# South Dakota guys are you ready?



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

Its not hard to see that the comercialization of South Dakotas waterfowl hunting is expanding rapidly. There are many new guiding operations that have just poped up in the last year some in the last few months. Next springs snow goose hunting will be the most crowded that you have ever seen.
When I ask if you are ready I am not talking about decoys,blinds,shotgun loads and such, I am refering to a mental change in attitude about your hunting. The South Dakota waterfowl hunters are about to enter a new era in their hunting experience, that being more competition for good spots and pressure on the birds.This will take place in spring goose and carry over into fall. The hand writing is on the wall.


----------



## rex (Dec 8, 2007)

I believe this is why we continue to have a fall nonresident lottery system in getting waterfowl licenses. It will continue to make waterfowl experiences enjoyable to the locals.

But, I do see a valid point to your post. As far as a change in attitude, it will be the same thing that we all see with pheasants here.


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

rex is a guide liscense required in South Dakota to guide waterfowl hunters?


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

Sorry, but I don't see it. Yes, there have been some commercial operations popping up, but go out hunting, except in certain areas there are no people out hunting waterfowl. I never heard another shot besides our own on opening day, in an area that you use to have to be 3-4 hours early just to get a spot.

As people get lazier and lazier, less and less want to trudge out with a bunch of decoys on their back and do the work to hunt waterfowl.

Yes, there will probably be a few more for the spring snow goose, but, far from the pheasant hunting fiasco we see yearly.

A recession sooner or later will take care of most of the fly by night outfitters and only leave the good ones, which is fine by me.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Sorry to hear that.

Now you "southside" boys will experience what us "northside" guys have been putting up with for awhile now.


----------



## SDHandgunner (Jun 22, 2004)

NO Guides are not required to have ANY license in South Dakota (well a sales tax license i would imagine) unless they are actually HUNTING, and then they only need a Hunting License for what they are hunting.

This needs to be changed in my opinion.

Larry


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

I don't think it is people getting lazier and lazier, but more of a problem of the older hunting generation disappearing faster than the new and younger hunting generation appearing on the scene. This leaves a void that the guides and outfitters are filling in. It may not be enough for us just to teach our own children to hunt. Getting involved in youth groups where kids from non traditional hunting families are interested in hunting may be one solution. Next time you take your son or daughter out to the blind, let them invite one or two of their friends to tag along. Even if it means you spend less time hunting and more time explaining things, it is rewarding. You never know, you might just create a new future hunting partner for your kid.


----------



## rex (Dec 8, 2007)

Old Hunter said:


> rex is a guide liscense required in South Dakota to guide waterfowl hunters?


Yes, I BELIEVE it is required if you are a commercialized hunting operation.

As far as for guideing waterfowl, if non-residents want to hire a guide , God Bless them in my own personal opinion. This means that areas that I hunt will have less pressure.


----------



## T Shot (Oct 4, 2002)

The writing is on the wall for the Spring Season. Our only hope is the continued limited license system in the fall. The spring season has turned into a three ring circus. Couple that with OOS "guides" opening up their pocket book for access, and you have a disturbing trend. I used to enjoy the spring snow season as a bonus, now I hardly bother to go out. However, I believe that the state puts all their eggs in the upland season in the fall which saves us from that same mess. In my opinion, we need to keep on top of it and make sure that they don't slip in expanded licensing for the fall. Old Hunter, while I don't buy into the sky is falling claim you talk about, I wouldn't be suprised if it happens at some point if the sportsmen in state forget why we have such restrictions in the first place.


----------



## TANATA (Oct 31, 2003)

Just gotta pray that everything balances out at night and not let it drive you crazy. Hopefully all this posted land, outfitters, and high roller NR's will stall out or start going to down hill or hunting could take backseat to some other hobby if finding land gets much harder.


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

SD guys, I didnt mean to give the impression that the sky is falling. I'm just saying that things are changing. You have had little competition for some of the best spring snowgoose hunting in the country.T-shot confirms that has already changed. What suprises me is that some of the new guiding operations are advertizing fall hunts also. The idea that anyone can roll into SD and start up a guiding operation without a lisence is not very smart.If there is no liscense required then I would assume that there are no requirements for insurance.Where does this leave the landowner as far as liability? No controls at all lead to problems. Fly-by-night guiding operations are going to cause problems for the resident hunters and the honest guiding operations.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Old Hunter....

The fly by night guiding operations are going to hurt everyone! Some of these guys are the ones that tend to bend the laws. These are the ones like you mentioned don't have insurance, don't know how to run a good business, don't have respect for anything and just see $$$$. I am not down grading guides or anything like that. But some of the Fly by nighters are the ones hurting hunting across the board. Some of these "guides" are going into canada and guiding. Which is illegal and will only hurt the NR that hunts there.

Guiding in general is not hurting hunters but the guides who are doing it wrong or are not following the rules are the ones hurting hunting. IMO


----------



## verg (Aug 21, 2006)

Keys: 1. SD needs to require liscenses for all guides period. 
2. We are fortunate (right now) that SD has a waterfowl lottery system in place only allowing 10k nonresidents. 
SD has 180k pheasant hunters between non res and res. We feel the pain already. As much or more than ND does.


----------



## T Shot (Oct 4, 2002)

verg said:


> Keys: 1. SD needs to require liscenses for all guides period.
> 2. We are fortunate (right now) that SD has a waterfowl lottery system in place only allowing 10k nonresidents.
> SD has 180k pheasant hunters between non res and res. We feel the pain already. As much or more than ND does.


The big difference I can see in the comparison between ND's waterfowl season and SD's pheasant season is the fact that the pheasant operations can easily help keep the pheasant population high by releasing birds. Waterfowl operations have little control on fluctuating waterfowl populations for obvious reasons. This doesn't solve access and overcrowding issue that hunters in both states feel. If anything, it may keep the hunter numbers from fluctuating in SD like they may in ND. This is just a guess on my part, though.


----------



## verg (Aug 21, 2006)

Could be true. However, a friend of mine owns a pheasant lodge in this county and claims that 85% of birds released are shot. Most are released shortly before hunts. I will assume most operations are like this so..not sure how much the population is helped? He also said raised ones don't have a high survival rate because they don't have much instinct to survive. I'm not an expert there-not sure.
Either way, SD should have guiding liscense requirements. Otherwise, the rich guy will get his way here as well. Land will be leased or bought up etc. Right now, we have too many illegally hunting without liscenses or on public land. 
Living in my area, despite bird numbers (either species) hunters will come.
My neighbor is a game warden and he claims that there are a few more waterfowl operations cropping up. They do have some beafs with them. Number one, the owner operators are hunting illegally. They build their residence then use the address to get a drivers liscense-then use the liscense to buy a resident waterfowl liscense. Yet, when the season is over they take off for warmer climates. To get a liscense here you have to establish one main residence of a certain amount of time. They abuse this power. They are here 3 months and gone. They are also hunting public lands which they cannot. And lastly, they are using their big city money to buy up much land..land everyone else hunted. Taking away age old hunting grounds and driving up land prices. Am I bitter. Yep, too many of these disrespectful douche mops coming this way. They seem to like this county.


----------



## T Shot (Oct 4, 2002)

Verg, maybe helping populations is the wrong way to say it. What I should have said was the operations WILL have birds available to shoot, wild or not. Otherwise, I completely agree with you. These "guides" are abusing the law. Something needs to be done. I too am bitter.


----------



## verg (Aug 21, 2006)

yep..that makes sense.


----------



## T Shot (Oct 4, 2002)

Funny story... One of the owners/ head "guides", thick southern drawl and all, of a particular waterfowl hunting establishment near the ND/SD border approached me one day at work when I lived in Fargo. He told me if I or anybody I worked with ever wanted to "have an experience of a lifetime". I could come down to his "lodge" and hunt. It took every bit of me to not laugh out loud in his face. I felt like telling him if I ever need a guide to hunt ducks in SD, I might as well hang it up.


----------



## sonic (Mar 9, 2007)

look out down the road in about 20 years what do you see??


----------



## T Shot (Oct 4, 2002)

sonic said:


> look out down the road in about 20 years what do you see??


What are you asking? Are you "warning" us, or are you asking because you want to know?


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

look down the road in about 5 years, what do you see?


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

Well, SD is a lot different than ND in regards to pressure. SD smartened up and put a cap on pressure... NoDak still thinks that unregulated volume will save it's small towns... I think anyone who has grown up in or still lives in a small rural area in North Dakota can tell you that hunting MIGRATORY birds will not save MOST communities. There are the exceptions, but if you look at it in terms of overall impact it is a wash.

But then again, if we limited the number of out of state hunters in North Dakota who would support elevated land and housing prices in rural communities?

Honestly, what would happen to out of state hunters who bought land in NoDak if we put a cap on hunters? Those licenses sure would sell fast would they not? But what happens when you increase demand for an item? It has a higher percieved value and thus actually charging a fair price for access could be accomplished.

I don't know, tell me again why a hunter cap doesn't make sense???


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

northdakotakid said:


> Well, SD is a lot different than ND in regards to pressure. SD smartened up and put a cap on pressure... NoDak still thinks that unregulated volume will save it's small towns... I think anyone who has grown up in or still lives in a small rural area in North Dakota can tell you that hunting MIGRATORY birds will not save MOST communities. There are the exceptions, but if you look at it in terms of overall impact it is a wash.
> 
> But then again, if we limited the number of out of state hunters in North Dakota who would support elevated land and housing prices in rural communities?
> 
> ...


Excellent points as always Bill

I agree completely.

Ryan


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

northdakotakid said:


> Well, SD is a lot different than ND in regards to pressure. SD smartened up and put a cap on pressure... NoDak still thinks that unregulated volume will save it's small towns... I think anyone who has grown up in or still lives in a small rural area in North Dakota can tell you that hunting MIGRATORY birds will not save MOST communities. There are the exceptions, but if you look at it in terms of overall impact it is a wash.
> 
> But then again, if we limited the number of out of state hunters in North Dakota who would support elevated land and housing prices in rural communities?
> 
> ...


No doubt about it!!!!!


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

northdakotakid said:


> Well, SD is a lot different than ND in regards to pressure. SD smartened up and put a cap on pressure... NoDak still thinks that unregulated volume will save it's small towns... I think anyone who has grown up in or still lives in a small rural area in North Dakota can tell you that hunting MIGRATORY birds will not save MOST communities. There are the exceptions, but if you look at it in terms of overall impact it is a wash.
> 
> But then again, if we limited the number of out of state hunters in North Dakota who would support elevated land and housing prices in rural communities?
> 
> ...


Buy this man a beer! :beer:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

The SD landscape of hunting is a different animal than ND.

They do have a cap on waterfowl hunters. But they don't have a cap on pheasant hunters. The pheasant hunter numbers are twice if not more of ND numbers.

Do you think this might make a difference?

Also SD has a huge Pay to Play for pheasant operations? Do you think this makes a difference?

A Pay to Play operation leases or owns 1000 acres. This is posted to only his clients.....do you think this plays a role in pressure on resources (all wildlife...deer, pheasants, waterfowl, etc.)? does this make a difference?

Talking about the Out of State hunters who own land.....if they can't hunt year to year will they start to post more of the land? I don't know. I have an uncle who owns 320 acres and none of it is posted. He spends 1 month in ND hunting, fishing in the fall. Now if he can't get the license where he can monitor his land he said he will post it. Yep lost access for everyone. Right now he hunts it and lets others. But if he is not there to look after it he said he would post it. Something to think about. Will others do it maybe not. I can only speak for one land owner.

So when people talk about pressure you can't compare these two states.

What is the answer I don't know. But if the economy keeps going the way it is, also lack of moisture, and loss of habitat you will see hunter numbers dropping.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

> Talking about the Out of State hunters who own land.....if they can't hunt year to year will they start to post more of the land? I don't know. I have an uncle who owns 320 acres and none of it is posted. He spends 1 month in ND hunting, fishing in the fall. Now if he can't get the license where he can monitor his land he said he will post it. Yep lost access for everyone. Right now he hunts it and lets others. But if he is not there to look after it he said he would post it. Something to think about. Will others do it maybe not. I can only speak for one land owner.


 If they couldnt hunt why would they own any land here? On a side note I like out of state hunters owning land. They are the only ones left that dont care about money. Most guys that own land to hunt on at least leave it CRP they put easements on grass lands and wetlands. Right now most ND land owners are seeing green and turning greedy and we are losing THOUSANDS of acres of wildlife habitat. Ducks are migratory so even if the land they nest on is posted they are going to move. And there will be plenty of corn fields to hunt in. Thats my 2 cents.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Flash...

You are correct. The out of state hunter will stop buying land. But the out of state investor wont. They see $$$ signs as well. Also with the price of wheat ( I know it has gone down) but it is still high.

I was just mentioning people who already own the land.


----------



## Gillbilly (Mar 21, 2007)

As I read this I wonder if any of you are ever NR hunters.I spent approx.$2000 last fall to hunt ND.Now this spring my group will spend $1500 to hunt SD.This for a grand total of 20 days thats 175.00 a day to an economy where it seems I am not welcome.Be carefull what you wish for.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Gill

Yup I hunt out of state a lot. MN, MT SD etc. Never have had the attitude that the money I spend is saving a local community. It helps some businesses, they are appreciative, however, it is a drop in the bucket in the overall picture. Most small towns I visit continue to decline just like ND despite the good to excellent regional hunting opportunities. With outfitters expanding to better serve their clients with housing etc. some small towns take a bigger hit.

Hunting/fishing/outdoor recreation is big business. Like many big businesses the top of the "food chain" does pretty well, the trickle down theory does not always hold water.

I will continue to spend locally on my hunting trips but I am not going to take the illusionary path of thinking my money is making that much of a difference overall. There are many factors involved in the decline of midwest small towns that far outweigh hunter spending.

Bob


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Gill....

That attitude is part of the reason why some look down on the NR.

I myself am a NR of ND. But when I visit I don't think my money is making that town survive. Our group spends lots of money, just like yours, but it is nothing compared to the locals.

The people who make small towns survive are the people who live there. The people buying groceries everyday, who are at happy hour everyday, who are eating breakfast everyday, who are buying gas, who are buying the pizza's for the local high school sports team, etc.

It is not the NR or people from Fargo, Grand Forks, Bismark, etc. It is the people living in that small town.

The only money I spend that makes a difference is my license fees. That money goes directly to the state of ND and they use it as how they see fit. Just like anybody who buys a license in my home state. That money goes (Hopefully) to my states natural resources.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Well said Bob and Chuck. I too become a NR hunter, and have never felt that I am some sort of "savior" to the small town.

Gill, were not saying your moneys not wanted, or your not wanted. But something has to change, before the hunting gets so bad, neither you, or I want to pursue it with the gusto we do now. You spend $2000 a year here, well I spend $20,000 plus here a year.

I dont think theres many, if any, ND or SD residents that want to cut out NR's completely, but there has to be some limitations imposed, and soon, with the current farm markets and the future of land use.

And please dont blame the farmers. Its their land, and they have the opportunity in the next couple of years to make some serious money. They have to make a living to. Just remember, farm commodity markets are never a straight line, so give it a couple years, and farm land uses will most likely change again.

Pay to play and pheasant outfitters were spoken of in SD, well, ND has our fair share also. The area I grew up chasing ducks and geese in is now completely overrun by outfitters. Half a dozen waterfowl guides lock up well over a quarter million acres, so I at least know how that feels.

The plain and simple truth of the matter is that somethings gotta change and quick. Were going to lose some habitat, further stressing the resources, hunter numbers (at least in ND) to the best of my knowledge seem to be increasing, no falling. FURTHER stressing the resource. NR caps, in my mind make perfect sense. I talked to alot of NR waterfowlers the last few years, who were very unhappy with the hunting quality. They stated land access issues, and no birds (due to being pressured and pushed out of areas) as problems. I ask them this: Would you rather come every year, spend your $2000 (very few spend anywhere close to this) and have a poor hunt, deal with lots of other hunters, few, very pressured birds, and land access issues, or come every other year, spend the same amount, see more, less pressured birds, and be able to get on more land due to fewer hunter #'s, and have a good to great hunt?


----------



## Gillbilly (Mar 21, 2007)

Sorry if I made it sound as if my money would save the towns and bring wealth and happiness to all,not my intention.I just wanted to give a figure to what NR contribute.I live what you all fear,600thousand gun deer hunters on opening day in a state 5,000 sq.mi smaller.Land is at a premium and leasing for most is a rich mans game.The people buying up land dont care about raising land values forcing locals out they still get what they want.The problem I see with caps is who gets the tags and when.Will my whole group or only 2 out of 5.Wiil access be easier or will the ones with the fattest wallet make it even more difficult.Guides are here to stay as long the competition to get the most or the biggest in the least amount of time or effort continues.I am just an average guy the money I spend is alot to me and especially my wife,but I spend it because this is who I am.I am a DIY hunter and hate to see oppertunity lost.Dont hold a grudge towards NR hunters hold it against greedy ego maniacs who think anything less than a limit or P&Y is a bad day afield.Sorry about the rant but I hate being lumped into a group that dosent fit what I or my friends are about.GILLBILLY :beer:


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Gillbilly said:


> Sorry if I made it sound as if my money would save the towns and bring wealth and happiness to all,not my intention.I just wanted to give a figure to what NR contribute.I live what you all fear,600thousand gun deer hunters on opening day in a state 5,000 sq.mi smaller.Land is at a premium and leasing for most is a rich mans game.The people buying up land dont care about raising land values forcing locals out they still get what they want.The problem I see with caps is who gets the tags and when.Will my whole group or only 2 out of 5.Wiil access be easier or will the ones with the fattest wallet make it even more difficult.Guides are here to stay as long the competition to get the most or the biggest in the least amount of time or effort continues.I am just an average guy the money I spend is alot to me and especially my wife,but I spend it because this is who I am.I am a DIY hunter and hate to see oppertunity lost.Dont hold a grudge towards NR hunters hold it against greedy ego maniacs who think anything less than a limit or P&Y is a bad day afield.Sorry about the rant but I hate being lumped into a group that dosent fit what I or my friends are about.GILLBILLY :beer:


Well said Gill. And I think we all understand where your coming from. Its just in the whole scheme of things, limiting the number of NR hunters is the easiest, possibly most feasible thing to do. I also think outfitters should be limited to the amount of land they can lock up. I would like to see a NR license cap, with an allocated number of licenses going to each outfitter. Another option (for ND at least) would be to increase the number of waterfowl zones. The current system IMO is a joke. 75% of the hunters go to half a dozen specific areas, which leads to overhunting, and very quickly, no birds. Perhaps more zones, with caps per zone, offering a 1st, 2nd, and even 3rd choices for zones would be better. Much like the deer gun lottery.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

BBJ, I must disagree with you on some of your statements.



> The area I grew up chasing ducks and geese in is now completely overrun by outfitters. Half a dozen waterfowl guides lock up well over a quarter million acres, so I at least know how that feels.


Where did you grow up Texas? It wasn't in ND, sorry to inform you the total number of acres controlled by outfitters state wide is less than a half a million.



> Grand Total 492264
> Monday, February 05, 2007


 Posted by none other than Dick Monson so it has to be gospel



> I also think outfitters should be limited to the amount of land they can lock up.


BBJ, all the outfitters operate on is private, do you want to limit the size of farms also? The county I operate out of has 25,000 acres controlled by outfitters. 90% of that land is owned by the outfitters or by family members.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

g/o said:


> 90% of that land is owned by the outfitters or by family members.


If the outfitter owns the land, thats one thing. But I would like to see a limit put on those that are leasing the land, wether it be an outfitter, or private guy/group. Statewide, I dont think its a big problem....yet. But in specific areas, it is getting there. I also think a NR cap, and more zones would are more feasible options, and would also help to stem the "leasing" issue. If a guide/outfitter is only offered X amounts of licenses instead of an unlimited number, perhaps the need for all that land will diminish.

My quarter a million acres was high, but there are many days when it seems the number is ten times that high.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> Grand Total 492264
> Monday, February 05, 2007


These are acres that are reported! You and I both know there are acres out there that are not reported, or don't make that list!


----------



## Gillbilly (Mar 21, 2007)

BBJ,I do see your point on the zones.I have seen how overrun some spots get(rhymes with DEVILS LAKE)and how limiting some travel may help.As far as caps on NR I would like to see a change in zones first.I may be wrong but I believe about 30,000 NR licenses are sold and only 14 days to hunt ,this seems workable if they are spead out .I personally have never used all 14 days and assume at least a small percentage also dont.Maybe some type of intensive zones could be implemented with a more limited number of NR hunters and less days to hunt.This might lessen pressure on the higher profile areas.I still hate to lose any oppertunities but also dont see what goes on when Im back home. :beer: what the hell lets have another :beer:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

BBJ, I understand how you must feel. Instead of limiting leased land I would rather make it law that all lands that are leased be signed as such. Whether it's a outfitter, or a large corporation from the eastern part of the state. All land must be posted with the lessee and lessors names on the sign.That way you will know who or whom and if it's leased or not or just rumored to be. Will we have some cheaters? Do we now? Of course, but the honest people will still prevail. I'm just not in favor of caps or limits on anything else,just my personal beliefs.


----------

