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

Tony Dean apologizes?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Liberty Belle said:
GF&P is trying to at least make it look like they are trying to get along with us because they have to. It's not out of the goodness of their heart. If and when that changes, GF&P will cease to exist as a state agency. And you can take that one to the bank.
Click to expand...


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Funny, I think that is really what you after all along!
 
LB do you really think you and a few of your "close" friends have the power to unseat a Whole Game and Fish agency? I'll ask you the same as me, are you off your meds or is your ego really that big? LOL.

I'm willing to bet the majority of your state would spank you on that issue, mainly those who make alot of money off of wildlife, be it the outfitter/guide, small town cafe's, gas stations, motel/hotels, steak houses and all the rest tied to the big dollars wildlife generates for the people of your state!

The wildlife is a public trust who would fill the shoes of your game agency LB? The feds would demand something and the people of your fine state would to, or the result could be a lawsuit for mis managment of resources brought on to you and others who would try and make something like that happen.

LB you are to funny :lol:
 
Happy go lucky said:
LB do you really think you and a few of your "close" friends have the power to unseat a Whole Game and Fish agency? I'll ask you the same as me, are you off your meds or is your ego really that big? LOL.

I'm willing to bet the majority of your state would spank you on that issue, mainly those who make alot of money off of wildlife, be it the outfitter/guide, small town cafe's, gas stations, motel/hotels, steak houses and all the rest tied to the big dollars wildlife generates for the people of your state!

The wildlife is a public trust who would fill the shoes of your game agency LB? The feds would demand something and the people of your fine state would to, or the result could be a lawsuit for mis managment of resources brought on to you and others who would try and make something like that happen.

LB you are to funny :lol:
Click to expand...
Who is going to sue whom? What mismanagement of resources? That's quite an imagination you've got!

I should remind you that I and the other members of the legislature are elected to ride herd on all state agencies and make sure they are fulfilling the mandates we've given them. We work for the voters who put us in office and the agencies work for us, we don't work for them.

The FEDS would demand something? From the state? You're kidding, right?

The wildlife, those "resources" you mentioned, don't belong to the federal government. They belong to the public, that's you, me, and every other citizen of the individual states.

Neither the US Constitution nor the SD constitution requires the states to even HAVE a game department. In fact, wildlife is not mentioned in either document. Since it's obvious that you don't have a clue what either one says, you oughta try reading them. If your reading skills can handle it...

What did you say your name was?
 
LB look up the pittman/robertson act!

Who do you think makes up the federal Government? We by the people,for the people and are the people! They just have more pwoer than state or local government.
 
Happy go lucky said:
LB look up the pittman/robertson act!

Who do you think makes up the federal Government? We by the people,for the people and are the people! They just have more pwoer than state or local government.
Click to expand...

Just round up enough votes and you can be elected and have your say insted of badmouthing the ones that are elected 8) :tiphat:
 
mwj said:
Happy go lucky said:
LB look up the pittman/robertson act!

Who do you think makes up the federal Government? We by the people,for the people and are the people! They just have more pwoer than state or local government.
Click to expand...

Just round up enough votes and you can be elected and have your say insted of badmouthing the ones that are elected 8) :tiphat:
Click to expand...
mwj, I'm afraid poor ol' anonymous Happy is going to have to become more educated before he can hope to attain elected office! If he's actually read Pittman-Robertson I'd love to have him show us where anything in it relates to the subject at hand.

Happy, if you need a copy of Pittman-Robertson, let me know and I will be more than happy to copy and paste one on this thread for you.

And Happy, here's something else for you to ponder. Read this and then explain to us how you think the federal government can possibly claim jurisdiction over the states.

Amendment X to the United States Constitution says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 
Western SD-- I am pretty sure that deputies over in eastern SD along with DCI agents go looking for wild growing marijuana along alot of the river drainages and do not gain permission before doing so. Also the murder investigation that was conducted in the pierre area in 2006 was done with out gaining permission from landowners to look for evidence of the crime. Yes the law enforcment did know a crime was commited but did not know where.
Click to expand...

Could you give me the name of that murder case?
 
There are few enough murder cases in SD that it should be easy enough to find that one on the internet someplace, maybe Pierre Capitol Journal daily papers' files?

Seems like there was a guy who murdered his wife, then tried to pin it on her young daughter??? But don't recall the names, or even the final outcome, if it has been reached, yet.

mrj
 
Probably but I would like to have him (western SD) who has all the specifics on this case give the name of this case.
 
Welcome back SJ! The east river hunters have been missing you. Does this mean your electricity is finally back on? How long was it you were off - three weeks?

We branded another bunch this morning and purt' near blew away! I doubt you're going to get an answer from western SD. I think he's gone with the wind too.
 
The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to cooperate with the States, through their respective State fish and game departments, in wildlife- restoration projects as hereinafter in this chapter set forth; but no money apportioned under this chapter to any State shall be expended therein until its legislature, or other State agency authorized by the State constitution to make laws governing the conservation of wildlife, shall have assented to the provision of this chapter and shall have passed laws for the conservation of wildlife which shall include a prohibition against the diversion of license fees paid by hunters for any other purpose than the administration of said State fish and game department, except that, until the final adjournment of the first regular session of the legislature held after September 2, 1937, the assent of the Governor of the State shall be sufficient. The Secretary of the Interior and the State fish and game department of each State accepting the benefits of this chapter, shall agree upon the wildlife-restoration projects to be aided in such State under the terms of this chapter and all projects shall conform to the standards fixed by the Secretary of the Interior.

LB if you read real carefully you will see that without a Game/fish agency the odds of your state after you would dissolve your game dept would find a tough time getting any of those millions from the Dept of the interior! Your money would then in all likely hood go to another state which would benefit greatly to the wild resources of their state pulling away tourism from your state or others that may try what you describe!

LB with No game dpt and much in the way of lost funding how would you pay for any resource needs? Where exactly would that money come from? I'm betting the tax payers would still be paying in one form or another just at a much higher rate than now! You would have less hunter dollars, zero pitt/robertson in all likely hood, and a tourism base on the decline, not to mention way less enforcement of game/fish laws higher poaching rates. Yeah great plan LB :roll: , but ain't going to happen.

LB does the constitution set drinking laws? Or how about the legal amount of alcohol before legally drunk? Yet the feds mandate or force states to conform to their guidelines correct? How and why? If any states wants the fed dollars you must play within the system or loose those dollars.
 
Happy go lucky said:
The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to cooperate with the States, through their respective State fish and game departments, in wildlife- restoration projects as hereinafter in this chapter set forth; but no money apportioned under this chapter to any State shall be expended therein until its legislature, or other State agency authorized by the State constitution to make laws governing the conservation of wildlife, shall have assented to the provision of this chapter and shall have passed laws for the conservation of wildlife which shall include a prohibition against the diversion of license fees paid by hunters for any other purpose than the administration of said State fish and game department, except that, until the final adjournment of the first regular session of the legislature held after September 2, 1937, the assent of the Governor of the State shall be sufficient. The Secretary of the Interior and the State fish and game department of each State accepting the benefits of this chapter, shall agree upon the wildlife-restoration projects to be aided in such State under the terms of this chapter and all projects shall conform to the standards fixed by the Secretary of the Interior.

LB if you read real carefully you will see that without a Game/fish agency the odds of your state after you would dissolve your game dept would find a tough time getting any of those millions from the Dept of the interior! Your money would then in all likely hood go to another state which would benefit greatly to the wild resources of their state pulling away tourism from your state or others that may try what you describe!
Click to expand...
If you go back and read over what I wrote, you'll see that I said that if GF&P refuses to get along with legislators and landowners they will cease to exist as a state agency. GF&P works for the state legislature, not the other way around, and the legislature will put an end to anything we have problems with. That doesn't mean that the legislature will do away with the management of fish and game, it just means that we would replace the personnel and policies that we don't agree with. If that would include a complete change to a different agency altogether, we can do whatever it takes.

Happy go lucky said:
LB with No game dpt and much in the way of lost funding how would you pay for any resource needs? Where exactly would that money come from? I'm betting the tax payers would still be paying in one form or another just at a much higher rate than now! You would have less hunter dollars, zero pitt/robertson in all likely hood, and a tourism base on the decline, not to mention way less enforcement of game/fish laws higher poaching rates. Yeah great plan LB :roll: , but ain't going to happen.
Click to expand...
The loss of those funds to GF&P would be a benefit to landowners because of the way those monies have been used. I'll bet the loss of the funds would cause the hunters on here to hyperventilate though, don't you think?

Happy go lucky said:
LB does the constitution set drinking laws? Or how about the legal amount of alcohol before legally drunk? Yet the feds mandate or force states to conform to their guidelines correct? How and why? If any states wants the fed dollars you must play within the system or loose those dollars.
Click to expand...
You're rambling again. Maybe you should lay off the hard stuff this early in the morning. You seem to know a lot about drinking and nothing about the relationship between the states and the federal government. When you sober up, read the tenth amendment to the US Constitution.
 
LB wrote: Amendment X to the United States Constitution says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

LB sorry your FOS! I gave you examples of how that isn't 100% factually true! You stated nothing mandated you have a game dept, I gave you factual reasons as to why it is! The sportsman would still pay into pitt/robertson your state just wouldn;t see it!!!!! If you dissolve your agency then what you don't getLB! who controls, monitors and keeps checks on wildlife? Your hunt quality would drop off severely, your poaching would rise and you would have little to none non resident dollars coming into your state and you residents would look elsewhere and hold your legislative body in very low regard because a "FEW" have a hard on for the Game dept!

The drinking age and consumption amount before legally drunk can be set by the states!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why then are NO states at 18-20 for legal drinking? because you would loose valuable road dollars in your state and that would raise local taxes alot and you as a state rep would be in hot water LB. You too are accountable for your actions to the people of your entire state, not just your little nook and cranny! Crap rolls downhill and it would end at LB's door step if you and a few others would cost the tax payers more money. Fact or not?

This is silly to even discuss because your ego has gotten the better of you and if you think even for a quick second you would have much of any support in ruining your golden goose ie: tourism from hunting then you are out in far left field LB far,far out there! You puff your chest and make accusations but the follow through isn't there nor would be there on this issue, therefore a non issue! Continue on with your rhetoric LB see where it gets your political life!

I have friends in your state and I have researched many topics and facts outweigh rhetoric eahc and every time! Good day LB!
 
Happy go lucky said:
LB wrote: Amendment X to the United States Constitution says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

LB sorry your FOS! I gave you examples of how that isn't 100% factually true! You stated nothing mandated you have a game dept, I gave you factual reasons as to why it is! The sportsman would still pay into pitt/robertson your state just wouldn;t see it!!!!! If you dissolve your agency then what you don't getLB! who controls, monitors and keeps checks on wildlife? Your hunt quality would drop off severely, your poaching would rise and you would have little to none non resident dollars coming into your state and you residents would look elsewhere and hold your legislative body in very low regard because a "FEW" have a hard on for the Game dept!

The drinking age and consumption amount before legally drunk can be set by the states!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why then are NO states at 18-20 for legal drinking? because you would loose valuable road dollars in your state and that would raise local taxes alot and you as a state rep would be in hot water LB. You too are accountable for your actions to the people of your entire state, not just your little nook and cranny! Crap rolls downhill and it would end at LB's door step if you and a few others would cost the tax payers more money. Fact or not?

This is silly to even discuss because your ego has gotten the better of you and if you think even for a quick second you would have much of any support in ruining your golden goose ie: tourism from hunting then you are out in far left field LB far,far out there! You puff your chest and make accusations but the follow through isn't there nor would be there on this issue, therefore a non issue! Continue on with your rhetoric LB see where it gets your political life!

I have friends in your state and I have researched many topics and facts outweigh rhetoric eahc and every time! Good day LB!
Click to expand...
Evidently it's not only whiskey you are well acquainted with, but you seem to have more than a casual acquaintance with the manure pile too.

I find these little chats amusing, although it's kinda hard to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

You have friends? :shock:
 
I would encourage those of you who have spit out these cases and feel they support GF&P's use of the open fields doctrine to read them.

I don't believe real Law enforcement will go in on the color of a hat, some one walking in the field or on a whim that a crime might be being committed.

I would think a hunter's signature on his license would open his home to a no knock search and have a better chance of holding up in court than GF&P entering my property on the color of a hat as probable cause without permission or a warrant.

I don't have a problem with the open fields doctrine, I do however have a problem with GF&P's interpretation/use/abuse of the open fields doctrine.

The added liability is probably as big a concern as GF&P's use/abuse of the open fields doctrine.

I have no contract with GF&P-- YOU DO!!

Hunt the so called public land you don't need us and we don't need you at the cost of our rights and the added liability.
 
One thing I can say about these hunters. They are one powerful group of people.

Single handidly they have done more to advance pay to hunt than anyone else could have if they were trying
 
AS you can see I had a little trouble with my computer, but it was well worth repeating.
 
Happy

Betty worries about the loss of our rights instead of her future as a politician. She understands liberty and is willing to fight for it.


Judge Napolitano said this;

" If we wish to survive the near future with our rights intact, we need to understand the size and scope of the threat. We must also understand it true identity: A government that claims it can give you rights can also take them away."


Betty fights for her constituents and was voted in for her honesty.

Happy, if you wanted someone who was worried about his/her political future I hope you got him/her.

We are very proud to have Betty as our Representative.
 

Latest posts

Top