• 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

LB: "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."

That would explain why you have never seen a Conservation Officer on your place checking hunters.


LB: "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."

Yup, I've heard many hunters that had their hunts ruined because they were hunting in the wrong unit, they didn't tag their deer properly, they shot a small buck and left it lay, they were caught trespassing and violating someone's private property rights, they were shooting hen pheasants, etc. etc.

Gosh, I think I feel a tear welling up in my eye.


Most sportsman appreciate the fact that GF&P Conservation Officers are out there protecting the wildlife resources that belong to everyone.


LB: "Under the Open Fields Doctrine, you have the right to allow the game warden to do anything he wants on your land."

That is absolutely untrue.

The Open Fields Doctrine allows Conservation Officers, in the line of duty, to enter private property to check hunters and TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY.

Should a conservation officer get your permission to search your land for a missing child in a raging blizzard????

Should a conservation officer get your permission to put out a fire because some idiot threw a cigarette out the window???

Should a conservation officer get your permission to move livestock out onto your private land after a vehicle accident tore the fence up???

Well??????


LB: "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."

Which you admit has never occured.


LB: "Our rights are pretty darn "relevant" to us!"

How ironic that this whole issue stemmed from the arrest of your trespassing private pilot.

What about LB's private property rights hmmmm?

OH, THAT'S DIFFERENT ISN'T IT????

I guess private property rights should be exempted for private pilots huh?

Amazing what you can justify with a little imagination.


LB: "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."

So be it!

The majority have spoken and the majority want our wildlife resources protected from poachers which requires access to private land.


The world you envision..........

Conservation Officer to landowner: "Hello Mr. private property rights, I received a TIPS call that your son was out spotlighting the other night and may have shot a deer and left it lay. Considering the importance of your private property rights, I was wondering if you cared whether I drove on to your land to check your son if I happen to see him spotlighting again, PLEASE!"

Mr. Private Property: "Why yes, most certainly, if my son is spotlighting and shooting deer, you have every right to drive out across my land and check my precious little deer poacher"

Conservation: "Why thank you very much. I'll be sure to cut the back straps out for you"


Yup, that's the kind of wildlife law enforcement we need!

HELLO??




~SH~
 
I said: "Under the Open Fields Doctrine, you have the right to allow the game warden to do anything he wants on your land."

SH said: "That is absolutely untrue.
The Open Fields Doctrine allows Conservation Officers, in the line of duty, to enter private property to check hunters and TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY.
Should a conservation officer get your permission to search your land for a missing child in a raging blizzard????
Should a conservation officer get your permission to put out a fire because some idiot threw a cigarette out the window???
Should a conservation officer get your permission to move livestock out onto your private land after a vehicle accident tore the fence up???
Well??????"


Excuse me SH, but that is absolutely TRUE. I legally have the right to allow the game warden to do anything that I can legally do on my own place. Under Open Fields, I DO NOT have the right to keep him off my private property. I don't even have the right to know when he is on my land, and if I don't like it, that's just too bad. Gov. Rounds and John Cooper tell me they can come on my land any time they feel like it and there is nothing a mere citizen like me can do about it.

Now tell me something else, if there is a child lost in a blizzard do you think for one minute that the game warden would be called in to find him? Get real. Every able bodied person in the country would be searching and the CO would be the absolute last person we would think to call for help.

And put out a fire? When is the last time you have seen a game warden on the fire line? I'm a red-card firefighter and EMT with our local fire department, never miss a fire within 60 miles of our ranch, and I have yet to see either our local CO or our trapper fighting fire with the rest of us, not even at the big Long Pines fire burning close to both of them. The trapper's wife did staff one of the information stations though.

Read SB122, it would not stop a CO from either rendering assistance or stopping a crime if he has knowledge or probable cause.


SH: "How ironic that this whole issue stemmed from the arrest of your trespassing private pilot.
What about LB's private property rights hmmmm?
OH, THAT'S DIFFERENT ISN'T IT????
I guess private property rights should be exempted for private pilots huh?
Amazing what you can justify with a little imagination."

You keep bringing Lex Burghduff up and you don't know diddly squat about the case. Come on up and read the trial transcripts for yourself and you will see that all Janvrin did was to shoot a wounded coyote that had run off the neighbor's land onto Burghduff's land FROM THE AIR!! If you have read the road hunting law GF&P supported that was just struck down by the courts, he would have had the right to actually go on Burghduff's land to retrieve the coyote if he had wanted.
What would you have had Janvrin do? Leave the wounded coyote to die a lingering death? That's humane?
That would have been fine with Burghduff though. He is currently serving time on a felony charge for almost beating his second wife to death. His first wife quit him after he did the same thing to her. You are not exactly on the side of angels here.
Out here in God's country, we do have great respect for the law. I wish I could say the same about Gov. Rounds and John Cooper.
 
Hang tuff Libert Belle.

It seems that SH has grown tired of arguing with Nebrusker and has decided that this is his next topic to argue over.

I agree with your statement about law enforcement and Cooper and Rounds.

If we let this law stand, what will be the next law they will pass to infringe on our personal property rights?

I'm tired of hearing that the wildlife belong to all of the citizens of SD. If they do, why do we feed them and have them on our land? Why don't the rest of the citizens come and get their wildlife or at least show some appreciation for those of us who have them on our land and provide them with water, shelter and feed?

I enjoy having wildlife on our ranch, but get real tired of hearing about all the mean old nasty landowners who poach and allow poaching by all of their friends. If it happens, it is done by the minority and not the majority.

And why on earth would the GF&P care about deer being poached when they can't get enough killed every year anyway?
 
LB: "Excuse me SH, but that is absolutely TRUE."

No, LB, it's not true. A conservation officer cannot do whatever he wants on your land. Open Fields is specific to checking hunters in the line of duty and assisting with human health and safety issues.


LB: "Now tell me something else, if there is a child lost in a blizzard do you think for one minute that the game warden would be called in to find him? Get real. Every able bodied person in the country would be searching and the CO would be the absolute last person we would think to call for help."

Absolutely. All law enforcement should be involved initially to check the obvious. A large search party typically would not be initiated until the obvious places had been checked first by law enforcement and immediate family depending on the circumstances.

Either way law enforcement may be searching the obvious with the immediate family before a search party is initiated.


LB: "When is the last time you have seen a game warden on the fire line?"

Many times! Just because you haven't seen your Conservation Officer on a fire line where you have been in attendance does not mean they have never been on a fire line.


LB: "You keep bringing Lex Burghduff up and you don't know diddly squat about the case. Come on up and read the trial transcripts for yourself and you will see that all Janvrin did was to shoot a wounded coyote that had run off the neighbor's land onto Burghduff's land FROM THE AIR!!"

I know Janvrin was found guilty in a court of law and changed his story about the wounded coyote.



LB: "What would you have had Janvrin do? Leave the wounded coyote to die a lingering death? That's humane?"

I'll take that as an admission that trespassing is ok under certain circumstances. How ironic!


JB: "It seems that SH has grown tired of arguing with Nebrusker and has decided that this is his next topic to argue over."

Looks like JB has grown tired of citing poetry so decided to wade in on another topic. Those elvaluations add so much don't they?


JB: "I'm tired of hearing that the wildlife belong to all of the citizens of SD. If they do, why do we feed them and have them on our land? Why don't the rest of the citizens come and get their wildlife or at least show some appreciation for those of us who have them on our land and provide them with water, shelter and feed?"

Does that wildlife stay on your land and never leave? Antelope and deer are never found on your neighbors huh? If the wildlife belongs to you, why don't you build a large fence and brand your wildlife.

As far as helping ranchers out. GF&P has a $5 surtax on all hunting licenses that has been spent on deer proof stack fences and other methods to deter deer depredation.

GF&P matches the county ADC tax assessment $2 to $1 to help private landowners with their predator problems.

Landowners are given "landowner preference" points during license allocation and allowed "special buck tags".


JB: "I enjoy having wildlife on our ranch, but get real tired of hearing about all the mean old nasty landowners who poach and allow poaching by all of their friends. If it happens, it is done by the minority and not the majority."

Where did anyone suggest anything about all the mean old nasty landowners who poach and allow poaching by all of their friends. Where did that come from?


JB: "And why on earth would the GF&P care about deer being poached when they can't get enough killed every year anyway?"

As if the situation you are familiar with in your area is applicable to the whole state of SD.

Show me a landowner who bitches about too many deer and I'll show you a neighbor who says there isn't enough deer.


I know all about deer depredation. We finally had to put up a deer proof fence to save our second cutting alfalfa. The fence was supplied with sportsman's dollars.



~SH~
 
heard from a guy last nite that attended the open fields hearing in pierre and he claims that the whole point of this is that rounds wants to be able to cross deputize co and give them the same powers as a hiway patrolman,sheriff or deputy but it is my understanding that co have more rights to impose their will on private citizens than your local sheriff or deputy and the only law enforcement with as much power as a co is a federal marshall.kinda scary thinking of what goes on behind closed doors.
 
SH;

LB: "What would you have had Janvrin do? Leave the wounded coyote to die a lingering death? That's humane?"

SH-I'll take that as an admission that trespassing is ok under certain circumstances. How ironic!

Ironic, but a lot more humane


JB: "It seems that SH has grown tired of arguing with Nebrusker and has decided that this is his next topic to argue over."

SH-Looks like JB has grown tired of citing poetry so decided to wade in on another topic. Those elvaluations add so much don't they?

So you can respond to any post on this site, but no one else is supposed to. eh? I figured you'd take the bait. Don't you trap for a living, yet you stepped right into this one?


JB: "I'm tired of hearing that the wildlife belong to all of the citizens of SD. If they do, why do we feed them and have them on our land? Why don't the rest of the citizens come and get their wildlife or at least show some appreciation for those of us who have them on our land and provide them with water, shelter and feed?"

SH-Does that wildlife stay on your land and never leave? Antelope and deer are never found on your neighbors huh? If the wildlife belongs to you, why don't you build a large fence and brand your wildlife.

If I built a fence to either keep wildlife in or out, the state would send out it's lawyers and officers and I would probably be arrested and at least fined. The state and mostly the GF&P want their cake and eat it too. They want all monies that come from the wildlife, but little of the expense of feeding or caring for the wildlife. They make the money off from the wildlife so they are the ones who should care for them and feed them. And don't start quoting to me about all that GF&P does for the lndowners. The SCS does more for providing for wildlife with the cost share on tree plantings and water resourse's.

You say the wildlife belongs to the state and it's people so how about you guys catch and brand the wildlife like I do with my cattle. And when my cattle get onto someone elses land, they can sue me for tresspass or cost of feed. I can't for your share of the deer.

And if you can run your wildlife on my place for free, how about I send you my wildlife, like my praire dogs, and you can run them on your grass and not shoot them without my permission. Don't worry, I'll send some guys down once or twice a year to shoot all that I don't want anymore. Oh, and don't worry about the plauge, thats all media hype.

SH-As far as helping ranchers out. GF&P has a $5 surtax on all hunting licenses that has been spent on deer proof stack fences and other methods to deter deer depredation.

If we had more control as landowners we wouldn't need these fences. If landowners got a cut of the licenses or had the right to sell a small portion of the amount of licenses, there would be a monetary incentive to keep a good population of the wildlife. And thus feeding them to assure that they are healthy. Just like livestock.

SH-GF&P matches the county ADC tax assessment $2 to $1 to help private landowners with their predator problems.

See above. Also I hear from the couple of neighbors who still raise sheep that it's very hard to get anyone to come and do anything when they have a problem. They say the poor feller who is in this country has too much territory to cover so has a tough time getting to all of the problem areas and being very effective.

SH-Landowners are given "landowner preference" points during license allocation and allowed "special buck tags".

Landowners shouldn't have to be given special tags. Oh and I don't think they are given. I think we have to pay for them just like all of our city cousins who don't help to feed, water and care for the wildlife. Special tags are kind of like me sending you some free air. You have it already and I shouldn't have to give you permission to breath.


JB: "I enjoy having wildlife on our ranch, but get real tired of hearing about all the mean old nasty landowners who poach and allow poaching by all of their friends. If it happens, it is done by the minority and not the majority."

SH-Where did anyone suggest anything about all the mean old nasty landowners who poach and allow poaching by all of their friends. Where did that come from?

Sorry if you thought I was refering to you. Are you feeling guilty?

This is something I've read and heard and probably came from another blog or site.

We as landowners do more for the wildlife than anyone else and have less rights. That is getting kind of old.

And you did make mention of a scenario where a rancher/farmers son was out spotlighting, which could lead to people assuming that you think that this happens on a regular basis.

Again, if landowners are such a wild lawless group, how come the wildlife populations are higher now than 20 or 30 years ago? And please don't try to tell me it's all about how the GF&P policies have done this.

And I am talking about my area. I could care less about other area's.

If we as landowners are such a bunch of wild, kill everything but our livestock group, one would think that we would have wiped out all wildlife in our respective areas.


JB: "And why on earth would the GF&P care about deer being poached when they can't get enough killed every year anyway?"

SH-As if the situation you are familiar with in your area is applicable to the whole state of SD.

I am only talking about my area as that is the area I am familiar with. What is happening in the rest of tha state doesn't have much to do with me. That's the problem/intrests of the people who live there. When it becomes my intrest or problem, I'll discuss those other areas with you.

SH-Show me a landowner who bitches about too many deer and I'll show you a neighbor who says there isn't enough deer.

Exactly. Like the GF&P who make a living off from the wildlife, so always want higher number so as to sell more licenses, so as to make more money, so as to pay their employee's more.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think CO's make lots of money and probably don't make even a very good living. But this issue, as with most issues with the GF&P is about power and money. The GF&P has no one who we as voters can fire at election time, if they are not doing as most wish. The head of GF&P is an appointed position and therefore can get away with more than someone who was elected. IMO.

And they work for the people of SD and I are one of the people! So that gives me the right to bench, as it isn't in my power to fire any one who isn't doing their job, as I see it. When you take someones money to do a job, you have to deal with the people who are paying you and GF&P doesn't like to deal with the people. It seems that they would rather just hand down commandments from their high and mighty mountain and we are supposed to just be good little disiples and follow orders and never complain. Well, they aren't gods! So I have the right to complain and I shall. LOUDLY AND WITH MUCH FORCE.

You don't seem to be such a bad feller SH, just a little misguided and always wanting to race to the front to slay the dragon. Well, don't get burned by the dragon or the other knight who is trying to slay the same dragon.

Bottom line, this is my family and my ranch and we pay the taxes and it belongs to us. And the bank! LOL.

So I will defend it from all who try to use and abuse it. That is my right and our rights are getting scarcer all the time. Go pick up a copy of Range magazine and see what has been going on west of us and is heading this way. The "greenies" are trying to get control of this land without having to sweat or pay for it, and I for one am going to do my darndest to see that it don't happen. I am the fourth generation who has sweat and bled for this piece of heaven, so I will fight, not flinch and cave into demands set by those who have no idea what it takes to be a real "conservationest".
 
SH: "A conservation officer cannot do whatever he wants on your land. Open Fields is specific to checking hunters in the line of duty and assisting with human health and safety issues."

Oh for pete's sake! Of course he, or anyone else, can do anything on my land, provided it's legal, if I agree to let him. Where on earth did you get that idea?

SH: "All law enforcement should be involved initially to check the obvious. A large search party typically would not be initiated until the obvious places had been checked first by law enforcement and immediate family depending on the circumstances.
Either way law enforcement may be searching the obvious with the immediate family before a search party is initiated."

Several years ago our neighbor's little girl was lost in a blizzard and the only ones who were able to get to the ranch to help look were the neighbors. Unfortunately, she was found frozen to death before the law or the ambulance crew could get there. Your analogy of the blizzard was a really poor one.

SH: "I know Janvrin was found guilty in a court of law and changed his story about the wounded coyote.
I'll take that as an admission that trespassing is ok under certain circumstances. How ironic!"

Like I said before, you don't know anything about the facts of the trial and until you do, why don't you quit displaying your ignorance? The only ironic thing about this is the comparison of the way GF&P used the law against Janvrin and supported the road hunting law that would allow others to trespass to a much greater degree that Janvrin ever dreamed of doing.

SH to JB: "Does that wildlife stay on your land and never leave? Antelope and deer are never found on your neighbors huh? If the wildlife belongs to you, why don't you build a large fence and brand your wildlife."

It's the state's wildlife. Why don't they build a big fence around the public's land and keep their game there? Or at least compensate the private landowners for damages.

SH to JB: "As far as helping ranchers out. GF&P has a $5 surtax on all hunting licenses that has been spent on deer proof stack fences and other methods to deter deer depredation.
GF&P matches the county ADC tax assessment $2 to $1 to help private landowners with their predator problems."


I can't speak for any other landowner, but GF&P has never spent a dime on this place to "protect" against depredation. Ever. Thirty years ago the game warden we had then gave us a handful of shells and said to shoot the deer if we couldn't keep them out of the stacks.

Our old trapper used to help us out with coyotes and did a good job of it, the one we've had for the last twenty years has NEVER killed a predator of any kind for us or any of our neighbors. Where do you suppose all that money from the $5 surtax went?


SH to JB: "Landowners are given "landowner preference" points during license allocation and allowed "special buck tags".

Well, whoopee ding!!! That should solve everything!

SH to JB: "As if the situation you are familiar with in your area is applicable to the whole state of SD. Show me a landowner who bitches about too many deer and I'll show you a neighbor who says there isn't enough deer."

Find me any rancher or farmer who doesn't think he has enough deer and most of us will gladly send them his way. This might be the silliest statement you've made yet!
 
Jinglebob, since you skipped over my question so I'll ask it again.


1. Does that wildlife stay on your land and never leave?

YES OR NO?


JB: "The state and mostly the GF&P want their cake and eat it too. They want all monies that come from the wildlife, but little of the expense of feeding or caring for the wildlife."

Obviously you have no idea how much commercial hunting is in this state.

If it was up to me, I'd let the chronic biitchers shoot all the wildlife on their land so I wouldn't have to listen to their constant :( and moaning. LOL! Unfortunately, that's against the law.


JB: "You say the wildlife belongs to the state and it's people so how about you guys catch and brand the wildlife like I do with my cattle."

No, state law says the wildlife belongs to the public.

Oh yeh, a deer branding, now there's a novel concept.

Maybe you should write a poem about that.


JB: "And if you can run your wildlife on my place for free, how about I send you my wildlife, like my praire dogs, and you can run them on your grass and not shoot them without my permission."

You are not even making sense!

Why haven't you poisoned your pr. dogs????


JB: "If we had more control as landowners we wouldn't need these fences. If landowners got a cut of the licenses or had the right to sell a small portion of the amount of licenses, there would be a monetary incentive to keep a good population of the wildlife. And thus feeding them to assure that they are healthy. Just like livestock."

I wouldn't have a problem with landowners transferring their license to someone else as a financial incentive.


JB: "Also I hear from the couple of neighbors who still raise sheep that it's very hard to get anyone to come and do anything when they have a problem. They say the poor feller who is in this country has too much territory to cover so has a tough time getting to all of the problem areas and being very effective."

I haven't heard RB say that he wasn't able to keep up with his complaints.


JB: "Sorry if you thought I was refering to you. Are you feeling guilty?"

What would I have to feel guilty about? I don't pull any punches.


JB: "We as landowners do more for the wildlife than anyone else and have less rights. That is getting kind of old."

We have raised as much wildlife on our ranch as most ranches have and I have lost plenty of second and third cutting alfalfa to whitetails but I wasn't constantly bitching about it.


JB: "Again, if landowners are such a wild lawless group, how come the wildlife populations are higher now than 20 or 30 years ago? And please don't try to tell me it's all about how the GF&P policies have done this."

Who said landowners are a wild lawless group??? Do you just dream this :!: up??


JB: "I am only talking about my area as that is the area I am familiar with. What is happening in the rest of tha state doesn't have much to do with me."

If that is the case, then why didn't you say............

JB: "JB: "And why on earth would the GF&P care about deer being poached ON MY RANCH when they can't get enough killed every year anyway ON MY RANCH?"


SH (previous): "Show me a landowner who bitches about too many deer and I'll show you a neighbor who says there isn't enough deer."

JB (in response): "Exactly. Like the GF&P who make a living off from the wildlife, so always want higher number so as to sell more licenses, so as to make more money, so as to pay their employee's more."

Landowner tolerance has a large impact on the number of licenses issued in a particular area so your notion of managing for optimum license sales is flawed like a lot of your logic.


JB: "You don't seem to be such a bad feller SH, just a little misguided and always wanting to race to the front to slay the dragon."

I really don't care about your evaluation of me because you know nothing about me.

Why don't you show me where I am misguided. Talk is cheap!



~SH~
 
LB: "Like I said before, you don't know anything about the facts of the trial and until you do, why don't you quit displaying your ignorance?"

I know a jury convicted Janvrin. The jury was privy to all the information. Where is the ignorance in that?


LB: "Our old trapper used to help us out with coyotes and did a good job of it, the one we've had for the last twenty years has NEVER killed a predator of any kind for us or any of our neighbors. Where do you suppose all that money from the $5 surtax went?"

I suppose that $5 surtax went to those who request service rather than those who just bench about the service they didn't get or request?


LB: "Well, whoopee ding!!! That should solve everything!"

Of course not, some people will bench no matter what they get.


LB: "Find me any rancher or farmer who doesn't think he has enough deer and most of us will gladly send them his way. This might be the silliest statement you've made yet!"

Everyone sees the world through their own circumstances. There is many landowners in this state that would like to see more deer. Shows what a vacuum you live in.




~SH~
 
SH;
1. Does that wildlife stay on your land and never leave?

YES OR NO?

JB, They go back and forth, of course, depending on food resources and hunting pressure.


JB: "The state and mostly the GF&P want their cake and eat it too. They want all monies that come from the wildlife, but little of the expense of feeding or caring for the wildlife."

Obviously you have no idea how much commercial hunting is in this state.

JB; I know how much commercial hunting is going on in my area and it looks like it will increase, as if you must put up with slobs, they ought to at least pay you for that privledge.

SH;If it was up to me, I'd let the chronic biitchers shoot all the wildlife on their land so I wouldn't have to listen to their constant and moaning. LOL! Unfortunately, that's against the law.
JB; Finally we agree on something. Why can't we change the law?

JB: "You say the wildlife belongs to the state and it's people so how about you guys catch and brand the wildlife like I do with my cattle."

No, state law says the wildlife belongs to the public.

JB; Am I the public? If so, why do I have no say so on what to do about wildlife?

Oh yeh, a deer branding, now there's a novel concept.

JB; I guess it would be real similar to when them ol' brush poppers gathered them wild cattle down south and branded them and drove them north. I guess a good bunch of hands could do it. Seems like they dart and move wildlife, like wolves and such, so deer wouldn't be all that tough.

Maybe you should write a poem about that.

JB; When I get time I might.


JB: "And if you can run your wildlife on my place for free, how about I send you my wildlife, like my praire dogs, and you can run them on your grass and not shoot them without my permission."

You are not even making sense!

Why haven't you poisoned your pr. dogs????

JB; I hate poison so I trap and shoot them. I was trying to make a point but apparently you are too obtuse to understand my point. Exchange praire dogs for deer, antelope, or any other wildlife. If the wildlife belong to you, come and get them. If they belong to me I should get control of them. Who is the public? Let the public pay for feed of wildlife.


JB: "If we had more control as landowners we wouldn't need these fences. If landowners got a cut of the licenses or had the right to sell a small portion of the amount of licenses, there would be a monetary incentive to keep a good population of the wildlife. And thus feeding them to assure that they are healthy. Just like livestock."

I wouldn't have a problem with landowners transferring their license to someone else as a financial incentive.

JB; We agree again. Why don't you suggest it to the higher ups? Like they would listen. Or try it. I think it would do wonders to establish some give and take between GF&P and landowners.


JB: "Also I hear from the couple of neighbors who still raise sheep that it's very hard to get anyone to come and do anything when they have a problem. They say the poor feller who is in this country has too much territory to cover so has a tough time getting to all of the problem areas and being very effective."

I haven't heard RB say that he wasn't able to keep up with his complaints.

JB; I don't imagine that HE thinks he was having any trouble. I'm refering to the landowners, so it's really heresay. I have no troubles with predators. But then I don't have sheep, chickens or small animals. I have dogs and tough cows who don't let things bother them at calving time. I havea neighbor who was told that he could no longer fly his pairaplane and shoot coyotes on his own land. If that is true, it's BS of the highest order.

JB: "We as landowners do more for the wildlife than anyone else and have less rights. That is getting kind of old."

We have raised as much wildlife on our ranch as most ranches have and I have lost plenty of second and third cutting alfalfa to whitetails but I wasn't constantly bitching about it.

JB; Good for you. Do you ever poach any to get a little back for the lost feed? I am not bitching about having the wildlife, just want the people to realize that they are mostly running on private land and not public land. So there ought to be allowances made for those who feed them year around. I like having wildlife around. I don't hunt much, but did get a doe (legally) this year and my son got two (legally). Someone has to regulate the doe population and quit killing all the bucks before they have a chance to mature. I don't have a problem with deer in my stacks as I don't keep much hay and it's evidently not as tastey as my neighbors! I am not complaining about deer depredation. I would rather have the deer than the slob hunters!


JB: "Again, if landowners are such a wild lawless group, how come the wildlife populations are higher now than 20 or 30 years ago? And please don't try to tell me it's all about how the GF&P policies have done this."

Who said landowners are a wild lawless group??? Do you just dream this up??

JB; You took this out of context of my original post. I made reference to your scenario about the ranchers son out spotlighting. And I also mentioned that I might have gotten this idea from other posts or blog sites. There is inuendo (sp) here on this site by you, that we need to keep a tight grip on the wildlife or people will be out killing and poaching them. If you are going to fight me with my own words, please keep them in context.


JB: "I am only talking about my area as that is the area I am familiar with. What is happening in the rest of tha state doesn't have much to do with me."

If that is the case, then why didn't you say............

JB: "JB: "And why on earth would the GF&P care about deer being poached ON MY RANCH when they can't get enough killed every year anyway ON MY RANCH?"

JB; Good question. I probably should have but I thought that it was a given and understood by anyone with any faculties. I guess I didn't think that I had to spell it out. Do I need to type slower so you can keep up? I.....am..mostly...interested...about...things...that....deal....with..my..........property. And w3hat you wrote wasn't my meaning and you should have understood it. Don't read your type of thinking into my words, please.


SH (previous): "Show me a landowner who bitches about too many deer and I'll show you a neighbor who says there isn't enough deer."

JB (in response): "Exactly. Like the GF&P who make a living off from the wildlife, so always want higher number so as to sell more licenses, so as to make more money, so as to pay their employee's more."

Landowner tolerance has a large impact on the number of licenses issued in a particular area so your notion of managing for optimum license sales is flawed like a lot of your logic.

JB; Sorry, I wasn't aware of this. If this is true it's probably a good thing. But in Meade county, they always seem to have lots of left over licenses. So if they could sell them they would get more money. If they have so many left over they must be doing something wrong. If they want to remove deer, let sharpshooters do it and give the meat to charity as they do in Rapid City with problem numbers of deer. Or just tell the land owner how many he/she should shoot to remove them.


JB: "You don't seem to be such a bad feller SH, just a little misguided and always wanting to race to the front to slay the dragon."

I really don't care about your evaluation of me because you know nothing about me.

Why don't you show me where I am misguided. Talk is cheap!

JB; I just tried , but I doubt it did any good. And on the same token, you know nothing about me either evidently. You have your mind made up and since you can't walk in my boots, I doubt you can ever see my point of view.

On the matter of this stupid law that started all of this, how would you like it if some law enforcement offical took it upon themselves to walk into your house at any time, whether you were there or not, just because the law said that they had the right too? Or in another way, follow me if you can on this, how about if R-Calf was the law of cattle country and you had to do what they told you? Would you think that that was ok, just because the majority said it was? Now, be truthful and don't try to twist my words around like you did on my previous post. I don't purport to know everything about all wildlife in the state, but I do know about what happens on my land.

And once again, I've got no beef with the wildlife or even the Conservation Officers, I just don't like my rights and liberties trampled on by high handed public officials. When you are in the minority, Democracy can suck.
 
[Previous post - LB: "Our old trapper used to help us out with coyotes and did a good job of it, the one we've had for the last twenty years has NEVER killed a predator of any kind for us or any of our neighbors. Where do you suppose all that money from the $5 surtax went?" ]
SH: I suppose that $5 surtax went to those who request service rather than those who just bench about the service they didn't get or request?]

The one time we did request service from our trapper because we were losing several sheep a day, he told us it would be ten days before he would get here. We called Janvrin, he came out that day, got the coyotes and we never lost another ewe all that winter. If we had waited for the trapper to come in his own sweet time, there wouldn't have been any sheep left for the coyote to eat. We might not be real intelligent, but we certainly learned from this.

We tax ourselves to pay for our predator control pilots. Janvrin, who is only one of the pilots our predator control district hires, gets more coyotes in a week than our trapper gets in a three month time period. Do you think livestock producers are getting their money's worth in this deal? Janvrin got eight coyotes within two miles of us day before yesterday and it took him two hours with two of my sons on the ground helping him. That was the third trip he's made to this corner of the county in the last two weeks and he never got less than 7 coyotes every trip.
BTW, you are also a state trapper. How many coyotes did you in the last three month period?

[Previous post – SH: Everyone sees the world through their own circumstances. There is many landowners in this state that would like to see more deer. Shows what a vacuum you live in.]

One of us IS living in a vacuum. If I were you, I'd try to get a good grip in case someone turns it on!
 
Interesting topic from seperate views. I believe that had the CO's taken the time to "respect" the property owners rights, this and many more issues would be mute.

I believe that it will now never be solved, and would have just read the threads and not added much, until ....SH commented that it only ruined a good hunt because a CO found the hunter in violation of one of the infractions.

Two years ago, I was watching a great buck, I spotted him about mid summer, I watched him carefully over the next few months and spent a fair amount of time just letting him be and thinking about the local winter season. about two weeks before the season opened, I took the time to stay up all night to see if his habits had changed or if he was keeping to the same scedule, then I even waited until the second day of the season to take him, I was on MY OWN LAND, with all required tags ect. sitting there at 3:30 in cold Dec. the morning waiting for dawn, and the deer,

he showed up right on scedule, about a half mile away walking towards the edge of my field, where I would get a good clean shot, within seconds he was gone, as the local CO drove over to check my license. the girl jumped out and bounced over to where I was sitting and cheerfully asked for my license. and couldn't understand why I was so :mad: off. she had seen my truck the week before and was sure she was going to catch me poaching. Had she looked up my address and talked to me niether of us would have had the words we had that morning.

I still got the deer, and it was indeed a fine Buck, This is not the first time she has ruined a hunt and is a self professed animal lover. Compliants have only resulted in the "she is just doing here job" ...

Sad to hear that no matter where you go there is a CO bent on ruining some ones fine day.....
 
Two years ago, I was watching a great buck, I spotted him about mid summer, I watched him carefully over the next few months and spent a fair amount of time just letting him be and thinking about the local winter season. about two weeks before the season opened, I took the time to stay up all night to see if his habits had changed or if he was keeping to the same scedule, then I even waited until the second day of the season to take him, I was on MY OWN LAND, with all required tags ect. sitting there at 3:30 in cold Dec. the morning waiting for dawn, and the deer,

he showed up right on scedule, about a half mile away walking towards the edge of my field, where I would get a good clean shot, within seconds he was gone, as the local CO drove over to check my license. the girl jumped out and bounced over to where I was sitting and cheerfully asked for my license. and couldn't understand why I was so :mad: off. she had seen my truck the week before and was sure she was going to catch me poaching. Had she looked up my address and talked to me niether of us would have had the words we had that morning.


Perfect illustration of an uncompensated taking. This would serve for a test case. Again, Open fields doesn't give the CO the right to trespass, open fields only holds that evidence gathered by the trespass on open fields won't be supressed as there is no expectation of privacy on open fields line the curtiledge of a residence.


The way SD law enforcement has abused open fields doctrine serves to illustrate the "camel nose under the tent" nature of government.
 
SH Q: 1. Does that wildlife stay on your land and never leave?

JB (in response): They go back and forth, of course, depending on food resources and hunting pressure.

OK, so if the wildlife doesn't stay on your land, how can you have more say in managing that wildlife than your neighbor and how can it be considered your wildlife if it doesn't stay on your property?


JB: "JB; Am I the public? If so, why do I have no say so on what to do about wildlife?"

Of course you are part of the public and you do have a say on what do do about wildlife just like your neighbor does who share the same wildlife with you. His/her ideas may differ from yours. Like I said to LB, show me a landowner who complains about too many deer and I'll show you a landowner who complains about not having enough deer and they might even share the same deer herd.


JB: "Seems like they dart and move wildlife, like wolves and such, so deer wouldn't be all that tough."

Where are you going to move them to? If you are already bitching about feeding them, why would you think someone else would want them?

Wouldn't it make more sense to have hunters shoot the numbers down to a tolerable level? OH, but you probably don't want any more hunters either do you?


JB: " I was trying to make a point but apparently you are too obtuse to understand my point."

More apparant is your inability to make your point without delving into an unrelated topic.


JB: " Exchange praire dogs for deer, antelope, or any other wildlife. If the wildlife belong to you, come and get them. If they belong to me I should get control of them. Who is the public? Let the public pay for feed of wildlife."

You just got done saying.............

JB: "I guess a good bunch of hands could do it. Seems like they dart and move wildlife, like wolves and such, so deer wouldn't be all that tough."

If it's so easy to move the public's wildlife, "GET 'R DONE"!!! What are you waiting for?

As to your other attempt at making a point, deer and antelope are not managed the same as pr. dogs. As you have pointed out, deer and antelope are migratory and don't stay on your place.

In contrast, prairie dogs are "LESS" migratory. Yes, "SOME" pr. dogs migrate particularly in drought years but not like deer and antelope..

You have control of your pr. dogs but you don't like poison which is probably why you still have pr. dogs. You want someone to come get the wildlife off your land but you admit that they don't always stay on your land.

Who is the public you ask? You really don't know?

Perhaps Ron White could help you with your definition of "PUB LIC". The officers arrested him for being drunk in "PUB LIC" but Ron claims he was drunk in a bar until the bouncers "THREW HIM INTO PUB LIC". Poor fella! LOL!

How much do you think the public should pay for you to feed the wildlife that you admitted doesn't always stay on your land?


JB on transferable licenses: "Why don't you suggest it to the higher ups? Like they would listen. Or try it. I think it would do wonders to establish some give and take between GF&P and landowners."

I have voiced my opinion on transferable tags. The sportsman's organizations have opposed it.

I have no problems with a landowner giving up his right to hunt (landowner preference license) by transferring that license to someone else as monetary compensation for feeding the public's wildlife. I have no problem with that concept at all. Some see it as the beginning of the end of hunting as we know it. From the standpoint of what is best for the wildlife resource, wildlife never has it better than when there is a financial incentive to perpetuate them.


JB: "I have a neighbor who was told that he could no longer fly his pairaplane and shoot coyotes on his own land. If that is true, it's BS of the highest order."

Unfortunately, SD was not abiding by FAA regulations in regards to allowing the use of Powered Parachutes. We found out that they were not considered legal for aerial hunting by the FAA. We are currently involved in an effort to try to get them legalized. Federal law supersedes state law unfortunately. Personally, I would like to see Powered Parachutes legal for aerial hunting on a person's own land.

Talk to the FAA!


JB: "Do you ever poach any to get a little back for the lost feed?"

Of course not. Why would I poach a deer when I can buy a double doe tag for less than it costs me to take my wife out to supper? I can have a wonderful legal doe hunt and help a landowner out in the process. The challenge is in herding the does to a place where they are easier to load.

One year I purchased 2 double doe tags and gave the meat to needy people in the community.

Do you ever poach any to get a little back for the lost feed?


JB: "I am not bitching about having the wildlife, just want the people to realize that they are mostly running on private land and not public land. So there ought to be allowances made for those who feed them year around."

Oh, I see. A minute ago you wanted me to come get "OUR" wildlife and now you are not bitching about having wildlife. Ahh.......ok?

JB (previous): "Why don't the rest of the citizens come and get their wildlife or at least show some appreciation for those of us who have them on our land and provide them with water, shelter and feed?"

Sounds like bitching to me!


What kind of allowance do you want? What kind of appreciation do you want?


JB: "I like having wildlife around."

Then why are you wanting someone to come get them and why are you bitching about feeding them? Man you are so inconsistant with your arguments.


JB: "Someone has to regulate the doe population and quit killing all the bucks before they have a chance to mature. "

Nobody can do that better than you can by only allowing hunters that will shoot mature bucks and also take a doe.


JB: "I don't have a problem with deer in my stacks as I don't keep much hay and it's evidently not as tastey as my neighbors!"

WAIT A MINUTE!!!

You just got done saying that there should be allowances made for those who feed wildlife year round and now you admit that you don't have a problem with deer in your haystacks BUT YOUR NEIGHBOR DOES??????

Sounds like you neighbor has the legitimate bench, not you.


JB: "If you are going to fight me with my own words, please keep them in context."

Pretty difficult to take something out of context when I quoted you in your entirety.


JB (previous): "I am only talking about my area as that is the area I am familiar with. What is happening in the rest of tha state doesn't have much to do with me."

SH (in response): "If that is the case, then why didn't you say............"

JB: "And why on earth would the GF&P care about deer being poached ON MY RANCH when they can't get enough killed every year anyway ON MY RANCH?"

JB: "Good question. I probably should have but I thought that it was a given and understood by anyone with any faculties."

First you bench about feeding wildlife year round and wanting compensation then you admit that that the wildlife you are bitching about is actually feeding on your neighbors stacks. Then you want someone to "come get the wildlife" than you admit that you like having wildlife around AND YOU WANT TO LECTURE ME ABOUT FACULTIES???

You have repeatedly mentioned landowners receiving compensation for wildlife damage which is not specific to any particular situation.


JB: ]"But in Meade county, they always seem to have lots of left over licenses. So if they could sell them they would get more money. If they have so many left over they must be doing something wrong."

Landowners will only allow a certain number of hunters so it doesn't matter how many licenses are issued IN CERTAIN AREAS, only a certain number will be sold. Based on landowner tolerance who supposedly have no say in the number of licenses issued.


JB: "If they want to remove deer, let sharpshooters do it and give the meat to charity as they do in Rapid City with problem numbers of deer. Or just tell the land owner how many he/she should shoot to remove them."

Remove deer when???

During years of deep snow when deer are destroying hay stacks???

Every year???

Be specific!

We have issued kill permits and killed deer ourselves during certain predation situations while donating the meat to charity.

In most cases, we try to allow recreational sportsman and women to harvest these deer during regular hunting seasons or even in special predation situations so as to increase recreational opportunities for hunters.


JB: "On the matter of this stupid law that started all of this, how would you like it if some law enforcement offical took it upon themselves to walk into your house at any time, whether you were there or not, just because the law said that they had the right too?"

No law enforcement officer can enter my house without a search warrant making your point moot.

The Open Fields Doctrine is specific to allowing conservation officers to check hunters on private land. That has nothing to do with search and seizure without a warrant.


JB: "Or in another way, follow me if you can on this, how about if R-Calf was the law of cattle country and you had to do what they told you? Would you think that that was ok, just because the majority said it was?"

First, R-CALF is not the majority. They are a minority of blamers and no I would not listen to them because they can't tell the truth.


JB: "And once again, I've got no beef with the wildlife or even the Conservation Officers, I just don't like my rights and liberties trampled on by high handed public officials."

How many times have you seen a conservation officer on your land without your permission???


~SH~
 
LB: "We tax ourselves to pay for our predator control pilots. Janvrin, who is only one of the pilots our predator control district hires, gets more coyotes in a week than our trapper gets in a three month time period."

If your contract pilot is controlling the numbers, why is he taking so many coyotes????? Hmmmm???? Sounds to me like your pilot is letting the coyote population get out of hand if he's taking so many.

Looks to me like the reason your trapper doesn't take as many coyotes as your pilot is because your trapper is obviously keeping the coyote numbers in check in the areas he is working.

Now that I have your dander up, see how easy it is to misinterpret coyote numbers????

My point, coyote numbers mean nothing without knowing the variables associated with those numbers particularly the time of year when they were taken.

One thing is for certain, BIG PILES OF DEAD COYOTES TAKEN AFTER THE DENNING SEASON = BIG PILES OF DEAD SHEEP!


LB: "Do you think livestock producers are getting their money's worth in this deal?"

NO! The best bang for the livestock producers buck is to have a trapper and a pilot that work together BAR NONE.

Each working seperately, will only be 50% as efficient and cost effective as they could be by working together.

To just have a pilot flying helter skelter looking for coyotes in Nov. - Jan. is a waste of money unless actual killing is occuring.

Those same coyotes can be killed in those areas prior to denning by flying in Feb. through April once coyotes settle into their denning areas. I have seen predator districts burn up their funding flying winter "maintenance" and not having enough money to fly pre denning when it would have done far more good.

The areas that are flown during prime fur season are filled back in by denning time. To fly an area during the peak of the immigration (prime fur season) then turn around and fly it again in two weeks and again in two weeks is a complete and total waste of money when you can fly it in Feb. through April once the coyotes that are going to be a problem get locked into their territories. That is when you get the most bang for your buck.

Timing and location is everything in cost effective predator control. I understand this issue intimately.

There is only one goal, minimizing livestock loss in the most efficient and cost effective manner. Funding only a pilot or only a trapper will not accomplish that goal.


LB: "Janvrin got eight coyotes within two miles of us day before yesterday and it took him two hours with two of my sons on the ground helping him."
That's great. It's also at a time of year when it will do some good. If that area was also flown in Dec. and Jan. without an actual killing complaint occuring, that would have been a complete waste of your money because those voids are filled back in again by Feb.

I can assure you that anywhere that Janvrin can take 8 coyotes with the plane, I can trap, call, M-44, and snare 6 on the ground that he won't get without spending a pile of flying time waiting to catch them out in the open. I've seen it a hundred times. I'll also bet you that I can find you a coyote track within 1/2 mile of Janvrin's house if that tells you anything about overuse of a single method of coyote control.

An efficient and cost effective predator control program utilizes all methods.


LB: "That was the third trip he's made to this corner of the county in the last two weeks and he never got less than 7 coyotes every trip."

My point exactly! Why not fly the whole area in Late Feb. through April once the coyotes have settled in to their denning areas rather than repeatedly flying the same area during the peak of immigration.

Unless there is actual livestock loss occuring, flying prime fur season is a waste of money when you can kill the coyotes you need to kill in late Feb. through April.


LB: "BTW, you are also a state trapper. How many coyotes did you in the last three month period?"

1 coyote.

Why? Three reasons!

1. I spent the bulk of last quarter in Fall River County helping to poison pr. dogs.

2. Mange has taken a heavy toll on the coyote population in this area greatly reducing the number of coyotes and complaints.

3. My sheep numbers are way down from what they used to be.


How many sheep or calves did I lose last quarter to coyotes???

ZERO!

How many coyote complaints did I have last quarter???

ZERO!


Does that help put 1 coyote taken into perspective for the last reported quarter (July - Sept) ?

The following quarter I took 23. 24 so far this quarter. These numbers mean nothing unless you know all the variables such as number of complaints, coyote population in the area, effort, weather, etc. etc.

I can say with full confidence that I can kill coyotes with any man.


I hope this once again makes my point regarding shallow observations of coyote numbers on paper.

Hell, I could go to an area with lots of coyotes and look like a super hero to someone who didn't know any better but that's not going to address coyote complaints is it???

Now if you think big coyote numbers in and of themselves are a measure of being a good trapper, for the first 10 years at this job I averaged 545 coyotes per year with 2/3 of those coyotes being taken on the ground. You do the math.

Does that make me a better coyote trapper than someone who only took 150 - 200 annually during that same time period??? HELL NO!

The only way anyone can make a comparison is to understand all the variables in that comparison.

Prior to the mange, I had more coyotes in my area due to the volume of inaccessable coyote refuges I have. For that same reason, I had the highest number of calf kills in the state. Coyote population control was not an option for me due to all the inaccessable areas. Mange changed that!

The only numbers that matter is a low number of dead livestock. Simply looking at coyote numbers taken is very misleading and speaks volumes about someone's knowledge of the issue.


~SH~
 
SH: "The best bang for the livestock producers buck is to have a trapper and a pilot that work together BAR NONE.
Each working seperately, will only be 50% as efficient and cost effective as they could be by working together."

I couldn't agree with you more on this one. Unfortunately, our state trapper has flatly refused to work with any pilot except Lex Burghduff, now serving time in the state pen for felonious assault and kidnapping. I was at the Multi-District Predator Control Board meeting in Belle Fourche a few years ago when Rod Yoder said he would NOT work with Jerry Janvrin or the other permitted aerial predator control pilots hired by the board. Yoder came to the meeting to back a petition Lex Burghduff presented to the board to get Janvrin's job. When the petition was found to contain forged signatures from folks who didn't even realize there was a petition, Burghduff withdrew it to avoid prosecution. So much for working together, huh?


SH: "There is only one goal, minimizing livestock loss in the most efficient and cost effective manner. Funding only a pilot or only a trapper will not accomplish that goal."

You've got this one right too. And we do fund both our pilots and our trapper, even though the trapper, WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BE WORKING FOR ALL OF US, refuses to even speak to most of the livestock producers in the county, much less trap for them. This is a good illustration of the huge failure of John Cooper's "communications" song and dance.

I don't know how much money the other counties in the Multi-District pay in, but Harding County sent GF&P $13, 770.10, $.25 for every sheep and $.06 for every head of cattle in the county, to be matched two to one by GF&P. This money is to be used for animal damage control to benefit everyone in the county, not just a select few. The feds sent South Dakota GF&P a half million dollars from the APHIS fund this year that also is to be used for predator control.

All the costs of the aerial predator control pilots in Harding, Butte, Meade and Lawrence Counties are paid by the Multi-District Predator Control Board using money received from the producers who have taxed themselves to pay for their own predator control. No state or federal money comes into this fund, even though the state owned game is also protected from predators using this money from ranchers and farmers who also feed and house the game for the state. Don't you think these livestock producers should get just a little cooperation from GF&P?
 
LB: "All the costs of the aerial predator control pilots in Harding, Butte, Meade and Lawrence Counties are paid by the Multi-District Predator Control Board using money received from the producers who have taxed themselves to pay for their own predator control."

That statement is misleading. That statement is specific to private pilots contracting with the predator districts and does not consider all the predator control flying that our state owned plane does in those same counties.


~SH~
 

Latest posts

Back
Top