SoDakLiberty.com shutting down, new projects forthcoming
For almost five years now I’ve following South Dakota politics and blogged about it here on SoDakLiberty.com. It has been an interesting project and I definitely learned a lot doing so. Now it is time for this particular project to end. This has been coming for about the last half a year, as many have noticed due to the decreased amount of blogging done. I have multiple other projects going on, and honestly this is the one that takes the most time when done right. This is NOT however the end of me writing about politics in South Dakota. I will be doing some guest blogging for a couple of other sites. Additionally I will be part of a new project that is coming out either later this year or early in 2018. I’m really looking forward to this new project and believe it will do a lot to help the voters of South Dakota become well informed as they cast ballots.
Thank-you to everyone who supported me in this project!
I think I’ll end this particular post with a song:
Legislature passes non-meandered water bill, here is a recap of what it does
Yesterday the legislature convened for a special session in order to pass a non-meandered waters access bill. The legislature passed the bill and the Governor signed it into law right away. With one amendment to the sunset clause, this is the same bill which passed the summer study committee. Last week I did an in-depth look at the bill. In this post I will simply recap what the new law does.
Throughout this post when I am talking about nonmeandered waters, I am talking about nonmeandered waters with public access unless I specify otherwise. Landlocked nonmeandered waters and nonmeandered waters connected to meandered waters are different issues from what this law deals with.
Later this week I will have pictures and comments from the proceedings in yesterdays special session.
This law defines meandered lake, nonmeandered lake, and recreational use
Here are the definitions set out in the law:
(3) “Meandered lake,” any natural water body, except a river or stream, for which a meander line survey was included as part of the official survey conducted by the United States surveyor general for the land on which the lake is situated and the meander lines are shown on plats made by the United States General Land Office;
(4) “Nonmeandered lake,” any natural lake that is not a meandered lake;
(5) “Recreational use,” except as otherwise provided bylaw, use for outdoor sporting and leisure activities, including, but not limited to, hunting, fishing, swimming, floating, boating, and trapping.
To understand the definitions above the definition of lake from administrative rules must be used. Here is Administrative Rule 74:51:01:01, which defines lake:
“Lake,” a pond, reservoir, or other body of water, created by either natural or artificial means, but not a pond or appurtenance that is used for the treatment and disposal of wastes and that is permitted for such uses
Basically, any water on land that got there by natural means is a non-meandered lake, regardless of size (with the exception of the meandered lakes).
This law reopens most of the lakes GFP closed access to earlier this spring.
Earlier this spring GFP closed access to over two dozen lakes because they felt the recent SD Supreme Court ruling compelled them to. This new non-meander law now reopens most of those lakes. Any lakes involved in the Supreme Court rulings will remain closed.
The lakes specifically opened by the law are:
- Casey’s Slough, Cottonwood GPA, Dry #1, Dry #2, Round, and Swan in Clark County
- Deep and Goose in Codington County
- East Krause, Lynn, and Middle Lynn, in Day County
- North Scatterwood in Edmunds County
- Three Buck in Hamlin County
- Bullhead, Cattail-Kettle, and Opitz in Marshall County
- Island South in McCook County
- Keisz in McPherson County
- Grass, Loss, Scott, and Twin in Minnehaha County
- Twin in Sanborn County
- Cottonwood and Mud in Spink County
- Cottonwood in Sully County
- Dog Ear in Tripp County
It is worth noting that four of the above lakes were not listed in lakes originally closed by the GFP. These four lakes are:
- Round in Clark County
- Opitz in Marshall County
- Island South in McCook County
- Cottonwood in Sully County
GFP must have closed access to the four above lakes after the original decision by the department to close down over two dozen lakes.
Today the GFP sent out a press release letting people know they will try to get access to these lakes right away. Here is part of what the press release says.
By the end of today, GFP staff will have removed all cables that previously restricted access to nearly 30 nonmeandered lakes. Full services will be restored by the end of the week; which includes having docks back in the water.
Nonmeandered waters with public access are open by default unless posted
A huge part of this law is that it allows access to nonmeandered waters over private land by default. Landowners are able to post signs or buoys to mark their land with nonmeandered waters off limits for recreation. Landowners who choose to block of non-meandered waters over private land will have to do so at their own cost; however the GFP will provide signage to be purchased to uniformity can be established for that signage. Until the GFP has signs available, landowners are able to use their own signage. Eventually the GFP will make rules for the signage that must be followed.
Landowners must also notify the GFP “within a reasonable time frame” of any non-meandered waters marked as off-limits. The GFP will update their maps and other reference material with this information.
Another thing to remember here is that the recreater, fisherman, or sportsman must have legal access in order to use a non-meandered water. This can be from a right-of-way, public roadway, or other public land connected to that non-meandered body.
Anyone caught trespassing on these marked off waters is guilty of criminal trespass. But if the trespass is incidental (such as a fishing lure touching the ground) there is no criminal trespass.
The lakes opened by name have a different process to close access
The lakes opened specifically in this law by name have a different process to follow if landowners wish to mark the nonmeandered waters above their private land as off-limits. These landowners must petition the GFP Commission for permission to restrict access for recreational use.
This law allows the GFP to create agreements with landowners
To facilitate access to nonmeandered lakes the GFP can create agreements with landowners. The GFP can negotiate with landowners to “acquire, by gift, grant, devise, purchase, lease, or license, recreational use of all or any portion of any nonmeandered lake overlying private property.”
One section of this bill prevents the GFP from entering into perpetual leases. It does this by specifying that the GFP cannot lease land for more than ten years.
Landowners can give permission to recreate, but cannot make money from fishing if they restrict access to the public
One section of the bill allows landowners to give permission to others to recreate on waters above their private property.
Another section states that if a landowner decides to mark their portion of a non-meandered body of water over their property as off-limits, then that same landowner cannot make money granting anyone access to fishing.
Landowners are protected from lawsuits
One section of the law protects the landowners with non-meandered waters above their property by ensuring they are not held liable for accidents used from public recreation.
The bed and frozen surface are off-limits.
This bill prevents people from walking, wading, standing, or operating a motor vehicle on the bed of a nonmeandered water over private land. Additionally it prevents hunting and trapping on the ice over a nonmeandered water that lies over private property unless there is permission from the landowner.
A road through the lake
If a landowner or landowners marks their part(s) of a non-meandered body off-limits that is in between two parts of the water where the public can recreate, this law allows for a “transportation lane” going through the water over the private property. The GFP has to create the standards for these transportation lanes.
The GFP has regulatory authority over nonmeandered waters
The GFP can set regulation for the “management, use, and improvement of all … nonmeandered lakes … for the purpose of water conservation or recreation”. One thing to note here is that it doesn’t say all nonmeandered lakes with public access, it actually would appear to include landlocked nonmeandered lakes. This power was touted as essential for the GFP to be able to implement the rest of this law.
In 2019 the GFP will report to the legislature
In 2019 the GFP will provide a report with a lot of metrics to the Executive Board of the Legislative Research Council. This portion of the law was to help some of the concerns about unintended consequences with the law. This will allow the legislature to see in a few years just how well this law is working out.
There is a sunset to this law in 2018
Having a report in 2019 was not enough answer the many concerns legislators have with this law. There are some legislators who wanted to ensure this law was re-looked at in the 2018 legislative; or that it would go away in 2018 if the law was so horrible that it was causing more harm than good. Going into the session this bill had a July 2021 sunset for the law to expire. The bill was amended in the Senate to change that to the end of June in 2018.
Finally this law was passed with an emergency clause
This bill was passed with an emergency clause so it could take effect immediately. Otherwise it would have been ninety days before it could take effect.
Viewpoints from a couple of sportsmen groups opposed to the draft non-meandered water legislation
Yesterday I published a post explaining why I think from a property rights perspective the draft non-meandered waters legislation is bad. I do understand there will be some give/take in the final solution (which may or may not be the draft legislation). I’ve had some people ask me to post some points the sportsmen groups are opposed to. In this post I will look at what a couple of sportsmen groups are saying is bad with the current draft legislation.
First there is an opinion piece published in the Rapid City Journal by Chris Hesla, South Dakota Wildlife Federation Executive Director. The SDWF currently opposes the draft legislation. Here are a few reasons given by Hesla:
This bill allows private individuals to close public waters overlying private property without public input and without a process for the public to petition to open closed waters. This is not balance. Balance is, at the least, allowing the public a right to petition to open closed waters.
Further, this bill allows mass commercialization of a public resource. Although the bill prohibits landowners from receiving financial compensation in exchange for granting permission to fish closed public waters, it does not prevent other types of compensation; does not apply the same restrictions to lessees; does not prevent an owner from receiving financial compensation in exchange for granting other access including hunting; and does not prevent individuals from forming a legal entity that purchases submerged property and then allows exclusive access to members/shareholders. This is not balance. Balance is either opening public waters to all or closing public waters to all.
Hesla also notes that the legislature never actually states recreational use is a beneficial use for waters of South Dakota. For the last couple of months the SDWF has been promoting its twelve words fix to South Dakota Water Law. This fix would have modified SD Codified Law 46-1-3; the law which says that water is the property of the people. Here is the current text of this law:
It is hereby declared that all water within the state is the property of the people of the state, but the right to the use of water may be acquired by appropriation as provided by law.
Here is the 12 word fix promoted by the SDWF, the language they would add has been underlined:
It is hereby declared that all water within the state is the property of the people of the state, and recreational use is a beneficial and lawful use of these waters.
butthe right to the use of water may be acquired by appropriation as provided by law.
That particular solution did not gain any traction with the summer study committee.
I’ve also seen many sportsmen and sportsmen groups passing around links on social media asking them to utilize the Take Action listed on the Backcountry Hunters & Anglers website. Here is the letter the group wants people to send to the Governor and state legislators (plus some personal words added, always a good idea when sending form letters):
South Dakota hunters and anglers ask you to join us in defending public recreational use of the state’s non-meandered waters by working with sportsmen on a more realistic legislative solution which honors the state’s obligation to manage the state’s waters under the public trust, for the benefit of the people of South Dakota.
While improvements have been made, the current draft legislation would allow the privatization of the public access to public waters that has been enjoyed by generations of sportsmen. We urge the legislature to amend the bill in the following ways:
-Section 6 needs to prohibit any fee for access to public waters for hunting, fishing, and other recreation.
-Section 5 and section 9 need to specify that if a body of water is closed to public recreation, it must be closed for everyone including the landowner.
-Section 9 needs to include a process whereby the public can petition to have a portion of a water opened for public recreational use.Public recreational use of the state’s waters helps sustain 13,380 jobs and $69,457,706 in state and local taxes generated from hunting, fishing, boating and wildlife viewing annually. Any loss in public water access threatens this growing economic driver, as well as the ability of future generations of sportsmen to enjoy our state-owned waters.
This particular letter does specifically call out sections 5, 6, and 9 as needing changed from a sportsmen perspective. I think the group did a good job of explaining why they think these sections are bad.
I do understand where the sportsmen groups are coming from. Like most people I want to find a solution which allows the recreation industry in South Dakota to flourish while respecting property rights. It should be interesting to see what happens during the special session on Monday.
A few thoughts about why I think the Non-Meandered waters draft legislation is bad
Edited 6/10/17 – Changed wording about the lawyer as the old wording made is sound like he represented families in non-meandered waters lawsuits.
Yesterday I posted a look at the draft non-meandered waters legislation which the legislature will vote on in a special session on Monday. As I mentioned in that post, I really do not like this bill and hope it is defeated in special session. In this post I will look at a few reasons I oppose the bill. I will also mention that even though I am a sportsman, I am coming at this purely from a landowner perspective. There are sportsmen groups out there giving many good reasons for sportsmen to oppose this bill.
The good of the bill
Even though I oppose the bill I do think there are a few good parts to it. I thought it might be worth mentioning those parts there. I like the fact there is a liability clause added for non-meandered water which has been opened to the public. There is no reason the landowner should burden the cost of any accidents which occurs on waters landowners are forced to open to the public. Second, I like that there is a sunset. If the bill ends up making matters worse (which I think it will) there is hope it will go away. That about sums up the really good parts of the bill.
First bad thing: This bill does not come from the legislative committee
I will only mention this briefly. The legislative committee did not write this bill. They did a little amending to the bill during the final committee meeting, but overall this is not their bill. It appears the legislation was written by lawyer and lobbyist Matt McCaulley, who also represents landowners as a lobbyist during these proceedings. The Governors office and GFP also seem to have had major input into the drafting of the bill.
I commend some of the legislators for getting out there and listening to the concerns of constituents. But in the end the solution going forth is not one created by the legislature. Instead it was created by a special interest lawyer, the GFP, and the Governor’s Office.
Property rights are important!
For this section I will defer to part of what Rep Elizabeth May (R, Dist 27) posted on Facebook.
Both the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution provide “due process” protections for “life, liberty and PROPERTY” We hear a lot about courts and POLITICIANS protecting the rights to life and liberty – but we don’t hear so much about PROPERTY. Property rights are clearly as important as other individual rights in the US Constitution that protects the individual right to ownership of private property against infringement by national and state government power.
Here is the text from the Fifth Amendment. I have highlighted the important portion:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Which leads us to the Fourteenth Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Just as with the Fifth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment ensures the State does not deprive any landowner of their property without due process. But even more, the Fourteenth Amendment also ensures people within the State have their rights equally protected. To expand upon this I will defer to an article written by David Ganje for the Farm Forum:
The bill legalizes discrimination among the lakes. The plain meaning of words used in the bill create two sets of laws for nonmeandered waters. The bill does this by using the word ‘notwithstanding.’ The late Justice Scalia in a book on statutory interpretations wrote that to use the word ‘notwithstanding’ performs a function opposite that of ‘subject to.’ The bill language ‘Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act’ indicates the provisions which follow the clause are not subject to the other provisions of the Act. The designated lakes listed in the bill, and any landowners owning land underneath the lakes, are not subject to the rules, protections and provisions of the rest of the bill. The bill creates two sets of laws. One for the designated lakes identified in the bill and another set for all other nonmeandered lakes. To explain the correctness of this reading, one need only look at the section of the bill following. Under that section, a landowner on a designated lake must first seek permission from the state before he might put up signs or markers over his property. Other nonmeandered landowners can put up signs. The rights, duties and liabilities of the landowners under the designated lakes are not the same as the rights, duties and liabilities of the landowners under all other nonmeandered lakes.
I would highly recommend reading the whole article here. Ganje lists many reasons to oppose this legislation. I wonder how long it will take before a landowner sues the state just for the reasons Ganje states above.
The public trust doctrine does not mean there has to be access to the water by the public
I’ve spent more time than I thought possible researching the public trust doctrine (for a different project). Nothing in my research leaves me to believe the public trust doctrine means that anyone in the public, including sportsmen, have a right to water over private property. And from reading the SD Supreme Court cases, I don’t see where the legislature has to open up any waters for recreating. Instead the Supreme Court said it is up to the legislature to decide whether recreation would be a beneficial use.
Now, at the same time the current state law does not seem to allow landowners to utilize these non-meandered waters. There are some special exceptions for landowners to use water, such as for irrigation and dams to water cattle. But overall it would appear nobody should be doing anything with non-meandered waters. This is where the legislature should be focusing. Make a law that clearly states how waters on private property should be treated.
Game, Fish, and Parks already has too much power
Actually my biggest heartache with this proposed legislation has to do with giving the GFP regulatory authority over all non-meandered lakes. Part of the bill gives the GFP the power to regulate “The management, use, and improvement of all … nonmeandered lakes … for the purpose of water conservation or recreation”. There are no restrictions saying this is only for nonmeandered lakes with public access. There are no restrictions about the size or age of a lake.
Actually the definition of a lake is itself a problem. During testimony it was mentioned that lakes are defined in an Administrative Rule, specifically 74:51:01:01. Here is the definition of lake from that rule:
“Lake,” a pond, reservoir, or other body of water, created by either natural or artificial means, but not a pond or appurtenance that is used for the treatment and disposal of wastes and that is permitted for such uses
I don’t think this definition really reduces the qualms many have. Why would the legislature agree to give GFP regulatory access over non-meandered waters; especially when it appears any little puddle on a field could be counted as a non-meandered lake.
It might be worth mentioning that the GFP is one of the (if not the) largest law enforcement agency in the state. The GFP is not the tree-hugging bear-loving rangers from kids cartoons. The GFP officers are gun-carrying law enforcement officers with search and seizure powers other law enforcement agencies don’t have. Additionally the GFP has a highly closed budgetary process and no true oversight from outside of the executive branch. Some will say the GFP is overseen by a board, but this board is appointed by the Governor and at times seems to be more of a board which enables the GFP to do whatever it wants. I would be much better if the GFP Commission actually provided oversight and was chosen by either the people or the legislative branch.
Words from a landowner on 81
Here is a short audio clip worth listening to. It was the testimony given by a landowner before the legislative committee. I think this landowner does a good job relaying the frustrations many farmers are feeling.
Semi-final thoughts
I have more reasons to oppose this bill. yet I am already making this post much longer than I intended. If I have time before the special session I shall post more about why I hope this bill is defeated.
Non-meandered waters special session on Mon June 12, posts forthcoming
This afternoon SD Governor Dennis Daugaard called the special session to deal with non-meandered waters will be on Monday, June 12, at 10:00 am. Here is the press release sent out by the Governor’s office:
PIERRE, S.D. – Gov. Dennis Daugaard has called a special legislative session to consider legislation relating to public recreational use of non-meandered waters overlying private property.
After consulting with legislative leaders from both political parties, the Governor is calling the special session for Monday, June 12, 2017, at 10 a.m. CDT, at the State Capitol in Pierre.
“The interim legislative committee considered hours of testimony and struck a good compromise that balanced the rights of landowners with the ability for sportsmen to use public waters for recreation,” said the Governor. “I hope the Legislature can act quickly to resolve this long-standing issue.”
I will have a post looking at the current draft legislation posted some time tomorrow (June 8). Following that I will have a post giving my opinion of the legislation. Spoiler alert: I do not like the current legislation at all in its current form and hope the Governor’s office has not been able to strong-arm the 2/3 votes necessary to pass the legislation. This legislation may fix the tourism industry crisis created by the Governor’s office and GFP, but is a direct attack on property rights. Actually many sportsmen groups also feel the current draft legislation is an attack on public doctrine rights.
I plan to be in attendance on June 12 to witness this special session in person. We will see how many legislators make it (any legislator unwilling or unable to make the trip are an automatic no vote!).
Non-meandered committee passed a bill. Posts forthcoming next week.
The non-meandered waters committee meeting in Pierre today was successful. With a bit of amending, the committee’s previous draft was passed with only two nay votes. This means a special session is imminent, and the Governor confirmed as such today. Since I am currently on the other side of the state for my son’s lacrosse games in Rapid City, I will not be able to blog about the bill as amended. I will instead wait until Monday or Tuesday to do so. Have a great weekend everyone.
Video: Non-meandered waters meeting in Webster, this one was more landowner oriented
Last night I attended a non-meandered meeting at The Galley in Webster. The meeting was organized by the Webster Area Chamber of Commerce. The purpose of this meeting was to provide an updated to the public about the current draft legislation and receive input from the public. I attended and recorded the meeting for all to view. This meeting was interesting because it was more property-owner oriented; as opposed to the previous meeting I recorded in Watertown, which was more sportsman oriented. This meeting accepted questions and comments directly from the public.
Here is the list of speakers at the event:
- Marcia Lefman – Marcia opened the meeting as a representative of the Webster Chamber of Commerce. My hats off to her and others for organizing this event on very short notice!
- Sen Jason Frerichs (D, Dist 1) – Frerichs is a member of the Summer Study trying to come up with a solution to some of the non-meandered waters issues.
- Rep Steven McCleerey (D, Dist 1) – McCleerey is also on the non-meandered waters summer study.
- Mark Ermer – Ermer works for GFP in Webster as the Regional Program Manager- Fisheries at South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks.
- Mike Klosowski – Klosowski is out of the Watertown GFP office and is the NE SD Regional Conservation Officer Supervisor.
In the audience Paul Dennert was in attendance; who happens to be one of the GFP Commissioners. Also in attendance from the state level was Rep Drew Dennert (R, Dist 3).
This was a huge crowd. I would estimate there were over two-hundred in attendance, probably closer to two hundred and fifty.
Below is the video of this event. It is just under one hour and forty-five minutes long. The video can alternatively be viewed directly on YouTube.
Tomorrow is the next and possibly final meeting of the Summer Study. I plan to be in attendance to see first-hand what occurs.
Non-meandered waters meetings in Webster and Rapid City on Weds May 31
The final (maybe) meeting of the Regulation of Access to and Use of Non-Meandered Waters on Public and Private Property Study legislative committee this Friday, June 2; which will lead into a likely July 12 special session for the legislature. With the issue of non-meandered waters being so important there have been public meetings announced around the state to discuss the issue. Earlier I noted a meeting will happen tonight (May 30) in Sioux Falls and a meeting tomorrow (May 31) in Watertown. I now have information about two more meetings, one in Webster and one in Rapid City.
The Webster meeting is being held on Wednesday, May 31, at 7:00 pm at The Galley. Here is the information about the meeting from the Webster Area Chamber of Commerce Facebook Event:
Hello:
Please pass the word to everyone that there will be a discussion in Webster on Wednesday, May 31 at 7 p.m. at The Galley, 230 Hwy 12, Webster to talk about the non-meandered waters use.The State Legislature must determine whether and how the public may use non-meandered waters for recreational purposes. State leaders are encouraging everyone to stay informed as the Legislative Task Force works toward a solution. The Webster Area Chamber of Commerce has helped organize the event and it will just be an update on our status and gather some feedback.
We are happy to host Senator Jason Frerichs (serving Brown, Day, Marshall and Roberts counties) along with the House Representative Steven McCleerey (serving Brown, Day, Marshall & Roberts counties) plans to attend and possibly Senator Brock Greenfield (serving Brown, Clark, Hamlin & Spink counties) if it works in his schedule. Also, South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks will be there along with various stakeholders.
We need all of you there so you’ll stay informed and help input your thoughts concerning this issue so that our State Legislature will consider your feedback when putting this into law for the state.
Everyone is welcome. Please join us!
Sincerely,
Marcia Lefman
Secretary/Treasurer
Webster Area Chamber of Commerce
I had originally planned on going to the Watertown event tomorrow. But I’ve already attended and recorded one Watertown event, and Webster is closer to me, so I believe I will be attending the Webster meeting.
The Rapid City meeting is somewhat less of a public event, but it might be interesting for people in that area to attend. It is being hosted by the Prairie Hills Audubon Society (PHAS). I believe this is the regular meeting of the PHAS, but it does say everyone is welcome on their webpage. Here is the info about the event from the PHAS website:
May, 31st, Wednesday eve, Topic: Non-meandered Waters Legislative Summer Study and associated issues
Prairie Hills Audubon Society evening meetingOutdoor Campus West, Rapid City6:30 pm start.
If you scroll down the front page of the PHAS website there is actually quite a bit of good information and links for people trying to understand the issue of non-meandered waters. As Cory Heidelberger over at Dakota Free Press points out, the PHAS is opposed to the current draft legislation. I think it is important for all parties in support or opposition of this legislation be heard.
I would urge anyone able to attend the meetings in Webster, Watertown, Sioux Falls, or Rapid City to do so if possible. And if anyone hears of any other meeting please let me know. I’ll bring some attention to it here, and I will attend if possible.
My Memorial Day song playlist
It has been a while since I’ve done a song playlist on this site. To rectify this I though it would be appropriate to list my favorite five songs remembering those who gave their lives serving the USA. Please take a moment this holiday weekend to think about and quietly thank those soldiers for giving everything.
This list is country-heavy and is not listed in any particular order. Well except for the last one… That one is special for me…
1 – Arlington by Trace Adkins
This song from Trace is a tribute to those resting in Arlington National Cemetery.
2- If You’re Reading This by Tim McGraw
This song was written as if a letter was sent by a fallen soldier to their family.
3 – 50,000 Names by George Jones
A tribute to the soldiers listed on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall.
4- More Than a Name on a Wall by the Statler Brothers
Another song inspired by the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall .
5 – Some Gave All by Billy Ray Cyrus
I was never a big fan of Billy Ray Cyrus, but this song will always have a special place in my heart. I often think of this song as I remember my time being deployed in the army; not everyone was fortunate enough to come back home.