SD limiting nonresident archery tags

Got an email last night from SD game and fish.
They will be moving forward with limiting nonresident archery public land tags for deer and antelope.
For deer the cap is 2200 tags for on public land. For private land only it is still unlimited with being able to buy whenever you want. Application period for public land is from April 11th till May 11th.
For antelope the quota is 450 tags for on public land and unlimited for private land only.

I think it’s great SD is looking out for there residents. It just hurts for us nonresidents that like to hunt SD.

SD GFP continues to shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to their management of resources. South Dakota is more and more becoming a pay to play operation and if you don’t have access to private land, you’re at a significant disadvantage. Waterfowl and now deer and antelope archery is darn near impossible for non-residents. Want to spend hundreds of dollars to hunt late season pheasants (when hardly anyone else is hunting), well you only get about 5 hours of daylight to do that because you can’t start hunting until 10 AM… and each spot you hunt is on average at least an hour away, so that means you have time to hunt 2, maybe 3 spots a day. just isn’t worth it for the amount of pheasants left out there. Also, I’m pretty sure turkey hunting opportunities are significantly limited if you are a non-resident versus a resident.

I’ve wrote lengthy emails to the GFP Board of Directors and they were surprisingly receptive and constructive with their response and were definitely listening to my complaints. Unfortunately they haven’t made any meaningful changes to help the problems.

Dwindling pheasant populations… decreasing amounts of pheasant habitat and public ground to hunt… I’m finding it harder and harder to justify my two annual trips to SD to hunt. Total combined on both of my trips, my group probably pumps over $10,000 into the SD economy. The juice is no longer worth the squeeze and I’m better off hunting elsewhere.

Gitchi Gummi wrote:

SD GFP continues to shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to their management of resources. South Dakota is more and more becoming a pay to play operation and if you don’t have access to private land, you’re at a significant disadvantage. Waterfowl and now deer and antelope archery is darn near impossible for non-residents. Want to spend hundreds of dollars to hunt late season pheasants (when hardly anyone else is hunting), well you only get about 5 hours of daylight to do that because you can’t start hunting until 10 AM… and each spot you hunt is on average at least an hour away, so that means you have time to hunt 2, maybe 3 spots a day. just isn’t worth it for the amount of pheasants left out there. Also, I’m pretty sure turkey hunting opportunities are significantly limited if you are a non-resident versus a resident.

I’ve wrote lengthy emails to the GFP Board of Directors and they were surprisingly receptive and constructive with their response and were definitely listening to my complaints. Unfortunately they haven’t made any meaningful changes to help the problems.

Dwindling pheasant populations… decreasing amounts of pheasant habitat and public ground to hunt… I’m finding it harder and harder to justify my two annual trips to SD to hunt. Total combined on both of my trips, my group probably pumps over $10,000 into the SD economy. The juice is no longer worth the squeeze and I’m better off hunting elsewhere.

I think you answered your own question when you said “…just isn’t worth it for the amount of pheasants left out there.” One way to reduce the harvest is to reduce hunting pressure.

the long term impact from loss of habitat is what I’m worried about. Sure a few bad years here and there are expected but you can’t wipe out millions of acres of habitat and expect to ever get back to where you were… and their ability to acquire/maintain habitat is a function of how many non-residents are coming there to spend money. Also when a state largely becomes a pay to play operation, that isn’t going to help the long term growth of the sport when only rich kids can partake. And our sport needs growth from young hunters and GFP’s approach isn’t helping that.

SD doesn’t have state income tax and a large part of their government revenue comes from hunting. Per SDGFP, $683 million per year comes from hunting alone. SD’s total 2023 government spending is just south of $6 billion, so approx 12% of the money the SD state spending budget comes from revenue related to hunting. That is significant.

Gitchi Gummi wrote:

Dwindling pheasant populations… decreasing amounts of pheasant habitat and public ground to hunt… I’m finding it harder and harder to justify my two annual trips to SD to hunt. Total combined on both of my trips, my group probably pumps over $10,000 into the SD economy.

Wow, that is a significant investment. However, I do believe that SD has better public land hunting than neighboring states, and more of it. Plus their season goes all the way through January. This past season would have been brutal January hunting there, but most years its not near like that. Heck, some Januarys they have almost no snow on the ground.

The gripe I have is that they completely stopped doing a road side count because they knew the casual hunter only planned to hunt there based on a positive roadside count. Well, their idea here is that if they don’t broadcast negative numbers, the casual hunter can’t see it, and thus, it does not affect their decision making. Limiting a nonresident to a maximum of 10 days pheasant hunting irks me too. If you buy a license, you should be able to hunt as much as you want during the legal open season. It would be like MN limiting a SD resident to only 10 days of fishing here.

States manage their own resources and each seems to take a different approach. Restricting licenses and tags for out of state hunters = less revenue. Ample licenses and tags for out of state hunters = more revenue.

I’m not sure if I agree that they are “shooting themselves in the foot.” Sure, they are probably missing out on revenue streams. However, it could also be a management piece to stabilize populations. If the revenue is missed and the populations can handle it I am sure they will adjust accordingly for non resident tags/licenses available in the future.

They are definitely looking out for their own property owners and residents first with availability – but isn’t that how it should be in some instances? Call me selfish, but I like the idea of the state I live in caring about my involvement and experiences in the outdoors first and foremost before chasing out of state money which could come at the expense of game populations. At the very least I wish MN would raise the cost of out of state licenses.

you guys definitely have valid points. my thought process is “biting the hand that feeds you” = shooting yourself in the foot

once people start changing their hunting traditions to different states, it will be much harder to get them to come back. for a state that does not have state income tax, their reliance on other revenue streams (ie non-residents coming and pumping money into their economy while hunting) is much more significant. they’ll have to raise taxes elsewhere to make up for the shortfall

Does not surprise me. Wyoming has reduced out of state tags for most big game species . Sitting on 15 preference points for deer and elk . What used to get a decent unit at 15 may now take 20 . State legislature has reduce portion available to non residents . The future does not look good for younger hunters. Evidently they are okay with loosing that particular revenue stream .

I can’t speak on the pheasant issues but limiting nonresident deer and antelope hunters on public land is all about crowding (hunting pressure) on public land. Nothing in this new regulations is pricing people out.

Most of this is directed at 2 areas. The NW corner and the Black hills. Those 2 areas have insane amounts of pressure.

I hunt in the central part of the state and most areas I have to myself for the most part.

Don Meier wrote:

Does not surprise me. Wyoming has reduced out of state tags for most big game species . Sitting on 15 preference points for deer and elk . What used to get a decent unit at 15 may now take 20 . State legislature has reduce portion available to non residents . The future does not look good for younger hunters. Evidently they are okay with loosing that particular revenue stream .

In 2018 I drew an 8 point unit tag. Our group of 4 (all with zero points) drew the one random tag for that unit. Since we went in as a group we all get tags.
That was one of the funnest elk hunts I have had in my life.
I seen more bulls over 300” in one week than my entire life.

While tag quotas for nonresidents are down they raised total tag numbers in 2021 by 2000.
Wyoming is another state that is putting there residents above everyone else. Which is fine by me.

You really lucked out on that draw. What success was had ? Points creep is very real now . Leaving fewer tags available for non residents. Sure i understand Wyoming’s position residents telling lawmakers they want the bulk of the tags available . Wonder what the guide’s association makes of all this ? Their lively hood depends largely on non residents ? On some big game species nonresident went from 25 percent down to 10 percent of all available tags . Its a good thing im not a young guy anymore , cause most will be old men before they draw a decent unit . I know some guys sitting on 20 points and now some units require 25 ! At some point age will force these guys to the sideline.

I am planning on an archery lope hunt this year so the draw and season dates moving threw a little wrench into my plans but I will still apply and hope for the best. It does suck, but I would like to have decent opportunities 15 years from now so it is good to see them (and other states) looking out for the resources.

We went 4 for 4 on bulls. This was the first 2 weeks of Archery season.
The biggest bull was a 350” 5 X 5 that was shot the 2nd of season. The other 3 bulls went 250 to 300. Lots of big bulls in that unit with veryl little pressure during archery season.

Yeah I think I am thinking of just dropping out of all states.
I just can’t catch the units I want to hunt. Preference point fees going up. Having to buy licenses every year or every 2 years in Utah. It’s just too much money going out and no site of the end of the road.

Lots of really good units in Wyoming that take less than 20 points. I would be burning them.

This reminds of several years ago when Colorado hiked big game licenses BIG time. The next year NR license sales were down like 25%. So what does Colorado do, spend 500k on advertising trying to get hunters back! Just stupid in my opinion. If they would have just tacked a small increase probably would not of affected license sales and saved 500k.

MX1825 wrote:

This reminds of several years ago when Colorado hiked big game licenses BIG time. The next year NR license sales were down like 25%. So what does Colorado do, spend 500k on advertising trying to get hunters back! Just stupid in my opinion. If they would have just tacked a small increase probably would not of affected license sales and saved 500k.

What year did this happen? I don’t remember hearing anything about it.

I know when Montana raised their tag fees. They lost a lot of hunters. For a number of years. They had a pretty good amount of leftover tags. It’s been a few years since I looked into their tag numbers but the leftovers had dwindled to nothing.

The i80 units we were looking at for Mule deer had a couple tags per unit ! Odds draw with 15 points was 4 percent success in some units . The further east you go way better odds but hard access. Lot of private land. We are looking at a unit closer to Yellowstone . Which according to Hunting Fool is a good chance to draw . We hope.

I think this will be a common thing going forward. Theres really never an expansion of public lands in each state to hunt they just get rid of them which then leaves less area to hunt. To help with pressure they will limit non residents before residents. I really do think in the next 10-20 years non resident hunting for whitetail will be almost non existent.

Well said Carter. Dwindling access will result in decreased participation. Less participation will result in less representation at the political level. Not a great recipe for a pastime that is facing a number of headwinds, of which one of the biggest is recruitment of the younger generation. This cycle doesn’t paint a bright picture for the future of hunting in general. Less hunters will also increase the momentum in the gun control movement. This problem is snowballing.

NE dropped tags for NON-residents last fall archery deer and then this spring for Turkey. Turkey i know it’s because of decline. Deer not sure why could be the pressure but the deer numbers are going back up in two areas we hunt after the bad EHD die off a bunch of years ago.

Turkey went from 3 to 2 birds and no more unlimited tags for non-residents. Can only shoot one bird a day also now.I think this will be the trend for a lot more states.

Hoyt4 wrote:

NE dropped tags for NON-residents last fall archery deer and then this spring for Turkey. Turkey i know it’s because of decline. Deer not sure why could be the pressure but the deer numbers are going back up in two areas we hunt after the bad EHD die off a bunch of years ago.

Turkey went from 3 to 2 birds and no more unlimited tags for non-residents. Can only shoot one bird a day also now.I think this will be the trend for a lot more states.

Nebraska capped the nonresident rifle deer tag numbers do to hunting pressure in the western part of the state. In doing so they capped archery and muzzleloader as well to prevent spill from over into those seasons.
I bought my first archery tag when they became available. I then bought my 2nd tag in November and they still hadn’t sold out on archery tags at that time.
Archery was capped at 5000. Nebraska sold 5018 tags in 2021 before the cap.

Don Meier wrote:

The i80 units we were looking at for Mule deer had a couple tags per unit ! Odds draw with 15 points was 4 percent success in some units . The further east you go way better odds but hard access. Lot of private land. We are looking at a unit closer to Yellowstone . Which according to Hunting Fool is a good chance to draw . We hope.

Here is the proposed tag numbers for Wyoming.

I never got into the Wyoming deer draw. I always focused on CO, AZ and Utah.

The units I always thought that were worth pursuing were in Region G or Region H.
Region G tag numbers are stable. Region H are going down 100.
Another thing I have heard is Wyoming deer are taking a beating this winter.

https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Get%20Involved/2023%20April%20Regulations/CH-6-Draft-03-16-2023-4.pdf

We are looking at Unit 119 November hunt. Not sure how bad they got it ? We also have to contend with grizzlies in that unit. Talked with a biologist and a guide was attacked and killed just north of unit 119 . Bear spray and my Ruger 45 . Sure hope I do not have to use it. Hope there is a few deer left after this winter !

Good luck. I hear that hunt can be fun in November.

I hunted 67 and 68 for elk in 2017. They are just west of there on the other side of Dubois. I didn’t see any Grizz but seen plenty of fresh sign every day.
I shot my bull in the evening. By the time we got it deboned out it was well after dark. I told my partner we were not coming back to the carcass for a 2nd trip. We took my bull out in one trip. That was an insanely heavy pack out. Thankfully it was all down hill to the truck.

I would want something more than a 45 though. My partner I are big fans of 10 mm with +P bullets.