Perhaps you are aware of the Peters case in Aurora County, and the town of White Lake in particular. It involves our SD Game, Fish, & Parks Department vs. Dr. Jeff Peters, allegedly of White Lake. I say “allegedly” because that is what the case is about. SDGF&P felt that Peters was not a resident, and therefore was not entitled to resident hunting licenses.

I’m in no position to judge Peters’ innocence or guilt as I do not know the particulars of the case. However, I suspect that Peters “jumped through the hoops” as outlined in our hunting regulations handbook. These include “having a domicile within the state for 90 consecutive days immediately preceding hunting license application” and having a valid South Dakota driver’s license.

Jeff Peters was born and raised in Stickney. He graduated from SDSU, and currently owns a modest home in White Lake as well as a 581 acre pasture in Aurora County. He spent most of his life practicing optometry in Colorado, and has a home in Colorado where he spends most of his time. His wife also lives in his Colorado home. SDGF&P’s argument is simple enough: “Home” is where you actually live. In the article I read, there is no mention of state income tax, and Colorado has a state income tax. Was Colorado satisfied with Peters’ status as a South Dakotan?

Dr. Peters seems to think that since he is a veteran who actually spent some time in Iraq, this status should enter into the equation. I certainly thank him for his service, but I don’t see where his service record has any relevancy. What is relevant is that in 2017, Peters claims he moved his life back to South Dakota and his White Lake home. He also obtained a South Dakota driver’s license. The question seems to come down to how much of his time is now spent in White Lake. I cannot answer that question, but apparently there was much research into this issue by SDGF&P.

When I taught at the Tripp-Delmont School (1997-2003) after spending most of my years as a principal, I had a career class for the 8th graders on Friday mornings. For one of those sessions I invited the local conservation officer. One of the students asked him how he spent most of his time. He spent most of his time checking to see if those who claimed SD residency in his county were actually residents. I have a personal interest in this residency issue as Betsy and I actually own a second home in Wisconsin where we spend time with family. With my health issues and the proximity to the U. of W. hospital, this home has become increasingly important to us.

I see no clear winner in this case. Dr. Peters plead guilty to a lesser plea bargain charge which enables him to hunt as a resident after spending many thousands of dollars in legal fees. SDGF&P did get a conviction to the plea bargained lesser charge, but I don’t see this as a victory.

In my opinion, the above stated definition of resident is a gray area. Perhaps the definition should include the number of days in a year spent within the state. Had it been this way, Peters would have been able to weigh his options in deciding whether or not he wanted to live in White Lake for this period of time. I don’t know that my number of days within the state is a solution, but I do know that the definition needs work.

During the above-mentioned case, SDGF&P made a point of emphasizing the importance of protecting the rights we South Dakota residents possess. They recognized the fact that jobs in South Dakota generally pay less than the norm, and that in a way we actually “pay” for the right to be South Dakotans. This is true. Throughout my career I was offered positions in Iowa, Minnesota, and Wyoming that paid almost half again as much as I was getting as a South Dakotan. Did I ever leave South Dakota? No I didn’t. Today I feel blessed to call myself a South Dakotan.

This last paragraph brings up the reason I wrote about the Peters case today. If SDGF&P recognizes the fact that they must protect our right to hunt and fish in South Dakota, why do they sometimes seem so anxious to pass our rights on to nonresidents? It is all about money. Rather than raising more dollars by selling us out, our SDGF&P must learn to manage what revenue we have.

See you next week.