Trends are as you describe them, nothing but a bit of reality. As a longtime NR hunter i dont have near the success as i used to have. Just making the observation that i can no longer support the economy of SD as i have in the past. Up 47% was a sham number reported by DNR, but i understand their accounting, just dont appreciate it.
A few observations from SD
- Thread starter carptom1
- Start date
Trends are as you describe them, nothing but a bit of reality. As a longtime NR hunter i dont have near the success as i used to have. Just making the observation that i can no longer support the economy of SD as i have in the past. Up 47% was a sham number reported by DNR, but i understand their accounting, just dont appreciate it.
A5 Sweet 16
Well-known member
SDviking.....what do you mean when you say the landowners would have to provide access??
A5 Sweet 16
Well-known member
"Sham"? I don't think so. The GFP is very willing to report decreases as well. The media blows the numbers out of proportion & makes them seem more meaningful than they really are. I think "up 47%" was an accurate result of the GFP's brood count survey. And there very well MAY have been a 47% state-wide average increase in the actual pheasant population from last year. But probably not. As many of us know, the results of the brood count survey are AT BEST indicators of what MIGHT be happening with the pheasant population in the short term. Now, when you analyze many consecutive years of brood count & hunter survey data, it's easy to see long-term trends. But the brood count, while sometimes all an out-of-stater has to go by, is pretty meaningless in the short term.
sdviking
Active member
What I was trying to say is, CRP which is a govt program to take land out of production and provide improved soil health and wildlife habitat, even though the govt is funding a landowner, the landowner is not obligated to open this land for others to hunt. I don't know the dollar amount but I had heard Walk In Program only paid a few dollars per acre. Lets say the number is $2, not many land owners would take $2 an acre to allow the public access to their land. I know many folks believe that if the govt is paying a land owner for CRP, then the public should have access. As you can imagine this topic gets heated quickly.
The Solution everyone is looking for is where is the compromise between land owners improving habitat and allowing public access. Most land owners won't do this without some incentive. Game Fish and Parks funding through licenses and taxes to my knowledge goes to Wardens salaries and maintaining the government lands they have acquired, along with fish nurseries, etc. Not saying the GFP is bad. But the connection between landowners who feed and house the wildlife, and hunting revenue are not connected in any form.
V/r SDViking
A5 Sweet 16
Well-known member
Yeah, it's quite a topic. I used to be one of those who figured that if my tax dollar paid for CRP, I should be allowed to hunt it on a 1st to ask, 1st granted permission basis. The exact opposite of course was the case (& still is). The landowner got a subsidy & on top of it, sold hunting rights to the highest bidder way, WAY out of my league. Never faulted the farmer for taking advantage of the program; but thought the CRP rules, if they didn't grant me access, should at least prohibit the landowner from double-dipping on my tax dollar (that's how I thought of it). But like you say, if that was the case, I suppose fewer landowners would enroll. As it is, I make very little attempt these days to hunt private land. Not worth my time, except for CREP & Walk-Ins, which I'm VERY thankful for. I still don't know how I feel about CRP (especially the land people are making good money from), except that without it I'd be out a lot of good CREP & Walk-Ins. Enter the personal conflict about taking advantage of multiple government programs in order to do the thing I love most. I just try to seek some comfort by reminding myself that I've paid my taxes & by telling myself that the overall increase in bird numbers resulting from CRP in some small way trickles down to the public land I hunt. And I try not to think about all the roosters in "Pheasant Haven" on the other side of the fence. There's no denying that some aspects of hunting these days have been kind of a downer for me. But somehow I'm still able to get out there every weekend & lose myself & give all my attention to my dog & the diverse, wild beauty of the land I'm on.
sdviking
Active member
I was just sent this article. I had no idea the pheasant release numbers were this high. It's worth a good read and it does talk about Game Fish and Parks funding through licences.
http://www.westfargopioneer.com/new...21RidqLhrncr8rE_1dQkXsI974aVEPa6H1Dgv6jT-9M4E
SDviking
http://www.westfargopioneer.com/new...21RidqLhrncr8rE_1dQkXsI974aVEPa6H1Dgv6jT-9M4E
SDviking
sdviking
Active member
View attachment 8661
Maybe this picture will make you smile. Was walking out to check snow in the unharvested corn field and flushed these two. SDviking
Maybe this picture will make you smile. Was walking out to check snow in the unharvested corn field and flushed these two. SDviking
A5 Sweet 16
Well-known member
Awesome! Although I have to admit my relationship w/ roosters is definitely love/hate. Thanks!
Downtown Bang!
Member
Buyer beware when going pay-to-play I guess but think most who are serious about the sport know that already. Love the poorly disguised agendas and/or misinformed bias of a couple of the interviews.
Have hunted public land in SD for going on 20 years, harvested my share of roosters and have yet to bag one with the tell tale nostril holes. I suspect freelancers will get plenty of opportunities to shoot birds on public land again this season and are still pretty safe from a "tainted" hunt....
carptom1
Well-known member
Nice picture. Looks crisp out there and that always makes it better. It was about 18 here this morning with a little snow left on the ground. Wish I was hunting but I am paying my dues every weekend with my wife till my next 5 days in December. I am not like PTM who gets to hunt everyday. 
Hunted west of Chamberlain by myself with a Brittany. Saw about 90 birds a day for 3 days on private land. The birds were unusually wild and very difficult to get close to. I shot 5 roosters in 3 days. Only 11 roosters flushed within reasonable range. I took a few potshots on flushes that occurred 60-70 yards out.
GF&P makes habitat improvements using money from license sales. In 2015, GF&P sold 93,240 resident small-game and combination small-game/fishing licenses for $3.9 million and 89,576 non-resident small-game licenses for $10.6 million. There were more than 65,000 licensed resident pheasant hunters that year and almost 85,000 nonresidents, bringing in a total of $14.5 million.
According to Habitat Program Administrator Paul Coughlin, GF&P spends about $3.5 million per year on habitat improvements on public lands, but 75 percent of that money is provided by the Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, which collects an excise tax from arms and ammunition. That means $850,000 of the $14.5 million license money is spent on improving public habitat.
so SD, show me the money!
Last edited:
Goosemaster
Well-known member
I hear the Dixon area has been good.
Chestle
Well-known member
\
Now compare that to Nebraska's Berggren Plan. They are spending on average $6 million per year on PHEASANT habitat improvement on public land. This money is SPECIFICALLY targeted at pheasant production. It's a 5 year plan developed in 2016, so $30 million for improved pheasant hunting.
The SD habitat improvement is not specifically targeted at pheasants. I would think SD GF&P understands that pheasant hunting is the big draw for SD. It's the money engine that fuels small town cafes, gas stations, motels and yes...non-resident license sales at $120/10 days with 85K NR licenses purchased in 2015.
Compare that to the NE license at ~$100 for an ANNUAL non-res license and a mere $18 for a resident annual, good for the whole season. In 2015, NE only sold 17K non-res licenses and 90k resident licenses. Clearly, NE doesn't come anywhere near the income from small game licensing that SD gets.
Yet NE has aggressively attacked the problem of declining pheasant populations. The same agricultural trends in farming, the same US government programs apply in both states.
SD seems content to rest on its laurels and do nothing while NE, with fewer resources, has made the decision to do something positive.
Time to get it in gear SD GF&P.
Yeah, I'll still do my annual trip to SD; too many friends there not to go back. But instead of buying 2 or even 3 (some years) 10 day licenses, I'm going to cut back to one 10 day and spend some time in NE. I was based there in the military in my younger days so I'm familiar with a few places. I'm also going back to my native KS where I first started to hunt pheasant (and still hold a lifetime license.) Time to spread the money around to folks that are actively trying to improve and perpetuate this great game bird.
While I doubt it will do much good, I am also going to communicate these thoughts and intentions to SD GF&P. A drop in the bucket which will likely be ignored. Eventually, if non-res licensing drops enough, they may notice and take some action to produce more good pheasant habitat.
Goosemaster
Well-known member
In Montana, the CRP is gone, and I mean gone. That is having a big effect on bird population.
PTM
Active member
Nice picture. Looks crisp out there and that always makes it better. It was about 18 here this morning with a little snow left on the ground. Wish I was hunting but I am paying my dues every weekend with my wife till my next 5 days in December. I am not like PTM who gets to hunt everyday.
Ha ha I try, my Uncle where I do a little pheasant hunting shot a deer and gave him to me so I’ve been busy cutting him up today. 80 years young and still out there. He does a lot for habitat up at his place. We’re getting some snow today and I’m forced to work it’s a real bummer. Phez would be all dizzied up from this one.