Proposed Changes to SD Pheasant Season

I’m sure there will be some opinions on this:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwimsteWm9PqAhUKgnIEHS0kCUYQxfQBMAJ6BAgKEAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.keloland.com%2Fnews%2Fcapitol-news-bureau%2Fbig-changes-proposed-to-s-d-pheasant-season%2F&usg=AOvVaw0HyBaHV1pophXKXMZlDYtX

Sounds like a good change, I always wished it would go to the end of Jan., just so many other things going on during Dec. to get back out there.

I fully support these changes. Some sort of change was needed to increase the attractiveness of SD pheasant hunting to non-residents, and this is a step in the right direction. With the drastic drop in CRP acreage and public land available to hunt, diminishing habitat, and dwindling bird numbers, SD is getting less and less attractive (from a non-resident perspective) to hunt each year. Throw in the 10 AM start time regulation and it is making more and more sense for me to hunt neighboring states without the start time restriction or just stay home and hunt game farms. As bird numbers continue to drop in SD, neighboring states become more and more attractive.

GFP doing whatever they can to make fox news’ golden governor more revenue.

I’m indifferent to the late season limit and extended season; guess I’ll be able to whack more out of the ditches while going to/from the lakes.

Many people posting on these and other forums talk about fish and wildlife management agencies wasting money, etc. Yet, when the South Dakota Dept. decides to eliminate the brood counts that, according to the quote by Mr. Hepler (see below), have not been used in season decisions, people criticize the decision.

“The survey had been a fixture since 1949. Hepler said the population estimate hadn’t been used in pheasant season decisions.”

Here is a good example of cutting a task to save money that has been more a tradition than useful data collection. Why the criticism?

Buffalo Fishhead

I wish the season in MN would start a couple weeks later and then go further into mid January. Early season sucks. It’s hot, there’s too many crops, and there’s a fair amount of young non-colored roosters. I always do the best after most of the crops are out and we get a hard freeze with a fresh snow fall. December has been far better than October in recent years. Not sure about everyone else, but I’d much rather hunt in January when it’s 20 degrees out than October when it’s 65 out.

That is a good question Buffalo Fishhead and you are bringing up a very valid point. I think the problem people have with it is that is a good tool to get a general pulse on populations specifically by county, which at least for me, has an influence into what parts of the state I am going to focus on when I go out to SD to pheasant hunt each year (or for me, twice a year). Is it a imperfect tool that sometimes has skewed results that are dependent upon weather conditions, among many other factors? Yes, absolutely. But its all we have to get any sort of indication on population changes when you are a non-resident.

Also, the fact that (in my opinion) they aren’t eliminating the survey to save money… They are doing it because the bird numbers have been dropping year after year and this is obviously reflected on the brood survey. When hunters see drastic drops in bird numbers, there is a resulting drop in non-residents buying pheasant licenses each year. IMO, they axed the brood survey because non-resident license purchases are way down.

IMO, they are not addressing the elephant in the room, and that is the loss of habitat. Loss of habitat = reduced bird numbers, regardless of how you spin it. Getting rid of the brood survey is not fixing the problem but just trying to make the dropping pheasant population less obvious to non-residents.

Great Laker wrote:

IMO, they are not addressing the elephant in the room, and that is the loss of habitat. Loss of habitat = reduced bird numbers, regardless of how you spin it. Getting rid of the brood survey is not fixing the problem but just trying to make the dropping pheasant population less obvious to non-residents.

Oh that is absolutely correct. Address the real issue which is habitat loss and then the brood counts will improve. By not doing the counts, they won’t have to “market” the crappy numbers. So hunters will be willing to try it and then they’ll see for their own eyes how poor it is. At least the dumb hunters will try it once.

tornadochaser wrote:

GFP doing whatever they can to make fox news’ golden governor more revenue.

I’m indifferent to the late season limit and extended season; guess I’ll be able to whack more out of the ditches while going to/from the lakes.

+1

Great Laker and gimruis:

As you both know there is one defining principal when it comes to pheasant numbers:

If you have excellent habitat you have excellent pheasant populations.

One only has to look back at the Soil Bank days or the period when there was a lot of land in CRP.

So, how does a state like South Dakota make those conditions come about again?

I would venture a guess if you were an Upland Bird biologist for SDGFP you would love to see the soil bank days return. Pheasants everywhere!!

Buffalo Fishhead

Buffalo – You are spot on with the correlation between habitat and bird numbers. I’m not familiar with what you call the soil bank days, I think it is a little before my time… Are you just referring to when there was a lot more CRP? I don’t know how to get there but the solution is there needs to be more land/habitat enrolled in programs like CRP and game production areas. If SD wants to preserve pheasant hunting as a steady source of income for years to come for both the government as well as pumping money into local economies, they need to come up with a way to find substantial $$ to invest in programs that will increase and enhance pheasant habitat. With no state income tax, their state tax revenues are largely dependent upon sales tax revenue and license sales from non-residents – non-resident pheasant hunters contribute great deals of money into both.

To steal an analogy from field of dreams, if they [SD] don’t build it [habitat], they [non-res hunters] won’t come.

Great Laker:

The Soil Bank days were from the mid-1950’s to the mid 1960’s. It was during that period that South Dakota claimed they were the “Pheasant Capital of the World”. Here is a brief history:

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1045666.pdf

The numbers of pheasants during that period was unbelievable, because there was extensive habitat for the birds.

It would take a LOT of money to return habitat to the conditions at that time.

Buffalo Fishhead

Good to know – I didn’t know that, thanks for sharing.

Buffalo Fishhead wrote:

Great Laker:
It would take a LOT of money to return habitat to the conditions at that time.

I agree, lots and lots of money… and I don’t think we will ever get back to the “good old days”, but a few steps in that direction certainly would be nice.

Great Laker wrote:

I agree, lots and lots of money… and I don’t think we will ever get back to the “good old days”, but a few steps in that direction certainly would be nice.

Agree 100%

Buffalo Fishhead

Buffalo Fishhead wrote:

If you have excellent habitat you have excellent pheasant populations.
One only has to look back at the Soil Bank days or the period when there was a lot of land in CRP.

So, how does a state like South Dakota make those conditions come about again?

I would venture a guess if you were an Upland Bird biologist for SDGFP you would love to see the soil bank days return. Pheasants everywhere!!

The problem is that there is no hunting, conservation, or other resource big or well funded enough to take on the other player in this game: big ag. The agriculture industry has tremendous powers and a lot of allies in politicians and law makers. You’ll never defeat them. Pheasant hunting in SD is good tourism dollars but it’s nothing compared to agriculture.

Gimruis said:

The problem is that there is no hunting, conservation, or other resource big or well funded enough to take on the other player in this game: big ag. The agriculture industry has tremendous powers and a lot of allies in politicians and law makers. You’ll never defeat them. Pheasant hunting in SD is good tourism dollars but it’s nothing compared to agriculture.
[/quote]

Exactly!!

Wildlife usually takes a back seat to big industries.

Buffalo Fishhead

True that it’s most certainly tough to compete with agriculture, but with corn and bean prices down around $3 and $8 respectively, and the consistent or increasing costs of seed and herbicides, some farmers are looking at alternative ways to not lose money on that land best suited for CRP. I think the changes made in the 2018 farm bills should help attract more farmers enrolling acres into the program. Until a few years ago, crop prices were just way too high for the CRP payments to compete with.

I like to shoot pheasants as much as the next guy but if I were to find myself opposing people dedicated to growing mass quantities of food so that I could shoot a few more invasive species birds each year I hope i’d realize that it’s time for me to pause and reflect.

And rather than advocating for more big government funded socialist programs like CRP i’d take personal action like investing in a game farm.

The world needs more activists. Be an activist.

“An activist is the guy who cleans the river, not the guy complaining that it’s dirty.” H. Ross Perot

If you guys truly want a sense of what conservation is up against, just look at crop ground that was flooded out over the past 2 years, but started to dry up this spring. Those small potholes easily could have been left as weeds/grass/cattails for a year or two before really drying out and becoming productive again, but I can point out 100 examples just in the area I hunt where the producer has made 2-3 passes with spray, disk, and planter trying to get late soybeans in wherever possible. And in many of those instances, only to catch a heavy rain and watch the water come back.

Pheasant hunting is never going to get better. Farming efficiency and greed take precedence. That’s why I love Grouse hunting so much. You never really shoot many but the numbers aren’t dependent on human intervention as much. (yes I know lumbering creates habitat) I have no intention of stopping my pursuit of pheasant IN IOWA any time soon.

Snap wrote:

And rather than advocating for more big government funded socialist programs like CRP i’d take personal action like investing in a game farm.

CRP is a relatively small portion of the big government funded socialist programs that subsidize farming. Could save about 6-7x more by cutting corn, bean, and wheat subsidies and it would reduce the incentive to excessively farm in the first place.

My old supervisor (who retired in May) has some family property down near Albert Lea (flat, barren, featureless country other than his property which has some grassland and tree groves) always said that the farmers had one philosophy when it came to planting: when the price goes up, you plant more. When the price goes down…you plant more.