USFW agent under fire in South Dakota

[Happy go lucky]

I contacted people SJ! If you have proof it did take place please bring it! I would be more than happy to admit I was wrong. Also SJ anything under 300ft I believe is considered trespass from an aircraft. If you want to split hairs then how would you like it if a stunt pilot buzzed your livestock? The trespass is in place because landowners wanted it! Just as the landowners in the 70's wanted the airborne hunting act when fur prices where much higher and didn't want others cashing in on their coyotes and foxes and bobcats! You see once you get a federal law it is very hard to get rid of it later. States have the right to set tresspass laws and many, maybe even yours considers that by not contacting the landowner of a property about hunting from an aircraft as trespass! It can and is that simple, I beleive that is how wyoming handles trespass from an aircraft, so if the man is question nver contacted the landowner where the coyote came to rest then it is trespass! I beleive your state does not allow people to recover big game that crosses property boundries with out permission ot that is trespass, how is this any different please explain?

Or do we allow ALL to get wounded game from the neighbors without permission? Yes or NO?

Also your state acts as an agent for the federal gov under this act and the true power comes down to the feds and if the feds find out that a state is not enforceing laws then they could take away your privalge of airieal hunting if they wanted to.


LB you make it sound that abusing power is the norm with your CO's? Abuse means many things to many people, exspecialy those under duress from being charged for things they know are wrong yet try to get by with it anyway.

I liken this to many who want to fire all teachers because some and some larger districts have major issues, they don't look at the social/economic factors, they want to paint all with the same broad brush you do on this subject, when both are far from factual truth! You have a ****on with your G,F,&P because they don't do as you see.

What is the name of the pilot in your state that your ADC trapper,USFWS officer and G,F,&P where trying to protect?

Also you complain LB about the laws in your state on game, I did some research and your state has far looser game laws than those states that boarder you. Iowa for example can take your guns,truck,boat etc in a case that involves poaching or crimnal overbagging, I don't see where your state can legally take vehicles? To me one that intentional tries to break game laws is no better than a shop lifter or any other theft, as we all own the wildlife and those no matter landowner or not should follow the laws set fourth by the people and with the proper channels, again you have more help from your state than many others that boarder you do, so take advantage of that help and quit with the us against them mentality, that will wear thin on people quicker than one thinks! Good day.

 

[Liberty Belle]

Happy: LB you make it sound that abusing power is the norm with your CO's? Abuse means many things to many people, exspecialy those under duress from being charged for things they know are wrong yet try to get by with it anyway.

I liken this to many who want to fire all teachers because some and some larger districts have major issues, they don't look at the social/economic factors, they want to paint all with the same broad brush you do on this subject, when both are far from factual truth! You have a ****on with your G,F,&P because they don't do as you see.

Did you miss where I just posted, in my reply to you I might add, that I have the utmost respect for our two new GF&P conservation officers in this area? The reason I respect them is because they have done nothing to lose that respect. We did see an abuse of power from some GF&P COs and some USFW agents and I refuse to excuse the actions of those thugs anymore than I would excuse a policeman, an FBI agent or a highway patrolman who abuses his power. How about you? Do they get a pass from you just because they belong to the wildlife division of law enforcement?

Happy: Also you complain LB about the laws in your state on game, I did some research and your state has far looser game laws than those states that boarder you. Iowa for example can take your guns,truck,boat etc in a case that involves poaching or crimnal overbagging, I don't see where your state can legally take vehicles? To me one that intentional tries to break game laws is no better than a shop lifter or any other theft, as we all own the wildlife and those no matter landowner or not should follow the laws set fourth by the people and with the proper channels, again you have more help from your state than many others that boarder you do, so take advantage of that help and quit with the us against them mentality, that will wear thin on people quicker than one thinks! Good day.

When did you ever hear me complain about the state game laws? If someone is caught breaking the law, whether it's shooting too many pheasants, going over the limit of walleye, beating up little old ladies or stealing hubcaps, they deserve to be punished for breaking the law and I have NEVER stated anything to the contrary. Quit making things up and you'll find more people willing to see your side of an argument.

And you have a good day also. Faith and begorra, I'm having a great Saint Pat's Day myself. :mrgreen: 8)

 

[SJ]

Happy--"contacted people SJ!"

I had no reason to believe that you had talked to anything other than people. Could these people tell you with 100% certainty that this had never happened? You evidently had no reason not to believe their story. I don't know whether is happened or not. You also don't know that is didn't happen.

.

Happy—" Also SJ anything under 300ft I believe is considered trespass from an aircraft."

You can fly under 300 ft. It is not considered trespass. I believe you could fly however close to ground you wanted as long as you were not disturbing anything or anyone. However you cannot fly under 500 Ft. from buildings, people etc. Common sense would be a good guide.

Happy –"If you want to split hairs then how would you like it if a stunt pilot buzzed your livestock

I personally wouldn't think of causing someone damages to prove a point. I guess if that is what one would want to do you would only be in violation of harassing the animals. If a stunt pilot buzzed my livestock and I seen him and could prove that it was him, and there were damages, I would take him to civil court. Would he be in violation of trespass I don't think so. He would be in violation of the FAR. .

Happy—"The trespass is in place because landowners wanted it!"

I don't know of any law forcing you to prosecute for trespass in your home or anywhere. In fact I am sure you could put a sign on your door stating "Everyone Welcome" and leave your door unlocked.

Happy--"Just as the landowners in the 70's wanted the airborne hunting act when fur prices where much higher and didn't want others cashing in on their coyotes and foxes and bobcats!"

I was told it was put in place to eliminate the sportsman from using aircraft to spot big game.

Happy--"I beleive that is how wyoming handles trespass from an aircraft, so if the man is question nver contacted the landowner where the coyote came to rest then it is trespass!"

It is not that way here. If it is shot on property with permission and the coyote dies on property that has not given permission it is not a trespass. I have a hard time believing they could get a person, who shot a coyote on land with permission for trespass because the coyote trespassed and died on land without permission.

Happy—"I beleive your state does not allow people to recover big game that crosses property boundries with out permission ot that is trespass, how is this any different please explain?

They are not retrieving a dead coyote.

Happy—"Or do we allow ALL to get wounded game from the neighbors without permission? Yes or NO?"

The answer would be NO

Happy—"Also your state acts as an agent for the federal gov under this act and the true power comes down to the feds and if the feds find out that a state is not enforceing laws then they could take away your privalge of airieal hunting if they wanted to."

Who are these Federal Government people?

They will take the privilege away from aerial pilots who are not in compliance and they have.

I don't believe they will take it away from the state as a whole.

The State Agency could work under the Federal Airborne Hunting Act without any other rules or regulations?

And some state agencies that act as the agent do not have law enforcement?

.

 

[Brad S]

SJ i like your sentiment regarding the relative value of patience to brains - I struggle wiyth that one every day

 

[P Joe]

SJ and LB, I did some checking on those airplane laws for you.

Current regulations allow only government pilots and gunners to hunt Public land. Not properly licensed private pilots. Which would include all of the BLM and School land in western SD.

also

AIRBORNE HUNTING ACT
16 U.S.C. § 742j-1, November 18, 1971, as amended 1972.
Overview. The Act, a section of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, prohibits harassing, capturing or killing birds, fish and other animals from aircraft, with certain limited exceptions.

Selected Definitions. Aircraft: any contrivance used for flight in the air. § 742j-1(c).

Prohibitions and Exceptions. The Act imposes fines, imprisonment for up to one year, or both on a person who: while airborne in an aircraft shoots or attempts to shoot to capture or kill any bird, fish or other animal; uses an aircraft to harass any bird, fish or other animal; knowingly participates in using an aircraft for any of these purposes. (See the summary of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 for more information on criminal penalties.)

These prohibitions do not apply to state or federal employees, authorized agents, or persons acting under a license or permit, who are authorized to administer or protect land, water, wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals, human life or crops. Each person authorized under a license or permit must report to the issuing authority each calendar quarter the number and type of animals taken. 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. § 742j-1(a) and (b).

Enforcement. The Secretary of Interior is responsible for enforcing this Act and issuing regulations. Authorized Department of the Interior employees who witness a violation of the Act may arrest the violator without a warrant, take the person to an officer or court, execute warrants to enforce the Act, and conduct searches. Any federal judge or magistrate may issue warrants upon probable cause. The Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements with state fish and wildlife agencies or other authorities to facilitate enforcement of the Act, and may delegate enforcement authority to state law enforcement personnel. § 742j-1(d).

Forfeiture. All animals taken, and all guns, aircraft and other equipment used in violation of this Act, are subject to forfeiture to the federal government. Federal laws relating to the forfeiture of vessels for violation of custom laws apply to forfeitures under this Act. § 742j-1(e) and (f).


Now from what I gathered from the stories and such, was the land where the coyote was shot on, even if it was wounded, was land that this pilot was NOT autorized to shoot on. Hence the following penalties would apply.

My point is this.

This pilot of yours knew things were heating up between him and GFP. What was he thinking when he shot where he shot? How could you not expect somthing to come from it.

You guys scream privacy rights, but you think what took place was ok??

Isn't it kinda of like the pot calling the kettle black here????
Honest hypothetical question here now. I have permission on you neighbors land. I wounded a deer on this land and it jumped the fence and ran down into one of YOUR draws. I cross the fence to finish off the deer. YOU come across me in the midst of all of this.

What would you do????

 

[Happy go lucky]

SJ, it is not against the law for anyone with a pilots license to fly at a safe distance and look at big game. As long as your not hurrassing such game, you are within the law.

The people I checked with are in the know in WA on these matters.

LB how long has your 2 "new" co's been on?

As I stated abuse means many different things to many people. "small" town police that have any longevity don't or won't rock the boat many times, and they do turn the other cheek even though there are reasons to investigate and file charges. As you piss off the wrong person, your longevity is shorter and shorter in alot of cases. Maybe that doesn't happen where you live? But it does take place all across the US in small town america.

CO's come across many different sectors of people in their protection of wildlife, more so than a small town cop.

SJ, you answered No to allowing others to cross a fence to retieve game, could you give me a list then of what species you deem as acceptable to cross the fence for? Also those you don't want others to cross the fence for?

Brad thanks for your insight and wisdom.

 

[SJ]

Pjoe this pilot issue has been hashed and rehashed and my best advice for you would to be to get a copy of the courts transcript and read it.

As to your question what would I do? You would be in violation of trespass. You know the law and chose to break it. If it were a wounded deer it probably isn't going to go very far and you probably have time to get permission. I am sure the people you are hunting on have a phone number for their neighbors. Some who are caught on property without permission use this story.

Happy what part of No do you not understand. You cannot retrieve wounded big game animals unless you have permission.

Happy I don't remember saying it was illegal to look at game.

Happy I would assume "the people in the know" are within official capacity?

 

[Liberty Belle]

Happy: As I stated abuse means many different things to many people. "small" town police that have any longevity don't or won't rock the boat many times, and they do turn the other cheek even though there are reasons to investigate and file charges. As you p*** off the wrong person, your longevity is shorter and shorter in alot of cases. Maybe that doesn't happen where you live? But it does take place all across the US in small town america.

CO's come across many different sectors of people in their protection of wildlife, more so than a small town cop.

Let me get this straight – you think the wildlife police are in greater danger than the town cop? Do you know when the last CO killed in the line of duty in South Dakota? As far as I've been able to find out, it has NEVER happened, thank God. I'm sure you'll correct me if I've got that wrong.

My husband's uncle (not the police chief, just a small town cop) was shot and killed trying to stop a robbery in the little town just north of our ranch. According to your thinking, I guess what he was doing was politically incorrect behavior for a "small town cop" huh? Perhaps he should have just rolled over and gone back to sleep since the criminals were locals? Sorry, maybe where you come from the small town cops operate that way, but out here they enforce the law. Most of them also use some common sense while they are doing their jobs and they don't treat traffic violators like they were ax murderers and terrorists.

 

[Anonymous]

Let me get this straight – you think the wildlife police are in greater danger than the town cop? Do you know when the last CO killed in the line of duty in South Dakota? As far as I've been able to find out, it has NEVER happened, thank God. I'm sure you'll correct me if I've got that wrong.

You are correct Liberty Belle--The Officer Down Memorial says only 2 SD Game Fish and Parks Officers have died in the line of duty-- and neither was killed because of criminal assault--- one drowned trying to retrieve his boat- and the other was killed in an automobile accident...

http://www.odmp.org/agency.php?agencyid=3614

 

[P Joe]

Pjoe this pilot issue has been hashed and rehashed and my best advice for you would to be to get a copy of the courts transcript and read it.

As to your question what would I do? You would be in violation of trespass. You know the law and chose to break it. If it were a wounded deer it probably isn't going to go very far and you probably have time to get permission. I am sure the people you are hunting on have a phone number for their neighbors. Some who are caught on property without permission use this story.

Soooooooo. what are you arguing about???? You have just resaid and proven my point!

It is trespassing to shoot a big game animal on property you don't have permission on. Weather it be from a plane or on foot. A coyote is considered big game.

WHAT is you point?????????? Do you even know???

I merely find it amusing that you scream property rights violations, but then deem this situation acceptable when it fits you!

Regular FLIP-FLOPER here folks!!!!

LB, I respect you view, even though I may not agree on it. It's the 'others' like SJ that just don't get it. They want everything their way or no way. That attitude will never work. IT HASN"T WORKED.

As for the HB that deals with sponsership. I have no problem with it IF a stupulation was put in there that they could only be transferred to family members. I think that landowners should be able to get 1 free tag. Why do we have to pay the state for something we feed all year. And I think it would be great if my brother or uncle who lives out of state could get a tag to hunt on my land. BUT The problem I have with it, is watching "slob" ranchers like SJ get 7 tags and then sell them off for $1200 a piece to out of state slob hunters! There are plenty of good people right here in SD that are more than willing to make a rancher happy for the chance to hunt.

 

[SJ]

I have alway been told when you get angry your brain quits.

 

[Happy go lucky]

SJ you wrote: I was told it was put in place to eliminate the sportsman from using aircraft to spot big game. ??????

Lb I never stated more dangerous! I stated many lesser things looked at and let go. Then why have laws for lesser things? Speeding can kill, driving while intoxicated, and yes in some small towns too many warnings verbal only, and looking the other way takes place in small towns. You try and twist what I say LB, but CO's go up against people with loaded firearms all the time. It is training and using ones head in each situation that keeps them safe. If you look at the numbers of course police will be higher as you have many,many more police in the field of law enforcement than co's in all states. They all protect and serve, including CO's, and I find it hard to believe your state is over run with rouge CO's to the point you try and describe. I think more of a philosophical challenge is your issue, but you don't enforce the laws either, either do I, we just all must abide by them.

If your not going to enforce laws why have them? A persons demeanor is made from a young age and how to be a people person is important, but their is also a large sector of people who think they shouldn't get a ticket and bad mouth the law for no reason. "They" do not see what they did as a big deal or something worth a fine, even though is was a blatant breaking of the law. They then rally the troops for support and want to attack the person hired by the states to protect and enforce those laws in "some" cases.

 

[Liberty Belle]

P Joe: LB, I respect you view, even though I may not agree on it. It's the 'others' like SJ that just don't get it. They want everything their way or no way. That attitude will never work. IT HASN"T WORKED.

As for the HB that deals with sponsership. I have no problem with it IF a stupulation was put in there that they could only be transferred to family members. I think that landowners should be able to get 1 free tag. Why do we have to pay the state for something we feed all year. And I think it would be great if my brother or uncle who lives out of state could get a tag to hunt on my land. BUT The problem I have with it, is watching "slob" ranchers like SJ get 7 tags and then sell them off for $1200 a piece to out of state slob hunters! There are plenty of good people right here in SD that are more than willing to make a rancher happy for the chance to hunt.

I'm going to post HB1177. Read it and you tell me where "slob ranchers", (the very offensive and inaccurate term you used for SJ), would "get 7 tags and then sell them off for $1200 a piece to out of state slob hunters!"

Here's the bill:
HB 1177
Introduced by: Representatives Juhnke, Brunner, Deadrick, Howie, and Olson (Betty) and Senators Garnos, Bartling, Lintz, and McNenny

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to provide for the issuance of landowner-sponsored big game hunting licenses.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That chapter 41-6 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:

The Game, Fish and Parks Commission shall promulgate rules pursuant to chapter 1-26 to establish a program for the issuance of landowner-sponsored big game hunting licenses to persons designated by the owners or lessees of land located in South Dakota. Under the program any resident landowner or lessee who owns or leases at least six hundred forty acres of agricultural, grazing, or timber land in South Dakota may sponsor a resident or nonresident applicant for one landowner-sponsored big game hunting license in addition to any big game license to which the landowner or lessee would otherwise be entitled. Each landowner- sponsored applicant shall be issued a landowner-sponsored license at the same cost as a corresponding landowner license. The landowner-sponsored license may only be used on the landowner's or lessee's property.
Section 2. Section 1 of this Act is repealed on July 1, 2010.


I'm still waiting for you to tell us what you were talking about in these quotes that you posted earlier on this thread:

None of it was attached directly to your bill. I never said that. I said legislation, or other bills. Specifically the one with the transferring of deer licenses from rancher to hunter.

That is my biggest beef, I specifically asked about that, and everyone in the discusion played dumb. Then magically it gets brought up in the house 3 months later! BullSh!t. You can't tell me you had no idea what I was talking about.

I never said you were dumb and am sorry if you took it that way, I was just pointing out the fact that I was lied to by you and Jingle Bob. I can't find the thread, but I remember most of what was said.

I think you should take note LB, on how all that legislation failed and why. The people of SD are not going to support you on the open feilds when they see all the other crap coming behind it. Now I want to believe that you only care about the open fields doctorine, but why then support all the other crap? Maybe is it because you too are just hiding behind property rights to gain something? Maybe it isn't, but I think it would be best for you to draw the line on where you stand. If you are unwilling to seperate yourself from those who are hiding behind this, then what are people to think?

 

[Liberty Belle]

Happy: Lb I never stated more dangerous! I stated many lesser things looked at and let go. Then why have laws for lesser things? Speeding can kill, driving while intoxicated, and yes in some small towns too many warnings verbal only, and looking the other way takes place in small towns. You try and twist what I say LB, but CO's go up against people with loaded firearms all the time. It is training and using ones head in each situation that keeps them safe. If you look at the numbers of course police will be higher as you have many,many more police in the field of law enforcement than co's in all states. They all protect and serve, including CO's, and I find it hard to believe your state is over run with rouge CO's to the point you try and describe. I think more of a philosophical challenge is your issue, but you don't enforce the laws either, either do I, we just all must abide by them.

If your not going to enforce laws why have them? A persons demeanor is made from a young age and how to be a people person is important, but their is also a large sector of people who think they shouldn't get a ticket and bad mouth the law for no reason. "They" do not see what they did as a big deal or something worth a fine, even though is was a blatant breaking of the law. They then rally the troops for support and want to attack the person hired by the states to protect and enforce those laws in "some" cases.

What exactly is your point and what does this have to do with the original discussion? Stick to the topic and quit reading things into the conversation that aren't there. I DO NOT CONDONE BREAKING THE LAW AND DO NOT CONDONE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WHO ABUSE THEIR POWER. Is that plain enough for you?

I realize you live in your own little world, but try to carry on a rational discourse on here, will you?

 

[SJ]

I don't take offense to him calling me a slob rancher. He has a right to his opinion.

Disagreeing with someone is disagreeing. I don't feel pjoe is a slob because of it.

I have never charged 1200 for hunting. We did at one time ask for 10 dollars for the fire dept.

You are right pjoe if an aerial pilot shot on land without permission that is considered a trespass thru the state agency rules and regulations but not in the Federal Airborne Hunting Act.

The Hunter in question believes to this day that he never shot that coyote on his land. The coyote was the only one who trespassed. I really think if you were to read the transcript it would become alot more clear.

Also at that time if you didnot want aerial hunting or trapping on your place you were to notified the office in writting. That was never done to my knowledge. The only permission slips signed were thru the trapper .

Permission was a mans word, but then again that is when a mans word was good.

Happy looking and spotting for game are two different things to me but if they are not to you, you are also correct.

Susan Clarkson

 

[P Joe]

I'm going to post HB1177. Read it and you tell me where "slob ranchers", (the very offensive and inaccurate term you used for SJ), would "get 7 tags and then sell them off for $1200 a piece to out of state slob hunters!"

Here's the bill:
HB 1177
Introduced by: Representatives Juhnke, Brunner, Deadrick, Howie, and Olson (Betty) and Senators Garnos, Bartling, Lintz, and McNenny

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to provide for the issuance of landowner-sponsored big game hunting licenses.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That chapter 41-6 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:

The Game, Fish and Parks Commission shall promulgate rules pursuant to chapter 1-26 to establish a program for the issuance of landowner-sponsored big game hunting licenses to persons designated by the owners or lessees of land located in South Dakota. Under the program any resident landowner or lessee who owns or leases at least six hundred forty acres of agricultural, grazing, or timber land in South Dakota may sponsor a resident or nonresident applicant for one landowner-sponsored big game hunting license in addition to any big game license to which the landowner or lessee would otherwise be entitled. Each landowner- sponsored applicant shall be issued a landowner-sponsored license at the same cost as a corresponding landowner license. The landowner-sponsored license may only be used on the landowner's or lessee's property.
Section 2. Section 1 of this Act is repealed on July 1, 2010.

The way I and many others read this is this. 1 license for every 640 acres. Hence if you have 4500 acres you would be entiled to 7 tags. 4500 divided by 640 = 7.031 something tags.

Now, honestly what percentage of ranchers are going to use these 7 or so tags for personal or family use?

Hence the rest will go to the highest bidder. If you didn't intend for/ and if that bill doesn't work that way, then please forgive me. I was wrong. But the bill doesn't spell out how it is to work.

AS for SJ, he is arguing against me using the same points I bring up, so I don't know what he is really arguing about. He says it is trespassing when I come on his land and shoot a big game animal. The same rules apply if shooting from an airplane, so I don't see what leg he has to stand on, other than the fact of what GFP was doing to the pilot. I thought I had seperated those issues, and he plain just didn't get it.

I'm still waiting for you to tell us what you were talking about in these quotes that you posted earlier on this thread:

You just posted it. This is what I have questioned you and JB about and was told that they knew of nothing of this and to please explain.

 

[P Joe]

I don't take offense to him calling me a slob rancher. He has a right to his opinion.

Disagreeing with someone is disagreeing. I don't feel pjoe is a slob because of it.

Thanks for not thinking of me that way and am sorry that I offended you by using those words. If you act how you say, then I do not consider you part of that group.

You are right pjoe if an aerial pilot shot on land without permission that is considered a trespass thru the state agency rules and regulations but not in the Federal Airborne Hunting Act.

The Hunter in question believes to this day that he never shot that coyote on his land. The coyote was the only one who trespassed. I really think if you were to read the transcript it would become alot more clear.

Even in the FAHA, it would be considered tresspassing if the ground in question was not on his approval list.

I understand that if a coyote was shot on land with permission, and then crosses the fence and dies. No harm, no foul. But if he put the last shot onto land where he didn't have approval, then it would still be tresspassing.

I understand that people go back on their words and things happen and maybe the pilot did do everything legal.. His word vs theirs, and he got screwed. But that pilot knew of the situation and should have stayed clear of it in the 1st place. Don't you get a nervous feeling when you pass the HYPO while driving the speed limit. I do, and just plain won't do it. I have a few neighbors who don't allowing hunting. When I hunt by the fence line, I either let things go that are heading for the fence or make DAMN sure they don't make it. It makes things BLACK and WHITE.

 

[Happy go lucky]

The Game, Fish and Parks Commission shall promulgate rules pursuant to chapter 1-26 to establish a program for the issuance of landowner-sponsored big game hunting licenses to persons designated by the owners or lessees of land located in South Dakota. Under the program any resident landowner or lessee who owns or leases at least six hundred forty acres of agricultural, grazing, or timber land in South Dakota may sponsor a resident or nonresident applicant for one landowner-sponsored big game hunting license in addition to any big game license to which the landowner or lessee would otherwise be entitled. Each landowner- sponsored applicant shall be issued a landowner-sponsored license at the same cost as a corresponding landowner license. The landowner-sponsored license may only be used on the landowner's or lessee's property.

So LB does the hunter buy the license direct or does the landowner/lessees get the license then transfer it to the hunter? How many tags for each species would that add? How many resident/non resident tags would be decreased to make up for that number of sponsored license? What is then stopping the landowners for charging 1,000's after the purhcase of this tag? Are these buck/doe tags?

Why not just give each landowner 2-4 free tags to be used by the family only, no transfer tags? Then allow other hunters to come and hunt? To help resolve rising numbers? How long would it be before 1 tag isn't enough? Then once the door is ajar, it gets swung wide open changing hunting for many americans as we known it?

Children are our future in many ways and having a love of the outdoors is one of them, to charge for every hunting opportunity in "MY mind" is not the answer! I grew up hunting,trapping and fishing if my family where to have to pay I wouldn't have had the opportunitys I have had to gain that love of the outdoors. A decrease in hunters is BAD for america and conservation as a whole on many facets for sure!

The thing many don't understand on paid hunting if it becomes the norm, then it will be a competitive market, just like any other product or service and if an area or a group can't meet those expectations, the customer will take his money elsewhere leaving those areas or groups of people with a wounded Game dept and a balance that could be more out of whack than what we have now.

Look at Texas and all the issues they have, many exoctics taking over (axis deer) intermixing with whitetails, wild hog numbers that increase in population and area coverage each year and the destruction they cause. I don't call this a successful model of conservation in America, but the cheaping of resources for a buck to be made, when the quailty drops the customer will move on.

High fencing is not the wild pursuit of game and becomes a thing of convienance and hunting,fishing or trapping is not meant to be a convineant sport like bowling, basketball or throwing darts on a Friday night.

good day

 

[Liberty Belle]

P Joe: The way I and many others read this is this. 1 license for every 640 acres. Hence if you have 4500 acres you would be entiled to 7 tags. 4500 divided by 640 = 7.031 something tags.

Now, honestly what percentage of ranchers are going to use these 7 or so tags for personal or family use?

Hence the rest will go to the highest bidder. If you didn't intend for/ and if that bill doesn't work that way, then please forgive me. I was wrong. But the bill doesn't spell out how it is to work.

Time for Comprehensive Reading class, P Joe. Read HB1177 over again – carefully this time. It says: "Under the program any resident landowner or lessee who owns or leases at least six hundred forty acres of agricultural, grazing, or timber land in South Dakota may sponsor a resident or nonresident applicant for ONE landowner-sponsored big game hunting license" That's ONE - (1) – O.N.E. - numbero uno – just one license per landowner!!! It doesn't matter if he owns 10,000 acres or 1,000,000 acres, he still is able to buy ONLY ONE landowner sponsored license. He must own at least 640 acres in order to qualify for that ONE license and the license can ONLY be filled on the landowner's own land.

P Joe: AS for SJ, he is arguing against me using the same points I bring up, so I don't know what he is really arguing about. He says it is trespassing when I come on his land and shoot a big game animal. The same rules apply if shooting from an airplane, so I don't see what leg he has to stand on, other than the fact of what GFP was doing to the pilot. I thought I had seperated those issues, and he plain just didn't get it.

As for SJ – it's you who isn't getting it. "He" is a she, and a pretty good looking old gal at that. retty:

 

[Liberty Belle]

Happy: So LB does the hunter buy the license direct or does the landowner/lessees get the license then transfer it to the hunter?
How many tags for each species would that add? How many resident/non resident tags would be decreased to make up for that number of sponsored license? What is then stopping the landowners for charging 1,000's after the purhcase of this tag? Are these buck/doe tags?

Why not just give each landowner 2-4 free tags to be used by the family only, no transfer tags? Then allow other hunters to come and hunt? To help resolve rising numbers? How long would it be before 1 tag isn't enough? Then once the door is ajar, it gets swung wide open changing hunting for many americans as we known it?

Children are our future in many ways and having a love of the outdoors is one of them, to charge for every hunting opportunity in "MY mind" is not the answer! I grew up hunting,trapping and fishing if my family where to have to pay I wouldn't have had the opportunitys I have had to gain that love of the outdoors. A decrease in hunters is BAD for america and conservation as a whole on many facets for sure!

The thing many don't understand on paid hunting if it becomes the norm, then it will be a competitive market, just like any other product or service and if an area or a group can't meet those expectations, the customer will take his money elsewhere leaving those areas or groups of people with a wounded Game dept and a balance that could be more out of whack than what we have now.

Look at Texas and all the issues they have, many exoctics taking over (axis deer) intermixing with whitetails, wild hog numbers that increase in population and area coverage each year and the destruction they cause. I don't call this a successful model of conservation in America, but the cheaping of resources for a buck to be made, when the quailty drops the customer will move on.

High fencing is not the wild pursuit of game and becomes a thing of convienance and hunting,fishing or trapping is not meant to be a convineant sport like bowling, basketball or throwing darts on a Friday night.

good day

The law didn't pass so you can quit worrying your little head about whether or not a landowner might provide an opportunity to a family member who no longer lives on the land to hunt on the land he or she grew up on, thus "ruining" hunting for every other hunter in the state.

If landowners continue to be treated like dirt by GF&P and by "sportsmen", paid hunting will soon become the ONLY hunting allowed on private property. You guys keep acting like this and your actions will cause the end of Joe Average's chance of hunting for free anywhere but on already overcrowded public land.

We might not be real smart, but we are able to recognize contempt for landowners when we see it. If you think you're helping the cause of hunters, you've got another think coming, as Granddaddy used to say. If we have to put up with jerks just to get the wild game population managed on our ranches, we'll be paid handsomely for the trouble.

Now you go have a good day. :twisted:

Oh, and before I forget - why don't you tell these fellows thank you, South Dakota Hunter. They're singing your song!!!