When hunting licenses become like liquor licenses - a commodity transferrable for profit.
Bill Harlan over at the Rapid City Journal has a story this morning on the approval of a measure in the legislature which would provide big game licenses to landowners which they could transfer on a for-profit basis:
As opposed to a lottery system where everyone will have an equal chance, we'll have a system where people are guaranteed an extra license. It's a similar situation to what we face in the recent liquor license legislation. If a landowner is guaranteed a license they can transfer, they may just sit on it until someone comes along who will meet their price.
And I think you can be guaranteed that you will see them on eBay.
With this legislation, have we reached the point where for-profit big game hunting becomes the norm, as opposed to the exception in South Dakota?
It may have been inevitable. But I suppose I'm longing for simpler days that have long passed us by for the economic realities of today.
Landowners in South Dakota with at least 640 acres could “sponsor” their own big-game hunting licenses under a bill approved Tuesday in Pierre by a legislative committee. “It is long overdue that we acknowledge that landowners are an integral part of” the wildlife management system, Rep. Gordon Howie, R-Rapid City, told fellow members of the House Agriculture Committee. “This is just a small, small gesture that we need to extend to those landowners.”Read it all here. This is a tough one for me, as I think we respect the rights of the landowner far too little in some instances. But I don't know if it adequately makes the case for the state to provide them a commodity that they can sell to the highest bidder.
The committee voted 9-4 to send the bill to the House floor with a “do pass” recommendation.
But Rep. Dale Hargens, D-Miller, who voted against the measure, said, “I see a problem with this.”
Hargens estimated that 26 landowners in his township in Hand County would qualify for the license. “We have 48 townships in my county,” Hargens said. “That’s 1,248 individuals.”
Multiply that by 66 counties, Hargens said, and thousands of landowners might qualify for the licenses. “I’m not ready to go down that road yet,” he said.
State Rep. Kent Juhnke, R-Vivian, introduced HB1177, which would establish a “transferable” hunting license that a landowner could pass on to a hunter. The license would be good only on the landowner’s property.
and..
Hansen said wildlife in South Dakota had been managed as a “public trust” since 1909. “This bill represents a serious breach in the foundation of this wildlife management system,” he said. “Once this breach happens, we believe a certain amount of erosion will begin.”
Hansen said privately controlled licenses could be bartered, marketed and even posted on eBay.
Ranchers, however, liked the idea, including Rep. Betty Olson, R-Prairie City, who is not on the agriculture committee but co-sponsored the bill. She said ranchers, especially in western South Dakota, “have been feeling a tad unappreciated.”
As opposed to a lottery system where everyone will have an equal chance, we'll have a system where people are guaranteed an extra license. It's a similar situation to what we face in the recent liquor license legislation. If a landowner is guaranteed a license they can transfer, they may just sit on it until someone comes along who will meet their price.
And I think you can be guaranteed that you will see them on eBay.
With this legislation, have we reached the point where for-profit big game hunting becomes the norm, as opposed to the exception in South Dakota?
It may have been inevitable. But I suppose I'm longing for simpler days that have long passed us by for the economic realities of today.
Comments
This might surprise you, but I have never bought a big-game license in my life and I don't intend to buy this one if it passes.
I signed on to this bill because some of the landowners in my area have out-of-state family members who are unable to get a license to hunt on their family ranch and I thought this would be one very small way of compensating landowners for the tremendous expense they incur raising the public's wildlife, entirely without compensation from the public I might add.
No, my ranch wouldn't come out of the lockout if you gave me every big game license in the state. The lockout started over a property rights issue and it will end when those conserns have been addressed.
This issue has certainly shown landowners the contempt several hunting groups hold for us, and for that we thank you guys. Don't think that attitude won't come up when you are asking to hunt on private land that is still open to hunters.
Thanks for making it really plain where we stand with you.
The contempt for you comes from your inability to compromise.
I own land, charge hunters to hunt. And I let quite a few locals hunt it later in the season.
How about this for a compromise? Sell the landowner so many tags based on their acres, and extend the season for people with "normal" tags. That way if the rancher/farmer really wanted to let "local" people hunt, it would not conflict with the "fee" hunter.
I would like to see hunters, land owners, and hunting organizations comment on this.
PS-It's not your wildlife.
A compromise would be that 1 person could get one tag per season and they could do what they wanted with it....but if they sold it to the highest bidder or an out of state hunter then they would not be able to apply for any other tag...basiclly selling your privlege to hunt in SD....or you could just sell your soul why you were at it.
I couldn't agree with you more, but it would be impossible to impose a cap. Wealthy out of state hunters would spend whatever they needed to and I bet there aren't a lot of land owners who wouldn't be happy to accept any overage under the table.
The landowners can stop, sell or do what they want to with access, but have no right or reason to sell or trade a license, and Betty I am sure all of your neighbors just want a "sponsored" tag for some poor relative that lives out of state.
This transfer idea is nothing new and has been vehemently faught against by sportsmen/women and many many other landowners across the state.
Remember the lockout is just a handfull of "squaking" landowners whose protest really has not amounted to anything.
If they do not fill that tag or don't want to, they can give it - not sell it - to anyone else, in state or out of state, who wants it. If they do not use the tag or give it away, they lose the chance to get another free tag for the next two years.
Would this satisfy you? If so, I'm all for it.
How about it? Shall I write this legislation up for consideration next year?
no disrespect but I am sorry but that is a crazy idea
What could be wrong with this? Do you have something against letting Joe Six Pack and his kids hunt for free when the game belongs to him just as much as it belongs to the rich sportsmen and the landowners?
If I were a landowner, and some fish cop thought he had a right to come on my land without my permission, I'd be locking everyone out too.
So right on, Betty. Contrary to popular opinion, you don't have to be a west-river landowner to appreciate what "private property" really means.
This bill provides the potential for additional compensation if a landowner choose to sell the license. This system worries me because it could endanger our nation's hunting heritage. Since the nation's founding, hunting has meant so much more than sport. If we continue to move toward making hunting even more of an activity accessible only to those who can afford it as a privilege, we lose something much bigger than the ability to find a place to hunt.
If we could tie these sponsored licenses to additional public access for landoweners who take part in the program, it would achieve multiple positive outcomes for landowners and sportsmen.
I fear the day when a father and son can not share time afield because dad doesn't make enough money.
Please don't lump all sportsmen into this ugly category. Although some may act as you describe, there are many hunters who are respectful and honorable in their actions. Unfortunately, it's the "pseudo-sportsman" types you describe who ruin it for the rest of them. I don't hunt, but many in my family do and we are all very respectful of landowners, wildlife and hunting laws.
Where do you get your data? I'm particularly curious abuot the 90 percent stat you threw out. Are you employed by the GF&P?