USFW agent under fire in South Dakota

[Happy go lucky]

LB I love how you like to twist things LOL.

You wouldn't answer one question on concerns that anyone in any state would have, surely if you give all who has a section of ground a license it is going to add many tags in most states. I also stated family only tags, so why portray that this is to help the grandkids or uncles,cousins,brothers who no longer live in your state? If that is the case, give out 2-4 free tags for family only?

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.

Once again you LB control the access on your ground, so if you have a few jerks tell them not to come back next year, that simple. I have no contemp for landowners LB. I would gladly give you a few free tags, for "your" family to hunt on your land with if I had power to do so. Just as they do in Iowa and many other states.I think most responsable landowners would use a few of them to shoot doe's, that is how you get deer reduction, not by shooting anything with antlers.

You won't answer the questions, because 1you know I have some validity to what I wrote.

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

The horns LB, are you getting pissed with me?

 

[cowwrangler]

A top state official says he's scheduled to meet with US Fish and Wildlife officials about a federal game warden who has upset many sportsmen in the Pierre area.

Rob Skjonsberg, who is chief of staff for Governor Rounds, says he will speak to the federal agency's Professional Responsibility Unit.

The unit is investigating complaints about warden Robert Prieksat. More than 60 written complaints and petitions containing 300 signatures asking for Prieksat's reassignment have been sent to the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Skjonsberg says he'll meet with officials from the Professional Responsibility Unit's main office in Virginia, which he believes is a sign that the investigation into Prieksat's behavior is serious.

 

[P Joe]

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.

When are you going to relize that not every hunter is jerk and out to get the best of you???

Your group has taken too hard of a stance and are unwilling to talk. I truly am starting to believe that you are just plain against hunting.

I know that you will say, "too hard of stance for property rights?"
and our Bill will not interfere with law enforcement duties.

But what was proposed is really no different then the open fields. It is just as open to abuse as the open fields is. So why not hold the ones accountable for their actions?

That was one of my points in the 1st place, Why didn't you just gain up and get this guy fired, rather than take the stance and play your cards the way you did?

I don't care what GFP said in the past or now. They can be told what to do with a majority. Obviously you "have" the support of hunters. We are the people that now have his but on the hot seat. We were the people that would have helped you then. I would think that your group would have been more than willing to support our cause now. But instead you poke jeers at "hunters" and happily claim your 4.3 :roll: million acres lockout to the very people that are holding GFP accountable for their actions.

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.

IF the good hunters continue to be treated like dirt and a green back by ranchers, you will see more and more land bought by GFP. They'll just eliminate the rancher. They shot down the last bill that tried to regulate GFP purchases. They'll spend the money and pay the taxes to have their places to hunt. You are going to have to relize that if\when the hunters start playing hard ball like you, both sides are going to loose and things are going to get real ugly. You might have the majority of the land, but you do not have the majority of the people. This pitting sides against sides needs to end.

 

[Liberty Belle]

Happy: LB I love how you like to twist things LOL.

You wouldn't answer one question on concerns that anyone in any state would have, surely if you give all who has a section of ground a license it is going to add many tags in most states. I also stated family only tags, so why portray that this is to help the grandkids or uncles,cousins,brothers who no longer live in your state? If that is the case, give out 2-4 free tags for family only?

Once again you LB control the access on your ground, so if you have a few jerks tell them not to come back next year, that simple. I have no contemp for landowners LB. I would gladly give you a few free tags, for "your" family to hunt on your land with if I had power to do so. Just as they do in Iowa and many other states.I think most responsable landowners would use a few of them to shoot doe's, that is how you get deer reduction, not by shooting anything with antlers.

You won't answer the questions, because 1you know I have some validity to what I wrote.

The horns LB, are you getting p****d with me?

Let's just say that your attitude toward landowners gives me a pain in the rear. I'm sorry, I can't answer your questions because, #1. They don't make sense, and #2. The bill didn't pass so it is a mute point. I also have no authority to "give" tags to anyone, so why ask me?

 

[Liberty Belle]

P Joe: When are you going to relize that not every hunter is jerk and out to get the best of you???

Where did you ever hear me say anything bad about hunters? Our problem is with GF&P, NOT HUNTERS. You and Happy were the jerks I was talking about. You two have shown a colossal contempt for landowners. We have very good relationships with the hunters who used to hunt our ranches, for free I might add. They have become like family and we still see them, they just don't hunt here. Our hunters understand and support our efforts to protect ourselves.

P Joe: Your group has taken too hard of a stance and are unwilling to talk. I truly am starting to believe that you are just plain against hunting.
I know that you will say, "too hard of stance for property rights?"
and our Bill will not interfere with law enforcement duties.

But what was proposed is really no different then the open fields. It is just as open to abuse as the open fields is. So why not hold the ones accountable for their actions?

We ARE holding GF&P accountable for their actions. The only way we can do that is to lock our land to hunters so GF&P has no reason to trespass on our property. Can you think of any other way we could have held them accountable? We're open to suggestions.

P Joe: That was one of my points in the 1st place, Why didn't you just gain up and get this guy fired, rather than take the stance and play your cards the way you did?

Do you honestly think there was any way that a few ranchers could get the USFW agent fired along with the GF&P employees who helped him, when several hundred sportsmen haven't even been able to get Prieksat transferred?

P Joe: I don't care what GFP said in the past or now. They can be told what to do with a majority.

Tell us how?

P Joe: Obviously you "have" the support of hunters. We are the people that now have his but on the hot seat. We were the people that would have helped you then

.
Why didn't you help us back then? There was nothing stopping you. I guess it wasn't your ox being gored, so what did you care?

P Joe: I would think that your group would have been more than willing to support our cause now. But instead you poke jeers at "hunters" and happily claim your 4.3 million acres lockout to the very people that are holding GFP accountable for their actions.

Again – my comments were not aimed at hunters. They were aimed directly at you and Happy. We have a good working relationship with the sportsmen who are working to get Prieksat transferred for his actions. They are a good, sensible bunch and the sportsmen and landowners understand we are both working on the same problem. Maybe you should take in some of these meetings and listen to the frustration with the wildlife police voiced by both sportsmen and landowners. I hate to bust your bubble, but hunters and ranchers are on the same side!

P Joe: IF the good hunters continue to be treated like dirt and a green back by ranchers, you will see more and more land bought by GFP. They'll just eliminate the rancher. They shot down the last bill that tried to regulate GFP purchases. They'll spend the money and pay the taxes to have their places to hunt. You are going to have to relize that if\when the hunters start playing hard ball like you, both sides are going to loose and things are going to get real ugly. You might have the majority of the land, but you do not have the majority of the people. This pitting sides against sides needs to end.

Hunters are going to eliminate ranchers? I don't think so, but it's an interesting thought. How do you propose do eliminate us? Twelve gauge, AK47 or .357? :cowboy:

 

[Happy go lucky]

LB I'm betting your Bill didn't pass becuase some of my questions went unanswered to your legislators as well?

My attitude towards landowners is great! My attitude of those that want to spin things to garner support without facts to back them is just what the majority would expect! You can't come on to an open forum and expect your writings to go unchecked and taken at face value without supporting them with facts, when others have done,seen or been apart of things that counterdict your writings and are non factual based LB.

I asked real legit questions I would have on a bill of this type for "ANY" state legislator that cares about hunting,tradition and the sportsman/woman of any state that has long ties to these activitys.

If it is true to fact not about paid hunting then why sponsor tags, get those free landowners tags 2 doe/2 buck tags given to landowners to be used by family only and you cut out many concerns and questions. Also no state I know of allows thsoe that have no resident ties to come back and hunt in those states? Can you show me where other states allow this please?

It is a part of moving and making a better life, there are sacrafices for all who move, one happens to be you then become a non resident and you then buy tags as a non resident or hunt the state you have residency in. Why should those that pay no taxes, make no contrabution to said state be allowed to hunt and get special treatment because an uncle,cousin,friend, or parent own's land in SD?

I as a hunter would not expect such treatment and I have relatives that own land in 3 different states, making me then an above avergae citizen because I was lucky to have my gene pool as those who own and farm land? Making less tags available to others who would pay far more for a non resident tag or taking away from a tax paying, state contributing resident hunter? or his child?

I would think if given this statis they would at least be happy to pay more than what a landowner tag in your state cost? What is the amount of said tag? I mean even you should be able to see the ability for many to buy what a 20.00-30.00 dollar tag and sale it for 600.00+ to a non resident or rich resident? Now those with the big$$$$ have replaced that relative because he/she has deep pockets?

I have read and re read this bill and see NO safeguards for "scalping" of these tags at all. In south dakota is scalping of tickets a legal affair?

 

[Liberty Belle]

Sorry, Happy old boy. I've got better things to do then try to follow your ramblings and make sense of them. Most of what you post has nothing to do with the issue of an out-of-control wildlife agent anyway.

Don't you have some work to do or something?

 

[Southdakotahunter]

I have sat back and watched all this unfold and just have to giggle! :lol:

Isnt it amazing how much power hunters have? First, LB's open fields legislation gets shot down, then the transferable licenses takes it where the sun dont shine, now the hunters have this clown in the hot seat.......amazing! Still wondering when your gonna have us all over for coffee and cookies LB........Maybe even an antelope hunt!! hehehehehe

 

[P Joe]

Where did you ever hear me say anything bad about hunters? Our problem is with GF&P, NOT HUNTERS. You and Happy were the jerks I was talking about. You two have shown a colossal contempt for landowners. We have very good relationships with the hunters who used to hunt our ranches, for free I might add. They have become like family and we still see them, they just don't hunt here. Our hunters understand and support our efforts to protect ourselves.

What Colossal contempt? I myself am a landowner. I have said that landowners should get a tag, not pay, as long as it is used for themselves. Please point this out to me!

We ARE holding GF&P accountable for their actions. The only way we can do that is to lock our land to hunters so GF&P has no reason to trespass on our property. Can you think of any other way we could have held them accountable? We're open to suggestions.

Along with holding everyone else accountable for 2 GFP officers actions as well!

Do you honestly think there was any way that a few ranchers could get the USFW agent fired along with the GF&P employees who helped him, when several hundred sportsmen haven't even been able to get Prieksat transferred?

Yes I do or did! Time will tell, but it looks like to me that a few p!ssed off hunters are going to get it done.

Why didn't you help us back then? There was nothing stopping you. I guess it wasn't your ox being gored, so what did you care?

I did. I wrote my legislature. I spoke with our local GFP. I made my voice heard on the issue. All of us that use to hunt out there did. But at that time it was either change it all or we are locking everything up. And you know how the rest of it went.

Again – my comments were not aimed at hunters. They were aimed directly at you and Happy.

Then who was this directed at?

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.

I have never hunted nor asked to hunt on your land, so it couldn't have been directed at me. I could only assume you were directing it to all hunters!

Hunters are going to eliminate ranchers? I don't think so, but it's an interesting thought. How do you propose do eliminate us? Twelve gauge, AK47 or .357? :cowboy:

This very statement shows how hostile of an attitude you have and the pure blindness you have for seeing the other side of things. I was simply saying that hunters would eliminate the ranchers by helping GFP buy more ground to hunt on. Hence we wouldn't have to deal with asking ranchers for permission. See here, I'll post it again so you can read it. :wink:

IF the good hunters continue to be treated like dirt and a green back by ranchers, you will see more and more land bought by GFP. They'll just eliminate the rancher. They shot down the last bill that tried to regulate GFP purchases. They'll spend the money and pay the taxes to have their places to hunt.

I find it funny how you keep claiming that hunters and you are on the same side, yet you are holding hunters accountable for GFP's failures. Then you tell us that we need to get things changed to the way you see fit. How do you propose we do that when YOU have the 4.3 million acres lockout and can't get anything done?? :!:

YOU claim you have a good relationship with you GFP officer. How can that be? If you don't allow hunting, and do not hunt,(maybe not buy licenses would be more applicable here :shock: ) then in what situation have you ever had to deal with them? That answer I am TRUELY interested in.

 

[SJ]

I personally do not want a transferable license. I don't have any contracts with GF&P and I don't want any contracts with GF&P. I will decide who, where and what for I allow access. If permission is too much to ask of GF&P for what I give (without compensation) to this recreation, my property will stay locked out.

I am not against those who want the transferable tag. I also think it would be a show of respect for what the property owner gives to this recreation. I don't think 1 or 4 transferable licenses will close all property to free hunting or all property owners will become outfitters.

Pheasant hunting has become big business in South Dakota and much of it is for pay but not all. How and why do you think that came to being? You talk of high fence hunting, what do you call pheasant preserve hunting?

You don't want transferable tags.

You want "Immediate Family Tags" with "immediate" being defined and regulated.

If GF&P were to buy all the property for this recreation, how much do you think your license would cost?


How do you feel about public and private golf courses?



Just an FYI--- In Chicago it seems the geese are causing problems with to many geese and goose gunk in the parks so they are having egg hunts and shaking the eggs so they don't hatch.

 

[Southdakotahunter]

Pheasant hunting is differnet. different because we have, the BEST pheasant hunting in the WORLD.....end of discussion. It is known world wide. I dont feel there is any difference between a high fence hunt for big game and a preserve that has pen raised birds. If you look, there will be plenty of places that have wild birds, no pen raised ones at all. Im not for the pay to hunt places at all, but everyone needs to make a buck and if the farmer/rancher feels this is the way they want to do it, so be it. there will be more birds in the ditches and roads for me to hunt if they farm for the birds. One major difference between the 2 is just that, they farm for the birds. Everything they do is for the birds. Big game is not that way around here any way. We dont have the trophy animals around those who will pay upwards of 5k for a trophy mule deer will pay. we never will have the animals. Its genetics. Its just like Harding county wont have the pheasants either. Why would someone want to pay to hunt in SD for big game when Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Colorado etc is so much better? You also have to manage the animals in a way to try to keep them from overpopulating as best you can. Not doing anything, not allowing hunting wont help the situation. Eventually, they will be crawling all over like rats and disease will take over. No rancher/farmer i have every known wants anything like that. Rancers/farmers are conservationist at heart. They dont want to see anything suffer. You cant just up and start pulling the trigger and leave them lay either. Thats not right. So what do you do? Allow hunting. You have the right to allow anything, period. I would be telling those they must take a doe first, or 2 or 3 doe if they want to hunt my property. then a buck is ok.....but its your choice. If this dont get taken care of in the next few years, there will be so many animals in some areas, some will be begging others to help out. Remember how thick jackrabbits used to be? could you imagin even a small percent of that to be deer, goats, or whatever?

 

[publichunter]

The lock-out in general only has to do with one thing money..... It has been stated before by one of the lockout leaders "that if we had a transferable license, the lockout would disappear." Transferable license has nothing to do with showing or giving a "little" respect to landowners. It is a way to commercialize a natural resource. All landowners have the ability to charge for access, I support that, but no one should be given the right or the ability to sell or trade a public resource other than the state that is holding it in "trust" for the people. (everyone)
Preserve hunting is not and can not be compared to high fence hunting. The birds have the ability to fly away, you cant say that about the fence and big game.

For you info LB there is less than 75 "sportsmen" supporting the firing of Priekstat far from the several hundred you claimed. Most of the "sportsmen" are guides and landowners whom have been arrested and prosecuted by Bob, he may have a very terrible attitude and performasnce of his job, there is no finer game law officer in the country.
Your lock-out group continues to fail and you are just trying to hang onto anythiing to get yourself in the headlines. Remember we live in a democracy the majority of people rule, perhaps that is why your attempt at passing laws has failed so many times.

 

[P Joe]

I personally do not want a transferable license. I don't have any contracts with GF&P and I don't want any contracts with GF&P. I will decide who, where and what for I allow access. If permission is too much to ask of GF&P for what I give (without compensation) to this recreation, my property will stay locked out.

I agree with it, but how does HB1177 address that issue. If a game warden sees something "he" thinks to be fishy, he still can go and investigate without your permission. This bill will do nothing but limit the excuse that GFP can use. You will still have to hold THAT PERSON accountable for their actions.

I am not against those who want the transferable tag. I also think it would be a show of respect for what the property owner gives to this recreation. I don't think 1 or 4 transferable licenses will close all property to free hunting or all property owners will become outfitters.

Pheasant hunting has become big business in South Dakota and much of it is for pay but not all. How and why do you think that came to being? You talk of high fence hunting, what do you call pheasant preserve hunting?

You don't want transferable tags.

You want "Immediate Family Tags" with "immediate" being defined and regulated.

I'm not against giving the landowner 1 to 3 transferable tags either in addition to a free one for themself, as long as "Immediate Family Tags" is defined as just that. Parents, Siblings, nieces and nephews AND the tags are paid for by the person it is transferred to. They would have to adhere to the same rules as residents do when applying for a license. Over 16 or you need a Safty card, no convicted felons, can't owe child support, all those things. I think that is fair, do you?

Pheasant hunting has turned into big business. Do I support it? NO! Did I voice my opinion when road hunting was challange? YES! There is a difference between these 2 types of hunting. You legally can drive down any gravel road(while in season of course) and shoot your limit of birds. Everyone has that choice. Everyone has a choice to spend $100 for a day on hunting too. I don't do it, but some do.

Also with pheasants, those farmers make nothing off the land, and pull everything from getting hunters to come in. You complain about how much deer take away from your grazing. Add on top of that the cost of planting the habitat it takes to produce those number of pheasants. The cost of the dogs, the training, the lodging and such that they invest. It's not like they graze cattle on this land and charge hunters on the side to shoot a few pheasants. They FARM pheasants, just like you RAISE cattle. They make it their job.

Now when you see a rancher do this, let me know. I'll be the 1st one on the list to hunt, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

I see your side of things, but I don't agree with how you want to change things. I just wish that you would step back and look at the other side of this argument. Maybe that too much to ask?

 

[SJ]

This was probably my favorite quote of all the posts "The lock-out in general only has to do with one thing money" Common sense would tell me if the lock out was all about money they wouldn't lockout. They would just charge to access. The other thing that makes this so amusing is that what do you think GF&P is all about? "Peanuts"

GF&P is the biggest outfitter in the state. The only management they do is for the green that goes into their pocket. If they truly wanted to manage they would make the doe mandatory but they don't because as they stated-- only the ethical hunter would do that and because some would not buy the licenses if they had to shoot the doe. (to many to process)

I will say this one more time. When GF&P is made to follow the law(like the rest of us) and asks permission to enter, I will open my property. If you want to idolize GF&P don't let me stand in your way.

As far as deer numbers getting out of control I will let GF&P's management take care of that. GF&P's coyote, wolves and mountain lion management will do just fine.

I was at one of working group meetings when a person from a wild life organization was asked what the hunters have given up and his answer was this "they gave up the right to trespass".

Tony Dean thinks-- property rights whacko's, subsidy sucking alternative farmers are degenerates and he lumps them all as swine. He's the hunter advocate.

I don't have a problem with high fence hunting, pheasant farm hunting and never stated I did. I am very much aware they have put a lot into it. I don't like road hunting but that it my opinion. I don't have to contend with it either.

What do you think the property owner should get for their part in this recreation?


Sometimes I feel like it is nothing but one thing is for sure nothing can run both ways.

This has been a good thread and the only thing I am certain about is that we will agree to disagree.

Always enjoy a good discussion.

 

[Brad S]

Is road hunting legal in SD? It is easily one of the most scurvy, irresponsible, and dangerous ways to hunt. In Kansas road hunter = POACHER.

By the by, the US is not a democracy, but rather a republic. What's the difference? In a democracy its easier for the majority to tyranize the minority, and this minority of SD ranchers is being tyranized by an envious and greedy majority. I pity the noble SD ranchers that are cursed with a tyranizing majority of East River Bob LaFollette/Sam Gompers communal, antiproperty rights COMMIES.

First, What is meant by king's quarry? Well US common law comes from English common law in which all wild game belonged to the king. Our social contract framers rebuked so many of the king's laws, but hadn't the foresight to consider what they'd have thought preposterous - private property owners being forced to sustain wildlife for the common good with no compensation. So, now we have most of the wildlife sustenance being afforded by a small overtaxed minority. Just because there isn't a special bill of rights provision prohibiting such a taking doesn't mean its constitutional. But it is because the majority says it is.

So Colorado has a system that rewards landowners for sustaining the state's wildlife. They attach about $100 fee to hunting liscenses that goes to landowners where game is hunted. Your tag has a ticket that can be redeemed from the state for this money - where you tag out gets the ticket.

Kansas has transferrable tags, and the income generated has helped sustain some good familys. The fear that all the free loading hhunters will be displaced is nonsense. Sure the out of state hunters pay alot of money. Local hunters can always hunt cleanup which really requires great hunting skill. The spike bucks, close basket rack, and other freaks need culled and provide free local hunting for skilled sportsmen. The good old days of freeloading hunting went out with low taxes.


All this talk about fee hunting really begs the issue. The SD lockout is simply all that honest noble people have to protect property rights. I am an objective onlooker, and I admire the commitment to freedom.

 

[Happy go lucky]

SJ:GF&P is the biggest outfitter in the state. The only management they do is for the green that goes into their pocket. If they truly wanted to manage they would make the doe mandatory but they don't because as they stated-- only the ethical hunter would do that and because some would not buy the licenses if they had to shoot the doe. (to many to process)

SJ who do you think would be very vocal if deer hunters where mandated to shoot does first? Some hunters? You bet, but also those that charge for Big game hunting, why would you need GFP to make that a mandate when you own the land? You can tell all hunters you hunt here but you must shoot a doe first?
Ethical hunters shoot what needs to be shot to help out the overall population. How many doe tags are sold in many states? Also more states don't give the option of just a buck tag if you want a chance at a buck you must purchase a doe tag as well.
The landowner should be the one mandating the doe to be shot first, as it helps them with depredation, some don't like that as they want their Game depts to be the fall guy when the minority complains.

SJ:As far as deer numbers getting out of control I will let GF&P's management take care of that. GF&P's coyote, wolves and mountain lion management will do just fine.

Explain more? Most states have year round coyote hunting,trapping and have liberial rules when it comes to the coyote. Wolves, time will tell on there population dynamics and the impacts they have on a larger scale. Are you saying your state doesn't do enough to control these predators, that they are having a noticeable impact on your deer heard?


SJ:I don't like road hunting but that it my opinion. I don't have to contend with it either.

What do you think the property owner should get for their part in this recreation?

Explain why road hunting is bad?The property owner should expect to have numbers thinned, a free offering and good comradery from the people that come to visit and thin down game numbers.

Is the dollar the most important aspect of hunting? Is that the future our children have to look forward to? The TV shows are to blame as they make the Big Buck the most prized possesion and some cross the line to be glorified by others. Still there is a great % of the hunting population that hunt for the sport and a trophy is in the eye of the beholder, many children get just as excited to shoot a doe as they do a buck. Many does are harvested each fall, in areas many more can/need to be, but by having groups on opposite sides, your not going to get the control either side is looking for.

BradS:Is road hunting legal in SD? It is easily one of the most scurvy, irresponsible, and dangerous ways to hunt. In Kansas road hunter = POACHER.

Back the smack with proof please.

The road ditch is not private property, just as sidewalks aren't either, all tax payers pay for those raod ditches, and should be allowed to hunt them. Point me to the facts where road ditches are the most dangerous places to hunt and the most accidents a year, I would love to read it. Poaching is overbagging, tresspassing , not following the laws. So if road ditch hunting is legal and the laws followed how are so many poachers?

You see alot of the road ditch issue comes from those that have paid to hunt and want to force the majority in a geoghrapic area to be forced into paying to hunt.

brads:So Colorado has a system that rewards landowners for sustaining the state's wildlife. They attach about $100 fee to hunting liscenses that goes to landowners where game is hunted.

Who do you think pays for that? Also it is just a shifting of sportsmans dollars no more or less, many ways to achieve a desired result, eahc state and the people of those states decides what is best for the most part.

Kansas has transferrable tags, and the income generated has helped sustain some good familys. The fear that all the free loading hhunters will be displaced is nonsense. Sure the out of state hunters pay alot of money. Local hunters can always hunt cleanup which really requires great hunting skill. The spike bucks, close basket rack, and other freaks need culled and provide free local hunting for skilled sportsmen. The good old days of freeloading hunting went out with low taxes.

So your telling me the people of KS who pay taxes and help to keep landowner taxes lower are the ones who should take the leftovers? the people who make the state what it is and being productive members should take a back seat, to the 3 -5 day out of stater because he has a wallet full of money and little time? LOL

Tell me the tax rate per acre for KS ag ground? How often is it assed and what dollar amount % wise has it risen in the last 15 years? You see no matter what state you live in, AG ground is always cheaper than residentail, because you have more people in cities, more infrastructure to pay for those are all givens, but it also keeps those people who live in the rural areas at a low tax base!!!!! If people move out in droves from the cities, you have no choice but to raise ag land taxes or cut services.

You bet those tax paying residents should be the happy ones and doing "clean up" as you call it !!!!!!!! Good Grief.

 

[Liberty Belle]

Thanks for your illuminating post Brad S. You've obviously studied both history and government and remembered what you learned, unlike the "sportsmen" who have been posting here. The number of people who have gotten through our public school system without being taught that we are a republic (ruled by laws), and not a democracy (mob rule) amazes me.

These are the first folks to scream when they think their rights have been violated, not realizing that in a true democracy there are NO individual rights and the majority decides every issue. Democracy is merely a transition between tyranny and total dictatorship. Thank God that our founding fathers recognized democracy for what it is and gave us a "government of laws, not of men" instead.

Too bad the founding fathers didn't realize the problems they created when they granted ownership of wildlife to the citizens, but I'm sure they never intended to make a small minority of landowners responsible for the expense of the feeding and upkeep of the wildlife that belongs to all the people. Sounds like Colorado and Kansas have some good ideas that we should look into. As bad as what they're doing makes Happy squeal, it must be good.

After reading the blather that "public hunter" posted, it doesn't surprise me that he thinks Prieksat is the finest "game law officer in the country". Prieksat is such a miserable excuse for a law enforcement officer that even Tony Dean wants him gone!!

Thanks again for posting.

 

[Happy go lucky]

LB you are amazing.

The number of people who have gotten through our public school system without being taught that we are a republic (ruled by laws), and not a democracy (mob rule) amazes me.

We are very much ruled by laws and the people of many states have spoken on widlife issues, thats why we have the laws we do correct?


Too bad the founding fathers didn't realize the problems they created when they granted ownership of wildlife to the citizens, but I'm sure they never intended to make a small minority of landowners responsible for the expense of the feeding and upkeep of the wildlife that belongs to all the people.


Due to these laws and Teddy R, and good conservation we have more wildife now than we did when the founding fathers wrote anything. Hard to look that far down the road even for them LB. LOL.

Sportsman pay there own way and pay for conservation, since 1937 over 1 Billion dollars has been collected from Pittman/Robertson funding!Can you name any other group of people that have self taxed themselves for the betterment of the whole without complaining?

1 Billion dollars that came directly from the shooting/hunting community saving all tax payers, dollars for wildife restoration!

 

[SJ]

In our county the property owner pays the taxes on the property the county roads sit on.

 

[IL Rancher]

We pay it here too, well, we pay for the land underneath the road :roll: but hunting is not allowed in our roadsides to the best of my knowledge (mostly because of the laws prohibiting shooting a firearm within X amount of feet from a road.) Folks can trap in roadsides if they want to however, but it isn't very common... We are also responsible for maintaining the roadsides, ie mowing them, well, the township roads at least... County comes by once a year and clips theirs...

Drainage ditches have no public right of way around here, for that I am pretty darn thankfull. We also don't have reassignable hunting liscences either which I kind of like personally..