Bowsite.com

Hunter numbers

The GFP here and everywhere is battling with the decline in hunter numbers and are making strides to try to slow it down or turn it around. I acknowledge all the reasons for the decline but believe the real problem is the access. As SD Buckbuster pointed out, tourism is our #2 industry in this state. This has a domino affect on access issues and makes the GFP's problem even larger. The outfitters lease more land up. The pool of available land for public hunting diminishes. People with the means try to buy their own slice of heaven and avoid the masses. I'm not saying that the GFP is not working on this front as well as they have many wonderful programs. They are at the mercy of the marketplace and the unique personalities of some of the landowners that they deal with. This is America and no one has the right to tell you what to do with your land or how you should run your farm. Quite a delicate balance. Many of us have seen the dramatic impacts of having CRP and then not having CRP. The GFP is constrained in their efforts by all these things. What can we do or suggest to help out ? I have heard many landowners do not allow antlerless hunters in because they are trying to protect the antlers. I know there are people who would knowingly lie or just use it as an excuse to drive all the deer out. I know we have an additional antlerless season after the regular seasons are over. I have heard the complaints that this leads to too much pressure on the landowners and the game. Why not just separate the season into Buck only and a later doe only season? The season could be just one week long with a week off in between. If we continue down the less licenses being sold due to this access issue, the GFP will have to make up for lack of funding somehow and it is always more palatable to raise the rates of NR's that are helping cause the problem. I realize some of them are coming here to have a better hunt or a different species than they can find at home. I cant blame them. Yes, it cost money to travel and hunt. There are some who hunt all over the darn place and feel that they have the money and we should all just step aside and let them have whatever they want. On the Big Game forum I read the thread condemning the state of Wyoming for making their draws later in the year. I don't have much sorrow for people who apply for elk in eight different states. Of course I am on the other end of the economic ladder and therefore look out for what's happening in my state. Heck yeah its selfish. I would think you would do the same in my position.

Your right grizzly you are being selfish and I don’t blame you a bit! You guys have the best opportunity for hunting mule deer for guys from Wisconsin and Minnesota. When you factor in gas and tags it’s pretty affordable . I am not into buying points and applying in several states. So for my own selfish reasons I hope SD doesn’t get too carried away like many other states with the draws and 400-600 dollar tags. There is a fine line on how much guys will pay for a deer tag and losing the revenue that comes with us NR hunters. Hopefully game and fish can come up with something that will work for everyone.

You certainly hit the nail on the head Grizz.

SD is an absolute GEM and I am happy to live near it. As many issues as you have there,, MN is a complete disaster. There's a reason why many non-res hunters want to be in SD,,,, it's because it's 100 times better than the states to the east.. We thank you for everything SD has to offer.. And agreed, it does need to be fair to all.

I used to live in SD and travel there annually to hunt antelope with archery tackle. What is the problem with SD as you see it Grizzly when you mention access? Do you mean not enough public land or walk-in areas? Where I live now in Wisconsin is inundated with hunters every fall but the hunting is still top notch as far as I am concerned and I hunt mostly public land (we only have 4 acres of woods). Are you are experiencing something similar in South Dakota?

Access problems are mainly private ground which leads to the much higher hunter to deer ratios on public land. I hunt private east because I'm local and have a few agricultural connections. If I did not have these connections, it would be much harder. You almost have to have an in with people. Now, I have asked people to hunt by knocking on doors and being respectful and polite. Most will not allow because of family or people who have been hunting for years. Most are polite. Some seem aggravated because they get asked to much. Some allow it and one guy actually told me "no one has ever asked before, go ahead" When I go west I'm usually on public as there is a good quantity of it. There is good hunting here but I can see where we are heading. I have some relatives in the Bel Fouche river breaks area. They used to have over twenty different pieces of ground to hunt on. There is only one of them that gets to hunt now on a single piece of ground. It is a very nice place to hunt but he must wait out the first four days of the season so the paid hunters can go. I believe he has this last piece of ground because of deep connections to the owner. Just guessing they are vets and served together. When he passes or the owner, it is probably all done. The money dictates who hunts. I don't know what they do with the surplus animals but I have a hunch. The commercialization keeps squeezing the numbers down. Where 20 people used to hunt, now there is only 4 or 5. Corporations flying people in, outfitting them at the nearest Cabelas or Scheels and off they go. Some even leave their brand new rifles with the guide or outfitter. What I'm trying to say is the more commercialization you have, the less hunters you have. Limited access, limited hunters. Because it is harder for Non Residents to get an east river firearms license, it is a little better on this side of the state but we are seeing more leasing, more non resident archers, and outright purchase by individuals seeking their own place to hunt. There is concern by many ag people that the government(GFP) should not own any land as they perceive that it takes away from the tax base. Everything I have ever read on this does not support this belief. They do not want people to place conservation easements on their land and have tried to change some laws to this affect. Its funny that they grow so damn much crop that the market cant support the prices they desire to have so they figure out ways to make the land more "productive". Usually this does not benefit the wildlife. Tiling, shelterbelt removal, ditch to ditch plowing. The equipment is fantastic and one guy can do what it used to take many to do. On the other hand the commercialization helps the conservation and hurts the hunter. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. I'm rambling now so i'll shut up.

Great points Griz. Thanks for the read.

Grizz, lots of moving parts and all have an impact. More habitat is the answer but the hardest to do anything about when 80% of SD is privately owned. Over 7B people on the planet and we "have to feed them". Our first Resident/NonResident stakeholders meeting Monday was pretty interesting. I do believe changes will definitely be made but making them to the sacred walleye or pheasant NR opportunities will be a very hard sell. I am hopeful to finally get some positive movement on the NR unlimited archery deer/antelope issue though. It's jut a matter of how deep and where the changes will be made. Hot spots of Black Hills, NW SD, River corridors and large public areas seem to have pretty easy decision points for the folks I meet with.

Are non-residents archers having a big impact on the antelope and deer numbers in South Dakota? Or is the problem with unlimited non-resident tags something else? I would love to know what your take is because I think South Dakota is a beautiful state and a privilege to hunt in.

"Are non-residents archers having a big impact on the antelope and deer numbers in South Dakota?"

No, absolutely not from a biological standpoint in the big picture. The issue is exactly as DR described related to specific large tracts of public land. Those pieces are heavily pressured and mule deer specifically are targeted in such a way that it does impact the herd on those specific pieces of property. Statewide mule deer numbers continue to decline and we need to look at ways to improve habitat and recruitment to bring the numbers back into line. NR harvest statewide is not a significant factor.

NR harvest statewide is not a significant factor, yet DR suggests that positive movement in unlimited NR permits will have a positive impact? Is the issue harvest numbers and the pressure those numbers place on the herd or personal accounts from various residents, which are essentially demands for a better experience? If the trouble is with Mule deer specifically, the answer would be to do away with "any deer" tags and instead issue tags for specific deer species. Subsequently, issuing a limited number of Mule deer only permits would allow that specific species rebound from over-harvest. A nearby state, Montana, took a similar course when winter conditions significantly impacted antelope populations. I would suggest that the GFP's primary duty is to the biological health of the deer herd and submission to other interests, including the desire for limited competition, is an abdication of that responsibility.

RD in WI Brotsky answered it well. I'll expound perhaps a bit further since you asked. Your suggestion about specifically changing tags to something like Whitetail ONLY and issuing a limited number of archery mule deer permits is certainly an option and one the GFP may ultimately decide at some point. The number of actual deer taken by NR archers isn't a biological impact but the numbers viewed through the lens of Mule deer and how long it takes a resident rifle hunter to get a mule deer tag is pretty glaring in several units. The second factor you also mentioned, it's the overall quality of experience. The first hand accounts of resident archers that travel out to public tracts only to see them filled up with hunters from out of state are many. I don't blame NRs for wanting a good quality hunting experience at a cheap price, I'd do the same. It is however up to each individual states to manage their resource as well as opportunities and SD has been seeing a LOT of things change over the past decade or so. Our state has a LOT of wonderful opportunities but many residents are increasingly losing those opportunities. Sometimes that's due to habitat impacts such as loss of CRP. Sometimes those impacts are due to loss of access due to leasing. Other times it's due to legal action such as with fishing and our recent non-meandered waters rulings. We have also had a lot of loss in waterfowl opportunity due to our legislature doing an end run around the GFP and adding a pile of NR waterfowl permits, which helped directly result in the loss of access to many in NE SD from NR waterfowl leasing and commercial hunting operations. I have absolutely no doubt that many from MN, WI, MI, PA etc have experienced high pressure, poor quality hunting and limited access for decades due to your high human populations. It's quite new to SD residents and losing the opportunities we live for is not something that most are happy about. Myriad options are being looked at. Habitat is the key for all that ales us all, but when 80% of the state is private land mostly Ag operations little can be done regarding that at the state level. What can be controlled (to try and "improve" the situation") is removing the "unlimited" tag on NR archery permits or doing something to limit the amount of pheasant hunters on public lands or even limiting NR fishermen who flock here when their home states have closed seasons. I certainly don't begrudge NRs who follow the laws, rules and are respectful as I hunt as a NR in several states. But, I always have to respect and follow the rules those states and their citizens decide. NO other state allows their entire state to be opened up to ANY Deer or Any antelope in all units, not one. It's all competition for resources here, just like it is everywhere else.

RD in WI Brotsky answered it well. I'll expound perhaps a bit further since you asked. Your suggestion about specifically changing tags to something like Whitetail ONLY and issuing a limited number of archery mule deer permits is certainly an option and one the GFP may ultimately decide at some point. The number of actual deer taken by NR archers isn't a biological impact but the numbers viewed through the lens of Mule deer and how long it takes a resident rifle hunter to get a mule deer tag is pretty glaring in several units. The second factor you also mentioned, it's the overall quality of experience. The first hand accounts of resident archers that travel out to public tracts only to see them filled up with hunters from out of state are many. I don't blame NRs for wanting a good quality hunting experience at a cheap price, I'd do the same. It is however up to each individual states to manage their resource as well as opportunities and SD has been seeing a LOT of things change over the past decade or so. Our state has a LOT of wonderful opportunities but many residents are increasingly losing those opportunities. Sometimes that's due to habitat impacts such as loss of CRP. Sometimes those impacts are due to loss of access due to leasing. Other times it's due to legal action such as with fishing and our recent non-meandered waters rulings. We have also had a lot of loss in waterfowl opportunity due to our legislature doing an end run around the GFP and adding a pile of NR waterfowl permits, which helped directly result in the loss of access to many in NE SD from NR waterfowl leasing and commercial hunting operations. I have absolutely no doubt that many from MN, WI, MI, PA etc have experienced high pressure, poor quality hunting and limited access for decades due to your high human populations. It's quite new to SD residents and losing the opportunities we live for is not something that most are happy about. Myriad options are being looked at. Habitat is the key for all that ales us all, but when 80% of the state is private land mostly Ag operations little can be done regarding that at the state level. What can be controlled (to try and "improve" the situation") is removing the "unlimited" tag on NR archery permits or doing something to limit the amount of pheasant hunters on public lands or even limiting NR fishermen who flock here when their home states have closed seasons. I certainly don't begrudge NRs who follow the laws, rules and are respectful as I hunt as a NR in several states. But, I always have to respect and follow the rules those states and their citizens decide. NO other state allows their entire state to be opened up to ANY Deer or Any antelope in all units, not one. It's all competition for resources here, just like it is everywhere else.

RD, I disagree that the GFP's sole responsibility is the health of the herd. Their responsibility is to manage the herd, manage the opportunity, and to manage the experience of their customers (hunters, fishermen, and multi-use participants). All of them are held with equal value. They also have an obligation to protect landowners from depredation by the state's wildlife. All factors that are considered when building harvest models. Social and biological aspects have to be considered. I wish it was as easy as you suggest.

Those items - managing the opportunity and experience are in fact functions of the GFP, they are not however equal to the primary (my words), not sole (your term), biological management of the herd. Even crop predation by wildlife is a biological function - thus its control should be the responsibility of the biologists in the GFP. I hope the citizens of South Dakota, in cooperation with the GFP, can figure out the issue of ensuring an enjoyable experience for the majority of resident hunters, as that is an important function of the GFP. My experiences as both a resident and non-resident were stellar, my interaction with resident landowners and hunters was thoroughly enjoyable, and the hunt quality was second-to-none. For each of these circumstances, I applaud both the GFP and the citizenry of South Dakota. I can't wait to see the results of their combined efforts in this matter.

I sure wouldn't mind a increase in license cost either.

Just curious Dakota why would you like to see an increase in license cost as an outfitter? It seems people have the assumption that since other states are charging $400 and up that we should too. There is a reason I don’t hunt deer in Iowa, it’s only 3 hour drive for me but it has surpassed the reasonable amount for a deer hunt for me personally. Maybe people that hire guides and outfitters won’t be bothered, but I believe there is a point where it will turn away average hunters like myself with a family and a budget.

Would higher tag prices out weigh the revenue that we bring with? I paid 286 for a tag and 800 for the rest of my trip. That includes lodging, gas, groceries, eating out and a couple trips to hardware store and scheels etc. that was for six days of hunting.

I think I typed this exact response this spring when these discussions flared up. I guess since fall is officially over I find myself here again! ;)

It would take much higher tag prices to outweigh the revenue loss of an 8% cap to just the department itself. Not to mention 1,800 less non residents spending money throughout the state as you suggest Mnhunter. Pittman Robertson dollars are paid back to states $3-$1. So for every NR tag purchased the state gets $858 more for that sale. In 2017 NR bought 3800 tags which wouldve generated $4.35 million for the state (tag fee + PR kickback). In order to hit those same dollars with the 8% cap (now 2,000 NR bowhunters) you’d need a $543 NR archery tag. And again, lose out on 1,800 tourists during the fall. In a state where residents have a great chance at obtaining 3 or more antlered tags in a single season I can’t imagine the non resident archery experience bringing over $100 more than Colorado, Kansas, etc... I’d be all for a system with NR bow units, spreading the crowds and some actual biology applied. But this 8% cap thing still baffles me. Surely there’s a better route.

Always enjoy the discussion in here. Feel free to correct me on my figures/PR understanding if I’m off anywhere. I do hope you all win some battles in bettering the experience in your great state, but I don’t think 1,800 bowhunters are your true enemy.

The comments on South Dakota's thread are just amazing. Great thinkers and meaningful posts without personal attacks or persons taking the questions that people ask as personal affronts - excellent forum. I bet that South Dakota gets it right in the end.

Higher license cost has nothing to do with my occupation but rather looking at the overall picture. Geewhiz for such great opportunities and guaranteed archery licenses across the board as it is right now I just think $286 for nonresidents is a pretty darn cheap deal. I'm not saying 500 or $600 licenses but I sure don't think $300 is out of line. Us residents could also pitch in a little bit more. Even $5 you would think would be doable and help out quite a bit. Maybe I'm completely wrong.

I’m not saying you’re wrong at all I am looking at it in a very biased point of view. I’m not saying I’m right either just one opinion coming from a fairly tight budget. Merry Christmas guys! Enjoy some time with your families

I just reviewed some unofficial data by SDBI from 2005-2018 showing the growth in archery hunters. The NR's are outpacing the resident growth rate on a percentage basis. However, there appeared to be 8000 more resident archers in that same time period. I didn't catch if that was unique hunters or just licenses purchased. Maybe it was two tag archers. At any rate it did not appear that the hunter numbers were decreasing. I attribute some of this to the advancements in archery and the ability to create instant archers. Whole other conversation there. I can only imagine the comparable numbers in other state are similar thus leading to the drive to go somewhere else less crowded. I get that. Were going to have to convince ND to raise their rates also so we don't look so greedy! JK Enjoy your Holidays.

I probably have it good. SD resident with a lot of family owned land in Wisconsin. WI deer tag is cheap compared to other states $160. I get to hunt in the Black Hills as a resident. Have a bunch of Elk preference points in WY that I am finally going to cash in on this year. At close to $800 for license fees there this will be my last.

Things I'd like to see:

1. NR total license cost increase to $350. $300 for the tag and $50 habitat stamp that goes directly toward funding additional walk-in acres and land purchases for the GFP. In fact we should include that habitat stamp on the pheasant licenses as well, then we could really make a dent!

2. County/Region specific license including Any whitetail/Any deer distinctions.

3. A reasonable cap on NR licenses in those zones.

4. Resident and non-resident access permit caps in the limited entry zones.

I think a flat cap across the board would be a bad move for SD. I was born and raised in SD and hunt family land every year. In fact, I've never missed a SD deer season in my life. It's the hunt I look forward to the most every year, spending time with my family and chasing whitetails.

If a flat cap is imposed and I happen to not draw a tag, everyone loses. The state loses out on revenue, I obviously don't get to hunt, and the land I typically hunt won't be hunted.

I think there needs to be some break down between east/west river or public/private land or both. 3800 non resident archers isn't that big of number. Limiting them isn't the answer it's figuring out how to spread them out.

We love to concentrate on the NR but let's not forget a resident of SD can get a buck tag east river archery, west river archery, east river rifle, west river rifle, Black Hills, and muzzleloader.

Jason, couldn't agree more. I would not be in favor of any type of private land NR cap on archery licenses. They are not biologically significant in the grand scheme of things and there is zero issue with pressure on private lands. The NR archery problems we have are well documented at this point, we need to address them head on with specific solutions, not across the board caps that don't address the issues.

It would be nice to differentiate public from private for non residents . I hunted mule deer on public, but whitetail we hunted private.

We hunted small pieces of walk in and public and didn’t see any other hunters but I understand the larger areas are attractive on a map and draw crowds.

I wouldn’t mind waiting a year to draw a wr mule deer tag and hunt private for whitetail the years I didn’t draw. Just my .02 cents. Hopefully common sense will prevail without making this too complicated.

Spent about an hour on the phone with a GFP contact discussing this today. The feeling from him is that something will definitely be done and the focus would indeed be on limiting/distributing public land pressure, specifically mule deer harvest. Our current SDBI discussion is drafted around an overall cap #, permit fee increase and distinction between public and private. That's just a draft and discussion though. Lots of ways to skin the cat and distribute pressure without necessarily limiting private land permits for whitetails. I do like and have heard many suggest a habitat stamp/fee for public land improvements to directly benefit those specific areas. Many states already have a habitat or conservation stamp. We will see what happens, I'll definitely be bringing these issues and options before the Res/NR stakeholders discussion.

Thanks DR, I know you guys are working hard to get the right thing done on this! Any chance there will be an opportunity to talk with some folks from the GFP related to this at the SDBI convention in February? Hoping I'll be able to make it to this one.

Brotsky, Yes I have Chad Switzer and Kevin Robling scheduled for a seminar Q&A slot.

Register here to reply to this topic