katrina
Well-known member
PJoe wrote:
I'll take that bet!!!
What do you want to wager??
A six pack?
dinner?
I'll take that bet!!!
What do you want to wager??
A six pack?
dinner?
SD westriver lockout- OVER??
- Thread starter Southdakotahunter
- Start date
P Joe
Well-known member
fulton said:
I don't agree. What about the other issues the the west river working group has broght up? None of you, except badlands, have even tried to address those.
fulton said:
He might not but I can. How full has the motel been in Buffalo or Faith or other little town that has one the past 2 weeks? How busy has that steakhouse been the last 2 weeks? How much gas has the local gas station sold the last 2 weeks compared to the 2 prior? I bet, no scratch that, I know the motels have been full. I know the steakhouse has run out of ribeye. Some do bring all their own, but alot more spend the money.
fulton said:
You won't have to dig, you can find them on the cement after a rain. :lol: JK no comment there. But honesly I don't remeber seeing where any one has posted that they have that right.
fulton said:
I agree with what you said, but I am not one of them. I don't agree with what my neighbors are doing and have the same arguments with them over GF&P
fulton said:
I do thank the rancher for letting me hunt when I do go out west, but your idea that the $2500 to $5000 is justified and sustainable is wrong. Some day people will get tired of it and the tables will change.
P Joe
Well-known member
katrina said:
Believe me, I hope I lose but let me see.
How bout, a dinner cooked by your charming self,
A 12 oz ribeye steak, medium, baked potatoe with butter and sourcream, and a salad with blue cheese dressing? Oh and a bv/coke.
I'll do the same for you, but you have to travel out to where the flatlanders roam. :shock:
katrina
Well-known member
You're on!!! I can travel..
fulton
Well-known member
P Joe. Which hotels in buffalo and faith were full? Coming home friday night before opening day i saw more campers than i have ever seen before in the slim buttes, just south of reva. Now, they probably bought gas and they might have stopped at the steakhouse. But that is still one weekend. Most come out one weekend, not two. The local merchants would probably drum up as much business if they have one or two more home sporting activities during the the school year.
Happy go lucky
Well-known member
Happy it just seems to me like you are trying to pick a fight with everybody who doesnt agree with you. Do you even have any interest in ag or are you just entertaining yourself with this. You dont even have enough guts to put where you are from.
Wrong stating facts that is it, if you can proove them as not go for it. My main interest is wildlife and yes I care about farmers and ranchers as well. Where I live does that enter into this discussion? I think you see it as argumentative because I don't take some people's word as gospel. If the facts can't back it up it can't hold water. I would rather discuss things with facts, than a bias created for whatever reason.
Now, your last post you make it sound like the ranchers are against hunting and/or hunters. TOTALLY untrue. The problem is with the GF & P. If they were willing to change their policy, there would be no lockout. Dont turn around this arguement into something its not!!
The lock out in SD is nothing but smoke and mirrors, as you can't factualy proove numbers it is nothing but coffee talk. Some ranchers/farmers are against hunting unless your willing to pay, that is a fact. I just have a hard time listening to those complain about deer numbers and yet won't allow hunting? But I see by the press release many "lockout" people have allowed does to be shot, I wonder why?
How would you know if anyone around here profits from the hunters that come over to this side of the state for ONE weekend. The ones we had in the past pulled a camper out here with all their food and extra fuel. Tell me how our local merchants benefited from that. You cant. You cant because you dont live here.
It doesn't take much to conclude with the number out out of state tags and people as in many other states hunt different areas than their own backyards that it creates revenue. It isn't one small town in itself, it is all the people spending a weekend or two in big numbers that generates the dollars. Are you telling me they all come self sustained and spend nothing?
Me letting you hunt is a privledge and dont forget it. Very few people in NW SD charge a fee to hunt. From my knowledge, most people do charge a fee to hunt in eastern sd. So dont point fingers and say its about the money in this part of the state but it okay to charge east river.
Consider yourself very lucky if a rancher lets you hunt his land. You could be paying 2,500 to 5,000, sometimes even more to hunt deer in a state like wyoming or montana.
I fully understand the privlage to hunt fulton, in fact my family hunted the same farm for 40+ years exclusively, started with my grand father talking to the landowner many years ago, we also had his son spend 2 weeks in our home when he was taking a few college courses in the 80's. We where allowed to setup a trailer on this property. Never was there any thought of paying to hunt or charging them anything for there son to stay with us. WE treated the ground with respect and also treated the landowners in the same manner.
Fee hunting is spreading all over doesn't matter what state a buck to be made people will make it, fee hunting or high land leases for hunting all the same in my book and will ruin hunting for future generations. I consider my self lucky that I can still have a repore with landowners and hunt without paying a fee and my children hopefully will be able to do the same, if it comes down to only way to hunt is to pay or hunt public, I'll hunt public or hang up the weapons as will many, many sportsman, the cost to all tax payers would be higher that is a fact. As I have stated wildlife control will always be needed either by hunters who can do it at no cost to landowners or hired hunters, which some urban areas have and have to pay for.
Wrong stating facts that is it, if you can proove them as not go for it. My main interest is wildlife and yes I care about farmers and ranchers as well. Where I live does that enter into this discussion? I think you see it as argumentative because I don't take some people's word as gospel. If the facts can't back it up it can't hold water. I would rather discuss things with facts, than a bias created for whatever reason.
Now, your last post you make it sound like the ranchers are against hunting and/or hunters. TOTALLY untrue. The problem is with the GF & P. If they were willing to change their policy, there would be no lockout. Dont turn around this arguement into something its not!!
The lock out in SD is nothing but smoke and mirrors, as you can't factualy proove numbers it is nothing but coffee talk. Some ranchers/farmers are against hunting unless your willing to pay, that is a fact. I just have a hard time listening to those complain about deer numbers and yet won't allow hunting? But I see by the press release many "lockout" people have allowed does to be shot, I wonder why?
How would you know if anyone around here profits from the hunters that come over to this side of the state for ONE weekend. The ones we had in the past pulled a camper out here with all their food and extra fuel. Tell me how our local merchants benefited from that. You cant. You cant because you dont live here.
It doesn't take much to conclude with the number out out of state tags and people as in many other states hunt different areas than their own backyards that it creates revenue. It isn't one small town in itself, it is all the people spending a weekend or two in big numbers that generates the dollars. Are you telling me they all come self sustained and spend nothing?
Me letting you hunt is a privledge and dont forget it. Very few people in NW SD charge a fee to hunt. From my knowledge, most people do charge a fee to hunt in eastern sd. So dont point fingers and say its about the money in this part of the state but it okay to charge east river.
Consider yourself very lucky if a rancher lets you hunt his land. You could be paying 2,500 to 5,000, sometimes even more to hunt deer in a state like wyoming or montana.
I fully understand the privlage to hunt fulton, in fact my family hunted the same farm for 40+ years exclusively, started with my grand father talking to the landowner many years ago, we also had his son spend 2 weeks in our home when he was taking a few college courses in the 80's. We where allowed to setup a trailer on this property. Never was there any thought of paying to hunt or charging them anything for there son to stay with us. WE treated the ground with respect and also treated the landowners in the same manner.
Fee hunting is spreading all over doesn't matter what state a buck to be made people will make it, fee hunting or high land leases for hunting all the same in my book and will ruin hunting for future generations. I consider my self lucky that I can still have a repore with landowners and hunt without paying a fee and my children hopefully will be able to do the same, if it comes down to only way to hunt is to pay or hunt public, I'll hunt public or hang up the weapons as will many, many sportsman, the cost to all tax payers would be higher that is a fact. As I have stated wildlife control will always be needed either by hunters who can do it at no cost to landowners or hired hunters, which some urban areas have and have to pay for.
P Joe
Well-known member
katrina said:You're on!!! I can travel..
Are you single or should I plan for the hubby and family??
P Joe
Well-known member
fulton said:
I can't speak for buffalo for sure, but the one in faith is/was booked solid thru the second weekend. At least that is what some were told when trying to make reservations. Plus the hotels rooms are $25 or $30 more during the hunting season and sale season. Your right, most come for 3 or 4 days, but I don't think that a friday night football game drums up that much business. :roll:
katrina
Well-known member
pjoe...... Married with kids........ Where's flat country???
A
Anonymous
Guest
P. Joe and Happy- You talk about losing more land to hunters- and most common local folks not being able to afford fee hunting...You are correct..But their are swarms of out of staters that seem to have money burning holes in their pockets when it comes to hunting.....
What I see happening is that if ranchers don't start getting something back for their game losses and some way of paying for the wildlife they raise, you will see most of the land ending up being fee hunting or no hunting... Anyway thats whats happening around here...
The smaller guys and the old guys retiring are selling out- they sell land that is only worth $300-$500 an acre for ag production to these out of state land speculators/corporate interests/tax loophole attorneys for $1000-$1500 an acre, who then in turn close it to hunting to just them and a few friends or lease out to outfitters....Hundreds of thousands of acres in my country have sold that way...One out of state corporate family alone has bought up $25 million in ranchs in 2 counties...They lease back the grazing to some ranchers and the hunting to one or two outfitters- that you have to go thru and pay for an outfitted hunt to hunt the deeded land.....And you can't blame these landowners for selling out for the most they can get- only it isn't the Ag producer, open hunting folks that can afford to pay those prices.....
My land has always been open to hunting-but back in the days when NCBA was telling Congress how great ranching was doing but everyone was lucky to be making $350 a calf :roll:-- most places were having a tough time keeping them operating, including ours...An attorney out of Whitefish offered me enough to pay all the property taxes if I'd just lease the hunting to him and his friends- just for pheasant hunting...About that time Block Management got more money and offered about half what the attorney did- but it left the land open to everyone to hunt and left me still in control of who accessed it, so I went with them...Not the financially smart decision by me maybe- but I slept better knowing that I was still promoting the hunting heritage and helping my local town neighbors still be able to hunt....
But in this time and era when the Corporate world is pressing farmers or ranchers to become more efficient or fall by the wayside one of the inefficiencies they've had to look at is wildlife- and find ways to turn them into a positive benefit...I think this is an issue that all the states will have to deal with....
What I see happening is that if ranchers don't start getting something back for their game losses and some way of paying for the wildlife they raise, you will see most of the land ending up being fee hunting or no hunting... Anyway thats whats happening around here...
The smaller guys and the old guys retiring are selling out- they sell land that is only worth $300-$500 an acre for ag production to these out of state land speculators/corporate interests/tax loophole attorneys for $1000-$1500 an acre, who then in turn close it to hunting to just them and a few friends or lease out to outfitters....Hundreds of thousands of acres in my country have sold that way...One out of state corporate family alone has bought up $25 million in ranchs in 2 counties...They lease back the grazing to some ranchers and the hunting to one or two outfitters- that you have to go thru and pay for an outfitted hunt to hunt the deeded land.....And you can't blame these landowners for selling out for the most they can get- only it isn't the Ag producer, open hunting folks that can afford to pay those prices.....
My land has always been open to hunting-but back in the days when NCBA was telling Congress how great ranching was doing but everyone was lucky to be making $350 a calf :roll:-- most places were having a tough time keeping them operating, including ours...An attorney out of Whitefish offered me enough to pay all the property taxes if I'd just lease the hunting to him and his friends- just for pheasant hunting...About that time Block Management got more money and offered about half what the attorney did- but it left the land open to everyone to hunt and left me still in control of who accessed it, so I went with them...Not the financially smart decision by me maybe- but I slept better knowing that I was still promoting the hunting heritage and helping my local town neighbors still be able to hunt....
But in this time and era when the Corporate world is pressing farmers or ranchers to become more efficient or fall by the wayside one of the inefficiencies they've had to look at is wildlife- and find ways to turn them into a positive benefit...I think this is an issue that all the states will have to deal with....
P Joe
Well-known member
katrina said:
oh I suppose it would be south of Redfield, north of Mitchell, east of the river. Somewhere in those areas
P Joe
Well-known member
Oldtimer, what you say does have a ring of truth to it. That is what I fear happening. And with this lockout staying the way it is, it is only helping to push deer hunting in that direction. At least with pheasant hunting, you can still shoot a pheasant off the road. for the moment. People are trying to change that too.
I wouldn't mind giving the rancher something for the trouble. Something like $50, $100. Someone said they wanted paid per hour what I make. Well thats about what I make in a day. I think that would be a fair price. Out state does have programs like you have said, but they refuse to participate because it would allow GF&P on their property. It's the $1500 or more that is unjustified. People will get tired of paying it, and then all you will have left for hunters is the people who don't care about the rancher. JB has complained about slob hunters. That is the kind of people that will be the only ones left that can afford to hunt. That is why I wish the ranchers that are not willing to talk, would start talking and work out this problem before that does happen. Because they will be the ones who will have to face a much worse problem later on.
I wouldn't mind giving the rancher something for the trouble. Something like $50, $100. Someone said they wanted paid per hour what I make. Well thats about what I make in a day. I think that would be a fair price. Out state does have programs like you have said, but they refuse to participate because it would allow GF&P on their property. It's the $1500 or more that is unjustified. People will get tired of paying it, and then all you will have left for hunters is the people who don't care about the rancher. JB has complained about slob hunters. That is the kind of people that will be the only ones left that can afford to hunt. That is why I wish the ranchers that are not willing to talk, would start talking and work out this problem before that does happen. Because they will be the ones who will have to face a much worse problem later on.
katrina
Well-known member
pjoe....... Do you know Swensons?? That is flat country....
Oh ya we can eat alot too!!! I know Lb will come through for me....
Oh ya we can eat alot too!!!
I know Lb will come through for me....P Joe
Well-known member
katrina said:pjoe....... Do you know Swensons?? That is flat country....
Oh ya we can eat alot too!!!
I know who they are. They got real big into mud racing around these parts.
I only kept one steer back this year, so that will have to hold you. Otherwise I will have steal a pig from one of the neighbors. :shock:
I hope LB can get that last bill that was shot down passed. I didn't see anything wrong with it and don't understand why there was so many against it.
Happy go lucky
Well-known member
Oldtimer I agree but what others can do is not charge for hunting and not follow suit and lessen the impact it has on sportsman the dads and kids who enjoy hunting.
Land prices are going out of control, in Iowa for example most good farm ground is around 1800.00- 2200.00 per acre, and rising every year, with the ethonol boom it is sure to keep rising along with Illinois, SW Wis and other corn belt areas.
My uncle was a dairy farmer for 30+ years and many years if he had to rely on milk prices he would have been broke, he had a good head on his shoulders milked 60-70 head and then was a brick layer durring the in between hours and made 20.00+ per hour. All his grain went for feed to the cows and hogs. He was never at the mercy of the grain market for feed. Another uncle had beef and hogs and also sold many tons of alfalfa each summer, most years getting 3 cuttings and putting up 4,500-5,000 square bales for himself, long before round bales caught on.
He also leased out his combine to the neighbors and it was cost effective for them all that way, every 3 years he could buy a new combine. Never ever thought about charging people to hunt there grounds. This is some of the best white tail deer country in the nation to boot. Many B&C bucks come from these areas each and every year. My cousin in 1985 shot a 23 point non typical off of this ground 2 drop tines that where over 14" in length and alot of mass. Deer drives where the things to do with 15-20 guys all walking the timber and hitting the brush pockets and having blockers at the end, it was a good time for friends and family to get together and enjoy seeing everyone.
I just can't fathom the idea of making hunting a business proposition, to me it cheapens the whole deal and what does it teach our young people.
Land prices are going out of control, in Iowa for example most good farm ground is around 1800.00- 2200.00 per acre, and rising every year, with the ethonol boom it is sure to keep rising along with Illinois, SW Wis and other corn belt areas.
My uncle was a dairy farmer for 30+ years and many years if he had to rely on milk prices he would have been broke, he had a good head on his shoulders milked 60-70 head and then was a brick layer durring the in between hours and made 20.00+ per hour. All his grain went for feed to the cows and hogs. He was never at the mercy of the grain market for feed. Another uncle had beef and hogs and also sold many tons of alfalfa each summer, most years getting 3 cuttings and putting up 4,500-5,000 square bales for himself, long before round bales caught on.
He also leased out his combine to the neighbors and it was cost effective for them all that way, every 3 years he could buy a new combine. Never ever thought about charging people to hunt there grounds. This is some of the best white tail deer country in the nation to boot. Many B&C bucks come from these areas each and every year. My cousin in 1985 shot a 23 point non typical off of this ground 2 drop tines that where over 14" in length and alot of mass. Deer drives where the things to do with 15-20 guys all walking the timber and hitting the brush pockets and having blockers at the end, it was a good time for friends and family to get together and enjoy seeing everyone.
I just can't fathom the idea of making hunting a business proposition, to me it cheapens the whole deal and what does it teach our young people.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Happy go lucky said:
I pretty much agree-- but there are getting fewer and fewer of the oldtimers left...And it seems to be the business teaching of today that the almighty dollar is most important and to grab every dollar available any which way available....I think it is the first thing being taught in business classes anymore.....
Anyway I think each of the states that haven't, will need to quickly address the issue or their will be little deeded land open to public hunting....Most of the areas around me, that I hunted on for years, are all now closed- having been leased out to outfitters that each bring in 5-10 hunts a year.....
fulton
Well-known member
Happy I hope you never have to pay for anything that you enjoy doing. That would really be a shame.
P Joe
Well-known member
fulton said:
Not trying to start anything, but I am just curious and this is the only reason I ask.
What do you think would be a fair price for a deer hunt? Anything, any number, even a trade on labor if you think that's fair. Let me know.
SJ
Well-known member
This thread all comes down to GF&P asking permission to enter to check hunters if they cannot see someone in the commission of a crime. I believe I have the right to know who is on my property and don't believe the Open fields doctrine gives them the right to assume I am conducting illegal activity (if they have no probable cause or reasonable suspicion) or that the hunter is hunting illegally just because they hear a shot or see him walking with a gun. What ever happened to respect, common courtesy? I wouldn't enter someone's property or home with out asking!!
Again I will say the open field doctrine is not law it is not statute. Also the cases involving the open field doctrine had loads of probable cause and reasonable suspicion before law enforcement entered and the people under suspicion were conducting illegal activities on the face and it was harmful to the public as a whole.
I believe that the law belongs to all. In the same token if one wants to put a sign on his gate post or yard post or front door stating " enter one enter all no permission needed" that is their right.
As far as property owner's charging or not charging to hunt that is their right. Happy believes it is sad that property owners charge for hunting and property owners not allowing hunting and that hunting should be free, but property owners have always had the choice to charge or not and it is not criminal. Some say the wildlife belongs to all and they are right, but the property does not belong to all. I also wish all my pastimes or recreations were free but they are not. Hunting is not free GF&P charges for hunting. The hunter has a choice to pay for hunting or not, there is land to hunt free and if he chooses to hunt private property that charges that is his choice no one is forcing him. GF&P charges for hunting with very little overhead as far as the continued existence of the wildlife ( food). As they continue to get more land they will charge more for the license. Yet no one seems to mind. Yesterday a man stopped me and we talked about the wildlife in his area and how out of control it was he said that he used to get a second cutting of alfalfa now he calls "the deer his second cutting". His only choice is to charge for hunting to cut his loses. Is that wrong?
Pjoe-- keeps mentioning the landowner sponsored licenses. It was brought up at the west river working group and was talked about in length but to my knowledge talk is as far as it has gone. In fact I don't believe you have a thing to worry about although I don't think it would be as bad as you might think. GF&P just talks to keep one side feeling one way and the other feeling the other way with no intention of doing anything to solve the problems. GF&P needs the hunter to write their paychecks and as long as hunters are willing to buy the licenses without a guarantee of a place to hunt and GF&P can convince the hunters that the landowner is the bad person the problem will not be solved. It's kind of like the old saying; "as long as it works why fix it." Or in other words as long as the hunter is willing to buy the amount of licenses it takes to pay GF&P, without anywhere to hunt, why change it.
Frederick Bastiat wrote this over a hundred years ago.
"The claims of these organizers of humanity raise another question which I have often asked them and which, so far as I know, they have never answered; If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to it inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority."
I personally don't believe that all of mankind is incompetent and all the organizers are infallible.
I think it was Happy that questioned my statement about the illegal strip searches in Chicago. I am not an internet surfer and have always preferred the hard copy. It has taken me a while to find my source. I was wrong about the years that this came to light it was in the late 70's. Some of the Chicago Police were targeting women driving alone, they would follow them until they made some traffic violation and then stop them, if they were unable to make bond they were subject to a strip search. It was a doctor who was stopped and strip searched for a traffic violation. She took it to court and got it stopped. She was awarded 112,000 by the Chicago police in 1978. It was the largest of 11 verdicts that arose from a 1979 class action against the city, with 25 more cases still to be tried. Had the statue of limitations, and those who chose not to sue and those without the funds to sue not been factors they figured it would have broke the city of Chicago. They estimated that 500,000 women were strip searched between 1952 and 1979. Like I have said before, "if you don't know your rights you have none." She knew her rights but it still took a court case to stop the strip search. My sources were newspaper articles USA today and maybe the Springfield news leader or something like that. The name of one of the articles was "Strip Search award the largest yet; 25 more cases" I can't remember the other one.
Again I will say the open field doctrine is not law it is not statute. Also the cases involving the open field doctrine had loads of probable cause and reasonable suspicion before law enforcement entered and the people under suspicion were conducting illegal activities on the face and it was harmful to the public as a whole.
I believe that the law belongs to all. In the same token if one wants to put a sign on his gate post or yard post or front door stating " enter one enter all no permission needed" that is their right.
As far as property owner's charging or not charging to hunt that is their right. Happy believes it is sad that property owners charge for hunting and property owners not allowing hunting and that hunting should be free, but property owners have always had the choice to charge or not and it is not criminal. Some say the wildlife belongs to all and they are right, but the property does not belong to all. I also wish all my pastimes or recreations were free but they are not. Hunting is not free GF&P charges for hunting. The hunter has a choice to pay for hunting or not, there is land to hunt free and if he chooses to hunt private property that charges that is his choice no one is forcing him. GF&P charges for hunting with very little overhead as far as the continued existence of the wildlife ( food). As they continue to get more land they will charge more for the license. Yet no one seems to mind. Yesterday a man stopped me and we talked about the wildlife in his area and how out of control it was he said that he used to get a second cutting of alfalfa now he calls "the deer his second cutting". His only choice is to charge for hunting to cut his loses. Is that wrong?
Pjoe-- keeps mentioning the landowner sponsored licenses. It was brought up at the west river working group and was talked about in length but to my knowledge talk is as far as it has gone. In fact I don't believe you have a thing to worry about although I don't think it would be as bad as you might think. GF&P just talks to keep one side feeling one way and the other feeling the other way with no intention of doing anything to solve the problems. GF&P needs the hunter to write their paychecks and as long as hunters are willing to buy the licenses without a guarantee of a place to hunt and GF&P can convince the hunters that the landowner is the bad person the problem will not be solved. It's kind of like the old saying; "as long as it works why fix it." Or in other words as long as the hunter is willing to buy the amount of licenses it takes to pay GF&P, without anywhere to hunt, why change it.
Frederick Bastiat wrote this over a hundred years ago.
"The claims of these organizers of humanity raise another question which I have often asked them and which, so far as I know, they have never answered; If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to it inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority."
I personally don't believe that all of mankind is incompetent and all the organizers are infallible.
I think it was Happy that questioned my statement about the illegal strip searches in Chicago. I am not an internet surfer and have always preferred the hard copy. It has taken me a while to find my source. I was wrong about the years that this came to light it was in the late 70's. Some of the Chicago Police were targeting women driving alone, they would follow them until they made some traffic violation and then stop them, if they were unable to make bond they were subject to a strip search. It was a doctor who was stopped and strip searched for a traffic violation. She took it to court and got it stopped. She was awarded 112,000 by the Chicago police in 1978. It was the largest of 11 verdicts that arose from a 1979 class action against the city, with 25 more cases still to be tried. Had the statue of limitations, and those who chose not to sue and those without the funds to sue not been factors they figured it would have broke the city of Chicago. They estimated that 500,000 women were strip searched between 1952 and 1979. Like I have said before, "if you don't know your rights you have none." She knew her rights but it still took a court case to stop the strip search. My sources were newspaper articles USA today and maybe the Springfield news leader or something like that. The name of one of the articles was "Strip Search award the largest yet; 25 more cases" I can't remember the other one.
Jinglebob
Well-known member
SJ said:
Very good SJ.
Tho' I kind of think you are talking to a wall here, so to speak. :wink: