Bowsite.com

Non resident discussion

Anyone hear the discussion at the commission meeting ? Seems like it takes awhile before I can read the transcripts or get an audio of it. I cant live stream as I'm at work and do not get paid to do such things. I saw the limited material about Resident/Nonresident hunters and it was informative but did not seem to really get deep into the subject. I was surprised to see the financial pie with NR's putting in more than residents. (don't let that go to your head now) Where does the Federal share come from ? That was bigger than either residents or nonresidents.

Grizzly Yes, the audio transcripts will be posted in a week or so. There is a Resident/nonresident opportunity working group starting the 17th and I will be on it. The pie you saw shows all hunting/fishing licenses and yes they do contribute more as a result of their higher fees. That includes all pheasant hunters and fishermen so keep that in mind. The federal comes from Pittman Robertson funding from the excise taxes sold in state (to my understanding). More will come soon but I already sent all the pertinent information out to SDBGC. We'll see how it shakes out, I'm not real pleased with how many chambers of commerce types and tourism interests are on the current group.

Us NR's got screwed on the Rifle Season. Can't get drawn until the FIFTH Draw, the way I read it. Why bother?

I dont think you read it right. There should be a chart that will show that a NR can have one license through the first and second draw and then they have to wait until the 5th draw to apply for more. Archery is not included in this at this times but there are people who would like to see that it does. So for now it appears that you can have one archery, one antlerless archery and then maybe a rifle if you have the preference points. They have not eliminated the "special buck" tags so you could always go for one of those out west. How many tags do you desire in our state ? Good luck and enjoy your visits.

Yes, the 8% NR allocation in the Black Hills, West River and Refuge still stands. That is all independent of the current proposal moving NRs down to the 5th draw during the combined proposal. Special buck for NRs is still in tact WR for the outfitters lobby. We will continue to work to put a cap and draw on NR archery deer and antelope permits due to the extreme pressure they are causing on large public tracts. We'll see what happens.

I am not sure you guys have seen “ extreme “ pressure from archery non residents

Jimbo, on certain tracts of public we certainly have. That is where the changes will be coming. The definition of "extreme" also changes once you leave the WI whitetail woods.

I have only hunted a few other states all public land and mn wi and co we’re all much busier than SD. SD has always been a nice quiet relaxing hunt for us. There must be certain spots that are far worse than what I am seeing. You would defiantly know better than I would since you spend 50 more weeks a year there. Thanks

It's definitely area specific and I would say timing specific as well. There are a lot of places in SD that are not pressured at all and I hope we can find a way to still allow opportunities for NR hunters to take advantage of those. The other specific problem we are trying to address is our dwindling mule deer population. Many NR's come here to target MD and that herd is struggling right now in SD.

I get what you are saying. Thanks for explaining.

Next to agriculture what is SDs number 1 business?

I'm sorry,, that was uncalled for.

Will these new rules affect non-resident archers hunting deer and antelope?

As in - a draw for the opportunity or will the tags essentially remain over-the-counter? Will license costs increase?

Thanks for the info

As it stands now, you will be able to apply for a guaranteed tag. There are areas that you will need an access permit that are draw and its likely that the Black Hills will eventually go that way. Have not heard the discussion on raising the prices but it could come into play. If they decide to quota NR at a percentage of the total like they do with rifle, it would have an impact. Then you might see a draw but it seems like they are looking out for you. Ill save my reply to that for SD Buckbuster.

There have been several "options" discussed informally with the commission and staff. Significant increase in NR tag fee; overall # cap and draw for deer and antelope archery permits; Public land habitat enhancement stamp; requirement of a general hunting license purchase prior to applying (such as many other states do); cap only public land permits and leave private land as is; season date changes (e.g. pheasant) etc. The only actual proposal taken to the commission was to substantially limit archery permit quotas on large public tracts (limited entry areas) such as Black Hills, National Grasslands and Custer National Forest. That was tabled by the GFP commission in April to have a larger and broad conversation on resident/nonresident opportunities. The stakeholders group meets for the first time Monday. I can tell you that GFP and the commissioners have heard from a LOT of resident archers about this over the past several years. Places like the Missouri River corridor, Custer National Forest, National Grasslands and a few GPA's east river and the like by White River/Cheyenne River are often mentioned. Have a good friend who stopped hunting the White River because of NRs and saw just as many along Cheyenne this year. Another very good friend counted over 80 NRs in CNF last year opener and only 2 residents. When it takes a resident rifle hunter 5-10 years to draw some of those any deer permits it sticks in a guys craw to see all the NRs bowhunting and often being indiscriminate with the mule deer harvest. Just a few thoughts.

Thank you for the heads up. I love South Dakota - it is a beautiful state with fine people. I lived there for 3 years after retiring from the Army. If I ever kill an antelope in South Dakota on a spot-and-stalk hunt, I may shed a tear or two - it is tough hunting. Thanks again.

Yeah RD, I finally arrowed an antelope buck on spot and stalk. Has to be the hardest animal to sneak up on. Got lucky when a fog bank rolled in so I ran up to the area where I saw some and connected.

What a crock if non-resident bow hunters on private land will be thrown in the mix with all non-resident bow hunters in the draw regardless where they hunt public or private. I know some here say it’s a maybe but I have doubts. Has any time frame been discussed when the NR bow tags may be changed ? Significant fee increase? like how much increase? any thing discussed?

Deerplotter, I understand you like to hunt here and don't want the opportunity taken away or made too costly. The Nonresident group is still talking and nothing has taken place yet. In my opinion, it would be foolish to not limit Nonresidents on private land as well. I'm not saying you limit them as much as on public land. I know of a Nonresident land owner who bought some land pretty much exclusively for bow hunting deer. Not a really huge chunk but it has great potential for deer. He has been enjoying this for years. Its his money and he can spend it any way he likes. This is America. He's from Minnesota by the way. Now the only worry I have in this is that the more Nonresidents buy or lease, the more commercial it gets and the harder it is for locals to hunt. Now some people with a lot of expendable cash might say some of us should have got better higher paying jobs. Some of us stay here because we enjoy the hunting. In the early 1900's nonresidents bought or leased a vast majority of our lakes and marshes for their exclusive waterfowl hunting. It upset the residents and a Nonresident quota for waterfowl tags was established. I don't want the bowhunting to get to that level before something is done. You have a lot of economic development and tourism people on your side right now. I wouldn't worry too much yet.

There is obliously a whole other side of SD I havnt seen. I hunt private land in the hills for whitetail and public land and walk in for muleys.

We gained permission for free in the hills on two pieces of land totaling 800 acres. I have never seen so many whitetails and many respectable deer at that. From what I saw seems to be almost too many deer?

The public/walk in we hunted had zero competition! We saw 1 truck with SD plates with a large white cooler in the back drive by, that is as close as we came to seeing another hunter. We hunted smaller parcels. We never saw a 200” muley but we saw nice bucks everyday we hunted. As of now SD is a reasonable NR destination with a good amount of public land.

I have never paid a penny to hunt land anywhere, I have been lucky to hunt private in MN WI and SD, but only because there are generous people out there. I also hunt public in each state. I just don’t understand why there is such high densities or archery hunters in some areas. Why would people travel to another state to be crowded? To me it’s a vacation and is supposed to be relaxing. I’m hoping a blanket rule is not the game and fish answer to this.

What Grizzly said... Gentlemen you are all entitled to your own opinions but I must remind that anyone who hunts as a NR (I often do) is bound by what the residents of that state decide. Is it a crock that I have to draw elk tags in the west when the majority reside on federal lands? Perhaps, but the public trust doctrine and constitutional admission to the US by territories specifically provided the wildlife belongs to the citizens of each individual state. Nobody is seriously talking about eliminating NR hunting opportunities, simply limiting them to a 'reasonable' amount. In places it's pretty darn bad I assure you, in others, you won't see another hunter, particularly during the week. We will see how it fleshes out. I know I'd love an Iowa archery tag every year, but guess what, the reason it's so good is because the citizens of Iowa want to protect their precious resources and I applaud them for that. Happy New Year

Why would you want to limit non-residents to a “reasonable amount of time” even if it’s private land where over crowding isn’t an issue? You can also raise the price of the license but it won’t change non-resident hunter numbers much if any. If they raise the fee I hope it is for better reasons then that.

A "reasonable amount" would be the amount the citizens of SD in conjunction with the GFP commission feels is biologically and socially acceptable. The price increases would bring us more in line with neighboring states and those increases would be used to fund additional public land access through our walk-in programs, additional land purchases, and habitat improvements throughout the state. There's a reason people from MN want to come here to hunt. It's because we responsibly manage our resources to maintain viable populations which provide sportsmen with great hunting opportunities. If we don't place reasonable limits on tags and access it won't be too far down the road and we'll be West Minnesota rather than a sportsman's paradise. We want our kids to have the same great experiences we have someday.

Hard for me to argue any of the points you made Brotsky. I will be waiting to hear what you guys decide. Would this effect the 2019 season?

Joe, I believe the intent is to have changes in place for 2019. I think you'll still have opportunity here, it may just look a little different but you'll still have a chance to have a great hunt.

If you are hunting private land where overcrowding is not an issue in that area of the state then hunting pressure isn’t either, thus biologically no difference. So now we are down to what you good folks decided is “reasonable” for non residents in those areas of the state based on opinion.

Deerplotter, hopefully it isn’t a blanket rule as far as public/private is concerned. Unfortunately as NR I don’t think we have any say in this. It will be interesting for sure to hear what gets drawn up. Hopefully sooner than later Incase we need to change plans for next fall.

Something should be hammered out by April and would be finalized in May as that is the typical schedule for our deer season finalizations. You are all welcome to comment within the public comment period once the proposals are made, most likely early April.

Thanks Brotsky for keeping us mud ducks informed

What if you were to have 2 week seasons for non residents? That would definitely reduce the crowds in some of the more popular spots. It could be structured similar to our turkey season here in mn. Season A-H apply for a first and second choice.

What if you were to have 2 week seasons for non residents? That would definitely reduce the crowds in some of the more popular spots. It could be structured similar to our turkey season here in mn. Season A-H apply for a first and second choice.

As far as I'm concerned they should leave the non res archery deer tags unlimited. The only thing I've ever been concerned about are those areas that get extremely heavy pressure during the archery season like the NF in Harding county, The Black Hills and the Missouri River. It's of course only my opinion, but I think the majority of the issue most people have could be solved simply by having a lottery for access permits for the most heavily used public lands. I also think they should limit residents in those areas during archery season.

Not sure why it keeps double posting, must mean I have a really valid point:)

+1 Griz, 100% agree. The proposal to limit via access permits last year was solid.

I don't have a skin in the game as I haven't been a resident since 1993, but I agree with Griz on limited access for certain popular areas to avoid over hunting. I usually hunt tracts that are not hunted a lot or private land, but his idea makes a lot of sense. That said, I haven't hunted SD for 5 years. Bitten by the elk bug and no opportunity in SD. I do have 5 points for rifle deer though. When I first started hunting SD as a non resident in the mid 90's I think there were only like 3000 nr archery tags sold a year, at $100 a pop. Times have changed for sure.

Makes sense. +2

The LAU quotas proposed by GFP staff last April absolutely made sense. The commission tabled that to have an overall Resident/Non-Resident discussion. That working group (which I sat on) actually just ended with basic criteria provided to the commission. Time will tell what they decide to do with NR archery and NR hunting opportunities in general. The NRs can certainly take solace in the fact they were well represented with more Chambers of Commerce, Retailers, Guides etc chiming in than resident hunters representation.

Hey DR, Did SDGFP ever ask for public input? Or was this an invite event? I know they never sent me any information about wanting comments. Nice of them to alert the NR lobby about this, but leave us R's out of the conversation.

Steve, the stakeholders group was an invite only and everyone was a SD resident. I only mentioned the makeup as it was quite clear when discussing issues where they tended to come down. Things like 'balance', 'impact to residents', 'habitat', 'increasing better opportunity'...which were things the 3 resident hunters and 1 resident from SDWF continued to talk about as priority issues, we kept hearing about 'economic impact' to all citizens (read non hunters), tax base, bars/restaraunts/hotels etc and even outfitters. And like I said, there were more of them than us. You can put in public comments at anytime to GFP on resident/non-resident issues. All this group did was to put together a list of things to consider when the commissioners make decisions to allow non-resident opportunities and the amount. 3 commissioners were there, 2 sat on group. For my part I didn't want the commission even considering 'economics' except as it directly pertained to running the department. Clearly the retailers, chambers of commerce and business interests wanted it much higher on the list.

Register here to reply to this topic