Change Proposals
South Dakota
SDBI discussed, adjusted and unanimously approved 5 proposals to GFP during the general membership on Saturday in Pierre. If you aren't a member of SDBI, please consider joining. I have sent the entire detailed proposals to each SDBI member's e-mail address. They should be added to the next commission meeting held in Pierre February 28th, SDBI will hold a hospitality night with the commissioners that evening if you are interested in attending.
Basic Theme of Proposals: - Increase NR Big Game permit from $286 + 30%, Increase NR preference points from $10 to $25, Increase NR general hunting license from $115 + 30% - Require all Big Game applicants to purchase a basic/general hunting license prior to application - Establish finite limits on NR LAU permits for each LAU to be drawn after application run - Establish a finite and limited number of NR archery deer and antelope permits; create 4 NR units with finite numbers of NR permits (ER Private 750/ER Public 250/WR Private 750/WR Public 250), Make those permits Any Whitetail, Create Mule Deer stamp/validation (ala ND and KS) limited to 200 with an additional fee of $100 for a MD harvest opportunity. - Create and require all who hunt in SD to purchase a habitat stamp for better habitat and more public access.
(For anyone wanting to know the "Why", NR rifle permits are allocated 8% of available resident permits WR, BH and RFD, we currently had 33% of resident archery allocation for NR archery antelope and 15% of resident archery allocation for NR deer. Additionally, NR's have been harvesting a far disproportionate amount of mule deer based on numbers and pressure from NRs is having a significant and negative impact on resident quality of hunting experience in many larger public tracts).
I would say that's a good start but I disagree fundamentally with a few things. There should be no restriction on private land tags. Trying to restrict these is going to be a non-starter for the landowner and outfitter lobbies. These also have no significant biological or social impact on resident hunters. These attempts to restrict will cause unnecessary heartburn for the commission IMO. The other recommendations are far too restrictive as well. Bowhunters should not be limited to less opportunity than rifle hunters. NR's received around 1400 tags in the rifle draw. I would propose limiting archery permits to something closer to that number with an appropriate split between mule deer and whitetail. Approaching this with too restrictive a mindset is going to get nothing done again as the landowner and outfitter lobby fights against it. There's no biological reason to restrict them to so low a number and the social impact would still be addressed at double or triple that number.
In the nr general license required on top of a deer tag for archery? Thanks joe
Not currently Joe, that is one of the recommended changes by SDBI.
The way I figure it out it would be $496 plus habitat fee for a mule deer? I’m not complaining since I’m a guest, just not sure if I figured right. Thanks Joe
My math would get you around $525 for tag and prerequisite hunting license minus the habitat stamp if the said proposals are all approved. Not out of line based upon tag costs in other western states for mule deer.
Brotsky, this proposal would 'limit' NR archery to 2,000 permits. Far more than your example of 1,400 and very near the typical 8% allocation. With 2017 stats that would have been 19,510 residents and 3,499 NRs for an "8%" of 1,561 or by total permits (multiples) 25,512 and 3,800 for an "8%" of 2,041.
I agree wholeheartedly that the majority of pushback would certainly come from Private Land limits from the outfitters lobby. That could easily be stripped off by the commission and may well be. The thought here is that having an "unlimited" tag resource available to NRs does no favors to residents seeking access. It amounts to a pool of readily available permits for outfitters and pay to hunt operators. All of which I support the right of the landowner to do...we just don't need to enable it in deference to the public trust interests of resident hunters. With some significant research, I really don't feel that any of these proposals are in any way out of line when comparing western states with similar opportunities. All of these suggestions can be found already in use in several other states currently.
I understand limiting NR, you guys have to look out for your own. But I don’t quite understand how guys justify paying 525 plus fees for a deer. I guess just one more state out of my league. I know it’s a personal problem ,I am just venting
I think the fees are a touch high as proposed. I do agree with everyone buying a small game with applications. We don't differentiate on rifle tags where the 8% NR's hunt, why should we on archery. Are you trying to encourage commercialization and make access even more difficult with resulting public pressure increases?
Am I reading this correctly?
“Increase NR general hunting license from $115 + 30% - Require all Big Game applicants to purchase a basic/general hunting license prior to application” That would be $149.50 just for the prerequisite license to apply for a deer or antelope tag?
In comparison to other western states that require a license purchase to apply, South Dakota just doesn’t offer the number of species to rationalize a substantial upfront cost. States like Utah, Arizona, and Colorado require upfront license fees but offer significantly more value with species like, sheep, moose and mountain goat available for non residents to apply.
I understand your concern with non residents getting off the hook too easy in SD, but I feel that all of these changes combined would cause too many non residents to stop applying and hunting your state, and even with the fee increases could most likely result in a net loss of revenue for the GFP.
If we implement every one of these changes I guarantee there will still be NR hunters that do not draw tags. Demand will NOT be an issue.
Grizzly "We don't differentiate on rifle tags where the 8% NR's hunt, why should we on archery."
Huh? We most certainly do...Black Hills ONLY, Unit specific designation ONLY and Refuge ONLY. Currently the NR archery can hunt every open area in the whole state. Far from increasing pressure, this limits and spreads it out.
As far as implementing all the proposals, I HIGHLY doubt that happens. These are all separate and individual options open for discussion and the commissioners discretion in modifying and approving/disapproving. It's a measure to finally get them to get off their butts and do something that has been needed for a LONG time. All are free to opine as they wish and/or become active and involved to offer alternative corrective measures.
Black Hills they can hunt private or public. Any Grasslands counties they can do the same. It will be interesting to see the commissions take on it.
Thanks for the information - that is really awesome of you guys. How do you think this will impact the hunting? Less pressure, healthier herd, etc.? Very interested on your take (DR, Brotsky, etc) It may turn SD into an even greater destination state as the regulations take effect and they impact herds and such. Glad to see that some of the suggestions made in into law.
I hunt MN with my mom and the antler point restrictions have really impacted the size of the bucks we are seeing - hope your new regulations achieve similar success.
Correct me because I am probably wrong, but I thought these changes were sparked by hunters feelings not any biological data that says the deer need a break. From what I understand it’s not really for quality deer management but for a quality experience for resident hunters. I don’t think quality bucks are lacking in SD.
Gents, First, no changes have been adopted or confirmed whatsoever. It's all still quote notional and in discussion. Many "petitions" have been introduced (which is common) that are now under consideration of our GFP Commissioners with time for public comment.
Mnhunter, I would opine that much has to do with social issues such as hunting pressure and quality of hunting experience for the resident bowhunter. However, I would also add that the harvest numbers of mule deer by non-residents on public land is a pretty cut and dried statistical argument.
Are our herds "in danger" due to NR hunters...that is certainly not a reasonable statistical argument. Also, many NRs talk about what they experience at home as being much harder hunting pressure. I would likely have to agree with that thought. The critical piece here to me is that SD residents have no interest in allowing our state and our public lands or deer herds to reach a point where we have any comparison whatsoever to anyone's experience back east.
An absolute fact of comparison that we here need to keep in the forefront is that NR archers can come to SD right now and shoot a mule deer every year wherever they exist (with access). While a SD resident firearm hunter may have to wait 2-9 years to get that same tag in the same location.
DR, I can’t argue any points you made. By the sounds of it this has been a concern for residents for some time.
I personally was shocked to hear there is crowding issues since we had a quality hunt with no other hunters at all on public or walk in, but obviously we were the minority. Thanks for keeping us updated.
DR, I hope that it all comes out how the residents prefer - they are the residents and should have first say in how their state is run. But legislating the quality of hunting experience is problematic. Consider the scenario below:
A lawyer from Sioux Falls hunts the Black Hills every year with his bow. He is overweight, works long hours, and does not have time to scout. He travels west and finds the various parking lots filled to varying degrees with vehicles, having both resident and non-resident plates. He complains to the GFP about the quality of his experience - exaggerating the number of nonresidents and expressing his argument in the eloquent manner of a lawyer. His experience is more a product of not scouting and needing to hunt in an area of easy access, than it is a product of too many non-residents. Other individual experiences that fall below expectations may have little or nothing to do with non-resident pressure as well, but non-residents are an easy villain.
Once again, I hope the argument turns in the residents' favor.
Very respectfully - Rich
I have always met swell people in SD,,,, I agree with RD and Mn1980...... fun place to bow hunt..... I got on a lot of private land there, but I am solo, and with a bow, so I was looked at, like no big threat.....
The price increase is reasonable, I pay more than that in Iowa.... Want a deal, hunt Wis for 160.00,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, however we are having the mother of all winters this year
RD, Fair point and not at all out of the realm of possibility. One of the countermeasures to something you suggest is the requirement for LAU permits. With these becoming more common and prevalent it provides GFP with a finite number of residents and NRs that obtained a permit to access those areas. The Black Hills was added last year but those numbers haven't been released publicly yet, nor have the overall archery permit and harvest numbers. Those should come out next month. We do already have some historical access permit and pressure/harvest stats for the grasslands units, Custer National Forest and the Brule county unit along with the Hill Ranch. Those stats are open source and pretty telling, particularly showing the mule deer harvest.
With some coaxing over the past few years to get more and better data, SDGFP finally for the very first time sent harvest surveys to 100% of resident bowhunters. I'll be anxious to see those results. Bottom line is they need more and better data to support or negate some of the "opinions" you suggest. I can tell you unequivocally though that I have heard first hand accounts from most corners of the states from resident bowhunters I trust that bear out the general theme. We will see what comes out in the commissioners wash in the coming months.
GH is right , every single person I interacted with in SD was Generous and kind. We even had someone offer us to hunt there land! It was the best whitetail hunting I have ever had. Western SD is a breath of fresh air, almost like going back in time 40 years. Great places, Great faces
Was there any discussion on raising the fees for resident hunters?
Why don't we just say what it is here. 83% of the Resident rifle hunters don't leave their trucks when they hunt and are bitter towards NR hunters when they shoot a "big" buck 300 yards inland with their bow. I've hunted in the Black Hills,, Somebody tell me I'm wrong Please. LMFAO
I love SD. And RARELY ever see hunting pressure from anyone ever! Now, I think the problem here is that SD residents have one definition of "pressure" and NonResidents have a completely different definition. If I see 3 hunters (not hunting from their trucks) all day long in SD I would say that's a lot. In MN or anywhere east you will see 33 hunters on that same day.
And to your point DR, this is a social issue more than anything. Resident hunters HATE seeing plates from MN because they know someone is on foot somewhere in the land and most likely going to take a good deer.. Just sayin'
With that said,, I would be doing the same thing the residents are doing here. Lets just not try to put lipstick on a pig and call it what it is. You have an absolute sanctuary of wildlife all over the state and I would want to keep it that way. Much like I wouldn't invite Tom Brady over to my house to watch over my wife for the week while I'm on the road working,, just asking for bad things to happen :)
Dakota, no discussion on that point. Frankly we already have one of the more expensive license structures for residents. Expensive in comparison for residents and cheap in comparison for NR.
Buckbuster, I don't think we're putting lipstick on it. It is 100% a social concern, not a biological one. The only exception is the impact on the age structure specifically of the mule deer herds. We don't want to see 33 hunters so we're going to take steps to insure that never happens here. The reason we have a sanctuary of wildlife everywhere is because we are better at managing them than our eastern neighbors. We'll continue to be better at managing biological AND social issues to insure the hunting here is fantastic for our kids and grandkids.
Brotsky, that's what I was looking for as far as the price of resident license fees. Thanks
You're exactly right Brotsky. I'm just becoming a bitter NR that has to pay more and might not be able to hunt your great state year after year. Like I said, you guys are doing exactly what i would be doing, I just have to work a bit harder to pay for it. :)
Keep us posted, we are all ears on how this shakes out.
I do not mind the price increase, I hate the draw...... I can only speak for myself,, when I first started to bowhunt SD, I was in the town of Lebanon, and shot a nice 130 at the junk yard at the end of town,,,,,, deer everywhere, and yep, never saw another bowhunter, just bird hunters.
Before I went over the river, I have hunted Toltsoy and Redfield, and Akaska, and Hoven etc, and no one was bow hunting, fed wp areas, or state land, no one.....
we were doing so well, my buddy bought a house in one town. the local boys approached us, and asked us not to hunt their deer around the towns, they were all rifle hunters, but they did give us private land to hunt, in other areas.....
as far as pressure, saw some down in Chamberlin, and of course some in the Hills, but nothing on all the fed and corp land along the river, plenty of room..... You as a bowhunter can get lost out there
Bottom line, its a social thing,,,,, nothing I can do about it, if they go to a draw, I will move down to Nebraska,,,,,,,,, too bad too,,,,,, ask the persons who run motels, and bars and grills etc, ask them what they think the NR are like,,,,, they spend money at their buisnesses,,,, just a thought
Thank you guys for the thoughtful responses - you men on this state forum are first-rate. Personally, I blanch at the idea of a draw. I would spend $500 for an over-the-counter, any-sex, antelope tag in South Dakota, but I would never enter my name in for the drawing of a tag. For me, I want the awesome hunt - not the stress of drawing or not drawing. I would move back to South Dakota, if it rained a bit more during the summer and had better soil - my wife is a gardener (and the best thing that ever happened to me). Maybe climate change will fix it! Best wishes moving forward - Rich
Yes South Dakota is a great state, I would also move there, but to be honest, I would miss all my lakes and trout streams of the UP and N Wisconsin. Every summer I see lots of SD plates up here, nice folks,,,,,,,
Too bad bowhunting is so now territorial,,,,,,, I started in the 70's, I am glad I have had all the years I had, when I could go anywhere, and I did. I hunted mule deer in the very high country, and on the plains, spring bear annual trip in Colorado, elk and whitetail, was only a knock on the door, almost anywhere.... Those were great days bro
All 5 petitions were killed. They want to work on all NR 'issues' together at once this year so its NOT changed as of yet. On another note, a new landowner and outfitter group hired a lawyer and got an additional 500 NR any whitetail licenses approved for consideration for their "clients". The optics and approach/handling boggles my mind at times.
Yeah, that wasn't the direction we wanted to go. I thank you for trying and we will have to keep after it or they will just run us over.
Ground hunter as to fishing,look at NE SoDak.Your UP and northern Wisc suck in comparison.Only problem here is we have way too many 'land of 10,000 lakes' people fishing here.
I have a 5 th wheel I keep on a lake in northern MN, come June it is majority NR plates at the resorts and landings. The majority are guys just like me trying to catch a meal and enjoy friends and family. I don’t fight it, it’s just good people who have an address in a different state. In fact I am more likely to share spots with NR since I have been in there shoes before. They spend there hard earned money for a vacation if I can make it a little more enjoyable I will. To each their own. BTW fishing in SD does nothing for me, the scenery is half the experience and in my opinion eastern SD has decent fishing but just not for me.
Saying the UP and northern Wi suck in comparison is ignorant. Unless you enjoy wind and muddy water there is no comparison to the fishing pristine waters in the north woods. Sounds like your feelings got hurt. The fish up there taste better too. Great.
I have fished northern WI quite a bit. The panfishing is outstanding! Hard to beat those northwoods lakes, especially the scenery. The walleye and perch fishing is much better here, no disputing that!
SD Maybe better than WI and the UP but not even close to MN ;) but you guys have Mule deer and elk, can’t beat that with any fish. East river and west river to me are like northern MN and southern MN, pretty tough to compare.
Leftee,,,, I have fished N Dakota and So Dakota,,,, great times and fishing, if you like that type of atmosphere,,,,, me I will take the big woods,,, the UP sucks,,,, great obviously you are neither a trout fishermen or a walleye fishermen that likes remote areas,,,,,,,, ITS ALL GOOD,,,,, but I stay where I am, because I do not like crowds...
I have traded great trips, for access to land in SD..... they love to come and muskie fish here, and the trout fishing is second to none,,,,, unless you have access to all the private land rules of the west, or enjoy the over crowded public waters of the west
how do I know, because from Colorado to Montana,,,, I have been there,,,,, stay well
I don't know about this guys.. I live and fish in central MN and here is the problem.. When there is a hot bite on lake X or lake Y it is SO overpopulated with fisherman it's barely fun. And you have to constantly be on the radar for where they are biting and then race to get there. OR, spend a bunch of time prospecting until you find a decent bit. Even Northern MN is that way. Northeast SD is pretty much the best of the best with low pressure. I'm a MN guy and I would trade our 10,000 lakes for that area any day of the week no matter what the species you are targeting. With that said, I do like MN scenery.
So funny.I was talking fishing,not scenery. Love the North woods. Lived on Leech 7 years. Had a cabin on Lake of the Woods for 20 plus tears-still do. As to pristine experiences,well have fished and know like the back of my hand over 50 shield lakes. Have hunted many of them as well and still do. ‘Muskies’? Well i have fished them a time or 2. Do a google on ‘dick pearson fishing’. Trust me,u didn’t hurt my feelings??
Sorry for the typos,am travelling on those bumpy Mn north woods rds.
Sorry for the typos,am travelling on those bumpy Mn north woods rds.
Shouldn’t text and drive it could be my family you hurt, why do you complain about mn plates in SD? Maybe that was you I shared my spots with at the landing?
Sorry i’m a passenger today but will keep an eye out for your family. Definitely don’t want your spots. Life is short,have a decent day.
I talked to a commissioner yesterday at the Black Hills Sportsmens Club. He said that the commissioners definitely see validity in the concerns the petitions brought forward. They killed them because they want to deal with all non-resident 'issues' for all seasons/species at the same time. He said the commission has tasked the department staff with coming up with new all encompassing proposals based on the Res/NR working group I was a part of in December and January. He stated that the department staff is working on it now and should bring something to the commission in the next two months. I also spoke with a staff member who confirmed they have been working on proposals as a group this week. No idea on what will be proposed but hopefully it does something to address all the concerns brought forward across the state on all issues. We will see.
Thanks for the update DR! I thought the staff had put together some pretty solid proposals a year ago with the access permits. If they go down a similar path I think we'll be in good shape.
I agree Brotsky, but i'd still like a little further movement than just LAU's of the past. Black Hills is now too and the Missouri River counties get a lot of pressure as well. Just have to wait and see what they come up with but it's hard to be patient after a couple of years of people asking for this. I also believe they will wind up backing up the opener to the 1st or 2nd Saturday after labor day. At least that's what I feel after talking to a few commissioners. We will see.
Hope they address some of the NR stuff soon... I really do think our tags are undervalued - seems like we could go to more of a tag/draw system and generate more money for habitat improvement, improved access, etc... Especially need to limit the NR mule deer hunters in some way... When I look at what I've paid when hunting out of state, over $500 for NR whitetail tags, over $1000 for elk tags/lics - no reason we can't get more in line with what other states charge...
Any new news on nr changes? It’s hard for me to be patient. Thanks Joe
Joe, there's lots of big talk but I look for them to kick the can down the road again. Plan on the usual free for all with a Sept 1st opener. We'll know for sure first week of May.
I hope for you guys sake and the quality of hunt that residents are lacking that they make a move . On the other hand being a selfish mudduck I hope the prices don’t sky rocket. I know it’s expensive everywhere, but I do pinch pennies to hunt out of state. First and foremost I hope residents get quality hunting opportunities. Thanks for the replies
They have passed a proposal to raffle off "Super Tags" NR's can get one of the three. Each Super tag is good for one elk, one deer and one antelope. Quite a haul for a Twenty dollar raffle ticket. Still waiting far all the details. Raising funds for habitat.
I spoke with a commissioner last week and a staff member this week. "something' will be done but I can't say with any certainty what that will be. License fees aren't typically done until fall/winter so I doubt the NR fee changes. My information is that the staff is floating around about 6 different options for discussion within the department. Options will be given to the commissioners and I'm told any changes that are approved will be done in time to effect the 2019 hunting season. My gut feel is that Large LAU's will be given both a resident and NR quota to reduce pressure and help with mule deer over harvest. Other options are being discussed and explored but it's anybody's guess what will come out. I hope they come with a Public Land limit/number because if they limit LAU permits guys will just flood elsewhere, then there is also the enforcement issue. Just my $0.02
SDBI will rebut and request more rigor within the guidelines of the proposal at hand.
I have submitted my comments strongly opposing this lip service.
