Bowsite.com

Deer License Allocation- Changes?

How many are following the rifle deer allocation changes that are being discussed? I was picked as a focus group member and have been researching. If you are not familiar, go here and read up BEFORE you comment-

https://gfp.sd.gov/userdocs/docs/Deer_Alt.pdf

There are additional info sheets on the GFP website under "Deer Hunting". It also states Archery is being discussed but it is not connected to this proposal at all.

I am not sure what I think at this time, other than Alternative #2 is definitely a no go for me. The CSP and Refuge hunts are one off hunts to me and should not be included. But, those guys who just want to go after that tag get no better odds drawing.

It seems that Alternative #1 only helps the guy who wants to draw one tag in a specific unit. Even then, in a hard to draw unit the odds probably don't increase that much. However, it does hurt the guy who wants a WR/ER tag and a Black Hills tag. With the way the system is setup, there is basically no chance a BH tag will be available come the 3rd draw. It really makes you pick your first choice. It also makes the guys who like to hunt one side of the state primarily and use the other side as a bonus rethink things. With the abundance of public ground WR, do a lot of folks travel to the orange areas on the map that maybe won't now? I don't know. It's not an E vs. W issue at all, but the land availability sure plays a part. Either alternative may slightly improve your odds but it makes any additional tag a total crapshoot.

There are a lot more complexities to it but wondering where everyone stands.

I was also selected for a focus group here in Sioux Falls. I have studied this extensively and followed along with the happenings of the deer stakeholders group and big game coalition from the beginning. The problem that we have right now is people not understanding how the proposals truly work and not looking at the actual stats of the draws. The DSG really did an excellent job analyzing those stats and coming up with a plan. Option #1 with the addition of muzzleloader deer to the mix is the perfect solution in my opinion. You have to look at the total number of unique applicants for each season and the total number of tags, also taking into consideration the available tags for each season and those individuals that do not apply for multiple seasons. If you choose to hunt BH deer you will draw an any whitetail tag every single year under option 1. Now you draw it every other or every third if that is your preferred option. What people fail to consider in researching these options is that if they want to hunt the hills or another unit they can, they just have to list it as their first choice and risk not getting their preferred east or west river tag. The same thing happens to you today, it's just that the tag numbers and preference system are making the choices for you instead of you choosing for yourself what is the most important tag to put in your pocket for that year. There are still going to be an abundance of leftover buck tags east and west river when you get to the third draw so that you can potentially hunt east and west. If you don't get your east or west you flip your choices the following year. These new options give you the chance to hunt a buck every year. Under the old problem I might hunt 3 bucks one year and hunt no bucks for 3 years and then get to hunt 3 again unless I spread out my preference points and cashed them in differently. I see option 1 as giving the choice of what tag is most important to you to the hunter, where it belongs.

There wasn't a focus group in my area, so I wasn't able to participate. I'd be fine with either option 1 or 2. Do any of you know when they'll decide?

I was not selected to be in a focus group but my choice would be #3. Then #2, then #1. I have this feeling that we are getting the change either way after the way the cubing went. We will only be one step away from adding archery then.

I'm with Brotsky. #1 and add on muzzle loader. That is a massively underrated tag and it is really frustrating to see people burn up their vacation time and wife's patience early in the season, only to let that MZ tag go to waste. Make people prioritize what tag matters to them and hopefully we can all enjoy what we love more often.

Like grizzly, I was not chosen to be in the focus group, and think that just like the changes to the draws they already know what they will do. Asking us what we think is just a technicality.

I am still deciding where I stand. I understand the drawing processes as proposed. If I look at it from a personal/selfish point of view, no change is best for my situation. My #1 tag is going to be the first choice I make regardless of system. However, if I want to put in for a Black Hills tag as well, I don't believe that there will be any tags left in the 3rd draw. I could risk going with BH first, but then would have to risk not getting my preferred WR tag. I also put in for a leftover at my in-laws place on some years in addition to these tags. That possibility is probably not possible under this system either.

However, if you look at it from a bigger picture this "should" put more preferred tags in peoples hands. Now, don't get me wrong, the hard to draw tags are still going to be hard to draw, that will not change. It may take a few out of the game, but not many. Having to choose that first tag should spread out some pressure on the pool and get some people a quicker shot at the average units.

My first big question is how will this affect the distribution of hunters. An East River guy who wants to hunt at home now will have to face the serious possibility he won't get a WR tag. And, if guys are gunning for leftover tags, will it push hunters to unknown units? A bunch of guys running around a unit they don't know and probably pushing on the public land more isn't what I would consider an ideal situation.

My second question is in regards to revenue. Tag revenue should be the same if they can sell all the licenses. With a fee for each draw, what will the revenue be compared to the old system? I just don't want it to be a money thing for the GFP.

Finally, I am just not sure of the full reasoning behind the changes being proposed. We have a pretty sweet setup in SD with a ton of opportunity. I don't know that this system will put that many more tags in the hands of hunters making them that much happier. A few guys complaining because they can't get their tag every year should not change the entire system (like the preference system). A lottery is a lottery and everyone has a chance as it is now....sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

But I am still thinking about things....

"Finally, I am just not sure of the full reasoning behind the changes being proposed. We have a pretty sweet setup in SD with a ton of opportunity. I don't know that this system will put that many more tags in the hands of hunters making them that much happier. A few guys complaining because they can't get their tag every year should not change the entire system (like the preference system). A lottery is a lottery and everyone has a chance as it is now....sometimes you win, sometimes you lose."

This.The big PR shuffle in spades.Quit wasting taxpayer $$.

I think so many people do not fully understand what this change will do. You have to dig into the stats of unique applications and how many applicants are applying for multiple seasons, etc to really get a feel for what this would look like. I have spent countless hours running through all the numbers and looking at this from an open minded perspective. These changes absolutely will not cost anyone opportunity, but they will give you a much better chance at drawing your preferred license. There will be a lot of licenses left in the 3rd draw, at which point you can pick up several more buck tags and if you are hunting undersubscribed units now you will still be hunting bucks in those units. You cannot look at this with the mindset of the old draw and what would trickle down, it simply is a much different ballgame. I hope they run through the scenarios at the focus groups to give guys an idea of what this would truly look like.

Here is my issue. And yes, I have spent considerable time looking at the unique draws and stats- Nobody REALLY knows what that 3rd draw will look like. It will completely depend on each person and what units they prefer on whether their will be a leftover you want in the 3rd draw. I will almost 100% guarantee you that a Black Hills tag will not be available in the 3rd draw. Right now, I am perfectly fine getting a Hills tag every 3rd year. It's a bonus, I know my WR unit will be drawn 1st choice as it is a less than desirable unit with not a lot of tags. Now, with the system, that opportunity is totally eliminated because chances are a 3rd draw BH tag won't be available. I would have to choose BH in the 1st draw and chance my WR tag. Yes, I know it is a choice, but still that is a reduction of opportunity for me personally.

Now, lets flip that. Lets say I am a guy who wants a BH tag, and I put in for that 1st choice. Probably going to draw it. If I am mobile and am willing to travel, I have a good shot at a number of units in the 3rd draw. So, no real loss of opportunity there, but I have gained because I probably get my 1st choice.

Scenario three is I apply for a high demand WR tag. My odds are probably better, but not by a huge amount if it is a highly desired unit. I get denied 1 of 2 years versus 1 of 3 now. But, if I get denied I have a larger pool of licenses to try for than with the old system. So that is an increase in opportunity of sorts.

Scenario four is the muzzleloader tag. Only 1 in 7 get a tag as it stands now, but nearly 6 of 7 apply for other types of tags. The pool that choose muzzleloader as 1st choice will be much, much smaller as most see it as a bonus tag. Those who do choose #1 will have a much, much better shot. But everyone else who applies essentially has no shot at a tag, period. So instead of me having a chance via lottery now, I have no shot at all.

My point is, each scenario is completely different for each person and what they want to do. There is no predictability to it and the nuances will not be discovered till a couple years in. Strategy at that point and time based on how your preferred units drew in the first few years of the system will make savvy license seeking hunters make better decisions. But, for those who aren't savvy, it probably means one tag plus a bonus here and there. Better than the old system? I don't know.

It simply comes down to two mindsets- 1. I want a better shot at my preferred tag OR 2. I want a fair shot at all types of tag via lottery. And for each person that is different....

Another good discussion gents. I was not chosen for Rapid City but since they had a lot of openings in Phillip, I was selected and went to the Phillip Focus group last week. The stated goal is to allow 'more' hunters to get their 'preferred' license. There is NO limit on how many tags someone can draw/purchase (3rd draw on). The Focus groups are there to run you through Options #1 (combined ER/WR/BH with 1st and 2nd choice). Option #2 (combined ER/WR/BH/Muzz/CSP and Refuge with 1st and 2nd choice). And option #3 NO Change.

I would echo that this has all been driven by people who only seem to want one license (Rifle in high demand unit). I also agree that this won't 'guarantee' anyone to get their preferred license. But, with combined cubed points and a forced "choice". Everyones odds will increase...some quite significantly I believe. I also agree that it all depends on what someone's mindset is and if they are open minded or not. Most in Phillip seemed very open to options #1 and #2 after all questions were answered and the information thoroughly discussed. There was one gent however that wanted to ONLY apply for BH and WR. He prefers to do BOTH and didn't want to chance 'his' options. He would likely draw a BH any WT every year under option 1 or 2. He is also a landowner and could use LO preference still. But he wanted BOTH. He likes the option of hunting all his neighbors land too so a on own land LO permit wasn't enough for him.

Personally, I like option #2 for the significant increase in Muzz odds as discussed above. I can still pick up leftovers in many WR units if I'd like to later and I also have a LO option ER, so for me I like #2. Now, there is absolutely no doubt that everyone can already apply and build points for each unit they wish to. It's also undeniable that there are some units (mostly far ER, BH any, or CNF) that have a TON of applications compared to available tags. I see those odds improving 'some' and with preference cubing even more but I don't believe anyone can ever expect to get a truely high demand rifle permit each and every year. My hope is that each of us hunters could have an open mind and realize that we have lost a lot of habitat, deer and there is more competition for licenses now than ever. Like it or not, I don't think you can look at any other state that provides the same opportunities we've enjoyed in the bounty we have enjoyed it. I fear the chickens are coming home to roost on some of those.

Archery license allocation for residents appears safe for the time being. I do believe we will see a NR draw coming soon and I also believe there will be a draw for both Resident and NR bowhunters on current LAU's (Black Hills, CNF, Grasslands etc) proposed this week. I don't want to say more until I get it in writing.

Bottom line, become informed (as most in the thread are) and spread the information and promote involvement please.

So a 'problem' driven almost totally by east river rifle hunters,is going to do what for them without addressing landowner preferences? At best,this leaves us guessing IMO.

Expensive guessing as well.

Leftee, I agree with the sentiment. I am personally a fan of LO permits being valid only on their deeded lands as I think that would encourage more habitat for wildlife. The drawing choices made by all 270 focus group members will be used as a base line on individual choice preferences. They also have a good handle on the particular #1 and #2 preferred tag from a past survey. All I can do is pass along what I've learned and been a part of. I would highly encourage everyone (on all sides) to send gfp your thoughts. We will find out in a few months what they decide and what the commission approves.

Great info, thanks for sharing. I am curious to see their projections at the meeting. Ours is one of the last ones at the beginning of May, so it will be a bit. Was there any discussion as to revenue? The other issue I have thought about is just hunter sentiment as a whole. We need to have a system that maintains hunter numbers. Will this retain hunters or will we lose some? Probably a bit of both. Simplified systems are better and easier to understand (look at how the GFP tries to simplify fishing regulations). The PR/education side of this is going to be huge for the GFP to not have a bunch of pissed off and confused hunters. First year will be rough if they do it, but should get better.

I'm about done thinking about it until the meeting. We have it really good in SD regardless. Look at ND right now, habitat and weather have made it very difficult to get a rifle tag. We are still on the good side of things.

On the archery note, I will be curious to see the proposal for limited draws in the so called special access areas. CNF needs something for sure, it was overrun this year with archery hunters, many NR's. No offense to them, but it was 20 NR campers to 1 R when I drove through in October before antelope season had even started. All bowhunters. But, areas like the BH, I am not sure what that would do, it's still a huge area with not a lot of pressure. But, there is a pretty high success rate. Wait and see I guess!

DId you all take note of the legislation that passed this year regarding Black Hills Landowner tags. Now they are guaranteed a landowner own land tag like the rest of the state. I don't know what that number will be, but you gotta believe that the harvest of mule deer bucks in the hill just went up.

Grizzly, yes we saw that and when I inquired about it they said it was just to clean up the language. After all, qualifying LO's ER and WR do get a LO on own land permit. The numbers quoted to me by GFP was about 120 LO's apply each year for the 100 permits, so it would go up but they do have to hunt on their own land with this tag. That's why it wasn't opposed by any of the groups I'm aware of.

2018 Proposal DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION

Duration of Recommendation: 2018 hunting season

Season Dates: September 22, 2018 – January 1, 2019

Open Area: “Any Deer” Licenses: Statewide, East River, West River “Antlerless Whitetail Deer” Licenses: Unit ARD-LM1

Licenses: Unlimited “any deer” licenses Unlimited single tag “antlerless whitetail deer” licenses

Access Permits: “Any Deer” Access Permits: No more than 460 resident and 39 nonresident “Antlerless Whitetail Deer” Access Permits: No more than 25 resident

Requirements and Restrictions:

1. Resident and nonresident hunters may purchase one (1) statewide “any deer” license or one (1) East River “any deer” license and one (1) West River “any deer” license. 2. Residents and nonresidents may purchase one (1) “antlerless whitetail deer” license. 3. Individuals may purchase one “antlerless whitetail deer” license for Unit ARD-LM1 (see map). 4. Shooting hours are ½ hour before sunrise to ½ hour after sunset. 5. Sand Lake NWR is open October 20, 2018 – January 1, 2019, except during the Sand Lake NWR firearm deer season. 6. Waubay Lake State Game Refuge and Waubay NWR in Day County are open through January 1, except during refuge deer seasons. 7. Lacreek NWR is open through January 1, except during the Lacreek NWR firearm deer seasons. 8. Licensees must obtain an access permit from the Department issued by lottery drawing before hunting Adams Homestead and Nature Preserve, Good Earth State Park.

Proposed changes from last year:

1. Allocate 40 resident and 4 nonresident free archery access permits for ERD-13L. 2. Allocate 80 resident and 7 nonresident free archery access permits for ERD-59L. 3. Allocate 40 resident and 4 nonresident free archery access permits for WRD-24B. 4. Allocate 40 resident and 4 nonresident free archery access permits for WRD-27L. 5. Allocate 250 resident and 20 nonresident free archery access permits for WRD-35L. 6. Archery access permits for limited access units are valid for the entire archery deer season outside the Black Hills deer hunting unit, except during the regular (16 day) West River and East River firearm seasons. 7. For Unit ARD-LM1, close unit ERD-59L. 8. Modify the season end date from January 15 to January 1. 9. Antlerless whitetail deer licenses are not valid after January 1. 10. Change the archery season end date for Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge, Waubay National Wildlife Refuge, and Waubay State Lake State Game Refuge

Here is where the reductions will come from. Quotas for Limited Access Units. Also a proposal to require a free access permit to bowhunt the Black Hills. I assume that will be used to gauge use and perhaps limit those in future years.

Proposed changes from last year:

1. Allocate 40 resident and 4 nonresident free archery access permits for ERD-13L. 2. Allocate 80 resident and 7 nonresident free archery access permits for ERD-59L. 3. Allocate 40 resident and 4 nonresident free archery access permits for WRD-24B. 4. Allocate 40 resident and 4 nonresident free archery access permits for WRD-27L. 5. Allocate 250 resident and 20 nonresident free archery access permits for WRD-35L. 6. Archery access permits for limited access units are valid for the entire archery deer season outside the Black Hills deer hunting unit, except during the regular (16 day) West River and East River firearm seasons. 7. For Unit ARD-LM1, close unit ERD-59L. 8. Modify the season end date from January 15 to January 1. 9. Antlerless whitetail deer licenses are not valid after January 1. 10. Change the archery season end date for Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge, Waubay National Wildlife Refuge, and Waubay State Lake State Game Refuge from December 31 to January 1, except during the firearm deer seasons established for such refuges.

Thanks for passing the info along.

Thanks Dana. Based upon that we can look forward to all of the NR hunters who didn’t draw their preferred access permit to hunt the Black hills this fall compounding an already out of control problem with NR bowhunters harvesting mule deer in the Black Hills.

That's what I and others I am talking to in the coalition and SDBI think as well Justin. It's a good start but could very well simply push the pressure elsewhere. I'll keep passing info along. For like minded individuals, I hope people come to the commission meetings and send comments. This does absolutely nothing to help with NR pressure along the river access areas or other public tracts experiencing high NR pressure. I know there are a lot of NRs who do hunt areas with little to no pressure. But, there are also a LOT of Residents I know that hunt non-LAUs that are public that see a significant amount of pressure in those areas. My thought was a cap/% would help stem that.

Thanks for all you guys are doing on this topic and the draw changes Dana. We appreciate your updates. I'm preparing my "manifesto" as it were to fire off to all of the commissioners tonight prior to the meeting tomorrow. I wish some of these more important meetings were out our direction once in awhile rather than always out west but I digress.

Love the choice of words Brotsky.If you feel your 'manifesto' will have more weight add me or I'll just join your 'group' and you can name it what you want.How about 'Hardcore Elderly Bowhunters of the Great NorthEast." Suppose you could delete 'Elderly'. :-)

LOL Leftee, I'm sure I don't speak for all the old bowhunters up there, some are too busy at coffee! Ha!

Any ideas what the Limited Access draw process would look like? Buy a tag when they become available and have an application period later in the summer? Also, if an Access Permit was not obtained, would it be possible to traverse those areas to hunt public ground not within the boundaries? I can’t find a good public land map with Unit overlays, but have to imagine it’s possible in a couple areas.

I made some comments on Dana’s Facebook page last night and will echo a little of that here. I can’t wrap my head around the average NR South Dakota bowhunter being the devil many are making it out to be. Using the stats in the latest Deer Management Plan an 8% cap would drop NR archery tags by 40%. Resident bowhunters already outnumber NR’s 8-1. Not having looked at the exact numbers, I still feel comfortable saying that’s nowhere near the case on such hunts as Kansas whitetails or Colorado otc elk. Point being, incurring a multi-million dollar hit to the department and state economy (using their numbers) in favor of a slightly more pleasant resident hunting experience seems pretty extreme. From the outside looking in you guys have it very well already. Multiple buck tags per year and seemingly endless public ground for anyone hailing from a state south or east of you. Limit the access to a couple overrun areas, but there is more than enough room to roam for a few thousand NR’s in my opinion.

KB, the thing most NR's don't understand is the the mule deer herd in SD is in a very precarious position right now. The majority of NR bowhunters come here to target those mule deer. It's not all about over crowding and experience. It's about protecting our resource as well.

I won’t argue with your first point Justin. A good portion of your non res bowhunters are probably midwestern guys that hit the first good muley population they can find headed west with an OTC tag. But I don’t think this is about protecting the resource. In 2015 South Dakota hunters killed 5,900 muleys. A thousand of them were does. Bowhunters as a whole were responsible for 704 total. How many fell at the feet of the NR bowhunter? Surely not more than a few hundred tops.

It’s no secret the majority of the plains states have all felt the effects of the mule deer situation the last 5-6 years. North Dakota dropped to almost zero muley harvest not long ago and has been slowly creeping back. Kansas has disallowed the take of does, unless it’s on your one buck tag for the year. Nebraska did the same on virtually all of their large public tracts. Colorado and Montana are one buck states when it comes to muleys... But correct me if I’m wrong here, you guys are allowed no less than two tags every year that allow the take of a muley, and if you play your cards right in the draw you can obtain more? And you think a few NR bowhunters are having a significant impact on the herd?

I didn’t see it when I hunted SD, but I sure won’t argue that certain areas might be congested. By all means spread the logjam with limited access permits and maybe NR archery “regions” or something to that affect. But sweeping 40% of the tags off the table completely because a couple areas are high traffic seems a little knee-jerk to me.

I don't know anyone who gets two mule deer buck tags a year unless you are talking about an archery tag and a rifle tag, but nobody is drawing rifle mule deer tags every year in units with any real amount of public land. As far as how many mule deer non-residents kill there is absolutely no way you can know. SD is all volunteer reporting, and in my opinion many either don't report or report to the negative regardless of if they harvested. When I spoke to the head of licensing for SDGFP last fall I asked him about the discrepancies between non-resident harvest rates in Harding County compared to the rest of the state and asked if he had considered that people were being less than honest in an attempt to minimize the appearance of their impact. He told me he didn't think that was the case, and that it was due to the popularity of the region. Less than a month later I listened to Brian Call of The Gritty Bowmen interview his uncle and his uncles partner and the partner flat admitted that he would never be honest on a volunteer reporting sheet. That it would be shooting himself in the foot. Now I don't think he hunts SD, but the point stands that archery hunters in this era are smart enough to know what harvest surveys represent. There is no other state in the west that allows non-resident hunters to buy over the counter tags to hunt mule deer in the rut. It is ridiculous that SD does. Never understood it. I also don't believe that the majority of SD non-resident archery hunters are first time guys from out east. I think everyone is well aware of what is going on here, and when they don't draw other states know they can come here to spot and stalk mule deer on an over the counter tag. There is a reason CO, WY, and MT do not allow unlimited numbers of people buy archery mule deer tags. No reason SD should either.

I don't know anyone who gets two mule deer buck tags a year unless you are talking about an archery tag and a rifle tag, but nobody is drawing rifle mule deer tags every year in units with any real amount of public land. As far as how many mule deer non-residents kill there is absolutely no way you can know. SD is all volunteer reporting, and in my opinion many either don't report or report to the negative regardless of if they harvested. When I spoke to the head of licensing for SDGFP last fall I asked him about the discrepancies between non-resident harvest rates in Harding County compared to the rest of the state and asked if he had considered that people were being less than honest in an attempt to minimize the appearance of their impact. He told me he didn't think that was the case, and that it was due to the popularity of the region. Less than a month later I listened to Brian Call of The Gritty Bowmen interview his uncle and his uncles partner and the partner flat admitted that he would never be honest on a volunteer reporting sheet. That it would be shooting himself in the foot. Now I don't think he hunts SD, but the point stands that archery hunters in this era are smart enough to know what harvest surveys represent. There is no other state in the west that allows non-resident hunters to buy over the counter tags to hunt mule deer in the rut. It is ridiculous that SD does. Never understood it. I also don't believe that the majority of SD non-resident archery hunters are first time guys from out east. I think everyone is well aware of what is going on here, and when they don't draw other states know they can come here to spot and stalk mule deer on an over the counter tag. There is a reason CO, WY, and MT do not allow unlimited numbers of people buy archery mule deer tags. No reason SD should either.

KB if you look at past stats you will see this is not for management of the deer. This is to appease whining residents. I whole heartedly agree with you. I just don't understand. My oppritunity is being cut. I spend a decent amount of time in SD, but I'm afraid that will not be the case in coming years. Wouldn't want to kill "their" mulies. Or hunt "their" public land piece, and god forbid you kill a young buck. I'm all for management IF and when the herd needs it, and of course non res get the brunt of it, understandable. But what is on the table, and what some want in this thread is a great example of hunter greed in my honest opinion.

We went over this in another thread, to no avail. I'll leave this herer and continue on my way. My opinion may not be favorable but it's pretty hard to argue the "numbers" as some others say, and that is that NR bowhunters take very few deer when looking at the big picture. Pressure is increasing everywhere, limiting oppritunity for reasons above is ridiculous to me. Iv shared my thoughts with the powers that be and will continue to do so, I urge you to send in your thoughts as well. The above mentality will and is destroying DIY hunting. Period.

Steve, that’s simply not true. Nebraska, Idaho and Arizona all offer true over the counter rut options. Montana is virtually over the counter and even allows you to switch from a bow to rifle on the same permit as the rut kicks in. Both Wyoming and Colorado offer rut tags that can be drawn with 0 points. Utah does the same with a little creativity... I certainly wouldn’t nor haven’t lied on a harvest report, but obviously can’t speak to the entirety of the NR population. If that’s your opinion of what’s going on I’ll let you run with it. Even if every single NR bowhunter that purchased a tag filled it on a Mule deer the total take would not top half the state’s kill. But that’s such a ridiculous notion, I’ll quit there.

The facts are you can get an Any Deer archery license for each side of the state. And as far as I can tell still have the ability to draw a firearm permit that allows the taking of another buck. If you want to talk about South Dakota being the only state who manages muleys a certain way we can start right there. Nebraska is the only other state where two muley bucks is even an option, as far as I’m aware. I’m certainly not advocating any resident changes. Just trying to add a little perspective. I think the issue might be SD offers so many resident opportunities you guys don’t have to venture out much for deer to see how good you’ve got it!

From what I've read so far, there is no limit on NR archery tags this year so come on out and enjoy yourselves. Give your input to the powers that be and live with the decisions that are made. I'll have to. Heck, some of the changes that may happen might actually increase the NR opportunities. I do not know which way the administration is leaning. Do not know if they have an agenda. If you have to get a free unlimited access pass, its a pretty logical conclusion that it may be limited next year. It seems like every time something get mentioned, it turns into a proposal. We do have it pretty good here but times are a changing and the good old days may be just that.

Nebraska sucks, Arizona is not in the rut and can be hunted at a completely different time, and the other options you mention are certainly not statewide any deer tags. Only SD allows nonresidents to buy an any deer archery licenses during the rut to hunt massive areas of public land, including the best habitat we have.

Arizona is in fact during the rut. I was down over New Year’s this year. Muleys and Coues were chasing hard. Great time! Nebraska certainly isn’t the model for herd management, but there’s some neat country and it’s possible to kill a good buck with a fair amount of effort... You didn’t specify “statewide” in your first response. But you are correct there, South Dakota is one of a couple that do allow you full reign. As I’ve said multiple times in here, spread the masses with limited access permits or something to that affect. No one will fault you for that. Taking 40% of the tags and throwing them away instead is completely unnecessary though.

I’m not sure why you’re so hung up on the rut anyway. West River rifle kicks off the 10th this year. And with somewhere in the neighborhood of 20,000 permits out there I can’t imagine many self respecting NR bowhunters sticking around for that rodeo. The numbers would suggest there’s more muleys taken opening day than in the entirety of the archery season. But as Lawnboi eluded to, numbers don’t seem to matter.

Again, this proposal is limited to large tracts of very specific public land units. These units receive extremely high NR pressure. We are attempting to protect the resource on those specific public lands and to improve the hunting experience for resident and NR alike when they draw those access permits. I see no reason to limit the total number of NR permits as the harvest is inconsequential and we want outfitters to be able to obtain tags for their archery clients who will be hunting on public lands. The other issue we face is the fact that NR archery pressure increases every year due to the unlimited nature of our tags. We are trying to solve a problem before it becomes a problem. There is a reason we have such great hunting and fishing in SD. It's because we manage our resources. We will continue to manage them in a manner that is consistent with maintaining that excellence. If that means NR only get to bowhunt here every other year then so be it. You can go to AZ, NE, ID, MT, or a low point unit in CO or WY the other year.

From post to post, thread to thread you guys talk yourself in circles. I can go back from when I first started reading these threads. Some of you here want more in your pocket and less for the NR bow hunter, plain and simple!

From how it looks, I know where I'd be hunting if I were a resident.... my chances are gonna be so tiny I won't even try. As eluded to, there is better oppritunity now elsewhere. I suppose I can hunt the hills, but you want that too.

Steve we can play the what if game. Lest say 10% of nr are dishonest on their report. That must mean 10% of res are too, fair? Whose effecting the numbers more? Your complaint is totally invalid and just another example of what's being used agains NR bowhunters by his group. Lots of what ifs, generalizations.

I already don't gun hunt sd, cause the chances of me getting a gun tag in even a mediocre unit are slim at that.

Sad days are ahead for hunters not just in SD. Greed for big deer is taking over everywhere. I hope I can still hunt when I'm in my 40s without being a millionaire

Justin, that’s not how I read a few comments here and on the Facebook page I mentioned. It sounded as if the desire was a significant reduction in total NR archery tags ( a “cap”), and residents were being urged to send comments to the commission in agreement. If I’m off base on that, I apologize. You guys have a wonderful state. If the time comes NR opportunities are relegated to every other year, so be it. I’ll buy a point and wait my turn. Plenty of options out there like you say. But I just don’t see how that’s justified right now with the current system... Have a great spring and summer, if they ever show. And good luck this fall guys!

20 access permits on all Harding co nat forest land. Thousands of acres, split up. Going from a place you could hunt yearly, that has a thriving mule deer population, to a place that I have to get lucky to hunt. And yes if you look at the numbers, as you guys like to say, with no preference point system in place, and only random drawing. If everyone who hunted on a free access permit tries for one, my chances are pretty low. Even residents will have to beat 50/50 odds.

So no it's not a maybe every other year I'll get to hunt here or there, it's a maybe I'll get a chance again to hunt it. All because people dont like others in the woods.

Enjoy your new resident trophy mule deer zone.

Hopefully my oppritunity being stripped away ends at that, but I know that's not the case listening to some hunters here on bowsite and Facebook.

Lest say 10% of NR are dishonest on their report.

If they are truly worried about this, register the deer in person, instead of using a Post Card or online survey. I'd say that's a non-factor.

"Enjoy your new resident trophy mule deer zone."

Thank you, that is the opportunity we want to get to for everyone. We can grow big mule deer in SD, we have proven it in areas that are properly managed. A 40% reduction in NR tags would still give you the chance to have a statewide any deer tag in SD every other year. The limited access permits would only limit certain tracts of public ground, there's still a 100k other public acres to hunt. Surely you can find a mule deer or two in all that acreage. You can accumulate points for the LAU's and wait your turn for a true quality mule deer experience while hunting lesser areas every other year. It's unreasonable to think that as a state SD should continue to offer a $286 tag that's good for either sex/either species in the entire state with no limitations. If you think we should offer it that way in perpetuity then it's just greed on your part. That greed crap flows up and down stream. We want to protect a valuable resource and improve the quality of the hunt for everyone, NR's included. It might mean you have to wait a few years. Pretty much every other western state's quality hunts take far longer to draw than ours will. Our points only cost a few dollars as well compared to the other states. I hope our commissioners wake up and realize what we have in SD and start charging similar rates as WY or MT or CO to play in our sandbox.

It appears we have several comments in here from NRs. With respect, some of these topics are getting mixed together and I'll try to quickly explain. Right now we have a Deer Management Plan, Deer Stakeholders Group and Deer License allocation Focus group's working on several different issues. Rifle, Muzz and to an extent Archery are being looked at and gone over for what could be a major overhaul in how licenses are allocated. Season dates, new units, limited access units, Draw processes possibly all being combined etc. I realize that this bowsite thread is likely concentrating on just the NR permit process for archery. Currently most are simply discussions within the department with several hunting and sportsman's groups within SD. The only proposals that have come out and submitted to the GFP commission were to end all Deer seasons Jan 1 (to reduce stress on the herd in January, lessen pressure on landowners, reduce shed buck harvest etc because we don't need those weeks now that most of our herds are down and need to increase). That season end date looks like it will take effect for ALL deer seasons.

The discussion points on new units (LAUs, new public zone along Missouri River/Sully county) is a combination of rifle and archery pressure and harvest. I believe the Sully county rifle tag zone will be approved.

The Resident and NR archery LAU proposal from GFP was basically a doubling of available rifle pemits for residents and the currently used 8% of pemits for a NR quota opportunity. Also, to create a new LAU in the Black hills for Residents and NRs to track use and pressure. That appears to gather data on numbers for a 'possible' future LAU quota in the Hills.

The overall NR tag reduction from unlimited to say 8% has NOT been proposed by GFP to the commission. That may never happen, we will see. I spoke with two of the key biologists and habitat manages at last week's commission meeting personally. Neither of them felt the current LAU proposal would do anything to alleviate overall NR pressure but it would help the critical areas on the LAUs.

I know a lot of you guys keep talking about hunting SD every year and not seeing another bowhunter. There is certainly a lot of public land that can be accessed with some effort and have yourself a quality, unpressured experience and I'm happy about that. It's just not the case in all places and the experiences I hear from many other resident bowhunters in areas like the Custer National Forest, Missouri River, White River, Cheyenne/Belle Fourche river cooridors and also in several public pieces elsewhere in SD. Also, the statistics do show that NR pressure in those areas is skewed as is Mule Deer harvest. A couple of these units take resident rifle hunters 5-10 years to draw a rifle permit.

I guess what I'm trying to explain is that there are many factors and different discussions in play across the state and with GFP. As Brotsky mentioned, we have good resources and we are all trying to formulate new thoughts, ideas and plans to protect them and ensure things don't get worse.

I can personally give you some examples of what I saw happen in places I hunted a lot in Illinois, Iowa and Nebraska and what NR bowhunting pressure and publicity did there. I'd love to have an abundance of wildlife, access and opportunity for everyone all over our great nation, but populations, habitat and different practices have generated change all over. We will see what comes out of all of these discussions but change of some sort or form looks to be happening. Conservation and hunting groups are simply trying to be part of these discussions and help direct possible solutions to the benefit of state resources and resident hunters. Nobody is seriously talking about 'eliminating' just the possibility of changing an "unlimited" situation to something that can be more accurately tracked and managed in overpressured areas primarily.

It's funny, sad you do that to try and hide your true colors to all the internet faces that look highly of you. You could just come out and say you don't want so many stinkin non res hunters! Atleast that's an honest answer rather than the what ifs, generalizations and hogwash you have been spouting here for the last few months.

Lots of stuff you 'want' to give you a greater oppritunity and the non resident significantly less, and yes it will be less than you are insinuating. But I forgot 'your' state is so friendly to non residents, sorry I forgot about all the oppritunity I'm not even given a shot at so that residents can have more, hear me whining about that? Sorry I'm standing up for my oppritunity, apparently me appreciating SD tags and the oppritunity to hunt makes me greedy now.

But you just want SD to be ahead of the game, and cut tags now, even though the herd is healthy. And don't tell me they are not Iv spent enough time in SD for a number of years, both hunting and otherwise. You would probably be in outrage if they were trying to cut down on your oppritunity. The only driving force behind these discussions is the want to have less non resident hunters in 'your' woods.

I play in plenty of other sandboxes, you don't need to explain anything to me.

I thought I was done, but just can’t help myself... Justin, on the surface the 40% cut, or 8% cap, however you want to look at it sounds wonderful. I’d do backflips if KS put a similar quota on the 13,000 NR bow tags and gave me the opportunity at a second buck. But who would that benefit other than the handful of diehard bowhunters in your state? Thirteen hundred less tags is nearly a $400,000 hit to the department and bigger than that once PR funds are calculated. And SD claims $2000 is spent in state for every NR tag purchased. Another $2.6million to the state economy. All to save a few hundred more mule deer and give you less competition? If saving a dying resource is the main objective here why are we all not advocating for the termination of antlerless muley tags? And make it impossible to take more than one mule deer buck per year, no matter your residency? Those seem more logical and far more beneficial than kicking 40% of the NR’s out.

KB, there have been discussions and efforts to reduce the harvest of mule deer does. It's another part of the overall 'discussions'. I can tell you that over 1/2 of all mule deer does are taken on SD youth and mentor tags. That's a serious discussion issue, but it is also quite 'sticky' as it deals with youth hunting opportunities. Antlerless tags in most areas have already been limited to Antlerless Whitetail only. A muzz doe tag is Whitetail Only. Antlerless archery in most areas is Whitetail Only. I agree and it's being discussed. About 1/4 of counties (estimate) you can't even harvest a doe or it's severely restricted. We have been hit hard in many areas by EHD and many varied license and 'opportunity' issues and changes have come as a result. You bring up $$$ and that's certainly a consideration for state beauracracies and private chambers of commerce and business entities. What I'd offer to that point is that your average hunter doesn't necessarily benefit. In fact, I'd point to how SD has 'advertised and publicized' hunting pheasants and how that has impacted resident pheasant hunters. Those businesses don't often have a place for those people to hunt, but they want the $$$. So who really 'pays' in the long run and who benefits?

You mentioned quite honestly that you'd do back flips if Kansas would limit NR tags and pressure. Are you working with the Kansas Bowhunters and Kansas GF to help reduce that pressure to benefit Kansas resident bowhunters? I would hope you would if that's how you feel.

You are a bowhunter, outdoorsman/sportsman and active and passionate enough to hunt several states. I'd assume that makes us all in here a LOT more like minded that this particular discussion may focus down on.

KB, I fully support those initiatives as well. I would sign up today for no antlerless mule deer harvest, one mule deer buck, even limited mule deer access permits to reduce buck harvest by residents on certain tracts of public land. We have plenty of problems with depredation in the winter months though that make those requests a pipe dream when we get the landowner and stockmen's groups involved at the decision making level so I don't think we'll ever get there even though we advocate for it as sportsmen. To address the financial aspect of it, we could get there easily by increasing non-resident tag fees and PP fees. A deer tag is close to $600 I think in MT, $372 for reg in WY (much more for special), $380 in CO, etc. We could increase to somewhere in that range and break even financially if we bump PP costs to be competitive with WY/CO.

Lawnboi, you can look at it however you want. My position is the same, it's clear, and it always will be the same. We need to limit mule deer harvest and competition on large public land tracts in western SD. I'll continue to push that agenda.

Appreciate the replies men. Good info on the antlerless situation.

DR, I am a current member of the KBA, going on six or seven years now. And am close friends with our new president. I sat in on a few EC meetings as a “Jr member” or something to that affect my first couple years and likely would’ve run for a position by now, but some lifestyle changes only have me in Kansas 5-6 months of the year currently. The club does very well at keeping us up to date on proposals and making sure our voice is heard at commission meetings/through emails and phone calls. I’ve attended some meetings myself, though not as many as I’d like to, and taken part in the email route for sure. A few of our members were largely responsible for getting antlerless mule deer tags removed just a couple years ago. The club also donated a nice chunk of money to a KDWP/K-State mule deer study that just began this year. We’ve been told not to expect any major changes until that’s complete. Our herd was in very tough shape after the droughts of ‘12/‘13 and finally showing signs of a turnaround this last year. But about half the muley range is experiencing another significant drought this winter and CRP is coming off as we speak to help cattle operations. Not good going into fawning and for a pheasant population that is wildly up and down. As far as Kansas’ NR bowhunter situation I fear its very similar to your upland program. The state sold its soul quite a few years ago to the NR and the outdoor channels sent guys our way by the thousands. At nearly 23,000 total NR tags going for roughly $540 per, and selling out every year, our state government wouldn’t let the department reverse that trend if they wanted to. And frankly I guess I can’t blame them. The landowners and local business owners have eaten it up. I’m optimistic things will change for the better going forward, but that will depend on NR demand much more than resident bowhunters unfortunately.

I was hoping to try the NW corner of your state this year for the first time, but if it’s not meant to be I’ll still have a quality experience I’m sure. I’d like to hunt sheep in the Breaks and muleys on the Strip too, but some things are meant to be a little more special! So I’ll wait my turn... Good luck in your fight guys. I truly can’t fault you for the effort. Whatever you do don’t let it become Kansas, but do leave a little for the rest of us!

KB, if you decide to or get the opportunity to hunt the NW corner up here shoot me a PM. I’ll help shorten the learning curve for you significantly with some info. Thanks for the feedback and good luck getting the things done you guys want done in KS. Take care.

Appreciate it! Hopefully I’ll get to take you up on that.

Good notes as a whole. One thing that I think is important to note is the culture of NR hunting is very heavily biased in SD due to the status of pheasant hunting. It has been commercialized to the point that many folks have an extremely bad taste in their mouth regarding ANY NR hunting. Like it or not, it is part of it.

In terms of limiting using LAU's, at this point I am for it. I believe that the state took the right step in making the CNF a separate rifle tag several years ago (and this is for R and NR). I used to bow hunt the area with relatively little pressure. As I said earlier, it was incredible the amount of bow hunters in the campgrounds (and anywhere you could put a camper) during archery season this year. Way too much pressure for that area. Now, is 250/20 cutting it thin? Maybe. But, some also would not remember when it was setup as a trophy area in the 1970's and the deer that were produced was incredible. There is a balance for sure.

The other important item is revenue. I believe no matter the social concerns, the GFP is still looking at the bottom line. I feel as a state we should have our NR license fees in line with other states with similar quality tags. WY, MT, ND all have more expensive tags than us. I'm not out to screw anyone over, but the fact is we need to be on the same level to produce revenue. Limiting archery tags really isn't a huge deal to me at this time if the revenue can remain the same. There are certainly over pressured areas and under pressured areas. And to be clear, revenue is purely for the GFP. I could care less about the trickle down effect. It certainly has a positive effect on some communities but isn't the golden goose it is made out to be in many cases.

This kinda got off topic with the first post I made, but good discussion.

The way I see it is if you are going to make people decide what their first choice is going to be, then you need to put all the choices in the first pick. Hills/ER/WR/Refuge/MZ/Special buck, everything minus archery. I would rather see it left as is but if you're going to make people choose, make them decide what is really important to them.

I would like to start by apologizing to Nebraska. I did not realize that in 2017 they had joined the Wildlife Violators Compact. As such, I will no longer refer to them as "they suck". Sorry about that.

Some other points. While Arizona may be in the rut, the OTC tags they sell are in a completely different time frame than the rest of the west, do not include the best areas, and are in a state which has immense areas of very rough public land which hold a very large population of deer. Not a comparable situation to South Dakota. Wyoming and Montana are the same. Not only are they much more expensive, but the best areas of the state are impossible to hunt without years of building points. Not comparable.

There is no reason for South Dakota to continue to sell unlimited any deer nonresident tags. No other state does it and it is leading to abuse of the resource. As a state and SDGFP we need to value our resource and treat it with the respect it deserves. Double the cost of the NR tag and cut the numbers in half. Problem solved on that front. I understand that those who have come to rely on an easy to get, inexpensive tag, that covers a large amount of easily accessible land are going to be upset and claim that, "My opportunity is being limited!." I got that, but you know best how what is happening here is a very unique situation, and that is because other states realize it is not a sustainable practice to give away piles of tags for basically nothing.

Each nonresident spends $2000 in South Dakota? I would be interested to see where they come up with those numbers. So a party of 5 who come here to hunt drop $10,000? Maybe pheasant hunters with lodge and guide fees, but the nonresident archery deer hunters that I see are camping and showing up well supplied.

I am in favor of the option that makes people choose what they want to do like grizzly said. Shake up the system. I think the older group who pushed for the cubing of elk points is the same group fighting to retain the status quo in regards to how the deer draw works which leads me to believe nothing will change, but a boy can dream. I know what I want, and any chance of increasing those odds gets my vote.

Great conversation, men. Nice to enjoy one with others who are educated and passionate about what we do. Even if our points of view and opinions differ greatly. Really nice experience.

First of all I love South Dakota,,,, and the truth is, even though the guys bought a house there, 15 years ago, if I wanted to move there I could, than as a resident, I would have a say,,,,, However now I have the best of both worlds, but as a NR I have no say, and that is how it should be.............

South Dakota should first do what is best for their herds, and if that means, that it will make it harder for me, to hunt there, well so be it..... The decision, belongs to the resident hunters, and any state should first be concerned about their resident hunters first..............

I do think in many ways the South Dakota Tourism will disagree, that NR do not bring in any money, that is known,,,,,, South Dakota Fish and Game need them dollars to operate, so I am surprised, that if, and when they cut tags, and again, I have no problem with that, its only right, the residents get what they want, but a resident tag is also very cheap, in comparison, to what other states operate on......

Presently Wis hunters, are voting on, when asked, to raise the fees, they know, what it needs to run operations................

I do agree, that there are areas, that are over run with NR hunters, me I do not hunt there, and have found areas, where I hardly see anyone and a lot of deer.........

In closing all resident hunters I have met, have always been nice, and cordial, and never had a problem,,, that's says a lot........ Resident hunters should do, what is best for their herd, and their own hunting,,,,,,,,,,,,, Just do not turn the state though, into a state, where only those with the most money wins...................

It appears that they liked alternative B for license allocation. That is what the proposal is for. Finalization will come in Sept. Funny, when I looked at their data, it appeared to me that alternative C or "no change" had the biggest percentage of votes. Now, that was with the multi-application people but their numbers seemed larger than the single application respondents from the groups. Alt B is better than A but less than C IMO. I think the winner will be the NR hunters. After they flood the state this fall, the proposal next year will be the elimination of the East/West tag and will be followed in the coming years with the "choose your weapon and your tag draw" Which will increase the odds of anyone only applying for one tag(NR).

I stand corrected, finalization will not occur at the sept. meeting. later perhaps dec ?

Grizzly, I share your fears. I was quite amazed at option #2 for all firearms being combined was proposed by staff. We will see. Two commissioners seem to prefer Option #1 for just combining BH, WR and ER. One seems to prefer no change. I 'feel' that we will see a NR archery cap/draw of some kind for 2019 but I also 'feel' we'll see some damage this fall with the Sept 1 opener and NR increases. Glad I don't have a BH archery elk tag for 18. I will caution all though that there are definitely 'some' staff and commissioners that question 'why' archery was left off the mandatory draw, so that will have to be fought more in the future.

opportunity opportunity......If this state keeps messing with that myself and many others will leave.

Register here to reply to this topic