Skip to content

Apa: State Got Spearfish Canyon Land on 2006 Promise Not to Charge Fees

Jerry Apa is not happy with the state’s proposal to turn Spearfish Canyon into a state park. Seconding a complaint posted by Spearfish Canyon Owners Association member Jim Nelson in November, Apa says Game, Fish and Parks did not hold public hearings on the project before moving into advocacy mode. Apa also contends that the park proposal violates the 2006 agreement under which the state acquired core park land from the Homestake Mining Company on the condition that never charge fees for use of the that land:

The Spearfish Canyon Homestake Lands Acquisition project proposal that includes Spearfish Canyon, the canyon mouth, Roughlock Falls and Little Spearfish intake and Savoy intake was signed by then Secretary of GF&P John Cooper on May 6, 2006. Section 5.2 Management Goals and Objections, Objective 2 states: Public lands, public waters, natural resources, benefits and services they supply will be sustained in perpetuity for the people of South Dakota and its visitors.

As part of the purchase agreement, Homestake required South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks to establish an interest-bearing restricted fund in which monies from it will be used for operation, maintenance and restoration to guarantee that fees will never be charged to the public to view or enjoy these acquisitions. Section 5.4 establishes a $600,000 interest-bearing account restricted fund to accomplish these objectives. In terms of bureaucratic life, the ink isn’t even dry on this document and GF&P is trying to circumvent the intent of the agreement between Homestake and GF&P [Jerry Apa, “GF&P Uninterested in Park Feedback,” Rapid City Journal, 2017.01.01].

I’m having trouble finding a complete copy of the 2006 document to which Apa refers. However, a contemporary Black Hills Pioneer report uses the same language as Apa to describe the proposal. That BHP report also quotes the proposal introduction, in which Cooper notes, “Throughout the decades, Homestake Mining Company did not mine the Canyon proper yet allowed the public, free of charge, to enjoy most of its real estate holdings in the Canyon, including Roughlock Falls.”

GF&P has avoided laying out a firm fee plan. But… hmm… if a private corporation driven solely by profit could keep the Canyon free to the public for a century, surely the state, which has no interest in profit, can use the money it promised to set aside to continue that free public access.

Map of Proposed Spearfish Canyon Stte Park, downloaded from Spearfish Canyon Foundation, 2017.01.02.
Map of Proposed Spearfish Canyon Stte Park, downloaded from Spearfish Canyon Foundation, 2017.01.02.

One Comment

  1. John W.

    Former representative Apa is spot on in his complaint and in the process, reveals the way the State has always done business in the area of Parks and the Outdoor Recreation. The most important part of Apa’s criticism seems to be overlooked by some yet it is the substance of thick veiled politics in action. The agreements between Homestake and the State aren’t the only ones to be considered since the Spearfish Canyon parcels are only a small portion of Homestake land divestiture into the public domain. The US Forest Service, through efforts by the RMEF and others, received places like Besant Park and Tilson Creek for wildlife production under much the same agreement provisions. Don’t think for a minute that Homestake didn’t receive more than ample assurance that the state would not pursue future claims of environmental damage for their benevolence in preserving their previous holdings in the public domain.
    One only need review those agreements to establish the intent that Apa speaks too. For decades, South Dakota’s governors and legislators have conveniently ignored agreements or legal principles to do what they want to do so the Spearfish Canyon Park proposal should be no surprise. If we really want to dig into this and learn specifics, we’re likely to discover that the State and a lot of it’s tenured political figures don’t bother with historical agreements nor do they do the legal research on an issue before just deciding to do what they choose. And when things like Apa’s and Nelson’s criticism hits the radar screen, the installed political hierarchy does the smoke filled back room consultation to develop spin to deflect the reality they are presented. This sort of administrative slight of hand is just one reason why the public is concerned about corruption and deceptive leadership. There is a reason why public hearings are not held to develop an idea or a concept. If the State and GFP did that, they wouldn’t be able to fulfill the special interest ideologies that show up at every turn…….. How about the Big Horn sheep translocation program, stimulated by the auction of one sheep license (out of a total of 3) to a high paying non-resident, that was suppose to increase populations to over 600 animals and add a dozen licenses every year for resident hunters. In stead, that program has flushed nearly a million down a rat hole and we have a transplanted population that is on the brink of in-viability due to disease and habitat issues they were warned about before they started.

    The problem with Apa’s criticism is that it is misdirected. He levies his disgust at South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks without acknowledging that this Park Proposal in Spearfish Canyon is not GFP’s brain child. This is Daugaard’s circus and it’s his monkey and all GFP is doing is trying to identify the mines and negotiate the minefield. GFP’s biggest problems are 1. the complete absence of institutional memory- biologically, ecologically, administratively and politically, and 2. being required by political appointment and influence, not to argue or dispute any decision made by the governors office, even if they know of complications. This same set of circumstances is playing out with yet another of the Governors hapless attempts at economic development through tourism. We haven’t heard much about the proposal for the State to build and maintain another non-motorized trail from the Mickelson Trail head at Hill City, through the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve and the Black Elk Wilderness to Mt. Rushmore. A proposal that, when examined thoroughly under the provisions of the Norbeck Organic Act, a settlement agreement negotiated by Daschle’s Office, the Forest Service and the State, is patently in violation of all previous laws and agreements. Our biggest problem is that government folks are the only ones familiar enough with these practices to understand them and blow the whistle but here in this state and in most others is if those folks value their job, they’ll just do as they are told, go home and try to figure out a way to sleep at night. Been there and done that many a time and speak out now only because I no longer have to toe the party line.
    What the governor and Thune are doing is simply an end around in the larger effort to transfer control of federal lands and their management to the States under the fictional assumptions that the State’s can do a better job of conserving land for residents and visitors. Apa’s criticisms are just an un-amplified book in the library of “do as we please” activities that have no honest value or benefit to the State’s citizens but they are political cannon fodder for election commercials. The same thinking gave us EB-5, Gear Up, and now opposes IM-22. It’s the same thinking that gave us approval for experimental deep oil wells in East Pennington County that will likely now cost the taxpayers a bundle of money to clean up.

Comments are closed.