Open Fields Panel discussion at Stockgrowers meeting

[Anonymous]

LB, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here that you have quoted John Cooper word for word WITHIN CONTEXT. If I find out differently, you can rest assured I will point it out.

Assuming that John Cooper said exactly what you said he did, he's still correct. A judge's decision became policy in those states as opposed to state codified law. He's right about that.

This is an argument on semantics between case law that became policy and state law.

LB: "Do you think someone should tell SH about the CO in Harding Co. that was arrested for trespass on private land he had been told to stay off of? It was not during hunting season and there was no game around to count. The attorney general let him go because Conservation Officers are "special"."

Where was the abuse in that case? Driving down a road that crossed private land?

LB: "This is the same CO who forced a commercial trapper to turn a wounded mountain lion he had caught loose in the CO's neighbors calving pasture where his grade school kids ride on the livestock. The CO had been told by the neighbor that under no circumstances was the CO allowed on the neighbor's land, so he not only released a dangerous predator on a private landowner, he trespassed to do it."

B did his job in that situation. B can't kill a lion just because a landowner doesn't want it there. Maybe in the future we'll be able to dispose of these lions but for now we cannot unless they are causing problems. I have no doubts B went through the proper channels to determine how to proceed with this lion.

I'm sure you'd prefer the three S system but B, to his credit, did the right thing.

Some of us would prefer a zero tolerance policy for prairie lions. Time will tell whether our wishes will become reality.

Did the landowner even know this lion was even on his property prior to it's capture?

I'd also question the extent of it's injuries from a modified steel foothold coyote trap. My dad also trapped a lion on the Potter/Walworth Co. line a few years back which was tranquilized and released into the Black Hills unharmed.

Perhaps you could argue that this lion should have been relocated but there is Forest Service land in Harding Co. that would certainly sustain a lion or two.


Secondly, states like Wyoming, Utah, and Arizona have far more lions than we have and how many times have kids been attacked on horseback IN OPEN PASTURES????

Let's put this into perspective.

A person has a better chance of being struck by lightning and bit by a rattlesnake simultaneously.

Thirdly, B had to access private land to release this lion. This was an issue of enforcing game laws which requires the lion to be turned loose. Permission to release a lion in a trap does not need to be required by policy.

LB: "I don't know what SH considers abuse, but folks around here figure this irresponsible behavior defiantly constitutes abuse."

I don't doubt the folks you correspond with would consider B doing his job as abuse. It's quite obvious you are on a "witch hunt".

LB: " What does SH consider abuse? Murder, mayhem and rape?'

Who are you talking to? Is there a crowd gathering at your computer?

Debating these issues with you could be considered abuse. LOL!

Let's exaggerate shall we?

I woud constitute abuse as leaving ruts, leaving gates open, disturbing livestock, etc. etc.

Hardly Murder, Mayhem, or Rape!

Sheeeeesh!

It never ceases to amaze me what you will pull out of your bonnet.


On a completely unrelated topic, do you like men's quartet music? Get a copy of Il Divo if you don't mind spanish lyrics. Simon, from American Idol, put together a men's quartet from 4 countries and came up with a quartet called Il Divo. Absolutely unreal if you appreciate quality men's voices in combination with symphany music. I just mention this because it mellows me out to where I can tolerate responding to your GF&P bashing. Hahaha!


~SH~

 

[SJ]

Who pays the Federal dollars?

Who pays the county dollars?

Are landowners that hunt not sportsmen?

Who does GF&P work for?

If you are privy to all, than you have made it more than evident that this communication training is only lip service with no plans of ever implementing it. Thank you

That quote "for any reason" is deception and nothing more. When people send me letters they have recieved, from the top, it only confirms what we have thought all along.

Why don't they come out and tell it like it is instead of making people believe that they will ask permission for any reason other than in exigent circumstances.


Why isn't the GF&P law enforcement under the DCI?

 

[Anonymous]

You already know the answers to these rapid fire questions so quit playing games with me.


Just because the "vocal minority" pays taxes doesn't mean they will determine how I conduct business over the "voting majority".

The "voting majority" will determine how I conduct business not the "vocal minority".


Don't worry, they would never allow anyone as candid as me in a position of authority.

SJ: "If you are privy to all, than you have made it more than evident that this communication training is only lip service with no plans of ever implementing it. Thank you'

I'm one voice.

If you think my opinion represents the position of GF&P as a whole you are badly mistaken. GF&P caters a lot more to the "vocal minority" than I ever would.

I have no doubts that you will use my statements as being representative of GF&P as a whole because that's how desperate you really are. I really don't care. Deception is nothing new for you.

The current landowner contacts that COs are now having to document was never justified in my mind. CO's were doing their job before and continue to do so today.

SJ: "That quote "for any reason" is deception and nothing more."

Of course you would see it that way. That's how your conspiring mind works.

SJ: "When people send me letters they have recieved, from the top, it only confirms what we have thought all along."

Yeh yeh, talk is cheap!

When you won't produce what you imply (number of acres in lockout and supposed letters confirming your beliefs) it's nothing more than hot air.

Par for the course!

SJ: "Why don't they come out and tell it like it is instead of making people believe that they will ask permission for any reason other than in exigent circumstances."

GF&P has been straight.

Policy says that Conservation Officers will ask permission to enter private land for reasons other than game and fish compliance checks and reasons of human health and safety.

Which is basically how it has always been.

SJ: "Why isn't the GF&P law enforcement under the DCI?" quote]

Because they're not!


NEXT!



~SH~

 

[Liberty Belle]

I don't know if SH can't comprehend what he reads, or if he just ignores what he doesn't want to hear.

SH: GF&P has been straight.

Policy says that Conservation Officers will ask permission to enter private land for reasons other than game and fish compliance checks and reasons of human health and safety.

Which is basically how it has always been

.

If SH would refer back to numerous posts on this board he would find that GF&P has not always asked for permission before entering private land to do a myriad of things not involving compliance checks and that is the sole reason for the lockout.

I am reposting a letter to the editor of the Rapid City Journal, written by a former mayor of Rapid City, that SH evidently missed when I posted it before. This guy has the problem with GF&P figured out.

I wonder what SH will have to say about what Munson has written? Or will he ignore it again?

Deer depredation

Deer reduction plans in Rapid City have cost us tens of thousands of dollars. GF&P consistently shuns responsibility for property damage from over-population. We must beg their permission to deal with the problem (citing their deer "ownership"), but they deny any financial obligation.

In a country where laws protect city people from searches without probable cause, and country folks apparently have no such rights, how can GF&P and the governor's office justify entering land without permission to verify presence or absence of criminal activity:

When it relates to animals that are not only hunted but also cause financial depredation hardship for those landowners?

When GF&P has made it abundantly clear that it denies any responsibility for those same animals in the city of Rapid City?

GF&P has a depredation problem, by their own admission, as there does exist a fund for depredation.

Doesn't it seem reasonable to trust ranchers as honest people first, change the law and allow property rights to be restored to these rural private property owners?

Let's see, they're GF&P's deer until they might cost them money, then they're the city people's deer. Then city people have property rights, but rural folks don't.

Huh?

JERRY MUNSON

Rapid City

Don't you think that the landowners, who raise the state's game animals for the state, deserve a lot more respect and consideration from GF&P than they have been getting instead of being treated like the government's indentured servants?

 

[Anonymous]

LB: "I don't know if SH can't comprehend what he reads, or if he just ignores what he doesn't want to hear."

Next time just stop at "I don't know...." because you obviously don't.

LB: "If SH would refer back to numerous posts on this board he would find that GF&P has not always asked for permission before entering private land to do a myriad of things not involving compliance checks and that is the sole reason for the lockout."

B's release of the lion in Harding Co. involves enforcing game laws which is a compliance check to assure that game laws are not being violated.

I'd like to see these other examples of CO's entering private land without permission for a myriad of things..........

Let's hear it!


What's to say about Munson's letter?

No specifics on CO's abusing the Open Fields Doctrine just another rash of generalizing complaining statements.

Nothing new there!

One person thinks we should handle the RC deer situation one way and the next person thinks we should handle it another way. Everyone has an opinion.

LB: "Don't you think that the landowners, who raise the state's game animals for the state, deserve a lot more respect and consideration from GF&P than they have been getting instead of being treated like the government's indentured servants?"

The vast majority of landowerners are satisfied with the job GF&P does managing the public's wildlife. There will always be a "vocal minority" of chronic complainers that will never be satisfied no matter what because, for some reason or another, they have an axe to grind with GF&P.


~SH~

 

[SJ]

Which way is it SH?


Quote:

Quote: SJ: "You would sure like to have people think you are privy or have the inside track on everything that goes on in GF&P."

[Quote:

quote]SH's Answer--You would sure like to have people think that I am not privy or have the inside track on the issues we discuss here but your inability to prove me wrong suggests otherwise doesn't it?

Quote:

Quote: SJ: "It's obvious you are not privy to the orders that have come down as far as communication and CO's asking permission. Why would you be, you are a trapper not a CO."

Quote:
SH's Answer--What have I stated that is inaccurate? Personally, I disagree with catering to the "vocal minority". As far as I am concerned most of the COs have always communicated with their landowners. Based on internal policy, COs are required to have permission to enter your land for any reason other than game compliance checks for hunting and fishing and reasons of human health and safety.

Quote:
SJ: "If you are privy to all, then you have made it more than evident that this communication training is only lip service with no plans of ever implementing it. Thank you'

Quote:

SH's answer--I'm one voice. If you think my opinion represents the position of GF&P as a whole you are badly mistaken. GF&P caters a lot more to the "vocal minority" than I ever would. I have no doubts that you will use my statements as being representative of GF&P as a whole because that's how desperate you really are. I really don't care. Deception is nothing new for you. The current landowner contacts that COs are now having to document was never justified in my mind. CO's were doing their job before and continue to do so today.

You were the one who wanted people to think you represent the position of GF&P. I stated I could see you weren't privy. You would be a prosecuting Attorney's dream and a defense attorney's nightmare if he had to defend you. You should get more acquainted with the KISS method

SH are you dealing deception with this statement or would it ruin your credibility to say you aren't privy and your facts are only here say.
Whose dancing with deception and desparation—not me my land is closed and if they come on without permission and I catch them, I will prosecute. I am not worried about a thing or who reads what.

You wanted to know what you have stated that is inaccurate—I don't think anything you have said isn't what you truly believe and have been told. I think you are right on what is taught as far as entering land, I don't think anything has changed either.

Quote:
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."

This quote would make you think that they are going to ask permission even for compliance checks on private land and the only time permission wouldn't be gotten is when exigent circumstances exists. SH these are the Governor's words.




I have lived here at this location for 28 years and have never had a CO come to ask permission or just drop in to communicate. They don't have to and they don't need too, and they aren't going too ask permission to enter your land. When SH claims, CO's are going to start or CO have always communicated to enter your land for any reason other than compliance checks, he is blowing smoke like the rest from the top down.

Our CO was not going in on private land to do a compliance check plain and simple. It was not a human safety issue. It was to remove signs from a neighbors walk in area. They were told by GF&P they could come and go anytime anywhere they wanted without permission and nothing has changed other than policy that is as good as the white paper in the out house.

Sh's words--CO's were doing their job before and continue to do so today.

quote]

SJ: "Why isn't the GF&P law enforcement under the DCI?" quote]

Quote:

SH's answer--Because they're not!

[/quote]

They should be and should run as other law enforcement. If a complaint were made it would be investigated by other than their in house investigator.

I am going to tell you of one complaint and I think you can ask about this complaint if it hasn't been shredded. This is not a CO complaint, but we have given you some of those and you just call us chronic bitchers with no credibility.

The state plane is flying for coyotes. The local trapper is present. The state plane flies under the 500 feet recommended over buildings. The people are ridding young colts and when they come over they can feel the back -wash from the planes propeller.
This landowner is mad and sends a written complaint. It takes quite a while but the landowner does receive an answer to their complaint.

GF&P indicated they have investigated and find no violations. The landowner was never called or questioned about the incident. GF&P just insinuated to them, they were wrong or liars or they were not credible people. I guess you have to be a government employee to be credible. Then GF&P walks around with their head in the sand wondering why many people don't trust them.
DUHHHHHHHH

Why would anyone send a complaint into an agency that make their own laws, enforce by their own law enforcement, investigated by their own investigator, with their own in house judge, jury and sentencing system? You might once but you can see how much good that did and who GF&P is going to believe, from the complaint above. Not to many want to be called a liar without even being part of the investigation.

If GF&P Law enforcement was put where it should be it would make a trust worthy GF&P. They would have to follow the same law as you and I and also have to answer to someone other than their own. When there are no checks and balances what you get is a strong-arm agency out of control.

Quote:
SJ: "Tell me again why the CO's need to have permission to enter my land?"

SH's answer--Based on internal policy, COs are required to have permission to enter your land for any reason other than game compliance checks for hunting and fishing and reasons of human health and safety

.


I will ask the question again and you read it very carefully; why or when would a CO need to ask permission to enter my land?


Tell me how many of those CO's that get caught on land without permission are not going to give some excuse of why they are there: such as hot pursuit—thought I seen someone in orange, seen a suburban on the hill, seen a person chasing something thought is was wildlife—etc. etc. Then tell me whom that landowner should send the complaint to. Who will investigate the complaint? I'll tell you who; GF&P law office and courtroom.

Remember it was Cooper who stated 10% will not follow the law, 10% will follow the law and the other 80% could go either way. Now do you want someone to come on your land without asking permission? We want to know who is on your land? Might deter illegal activity on your land. CO's would communicate and ask permission if they thought they had to go before the same justice system as we do.

SJ: "Who do the trappers work for?"

SH-SD Dept. of Game, Fish, and Parks

Quote:

SJ: "Who pays their wages?"

SH-SD Sportsman, Federal tax dollars, and a small percentage from the County.

SJ-Who pays the Federal dollars?

Who pays the county dollars?

Are landowners that hunt not sportsmen?

Who does GF&P work for?

SH--You already know the answers to these rapid fire questions so quit playing games with me.

Who is being deceptive? I know it is the people who pay for it. But you had to break it down into federal money, sportsmen and a little county. You questioned the intelligence of people. All the people may not have a degree but most can read and decipher. Most people aren't ignorant as you have assumed. They know who makes up these entities. Good try. That old Federal (free money) might confuse a few, but what it really shows is whom you work for and the good job they did educating you to think like them and not on your own.



The plain and simple of this is the private landowner gives more to the wildlife than any other. GF&P has abused the use of the Open fields doctrine by using it for a compliance check. Control of the land private or public is there mission. They have it with their own law enforcement agency and in house investigative agency. They have taught that they can go anywhere anytime they want and secured it by eliminating any threat of being prosecuted with the open fields and the law enforcement being in house. You can't protect your property from wildlife without allowing hunting and if you allow hunting or not you give up your right to know who is in your back yard.


I have nothing to lose, but if GF&P law enforcement was put under the DCI and GF&P lost the use of the open fields to do compliance checks without permission, they would have to communicate and it would make them a more honest trustworthy organization.

We will be back in Pierre next year.

 

[Anonymous]

SJ: "Which way is it SH?"

It's exactly the way I said it. I retract nothing and the only contradiction, as usual, is in your conspiring mind.

I am privy to the information for which I speak but that does not mean my opinion, based from that information, is GF&P's official position ON EVERY ISSUE WE HAVE DISCUSSED HERE.

SJ: "You were the one who wanted people to think you represent the position of GF&P."

Bull!

I stated facts, I never said I represent the "OFFICIAL" position of GF&P ON EVERY ISSUE WE HAVE DISCUSSED.

In case you failed to notice, I said I do not agree with GF&P's catering to the "chronic complaining vocal minority" so how could I represent the position of GF&P OR EVEN THINK I DID?

Wake up!


I am one employee and I am not in a position of authority but I am privy to the facts on the information that I present.

Considering your GF&P "witch hunt", your inability to prove anything I have stated as being untrue proves the accuracy of my statements.

You disagree but you can't disprove a single thing I have stated. To the contrary, I have corrected you many times on many issues. I'll let you pretend it never happened rather than go through all the corrections again.

SJ: "You would be a prosecuting Attorney's dream and a defense attorney's nightmare if he had to defend you."

Yeh, and Saddam claimed victory after the gulf war too!

SJ: "SH these are the Governor's words."

The governor is flat wrong about CO's requesting permission to enter private property FOR ANY REASON. CO's do not have to obtain permission to conduct compliance checks unless the laws are changed.

Nobody is going to grant permission to have themselves arrested if they are breaking game and fish laws.

SJ: "I have lived here at this location for 28 years and have never had a CO come to ask permission or just drop in to communicate."

If your GF&P "witch hunt" is any indication, that's understandable!

SJ: " They don't have to and they don't need too, and they aren't going too ask permission to enter your land. When SH claims, CO's are going to start or CO have always communicated to enter your land for any reason other than compliance checks, he is blowing smoke like the rest from the top down."

That is just an out and out lie!

Every CO I ever worked with communicated with landowners prior to entering private land for reasons other than compliance checks. A few things that come to mind are grouse surveys, fish stocking, deer surveys, etc. etc.

SJ: "Our CO was not going in on private land to do a compliance check plain and simple."

Assuming this is true, it's still a lie to suggest that conservation officers never gain permission to access private land. One situation of a conservation officer crossing private land to remove walk in hunting signs, WHICH KEEP HUNTERS OFF THE LAND THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ON, does not mean that Conservation Officers never gain permission to access private land.

Your desperate "witch hunt" has revealed itself again!

SJ: "The state plane flies under the 500 feet recommended over buildings. The people are ridding young colts and when they come over they can feel the back -wash from the planes propeller."

BACK WASH FROM THE PROP?

Give me a break!

Does this person happen to have his land signed up in the lockout?

We fly over horses and other livestock every flyable day of the year and I have yet to hear of a legitimate complaint on spooking colts or any other livestock for that matter. Ask JJ if you don't believe me. He'll tell you how livestock reacts to aerial hunting including buffalo.

I have watched the reactions of literally tens of thousands of cattle and horses I have personally flown over. Considering all the horses and cattle all over Western SD, don't you think we would be running them through the fences every day if this was a legitimate concern?

If a young colt is spooking from an airplane flying over someone better start "sacking him out" or you are in for a wreck the first time someone throws on a raincoat.

I watched a guy get bucked off once when the plane flew by. It was the landowner we were flying for. My pilot immediately radioed to me and told me what had happened. I drove up to this landowner to apologize. When I stepped out of the pickup to apologize he was dusting himself off. After I apologized, he said, "I didn't even know the plane was around. He said that dirty SOB bogs his head and goes to bucking every time he gets to this exact spot. I thought I was ready this time".

True story!

I only saw one time where a bunch of yearlings started spooking and we immediately recognized it and vacated the area. Come to find out later they were aerial sprayed for flies if you can believe it. So don't even go there with me because it's an absolute insult to my understanding of this issue.

SJ: " Then GF&P walks around with their head in the sand wondering why many people don't trust them."

How do you walk around with your head in the sand? I'm trying to visualize that? Is the sand in a bucket? Wouldn't it spill out? Oh, the guy's bent over with his head in a bucket of sand, ok, now I got it.

What next?

SJ: I will ask the question again and you read it very carefully; why or when would a CO need to ask permission to enter my land?"

Why do you ask me a question that you will not believe the answer for? You don't care about the answer, you are simply looking for the chink in the armour again.

I told you before, game surveys, depredation complaints, fish stocking, and a multitude of other reasons. Do you believe that? Of course you don't. You'll ask again in a week.

SJ: "Tell me how many of those CO's that get caught on land without permission are not going to give some excuse of why they are there: such as hot pursuit—thought I seen someone in orange, seen a suburban on the hill, seen a person chasing something thought is was wildlife—etc. etc. Then tell me whom that landowner should send the complaint to. Who will investigate the complaint? I'll tell you who; GF&P law office and courtroom."

JUST WHAT THE HECK DO YOU WANT????

First you say you have never seen a CO on your place. Then you are complaining that you have never had a CO stop in to visit. Then you are complaining about CO's making up excuses to access private land.

WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM???

All you do is complain and your complaints are not even legitimate! YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN A CO ON YOUR LAND yet the sky is falling in on CO's trampling all over your private property.

Good grief!

SJ: "Now do you want someone to come on your land without asking permission?"

If a conservation officer sees a hunter on my land he is welcome to check him.

SJ: "Might deter illegal activity on your land."

You're right. It could be some trespassing slob from Sioux Falls that is hunting in the wrong unit that needs to be arrested.

Good point!

SJ: "Who is being deceptive?"

You are, as always!

SJ: "Most people aren't ignorant as you have assumed."

More proof of your deception!

SJ: "That old Federal (free money) might confuse a few, but what it really shows is whom you work for and the good job they did educating you to think like them and not on your own."

Keep telling yourself that. Eventually you'll have yourself convinced!

The county tax structure hits you a lot more directly than the percentage you paid of our Federal dollars and you know it?

Do you really want to know what percent of our federal dollars was paid by Harding Co. residents?

Once again, you insult my intelligence!

SJ: "Control of the land private or public is there mission."

Another lie!

No further proof is needed than to compare the land aquisitions to the walk in hunting leased access.

Slam dunk!

SJ: "We will be back in Pierre next year."

Whoda thought?


You poor gal, you just can't get any satisfaction out of me without taking my statements out of context can you?



~SH~

 

[SJ]

SH--You poor gal, you just can't get any satisfaction out of me without taking my statements out of context can you?

Actually I have gotten a lot of satifaction, you have confirmed many of my thoughts.

The Governor being wrong, told me alot. I am suprised he is so uniformed, and have a hard time believing he is.

As far as your response to the complaint, I was not suprised at your off handed, unconcerned, never could have happened attitude, without out any investigation. It just proves what I said and will continue to say is the truth. BTW they joined the lockout this year. You evidently believe if you belong to the lockout you aren't turstworthy people. I have said before the people in GF&P are not bad we just disagree, but you take it to another level.

SH-If a conservation officer sees a hunter on my land he is welcome to check him.

That is your choice SH and it wouldn't go away if GF&P had to ask permission. But to take a right away for a compliance check is not right. Asking permission is not to much to ask. They world will not end, wildlife will not vanish. What it will do is bring GF&P out to meet the people that deal with the wildlife on a daily basis.


Thanks agian SH