Tapio: Non-Meandered Waters Bill a ‘Lose-Lose’ for Sportsmen and Land Owners

South Dakota Congressional Candidate and Watertown State Senator, Neal Tapio Monday expressed disappointment regarding SB 199, a bill meant to end a long simmering state feud over the balance between private land owners and sportsmen who believe in public access to bodies of water for angling and recreational use on private land.  Tapio and 18 other senators voted to kill the bill in floor consideration Monday by a vote of 19-16.

Tapio blames authors of the bill for including several fatal flaws and unreasonable provisions in the bill’s language that he says made it impossible to reach a compromise, including one major sticking point which could have made it illegal for private landowners to hunt and fish on their own property.

“After more than a year of conversation, a special session and a 15-person committee to address this issue, it is an understatement to say this final attempt at legislation was a disappointment and a failure,” Tapio said.

“I think it’s unfair to South Dakota sportsmen who were misled into believing this was a reasonable attempt to open as many waters to fishing as possible,” Tapio said.

Senator Tapio believes fatal flaws doomed the legislation by attempting to expand the discussion to all non-meandered bodies of water and by demanding a process to close access to both the sporting public and private owners known as the “closed to one, closed to all provision.”

“This bill literally could have made it possible for one landowner to close down access to an entire non-meandered lake, making it impossible for adjoining landowners to use that lake for fishing or hunting, even on their own land”  Tapio said.

“Think about that.  You have water on your property and you want to take your grandchild hunting.  For some reason another landowner requests the lake to be closed and so it is closed to all recreation, both public and private, thereby preventing you from hunting ducks with your grandson on your own land,” Tapio said.

“A group of seasoned Republican legislators met secretly for months, but failed to respect the very basic rights of private property ownership while leading the sportsmen to believe this was a fair and equitable solution to a very complex problem.” Tapio said.  “Unfortunately, this bill expanded the scope of the problems by including all recreation on all non-meandered lakes, while failing to account for the simple core principles of private property rights,” Tapio said.

“Along with many other problems, it simply wasn’t fair to drag this process on any longer,” Tapio said.

Dakota Posts is at it again tonight… from Facebook

Here’s how it all went down today on Rep Dennert’s House Bill 1305 to allow non-Republican party members to vote in the GOP Primary that was blasted by the South Dakota Republican Party today. 29 yea, 37 nay, and 4 excused.

House Bill 1305, Drew Dennert’s open primary vote measure, went down on a 29- 37 vote.  I’m working on getting who voted and how, so hold on for more details…

House Bill 1305, sponsored by State Representative Drew Dennert just earned a sharp rebuke from the South Dakota Republican Party Executive Board this morning, who voted unanimously to oppose the legislation on Sunday.

Why? Partly because according to an e-mail calling for action by the South Dakota Republican Party Central Committee, the GOP noted that the “..measure was introduced without talking with stakeholders,” indicating that the sponsor of the measure took it upon themselves to introduce it without consulting the people it would affect.

SDGOP Chairman Dan Lederman also noted that Constitutional Amendment V, which would have done similar things to the primary process was rejected by South Dakota voters 55-45, and lost in all but three counties in the state.

The party also noted This measure represents an attempt to appease those who want to allow Democrats and others to pick the Republican candidates.   Winston Churchill said it best when he said “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” 

The e-mail encourages members of the Republican Central Committee to call the House lobby at 773-3851 to encourage their State Representatives to vote NO on the bill when it’s up for a vote today on the House Floor.

The e-mail closes by also noting that the Republican State Party Executive Board will also be weighing in on House Bill 1259.

I’m catching info this AM on a bill that’s affecting a group that wasn’t asked about a measure ahead of time. And now they’re not happy.

Stay tuned as I get details.

I’m getting reports early this AM that South Dakota State Student President Taylin Albrecht decided by herself without consulting the Student’s Association to take a stand against the second free speech bill (this one originating in the State Senate) on behalf of SDSU.

Two Student Senators expressed to me their concern noting:

“Our president said that she is a representative of the students’ voice, and therefore, does not need the consent of the (senate) body to act. We have been discussing the issue amongst our senate members who are present in Pierre. Many of us were blindsided by her actions and the stance taken by the Student Federation.

We admire the universities that chose to abstain from the votes tonight in an effort to remain transparent and honest for their students.”

When Senate Bill 198 is heard Senate Education committee, if the SDSU Student Association president offers her opinion, senators should ask her when the vote was held to oppose it. Because it certainly sounds like that’s a vote she does not feel ever needs to take place.

From the College Fix comes a recap on the story on the demise of the first Campus Free Speech Bill, noting that legislators were fed misinformation before they voted against it:

Now a cohort of student government members from South Dakota State has alleged that the student testimony was “misleading.” Six South Dakota State student senate members claim the student resolution against the free speech bill was passed hastily, disregarding typical procedures and without sufficient campus input.

“The testimony and the resolution are in many ways misleading, and untrue because nearly no student organizations or students were consulted on this issue,” the senators stated in a letter, a copy of which was posted on the political website South Dakota War College.

and…

Ryan Sailors, another student senator who signed the letter, echoed similar sentiments.

“I personally would have liked to see the resolution being tabled and give us more time to meet with the student body and get more educated on the legislation,” he told The Fix via email.

In addition to the senators who have spoken out, the editorial board of the campus newspaper, The Collegian, also criticized how the resolution was handled. In an editorial published last week, the newspaper said a vote on the resolution should have been postponed.

Read it here.

They’ll get a chance to set things right via the Senate version of the measure, which is soon to be heard in Senate Education committee.

Noem in Sioux Falls Monday

Sioux Falls, S.D. – Kristi Noem will be in Sioux Falls on Monday, February 12, at 10:00am(CT) to hold a listening session with local business leaders about the impact of rising crime on the area’s economy.

WHAT: Noem to Hold Public Safety Listening Session with Area Businesses
WHEN: Monday, February 12 – 10:00AM (CT)
WHERE: Sioux Falls Design Center (108 W. 11th Street, Sioux Falls)

###

South Dakota has a bill – HB1250 – up for approval in the State Legislature to raise the age for the legal purchase of tobacco from 18-21, which unfortunately has passed out of committee and is headed to the House floor.

What should happen to it on the House floor is what happened to it in Maine, where when faced with the measure the Republican Governor killed it on the spot:

Gov. Paul LePage said Tuesday that he has vetoed a bill to ban the use of cellphones and other hand-held devices while driving and another to raise the legal age for purchasing tobacco products from 18 to 21.

and…

Speaking during his weekly call-in appearance on the Bangor-based WVOM talk radio show, LePage said he opposes laws that amount to “social engineering.”

“I don’t believe that social engineering a society is going to create a good society,” LePage told the show’s hosts, George Hale and Christian Greeley.

and..

LePage said he vetoed the bill to increase the legal age to buy cigarettes or other tobacco products, including vaping equipment, because 18-year-olds are deemed mature enough to join the military.

“I’m not going to strap a gun to their shoulder and go fight a war if they can’t go buy cigarettes,” LePage said. “I’ll tell you, this is just sinful, it is absolutely sinful, and I believe that at 18 they are mature enough to make a decision and I’m tired of living in a society where we social engineer our lives.”

Read it all here.

Just say no – to social engineering and the nanny state!