Newcoming Representative Betty Olson to go after open fields doctrine
Read it all here.State Rep.-elect Betty Olson of Prairie City, a rancher who campaigned on protecting landowner rights, plans to introduce a bill during the 2007 state Legislature to restrict the power of conservation officers to enter private land.
“It was one of the main reasons I got elected, so I guess that’s what they want me to do,” Olson said by telephone Sunday night.
Legislation in past sessions to restrict the use of the so-called “open-fields doctrine” by state Game, Fish & Parks Department officers has been a contentious issue. In 2005, the South Dakota Senate passed a bill that would have required officers to get landowner permission before entering private property — unless they needed to respond to emergencies, kill crippled animals, had reasonable suspicion of lawbreaking or had to investigate such reports.
The legislation, SB122, passed the 2005 state Senate 19-15 but failed in the House 27-43. In 2004, an identical version of the bill passed the House but failed in the Senate.
Olson said she would fashion her bill after SB122.
“I talked to some of the legislators, and they said to just leave it the way it is,” Olson said. “There’s nothing there that would restrict legitimate law enforcement. And it protects our property rights. There’s nothing in there that would hurt a hunter, either.”
and...
Still, Rhoden has doubts about Olson’s bill changing things.
“I don’t know that there’s much sense in revisiting that,” he said. “It was pretty clear last time that we didn’t have the political muscle to get it done.”
Olson said, however, that she’s ready to try.
“I suppose it will stir things up,” she said.
Comments
Anon, if you really want to do something about meth labs, let's strenghten mandatory minimums in SD.
I was there for both the open fields doctrine vote, and the abortion vote. The open fields vote caused more hard feelings and was actually more emotional than 1215 was last year. Let's not go there again.
How many meth busts have game wardens accounted for? How many of those occurred when they entered private property to check the licenses of a hunting party engaged in a hunt?
The CO can only enter legally when they observe hunting or fishing happening to enter.
The bill that failed to pass would have only allowed the game warden to trespass if he had “reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or reason to believe that a crime was being committed”. That doesn’t seem too restrictive to me.
Hunters have, in effect, signed a contract to allow GF&P, or anyone else, to check them for hunting violations.
The landowner has signed no such contract, but, since he graciously allowed hunters to hunt on his land, he has become subject to having his property rights abused by GF&P. Does this seem fair to you?
Hunters are the ones who should be pushing to get a bill like this passed so landowners can safely open their land to hunting again without fear that the hunting privileges they grant have opened their private land to trespass by GF&P.
Locking private land to hunting is only a minor inconvenience to landowners but this contentious issue has seriously cut into the areas open to hunt for free to the average Joe.
As a hunter, I am very upset with this bullheaded attitude by GF&P, which has caused me to lose a great place to hunt that my family and I have hunted for generations.
GF&P policy, which can be changed at any moment by GF&P, does say that the CO is not supposed to come on private land unless it is hunting season, but that was only put into policy as an attempt to mollify irate landowners.
This statement of yours – “I for one think they need to be able to monitor our fine landowners of this state from breaking unknown "Lacey Act" laws and are looking at large fines and prison sentances” - illustrates your contempt for landowners, hunters, and property rights.
So, what exactly is your job title at GF&P?
The way it has been defeated before in the legislature, there just does not seem to be state wide support. Only commercial hunting operations seem to support it besides the handful of lockout people. But the majority of landowners dont seem to mind.
JArrod Johnson has publiucally stated he supports the S&PL lands open to public hunting which means they are open to GF&P enforcement.
I would hardly call over four million acres of locked out land “a handful”. This issue doesn’t affect commercial hunting operations because in order to be licensed, they have already agreed to be inspected by GF&P. Private landowners have not agreed.
South Dakota’s school and public lands have always been open to hunting because they belong to the state. Why is it noteworthy that Johnson says he’s in favor of public hunting on them?
What did you say your job title is at GF&P?
If we want to gut the GF&P we can do this. I personally have nothing against my warden. I believe if I was caught doing illegal activity he would give me a ticket.
Please study the whole situation before we get rid of the powers of our GF&P.
Why do some landowners not want a warden checking on their activity? If you are legal what do you have to hide. I would like to hear from you lockouters.
How silly would it be if people who lived in the city tried to stop police from coming on our land without permission.
I can imagine how well a bill would do that said cops were only allowed to step on concrete within city limits, no going in the back yard!!!
Same difference.
No I dont think every landowner is breaking the law, but the ability of Open Fields allows the policing of hunting on private property and is an attempt to keep it legal.
Only game checks on the road only allows what leaves the private property when the wardens happen to have a road check.
Even if I was a GF&P employee which I am not wouldnt they have the same equal oppurtunity and the right to voice their opinions as well as you and I?
The bill Betty Olson proposes says the same thing. If GF&P people have a suspicion that they can articulate, they can go check it out. If they just want to snoop without any suspicion - sorry charlie.
Peeping toms are not welcome in town or in the country, with or without a badge.
It does let them search your "open Fields" do you hear a bell ringing.....
Just as "open Fields" allows any other law enforcement to do the same thing to search your open fields.......
We are not hiding illegal activity here. You, like the GF&P, assume that we must be committing some dastardly crime merely because we refuse to allow our rights to be trampled on. What ever happened to the quaint concept, “innocent until proven guilty”, anyway? Property rights are granted to us by the US Constitution and we are protecting our legal rights by locking our land to hunters to prevent abuse by GF&P.
What is the CO hiding that prevents him from getting my permission to come on my place to check hunters or other suspicious activity months before hunting season?
What happened to John Cooper’s much ballyhooed “communications with landowners” kick? Wouldn’t visiting with landowners over a cup of coffee or during one of the many agriculture meetings held in the area to get landowners' permission constitute a giant leap in the direction of improving those “landowner communications”?
Am I wrong that some landowners break the law? I have seen it. Notice I said some. Most laws we have are because of a few offenders.
Wyoming, or maybe Colorado too, has done away with the "open fields" a few years ago. Now, they really have a poaching problem.
Wont be able to get her self out of a wet paper bag
So you'd let them come into your house too, right, maybe even into your bedroom, because as long as you're legal, there's nothing to hide. Right?
Please note that the permission from the landowner can be obtained weeks, months or even years before the game warden needs it. GF&P has supposedly been urging their employees to develop lines of communication with the landowners in the area they serve.
I can’t think of a better way to open those lines of communicate by using common courtesy and asking the landowner politely for permission, can you?
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to restrict the entry of conservation officers onto certain private land without permission.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That chapter 41-2 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
No conservation officer may, in the course of performing the ordinary duties of a conservation officer, enter any private land unless the conservation officer has the permission of the landowner or the lessee.
However, any conservation officer may enter any private land without permission:
(1) 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;
(2) To investigate a report of illegal hunting, fishing, or trapping activity;
(3) To dispatch crippled or distressed wildlife; or
(4) To respond to emergency situations, accidents, or other threats to public safety.