• 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--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.

Beware with this statement LB-- SH sometimes only gives part of the story and leaves out the rest of the story, such as the aerial hunting permission being a violation of the Airborne Hunting Act. I wonder why other states aren't in violation when they don't require trapper notification. I have reread the Federal Airborne hunting Act over and over as SH says I should do quite often and I still haven't found where is says you have to contact the trapper or you will be in violation of this. I guess I will look up the SD statue connected with aerial hunting.

This has just got me stumped
 
It actually seems rather simple to me.

Any aerial hunting conducted in SD. must comply not only with the Airborne Hunting Act but also with all laws, rules and regulations enacted by the state.
 
Exactly you must have read the state statue. It is a GF&P rule that requires the pilot to contact the trapper or some GF&P employee.

Thank you
 
Are we all clear on the GF&P rules now? It's too bad that some trappers refuse to work with the predator district's permitted pilots. It must be a male territorial thing, but it is certainly not very professional and you'd think that GF&P would clean up some of these situations after all the complaints they've had. Pretty good illustration of the way the agency communicates, isn't it?
 
Thats right and that statue gives GF&P the authority to make rules for the aerial pilot which can be chaged by the Commission.
 
SJ: "SH sometimes only gives part of the story and leaves out the rest of the story, such as the aerial hunting permission being a violation of the Airborne Hunting Act."

Nothing is left out.

The Federal Airborne Hunting Act requires aerial hunting to be managed by the states. Notification prior to aerial hunting is in state law making it part of the Federal Airborne Hunting Act. I just posted that state law.


SJ: " Thats right and that statue gives GF&P the authority to make rules for the aerial pilot which can be chaged by the Commission."

If notification is not a "state statute", why did you folks want to change this law through the state legislation instead of the game commission?

BUSTED AGAIN!


SJ: "I guess I will look up the SD statue connected with aerial hunting."

I JUST POSTED IT!!!!

Did you miss it?


LB: "It's too bad that some trappers refuse to work with the predator district's permitted pilots."

Why do you keep diverting the efficiency issue?

Why should a trapper want to work with a pilot that is too lazy or too arrogant to tell him where he has flown creating inefficiency?

How would you feel if you were losing lambs and you knew that I was busy working a complaint THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN WORKED because the private pilot was too lazy or too arrogant to ABIDE BY STATE LAW and call and let me know that he had already hunted the area I was working?????

Why won't you address that issue?



~SH~
 
I don't remember ever saying we wanted to change this by legislature. We always knew it was just a rule and could be changed at the Commission level.

What was posted was rule but the Statute is mentioned in it.
 
SJ: " don't remember ever saying we wanted to change this by legislature. We always knew it was just a rule and could be changed at the Commission level."


Here it is...........


State of South Dakota
SEVENTY-SEVENTH SESSION LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, 2002
553H0674 HOUSE BILL NO. 1264
Introduced by: Representatives Klaudt, Burg, Jensen, Lintz, McCaulley, Pummel, and Rhoden and Senators Bogue, Drake, Greenfield, Koskan, and Vitter
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to revise certain provisions regarding aerial hunting.

I won't list the bill or the revisions because I don't have time right now to type up the changes that were recommended from the original law.


NEXT!


Why do you keep diverting the efficiency issue?

Is predator control efficiency less important to you than having another thing to blame GF&P for?



~SH~
 
REREAD past posts.

Does anyone remember what we were talking about changing a few posts ago, that was a rule and could be changed at the commission level?

Does anyone out there remember what we were changing in 2002 besides me that couldn't be changed by the commission?


Obviously one can't but he can sure talk the talk and change the conversation to fit what he needs.
 
At the risk of setting SH off again, I'll point out a glaring inconsistency of his in the following quotes taken from earlier in this thread.

SH: "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 that he missed."

Earlier on he had complained about a private permitted pilot that made him mad because the pilot had shot all the landowner's problem coyotes before SH got there:

SH: "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."

SH goes on to say:

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."

Don't you kind of wonder why he didn't just get busy and wipe out all those adult coyotes that the pilot left behind? Or is it just our "super pilot" that can't get all the coyotes?

Now that I've probably riled him up again, I hasten to point out that the main, and as far as I'm concerned ONLY, important topic of this whole conversation is whether landowners should be able to keep anyone from trespassing on their private property, whether they are government agents or not.

I love this quote from Thomas Paine, "The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from the government." The protection of property rights is included in the protection of our country, which is why the founding fathers gave us the fourth amendment to the Constitution.
 
Your Thomas Paine Quote is right on.

I suppose you will rile him again--- I hate it when I get hung with my own words, but I find it alot easier to just admit it and go on then to keep trying to justify it.
 
LB: "Don't you kind of wonder why he didn't just get busy and wipe out all those adult coyotes that the pilot left behind? Or is it just our "super pilot" that can't get all the coyotes?"

I already explained the variables with this particular situation but you are so consumed with your GF&P witch hunt that you probably didn't give my truthful explanation a second thought.

1. This was a calf complaint that only required the timely removal of SOME OF THE resident adult pairs to stop the problem.

Removal of "ALL" resident adult coyotes would be preferred ON CALF COMPLAINTS too but removal of "SOME" resident adult coyotes will usually stop the calf killing. Coyotes "USUALLY" have more confidence working calves in bunches.

Sheep complaints are different because they are not as seasonal as calf complaints.

2. This particular complaint layed next to the Badlands National Park making access to those particular coyotes an issue.

3. I had many other complaints at the same time. THAT WAS THE ISSUE!

4. "Overall" coyote population reduction is not an option in the three county area I am responsible for due to the many inaccessible areas that I am not allowed to work. Seasonal and area specific population control is my only option I have available.


I said it before and I'll say it again. I can work anywhere behind any private pilot and kill coyotes on the ground, period. That is an unrefuted fact. Whether or not the situation justifies that action is another issue. On sheepmen, year round coyote population control in that area is essential. Addressing cattle complaints only requires breaking up the bunches and removal of mated pairs.

The only contradictions are in your mind but I realize your desperation to peg something on me considering how many times you have been corrected for presenting false information.


LB: "Earlier on he had complained about a private permitted pilot that made him mad because the pilot had shot all the landowner's problem coyotes before SH got there:"

THE ISSUE WAS EFFICIENCY, PERIOD!!!!! I was not helping others who had problems because I was following around a pilot who was too lazy or too arrogant to abide by the law.

Being the extremely biased individual you are, you will continue to paint this as an issue of "jealousy" when everyone who knows me knows the issue is "efficiency" because that's the way you are. I don't give a damn who kills the coyotes but I do give a damn about being efficient even though it pays the same as being inefficient. Like I said before, my "give a damn" isn't busted yet but critics like you certainly test it.


What part of the following statement can't you comprehend Betty.....

SH (previous): "I wasted an entire day on this person's ranch while I could have been helping someone else because it had already been hunted."

What's my motive in that sentence? Jealousy or efficiency?

Do you know why you keep diverting the efficiency issue? Because it doesn't support your GF&P hatred bias, that's why?

That's also why it is impossible for GF&P to ever satisfy someone like you. Truth and facts mean nothing to you. What matters to you is spinning statements to discredit GF&P.

I thought you had more integrity than that.



~SH~
 
Let me get this straight. SH accuses anyone of lying when they present facts that don't agree with what he wants the truth to be and then he has the nerve to question MY lack of integrity?

Hate GF&P? No, I have great respect for SOME of the employees of Game Fish and Parks. I DO NOT have any respect for anyone who trashes the constitution and tries to take away my private property rights, thus I have no respect for Sec. Cooper. I don't enjoy being given nothing but lip service by him when he is presented with legitimate problems within his organization that he has the power to easily remedy. Unfortunately for him, there are a whole lot of folks across the state who feel the same way.

Don't like it? Tough. No has to like us. This is still a free country and our land still belongs to us. Just because some of us don't see things in the same light, there's no reason to start slinging mud. Do that and pretty soon you're losing ground.
 
Efficiency is the aerial pilot and the trapper working together.

Other states seem to be efficient with out the rule that requires the permit pilot to call the trapper before or after each hunt.

Maybe there should be a central calling point and each of them can call into it, which will be documented instead of taking one mans word against the other and losing a plane.

Maybe the permitted pilot should not be responsible for calling and the responsibility should be that of the landowner.

Maybe the trapper should be required to call the pilot before and after setting traps in an area.


I do know it can be handled without having to call the trapper because most other states don't require it and evidently have been efficient, as they haven't changed to SD method.

This is a SD GF&P rule. It is not in statute. The statute gives GF&P the authority to make rules in this statute that are enforced as law but it can be changed without legislation. It will have to go to legislative review committee and be okayed.

When SH talks of us going to legislature in 2002 to change the aerial hunting it was because what we were changing was in state statute and could only be changed by legislature.
 
SD Trapper said:
SJ your writings clearly indicate an anti G,F&P stance!!! The government is the overseeing body of all aerial hunting that takes place in the state, it would be resonable to then state the private pilot has the need to contact anyone who the government states as the body in charge of there activitys.
To state there should be a hotline, or the trapper contacting the pilot is just more anti G,F&P writing! It is not a G,F,&P rule it is the rule of the State made to keep records for the federal government and to have a chain of command, if no checks put into place you would have all kinds of trouble from people out flying were there not suppose to be and many other messess, which the whole Aerial hunting act was put into place to stop!!!
Click to expand...

Then Montana must have lots of messes. I contact a private pilot to hunt, or I contact the trapper to hunt. I don't call them both in on the job, if ones doesn't get as many as I feel I need removed I might call the other to come in and finish it. Doesn't seem to bother either one who I call first.
 
Rancher thanks for posting what Montana does and how it seems to work fine.

Maybe the trapper and SH will read it and take it to the office and try it.

Maybe not!!!!!!!!
 
SJ, I checked with Oldtimer to make sure I am right. Our predator control agent is paid for by the predator control tax we have on livestock. He has no tie to the fish and game that we know of, so the control comes from the Department of Montana Livestock in Helena. That is the way it should be in my opinion.
 

Latest posts

Top