SD Pheasant Numbers Decline

 Jan 31, 2014

Is the SD GFP responsible for the decline in the states pheasant numbers?  Some of it's states fur trappers think so.

In 2012 the gfp proposed a restriction on the use of bodygrip traps that required that all raccoon and skunk sized traps be recessed at least 7 inches in any baited box cubby.  This restriction took away one of the best tools our states fur trappers had for harvesting raccoon, skunk, and opossum. 

The restriction went into effect in the fall of 2012 and resulted in our trappers catching fewer raccoons, skunks, and opossum.  These unharvested predators took their toll on our pheasant population in the spring of 2013 by raiding the nests of our pheasants and destroying our pheasant hatch.  By the fall of 2013 our pheasant numbers had been decreased by 65% and this was due only to the trapping restriction that the gfp put in place that took away our trappers best tool for controlling our predators.  Pheasant numbers for the year 2014 are not looking that bright either due to the reduced hen count and colder than normal winter which may lead to increased hen predation and even less hens available to lay eggs this spring.

This restriction was put in place under the guise that requiring the traps to be recessed would help prevent any free roaming dogs from being injured in this type of trap.  In 2012 the gfp received 14 complaints (according to Fisk) and had two reported incidents of dogs being injured.  The two dogs that were injured were both illegally being allowed to run uncontrolled (one on private land and the other unleashed at a water access area).  Fourteen complaints out of 250,000+ hunters is a miniscule complaint ratio and actually shows that the majority of our hunters want these types of traps to be used to control our predators.

No one wants any dog to be injured but hunters must use some common sense.  It only takes 10 minutes to train a dog to avoid cubby traps.  If the hunter is too busy or too lazy to train their dogs they have other options such as leaving their dogs in the truck if traps are present, hunting on a private preserve,  keeping their dogs under control so they don't run wild, or learning how to release a trap or snare.  It makes no sense to try to protect hunting dogs if we destroy the pheasant population in the process by failing to control our predators.  In addition many more dogs are injured by raccoons while hunting then in any trap.

The trapping restriction was devastating to our raccoon trappers.  In South Dakota we have a very large subspecies of raccoon and they may exceed 40 lbs in weight.  This is nearly as large as a full grown coyote.  It has been suggested that our raccoons need to be this large and put on this much weight in order to survive our cold winters.  These large raccoon simply can not enter into a trap which is required to be restricted in size and recessed 7" into a box cubby.  Our trappers have reported refusals (which means that the raccoon have investigated the trap but refused to enter the trap) when trying to comply with the recess requirement by observing their tracks in the mud and snow. 

Due to these refusals our trappers have had to fall back on other less effective methods to capture raccoons such as foothold traps and dogproof traps (in a dogproof trap the raccoon must put its foot into a pipe type trap and pull on the trigger).  These traps are much less effective because foothold traps become frozen to the ground and do not operate when the weather is in a freezing / thawing state.  Dogproof traps do not work when the weather is cold because the raccoons front paws lose dexterity in cold weather and they can not grasp and pull the trigger.  These dogproof traps are also less effective in taking skunks and opossum because skunks and opossum do not reach into holes (such as in a dogproof trap) and pull on the trigger.  In a baited box cubby trap it is not uncommon for our trappers to catch 5 or more skunks or opossum for every raccoon they take.

The 7" recess applies to all public land and road right of ways.  These public lands and ROW's are very important to our pheasants as nesting habitat and yet the gfp has prevented our trappers from effectively removing predators from these areas.  This is especially true when more farm land is being tilled for production and with crp acres being put back in production.  Without effectively trapping these predators from these remaining areas these public lands and ditches become death traps or predator corridors for our pheasants who have no other areas to nest.

We have been trying to get this rule repealed and we want the gfp to voluntarily propose a rule to remove this bodygrip restriction.  But we are being met with resistance.  It seems that the gfp does not want to admit that they are the ones who are responsible for causing the decline in our pheasant population and for costing our state tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue. In 2012 the SD GFP reported that the pheasant hunting had an economic value in excess of $172 million dollars.  With a 65% decline in numbers it is no wonder that the gfp does not want to admit their mistake in recommending the trapping restriction.

We do not think the gfp has the authority to provide for the protection of any domesticated animal including dogs.  We can not find anything in our SDCL (see Chapter 41-2-18) regarding rule making authority which would give the gfp the authority to provide for the protection of any domesticated animal.

If the gfp did have the authority to protect domesticated animals then they would be able to put in place restrictions to protect cats, chickens, pigs, goats, and laboratory rats.  And if the gfp put in restrictions to protect these animals they would be able to take away all of the traps that our trappers use to capture predators and furbearers. 

We have brought these very issues up with the gfp and Sec Vonk but the gfp seems very reluctant to admit their mistake and has actually even engaged their attornies to try to find ways to defend the dept's decisions and actions.  To us it seems the gfp is just compounding the problem by failing to admit their mistake and failing to take action to correct it.

 
Clearly something has run afoul in the gfp's wildlife division.

I have attached a few documents which support the beneficial effects that trapping has on increasing pheasant numbers by increasing nest survival rates, hen success, and decreasing predation.  The benefits of trapping are supported by Pheasants Forever, Delta Waterfowl, USFWS, and our states hunters and sportsmen.

What can the Pheasant Task Force do? 

1. First and foremost the current bodygrip trap restriction must be removed so that our states fur trappers can once again begin to get the upper hand on our predators.  The task force should recommend that the bodygrip restriction be repealed and removed.
2. Recommend and encourage the expanded practice of trapping on public lands including walk-in area's.
3. Recommend that a bounty be placed on nest predators such as fox, badger, raccoon, skunk, and opossum to encourage the removal of these predators.
4. Recommend that the license fees for trapping and predator hunting be waived temporarily to encourage more trappers to participate in the removal of our predators.
5. Inform the public of the benefits that trapping has on our pheasant populations.

What can you do?

Contact the Pheasant Task Force and the gfp commission and demand the the repeal of the trapping restrictions and tell them to let the trappers do their job to control our predators so that you will have pheasants to hunt.

It will only take a few minutes but it will provide a lifetime of hunting opportunity.