South Dakota Is Losing Its Hometown Pheasant Hunters. Meanwhile, the Nonresident Business Is Booming

[elkduds]

I'd wager it's both. Honestly, I'd not hunt pheasant if it cost me $200 each time. Leases, clubs, preserves etc tend to take longstanding opportunity away from working class hunters. SD is showing that pretty well. Pheasant hunting used to be pretty egalatarian. It was open for everyone to participate regardless of your economic station. A cheap single barrel shotgun and some boots were all you needed.

Preserving good opportunity for all is critical for the continuation of the sport, as well as the continuation of wildlife. When only those who can afford to purchase opportunity are in the game, the less people priced out care about open land and wild animals. England is a pretty good example of that, which has now blossomed into animal rights advocates coming after hunting altogether as it's popularity wanes.

I'll take NAM for 200, Alex.

 

[Treeshark]

I'll take NAM for 200, Alex.

How does free/cheap access to private land relate to the NAM?

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'll take NAM for 200, Alex.

I'd wager every state says they follow the NAM, regardless of how they approach certain issues.

But add in better farm economics as well. Crops and livestock often times don't pay well enough to make a consistent or comfortable living. That's when wildlife becomes more attractive as an economic driver. A cousin had the family place outside Presho. The economics of paying hunters was too good to pass up. When the choice is between poverty and plenty, people have a tough decision to make.

 

[Gellar]

I'd wager every state says they follow the NAM, regardless of how they approach certain issues.

But add in better farm economics as well. Crops and livestock often times don't pay well enough to make a consistent or comfortable living. That's when wildlife becomes more attractive as an economic driver. A cousin had the family place outside Presho. The economics of paying hunters was too good to pass up. When the choice is between poverty and plenty, people have a tough decision to make.

All of these points just go to show how tough wildlife managers jobs are. Not from the animal's point of view, but from a public socioeconomic point of view.

 

[elkduds]

How does free/cheap access to private land relate to the NAM?

Wildlife are held in the public trust, including wildlife on private lands. NAM equates public access to wildlife for hunting/fishing with public participation in wildlife conservation. Hypothetically, voters who recreate on private farm lands for free/cheap should be more supportive of farm legislation that encourages wildlife conservation (CRP, wetlands protection. . .) Aldo Leopold, father of NAM, aimed his early focus toward farmers, eloquently elucidated in his Sand County Almanac.

 

[Treeshark]

Agree, all of that is true.

None of that has really associated the NAM with people getting free/cheap access to hunt on private land though.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I’m not exactly sure how that relates to expecting someone else to pay for one’s benefit. That’s more of a difference in world-view in general.

If i was so poor as to live in wisconsin, and i couldnt afford to live in MT - and felt entitled to MTs resource.

I suppose youre right. Thats an entitled one.

 

[Treeshark]

Settle down dude.

 

[Nick87]

*Free access.

I understand your point, but welcome to 2026.

Are you paying for access?