Discussion points I liked Prioritizing permit numbers to those with the highest points while still providing a percentage to those without. Making National grasslands a draw permit similar to BH, CSP, CNF and the NWR's. Allowing a rifle permitee to purchase an archery stamp to use during the entire season. Mandating that any landowner permit recipient hunt only on their own property. Making it mandatory to check in each deer within 24 hours via telephone or internet and requiring a full harvest report within 30 of season close or no tag the next year.
Things I was concerned about Making all draws simultaneous and requiring each hunter to choose a weapon and season with all #1 choices run first. (pooling all deer points together to get them used) Limiting buck harvest to 2 per year total.
Get involved and join the discussion with your SDGFP and the group members such as SDBI, SDWF and others. If you'd like to discuss more hit me up with a PM and e-mail
I'm kind of just getting in the middle of this through SDBI. Contact the board via the e-mails on the SDBI website to comment. Also you can comment through the GFP site.
If you e-mail or PM me I can give you the most current topics and ideas. I am with you on the hunting a lot of different units and getting multiple tags. My take on that is there are some very vocal rifle hunters in the eastern part of the state and they are bent out of shape that it takes them several points to draw the one tag they want while guys who put in the time and effort and hunt with multiple weapons have the possibility of getting more tags. I like a lot of the ideas they are kicking around and discussing but that reduction in possible hunting tags in all the different areas of the state isn't one of them.
It's important to get many more bowhunters involved. I much prefer a weighted point system with the bulk of tags going to those with the most points but as you said it's OK to disagree. All the other discussion points were just that discussion.
Here is the link to the Deer Management Plan information.
Bottom line is getting people energized and involved to comment and articulate thoughts and concerns in a positive solution based manner. I will send anyone the current proposal that was submitted by one member/group on the deer stakeholders group. No decision has been mad and none will be finalized until August 17 according to the GFP site.
The discussion points I listed above weren't my thoughts or proposals. They were pieces and parts discussed. Grizz you hit the nail on the head above and that is precisely what I put in an article in the outdoor forum in April.
There is an extremely vocal minority of rifle hunters in low deer density, high people population counties that are trying to redistribute tags to better their own odds of their choice of permit in their choice of county.
Now, I do like a LOT of some of the discussion points we have had together on my email chain of concerned deer hunters. One of the main sticking points I have is with a comparison of 'possibile' tags drawn and comparing that to one segment of hunters that limits themselves to rifle only in say (minehaha, brown, turner, Yankton co.) a low deer density, low habitat, high population area. Then some of them clamor when they ( and anyone else residing in state) could also apply for all different units or tags.