The legality of paraplanes was questioned by a number of parties due to the inconsistancy from one state to the next on their legality. GF&P asked the FAA for a ruling on the legality of paraplanes. FAA made the decision they were not legal.
How does GF&P carry the burden of downing paraplanes when FAA made the decision they were not legal? BY ASKING FOR AN OFFICIAL RULING????
Who made the decision to down paraplanes SJ?
Was it GF&P or FAA??
It was the FAA!
See how you like to spin things?
In your haste to pin something on GF&P, you blame them for downing paraplanes because they asked for an official position from FAA.
Where GF&P made their mistake is in assuming they were legal to begin with.
Once again, the lie is that GF&P did everything they could to down paraplanes. As always, that lie came from your camp, not ours.
Do you like this quote?
"I have always respected the private property rights of landowners and will continue to do so. It is also the policy of Game, Fish and Parks conservation officers to respect private property. 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 exigent circumstances do not enable officers to obtain permission before conducting a compliance check."
No, because that quote contradicts itself. CO's should not have to obtain permission to conduct compliance checks but should be required to obtain permission for any other reason.
Asking permission to conduct a compliance check is the dumbest thing I have ever heard because nobody is going to grant permission if they are suspected of a violation.
Why won't you present the source of that quote?
Another quote; "Cases in which law enforcement enter onto private property to conduct a compliance check are rare, and officers do their best to obtain permission every time they enter onto private property." Do you believe this quote to be true? If it is true, asking permission shouldn't be too much of a burden as compliance checks are rare on private property. Evidently this person believes that is the way it is done and should be done unless exigent (urgent, pressing which probably give probable cause) circumstances. Is this true or is this person just giving lip service?
I would say in MOST CASES that is true but where compliance checks are conducted will vary from one CO district to the other depending on the land base:
1. Most compliance checks W. of the river are conducted on public land or Walk-In hunting areas. Neither precludes the fact that compliance checks will occur on private land without obtaining permission first.
2. Many, if not most, compliance checks E. of the river are conducted on the roads due to the greater number of sections surrounded by roads. That is a totally different situation than the much larger tracts of land more common to western SD.
The concept of obtaining permission to conduct compliance checks on hunters is truly one of the dumbest things I have ever heard from the standpoint that anyone who is suspected of a hunting or fishing violation on private land is not going to grant permission for their arrest. Granting permission to be arrested borders on insanity.
Another quote;" Wildlife laws apply equally on public and private lands. The principle of fairness in the application of these laws would dictate they be enforced equally, no matter where the hunter might be found." If this statement is true and equality and fairness is the issue should the public be liable for all liability issues concerning hunting.
I cannot comment on that because I am not versed on the laws pertaining to private lawsuits against the public. Proving negligence would have to be an issue in either situation.
SJ: "I do care about the truth and facts; I would like to know when that proclamation was made. When John didn't let personnel know that to raises suspicion. Having it sent to his own home with his license also raises suspicion. It would make you think that Cooper wasn't all that high on the idea and there was no proclamation in place. I would hope that I wouldn't jeopardize my credibility for someone, Governor or not to keep a job. There are to many other jobs in this world to let one own you. John Cooper had choices, no one but John Cooper made them."
You only care about facts and truth when it happens to support your bias. As this statement clearly shows, you are relentless in your pursuit of the chink in the armour of facts or your own interpretation of the facts, not the facts themselves.
I saw a copy of the proclomation. To question it's existance shows your level of suspicion and desperation for anything you can sink your teeth into.
Yes, I believe John should have let the department know about the proclomation immediately. That's my own personal opinion. It would have prevented the confusion later. With the thousands of issues John has to deal with, I'm not surprised it was overlooked. Live and learn.
As far as where the license was sent, hunters send hunting license applications in the same envelope all the time. Janklow told Cooper to have it sent to Cooper's address. There is no suspicion from that standpoint.
I would hope that I wouldn't jeopardize my credibility for someone, Governor or not to keep a job. There are to many other jobs in this world to let one own you. John Cooper had choices, no one but John Cooper made them.
Janklow issued the proclomation and I saw the proclomation as did all of the Reg. 1 GF&P staff. That is one fact you will not get around not matter how you try to spin this.
If you want to question the governor's legal right to issue proclomations as political favors, be my guest. You won't catch any flack from me.
When a Governor claims to have the authority to issue proclomations as political favors, who is left to question the legality? What position is in higher authority?
Cooper would never have supported this action if it was not legal and he never stated anything on this issue that was not true so his credibility does not become an issue with the exception of failing to notify the department that the proclomation of residency had been issued.
Ask yourself this SJ, if Janklow is arrogant enough not to come clean on taking someone's life due to his poor driving habits, why is it so difficult to believe he would not issue a proclomation of residency as a political favor?
This is the same man that showed his arrogance by stopping Canadian trucks from coming through SD which was more political bullcrap as far as I am concerned. You don't sign a trade agreement with a country then prevent them from trading.
I have lost all respect for that man and you wouldn't have found a more ardent supporter a few years ago.
My respect for Janklow peaked when he told the corporate blamers in this state that he would sign Amendment E knowing it was the wrong thing to do. Janklow was right and like they usually are, the corporate blamers were wrong. Janklow gave these corporate blamers what they wanted but he told them they were wrong. Amendment E was later overturned proving Janklow right.
I assume this was what SH thought was the correct answer to his jeopardy question for actively hunting and I find it quite interesting. Fact is it isn't against the law to wear orange during hunting season if you are not hunting. Fact we have the right to bear arms. Fact it isn't against the law to drive a shiny new Suburban and have it parked on the top of a hill. Fact it isn't against the law to walk a brushy trail. Fact it isn't against the law to fire a gun during hunting season.
Of course, silly me, it's a common occurance to see non hunters walking brushy draws during the hunting season with blaze orange attire, carrying a gun, shooting at pop cans among the fleeing deer with his/her mountain lion self defense weapon, and driving a suburban with 02 or 01 plates on it on the opening day of West River deer hunting season......
Silly me, what was I thinking?
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz!
Spare me the insult to my intelligence!
Fact it isn't against the law to check this hunter for his/her license on private land without obtaining permission first.
Its early in the morning, the shades are open. The patrolman drives by and sees a man or woman with a hat and coat on, the keys in one hand heading for the door, with the garage door open and the car running (he has a remote to start his car) would that be enough for that patrolman to stop and check and see if he is driving with a valid license and insurance, (Compliance check).
Apples and oranges!
Any officer can see the visible plates on any vehicle to determine ownership and there is more than enough opportunities to check drivers on the highways due to speeding, stop sign violations, unsafe driving, etc, etc.
The driving violations on public highways are a lot more accessible than hunting violations in the middle of a pasture.
Try again!
~SH~
