Ever wonder how to keep track of what we’ve said and where we stand on the hundreds of bills that come before the South Dakota Legislature? Naturally, the solution to every great problem is a spreadsheet. I’ve created a Google spreadsheet that will list each bill, its title, and whether DFP supports or opposes it. The sheet will also include links to each bill itself and whatever articles DFP has posted on each bill.
The Game Fish and Parks Department wants a little more freedom to develop facilities on leased land. House Bill 1010 amends SDCL 41-2-25 as follows:
- HB 1010 lifts the $1,500 limit on capital development on land the GF&P leases from private owners and on which the lease has only 25 years or less remaining.
- HB 1010 lifts the ban on capital development on leased land within the Black Hills Fire Protection District.
- HB 1010 changes a shall to may: “The Department of Game, Fish and Parks
shallmay make capital improvements….” That change looks like minor clean-up, but conceivably, if the GF&P commissioners wanted to save money in a lean year by putting a moratorium on capital improvements, the law says, “Sorry, you have to make capital improvements.”
Even under HB 1010, capital development on leased lands can’t include buildings; under SDCL 5-14-10, the state must have title in hand to put up a building. HB 1010 would thus appear allow projects like trails, boat ramps, landscaping, informational kiosks, parking, and fences and gates.
Game Fish and Parks leased 1.2 million acres of land for walk-in hunting areas in 2015.
Under god the people kill.
this is just another way the state keeps lands lost by the abrogation of another treaty from those who died trying to defend it.
Personally, I think that we should have the state institute a state-wide quilting program. Quilting has long been part of the heritage of South Dakotans, just as hunting has been. Quilting is very popular today. Create regional centers at the Game and Fish locations. It could be something like the “Chatauquas” of years gone by. Bring in experts in textiles, design, and marketing, etc. Furthermore, the Chatauqua model could bring in visitors to the state. Quilting enthusiasts take tours focusing on quilting. I never have understood why we invest tons of state monies in an activity that is “primarily” geared toward a certain segment of the population. But what do I know anyway? Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share this idea–even if I don’t quilt. Most South Dakotans have no idea how much money is spent promoting hunting in this state. (Contact the State Game and Fish and you can get a bunch of literature, maps with all kinds of info–like showing all the land the “State owns” (no taxing) or has leased for this or that type of hunting. Unbelievable. ) Ya, I think Game Fish and Parks should expand their horizons.
Contrary, Mary, GFP pays taxes on hunting lands that we citizens of South Dakota own, so there is no loss to the schools or counties.
Chatauqua! Good idea, Mary! In a way, the state parks do tiny versions of Chatauqua with their camping-season presentations. But yes, why not encourage even more cultural events and visitation in the other nine months of the year?
This needs careful examination: Over the course of the last nearly 20 years, GFP has leased private lands, primarily for Walk in Area hunting opportunity. There is a history of leasing lands that couldn’t or wouldn’t raise or conserve a population of least shrews on hundreds of acres simply because the land has no habitat or food value for wildlife and is just leased up for hunting access regardless if there is any hunting opportunity on the property or not. Quite often, some of these private lands are leased for the soul purpose of preventing them from being leased for hunting by private individuals. Sometimes, lands are leased to gain access to other private or public lands for hunting purposes and those lands have little to no value to wildlife. Far to often, lands are leased, not for their wildlife values but because hunting access is a priority. We need to distinguish what money is being spent here. State Parks and Recreation areas can not and do not use Pittman Robertson and Dingell Johnson for improvements. State Parks operate out of General Fund budget in addition to revenues generated by entrance fees, camping fees etc. Pittman Robertson and Dingell Johnson moneys are reserved for wildlife conservation programs which include habitat development and are rarely used on park lands unless it can be demonstrated that there is habitat improvement involved. I have a hard time believing that habitat restoration and development falls under the category of “capitol improvements” so we can speculate that this bill likely has no bonafide value for wildlife. Therefore, a rider needs to be added to this that stipulates that no wildlife division or federal Pittman Robertson or Dingell Johnson- or Sikes Act Moneys can be used for these developments. Furthermore, the bill would actually serve a useful purpose if there was an amendment installed that required GFP to incorporate a “quality habitat” set of criteria that needs to be met before any private land can be leased for WIA or other purposes. Yet another idea is that if public money is going to be used on private land for capital improvement, that land needs to be opened to hunting and fishing! Our public needs to become well educated on the sources of funding GFP has and how they are intended to be used. We’re blowing federal money on WIA’s that have no value to wildlife and little value for the hunter or fisherman. In some cases, it is just another program of “value added” income for the private property owner.
John, I find it incredible that GF&P would spend money on land that has no hunting or fishing value. Do they not have criteria now for their leases? Is this really just another source of pork for friends of the administration? Is there any catalog of GF&P-leased lands that we could review to see if there is any pattern in who gets those leases?
The records are public…….. The WIA atlas is available but does not list names, only land identity from which ownership can easily be determined in any county.. Don’t mistake me Cory; there are some leased lands that are good for wildlife and the landowner works hard to keep the habitat in good shape. That however, in my opinion and experience, is not the norm. Particularly in Western SD. There is an entire chapter of law that is devoted to conservation on private lands and in my not so humble opinion, the leasing we are seeing today does not conform to the language in those statutes. The focus has been, entirely on hunting access to private land and there is no element of habitat quality control in the contracts that are offered.