Outdoor groups want land owners to have to opt-out of allowing people on their property? That’s not what the Supreme Court said.
The proposed non-meandered lake legislation is already drawing it’s detractors, which must mean that it’s close to being in the middle, since no one will go away happy. Today, outdoor groups are expressing that they want more say in how landowners allow or disallow people from coming on to their own property:
Outdoors recreation groups said Tuesday they felt left out of last week’s attempt at finding a compromise over the use of public lakes on private property.
A group of lawmakers last week reviewed a bill that would reopen about 30 so-called “non-meandered” waters to South Dakota anglers. The state would have to individually negotiate with property owners for public access to thousands of other unofficial lakes.
Some sportsmen say the proposal gives landowners too much power, and that all of the lakes and sloughs affected by this year’s South Dakota Supreme Court ruling should be reopened to outdoor recreation unless property owners opt-out.
“That isn’t acceptable,” said Chris Hesla, executive director of the South Dakota Wildlife Foundation. “It’s a one-way street. The only thing that can happen is that property owners can request that lands be closed. The public has no recourse.”
So according to Chris Hesla, he believes the fact that the proposed measure gives property owners “too much power” over their own property “isn’t acceptable?” And they should have to “opt-out” of allowing people on the lands that they own?
Wow.
I’m not thinking someone understands the concept of private property, and the State Supreme Court ruling that definitively stated that “a state agency doesn’t have the legal authority to allow people access to flooded waters or ice over private property without legislative approval.”
It’s good policy, and in many instances, being a good neighbor for GF&P to negotiate access over private property to create greater public areas for outdoor recreation.
But for people to assume they have some God-given rights over what another person owns? That’s an assumption they make to their folly.