DeerBuilder.com
HB1094
South Dakota
Contributors to this thread:
grizzly 01-Feb-17
sdbowhunter 01-Feb-17
sdbowhunter 01-Feb-17
Skullwerx 02-Feb-17
leftee 02-Feb-17
grizzly 06-Feb-17
DR 15-Feb-17
Brotsky 15-Feb-17
grizzly 15-Feb-17
DR 16-Feb-17
From: grizzly
01-Feb-17
Tomorrow legislature decides on this bill. I am not in favor of Transferable licenses. If you are not aware of this bill, go to GFP website and look it up under legislative updates. If this passes, things will be changing and not for the better in my opinion. Contact your reps and let them know how you feel. Today.

From: sdbowhunter
01-Feb-17

sdbowhunter's Link
I hope this does not pass either.

From: sdbowhunter
01-Feb-17

sdbowhunter's Link
Here is the exact wording they are voting on tomorrow

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to provide for the transfer of certain landowner hunting licenses. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA: Section 1. That chapter 41-6 be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read: The provisions of § 41-6-71 notwithstanding, any license for the hunting of east river deer, west river deer, or antelope issued to a person eighteen years of age or older as a limited license pursuant to § 41-6-19.3 may be transferred, with or without payment or consideration, to any resident who is qualified to apply for hunting privileges in this state. However, no license may be transferred unless the transferor owns or operates at least six hundred forty acres of agricultural, grazing, or timber land. The license may only be used on land owned or leased by the transferor. No more than two licenses may be transferred from an immediate family.

From: Skullwerx
02-Feb-17
Overall I am opposed to this bill as well. I emailed all the reps and got several responses back. All opposed as well.

There are only a few instances I can see this as a benefit. #1 being able to transfer to active military. I have a friend that was on leave 2 years ago during the season, I had a tag and would have gladly transferred it to him. #2 would be transferring to someone with a terminal illness. Other than that I see no benefits overall this bill.

From: leftee
02-Feb-17
Ditto!

From: grizzly
06-Feb-17
This bill failed. I encourage you to listen to the audio of the proceedings. It gives a little background into some of the thinking of different groups. There are some things the differing sides will never agree on but many things we could all work on. My guess is this will come up next year again. Maybe the good old days are behind us. I hope not.

From: DR
15-Feb-17
As with all walks of life, some hunters give us all a bad name; some CO's; commissioners and in this case landowners. Views are often different from varying perspectives but we have to try and find common ground in each situation.

I was at the BH Sportsmans Show talking to a Taxi about the SD Big Game Coalition and working to have a hunters voice with the commission, GFP and politicians. A gentlemen walked up and was listening and I could tell he was curious. When we stopped talking about HB 1094, he asked "so you are against landowners getting a license to sell". I explained the commercialization of wildlife position and he immediately went to scrolling through his i-Phone. He eventually came up with two photos of his combine in a corn field showing a good strong stand and an obviously lesser stand. Elk depredation he stated. I offered it looked liked he needed more hunters help with controlling the herd to reduce depredation. The conversation moved on a bit but then he said he wanted $5K for a bull elk on his ranch as the reservation was getting $7K he said. He explained how his crop insurance had to cover the loss of over $20K in depredation. I asked if he'd applied for any of the 2016 record $308K in elk depredation that was paid out by SDGFP this year. He said he refused to be "blackmailed" into allowing hunters or go through the GFP beauracracy to recoup losses. I knew the discussion wouldn't go well or change his mind so I just shut up and let him vent...but he offered that he thought hunters always win out and ranchers and hunters will be always be at odds.

Doesn't have to be that way but damage to crops is real and we have to respect that aspect. I don't know what all the answers are but we've got to find common ground and work to find solutions amenable to all involved. I often hear "other states do it" as this rancher stated regarding selling tags. I retorted that Yes Colorado ties it to ranching for wildlife and NM, UT and NV do LO tags for sale. However, those states have tons more elk and those ranches have larger holdings with different stipulations. Also, how has that worked out for those states resident hunters? Hasn't worked well for Kansas deer hunters either. Just a few thoughts.

From: Brotsky
15-Feb-17
DR, this is my concern with the LO tag situation: A guy like you spoke with is NEVER going to let the average hunter on his place to hunt regardless of the situation. Why not grant him a tag or two to sell to hunt exclusively on his property. The pressure applied there may move some of those animals to adjoining properties where the average hunter may have access. I know the thought is that if we make those tags available then EVERY landowner will sell them and they will all allow no hunting access to the average guy. I'm not sure that is the case. There's a way to make this work and I hope the big game coalition comes up with a viable solution. I know I add my 2 cents worth to the commission often.

From: grizzly
15-Feb-17
My fear with making transferable tags is that it places a monetary value on the trophy animals. Animals that one would want to protect by not allowing just anybody to go traipsing through your land after. Possibly scaring them off onto another's ground. It is a fair assumption that these tags will bring a decent amount of money after the true trophy potential is realized. The does will not get harvested. The depredation will get worse and possibly on the landowners who are not in the money game. Should they have to pay for actions of their neighbors? There are landowners who will not sell them and just give them to family or friends. This bill was introduced as a "State Resident" only thing but when they started discussing it, they brought up how to check the criminal records of nonresidents buying these tags. No one spoke up and said "hey, this is just for residents" It is not much of a leap of faith to guess that the year after this passes, It will come back as a Nonresidents can play too bill. The vote to turn it down was fairly decisive so there is a lot of support against it but that could change. There are extremist on both sides. I have a hard time respecting people who cannot fathom why we have a GFP and have a terrible disdain for anything govt. I cant respect those on the other side that feel that as taxpayers supporting Ag. Programs they should have the right to go where they please. Finding the common ground is not easy and we will never make everyone happy but we do need to try. From what I have heard and read, it has not been a very good year out west, first the drought and then the nasty winter. I'm sure seeing all those deer on your haystacks is not easy to stomach. I think the people in the NE got socked too. I am in favor of donating Twenty bucks every time I get a license and they can pool the money and split it up amongst the willing landowners. No one has to get blackmailed. I know that asking many people to donate twenty bucks to a license they currently see as overpriced is not a favorable thing either. You let more NR's in and charge the hell out of them and use that money to satisfy the willing landowners for the rest of us to get some access. But that would mean you are playing along with the Kings and Peasants game. He with the most money wins. I like the programs that are in place now with the walk ins and CREP's. I think they are successful programs. On a different note, in my opinion, the big game coalition is a political thing not a deer management plan. Period For the record, although I am opposed to commercial hunting, I have found that there are decent people in those fields as well. I do like most landowners and enjoy visiting with them even if we don't always see eye to eye. I will always enjoys eating beef and appreciate the hardships some of you people go through to raise it. I cant help that I was born in a city and not on a ranch. Just fate I guess. Ill shut up now. Thanks

From: DR
16-Feb-17
Good stuff Brotsky and Grizzly. We definitely have to thank and respect landowners who feed the states public wildlife. I agree that we have to consider depredation. We provide $2.50 per deer license and $5.00 for each elk application to the depredation pool now. I love Walk-in and CREP contracted from those landowners that are willing and we are blessed to have those programs that are so successful.

The original push for the transfer was to sell to anyone, make no mistake about it, it's aimed at commercialization of the resource and it will go to the highest bidders. It's not just to get a tag as LO's who qualify can already get a deer, antelope or Elk tag every year (save H3 and prairie though the majority do there too).

LO's should and do always have the only say on who gets permission and hunts their property. I agree with Grizzly on that point as well as the disappointment toward the hunters that want (demand) to be provided access without question across private property.

Grizzly is also correct about SDBGC, it is political and we need more hunters groups with a voice. If you care to hear more details on the current deer and elk stakeholders groups I can certainly provide that if you'd like to contact me. If you watch the commission decisions and committee makeup as well as the blatant end run around GFP and commission through the legislature you'll certainly see the need for a stronger hunters voice politically.

Management decisions should always be left up to science and the biologists but sadly, they are not as evidence of last summer's elk permit increase and contingency increase decision process.

Be kind, respectful and ethical to LO's while/if privileged to be able to access their property and a guy will likely have a spot for years to come. However, just as Betty Olson always wanted to sell school and public or require local LO permission to access said public lands, so to do we have a group of LO's (especially those associated with outfitters) that would not allow anyone on (as is their right) and seek to profit from the public;s resources.

  • Sitka Gear