NE South Dakota losing their fishing waters?

[wyoutdoors]

http://www.argusleader.com/story/news/2017/03/17/high-court-strikes-victory-private-property-rights/99302730/

[rags]

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 .

[ice dawg]

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.

[wyoutdoors]

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. 

[ice dawg]

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.

[wyoutdoors]

In today's society, it is always about the money! 

[lunkerslayer]

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

[ice dawg]

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.

[rundrave]

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

[Ryks]

Time for our elected officials to get this resolved...

[ice dawg]

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?

[rags]

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

[ice dawg]

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.

[Ryks]

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.

[rundrave]

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.

[Duckhunter76]

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.

[Duckhunter76]

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.

[ice dawg]

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.

[wyoutdoors]

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.

[ice dawg]

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.

[majic0135]

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.

[rags]

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.”

[mbaiter]

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.

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

[mbaiter]

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.

[rundrave]

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

[mbaiter]

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.

[rundrave]

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.

[rags]

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

[rundrave]

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

[rags]

There is no compromise , its all for the landowner . It don't matter where you are from call and or email