• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Open Fields Panel discussion at Stockgrowers meeting

Help Support Ranchers.net:

SJ

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
282
Reaction score
0
Location
ludlow, SD
I don’t know if any of you attended the Stockgrower quarterly but I did. Bob Mayer, the assistant attorney General, and GF&P used two South Dakota cases (and others) to justify the open fields for compliance checks. Bob Mayer stated that neither of the two South Dakota cases had probable cause. Now I know that Bob Mayer, being an attorney, may have us at a disadvantage but I can still read. The two South Dakota cases are State v. Frey and State v. Vogel and both had probable cause. Below is the overview of the Vogel case and the Frey case was a TIPS call, which is probable cause, and the CO himself was able to observe something hanging from a tractor out in the open, resembling deer, from a public road. The Vogel case is interesting, if in fact he did see the plant from 500 feet with the naked eye on the first flight, gave him probable cause. Further more before entering the house he had a no knock warrant.

There is NOT ONE case that specifically speaks to compliance checks. All the cases that they have brought out to justify the (compliance checks) have been against the actual owner of the land, NOT a third party as the hunter would be.


OVERVIEW: A police officer noticed green leafy plants which appeared to be marijuana in defendant's house while flying over the residence. Without seeking a search warrant, the officer took pictures of the plants through a zoom lens during a second flight. The officer also took pictures from a neighbor's ridge. Defendant argued that the officer's actions were unreasonable searches and seizures. Holding that defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy was not violated, the court affirmed. The officer's naked eye sighting of the plants during the first flight was merely fortuitous. The officer was not required to shield his eyes while passing the residence. The aerial photography was also permissible because the use of zoom lens photography did not change defendant's expectation of privacy. The third observation was also constitutionally firm. Defendant did not shield his plants from the officer's view from the hillside. Further, the hilltop was not within defendant's curtilage, that is, the area associated with the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life. Warrantless police observations from an open field did not present a Fourth Amendment violation.


The other interesting fact that came from the panel discussion was John Cooper stating that they need the open field because only 10% of the people are law abiding, 10 % are not and the other 80% could go either way. I looked around and it was hard for me to believe that only 10% of the people in that room could be trusted and the other 90% couldn’t be trusted. I don’t know if he was just referring to landowners and hunters. If he wasn’t, it’s kind of scary to think that we only have 56 CO’s and only 10% are law abiding, 10% are not, and the other 80% could go either way and they have the right to enter our land without permission to do what they want.

Rick Fox did question John on his statement and he said he didn’t mean it that way!

Another interesting statement John Cooper made was that he would not compromise on the open fields for compliance checks. In his next breathe said that we, the landowners, had drawn a line in the sand and weren’t going to compromise and we all needed to compromise. Isn’t compromise a two way deal or maybe it is as I have said: communication is GF&P telling you what to do and cooperation is us doing it.

Cooper was also questioned on that statement and claimed that isn’t what he said. I don’t know as I didn’t tape it but some people were taking notes and that is how they wrote it down. Maybe they were all wrong.

John Cooper never once acknowledged that the landowner played a big part in the existence of the wildlife, but the sportsmen’s dollar was mentioned.

The landowners and Legislator on the panel acknowledged that GF&P had done some changes and also the need for GF&P.

One of the GF&P employees was asked what GF&P does for the landowner and he said we manage the wildlife for them. The landowner asked if he meant like I manage my livestock and he said yes. The landowner said, “Well, when my livestock gets in some one’s field and does damage I have to pay for the damage.” The GF&P employee had no answer. Right now the only game management seems to be from cars on the highways and GF&P doesn’t pay for that damage either.

I don’t believe 90% of the landowners and hunters are not trustworthy but if that is true, the hunting recreation needs to stop. If the hunters want to hunt, they should only be allowed to hunt the public land and be subject to search and seizure. I don’t want to be involved in this highly criminal activity, landowners have to much to lose by allowing hunting. Most law enforcement, even though they too can use the open fields to enter land, don’t because they respect people’s rights unless it puts people in imminent danger. All law enforcement has the right to enter private property with probable cause and reasonable suspicion, and none of us in the lockout have ever thought that was wrong or a violation of rights, but we do believe we have the right to know who is on our land and why. Just coming on our land because someone is wearing orange, carrying a gun, or is driving a suburban, for a compliance check without permission if no crime is visibly being committed, is a violation.

Search warrants are issued with great caution, first that they be not granted without oath made before a justice that a crime has been committed, and that the complainant has probable cause to suspect that the evidence is in such a house or place, and the reason for such suspicion. Hunting is not a crime, standing out in the field is not a crime, and would be a stretch as far a probable cause that a crime was being or had been committed. A man in a field would be a flimsy reasonable suspicion, but the main reason is that a license violation is a misdemeanor not a felony. GF&P couldn’t get a search warrant to check a license so they have chosen to use the open fields for a compliance check on private land that has never been tested in court.

I will say it again, the only reason that some have a right to privacy is because other law enforcement agencies hold their right to privacy at a higher standard than GF&P law enforcement with the open fields doctrine. If GF&P were to hold the landowner’s rights to a higher standard as other law enforcement agencies have and do, we would not be here today. South Dakota Legislature can hold people’s right to privacy to a higher standard as some states have done just that.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
SJ: "Rick Fox did question John on his statement and he said he didn’t mean it that way!"

Followed by:

SJ: "I don’t believe 90% of the landowners and hunters are not trustworthy but if that is true, the hunting recreation needs to stop."

If John Cooper said he didn't mean it that way, why do you continue with your 90% guilty bullcrap? Did he twist your position the way you are twisting his? If so, bring the quote!

I don't have to be there to know he didn't mean that 90% of the people are not law abiding yet I would fully expect you to continue spinning it that way which is par for your course.

You simply cannot argue your position without misinterpretting the opposition can you?

Why don't you just let Larry and Larry represent you? They may misinterpret court cases but they are at least objective enough to admit that game violations would increase without the ability to check hunters on private land.

With your history of spinning the truth on this forum, I am not about to believe your overly biased interpretation of what was stated at this meeting.




~SH~
 

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
4
Location
northwestern South Dakota
There he goes again. SH can certainly be an annoying little twit, can't he?

Why would Cooper say that “they need the open field because only 10% of the people are law abiding, 10 % are not and the other 80% could go either way,” if that wasn’t what he meant? I was not the only one writing his more interesting quotes down verbatim and what SJ gave you was exactly what I had written. Everyone in the room heard what the man said and we all understood him to mean only 10% of the general public could be trusted to not break the law and the rest would be guilty of at least some criminal activity.

From my notes I also have Cooper saying emphatically that he “would not compromise on the Open Fields Doctrine” and I was not at all surprised when later on he told landowners that WE need to compromise!!

SJ: “Another interesting statement John Cooper made was that he would not compromise on the open fields for compliance checks. In his next breath said that we, the landowners, had drawn a line in the sand and weren’t going to compromise and we all needed to compromise. Isn’t compromise a two way deal or maybe it is as I have said: communication is GF&P telling you what to do and cooperation is us doing it.”

I might also add that Cooper mentioned me specifically by name as being the landowner who had drawn a line in the sand. That was the only time during the panel discussion that I agreed with him… and it was the only time I knew that he wasn’t lying.

Thanks for taking the time to post this SJ. I thought the whole thing was pretty interesting.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
LB: " SH can certainly be an annoying little twit, can't he?"

To anyone who is trying to mislead the public, I'm sure my presentation of the facts would be quite annoying.


LB: "Everyone in the room heard what the man said and we all understood him to mean only 10% of the general public could be trusted to not break the law and the rest would be guilty of at least some criminal activity.

If I am to take you and SJ at your word. He said 80% could go either way. That's the same as saying 10% of the population will never drive over the speed limit, 10% continually drive over the speedlimit, and the other 80% are kept honest by seeing visible highway patrol cars along the highway. That's how I interpret that.

You will misinterpret what he said because your desperate position depends on it.

Anyone provide the names of the lockout folks and their "supposed" acres yet or are you still deceiving about that too?

Allow me to prove my point on deception..............

LB: "I was not the only one writing his more interesting quotes down verbatim...."

LB: "That was the only time during the panel discussion that I agreed with him… and it was the only time I knew that he wasn’t lying."

Since you wrote his interesting quotes down verbatim, how about listing one lie.


Watch carefully now as LB avoids backing yet another allegation like the plague..................

Name one lie LB!


Your hatred towards a man you don't even know has reached epidemic proportions.


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
LB: "That was the only time during the panel discussion that I agreed with him… and it was the only time I knew that he wasn’t lying."


Liberty Belle,

How about posting one of Cooper's lies for us?

What seems to be the holdup?


You made the allegation now back it. You said you wrote them down.



~SH~
 

SJ

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
282
Reaction score
0
Location
ludlow, SD
SH--Your hatred towards a man you don't even know has reached epidemic proportions.


This is not a love- hate issue. This is a property rights issue, I disagree with John Coopers interpretation of the open fields. He has his opinion and I have mine and that is all they are OPINIONS. I have never said I hated John Cooper. John Cooper is in a public position and I am sure he new that there would be heated issues, I am also sure he doesn't take it as personally as you.

I didn't twist Johns words and John had many chances to get up and explain it and chose not to.

I don't remember seeing you there.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
LB: "That was the only time during the panel discussion that I agreed with him… and it was the only time I knew that he wasn’t lying."


SH (IN RESPONSE TO THAT STATEMENT OF LIBERTY BELLE'S): "Your hatred towards a man you don't even know has reached epidemic proportions."

SJ (RESPONDING FOR LIBERTY BELLE): "I have never said I hated John Cooper."

I was responding to LB's statement about Cooper lying. That was not addressed to you.

It's no mystery why LB didn't back her allegation by stating the lies she was referring to. She can't because they didn't exist!


SJ: "I didn't twist Johns words and John had many chances to get up and explain it and chose not to."

You misinterpreted his statement to suggest that 90% of the public are lawbreakers.


SJ: "Everyone in the room heard what the man said and we all understood him to mean only 10% of the general public could be trusted to not break the law and the rest would be guilty of at least some criminal activity."


How does "80% COULD GO EITHER WAY" miraculously turn into "GUILTY OF AT LEAST SOME CRIMINAL ACTIVITY"????


You know damn well John Cooper never meant that 90% of the public are guilty of breaking the law. That's what you wanted him to say so you misinterpret it to discredit him. That's deception.

I don't take any of this personal. I just have a low tolerance for deception whether it comes from the "lockout" group that misinterprets what someone else says to further their agenda or whether it's from the R-CALFers that lie about the safety of Canadian beef to keep the Canadian border closed to imports of live cattle. There is a real lack of integrity in either case.


~SH~
 

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
4
Location
northwestern South Dakota
I will repost:

My dear SH,

My post was not directed to you. I was responding to a question posted by Juan. I will no longer respond to your whining, screaming posts because I don’t see that I can hope to accomplish anything productive by doing so.

These vituperative exchanges with you are akin to a childish arguement with a nasty little boy on the playground screaming “Did not!” “Did too!” and as such, they solve nothing and are not a profitable discourse, and thus are pointless.

I’d like to say it’s been fun, but I never have been very good at spinning tall tales, regardless of what you might think, so I’ll just bid you good evening and hope that when you have had time to mature, you will learn to carry on a civil debate. I suggest you go back and read my advice to you at the beginning of this thread, especially line number five and the very last line.

Liberty Belle

Now go play outside. Don't worry about the rain, you are already all wet.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Nice divertion LB!

I'll take that as your inability to back your allegation about "Cooper's lies".

No surprise!

Saddam claimed victory in the gulf war too!



~SH~
 

SJ

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
282
Reaction score
0
Location
ludlow, SD
Cooper has evaded the truth a number of times. He just never thought that we would take the time to get the documentation, tape certain meetings and many other things to find the truth. We did.

He lied about the para plane issue. You can give excuses and unsubstantiated facts until hell freezes over and it will still come up the same.


Is this being taught and practiced? “Conservation Officers should work diligently to communicate with landowners and to obtain permission before they enter private property for ANY reason.”
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
SJ: "He lied about the para plane issue. You can give excuses and unsubstantiated facts until hell freezes over and it will still come up the same."

What was the lie SJ?

Give me the exact statement that you "perceive" to be a lie.


I doubt anyone outside of the "I have an axe to grind with GF&P Club" is going to buy into your proven misinterpretations.

BTW, the trapper who recently joined the lockout crowd who thinks state trappers and conservation officers should not be allowed to trap due to a conflict of interest, he made the cover of the RCJ for illegal bobcat trapping.

GOSH I WONDER WHAT HIS MOTIVE FOR JOINING THE LOCK OUT CLUB WAS?????


SJ: "Is this being taught and practiced? “Conservation Officers should work diligently to communicate with landowners and to obtain permission before they enter private property for ANY reason.”

Who made that statement?

Is that another "90% are considered guilty" misinterpretation?

COs are required to have permission to access private land for any reason beyond hunting and fishing compliance checks and reasons of human health and safety.

You know Cooper's position on hunting and fishing compliance checks so you certainly wouldn't have taken his statements out of context AGAIN would you?

When can I get a list of those lockout landowner names to confirm your claims?


~SH~
 

SJ

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
282
Reaction score
0
Location
ludlow, SD
We have gone over and over What John Cooper said. If you don't get it, I don't have time to explain we have the facts and have proven it. Why don't you ask John he admitted to it. Oh maybe he wasn't telling the truth when he admitted to the person who questioned him about the para planes.

SJ: "Is this being taught and practiced? “Conservation Officers should work diligently to communicate with landowners and to obtain permission before they enter private property for ANY reason.”

SH-Who made that statement?

SH-Is that another "90% are considered guilty" misinterpretation?

Does it make a difference who made the statement?
"I assure you conservation officers will continue to work diligently to communicate with landowners and to obtain permission before they enter private property for any reason. I hope you agree that compliance checks are important and that sometimes exgent circumstances do not enable officers to obtain permission before conducting a compliance check."

Interpretation --- It doesn't say for any reason other than.
 

SJ

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
282
Reaction score
0
Location
ludlow, SD
BTW SH John Cooper ended up on the front page of the Journal for the illegal elk hunt he was party to. Most people cannot plead ignorance of the law-- but some who know the right people have gotten away with it. Its a good thing some one was kind enough to tip him off before the critter was sent across state lines.

Have a good day SH
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
SJ: "We have gone over and over What John Cooper said. If you don't get it, I don't have time to explain we have the facts and have proven it. Why don't you ask John he admitted to it. Oh maybe he wasn't telling the truth when he admitted to the person who questioned him about the para planes."

As expected!

You said John Cooper lied about paraplanes now back your allegation for once by presenting the actual quote and quit diverting. I'm sick of you two dropping these chickensh*t allegations without having the courage to back them up.

NAME THE LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GIVE ME THE EXACT QUOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Observe as SJ continues to two-step around the question...............



SJ: "Does it make a difference who made the statement?"

Of course it does because, UNLESS THIS STATEMENT WAS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT (as I would expect from the lockout crowd), this person contradicted themselves by saying that CO's would obtain permission before they enter private land FOR ANY REASON knowing that CO's are not going to get permission to conduct compliance checks nor should they.

Now who made the "for any reason" statement?



SJ: "BTW SH John Cooper ended up on the front page of the Journal for the illegal elk hunt he was party to. Most people cannot plead ignorance of the law-- but some who know the right people have gotten away with it. Its a good thing some one was kind enough to tip him off before the critter was sent across state lines."

Yet another lie from you.

There was no illegal elk hunt!

BILL JANKLOW ISSUED THE PROCLOMATION OF RESIDENCY TO A NON RESIDENT.

Did Janklow have the authority to do that? He apparently thought he did! If you want to blame someone, blame Janklow for overstepping his authority. I would have no qualms about that allegation and you could probably back it.

Personally, I don't think Janklow had the right, even as governor, to issue resident status hunting privelages to a non resident.

Cooper didn't do anything other than take the guy hunting. If Cooper made a mistake it was in not informing his own employees that this proclomation had been issued by Janklow. Had he informed his fellow employees of the proclomation, he would not have been investigated internally without prejudice. That in itself speaks to the integrity of this department.

Aside from not informing the department personell of the proclomation, John Cooper did nothing wrong.


Being the deceptive individual you have proven yourself to be, you have to create the ILLUSION that Cooper violated a law.

Yet another allegation that you can't back up with supporting facts. Your list of baseless allegations is getting longer and longer.


If you cared about truth and facts, you would know the truth about Janklow issuing the proclomation. Truth and facts mean nothing to you. What matters to you is to peg something on John Cooper even if you have to make up crap to accomplish it.



~SH~
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,017
Reaction score
0
Location
west of Soapweed
1) Has any court ever ruled "open fields doctrine" gives the state the right to trespass or does OFD only say if the state illegally gathers evidence on open fields that exclusion of the evidence is not suitable remedy and in fact the illegally obtained evidence is admissable?

fyi, no judge has ever held the former, only the latter.


2) Did a US district court judga in Ill suggest that civil penalties may be the appropriate remedy to open fields trespass?


fyi, yes


A third question that comes to mind, would Kooper(sthein) curse Al Hamilton and praise Stallin? If not how would he rectify his nonsense?
 

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
4
Location
northwestern South Dakota
Yesterday I asked a lawyer friend of mine about Cooper’s statement during the Stockgrowers panel discussion when he said that none of the five states that have done away with the Open Fields Doctrine did it with laws, it was just policy. The attorney said that in Montana it is indeed law and Mr. Cooper was dead wrong!!!

As soon as Cooper gave that asinine statement, Larry Nelson read to us from the Texas state law that also does away with the Open Fields Doctrine. Now, tell me something – why would Cooper offer up such a bald-faced lie to us? Perhaps he thinks ranchers aren’t smart enough to find out the facts for ourselves?

He also lied when he said that the problems that landowners have had with certain GF&P personnel had been taken care of. I about fell off my chair laughing! He sure has taken care of the complaints in Harding County, hasn’t he?

I have friends who work for GF&P that are embarrassed by Cooper’s prevarications and are upset with the way that he and Eric Washburn got off Scott-free when they conspired together to break South Dakota game laws. Cooper knew exactly what the law said and that’s why he had Washburn’s license sent to Cooper’s home address.

It certainly wouldn’t do to have your friend's “resident” license sent to his Washington, DC address, would it? Especially when, as the head of a law enforcement agency like GF&P, Cooper knew better than anyone in the state what the law was.

Did that make Janklow innocent? Oh, no! John Cooper, Bill Janklow and Senator Daschle’s right hand man, Eric Washburn, all knew what they were doing was not only wrong, but also illegal. Did that stop them? Obviously not.

Facts are facts. Truth is truth and the law is the law. Breaking it will get you arrested, unless you happen to be among those “special” folks who evidently can ignore the law with impunity.

Thanks for bringing that issue to our attention again, SJ. It had kind of slipped below our radar.
 

Border rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
99
Reaction score
0
Location
Ab.- Mt. border
As I see it from Alberta.. I don't know the laws in the states so can speak only about Alberta. I could never figure out why, when a cattle producer pays a substantial amount to "rent" public land, that the public should be able to run "roughshod" all over that land. If one of those "public" rented a house in town and the landlord went in and destroyed any part of it, the landlord would be in court. Why is this different?

(Possibly I am "shooting myself in the foot". Many of the "public", some environmentalists and some gov. officials would rather our lease land was for the wildlife only and don't want cattle (or people) there anyway)
 

SJ

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
282
Reaction score
0
Location
ludlow, SD
SH-Cooper didn't do anything other than take the guy hunting. If Cooper made a mistake it was in not informing his own employees that this proclomation had been issued by Janklow. Had he informed his fellow employees of the proclomation, he would not have been investigated internally without prejudice. That in itself speaks to the integrity of this department
.

SH-Aside from not informing the department personell of the proclomation, John Cooper did nothing wrong.
Why did he have to inform the department personnel?

I will respond to the rest of your post later.
 

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
4
Location
northwestern South Dakota
Border Rancher:
As I see it from Alberta.. I don't know the laws in the states so can speak only about Alberta. I could never figure out why, when a cattle producer pays a substantial amount to "rent" public land, that the public should be able to run "roughshod" all over that land. If one of those "public" rented a house in town and the landlord went in and destroyed any part of it, the landlord would be in court. Why is this different?

There is no difference. We have the same problem here. Another thing that really bothers us is that, although the game belongs to the public, there is no compensation to the landowners for the grass, hay, fences and vehicles lost to the public’s game animals. If my cows get onto my neighbor’s land, I am liable for any damages caused and if I pasture them on his land, I pay him for that pasture. Maybe you can tell my why the public’s livestock is treated any differently than my livestock?
 

Border rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
99
Reaction score
0
Location
Ab.- Mt. border
Although, we, personally haven't ever asked for compensation, there is a process in place in Alberta through which a cattleman can ask for and receive compensation for feed and crops destroyed by wildlife.
We live in an area where there are just a few elk and lots of deer and antelope, so they don't do as much damage as nearer the mountains where there are more elk and moose. It is frustrating in the winter when one drives up to the bale stack and scares a large herd of deer away. They are not very frightened though as they don't go far and usually are back in a few minutes.
I don't know how producers here access the money, but I have heard that they have to "jump through lots of hoops", have inspections etc. as with most government payouts.
 

Latest posts

Top