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

Steve Sibson blasts Tony Dean and SD GF&P

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
4
Location
northwestern South Dakota
Don’t feed the deer

If you do you would be a criminal if the South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks have their way with HB1085:
Among many bills introduced in the South Dakota Legislature is one that would make it illegal to feed big-game animals. Feeding deer, elk, antelope and wild turkeys would carry up to a $500 penalty and 30 days in jail.

The bill says people could not feed grass, hay, grain, fruits, vegetables or commercial livestock feed to big-game animals for the purpose of supplementing their diets or attracting them for viewing.

Customary agricultural practices would be exempt.

Also exempt is the GFP! So we as individuals can’t feed deer without being criminals, but the GFP think they can buy up our land and use it to feed all the deer they want. SB 86 has been offered to require the GFP to get legislative approval for land purchases of over 40 acres. This as sent Tony Dean, South Dakota’s environmental socialists, into orbit:
At a time when access is the biggest problem facing the future of hunting, these lawmakers (?) want to make it more difficult to find a place to hunt.

Especially noteworthy, some of them, including Larry Rhoden, Jim Lintz, and a few others, are highly rated by the National Rifle Association, an organization that seems unwilling to separate gun issues from conservation and access issues important to sportsmen.

I am a member of the NRA and I will fight to preserve the constitutional right to property with the same vigor I do with the right to bear arms. It is socialists like Tony Dean who have little respect for the people having an opportunity to approve of government ownership of our land. He thinks the government can tax us to the depths of poverty, use the taxes to buy our land, and we are to be thankful that they let us hunt on it...for a small fee.

Just don’t feed the deer…whether it is on the government’s land or your own. If you do, you are a low-life criminal!

Wake up South Dakota! This is about freedom. The GFP is out of control.

Support SB 86 and shut down HB1085.

http://sibbyonline.blogs.com/
 

righter

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
54
Reaction score
0
Location
Wherever I go, there I am
"Then they took all the trees and put 'em in a tree museum, and they charged all the people 35 dollars just to see 'em"
Some of those old anthems from the 60s and 70s are coming to mind ...
 

Southdakotahunter

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
496
Reaction score
0
Location
Southeast rural South Dakota
Wow....to tell ya the truth, Mr Dean is right on. If i am not mistaken, the GFP uses money from the sale of licenses to buy land for hunting. What is wrong with that? Do you feel your tax base for that area is now less? I believe it has been shown that they pay the taxes on the land just like you do. Heck....You buy the land then if your worried about it. THe feeding is a pretty smart thing also really. I have seen hundreds of deer around one farm place in the winter...weather they are feeding them or they are taking what they want and landowner dont care, and they can become a hazard to cars and such, it also will do some domesticating of the animal that is not good. Its like the story of "chislic" the deer someone has in their home...its real pretty and all to have it but if it was legal, more would have them and thats not good
 

Southdakotahunter

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
496
Reaction score
0
Location
Southeast rural South Dakota
When was the last time you saw the NRA at our legislature lobbying for conservation? Probably never. For the hunter anyway, if there is no where to hunt or not good quality cover for them, there wont be any animals to hunt but you never hear from them. I am all for guns and such but if the cover is taken away, the only use i would have for my guns is protection which then i might as well sell my rifles since i dont probably wont need to protect myself at 350 yards but i may need it for plinking.....i dont own a handgun but then i might as well sell my long guns and buy one of them. Does that make sense? Sometimes voting for one thing will hurt others...i guess you just have to find the lesser of the 2 evils and go from there.
 

Latest posts

Top