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?

 

[Rogerdoger]

When I grew up in SoDak I remember pheasant hunting being pretty easy and not needing land. My dad would drive and drink beer, we would go up and down the endless supply of grave roads. If we saw one I would get out and into the ditch to shoot. Or my old man would drop me off and I would walk the mile ditch back to the truck.

 

[Gellar]

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.

Sure it does. I think one could argue that principles 3 and 7 of the NAM are associated with free and or cheap access. Free and cheap doesn't mean it comes without a cost, just not monetarily. I bet there is more than 1 diesel mechanic who would gladly trade hours of labor on a broken combine in exchange for access to your pheasant slough.

#3. Allocation of Wildlife by law- Access to and harvest of wildlife are regulated by democratic laws and public processes rather than by land ownership, social standing, or private wealth
#7-Democracy of hunting- Every citizen in good standing has an equal opportunity under the law to participate in hunting and fishing, democratizing access to the outdoors.

One could also argue with principle #2 commercialization of wildlife. Leopold and the likes intended this for being the selling of wildgame parts and meat which has been successful. But could they foresee a future that real estate would be heavily influenced by wildlife? Leasing out your farm for the sole purpose of hunting is commercialization of wildlife. Could they foresee a future tourism and tourism operators would be heavily influenced by wildlife. Wildlife is being commericialized today, just in a different way than Leopold and TR may have imagined.

 

[Treeshark]

Are you paying for access?

No- not paying for access to private anyway, if that’s what you mean. Public land only.

 

[Nick87]

No- not paying for access to private anyway, if that’s what you mean. Public land only.

Yes thats what I meant.

 

[Buschy]

No- not paying for access to private anyway, if that’s what you mean. Public land only.

Damn you get old real quick.