|
| Author |
Message |
Southdakotahunter
Member
Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 496
Location: Southeast rural South Dakota
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 7:49 am Post subject: |
 |
|
[/quote]
It may interest you to know that the ½ mile stretch of land between my friend’s ranch and his church had 18 dead deer and neither my friend nor any of his neighbors are in the lockout. How do you explain GF&P’s management practices there?
quote]
How many of those deer were run over during the hunting season? Deer are going to go to where they are protected and if there is no hunting in an area, they will hide out there until its safe, then head back out. What do you think the gfp should do? Issue licenses on a mile by mile basis? Last i looked there were left over licenses for your county during the rifle season. Im sure the gfp could issue more licenses, but why if they cant sell what they have offered?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Liberty Belle
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 1679
Location: northwestern South Dakota
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Southdakotahunter wrote: |
How many of those deer were run over during the hunting season? Deer are going to go to where they are protected and if there is no hunting in an area, they will hide out there until its safe, then head back out. What do you think the gfp should do? Issue licenses on a mile by mile basis? Last i looked there were left over licenses for your county during the rifle season. Im sure the gfp could issue more licenses, but why if they cant sell what they have offered? |
How should I know how many were run over during hunting season? I doubt either the deer or the drivers cared if it was during the season or not. The friend I mentioned doesn’t live in this county, in fact they ranch almost eighty miles from us and almost that far from anyone in the lockout. Do you suppose the deer travel that far just to cross the road in front of a car, or do you suppose they live in the area where they met their demise year around?
If GF&P has licenses left over they should either thin the deer herd themselves like they do in Rapid City, Pierre and other cities, or they should give some of those unsold licenses to the landowners to give to anyone willing to shoot does on their land. Seems like you were one of the folks that had a problem with landowners getting transferable licenses though, weren’t you?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
P Joe
Member
Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Posts: 414
Location: Central SD
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Southdakotahunter
Member
Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 496
Location: Southeast rural South Dakota
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with you also LB. Your the one who can bring legislation. I would be happy to see a bill with just what you suggested. THe ball is now in your court LB. THe only problem i could see is people not paying for the doe tags, and waiting until they are given to the landowner. I dont know how they will be able to control that.
I will tell you this. I know this is not 80 miles apart, however, i used to hunt charles mix county. Lake Andes is a game refuge. One time hunting we were on a hillside and watched a hunting party kick a buck out of some cover. We were able to watch that deer travel about 4 miles, not stopping even 1x for a breath, and ran straight into the refuge. Deer know where they are safe. If they are not getting pressured in a certain area, they stay and they know where to go when they get pressured.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
publichunter
Member
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 149
Location: central, SD
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
LB why should landowners get the left over tags? Why dont landowners offer their land to be open for hunting and I know sportsmen/women would take care of harvesting what needs to be done. No person deserves the special privilidge of deciding who gets to hunt the public's deer by the ability to issue licenses, this is the state's sole responsibilty.
Landowners have every right to regulate and aloow or disallow who they let to hunt on their land and that is their rights.
Announcing whose land is open to hunting and they welcome you, they could make their own rules as far as travel on their property, removal of downed deer ETC.
But the public's equitable chances of getting a tag must remain with the state in the lottery system or it just turns back into tags for cash.
About my previous post when I was talking about feed yrd fenceing. I in no way insinuated anything about you or your family, it is your own paranoia taking over.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Liberty Belle
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 1679
Location: northwestern South Dakota
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P Joe wrote: |
| Liberty Belle wrote: |
If GF&P has licenses left over they should either thin the deer herd themselves like they do in Rapid City, Pierre and other cities, or they should give some of those unsold licenses to the landowners to give to anyone willing to shoot does on their land. Seems like you were one of the folks that had a problem with landowners getting transferable licenses though, weren’t you? |
I can agree with you 100% on that. But why do you not bring things like this up in pierre?? 
I think you would garner A LOT of backing if GF&P was going to hand out doe tags to landowers!!! The thing I saw wrong with the last one was "Any Deer" tags which we all know means horns and $$$$$ |
| Southdakotahunter wrote: |
I agree with you also LB. Your the one who can bring legislation. I would be happy to see a bill with just what you suggested. THe ball is now in your court LB. THe only problem i could see is people not paying for the doe tags, and waiting until they are given to the landowner. I dont know how they will be able to control that.
I will tell you this. I know this is not 80 miles apart, however, i used to hunt charles mix county. Lake Andes is a game refuge. One time hunting we were on a hillside and watched a hunting party kick a buck out of some cover. We were able to watch that deer travel about 4 miles, not stopping even 1x for a breath, and ran straight into the refuge. Deer know where they are safe. If they are not getting pressured in a certain area, they stay and they know where to go when they get pressured. |
This is great! Both P Joe and Southdakotahunter agree with something I said!! Will wonders never cease?
| publichunter wrote: |
LB why should landowners get the left over tags? Why dont landowners offer their land to be open for hunting and I know sportsmen/women would take care of harvesting what needs to be done. No person deserves the special privilidge of deciding who gets to hunt the public's deer by the ability to issue licenses, this is the state's sole responsibilty.
Landowners have every right to regulate and aloow or disallow who they let to hunt on their land and that is their rights.
Announcing whose land is open to hunting and they welcome you, they could make their own rules as far as travel on their property, removal of downed deer ETC.
But the public's equitable chances of getting a tag must remain with the state in the lottery system or it just turns back into tags for cash.
About my previous post when I was talking about feed yrd fenceing. I in no way insinuated anything about you or your family, it is your own paranoia taking over. |
Dang it, publichunter – I was getting this warm fuzzy feeling about east river hunters and you chime in and ruin it!
Heaven forbid the legislature should be presumptive enough to tell a state agency what to do!!! Where does the legislature get off ordering state employees around anyway? Evidently lawmakers need folks like you to point out our proper place in state government so we don’t get to feeling like we have authority over the people who work for us.
I gather from your post that giving tags that no one wanted to landowners so they can thin out the deer population with no cost to the state would be a violation of the hunting code ethics or something. Is that written into the state constitution and I missed it?
How would you solve the over-population of deer? Have GF&P hire sharpshooters to thin the herds using “sportsmen dollars” to pay for it? Wouldn’t it be cheaper and more efficient all the way around to give those tags to landowners willing to do the job for nothing?
I guess the pain of giving anything to the folks who raise the wildlife at their own expense is just too much for you to handle, huh? Or am I being paranoid again?
Are you reading this Big Muddy? Does publichunter’s post answer any of those questions you had about landowners’ problems with South Dakota hunters?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
publichunter
Member
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 149
Location: central, SD
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
LB if you knew the law as well as you profess you do. Wildlife is held in the public trust by our Constituition here in South Dakota which states that they will be maintained for the public by the state, for the reason we dont go back to landowners who think they are the Lords and only hunt game for themselves, seeems to me someone might of faught a war to get away from this type of government or life?
Secondly it is just as inexpensive to tthe state to have landowners let them know that they welcome hunters and have a problem, what is the matter with this scenario? other than the landowners dont control the tags.
The answer to over population is really easy LB. Open the land up and the hunters will come.
The landowners are not giving up any control over who is on their land they still keep that say so what wrong with this idea LB? cant sell the tags?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Liberty Belle
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 1679
Location: northwestern South Dakota
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| publichunter wrote: |
| LB if you knew the law as well as you profess you do. Wildlife is held in the public trust by our Constituition here in South Dakota which states that they will be maintained for the public by the state, for the reason we dont go back to landowners who think they are the Lords and only hunt game for themselves, seeems to me someone might of faught a war to get away from this type of government or life? |
Wow! Where should I even start with this ignorant, uninformed drivel? You’re a constitutional scholar now?
Since you are so well versed on the SD Constitution, please tell us where it says what you claim. I’ve never seen even a reference to wildlife in either the SD Constitution or the US Constitution and I’ve read them both repeatedly. I suggest you try reading them since your education has been seriously lacking.
| publichunter wrote: |
Secondly it is just as inexpensive to tthe state to have landowners let them know that they welcome hunters and have a problem, what is the matter with this scenario? other than the landowners dont control the tags.
The answer to over population is really easy LB. Open the land up and the hunters will come.
|
I guess you missed the whole issue of Open Fields vs. property rights, huh?
| publichunter wrote: |
| The landowners are not giving up any control over who is on their land they still keep that say so what wrong with this idea LB? cant sell the tags? |
When a hunter enters private property, GF&P claims to have the right to come onto that private property without either the landowners’ knowledge or consent to check to see if hunters are obeying the law.
Let me get this straight – GF&P has the right to violate MY property rights to make sure YOU are following the law?
You are evidently someone who thinks landowners in South Dakota are stupid enough to go along with having our rights violated just so we can enjoy the pleasure of your company. I don’t think so…
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Southdakotahunter
Member
Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 496
Location: Southeast rural South Dakota
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
If the gfp gave you the licenses LB, you would still open your self to compliance checks.
What i would hate to see happen is the rancher gets the tags, shoots the deer and they go to waste. I think that would happen.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
P Joe
Member
Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Posts: 414
Location: Central SD
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Southdakotahunter wrote: |
If the gfp gave you the licenses LB, you would still open your self to compliance checks.
What i would hate to see happen is the rancher gets the tags, shoots the deer and they go to waste. I think that would happen. |
I don't think that would happen, but there is a bad apple in every bunch!
Here is my take, if us landowners applied for a tag, filled it, allow reasonable doe hunting to take place, then after the main season is over, we should be able to bring a GF&P official out and say hey, I have 50 deer on my land and would like another 10 shot, he agrees, or says well lets do 7 this year. I get 7 permits for me or whoever I want to give them to to go ahead and shoot 7 does. But here is the catch, if the tags are free, so is the hunting. It wouldn't feel right to me nor would it be right to GF&P if they gave you/me 7 tags and we turned around and made $700 dollars on the deal.
I beleive I have a right to manage the bucks on my land, and rarly don't let any one, except the 3 neighbors I hunt with, shoot a buck on my land. Once I've filled, I let "reasonable" people hunt all the does they want.
Now if they can't fill my need to get rid of a few does, then by all rights I should be able to do that myself or hire it done if need be!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Liberty Belle
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 1679
Location: northwestern South Dakota
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| You’re right P Joe, if there are doe tags left over and you have deer damaging your hay and your grass, GF&P should either come out and shoot the wildlife that is causing the damage or give the leftover tags to you to manage the wildlife for them. It wouldn’t cost GF&P anything, the tags are going to waste anyway, and as a landowner, you should be able to protect your feed from depredation. I think the idea of landowners selling those tags is a mute point since GF&P couldn’t even sell them for a whole lot less than $100 apiece!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
per
Member
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Posts: 410
Location: SW Alberta
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Can I assume that your native population has the right to hunt year round? Maybe they would be willing to come in and cull some does. That used to be how we handled our over population of wildlife. That generation of natives are too old now and the next generation is not that interested anymore.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
