Rog's Rod & Nimrod

Have you ever felt like you put your foot in your mouth? As you know, I have openly opposed the SD Game, Fish, & Parks proposal to change the deer hunting license application format. I like the current system, and I believe it to be totally equitable.

This past month I was enjoying a marvelous supper at the table of a ranch owner who has over the years treated me better than any hunter deserves. They have fed me, giving me lodging, and provided me with an excellent place to hunt.

During the supper, my rancher friend looked me in the eye and asked, “Roger, why are you so in favor of staying with the current deer license system?” I then learned that he was one of the advocates who helped develop and promote the new proposal. Other than wanting to disappear, I answered the question. I told him that I liked the chance to indicate a second choice on the application. I liked the chance to apply for leftover tags. I also liked being able to apply on a clean slate for an East-River tag if my West-River options failed. Over the many years, I have always been able to hunt East-River or West-River, and many times both.

I then asked him why he favored the new proposal. He asked me to consider the following. What if the landowner’s family, the people who have a stake in the ownership, wanted to hunt as a family? Under the current system, only some of them would have a tag. I know that the actual landowner, the one who personally works the land, has landowner preference. He/she will have a tag, but what about his/her brothers, sisters, etc.? He made an excellent point, and his rationale has had me thinking about the situation ever since.

I am going to suggest the possibility of South Dakota Landowner tags. In 2004 I had an experience with a New Mexico Landowner elk tag. New Mexico Game & Fish evaluated a property’s ability to support a healthy population of elk. Acre numbers were not the primary ingredient. With the property in mind, NMG&F allotted a quota of landowner tags that might be issued for said property. I still applied to NMG&F for my tag, but my application already included a legal description of the land I would hunt. This information was given to NMG&F by the landowner or the person who leased the hunting rights.

I know that SDGF&P doesn’t want to get into the land evaluation business, but I would suggest that no one knows better than the landowner how many deer his/her property supports, and how many hunters he/ she wants hunting the property.

If the landowner’s tags are issued by the state as in New Mexico, the state can charge the appropriate resident or nonresident fee. If the landowner personally handles the tags, he/she should be charged $40 if a resident hunts on the tag, and $286 if a nonresident hunts on the tag.

I can foresee at least two major problems with my proposal. The number of landowner “relatives or guests” who hunt will affect how many of us non-landowners are welcome to hunt. A second problem is that my proposal will encourage fee hunting, or just what am I willing to pay in order to hunt said property. Perhaps a maximum of one or two tags per landowner would alleviate my concerns.

SD’s “Special Buck” tags may already address the issue. At any rate, I’ll get some nasty mail for even suggesting landowner tags. I guess I’ve always tried to make everyone happy, and the nature of my life’s work, being a high school principal, made me the way I am. Bottom line – I like the existing format.

I have a second non related concern. Many SD lakes and ponds are grossly overpopulated with small bluegills, crappies, and/or perch. Liberal, no-limit fishing would at least address the problem. A fillet from one of these small-fry are no more nourishing than a potato chip, but I’m willing to fillet them in the name of conservation and tasty munching. Do our conservation officers have the authority to overlook good conservation on the ice?

Have a meaningful Christmas, and thanks for supporting my column. See you next year.