Southdakotahunter
Well-known member
Tony Dean Outdoors
Issues
Open Fields Proposal Killed by committee
A bill to require South Dakota conservation officers to ask permission before going on private land was killed in a legislative committee Tuesday, but the vote was close: 7-6.
Last year, the Legislature rejected a similar measure.
The ongoing "open fields" controversy is over the current state law, which allows the state Game, Fish & Parks Department to do "compliance checks" for hunting licenses without permission from landowners.
"Coming on to private property without permission is wrong," rancher Robert Johnson of Harding County told the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.
But Chris Hesla, executive director of the South Dakota Wildlife Federation, spoke against the bill and in favor of the current law, saying compliance checks were a valuable deterrent to illegal hunting. "There are some unscrupulous people who hunt in this state," Hesla said.
Rep. Gordon Howie, R-Rapid City, who supported last year's bill and this year's measure (HB1148), also is on the agriculture committee.
"I've seen an elephant up close and personal, and I don't care what kind of dress you put on an elephant, it is still an elephant," Howie told a packed committee room in the Capitol. "The elephant is that you are trampling on private property rights when you do compliance checks without permission."
Some landowners, especially in the northwest part of the state, have been protesting the policy for two or three years by prohibiting public hunting on their land — the so-called "lockout."
Rep. Betty Olson, R-Prairie City, prime sponsor, testified before the House that more than 4 million acres would remain in the "lockout" unless the law was passed.
"The minute this thing passes, my place comes out of the lockout," Olson said.
Olson also said the new law had enough exceptions to allow conservation officers the leeway to do their jobs. "There is nothing in here that will hinder law enforcement," she said.
HB1148 would have allowed officers to enter private land without permission for emergencies, to tend to crippled wildlife or if they had a "reasonable suspicion" that violations had occurred.
However, Doug Hansen, director of the Wildlife Division at the Game, Fish & Parks Department, called the proposal "an unprecedented alteration" in a system of wildlife management in place for nearly a century.
The open-fields controversy began over individual disputes between landowners and conservation officers. Emmett Keyser, assistant director of the Wildlife Division, described an "eight-point communications enhancement plan" to reach out to landowners and to better train conservation officers in "interpersonal skills."
Rep. Howie, who represents part of Pennington County and all of Custer and Fall River counties, acknowledged the GF&P Department had made improvements.
But Howie added: "I don't care if it's a yellow dress, I don't care if it's a pink dress. You're still trying to dress an elephant."
Still, the House ag committee voted 7-6 to defer the measure to the "41st legislative day." There are only 40 days in the legislative session, and the committee vote makes it unlikely the bill will reach the House floor.
Rep. Dale Hargens, D-Miller, said he voted to kill the measure only because a special wildlife issues panel had recommended giving the GF&P Department two years to improve landowner relations. "This is a no-win for me because I'm going to make as many people mad as I'm going to make glad no matter which way I go on this," he said.
Rep. Gary Jerke, R-Tripp, also said he voted against the measure reluctantly. "I do this with a heavy heart. It's a very difficult vote for me," he said.
But Jerke also criticized landowner threats of continued lockouts. "It saddens me we're to the point where it's going to be my way or the highway."
Issues
Open Fields Proposal Killed by committee
A bill to require South Dakota conservation officers to ask permission before going on private land was killed in a legislative committee Tuesday, but the vote was close: 7-6.
Last year, the Legislature rejected a similar measure.
The ongoing "open fields" controversy is over the current state law, which allows the state Game, Fish & Parks Department to do "compliance checks" for hunting licenses without permission from landowners.
"Coming on to private property without permission is wrong," rancher Robert Johnson of Harding County told the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.
But Chris Hesla, executive director of the South Dakota Wildlife Federation, spoke against the bill and in favor of the current law, saying compliance checks were a valuable deterrent to illegal hunting. "There are some unscrupulous people who hunt in this state," Hesla said.
Rep. Gordon Howie, R-Rapid City, who supported last year's bill and this year's measure (HB1148), also is on the agriculture committee.
"I've seen an elephant up close and personal, and I don't care what kind of dress you put on an elephant, it is still an elephant," Howie told a packed committee room in the Capitol. "The elephant is that you are trampling on private property rights when you do compliance checks without permission."
Some landowners, especially in the northwest part of the state, have been protesting the policy for two or three years by prohibiting public hunting on their land — the so-called "lockout."
Rep. Betty Olson, R-Prairie City, prime sponsor, testified before the House that more than 4 million acres would remain in the "lockout" unless the law was passed.
"The minute this thing passes, my place comes out of the lockout," Olson said.
Olson also said the new law had enough exceptions to allow conservation officers the leeway to do their jobs. "There is nothing in here that will hinder law enforcement," she said.
HB1148 would have allowed officers to enter private land without permission for emergencies, to tend to crippled wildlife or if they had a "reasonable suspicion" that violations had occurred.
However, Doug Hansen, director of the Wildlife Division at the Game, Fish & Parks Department, called the proposal "an unprecedented alteration" in a system of wildlife management in place for nearly a century.
The open-fields controversy began over individual disputes between landowners and conservation officers. Emmett Keyser, assistant director of the Wildlife Division, described an "eight-point communications enhancement plan" to reach out to landowners and to better train conservation officers in "interpersonal skills."
Rep. Howie, who represents part of Pennington County and all of Custer and Fall River counties, acknowledged the GF&P Department had made improvements.
But Howie added: "I don't care if it's a yellow dress, I don't care if it's a pink dress. You're still trying to dress an elephant."
Still, the House ag committee voted 7-6 to defer the measure to the "41st legislative day." There are only 40 days in the legislative session, and the committee vote makes it unlikely the bill will reach the House floor.
Rep. Dale Hargens, D-Miller, said he voted to kill the measure only because a special wildlife issues panel had recommended giving the GF&P Department two years to improve landowner relations. "This is a no-win for me because I'm going to make as many people mad as I'm going to make glad no matter which way I go on this," he said.
Rep. Gary Jerke, R-Tripp, also said he voted against the measure reluctantly. "I do this with a heavy heart. It's a very difficult vote for me," he said.
But Jerke also criticized landowner threats of continued lockouts. "It saddens me we're to the point where it's going to be my way or the highway."
