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

The Harding County Alias has returned

Help Support Ranchers.net:

LB..."Any aerial hunting done without the permission of the landowner and without an aerial hunting permit IS a violation of the federal airborne hunting act. Period."

JW--Oh OK. Then he DID violate federal law. At least we are now clear on that.

SJ— Yes, They found him guilty on one count, it was just one mans word against another as far as whether permission was given or not. It used to be that a mans word was all you needed and that is what JJ thought he had as far as permission. When a man's word isn't worth much, you need prima facie evidence to prove it, which is a signed permission slip.

JW---Liberty, come on now! Considering the above and the fact that Mr. Cooper himself wrote a letter to the judge on JJ's behalf, and as SH explained, your pilots are permitted to operate with far more freedom that all the other private pilots in your state..........well, as I said before, it appears to me that your game dept is bending over backwards to appease the folks in your area.

SJ—This didn't just come about out of the goodness of his heart. Yes we are in a pilot program, which does give our pilot more freedom. The reason we are in this is because we have a trapper who refuses to work with certain pilots. JJ being the main one to fly or that people want and the trapper's refusal to take his calls and giving approval, it was only a matter of time until something was going to go down. Although when the trapper took the oath and put his hand on the Bible he admitted that JJ had been calling him, he had always denied that before.

JW--Answer me this...is there another area in the state where a rancher can call a private pilot directly and that pilot can hunt, completely bypassing the local trapper and game dept?

SJ—No as I said we are in a pilot program, because of the trapper's refusal to answer calls and the people also were having a hard time getting a hold of the trapper and preferred to call JJ.

Jw--Can you explain to me why your pilots are treated special? Why should your pilots not have to follow the same procedures that are required for contract pilots in the rest of the state?

SJ—They aren't necessarily special we just don't have a trapper willing to work with him. I don't know, but I don't think the contract pilots have ever had to get permission, they follow the permission slip of the trapper or a least the state plane does. Permitted pilots have to get their own written permission or as before verbal permission before flying.

JW--If your group wants to fight about the open fields and other issues fine, you probably have some valid issues. But in regards to the killing of predators and your aerial hunting program.......it sure looks like you have very little to gripe about. Indeed it appears that your area is receiving some very special treatment from the state.

SJ---The open fields is our issue and we do feel property rights are being violated.

The only reason the permitted pilot is receiving special treatment is because the trapper refuses to do what he is told. This is not a new gripe it has been going on for years and two years ago the trappers refusal to do what he was told, was brought up by one of his own. The permitted pilot in this area, does not receives any funds from GF&P----the predator district pays him. The contracted pilot is paid by GF&P.

JW---As for the permission slips, it seems very simple to me that if your pilots can operate without being requested and/or "supervised" by the GFP employee in the area, then there must be some sort of control in place to insure that he has the necessary permission before he hunts.

SJ –- I don't think anyone minds that he has permission slips or that they have to be in Pierre before he can fly. Its just that if you haven't signed a permission slip and you have a complaint he isn't able to take care of your problem until Pierre says they have it. In other words a man's word is a thing of the past.

I guess I could ask you the same question: If a trapper can trap without a permission slip being in place who looks over him or who's control is he under?

I hope I have answered all of your questions.

Lies and truths are only perceptions. I believe what I say to be true. SH believes what he says to be true. Facts are determined by evidence. We can all throw out facts but it will be those that can back them with circumstantial and hard evidence that will matter at all. I will also say again as I did in my last post "I don't like liars, deceivers and witch hunters". In the same token I don't believe that anyone that disagrees with me is all of the above. When I have to resort to name calling to make a point or a statement, I will quit.
 
SJ: "I will also say again as I did in my last post "I don't like liars, deceivers and witch hunters". In the same token I don't believe that anyone that disagrees with me is all of the above. When I have to resort to name calling to make a point or a statement, I will quit."

What's worse lying or pointing out the lie?

I have never mentioned the word "lie" without pointing out the exact lie I am referencing and I have yet to be corrected.

The truth of the JJ situation was settled in a court of law where facts and evidence are sorted out.

As far as RY's refusal to work with JJ, "once bitten twice shy".

I know what it's like to work with a pilot that's sole goal is to make someone else look bad. A landowner had coyote problems with calves. He called a private pilot and he called me. The private pilot went out and hunted the area without calling me. I had numerous complaints at the time and went to this particular complaint. I was walking out to an area to call coyotes and started finding dead coyotes. Because of this pilot's arrogant, "I don't have to call anyone" attitude, I wasted an entire day on this person's ranch while I could have been helping someone else because it had already been hunted. From that day forward I had absolutely nothing to do with this pilot and couldn't care less whether he lost his plane due to a violation of the Federal Airborne Hunting Act. I can relate to a trapper not wanting to work with certain pilots particularly if they rape predator district funds by flying during prime fur season instead of after Feb. 1 when it would actually do some good. The exception would be an actual killing complaint prior to that time period.

I find it very interesting that any area would rely solely on expensive aerial hunting to address predator problems when I can work any area from the ground and pick up adult coyotes that will never be shot from a plane.


~SH~
 
SH--I know what it's like to work with a pilot that's sole goal is to make someone else look bad.

SJ--This statement is your perception; I don't think that a permitted pilots are out there to make some one look bad. Furthermore I didn't think this was a competition.

SH-- A landowner had coyote problems with calves. He called a private pilot and he called me. The private pilot went out and hunted the area without calling me. I had numerous complaints at the time and went to this particular complaint. I was walking out to an area to call coyotes and started finding dead coyotes.


SJ---In an earlier post you made this statement: "Considering the number of adult coyotes I have personally shot behind airplanes I know there is two sides to most "super pilot" stories. I can assure you that I could follow JJ around and mop up coyotes he missed."


SH- Because of this pilot's arrogant, "I don't have to call anyone" attitude, I wasted an entire day on this person's ranch while I could have been helping someone else because it had already been hunted.

SJ- The last statement you make on this post contradicts what you are saying: SH's statement---"I find it very interesting that any area would rely solely on expensive aerial hunting to address predator problems when I can work any area from the ground and pick up adult coyotes that will never be shot from a plane."


SH- From that day forward I had absolutely nothing to do with this pilot and couldn't care less whether he lost his plane due to a violation of the Federal Airborne Hunting Act.

SJ—First off lets make it clear, whether a permitted pilots does or does not call the trapper is no violation of the Airborne Hunting Act. The permitted pilots were required, by a GF&P rule, to get permission from the trapper.

SH-- I can relate to a trapper not wanting to work with certain pilots particularly if they rape predator district funds by flying during prime fur season instead of after Feb. 1 when it would actually do some good. The exception would be an actual killing complaint prior to that time period.

SJ—To say or to infer that the permitted pilot is hunting for the fur is a stretch; I personally would find it hard to believe that they are going to chance wrecking a 40 or 50 thousand dollar plane to pick up a 10-dollar fur. I think the exception you talk of is more accurate as to why they are flying at that time of the year. If I were in your position (with nothing to loose) for my mistakes , I would still care about the guy loosing his plane.

SH--I find it very interesting that any area would rely solely on expensive aerial hunting to address predator problems when I can work any area from the ground and pick up adult coyotes that will never be shot from a plane.

SJ—He is effective as you are and the two of you together could be twice as effective if there were no jealously factor.
 
I think the most important point has been lost which is controling livestock losses.
 
SJ: "I think the most important point has been lost which is controlling livestock losses."

SJ, you hit the nail on the head with this statement. The friction between the private predator control pilots and GF&P boils down to simple jealousy.

The trappers are made to look bad when the pilots kill more coyotes than they do and their pride gets hurt. In return, they attempt to revenge this perceived slight to their "honor" by trying to get rid of the pilots or at the very least, refusing to work together with them.

Meanwhile, the livestock producers, who are paying the salaries of both, suffer from this juvenile behavior.

The government trapper posting on here claims to be an authority on events that he has NO knowledge of and he twists the truth and manipulates facts to suit his skewed point of view.

Now, I may be getting old and grouchy, but I have no patience with folks who prevaricate and then accuse others of lying when the facts presented don't match what they want the truth to be. That most erudite of politicians, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once noted, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts."

SH is entitled to his opinion, but until he sticks to the real, unvarnished facts we have nothing more to discuss. Frankly, I'm very disappointed in him.

The only issue that interests me is the Open Fields Doctine and GF&P's insistence that they are allowed to trespass at will on MY private property, violating my fourth amendment rights as set forth in the US Constitution.

The fight between the trappers and pilots, which, incidentally, involves only a very few of each, is a side issue that has been thrown up to obscure the real constitutional issue of property rights.

Now please excuse me while I climb down from my soapbox and get back to the lambing shed.
 
Neither of you got the point AGAIN!

If some private pilot is too lazy or too arrogant to call the trapper and let them know that he has taken care of a complaint, A PERFECT DAY OF AERIAL HUNTING OR CALLING IS WASTED on a complaint that has already been taken care of.

That is what I meant by making a trapper look bad (inefficient).

How the heck would either of you feel if you were losing lambs or calves and the weather had been unpredictable for calling or aerial hunting for the last week. A perfect aerial hunting day finally comes and you find out later that I didn't show up at your complaint because I was working a complaint THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN WORKED??? I didn't know it had already been worked because the damn pilot was too arrogant or too lazy to call.

GARSH, WHY WOULDN'T I WANT TO WORK WITH THAT GUY??????

If you can't figure out that my concern is with efficiency and not "jealousy", then your GF&P "witch hunt" is more important to you than minimizing "livestock losses".

This isn't about jeolousy! You will not find anyone more confident in their ability to kill coyotes than I am. THIS IS ABOUT EFFICIENCY (ie REDUCING LIVESTOCK LOSSES for the most producers in a narrow window of opportunity).

Typical of your conspiring minds, you spin this into a jealousy factor and nothing could be farther from the truth.

WRONG AGAIN!!!


SJ: "I don't think that a permitted pilots are out there to make some one look bad. Furthermore I didn't think this was a competition."

The perception of "competition" is yours, not mine. There is only one reason not to call and let the trapper know where aerial hunting is being conducted and that's a blatant disregard for program efficiency and a blatant disregard for the law. I will not work with a pilot like that.


SJ: "In an earlier post you made this statement: "Considering the number of adult coyotes I have personally shot behind airplanes I know there is two sides to most "super pilot" stories. I can assure you that I could follow JJ around and mop up coyotes he missed."

There is no contradiction here. In the case I referenced it was table top flat country adjacent to inaccessible ground. It was also a calf complaint which did not necessitate the same level of population control that a sheep complaint requires.

I never said I had to mop up behind a private pilot in every case. Let me make it very plain for you. In "MANY SITUATIONS" in sheep country surrounded by ACCESIBLE rough ground, I could pick up adult coyotes behind an airplane JUST AS A PILOT COULD FIND COYOTES BEHIND ME. Optimizing program efficiency requires all methods and it requires a knowledge of which methods work best in which situations.


SJ: "The last statement you make on this post contradicts what you are saying: SH's statement---"I find it very interesting that any area would rely solely on expensive aerial hunting to address predator problems when I can work any area from the ground and pick up adult coyotes that will never be shot from a plane."

There is no contradiction. I never said IN ALL CASES did I??? I never said that aerial hunting will not address "MANY" complaints did I?

In "MANY" cases solely relying on aerial hunting is not only very expensive, it's also not as efficient as using all methods available. That is a fact!


SJ: "First off lets make it clear, whether a permitted pilots does or does not call the trapper is no violation of the Airborne Hunting Act. The permitted pilots were required, by a GF&P rule, to get permission from the trapper."

First lets make it clear, the Federal Airborne Hunting Act requires private pilots to be held accountable to the regulatory agency for each state. In this state the private pilots are held accountable to GF&P. It's not a "rule", it's state law.

From an efficiency standpoint, WHY WOULD YOU NOT SUPPORT THAT????

Do you like the idea of having us work one complaint twice while another complaint is waiting in line??? How efficient is that????


SJ: "To say or to infer that the permitted pilot is hunting for the fur is a stretch;..."

I never said prime fur was their motive for flying at that time of year DID I?????

Another statement taken out of context, IMAGINE THAT?????

I said "....IF they rape PREDATOR DISTRICT FUNDS by flying DURING PRIME FUR SEASON instead of after Feb. 1 when it would actually do some good. The exception would be an actual killing complaint prior to that time period."

Read it until you understand it.


SJ: "If I were in your position (with nothing to loose) for my mistakes , I would still care about the guy loosing his plane."

If a renegade pilot is willing to risk losing his plane because he's too lazy or too arrogant to abide by state and federal laws, he can reap what he sows. NOT MY PROBLEM! There is plenty of private pilots who are willing to conduct legal aerial hunting to waste time working with a renegade. Now before that statement is taken out of context, I am referring to the private pilot that I had problems with.


LB: "The friction between the private predator control pilots and GF&P boils down to simple jealousy."

WRONG! It boils down to simple "EFFICIENCY" and "LEGALITIES".


LB: "The trappers are made to look bad when the pilots kill more coyotes than they do and their pride gets hurt. In return, they attempt to revenge this perceived slight to their "honor" by trying to get rid of the pilots or at the very least, refusing to work together with them."

Nothing could be further from the truth in my situation. I have worked extremely well with our state plane and private pilots.


LB: "Meanwhile, the livestock producers, who are paying the salaries of both, suffer from this juvenile behavior."

That's right, the livestock producers suffer the consequences of a private pilot that is too arrogant or too lazy to call the trapper TO ALLOW BOTH TO BE MORE EFFICIENT in minimizing livestock losses.

That's the damn truth on this issue.


LB: "The government trapper posting on here claims to be an authority on events that he has NO knowledge of and he twists the truth and manipulates facts to suit his skewed point of view."

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

As always, those who cannot debate, discredit! Same-O, Same-O!


LB: "Now, I may be getting old and grouchy, but I have no patience with folks who prevaricate and then accuse others of lying when the facts presented don't match what they want the truth to be."

LB: "SH is entitled to his opinion, but until he sticks to the real, unvarnished facts we have nothing more to discuss. Frankly, I'm very disappointed in him."

I suppose you would be disappointed in anyone who doesn't dance to your music.

Talk is cheap LB! I stand UNCORRECTED at this point.

Anyone can read back through these threads and see who has been corrected numerous times and who has stood by their original words even though they have been taken "out of context" WHICH WAS POINTED OUT WHEN IT OCCURRED.

The only way you will have anything on me to support your GF&P witch hunt is to take my statements out of context. You will not accomplish it in any other manner.


~SH~
 
Liberty Bell Iam quite sure that The Game, Fish and Parks Commission establishs the criteria and eligibility of the permitted pilot and conditions and reports required of the permitted pilot with rules. I just don't think there is a State Law out there that says permitted pilots have to answer to GF&P or they will be in violation of the Airborne Hunting Act. There might be a statue that give them the right or authority but it is a rule of GF&P enforced as law.

See what you can find. Other states get along fine without it.
 
If there is such a state law, I sure haven't heard about it.

The Airborne Hunting Act requires the state to make a report every three months on the number and type of animals taken by the permitted pilots.

It further states: Each state that issues permits must file with the Secretary of Interior an annual report listing permit holders, animals authorized to be taken, the animals actually taken and the reason for issuing the permits.

The Airborne Hunting Act says nothing about permitted pilots being required to take orders from the state GF&P. Thank God!

I attended the Cracker Barrel session last night and our state senator told us something pretty scary when he was asked about the road hunting bill. He said that some of the hunting groups are talking about pushing a bill through the legislature that would allow hunters to hunt on private land without either the knowledge or the permission of the landowner. And he thinks that with the population shift to east river, they have a good chance of getting something like that passed in the not-too-distant future. You'd think a law like that would even be enough to scare a landowner who works for GF&P.

I don't know which hunting groups he was talking about, but I'll bet Chris Hesla, Jeff Olson and Tony Dean are involved in this movement. These three should scare anybody concerned with property rights. I know they scare the living daylights out of me!
 
As expected, both of you are so biased in your GF&P hatred that neither of you would address the efficiency issue of trapper/pilot correspondence increasing predator conrol efficiency for both parties.

You would rather blame GF&P for making private pilots contact them before flying than reduce livestock losses by allowing both to be more efficient through communication.

Imagine that!


~SH~
 
SJ,
Did you see this from this morning's Rapid City Journal? Jeff Olson is the guy who will be replacing Ken Barker as GF&P Commissioner. Cooper sure knows how to pick commissioners who will dance to his tune, doesn't he? And we thought Barker made a poor commissioner!

GF&P commissioner steps down from the hot seat
By Kevin Woster, Journal Staff Writer

BELLE FOURCHE — When Ken Barker learned eight years ago that he had been appointed to the state Game, Fish & Parks Commission, he set out to learn about the thorny issues ahead.

One of his first stops was New Underwood, where ranchers angry at the Game, Fish & Parks Department had gathered to discuss closing their land to hunting in protest.

"It was before I'd even been to my first commission meeting. I just went down there to learn something about the issues," Barker said Thursday. "Somebody there recognized that I was soon to join the commission, and they booed me. I thought, 'Wow, welcome to the hot seat.'"

Things have been sizzling ever since for Barker, a 47-year-old Belle Fourche lawyer who will officially retire from the GF&P Commission when it meets Thursday in Custer State Park.

Barker has been chairman of the controversial commission for the past year and a half. During that time, he has pushed for construction of an outdoor learning center near Cleghorn Springs Fish Hatchery, an idea that angered dog lovers who feared they would lose a place to take their pets.

Barker also has supported a limited lion-hunting season, pushed a plan to put $6.5 million into hatchery improvements, sparred with a private concession operator over leases at state-owned resorts at Custer State Park and defended GF&P Secretary John Cooper against public attacks.

And that landowner protest that was in the works when Barker first came to the commission eight years ago? It's bigger and angrier than ever, now having locked hunters out of several million acres of land.

Simmering discontent with GF&P in ranch country has found its most recent focus in a state policy that allows conservation officers to enter private land without permission to enforce wildlife laws. The agency bases that policy on an "open-fields doctrine," a collection of laws and legal decisions affirmed by South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long.

Landowners involved in the land lockout consider the open-fields doctrine a grave diminishment of private-property rights. And they accuse GF&P of rigid enforcement policies that deny those rights. Despite lively legislative discussions, a series of public meetings last year by a special West River task force and the formation of a panel to handle landowner complaints, the protest goes on.

"It's ironic. That was my first experience with GF&P, and it's my last," Barker said. "After eight years, my impression is that there will always be people who are dissatisfied with the Game, Fish & Parks. We should listen to those folks. And to the extent that we can perform better, we should."

But Barker also believes in the open-fields doctrine and in the way it is used by GF&P officers.

"I think it would be a sad day that we not allow conservation officers to enforce the laws of the people of South Dakota," he said. "I think history has shown that they have done that in a very professional and effective way."

Not everyone agrees. State Rep. Gordon Howie, R-Rapid City, a rancher and businessman, said landowners should be upset with the open-fields policy. GF&P Secretary Cooper and Cooper's boss, Gov. Mike Rounds and the commission diminish constitutionally protected property rights by maintaining that policy, Howie said.

"I think it's interesting that they encourage hunters to ask permission to enter private land, but they don't feel they should ask permission," he said. "Game, Fish & Parks and the governor are largely ignoring what the landowners are screaming. And that is, 'We have property rights, and they're being violated.'"

Barker hopes that a panel created specifically to handle such complaints will help improve relations with GF&P. But he doubts it will solve the problem.

"Do I think there will continue to be a problem? Yes," he said. "But I think we can enforce the laws and still respect and recognize private-property rights."

Barker said he was proud to defend Cooper when some landowners and legislators called for his resignation.

"I'd like to think I stood up with John on some issues. I think John Cooper has done a tremendous job," Barker said. "When we lose him, it's going to be a tremendous loss for our state."

Barker said some lawmakers used the attacks on GF&P in general and Cooper in particular to make points with voters.

"It made good political fodder for them. It helped them to get re-elected," he said. "We should recognize that for what it was."

State Sen. Bill Napoli, R-Rapid City, who had called for Cooper's resignation, said Barker's defense of Cooper and GF&P were predictable. The commission might have the authority to direct GF&P operations, but it answers to Cooper more than the other way around, Napoli said.

"I believe that Ken Barker and many other members of the commission are nothing more than stoolies for Cooper," he said. "Barker can take all the shots he wants at me or any other politician, but I've never hung my hat on getting elected by sportsmen or anyone else. All I've tried to do was say what's absolutely true."

Barker said Cooper never controlled him or the commission. But dealing with that sort of criticism is part of a commissioner's job, he said. As someone who grew up on a ranch near Edgemont and developed a successful law partnership in Belle Fourche and Rapid City, Barker brought a blend of rural and urban experience to the commission.

Certain policy issues, including the purchase of a ranch near Hot Springs for a state game production area, brought Barker into conflict with acquaintances, friends and even clients, he said.

"To their credit, almost all of them were able to respect that difference of opinion and not take it personally," he said. "Some of them — well, you know."

Custer State Park concessions operator Phil Lampert said his dispute with Barker about negotiations last year on state leases at the park's four resorts never turned personal.

"We had differences of opinion. He's a tough guy to negotiate with, but he was definitely fighting for what he believed in," Lampert said. "I have nothing but admiration and respect for him. He's a brilliant man. I've often thought that if I needed to go to trial for anything, I'd want him on my side."

Lampert, who still hasn't settled the lease issue with the commission, won't face negotiations with Barker any more. Rounds has appointed Rapid City dentist Jeff Olson to take Barker's spot on the commission. Olson will take his seat Thursday, after Barker symbolically gives up his gavel.

Barker said he was sad to leave the commission but happy to be replaced by Olson, a committed outdoorsman with leadership experience in several sporting groups.

"I was very pleased by his selection," Barker said. "I think they have somebody filling my chair who's probably more capable than I am."

But that won't entirely end Barker's involvement in GF&P issues. He hopes to continue helping with a plan to develop a new outdoor learning center in conjunction with a new regional headquarters complex for the GF&P staff in Rapid City. It would be fashioned after the department's successful Outdoor Campus in Sioux Falls, which includes a learning center and regional offices.

Money and the right location are still issues, but Barker is hopeful that they can be solved.

"I think it would be a great thing for the community and area, especially for the school children," he said. "If there were a list of things I hoped to accomplish, that would probably be on top. I hope to remain involved."
 
I got some information on that law about calling a GF&P employee and it is just a rule enforced as law. It could be changed at the commission level. I thought SH was maybe telling just enough for people to believe it was the LAW!!!! and GF&P had nothing to with it.

I heard it was a good meeting last nite anyway. As far as the hunting groups going that route, I would think that would raise havock with the commercial pheasant hunting east river.
 
SJ: "I got some information on that law about calling a GF&P employee and it is just a rule enforced as law. It could be changed at the commission level. I thought SH was maybe telling just enough for people to believe it was the LAW!!!! and GF&P had nothing to with it."

NO! Do you mean to tell me you think a guy like SH would knowingly attempt to mislead? Well I never! What next?

SJ: "I heard it was a good meeting last nite anyway. As far as the hunting groups going that route, I would think that would raise havoc with the commercial pheasant hunting east river."

Not to mention that it would probably cause an armed landowner rebellion against anyone dumb enough to even think about trespassing on private property without the landowner's knowledge or consent.

Never mind that it would also be a direct violation of the United States Constitution and as such, would most likely be thrown out by the courts. Of course, that would be after landowners tallied up some pretty horrendous legal fees to fight our own government in court.
 
Amen to that. Don't you get sick of having to use your own money to pay for both sides of any fight with the government? When they use our tax money to defend postitions that are clearly wrong, they should, at the very least, be forced to reimburse the taxpayers they are fighting in court.
 
LB: If I read right, then the ranchers were suing the State for measures outside of there control! They wanted more done on federal lands, and they didn't want to try and sue the federal government to costly and a slim margin for any satisfaction, so they used the state as there whipping boy!
I will add was any rancher in SW,SD ever sent a bill for the control work done? Didn't the state enact a prairie dog control program last fall? They treated how many acres? The federal government was were with it all? Yet the state gets the lawsuit? If any of this is wrong please correct me! I go by what I have read and it was sometime ago.
 
SD Trapper:"If I read right, then the ranchers were suing the State for measures outside of there control! They wanted more done on federal lands, and they didn't want to try and sue the federal government to costly and a slim margin for any satisfaction, so they used the state as there whipping boy!"

Since we don't have land bordering any federal land, I have very little knowledge of what transpired. I seem to remember hearing that SD state law requires the state to control prairie dogs and since they weren't doing it that may be the reason they were sued instead of the feds.

As far as I know, no rancher was sent a bill for the control work and that was probably because the prairie rats didn't originate on private land, but were coming off public land and any bill should have been paid by the government that created the problem in the first place.

These are questions SH should be able to answer because, as an employee of GF&P, he was sent down there to help with the poisoning and he has first-hand knowledge of this issue.
 
SJ (believing what she wants to believe): "I got some information on that law about calling a GF&P employee and it is just a rule enforced as law. It could be changed at the commission level. I thought SH was maybe telling just enough for people to believe it was the LAW!!!! and GF&P had nothing to with it."

LB (believing what she wants to believe): "NO! Do you mean to tell me you think a guy like SH would knowingly attempt to mislead? Well I never! What next?"

The facts:

41:08:06:01. Permit and authorization required. Except for employees and contract pilots of the department and persons exempted under SDCL 41-8-39.1, a person may not hunt fox and coyote from an aircraft unless the person has been granted a permit and authorization from an extension trapper, conservation officer, or other authorized representative of the department under the provisions of this chapter. The permittee shall obtain authorization from the department each time there is a depredation complaint to be addressed by aerial hunting.


SJ and LB, why are you avoiding the issue of added predator control efficiency with communication between a pilot and trapper?

Why do you keep avoiding that issue?



~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top