HB 1236 Safety Zone Increase

[Mr_Tibbs]

All,

Not sure what the rules are on politics on the board, but the SD State house has passed HB 1236, which would increase the safety buffer around dwellings and livestock from the 660 feet it has been for many years to 1320 feet, effectively eliminating a fair swath of public road hunting areas that are currently legal. I have my personal feelings about the bill, but I’m not here to state that. I just wanted to get the word out to contact your senate representative ahead of their vote if you have opinions (positive or negative) on the bill because I think this one has flown under the radar for most people.

 

[A5 Sweet 16]

SOUTH DAKOTA HUNTERS!!!

HB 1236 - Expanding the 1/8 mile safety zone to 1/4 mile.

This easily passed the House & will be considered by the Senate Ag Committee Tuesday 2-25!! If we do nothing, it'll pass the Senate just as easily. I talked to my District Senator, who suggested I send a letter to each of the 7 Senators on the Ag & Natural Resources Committee. I believe they meet at 10:00 Tuesday, & people are able to call in to testify. I won't be able to do that, but you can!

Here's a copy of the text of my letter. You may use it as you see fit.

 

[Limitless]

SOUTH DAKOTA HUNTERS!!!

HB 1236 - Expanding the 1/8 mile safety zone to 1/4 mile.

This easily passed the House & will be considered by the Senate Ag Committee Tuesday 2-25!! If we do nothing, it'll pass the Senate just as easily. I talked to my District Senator, who suggested I send a letter to each of the 7 Senators on the Ag & Natural Resources Committee. I believe they meet at 10:00 Tuesday, & people are able to call in to testify. I won't be able to do that, but you can!

Here's a copy of the text of my letter. You may use it as you see fit.

View attachment 10761View attachment 10762

Well worded. The inability to see a quarter mile away sometimes was what immediately came to mind when I heard about this. Better limit your shooting duration to as long as it takes the cattle from over the hill to get to the edge of the field, around he bend in the road, that you'd now have to check before starting the hunt, but can't see while hunting.

Why stop there? Why not make it a no shooting zone for a quarter mile around the entire perimeter of the property in question, whether from neighboring public or private land or shooting preserve or body of water? What's that? Some public lands are too small to allow for that restriction? Oh well, have to do it in the name of safety, I guess.

I'm not a SD resident. But if I was, I would be demanding state supplied awnings for over the top of my buildings and wherever my livestock choose to go. If 1/200ths of an oz of lead falling gracefully from the sky is such a concern, then there needs to be more protection from hail and rain and sleet. Heck, with the winds out there, a driving, icy snow can pack quite a wallop to the face too! Might need to mandate full cover face masks when outside. I believe the awning idea would protect against whoever is dumping boxes of shells out of airplanes and helicopters and drones too.

 

[dakotasj]

SOUTH DAKOTA HUNTERS!!!

HB 1236 - Expanding the 1/8 mile safety zone to 1/4 mile.

This easily passed the House & will be considered by the Senate Ag Committee Tuesday 2-25!! If we do nothing, it'll pass the Senate just as easily. I talked to my District Senator, who suggested I send a letter to each of the 7 Senators on the Ag & Natural Resources Committee. I believe they meet at 10:00 Tuesday, & people are able to call in to testify. I won't be able to do that, but you can!

Here's a copy of the text of my letter. You may use it as you see fit.

View attachment 10761View attachment 10762

I think the bill is very poorly written. Hope the final draft is much better.

Couple of things that aren't clear. It says firearms not shotguns. 22 or rifled slug could be deadly past a quarter mile.

Hunters in general are getting push back from others, which includes nonhunters, and that can have a negative impact on hunting in general. We must be respectful. SD is a big state with lots of land, lots of ditches away from dwellings, churches, barns. Why push it?

If I lived in SD and on a Saturday evening/afternoon at my home out in the county and was having at social gathering in my back yard, wedding, 6-year-old birthday party, Thanksgiving and a truck load of 4 guys/people jumped out and an unloaded 4, three-inch,12 ga autos (even 5 shot) within 670 feet of my house and party --- me, my wife, my dad, my brother and the rest of my family, to say they are not going to pleased is an understatement.

 

[molliesmaster]

I think the bill is very poorly written. Hope the final draft is much better.

Couple of things that aren't clear. It says firearms not shotguns. 22 or rifled slug could be deadly past a quarter mile.

Hunters in general are getting push back from others, which includes nonhunters, and that can have a negative impact on hunting in general. We must be respectful. SD is a big state with lots of land, lots of ditches away from dwellings, churches, barns. Why push it?

If I lived in SD and on a Saturday evening/afternoon at my home out in the county and was having at social gathering in my back yard, wedding, 6-year-old birthday party, Thanksgiving and a truck load of 4 guys/people jumped out and an unloaded 4, three-inch,12 ga autos (even 5 shot) within 670 feet of my house and party --- me, my wife, my dad, my brother and the rest of my family, to say they are not going to pleased is an understatement.

At some point, though, it becomes about as silly as moving to the lake and complaining about fishermen.

 

[dakotasj]

At some point, though, it becomes about as silly as moving to the lake and complaining about fishermen.

Can't buy that argument.
The ones I know in rural SD have been there for generations. Homes at best are modest, but great people - salt of the earth types. Its their home 365, where they raise their family and try to make a living off the land and lots of them allow us out of staters to freely hunt pheasants on their land.
Most of the homes are miles apart.
Just because you can hunt close to their homes does not mean you should.
They deserve my respect and appreciation.

 

[A5 Sweet 16]

Can't buy that argument.
The ones I know in rural SD have been there for generations. Homes at best are modest, but great people - salt of the earth types. Its their home 365, where they raise their family and try to make a living off the land and lots of them allow us out of staters to freely hunt pheasants on their land.
Most of the homes are miles apart.
Just because you can hunt close to their homes does not mean you should.
They deserve my respect and appreciation.

Obviously common sense comes into play, even when you're within the law. But when the current law isn't broken, it provides for public safety & protection of property. People who choose to break the law today will probably also break it if it's changed, so it won't have improved anything. And given that current law does accomplish its purpose, a person can reasonably hunt, abide by it, & Joe down the road doesn't HAVE to like it. I cruise by his place within the speed limit & kick up a ton of dust that drifts into his backyard party. He won't like that either, but it's just kind of tough luck. There are plenty of legal activities I don't like near my home, but I don't feel the need to impinge on someone else's freedom because those things give me some sort of creepy feeling.

 

[gim]

I don't have any skin in this game, but I can't imagine such a rule would even be enforced with any remote type of regularity.

The odds of running into an LEO are about as good as winning the lottery where I hunt. Neither has happened in almost 30 years here.

 

[Bob Peters]

I don't have any skin in this game, but I can't imagine such a rule would even be enforced with any remote type of regularity.

The odds of running into an LEO are about as good as winning the lottery where I hunt. Neither has happened in almost 30 years here.

I think it would be enforced a lot, by honest sportsmen on themselves who follow the rules. And as pointed out earlier, bad apples who don't ever read or follow the rules will break them regardless.

Now just because you never run into the warden, may be for numerous reasons. Hunting all private is one. Maybe a lazy game warden lives in St. Cloud. Maybe it's just the luck of the draw. I guess I'm on the opposite spectrum, I usually get checked several times a year. This year was the first time ever in SD. But as far as enforcement, I think this would be most common by landowners getting a license plate of someone shooting inside a safety zone and reporting to local sheriff.

The thing I would be most curious about on this bill would be any public comments by SD residents either for or against it. I wish the bill had a longer period for discourse before being put up for vote.

I've road hunted, ditch hunted, etc. before. I've always chosen to err on the side of restraint. We saw a rooster down the road from a house about 300 yards, in the ditch. I told my buddy lets leave him be, I just don't feel comfortable with it. I think most hunters act the same. Maybe this is a situation where a few bad apples have spoiled it for the rest of us.

 

[Limitless]

Maybe this is a situation where a few bad apples have spoiled it for the rest of us.

Or maybe a few flare nare liberators want to keep hunters out of nearby ditches?

 

[BrownDogsCan2]

I think it would be enforced a lot, by honest sportsmen on themselves who follow the rules. And as pointed out earlier, bad apples who don't ever read or follow the rules will break them regardless.

Now just because you never run into the warden, may be for numerous reasons. Hunting all private is one. Maybe a lazy game warden lives in St. Cloud. Maybe it's just the luck of the draw. I guess I'm on the opposite spectrum, I usually get checked several times a year. This year was the first time ever in SD. But as far as enforcement, I think this would be most common by landowners getting a license plate of someone shooting inside a safety zone and reporting to local sheriff.

The thing I would be most curious about on this bill would be any public comments by SD residents either for or against it. I wish the bill had a longer period for discourse before being put up for vote.

I've road hunted, ditch hunted, etc. before. I've always chosen to err on the side of restraint. We saw a rooster down the road from a house about 300 yards, in the ditch. I told my buddy lets leave him be, I just don't feel comfortable with it. I think most hunters act the same. Maybe this is a situation where a few bad apples have spoiled it for the rest of us.

That’s the way I feel about it. Some people are going to get called in whether the warden chooses to follow up on it or not.
Or worse yet a local farmer will give you a good ass chewing. I don’t want any part of that.

 

[gim]

Hunting all private is one.

I deer hunted on public forest land for 25 years. Still never encountered one.

I've also fished public water for over 20 years. Still never encountered one.

Perhaps it's just a coincidence but 45 years in the woods or on the water is a hell of a long time to avoid any type of detection. That being said, I follow every law and rule to a T because I have morals and believe it's the right thing to do.

I don't trust the average Joe to make the right decision when it comes to this. The people on this forum are certainly more dedicated and potentially more attune to the laws on the books while hunting, but this forum does not represent the hunting community at large either. When it comes to firearms, I trust no one unless I know them.

 

[SPUR60]

I don't have any skin in this game, but I can't imagine such a rule would even be enforced with any remote type of regularity.

The odds of running into an LEO are about as good as winning the lottery where I hunt. Neither has happened in almost 30 years here.

You'd be amazed at how many land owners/operators will confront and try to prevent you from leaving while they have the sheriff or CO on the phone if they think you broke the law.

 

[gim]

You'd be amazed at how many land owners/operators will confront and try to prevent you from leaving while they have the sheriff or CO on the phone if they think you broke the law.

I could see that.

The sheriff or CO generally has to catch you in the act to cite you too though; simply hearsay from a landowner isn't enough...unless of course one admits to it on record.

I try to stay on the good side of landowners; without them, I would have no place to hunt.

 

[Bob Peters]

. That being said, I follow every law and rule to a T because I have morals and believe it's the right thing to do.

I know from your posts you read and follow all the rules and have a good set of ethics.

I'll admit it's wild you've done so much fishing and hunting and never see a warden. I guess we're opposites in that one.


I just did a quick casual count and I've been stopped over a dozen times by a warden. I've fished the Mississippi a lot and that ups your odds. Some of the river is border water so you have 2 states with law officers. Then also in Northern Iowa around public land on weekends the dnr is out a lot.

I'm guessing my number has to be closer to 20 checks, I keep remembering another one as I type. I always chat with the warden and hope he'll toss out a secret spot to me, hasn't happened yet.

 

[Matt D]

10 years of traveling to SD and IA prior to that and never been stopped or visited by GW.

 

[WDH]

As a landowner in South Dakota, I am in favor of increasing the safety zone. The law states 660 feet from an occupied building, but most farmstead are much larger than 1 house. My cattle lot is 600 feet from my house and behind a shelter belt, yet the safety zone sign is placed according to where the house is located.
I am blessed and cursed with an abundance of upland game and waterfowl. Every year, I have waterfowl hunters sit in the ditch and pass shoot at geese just outside the safety sign, about 60 feet from the cows. With the right flight and some wind, it is not uncommon to hear pellets bouncing off of equipment/ outbuildings or seeing cattle flinch or startle due to the gunfire. I have had a couple of cows get struck in the eye, necessitating removal. If you go to talk to these people and tell them about the cattle, 70% say sorry and move down a bit, case closed. The other 30% will get upset, argue with you, and until I prove there are cattle behind the trees won't move, because the sign says they are right. I have even had one bunch call the game warden, complain I was "harassing" them. A quick GPS location and some cellphone photos are all you need to prove your case. It's not worth confronting some of these "sportsman".
I have around 6 miles of section lines that get hammered every year, I don't think adding another 660 feet to a safety zone will cause the demise of road hunting anytime soon.

 

[A5 Sweet 16]

Every year, I have waterfowl hunters sit in the ditch and pass shoot at geese just outside the safety sign, about 60 feet from the cows.

No doubt, not everyone's sensible. That said, 60' is 600' too close to your cows. There's almost no chance those guys don't know they're breaking the law. I'd call the game warden.

 

[molliesmaster]

Can't buy that argument.
The ones I know in rural SD have been there for generations. Homes at best are modest, but great people - salt of the earth types. Its their home 365, where they raise their family and try to make a living off the land and lots of them allow us out of staters to freely hunt pheasants on their land.
Most of the homes are miles apart.
Just because you can hunt close to their homes does not mean you should.
They deserve my respect and appreciation.

I'm not saying they don't deserve respect and appreciation, but part of living out in a rural area is experiencing rural activities. I fully support the 1/8th mile rule, think its a great idea and I would imagine that if it was more consistently followed there wouldn't be a mention of changing it to 1/4 mile.

My mention about fishing at the lake was more a comment on your self-reflection about what you and your family would do in the given scenario.

 

[Limitless]

The main problem I have with laws like this (not confined to this particular law or even hunting laws) is it won't solve the problem in, presumably, most instances that are an issue. If people are shooting closer than 660 feet from buildings and livestock now, making it 1320 feet won't stop those people from being closer than 660 feet with a new law. They either don't know the law, can't judge distances (which becomes a much bigger issue for everyone if it is increased), or don't care about the law.

If the real reason this is being pushed is to reduce how many flare nares get shot near preserves, then that is a completely different topic and they could have handled it differently, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater and affecting hunting everywhere.