Kansas Trespassing Fee for Private Land

fsentkilr said:
There are birds in Ness County and I did better than anytime since the drought. https://www.facebook.com/groups/698154337004275/permalink/1956465941173102/
Click to expand...
I do not doubt your knowledge of pheasants, CRP and wetland reserve programs but just wondering - why patronize Facebook? We don't need to enrich a socialist even more. If you want to be tracked, monitored and censored by an entity that you support financially - many "modern" wives would be happy to accommodate you, and the fringe benefits are probably better. At least, a little bit.

Best forum of its type anywhere - right here. Leave Facebook to the "Muffies".
 
Last edited:
Serious question. It appears many here use FaceBook - hence patronizing the very crew that want's to permanently end our way of life - and actively engages in that endeavor. I realize that it is a convenience - but so were the ramps up to the boxcars headed east in Yerp (Europe) less than 100 years ago.

Just asking.
 
KSnative said:
Serious question. It appears many here use FaceBook - hence patronizing the very crew that want's to permanently end our way of life - and actively engages in that endeavor. I realize that it is a convenience - but so were the ramps up to the boxcars headed east in Yerp (Europe) less than 100 years ago.

Just asking.
Click to expand...
Look what happened to Parler, people can make excuses and avoid the real problems and any conversations about them all they want but eventually it will catch up to everyone.
 
Kansan said:
Ken Corbet... golly.

The gift that just keeps on giving...
Click to expand...
Looks pretty dumb from here. Well maybe not - more greedy than stupid? But maybe somewhat academic since 97% of all out of state applicants get permits, and a fourth of all hunters are from out of state.

Side note to Corbet et al - overpopulation is the problem, not the cure.
 
KSnative said:
Serious question. It appears many here use FaceBook - hence patronizing the very crew that want's to permanently end our way of life - and actively engages in that endeavor. I realize that it is a convenience - but so were the ramps up to the boxcars headed east in Yerp (Europe) less than 100 years ago.

Just asking.
Click to expand...
Great Question....
 
Let's just bring it out into the open. Let's just sell tags to the highest bidder, resident or non-resident. Get 'er DONE!

Alternatively, let any resident sell his/her tag to anyone whether that resident owns any land or not. That's fair, right? Money for nuthin' and your chicks for free!

It's all about the Benjamins for guys like Corbet and <cough>Outfitters</cough>.

I wonder how much Outfitters pay for "access" to completely barren land with no game ever to be found on it.
 
Chestle said:
Let's just bring it out into the open. Let's just sell tags to the highest bidder, resident or non-resident. Get 'er DONE!

Alternatively, let any resident sell his/her tag to anyone whether that resident owns any land or not. That's fair, right? Money for nuthin' and your chicks for free!

It's all about the Benjamins for guys like Corbet and <cough>Outfitters</cough>.

I wonder how much Outfitters pay for "access" to completely barren land with no game ever to be found on it.
Click to expand...
I was highly annoyed about the Corbet proposal until you clarified. What's this about chicks for free?

Seriously - what a mess. FWIW I think the door to this kind of nonsense was opened by the promotional stance taken by KDWPT - more and more nonresident licenses pedaled because of the huge, direct return to KDWPT operating funds derived from these sales. Easy money - too easy - and it incentivizes behaviors not in the best interest of Kansans or, most likely, Kansas wildlife.

The whole thing needs a major review and reset from top to bottom, with a view to benefitting - first and foremost - Kansans.
 
Keep your paying selves at home. Don’t make my state a pay to play like yours is and others. Kansas hunters don’t want that. We like it the old fashioned way. We have enough “guides” leading up land as it is so that they can bring oos in to kill our birds then when the season is over the guides and hunters go back to their home states.
 
As many, if not most here have - I've hunted in a number of different states. Kansans are certainly among the most welcoming of all -and not because they are seeking cash in return for the courtesy. What I think most object to is not that others come to hunt, but they are essentially being priced out of hunting in their own back yard. It doesn't help that the KDWPT actively promotes this, directly and indirectly - or at least so it appears to me. Worse, there appears to be no attempt of any kind to find solutions - or even to recognize it as a problem. Because it isn't one - for them.
 
Farmers lease land because it benefits them plain and simple. Either everyone finds a way to make it more appealing and beneficial for farmers to set land aside and allow people to hunt it.................. or what else ? Make the government tell farmers if they are enrolled in CRP that they HAVE to let the public on it? It comes down to one thing and that is not going to change , farming is a business and a way people provide for there family so why in the hell would someone set land aside so someone they do not know can come and harvest some game on it . Until we make it worth a farmers time and resources why SHOULD anything change?
 
whatsnext said:
Farmers lease land because it benefits them plain and simple. Either everyone finds a way to make it more appealing and beneficial for farmers to set land aside and allow people to hunt it.................. or what else ? Make the government tell farmers if they are enrolled in CRP that they HAVE to let the public on it? It comes down to one thing and that is not going to change , farming is a business and a way people provide for there family so why in the hell would someone set land aside so someone they do not know can come and harvest some game on it . Until we make it worth a farmers time and resources why SHOULD anything change?
Click to expand...
Yes, of course - but what you have right now in Kansas is an economic landscape shaped by the KDWPT to favor leasing. When its leased, local area Kansans are generally excluded. KDWPT - perhaps inadvertently - is choosing winners (outfitters, guides and non-resident hunters) at the expense of native Kansans.

The remedy I suggest is a top to bottom review and restructure, to allow a more level playing field for Kansan hunters. Make sense?
 
KSnative said:
Yes, of course - but what you have right now in Kansas is an economic landscape shaped by the KDWPT to favor leasing. When its leased, local area Kansans are generally excluded. KDWPT - perhaps inadvertently - is choosing winners (outfitters, guides and non-resident hunters) at the expense of native Kansans.

The remedy I suggest is a top to bottom review and restructure, to allow a more level playing field for Kansan hunters. Make sense?
Click to expand...
You could change that but what i believe would happen is with less leased ground you would have farmers wondering where the money went.
Then maybe they would put even more ground into production for crops or grazing or still require a fee to hunt what they have.
 
whatsnext said:
You could change that but what i believe would happen is with less leased ground you would have farmers wondering where the money went.
Then maybe they would put even more ground into production for crops or grazing or still require a fee to hunt what they have.
Click to expand...
In my observation, farmers don't reduce production when they lease. No need. And the point of leveling the playing field by reducing promotions and tag sales to non-residents is to reduce demand for pay-for-hunt. I don't lease, but most of my neighbors do - I believe, exclusively to-out-of-staters from Texas to New York. Absent big ticket seasonal leases, in the unlikely event that farmers then opted to ask for pay for day hunts, at least the fat wallets from guides, outfitters and long distance travelers would no longer be lined up and the price (if there was one) would come down to levels more affordable to "locals" (hate that term, not sure why).

Are you a Kansas resident? If so - I'm just not seeing a downside to a "Kansan friendly" reset. Anyone?
 
One of the biggest flaws in this ooser boogeyman narrative is the idea that only nonresidents lease hunting land, and that if they don't, because non-resident hunter numbers are reduced (but not leasing private land to sell access to a public resource, because, you know...freedom!) landowners will open the land up to the aging, diminishing population of nearby residents to hunt for free, again, just like they did when landowners actually lived on or near the land in question, or even in the same state, and knew the people in their community, who also happened to hunt. So many pieces of that puzzle are missing from 25 or 50 years ago, and it's bizarre to think that reducing out of state hunters will somehow magically cause the societal and economic shift that has occurred in rural Kansas to reverse back to the rose-colored, and largely imaginary, days of yore for Kansas hunting.
 
KSnative said:
In my observation, farmers don't reduce production when they lease. No need. And the point of leveling the playing field by reducing promotions and tag sales to non-residents is to reduce demand for pay-for-hunt. I don't lease, but most of my neighbors do - I believe, exclusively to-out-of-staters from Texas to New York. Absent big ticket seasonal leases, in the unlikely event that farmers then opted to ask for pay for day hunts, at least the fat wallets from guides, outfitters and long distance travelers would no longer be lined up and the price (if there was one) would come down to levels more affordable to "locals" (hate that term, not sure why).

Are you a Kansas resident? If so - I'm just not seeing a downside to a "Kansan friendly" reset. Anyone?
Click to expand...
No i am not a resident of Kansas, but i am an oos hunter who hunts leased ground.

I constantly hear people complain about lack of good habitat,places to hunt,no game etc etc, i just believe that no matter where you are from you are most likely hunting property that is not yours so what does it matter what state you are from. If we (hunters) as a collective group want to make things better it should not matter where you live, only what you are wiling to do to improve things. Farmers/land owners have a resource and i believe if we want to keep or improve things that farmers/land owners will have to be compensated out of economic necessity. As far as farmers not reducing production on leased ground...... if it was not leased maybe they would increase the production.
 
s.davis said:
One of the biggest flaws in this ooser boogeyman narrative is the idea that only nonresidents lease hunting land, and that if they don't, because non-resident hunter numbers are reduced (but not leasing private land to sell access to a public resource, because, you know...freedom!) landowners will open the land up to the aging, diminishing population of nearby residents to hunt for free, again, just like they did when landowners actually lived on or near the land in question, or even in the same state, and knew the people in their community, who also happened to hunt. So many pieces of that puzzle are missing from 25 or 50 years ago, and it's bizarre to think that reducing out of state hunters will somehow magically cause the societal and economic shift that has occurred in rural Kansas to reverse back to the rose-colored, and largely imaginary, days of yore for Kansas hunting.
Click to expand...
Are you a Kansas resident, or do you have some kind of axe to grind here? Let me guess......
 
whatsnext said:
No i am not a resident of Kansas, but i am an oos hunter who hunts leased ground.

I constantly hear people complain about lack of good habitat,places to hunt,no game etc etc, i just believe that no matter where you are from you are most likely hunting property that is not yours so what does it matter what state you are from. If we (hunters) as a collective group want to make things better it should not matter where you live, only what you are wiling to do to improve things. Farmers/land owners have a resource and i believe if we want to keep or improve things that farmers/land owners will have to be compensated out of economic necessity. As far as farmers not reducing production on leased ground...... if it was not leased maybe they would increase the production.
Click to expand...
With few to no exceptions, no farmer would significantly reduce production even if that facilitated leasing (which is not the case - what, exactly, to you suppose attracts the deer in the first place)? Nor would they increase production if they quit leasing - there is simply no rationale for that.

I wouldn't. None of my neighbors would. There may be isolated exceptions so any active farmer or landowner out there - let me know if I'm wrong on this, where you live.
 
What will happen eventually is that anyone wanting to hunt Kansas, be it resident or non resident, will have to go to an outfitter. KS has lost about half of the resident Hunter numbers we had 30 years ago the way it is. Those outfitters don't lease 4000 acres, they lease 40,000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top