Important South Dakota legislation!!!

Steave Thompson posted on Facebook and I may not live there but this stuff dictates how any future fishing opportunities will be presented…

“DISAPPOINTMENT & SHOCK: South Dakota Sportman and the Public Trust Doctrine; the principle of common law managing natural resources took a devastating hit yesterday when the Landowner heavy Non-Meandered Water Legislative Study Committee voted 13-2 in favor of “5 Open Compromise” against the will of the South Dakota Sportsman.

This is a one-sided bill written by those respreseting the landowners without inviting the sportsmen to the table to negotiate a compromise. Every amendment brought to the table by the sportsmen and the various conservation groups was either voted down or never debated. The one red-line in the sand that could have made it palitable for sportsmen was not even considered for a vote.

EVERY Sportsman should stand OPPOSED to this bill. Countless hours of work by many many Sportsmen went into reading, researching, writing emails and letters as well as calling Legislators only to fall on deaf ears.

THE FIGHT IS NOT OVER. Please contact every Legislator including the Governor’s office and let them know you do NOT support this bill and it should never see the light of day.

A huge thanks to Sean Weaver, Andy Fiolka, Chris Hesla, Ryan Beasley, Jesse Kurtenbach, Shantel Wittstruck Marcus Quam, Derek Garner, Lloyd Hodgin and many other for all the hardwork and efforts that have gone into this issue.

WE WILL NOT GO QUIETLY!

WE WILL FIGHT ON!”

Although I don’t have a dog in the fight, why should a landowner, who is paying taxes on ground that he owns, not have the right to say who can and cannot access this ground? I know that now it is off limits to everyone but is it the farmers fault that the ground got flooded? If it hadn’t got flooded the farmer or landowner would have the right to say who could come on their property. Yes there are many great fishing lakes but the landowner still owns it and should the government have the say who can access it?

Is it possible to pay $3-$5 bucks to access these bodies of water like they have been charging on Lynn or Kettle/Cattail for a number of years?
They have little metal boxes near the parking/launch areas with a pencil and a card asking for vehicle plate info. You fill out the card, drop the $ in the box and launch with no issues.
I understand both sides of the argument but could this be a solution?
Paying $3-$5 bucks to launch, park, and fish a quality body of water seems reasonable to me.
JMHO

I forgot the in-depth details but maybe Steve or one of the other South Dakota boys can chime in to give more detail on the subject???

Its not the landowners fault that the ground flooded… but its also not their fault the fish are there. Those were put there by the game fish and parks along with the public landing… now that access is being taken away, the fish go away too. These waters typically do not support populations on their own… so after a few years, there will be no fisheries on the lakes that are off limits.

Meanwhile, the land will STILL be flooded (most likely) and instead of big $$$ coming in from out of state to fish and hunt… they will go elsewhere.

The state COULD work on an easement program to compensate the landowners and reopen the waters for public enjoyment… but given the display of incompetence that has played out so far… I doubt that will happen.

I don’t know a lot about this (just a little) but it’s my understanding that public funds (or GFP) were used to pay for the landings AND stocking programs in these lakes.. If the landowners don’t want the public (who paid for all of this) to fish the waters then they better make damnnn sure that not a single fish is ever pulled out of the laked ever again.. If I’m a SD resident there’s no way in hell that I would allow these landowners to reap the benefits all on their own. I’m sure this isn’t their motivating factor of keeping boats from hovering 15′ above their actual dirt but I would throw a major fit if they were still allowed to catch and eat the fish that I paid for… Just sayin

What’s really sad is the representatives of South Dakota allowed the bill (which passed committee) to go into special session without any input from the sportsman. In fact the bill was written by the lawyers of the land owners. There’s plenty of ways to allow access to the water, and both the land owners and sportsman can benefit. Not more than a week before the drafting of the bill the SD GFP put out the numbers of the economic benefit which the fishing industry provide to the economy of some of those smaller communities and the region/state. If this bill passes as proposed, some of these small farming communities will die. Farmers don’t want to see the big picture, just want to look at their south 40 sitting under water and how they can fence that off from the public. There are ways to work this out, it’s that the side which makes the rules won’t compromise.

Exactly walleye buster and chomps… the GFP will not stock or manage lakes without public access of some sort because they use public $$ to fund stocking programs. They will focus stocking and management toward lakes with public access. So those lakes will become bullhead factories basically.

There are very few lakes in SD that don’t have some area of flooded land that was farmland at one point. So I could see the list of lakes that are close expanding considerably.

Our state law says that the water belongs to the public for use. That is why there is such a fight about this issue. It is confusing and I understand there is more than point of view.The proceedings have been overly one sided. It appears that landowners can get their taxes for next to nothing but the land has to be reassessed at a lower price that they don’t want in-case they can sell it in the future. Both sides have their arguments. It is scary to think what could happen if they start to put these signs up on meandered waters as well. That would take away a large majority of some of our more popular lakes. That is what I understand and I am by no means an expert. If Steve comes on he has written very much about this and seems to know more.

Hey Guys,

I’ll chime in here later this morning, just got out of a meeting. Lot of work to do on this bill to make it palatable for both the landowners and the sportsman.

This is only a short-term fix bill to get the waters open as there is not time at this point to deal with the dozen of other issues such as taxes, special fees, etc.

What ever anyone does do not stop sharing and talking about this with any sportsmen you know or come across it needs to be voiced and understood the economic and long term affects of this bill if passed!

More Sad news!

http://www.argusleader.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/09/business-dries-up-after-court-puts-fishing-holes-off-limits/376988001/

One thing I’m wondering is how this seasons ice fishing access will be affected?

Some good news for now…

http://www.keloland.com/news/article/politics/special-session-yields-law-to-open-lake-access-to-anglers

Lets hope it continues in that direction!

They are open until a londowner puts up a sign of sorts…it’s better than it was but there is still a lot to work on.

haha how sad SD is becoming, trolling along for walleyes in the middle of a waterway, then you come up to a string of No tresspassing signs, run back to the truck load the boat back up, wave the farmer down from his tractor, “can I have permission to fish your parcel of the lake?” drive down to the other driveway and ask the other farmer to get permission on the other parcel on the lake. Now instead of being pestered during the fall for hunting permission, it will become year round

Anyone with a Facebook account please follow this link and read a bit of comments to see where things seem to be going and anyone that may have more in depth information please feel free to chime in!

This sign is in the right of way on a lake in Clark County and it is the only one on the whole lake. This particular…

Nai-post ni Neil Jensen noong Huwebes, Hunyo 15, 2017