Tony Dean apologizes?

[mwj]

[Liberty Belle]

[SJ]

[mrj]

There are few enough murder cases in SD that it should be easy enough to find that one on the internet someplace, maybe Pierre Capitol Journal daily papers' files?

Seems like there was a guy who murdered his wife, then tried to pin it on her young daughter??? But don't recall the names, or even the final outcome, if it has been reached, yet.

mrj

[SJ]

Probably but I would like to have him (western SD) who has all the specifics on this case give the name of this case.

[Liberty Belle]

Welcome back SJ! The east river hunters have been missing you. Does this mean your electricity is finally back on? How long was it you were off - three weeks?

We branded another bunch this morning and purt' near blew away! I doubt you're going to get an answer from western SD. I think he's gone with the wind too.

[Happy go lucky]

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to cooperate with the States, through their respective State fish and game departments, in wildlife- restoration projects as hereinafter in this chapter set forth; but no money apportioned under this chapter to any State shall be expended therein until its legislature, or other State agency authorized by the State constitution to make laws governing the conservation of wildlife, shall have assented to the provision of this chapter and shall have passed laws for the conservation of wildlife which shall include a prohibition against the diversion of license fees paid by hunters for any other purpose than the administration of said State fish and game department, except that, until the final adjournment of the first regular session of the legislature held after September 2, 1937, the assent of the Governor of the State shall be sufficient. The Secretary of the Interior and the State fish and game department of each State accepting the benefits of this chapter, shall agree upon the wildlife-restoration projects to be aided in such State under the terms of this chapter and all projects shall conform to the standards fixed by the Secretary of the Interior.

LB if you read real carefully you will see that without a Game/fish agency the odds of your state after you would dissolve your game dept would find a tough time getting any of those millions from the Dept of the interior! Your money would then in all likely hood go to another state which would benefit greatly to the wild resources of their state pulling away tourism from your state or others that may try what you describe!

LB with No game dpt and much in the way of lost funding how would you pay for any resource needs? Where exactly would that money come from? I'm betting the tax payers would still be paying in one form or another just at a much higher rate than now! You would have less hunter dollars, zero pitt/robertson in all likely hood, and a tourism base on the decline, not to mention way less enforcement of game/fish laws higher poaching rates. Yeah great plan LB , but ain't going to happen.

LB does the constitution set drinking laws? Or how about the legal amount of alcohol before legally drunk? Yet the feds mandate or force states to conform to their guidelines correct? How and why? If any states wants the fed dollars you must play within the system or loose those dollars.

[Liberty Belle]

[Happy go lucky]

LB wrote: Amendment X to the United States Constitution says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

LB sorry your FOS! I gave you examples of how that isn't 100% factually true! You stated nothing mandated you have a game dept, I gave you factual reasons as to why it is! The sportsman would still pay into pitt/robertson your state just wouldn;t see it!!!!! If you dissolve your agency then what you don't getLB! who controls, monitors and keeps checks on wildlife? Your hunt quality would drop off severely, your poaching would rise and you would have little to none non resident dollars coming into your state and you residents would look elsewhere and hold your legislative body in very low regard because a "FEW" have a hard on for the Game dept!

The drinking age and consumption amount before legally drunk can be set by the states!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why then are NO states at 18-20 for legal drinking? because you would loose valuable road dollars in your state and that would raise local taxes alot and you as a state rep would be in hot water LB. You too are accountable for your actions to the people of your entire state, not just your little nook and cranny! Crap rolls downhill and it would end at LB's door step if you and a few others would cost the tax payers more money. Fact or not?

This is silly to even discuss because your ego has gotten the better of you and if you think even for a quick second you would have much of any support in ruining your golden goose ie: tourism from hunting then you are out in far left field LB far,far out there! You puff your chest and make accusations but the follow through isn't there nor would be there on this issue, therefore a non issue! Continue on with your rhetoric LB see where it gets your political life!

I have friends in your state and I have researched many topics and facts outweigh rhetoric eahc and every time! Good day LB!

[Liberty Belle]

[SJ]

I would encourage those of you who have spit out these cases and feel they support GF&P’s use of the open fields doctrine to read them.

I don’t believe real Law enforcement will go in on the color of a hat, some one walking in the field or on a whim that a crime might be being committed.

I would think a hunter’s signature on his license would open his home to a no knock search and have a better chance of holding up in court than GF&P entering my property on the color of a hat as probable cause without permission or a warrant.

I don’t have a problem with the open fields doctrine, I do however have a problem with GF&P’s interpretation/use/abuse of the open fields doctrine.

The added liability is probably as big a concern as GF&P’s use/abuse of the open fields doctrine.

I have no contract with GF&P-- YOU DO!!

Hunt the so called public land you don’t need us and we don’t need you at the cost of our rights and the added liability.

[Larrry]

One thing I can say about these hunters. They are one powerful group of people.

Single handidly they have done more to advance pay to hunt than anyone else could have if they were trying