SD Legislature gets in on the beat down of wildlife and sportsmen/women

[warmer]

Not to be left out of the "stupid shit that gets passed into law" game, the SD folks have entered in the contest with some real head scratchers:

HB1047- guarantees non-resident landowners 2 East River any deer tags, minimum ownership is 160 acres. Capped at 250 tags. Last year 10,123 resident applications were unsucsessful for their first choice in the first draw(preferred tag). This legislation puts the NR at the front of the line.

HB1140-Reverses the Open Fields policy that has been the legal standard for years. CO's can no longer enter private property without a search warrant. Guess SD is welcoming poachers as well as NR.

And one that got shot down:
HB1138- would have allowed residents to start reserving campsites in state parks 14 days before NR could start reserving. Being a SD resident is less important to our Govenor and GFP Department and Commission all the time.

Getting off my soap box now.

 

[Mallardsx2]

CO's have abused that power for years. Every been sitting in your stand and had Mr. Green Jeans see you sitting there from a distance and come walking in on you and ruin your hunt?

I have. It sucks.

I have NEVER supported this law and NEVER will because I have personally seen its abuse.

 

[warmer]

I have never had that happen. SD GFP policy since 2011, has been to conduct those checks at the road. Only enter if the CO absolutely has to. Only one incident where that has happened in the last ten years. But changing from "policy" to "Codified Law" means that is no longer an option.

 

[sschultz]

Not to be left out of the "stupid shit that gets passed into law" game, the SD folks have entered in the contest with some real head scratchers:

HB1047- guarantees non-resident landowners 2 East River any deer tags, minimum ownership is 160 acres. Capped at 250 tags. Last year 10,123 resident applications were unsucsessful for their first choice in the first draw(preferred tag). This legislation puts the NR at the front of the line.

HB1140-Reverses the Open Fields policy that has been the legal standard for years. CO's can no longer enter private property without a search warrant. Guess SD is welcoming poachers as well as NR.

And one that got shot down:
HB1138- would have allowed residents to start reserving campsites in state parks 14 days before NR could start reserving. Being a SD resident is less important to our Govenor and GFP Department and Commission all the time.

Getting off my soap box now.

HB1047 every land owner can get tags under the same rules resident or non resident. Those 10000 should bitch about that.
HB1140 this just a law that falls in-line with what all law enforcement has to follow regarding illegal searches. But from your comment I’m guessing it’s more important to find a over the limit fish or duck than a police officer catching a violent crime suspect.
HB1138 without the non-resident money that comes into the state every year you wouldn’t have as many state parks.

 

[ZBB]

Not to be left out of the "stupid shit that gets passed into law" game, the SD folks have entered in the contest with some real head scratchers:

HB1047- guarantees non-resident landowners 2 East River any deer tags, minimum ownership is 160 acres. Capped at 250 tags. Last year 10,123 resident applications were unsucsessful for their first choice in the first draw(preferred tag). This legislation puts the NR at the front of the line.

HB1140-Reverses the Open Fields policy that has been the legal standard for years. CO's can no longer enter private property without a search warrant. Guess SD is welcoming poachers as well as NR.

And one that got shot down:
HB1138- would have allowed residents to start reserving campsites in state parks 14 days before NR could start reserving. Being a SD resident is less important to our Govenor and GFP Department and Commission all the time.

Getting off my soap box now.

On 1047, I don’t know if I’m reading it right but, it looks like if they don’t draw a tag they can get a private land only tag? That’s only good on their land? I’ll be honest I grew up in Lead and moved to Rapid after I got out of the army so I never really looked in to east river deer. I moved the year before they changed how the draw was done. The way I understood it for the draw 50% of the tags are set aside for landowners the other 50% is for the rest, whatever tags landowners don’t want get rolled into the non-landowner allocation. Is that the same for east river and do you know if that’s going to change? I read the bull and didn’t see it. So if I understand it right the tags they’re getting are only good on there land?

Im surprised HB1138 got shot down, it’s not like there a different price for where you’re coming from. Just would’ve gave priority to residents. Gotta sell them 3 day fishing licenses to catch little trout I guess.

 

[warmer]

On 1047, I don’t know if I’m reading it right but, it looks like if they don’t draw a tag they can get a private land only tag? That’s only good on their land? I’ll be honest I grew up in Lead and moved to Rapid after I got out of the army so I never really looked in to east river deer. I moved the year before they changed how the draw was done. The way I understood it for the draw 50% of the tags are set aside for landowners the other 50% is for the rest, whatever tags landowners don’t want get rolled into the non-landowner allocation. Is that the same for east river and do you know if that’s going to change? I read the bull and didn’t see it. So if I understand it right the tags they’re getting are only good on there land?

Im surprised HB1138 got shot down, it’s not like there a different price for where you’re coming from. Just would’ve gave priority to residents. Gotta sell them 3 day fishing licenses to catch little trout I guess.

50% of the tags in each East River unit are allocated to Resident landowners, that has not changed. And I don't have a problem with that, landowners provide feed and habitat. This bill gives NR landowners 2 any deer tags valid only on their own land.

 

[ZBB]

50% of the tags in each East River unit are allocated to Resident landowners, that has not changed. And I don't have a problem with that, landowners provide feed and habitat. This bill gives NR landowners 2 any deer tags valid only on their own land.

The way I read it was they’ll get 1 any deer tag for their land and receive two antlerless tags. Full disclosure and I’m a little ashamed to admit this, this is probably one of the first times I’ve searched and read something like this. So my lack of familiarity is probably the problem with my comprehension.
Here’s a link to the bills pdf from 3-8-21

https://mylrc.sdlegislature.gov/api/Documents/219969.pdf

I’m not trying to be argumentative I’m just trying to understand. I just want to know if this will affect quotas, like for the regular draw or the special buck draw.

 

[warmer]

The way I read it was they’ll get 1 any deer tag for their land and receive two antlerless tags. Full disclosure and I’m a little ashamed to admit this, this is probably one of the first times I’ve searched and read something like this. So my lack of familiarity is probably the problem with my comprehension.
Here’s a link to the bills pdf from 3-8-21

https://mylrc.sdlegislature.gov/api/Documents/219969.pdf

I’m not trying to be argumentative I’m just trying to understand. I just want to know if this will affect quotas, like for the regular draw or the special buck draw.

NR landowners will be guaranteed two any deer tags. Capped at 250. Interim GFP Secretary Kevin Robling testified that 250 will not “biologically” affect population. Cannot see how it won’t have an affect on quotas. But I am neither biologist or politician. Long and short of the bill is that it does NOT increase resident experience of the SD outdoors or wildlife. Absolutely no benefit to residents.

 

[ZBB]

NR landowners will be guaranteed two any deer tags. Capped at 250. Interim GFP Secretary Kevin Robling testified that 250 will not “biologically” affect population. Cannot see how it won’t have an affect on quotas. But I am neither biologist or politician. Long and short of the bill is that it does NOT increase resident experience of the SD outdoors or wildlife. Absolutely no benefit to residents.

Thanks, yeah sounds kind of ridiculous. I also am not a biologist and I still have a soul so not a politician here either. I don’t see if it doesn’t “biologically” affect wildlife why they wouldn’t just add 250 tags to the overall draw. Guess someone with more land than me is in someone’s ear. Hopefully it doesn’t go through but seeing how’s it’s attached to the bill that also benefits resident landowners I won’t hold my breath.