Do you Like Bowhunting in SD?
South Dakota
If the answer is yes, and I'm sure it is, then pay attention to the GFP commission meetings in the coming months and year. They are discussing some very troubling trends regarding license allocations for archers. Limited quotas, having to select weapon/season preferences, etc. None of it is biologically based, it is only feel good measures taken because of the complaints of rifle hunters having to deal with reduced license numbers this year. Changes are coming whether we like it or not. Please make your voice heard by e-mailing the commission or attending the public meetings. We have already taken the shaft on elk tag allocations, don't let them limit our deer opportunities as well. The link above will take you to the commission page on the GFP website, read the summary minutes from the July meeting to see what I'm talking about.
Did you say "the good old days" ? They have been hinting at this for awhile now, albeit they didn't mention throwing archery in to the mix. A guys going to have to make some hard choices come application time if this all comes to pass. When the population cycle gets ramped back up, they will have to allocate more tags, if they can just do it in a timely fashion based on solid science. I give the GFP credit for what they do as it is not the easiest job. Listening to whining land owners and whining hunters would wear on most people. Trying to keep people happy would be a real PITA. I'll just throw this out for what its worth: If any of this starts to wear on you folks, just bring your bows and guns to my place and I'll start my own little buyout program, $10 for anything decent and then you will be free to watch football on the weekends. Ha!
In all seriousness, thanks for the link. I did a little looking at the current stats from 2013 projected harvest and it appears that archers take around 7000 a year, rifle hunters took 35,000 between the two main seasons. We only take 1/5 as many. The real difference is in the amount of average recreational days provided by archery. 11 days versus 3 or 4. 220,000 of the total 545,000 recreational days were spent by archers. Pretty good bang for the buck(sorry for the pun). Archers maximize recreation, rifles maximize harvest. I have always heard that the Biologist did not consider archers a viable control means, they left the population adjustments to the rifle seasons. We do need to keep the archery tags out of this drawing. I can see their concept of weighting the drawings to favor your most precious choice but I have many questions. There are currently only 200 any deer tags in the hills. Half go to landowners so we are really talking about 100 tags. Who in their right mind is going to apply for a tag that has a very low percentage of being drawn at the expense of being able to hunt anywhere that year? And OK, you roll the dice and don't get drawn. How do you now tie preference and weighting next years drawing together? Many questions?
Changes are definitely coming.
To address Grizzly's point about how they could handle the scarce tags like the Black Hills... States like NV and NM allow you to choose three "hunts" per species (all weapons lumped together). Then everyone goes into one draw. When your name is drawn they go right down your list of preferred hunts. If your first choice is not there, they go to your second, and then your third. NV lets you pick 5. If none of your choices remain, you don't get a tag and NV gives you a point for that species next year. With this type of system, you can afford to list a very hard to draw tag with your first choice and something easier farther down the list.
One very disturbing thing about the current downswing in deer populations is the continual loss of habitat. EHD gets all the news but you'd have to be blind to think that deer numbers in the east are ever going to come back to what they were a decade ago. Human population goes up, deer habitat goes down - something has to give.
Am I reading the regulations wrong? We are thinking about a Black Hills deer hunt and what I read is there are unlimited statewide archery tags ARD-ST1. I see limited amounts of antlerless ARD-LM1 tags and no antlerless tags in the Black Hills. And I see they limit the gun tags but I can't find anything about archery. Thanks
Chief, you can shoot one deer in the black hills with either a West River archery or Statewide archery tag. Buck, doe, whitey or muley. You can only shoot one. Be forwarned, if the residents have to start applying for archery tags, there will be a quota for NR's too. Glacial, what you explain does not show any method for weighting the choices, only the opportunity to be drawn? is that a fair assumption? What I see is that you draw a tag every year and never get the bonus point for the season you really want. And if after the initial draw is over, how do they go about deciding who can get a second tag for the species? is this draw tied to your first list of choices? I'm not trying to be a pain but if we cant come up with something decent we will get something less than desired. I for one, get too many tags(I really like deer hunting), I realize my way of life is changing and I want everybody to get there tag of choice but I don't have the solution either. I waited six years to be drawn for a BH any deer rifle tag, and that was four years faster than I had figured. I gave up rifle hunting in the hills for that time so I could get a chance at a muley. What about throwing the elk into the mix and seeing where everybody's priorities lie? I'm starting to rant, I better go.
Grizzly:
"What I see is that you draw a tag every year and never get the bonus point for the season you really want."
Correct, in the example I stated above that is how it works. If you list (and draw) an easy-to-draw deer tag on your application in NV or UT you will not be earning a point for any deer tag. There is only one drawing for deer and elk tags, not a bunch like we currently have here. If you don't draw, you earn one "deer" point, that is not tied to any weapon or special area. Choose wisely.
After the draw is over in those states, there might be leftover tags. That would definitely be the case in SD. Those could be handled several different ways.
Among the other states I apply for tags (UT, AZ, NV, NM, WY, & CO), none of them separate out applications like SD does. They all lump everything together into one "elk" or "deer" drawing. There are no separate applications/points for "archery deer", "muzzleloader deer" or special areas (like our "refuge" or "west river"). There is simply one drawing for elk and one for deer, so choose your weapon and unit wisely.
I don't know that this is where SD is heading, but I have heard the idea mentioned several times. It is a heck of a lot simpler administratively and it also makes it more likely that people will get the tag they REALLY want. There would still be leftover tags available in some units with this scenario too.
Best case scenario is to keep archery out of the mix. If they do put it in, it will be interesting to see the tag quotas. I have not applied in all those other states(nice problem to have) but I have applied in Wyoming and from what I can see, it looks like a mess. Maybe it makes more sense after a few years but the initial thought is WTF. I have seen some banter on the Wyo. sight about some of the needed preference points becoming almost unreachable. Sounds a little like all those people applying for unit 2 rifle elk. How do you tell them, "I know we used to do it that way, but we want to try this for awhile" The transition might be a thing of beauty in itself. Keep brainstorming.
They will keep archery out of the mix because archery hunters are such a small % of harvest numbers. I like the idea they are proposing every other western state lumps the tags together by deer or elk, I grew up in IA and it blew me away how many different tags you can get here as a resident, besides the fact you get four weeks to hunt with a rifle during the rut. In IA everyone gets one archery tag and one gun tag but our gun tags do not start till Dec. and are only for a couple of days per season and rifles are not allowed. I do feel bad for the guys who has applied for so many years.
I think the elk preference is going to be the real challenge. If all weapons/seasons are lumped together, do you get to take advantage of your largest preference point option. IE I have 20 for CSP rifle,19 for CSP late archery, about the same for CSP early archery,3 for regular archery and a 6 year wait on rifle. Do I get 20 bonus going in? That would help my regular archery substantially. I think the ineligible seasons would be easy enough to do but the ones with different points would be challenging. Giving everyone their lowest possible preference or an average does not seem right either. Or do you pull the plug and make everyone start at ground Zero. Averaging would suck for the guy who tried forever with the rifle draw and finally started to apply archery and has 17 rifle and 1 archery. Granted, giving everyone their max points would eventually weed itself out and most people would get a tag and then get in the pool with everyone else. So then, that brings up the next thing. Will the drawing be weighted also for how many points people have? Currently they use some formula that goes something like this: 50 % landowners,30% people with more than 10yr preference,15% 2-9, 5% lucky bastards with 0-1 yr preference. I saw that one person out of 5000 got a tag this year in one of the draws. You would have to feel kinda special after that. I may have these numbers off a little but you get the idea. Is the drawing slanted like this or is it a true lottery and people simply get their names placed in the drawing as many times as they have preference for? How would you weight the drawings so landowners have an advantage on their land but not on CSP options? Nothing against landowners. They feed our animals. We pay for their programs. I just don't want to end up in a medieval type system. No elk for you peasant. Maybe the 50% would have to be adjusted a tad in fairness. That's all I have for now.
I would say keep your points for each category so you have higher odds, and then only get one preference point each year going forward if you do not draw. So in your situation you would most likely put CSP rifle as your first choice and your odds would jump because guys like me would drop out of CSP all together and go for archery tags as my first choice to increase my odds of success. The way it is now everyone puts in for each season because hell it is only $5, which in return kills your odds of drawing. I would drop out of CSP all together along with hundreds of other people and you would climb up the list. If everyone got one point a year then everyone's true preference would come out. Even with deer while would I not buy a east river, west river, hills and muzzleloader point its only five dollars?
No, you figured me wrong, I would use the 20 points to increase my chances of drawing the archery tag also. But I could see a lot of people having to decide real hard on if they really wanted to list archery at all to avoid wiping out their chance at a prized rifle tag. No more preference point buying would exist. Only earning points by not being drawn. This would make some people not apply as not everyone can take the needed time to hunt each year. Instead of just buying preference, they would be forced to skip a year. I wonder if they would still allow you to purchase a species bonus point for those years when you just could not hunt or if they allow the points to carry over indefinitely.
Last year I heard a lot of guys around here complaining about the availability of archery tags and it will only get worse as they continue to cut rifle tags. I don't think they have to worry so much about the archery guys but they need to balance this being able to send in for 5 different tags. By far the most confusing draw system I have seen and like glacial I apply all over the west.
Unfortunately archery tags will get lumped into this and hopefully we get a fair shake but highly unlikely.
If I am correct, Special Buck tags were created to appease landowners out west who had clients but could not draw tags and wanted a way to increase the likelihood of clients drawing. Extra cash to the GFP along the way. Most states use NR's as a funding source and I don't have a problem with that. Would they throw these tags into the big pool as well and just keeping pricing 'em up until fair market value has been reached? Currently, NR's cant apply for east river tags until 3rd round. Would they just not have that option anymore?
Non-residents would be in a different pool and have their own tag allocations. Nonresidents could increase their draw success by applying for special buck tags first and hunt on the private land the outfitter is providing. The game and fish could have higher tag numbers here because they are forced to hunt on private land and a smart outfitter will control the numbers on his own land. They can always have a second and third choice but only receive one point for that species.
The thing that gets me is the landowner tags for elk and deer they are landowner tags that can be used on public land? So I can be a landowner with no habitat or deer on my own land but I can buy a landowner tag and use it anywhere in that unit? In IA the landowner tags are cheaper but can only be used on the landowner's land.
I am open to the new changes guarantee an archery tag to every resident and have the ability to draw one gun tag per year instead of 7. Simple as that, everyone's true preference will come out and hunters will be more picky instead of just filling a tag. I would like to see the game and fish create trophy units or trophy tags the only difference from SD and Kansas or even Iowa is the management given their is a few key habitat differences but why isn't SD on the map for trophy potential?
Landowner tags are only supposed to be used on the land the landowner owns.
Shucks I might be wrong. I just went and looked at the landowner preference and it does not say they have to use their own land. That's always how we've done it. Only on the land we own.
Randy, I can clarify a little. Landowner preference is simply preference for a tag from the general pool issued to a landowner in that unit. It is good on any land in that unit, be it public or private with permission. 50% of all tags in the general pool are allocated for landowners before any non-landowner applicant is eligible to draw. If that 50% is not given out they are added in to the general applicant pool.
You may have been thinking about the other type of landowner tag, the "Landowner-Own Land Only" tag is another option for landowners who only wish to hunt on their own farm or ranch. It guarantees one any deer or any antelope tag to the landowner or immediate family members to be used on their own ground.
I'm all for landowners having the opportunity to obtain licenses and hunt their own land at their discretion. I'm even all for transferrable tags out of this segment for the landowner's ground. Afterall it's their land and they raise the game on it. Where I question the process is why have 50% of the regular tags allocated for landowners and then have unlimited tags for landowners to use on their own land in addition to half of the regular tags? If a landowner intends to hunt on someone else's place or public then in my opinion he/she should have to pull that tag in the same manner that any other hunter who plans to hunt public or other private gets his/her tag.
I am not complaining about landowners it is just weird to me how many loop holes are in the system. For elk you do not even have to own 160 acres you can own 40 but rent another 120 for grazing and still get a landowner tag and hunt anywhere in the unit.
I don't think you are correct on the elk tags, I believe you have to have 240 acres and so many days of elk use in order to be able to apply as a landowner. I might be wrong, maybe that is for a Land owner own land tag? I don't think they dare tell a landowner who is experiencing depredation that he cannot have a tag. I am not in favor of transferrable tags. It will only lead to less and less land for the average Joe to gain access to. If you are trying to grow trophy class animals, you are not likely to let just anybody go in and harvest the less economically important animals. I would rather donate a set amount to supplement the Walk in program or foster access. I would really like to avoid hunting becoming a Fifes and serfs arrangement. I also realize that the bad apples in the barrel make it tough for the others. People not behaving themselves on private land is a good way to shut a lot of it down. I do not really want to be limited to two tags a year but I'm more than willing to have everyone get their tags first and then we will see if there is any opportunity for more recreational days afield. If you try to cap how many tags you feel a person should have, you could run into the scenario where your not harvesting enough. Then what do you do? And for whats its worth, I did get shot down on my west river rifle and black hills rifle tags but I applied, because I could. I also do get drawn for my archery tag every year-so far.
You are probably right with the 240 acres.
I think that is right. Brother used to have 220(owned 120, leased 100) acres and could get deer, but didn't have enough elk days to get elk tags.
Make no mistakes--GFP is going to try and take opportunity away from bowhunters as well as people who like to kill several bucks with different weapons. If we do not stand up and be heard, we will get run over! Gone are the days of having an East River Archery and West River Archery. Call your commissioners and tell them to leave things ALONE!!!! If we speak up, we can stop this. One of their options is "NO CHANGE"--let's keep it that way! The sorry thing is, is that GFP has no idea how any of these changes will really affect the drawing for units--its a guess at best! Again, be vocal and ask for no change. Deer populations will be back in a few years and then no big deal! Below is the link to commissioners contact info--please act immediately!
http://gfp.sd.gov/agency/commission/commission-members.aspx
Guys, How many antlered deer tags can you get in SD? Archery E/W River, Rifle E/W River, Black Hills tag, Muzzleloader tag, Refuge tags, Reservation tags, Leftover tags, and probably more. How many do you need? It seems to me that those that don't want things to change just want to have the ability to kill more bucks. Doe tags are very easy to get as well. I lived in KS for several years. There is a reason they have a healthy population of deer. You get one buck tag period! It's good for all valid seasons (early muzzy, archery, rifle) Landowner or not, you get one in the entire state. Seems to work well for them. The problem I have witnessed is that most people shoot a buck first (regardless of size) and leave doe tags unfilled. I think it would suit the state just fine to adopt this philosophy and allocate each hunter one buck tag for the entire state. I would be OK if they even made you choose one weapon and adhere to the regs for that weapon. It would certainly weed out the archers from the gun hunters. Greed and ego are what have hurt hunting more than anything. If hunters really wanted what was best for the deer population and not just themselves, they would be satisfied with one buck and as many doe tags as the state would allow. Does are what have the most significant impact on the overall herd. I'm interested to hear why so many don't want anything to change. Does everyone here think this is as good as it gets in SD? That things couldn't be better? Have those that have this opinion ever hunted other states to get a decent sampling? I don't think the SD system is completely broken, but it's far from ideal. I say it's time for some change. If everyone is still guaranteed one buck tag and opportunity for additional doe tags what more do you need?
I agree buckdropper. I grew up in Iowa and we were allowed one gun tag and one bow tag that is it. When you look at the B&C list over the years how is it that SD ranks 22nd overall in state entries. There is really not that big of habitat change from SD to Kansas or Nebraska who rank in the teens. It really comes down to poor management mainly by hunters who feel the NEED to fill tags, mainly during the rut with a rile for two to three weeks that just seems unreal to me. Why would you not be open to change when you rank 22nd overall?
I'm all for a change in the rifle seasons and tag allotments. Just leave our archery season alone as it's not the broken part of the equation. I'd love to see us go to one buck tag, your choice. The woods would be devoid of competition for the entire archery season.
I encourage you all to invest the time and view the big game biologist presentation on deer populations and hunting seasons. It runs over an hour and can be found on the GFP site. It has a lot of good info in it including how many individual deer hunters we have and the numbers to figure out how many have multiple tags. I do not want to go to a one buck only any season any weapon type system. I view it as an assault on my pursuit of happiness. I am more than happy to have the biologist tell me I can only have one buck tag because that's all the population can handle. I don't care for others to suggest that. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I think a lot of what is happening is a knee jerk reaction to less tags due to population fluctuations. It seems like there have been a few to many antlerless tags issued in the past and they have not helped the situation. There are still units in South Dakota that will probably not sell out all the tags for rifle season this year. IF you don't believe me, check the leftover lists after the third drawing. In my opinion these units either have very little public land or access problems. I think some people believe that if we limit how many buck tags that can be dispensed, we will have better QDM or in other words, they will have a better chance at finding a larger buck. Who's being greedy now? If the buck rankings go up, will that not lead to more NR interest in our state and follow on leasing and commercialization that does nothing to help the common man. I could handle keeping archery separate and limiting rifle seasons but people are still going to bitch that I have three tags. It would be unreasonable to most level headed individuals to think that the rifle hunters will go along with being limited and letting the archers continue business as usual. I still think there will be a storm of protest once people figure out what happens to the elk drawing. I vote for no change and keep lowering the doe tags until the population stabilizes.
I hear a lot of opinion, which of course everyone is entitled to. What I want to know is what is the biologically sound approach? This should never, ever be a political football. I know several people directly involved with this internal process and "in the know". What many have told me scares the heck out of me. Bowhunting has very little impact on the numbers and herd dynamics of the statewide population. Predators and especially habitat loss coupled with perhaps an over-harvest of does as well as disease have had the greatest negative effects. Reduce doe tags, to increase fawn recruitment.
If you are jealous of archery hunters getting a tag every year....learn to bowhunt and join us. We are spoiled for sure as SD resident deer hunters but a knee jerk reaction that's politically motivated isn't warranted in my opinion. A lot of squeaky wheels crying loudly on the Eastern border. I have 4 points and still can't get a rifle either sex tag.... guess what, that's because there is NO habitat, few deer and a LOT of people.
Another awful idea in my opinion is to satisfy this same whining. SD has a fantastic, county by county unit system. Some politically motivated GF&P leaders want to scrap the county system and lump several into a unit like many other states. This would get rid of some of the whining from those that don't have a tag handy every year but it will also lump a LOT more hunters onto what little public land there is in the east.
Tough deal, change may well be coming. Get involved and attend the meetings they have to make your voices heard.
GFP is surveying people now. State that you want no change and that you strongly oppose this "new" approaches or you are going to lose your ability to continue to archery hunt each year. Make you voice be heard and tell GFP to leave the draws alone. They have worked for 30 years and for the most-part are working just fine!
Hi.If interested in this get a group together and request a meeting with GFPs about it.They will give group presentations. Consider emphasizing archery in the schools programs since a big concern in the Dept is hunter recruitment.The days of 'guns' in schools are over and archery is one winning way to aid in recruitment.
I don't see anything scheduled for Big Game/Deer seasons and apps yet but this is where we need to be checking. http://gfp.sd.gov/agency/commission/meetings.aspx
They do always take public comment through this address.
[email protected]
Always make your voice heard.
Here's your chance to have your voice heard regarding elk hunting in SD. The new Elk Management Plan proposal has been released for public comment. There's good news in there for archery hunters. Be sure to comment if you support this change or feel strongly about anything else in the plan (see link).
Here is an excerpt regarding archery from the License Allocation section. Bowhunters should be happy about the last sentence - rifle hunters probably will feel differently. This is only a proposal.
"Archery and rifle license allocation"
"The first archery elk season occurred in the Black Hills of South Dakota in 1986. The number of applicants for the archery elk hunting season has increased from 1,232 in 2000 to 3,952 in 2013. This is an increase from 10 to 37 applicants per available license. The previous 5-year (2009-2013) success rate for archery elk hunters is 32%, compared to 60% for rifle elk hunters. For CSP, the highest number archery elk applicants peaked at 5,141 for 58 licenses in 2005, compared to 2,740 applicants for 3 licenses in 2013. It is apparent that archery hunting has increased in popularity (Figure 4).
The challenge for SDGFP wildlife managers and the Commission when developing harvest strategies to meet current population objectives, is determining the appropriate allocation of archery and rifle licenses. During the past 5 years, 13% of the all elk licenses issued in the Black Hills have been issued to archery elk applicants. An evaluation of archery licensing in other western States showed that the allocation of elk licenses to archery seasons in South Dakota (13%) is lower than other states (range 19-32%).
The previous 5-year average for “any elk” archery licenses in the Black Hills comprised 16% of the total “any elk” licenses allocated, compared to 84% for “any elk” rifle licenses. For this 106 same time period, “antlerless” elk archery licenses in the Black Hills comprised 8% of the total licenses allocated, compared to 92% for “antlerless” elk rifle licenses. In assessing the supply vs. demand, 11% of Black Hills firearm elk applicants were successful in drawing a license, compared to 5% of Black Hills archery elk applicants.
Because archery elk hunters have lower harvest success and a lower odds of drawing a license, the allocation of archery licenses could be increased with a minimal impact to rifle license applicants. The same level of elk harvest to meet population objectives could be retained, while increasing the overall hunting opportunity for elk hunters in South Dakota. Future allocation of “any elk” licenses will be 25% archery and 75% firearm, and antlerless licenses will be 10% archery and 90% firearm.
Amen Sam. Maybe all those e-mails and calls I'ven sent and made over the years didn't fall on deaf ears. About time archers get a fair shake!
That's a great common sense approach, glad they are looking at this. If we have 32% success bowhunting and rifle hunters have 60% success it's fantastic they are looking at the facts to make changes for opportunity here. Then compare the facts "16% of the total “any elk” licenses allocated, compared to 84% for “any elk” rifle licenses"
This is good news for sure if they make the changes. What we really need is to keep up the lion seasons and add dogs then have far more controlled burns and decrease the cattle unit grazing. Keep up the great work with the comments to GF&P guys.
