I'm furious about this regulation, I'll try to share my opinion without profanity, and I dont even hunt south dakota. The concept that a tag should have different values based on residency is great for the first state to implement it but horrifying for North American wild game management if every state were to adopt it. My goal is to have every American holding a specific tag to have the same opportunity as any other American holding the same tag. Imagine if every state took a shine to this policy. What if a sd resident wanted to hunt elk in Wyoming but wy said no, let our residents hunt the public for a month, then you can spend triple and have a go, good luck. Why would the millions keep flowing? A tag should equal a tag. If you want less hunters, restrict hunters. State discrimination on federal lands doesn't fly with me. Share if this dangerous precedent doesnt fly with you. If every state agreed with this, your NR tag on public land wouldnt be valid until the locals pressured everything off for a month. I'll attach my email to the sd agency in the off chance that you'll copy it for hunter rights. Fight for your rights or they're gone.
Thanks for the response Joe, I've been following this closely and I'm seriously concerned about the precedent that this sets. To be honest, I'm outraged at this proposal, and I've never said that before. I love the American hunting model that has bolstered game populations and spurred hunting participation country wide, but this seems to directly contradict that. To discriminate season start dates on federally controlled public lands based on state residency feels incredibly wrong. Allocation of tags based on residency is a valid regulation, but to provide residents a month head start on limited public lands is a short sighted regulation that will appease residents while infuriating nonresidents. If control of harvest is the goal, then limit tags based on biologist's data, not on the emotional response of residents. Consider if South Dakota sets the precedent that residents should deserve the first month of season over nonresidents. What if every state were to be like South Dakota? What if every state decided that your hard earned tag that you saved up for and took time off work for was worth less than the same tag held by a resident? The most serious hunters that save for these trips would feel like second class citizens and the desire to participate would plummet. My partner and I would spend thousands on nonresident tags, lodging, meals, butchers, bars, etc., but SD would throw this away to provide an early start for residents that pay far less for a tag and supply none of the additional income that a nonresident would bring. It's a purely emotional regulation based on zero data to appease your residents. If this becomes an acceptable means of regulation, what will happen when SD residents find that they're not welcome in another state until after the residents have had their fun? A tag for an animal these days is hard earned, but once that tag is obtained, one should have the optimism and excitement that he or she has the same opportunity as everyone else. If every state adopted this proposed policy, the anticipation would be crushed, the national hunting economy would suffer and the out of stater hate would skyrocket. We have enough nonresident hate to contend with as it is. A tag should provide equal rights to everyone holding that tag, especially on public lands which we all have a right to access. Residents already have the advantage of being able to scout year round, hunt after work, hunt every weekend, and pay far less for tags without paying for lodging or food. That's the tradeoff. I'm an Iowa resident and I know darn well that nonresidents work hard to get a deer tag here and pay way more for them, and I would be appalled if our state told SD residents that their tag was only good after our residents had a go at the public herd for a month. Mule deer are not as territorial as whitetail and will be pushed out of public lands through September, leaving nonresidents with a poor experience and a sour taste of SD game management. Differing start dates for the same tag based on residency is anti hunter and isolationist, good short term for SD hunters but awful for hunting in general if that precedent is set. Especially on federally controlled public land. Outrageous. Please pass this along to your colleagues, I will be sure to pass this discrimination along to every hunting group with a voice that I can find. If modern hunting is to survive, it will require equal opportunity to everyone that holds the same tag, particularly on the public lands that we all hold dear.
Lou
