How deer management in Kansas has effected upland hunters

Chestle

Well-known member
Not to derail any other thread, I thought I'd open one just for this topic.

I've been out of Kansas for almost a decade. I will be moving back though sometime in 2020. I am looking forward to returning to a state where I do have comparatively easy access to potentially good upland hunting. This is not the case for me at the moment. So, I know my dogs are going to be happier just based on the fact that we will be going afield many more days a year.

That said, I have been surprised at how things have been changing. I'm not that excited about deer hunting, although I have harvested a fair number. The biggest buck was off a public hunting area. Big bodied, antlers beginning to decline. I actually prefer the does for meat; I'm not really a horn hunter.

But...wow...looking at KDPW on deer licenses. Knocking on $550 for a non-res deer tag + general license? Every available non-res tag selling out in 2019? Yeah, I can see where it's a real money maker for Kansas. A Colorado either sex non-res Elk tag is only about $100 more. Having done both, I'd take the Colorado hunt every time. Elk, IMO, > than deer. That's just me though.

Now, thinking about upland/pheasant. I have gladly payed for 30 days of SD pheasant hunting and hope to do so again next year. $300+ for a month of great times. I'm sure there are others that feel that SD is a bargain at $110 for 10 days.

So I'm wondering why Kansas doesn't focus more effort on upland bird hunting. Kansas led the nation in quail harvest and was a close second for pheasant in 2017. Yes, I know..2017 was a really good year. Still, the potential is always there. If Kansas really developed it's upland situation (think NE Berggren plan), why couldn't KS adopt a licensing plan similar SD?

After all...it's all about the Benjamins, right? If upland poured more money into the coffers than deer....
 
Maybe part of it is due to the prime upland getting pushed further west. We drove past two or three outfitters between the state line and Howard today. Not the birds in that area that there once was so that area doesn’t draw much upland.
 
Nebraska’s plan is ”hunt near Kansas”.

Kansas doesn’t have the deer density to sustain it’s reputation as a marquis white tail state, meanwhile it citizens won’t do anything to regulate outfitters practices, and won’t adequately fund a wildlife department or public land.

It’s never again going to have the pheasant numbers to charge what South Dakota does for pheasant hunting, unless it adopts South Dakota’ s model of supplementing wild pheasants. Even then, wild bird numbers are in free fall in South Dakota, too. Just like everywhere else.

I’m a little sympathetic to the KDWPT, because the only option they have to exist in any meaningful way is to sell the state as the cheap South Dakota for pheasants and the cheap Iowa for deer.

As long as Iowa continues to moonscape it’s endless corn fields, Kansas has nothing to worry about because there’s no way Minnesota or Nebraska’s pheasant hunting will ever approach even a bad year in Kansas and they know it. It’s just them or North Dakota for the number 2 slot for pheasant until they are all gone.

Not sure anyone but Texans will ever pay to hunt quail...(Kidding, Texans, I just know you guys can’t take a joke and it’s funny to watch you guys get all harumphy)

In all seriousness, whitetail hunting isn’t what’s “ruining” Kansas hunting. Neither are non-residents. It’s the commercialization of hunting that is ruining hunting in Kansas, the knee-jerk fear of regulating industry, the sale of a public resource (wildlife), and the utter disregard we have in this country for the public good, stewardship of our resources and communal ownership.
 
Last edited:
”In all seriousness, whitetail hunting isn’t what’s “ruining” Kansas hunting. Neither are non-residents. It’s the commercialization of hunting that is ruining hunting in Kansas, the knee-jerk fear of regulating industry, the sale of a public resource (wildlife), and the utter disregard we have in this country for the public good, stewardship of our resources and communal ownership“


This is 100 percent spot on outfitters are nothing but a form of market hunters and market hunting was prohibited for a good reason.

It needs to be stopped, or at a minimum allowing that industry to compete with the WIHA program by leasing the ideal properties needs to be made illegal for outfitters
 
I'm 50 years old. Years ago in a magazine, I read an article on how the US would someday be like England and most people would have to pay to hunt. I laughed at the time. I look at it today, and Its not as funny. There are hundreds of acres of WIHA, though several are disappointing. I'm not sure we will ever see the pheasant numbers like we had years ago, as there are alot of pressure on the birds....habitat, predators, etc. I dont blame outfitters for offering a service to people willing to pay. Most would have to supplement birds to have adequate shooting. Habitat, today's pressure on production agriculture, it's easy to understand the loss of habitat. What I would like to see though is an increase hunting license fees, with the money going directly to habitat. I doubt that will ever happen, but I would be willing to pay more license fees, if I saw a direct improvement in birds in an area. Something thing tangible for the extra money spent.
 
I’ll throw a little gas on the fire. How about raising the license fees for residents instead of almost always sticking it to non residents? Fire away
 
Outfitters leasing and deer leases in general have destroyed access opportunities from Texas to the east coast. Public access hunting in Texas is almost non existent in most of the state and that model has expanded. It’s commercialization of hunting and unlike Europe here the public owns the game animals. The same animals the outfitters are selling to the highest bidders. People doing this will claim they are selling access but that just a ploy because no one would pay for access if the public’s game animals weren’t there.

I’ve been pointing this out for years and it’s frustrating to watch, landowners do not own the game animals on their properties. If you doubt that have one shoot a deer in July I front of a game warden.

I’m old I’ll outrun this but you young guys better get busy politically to turn this around or hunting will be for nobility and the rich here just like it is in Europe
 
Nebraska’s plan is ”hunt near Kansas”.

That may well be true, considering the map they put out for the plan.

However, at the very least NE is being far more proactive than KS when it comes to improving upland hunting. Wouldn't all of us appreciate a strong, dedicated effort by KDWP to improve our upland hunting experience?

NE's plan outline:

OUR GUIDING PRINCIPLES
• Consider all manageable aspects of the pheasant hunting experience, with habitat and hunter access (particularly for youth) as cornerstone activities
• Concentrate work where it will be most effective (i.e., where habitat, hunter access, and community support come together) based on sound science
• Set realistic management targets and expectations, and use financial and human resources as efficiently as possible to meet them
• Foster strong partnerships with other public entities, private conservation organizations, and local communities in reaching shared goals

OUR GOALS
• Increase pheasant abundance
• Increase hunter access to land holding pheasants
• Increase the pool of potential pheasant hunters
• Manage hunter expectations appropriately
• Improve the funding and policy environment related to our mission

They're putting money where their mouth is as wel; $6 million on average for 5 consecutive years.

Why shouldn't KS hunters want and expect a similar effort from KDWP?
 
I'm a public land bird hunter. Hunted Ks for the first time this fall and had a good time. I found the WIHA's to be numerous and a lot of them to be worth hunting. Compared to other states it was fairly easy to find a place to walk without running into other hunters. Could they be better?, yes NE sits on the top of the heap as far as quality. But they are way better than SD. I do find it amazing all this talk about deer hunting. As far as numbers go, I saw less deer in KS than in any other state and as for antlers, nothing I saw in KS could compete with what I was seeing farther north. I do agree that outfitting and guiding are taking up the prime areas, just look at SD and southwest ND. There is a need for these services as there will always be people with deep pockets who have a need to have their picture took with a tailgate full of game. I think nonresident fees in most of the states are a bargain compared to the rest of the costs of the trip, I sure wouldn't mind paying more, especially if it went towards access. All I can say is that I guess somebody has done some amazing advertising to make KS a deer hunting destination.
 
I’ll throw a little gas on the fire. How about raising the license fees for residents instead of almost always sticking it to non residents? Fire away

We had this topic on here last year. I agree to raise the fees for residents. Raise to $500 a license would be fine with me. But the problem is the loss of youth hunting if you raise them to much. No one is sticking it to non residents. If they were, we would not have more non resident hunters than residents. If you feel you are "getting it stuck to you" quit coming. $97 for a hunting license is pretty cheap entertainment. Going to the movies or going to play golf is getting it stuck to you. $97 for a year of entertainment, if you complain about that get a diaper.
 
Texas charges an extra fee for hunting public access land. Seems like KS could compete with the outfitters a lot better if they did the same. I'd be happy to pay an extra $50 or $100 to access WIHA's if it meant better WIHA habitat and bird numbers. Make it free for people under 21 if youth participation is a concern. An out of state trip is in the hundreds already even if you go on the cheap, an extra few bucks is well worth it if you get a better experience.
 
What west said is something everyone needs to think about. The kids are not hunting. I teach in the same high school I went to. Many of us hunted then (90s-I’m 41). Very few of my students hunt. Take them out and get them in the woods.

View attachment 9686
 
What west said is something everyone needs to think about. The kids are not hunting. I teach in the same high school I went to. Many of us hunted then (90s-I’m 41). Very few of my students hunt. Take them out and get them in the woods.

View attachment 9686

Very few of my students hunt either. It has become a rich mans game. Exactly why leasing destroys hunting.
 
Texas charges an extra fee for hunting public access land. Seems like KS could compete with the outfitters a lot better if they did the same. I'd be happy to pay an extra $50 or $100 to access WIHA's if it meant better WIHA habitat and bird numbers. Make it free for people under 21 if youth participation is a concern. An out of state trip is in the hundreds already even if you go on the cheap, an extra few bucks is well worth it if you get a better experience.

I have said this for years. We do it for fishing, should do it for hunting.
 
Texas charges an extra fee for hunting public access land. Seems like KS could compete with the outfitters a lot better if they did the same. I'd be happy to pay an extra $50 or $100 to access WIHA's if it meant better WIHA habitat and bird numbers. Make it free for people under 21 if youth participation is a concern. An out of state trip is in the hundreds already even if you go on the cheap, an extra few bucks is well worth it if you get a better experience.
Good idea. Throw in youth weekend and have the first week only open to residents. When I first started hunting, a friend of your Dad's lent you an old shotgun, and shells and gas were cheap. Steel shot and leased hunting are not in the budget for a high schooler these days.
 
I know I will get attacked here so be it. Why is it in every thread save opening weekend for residents? Why do I have to wait an extra week to hunt the land I help farm just because I have Missouri plates? For the record my lifetime license qualifies me as a resident. I love spending my money in the great state of Kansas. Just throwing it out there to chew on.
 
Not an attack, just a point. South Dakota gives residents 3 days to hunt before the non-residents can hunt.

For 2020, October 3-7 is SD Youth Only Season, October 10-12 is Resident Only and October 17 is the standard everybody opener.

So it wouldn't be unheard of to reserve some days for residents only. I would speculate it's to give the residents a short first crack at the birds overall but particularly the first crack at the public hunting areas. Just a guess.
 
You are up against the most powerful lobby in KS politics...Kansas Farm Bureau. They are the driving force behind alot of the Kansas NR deer laws. They have been pushing the last couple cycles to get back transferrable tags or got to otc. Both bills have been defeated in committee before they hit the floor.

At the Nov commission meeting a gentleman got up during the public comment. He was from Elk or Chautauqua county I cant remember which right now. He is a rancher that leases to NR hunters. None of his hunters drew a tag this year and he was not happy. Just so you are aware Kansas has a legislative mandate to "meet demand" for non resident deer tags. Since supply ourstripped demand tag numbers are going up.

Quick show of hands, how many folks will pay $18k a year to upland hunt? That is what I know some ER docs from Louisiana pay to lease a property for deer hunting. And they pay it in cash. I know some guys from AR that pay $20k, and some bankers from GA that pay $23k all for the right to deer hunt. That is what you are up against.
 
In all seriousness, whitetail hunting isn’t what’s “ruining” Kansas hunting. Neither are non-residents. It’s the commercialization of hunting that is ruining hunting in Kansas, the knee-jerk fear of regulating industry, the sale of a public resource (wildlife), and the utter disregard we have in this country for the public good, stewardship of our resources and communal ownership.

While there is some truth to this, I'll make the following observation and then put on my Nomex suit. It's same point I've made several times here. Landowners have figured out how to earn meaningful income from deer hunting. Deer are doing well in Kansas. Landowners are not as adept at earning meaningful income from WILD upland hunting. Wild upland birds are struggling. Maybe there's a connection or maybe there's a solution...
 
As long as a deer head on the wall with huge antlers is considered a status symbol, people with disposable income are going to keep paying to collect them. If we celebrated backstrap steaks and deer chili instead of inches of antler, hunting access would be a lot easier to come by. I've had a couple landowners invite me to come deer hunt their land (without me asking) because they know how much I enjoy the meat.

That said, this year I shot my biggest deer to date, and it was kind of fun getting attention from a bunch of other deer hunters. Honestly, I was excited about the huge amount of meat I would get when I shot it, but afterwards it was pretty fun to show off the pictures and show people the rack... I can see how a person in the deer hunting culture could get obsessed with bigger and bigger antlers. I don't think I'll go down that road myself, I'm just too hungry. But people sure do celebrate it when you get a big one, and even get jealous if you get one bigger than theirs. haha.

Deer leasing probably negatively affects hunting access in general, but doesn't do much to affect upland bird numbers. Personally, I think we need to focus on helping out the bird numbers first. Not to say that access isn't a concern, but there are millions of acres out there that couldn't keep a sparrow alive, let alone a pheasant or quail.
 
Back
Top