check and the same Co is there checking vehicles. He comes up and asks are you transporting wild meat? Yes Sir I am. Remember that nice fat doe Johnny got yesterday we processed the meat and I am taking it to our Church food drive for the needy. I assume she would be in violation.
I guess my questions are as follows:
Do you think that she would have been charged 1000 dollars and given a year in Jail? SH stated no breaks should be given.
If it had been in a hot dish for dinner after church or a potluck would she have been in violation or is prepared wild meat legal?
From the time you kill that animal until the meat is gone do you need a permit or the head hide and leg with the license to transport? I assume the answer is yes.
I will say it again I don't support anyone breaking the law and I also know that ignorance of the law is no defense. On the other hand I believe exceptions can and are done, when it is the honesty of the person in question, that establishes a crime has been committed. I am not defending anyone who breaks the law but this has brought up different questions in my mind that I myself could have done without thinking and with no intention of breaking the law.
As I said before I don't know much about this case. His land is not listed in the lockout and the lockout does not condone breaking the law.
Although I don't know and have never met or spoke with Foland, I will give Foland the benefit of the doubt, I don't believe he locked out his land because he condones breaking the law. In the paper Foland himself admitted that his son had violated the transport law.
I don't agree with SH when he stated: "If any mistake was made it was cutting them a break." The penalty being-- fine should have been left at 1000 dollars a year in jail and loose thier hunting rights for one year.
This example is hypothetical:
My Son Johnny got his first deer on Saturday morning and it just so happened the CO stopped by and checked everything out. We processed the meat that night and Sunday morning I decide to transport it to the food drive at church. On the way church I had to go through a game check and the same Co is there checking vehicles. He comes up and asks are you transporting wild meat? Yes Sir I am. Remember that nice fat doe Johnny got yesterday we processed the meat and I am taking it to our Church food drive for the needy. I assume she would be in violation.
I guess my questions are as follows:
Do you think that she would have been charged 1000 dollars and given a year in Jail? SH stated no breaks should be given.
If it had been in a hot dish for dinner after church or a potluck would she have been in violation or is prepared wild meat legal?
From the time you kill that animal until the meat is gone do you need a permit or the head hide and leg with the license to transport? I assume the answer is yes.
I will say it again I don't support anyone breaking the law and I also know that ignorance of the law is no defense. On the other hand I believe exceptions can and are done, when it is the honesty of the person in question, that establishes a crime has been committed. I am not defending anyone who breaks the law but this has brought up different questions in my mind that I myself could have done without thinking and with no intention of breaking the law.
As I said before I don't know much about this case. His land is not listed in the lockout and the lockout does not condone breaking the law.
Although I don't know and have never met or spoke with Foland, I will give Foland the benefit of the doubt, I don't believe he locked out his land because he condones breaking the law. In the paper Foland himself admitted that his son had violated the transport law.
A
Anonymous
Guest
My problem with the F&G is that many times they use no common sense...I just saw it again this week- a young local businessman was hunting on the river- he asked the landowner permission and got it, and she told him her land ran all the way to the river....But actually her land runs to a fence 50 yards from the river in one place...This fellow hunting naturally shoots a big buck 20 yards across the fence...The real landowner, who is an elderly lady that does not allow hunting, turned him in....Thinking he was on legal land he showed the Warden where he shot it and everything...Fish and Game seized the trophy buck- and then instead of a warning, or a $100 trespass ticket they issue him a ticket for Illegally Taking Trophy Animals- a law that the legislature passed with the intent of using for these illegal guides and big trophy rings that come in without licenses and deliberately poach trophy animals for large cash gains..... Packs a fine of $8500, 1 year in jail and forfeiture of hunting rights for life....
He will probably be able to get the County Attorney and Judge to reduce the charges to what they should be- but it will cost him hiring an attorney and will cost the county a lot of court costs before its taken care of------And Fish and Game wonders why they have a low respect amongst law enforcement---And why they get so many court cases thrown and laws overturned in the appeals :roll:
When I was in law enforcement we used to wonder if the first thing Fish and Game required when they put on the Wardens badge was to throw away all common sense they had....Now as I see the cases as a Judge I'm almost certain of it.........
He will probably be able to get the County Attorney and Judge to reduce the charges to what they should be- but it will cost him hiring an attorney and will cost the county a lot of court costs before its taken care of------And Fish and Game wonders why they have a low respect amongst law enforcement---And why they get so many court cases thrown and laws overturned in the appeals :roll:
When I was in law enforcement we used to wonder if the first thing Fish and Game required when they put on the Wardens badge was to throw away all common sense they had....Now as I see the cases as a Judge I'm almost certain of it.........
A
Anonymous
Guest
SJ: "I don't agree with SH when he stated: "If any mistake was made it was cutting them a break." The penalty being-- fine should have been left at 1000 dollars a year in jail and loose thier hunting rights for one year."
Nobody is going to receive a year in prison for not carrying a transportation permit SJ. Get real! Another typical exaggeration on your part.
Cutting Foland a break meant a stiffer penalty, not prison time.
I'm saying if this is how people are going to act when their fine is reduced why reduce it?
That was my only point. Typical of you to take it out of context and stretch it out into prison time.
~SH~
Northern Rancher
Well-known member
Well Oldtimer as a hunter it is my duty to know the boundaries of the property-if you are unsure and you come to a fence you best not be shooting things on the other side of it-I've stood and watched a Boone and Crockett class buck walk by me at ten yards because he was on the otrher side of the line so it can be done. I'm seeing a little hypocrisy in all these hunting posts-there are people here that are damning the F and G, all hunters etc. There answer to game management is if 'I' decide there's too many deer I'll just go shoot a bunch and leave them lay-that is repugnant. I've travelled all over Montana, the Dakota's and Wyoming quite frankly from what I've seen of your small towns you should welcome the dollars that hunting brings to your economy. On the other hand a hunting licence or a tax bill doesn't give anyone the right to break game laws-plain and simple.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Northern Rancher said:Well Oldtimer as a hunter it is my duty to know the boundaries of the property-if you are unsure and you come to a fence you best not be shooting things on the other side of it-I've stood and watched a Boone and Crockett class buck walk by me at ten yards because he was on the otrher side of the line so it can be done. I'm seeing a little hypocrisy in all these hunting posts-there are people here that are damning the F and G, all hunters etc. There answer to game management is if 'I' decide there's too many deer I'll just go shoot a bunch and leave them lay-that is repugnant. I've travelled all over Montana, the Dakota's and Wyoming quite frankly from what I've seen of your small towns you should welcome the dollars that hunting brings to your economy. On the other hand a hunting licence or a tax bill doesn't give anyone the right to break game laws-plain and simple.
I agree Northern Rancher that it is the hunters duty to find out ownership- but in this case the landowner gave false info (by mistake- she forgot that little corner)....Not a situation to make a felony out of-- there are too many real game violators out there...But a little trespass ticket does not look as good on the Wardens report.
One of the complaints I have about the Montana Fish and Game is that they have a type of "quota system" where monthly tickets and arrests are compared-- And I don't believe in any type of quotas in law enforcement--makes for bad decisions and bad enforcement- and is an ineffective way to evaluate personnell....
And there are many ranchers around here that make a good living off outfitting and guiding....I was at a place the other day that has turned the ranch house into a Lodge....It does bring a lot of money into the community...One of the hot things now is charging clients to hunt buffalo on the Tribes buffalo range- tribe makes money and outfitter makes money...