SD public land

[SDChungus]

So South Dakota added an additional $10 habitat stamp that we must purchase. I ask my fellow South Dakota hunters what your thoughts are on public land management across our state? I have come across many WPA areas that are totally grazed off...thistles and weeds left behind and the good vegetation consumed (cattle). I have come across crep and walk in areas that are completely bare bean fields. Some of the ground is open to public hunting with "rules" meaning you cant hunt in unharvested crops. Why are we paying farmers/ranchers additional funds for totally bare bean fields? Thoughts? I think our state is doing a very poor job managing ground. No good reason some of these grounds can't be alfalfa pastures for birds and wildlife to thrive.

 

[Jxferg7]

Not sure what part of the statue your in but as a resident I know that many parts of the state just didn’t get shut for rain. Know many farmers who had entire swaths of sunflowers, corn, wheat, you name it and it went to shut. Not all parts of the state but a good majority.
Another thought I have is ranchjng/grazing is a huge part of South Dakota and if it wasn’t for grazing leases we would have even less public land because those lands would end up getting sold and hunters locked out all together. Certainly have some battles that need to be had in our state but compare our state to some of the other western states…..I’m happy to live in God’s Country!

 

[SDChungus]

No doubt on a dry year. Some of the ground I reference has been this way for several years. I don't disagree we live in a great state with good opportunity. I think somehow the grounds could be managed much more efficiently. At least on the east river side. I do hunt across the entire state frequently.

 

[Fatcamp]

Just need to move around until you find what you are looking for.

SD is an agricultural state, those interests will always come first, but I agree that some of what I have seen is troubling. Specifically, private ground right next to public that is lush while the public is grazed down and still has cattle on it. I damn well know it's the same rancher controlling grazing on both lots. School lands are the worst.

My last attempt at contacting a biologist with SDGFP was a bust. Different issue but I am about to try again. Maybe ask about this issue as well.

 

[SDChungus]

Glad you are seeing exactly what I am seeing Fatcamp. Its troubling and I think has gotten a little out of hand the last 5 years or so. School lands too.

 

[KurtR]

Killed alot of geese this year in those bean fields and most dont know how to hunt them so i like that, It was really dry and to be honest alot of the areas will come back better if we get rain they were over grown from all the wet years. I hear alot of people complain that the areas dont look good but they never get out of the pickup and miss all the good stuff over the hill they cant see. Grew up east river and mainly avoid it now just to many people. i like the middle of nowhere

 

[WCB]

Not just SD...spot I used to hunt in ND has had cattle in it every year for the last 6 years...right into OCT. Used to bow hunt it and see 30-40 deer a night come out of it...pheasants all over, sharptail, huns, along with the potholes holding waterfowl etc. Go there now and nothing. Cattle drank the potholes/they are just mud holes now, thistles everywhere, woody browse growing. Cattle trails/wallows everywhere.

 

[silasbowhunter]

Just need to move around until you find what you are looking for.

SD is an agricultural state, those interests will always come first, but I agree that some of what I have seen is troubling. Specifically, private ground right next to public that is lush while the public is grazed down and still has cattle on it. I damn well know it's the same rancher controlling grazing on both lots. School lands are the worst.

My last attempt at contacting a biologist with SDGFP was a bust. Different issue but I am about to try again. Maybe ask about this issue as well.

Are school lands public hunting in SD?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SDChungus]

yes they are so long as cattle aren't in there. The townships lease the ground for grazing season.

 

[silasbowhunter]

yes they are so long as cattle aren't in there. The townships lease the ground for grazing season.

Interesting. In Nebraska they are leased to whoever will pay the “bonus” and then rent them for the term. The lessee has sole hunting rights


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KurtR]

yes they are so long as cattle aren't in there. The townships lease the ground for grazing season.

You can hunt them even if cows are in there just can’t hunt standing crops.

 

[SDChungus]

I was always under the impression you couldn't if they had a bull in there. Is that an old rule because I have been in arguments with a few ranchers before about school land and them trying to kick me off. Is it just them blowing smoke?

 

[KurtR]

I was always under the impression you couldn't if they had a bull in there. Is that an old rule because I have been in arguments with a few ranchers before about school land and them trying to kick me off. Is it just them blowing smoke?

Yep it just standing crops. Just call the warden I don’t waste time arguing any more

 

[SDChungus]

Good to know learn something everyday. Hunted this state for 20 years and always thought with cattle grazing it was off limits. Thanks for the tip.

 

[Beendare]

Time to get active, join a Sportsman org and make yourself heard to the F&G.

States like OK require the farmers leasing some of their state land to leave a portion of their crop standing for wildlife. This makes sense, right?

.

 

[SDChungus]

Yep I agree with that.

 

[william schmaltz]

So I'm originally from ND so it may be different, but I'll use ND for example. The rules may have changed, but my understanding of the rules from back when I worked in the department were as such:

The Public Land Open to Sportsmen (PLOTS) program is a program by itself where you simply open up your land for hunting access and you receive compensation. It doesn't matter what the conservation or habitat value of the land is. I've hunting waterfowl in countless bare cut fields and have shot a big dumb whitetail standing in the middle of a PLOTS stubble field staring at a doe. They will accept any private land into the program. Even if it's a simple cut field or a grazed-down pasture, it's still opportunity. So even if the conservation/habitat value of the land is low, it's still nice to have as much open land as possible, even if it provides dumb luck opportunity. The compensation is minimal.

The Private Land Initiative (PLI) program is encompassed within the PLOTS program. This is the program where landowners are being compensated separate (in addition) of simple PLOTS money. This can be in the form of food plots, tree row planting cost sharing, CRP access, wetlands reserves, habitat plots, etc. Compensation is adjusted accordingly.

EDIT: I will add that if the PLOTS program was a "you plant and graze how we tell you" type of thing, I bet the program would see at least a 2/3 reduction in lands in the program. You're on the terms of the land owner. It's worth looking into your particular state to see if it's a similar structure. I will argue the importance of having as much land open to sportsmen as possible. Changing it up and saying "you only get your payment from now on if you leave 10 rows of corn" WILL results in a slammed door and less public opportunity. Be careful.

 

[Fatcamp]

So I'm originally from ND so it may be different, but I'll use ND for example. The rules may have changed, but my understanding of the rules from back when I worked in the department were as such:

The Public Land Open to Sportsmen (PLOTS) program is a program by itself where you simply open up your land for hunting access and you receive compensation. It doesn't matter what the conservation or habitat value of the land is. I've hunting waterfowl in countless bare cut fields and have shot a big dumb whitetail standing in the middle of a PLOTS stubble field staring at a doe. They will accept any private land into the program. Even if it's a simple cut field or a grazed-down pasture, it's still opportunity. So even if the conservation/habitat value of the land is low, it's still nice to have as much open land as possible, even if it provides dumb luck opportunity. The compensation is minimal.

The Private Land Initiative (PLI) program is encompassed within the PLOTS program. This is the program where landowners are being compensated separate (in addition) of simple PLOTS money. This can be in the form of food plots, tree row planting cost sharing, CRP access, wetlands reserves, habitat plots, etc. Compensation is adjusted accordingly.

EDIT: I will add that if the PLOTS program was a "you plant and graze how we tell you" type of thing, I bet the program would see at least a 2/3 reduction in lands in the program. You're on the terms of the land owner. It's worth looking into your particular state to see if it's a similar structure. I will argue the importance of having as much land open to sportsmen as possible. Changing it up and saying "you only get your payment from now on if you leave 10 rows of corn" WILL results in a slammed door and less public opportunity. Be careful.

A bigger issue around here is the, "No hunting in standing crops." rule, and then crops left in until season is over. Harvested corn(or beans, and I have killed plenty of geese in both)around here can be great hunting. That's east river, west river the issue is grazing down public land which is a very different issue.

SD has several different programs to pay landowners for access where rules are actually enforced. FS lands not so much and good luck getting a GW or FS employee to respond.

 

[Fatcamp]

Time to get active, join a Sportsman org and make yourself heard to the F&G.

States like OK require the farmers leasing some of their state land to leave a portion of their crop standing for wildlife. This makes sense, right?

.

LOL. SDGFP will do exactly what they want regardless of my input. Been there, done that.

 

[william schmaltz]

A bigger issue around here is the, "No hunting in standing crops." rule, and then crops left in until season is over. Harvested corn(or beans, and I have killed plenty of geese in both)around here can be great hunting. That's east river, west river the issue is grazing down public land which is a very different issue.

I get it, same in ND for the standing crop rule. But in the end standing crops are typically the fault of weather and not a lazy farmer. A 1/4 section of standing corn is about $100K. I don't think the farmer would choose to have that out there all winter and what you suggest the fish and game do? Ask for the money back because of an act of God all while the farmers is in good faith? End of the day a standing corn field until March is a net positive for wildlife and net negative for a farmer.

I get it that there are no simple solutions. And watching most farmers take advantage of and suck off the government's teat and seeing how easy it is sometimes is frustrating for all of us. But I grew up rural and all my best friends and family are farmers, and they don't receive the "this land is your land, this land is my land" message very well. The rural crowd is an ornery and stubborn bunch, I know because I'm part of it. So I'm just saying be careful how this is approached or you will see a gigantic decline in overall opportunity.