Compliance Checks Critical to Wildlife Conservation
Scroll to bottom of page for Q & A on Open Fields and policy on employees entering private lands)

In the early 1900’s, wildlife populations across the country were vanishing due in large part to over harvest.  Citizen conservationists banded together to promote the enactment of laws to protect wildlife from further demise.  Through their efforts, laws establishing hunting seasons, bag limits and other important harvest regulations were put in place.  Hunters and anglers stepped forward and encouraged the promulgation of laws requiring hunting and fishing licenses, thereby providing a funding mechanism for fish and wildlife conservation.  These same folks pressed the US Congress to establish excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment to further fund necessary wildlife management and conservation activities.  State legislatures across the country created wildlife agencies, like the Department of Game, Fish and Parks.  And all states hired conservation officers, game wardens, rangers or other conservation law enforcement professionals and charged them with the enforcement of the state’s fish and game laws. 

Since the earliest days of statehood, conservation officers have carried out their enforcement responsibilities through the use of compliance checks here in South Dakota.  These informal contacts with hunters and anglers in the field provide the public with assurance that laws and regulations established by the South Dakota Legislature and Game, Fish and Parks Commission are being followed.  By Game, Fish and Parks Policy, conservation officers are allowed to go onto private land to conduct compliance checks in “open fields” only when they have visible evidence that hunting or fishing is actually occurring.  Compliance checks provide a critically important deterrent to anyone who might consider violating the wildlife laws of the state.   Without the ability to make personal contact with a hunter or angler in the field, it would be all but impossible for a conservation officer to know if that person had the proper license, was abiding by the bag limits, or was adhering to the numerous other restrictions enacted to protect and manage wildlife for the citizens of our state.   

Over the past 75 years, courts throughout the United States have reviewed the question of law enforcement officers entering the open fields of private lands in the line of duty.  The U.S. Supreme Court has rendered a series of important decisions supporting the ability of law enforcement officers to make contacts and conduct searches in open fields, leading to what is now commonly referred to as the “Open Fields Doctrine.”  The courts have made it clear that the US Constitution’s 4^th Amendment restricts law enforcement officers, including conservation officers, from entering homes or farmsteads to conduct searches without permission or a lawfully obtained search warrant.  These same courts have said repeatedly that this right to privacy does not extend into the open fields of private or public land.  In other words, the protections of the 4^th Amendment to the US Constitution do not apply to any areas that would be classified as an open field.  In essence, the courts have said that a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in an open field.

Wildlife is a “public trust resource”.  It is owned in common by ALL the citizens of our state, whether that wildlife is found on public or private land.  Our Legislature acts as trustee for this valuable resource.  Conservation officers, working under the mandates of the Legislature, work to protect the public’s interest in our wildlife resources through the use of compliance checks, investigations and other conservation law enforcement actions.  They do this under authority and constraints set forth by the United States Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court, the State Constitution, the State Legislature and State courts.  The officers ensure  they adhere to these authorities and constraints under guidance provided by the State Attorney General’s Office and self-imposed, Game, Fish and Parks policy.   

During two previous legislative sessions, the propriety of conservation officers conducting these license and compliance checks on private lands has been questioned.  There were bills that attempted to prevent conservation officers from entering private land to conduct compliance checks without landowner permission.  Following lengthy debate, the Legislature resisted making any changes to the Open Fields Doctrine as it applies to conservation officers.  By doing so, the Legislature reiterated one of the principal foundations our legal and justice system, that all citizens are treated fairly under the law. 

Our Legislature has enacted laws to mandate specific license requirements and regulate hunting and fishing activity through various other laws.  They have further mandated the Game, Fish and Parks Commission to promulgate additional and more specific regulations and stipulated that the Department of Game, Fish and Parks hire conservation officers to enforce these laws.  It would seem irresponsible to purposely prevent the enforcement of these important laws over a large part of the state that is held in private ownership.

The Department of Game, Fish and Parks has worked closely with the SD Office of the Attorney General over the past several decades to closely review our policies and all of the applicable case law pertaining to the open fields issue.  Each year, the SD Attorney General or the US Department of Justice provide a specific block of training to all conservation officers during in-service training so that officers are provided with the most up to date information and court decisions pertinent to this issue. 

Additionally, over the past 2 years, the Department has refocused efforts to improve communications and outreach with our state’s landowners in an attempt to heal any perceived rifts through an “Eight-Point Communication Enhancement Plan”.  These important relationship-building efforts will continue and further expand as new outreach initiatives are developed.  Legislation in effect repealing the Open Fields Doctrine would nullify this effort, as can be witnessed by court rulings which did the same thing in the State of Montana.

While the issue of public wildlife inhabiting private land will continue to pose a challenge, Game, Fish and Parks remains firmly committed to working with landowners all across the state to manage these important resources for today and more importantly, for future generations.   We embrace the challenge. 

Respectfully,

Emmett J. Keyser
Assistant Director – Field Operations
Division of Wildlife
SD Game, Fish and Parks