Is SD shooting itself in the foot?

haymaker said:
There will be no pheasant hunting here after Thanksgiving. That is earlier than usual but that is about how many birds I have and if GFP think the season should be longer I am pretty sure I should shorten it here.
Click to expand...

agree. i will take a boots on the ground recommendation over the money grubbing guidance of GF commission, any day.
strictly a marketing ploy to collect fees.

in the hay days, no one worried about the rooster/hen carry over ratio, either. and i am sure it was astronomical.
 
I find it interesting that several people (not just on this site) think the GF&P lies to us all on a regular basis to make more money. When they did the bird reports I have always found them to be relatively accurate based on our two trips a year. Even the years that were down 30 or 40%. I do understand that their methods may not be perfect but I find it hard to believe they sit around discussing how they can lie to the general public about game information. Whether it be harvest, carryover, brood surveys, etc...
 
The internet and state government pimps have been the two worst things to happen to any state that has a special resource. Iowa - deer, Kansas - deer, South Dakota - pheasants, North Dakota - waterfowl, etc.

South Dakota is pimping out the pheasant to the entire nation's upland game hunters. You are taking these hunters and putting them in a box from I90 north to Hwy12 and I29 west to the River. It's too many people in too small an area. The extended season issue is not that the hunters are going to shoot too many. The issue is that they are driving birds out of the only suitable winter cover. The hunting will be later in the day when it is the "warmest" for the hunters. Will the hens make it back to suitable cover for the night? Who knows. I think it will hurt some birds being driven from the thermal cover when they are vulnerable. The earlier start time will not be much of an issue but the later season could hurt the hens we depend on.

We all are using the internet to read and write to each other but it has been the worst invention ever in a lot of ways as it relates to hunting. The hurdle for non-residents to enjoy all of these states' resources should be much higher. My 2 cents.
 
labrador said:
The internet and state government pimps have been the two worst things to happen to any state that has a special resource. Iowa - deer, Kansas - deer, South Dakota - pheasants, North Dakota - waterfowl, etc.

South Dakota is pimping out the pheasant to the entire nation's upland game hunters. You are taking these hunters and putting them in a box from I90 north to Hwy12 and I29 west to the River. It's too many people in too small an area. The extended season issue is not that the hunters are going to shoot too many. The issue is that they are driving birds out of the only suitable winter cover. The hunting will be later in the day when it is the "warmest" for the hunters. Will the hens make it back to suitable cover for the night? Who knows. I think it will hurt some birds being driven from the thermal cover when they are vulnerable. The earlier start time will not be much of an issue but the later season could hurt the hens we depend on.

We all are using the internet to read and write to each other but it has been the worst invention ever in a lot of ways as it relates to hunting. The hurdle for non-residents to enjoy all of these states' resources should be much higher. My 2 cents.
Click to expand...
Bingo. That is why no hunting here after Thanksgiving.
 
Just because...... 50% of the pheasant hunters are shooting pen birds. Ranch hunts are not reliant on wild birds. As for the decision to add days to the season. Good luck if we have snow. Should be no impact. I’ll be going twice and highly doubt I’ll get another license. They should go to a full season non-resident option. I can take clients hunting for work and would go there more if that was available. Spend plenty when I have clients to take. Road side or not should be plenty of birds.
 
Haymaker, why not? Why let the governor decide who should be on it. Wildlife belong to the general public. Why not let us decide who we put in charge of managing said wildlife. From the sounds of a lot of public opinion a majority of the residents don't agree with some of the choices they've made in the last couple years. Make them a bit more accountable.
 
BigRand said:
Haymaker, why not? Why let the governor decide who should be on it. Wildlife belong to the general public. Why not let us decide who we put in charge of managing said wildlife. From the sounds of a lot of public opinion a majority of the residents don't agree with some of the choices they've made in the last couple years. Make them a bit more accountable.
Click to expand...
I am not opposed. If you want to be on GFP commission you need to make large contributions to the right people. I am not sure the public is informed enough to make great choices.
 
I can make a case for and against the 10am start time, mostly all on money spent within the state.
Some people spend money late at night (including me in my younger years, and 10 still seemed early...) because we can sleep in in the morning. Some spend money in the morning eating breakfast because there is time to kill. Some spend more gas money scouting in the morning because there is time to kill. For me, the 10am start time eliminates me eating lunch at a local cafe - by the time I hunt one field from say 10-noon, then if I take a break to eat somewhere there's not enough time left in the day to make the most of the hunting. I'm usually public field 1 from 10-noon, pre-made lunch in the car onto the next spot, spot #2 from 12:30-2:30, spot #3 for the golden hour from 3:00- sunset. If we could start earlier, I could maybe justify spending money and time somewhere local for lunch.
 
We should not be making decisions regarding the management of pheasants based upon whether the local cafe will sell a few more lunches or clubs sell a few more lap dances. Businesses should live or die on their own merits. Wildlife management decisions should be made strictly based on hard science.
 
I will always believe that if you have bird numbers then you will have hunters show up. Put all that money from advertising into habitat. Seems like they are grasping at whatever they can to keep the small towns alive. That's great, until you run out of birds. Then the small towns wither away anyways. Make habitat the number one priority and maintain and grow the resource. Small towns will thrive. I think they're looking for a short term gain that will lead to a long term loss.
 
$700k (or whatever the number is) won't make a dent in habitat. The only thing (short of running a pay-to-play operation) that can make growing weeds similarly profitable to growing corn or beans is.....the federal handout. And of course the average taxpaying, resident hunter sees no benefit. At the state level, $700k will go further if they use it for advertising. Sad, but I believe true. That's why I couldn't give a rip less how many pheasants per mile somebody sees next to some pay-to-play operation or wealthy person's private haven 6 counties away. Counting them doesn't create habitat or pheasants either, even if the count was dead nuts on (which it has never been). And quite frankly, with most landowners of ANY sort, the more birds they have, the LESS likely they are to let me hunt them. Which is fine. It just makes me less likely to want my tax dollar to go to his/her handout. It's definitely a catch 22.
 
Last edited:
labrador said:
We should not be making decisions regarding the management of pheasants based upon whether the local cafe will sell a few more lunches or clubs sell a few more lap dances. Businesses should live or die on their own merits. Wildlife management decisions should be made strictly based on hard science.
Click to expand...

I agree. But I am going to assume that the economic factor somehow ties into their decisions on start times, season lengths, etc. Whether it is .0005% of the decision or 75% of the decision, who knows.
 
jackrabbit said:
I agree. But I am going to assume that the economic factor somehow ties into their decisions on start times, season lengths, etc. Whether it is .0005% of the decision or 75% of the decision, who knows.
Click to expand...

probably 100%, remember the commission meeting where at least one hack said...."we are trying to run a business here."

running a late season into January is just plain irresponsible. adding $25 dollars to a non specific habitat/boat dock fund is just plain bullshit!
 
hunter94 said:
probably 100%, remember the commission meeting where at least one hack said...."we are trying to run a business here."

running a late season into January is just plain irresponsible. adding $25 dollars to a non specific habitat/boat dock fund is just plain bullshit!
Click to expand...
Whats irresponsible about a January hunt? I think anyone will agree it hd no affect on next years birds if thats your concern.
It may help the local economy too amongst other things as well. I cant think of 1 negative
 
I can, how about pushing birds out of thermal cover in the middle of winter? You might get that rooster but the hens you pushed out just got more stressed and will have to use more of their stored energy reserves to keep warm. Thus coming through the winter in worse condition and having smaller broods. This all if they survive.
 
UplandHntr said:
Whats irresponsible about a January hunt? I think anyone will agree it hd no affect on next years birds if thats your concern.
It may help the local economy too amongst other things as well. I cant think of 1 negative
Click to expand...

"South Dakota is pimping out the pheasant to the entire nation's upland game hunters. You are taking these hunters and putting them in a box from I90 north to Hwy12 and I29 west to the River. It's too many people in too small an area. The extended season issue is not that the hunters are going to shoot too many. The issue is that they are driving birds out of the only suitable winter cover. The hunting will be later in the day when it is the "warmest" for the hunters. Will the hens make it back to suitable cover for the night? Who knows. I think it will hurt some birds being driven from the thermal cover when they are vulnerable. The earlier start time will not be much of an issue but the later season could hurt the hens we depend on."

i am assuming you don't live in SD and have never experienced tough winters and if you do live there you just don't get it.
in the pursuit of more short term revenue the GFP puts the long term future of their resource at unnecessary risk.
 
Last edited:
Very few hunters are going out in “extreme” conditions to bust birds out of winter cover in January. I can make the argument that the more roosters harvested is less competition for the hens. It has been documented that Roosters will take the best cover and food sources. They will harass and push hens to the fringe cover during winter. Less roosters = more hens survive in my opinion.
 
Hockeybob said:
Very few hunters are going out in “extreme” conditions to bust birds out of winter cover in January. I can make the argument that the more roosters harvested is less competition for the hens. It has been documented that Roosters will take the best cover and food sources. They will harass and push hens to the fringe cover during winter. Less roosters = more hens survive in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to research it or look it up, nor do I recall how accredited it was, but I remember reading an article a few years ago that said roughly 10% of the fall rooster population needs to survive into the spring to get the pheasant numbers equal to or higher than the previous fall. More than 10% of the rooster population survives fall hunting and winter, and it actually declined the overall pheasant numbers because they pushed hens out of prime cover and food sources while trying to survive winter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top