• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Yank PETA's tax-exempt status

"What bothers us is a lack of respect for us and our property rights. A man who has worked his entire life to build a farm or ranch deserves a little respect for that.Long ago, the public schools taught something called "citizenship" or civics. We received grades on it in various areas. One of the areas listed on every report card was "respect for the rights and property of others".We presently have a landowner ban on hunting imposed in a large chunk of Western South Dakota. We have had several cases taken all the way to our Supreme Court at no small expense to landowners seeking to protect their rights. These disputes are not caused by any anti-hunting sentiments or philosophy. No such disputes would exist, if people were doing their best to "respect" the rights and property of others."

EXACTLY!!!! Larry Gabriel hit the nail on the head with this, but I'm afraid hell will freeze over before Rounds and Cooper start respecting landowners and our private property rights. I wonder if they realize that Gabriel is writing things like this? He'll probably be "retired" over this unless they can get him back in line.
 
Guest: "You seem to be all for less government and protection of individual rights until it comes to this issue. Why does this attempt to protect private property rights bother you so much? It wouldn't have anything to do with who signs your paycheck would it?"

It has absolutely nothing to do with who signs my paycheck. Nobody has rocked the Department boat for standing up for what I believe than I have. I don't click my heels for anyone and never have. Ask anyone who knows me.

The reason I support the open fields doctrine is because the wildlife resources of this state are important to me and I want my CO to know that he can come on my property any time he wants to check a hunter to see if they have the correct licenses, are not overbagging, and are hunting in the correct areas.

I support all enforcement of existing game laws.

Let me give you a classic example of why I support the Open Fields Doctrine. One day I stopped to visit with a landowner and his hunters. As they were walking through the field I saw a hen pheasant get up and I watched as some slob shot at it. Luckily for him he missed. When they got to the end of the field I asked the guy, "don't you know the difference between a hen and a rooster". He looked at me and said, "if it flies, it dies". I responded, "well lucky for you you such a piss poor shot that you missed that hen or I would have made a citizens arrest on the spot." He just glared at me and I laughed and walked off. I have as much tolerance for slob hunters as I do for whiny packer victims.


~SH~
 
SH: "The reason I support the open fields doctrine is because the wildlife resources of this state are important to me and I want my CO to know that he can come on my property any time he wants to check a hunter to see if they have the correct licenses, are not overbagging, and are hunting in the correct areas."

You do realize that it is already in your power to tell the CO he can come on your land any time he feels like it. The problem is that they claim the right to come on your land whether you agree to their trespass or not. It really isn't any difference than if they decide to join your dinner party just to make sure you are not serving liquor to minors or smoking a little pot with friends. You shouldn't be doing either one, but I'm sure you would object if the local sheriff walked across your living room carpet in his muddy boots just on the outside chance that you might be breaking the law. After all, it is his job to enforce the law and since you own that house of yours and have the wherewithal to afford either vodka or pot, you must be guilty of something.

SH: "I have as much tolerance for slob hunters as I do for whiny packer victims."

We have NO tolerance for slob hunters and we have turned in any we've caught breaking the law or trespassing. We also have NO tolerance for slob GF&P, but just try having one of them arrested for overstepping their bounds! Can't be done. Bureaucrats like Eric Washburn and John Cooper get a pass for the same sort of lawbreaking that would land an ordinary citizen in jail. NO ONE should be immune from prosecution if they break the law.
 
Those who would trade civil liberties for expediant law enforcement are doomed to have neither.

SH illustrates why noone has accused him of being a great thinker.
"The reason I support the open fields doctrine is because the wildlife resources of this state are important to me and I want my CO to know that he can come on my property any time he wants to check a hunter to see if they have the correct licenses, are not overbagging, and are hunting in the correct areas"

Tidy annecdote, how many do you want of landowners ceasing quail hunting early during cold weather so as to allow them to covey up before it gets cold? Designate a portion each year off limits to hunting? Maintain foodplots? Hravest hay/burn pasture arround wildlife propagation? Private landowners are the real game conservationists, and while your rare exception may satisfy PETA for erosion of private property rights, it doesn't justify the resulting hostile relationship fostered by unlawful intrusions.
 
LB: "You do realize that it is already in your power to tell the CO he can come on your land any time he feels like it."

Of course and I have told him just that! Then again, I have nothing to hide.


LB: "The problem is that they claim the right to come on your land whether you agree to their trespass or not."

That statement contradicts itself. If I agree with it, how can it be trespassing?


LB: "It really isn't any difference than if they decide to join your dinner party just to make sure you are not serving liquor to minors or smoking a little pot with friends."

That is not true. The "Open Fields Doctrine" does not allow them to search your residence without a search warrant.

You cannot compare the two as they are distinctly seperated within the laws.


LB: "We have NO tolerance for slob hunters and we have turned in any we've caught breaking the law or trespassing."

Who do you turn them in to? The CO that you don't want on your land? Interesting!


LB: "Bureaucrats like Eric Washburn and John Cooper get a pass for the same sort of lawbreaking that would land an ordinary citizen in jail. NO ONE should be immune from prosecution if they break the law.

(Heavy sigh) ONCE AGAIN, Janklow issued that proclomation to Eric Washburn, it was not John Cooper. It was a gift from Janklow to Washburn. If John Cooper made a mistake it was in not notifying the rest of the department of Janklow's decision.

With that said, I disagree with Janklow's "BY THE POWERS VESTED IN ME BY GOD" attitude in issuing a residency hunting privelage to Eric Washborn as much as I disagreed with his arrogant stopping of Canadian trucks from passing through South Dakota. Neither were legal actions as far as I'm concerned.

Janklow's arrogance finally caught up with him in a tragic form. I used to be a big time Janklow supporter but not any more. If he was running against Stephanie Herseth today, I would vote for Stephanie and I'm a conservative through and through.



~SH~
 
Liberty Belle "NO ONE should be immune from prosecution if they break the law."

Well said, and furthermore those with a fuduciary responsibility should gladly be held to the highest standards.

By the way, SH mentiones one of the simplest forms of dissent to the perverted notion that open fields doctrine = legal trespass. Landowners can and should conduct a citizen's arrest of all trespassers. Remember open fields doesn't say trespass is legal, it says open fields trespass is not remedied by supression of evidence because there is no expectation of privacy in the open fields. Even if there is no expectation of privacy in open fields, uncompensated takings are still illegal.
 
Brad S.: "Even if there is no expectation of privacy in open fields, uncompensated takings are still illegal."

Where is the "uncompensated takings" in a conservation officer checking a hunter for his hunting license???



~SH~
 
None if there is no trespass. Do you mean where is the taking in the event of trespass?



In the propagation of spurge, (or a rancher having to worry about such) when the biohazard trespasses. When scours are transported on tires (or a rancher has to worry about it). The use of property without permission is a taking, and driving across property is using it. Walking across property is using it.
 
SH (previous): "Where is the "uncompensated takings" in a conservation officer checking a hunter for his hunting license???"

Brad S. (in response): "None if there is no trespass."

My point exactly.

In the case of legally checking hunters in the line of duty for a Conservation Officer, there is no "uncompenstated takings" so I fail to see the relevance in this situation.

The only place I could see "uncompensated takings" is if the Conservation Officer was pursuing illegal hunters through standing crops. In that case, the fleeing slob hunters should be liable.



~SH~
 
SH: "In the case of legally checking hunters in the line of duty for a Conservation Officer, there is no "uncompenstated takings" so I fail to see the relevance in this situation.
The only place I could see "uncompensated takings" is if the Conservation Officer was pursuing illegal hunters through standing crops. In that case, the fleeing slob hunters should be liable."

Excuse me - standing crops? What do think our grass is if not a standing crop? You should know as well as anyone on this board that driving across grass, especially in a dry year like this one, is going to mash it to the ground and leave a track that you will be able to see next year, ruining it for grazing, which constitutes a taking as far as we are concerned.

Now I will admit that I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to legal matters, but how do you explain Sec. 13 of the SD Constitution? It looks to me like the grass eaten by the state's game, the fences and hay ruined by that same game, and the damages caused to private vehicles should all be considered takings and the folks who have had their property damaged or destroyed should, according to the SD Constitution, be justly compensated for that taking. I'm posting that section for you. Tell me where I'm wrong.

Sec. 13 Private property shall not be taken for public use, or damaged, without just compensation, which will be determined according to legal procedure established by the Legislature and according to Section 6 of this article. No benefit which may accrue to the owner as a result of an improvement made by any private corporation shall be considered in fixing the compensation for property taken or damaged. The fee of land taken for railroad tracks or other highways shall remain in such owners, subject to the use for which it is taken. [adopted 1962]

SH: "LB: "We have NO tolerance for slob hunters and we have turned in any we've caught breaking the law or trespassing."
Who do you turn them in to? The CO that you don't want on your land? Interesting!"

Most of us call a real law enforcement officer when we have a problem with law breakers, which means our county sheriff gets the call. Sadly, we've already determined that our local CO cannot be trusted to know what constitutes trespass!
 
Brad S. (in response): "None if there is no trespass."

My point exactly.

In the case of legally checking hunters in the line of duty for a Conservation Officer, there is no "uncompenstated takings" so I fail to see the relevance in this situation.

No that isn't your point, you must say there is no taking when game warden seizes access to private property against the wishes of the landowner. And there lies the uncompensated taking. Because this isn't a privacy issue, the government wants to only talk about privacy WHICH IS ALL OPEN FIELDS DOCTRINE ADDRESSES, This is a takings issue - the same as if you don't want me climbing your trees, you can make that demand.

The folly of the issue is the government has created uncooperative landowners that otherwise would be CO's eyes and ears simply by overstepping property rights. You say it rarely happens, all the better reason to recind the tyranny. In Kansas we have many game wardens, some real decent and some clowns, but we've alwaYS granted access to any that have asked. But the courtesy of aski ng allows us to note calving pastures where we don't want vehicles driving over calves or erosion control issues that would be compromised by vehicle traffic and on and on. Nobody tells us where or how they're going to use our land, but many decent people find us agreeable cooperators when asked. That is the bottom line of private property rights. Sure law enforcement may be slightly facilitated the more property rights are eroded, but its a bad trade. I have on my speed dial the private nobody gets numbers like "try my mom's house" of the primary game wardens only because of mutual respect. The respect deal ends when sombody tells me what they are goingto do at my house.
 
We have a neighbor who sounds just like you do LB. He posts his land with "Absolutely no hunting, don't ask' signs. Then he calls the game and fish and wants them to pay for the hay the deer ruin. Wants them to put web fences around all his little hay stacks. His place is like a refuge. He goes out and shoots them and leaves them lay or chases them to his neighbors land. But he don't want any hunters on it!

You say you want to teach the G& F a lesson by not allowing hunters. Then you want these same hunters to buy furbearers permits to protect you from the coyotes! ROTFLMAO! I truly hope that not one of these hunters show up because they don't want to offend you by buying licenses!
Did you read about the farmer who didn't want the G&F coming on his land by Valley City ND? He had over 20 deer hanging in his shop. Another had 7. That warden has every legal right to check out those places. It is his job. What are you worried about?
I'm just happy I don't have people like you for neighbors!
We have signs on our corner posts that say "If you post your land, stay the hell off mine"!
 
What rock did you crawl out from under? I'm sure this will surprise and offend you, but I'm also pretty pleased that I don't have you for a neighbor.

I have already been able to ascertain that your reading comprehension skills aren't what they should be, but do you remember me writing that WE HAVE NOTHING AGAINST HUNTERS!!!! We do, however, have a big axe to grind with Game & Fish.

Now about the deal in North Dakota – the game warden got a call to investigate, which means he had probable cause. SB122 would have given the game warden all the authority he needed to make those arrests. Do you honestly think that every landowner is hiding something illegal because he objects to the GF&P violating his private property rights? Besides that, we can't stand the taste of venison so that is not going to happen here.

Now understand this – we didn't invite the state owned deer and antelope in to graze on our grass, ruin our haystacks, tear up our fences and smash up our vehicles, and there is no way on God's green earth we are going to forfeit our rights to our own property so that GF&P can drive in here to chase law abiding hunters around on our grass, hence no hunters, no matter how much we enjoy having them around.

I do have a lot of sympathy for your neighbor, besides the fact that he has to live next to a nut like you; he also has to bear the costs from damage caused by the state's livestock. If that were your livestock that was causing him those big monetary loses, you would be dragged into court and made to pay damages. Don't you think it fair that GF&P should have to pay for the damage caused by their animals?

By the way, did your name on here used to be "disagreeable"?
 
Before you give anyone else a piece of your mind LB, I hope you take inventory because you don't have that much to spare!
You want to be compensated for 'state owned animals' but you don't want them controlled on your land!!!

("WE HAVE NOTHING AGAINST HUNTERS!!!! We do, however, have a big axe to grind with Game & Fish.")
'Sorry I had to beat you up little tommy, I really like you but, its your grandpa I'm mad at! By the way little tommy, if your not doing anything this weekend, I need a favor!!! LOL!
Are you sure that's liberty belle or dumb belle? What a hypocrite!
 
You always have had trouble with reading comprehension, haven't you? I'd have a little more respect for your opinions if you had guts enough to sign in and sign your posts. Now run along and play before your mother catches you online again. And try not to be so disagreeable, it's unattractive and displays your lack of intelligence.
 
SH & Brad S - Since that "disagreeable" little guest has gone out to bully the other little kids, I'd like to get back to a post I made earlier that I will repost here. I honestly don't understand how damage caused by the state's game animals can be anything but a taking. Is there legislation that addresses this issue that I don't know about? Here's the post:

SH: "In the case of legally checking hunters in the line of duty for a Conservation Officer, there is no "uncompenstated takings" so I fail to see the relevance in this situation.
The only place I could see "uncompensated takings" is if the Conservation Officer was pursuing illegal hunters through standing crops. In that case, the fleeing slob hunters should be liable."

Excuse me - standing crops? What do think our grass is if not a standing crop? You should know as well as anyone on this board that driving across grass, especially in a dry year like this one, is going to mash it to the ground and leave a track that you will be able to see next year, ruining it for grazing, which constitutes a taking as far as we are concerned.

Now I will admit that I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to legal matters, but how do you explain Sec. 13 of the SD Constitution? It looks to me like the grass eaten by the state's game, the fences and hay ruined by that same game, and the damages caused to private vehicles should all be considered takings and the folks who have had their property damaged or destroyed should, according to the SD Constitution, be justly compensated for that taking. I'm posting that section for you. Tell me where I'm wrong.

Sec. 13 Private property shall not be taken for public use, or damaged, without just compensation, which will be determined according to legal procedure established by the Legislature and according to Section 6 of this article. No benefit which may accrue to the owner as a result of an improvement made by any private corporation shall be considered in fixing the compensation for property taken or damaged. The fee of land taken for railroad tracks or other highways shall remain in such owners, subject to the use for which it is taken. [adopted 1962]
 
LB: "Excuse me - standing crops? What do think our grass is if not a standing crop? You should know as well as anyone on this board that driving across grass, especially in a dry year like this one, is going to mash it to the ground and leave a track that you will be able to see next year, ruining it for grazing, which constitutes a taking as far as we are concerned."

First, let me re-emphasize the fact that you have never seen a Conservation Officer on your land which speaks to the relevance of your concern.

Second, on the rare occasion when a conservation officer would drive out in a pasture beyond the established trails, straight to the hunter, it would more than likely be during the deer or antelope hunting season to check licenses because he/she saw a vehicle already driving across your pasture hunting. Apparantly the issue of running down grass is only a concern with the Conservation Officer but not the hunters they are checking???"

When I have been with a conservation officer checking bird hunters, they have waited until those hunters were finished with their hunt at the end of the field or pasture.

Hunting vehicles, packing grass all over the pastures while hunting, would simply drive the other way if they saw a Conservation Officer waiting for them.

Considering that this is done DURING THE HUNTING SEASON, the small amount of grass that MIGHT get run down IN ADDITION TO THE HUNTER'S VEHICLES, is irrelevant.

You are grasping at straws here LB!

Funny how polarized our positions are on this issue. I want a Conservation Officer to have the ability to drive out and check a vehicle hunting on our land BECAUSE THE HUNTERS WOULDN'T HAVE PERMISSION TO DRIVE ON OUR LAND.


As far as "takings" by wildlife, I'm not even going to go there. You can take that up with a lawyer.




~SH~
 
SH: "Apparantly the issue of running down grass is only a concern with the Conservation Officer but not the hunters they are checking???"

Our hunters have NEVER been allowed to drive ANYWHERE on our land, for the very reason that no one else is allowed to drive over our grass. We can't afford to lose what little grazing we have, even in a good year, and NO ONE will be allowed to drive through our pastures, game warden or not.

SH: "When I have been with a conservation officer checking bird hunters, they have waited until those hunters were finished with their hunt at the end of the field or pasture."

Maybe. But I'm sure you've heard the complaints of hunters who have had their hunts ruined by game wardens who were not so considerate.

SH: "Hunting vehicles, packing grass all over the pastures while hunting, would simply drive the other way if they saw a Conservation Officer waiting for them."

As I said above, not here. Not now, and not ever.

SH: "Considering that this is done DURING THE HUNTING SEASON, the small amount of grass that MIGHT get run down IN ADDITION TO THE HUNTER'S VEHICLES, is irrelevant."

Irrelevant to GF&P maybe, not to us!!!

SH: "Funny how polarized our positions are on this issue. I want a Conservation Officer to have the ability to drive out and check a vehicle hunting on our land BECAUSE THE HUNTERS WOULDN'T HAVE PERMISSION TO DRIVE ON OUR LAND."

Under the Open Fields Doctrine, you have the right to allow the game warden to do anything he wants on your land. Unfortunately, that same Open Fields Doctrine takes away my right to stop GF&P from driving anywhere he wants on my private property without my knowledge or consent. This is the core issue here. If the game warden is walking over a hardpan spot on my land in a wet year with no chance of ruining grazing or starting a fire, he is still violating my private property rights if he does it without my knowledge and without my consent. We can prosecute anyone else for doing that and we will not compromise on this issue. Our rights are pretty darn "relevant" to us!
 
Rounds and Cooper have made it pretty clear that they have no respect for property rights and I don't know any GF&P people that do either.
 
I'm with you Libert Belle! When they show a little common courtesy I'll be ready to listen. And I've never had any trouble with Game Wardens, other than the one we have now who lied to me.
All this comes down to is laziness, and Game Wardens not wanting to get to know the ranchers and farmers. They are very high handed and think we have no knowledge about wildlife when we are around them all year long.
I know of no ranchers in this area who don't want and appreciate wildlife. We established wild turkey's here and now they tell us we need a license to hunt them.
The last good warden I ever dealt with was Don McRea and they shipped him out of here. They ought to have him teach these new guys how to get along with landowners.
Until we get this law changed, there will be no hunting on my land by outsiders. I don't hunt but can take care of my ranch and any problems with cripples and varmints.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top