South Dakota Fail

[Roksliding]

Did anyone else see that SD is no longer doing brood counts?

really isn’t a big deal, I figured those as skewed For years anyways. They were more of a way to get traffic in certain areas of the state. Which is all fine and good if you know the game. BUT

BUT, the criminal part of this is - they are cancelling it and using the money for advertising!!! What the F!,k!?!? Nooooo give it to farmers for CRP incentives, or reinvest into the bird habitat.

If your product is god enough you don’t need to advertise..

Fail for SD

 

[Skyhigh]

Did anyone else see that SD is no longer doing brood counts?

really isn’t a big deal, I figured those as skewed For years anyways. They were more of a way to get traffic in certain areas of the state. Which is all fine and good if you know the game. BUT

BUT, the criminal part of this is - they are cancelling it and using the money for advertising!!! What the F!,k!?!? Nooooo give it to farmers for CRP incentives, or reinvest into the bird habitat.

If your product is god enough you don’t need to advertise..

Fail for SD

The brood count in and of itself was advertising, and for the last few years, poor advertising to say the least. At first I was a bit shocked about it, how could they manage game they have no idea of population of? Pheasants aren't quite like deer or other larger animals, though. If a population of pheasants is going to increase you need more habitat. The Tall and Mixed grass prairie is one of, if not the most, anthropogenically changed habitats in the world. Increasing habitat should be the goal. Also, after doing similar surveys personally, it is extremely biased based on conditions and experience of the person counting.

I am unsure of the exact costs to run the count program, but odds are it was a few technicians for a couple month time period. Between materials, travel, and labor I'd guess the saved cost wouldn't give much to reinvest somewhere else, unless its "cheap." Media is much cheaper than buying new land, restoring land, or investing into CRP (although this idea has merit, in my opinion)

Without the state spouting to the world "SD Pheasant numbers down by 35%" every year and instead advertising that it is the greatest place to hunt wild pheasants in the world it will undoubtedly be a bigger draw for people to come here. More people = more money in licenses and money in local businesses. In theory, without mismanagement, this will equal more money for habitat.

I also think in this day and age, advertising is key. Do you notice the ads running through on the right side of the screen? Some of the best in the industry and yet they still need to advertise. With the crappy advertising the last few years (from brood counts being bad) the state needs to find a way to sell more licenses and bring more people in. If this is the best way to do it, so be it.

 

[Roksliding]

I read 700k a year for the count. And agreed it reeked of propaganda, but to the untrained eye the Mitchell area continually saw high bird numbers on paper.. I don’t think the birds got the memo tho.

Maybe advertising is a slow play that I don’t grasp, to me it just seems very short sighted.

By advertising you may attract some new traffic, sure.. pretty girl, some latest and greatest shotgun a high octane pointer, heck yeah sign me up!!

But in the 2007-2008 years pheasant numbers and crp numbers were all time highs........and the number of hunters were also very high.. one hand washes the other. Quality product is easy to sell. Think about 2008, there were smart phones but not near the capabilities Of today’s , so easy access advertising wasn’t there, they relied on “pop ups” and paper advertising and commercials mostly in cable tv... I don’t know the numbers but I’m betting the income they generated in 2008/9 was more than 2019 with less money spent on advertising..#qualityproduct

It just seems like such a politician’s approach to a problem..... let’s not fix the issue let’s try to generate money and then maybe later fix it... or not maybe who knows.

 

[Mosby]

Instead of investing in habitat and work to increase the Pheasant population it was easier for the politicians to get rid of a source of information that hunters were using to decide whether it was worth the trip to SD or go somewhere else. The brood count was specific to hunting. They can now use those dollars for more general tourist advertising. They don't really care about the Pheasant population or hunting but they do care about tourism and money. Money spent on brood count for hunters will now be spent on pictures of Buffalo and Mount Rushmore...while its still there. For people that don't own guns, don't hunt and don't like hunting it makes perfect sense. Win win for them.

 

[Skyhigh]

I read 700k a year for the count. And agreed it reeked of propaganda, but to the untrained eye the Mitchell area continually saw high bird numbers on paper.. I don’t think the birds got the memo tho.

Maybe advertising is a slow play that I don’t grasp, to me it just seems very short sighted.

By advertising you may attract some new traffic, sure.. pretty girl, some latest and greatest shotgun a high octane pointer, heck yeah sign me up!!

But in the 2007-2008 years pheasant numbers and crp numbers were all time highs........and the number of hunters were also very high.. one hand washes the other. Quality product is easy to sell. Think about 2008, there were smart phones but not near the capabilities Of today’s , so easy access advertising wasn’t there, they relied on “pop ups” and paper advertising and commercials mostly in cable tv... I don’t know the numbers but I’m betting the income they generated in 2008/9 was more than 2019 with less money spent on advertising..#qualityproduct

It just seems like such a politician’s approach to a problem..... let’s not fix the issue let’s try to generate money and then maybe later fix it... or not maybe who knows.

I think the key thing is the money. A lot of farmers decided to withdraw from crp when corn prices were high, which caused a loss of a ton of habitat. With less habitat, pheasant numbers dropped. With less places to hunt and less pheasants, revenue (from licenses) for state run programs was lost. We won't have more habitat without more money to make it worth it to restore some fields to prairie again.

I am completely guessing on this, but advertising then (2008ish) was probably easier. There were fewer sources where people consumed media or advertisements. All you needed was an add on outdoor centered tv and in outdoor centered print materials. Now advertising is needed in all of the old sources plus social media. Adds for social media also usually need more work behind them. If they don't catch the eye people will scroll past.

You do bring up a good point though, before the habitat was lost it sold itself. Everybody knew SD was the best place to scratch out a limit of pheasants.

I think SD still is still a quality "product", and will easily "sell" if people come out and experience it. People were turned off from the brood count, and didn't come out. Though if they had bought the license and came out for a few days they would have likely had opportunity to shoot a limit everyday, assuming they put in the work. In Brookings I can drive within forty minutes of town on public ground and have a good chance at shooting a limit after class. According to the old brood counts this area doesn't have a good density of birds, but its still plenty enough to hunt and be successful.

Instead of investing in habitat and work to increase the Pheasant population it was easier for the politicians to get rid of a source of information that hunters were using to decide whether it was worth the trip to SD or go somewhere else. The brood count was specific to hunting. They can now use those dollars for more general tourist advertising. They don't really care about the Pheasant population or hunting but they do care about tourism and money. Money spent on brood count for hunters will now be spent on pictures of Buffalo and Mount Rushmore...while its still there. For people that don't own guns, don't hunt and don't like hunting it makes perfect sense. Win win for them.

It is by far still worth a trip. There are a crap load of pheasants here. The brood surveys gave people the idea there wasn't birds so they didn't make a trip, but there is still a sh*t load of birds.

I am not sure what South Dakota politicians you are referring to. Our governor hunts, and is very vocal about trying to promote hunting in the state.

Hunting is big business within the state, bringing in 683 million in 2016. Of this, 287 million was pheasant hunting, the next highest being deer at 160 million. This supports 18,000 jobs within the state. Outdoor recreation as a whole brought in 1.3 billion.

Economic Contributions

gfp.sd.gov

 

[Mosby]

I think the key thing is the money. A lot of farmers decided to withdraw from crp when corn prices were high, which caused a loss of a ton of habitat. With less habitat, pheasant numbers dropped. With less places to hunt and less pheasants, revenue (from licenses) for state run programs was lost. We won't have more habitat without more money to make it worth it to restore some fields to prairie again.

I am completely guessing on this, but advertising then (2008ish) was probably easier. There were fewer sources where people consumed media or advertisements. All you needed was an add on outdoor centered tv and in outdoor centered print materials. Now advertising is needed in all of the old sources plus social media. Adds for social media also usually need more work behind them. If they don't catch the eye people will scroll past.

You do bring up a good point though, before the habitat was lost it sold itself. Everybody knew SD was the best place to scratch out a limit of pheasants.

I think SD still is still a quality "product", and will easily "sell" if people come out and experience it. People were turned off from the brood count, and didn't come out. Though if they had bought the license and came out for a few days they would have likely had opportunity to shoot a limit everyday, assuming they put in the work. In Brookings I can drive within forty minutes of town on public ground and have a good chance at shooting a limit after class. According to the old brood counts this area doesn't have a good density of birds, but its still plenty enough to hunt and be successful.



It is by far still worth a trip. There are a crap load of pheasants here. The brood surveys gave people the idea there wasn't birds so they didn't make a trip, but there is still a sh*t load of birds.

I am not sure what South Dakota politicians you are referring to. Our governor hunts, and is very vocal about trying to promote hunting in the state.

Hunting is big business within the state, bringing in 683 million in 2016. Of this, 287 million was pheasant hunting, the next highest being deer at 160 million. This supports 18,000 jobs within the state. Outdoor recreation as a whole brought in 1.3 billion.

Economic Contributions

gfp.sd.gov

Getting rid of the brood report doesn't help hunters, IMO. Those types of reports aren't perfect but they can often provide a place to start when planning a trip. Imagine if Colorado stopped providing information on elk because the numbers and success rates are down? How would an out of state guy know where to begin? I don't think those types of reports were intended to be considered advertising or marketing but that is just MO.

Some states are getting a huge amount of revenue from hunters but in many states, the revenue isn't going back to benefit hunters, the game or the land in proportion to where it came from. States like PA collect almost $1 billion a year from hunting but the areas that generate it are Republican and the politicians that control it are primarily Democrat. Fish & Game used to be independent. Now it is under the legislature. That wasn't done to benefit hunting or hunters. A lot of programs that used to exist are now gone but the revenue remains to be collected.

Regardless, South Dakota is great. Highly under rated. I am getting two new pups and plan on spending a couple weeks a year or more there going forward. I agree with you on CRP. That has had a huge impact on birds and hunting.

 

[Skyhigh]

Getting rid of the brood report doesn't help hunters, IMO. Those types of reports aren't perfect but they can often provide a place to start when planning a trip. Imagine if Colorado stopped providing information on elk because the numbers and success rates are down? How would an out of state guy know where to begin? I don't think those types of reports were intended to be considered advertising or marketing but that is just MO.

Some states are getting a huge amount of revenue from hunters but in many states, the revenue isn't going back to benefit hunters, the game or the land in proportion to where it came from. States like PA collect almost $1 billion a year from hunting but the areas that generate it are Republican and the politicians that control it are primarily Democrat. Fish & Game used to be independent. Now it is under the legislature. That wasn't done to benefit hunting or hunters. A lot of programs that used to exist are now gone but the revenue remains to be collected.

Regardless, South Dakota is great. Highly under rated. I am getting two new pups and plan on spending a couple weeks a year or more there going forward. I agree with you on CRP. That has had a huge impact on birds and hunting.

Apples to oranges when comparing elk to pheasants, especially in SD. Odds are any chunk of land that has prairie, a marsh (assuming it has a few feet of dry, non cultivated ground on the edges), or standing vegetation of some form taller than around 18 inches will probably have some pheasants. Elk distributions are affected by similar factors (food, water, cover) but on a much larger scale, with an individual animal needing a lot of each type to get by.

I don't think getting rid of the brood counts helps hunters directly, but I also don't think it will hurt. Sure, not everybody is going to know that Chamberlain (or wherever else) supposedly has the highest density. The extra advertising (and lack of the negative advertising from poor brood surveys) may get more people here overall, but time will tell.

The money brought in from hunting doesn't just go to the state government. Hunters spend money at local businesses as well. I think in the original link it had that included. SD is pretty transparent where the license money goes, with around 27 million directly to managing game and improving habitat or access.

GFP Financial Information

gfp.sd.gov

In theory, without having a brood count to tell them where to go the pressure from hunting may spread around a bit, and the money would too. Might even end up with more people having a higher quality experience because the same property doesn't get walked three times a day.

I agree that South Dakota is great. Lots of opportunity to get out and hunt or fish!

 

[KurtR]

Crp and cover crop has been going in at high rates the last few years up here. Crop prices suck and my friends do better in the conservation programs now than planting marginal ground. I drive a lot and the bread count is looking real good. The amount of local waterfowl is amazing. Good year for me to get a new puppy and get back to killing birds.

 

[WCB]

Apples to oranges when comparing elk to pheasants, especially in SD. Odds are any chunk of land that has prairie, a marsh (assuming it has a few feet of dry, non cultivated ground on the edges), or standing vegetation of some form taller than around 18 inches will probably have some pheasants. Elk distributions are affected by similar factors (food, water, cover) but on a much larger scale, with an individual animal needing a lot of each type to get by.

I don't think it is exactly apples to oranges...I agree they distribute different...But what is to stop the Game and Fish from saying we are no longer doing any herd counts on Mule Deer? Pronghorn? etc. Or how about prairie chickens...Sharptail....

I think the better question to ask is how the hell does it cost $700,000 to do the count? If I was towards the top of Pheasants Forever i would organize a volunteer group of members to do counts and publish it.

 

[KurtR]

the count was a wild ass guess at best . There are always pheasants and i would never plan my trip off that. a 5 minute drive and a few walks with my dog always produces pheasants

 

[carsonkeys]

Probably an unpopular opinion here, but SD lost any shot of legitimacy in regards to science-based wildlife conservation when they neutered non-resident deer tags.

 

[Fatcamp]

USFWS cancelled waterfowl surveys for 2020 as well. If we don't know how many birds there are how will we know if we should go hunting?

 

[KurtR]

Probably an unpopular opinion here, but SD lost any shot of legitimacy in regards to science-based wildlife conservation when they neutered non-resident deer tags.

How so? The nr tags have little to do with science it was to benefit residents more.

 

[carsonkeys]

How so? The nr tags have little to do with science it was to benefit residents more.

That's my main gripe. I could be wrong (and have been plenty before), but it doesn't appear that change in NR season dates was based in science, rather to appease residents.

If the intent was to reduce pressure, specifically NR pressure, a more reasonable solution would have been to further limit the number of NR tags (see 2020 changes to Colorado), imo. The issue there is the state then misses out on NR tag/license fees. So now, SD gets to continue to reap the benefits of the NR fees/licenses while simultaneously handicapping the same demographic. That might be entirely fine to some, but just doesn't pass the sniff test to me. Thus, I won't be pulling the trigger on my SD muley plans, but encourage anyone else to do so if they wish.

Again, I acknowledge that I may not have all the facts and am willing to hear your perspective as a resident.

 

[KurtR]

That's my main gripe. I could be wrong (and have been plenty before), but it doesn't appear that change in NR season dates was based in science, rather to appease residents.

If the intent was to reduce pressure, specifically NR pressure, a more reasonable solution would have been to further limit the number of NR tags (see 2020 changes to Colorado), imo. The issue there is the state then misses out on NR tag/license fees. So now, SD gets to continue to reap the benefits of the NR fees/licenses while simultaneously handicapping the same demographic. That might be entirely fine to some, but just doesn't pass the sniff test to me. Thus, I won't be pulling the trigger on my SD muley plans, but encourage anyone else to do so if they wish.

Again, I acknowledge that I may not have all the facts and am willing to hear your perspective as a resident.

No that all sounds about right. Thing to remember is deer are not a big money maker the pheasants are what matters. Its just like waterfowl we made that a draw tag so it is a major benefit to the residents.

 

[WCB]

USFWS cancelled waterfowl surveys for 2020 as well. If we don't know how many birds there are how will we know if we should go hunting?

Not the same....they didn't cancel for marketing purposes. They canceled it for one year based off COVID-19.

 

[carsonkeys]

No that all sounds about right. Thing to remember is deer are not a big money maker the pheasants are what matters. Its just like waterfowl we made that a draw tag so it is a major benefit to the residents.

If the deer in your profile pic is indicative of SD quality I'd respectfully disagree

 

[Fatcamp]

Not the same....they didn't cancel for marketing purposes. They canceled it for one year based off COVID-19.

So, how do we feel about the Predator Nest Bounty Program? $1,000,000 spent to kill native species so we get more ditch chickens? I think it's a fail but the orange army probably thinks it's great.

 

[Mosby]

So, how do we feel about the Predator Nest Bounty Program? $1,000,000 spent to kill native species so we get more ditch chickens? I think it's a fail but the orange army probably thinks it's great.

I think it is great. It will add significant value to a variety of birds, not just pheasant. I am not a skunk or raccoon fanboy.

Who is the orange army you are referring too? Are you referring to hunters, protestants or Republicans?

 

[KurtR]

hunters as it looks like a bunch of pumpkins bobbing across the field.

I think the program is great it helps the waterfowl as much as pheasants as they all nest in the grass also. In the grand scheme of things i am a waterfowl hunter at heart and any thing that helps ducks i like.