SD Game, Fish and Parks listening to and acting on behalf of lobbyists and special interests, not the public

Part 2 of 2

Frankly, the business of simply hosting hunting seasons on any species thought to be present somewhere, without firm information about population status and demographics, isn’t responsible, particularly when the season and bag limit allows the take of females as is the case with grouse of all species, partridge and quail. At least harvest mortality during the pheasant season is restricted to male birds.

But even in that circumstance, there has never been any study or documentation relevant to female mortality due to either illegal harvest or stress related winter mortality that most likely occurs in greater magnitude the longer hunting pressure continues into the winter bottleneck. The study of bioenergetics and energy budgeting is just now developing.

The most common defense in support of these types of proposals is, so few people engage in the pursuit of these species during late seasons that no harm is done. That unverifiable excuse does nothing except allow us to continue down this road of unaccountable management and conservation stewardship!

Not only do we not have any collateral authority to advance that presumptiveness, but we also insult the professional and historic management experience that once depended on science to prove those assertions.

We can assume that our neighboring states have similar duties and responsibilities to their indigenous resources. Do any of them sponsor these seemingly random measures? North Dakota refuses to extend its pheasant season past the first weekend in January while maintaining the same monitoring protocols they have conducted for more than 40 years.

That is an enormous trend database to inform. Neither does it extend their grouse or partridge seasons even though it has robust monitoring protocols to inform them.

Even Iowa and Minnesota are towing the season length tolerance limit. Is there a reason we shouldn’t think we are just trying to compete with our sister states for the non-resident hunting license dollar? Considering the circumstances in Nebraska, it would appear those thoughts aren’t that distantly skewed.

Maybe we should consider extending the common snipe or mourning dove seasons that currently end on Oct. 31. Those species aren’t any more abundant in South Dakota at that time of year than are quail, or ruffed grouse but that shouldn’t matter to pure recreational interests of some nimrods or GFP. 

So here we are suggesting, without evidence, that there can't possibly be harm to the resource by fielding an estimated paltry 1% of total hunters during a late season. It becomes all the justification needed to answer the clamor from business to keep the cash registers ringing while the 1% late-season hunter is enabled to revel in his/her new-found liberty. The tail wags the dog!

What is the average number of days the South Dakota commoner hunts small game? What sociological research or canvass is there to show that hunters want or need more opportunity to satisfy them?

Even if more opportunity is demanded, what honest biological or managerial reason is there to provide it? In our history, have those interests ever been a concern?

Considering South Dakota fared extremely well with a small-game season lasting 60-65 days for the bulk of its historic small-game hunting seasons, (when everything was more abundant — including hunters) it cannot be meritorious to suggest the modern shotgunner is more deserving.

If the resources could sustain additional harvest, and hunters demanded an increased bag, what reason would there be not to simply add one bird to the bag limit during a regular length season when the bulk of outdoorsmen are in the field? After all, we no longer have a home possession limit, and bagging birds represents the lion’s share of hunter-satisfaction criteria.

In terms of our most popular game bird, the GFP estimates residents hunt 6.7 days during an already extended 90+ day season and their satisfaction with that season, including its length, averages 4.7 out of 7, which hasn’t changed significantly in 10 years to include last year with the season extension to the end of January.

The data for grouse and partridge are not statistically different and there is no data at all to even support a quail or ruffed grouse season. Statistically, the average small game hunter takes less than four birds home throughout a 90-day season, be it pheasants (like the one above in a South Dakota wetland pictured in a public domain image posted on wikimedia commons) or prairie grouse and his average satisfaction score clearly shows he’s pretty happy with that. It is saddening to point out that we are “reaping without husbanding” and bowing to satisfy a special interest want rather than a resource or majority hunter need.

The greediness is embarrassing. It is comparable, in practice, to a retailer who advertises product availability without any knowledge or assurance that the product can even be produced much less delivered to his display floor. 

The absurd logic used previously can be applied in reverse. If there were truly only 1% of the normal hunter numbers and pressure during the late season, the economic impact to business is paltry; to say nothing of locational and economically inconsequential. It’s all hollow conjecture.

But nobody seems to be willing or able to produce the numbers to support those disingenuous contentions. Not only is there no biological information to show “no significant impact” to resources but there is no socio-economic data to show this strategy that we’ve been tinkering around with works either, much less that it is even relevant resource management necessity.

It’s the same thing as the Nest Predator Bounty Program, the western South Dakota shooting complex or any other recent program that is justified solely on speculation and theory. Meanwhile, a supposedly benefitting resource struggles in most places and it isn’t all due to habitat loss or compromise.

What we can be sure of, however, is that the struggles are exacerbated by the blatant diversion of cash away from land and habitat stewardship. The resource, regardless of status, is expected to shoulder the burden of cost in an undefined cost to benefit schematic.

How can that be held out to be responsible management? Where is it carved in stone that the natural resources of this state owe business or outdoorsman, or tourism recreation a living or enjoyment?

When is enough, enough?

What consideration has been given to the average farmer or rancher who is seemingly expected to host this additional traffic? An equally appropriate consideration is how well can already overburdened and over-utilized public lands accommodate more pressure?

Complaints from property owners about the state’s expectation that they field all this activity and traffic without being consulted are well-documented yet has GFP actively canvassed them before going off on these tangents? How many thoughtful outdoorsmen have been rather rudely dismissed at the landowner’s door for being one too many people encroaching on the farmer or rancher’s goodwill.

At this pace, can anyone blame property owners for failing to understand why it is essential to prolong hunting activity to achieve a fictional goal of “harvestable surplus?”

There are landowners and outdoorsmen in this state that witness what happens on public lands of all types as well as their own private land and simply refuse any more access out of compassion for the residual wildlife that is left. Indeed, without any sort of honest attempt to secure a majority of acceptance from ranchers particularly, for added grouse hunting activity in western South Dakota, the hunter and the department invites more disdain and criticism!

The department doesn’t seem to understand that its vicarious invitations can and do result in removal of the welcome mat from the landowner’s doorstep. And when that happens, even greater pressure is applied to public wildlife on public land. We should realize that there is an abundance of ranchers and farmers that have had a bellyful of hunting traffic by the end of the deer season in early December and they clearly don’t care to entertain more.

We should understand that, historically, there are western South Dakota ranchers that have never wanted a grouse or partridge season, not only because they felt that there were too few birds but also because they weren’t willing to field the traffic.

The likely reason the public discourse isn’t more vocal and contentious in this regard is because most landowners and hunters aren’t paying attention to the maneuverings of government and bureaucracy until their ox is gored. Does government have a greater responsibility for communication, transparency and accountability? The notion has been on the political front burner for at least five years without obvious progress, so the answer to that question should be obvious. 

The circumstances aren’t dissimilar to the state and federal governments ill-advised and belligerent support for fossil fuel and CO2 pipelines! The autocracy of state government bureaucracy fails to conduct any public awareness initiatives nor obtain informed consent from its most affected constituencies in anything it does so the public and it’s varying cultures are left expecting elected representatives to solve their issues with neither time or adequate information in a venue that seldom, if ever, satisfactorily addressed a natural resource heritage issue.

Of course there is a minority contingent of landowners that commercialize, along with special-interest outdoor-oriented people who lobby for this sway in disproportion to the South Dakota commoner who is far too busy making a living and tending to life’s necessities to keep track of government groping.

The legislative hallways and offices of government are rife with influencers bent on manipulating legislative or government policy to further often narrowly defined interests.

And most often, those lobbies intend to enlist the public’s deep pocket or good will to support and fund their selfishness. The proposals are almost always preceded by allegations that a problem exists and government has a duty to fix it. Problem identification has always been deficient in state government.

But, to quote a popular phrase, “if it ain’t broke” don’t fix it. And don’t fix it under the fraudulent supposition that doing so benefits the hoi polloi or his dwindling assets.

John Wrede is a retired South Dakota Conservation Officer.  He retired from SDGF&P in February of 2007 with 31 years of service to the State of South Dakota.