PDA

View Full Version : Farmers lawsuit


Lenny
06-22-2000, 07:08 PM
WEBSTER — About 20 farmers in northeast South Dakota are filing a lawsuit seeking the authority to keep the public from hunting and fishing on waters that have flooded their land.


Area rural residents during the S.D. Legislature this year turned down bills which would have made a similar change in state water law.

The bills presented to the legislature would not only have made lakes which have grown over private land part of the landowner’s “property.”

The bills also would have forced S.D. Game, Fish and Parks to mark these lands both winter and summer to keep the public off water or ice above what had been private land.

Aberdeen lawyer Jack Hieb, who also serves as Day County state’s attorney, said Wednesday he had mailed legal papers to the circuit court in Webster.

Hieb also had been the only states attorney in the state who had said he would prosecute anglers for trespassing on what other states attorneys and state officials had considered public waters under current state law.

State officials had said although the land under a “meandered” water itself remained the property of the landowner, the water, fish and surface of the water were public.

That resulted in enforcement difficulties, area officers said, since technically a fishing boat or ice shack would be legal — but only if anchors or fishing lures and line never touched bottom.

And speaking on condition of anonymity, many officers also said there were isolated instances especially during ice fishing season of anglers trespassing on private land and littering both private and public land and water.

The new lawsuit will ask a judge to determine if the waters are public or private. If the court finds they are private, the lawsuit asks for an injunction to keep the public from entering those waters without permission.

Hieb said landowners have grown frustrated with people ice fishing during the winter or angling from boats over private property during the spring, summer and fall. Sometimes they come within 50 yards of a farm house, he said.

‘‘There haven’t been any punches thrown, but we’ve gotten close. One guy had people who were almost fishing in his cattle corral, about 20 yards away,’’ Hieb said. ‘‘We need to determine one way or another whether this is private water or public water.’’

The state Game, Fish and Parks Department has generally maintained that the water can be used by the public for hunting or fishing if people don’t trespass to get access.

State legislators considered but rejected a proposal during the 2000 session that would have placed some of those waters off limits and forced Game, Fish and Parks to mark them.

Department Secretary John Cooper said at the time that maintaining property lines in thousands of acres of water would be impractical and expensive. He also was worried about restricting public access to fish and hunt.

Thousands of acres of private fields and pastures have been flooded during the last decade in the northeast, particularly in Day County. Many sloughs have turned into hot fishing spots 20 and even 30 feet deep.

Many swollen sloughs and lakes now cross public roads. Anglers drive or walk onto the sloughs and lakes during the winter and sometimes launch boats off the road during open-water months.

One former slough has flooded 1,500 acres of crop land and pasture owned or rented by Bristol farmer Bob Duerre. The slough covers nearly 5,000 acres and is 30 feet deep in places, Duerre said.

The slough has fish in it, although they haven’t started to bite regularly, Duerre said. When they do, he doesn’t want hordes of anglers to descend on the water.

‘‘We think there should be some kind of restrictions. People have virtually eliminated the fish from some of these smaller waters in a matter of a week,’’ Duerre said. ‘‘Right now, if they get on my water, they can virtually go into my feed lot. I want to know for certain if it’s private or not.’’

RyanMN
06-22-2000, 07:34 PM
Perhaps the most appropriate action would be for the state to purchase these flooded acres, then there would be no argument. If I owned land that was unusable due to a lake covering it, I would be glad to sell it, as I wouldn't care to pay property taxes on land I can't use.

Just a thought.

T-Mac
06-22-2000, 07:55 PM
In layman's terms...this should be classified as "casual water", you should be able to get a free drop, no closer to the "honey-hole", and no penalty invoked.
Hehehe
Problem will go away when the water does.
I would think that some guy fishing in the feedlot would be a low priority compared to other problems caused by the high water.

Eyez
06-22-2000, 09:17 PM
That'd be nice, but there's just WAY too much land under water. I don't even want to guess how much. The problem stems from a few inconsiderate fisherman, a few obnoxious landowners, and a state that makes the landowners pay taxes on land that's under 10 feet of prime walleye water. There's no easy solution here.


Eyez

Chad
06-23-2000, 06:17 AM
I know of a few farmers making lemonade out of those lemons. They put in an access and are chargin people to use it. they also have bait and tackle.

wanderer
07-03-2000, 09:07 AM
When a river changes course as it ages, gradually straightening, like ol Miss. Who owns the river?
In most states if you put a dock or raft in the water you own it, but others are allowed access (retrieve fish baits) because it is on public water.
The farmers should be given tax relief on land that they no longer have access to (decrease taxable acres on tax rolls).

Floater Kev (MN)
07-05-2000, 03:02 PM
Just wondering, if the land under the water is what is actually owned, does one who steps out of the boat and lands foot on the bottom of the water covered area then become a tresspasser, having set foot on the "land" that is below the water?

Floater Kev

Eyez
07-05-2000, 03:09 PM
You don't even have to put your foot on it, technically a bottom bouncer touching bottom is trespassing. That's part of what makes it such a sticky mess.


Eyez

Fin Addict
07-06-2000, 02:43 PM
This is from the MN regs re tresspass laws.
1. What is lawful access?
A stream or lake is lawfully accessible if there is a public access, or if public land or a public road right-of-way abuts the surface of the water, or if you have permission to cross private land to reach the surface of the water.

2. What is recreational use?
Recreational use includes boating, swimming, fishing, hunting, trapping, and similar activities. It includes walking in the water in connection with such activities regardless of who owns the land beneath the surface of the water.

3. What waters are open to recreational use?
A stream or lake is open to recreational use over its entire surface if it is capable of recreational use and if it is lawfully accessible. Any water that will float a canoe is capable of recreational use, but other waters may also qualify depending upon the circumstances.

So if this were in MN, my understanding is that it would be ok to boat or walk all over to your heart's content. I think a little common sense on the part of those using the water would go a long way here but we all know there will be the idiots that abuse the situation. I know I would be less than thrilled to have boats (probably PWC's) blasting along in temporary water or people walking right up to feed lots etc. That said, if the law is changed to accomidate this, we are on a slippery slope to private lakes and streams and most of us lose there.

Eyez
07-06-2000, 03:02 PM
That's the way the definition used to be here in SD also, but that was before the water covered land that had been farmed a few years before, and taxes were paid on. Then it was looked at as the farmers owned the land AROUND the water, and you could only access it if it abutted public land, but now it's a matter of land that they used to farm being covered with water. Part of the issue is also a matter of people blatantly trespassing to gain access to that water. Some of them are parking in pastures and such. I'm all for public use of these waters, even if the farmers aren't, but the people that use the water need to respect the landowners that live around it.


Eyez

dutchman
07-06-2000, 04:48 PM
This indeed is a difficult situation for both parties. I fish these waters and I also know some of the farmers that have lost large amounts of land. Anyone that knows the farming community in this area knows that they struggle for every dime they get. The S.D. game fish and parks are not overly popoular with alot of the local landowners, for reasons other than high water. If the larger lakes could be stabalized the landowners around thses lakes would be instant millionaires ( lake front selling @ $500.00 per lineal ft.) the state has come up with completely stupid and ridiculous suggestions on what to do with all this water...to stupid to mention here. MY point being the root problem really is not anglers but government frustrating landowners in a economically depressed region with their main source of income under water...

Backwater Eddy
07-06-2000, 05:31 PM
What really stings for these farmers is paying TAX'S on nonproductive land but seeing others use it with no say from them, the owners, on who and were it is to be used. They feel water has taken there right's away to do what they wish with there own property.

The water is the trespasser and to them the state takes the side of the trespasser, not the landowner. It would be a hard situation to stomach for any business man.

"Backwater Eddy"

eyewinder
07-07-2000, 06:26 AM
A few of the SD landowners have installed ramps and collection boxes to recover their expenses, and perhaps, make their frustrations more tolerable (this is old news, I know).

Here's what I don't understand: why don't more of them install the collection boxes to help recover money spent on taxes? I would gladly contribute when I use these waters.

I would also bet that sportsmen's groups (Ikes, DU, Walleye Central?, etc.) would be more than willing to contribute time & materials to install a ramp on an otherwise inaccessible body of water; then the landowner could ask $5 (for instance) a visit and who would kick? I may be naive, but it would seem that this would result in a symbiotic partnership that would be absolutely win-win.

I realize that my two suggestions may not be the best solutions, but they may help make my point that when anger motivates people (landowners AND sportsmen), creativity disappears.