South Dakota State Land changes ahead?

Big Fin

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2000
Messages
15,113
Location
Bozeman, MT
You who hunt South Dakota might want to watch this bill. An example of how state politicians can negatively change access to state lands. Not sure what acreage total SD has for state lands.

http://www.capjournal.com/news/bill...cle_2851acb0-ca3b-11e5-ba29-bb8fc0bfa311.html

I do know that about the same time we fought to get a State Lands open to hunting, via an access fee from each hunter, South Dakota was engaged in the same effort. Now, it looks like some in the legislature want to change that.

I suspect if they charged hunters a small access fee as part of their license, it would not be a big deal, such as it is in Montana. When they expect the state agency to pay that cost, a state agency the legislature may control via budgets, then it becomes much more of a political football.

Any of you South Dakota guys know the history behind this bill and why the sponsoring legislator wants to change access to state lands, when both the State Land Board and State Game Agency think the current system is working?
 

TimeOnTarget

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2015
Messages
1,174
Location
SD
You who hunt South Dakota might want to watch this bill. An example of how state politicians can negatively change access to state lands. Not sure what acreage total SD has for state lands.

http://www.capjournal.com/news/bill...cle_2851acb0-ca3b-11e5-ba29-bb8fc0bfa311.html

I do know that about the same time we fought to get a State Lands open to hunting, via an access fee from each hunter, South Dakota was engaged in the same effort. Now, it looks like some in the legislature want to change that.

I suspect if they charged hunters a small access fee as part of their license, it would not be a big deal, such as it is in Montana. When they expect the state agency to pay that cost, a state agency the legislature may control via budgets, then it becomes much more of a political football.

Any of you South Dakota guys know the history behind this bill and why the sponsoring legislator wants to change access to state lands, when both the State Land Board and State Game Agency think the current system is working?

I've no background on this bill, First I've heard of it in fact. I don't think they want to change access to school land, it just wont be highlighted in the hunting atlas anymore if they don't pay a fee.

What I do know is that most of the school lands are grazed heavily all summer. There really isn't any hunting to be had on these lands. I hate to make a blanket statement like that as there is always an exception.

Give 'em an inch though, and they'll take miles.
 
Last edited:

jzeck2

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2013
Messages
193
Location
South Dakota
Betty is a real piece of work. A few years back she led an effort to close hunting down in her home county (Harding). Problem is over half of the county is state and blm land. It is the only county left with a sizeable amount of school land.

I asked you a while back if you knew Tony Dean, Tony battled Betty for years. Unfortunately Tony isn't around anymore to keep Betty in check. Surprised Betty wasn't trying to take over a refuge some where.

The sad news is if she is successful it will take away 1000s of acres of hunting access.
 

jzeck2

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2013
Messages
193
Location
South Dakota
Just got done sending an email off to my two Reps and Senator in Pierre. Betty has tried this every year she has been in the legislature.

This land does get grazed down a lot which just goes to show what kind of stewards of the land we have up in that part of SD. Rape and Burn!

Bottom line this is an effort to defund GFP. She has also tried this before as well. She has introduced legislation to take all the money GFP operates under (license fees, federal money, etc) and put it in the general fund then make GFP fight to get the money back out of the general fund. This could again potentially cost GFP millions in matching federal dollars since they would lose their match.

She has also been behind efforts to not allow Conservation Officers to enforce regulations on private land??? Sounds like somebody with something to hide.

By the way this is the only county in SD where we still have Sage Grouse. The over grazing of these public lands I'm sure are part of the reason for the decline of the Sage Grouse. We used to have a hunting season but that has been closed for several years due to this decline in numbers.
 

jzeck2

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2013
Messages
193
Location
South Dakota
Below is an Example from the late Tony Dean

"By Tony Dean

In a state where hunting is a way of life, a legislative committee aimed and fired directly at hunters earlier this week during a special commission aimed at reviewing the Game, Fish & Parks Department. The committee is laden with landowners, some with a chip on their shoulder and an attitude even bigger than a western belt buckle. It appears this committee was loaded and the deck was stacked before hunters will get any say.

None of these proposals becomes law, but it is likely each will lead to legislation, and you’ll find the hand of Rep Betty Olson of Prairie City, SD at the helm of this ship of hunting destruction.

One proposal would require the SD Game, Fish & Parks Department (SDGFP) to obtain legislative approval for any land purchases larger than 25 acres, which would effectively curtail the purchase of significant tracts of quality hunting land. Ironically, the “property rights” philosophy driving such proposals ignores the right of other landowners to sell their lands to willing buyers, if that buyer happens to be the SDGFP.

Vivian lawmaker Kent Junhnke wants to shift funding from GFP to counties, and another advanced by Mark Devries of Belvidere would send money from deer licenses sales by GFP to counties for maintenance purposes. Such a diversion of license monies may not be allowed by the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS).

It is apparent some rural committee members forget the taxpayers have historically picked up the tab for road and bridge maintenance on roads as well as built those toads used by few others than landowners except during the hunting season.

The committee narrowly passed the proposal to require legislative approval of land purchases larger than 25 acres, a pet project of Rep. Olson. The Farm Bureau also supports that proposal.

Olson also took another stab at her effort to broaden the laws regarding the shooting of mountain lions with her act to provide for the killing of Mountain Lions under certain circumstances and to provide for the dispositions of such Mountain Lions. This would allow ANYONE to kill a Lion. Introduced by Betty Olsen because now landowners are required to buy a $15 license on their own property. and if passed would also allow each of the people who killed the lion to keep it instead of GF&P taking it. This Act if passed would be statewide.

You can call these actions a clarion call for property rights, but I think they are more properly called a bigger anti-hunting movement than that posed by the animal rights industry.

Chris Hesla, Executive Director of the SD Wildlife Federation notes these are only proposals, though they probably represent legislation that will be introduced this fall, and he urges Sportsmen to contact their elected officials with their own views."
 

jzeck2

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2013
Messages
193
Location
South Dakota
Another old post by Tony

"Tony Dean Outdoors

Issues

Betty Olson Trying to Have it Both Ways


Rep. Betty Olson's nonsensical bill that would require the Game, Fish & Parks to reimburse motorists who hit wildlife, presumably deer, for the damages, is dead.

It's another case of Bette wanting it both ways. In the Pierre Capitol Journal today, she was quoted as saying the GFP department doesn't issue enough deer licenses, and that has resulted in too many deer.

However, she makes no mention of her leadership in setting up the SD Lockout, whereby she has encouraged ranchers in northwestern SD to lock out hunters in response to the state insisting on maintaining "open fields" whereby Conservation officers enter private land without permission while enforcing game laws.

So, isn't Betty guilty of helping to promote higher deer numbers, however inadvertently by advocating a lockout?

Some of her other exremist ideas such as the bill that would allow transferable deer licenses for some ranchers have also been killed. Do you suppose, just suppose, she might be getting a message from her colleagues who represent sportsmen from all areas of the state, that her ideas are, well, a bit kooky to say the least?

If Betty genuinely wants to lower deer populations, she could start by inviting hunters to her part of the state and ending the lockout nonesense, which by any measure, hs been a failure.

Of course, she also wants to have the mountain lion listed as a varmint, which means they could be shot on sight whenever they are outside the Black Hills. And to push her view, she's showing a photo of a lion that was supposedely killed not far from her ranch."
 

jzeck2

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2013
Messages
193
Location
South Dakota
And another oldie but a goodie from Tony, We sure miss you here in SD:

"By Tony Dean
For the Argus Leader
Published: January 31, 2007


Rep. Betty Olson has introduced HB 1148, which repeals the doctrine South Dakota conservation officers use to check hunters for compliance with game laws on private land.

Under the terms of her bill, Conservation Officers can only enter private land without permission under these circumstances:

- If reasonable suspicion or probable cause exists that a violation of a law that the conservation officer is authorized to enforce has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

- To investigate a report of illegal hunting, fishing, or trapping activity.

- To dispatch crippled or distressed wildlife.

- To respond to emergency situations, accidents, or other threats to public safety.

To enter at any other time without landowner permission is, in Olson’s view, a violation of property rights.

I am of a different philosophical bent. The open fields provision helps keep hunting a democratic sport, and just as seeing a Highway Patrol car top an oncoming hill causes many motorists to lift their foot, the knowledge that a conservation officer could show up at any time helps keep some hunters honest. And one has to wonder just what landowners who favor this legislation have to hide from conservation officers.

Rep. Olson has been one of the chief architects of the infamous S.D. Lockout, an effort by some western South Dakota landowners, to protest the Open Field policy.
In the beginning, they sought hunter support, but didn’t find much. Nor have they ever produced a list of landowners who represent the 4 million acres they claim to have closed to hunting. And while they have convinced some hunters they aren’t welcome in Harding County, the fact is, not all landowners in that county agree with the lockout, as evidenced by the SD Game, Fish & Parks Department signing up more than 25,000 “walk-in” acres there.

In addition, such prime spots as the Cave Hills and Slim Buttes are public land, and for deer at least, offer the best hunting opportunities.

Olson and Sharon Clarkson (wife of GFP Commissioner Mert Clarkson) have been among the most vocal members of the SD Lockout.

Olson had earlier suggested she wanted to introduce legislation that would allow the GFP Commission appoint the GFP Secretary, instead of the Governor.
She succeeded in attracting a number of co-sponsors in her anti-open fields legislation including Paul Dennert, Rich Engels, Hanks, and Gordon Howie and Senators Bill Napoli, Maher, Ken McNenny, and Dennis Schmidt. Dennert (D-Columbia, SD) and Rich Engels (D-Hartford, SD) are the only East River sponsors. All other sponsors live in West River country with Napoli, a frequent GFP critic, Schmitt, Hanks and Howie all listing Rapid City addresses.

It is important sportsmen contact their elected Representatives and Senator, says Chris Hesla, who lobbies for the South Dakota Wildlife Federation, and they can do so online by going to the Legislative Research Council’s section on state legislators.

Hesla added that contact with members of the House Ag and Natural Resources committee where the bill is expected to be heard, is especially important.

Another dangerous bill, HB 1177 – which was introduced by familiar names; Juhnke, Brunner, Deadrick, Howie, and Olson (Betty) and Senators Garnos, Bartling, Lintz, and McNenny – would allow landowners leasing or owning over 640 acres to purchase transferable licenses. This measure would allow additional privatization of wildlife, especially deer. It’s a dangerous step toward Texas-style hunting and should be rejected by the legislature. It is a bill clearly designed to require the state to aid private landowners who wish to further commercialize big game hunting. Presumably, those licenses would come at the expense of South Dakota hunters.

Another bill the SD Wildlife Federation opposes is HB 1178, which would allow an additional 1,000 10-day non-resident waterfowl licenses for certain counties. I’m personally not opposed to this one because no matter where I hunt waterfowl in South Dakota, I rarely see any hunters. This legislation is authored by Juhnke, Deadrick, Jerke, Putnam, and Vanneman and Senators Garnos and Bartling, all of whom represent counties that would receive the additional licenses."
 

jzeck2

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2013
Messages
193
Location
South Dakota
I'll quit posting about the infamous Mrs. Olson, I just wanted to give you a taste of what she has been attempting to do.
 

Wild Bill

Active member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
262
Location
SD
Thanks for the heads up Fin. Wasn't aware of this bill but shot off emails to my state reps just now and send the link and a message to all my friends hoping they do the same.
 

Kaitum

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
633
Location
New Mexico
Betty Olson is South Dakota's answer to Jennifer Fielder. Betty's first few years in the SD legislature were pretty much focused on stripping whatever powers she could from SD GF&P. Fortunately most of her sponsored bills failed in those early years. I hadn't followed the SD legislature in detail for some time. I'm surprised she's still elected but I guess I shouldn't be.
 

beagle001

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
569
Location
Central WI
What I do know is that most of the school lands are grazed heavily all summer. There really isn't any hunting to be had on these lands. I hate to make a blanket statement like that as there is always an exception.

Give 'em an inch though, and they'll take miles.


From what I know and have heard (I'm a non res but venture out every year) a lot of the school ground gets grazed hard, but I know of some good stuff in the central part of the state with some darn good hunting.


I sent this link to a buddy out there and he told me that once upon a time, Ms. Olson tried banning wardens from trapping on their personal time. She's got quite the axe to grind with the GFP apparently
 

warmer

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
750
Location
SE South Dakota
The short story (lie) is to raise funds for teacher pay. But turns out its more" rob peter to pay Paul".
 

Handlebar

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
80
My impression of state lands is that the utilization is higher on some but not all. I almost exclusively bird hunt on them in the fall and send quite a bit of time chasing deer and antelope on them as well.
 

warmer

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
750
Location
SE South Dakota
This was deferred to the 41st day, which should effectively kill it. But you never know!
 
Last edited:
SITKA Gear

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
94,494
Messages
1,408,056
Members
29,642
Latest member
gunstar
Top