Help! Dog Paperwork for SD

[Walt Sobchak]

Can someone clue me in as to what exactly is needed to bring your dog into SD to hunt? I always thought is was just records showing they were up to date on shots. I did some looking and now it seems like I have to get a certificate of health from a vet within thirty days of my trip. Which, btw, would make it invalid for my second late season trip. To get this cert. the vet has to examine the dog (and of course charge you $50). So if this is true I need to get it figured out as we're leaving Thursday night.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Walt

[mwal]

I was checking this out today and called the State of SO Dakota phone number listed in the rule book. The gal said imunuzation records are not enough you must go to Clinic and get the offical State of Minnesota Certificate. I will post how much one costs as I am off to the clinic now.

MWAL

[bigdog]

North Dakota' health dept. had (has?) the same requirement. So I paid and got a certificate. Then I got checked by a Game Warden. He said the health dept. made the rule and it was up to then to enforce, the warden's didn't want to even look at the papers. I think that they still have the rule on the books but have basically said it wouldn't be enforced. May want to check with SoDak game and fish and see if they are handling the same way for enforcement.

[mwal]

My charge was $36.00 for the Certificate what a joke

Mwal

[Walt Sobchak]

Just got back from the vet. The exam was $40, the certificate was $12, and the rabies shot was $17.50. I had to get the shot because my dog was only getting them every 3 years no and SoDak requires one every year. Here's the real kicker, the certificate is only good for 30 days so if I go back at the end of Nov. I'd legally need to do another one.

Yeah, that'll happen.

Anyway, the vet checked and told me that ND only required proof of up to date vaccinations. At least for this year, the vet made it sound like they change the rules fairly often.

Oh well, two more days and it'll all be worth it.

Thanks for your help.

Walt

[springerspeed]

Is this a common thing in most states? I am looking at going to Nebraska next year and am wondering if this is the case their as well.

Brian

[Walt Sobchak]

I think it's common for most states to require proof that your dog has had all of it's shots. I didn't know until this year that SD required the health certificate also.

Walt

[Perch Jerker]

To heck with the Vet Certificate, I'm bringing my lab in 'as is'. What kind of socialist backwater state is SD turning into? I plan on going there twice this year as in years past and have NEVER even seen a CO. I'll take my chances.

PJ

ps. If you have never broken ANY law you were fully aware of (especially arbitrary ones like going 56+mph in a 55mph zone) feel free to criticize me.

[rundrave]

I understand how you all feel, and I dont want to stir things up, but dont complain about paying fees to hunt etc. I grew up in south dakota and live in Mn so now, so I know about out of state license etc, arent fun to pay, but there is always a reason, and you know the money helps support good things, more public land, walk ins, etc.

If you dont like paying them, then write to the state and tell them. I totally agree its a joke, 30 days, when the season last months, doesnt make sense to me either. But not paying, doesnt solve a thing. And maybe it would be a good thing if you ran into a CO, you could express your thoughts to him.

[Walt Sobchak]

rundrave,

Unless by "good things" you meant a new boat for my Vet I think you misunderstood. We aren't talking about any kind of "fee to hunt". In fact it has nothing to do with hunting. You have to do this just to bring a dog into the state. I had to pay my vet to examine my dog, give him a rabies vaccination, and issue a certificate of health. No money went to SD at all, but their regs. are the reason I had to pay my vet.

I personally thought about taking the same route as PJ but figured I'd error on the safe side. But I completely agree with his point of view.

Walt

[Benny]

I for one wouldn't have a problem paying for the nonresadent licenses.But they limit us to just 10 days for that high price to hunt.

If we were allowed to hunt the whole season or even half as long as resedents then it would be worth it.

Benny

[ReelTimes]

We just bring our shot records. I guess will take our chances. The rule seems upsurd. The other comment pertains to nonresident fees. Personally, it isn't a big deal for me as I can afford it but it seems expensive for 10 days of hunting. Many guys never even use more than 3, 4, or 5 days. They ought to have a 5-day license or 3-day license. It is an expensive trip to SD, even when hunting public lands, and I have had a # of guys that would like to go with us but when you start adding all the cost for a few days of hunting, they can't afford it. Also, it is getting tougher to do well on public lands, particularly early. While there is alot of public land, it gets pounded quite hard. Many guys are feeling like they have to lease a farm in order to have a good hunt, further raising the cost.

[BLACKJACK]

When did this requirement start? We were checked last year in SoDak by a CO and he didn't say anything about dog papers.

I didn't have any papers the first time out this year, and probably won't the second time either. If we're checked I'll act ignorant - pretty easy to do

[dakotaB]

I'm from the big SD and so far this year I've hunted with 2 groups of out-of-staters. Both groups had dogs. Both groups asked us about this law. And as luck would have it, both groups got checked by the GameCop. In both instances the CO checked licenses, shot the bull for a while and went on his way. Never even mentioning anything about dog papers. This seems to be the J-walking law of the hunting world. It's there, and if some CO wants to be unfriendly, they can enforce it, but it is generally looked away from. Just my 2 cents!