Change.org petition started demanding a special session for non-meandered lake issue

Pat Powers

Speaking of delicious fish….A petition has been placed online on liberal democrat website change.org to collect signatures asking Governor Dennis Daugaard to call a special session on the non-meandered lake issue which has recently come to a head.

The petition notes:

We need to all come together as South Dakota citizens, landowners, sportsmen, business owners and state legislatures and call for a special session to be held in 2017. This session is in regards to the South Dakota lakes that are currently closed due to the new meandering water ruling that was recently passed by the Supreme Court. South Dakota citizens, small local businesses, sportsmen and landowners are suffering from this recent ruling and do not have time to wait until the next meeting in January 2018. We need to all come together and support the small communities, landowners and sportsmen so we can all enjoy South Dakota’s natural resources. There are thousands of people who rely on these natural resources to attract people to these small communities and also for enjoyment with friends and families. It will be a pretty quiet year for these well saught fishing grounds that have been funded by the general public. There are two sides to this fence and we can all feel for them both. The main point is there is billions of dollars going to the state of South Dakota from both sides of the fence and something needs to be done immediately! Please sign this petition if you are in favor of an immediate response to this serious matter through a legislature special session in 2017.

thank you!

Derek Garner ( South Dakota landowner, sportsman, small town business owner)

Read it here.

The issue pits sportsmen against landowners and could prove to be a very contentious fight over private property rights when it comes to wildlife.

Is this worth a special session? And where do you fall on the issue?

 

11 thoughts on “Change.org petition started demanding a special session for non-meandered lake issue”

  1. It is just not about wildlife, how about the “economic Development” that has been built around the hunting, fishing and the outdoor recreation and the amount of
    tax dollars that will be lost or not received,.there are many small towns who rely on these dollars to survive……

  2. This is the legislative Kobayashi Maru. (a no win scenario)

    I would like to think that there is a workable solution where everyone gets something.

    I have heard a couple of solutions. Limited access to sportsmen to daylight hours only, non motorized craft, Ice shack removed daily. Reduce or eliminating property taxes for land owners affected.

    How ever I have gotten push back on even these measures.

  3. A special session might be the only way to force legislators to take action on a very unpleasant issue.

    It is time to resolve it.

    1. I think it is very idealistic to believe that all legislators should go out to Pierre right now. While something is to be done, legislative ideas through a committee process would be a more orderly way to deal with this.. Otherwise one would have nothing more than chaos.

  4. Corey Brown had a really good proposal a few years back. It’s probably time to revisit that again.

  5. The public should be able to recreate on the waters (like they always have been able to) and landowners should be getting a 100% abatement on lands perpetually under water. Keep it simple. I think the economic impact alone would make the issue worth a special session.

    1. I was going to suggest exactly the same thing as Liberty Dick. If a farmer’s land is under water and impossible to farm, why does he need to pay taxes on it? If the lake ever leaves and the land is again tillable, the farmer still owns the land and pays taxes. While there is water over the land, what’s the harm in using it for recreation; that’s all it’s good for anyway. A pretty simple answer to what should be a no brainer problem. What is wrong with this?

  6. Democrats sow chaos with IM 22 and other ballot measures, then demand special session to deal with real issues that were not dealt with because of their chaos.

    Lovely

  7. Why is it that only people who do not own any of the land in question, always think they should be able to use it? This land is privately held and owned! In most cases it has been private for nearly 100 years!!!! It has not been used by the public forever, but only since GF&P has been cashing in on high water levels for the past 22 years…. No compensation going to the actual owner of the property. GFP dumps fish in every pothole and then advertises to come to SD and use the water…

  8. Realist:

    The public owns the water. The landowner has no more right to that water than the airspace above his land. Read your history and you will see the public has always had a right to use that water. Unfortunately the complaining of a very small number of individuals has turned South Dakotans against each other and created a mess. Add to that mess a lack of leadership each of the three branches of state government and the result is one heck a lot of extremely upset sportsmen and women who will most certainly – and finally – express that frustration with their votes. Noem and Jackley beware!

    Matt Staab

Comments are closed.