House defeats plan to limit game wardens' entry onto land
CHET BROKAW
Associated Press
PIERRE, S.D. - A plan to limit game wardens' ability to enter private land was rejected by the South Dakota House on Wednesday after opponents said the measure could weaken enforcement of hunting laws.
A bill that would have repealed the open-fields doctrine failed on a vote of 27-43.
The doctrine is based on court decisions and laws that give game wardens authority to enter private lands, away from houses, to check hunters without getting permission from landowners.
Supporters argued that the measure was needed to protect landowners' property rights. Conservation officers could have still entered land to check hunters if they had the owner's permission or had reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, they said.
Farmers and ranchers just want to know when a conservation officer or anyone else enters their land, said House Democratic Leader Dale Hargens of Miller, a main sponsor of the bill.
"All we're asking for is a little respect," Hargens said.
However, opponents said the additional restrictions on game wardens would have made it easier for some people to ignore hunting laws.
"I would submit if we pass this bill, we've basically thrown out any regulation of hunting," said Rep. Don Van Etten, R-Rapid City.
SB122 was identical to a measure that passed the House last year but was defeated in the Senate. This year's measure had been approved by the Senate before being rejected Thursday by the House.
The bill would have made game wardens ask for permission in most instances before going into private fields to check whether hunters had licenses or were violating hunting laws. The officers could have entered without permission if they had reasonable suspicion a law had been broken, needed to investigate a report of illegal activity, had to kill crippled animals or had to respond to emergencies.
Game, Fish and Parks Secretary John Cooper has said the department's policy now requires that game wardens see that hunting, fishing or trapping is taking place before entering property for compliance checks.
In addition, the department has improved its training and other programs to increase communication between conservation officers and landowners.
After Thursday's vote, Harding County rancher Bob Johnson said he was disappointed the bill was rejected because its passage could have helped mend fences between landowners, hunters and Game, Fish and Parks officers.
Johnson, who served last year on a commission that sought to find ways to improve landowner-hunter relations, said he and other landowners may decide not to allow hunting on their land because that is a sure way to make sure game wardens do not enter their fields without permission.
More than 1 million of acres of land has been closed to hunting in northwestern South Dakota because of landowners' complaints about the open-fields doctrine and other issues. Johnson said he does not know whether the House vote will cause more ranchers to close their land to hunting.
"I know there's going to be a lot of disappointed people," Johnson said.
During the House debate, Rep. Tom Hennies, R-Rapid City, said the dispute about the open-fields doctrine started only because one landowner thought a conservation officer was wrong to travel on a section line.
Hennies said he opposed the bill because it would have hampered the enforcement of hunting laws.
In addition, the bill was flawed because it still would have led to disputes between officers and landowners, Hennies said. If an officer had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and entered private land, the landowner might have gone to court to argue there was no reasonable suspicion, he said.
Rep. Mary Glenski, D-Sioux Falls, said she opposed the bill because it might have encouraged more people to violate hunting laws. Many people buy licenses and follow other laws because of the chance they will be checked even on private land, she said.
Opponents also said the Game, Fish and Parks Department should be given time to deal with problems by improving communication between conservation officers and landowners.
But House Republican Leader Larry Rhoden of Union Center said the bill should be passed because the department has failed for several years to improve its relations with landowners.
Landowners love wildlife and take steps to protect deer and other animals, so they get upset when people suggest that limitations on game wardens would result in the widespread killing of game, Rhoden said.
"They want one small measure of respect," Rhoden said.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks