Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Webster South Dakota
    Posts
    244

    SD legislature locks in non-meamdered laws

    The South Dakota legislature voted last week to repeal the experiation date on the non-meandered waters compromise that they came up with during a special session last summer.

    The current expiration would have been early this summer. After this ruling, the law will be permanent until a bill is brought forth to amend it.

    The GFP backed this decision because they believe that a permanent resolution will make it easier to reach access agreements with landowners that have posted their non section 8 non-meamdered waters. Let's hope they're right.

    http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/loc...b25a738a9.html

    If none of this makes any sense to you, feel free to ask. It's really messed up, but I've been following it pretty closely.

  2. Member bigbitef11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    mitchell, sd
    Posts
    556
    #2
    This might be good news. Not sure this compromise actually defines beneficial use of non meandered waters as fishing and boating for legal purposes. We are leaving our trust in the GFP to preserve the right to use the lakes for recreation.

  3. Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lincoln, NE
    Posts
    1,203
    #3
    What are the cliff notes for us out of staters that come up North to chase smallies?
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    2006 Ranger 521 svx
    2006 Evinrude Etec E225DHLSDF #05135216

    (Dads)
    1995 Champion 202
    1997 Johnson Venom 200STLEUB SN# G04338914 Built 4/97

  4. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Webster South Dakota
    Posts
    244
    #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Sodakrep View Post
    What are the cliff notes for us out of staters that come up North to chase smallies?
    The only place that us bass guys really got shafted is Reetz. That one is posted. Other than that I don't know of any significant bass waters that have been or could be posted. You can pretty much fish the same way you always have. I know the GFP has the frame work in place to develop access agreements/payments and they're working pretty hard to get access back on Reetz. It's just a matter of talking the landowners into it. I'm still holding out hope that they can get it done. Others I have talked to are less optimistic.

    The group that has and will continue to deal with the most posted signs is the ice fishing crowd. A lot of the good perch sloughs that people gain access to by entering from a road that was overtaken by rising waters are now controlled by whoever owns the land below the water. If they want to post whatever portion they own, they can.

    For the most part if it had a public access on it before, you can still legally fish it now and into the future. That's what the GFP initially fought for in this "compromise". They wanted to keep the popular waters that people had were already fishing open.

    Here's a link to a map that labels any and all non meandered water that is legally posted:
    https://sdgfp.maps.arcgis.com/apps/w...41676c3b487eae

    You'll notice that it's mostly just little sloughs and stuff that probably don't even have fish in them.

  5. Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Victoria, Minnesota
    Posts
    118
    #5
    Anyone know the backstory why Reetz got shutdown? Has seemed strange to me since the GFP had an agreement there for so long. I understand the random sloughs with road access. Seems like a lifetime ago that I ice fished there the year it opened and the first year I boat fished it changed my perception of good fishing. Maybe we’ll luck out and can fish it during my May trip but not counting on it. Lot of good memories on that puddle.

  6. Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Hitchcock, SD
    Posts
    3,657
    #6
    I had heard that the guy wants a couple Black Hills elk tags a year for ever. Even after he dies. The tags star with the family.

    I don't have any verification of this. So take it for what you paid for it.

    And Kyle if you come up I'll point you in the right direction, maybe..
    Dave

  7. #7
    Do you guys think that if the G&P gives the Reetz guy a bunch to open it back up; that a bunch of others will then close stuff off so they can 'get paid' too?

    That could end up badly if the G&P doesn't have the money to pay everyone.

    Really hoping everything gets worked out and everything gets opened back up!!
    Charger 210 Elite

  8. Member bigbitef11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    mitchell, sd
    Posts
    556
    #8
    Yeah, I imagine there are other lease agreements that could expire. Doesn't sound like the Reetz guy is asking for much, considering the position he is in.

  9. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Webster South Dakota
    Posts
    244
    #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Pro-Hunt View Post
    Do you guys think that if the G&P gives the Reetz guy a bunch to open it back up; that a bunch of others will then close stuff off so they can 'get paid' too?
    Yes, I do. The GFP opened the door to this when they went the route of offering money for access—which they pretty much had to do. And honestly, looking at it objectively, any landowner in this situation would be a fool to not put up posted signs on flooded ground that they own and have the legal right to post. The legislature ruled that they can treat that water as private property, even though the water technically isn't. That flooded ground is now no different than a 40 acre bone dry dirt field. They basically have three choices. 1 - don't post it and let people fish on it. 2 - post it and get the GFP to pay them so that the public can fish. Or 3 - post it and don't answer the phone when the GFP calls asking to come negotiate an access agreement.

    I know it's upsetting to people, myself included, but what we have to realize is that on some of this water the law stuff is now simply in the favor of the landowners. Take this for example. Imagine a landowner owns 200 acres of wooded area that produces giant deer every year. The land owner keeps the property posted and does not let you or anyone else chase deer on their land. There is nothing surprising about this to you, you don't think much of it, and you move on... That is the way that we have to start thinking about and treating some of these water bodies. You don't see people granting the public wide open access to private hunting ground without some form of compensation (think CREP and WIA), the same is going to be true of non section 8 non-meandered water.

  10. Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Victoria, Minnesota
    Posts
    118
    #10
    Just a real tough situation overall. Even weirder just because of all the waters being surveyed at a moment in time. If the water had been higher or lower at the time it would have changed the outcome way back when and impacted things today.

    With the current laws I don't see any way out besides compensation for allowing access. I prefer they don't use things like elk tags though as that sets a bad precedent. Bartering for a limited item seems really bad to me. I feel like money or tax breaks is the only way to go.

    Does anyone know if the land owners pay taxes on the flooded ground? If so wouldn't that be the place to compromise?

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by DeBo View Post
    Just a real tough situation overall. Even weirder just because of all the waters being surveyed at a moment in time. If the water had been higher or lower at the time it would have changed the outcome way back when and impacted things today.

    With the current laws I don't see any way out besides compensation for allowing access. I prefer they don't use things like elk tags though as that sets a bad precedent. Bartering for a limited item seems really bad to me. I feel like money or tax breaks is the only way to go.

    Does anyone know if the land owners pay taxes on the flooded ground? If so wouldn't that be the place to compromise?
    Part in red to me you be the best way to go about obtaining access. Might be good for gaining hunting access as well. Something like a landowner pays no tax on land that he allows public access to. If it is land still being farmed where the landowner is making money off the land then the taxes would be cut in half to allow access.
    Charger 210 Elite

  12. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Webster South Dakota
    Posts
    244
    #12
    They do pay some taxes on that flooded ground, but it is greatly reduced from what it would be if it wasn't flooded. However, I have heard many people claim that the taxes on their non flooded ground goes up to compensate for the reduced amount on their flooded land. In the end they believe that they're paying the same overall whether things are flooded or not.

    As for cutting taxes to gain access... That's a good idea in theory, but property taxes aren't being payed to the GFP. They're going to other agencies, probably more local, that aren't willing to lose funding so that the GFP can have more hunting/fishing access. Too many groups involved there to get anything accomplished I'm afraid.

    Also, don't worry about the elk tag thing. They did ask for that, but the GFP said no.

  13. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Webster South Dakota
    Posts
    244
    #13
    Quote Originally Posted by DeBo View Post
    Even weirder just because of all the waters being surveyed at a moment in time. If the water had been higher or lower at the time it would have changed the outcome way back when and impacted things today.
    Thats exactly right. My guess is that the next mutation of this whole debacle is going to be landowners realizing that all of these categories and designations that we've put on different lakes are completely arbitrary. And the thing that will bring them to that realization is when they start hearing that people with non meandered non section 8 lakes are getting a payday from the GFP for access. They're gonna be pissed, and honestly, they should be.

    Think about this for a minute. The people that own flooded land under Cattail Kettle petiotioned the GFP commission for permission to post their water. They have to do this because their non meandered lake is on the section 8 list. The commission told them no way, you're not posting anything. On the other hand, on Reetz lake they can post whatever they want, because that lake isn't on the section 8 list. And now the GFP is trying to buy access to it. Now think about Horseshoe lake for a minute. Horseshoe is meandered, so no one can post it, petition to post it, or get payed for access to it.

    Now step back and think about the bigger picture. Reetz, Horseshoe, and Cattail Kettle... They're all basically the same, right? They used to be much smaller, now they are much bigger. Legally though, they all exist in three very different categories, and they're treated radically different from one another. All the way from full landowner control to no landowner control at all. How does that make any sense?... It doesn't. Again, these categories are completely arbitrary, and the people involved are becoming increasingly aware of that. That awareness is expedited when money starts getting handed out to only a select few.

    The legislature hasn't seen the last of this one. They pulled the sunset clause on the compromise this session hoping to finally be done arguing about this, but I'm certain there will be another pile of bills relating to non meandered water next session.

  14. Moderator Fishysam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Jamestown North Dakota
    Posts
    9,318
    #14
    Fishing is inherently good expensive, I think instead of tax breaks because there land isn't farmable, taxes should be 4 times more since only they can touch the resource... so make them pay to play or give them the tax break for allowing access

    this makes me so mad because the idea of this will spread and eventually we wont be able to fish
    Mercury 250 proxs 2B115089

  15. Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Brookings, SD
    Posts
    5,366
    #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Pro-Hunt View Post
    Part in red to me you be the best way to go about obtaining access. Might be good for gaining hunting access as well. Something like a landowner pays no tax on land that he allows public access to. If it is land still being farmed where the landowner is making money off the land then the taxes would be cut in half to allow access.
    i said this from the very beginning. Another easy solution would be to require a ssecondary license for nonmeandered waterways. Kind of like a city lake permit for your boat in other states. The money from the secondary license gets divided up and distributed to the landowners for access and rights. Make like a 10 dollar addition to your state license. It would be like buying a waterfowl stamp.

  16. Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Hitchcock, SD
    Posts
    3,657
    #16
    I have always liked the idea of a special stamp. There are a lot of lakes open for those who don't want to pay.
    Dave