Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="lunkerslayer" data-source="post: 156418" data-attributes="member: 217"><a href="http://listen.sdpb.org/post/summer-committee-passes-legislation-open-non-meandered-lakes" target="_blank">http://listen.sdpb.org/post/summer-committee-passes-legislation-open-non-meandered-lakes</a>A special summer study committee is passing legislation to open up several of South Dakota’s non-meandered bodies of water that closed following a recent state Supreme Court decision. The committee to regulate non-meandered bodies of water passed the bill 13 to 2, which opens non-meandered bodies of water unless landowners close them. The bill is now up for full legislative consideration. State Senator Brock Greenfield is a co-chair on the committee. He says there are many issues the bill doesn’t address. “Those things can be dealt with in the future," Greenfield says. "This gets us to a point, hopefully, by which we can provide the lady from The Bait Box, and a whole lot of people on Main Street, and a whole lot of sportsmen some access, hopefully in the immediate future. And also provides landowners, law enforcement, sportsmen, etc., some clarity as to what the lay of the land is.” The bill reopens non-meandered bodies of water to hunting, fishing, swimming, boating and trapping. The bill allows negotiations between landowners and South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks to facilitate access to water over private property. Lawmakers removed Reetz and Highway 81 East and West lakes from a list of waters that must open. The bill requires South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks to present the stats on those negotiations to a legislative committee in the summer of 2019. The bill has a sunset clause to expire on July first, 2021. It’s widely expected the governor will call a special session if there’s support for the legislation. A date has not been set yet. Just FYI, they have now included meandering lakes that can be closed off by land owners(81 lake was taken off the list, so now it can be closes without public input, just like the rest now). If the water went beyond the "high water mark" they can close the water. How in the world can they prove where the mark was is beyond me. Their isn't 1 document that proves the line within 10 yards at the time of survey.  Just so everyone knows.  Several lodges and private landowners that charges to gain access, do NOT pay tourism tax, even though by sd law. They have to. I have looked up several guides and lodge, and private landowners that i know charge over 1k for fishing rights, and not a one paid the tax. Source: sd treasury .  And just so everyone knows, a landowner can close anybody of water, and we the public(water is to remain in the public trust , the use to be determined by the trustees, legislatures, source: supreme court ) have NO say anymore if the water is closed, once its closed its closed and only that landowner has rights to that public water. They can apply to have it closed but we have no way to appeal that application.!!!    We must email sd reps and be polite!!!! and stick to the facts from the supreme court, and remind them that this bill gives the landowners trustee power and that is against the Scourt ruling and will lose in court this year. If you think this is just about fishing your wrong, its about drinking water down the road. This bill sets precedence for drinking water rights. This is what happens when you don't fix stupid right a way</blockquote>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA