  
Tony Dean ...
Outdoors, Inc.
1013 North Grand
Pierre, SD 57501
(605) 224-5104
FAX (605) 224-2977
| | Tony Dean OutdoorsIssues
Legislative Committee Knocks GFP
If proposals offered by a legislative committee reviewing the South Dakota Game, Fish & Parks Department are an indicator of legislative action to come next winter, and I think they are, you can expect Betty Olson of Prairie City to be right in the middle of it.
There aren't any proposals that are good for fish, wildlife, sportsmen or hunters and anglers.
Olson led the way in trashing the GF&P and making it difficult for them to do their jobs. She offered some real doozies in recommendations to the committee, including one that would require the GF&P to obtain legislative approval for any land purchase over 20 acres.
Think about that. It would mean that the GF&P would have to ignore an offer to sell a large tract of land to them, even if it offered superb habitat.
That land proposal borders on nonsensical, especially at a time when it's becoming more difficult to find a place to hunt. That effort was backed by the state Farm Bureau but also received support from seven lawmakers in both parties.
Rep. Randy Juhnke offered another somewhat ludicrous idea.
He wants to transfer funding from GFP to the counties for road maintenance, and he received support from Rep. Mark Devries of Belvidere, who would rather see license dollars used for that purpose.
However, it isn't likely the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would OK such an arrangement. The USFWS delivers federal funds to the states for fish and wildlife projects, and a diversion in funding could cost South Dakota that money.
Then Rep. Olson offered another proposal aimed at transferring control over predators, reptiles and rodents to the State Ag Department and away from SDGF&P. But she wasn't able to sell that idea, though she said most of the problems with GF&P and landowners in western South Dakota can be directly traced to predator control issues.
Which raises a key question: Why should the SDGFP and their license buyers fund eradication of predators to benefit very few constituents, especially if the beneficiaries bite the hand that feeds them? This has the appearance of a benefit some have come to view as an entitlement.
More important, the entire effort underscores something that's been simmering beneath the surface for some time. The property rights movement has come into conflict with the public interest, and in this case, there are many more members of the public than a handful of those on the land. It is hard to understand why it is so difficult to get along, but that's the way it is at the present time.
By any measure, the SDGF&P has worked well for its constituency, and our hunting and fishing ranks with the best in the nation. The biggest single threat to that quality is land use and how it impacts fish and wildlife.
These sports have become multi-million dollar industries that support many jobs in our state. But when you enact legislation that would handcuff the SDGF&P in their efforts to provide public hunting and wildlife, you strike a blow against hunting and South Dakota's economy.
I am disturbed over the suggestions this department hasn't acted in the best interests of their constitutency, and as evidence, offer the fact that our fishing and hunting is some of the best in existence.
Moreover, I do not believe the SDGFP should become the whipping boy for the frenzies of the property rights movement. Do they make mistakes? Certainly, but they do more things right than wrong, and sportsmen should support them.
|
