SD westriver lockout- OVER??

[Happy go lucky]

LB it gets no clearer than this:
Similarly, "open fields"—pastures, open water, woods and other such areas—may be searched without a warrant, on the basis that the individuals conducting activities therein had no reasonable expectations of privacy.

Searched meaning to check license or what ever else they deem as law enforcement duties. Now does that mean they take advanatge of this NO! If you have factual cases where abuse has been done then bring them up. To check hunters they are within the confines of the Supreme Court.

Again please read it deals directly with tresspass here.

the police ignored a "no trespassing" sign, trespassed onto the suspect's land without a warrant, followed a path several hundred yards, and discovered a field of marijuana. The Supreme Court ruled that no search had taken place.

The Supreme Court, in Oliver, addressed this issue, in the identical context of Kentucky law, observing in the case of open fields, the general rights of property protected by the common law of trespass have little or no relevance to the applicability of the Fourth Amendment. Id at 191

 

[Anonymous]

Happy Go Lucky- All your decisions deal with the trespassed person when they are the defendant- thru the exclusionary rule- not when the landowner is a 3rd party and may/or may not even know of the defendants being on their property and has no knowledge of their criminal activity...

This would be where most ranchers fit in...They may /or may not know the hunters are there on their property but have no knowledge or involvement with the criminal activity- so then have no recourse under the exclusionary rule...There have been few rulings on this- but the Montana Courts/AG's office have pretty much ruled that neither Law Enforcement or Emergency Services have a right to trespass on such private property unless there is probable cause of "emergency" exigent circumstances...Emergency means someones safety or welfare is in danger of an immediate threat- that could be further endangered if time is taken to get permission or a search warrant...Otherways an officer entering that private property can be charged with trespassing just like anyone else...

Now I know Montana has one of the strictest Constitutional standards guaranteeing privacy- but I also think it is a right that landowners should have...Didn't hinder us (my sheriff's office) much after it came out- as it usually just meant what should be a common courtesy-- of making a phone call to the landowner to ask them/let them know you were on their land....

And the courts have given the states the right to have laws more restrictive than the federal law...

 

[P Joe]

I don't believe that the lock out is centered just on privacy rights. There are other factors in play here. Ones I have mentioned before. This is just the best one they can hide behind and the only one that doesn't involve money.

I'd like to see thier figures on how they think they are losing money be feeding the deer and antelope. I know it's YOUR grass and YOUR land that grew it BUT please someone show me a formula or some kind of evidence that your calves actully lose pounds when you have more deer on your land. Please, please show me this.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't believe that the lock out is centered just on privacy rights. There are other factors in play here. Ones I have mentioned before. This is just the best one they can hide behind and the only one that doesn't involve money.

I'd like to see thier figures on how they think they are losing money be feeding the deer and antelope. I know it's YOUR grass and YOUR land that grew it BUT please someone show me a formula or some kind of evidence that your calves actully lose pounds when you have more deer on your land. Please, please show me this.

A deer or antelope consumes about the equivalent as a sheep...And the range management folks have the figures that show where 5 sheep eat about the same as 1 cow... So for every 5 deer or antelope that a rancher has grazing his land, means one less cow he can run- which equates this year roughly to somewhere between $600- $700 per head of lost income from a calf....When you have 500-600 antelope/deer on your land this adds up pretty fast.....

 

[Badlands]

Watch out OT!

Now they will tell us how we should let them hunt------- to "help" us out!

In the perfect world, where everybody truly understood the arguments, that would be true.


Why is it that the people with no vested monetary interest in something always know how to handle it for the folks that do?



Badlands

 

[fulton]

AMEN. Excellent post badlands!!!

 

[IL Rancher]

There are more and more farms around here being closed to hunting because of money. But not the money that is going to leasing (allthough that is happening too). Land owners are real gun shy about liability issues and no matter what paper is signed there always seems to be a lawyer who will still drag you and your insurance company to court because someone stepped in a hole and broke their leg.

 

[P Joe]

A deer or antelope consumes about the equivalent as a sheep...And the range management folks have the figures that show where 5 sheep eat about the same as 1 cow... So for every 5 deer or antelope that a rancher has grazing his land, means one less cow he can run- which equates this year roughly to somewhere between $600- $700 per head of lost income from a calf....When you have 500-600 antelope/deer on your land this adds up pretty fast.....

I don't think any rancher in the state of SD has that many deer on his land. Antelope, once upon a time maybe they did, but not since 97 when the snow wiped alot of them out. And $600 to $700 for cattle this year is a bust. I think this weeks market, they were under a $1 for 500 pounders. :wink:

Plus I have never heard of ANY rancher ever selling cattle off because their deer population is too high. lol

 

[Badlands]

Near as I can tell, our population is on the 2nd upswing since '97. It only takes 2-3 years to recover from those types of incedences. They do bear twins when they can, they recover quickly.

Your point is only partly well taken on the economics, however. Sure, it looks more costly when prices are high, and on paper it is, however, those are also the times when a rancher can "afford" to suffer some loss. The times he can't is when the price is low. Ranchers will generally have a fixed stocking rate, so it really hurts when prices are down.

OT might have leaned out a little far with his argument, but you surely fell off the cliff with your counterpoint.

I would suspect that OT knows what he did, as I have found him to be quite intelligent in other internet conversations in the past. I also suspect that the comments were made out of a bit of frustation trying to defend himself against something that should require no defense at all.

It is our land, stay the hell off it unless you ask and are granted permission, or are invited. It is that simple!! Trying to defend such an obvious position is frustrating, as it should require no defense.


Badlands

 

[P Joe]

Watch out OT!

Now they will tell us how we should let them hunt------- to "help" us out!

In the perfect world, where everybody truly understood the arguments, that would be true.


Why is it that the people with no vested monetary interest in something always know how to handle it for the folks that do?



Badlands

Sorry to say, but that deer or antelope is every bit of mine as it is yours.

And it doesn't matter if you think or say different. That little line right there is a fact. Not a damn thing you can do about it.

If what oldtimer said is true, then why wouldn't you want hunting to take place on your land?

It's no different then letting a complete stanger take food out of your fridge every week. I guess I would get rid of the stranger.

And whose telling you how to handle your deer heard. No one. You still have control of who hunts, what and how many they shoot. Really what is the big deal if the GW checks your hunters. Do you have something to hide?

And, some ranchers have been in bed the GF&P over public walk-in.

Are you from SD anyway. Unless you know all the stories I'd suggest keeping your little comments to yourself.

 

[Badlands]

Nope, not from SD. Pretty close though.

About 80 miles from Liberty Belle.


My great aunt and uncle homesteaded the Sky Ranch for Boys, later sold it to his brother, who then donated it to the Church, so I think I have a pretty good idea of the spirit of the people that live in that area.


Pretty obvious that even if I am not from SD, and may currently reside about 2000 miles from there that I represent the spirit of rural South Dakotans living in that area better than some of their fellow South Dakotans.



Badlands

 

[P Joe]

OT might have leaned out a little far with his argument, but you surely fell off the cliff with your counterpoint.

Umm.... what is prices right now. IF that wasn't right please correct me.

I would suspect that OT knows what he did, as I have found him to be quite intelligent in other internet conversations in the past. I also suspect that the comments were made out of a bit of frustation trying to defend himself against something that should require no defense at all.

Again please show or tell me of any rancher that has sold off part of his herd to allow for "Deer" grazing.

It is our land, stay the hell off it unless you ask and are granted permission, or are invited. It is that simple!! Trying to defend such an obvious position is frustrating, as it should require no defense.

Your right it is your land. I never argured that. I am simply saying what SDhunter has said before. YOU don't have the right to manage the deer heard. I'm sorry but every state agrees on that. Look what happen to the outfitter. Birds and Bucks I think it was. AND if you do start shooting, I hope you pay dearly and end up being someones "sweet checks" when you sit in jail. :wink:

 

[Badlands]

Be careful what you pray for P Joe.

Might take until next week as it is Friday afternoon, but I will get your information, not a problem at all. I just really didn't think anyone would actually ask for something like that. There are some things obvious enough that they shouldn't have to be answered.

Shall I include the multi-million dollar business costs of vaccinating for Blue-tongue in Western livestock herds as well, as well as the economic costs due to blue-tongue losses?

Badlands

 

[P Joe]

Well, since it was such an issue that everyone brought up, I didn't think it would be soooo hard to answer. I know it's obvious that deer eat grass, but like I'd asked before. Show me where a rancher sold off some of his heard to feed the deer.

Blue tonge, what is the % of sheep farms that vacinate for that in SD. Again since you don't reside here, I bet you can't answer that. Just leave that out. :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

A deer or antelope consumes about the equivalent as a sheep...And the range management folks have the figures that show where 5 sheep eat about the same as 1 cow... So for every 5 deer or antelope that a rancher has grazing his land, means one less cow he can run- which equates this year roughly to somewhere between $600- $700 per head of lost income from a calf....When you have 500-600 antelope/deer on your land this adds up pretty fast.....

I don't think any rancher in the state of SD has that many deer on his land. Antelope, once upon a time maybe they did, but not since 97 when the snow wiped alot of them out. And $600 to $700 for cattle this year is a bust. I think this weeks market, they were under a $1 for 500 pounders. :wink:

P Joe- You better do some rethinking and refiguring...We shipped the partner cattle the last week of October and they sold for $1.16 per pound at 640 lbs which in my book equals $742-- the calves I sold yesterday weighed 674 @ $1.04.50 which comes out to around $704....Even the 550 weights that were contracted early sold for near $700...

And I don't know about SD- but I can take you to some places in eastern Montana where right now you can count 400-500 head of deer grazing on a quarter section of fall/winter grazing land- and they have flown over and counted 4000 head in a 10 mile length ...So thick that if you didn't know it, you'd think they were flocks of sheep...All on prime river bottom fall/winter deeded private land pasture...

Plus I have never heard of ANY rancher ever selling cattle off because their deer population is too high. lol

Most ranchers have to figure in wildlife loss before figuring in their cattle carrying quota... I've always thought that since everyone in the state owns these "kings livestock" that are grazing on this private property- maybe the state should pay the landowner the AUM's equivalent of what "their" (the states) livestock" eat instead of collecting property taxes from it ...At least it would be nothing but fair to deduct the "grazing fee cost" from your taxes- especially since the state (Fish and Game) and local business are the ones doing the profiting off the hunting and hunters....

 

[P Joe]

P Joe- You better do some rethinking and refiguring...We shipped the partner cattle the last week of October and they sold for $1.16 per pound at 640 lbs which in my book equals $742-- the calves I sold yesterday weighed 674 @ $1.04.50 which comes out to around $704....Even the 550 weights that were contracted early sold for near $700...

Well things have changed since then. October was the time to sell cattle. Corn was cheaper then too. Maybe YOU should check the current markets. Corn prices are on the rise, which usally means cattle prices are going down. As of Monday morning, steer cattle were selling for 98 cents at 525 pounds in Fort Pierre and corn was selling for $3.10. That number doesn't add up to $600. Besides it's a mute point, this price can change from year to year. I was just pointing out the fact that the numbers were inflated.

I don't know about SD- but I can take you to some places in eastern Montana where right now you can count 400-500 head of deer grazing on a quarter section of fall/winter grazing land- and they have flown over and counted 4000 head in a 10 mile length ...So thick that if you didn't know it, you'd think they were flocks of sheep...All on prime river bottom fall/winter deeded private land pasture...

I don't care about Montana. That number is unheard of in western SD. Maybe in eastern SD were there are MORE deer and 1 cornfield left in the county, you might see that.
You can't compare Montana's number to SD when they are irelevant.

Most ranchers have to figure in wildlife loss before figuring in their cattle carrying quota... I've always thought that since everyone in the state owns these "kings livestock" that are grazing on this private property- maybe the state should pay the landowner the AUM's equivalent of what "their" (the states) livestock" eat instead of collecting property taxes from it ...At least it would be nothing but fair to deduct the "grazing fee cost" from your taxes- especially since the state (Fish and Game) and local business are the ones doing the profiting off the hunting and hunters

BS. I have never heard of any rancher figuring in Deer grazing on their ranch. Maybe some do, but it is NOT common practice. I don't plant more corn to accomadate for the lost bushels that the deer eat, nor do I get an adjustment to my base for it.

Maybe the state should pay the landowner some cost for grazing. I'm not against that. I think Montana has a progam like that. But I beleive that land is open up to public hunting. SD ranchers wouldn't agree to that. They want to get paid and keep control of the land. I think that if you take money from the public to pay for the wildlife, then the public has the right to hunt for FREE on the land that was paid for with public money. Which takes us back to square one. The tresppassing issue.

But if you want to get into the give and take of things, maybe the landowner should pay the goverment back for the cheap land the he/she or previous family owner bought. After all the homesteaders received for free and $1 acres sales that the ranchers bought, I think they are still ahead of the game.

Half of these ranchers are after the true rights they want.

The other half are hiding behind them to push their own agenda which consist of 3 things.

1. Kick the GF&P off so they have no one to answer too.
2. Get public money for grazing the deer while keeping them off the land.
3. Sell their sponsorships for deer tags to the highest bidder.

One ranch did get busted for doing just that. And I believe they will be in jail for a while.

 

[Anonymous]

Maybe YOU should check the current markets.

I don't know how much more current I can get than day before yesterday (11/16/06) :roll: :wink: :lol: :lol:

And you are correct- it doesn't matter...Whatever the amount- it is still a certain percentage loss of income to the landowner...

 

[Soapweed]

But if you want to get into the give and take of things, maybe the landowner should pay the goverment back for the cheap land the he/she or previous family owner bought. After all the homesteaders received for free and $1 acres sales that the ranchers bought, I think they are still ahead of the game.

There were plenty of early day settlers back in the golden olden days that couldn't "make it" even with "free" homestead land. The western prairie lands are just not productive enough to sustain multitudes of people. The ones that stayed and conquered the land sure didn't have things easy. They paid the "going price" at the time, even if it was "free". Supply and demand ruled that day, as it does today. Life was very hard for the pioneers, and a majority of ones that tried it, gave up and moved back to more civilized society. Sure, inflation has set in for the last hundred and twenty-five years, and land has soared to very high prices. That doesn't mean that the government should charge present land owners the difference in what land is worth now compared to what was paid for it back then.

As far as making a living in the cattle business, it is much better to have relatively high-priced cattle and cheap land. Cheap cattle and high-priced land are a poor combination. Land becomes "too valuable" to make raising cattle profitable. The scenic mountain ranching country is a prime example. The scenery is worth so much to developers, which makes taxes go up, which makes cattle ranching on that land nearly impossible to afford to do.

 

[Badlands]

P Joe:

Forget about it.


I do not have any figures for the exact area of SD that you are inquiring about.


You seem to be the kind of guy that would need proof in your own backyard before you would admit your neighbor had a problem.


Your type of mentality cannot be reasoned with.


Just remember, arguments like yours are absolutely not helping your cause. They might help you get this idea of yours supported, but it will not win you any ranch friends. You may win the battle, but at what cost?


You might see it suported that FWP can enter private lands, but exclude the people that you want to hunt on in the process.


Badlands

 

[Happy go lucky]

oldtimer wrote:Most ranchers have to figure in wildlife loss before figuring in their cattle carrying quota... I've always thought that since everyone in the state owns these "kings livestock" that are grazing on this private property- maybe the state should pay the landowner the AUM's equivalent of what "their" (the states) livestock" eat instead of collecting property taxes from it ...At least it would be nothing but fair to deduct the "grazing fee cost" from your taxes- especially since the state (Fish and Game) and local business are the ones doing the profiting off the hunting and hunters....

All people of small communties benefit from the dollars hunters and other outdoor people bring into them, by keeping lower property taxes and having not to go to alot of "general funds" to help promote and use to keep the wildlife issues in check. Pitt/robertson funds bring millions into many states and that money gets used directly for wildlife, if not for that many states would be forced to use general funds, which means more taxes for all or cut back on wildlife funding. Meaning less revenue from hunters and more taxes. The bottom line is what value people put on wildlife and how that relates state by state.