Hunter vandalism targets SD Lockout

[Liberty Belle]

Any of you have problems with hunters? In a move to preserve property rights from abuse by South Dakota Game Fish and Parks, millions of acres of private land in South Dakota have been locked to hunting, not because the landowners have anything against hunters, I might add, although, with much more of this sort of vandalism, that too may change.

GF&P insists that they have the right to trespass on private land at any time, for any reason they see fit, without permission of the landowners, a policy that violates private property rights.

GF&P has convinced many hunting groups that the lockout is aimed at hunters and some of them have become stooges for the deer police, which can only do further damage to the "communication" that GF&P is touting as the solution to their problems with private property owners.

This picture was taken during antelope season. The heads and hides of these antelope were the only things taken. The meat, blood and guts were piled beneath the SD Lockout No Hunting sign that the vandals obviously ignored as they trespassed after trophy bucks. To say that we are disgusted is putting it mildly. Although this act of vandalism and trespass violates several state laws, as far as we know nothing has been done by GF&P law enforcement officers. Guess communications aren't what they should be yet?

 

[greg]

coming from a hunter... that is absolutely DISGUSTING :evil:

 

[Anonymous]

It's unfortunate that hunters would litter to show their objections towards a handful of ranchers who don't want Conservation Officers on their property without permission.

Any of you have problems with hunters? In a move to preserve property rights from abuse by South Dakota Game Fish and Parks, millions of acres of private land in South Dakota have been locked to hunting, not because the landowners have anything against hunters, I might add, although, with much more of this sort of vandalism, that too may change.

The number of acres "supposedly" locked out to hunting has never been confirmed but it sounds good.

GF&P insists that they have the right to trespass on private land at any time, for any reason they see fit, without permission of the landowners, a policy that violates private property rights.

Conservation Officers do have the legal right to access private lands within the scope of their duties if they are checking hunters, fisherman, or have reason to believe that illegal activity is occurring. It can't be considered trespass when the law allows it. They are not allowed to access private land for any reason they see fit. That simply is not true and you know it. Policy does not allow it.

GF&P has convinced many hunting groups that the lockout is aimed at hunters and some of them have become stooges for the deer police, which can only do further damage to the "communication" that GF&P is touting as the solution to their problems with private property owners.

How did GF&P convince hunting groups that the lockout is aimed at them?

I'd love to hear the explanation for that.

The GF&P didn't have to convince hunters of anything, the signs locking them out for hunting says everything they need to know.

The fact is, hunters are being punished by a handful of landowners because a handful of landowners do not like the idea that Conservation Officers can access private land to check hunters and fisherman.

This picture was taken during antelope season. The heads and hides of these antelope were the only things taken. The meat, blood and guts were piled beneath the SD Lockout No Hunting sign that the vandals obviously ignored as they trespassed after trophy bucks. To say that we are disgusted is putting it mildly. Although this act of vandalism and trespass violates several state laws, as far as we know nothing has been done by GF&P law enforcement officers.

I'm certainly not going to condone this activity in any way but from the picture it looks like they did take the back straps and quarters and left the rib cages and legs behind. Correct me if I am wrong but that's what it looks like from the pictures. Again, before you take that out of context, I'm not condoning the activity but it might not constitute wanton waste if they took the back straps and the front and hind quarters which it appears they did. It's still littering and it still deserves a fine if the violaters could be caught.

What proof did you have that the antelope were taken there rather than somewhere else and dumped there? Did you find the drag marks coming from the property?

How did you know the carcasses were trophy bucks if the heads were missing?

Were GF&P law enforcement officers made aware of this littering or are you complaining about their lack of ESP?

If there was no evidence left at the scene to tie to the persons responsible for this, just exactly what did you expect Conservation Officers to do PROVIDING THEY WERE EVEN NOTIFIED? Open every freezer in the country and DNA test the meat to find a match? Sit there and wait for them to return to the scene of the crime and confess? Tell me Betty, just exactly what did you expect a Conservation Officer to do PROVIDING THEY WERE EVEN INFORMED???

Guess communications aren't what they should be yet?

For obvious reasons!


Have a nice day my fine friend!


~SH~

 

[Brad S]

wrongo wrongo lil chico

Open fields doctrine does not make a warrantless search on open fields legal, it merely establishes the remedy is not to exclude or supress evidence gathered during the trespass.

Only government out of control would equate "no supression" to "legal trespass" This sort of thinking perfectly validates the sleezy loophole-lawyer's position that law enforcement must be punnished harshly or they'll intentionally break the law.

I remind all of the Il court of appeals I previously cited where the judge stated that while the open fields search is not legal, supression is the remedy, but remedy may be found in civil court against the trespassers

 

[Liberty Belle]

Brad S: wrongo wrongo lil chico

Open fields doctrine does not make a warrantless search on open fields legal, it merely establishes the remedy is not to exclude or supress evidence gathered during the trespass.

Only government out of control would equate "no supression" to "legal trespass" This sort of thinking perfectly validates the sleezy loophole-lawyer's position that law enforcement must be punnished harshly or they'll intentionally break the law.

I remind all of the Il court of appeals I previously cited where the judge stated that while the open fields search is not legal, supression is the remedy, but remedy may be found in civil court against the trespassers

Thank you Brad, I appreciate that reminder.

SH: The number of acres "supposedly" locked out to hunting has never been confirmed but it sounds good.

Obviously the acres in this picture are locked out. Our land is locked out and all our neighbors who have locked out their land have done just that, locked out. And it IS good.

SH: Conservation Officers do have the legal right to access private lands within the scope of their duties if they are checking hunters, fisherman, or have reason to believe that illegal activity is occurring. It can't be considered trespass when the law allows it. They are not allowed to access private land for any reason they see fit. That simply is not true and you know it. Policy does not allow it.

Read what Brad wrote above and then I'll go go back to an old argument – show me the LAW that stops GF&P from trespassing on private property without the landowner's permission. There is NOTHING to stop GF&P from trespassing at will. You can't produce a law that prevents them from trespassing on my land, against my will, because there isn't one, which is the reason for the lockout. Policy can be changed by GF&P whenever they want and there are no legal penalties for not following policy. Now we might be a little slow out here, but we are capable of learning, and we have learned through experience that we cannot trust GF&P. They have proven through their actions over the years that they are not the landowner's friend.

SH: How did GF&P convince hunting groups that the lockout is aimed at them? I'd love to hear the explanation for that.

I wish I could understand how some hunters can be so easily convinced that the lockout is aimed at them. Maybe hearing statements like the one you made here has something to do with it. SH said and I quote: "The fact is, hunters are being punished by a handful of landowners because a handful of landowners do not like the idea that Conservation Officers can access private land to check hunters and fisherman." I guess they just can't take the punishment, huh?

SH: What proof did you have that the antelope were taken there rather than somewhere else and dumped there? Did you find the drag marks coming from the property?

All I know is what I heard from the folks who found this mess on their property and all I've seen is this picture. All the land around them is also locked out so I'm sure they just naturally jumped to the conclusion that there had been trespass as well as vandalism involved. The close proximity to the SD Lockout sign leads us to believe that this just might have been aimed at the Lockout bunch. What's your guess?

SH: How did you know the carcasses were trophy bucks if the heads were missing?

Just a wild guess on my part. Why else would the vandals take the heads and hides with them?

SH: Were GF&P law enforcement officers made aware of this littering or are you complaining about their lack of ESP?

I have no idea, but as you are well aware, communications with GF&P have not been very cordial in this area and we have no reason to believe things have changed.

 

[Brad S]

Quote:
SH: Were GF&P law enforcement officers made aware of this littering or are you complaining about their lack of ESP?

I have no idea, but as you are well aware, communications with GF&P have not been very cordial in this area and we have no reason to believe things have changed.


For a real demonstration in ESP, I'd like to see a game warden find the perps with the given clues. Reporting this is a wasted dime.

Additionally, not having hunting access to someone's private property should never be construed as "punnishment" as to do so would imply some degree of entitlement. Hunting access is a priviledge and the lack of priviledge is not punnishment.

 

[Soapweed]

Additionally, not having hunting access to someone's private property should never be construed as "punnishment" as to do so would imply some degree of entitlement. Hunting access is a priviledge and the lack of priviledge is not punnishment.

How right you are, Brad S.

 

[jigs]

in Kansas, if you paint the corner posts purple, then the fish and game has a right to go onto your property to see if the hunters have written permission.

this seems like a good idea, how ever the local game warden has been caught trapping and hunting on the designated land simply because he thought it would be ok.

my opinion is the wardens are as bad as the poachers and tresspassers after a while, they ought to have a 7 year term and then move on to another area......too many "good ole' boys" situations around here prove the corruption of the game wardens.

 

[Anonymous]

1. The number of acres in the lockout could only be confirmed by a list of names and the actual acres that are locked out. That list is not available. If not confirmed, the acres "supposedly" locked out is just hearsay. I know some landowners in the past that signed the lockout then had their pay hunters come in just like always. Symbolism over substance in that case.

2. GF&P policy does not allow Conservation Officers to come on to private land and do whatever they want. To suggest otherwise based on a lack of law preventing such is plain wrong. Conservation Officers would only access private land while checking hunters, fisherman, responding to a complaint, or assisting with human health and safety issues.

3. If the lockout is not aimed at hunters, why not just lock out all GF&P employees? Gosh, why would hunters think the lockout is aimed at them when the lockout doesn't allow them to hunt?

You are right Brad, hunting is a privelage but that privelage was taken from hunters due to reasons that initially had nothing to do with anything the hunters had did.

4. You don't know whether the animals were taken on lockout property or not.

5. You didn't know whether the animals were trophy bucks or not.

6. You complained about the lack of response from GF&P but you don't even know if they were notified.


I think we have defined part of this "so called" communication problem.




~SH~

 

[Liberty Belle]

The number of acres in the lockout could only be confirmed by a list of names and the actual acres that are locked out. That list is not available. If not confirmed, the acres "supposedly" locked out is just hearsay. I know some landowners in the past that signed the lockout then had their pay hunters come in just like always. Symbolism over substance in that case.

Now Scott, just because you haven't been given a list with names and acres on it doesn't mean the land isn't locked out. For one thing, the names of these folks are none of your business and if you want to hunt their land you are going to stop and ask for yourself to find out. I should note that if anyone allows pay hunters to hunt lockout land that is their right as landowners to make a little money from the state's livestock that the landowner raises and feeds for them for nothing. The land is still locked to hunters wanting to hunt for free. The longer this issue drags on the more people are going to go to pay hunting and the average hunter and his kids are the losers.

GF&P policy does not allow Conservation Officers to come on to private land and do whatever they want. To suggest otherwise based on a lack of law preventing such is plain wrong. Conservation Officers would only access private land while checking hunters, fisherman, responding to a complaint, or assisting with human health and safety issues.

Re-read this:

Read what Brad wrote above and then I'll go back to an old argument – show me the LAW that stops GF&P from trespassing on private property without the landowner's permission. There is NOTHING to stop GF&P from trespassing at will. You can't produce a law that prevents them from trespassing on my land, against my will, because there isn't one, which is the reason for the lockout. Policy can be changed by GF&P whenever they want and there are no legal penalties for not following policy. Now we might be a little slow out here, but we are capable of learning, and we have learned through experience that we cannot trust GF&P. They have proven through their actions over the years that they are not the landowner's friend.

If the lockout is not aimed at hunters, why not just lock out all GF&P employees? Gosh, why would hunters think the lockout is aimed at them when the lockout doesn't allow them to hunt?

Scott – if you stop by my place and read my SD Lockout signs, you will see written right under No Hunting, No Trespassing the words USFW & GF&P – This Means YOU!! Is that clear enough? Do you suppose either governmental agency will pay any attention to that if they decide they want to trespass?

You are right Brad, hunting is a privelage but that privelage was taken from hunters due to reasons that initially had nothing to do with anything the hunters had did.

4. You don't know whether the animals were taken on lockout property or not.

5. You didn't know whether the animals were trophy bucks or not.

6. You complained about the lack of response from GF&P but you don't even know if they were notified.

I think we have defined part of this "so called" communication problem.

It is none my business to know the answers to these questions. It is not my land where this mess was found and I have no idea whether the landowners even bothered to call GF&P, a move that has been less than futile in the past. I do know that the carcasses were dumped early on Saturday morning, the first day of antelope season and not cleaned up for several days until the landowner's kids dragged the mess off because it was starting to stink and I do know that a game warden drove drive right by this more than once because neighbors who did allow hunters (family members) live on this same road and the CO stopped by to issue fines for horrible violations of the law like carrying a blaze orange jacket instead of wearing it because the kid got too hot at the end of the day and took it off as he walked to his pickup.

I think they said the fine for this horrendous violation was $75. The CO must have been looking elsewhere when he drove by the bright orange SD Lockout sign with the gut pile and carcasses under it beside the county road. He couldn't be expected to notice anything here, could he? Or maybe he just chose to overlook this while he was hot on the trail of a real law breaker who took off his hunter orange at the end of a hunt.

 

[Northern Rancher]

Well I don't agree with piling those carcasses up against a post-if you look close about 90 percent of the edible meat has been salvaged-all 4 quarters are removed-the backstraps-the neck meat. All that's left are the ribs which on an antelope might make you a good sandwich. This is how big game is handled by first nation's people up north here for the simple reason that the animal will be too frozen to skin if you handle them the other way. Am I reading this correctly that landowners in South Dakota want to prevent game wardens from being able to enter their property to check hunters or am I getting this wrong. Another thing how in a coyote ridden state like South Dakota could these carcasses lay about stinking for days. I know up here if a wounded deer gets away all you find the next day is some hide and horns-just being the devil's advocate something strikes me as being fishy about this whole deal.

 

[SDSteve]

The whole S.D. lockout is a big joke. It seems like it has been going on forever. Most of the "locked out" land didn't let just anyone off the street hunt there before. Fee hunting still goes on. There also is no such thing as a "trophy" antelope. The buggers all look alike and they taste like sh@t. The whole thing seems to be just another thing for LibertyBelle to get all worked up about over nothing. At least she can't blame this one thing on "liberals" since South Dakota politics has been under Republican control since statehood.

 

[Liberty Belle]

Northern Rancher: Am I reading this correctly that landowners in South Dakota want to prevent game wardens from being able to enter their property to check hunters or am I getting this wrong.

Well, you've got it partially right. We don't mind game wardens coming on our land to do anything they feel they need to do. We just want them to do the neighborly thing and ask permission before they go driving around in our pastures, unless they see a crime being committed, get a tip about a game violation or need to come for some emergency. It's all we expect from anyone and the idea that they think they don't need to ask permission or even let the landowner know they are on private land sticks in our craw and makes their much touted "improved communications" spiel pretty tough to swallow. We're neighborly folks out here and we wouldn't dream of driving across the game warden's south lawn without asking his permission.

Northern Rancher: Another thing how in a coyote ridden state like South Dakota could these carcasses lay about stinking for days. I know up here if a wounded deer gets away all you find the next day is some hide and horns-just being the devil's advocate something strikes me as being fishy about this whole deal.

We have a lot of coyotes. We also have an aerial hunter who really earns his keep. As long as we have him in the air, we can even run sheep without losing too many. The day he quits hunting is the day we go out of the sheep business.

SD Steve: The whole S.D. lockout is a big joke. It seems like it has been going on forever.

This is the third year of forever. And this big joke will continue until we have some property right protection written into state law. Do you think we are out anything by not letting hunters in here so the game wardens can trespass to police them? We don't see that we are.

SD Steve: There also is no such thing as a "trophy" antelope. The buggers all look alike and they taste like sh@t.

Finally! I knew sooner or later we would find an issue we could agree on. As to a trophy antelope, I only know what I've been told. Beef is too good to mess with eating any of the wild game we raise for the state.

SD Steve: The whole thing seems to be just another thing for LibertyBelle to get all worked up about over nothing. At least she can't blame this one thing on "liberals" since South Dakota politics has been under Republican control since statehood.

Maybe you consider property rights to be nothing, we don't. This nation was built on the premise that property rights are inviolate and we don't see any reason to change.

You are either very young and not very well educated or you really do come from out of state. SD has had many periods in it's history where it was not under Republican control and some of those administrations were much more conservative and protective of the rights of it's citizens than our present governor is, which is why I will never again vote for him.

 

[mrj]

Additionally, not having hunting access to someone's private property should never be construed as "punnishment" as to do so would imply some degree of entitlement. Hunting access is a priviledge and the lack of priviledge is not punnishment.

How right you are, Brad S.

I, too, believe Brad is right. However, there are just too many hunters who have commented publicly and privately to the effect that they really DO feel a considerable degree of entitlement to hunt on private property. There is too much of an attitude that landowners OWE the general public the care of the game and acess to private land because landowners have the privilege of owning the land.

That said, there are, fortunately, many hunters who do understand the very real costs to landowners of providing habitat for game. Some even understand that there is nothing unfair in a landowner needing to be paid for the recreation afforded by hunting on his land, just as a golf course, ski resort, and other forms of recreation must be paid for.

MRJ

 

[Northern Rancher]

Well I'm a hunter and a landowner but I think it's pretty naieve to expect the wardens to ask permission for access to check hunters. I have a feeling the odd rancher bends the odd hunting regs-be pretty sweet to deny the game wardens access while you do it. I'm don't love game wardens but they do serve a purpose.

 

[HAY MAKER]

[quote="~s***'s unfortunate that hunters would litter to show their objections towards a handful of ranchers who don't want Conservation Officers on their property without permission.

Any of you have problems with hunters? In a move to preserve property rights from abuse by South Dakota Game Fish and Parks, millions of acres of private land in South Dakota have been locked to hunting, not because the landowners have anything against hunters, I might add, although, with much more of this sort of vandalism, that too may change.

The number of acres "supposedly" locked out to hunting has never been confirmed but it sounds good.

GF&P insists that they have the right to trespass on private land at any time, for any reason they see fit, without permission of the landowners, a policy that violates private property rights.

Conservation Officers do have the legal right to access private lands within the scope of their duties if they are checking hunters, fisherman, or have reason to believe that illegal activity is occurring. It can't be considered trespass when the law allows it. They are not allowed to access private land for any reason they see fit. That simply is not true and you know it. Policy does not allow it.

GF&P has convinced many hunting groups that the lockout is aimed at hunters and some of them have become stooges for the deer police, which can only do further damage to the "communication" that GF&P is touting as the solution to their problems with private property owners.

How did GF&P convince hunting groups that the lockout is aimed at them?

I'd love to hear the explanation for that.

The GF&P didn't have to convince hunters of anything, the signs locking them out for hunting says everything they need to know.

The fact is, hunters are being punished by a handful of landowners because a handful of landowners do not like the idea that Conservation Officers can access private land to check hunters and fisherman.

This picture was taken during antelope season. The heads and hides of these antelope were the only things taken. The meat, blood and guts were piled beneath the SD Lockout No Hunting sign that the vandals obviously ignored as they trespassed after trophy bucks. To say that we are disgusted is putting it mildly. Although this act of vandalism and trespass violates several state laws, as far as we know nothing has been done by GF&P law enforcement officers.

I'm certainly not going to condone this activity in any way but from the picture it looks like they did take the back straps and quarters and left the rib cages and legs behind. Correct me if I am wrong but that's what it looks like from the pictures. Again, before you take that out of context, I'm not condoning the activity but it might not constitute wanton waste if they took the back straps and the front and hind quarters which it appears they did. It's still littering and it still deserves a fine if the violaters could be caught.

What proof did you have that the antelope were taken there rather than somewhere else and dumped there? Did you find the drag marks coming from the property?

How did you know the carcasses were trophy bucks if the heads were missing?

Were GF&P law enforcement officers made aware of this littering or are you complaining about their lack of ESP?

If there was no evidence left at the scene to tie to the persons responsible for this, just exactly what did you expect Conservation Officers to do PROVIDING THEY WERE EVEN NOTIFIED? Open every freezer in the country and DNA test the meat to find a match? Sit there and wait for them to return to the scene of the crime and confess? Tell me Betty, just exactly what did you expect a Conservation Officer to do PROVIDING THEY WERE EVEN INFORMED???

Guess communications aren't what they should be yet?

For obvious reasons!


Have a nice day my fine friend!


~SH~[/quote]

The fact that some one would define this act as simply littering says it all for me.
No wonder the SouthDakota ranchers can not communicate with the GF&P,I have never had problems with game wardens here in TX,as a matter of fact I dont know how the law reads for wardens accessing private property,since there has never been a problem,and these wardens are locals...................good luck

 

[Denny]

Well I don't agree with piling those carcasses up against a post-if you look close about 90 percent of the edible meat has been salvaged-all 4 quarters are removed-the backstraps-the neck meat. All that's left are the ribs which on an antelope might make you a good sandwich. This is how big game is handled by first nation's people up north here for the simple reason that the animal will be too frozen to skin if you handle them the other way. Am I reading this correctly that landowners in South Dakota want to prevent game wardens from being able to enter their property to check hunters or am I getting this wrong. Another thing how in a coyote ridden state like South Dakota could these carcasses lay about stinking for days. I know up here if a wounded deer gets away all you find the next day is some hide and horns-just being the devil's advocate something strikes me as being fishy about this whole deal.

The rib meat would make a sandwich but it would'nt be very good be hard to swallow all the tallow mmmmmmmmmmm...

You people who whine about hunter's really amaze me you'll bench about hunter's and once you get your way there you'll bench about all the wild game wrecking your crops.Around here we have so many deer they are everywhere if your hunter's want to shoot some they can hunt on my land...

 

[HAY MAKER]

Well I don't agree with piling those carcasses up against a post-if you look close about 90 percent of the edible meat has been salvaged-all 4 quarters are removed-the backstraps-the neck meat. All that's left are the ribs which on an antelope might make you a good sandwich. This is how big game is handled by first nation's people up north here for the simple reason that the animal will be too frozen to skin if you handle them the other way. Am I reading this correctly that landowners in South Dakota want to prevent game wardens from being able to enter their property to check hunters or am I getting this wrong. Another thing how in a coyote ridden state like South Dakota could these carcasses lay about stinking for days. I know up here if a wounded deer gets away all you find the next day is some hide and horns-just being the devil's advocate something strikes me as being fishy about this whole deal.

The rib meat would make a sandwich but it would'nt be very good be hard to swallow all the tallow mmmmmmmmmmm...

You people who whine about hunter's really amaze me you'll bench about hunter's and once you get your way there you'll bench about all the wild game wrecking your crops.Around here we have so many deer they are everywhere if your hunter's want to shoot some they can hunt on my land...

This thread aint about hunters,its about private property rights...........good luck. never listen some one that drives a Belarus tractor

 

[smalltime]

MMMMMaybe those thoughtfull hunter's were titheing and left 10% for GOD's coyote's.

 

[Anonymous]

Well I don't agree with piling those carcasses up against a post-if you look close about 90 percent of the edible meat has been salvaged-all 4 quarters are removed-the backstraps-the neck meat. All that's left are the ribs which on an antelope might make you a good sandwich. This is how big game is handled by first nation's people up north here for the simple reason that the animal will be too frozen to skin if you handle them the other way. Am I reading this correctly that landowners in South Dakota want to prevent game wardens from being able to enter their property to check hunters or am I getting this wrong. Another thing how in a coyote ridden state like South Dakota could these carcasses lay about stinking for days. I know up here if a wounded deer gets away all you find the next day is some hide and horns-just being the devil's advocate something strikes me as being fishy about this whole deal.

The rib meat would make a sandwich but it would'nt be very good be hard to swallow all the tallow mmmmmmmmmmm...

You people who whine about hunter's really amaze me you'll bench about hunter's and once you get your way there you'll bench about all the wild game wrecking your crops.Around here we have so many deer they are everywhere if your hunter's want to shoot some they can hunt on my land...

Denny- How come all those Minnesotans come over here for deer I wonder? I know many come for the mulies, and then get a bunch of whitetail doe tags too- but we've had them show up for whitetail doe only season in Dec. and Jan. and haul back a trailer load....Sometimes its like every vehicle you meet has Minnesota plates--Maybe its just the idea of getting away from home... Talked to a couple guys the other day and their only complaint was that Montana had passed an open container law :wink: ......

I had a couple kids come in this evening and want to shoot a couple does they saw out by the feedlot- but I have a lot with some new bawling babies, so sent them about a mile down the road to a hayfield that I knew would be full- they stopped back just after dark to show me the two does they got.....I told them to come back and get a few hundred more...Well, not quite that many as the state is only selling 4 over counter doe tags per person.......