# SD and ND share the same issue



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*Hunter irked by assistance to landowner who supports lockout*

By Kevin Woster, Journal Staff Writer

A Rapid City sportsman is questioning the decision by state Game, Fish & Parks Department officials to provide as much as $15,000 worth of assistance to a Harding County landowner who supports a hunting lockout on private land.

Carl Stonecipher complained this week to the GF&P Commission that rancher Clark Blake of Camp Crook shouldn't be provided with fencing materials and cash for labor costs to build deer-proof stack-yards on his property. Stonecipher said the policy of GF&P was not to provide assistance to prevent deer damage on crop and hay supplies to landowners who don't allow hunting.

Stonecipher questioned whether GF&P officials bent their own rules to appease Blake and other landowners in Harding County who have challenged the agency over its policies, including wildlife law enforcement on private land.

"As I understand it, nobody participating in the lockout was supposed to get this kind of help," Stonecipher said. "The fish and game is bending over so far to appease these guys it isn't even funny."

GF&P Wildlife Division assistant director Emmett Keyser said Friday that the agency didn't violate policy in giving Blake assistance to prevent damage to his haystacks. Although Blake supports the lockout, which includes landowners from throughout western South Dakota and ranchland totaling an estimated 4 million acres, he allows limited hunting, Keyser said.

"In Clark's situation, we understood that he was enrolled in the lockout. But my understanding was that he did allow a few hunters in to shoot doe," Keyser said. "I think our stipulation on this assistance is that landowners allow reasonable free public access and continue to harvest some of those animals."

GF&P believes hunting is an important management tool to trim deer numbers and alleviate deer depredation, reducing the need for assistance. Landowners involved in the lockout could make themselves more vulnerable to damage from deer herds that are not trimmed by hunters, GF&P official said.

Blake said Friday that he supports the lockout, but he had to allow some hunters to shoot deer because the population on his land was a problem. Blake said he had about 15 doe deer hunters last year, another 15 to 25 doe antelope hunters and a scattering of predator and cottontail hunters.

He did not allow any hunters to shoot buck deer.

"I've had such a terrible problem over the years with deer depredation on my haystacks that I do let the doe hunters on," Blake said. "I guess I support the lockout by not having the buck hunters."

Blake said he has always allowed hunters on his property at no charge. And he has struggled with damage to haystacks and corn piles from concentrations of 200 deer or more. Blake said deer have caused several thousand dollars in damage to his hay stocks already this year.

GF&P officials have agreed to provide Blake with building materials for three stack yards this year and three more in the future. The agency will reimburse cost of materials for up to $2,000 per yard and also provide $500 to the landowner for construction costs.

If Blake gets all six yards, it will cost GF&P about $15,000. But Blake said that won't cover all the costs of materials and construction.

Blake will be paid with money raised by a $5 surcharge on hunting licenses that pays for both depredation assistance and public-hunting access on private land. Keyser said some hunters argue that any landowner who receives depredation assistance should allow virtually wide-open hunting. But some landowners argue that they should get the assistance without allowing any public hunting, because the deer are considered a state resource, he said.

GF&P tries to find a balance in between those widely opposing views, Keyser said.

Stonecipher said GF&P needs to be more transparent and accountable in the way it spends money raised from sportsmen.

"When you ask questions, you get the runaround," he said. "Is this fair to sportsmen? Is it fair to other ranchers? It makes you wonder."

Blake said he wonders if Stonecipher has a clear idea of what he and other ranchers face in depredation problems.

"I think Mr. Stonecipher is probably kind of out of touch with agriculture," he said.

Contact Kevin Woster at 394-8413 or [email protected]


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

Add on top of that CRP and LDP payments.

Let them wallow it what they create.

I still say, if a farmer or rancher accepts federal monies, they should have to open that land up to public hunting.

I think the ND GNF PLOTS is about the best I can agree with.


----------



## RonaldTrump (Apr 11, 2005)

This same Clark Blake (SD) picked up $268,000 over a 10 year period from Uncle Sam. Chicken feed if you want to compare him to the heavy hitters in MN, ND, SD and the biggies in CA. amazing how our elected @#$%^&$( give away OUR money........see http://www.ewg.org/farm/


----------



## USSapper (Sep 26, 2005)

i totally agree with farmerj


----------



## Sasha and Abby (May 11, 2004)

Please do not give him any of my money...


----------



## ndfarmboy (Jan 7, 2006)

How can u guys say that? So I guess that loaf of bread and that steak that you guys eat just magically appears on the stores shelves huh?


----------



## ndfarmboy (Jan 7, 2006)

Sorry Bob
not to detract from your post, just the replies.
From a farmer that accepts crp and ldp payments. :******:


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

ndfarmboy said:


> How can u guys say that? So I guess that loaf of bread and that steak that you guys eat just magically appears on the stores shelves huh?


No it doesn't just magically appears. But the ADM's Cargill's and Harvest States aren't helping you out either.

Let me ask this.
How much land do you have in CRP?
How much of that land is posted for Hunting and Trespassing?
How much would be charging for access?

It a vicious circle we have here.

You think that your land is yours. And it is. I won't deny it. You have the right to keep people off of it. Then the gubermint offers you a nice chunk of change to take it out of production. It becomes a habitat for wildlife that starts to destroy your crops. Now you want the the gubermint to give you more money to protect your excessive wildlife from destroying your crops, but no one is allowed to come onto your land to hunt.

I am not saying you shouldn't get money from the gubermint to help out the family farm. I also think it should be protected and not given to a corporate business like ADM or Cargill.

I also think if a Farmer wants gubermint money to take his land out of production, it should go into something like ND GNF PLOTS. NOT closed off and restricted further.

It would be the equivilant of the gubermint RENTING your land from you.

You still get your gubermint subsidies, and the public gets hunting and public access.

I suppose you think that pretty gubermint check just magiclly appears in your mailbox too?

I have wanted to farm myself for 15 years, been trying to work with "Passing on the Farm" for 5 of them. Land costs are preventing my dream from happening. But I also spent as much time as I can learning the in's and out's and spend as much time as I can on the farm helping friends and family. It is a discussion we have several times a year.

The only times we have felt justified in making land totally closed off is when property starts to get destroyed or come up missing. And then the authorities are brought in and eventually those responsible get caught.


----------



## ndfarmboy (Jan 7, 2006)

To answer your questions in order, We have no CRP, we post all our land,(not to say if someone asks they can't hunt) and no we don't charge anything. I know what your saying about wanting to farm. I'm 34 and just moved back here from CO. If my Dad didn't get the land from his Dad and his Dad before that, I wouldn't be here. When my Grandfather died and the land was divided up between Dad's brothers and sisters, thank God that they decided to rent to us. Yes I do watch what the LDP on wheat, sunflowers,canola etc. Everyone has to make a living right. I left a 95,000$ a year job to come back to ND to bust my *** because that's what I have always dreamed of doing, and I hope my kids (if I have any) will do the same!
Shannon


----------



## ndfarmboy (Jan 7, 2006)

By the way Farmerj,
I do agree with you about if you do put land into the CRP program and get paid for it, that it should be open for public hunting. Just my :2cents:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

I'm not an attorney here but I think this is pretty simple. Unless SD specifies that member of the Lock out shall be excempt from deer proof hay yards. They would be asking for a lawsuit if they denied Mr Blake's request.

Let the farmer bashing begin I love it. Ndfarmboy as I said before I wish you much success farming. I also notice you have no CRP, and you post all your land. Make sure you use Dicks signs this year when you post your land. You will cure all of Motts problems by doing so. :lol:


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

I have know Idea how a subject about deer-proof hay yards turned into a debate about Federal Farm Subsidy Payments :roll:

The issue is landowners who do not allow enough hunting to control deer populations and then complain and want the state to supply a solution to their problem. In case you missed it the state DID supply a solution they allowed a number of DEER LICENSES to be sold thereby creating a form of management of overpopulated species. Now we have landowners that choose to charge to harvest these animals(call it access fees if you wish, I think we all know what it is about) and they can not get enough paying customers or they make the choice to limit the numbers for their own version of QDM so they can make bigger bucks for bigger dollars.

The state is supposed to pay for the depredation because they want to make more money from the resource. Sorry IMO it is just wrong.

Now to get to farmer j's argument about Government payments. What do you suppose would be the result of all CRP being taken out and farmed again? What would cost more, payments for CRP subsidies or deficiency payments? Would you rather support foreign agriculture or American agriculture? Without some form of subsidies the ADM's and Cargill's will be the only ones in the business of farming. Good luck gaining access to some of that land! If it has hunting on it it will be a "corporate retreat" for the lobbyists and stock holders.

I bet that there are not many farmers out there that would love to see the day when the product produced would be competitive on a stand alone basis. Unfortunately the foreign governments subsidise their farm industries much more than the USA does and if you want our government to go back to life without subsidised farming the middle men will just buy from foreign producers at a cheaper price and our farm economy will implode except for the few operations that are diversified enough to produce their own product for market, the Corporate Giants.

Bob


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

Bob,

As I must be totally confusing you and others.

Do I object to federal Farm subsidies? No

Do I object to Farmers posting THIER land? No

Do I object to farmers posting their land if they accept government payments? Yes.

Do I object to a farmer receiving government payment to pay for depradation protection when they post? Yes.

What part of that is wrong?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Nothing about that is wrong. You can think however you choose. We have a republic form of government, feel free to help elect representation that shares you view. A landowner, any landowner can do as they wish on land they own as long as it is within the bounds of current law. I think the "poop storm" that would ensue if the laws were changed to accommodate your idea would backfire and free access would be nonexistent.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Being a member of a family that owns land and also a non-farm related business man I can see your view. I just can't agree with the logic. If every person that pays into the system that supports subsides was a hunter you may have a case but hunters and outdoor dwellers are the vast minority.

:beer:

Peace

Bob


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

Than I have to ask Bob,

What was your intent with your original post?

When you look at the topic, one would be led to believe you think what this rancher is doing is wrong.

But now you are saying it is wrong to oppose him.

So which is it?

Stonecipher for saying he shouldn't get any money for depredation if he posts.

Or Clark for restricting hunting on his land and expecting money for depredation.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Intent of the original post was informational. ND and SD have some of the same issues with depredation. SD has another issue related to the Harding County lockout, google it if you want more info. ND's issue is similar with outfitting. Harding County landowners Want to sell licenses for what they feel is a profitable price for them.

My prior post says how I see the subject.

All landowners who post their land do not charge access fees. All landowners who receive subsidies do not post their land.

Bob


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

After having read the website http://www.sdlockout.com/index.html

How is this similar to ND. The SD landowners are asking for acceptance of their property rights. Specifically, requiring a conservation officer to ask for permission before entering on "compliane checks".

In theory, that would be wonderful. But you are hamstringing law endorsement.

As for the GF&P not listening to the land owners on wildlife issues, that is just poor gubermint at it's best.

As they stated, the lockout would have never happened if the state would have just sat down with them and had an intelligent conversation.


----------



## ndfarmboy (Jan 7, 2006)

So farmerj
Not trying to start a pissing match but..... What are your feelings on owned land, gov't payments and posting this land?


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

ndfarmboy said:


> So farmerj
> Not trying to start a pissing match but..... What are your feelings on owned land, gov't payments and posting this land?





farmerj said:


> Do I object to federal Farm subsidies? No
> 
> Do I object to Farmers posting THIER land? No
> 
> ...


Already stated. Having slept on it overnight, I can understand what they are asking for in SD. But I still think that would be hampering Law Enforcement. The statement I bolded, I would be willing to soften on it.

Consercation Officer
"Excuse me Mr. Landowner, you have some people hunting on land 40 miles away. Can I stop in on them and see their license?

Landowner to CO
"Sure you can do that"

Landowner to Bubba
"Hey bubba, Game warden is on his way out. Pack up the stuff and get outta there.

CO officer scratching his head in the field
"They were here 2 hours ago, where'd they go?

See a problem here at all?


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

I hunt out there in the area through friends of the family, and this is not the only issue causing the lockout. The ranchers are ****** because several of them have been busted by the game and fish, and they want the game and fish to issue them licenses for them to sell freely to paying clients.


----------



## USSapper (Sep 26, 2005)

so your saying they want to sell their own, separate licenses than state licenses?


----------



## USSapper (Sep 26, 2005)

Can i ask why?


----------



## MOB (Mar 10, 2005)

The ranchers land I used to antelope hunt on is in the lockout in Harding county. I still visit them and park at his ranch, but hunt on walk in land. They're great people and I can sympathize their situation. 
Most of the problems out there stem from an arrogant, aggressive and cocky GFP CO named Brian Meyers. He is about the worst at landowner relations that SD has in COs. All the landowners wanted was a little respect, which was too much to ask of Brian. Imagine you're a rancher out working and you see a pickup on your land 2-3 miles away. You drop what you're working on and go investigate only to find it's your county CO. The landowner is upset and he gets an attitude from Brian that's "Tough ****, I can do whatever I want to do." I doesn't have to be that way! SD should have moved Brian to a new county with a reprimand to create better landowner relations and brought in a new CO. The GFP decided to take the hard line though and we got the lock out.
There was also an issue with two feuding ranchers over predator control with airplanes. They both have planes and one had a aircraft predator control license. When he receives a call on predator complaints, he is supposed to contact a GFP biologist or officer before going up to shoot. As I understand it, the rancher had an unwritten agreement with area GFP officers that he didn't need to bother them with a call every time, just let them know if there is any problems. Well he shot a coyote over the feuding neighbor ranchers fence line and ended up in court. The state officers denied any agreement (covering their own *****) and the rancher lost his aerial predator license (it went to the feuding neighbor), got a hefty fine and did jail time (for a coyote!!!). This also caused many hard feelings against the GFP.
The ranchers in Harding county SD are hard working people scratching out a living off marginal land. It's a tough life and all they really want is a little respect from the state. The area has the highest antelope population since the harsh winter dieoff in 1996-1997, unfortunately many of these antelope will die from the next hard winter due to the lockout.


----------

