South Dakota mule deer

[KurtR]

There's always been fewer mule deer east river.
In 2023, there were ~30k resident archery tags and ~5k NR.
There were over 10k antlerless tags sold for youth/mentored
50k resident general rifle tags (ER and WR). 2k NR

25% success with archery: 8,500 deer 6000 bucks 200 does
45% success youth/mentored antlerless: 4,500 does.
45% success rifle: 24,000 deer 16000 bucks and 8000 does

My extended family (second cosuins) have around 12k acres in NW SD and have reported that deer numbers are fine. My trail cameras on my parents land (much smaller and borders public) have captured more deer than any other time in the last decade. (perhaps they've been placed a bit better?)

Seems hard to believe that deer numbers are sooo bad now that your dad and father in law say it is worse than back when it was a big deal to even kill a deer? How can that be when it isn't that hard to kill deer now? Must be better now..

I'm curious if you believe anecdotes. In one sentence you say 'random people say its good' as if to discredit them, but then use random 'farmers and ranchers' to say its bad. So which is it, are anecdotes reliable or not? Because I know many ranchers that say deer numbers are fine.

If you want more deer, the actual numbers would indicate to stop antlerless hunts and reduce resident rifle tags. The 2,000 deer (majority bucks) that nonresidents kill are not going to make a significant change to population levels. This is just a fact.
You suggest making NR archery a draw, but it already is a draw? So what are you even suggesting? Did you not know that NR archery was a draw?
Do you have any actual evidence to support this doomsday? I would honestly love to hear it. I think there are areas where deer numbers are down. I think there should be some rule changes to improve deer numbers. I absolutely do not support making decision based off of anecdotes and proposing rule changes that are not supported with data.

Nr archery isnt a draw you just have to apply. Its not random ranchers and farmers its people i have known since i moved to mobride over 20 years ago. I spend all year driving back and forth to eagle butte and spent alot of years hunting perkins county till the bad winter kill in 2010.

There are less mule deer east river but way less pressure and way better quality in general.

Do you remember when they were handing triple tags out like candy just 15 years ago then the winter of 10 hit and then ehd.

Im all for killing less does and killing a deer isnt that hard i guess but im past the stage of wanting to shoot rats. I have a 188 mulie and went into the year knowing i probably wasnt going to kill one if its not bigger than that im not that interested. I would rather eat ducks and geese so the meat isnt a concern.

What part of the state do you live in and how many days out in the country do you spend the data i have is what I see along with a pretty big group of people i hunt with or talk to.

Our nr tags are way to cheap compared to other states that we border like wyoming and montana we should at least be in line with what they charge. Hell both rez by me charge over 700 dollars and sell out in minutes

 

[TheYukiYama]

Nr archery isnt a draw you just have to apply. Its not random ranchers and farmers its people i have known since i moved to mobride over 20 years ago. I spend all year driving back and forth to eagle butte and spent alot of years hunting perkins county till the bad winter kill in 2010.

There are less mule deer east river but way less pressure and way better quality in general.

Do you remember when they were handing triple tags out like candy just 15 years ago then the winter of 10 hit and then ehd.

Im all for killing less does and killing a deer isnt that hard i guess but im past the stage of wanting to shoot rats. I have a 188 mulie and went into the year knowing i probably wasnt going to kill one if its not bigger than that im not that interested. I would rather eat ducks and geese so the meat isnt a concern.

What part of the state do you live in and how many days out in the country do you spend the data i have is what I see along with a pretty big group of people i hunt with or talk to.

Our nr tags are way to cheap compared to other states that we border like wyoming and montana we should at least be in line with what they charge. Hell both rez by me charge over 700 dollars and sell out in minutes

in 2024 there were 2200 NR archery public/private tags. 3471 applied. How is that not a draw???

South Dakota is an generally an opportunity state rather than a trophy state. The fact that its pretty easy to get a tag and kill a deer is reflective of that imo. Just because you only want big antlers and you didn't see that this year doesn't necessarily tell me new. Eagle butte to Mobridge is not representative of the entire state. One persons observations are not data which is my entire point. Some ranchers some guy on the internet knows is not very relevant in my view of the data as there are also ranchers I know that disagree. I was born east river and raised and spent my life WR, often in the BH. But my family has land in multiple units west and east river. I spend a few days a week outside. I also study data and trends in many states quite closely. So looking if you have any actual data or just anecdotes.

I would love to increase deer numbers. But since I would like to increase deer numbers, I would like to do things that would actually increase deer numbers.
For example, how does one believe that charging more for nonresident tags that are a small portion of the harvest and sell out anyway, is related to deer numbers? That just doesn't make any sense.

I would love to hear some other suggestions to actually increase deer numbers and any actual data that deer numbers are as low as some anecdotes seem to indicate.

 

[KurtR]

in 2024 there were 2200 NR archery public/private tags. 3471 applied. How is that not a draw???

South Dakota is an generally an opportunity state rather than a trophy state. The fact that its pretty easy to get a tag and kill a deer is reflective of that imo. Just because you only want big antlers and you didn't see that this year doesn't necessarily tell me new. Eagle butte to Mobridge is not representative of the entire state. One persons observations are not data which is my entire point. Some ranchers some guy on the internet knows is not very relevant in my view of the data as there are also ranchers I know that disagree. I was born east river and raised and spent my life WR, often in the BH. But my family has land in multiple units west and east river. I spend a few days a week outside. I also study data and trends in many states quite closely. So looking if you have any actual data or just anecdotes.

I would love to increase deer numbers. But since I would like to increase deer numbers, I would like to do things that would actually increase deer numbers.
For example, how does one believe that charging more for nonresident tags that are a small portion of the harvest and sell out anyway, is related to deer numbers? That just doesn't make any sense.

I would love to hear some other suggestions to actually increase deer numbers and any actual data that deer numbers are as low as some anecdotes seem to indicate.

Money buys habitat and habitat makes more deer so theres that.

I will let you study data a figure it out im more worried about how dry it is and the may pond count and the bpop survey for the year. I hope we get alot of snow its dry and the ducks need more sloughs filled.

 

[TheYukiYama]

Money buys habitat and habitat makes more deer so theres that.

I will let you study data a figure it out im more worried about how dry it is and the may pond count and the bpop survey for the year. I hope we get alot of snow its dry and the ducks need more sloughs filled.

fair enough. But if you want more money increasing the cost of resident tags would create a lot more money considering there are 25x as many rifle tags. Or better yet, raise both in my opinion.
Hell, raise them all to 2k a piece, I will have wayyy less competition out there.

And just to be clear, you believe both white tail and mule deer population is very low across the entire state? And you believe current habitat is the cause? Or harsh winters? Or tag/harvest count?

and nonresident archery. do you now agree that it is in fact a draw?

 

[KurtR]

fair enough. But if you want more money increasing the cost of resident tags would create a lot more money considering there are 25x as many rifle tags. Or better yet, raise both in my opinion.
Hell, raise them all to 2k a piece, I will have wayyy less competition out there.

And just to be clear, you believe both white tail and mule deer population is very low across the entire state? And you believe current habitat is the cause? Or harsh winters? Or tag/harvest count?

and nonresident archery. do you now agree that it is in fact a draw?

Yep population is low for both all over the state. This is compared to what I have seen the last 45 years. How many years have you lived and hunted here to form an opinion?

Crst didn’t sell mule deer tags to non resident non members the last few years and if you know anything about how the rez works that is pretty telling.

Piling up does sure doesn’t help the population hell we don’t even shoot hen pheasants.

It all factors in and habitat is the key. With out it the winter kills more deer. Look what happened when corn went crazy. The population of every thing went down from pheasants ducks and deer. Crp getting ripped out by the hundreds of thousands of acres and poor land put into production.

It’s kind of a draw .on private land it’s still unlimited.

Sure raise the resident cost up but then the nr tags will be 10 k so sounds good to me. Deer hunters jumped a big roost this year so less of them around wouldn’t hurt my feelings.

As a non resident do believe you should have a say in how the state manages our wildlife?

 

[TheYukiYama]

Yep population is low for both all over the state. This is compared to what I have seen the last 45 years. How many years have you lived and hunted here to form an opinion?

Crst didn’t sell mule deer tags to non resident non members the last few years and if you know anything about how the rez works that is pretty telling.

Piling up does sure doesn’t help the population hell we don’t even shoot hen pheasants.

It all factors in and habitat is the key. With out it the winter kills more deer. Look what happened when corn went crazy. The population of every thing went down from pheasants ducks and deer. Crp getting ripped out by the hundreds of thousands of acres and poor land put into production.

It’s kind of a draw .on private land it’s still unlimited.

Sure raise the resident cost up but then the nr tags will be 10 k so sounds good to me. Deer hunters jumped a big roost this year so less of them around wouldn’t hurt my feelings.

As a non resident do believe you should have a say in how the state manages our wildlife?

My family has been in SD for at least 6 generations. I was born and lived in SD for over 20 years and have been going on hunting trips before I could remember. Temporarily moved away for a few years for work but will be back quite soon. My family owns many thousands of acres in the state, some of which I will inherit and live on. My family and I have done a ton for conservation on our land and surrounding areas. I’ll almost certainly pay more to sdgfp and the state in general in my life than you. I would pay 10k for a tag no problem if resident went up to 2k. In the rest of our lives, I’ll almost certainly take more big game animals in SD than you. I’m trained in data analysis and have spent significant time on this subject. So yes, I think a well informed tax payer born and raised in the state that’s temporarily away with vested interest should have an opinion on state management. But please, keep trying to belabor your old age as some sort of wisdom instead of using valid points.

I agree we should shoot less does.
I agree we can improve habitat and personally put a lot of money into it.
Where we disagree is that you have this attitude that nonresidents seem to be the problem. A lot of people not well versed in the data have this perspective in states all over the west. Nonresident take in inconsequential in majority of western states. In fact the additional funding and lower doe kill ratio is likely a positive on overall wildlife management. The attitude of trying to focus on a single digit percentage of take that provides an outsized positive impact on funding, while seemingly ignoring what could actually make a significant impact is not helping but comes off as whining imo.

If you would like to discuss actual ideas for improvements and why you think they’d be beneficial, I’d be happy to do so. But if all you want to talk about is feelings and why you think your voice is more important, well then I’ll spend my time elsewhere.

 

[jmez]

I think numbers in Meade county are good. As good as they have been since I've lived out here. Both mule deer and WT. I don't hunt mulies but see a lot of them when out and about.

Sent from my moto g power 5G - 2024 using Tapatalk

 

[KurtR]

My family has been in SD for at least 6 generations. I was born and lived in SD for over 20 years and have been going on hunting trips before I could remember. Temporarily moved away for a few years for work but will be back quite soon. My family owns many thousands of acres in the state, some of which I will inherit and live on. My family and I have done a ton for conservation on our land and surrounding areas. I’ll almost certainly pay more to sdgfp and the state in general in my life than you. I would pay 10k for a tag no problem if resident went up to 2k. In the rest of our lives, I’ll almost certainly take more big game animals in SD than you. I’m trained in data analysis and have spent significant time on this subject. So yes, I think a well informed tax payer born and raised in the state that’s temporarily away with vested interest should have an opinion on state management. But please, keep trying to belabor your old age as some sort of wisdom instead of using valid points.

I agree we should shoot less does.
I agree we can improve habitat and personally put a lot of money into it.
Where we disagree is that you have this attitude that nonresidents seem to be the problem. A lot of people not well versed in the data have this perspective in states all over the west. Nonresident take in inconsequential in majority of western states. In fact the additional funding and lower doe kill ratio is likely a positive on overall wildlife management. The attitude of trying to focus on a single digit percentage of take that provides an outsized positive impact on funding, while seemingly ignoring what could actually make a significant impact is not helping but comes off as whining imo.

If you would like to discuss actual ideas for improvements and why you think they’d be beneficial, I’d be happy to do so. But if all you want to talk about is feelings and why you think your voice is more important, well then I’ll spend my time elsewhere.

I don’t know where I said nr shouldn’t hunt but why should we be the cheapest place to hunt ? If we had tag prices comparable to other states is that wrong.

I am checking out I will leave data experts to manage the deer how ever.

 

[TheYukiYama]

I don’t know where I said nr shouldn’t hunt but why should we be the cheapest place to hunt ? If we had tag prices comparable to other states is that wrong.

I am checking out I will leave data experts to manage the deer how ever.

Your first suggestion was to make NR archery a draw which it already is... Then suggested increasing prices on non resident tags. I never said that you thought nr shouldn't hunt, but your persistence in bringing up residency indicates you somehow think that is part of the solution (it isn't).

I rarely look at tag cost as it doesn't really matter to me either way but I quickly pulled up non resident license cost for the surrounding states. What makes you think SD is so low? Doesn't seem all that out of line to me. And that's just the surrounding states. Looking through others in the nation there are a LOT that are cheaper.
SD $375
MN $185
IA $349
NE $750
WY $374
MT $372-744
ND $250

 

[AvgOtdrsmnLf]

Neither is a great idea but hunting mule deer nonstop with unlimited tags for 4 months is not sustainable. This state has always hunted the rut. Gonna be tough to change.

September archery and it's implementation never could have foreseen the popularity of archery or the increase in technology.

Unlimited tags? I think only 2,200 NR were drawn for any deer archery this past year, and not allowed to hunt public until Oct. 1... So I don't think the fault is falling back on the NR bow hunters. It looks like the rifles in such open country are having a much greater impact on the deer numbers than NR with archery equipment.

I Certainly hear you on the development of archery technology now making us more effective though!

 

[Fatcamp]

Unlimited tags? I think only 2,200 NR were drawn for any deer archery this past year, and not allowed to hunt public until Oct. 1... So I don't think the fault is falling back on the NR bow hunters. It looks like the rifles in such open country are having a much greater impact on the deer numbers than NR with archery equipment.

I Certainly hear you on the development of archery technology now making us more effective though!

Ya, that post doesn't say anything about non-residents. Residents have unlimited archery tags. Non-residents have a tag that's good for three months, many of whom will hunt that tag into December.

The problem is four months of constant pressure. A two week rifle season in the rut is way different that people constantly looking for and trying to kill bucks a full third of the year. It's not sustainable.

Earlier in the thread harvests numbers were presented. That can't be accurate as South Dakota doesn't have a reliable way of tracking what's killed. They have a survey, and then math, so nobody knows what's killed.

 

[AvgOtdrsmnLf]

Ya, that post doesn't say anything about non-residents. Residents have unlimited archery tags. Non-residents have a tag that's good for three months, many of whom will hunt that tag into December.

The problem is four months of constant pressure. A two week rifle season in the rut is way different that people constantly looking for and trying to kill bucks a full third of the year. It's not sustainable.

Earlier in the thread harvests numbers were presented. That can't be accurate as South Dakota doesn't have a reliable way of tracking what's killed. They have a survey, and then math, so nobody knows what's killed.

Hmm interesting. You think that pursuing deer with archery for 4 months is more detrimental than shooting deer with rifles for 2 weeks during the rut? It would be interesting to know the accuracy of that presented harvest data, but I think that while it might not be an exact number, it most likely isn't off by thousands. Lots more deer are harvested during that highly effective couple week rifle rut season than in the 4 months of archery hunting.

 

[TheYukiYama]

Ya, that post doesn't say anything about non-residents. Residents have unlimited archery tags. Non-residents have a tag that's good for three months, many of whom will hunt that tag into December.

The problem is four months of constant pressure. A two week rifle season in the rut is way different that people constantly looking for and trying to kill bucks a full third of the year. It's not sustainable.

Earlier in the thread harvests numbers were presented. That can't be accurate as South Dakota doesn't have a reliable way of tracking what's killed. They have a survey, and then math, so nobody knows what's killed.

I agree that the season is too long. No different than how shed hunters in the spring chasing elk herds have negative impact in the spring. It isn't only about the numbers of animals harvested, but the impact on their health having to move around all the time. The animals need a break. But in terms of harvest, rifle is absolutely more significant. And residents absolutely take way more, as they should.

The numbers aren't exact but they are certainly in the ball park. There's many other states that have done more in depth tracking that are also used to help understand and they've generally been in line with expectations. Surveys may not be 100% accurate, but they are certainly directional. Using surveys and an understanding of success rates combined with tag sales, we can get a reasonable estimate of harvest.

 

[Fatcamp]

When it comes to big bucks on public land I 100% think that archery lasting for as long as it does has more of a negative impact than rifle.

Everyone knows how to get up high before first light to find them. Given enough time it's a simple task to close the distance and kill them. And it never ends. Month after month of people chasing the biggest buck they can fund.

I know some big buck guys west river that hunt public exclusively. If they find a deer they are gonna kill it, and they aren't the only ones. And they will keep at it until they get it done.

Rifle you can sure run across one, but odds are they will be on high alert and moving. They get dumb but the does sure don't.

 

[TheYukiYama]

When it comes to big bucks on public land I 100% think that archery lasting for as long as it does has more of a negative impact than rifle.

Everyone knows how to get up high before first light to find them. Given enough time it's a simple task to close the distance and kill them. And it never ends. Month after month of people chasing the biggest buck they can fund.

I know some big buck guys west river that hunt public exclusively. If they find a deer they are gonna kill it, and they aren't the only ones. And they will keep at it until they get it done.

Rifle you can sure run across one, but odds are they will be on high alert and moving. They get dumb but the does sure don't.

When you say negative impact what do you mean? Long term population? Buck harvest? Mature buck harvest? Why do you have an issue with bow hunters being effective at taking large bucks? Aren't taking large bucks the best animals to harvest?

Nearly 3 times as many bucks taken with rifles than archery. You'd be crazy to think more bucks are taken with archery equipment than rifle... So they certainly don't have a worse impact that way. I personally see more huge bucks taken with rifle than archery, although they are taken with both. Take a look at SD Big bucks pages and you will see. The people I know and hunt with I see the same.

Even if rifle was taking smaller bucks on average with rifles, they're taking more bucks, and those bucks would've gotten bigger if not taken. So to say the actual harvest is worse due to archery than rifle is certainly not true.

But again, SD is managed for opportunity, less for trophy. A long season definitely provides more opportunity and by issuing more tags that have a lower harvest rate, again they can provide more opportunity with the same harvest of the resource. Would you rather them take 10,000 archery tags away and instead issue 5,000 more rifle tags? Buck harvests have a pretty small impact on long term population. So again, harvest isn't creating the negative impact.

If your issue with the long season is just that having the deer get chased around so much reduces odds of winter survival, then I could definitely agree with that, but then I think getting rid of December would be much more effective than September. And unlimited tags wouldn't really be the issue. Curious why you think the archery take of less, more mature bucks has a more negative impact than 3x the take by rifle.

 

[Fatcamp]

When you say negative impact what do you mean? Long term population? Buck harvest? Mature buck harvest? Why do you have an issue with bow hunters being effective at taking large bucks? Aren't taking large bucks the best animals to harvest?

Nearly 3 times as many bucks taken with rifles than archery. You'd be crazy to think more bucks are taken with archery equipment than rifle... So they certainly don't have a worse impact that way. I personally see more huge bucks taken with rifle than archery, although they are taken with both. Take a look at SD Big bucks pages and you will see. The people I know and hunt with I see the same.

Even if rifle was taking smaller bucks on average with rifles, they're taking more bucks, and those bucks would've gotten bigger if not taken. So to say the actual harvest is worse due to archery than rifle is certainly not true.

But again, SD is managed for opportunity, less for trophy. A long season definitely provides more opportunity and by issuing more tags that have a lower harvest rate, again they can provide more opportunity with the same harvest of the resource. Would you rather them take 10,000 archery tags away and instead issue 5,000 more rifle tags? Buck harvests have a pretty small impact on long term population. So again, harvest isn't creating the negative impact.

If your issue with the long season is just that having the deer get chased around so much reduces odds of winter survival, then I could definitely agree with that, but then I think getting rid of December would be much more effective than September. And unlimited tags wouldn't really be the issue. Curious why you think the archery take of less, more mature bucks has a more negative impact than 3x the take by rifle.

My whole point is that if pressure isn't relieved in some manner there won't be any deer for opportunity.
Trust me, we exist in different universes. I have no access to private land and never will. My observations and experiences are all on public land, and what I've seen just over the last five years is a significant change. I'm sure large tracts of private land are seeing different things, but thats on a bunch of levels.

 

[TheYukiYama]

My whole point is that if pressure isn't relieved in some manner there won't be any deer for opportunity.
Trust me, we exist in different universes. I have no access to private land and never will. My observations and experiences are all on public land, and what I've seen just over the last five years is a significant change. I'm sure large tracts of private land are seeing different things, but thats on a bunch of levels.

Fair enough. I hunt public quite a bit in other states and some in SD as well. Less pressure may help some deer be a little less stressed and make it through some winters they otherwise wouldn't have but it likely wouldn't have all that large of an impact. Less buck tags mostly just means less opportunity. Shorter seasons means hunters will be squeezed together more or have less opportunity. Really wouldn't increase deer numbers much.

The biggest variable in deer population is the number of does and the number of fawns they have in the spring. Less bucks really doesn't factor into the overall deer count much as most all does are bred regardless.
So do I think shortening the archery season or giving less archery tags to hopefully reduce killing some mature bucks would really change the deer herd size significantly? No not really.
Would it be awesome if other people weren't able to get tags and hunt as much and kill big bucks so that there were more for me? Sure that'd be great, I'm right there with ya lol