publichunter
Well-known member
I know it does.....if you think I am wrong you check it ouot
USFW & GF&P story from RCJ
- Thread starter Liberty Belle
- Start date
SJ
Well-known member
You are saying that every dime of that fine goes to schools.
Happy go lucky
Well-known member
SJ please enlighten me to these catch 22 laws? Name a couple of these catch 22 laws? I don't believe in strong governmental control, I also don't believe we need to have our wildlife trampled on and used for the profit and greed of the wealthy either. Rules and regs keep all on a level playing field, those with the dollars may hunt where ever, but the species and the pressures applied dictate those rules and regs all must follow to abide by the laws set fourth.
Look at the internet hunting a big majority of states are making that practice illegal as it should be, these and other practices set no value's for our children to abide by.
I found this on the net:
Civil Penalties: Where Does the Money Go?IntroductionCriminal courts can take away a person'sfreedom and life, but the civil courts areusually limited to taking away a person'smoney or prohibiting certain conduct. When the State of South Dakota goes tocivil court and is declared the winner, whereis that money deposited in the state system,and what programs does it support?
When the Constitution was written, civil penaltieswere not a major source of income and theywere deposited in only one fund. Theframers mentioned the collection of civilpenalties only once in the entireConstitution. Today, however, the statecollects more civil penalties and depositsthem in numerous different state accounts. Definitions A civil wrong may be defined in statute, orit may be established by previous courtdecisions. Civil lawsuits involve personalinjuries, business disputes, land deals, libeland slander, and various other commercialinterests. Civil law actions must be broughtby an attorney hired by the injured party (theplaintiff) against the alleged wrongdoer (thedefendant). The parties in a civil case maybe individuals, corporations, or the stateitself. Civil law is concerned with thepeaceful resolution of disputes betweenparties.
History The South Dakota Constitution directs "the proceeds of all fines collected fromviolations of state laws . . . be paid to thecounty treasurer"1for the purpose ofproviding a free education to the children ofthe state. General Beadle, the territorialSuperintendent of School and Public Lands,brought the issue of quality education to theforefront of the discussions when he learnedthe Dakota Territory might sell state ownedland for low prices. He took a strong standagainst the low price and was the first toconsider breaking away from the territoryand becoming a state to save the schools. During the Constitutional Convention heinsisted the state sell lands for a minimum of$10/acre with the proceeds going to theschools. It was during the School and Public Landsdiscussions that the following committeereport was submitted:
"The stability of a Republican form of government dependingmainly upon the intelligence of the people, itshall be the duty of the Legislature toestablish a general and uniform system ofpublic schools."2With that report, the first constitutiondirected all fines and penalties be depositedin the County School Fund to be distributedto all schools in that district. In 1899legislation was passed to direct civil finescollected from hunting violations away fromthe school fund and into the County GameFund (now called the Game, Fish and ParksFund). Almost 70 years later, in 1968, a third fund was created to accept money collected fromcivil wrongs to the state.
The Department ofLabor created the Employment SecurityContingency Fund which was to collect allfines, penalties, and interest related to theunemployment compensation program. Money in the fund could be used by theDepartment of Labor for administrativefunctions as approved by the Governor.In 1980, the Attorney General, on behalf ofthe state, was allowed to collect civilpenalties in all Restraint of Trade violationsand deposit the money in the Anti-TrustSpecial Revenue Fund. The 1985
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
Page 3August 7, 2000Legislature gave the Secretary of Revenue authority to create a fund to recover civil penalties related to violations to the SouthDakota Liquor Control Law.Attorney General's Opinion 88-04After all of the diversions of civil fines away from the County School Fund, it was not until January 1988 that an official opinionwas written on the subject.
AttorneyGeneral Roger Tellinghuisen wrote OfficialOpinion No. 88-04 in response to theDepartment of Water and NaturalResources.FACTS:The Department of Waterand Natural Resources isanticipating a request to drafta bill for the 1988 LegislativeSession that would create aState Cleanup fund whichwould be used to respond tospills and leads of regulatedsubstances and petroleumproducts. One of the sourcesof funding being consideredare civil penalties that arecollected as a result ofviolating environmentalcontrol statutes. Article VIII,Section 3 of the
SouthDakota Constitution states: "[A]ll fines collected from violations of state laws shall be paid to the countytreasurer . . . to be distributed among and between all of the several public schoolsincorporated in such county .. . ." The Department is concerned whether theLegislature may, consistent with that provision, provide that civil penalties collected for environmental harm under SDCL Titles 34A and45 be placed in such acleanup fund.Based upon those facts, youhave asked thefollowing question
oes Article VIII, Section 3of the South DakotaConstitution mandate thatcivil penalties collectedpursuant to SDCL Titles 34Aand 45 be paid to the benefitof the public schools?Attorney General Tellinghuisen concludedthat:When all of these variousfactors are consideredtogether, it is my opinion thatthe framers of theConstitution referred tocriminal proceedings whenthey used the word "fines."General case law providesthat the ordinary meaning of"fine" is a criminal sanction. .. . Accordingly, it is myopinion that the Legislaturemay, consistent with ArticleVIII, § 3, provide that those"civil penalties," which arenot criminal sanctions, can bepaid into a newly createdcleanup fund. My answer to your question is N
pening the Door After receiving the Attorney General'sopinion, the Department of Water andNatural Resources (DWNR, now calledEnvironment and Natural Resources)introduced legislation in 1988 that wouldallow the department to deposit civilpenalties in department-controlled funds.Two new environmental fee funds wereestablished that year, the Environment andNatural Resources Fee Fund (ENRFF) andthe Regulated Substance Response Fund.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4
Page 4August 7, 2000Opinion No. 88-04 opened the door forother agencies to keep control of the civilpenalties collected by their agencies. TheDWNR was not the only agency to takeadvantage of the recent Attorney General'sOpinion. During the 1988 LegislativeSession changes were made as follows: Uniform Securities Act violations were deposited into the State General Fund;banking law violations were deposited in theBanking Revolving Fund; petroleum release violations were directed to the PetroleumRelease Compensation Fund administeredby the Department of Commerce.In the time since Attorney General'sOpinion No. 88-04 was released, sixadditional statute changes have diverted civil fines from the school fund to agencybudgets. (See attached table.)The amount of civil penalties collected by the state in any given year is difficult toascertain because most departments whocollect and keep the fines do notdifferentiate between the civil penalties andthe other sources of revenue in the fund.
The Department of Game, Fish and Parks separates their revenue sources and reported deposits of $21,419 in the Game Fund for civil fines collected as a result of huntingviolations in FY1996. ConclusionThe process of tracking civil fines collectedby the state is, at times, complicated andobscure. Over the years, the use of civilfines and penalties received by the state hasmushroomed from one account to at leastfifteen. Couple that with the fact that theaccounting system does not specificallytrack the money, and civil fines become lostin an accounting maze.
SJ them keeping 21,419 yep that really brings in a ton of money to be used by your game/fish dept. Remember those are civil fines and not court cost or the ticket dollars which gets used by all people of your state, not directly to your Game/fish.
This is also interesting for many to read as well.
The policy of dedicating hunting and fishinglicense revenues to enforcing the game lawsof South Dakota has been around for nearly100 years. In order to receive federal funds for fish and wildlife restoration projects,states may not divert hunting and fishinglicense revenue for any purpose except administration of the state fish and wildlifeagency. The annual appropriation of moneyin the Game, Fish, and Parks fund has been debated during a number of legislativesessions and will likely be debated in futurelegislative sessions.This issue memorandum was written by David L. Becker, Fiscal Analyst for the LegislativeResearch Council. It is designed to supply background information on the subject and isnot a policy statement made by the Legislative Research Council.
Look at the internet hunting a big majority of states are making that practice illegal as it should be, these and other practices set no value's for our children to abide by.
I found this on the net:
Civil Penalties: Where Does the Money Go?IntroductionCriminal courts can take away a person'sfreedom and life, but the civil courts areusually limited to taking away a person'smoney or prohibiting certain conduct. When the State of South Dakota goes tocivil court and is declared the winner, whereis that money deposited in the state system,and what programs does it support?
When the Constitution was written, civil penaltieswere not a major source of income and theywere deposited in only one fund. Theframers mentioned the collection of civilpenalties only once in the entireConstitution. Today, however, the statecollects more civil penalties and depositsthem in numerous different state accounts. Definitions A civil wrong may be defined in statute, orit may be established by previous courtdecisions. Civil lawsuits involve personalinjuries, business disputes, land deals, libeland slander, and various other commercialinterests. Civil law actions must be broughtby an attorney hired by the injured party (theplaintiff) against the alleged wrongdoer (thedefendant). The parties in a civil case maybe individuals, corporations, or the stateitself. Civil law is concerned with thepeaceful resolution of disputes betweenparties.
History The South Dakota Constitution directs "the proceeds of all fines collected fromviolations of state laws . . . be paid to thecounty treasurer"1for the purpose ofproviding a free education to the children ofthe state. General Beadle, the territorialSuperintendent of School and Public Lands,brought the issue of quality education to theforefront of the discussions when he learnedthe Dakota Territory might sell state ownedland for low prices. He took a strong standagainst the low price and was the first toconsider breaking away from the territoryand becoming a state to save the schools. During the Constitutional Convention heinsisted the state sell lands for a minimum of$10/acre with the proceeds going to theschools. It was during the School and Public Landsdiscussions that the following committeereport was submitted:
"The stability of a Republican form of government dependingmainly upon the intelligence of the people, itshall be the duty of the Legislature toestablish a general and uniform system ofpublic schools."2With that report, the first constitutiondirected all fines and penalties be depositedin the County School Fund to be distributedto all schools in that district. In 1899legislation was passed to direct civil finescollected from hunting violations away fromthe school fund and into the County GameFund (now called the Game, Fish and ParksFund). Almost 70 years later, in 1968, a third fund was created to accept money collected fromcivil wrongs to the state.
The Department ofLabor created the Employment SecurityContingency Fund which was to collect allfines, penalties, and interest related to theunemployment compensation program. Money in the fund could be used by theDepartment of Labor for administrativefunctions as approved by the Governor.In 1980, the Attorney General, on behalf ofthe state, was allowed to collect civilpenalties in all Restraint of Trade violationsand deposit the money in the Anti-TrustSpecial Revenue Fund. The 1985
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
Page 3August 7, 2000Legislature gave the Secretary of Revenue authority to create a fund to recover civil penalties related to violations to the SouthDakota Liquor Control Law.Attorney General's Opinion 88-04After all of the diversions of civil fines away from the County School Fund, it was not until January 1988 that an official opinionwas written on the subject.
AttorneyGeneral Roger Tellinghuisen wrote OfficialOpinion No. 88-04 in response to theDepartment of Water and NaturalResources.FACTS:The Department of Waterand Natural Resources isanticipating a request to drafta bill for the 1988 LegislativeSession that would create aState Cleanup fund whichwould be used to respond tospills and leads of regulatedsubstances and petroleumproducts. One of the sourcesof funding being consideredare civil penalties that arecollected as a result ofviolating environmentalcontrol statutes. Article VIII,Section 3 of the
SouthDakota Constitution states: "[A]ll fines collected from violations of state laws shall be paid to the countytreasurer . . . to be distributed among and between all of the several public schoolsincorporated in such county .. . ." The Department is concerned whether theLegislature may, consistent with that provision, provide that civil penalties collected for environmental harm under SDCL Titles 34A and45 be placed in such acleanup fund.Based upon those facts, youhave asked thefollowing question
oes Article VIII, Section 3of the South DakotaConstitution mandate thatcivil penalties collectedpursuant to SDCL Titles 34Aand 45 be paid to the benefitof the public schools?Attorney General Tellinghuisen concludedthat:When all of these variousfactors are consideredtogether, it is my opinion thatthe framers of theConstitution referred tocriminal proceedings whenthey used the word "fines."General case law providesthat the ordinary meaning of"fine" is a criminal sanction. .. . Accordingly, it is myopinion that the Legislaturemay, consistent with ArticleVIII, § 3, provide that those"civil penalties," which arenot criminal sanctions, can bepaid into a newly createdcleanup fund. My answer to your question is Npening the Door After receiving the Attorney General'sopinion, the Department of Water andNatural Resources (DWNR, now calledEnvironment and Natural Resources)introduced legislation in 1988 that wouldallow the department to deposit civilpenalties in department-controlled funds.Two new environmental fee funds wereestablished that year, the Environment andNatural Resources Fee Fund (ENRFF) andthe Regulated Substance Response Fund.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4
Page 4August 7, 2000Opinion No. 88-04 opened the door forother agencies to keep control of the civilpenalties collected by their agencies. TheDWNR was not the only agency to takeadvantage of the recent Attorney General'sOpinion. During the 1988 LegislativeSession changes were made as follows: Uniform Securities Act violations were deposited into the State General Fund;banking law violations were deposited in theBanking Revolving Fund; petroleum release violations were directed to the PetroleumRelease Compensation Fund administeredby the Department of Commerce.In the time since Attorney General'sOpinion No. 88-04 was released, sixadditional statute changes have diverted civil fines from the school fund to agencybudgets. (See attached table.)The amount of civil penalties collected by the state in any given year is difficult toascertain because most departments whocollect and keep the fines do notdifferentiate between the civil penalties andthe other sources of revenue in the fund.
The Department of Game, Fish and Parks separates their revenue sources and reported deposits of $21,419 in the Game Fund for civil fines collected as a result of huntingviolations in FY1996. ConclusionThe process of tracking civil fines collectedby the state is, at times, complicated andobscure. Over the years, the use of civilfines and penalties received by the state hasmushroomed from one account to at leastfifteen. Couple that with the fact that theaccounting system does not specificallytrack the money, and civil fines become lostin an accounting maze.
SJ them keeping 21,419 yep that really brings in a ton of money to be used by your game/fish dept. Remember those are civil fines and not court cost or the ticket dollars which gets used by all people of your state, not directly to your Game/fish.
This is also interesting for many to read as well.
The policy of dedicating hunting and fishinglicense revenues to enforcing the game lawsof South Dakota has been around for nearly100 years. In order to receive federal funds for fish and wildlife restoration projects,states may not divert hunting and fishinglicense revenue for any purpose except administration of the state fish and wildlifeagency. The annual appropriation of moneyin the Game, Fish, and Parks fund has been debated during a number of legislativesessions and will likely be debated in futurelegislative sessions.This issue memorandum was written by David L. Becker, Fiscal Analyst for the LegislativeResearch Council. It is designed to supply background information on the subject and isnot a policy statement made by the Legislative Research Council.
P Joe
Well-known member
SJ said:
I Believe he is right on that. All fines paid go to the country treasure in which they were committed. It might not be 'ear tagged" for the school, but the county does get the funds. The state doesn't see a dime.
publichunter
Well-known member
Geez someone actually tells someone else that they are right on something, thats almost a first.......
P Joe
Well-known member
publichunter said:Geez someone actually tells someone else that they are right on something, thats almost a first.......
ahhh. don't get your hopes up, they won't believe us in the first place and then they will accuse of us trampling on their private property rights because the funds are not "ear tagged" for harding county! :shock: :shock:
SJ
Well-known member
Pjoe, happy, public hunter,
You are correct and I stand corrected.
I should have said when a ticket is issued not every dime of that ticket goes to schools. But as I said before you are correct the fine money goes to the school within the county where the violation occurred.
Here is a break down of a 79 dollar speeding ticket.
Fine
35.00 to the school district in the county where the violation occurred.
Costs
20.00 to the law enforcemnt officer training fund.
11.50 to the unified judicial system for court automation
6.00 to the court appointed attorney & public defender fund.
2.50 to the victim's compensation fund.
2.00 to the court appointed special advocates fund
1.00 to the 911 telecommunicator training fund.
1.00 to the abused and neglected child defense fund.
You are correct and I stand corrected.
I should have said when a ticket is issued not every dime of that ticket goes to schools. But as I said before you are correct the fine money goes to the school within the county where the violation occurred.
Here is a break down of a 79 dollar speeding ticket.
Fine
35.00 to the school district in the county where the violation occurred.
Costs
20.00 to the law enforcemnt officer training fund.
11.50 to the unified judicial system for court automation
6.00 to the court appointed attorney & public defender fund.
2.50 to the victim's compensation fund.
2.00 to the court appointed special advocates fund
1.00 to the 911 telecommunicator training fund.
1.00 to the abused and neglected child defense fund.
Happy go lucky
Well-known member
Bottom line is, it helps to keep your states taxes down. Only violaters get to pay for their violations.
P Joe
Well-known member
SJ said:
Thanks for posting that. You are truley an honest person. Where did you find that info at. I had been looking, but couldn't come across anything that broke it down that far.
SJ
Well-known member
I found it on the wall of the Clerk of Courts Office.
I believe everyone posting are truely honest people.
I also believe everyone truly believes what they post is true or what they believe to be true.
Believing something to be true is not being dishonest.
I am passionate about property rights and feel when they are gone everyones rights could be gone. I believe that to be true.
I believe the Open-Field- Doctrine is being interpreted wrong and used wrong for a legal recreation. Having this belief has made some assume I have something to hide/ must be conducting criminal activity. Having strong beliefs is not criminal.
I wish violaters paid for their violations but I don't know that any of them do. Many crimes are paid for by the victim intially and from that day forward the victim and all others pay for their crime.
I believe everyone posting are truely honest people.
I also believe everyone truly believes what they post is true or what they believe to be true.
Believing something to be true is not being dishonest.
I am passionate about property rights and feel when they are gone everyones rights could be gone. I believe that to be true.
I believe the Open-Field- Doctrine is being interpreted wrong and used wrong for a legal recreation. Having this belief has made some assume I have something to hide/ must be conducting criminal activity. Having strong beliefs is not criminal.
I wish violaters paid for their violations but I don't know that any of them do. Many crimes are paid for by the victim intially and from that day forward the victim and all others pay for their crime.
Liberty Belle
Well-known member
I got this from a friend in the legislature who feels like I do about the Open Fields Doctrine and the overbearing and abusive deer police. Some of you will think this is funny. :twisted:
I wish all landowners had bulls like this one... :cboy:
An arrogant game warden stopped at a ranch and talked with the old rancher. "I need to inspect your ranch."
The old rancher said, "You better not go in that pasture."
The game warden said in a wise tone, "I have the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court with me. See this card? The Open Fields Doctrine allows me to go wherever I wish on agricultural land."
So the old rancher went about his chores.
Later, the rancher heard loud screams. He saw the game warden running for the fence, and close behind was the rancher's prize bull.
The bull was madder than a nest full of hornets and was gaining at every step.
The old rancher yelled out: "Show him your card!"
I wish all landowners had bulls like this one... :cboy:
An arrogant game warden stopped at a ranch and talked with the old rancher. "I need to inspect your ranch."
The old rancher said, "You better not go in that pasture."
The game warden said in a wise tone, "I have the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court with me. See this card? The Open Fields Doctrine allows me to go wherever I wish on agricultural land."
So the old rancher went about his chores.
Later, the rancher heard loud screams. He saw the game warden running for the fence, and close behind was the rancher's prize bull.
The bull was madder than a nest full of hornets and was gaining at every step.
The old rancher yelled out: "Show him your card!"
publichunter
Well-known member
I thought you were always testifying along with the rest that the CO always drove on your land and ruined your grass?
knowing that makes your joke not funny at all....
knowing that makes your joke not funny at all....
passin thru
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2005
- Messages
- 2,603
Not only was it funny, you finding it not funny was the best part
Jinglebob
Well-known member
I guess some people just don't have a sense of humor. :?
SJ
Well-known member
Publichunter you might want to reread the joke.
publichunter, the game warden asked permission to enter and chose to walk, the property owner did not deny him permission to enter. The property owner was only trying to give the Game Warden a piece of advice.
Moral to the story: When arrogance and power overcome you it sometimes comes back to bite you in the #%$$.
publichunter, the game warden asked permission to enter and chose to walk, the property owner did not deny him permission to enter. The property owner was only trying to give the Game Warden a piece of advice.
Moral to the story: When arrogance and power overcome you it sometimes comes back to bite you in the #%$$.
Southdakotahunter
Well-known member
I thought it was funny!!!!
