Non-Meandered Waters

[HotFiretiger]

To those that fish South Dakota, the following attachments show lakes that will no longer be “accessible” for fishing until further notice. This issue is not scheduled to be resolved until January 2018 – unless a special session is called.

Full details are located here:
http://gfp.sd.gov/fishing-boating/courtruling.aspx?utm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=GFP%20News&utm_content=

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[backup63]

Just a question about this whole mess, did these lakes develop on a person’s private property and then grow to the point where it contacted a public road? If so, did the person who lost all of that real estate just loose out on all of it’s land value?

[HotFiretiger]

I will explain this the best I can, but I am no means an expert if this area.

To answer your questions.. Yes and no. It is a very complex issue and often varies on a case-to-case basis. Yes, many of the lakes did grow in early 90’s and are on private land. But many of the lakes are already on GFP public lands and very little of the water comes in contact with private land. (See images below – any color indicates publicly owned land yet these lakes have been closed to fishing).

A big issue is that the landowners are upset with being taxed on the land that people are publicly fishing – at what rate, I do not know. From a fisherman’s perspective, many of these lakes have a had public stocking, landings, docks, etc. that were installed by the GFP as well as public land underneath the lakes. Obviously, all funded by the people that buy a license. Non-resident and resident alike.

There is a petition going around to urge the Governor to call for a special session to resolve this issue. Here is following link if anyone would like to sign (you do not need to a resident of SD to sign): https://www.change.org/p/governor-dennis-daugaard-south-dakota-legislature-special-session

This article may also help answer some questions you may have: http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/outdoors/4247468-gfp-anglers-need-make-own-decision-regarding-restricted-lakes

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[walleyebuster]

This pretty much clears it up, don’t you think?

They are closing accesses on lakes you might be able to fish legally. Must have to be a politician to figure that one out

Here is what was in the Mitchell article

The South Dakota Game, Fish & Parks Department will not be giving “black and white answers” on a Supreme Court decision regarding certain South Dakota bodies of water

GF&P Secretary Kelly Hepler said Friday the state will not take a position as to whether people can use the bodies of non-meandering water overlying private property that were given restricted access.

“We’re not telling you can go fish and we’re not saying you can’t,” Hepler said in an interview with The Daily Republic.

[HotFiretiger]

That’s their way of not making a decision and postponing it even further. This has been a fight for a while now. Yes, it is all currently a “gray” area. However, gray area or not – shutting down the public landings to these lakes means you aren’t getting out there to fish. In my mind, that’s a problem when a lot of the lakes are mostly public already. (As shown above)

[backup63]

Thanks for the info. I can totally see the property owners side if they are being taxed for underwater land that is public access, but If most of the lake is on public land they should be able to use it. What a mess!

[brizzle87]

Could anyone tell me if dry lake just north of willow lake is open to fishing for the winter. I was out there just this last week for work and i wouldn’t mind trying it out this winter. Any info on this would be great. Thanks.

[snow]

Sounds like the gfp’s need to pay some $$$ for use of said lake to the land owners just like all the public walkin land we have to hunt,landowners get a paycheck.

[Bim]

You hit the nail on the head,Snow. I am baffled that the lawmakers in SD can’t deal with this controversy.

[pulleye16]

backup63 wrote:
Thanks for the info. I can totally see the property owners side if they are being taxed for underwater land that is public access, but If most of the lake is on public land they should be able to use it. What a mess!

Try reversing this scenario similar to what happened on WBL. Would these same land owners than give up their lake front if the water receded beyond their property lines? I bet they’d all have super long docks over public (the dried up lake) land so they could use the lake.

[Author]

Posts