IceShanty.com's Ice Fishing Community
South Dakota => Ice Fishing South Dakota => Topic started by: wyoutdoors on Mar 31, 2017, 03:59 PM
-
http://www.argusleader.com/story/news/2017/03/17/high-court-strikes-victory-private-property-rights/99302730/
-
This is going to depend on our law makers in Pierre . This should have been handled years ago . I just hope the GF&P can settle something with the landowners , I also believe its far from over .
-
Our lawmakers in Pierre have been writing and tabling bills on this subject for years. The supreme court dropped the responsibility for this squarely in their laps. It's about time they do their jobs. Now we will have to put up with the rumor mill which should be entertaining. Someone may have to come up with maps as to which waters are open to the public. Some of the opinions of the ruling I have read online have been pretty entertaining. I'll wait to be better informed before forming my opinion.
-
I have a few friends over in that part of the State which use the OnXMaps app on the water to keep from crossing private landowner boundaries as the waters rose and flooded private property. Much like public land in Wyoming which adjoins private property via checkerboarding (where two corners meet and it is considered trespassing to step over from one "square" onto the other "square" of public ground because you "stepped" through their air space!) there is quite a bit of debate. If I bought an 80 acre section of ground in Eastern SD and then a few years down the road the water encroached over my property, I'd be concerned if I only had 10 acres and the other 70 I purchased became open to public at my expense too. Tough issue, hope it all works out. :tipup:
-
In SD the state owns the land under meandered water and it is owned by the landowner under non meandered water as I understand it. GF&P said it was legal to fish non meandered water if it could be accessed by way of public or state lands. I have said for years that GF&P should come up with a stamp we could purchase to pay landowners a fee if they allow people who have purchased the stamp to access their non meandered water. GF&P pays farmers for deer damage on their land even though they won't let deer hunters access their land to hunt them. These things seem to be about money and can be cured by paying someone.
-
In today's society, it is always about the money! :tipup:
-
North Dakota we can access any water body if it is on a section line or ROW. Unless a land owner can close a section line if another section line can access that part of the section that is blocked.
Also if a lake has been stocked by the state then it is public waters.
Again it's about the almighty dollar
-
Townships have been abandoning section lines in Day County SD to make landowners happy and keep people from having access to water and ice. It seems the squeaky wheel gets the grease. None of this would happen if people had respect for others instead of thinking only of a full bucket of fish in my opinion. We are no longer allowed to launch boats from ditches in Day County because of people tearing up road ditches while launching boats.
-
well this is interesting: http://gfp.sd.gov/fishing-boating/courtruling.aspx
I am not sure I agree with some of these, especially where gfp stocked fish in some of these bodies of water......
From article "GFP cannot facilitate access to these waters until the State Legislature acts." I would suggest many of us to contact our state legislatures and voice our opinions
-
Time for our elected officials to get this resolved...
-
I guess our lawmakers are going to have to grow a pair if they want to let the herd out of the corral. I wonder how many years this will take them?
-
The part that ticks me off is our sporting $$ paid for stocking fish , ramps , docks . I really hope they get this done and over with
-
The court wouldn't have had to decide this if the legislators would have done their job instead of letting it slide for years. I was surprised when I read that North Scatterwood Lake in Edmunds County was closed. I have been fishing there for more than fifty years. It will be interesting to see how many more get added to the list. Reetz is the "trophy" lake GF&P was so proud of. Hopefully they will get this right, eh Rags.
-
I am with you rags. It is the money that has been pumped into these lakes over the years that rubs me. At the same time, I understand where the landowner is coming from. There have been a few sportsman that have not showed much respect to them and with still paying taxes, reduced or not, it was only a matter of time. Too bad it had to get to this point.
-
If you want to find out who your legislators are and how to contact them you can start here:
http://sdlegislature.gov/Legislators/Legislators/MembersByDistrict.aspx?Session=2017
Let your voices be heard and speak to those who are elected to represent us.
-
https://www.change.org/p/governor-dennis-daugaard-south-dakota-legislature-special-session?recruiter=6397424&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=mob-sm-share_petition-no_msg
Hey guys go here and sign this petition to get things moving faster. The petition calls for a special session to resolve this issue instead of waiting until next January.
-
It is hard to believe the legislature didn't have the foresight to address this earlier instead of waiting to be forced to figure all this out. If everything is about money, this should have been on the agenda long ago. Now the economy and people, will suffer... According to a 2016 study, 1.3 billion dollars were spent directly by people to enjoy the outdoors for that year. Hunting and fishing comprised 90 percent of this. This 1.3 billion generated 1.9 billion more in economic activity. It provided 18,000 jobs and 520 million in wages. In addition, it created 83 million in taxes for the government. As important as hunting and fishing are to the economy, one would think that the legislature would look at this issue of waters being closed and that they would do it immediately....... Also, don't assume that because a body of water is closed that the private landowners around that lake have an issue with the public fishing the lake. Not all landowners feel exactly the same as the ones who sued the GFP. The GFP had to pull the public access dock from a lake in Marshall county which has land owned by 4 different in-laws of mine around different spots on the lake. I can tell you none of them, and guarantee that none of the other land owners had or have an issue with the public fishing the lake. Now they can't easily get a boat into the very lake that they own property on.
-
As I understand the courts decision, until the legislators come to a decision, no one including landowners are allowed to put a boat on non-meandered waters nor can landowners give someone permission to access these waters. As I understand it, if I owned a cabin on North Scatterwood Lake or another non-meandered water, I wouldn't be able to legally launch and use my boat. I think the the legislature could set up a system like is used for walk in hunting areas where landowners who volunteer would be paid by the acre for access. They do need to get off their arses and get something done for once. In my opinion there will always be landowners who will never grant access.
-
As I understand the courts decision, until the legislators come to a decision, no one including landowners are allowed to put a boat on non-meandered waters nor can landowners give someone permission to access these waters. As I understand it, if I owned a cabin on North Scatterwood Lake or another non-meandered water, I wouldn't be able to legally launch and use my boat. I think the the legislature could set up a system like is used for walk in hunting areas where landowners who volunteer would be paid by the acre for access. They do need to get off their arses and get something done for once. In my opinion there will always be landowners who will never grant access.
A friend of mine recently purchased a property as a rental fishing cabin ice dawg. The court decision will certainly impact the property values let alone the ability to rent it to other fishermen for a weekend or week. Last year I was thinking of purchasing lake property just across the MN side of the line, within in at least a days drive of the glacial lakes. I'm pretty excited I decided to wait a few more years in case I Wanted to make a permanent move. I cannot imagine the frustration of those who may have purchased a vacation/fishing property, or even possibly retired and bought some ground, only to have something like this impact it. Wyoming has walk-in hunt and fishing access and it seems to work fairly solid. And you're correct about landowners, some will not allow access at all, some will (not shooting their elk though lol), and some will charge a small seasonal fee. I've found most landowners who shut off access have had a bad experience with the public in one way or another. Like you, I hope this is sorted out to some sort of satisfaction for all parties involved soon.
-
A friend of mine recently purchased a property as a rental fishing cabin ice dawg. The court decision will certainly impact the property values let alone the ability to rent it to other fishermen for a weekend or week. Last year I was thinking of purchasing lake property just across the MN side of the line, within in at least a days drive of the glacial lakes. I'm pretty excited I decided to wait a few more years in case I Wanted to make a permanent move. I cannot imagine the frustration of those who may have purchased a vacation/fishing property, or even possibly retired and bought some ground, only to have something like this impact it. Wyoming has walk-in hunt and fishing access and it seems to work fairly solid. And you're correct about landowners, some will not allow access at all, some will (not shooting their elk though lol), and some will charge a small seasonal fee. I've found most landowners who shut off access have had a bad experience with the public in one way or another. Like you, I hope this is sorted out to some sort of satisfaction for all parties involved soon.
The SD Supreme Court told the SD Legislature in 2004 that it is their responsibility to solve the non-meandered water issue and they have done nothing with the issue. I have seen first hand what caused some landowners to take the issue to court. They have had to clean up trash around the non-meandered lakes on their property and have been disturbed early in the morning by people running ice augers close enough to their home to wake them. People tearing up road ditches to launch boats. It is a landowners responsibility to mow these ditches which became impossible or nearly so. I seldom fish in the Webster area anymore do to these fish pigs who care about no one but themselves. I have been on Bitter Lake one time and that was enough of that zoo for me. I can remember the good old days of fist fights at boat launches on Lake Oahe. Landowners pay taxes on unusable land and I don't blame them for some being angry. Hopefully the legislature will be able to work with both sides to solve the issue. It seems there was an initiated measure voted in by taxpayers trying to keep our politicians half way honest last November and our legislators tore it apart like a chicken pouncing on a junebug. I'm anxiously waiting to see how excited they will be about something that doesn't affect their wallets. It has only been ignored since 2004 so far. :nono:
-
Yes fished most of these NE lakes my whole life and now other new lakes that I duck hunted in as a kid. I agree this is a mess and yes I know several landowners in Day county and respect their wishes on their lands/lakes and understand the water rights, etc. Agree with Ice Dawg that something along with lines of Walk in Lease, CREP leased land, (For Boat Access) etc will have to be provided to those landowners that wish to allow fishing. Those that don't it will be closed. That or ALL of those lakes will be closed for rec. use both by public and landowner or it will become like pheasant hunting in South Dakota where you pay to hunt all the good spots and those that do not want to pay are left with public access. Yes it does come down to money on both sides,,, Those that cannot farm the land and those that want to fish on the water over that land. It will be VERY interesting how this shakes out and the feud between landowners and sportsman is going to take a BIG hit I think.
-
From my understanding this was brought up during one other hearing .
"Furthermore, the Supreme Court said “The public trust doctrine imposes an obligation on the state of South Dakota to preserve water for public use. It provides that the people of South Dakota own the waters themselves, and that the state, not as proprietor, but as trustee, controls the water for the benefit of the public...We conclude that all water in South Dakota belongs to the people in accord with the public trust doctrine and as declared by statute and precedent.”
-
The SD Supreme Court told the SD Legislature in 2004 that it is their responsibility to solve the non-meandered water issue and they have done nothing with the issue. I have seen first hand what caused some landowners to take the issue to court. They have had to clean up trash around the non-meandered lakes on their property and have been disturbed early in the morning by people running ice augers close enough to their home to wake them. People tearing up road ditches to launch boats. It is a landowners responsibility to mow these ditches which became impossible or nearly so. I seldom fish in the Webster area anymore do to these fish pigs who care about no one but themselves. I have been on Bitter Lake one time and that was enough of that zoo for me. I can remember the good old days of fist fights at boat launches on Lake Oahe. Landowners pay taxes on unusable land and I don't blame them for some being angry. Hopefully the legislature will be able to work with both sides to solve the issue. It seems there was an initiated measure voted in by taxpayers trying to keep our politicians half way honest last November and our legislators tore it apart like a chicken pouncing on a junebug. I'm anxiously waiting to see how excited they will be about something that doesn't affect their wallets. It has only been ignored since 2004 so far. :nono:
SC has clearly ruled water is held in public trust, just like air is. So that is set in stone. Rain and drain tiling has caused a lot of these lakes(durrie and jessie were lakes before the floods and tiles, 34ft of water in over 70% of the total lake, and old maps clearly show this). Then those bodies of water expanded and destroyed roads, public lands(federal and state). And in jessie and durrie case most of that water originated from the basin water which over 97% was private. So if they want control of this water now, lawsuits will brew up because they didn't control their water. My parents have land that is flooded from the floods in the same are, we have never once complained about anything, y? We don't want the water to be privatized and be held liable for the issues from the water. Plus paying only 10% tax and being paid over 160 per acre for crep and half full equity of the land value to loan against to purchase other land or items. 240x175=42k a year!! and only pay 10% tax on that land!! And not have to do a single thing!! that is a win win!! making more money than farming it and have more free time. So it ISN'T about the money at all for the 3 plaintiffs at all. Its about control of the water for their paid fishing and hunting operation. And one landowner even purchased land/water after the flood, so . They had a chance with sb 169 and that was fair. But the 3 landowners flipped out because they wanted it to be over 200 acres. I do not feel sorry for the plaintiffs one bit. A landowner has even pulled a gun on us ice fishing, we came on through my friends land and was over it. We were threatened once on the ice because we were fishing(came on through our land) and he yelled at us for allowing people out there, but when i turned him in for harassment(again, the day county DA was in their pockets) and explained to him we were on WPA land fishing he didn't care. Its all about control, point blank. SB 169 is the right answer(but if a section line or road leads to that water its public). And hopefully the sC rules tomorrow on the roads correctly. sorry for errors, on the phone
-
he is a line from the road closer SC testimony. This is the sole reason why this water deal is in court. this is the plantifs words himself ..Exhibit 16. Steve Kjellsen and Jim Stoudt, residents of Watertown, South Dakota,
attended the hearing and testified against the proposed vacations. SR1 T. 45, 50. After the
hearing, Troy Township board member Thad Duerre summarized the true reasons for
vacating public highways when he told Jim Stoudt, “[t]his is our land, these are our roads,
this is our water and these are our fish and you’re not going to have access to them.” SR1
T. 53. On August 18, 2014, the Department appealed Troy Township’s decision to vacate
public highways. SR1 1.
-
Regardless how anyone feels about this subject. Your voice needs to be heard.
Here is a link to the Non Meandered Water Legislative Committee meeting coming up May 9th and 10th:
http://www.sdlegislature.gov/docs/Interim/2017/Agendas/ANMW05092017.pdf (http://www.sdlegislature.gov/docs/Interim/2017/Agendas/ANMW05092017.pdf)
-
well the Plantifs/townships in day county pretty much lost the SC case on the roads. So they know they are almost out of options. Plus just a note to all the people thinking if they buy land thats already flooded and now they want control of that water, well when it floods ur neighbors land, better get your checkbooks ready, because you didn't control your water. If you want control of this water... its held in public trust for a reason. And this just isn't about fishing or those ne sd lakes,,, it affects all of our waters, for drinking and such,, this deal sets a precedent for the future.
-
Until the legislature passes something, all these lakes remain closed. That is exactly what some of these landowners want. They need to make a deal but neither side will ever compromise on this.
-
The state is loosing out on major tax $$$$ , the GFP isn't selling as many licenses , with that said it may kick them in the butt to get something passed
-
The Legislature’s nonmeandered waters task force approved draft legislation Friday to resolve the issue of public access to recently formed lakes that lie over privately owned land. Governor Dennis Daugaard calls the proposal a good compromise:
"This bill is a good compromise that balances the rights of landowners with the ability for sportsmen to use public waters for recreation. I support this bill and encourage the Legislature to work together so that we can finally achieve a solution to this long-standing issue. I will confer with legislative leaders to identify possible dates for a special session soon."
I have a big problem seeing the “compromise”. It basically declares all non-meandered waters open to the public, unless landowners post property as closed. That says ultimate power rests in the hands of the landowners. The Legislature committee appears to be choosing private property rights over public water rights
-
There is no compromise , its all for the landowner . It don't matter where you are from call and or email
-
Just FYI, they have now included meandering lakes that can be closed off by land owners(81 lake was taken off the list, so now it can be closes without public input, just like the rest now). If the water went beyond the "high water mark" they can close the water. How in the world can they prove where the mark was is beyond me. Their isn't 1 document that proves the line within 10 yards at the time of survey. Just so everyone knows. Several lodges and private landowners that charges to gain access, do NOT pay tourism tax, even though by sd law. They have to. I have looked up several guides and lodge, and private landowners that i know charge over 1k for fishing rights, and not a one paid the tax. Source: sd treasury . And just so everyone knows, a landowner can close anybody of water, and we the public(water is to remain in the public trust , the use to be determined by the trustees, legislatures, source: supreme court ) have NO say anymore if the water is closed, once its closed its closed and only that landowner has rights to that public water. They can apply to have it closed but we have no way to appeal that application.!!! We must email sd reps and be polite!!!! and stick to the facts from the supreme court, and remind them that this bill gives the landowners trustee power and that is against the Scourt ruling and will lose in court this year. If you think this is just about fishing your wrong, its about drinking water down the road. This bill sets precedence for drinking water rights.
-
I read the new one they released today , I need to reread it to try and understand it
-
Hi,please contact the SD local reps and ask them to vote NO on this water bill, they are meeting monday at 10 am in pierre to vote. This bill will close off a lot of public trust water without public input. This allows the private landowner to privatize the water. Please be polite and short.. vote NO. Do it before sunday if possible. Thank you.
-
Call or email either one
-
SD special session on nonmeandered water ends with legislation passed. House voted 54-12 to accept Senate version. Senate voted 26-2.
now waiting for the governor to sign which he has already indicated he would
this is bittersweet, glad to see waters opened back up, not thrilled about seeing some closed for good.
we don't need private lakes stocked by the public with license dollars.
Tax forgiveness on flooded land is a better solution
-
What is their final verdict
-
it passed with a shorter sunset clause(which is somewhat good for SD residence). 3 amendments were brought forward which would of balanced out this bill(and satisfied the supreme court ruling), but voted down by senate. Now outdoor people will have to look every time they want to go on public trust water through public land to see if its closed off or not by private landowners. Why would anyone want to come to SD now? We are going to North Dakota now. If you go to SD to fish you will have to worry about getting a criminal trespassing ticket now if you boat floats over public trust water 5 ft thats privately owned now. Just think this bill was written by a lawyer/lobbyist that was for 3 landowners that started this mess, and that lawyer works for Monsanto as well. And his firm leases up flooded lands for their personal fishing / hunting areas. So this bill just gave away public trust waters to non res people/corps. Worse part of this bill is the public has NO say or appeals process in any of the closings. I talked to 2 water attorneys and they both said this will end up in court, easy win. I encourage EVERYONE to go to durrie slough and have their cameras rolling and ask to fish it and if he says no, put a 100 bill out and offer it, and make sure you record it. Plus their is WPA on that lake and by federal law they have to provide access to that water/land. And this bill sets up that MEANDERING water could be closed off as well. This bill sets precedent that drinking water will be in private hands in the future as well. (probably the reason why Monsanto was very interested in this.). This bill opened 30 lakes(which still can be close by the landowner if they go in front of a non trustee board), just to let over 20k acres of water to be closed(by non trustee people , without public input, this water can be closed for good!), as a son of a land owner, this is a horrible law.
-
just got word that this bill/law allowed the injunctions of the waters to be put back on. Not sure how that is possible because nothing in the law stated this. So guess what, a lot more landowners will be doing this now. Despite what the supreme court ruled on.... neither the landowner nor the public have superior right to public trust waters.
-
just got word that this bill/law allowed the injunctions of the waters to be put back on. Not sure how that is possible because nothing in the law stated this. So guess what, a lot more landowners will be doing this now. Despite what the supreme court ruled on.... neither the landowner nor the public have superior right to public trust waters.
whats your source for this?
The responsibility to mark off water will fall on the land owners and they will have to verify their property lines. How many do you think will go through the effort to stake off or put out markers? Even if they cant make a profit from closing water off. And with open and hard water they would have to do it every time the water thaws and freezes.
-
I didn't see Reetz on the list of lakes reopened.
-
this is from the gfp's website, maybe i read it wrong but, here it is. Injunctions from previous court actions (Duerre v. Hepler and Parks v. Cooper) remain in effect.
-
GFP Works on Reopening public access after open water compromise passes
Pierre, S.D. -With passage of House Bill 1001 by the SD Legislature, the South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks (GFP) is now in the process of removing the cables that have blocked boat ramps on nonmeandered waters; primarily in the eastern half of the state.
By the end of today, GFP staff will have removed all cables that previously restricted access to nearly 30 nonmeandered lakes. Full services will be restored by the end of the week; which includes having docks back in the water.
"I want to thank the Legislature for taking quick action yesterday," said Kelly Hepler, GFP secretary. "I encourage everyone to join together for implementation of the Open Waters Compromise."
Going forward, the department will work closely with the GFP Commission to engage the public in setting rules to implement sections of the bill; including the ability for landowners to mark water above private land closed. In the interim, landowners can still post the waters with conspicuous markers after notifying the department. GFP will work with landowners to maintain our state’s recreational opportunities for the public.
Injunctions from previous court actions (Duerre v. Hepler and Parks v. Cooper) remain in effect. As these waters are reopened GFP encourages all to get out and enjoy the great outdoors
-
over 60 "markers" have been pre ordered as of yesterday already(gfp's office). Thats just the beginning. If i was from out of state, i wouldn't bother with sd now. Nothing like getting on a lake and seeing markers and not knowing where you can fish on public trust waters(when you get on the water and only see 4 markers, how can you tell where u can fish or not, plus how do we know if those markers are not on public land? ) , after you got on by legal means. This is possibly the biggest joke ever. just a example, lake lily , alot of state land that is in over 25 ft deep and how in the world do they mark it and keep it marked for ice fishing. Another one is cattail lake(if a non elected body/landowner petitions to open and gets it open) and he marks off the state land. over 700 acres in state land scattered over the lake. I hate see the small business owners fail. but it will probably happen within 2 years if this keeps in law(in a way it would be a good deal if all the water was closed to prove to the governor that this is bad and illegal). Because certain people want it privatized and this bill is just the beginning. I encourage everyone to contact the gfp/landowners and have them verify if their markers are in the correct place and not on public land. And if they can't or if they do and they are on public land, file charges of criminal trust-passing or closing off public land. I promise you this will happen. Wind, ice, human error/purpose. Plus one lodge has already taken down WPA signs and put no trespassing signs up on the land/water. the WPA office forced them to change it(was done last year). I wrote this on my phone, so apologizes for errors.
-
I agree mbaiter , I am glad this crap show of a law is only going to last one year . There are some sportsman groups and sportsmen working on this right now to get it changed . From I catch on Facebook there is some landowners that want to close all the waters and go after meandering lakes also . It is really sad with the way things are turning out
-
I realize that it's early, but has anyone heard if any landowners marked off their property on some of the lakes and which ones? Or do you think it'll be more of an ice fishing issue?
-
Go up to antelope and Indian Springs south of Clark. The "guided duck hunting" lodge on the north shore between the two has put hay bales between the lake so boats can not pass between. The bales are on his "private" land and are starting to get rotten. This has ruined all fishing on antelope. Turned the water brownish orange and it stinks so bad you can not fish antelope .
He wants Indian Springs which has flooded some of his land all private so he has a duck hunters heaven. Luckily another land owner put in a boat ramp with a free will donation to launch.
-
I can totally understand the landowners.....however I wish they just had a box to pay a little money to them so a guy could fish it.
-
Some did this and a lot of people didn't put money in the container so the landowners closed the access. I believe Jesse Slough was closed because of this.
-
Jessie slough has WPA (federal land) under it, part of it. And by federal law, we the public has to have access to that wpa. The day county board tried to vacate the roads that led to it, and the supreme court of sd ruled they couldn't do that. Plus the feds stepped in. I've fished jessie and durrie for many years... never once did i c a drop box anywhere. I did see landowners there carrying guns around and threatening people though. ANd the fishermen were over the wpa. Did you know landowners are posting right aways now and closed. that is illegal by 2 laws in sd. But the state is letting them by with it. Our governor caused this whole mess.
-
It has become a real mess, so I will continue to avoid the area and stay away from the thundering herd. >:(
-
I've fished a few of those lakes in the past but I'm not overly familiar with them so I'm a little hesitant to head back up there and fish those lakes this coming winter. I'm not overly interested in the pay to fish idea so I'll have to look into other options maybe. It's disappointing that it has come to this but who knows maybe they'll figure something out yet.
-
This map stays current
http://sdgfp.maps.arcgis.com/apps/StoryMapBasic/index.html?appid=6106051f86c04a6988a51f9d7e992707
-
So according to that, Reetz is no longer 'closed'?
We are heading up in a few weeks smallie fishing, and we are very curious about Reetz.
-
As for Reetz still working on an agreement,,, The Last I seen cable still at boat ramp,,, Hope to get some agreement soon the last I heard,,,
-
As for Reetz still working on an agreement,,, The Last I seen cable still at boat ramp,,, Hope to get some agreement soon the last I heard,,,
I'm fine just so it's done by the end of DEC.
-
A report from a local forum member that was there last weekend says it's still closed. :(
-
Jessie slough has WPA (federal land) under it, part of it. And by federal law, we the public has to have access to that wpa. The day county board tried to vacate the roads that led to it, and the supreme court of sd ruled they couldn't do that. Plus the feds stepped in. I've fished jessie and durrie for many years... never once did i c a drop box anywhere. I did see landowners there carrying guns around and threatening people though. ANd the fishermen were over the wpa. Did you know landowners are posting right aways now and closed. that is illegal by 2 laws in sd. But the state is letting them by with it. Our governor caused this whole mess.
I put money in a drop box at the private launch on the south side. In my opinion authorities allowed this issue to get out of hand since there were laws governing the situation. I used to enjoy our pheasant hunting until the state changed laws and it became a money game. When enough money changes hands we will have access to some of the non-meandered water again.
-
I put money in a drop box at the private launch on the south side. In my opinion authorities allowed this issue to get out of hand since there were laws governing the situation. I used to enjoy our pheasant hunting until the state changed laws and it became a money game. When enough money changes hands we will have access to some of the non-meandered water again.
Rule of thumb......it is always about the money.
-
I'm from MN and enjoy fishing around the Watertown area. This makes me think I'll fish MN. I understand where the landowners are coming from but you have to create regs people can actually understand and follow. Trying to hunt pheasants in SD is bad enough. Fourteen different sign colors that all have different regs depending on the field. Farm equipment in the field with a yellow sign? See article 4 subsection 3 paragraph 2. Just for fun try reading the regs on road hunting. It is a beautiful state and a sportsmans paradise but the hunting and fishing regs make me want to stay home.
-
Lol, I have read the road hunting regulations and they are a joke. Just another reason I quit hunting pheasants. At least making landowner contact is easy in SD, just stop along a gravel road and shoot a round into the air. You will have a landowner screaming in your face in about a minute. Just be sure you park your vehicle according to G,F&P regulations. ;D ;)
-
Reetz still closed this past weekend,,, The way the water is going down in the lakes and slews around Day County there is going to be some of the smaller slews freeze out this year.
-
Most places we visited in Early October were down 2-3'.
Gonna be rough on those small waters.