So you want to hunt public land in South Dakota?

PeteRevvv said:
You keep calling it Public ground but it's Government ground and they are for sale to the highest bidder. That's not you Mr. Seasonal Hunter so you will always get the short end of the stick. You know what will never get mowed before hunting season- private preserves. I sure wish I had back my share of money that goes in to DNRs, Habitat Stamps, boat/atv licensing, hunting licensing, conservation funds, state and federal taxes that go into "Public" grounds and take a $1,000 and buy some time on a private land that will treat me right.
Click to expand...
I don't understand. I've never seen a piece of state or federal "public" hunting ground sold or in any other way become NOT hunting ground. Never. Not once. And the vast, VAST majority of the time, most of it is NOT mowed or grazed, it's very huntable, & is in fact among the highest quality hunting in South Dakota. If I took every single dollar I've spent over 40 years on the things you mentioned (many thousands of $$) & tried to buy hunting on private land, I couldn't buy even a tiny FRACTION of the time I've enjoyed on public land & the prime habitat it offers. I believe that for a moderately experienced hunter or small group (maybe even for relatively inexperienced hunters), public land in SD offers far & away the most bang for your buck. That goes for pheasants, waterfowl, and probably several other game species. So thank you for buying your licenses, stamps, etc. & paying your taxes.
 
Last edited:
I also hunt all public ground so I agree it's a good time and well worth the trip. However it does not compare to even a minimally managed private ground so that's part of where I would disagree. Basic upgrades like a shelter belt or a strip of milo or an undrained slough- those would be heaven to hunt but you rarely see those on public ground and they get hunted hard. Compare what the guys in the habitat forum on their own are doing vs what the government is doing with your taxes for the "hunters".

See I can imagine the economics of marginal ground that isn't propped up by CRP rent and ethanol corn buyers. Cheap ground not good for much but private renting out and managing for hunting. Money in my pocket from cheaper gas, groceries and taxes. 100,000 non-resident hunters willing to use that money for private ground. 100x the available hunting acres and 10x the number paying customers. Options for zero managed up to the current luxury guided hunts. Options for exclusive access for half day or full day. Land in private hands with the money going to the locals and not a PhD GFP administrator in Pierre or USDA official in DC. Private beats government every time.
 
Private looks out for one person and one person only, themselves and their bottom line. Personally, I love owning all the land I own. Just need to buy my licenses and pay the minimal amount of taxes a year that goes to land acquisition and I can hunt all over the country.
 
Continuing the topic of only privately maintained hunting grounds. Just look at England and tell me how accessible hunting is for the common man. I'll save you time, not very. It's expensive and more of a class based activity.
 
dakotasj said:
Can't agree with that part of your post.
I hunt both private and public. The really awesome people I've met that have given me permission to hunt on their property are not just out for themselves. They are just good, decent, honest hardworking people. I'm lucky to be allowed to hunt their farms.
Click to expand...
I'm generally speaking to the private preserve type hunting. The people that improve their grounds for hunters, generally aren't allowing anyone to hunt their land for free. Some local farmer who let's you walk their shelter belt/slough/scrub land doesn't care and it's no gain for them because they aren't managing that. It's just "waste" land to a farmer.
 
Munster927 said:
Some local farmer who let's you walk their shelter belt/slough/scrub land doesn't care and it's no gain for them because they aren't managing that. It's just "waste" land to a farmer.
Click to expand...
I agree. I lot of the spots I gain permission to hunt are geared more towards deer hunting but its sometimes pretty good for pheasants too, especially if there's crops nearby.
 
We're talking about accessible land here, no? Sure, some 1/2-way well managed private land might tend to have more pheasants than public ground. Much of the time, that's because they suck up the birds from public after the season starts. It's not a mystery why so many of them exist adjacent to or very near public ground (& I'm not just talking about preserves). And sure, maybe those landowners invite friends out once in awhile, or allow a couple other guys to hunt it once a year. But the vast majority of decent private ground is inaccessible almost all the time for the average hunter. I could spend all my time & money trying to get on private ground, but I'd end up spending all my time in the car. I'd never get much hunting done & wouldn't shoot many pheasants. Been there. Public land is a MUCH better use of my time & money & results in more pheasants in my freezer. It's not even close.
 
I really meant to post this in the Emergency Haying topic so apologies to the OP, Mr. G. Hour. But I still think it is apt for changing the way we manage hunting land and attract the new hunters to the sport. I do heartily encourage them to come out and hunt SD. There are birds all over with huuuge tracts of land. There are also many good pheasant hunting spots.

It's just that "public" ground isn't free, we all pay for it with our fees and taxes and it could be managed better if it was in private hands IMHO. We also pay for CRP and end up watching farmers and their buddies shoot em up while we watch from the ditch. When more hunters will pay (demand) it will result in more hunting land (supply) as long as a government program isn't competing (CRP subsidies, ethanol mandates, WIA competition). The number and quality places nearby you will go up, prices will come down and you will have more in your pocket to spend on it. This is a fundamental change in the way this is all managed but this is the way it used to be in the early 90s and before.
 
It might not be "free" but it's yours. And mine. I can show up to a piece of public anytime, any day and hunt. Try that at a private preserve. And if you were willing to pay more, I'm sure the SDGFP would gladly take a donation.

You're saying you want this resource, that you pay for, to be managed better. That requires funds. Why does a private place that receives money in exchange for a service manage the land better? Because they are paid handsomely for it and have money available. I'm sure the land managers for SDGFP would gladly spend more money to make more improvements if funds were available. But people already complain about paying taxes as it is so I can imagine how that would go.
 
PeteRevvv said:
...The number and quality places nearby you will go up, prices will come down and you will have more in your pocket to spend on it...
Click to expand...
Um. I don't believe so. Any available acres would get snatched up immediately by people with means. By & large it would be posted with signs "Survivors Will Be Prosecuted", which would be enough to keep me off it. All of it. Forever.

Basic supply/demand theory may apply to business, but it doesn't apply when "the few" want to keep all the product for themselves. And I'm not bashing those that do. If you've got the means, buy it & do what you like with it.

As much as I detest government involvement, "public" land is one thing I'm extremely thankful for. Yes, private owners would have the POTENTIAL to "manage" the land more efficiently. But most of it would become inaccessible (even for a price), most people would lose any opportunity to hunt, camp, hike, etc., and many aspects of that land would disappear altogether. Why? Because most buyers wouldn't want to run a business on that land. They'd simply want to own it & live on it; maybe hunt a little.

Just a (hopefully) ludicrous example. The feds sell Yellowstone National Park. Tons of people think the new owners shouldn't be able to do certain things on the land. Plug Old Faithful maybe. So laws & regulations are passed that restrict the new owners to no end. Yet the average Joe still can't access the land either way. Nobody's happy. The government isn't perfect, but public land is one place I feel they got it at least somewhat right.
 
Last edited:
PeteRevvv said:
The number and quality places nearby you will go up, prices will come down and you will have more in your pocket to spend on it. This is a fundamental change in the way this is all managed but this is the way it used to be in the early 90s and before.
Click to expand...
I have to respectfully disagree. There are many factors that were different then. First, a lot of landowners/farmers in the 90's and prior were from a different generation and saw wildlife as a side product of their land that wasn't to be commercialized. Further, there were WAY more farmers 30+ years ago than today, and those farmers worked smaller tracts of land. I'd contend that the government has sped up the process in declining the number of farms, while increasing their acreage. Farmers with the not only the resources to remove wetlands and marginal ground and install drain tile, but the absolute need to do so with the price of not simply land, but the seed, fertilizer, herbicide and fuel to raise a crop.

Sadly, we can't go back to the days where Farmer Joe worked his 640 acres, left the seasonal ravine and cattails and didn't hunt, so he didn't mind giving permission to folks to allow them to hunt those marginal areas. It's simple economics and we can't go back. Privatizing hunting is EXACTLY what has been done in the UK. That does not favor the average middle-class American that wants to get out and get after it.

I can go on forever where I disagree with government, but despite the flaws within the public lands system, it's still the best of what's around for a guy like me.
 
A5 Sweet 16 said:
Bigly important. If that means parking somewhere other than the "parking spot", then do it. I always try to hunt what I think will be the most likely pieces of an area into the wind in order to mask my noise as much as possible & hopefully get a few yards closer to pheasants. That comes into play too. And once out in an area, the shortest distance between 2 pieces you want to hunt isn't always the best path. If you have to swing wide around in order to hunt a different direction, then that's what you should do. Pheasants don't wait around for the hunter who takes the quick, easy path just like the last few guys did too. Curve ball. Into the wind. Quiet. Slow. (unless your dog indicates you better hurry up)
Click to expand...
So when you hunt public land you do not have to park in the designated areas? Side of the road is accepted by the locals?
 
ditch-chicken said:
So when you hunt public land you do not have to park in the designated areas? Side of the road is accepted by the locals?
Click to expand...
Right. Just get off the road as much as possible & do it where your vehicle is very visible; not right over the crest of a hill. Sometimes you can even get all the way down into the ditch. (proceed w/ caution) Sometimes you'll find another field approach to pull onto that's not an actual parking spot. Careful though, sometimes they're approaches to private land. During harvest those should be avoided so they can get large equipment in/out. At other times, I'll use them, but I'll pull over far enough that a pickup can easily get past. Talking about gravel roads for the most part here. Paved roads you want to be completely off of.
 
To A5s point about parking, sometimes I'll park at the designated spot and then do a big walk around on the road to access it from somewhere else. In my mind the birds are expecting someone to come in from there so they move to an escape corridor, which is where I try to position myself to enter the field.

I don't do it alot and it's only certain properties where I've been busted by birds at the parking area before so I try and out flank them so to speak. And it's usually late in the season when the birds are spooked.
 
The "few" landowners don't want to keep it all to themselves, you pay them with CREP dollars to keep it private in their hands and charge hunting access fees to everyone through your tax payments. You paid them $6M last year in this program. You pay them substantially more to put it in CRP and get no access at all. That's on you and the government you elect, not farmers. No hunting improvements, no reasonable amount of hunters per day. But it's low cost access fees that come out of your pocket automatically each month in taxes so no one complains too much about the low level of service on public lands except us on this site and never with a solution to how to fix "public" ground problems.

We paid $6M for new walk-ins last year for land to be acquired by government in the stamp program. Only half that work got done. They have 285k acres of GPA and manage to get food plots on 3,900 acres. There's 12,000 acres of food plots that you paid for but unfortunately that's in the private land habitat program- https://gfp.sd.gov/userdocs/docs/annualreport_2021_.pdf. I guess some birds might get busted out of their back yard food plots and land in your "prime" corner of a WIA; good enough if you are content with leftovers. But what can we do, it's the government program and lands, right?

I think you should tell the SD government to stop spending money on these programs and we'll keep that money. We'll give it to private conservation groups that we are members of. They will own the land on our behalf and manage it to our liking- no emergency haying, no landowner-only access rights, game specific improvements, affordable access to the public for a membership fee. The money is already there and it comes from you, you're just giving it to farmers and the government and lying to yourself that the land access is free and probably couldn't be any better.
 
PeteRevvv said:
The "few" landowners don't want to keep it all to themselves, you pay them with CREP dollars to keep it private in their hands and charge hunting access fees to everyone through your tax payments. You paid them $6M last year in this program. You pay them substantially more to put it in CRP and get no access at all. That's on you and the government you elect, not farmers. No hunting improvements, no reasonable amount of hunters per day. But it's low cost access fees that come out of your pocket automatically each month in taxes so no one complains too much about the low level of service on public lands except us on this site and never with a solution to how to fix "public" ground problems.

We paid $6M for new walk-ins last year for land to be acquired by government in the stamp program. Only half that work got done. They have 285k acres of GPA and manage to get food plots on 3,900 acres. There's 12,000 acres of food plots that you paid for but unfortunately that's in the private land habitat program- https://gfp.sd.gov/userdocs/docs/annualreport_2021_.pdf. I guess some birds might get busted out of their back yard food plots and land in your "prime" corner of a WIA; good enough if you are content with leftovers. But what can we do, it's the government program and lands, right?

I think you should tell the SD government to stop spending money on these programs and we'll keep that money. We'll give it to private conservation groups that we are members of. They will own the land on our behalf and manage it to our liking- no emergency haying, no landowner-only access rights, game specific improvements, affordable access to the public for a membership fee. The money is already there and it comes from you, you're just giving it to farmers and the government and lying to yourself that the land access is free and probably couldn't be any better.
Click to expand...
I think I'm picking up what you're laying down, but I suspect it's unrealistic. Let me see if I'm getting at least some of it.

So sportsmen stop paying into gov't access programs, stop paying weird taxes, & stop buying habitat stamps & such. We use that money to buy land via conservation groups, so essentially we own it, manage it, & get to hunt it. Who's going to SELL his/her land??? There are enough people with serious, serious money looking to buy hunting ground, that I think most landowners who wanted to sell theirs would've done so by now. If the land were for sale, those seriously well-funded people would outbid me or some conservation group every single time. Those landowners don't want to sell. Instead they retain ownership, enroll it in the WIA or CREP program, as well as the flawed CRP program, and allow me to hunt it much of the time during the season.

So....in an effort to keep the government out of it, maybe my favorite conservation group should enter into a similar contract w/ the landowner. We'll essentially rent it, manage it, & hunt it, as long as it's not mowed, grazed, or otherwise made unhuntable. Oh....you mean like PF does? (I say that facetiously) The Habitat Organization hasn't gained me 1 square foot of hunting ground. They may have helped improve some, but they didn't gain me any. And I think that by now, if they could've made that type of arrangement work, they would've. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

Addendum: Thanks to Weimdogman for pointing out that PF helps with land acquisitions, which are then made public per the North American Wildlife Conservation Model. What I meant in the paragraph above was that to my knowledge, PF hasn't gained me any land to hunt that WASN'T public, which PeteRevvv says basically leads to its ruin. I think if it were possible to acquire land & achieve "public" access without government ownership/incentive, PF would've figured out how to do it by now.
 
Last edited:
A5 Sweet 16 said:
View attachment 4044
Click to expand...
Love it. So let me explain. I was hunting federal national wildlife area in South Dakota. I parked on the road in a public road like we do any part of the state and walked into federal ground to hunt. When I came back to my truck a federal officer was waiting for me and said if I ever hunt federal land I can only enter and exit the land through a designated parking area and my truck has to be in that designated spot as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top