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.
If I understand it private property owners do own the land but not the water. Currently or before the court decision land owners didn’t have any control of the water.
Maybe it’s time the state redraws the maps with new lakes to settle this.
If a lake has public access by public property why shouldn’t someone be able to float on water?
It’s possible to own mineral rights, land rights but not have what’s on top of the land be separate?
And the sky is also separated out. So we just want different rules for water.
I agree anon 9:03, yes, redraw the maps with the new lakes on them to settle this. But then the landowner should be compensated, paid for the land they lose. The money for the land purchase should come from the sale of fishing licenses for those who want to fish those new lakes. I’m sure those fishermen wouldn’t mind paying a lot extra for that privilege, after all they don’t want to get something for nothing do they? I’m sure they wouldn’t want to take someone’s property without paying for it.
Water and wildlife are held in the public trust. The landowner owns the land, the public owns the water. That was established in the desert and arid lands act, before the state was formed. The legislature needs to say whether or not the public can recreate on the public’s water. The legislature is the trustee of the public trust.
What does the commissioner of school and public lands think?
Liberty… are you sure about that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Land_Act
Yeah it’s in there. (Not in the Wikipedia article.) I’ve read it trying to get the background on the issue. If I find time today I’ll get a link of some sort for you.
Thanks much!
Here’s a good description of the public trust doctrine.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-trust-doctrine/
SDCL 46-1-3 says, “Water as property of people–Appropriation of right to use. It is hereby declared that all water within the state is property of the people of the state, but the right to use of water may be acquired by appropriation as provided by law.”
The reason the Wildlife Federation has sidelined themselves is that they stake-out extreme and unreasonable positions.
What they need to keep in mind is this: Until the legislature passes something, all these lakes are closed. That’s what the landowners want.
They need to cut a deal.
The landowners never wanted to cut a deal and only got their way because the court punted.
Sportsman and landowners will never compromise on this.
Until the court decision landowners didn’t have any authority over the water.
Anon 11:46 you are wrong. It is the SD Wildlife Federation who doesn’t want to compromise. Years ago in the legislature we had a compromise bill worked out that the SDGFP, the landowners, and many sportsmen were behind. Some lakes would have been closed, some open, all subject to change. SDWF came out opposing it and it was killed. They didn’t care because they could fish and to heck with the landowner. So don’t go saying that the landowners won’t compromise.
The SDWF guys want everything for themselves — the water, the geese — you name it. They are narrow minded, small-thinkers and if they keep this up they will find themselves with less and less.
I have done work with the SDWF and these guys are the “feel the burn(ers)” of the outdoor community. They want the government to give them everything as if it was their own. The word that comes to mind is entitled. It doenst make any sense to me why someone can sit in a boat and fish over private lade while in private airspace, yes its private airspace, just because the water is public. The law says the water is public, yes, so a strict reading of that means that the SDWF better get their scuba gear and a good spear gun.