Shadiness in cutting off access in South Dakota

[Yogithebear]

Public access fight draws state into court with townships - South Dakota Searchlight

Deer hunters Bill Berry and Kyle Battell recently attempted to access public land in the rolling hills and rugged backcountry north of Wall. But the parcels of public land were surrounded by privately owned land – creating something hunters call a “landlocked parcel.” That’s the case with many...

southdakotasearchlight.com

Pretty cool to see how South Dakota had the foresight to include these section lines to ensure public access to landlocked public land. But frustrating to see how an adjacent landowner was able to manipulate the system to get rid of that access, at least for now. Hopefully now that its been discovered it will be remedied.

 

[Farmerj]

Wow….

 

[pyrotechnic]

It's really hard to stay civil when you read about this kind of bullshit.

 

[338win]

Not a lawyer, more of a shit poster. How can it be legal/ethical for a family member to file on behalf of the state in support of the private entity?

 

[Farmerj]

Not a lawyer, more of a shit poster. How can it be legal/ethical for a family member to file on behalf of the state in support of the private entity?

I was wondering the same thing and more.

 

[wyoelkfan15]

These types of stories really make me rethink if our ag exemptions for property tax and lowered AUM fees for grazing on public lands are such a great idea. In theory I agree with them, I don't mind supporting our ag producers through subsidies. But stories like this make me wonder if we should reconsider those programs.

 

[Wild Bill]

I keep an email in the inbox directly from the Commissioner of the Office of SD School & Trust Lands that states that hunting, fishing, camping, etc. is allowed on SD School Trust land and may not be revoked by lease holders. Print a few of them off and keep them in your pickup. I haven't had to use them yet, but you never know. Also, I have called Sheriff's offices and GFP CO's alerting them of lands I will be accessing. If they're aware already, the potential for them siding with the landowners if an issue arises would drastically decrease, I'd assume.
Any ways, this isn't a new thing in SD. Just look at non-meandered waters and fishing access in NE SD via section lines and other public right of ways.

 

[bmt99]

This is a popular topic among some of the circles I hunt in. It is truly frustrating. There is a piece of SD Trust land that had a road through it that went to a ranch. The road IN the trust land was improved with nicer cattle guard and abandoned the next year. I did not know it was abandoned and was using both the public map and ONX. The rancher stopped me on the Trust land and was furious with me. I left and called GFP. They confirmed the ranchers story and offered no explanation as to why. There is still access from the adjacent road, just makes it a little more difficult. What I don't understand is how tax money can be used on a road in Trust land and then abandoned. This only helps a single ranch. Getting mad even typing this. There have been a number of questionable decisions regarding public land the last 4-5 years.

 

[warmer]

My Dad served as a Township Trustee for 20years, the topic of vacating township right of ways is always a heated discussion between us. He has similar reasoning, ie:litter, high school parties, trespassing. So I see the township side. But he hates it when I bring up access to public land. So we agree to disagree.

 

[Trial153]

De facto ownership has lead to pervasive entitlement.

 

[Yogithebear]

My Dad served as a Township Trustee for 20years, the topic of vacating township right of ways is always a heated discussion between us. He has similar reasoning, ie:litter, high school parties, trespassing. So I see the township side. But he hates it when I bring up access to public land. So we agree to disagree.

Ya, I get that, but this article indicates it wasn’t the town officials that initiated it, it was the adjacent landowner, who as a result has defacto sole access to the public land now.

 

[bmt99]

@Yogithebear, the land owner was the initiator, HOWEVER, it was his daughter, the township clerk, who prepared the documents and submitted on behalf of the township. That is a key point.

 

[warmer]

A quick Google tells me the population of Elm Springs Township is 24. Finding volunteers to be Trustees and a Clerk is not easy, and with only 24 people, the pool gets really small. The fact that his daughter filled out the paperwork doesn't sound to unusual. If someone else was the clerk, they would have done the paperwork also. Not defending this nonsense, just trying to give a perspective.

 

[COEngineer]

A quick Google tells me the population of Elm Springs Township is 24.

Those 24 must be some hell-raising SOBs to be causing all this trouble:

"...wantonly go where they please with no regard for property rights or the potential downside effects of irresponsible behavior."

"...carrying a host of drugs and drug paraphernalia, which is becoming commonplace..."

'“playgrounds for druggies,” ... squatters “living in filth and squalor leaving a trail of mess and destruction.”'

All on some unmarked public ROW. I'm impressed.

 

[Wild Bill]

Those 24 must be some hell-raising SOBs to be causing all this trouble:

But it's not them, that is the issue. It's the vagabonds, transients, and miscreants that are terrorizing the section lines.

I've frequented that area before, both passing through and while hunting. The only trash I've seen out there are the 10's of dozens of empty mineral tubs that litter the landscape, the countless tangles of bailing twine on the fences and shrubs, and the old abandoned vehicles and trailers that litter the drainages. I'm telling you, you'd be hard pressed to find old beer cans in those road ditches. It's a desolate area, and other than the folks that live there, there isn't much traffic you'd encounter in a day.

This is just what it seems, a couple landowners that are trying their darndest to keep anyone and everyone out of their little slice of the region.

Trust me, no "druggies and squatters" are travelling all the way out there to from anywhere to do anything. They can do whatever they please right in downtown Rapid City.

 

[COEngineer]

But it's not them, that is the issue. It's the vagabonds, transients, and miscreants that are terrorizing the section lines.

I see, so if the squatting druggies were locals, it would be ok.

 

[flyingvmt]

That article reeks of conflict of interest. I’d be one pissed off dude if I was a SD resident how the locals are eroding old laws to their benefit.

It’s no different here in Montana except we don’t have those handy section lines to access landlocked public chunks that the adjacent private landowners use and abuse as if it was their own free land for hunting.

Can’t hate the idea of private landownership, but it’s damn sure easy to hate the way it seems most of them abuse the system we pay for in taxes.

In that aspect, I’d sure like to have the ability to pick and choose what public lands my federal tax dollars went towards. A landlocked public land needs to be swapped for public accessibility or hang the cost to manage those lands directly on the surrounding landowners not to mention scrap the “free” grazing (cheap) they get on said landlocked ground.

I work in the ag industry and gd it’s hard not to call these folks out to their face sometimes, but I like getting a paycheck so I keep my hat pulled down and my mouth shut most days.

 

[flyingvmt]

It's really hard to stay civil when you read about this kind of bullshit.

Totally agree. It makes my blood pressure soar.

 

[davinski]

Was that section line access the Township's to vacate in the first place? I thought the section line access law prescribed a right-of-way to counties. Elm Springs Township is not Meade County. No dog in this fight, just a curious former (like last century former) Meade County resident.

 

[Hunting Wife]

Was that section line access the Township's to vacate in the first place? I thought the section line access law prescribed a right-of-way to counties. Elm Springs Township is not Meade County. No dog in this fight, just a curious former (like last century former) Meade County resident.

Yes, township boards have the power to vacate the transportation easement. If the township doesn’t have a board, that power lies with the county.