West River Lockout landowners are bad folks...

[Big Muddy rancher]

SO LB if Game Fish and Parks asked for permission to enter your land to eliminate all the deer would you give them permission?

 

[Liberty Belle]

SO LB if Game Fish and Parks asked for permission to enter your land to eliminate all the deer would you give them permission?

Of course, and I'd give them all the help they needed. Heck, I'd bake 'em a cake, if I knew they were coming, and invite them in for dinner.

 

[sandhiller]

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.

I beleive totaly that the landowner should have total control over who should be able to enter his land. Yes I do all kids to hunt but that is my decision. If you want to allow hunters to hunt for free on your land, that is fine with me.

I feed the deer on my land and don't think I should have to allow anyone to hunt with out my permission. If I allow all deerhunters that wanted to hunt for free, I would have to many hunters. (been there, done that, got chewed out cuz they werent only ones on my land) charge them some and weeds out lots of them. It also helps me pay for a fraction of the feed they eat and what they destroy.

When I allow people to graze cows on my land I make them pay for that too, am I a bad a-- for that? When I graze my cows on my neighbors cornstalks he expects me to pay. Do you think he is wrong to expcet payment?

If I want to use the car wash in town, they expect me to pay for that privilage.

If I am hungry and happen to be near a resturant, they expect me to have pay for my food. are they hard hearted? what if it was my kid, do you think they should feed him for free?

Why anyone, even a kid, would expect to be able to hunt for free is more than I can understand.

My business is raising cattle and feeding cattle. In the end, I expect to be compensated for what my cattle eat when I sell them.

If I have to feed deer, I feel I should be able to recoup a fraction of that expense as well. If you want to give yours away, fine.

If you want to donate to the local charity, fine but don't expect me to donate to the same charity just because you think it happens to be the correct one to donate to. If you give me a bad time because I didn't donate to the charity of your choice, tough! I will give it right back to you.

BOTTOM LINE land owner should be able to control who is on his land, even hunters.

 

[Southdakotahunter]

Wow..you have done your homework. Good job. I hate lawyer talk, it sucks! All i know is what the GFP says and they say they wont help unless you have made the effort to control the population, which in this state is with hunting, they say they wont help and i agree with them, i would think most all would agree with them on that issue. its just common sense. I am sure you as a possible future lawmaker, woudl agree that common sense law making is good lawmaking. Is it good common sense to not allow hunting, but yet cry to the gfp you have a depredation problem? You mentioned socialist mr dean...what is socialist anyway LB? Isnt that a socialist way of thinking? I wont help myself because the government will come in and bail me out even when i could help myself but refuse to? Why should it be my responsibility, as a person who buys a hunting and fishing license (which an extra $5 is added to each license that is earmarked for depredation) to come in there and help ya if you dont help yourself?

 

[Jinglebob]

If GF&P wants to come onto my land to see if any laws are being broken, so be it. But they better have probable cause.

Just the same if the Sherrif were to show up to check out my, or your house to see if we were breaking any laws. They need probable cause. Why should GF&P have more power than any other law enforcement agency?

If the wildlife belongs to the people of the state and we hire the GF&P to manage same animals, do they also have the power over flies and mice and any other bothersome rodent? If so, why don't they charge a fee to eradicate or "hunt" those pests? Some people look on deer and antelope as pests, when their numbers get out of control. Or coyotes or fox or any other animal that "belongs" to the state. They mix and choose, which to call pests and which to call game. To me, pheasents are a worthless bird, in this area, as they all die in tough winters. That doesn't mean I am saying that they are not a productive game animal, somewhere else.

As in all matter of government, we need and should have more power at the local levels, then we wouldn't have as many problems.

As far as the GF&P. I've never had a problem with them on my land, but I damn sure don't want any group to have as much power as they have, especially when it isn't needed, as it may get overused.

With some of the things that are going on in government, I don't see why any group should be basicll;y unaccountable to the public, who are paying their wages. If I hire someone to do a job, I want the right to fire them if they are not doing a good job.

GF&P "manages' the "wildlife" to put $$$ in their pockets. Otherwise, when their was a deer overpopulation problem, they would allow those having the problem to deal with it, just as we do with prairedogs, coyotes, fox and yes, even the "peoples" flies!

 

[Southdakotahunter]

Sandhiller......come on. No one is saying you cant charge. What Northern rancher is saying is this. If your gonna join the lockout, then join and by all means, Lockout! Your not locking out by ONLY locking out those who dont pay. Its ok if you only have pay hunters, you have to make a buck and if thats the way you feel you can recoop some of your losses, thats ok. I am sure you are claiming that on your taxes also, since it is income! Anyway, if you dont want non paying hunters, just put up a no hunting sign and be done with it. I ask to hunt even if there is a no hunting sign, i will eather be given permission, told hell no, or be told to pay but a lockout sign is totally different. They are locking out to prevent the game and fish from having any reason to come on their land, and by having a pay hunter, you have given up what they were trying to do in the first place.

 

[Jinglebob]

Wow..you have done your homework. Good job. I hate lawyer talk, it sucks! All i know is what the GFP says and they say they wont help unless you have made the effort to control the population, which in this state is with hunting, they say they wont help and i agree with them, i would think most all would agree with them on that issue. its just common sense. I am sure you as a possible future lawmaker, woudl agree that common sense law making is good lawmaking. Is it good common sense to not allow hunting, but yet cry to the gfp you have a depredation problem? You mentioned socialist mr dean...what is socialist anyway LB? Isnt that a socialist way of thinking? I wont help myself because the government will come in and bail me out even when i could help myself but refuse to? Why should it be my responsibility, as a person who buys a hunting and fishing license (which an extra $5 is added to each license that is earmarked for depredation) to come in there and help ya if you dont help yourself?

If I don't choose to let people come and "fix" my deer population problem by letting them hunt, as I can't afford the liability insurance to cover my butt if some hunter should hurt himself and sue me...... So if I can't afford to take that chance, who is supposed to thin out my deer herd?

 

[Southdakotahunter]

How can anyone argue that the lockout is only a lockout if you "lockout" and not by picking and choosing what, who, when and why to lockout. Thats not a lockout. Thats normal everyday life. A lockout your supposed to be trying to get your point accross. Heck, i have neighbors that dont allow hunting, but thats their decision, yet if i offered them some $ they may. They dont have a lockout sign. should they have one? Does picking and choosing who to lockout make you eligable for a sign? would that then enroll his 640 acres into the lockout, even tho he is not really locked out since he allows some hunting? Heck, i know some who wont allow pheasant hunting but will allow deer or the other way around, its there choice...should they be enrolled in the lockout? If you cant see the point i am trying to make, i am sorry! A lockout is a lockout and no hunting is no hunting. Why join a group if you dont plan on following the rules or reason the group is even formed. The lockout group will never be taken seriously until they unite and really lockout.

 

[Southdakotahunter]

Jinglebob says this-If I don't choose to let people come and "fix" my deer population problem by letting them hunt, as I can't afford the liability insurance to cover my butt if some hunter should hurt himself and sue me...... So if I can't afford to take that chance, who is supposed to thin out my deer herd?


I guess i never new that was an issue. I can see how someone gets sued over lettin some little kid bounce on their tramplene or something, but by allowing an adult to hunt sued, never heard of it, maybe it happens, i would hope not. I do know that if you charge, you are responsible, unless you have them sign a waver. What if the legislature signed into law a law that prohibits lawsuits because someone was sued over free hunting....then what JB?

Heck, you are an independent person JB, i can tell, most everyone here is. Dont it make common sense to take care of the problem instead of trying to get the government involved?

 

[Jinglebob]

A lockout is a lockout and no hunting is no hunting. Why join a group if you dont plan on following the rules or reason the group is even formed. The lockout group will never be taken seriously until they unite and really lockout.

I won't disagree with you on that, but I dang asure ain't going to tell anyone else what to do on their land, unless it is causing me harm.

As far as being taken seriously, I know quite a few who are being taken seriously. When they roll in to ask to hunt and are told no and why, they usually agree unless they are "liberal commie SOB's! :lol:

 

[Jinglebob]

If I don't choose to let people come and "fix" my deer population problem by letting them hunt, as I can't afford the liability insurance to cover my butt if some hunter should hurt himself and sue me...... So if I can't afford to take that chance, who is supposed to thin out my deer herd?

SDhunter, I don't think you seen this post. I am waiting for your reply.

 

[Southdakotahunter]

i responded a couple back JB, check back a couple resposes, i even cut and pasted ya!

 

[Southdakotahunter]

JB says this-As far as being taken seriously, I know quite a few who are being taken seriously. When they roll in to ask to hunt and are told no and why, they usually agree unless they are "liberal commie SOB's!

Now that there is funny, if you dont think that funny, you can get outta here......Larry the cable guy...

I think most would be like me, and agree just to avoid the arguement. Arguing on someones land about why they wont let ya hunt is not a good thing. I usually just say "ok, Thanks and have a nice day" But if i pulled out a Ben Franklin, would they say have at it? Thats not lockout.

 

[Liberty Belle]

Heck, you are an independent person JB, i can tell, most everyone here is. Dont it make common sense to take care of the problem instead of trying to get the government involved?

But SDH, you just told us it is against the law for us to shoot the deer and take care of the problem ourselves. What would you have us do to fix the problem without government involvement? Go on, give us a solution that will satisfy GF&P without violating our rights. We've tried to find a resonable and lawful solution for years and if you've got one, we're all ears.

As for liability, anyone can sue you for anything. Years ago a woman from town decided to pick buffaloberries on our land without asking permission, which we would have gladly given. She got poked in the eye by one of those long buffaloberry thorns and sued my father-in-law for medical expenses because it was on his land. She lost her case, but he still was out a pile of money for lawyer fees. I can only imagine what would happen if some hunter shot himself in the foot on my land and decided to ride the legal gravy train.

 

[mrj]

Jinglebob says this-If I don't choose to let people come and "fix" my deer population problem by letting them hunt, as I can't afford the liability insurance to cover my butt if some hunter should hurt himself and sue me...... So if I can't afford to take that chance, who is supposed to thin out my deer herd?


I guess i never new that was an issue. I can see how someone gets sued over lettin some little kid bounce on their tramplene or something, but by allowing an adult to hunt sued, never heard of it, maybe it happens, i would hope not. I do know that if you charge, you are responsible, unless you have them sign a waver. What if the legislature signed into law a law that prohibits lawsuits because someone was sued over free hunting....then what JB?

Heck, you are an independent person JB, i can tell, most everyone here is. Dont it make common sense to take care of the problem instead of trying to get the government involved?

It would be interesting to know how many lawsuits have been pressed by hunters (or their insurance companies) against landowners in SD. I know of at least one. The landowner doesn't even have to have given permission to hunt.

One problem that would probably help open more land to hunting would be for the GF&P to facilitate adequate insurance policies for landowners. There is no reason they couldn't broker some sort of group policy for hunting, even fee hunting, IMO.

Did anyone attend that meeting with GF&P at Kadoka? I let bad roads and a sore throat 'talk' me out of going.

MRJ

 

[Soapweed]

Somehow I think this pertains. Having read the book GRAPES OF WRATH by John Steinbeck, back in my eighth grade year, one little incident has always stayed in my mind. It seems that an Okie who had moved to California had a milk cow. He knew it was time for her to be in heat, but he didn't have a bull. His neighbor half a mile down the road had a bull, so the man put a halter on his milk cow and led her down the road, hoping to get the cow serviced by the neighbor's bull. As it turned out, the neighbor was not home but his good-looking wife was. The man made his request and she showed him where the bull was in a corral. They turned the cow loose, and the bull showed immediate interest. Watching the bovines having fun, the man jokingly said to the lady, "I wish I could do that." Her reply had no hesitation, "Go ahead, it's your cow." :wink:

Putting things into similar perspective, whoever owns the land and pays taxes and upkeep can do whatever they darn well please with the place. If they want to keep out deer hunters and let others shoot coyotes, so be it. It's their land. Whoever owns the land or owns the cow, can do with their possessions whatever they please.

Liberty Belle, I wish you well in your quest to hold public office. You will do a great job if you are the "winner". You might even be the real winner if you lose the election, and don't have to go through the excrutiating experience of holding public office. :wink:

 

[Jinglebob]

But SDH, you just told us it is against the law for us to shoot the deer and take care of the problem ourselves. What would you have us do to fix the problem without government involvement? Go on, give us a solution that will satisfy GF&P without violating our rights. We've tried to find a resonable and lawful solution for years and if you've got one, we're all ears.

Yes, how would you solve this problem and keep the government out. I kind of like MRJ's idea about an insurance policy, but that would be getting the government involved.

Lets face it, the GF&P and the hunters have had free deer and antelope hunting for years and for years most people let any responsible (and a few not so responsible) people hunt and friends were made. When landowner got tired of slob hunters and found out there was a market for hunting, some have decided it was pretty easy to charge something for the agravation of having hunter on their land.

Now the GF&P wants to be the only ones to ride the gravytrain of fee hunting.

SD Hunter, what if me and a few friend wanted to come stay for free at your house and visit for several days and after we left some more friends of mine came and slept in your beds and ate your food and just had a good ol' time? Wouldn't you get a little tired of company after awhile. Even if we was to help you get rid of some pests? Like shootin' at your mice in the house. Don't worry, we'd be real careful and we wouldn't blow holes in none of your furniture. Shoot, we could even use blowguns if you wanted us too!

Thats pretty much what it's like when the hunters start pulling in here. "Fish and company, both start to smell after 3 days".

it's just way easier to put up with the wildlife than the hunters and the GF&P, for me.

 

[Jinglebob]

But SDH, you just told us it is against the law for us to shoot the deer and take care of the problem ourselves. What would you have us do to fix the problem without government involvement? Go on, give us a solution that will satisfy GF&P without violating our rights. We've tried to find a resonable and lawful solution for years and if you've got one, we're all ears.

Yes, how would you solve this problem and keep the government out. I kind of like MRJ's idea about an insurance policy, but that would be getting the government involved.

Lets face it, the GF&P and the hunters have had free deer and antelope hunting for years and for years most people let any responsible (and a few not so responsible) people hunt and friends were made. When landowner got tired of slob hunters and found out there was a market for hunting, some have decided it was pretty easy to charge something for the agravation of having hunter on their land.

Now the GF&P wants to be the only ones to ride the gravytrain of fee hunting.

SD Hunter, what if me and a few friend wanted to come stay for free at your house and visit for several days and after we left some more friends of mine came and slept in your beds and ate your food and just had a good ol' time? Wouldn't you get a little tired of company after awhile. Even if we was to help you get rid of some pests? Like shootin' at your mice in the house. Don't worry, we'd be real careful and we wouldn't blow holes in none of your furniture. Shoot, we could even use blowguns if you wanted us too!

Thats pretty much what it's like when the hunters start pulling in here. "Fish and company, both start to smell after 3 days".

it's just way easier to put up with the wildlife than the hunters and the GF&P, for me.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

What was the idea of the LOCKOUT for. Was it not to bring Game, Fish and Parks to realize that ranchers don't want Game wardens to enter land without permission? And the way to do that was to LOCKOUT ALL hunters that have to buy a tag to hunt? That way G,F and P would have no reason to enter. Fine the land owner has the say on who they let hunt any ways ,you don't have to be "LOCKEDOUT" to do that. Joining the LOCKOUT was joining the protest against GFandP . Once you start letting in hunters whether for pay or not you are not LOCKEDOUT you are just back to the way it was before and GFandP according to current laws can come back in.

LB Or JB if he is still reading can maybe explain it now. Cause I already know you have the say if you let hunters or not and why you do or don't that was never what I was talking about.. You guys talk about poor reading comprehension but nobody has anything on you two.

Say LB did poeple that joined the Lockout sign any agreement or how did this 4 million acre figure come about? What did the agreement say if there was one?

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

LB if you running for public office you might want to measure your words a bit cause they might come back to haunt you' Where did you get the idea we're trying to totally wipe out any species?




quote="Liberty Belle"]

SO LB if Game Fish and Parks asked for permission to enter your land to eliminate all the deer would you give them permission?

Of course, and I'd give them all the help they needed. Heck, I'd bake 'em a cake, if I knew they were coming, and invite them in for dinner.[/quote]