(Continued from page 9)

ward to a day when time allows me to get back into it. I also know how important these recreational activities are to Main Street businesses who sell licenses, bait & tackle, guns and ammo, food & drinks, and gas & goodies to the many outdoorsmen and women who choose to hunt and fish our great South Dakota fields and streams.
• Present-day in South Dakota, it is "accepted" that if a person can access water or ice from the right-of-way, that person can hunt or fish the water/ice. However, if the water/ice is wholly over private property (said to be "non-meandered" water), once a bottom-bouncer or anchor hits the ground below, the person is trespassing. Or if, heaven-forbid, a person breaks through the ice and his person or vehicle hits the bottom, he is trespassing. A 2004 SD Supreme Court decision essentially affirmed this as the standard. However, the court did NOT say that access to non-meandered waters cannot be clarified or restricted. It merely said that it was a legislative matter.
• The proponents of the bill are asking to allow owners of land beneath "non-meandered" waters to be posted. Why? First and foremost, because they have a private interest in the land beneath and adjacent to the water. In testimony provided by a Clark landowner, he said he cannot graze some of the very acres he owns because his cattle will be spooked by gunshots. He undoubtedly speaks for other landowners who continue to pay property taxes on ground that is essentially rendered worthless to them because of policies and practices that do not allow them to manage their property as they see fit. He raised many valid points during his testimony. Other proponents did, as well. When the opponents spoke, they raised certain questions about whether this bill "goes too far" and has "unintended consequences". Proponents brought two amendments to the bill that clarified their position and left nothing to chance or misinterpretation relative to the "meandered waters" issue.
• If this bill were to pass, it WOULD change current practices in SOME cases where non-meandered waters are concerned. I am equally certain that in many instances where private property has become inundated, nothing would change. Some folks have a greater personal interest in erecting signs that would restrict public access than do others. Regardless, the question remains what the proper legal policy is. I believe it is important that property owners/taxpayers have policies in place that uphold their rights to manage their private interests. In my mind, I cannot understand how a couple inches of ice or a couple feet of water allows me to go boldly where I am not otherwise allowed to go. If a fence has been constructed to keep livestock in and the public out, then why--if that fence becomes hidden by water, yet I still know it is there--do I have legal standing to encroach on the space that is directly above somebody else's property? I just cannot reconcile that in my mind.

(Continued on page 11)