West River Lockout landowners are bad folks...

[Jinglebob]

DU has agreements with land owners to delay haying. If they pay thats fine. In areas like the Allen Hills they tied up alot of land that was idled. NO USE.
That doesn't help communities either as we have enough rural depopulation.

Thats OK BMr, just let all them folks who live far away and don't really give a dang about you or our kind, in to hunt. That will solve all of your problems. Just ask Sd hunter! :wink: :lol:

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

DU has agreements with land owners to delay haying. If they pay thats fine. In areas like the Allen Hills they tied up alot of land that was idled. NO USE.
That doesn't help communities either as we have enough rural depopulation.

Thats OK BMr, just let all them folks who live far away and don't really give a dang about you or our kind, in to hunt. That will solve all of your problems. Just ask Sd hunter! :wink: :lol:

I don't catch your drift. What does a conservation org. buying and leaseing land and idleing it have to do with hunting on private land?
Up here Ducks unlimited is all about conservation , In the states their TV show is about hunting. The US is using canada for a breeding groung to raise ducks for US hunters to shoot.

 

[Southdakotahunter]

To tell ya the truth...i have never been a fan of ducks unlimited. I know a guy that wanted to hang up some woodduck houses somewhere and wanted some help from DU and they wouldnt help him out, dont know the entire reason. I myself am a member of pheasants forever which keeps ALL the money in our county for conservation. I know du does some good, but i think ALOT of their $ is spent on administration and some other political BS. I think what our pal Jinglebob is saying is that the game and fish is purchasing land her in SD and that takes it out of production, and again it is possibly hurting the locals who wont be able to farm the land, even thou much of the land purchased by them is somehow leased for some type of farming, maybe haying or sharecrop type, not sure how that goes. I guess i have always been one that said $ talks. i know one time i sold a house in a town to a mexican who moved in to provide cheap labor at a meat packing plant. the neighbors were not real happy about it but heck, $ talks. If they wanted the house,they should have bought it.

 

[smalltime]

SDH has said it all for the hunter.He supports an intoduced spieces of bird,and keeps all the money at home for his own use.Keep up the good work .

 

[sandhiller]

It's all about da CASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSH it's just hiding behind property rights-I don't support your lockout at all I think it's small minded and self serving-get ready for some a cuttin' and a pastin' lol.

I totally can not understand why you have a problem with any landowner trying to control who uses their property.

Why do you think any hunter should expect to be able to hunt on anyone elses property without giving compensation let alone getting permission first.

Why should the Game and Fish cops expect me to feed their animals and absorb their damage for free, so they can sell their permits and then drive all over my land. Do you think it is ok for them to harass me for checking on my cows after dark as a blizzard is starting? What do you think of the game cop pulling her gun on a guy fixing fence and accuse him of hunting ducks?

So you don't beleive in property rights? Would you please post directions to your property.
I got some beer drinking buddys that would love to have a place to play and since you think it would be ok for anybody to run all over your property, it sounds like we could all have a hellofalota fun.

Since you don't beleive in da CASSSSSSSSSSSSSSH, we would not expect to have to pay for any inconvenience or damage we might happen to cause.

I expect that a lot more people on this board and elsewhere would love to visit your place and have their share of fun as well. The public areas are getting so crowded and most of them no longer allow people to drive their pickups and atv's all over the property while drinking and tossing their trash where ever handy. Using your place may be just the ticket for a number of people.

Make sure you give really good driving directions as some of my buddies buddies may be already a little alcohol inhibited by the time they get to your place.

 

[Northern Rancher]

You don't see any hypocrisy in locking out the nonpaying hunters but opening up to the cheque book crowd. What about the young kids looking for a place to learn to hunt-stuff like that. In fact I do allow people to hunt my land for free-alot of young guys have shot their first deer on my place-I've got friends from the west coast to the east coast that come out here to hunt. Do I have a pissy fit if a game warden checks them out-not at all-they have a job to do too-from what I see you own the big deer that you can sell but you expect the state to be rsponsible for any animal you can't make a buck off. From what I see up here landowners who whine the most about game wardens usually are up to something-it appears it might be a U.S. problem too.

 

[Jinglebob]

From what I see up here landowners who whine the most about game wardens usually are up to something-it appears it might be a U.S. problem too.

There you go again, judging us by your standards. I've let lots of young fellers hunt on me. Kind'a like a friend who let lots of folks ride his gentle horses until a young boy got killed in a freak accident and it cost him $250,000. As he says, "Nobody but me and mine ride my horses now!"

Maybe it's a good thing you live up in Canada where you've got all them good fellers for hunters and neighbors.

Down here, we threw the king's butt out of this country 200 some odd years ago and we still don't believe in kissing some government idiots butt! I guess I should say, those of us who don't want to give up our rights to the crown or politcions, anyway!

I agree that if you are going to lock out you should lock all out, but I'm damned if I am going to force my thoughts on another rancher who is trying to get by and make a living.

I think you can stop posting that you think the lockout means a lockout. You and Bmr are getting as tedious as whoever it was that wanted us all to know who was the best place to get ID from! I don't read any of his posts anymore either.

 

[mtn_90]

Well said Jinglebob....

If any of you wish to let people on for free or cash to hunt the deer and all other animals, by all means, do so. But for those of you who think you have the right to tell ME what I should do with my land based on YOUR beliefs and thoughts is plain ludicious. If an intelligible argument was made here, you might change my mind, but it hasn't happened yet.

It'd be akin to you telling me I HAVE to let your teenage child drive my brand new pickup with a manual transmission because he/she's got to learn somehow, they do have an INSTRUCTIONAL permit and YOU don't OWN one, so therefore, I MUST do this. And IF I don't do this for your teenage child, I SURELY CANNOT do it for MY CHILD. Ummmm, I don't think so.

My choices are just that -- MINE. Whether you like it or not, they are mine. If I choose to not let anyone hunt my land for deer, but choose to allow predator control to clear out coyote on it, then that's MY CHOICE. BUT that still does not give GFP the right to come onto my land because they think they "see" something -- which is a loose term. What defines "see"? Who defines "see"? And if I feel this way about GFP using their powers in an abusive/intrusive manner, does it automatically mean I've got something to hide?

How anyone can make that broad of a leap and that bold of an assumption is beyond me. It's not called "hiding something" -- it's called protecting my rights as a lawabiding citizen who is not subject to random search and seizure without probable cause under the Constitution.

If you don't know what the term "probable cause" means IN IT'S ENTIRETY, then look it up, research it, then come back and let's talk about it.

 

[Liberty Belle]

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[Southdakotahunter]

Boy...ya just knew i was gonna put my 2 cents in! It is just amazing to me how you guys go back and forth on this. Northern rancher and myself, even BMR has TRIED over and over and asked over and over WHY......Why post a sign that says "lockout to hunting" or however it may say..i do know it dont say "lockout to big game" or lockout to all but paying customers" but it says lockout period! You have the right, it is your land, to do what you want, when you want and let who you want (except a game warden) on your land. You also have the choice to join an organization like the lockout who SAYS they have lockout out 4 million acres. Should it say "lockoutd out 4million acres to all but paying customers?" probably, but it dont. It says lockout. You are not compairing apples with apples when you talk about your drinking buddys, and the way you went and ranted and raved a bit ago, im guessing you have had a few too many yourself. Dont be a hypricrat. If you lockout, lockout. If you dont, thats fine also. I respect those who do what they say they are gonna do, just like i respect LB for running for office, that takes alot of time and guts, but i dont respect the way she says she is "locked out" but yet wants coyote HUNTERS! Yes they are HUNTERS! same as the guy who turned in the guy for trespass. He should have turned him in, he broke the law, but the main focus on that story was he was one of the 4 million acres of lockout landk, but he was guiding a pay hunter....isnt that hypocracy? Northern Rancher or BMR or myself is not questining your or anyones stand on the game warden issue, i dont think, im not anyway, i believe you shouldnt have a say on if the game warden comes on your place at any time, you dont think so. Thats fine. This is America, and you can think what you want. You joined the lockout...now stick to the lockout. Dont pick and choose what part of the lockout you wnat to be part of. That is why the lockout has failed, you claim 4million acres, but its untrue. How many of that 4mill allow NO HUNTING?

 

[Southdakotahunter]

oh ya, smalltime...gotta respond to your quote, i will try to paste it here but im not a good paster like the pros, but her it goes

by smalltime:SDH has said it all for the hunter.He supports an intoduced spieces of bird,and keeps all the money at home for his own use.Keep up the good work .

Well, where do i start....Your absolutely right, i DO support an introduced species, because we have the greatest pheasant hunting in the world here, bar none. The work by Pheasants forever helps ALL species, not just pheasants..deer, ducks, rabbits, dove, coons, skunk, COYOTE, everything, and I dont get anything out of it other than the pure enjoyment of seeing the critters. Someone has to give them a home, dont they? I will tell ya this much. I dont know about your ranch, or any others here on this site, but i do know that many overgraze their ranches and many plow every square inch of the ground to plant a crop. They use roundup ready everything that kills everything but the crop, mow ever inch of waterway and ditch to look like a golf course, and wonder why deer and such eat their hay stacks! These places, just like DU does up north, gives some of these critters a place to go.

How much do you think your taxes would have to go up to take the place of pheasant hunters (both in and out of state) in this state? Since a pheasant is not a migratory bird, and i live in a county in the eastern part of the state and i want to attract more hunters which means more $$ for the merchants and tax money, how does that make me a bad guy......Waiting patiently for your response SMALLtime!

 

[mrj]

I read all ten pages of this thread. And is there ever a lot of envy peeking out of some of the posts! Too little of 'to each his own' and too much of 'what you have, I should get to enjoy for free' attitudes, IMO.

It is a fact of life that government today IS doing just what the KING did in Merry Olde England......"owning" the game. Only here and now, he government/KING has convinced us we all own it......we just can't eat it without paying HIM first. How clever!

Some of you seem to be saying landowners, more properly western SD rancher, should be happy to raise the game for free and allow all the other "gameowners" to hunt on our land for free to "harvest" any problem game.

What I wonder is why the GF&P should not be divulging the number of deer on each landowner and paying the proper rate for the feed consumed by those deer (ditto geese, or any other species). I'm quite sure the numbers are available from stomach contents studies, game counts (and surely those could be updated quickly and easily by airplane or satellite).

reader (the second) stated (paraphrasing with resonable accuracy) deer eating grass is justification for charging hunters to hunt private land? And asks "do you pay to plant grass seed, water, sunlight?" You better believe we do! Maybe not directly, but land costs, loss of feed our cattle can eat, taxes all have to be paid before our kids can eat. You remind me of someone who couldn't understand why ranchers felt burdened by property taxes when "water is free, grass is free"......it must be wonderful to be so blissfully ignorant of the financial facts of raising cattle! BTW, whomever was harping on people overgrazing.....it does happen, especially during a drought, but for the most part, people have learned we need to take care of the land if we want it to take care of us.

Are any of you golfers? I think I would enjoy that sport. I think I should be able to do it for free. After all, I will pay big bucks for the clubs, shoes, cool golf outfits. There is a beautiful golf course along the Missouri River in SD. Maybe GF&P should use a little of their money to provide free golfing there for some of the landowners who cannot afford the cost of using that facility. That is just as reasonable as hunters thinking they should not have to pay anything to a landowner for the privilege of hunting on private land.

We have had our land and "the peoples game" abused by slob hunters. We are not going to tolerate that any more even though we don't have time to spare from the work our ranch requires of us for policing our land during hunting seasons, we will be doing so. We have long allowed friends to hunt at no cost to them. We will continue on a somewhat limited basis because we decided we need the income from fee hunting.

Why is it that it is good for restaurants, bars, motels, etc. in the towns and cities to make money off hunters, but landowners who after all, do have costs to bear for allowing big game to proliferate on our lands, are considered jerks if we ask for money for hunters being on our land?

BTW, I do not believe landowners are selling deer, we are selling the right to use our land for the purpose of trying to shoot a deer. I will say that both the friends and the fee hunters we have had legally on our land have been the right kind of hunters. Willing to walk and stalk the animals, and to shoot does, too.

Re. the Lockout.....I see that as a problem the GF&P escalated from a local problem between a few people into a full fledged fight between some landowners and the GF&P, due to GF&P's failure to understand the need for good relationships with landowners. They have been heavy-handed at times, some officers have not understood that their purpose is to SERVE all the PEOPLE of the state, not just the Sportsmens organizations.

Re. more acquisition of land by GF&P.......does anyone really believe this state needs MORE public land? Maybe east of the river does! Don't forget that many of the school sections east of the river were given or sold to farmers and equivalent acres were set aside west of the river as school lands, leaving a preponderance of public land on the western side of the state and more private lands east of the river.

Enough for now! Remember, envy and jealousy solve no problems.

MRJ

 

[Tumbleweed]

I think you can argue all you want about what lockout means or doesn't mean and you can argue about what the rules are. But I think the rules are the landowner makes the rules. If you don't think so just go huntin on private property with out permision and see what happens.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

MRJ I know alot of area has been covered in 10 pages. I know that people have trouble with "SLOB hunters. I post my place for Hunting on Foot only" for that very reason. I don't have any problem with a rancher controling hunting in however way he/she sees fit Only let people in wearing purple. I don't care. You have to do what works for you. If that is only For pay hunters that's fine. What started this was the issue of South dakota land owners locking out hunters in their efforts to stop Game and Fish wardens from coming on their land with out perrmission. If that works good for the SD rancher. What I was saying is that 4 million acres is claimed to be locked out to hunters. That's great but how can it be claimed to be locked out if "For Pay Hunters" are being let in to hunt? Since they have had to buy a Tag from G and F wouldn't G@F have the right to check up on those hunters?

Wouldn't the Lockout get more action if all hunters were Locked out for a year?

 

[Tumbleweed]

BMR I will say it again that the land owners make the rules and I think they are aserting their property rights when they do make their own rules. This issue is about property rights and the rights of land owners to make the rules. I believe the landowner has paid for the right to make the rules and the hunters and game and fish are guests and should behave as guests when they are on private property. The attitude of hunters and the game and fish is one of a sense of arrogance and entitlement that rubs landowners the wrongway.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

BMR I will say it again that the land owners make the rules and I think they are aserting their property rights when they do make their own rules. This issue is about property rights and the rights of land owners to make the rules. I believe the landowner has paid for the right to make the rules and the hunters and game and fish are guests and should behave as guests when they are on private property.

I agree with you TW,But why bother with the LOCK OUT if they are just making their own rules and expect them to be followed. I thought the idea was if no hunters were let in the they could lock out the game wardens, and that is what they were trying to accompliish. They always had the right to post their own hunting regulations and take for pay hunters. It was the game wardens they had a beef with and the game wardens they were trying to stop.

 

[Northern Rancher]

Just calling them as I see them Jinglebob-sorry we can't all rally around the padlock gang-it might be fun to sit down at the Phil Town with Ismay and debate the issue though.

 

[Tumbleweed]

BMR I will say it again that the land owners make the rules and I think they are aserting their property rights when they do make their own rules. This issue is about property rights and the rights of land owners to make the rules. I believe the landowner has paid for the right to make the rules and the hunters and game and fish are guests and should behave as guests when they are on private property.

I agree with you TW,But why bother with the LOCK OUT if they are just making their own rules and expect them to be followed. I thought the idea was if no hunters were let in the they could lock out the game wardens, and that is what they were trying to accompliish. They always had the right to post their own hunting regulations and take for pay hunters. It was the game wardens they had a beef with and the game wardens they were trying to stop.

BMR I think the lockout has been successful in acomplishing some of the things landowners are asking for. I believe land owners are more aware of their property rights. I believe the state and hunters are becoming more aware of those rights as well.

I would think that game wardens who know the mood of land owners in the lockout areas would be foolish to not ask the landowners permission to come on their property. I don't know if any are going on private property to check licenses without the land owners permission but I supect they are not. So maybe the lockout is successful in that way as well.

Money talks and I think in the areas of the lockout it probably has made a difference in the sale of licenses. If the landowner does not alow hunters in and the game population gets to high it is still the states responsibility to deal with that problem whether they like it or not. They either have to haul in some feed for them or shoot them. In my situation in years past they have done both. When a game warden is hauling feed to the deer or shooting and gutting them its not making the game and fish any money. I think they get an idea of what it's like to take care of a herd of livestock and the costs.

 

[Southdakotahunter]

The thing about that tho is that IF you DONT allow hunting, reasonably, and that means other than family and fee hunting, the GFP will not help you if depredation becomes a problem. What will happen when the deer REALLY become a problem, kind of like coyotes are, and really need to be thinned out to try to control them? You cant shoot them yourself, thats against the law. I suppose you could just let them die, but as an ethical rancher/farmer, you dont want to see anything just die a cruel death. So what do you do?

I am a hunter and a landowner. I believe you and i both have the right to allow those on your land you want. Its your land. If you dont want hunting on your land, thats fine, but dont go crying for help when the problem becomes major, say when we have a winter like we did back in 96-97 and we had deer herds of 500+ animals that were in standing corn fields that didnt get harvested wiping out the field, or in your ranch yard eating your hay. Piling up dead carcusses is not a solution. I really dont care what ya do, but please, if your gonna allow hunting of any type, take down your lockout signs. Your not locked out. Show the actual number of those who are locked out. By doing saying one thing and doing another is not helping you.

Up north, not sure what county but i believe it was Faulk, possibly, cant remember, a farmer had deer problems. The gfp build a fence for him around his hay bales and such. Still problems. the gfp build a building for the farmer.....took care of the problems. The next year the rancher didnt allow hunting for deer. THe gfp sent the farmer a bill for the cost of the building. You have to help yourself when the time comes.
Dont go crying for help if you dont help yourself.

 

[Liberty Belle]

The thing about that tho is that IF you DONT allow hunting, reasonably, and that means other than family and fee hunting, the GFP will not help you if depredation becomes a problem. What will happen when the deer REALLY become a problem, kind of like coyotes are, and really need to be thinned out to try to control them? You cant shoot them yourself, thats against the law. I suppose you could just let them die, but as an ethical rancher/farmer, you dont want to see anything just die a cruel death. So what do you do?

A lot of us "property rights radicals", as Tony Dean has dubbed us, bless his little socialist heart, have been discussing this very issue with some lawyers and there is no way that GF&P can deny us help with our depredation problems, regardless of whether or not we allow hunting of big game on our private land.

This hinges on three points:

#1: The game does not belong to the landowner, so the landowner is not obligated to feed and house the public's game.

#2: Private land, the grass growing on that private land and all fences, water tanks, stackyards, and other improvements to that private land are the property of the landowner and cannot be taken away without due process. GF&P cannot tell a private landowner what he must do with his private property and they sure as heck can't tell us we have to allow hunting.

#3: Any damage to private land and any depredation of property belonging to the landowner constitutes a taking, and as such, the US Constitution requires that the landowner be justly compensated for that taking.

GF&P cannot tell the landowner how he must manage his property and demand that the landowner allow hunting before they will help pay for the depredation caused by the public's game. It is no different than when my neighbor's livestock cause damage to my property. The owner of the animals is liable for any damage caused by their animals, not the landowner on whose land the damage occurred and my neighbor cannot tell me what I must do with my private property before he pays the damages he owes me.

Now the way we see it, GF&P can either furnish fences to stop deer and antelope from trashing our haystacks and fences or they can come and remove the game from our land. If the higher fences don't stop the depredation, Game Fish and Parks has a choice. They can either remove the game or kill the offending game, it's up to them. Either way, the responsibility for wildlife management belongs to GF&P and as landowners, we demand that they execute that responsibility.

I realize that both the concepts and the information contained in the following may be over your head, but some of the landowners on this board will find this interesting:

Private Property

Laws applying to cultures on the North American
continent prior to European contact were Indian Laws
established and enforced by the sovereign powers of
the respective group or culture. When settlement by
people from other nations began, the Indian
(aboriginal) title to the territory was recognized, to
varying degrees, by those arriving nations. In modern
times, the U.S. Constitution, laws made from it and
treaties signed by the U. S. are collectively the
supreme laws of the land. These laws and regulations
embody the management principles aimed at caring for
public lands and serving needs and interests of the
American public.

Long before the establishment of the U. S.
Constitution, the theory of the natural rights of man
was established in the common law of England. As
pointed out by professor Richard A. Epstein in
"Takings, Private Property and the Power of Eminent
Domain" (Harvard University Press, 1985
-------"All theories of natural rights reject the idea
that private property and personal liberty are solely
creations of the state, which itself is only other
people given extraordinary powers. Quite the
opposite, a natural rights theory asserts that the end
of the state is to protect liberty and property, as
these conceptions are understood independent of and
prior to the formations of the state. No rights are
justified in a normative way simply because the state
refuses to protect them, as a matter of grace. To use
a common example of personal liberty: The state
should prohibit murder because it is wrong; murder is
not wrong simply because the state prohibits it. The
same applies to property: Trespass is not wrong
because the state prohibits it; it is wrong because
individuals own private property. At each critical
juncture, therefore, independent rules, typically the
rules of acquisition, protection, and disposition,
specify how property is acquired and what rights its
acquisition entails. None of these rules rest
entitlements [to property]on the state, which only
enforces the rights and obligations generated by
theories of private entitlement."-------Takings, Pages
5-6--------------

The concept of natural rights to property was long
debated by political philosophers prior to
establishment of the U. S. Constitution. Thomas
Hobbes reached a solution about property and mankind
which leaned toward government control in order to
protect against human greed and self interest. Hobbes
felt that the price for order was "the surrender of
liberty in property to an absolute sovereign." =See
Takings, supra, page 7. The framers of the U. S.
Constitution rejected this concept, turning toward the
theories of John Locke whose writings were known to,
and cited often by, the framers of the Constitution.
Locke believed emphatically that individual natural
rights, including the rights to obtain and hold
property, were not derived from the sovereign or the
government but were in fact natural rights in the
nature of " the common gift of mankind."" -See
Takings, page 10; citing John Locke, "Of Civil
Government" Chapter 5 (1960). Locke's position was
based upon a simple method of individual acquisition
of property rights or property interests: "Individuals
are allowed to keep that which they first reduce to
their own possession. "See Takings, page 10.

Locke's political philosophy set forth the view
that the organization of a government does not require
the surrender of all natural rights including property
rights and interests to the sovereign. In accordance
with that view, if the government takes a property
right or a property interest then it must pay for it.
As summarized by Professor Epstein:
-------"By Locke's view, the State itself does not
furnish new or independent rights, qua sovereign,
against the person subject to its control. There is
no divine right of kings which suspends the ordinary
rules of right and obligation between individuals and
the state of nature. The sovereign has no absolute
power to generate rights. The state can acquire
nothing by simple declaration of its will that must
justify its claims in terms of the rights of the
individuals whom it protects: 'A State by Ipse Dixit,
[which means by the state's own bare assertion of
power and authority] may not transform private
property without compensation...' See Takings, page 12
citing Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. vs Beckwith,
449 U.S. 155 (1980)------------------

The framers of the U.S. Constitution accepted the
Locke theories and, as a result, the Fifth Amendment
to the U. S. Constitution prohibits the taking of
private property for public use without just
compensation.