Nw or sw

UplandStandard

New member
I have to agree that habitat and weather are going to be your biggest indicators of bird numbers for any given year. According to a few different studies I have read, one of which was posted on this website and conducted in Oklahoma, correlates less than 10% population loss due to hunting. Their study showed predation as the largest factor in population reduction. They noted a 44% loss from mammal predators, and 33% loss from raptors. That's 77%!!!! Good habitat decreases the risk of predation, thus increasing numbers. As far as quail numbers not being like they used to, I think there are way more contributing factors. I would venture to guess that nearly all of the land hunted in the 60's, 70's and 80's was private land. Meaning less hunting pressure per tract of land due to lack of permission. Those parcels were probably only hunted a few times a month at most, compared to present times where one WIHA tract can be hunted several times per day. I think that, along with the obvious cleaner farming practices, spread of urban development in the eastern part of the state, and likely a change in climate/weather patterns are all contributing factors. Now, I was not hunting quail back then, so feel free to correct me if I am wrong.There are still opportunities to have really good days hunting, they just might not be as frequent as they used to be. I had a day last year that I hunted WIHA in the morning and flushed 3 coveys of quail, all on different tracts. In the afternoon we hunted a quarter section of private ground and, I shit you not, flushed 11 coveys. It was an insane, once in a lifetime kind of hunt!

Question for you all. What's your opinion on limiting non-resident hunting to a certain time frame? For example, Maybe the first 2 weeks of the season are for resident hunters only. In the end it probably wouldn't effect overall population, but it would give residents better opportunity. Curious what both residents and non-residents would have to say about this.
 

BrownDogsCan2

New member
During the 70s and 80s quail didn't open until the second weekend. Guys from the eastern part of the state would go west the first weekend, western guys east the second weekend, a lot of them hunting together. I've thought we should delay the quail opener until the weekend before thanksgiving.
Habitat and weather are number one for sure. Hunting pressure and nonresidents have little affect on the overall bird populations. But I do believe nonresidents are beginning to hurt the population on land that is public access, two years ago if someone had told me that I would have disagreed. With the license system being changed to 365 days from purchase instead of the old system of the calendar year upland birds are still being pressured into the month of Jan. Something you used to not see.
 

westksbowhunter

Active member
During the 70s and 80s quail didn't open until the second weekend. Guys from the eastern part of the state would go west the first weekend, western guys east the second weekend, a lot of them hunting together. I've thought we should delay the quail opener until the weekend before thanksgiving.
Habitat and weather are number one for sure. Hunting pressure and nonresidents have little affect on the overall bird populations. But I do believe nonresidents are beginning to hurt the population on land that is public access, two years ago if someone had told me that I would have disagreed. With the license system being changed to 365 days from purchase instead of the old system of the calendar year upland birds are still being pressured into the month of Jan. Something you used to not see.
Going back to keeping quail season closed in the western half of the state the opening weekend of pheasant season would be a good ideal. It would keep the large groups from butchering coveys opening weekend. The only reason they changed it was for money to draw more hunters. No benefit to wildlife, decisions are now based on money.
 

KsHusker

New member
The bobwhite habitat keeps moving west so it’s concentrating hunters in a very well defined area from about I35 to 150 miles west of there.... from northern Kansas down through Oklahoma. Running out of good native habitat. What I saw in the Oklahoma panhandle in 15-16 would hard pressed to be beat by any period ever. Thing is the good stuff habitat wise has shrunk to a relatively small area. The good, uninterrupted stuff...

Also, the conversion of so much to Bermuda and fescue cannot be ignored. All of the places I had here in eastern Oklahoma when I was a kid are pretty much void of birds. They’re gone and not coming back. That’s just the simple fact of it. Eastern Oklahoma and Eastern Kansas are done for most part. There’ll be little upswings but what many consider good hunting will never happen again in those areas. Like west said.. It’s a habitat thing. I’d also guess that the 50s to the say early 80s was an anomaly. The birds really responded to the farming practices of that era and their high numbers were not natural. Just my opinion of course.
Isn't it ironic now that the farming practices and poisons being forced by the select few chemical/seed companies that control our politicians and nations food supply are responsible for the drastic decline we've seen in wildlife from butterflies/insects to pheasants and other birds.
 

akp

Member
Good points there Husker. Just the ethanol craze alone. Look at how much habitat was converted to corn.
 

Chestle

New member
Been a few years since I lived in Kansas but I spent most of my life living and hunting there. Bought my lifetime license in 1992 but probably bought my first annual license in 1968 or so.

I am not a fan of KDWP for a few reasons. One, I think they lied about the non-resident deer hunting from the get-go. At first it was going to just be for the leftover tags after residents had taken their fill. Unused wasted tags; what could be wrong with that. OK, maybe they didn't lie; either they had this plan all along or the scent of money was just too strong for them and it evolved. It almost seems to me that non-res deer money drives the KDWP bus. Compare KDWP upland programs and work to Nebraska Game & Parks Berggren Plan. Well...you can't....because there IS no comparison. Nebraska upland hunting just keeps getting better. Kansas? Not so much.

I have seen the discussion about upland access and that's why I really posted. I sure don't think the emphasis on Kansas's BIG BUCKS has helped upland access; it's definitely a detriment IMO. I also don't think that's the only reason access is tougher though.

I think all of us realize that access used to be a lot easier in the late 60s and 70s. However as the decades have passed, hunting access, particularly to private land, just kept getting incrementally harder. Public land access seems to really center around CRP programs and probably crop prices. Undoubtedly there's a multitude of interrelated factors. High crop prices make marginal land more likely to be farmed. Same when CRP programs are not considered a decent deal. When there's birds everywhere, it seemed easier to get access to me. When birds are scarce...access gets saved for family/friends/paying customers. Again, IMO.

Funny that as hunter numbers have actually steadily declined over the decades, hunting access has declined as well. There's some cause/effect for discussion right there. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? One might think with fewer hunters asking, access might become easier. Hasn't been the case, IMO.

Just some random thoughts as we turn the corner on 2019, hoping for a perfect Spring breeding season for the upland birds. ;)
 
Last edited:

westksbowhunter

Active member
Been a few years since I lived in Kansas but I spent most of my life living and hunting there. Bought my lifetime license in 1992 but probably bought my first annual license in 1968 or so.

I am not a fan of KDWP for a few reasons. One, I think they lied about the non-resident deer hunting from the get-go. At first it was going to just be for the leftover tags after non-residents had taken their fill. Unused wasted tags; what could be wrong with that. OK, maybe they didn't lie; either they had this plan all along or the scent of money was just too strong for them and it evolved. It almost seems to me that non-res deer money drives the KDWP bus. Compare KDWP upland programs and work to Nebraska Game & Parks Berggren Plan. Well...you can't....because there IS no comparison. Nebraska upland hunting just keeps getting better. Kansas? Not so much.

I have seen the discussion about upland access and that's why I really posted. I sure don't think the emphasis on Kansas's BIG BUCKS has helped upland access; it's definitely a detriment IMO. I also don't think that's the only reason access is tougher though.

I think all of us realize that access used to be a lot easier in the late 60s and 70s. However as the decades have passed, hunting access, particularly to private land, just kept getting incrementally harder. Public land access seems to really center around CRP programs and probably crop prices. Undoubtedly there's a multitude of interrelated factors. High crop prices make marginal land more likely to be farmed. Same when CRP programs are not considered a decent deal. When there's birds everywhere, it seemed easier to get access to me. When birds are scarce...access gets saved for family/friends/paying customers. Again, IMO.

Funny that as hunter numbers have actually steadily declined over the decades, hunting access has declined as well. There's some cause/effect for discussion right there. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? One might think with fewer hunters asking, access might become easier. Hasn't been the case, IMO.

Just some random thoughts as we turn the corner on 2019, hoping for a perfect Spring breeding season for the upland birds. ;)
Do you mean residents instead of non residents taking their fill?
 

KsHusker

New member
One, I think they lied about the non-resident deer hunting from the get-go. At first it was going to just be for the leftover tags after residents had taken their fill. Unused wasted tags; what could be wrong with that. OK, maybe they didn't lie; either they had this plan all along or the scent of money was just too strong for them and it evolved. It almost seems to me that non-res deer money drives the KDWP bus. Compare KDWP upland programs and work to Nebraska Game & Parks Berggren Plan. Well...you can't....because there IS no comparison. Nebraska upland hunting just keeps getting better. Kansas? Not so much.

I have seen the discussion about upland access and that's why I really posted. I sure don't think the emphasis on Kansas's BIG BUCKS has helped upland access; it's definitely a detriment IMO. I also don't think that's the only reason access is tougher though.

I think all of us realize that access used to be a lot easier in the late 60s and 70s. However as the decades have passed, hunting access, particularly to private land, just kept getting incrementally harder. Public land access seems to really center around CRP programs and probably crop prices. Undoubtedly there's a multitude of interrelated factors. High crop prices make marginal land more likely to be farmed. Same when CRP programs are not considered a decent deal. When there's birds everywhere, it seemed easier to get access to me. When birds are scarce...access gets saved for family/friends/paying customers. Again, IMO.

You hit the nail on the head with the BOLDED part -- I've been harping on this for a few years now - the state F'd up royally by putting emphasis on deer instead of upland hunters. If they were looking big picture they would have realized KS does NOT have the carrying capacity for big deer to run through as many deer hunters per year as you could upland/waterfowl/turkey hunters with a healthy upland bird population and access to the uplands/water fowl spots. Instead they've allowed too many loose restrictions on big game (statewide units for residents -- I am one but dont think I should be able to hunt statewide and for nearly 4 mos if I did archery, unlimited tags for residents, and virtually unlimited tags for non res with them having the ability to hunt in more than one unit -- dont get me started on where the mule deer went -- my hypothesis is due to the loose restrictions on white tail tags MANY tags meant for a white tail were placed on a muley by someone who didnt know the difference - they are far easier to shoot out and easier to do when you do not have enough wildlife officers and concentrating hunters in specific areas of the state)


The Economic impact of having MANY more upland hunters visit your state with ample access and your own residents getting out to hunt in the uplands more than once per year would be far greater for smaller communities than a MUCH smaller # of big game hunters -- IT IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE KDWPT AND LEGISLATORS

DEER have been responsible for cutting off GREAT upland bird access and letting GREAT upland habitat go to crap when out of state folks buy land that has become an overgrown forest and good for nothing more than habitat for nest robbers such as coons or avian predators. What the out of state hunters that buy these recreational properties or outfitters locally or out of state that lock places up is if they got rid of and controlled the trees - they'd have healthier ecosystems/habitat that deer here LOVE and will grow big bucks and as a by-product the upland species and other species will also benefit.

Guys just cant understand you dont need a damn tree or a 10,000 lb pile of corn to kill a deer or to kill a big deer. Healthy grasslands and a managed deer herd are what is needed here - all other species and hunters will benefit - upland birds need the more specific recipe and all others will benefit.

This year I plan to start being a squeaky wheel at a commission meeting or two and bending some elected officials ears as I live near Topeka and own a business here. Whether or not it will do any good I dont know = but I think the ones currently making decisions have Zero clue about reality. Biologists at the KDWPT have not been allowed to do their job for several years due to legislative meddling and hunting opportunities and upland birds have suffered as a result. It sucks watching it all go down the toilet -

Due to the deer declines and lack of access I'm looking forward to an out of state big game hunt - never thought I'd have to or want to plan one.
 
Last edited:

westksbowhunter

Active member
You hit the nail on the head with the BOLDED part -- I've been harping on this for a few years now - the state F'd up royally by putting emphasis on deer instead of upland hunters. If they were looking big picture they would have realized KS does NOT have the carrying capacity for big deer to run through as many deer hunters per year as you could upland/waterfowl/turkey hunters with a healthy upland bird population and access to the uplands/water fowl spots. Instead they've allowed too many loose restrictions on big game (statewide units for residents -- I am one but dont think I should be able to hunt statewide and for nearly 4 mos if I did archery, unlimited tags for residents, and virtually unlimited tags for non res with them having the ability to hunt in more than one unit -- dont get me started on where the mule deer went -- my hypothesis is due to the loose restrictions on white tail tags MANY tags meant for a white tail were placed on a muley by someone who didnt know the difference - they are far easier to shoot out and easier to do when you do not have enough wildlife officers and concentrating hunters in specific areas of the state)


The Economic impact of having MANY more upland hunters visit your state with ample access and your own residents getting out to hunt in the uplands more than once per year would be far greater for smaller communities than a MUCH smaller # of big game hunters -- IT IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE KDWPT AND LEGISLATORS

DEER have been responsible for cutting off GREAT upland bird access and letting GREAT upland habitat go to crap when out of state folks buy land that has become an overgrown forest and good for nothing more than habitat for nest robbers such as coons or avian predators. What the out of state hunters that buy these recreational properties or outfitters locally or out of state that lock places up is if they got rid of and controlled the trees - they'd have healthier ecosystems/habitat that deer here LOVE and will grow big bucks and as a by-product the upland species and other species will also benefit.

Guys just cant understand you dont need a damn tree or a 10,000 lb pile of corn to kill a deer or to kill a big deer. Healthy grasslands and a managed deer herd are what is needed here - all other species and hunters will benefit - upland birds need the more specific recipe and all others will benefit.

This year I plan to start being a squeaky wheel at a commission meeting or two and bending some elected officials ears as I live near Topeka and own a business here. Whether or not it will do any good I dont know = but I think the ones currently making decisions have Zero clue about reality. Biologists at the KDWPT have not been allowed to do their job for several years due to legislative meddling and hunting opportunities and upland birds have suffered as a result. It sucks watching it all go down the toilet -

Due to the deer declines and lack of access I'm looking forward to an out of state big game hunt - never thought I'd have to or want to plan one.
Deer management has been a disaster since 1995. Trickle down negative effect for all types of resident hunting.
 

Chestle

New member
I just don't remember there being left over tags for residents. In 1995 we still had residents who would not draw a gun a tag. Some that drew received and antlerless only.
It's been a while but wasn't the whole scheme sold on other states saying their intention was to deny KS hunters the ability to hunt the other state unless the deer hunting was reciprocal?

Also, what I recall is that initially non-res were only going to be able to get tags in units that had leftover resident tags the year before. That got out of hand in a hurry.

I did find a reference from Oklahoma that backs all this up: https://oklahoman.com/article/2463194/kansas-to-allow-non-resident-hunting

...The move to allow non-resident hunting was prompted to a great degree by an act of the Oklahoma Legislature, which instructed the Oklahoma Wildlife Department to refuse to issue licenses to Kansans until non-resident deer hunting was allowed in the Sunflower State.

In an effort to gear up for this fall's seasons, Kansas wildlife officials have already drafted the framework for the issuance of non-resident tags. Working on the legislated guidelines that permits could only be issued in units that had leftover resident tags the year before, and that the number of non-resident tags make up no more than 5 percent of the tags allotted.

As it turns out, seven of the state's 18 management units will offer non-resident tags. Two of those, however, will issue only antlerless permits to non-residents...
I also found this chart showing the progression right after the change:

View attachment 9669
 

westksbowhunter

Active member
It's been a while but wasn't the whole scheme sold on other states saying their intention was to deny KS hunters the ability to hunt the other state unless the deer hunting was reciprocal?

Also, what I recall is that initially non-res were only going to be able to get tags in units that had leftover resident tags the year before. That got out of hand in a hurry.

I did find a reference from Oklahoma that backs all this up: https://oklahoman.com/article/2463194/kansas-to-allow-non-resident-hunting



I also found this chart showing the progression right after the change:

View attachment 9669
Maybe so. I just don't remember there being left over tags.
 

matto

New member
There definitely were leftover tags in some units. I remember having a leftover tag in unit 14 for a couple of years.

Here's a link to KDWPT's estimates about deer harvest. I'm sure it's based on survey data so there's always the possibility that the survey respondents are not representative of the whole population. Not sure why the 18-19 isn't up yet. Regardless, in the 17-18 season approximately 1 out of every 4 deer killed in Kansas was killed by a non-resident, and they killed a tick over 19,000 deer. I also noted that the harvest numbers off of WIHA (as opposed to private or public) are very small.
https://ksoutdoors.com/Services/Research-Publications/Wildlife-Research-Surveys/Deer/2017-18-Deer-Harvest-Report

I've looked at something similar about upland hunting, but not recently. IIRC, the upland report did not display nearly as much information.
 

westksbowhunter

Active member
There definitely were leftover tags in some units. I remember having a leftover tag in unit 14 for a couple of years.

Here's a link to KDWPT's estimates about deer harvest. I'm sure it's based on survey data so there's always the possibility that the survey respondents are not representative of the whole population. Not sure why the 18-19 isn't up yet. Regardless, in the 17-18 season approximately 1 out of every 4 deer killed in Kansas was killed by a non-resident, and they killed a tick over 19,000 deer. I also noted that the harvest numbers off of WIHA (as opposed to private or public) are very small.
https://ksoutdoors.com/Services/Research-Publications/Wildlife-Research-Surveys/Deer/2017-18-Deer-Harvest-Report

I've looked at something similar about upland hunting, but not recently. IIRC, the upland report did not display nearly as much information.
In 1984 gun hunters killed 19,433 and bowhunters killed 4167. In 1985 the number of rifle permits was 33,885. 55% of the harvest was expected to be antlerless. Just a blast from the past, when things were great.
 

KsHusker

New member
It's been a while but wasn't the whole scheme sold on other states saying their intention was to deny KS hunters the ability to hunt the other state unless the deer hunting was reciprocal?


Yes - you are correct - I dont think anyone is complaining about allowing non resident deer hunting - (I liked it when they couldnt hunt here) no leasing then. But anyways - the issue is - it started with allowing non res tags - then more and more non res tags - then transfer tags that could be sold to the highest bidder, more land leasing, then WIHA came about - good WIHA was only around a year or two before it was gobbled up for deer hunting etc etc.


It was just a slippery slope that has exploded into what we have today - Non Res instead of being relegated to one unit I believe can hunt 2 or 3 of them (units that touch the one they want to hunt)

Non resident tags are for the most part unlimited - MOST get a tag when they shouldnt


Resident tags are completely unlimited and statewide - which they should not - you used to need to draw for a tag and weren't guaranteed a buck tag and were relegated to a unit which is what it should be - thinking Archery were the only tags allowed statewide.

Anyways - there is NOOOOOOOO deer management going on and hasnt been for years which is why we have the state of hunting we have today here.
 

birdhunter6

New member
Wow, I didnt think my question for a opinion whether to pheasant in the nw or south a couple hours would of generated a discussion about nonresident vs resident deer hunting and leases. Glad I'm on those sidelines. I wouldnt give a nickel to shoot a deer. Lol
PM if you have a opinion on my choice of either of those pheasant hunting destinations.
 

akp

Member
Yea sorry about that...some of us kind of derailed your thread. At least it’s been a pretty good discussion though! For what it’s worth, I say SW.
 

Chestle

New member
My apologies, birdhunter6. I didn't mean to drag this thread further off-topic. Threads do have a way of going astray, don't they.

I'll bow out.
 

westksbowhunter

Active member
Wow, I didnt think my question for a opinion whether to pheasant in the nw or south a couple hours would of generated a discussion about nonresident vs resident deer hunting and leases. Glad I'm on those sidelines. I wouldnt give a nickel to shoot a deer. Lol
PM if you have a opinion on my choice of either of those pheasant hunting destinations.
It did not generate into a discussion about nr vs resident deer hunting. It generated into a discussion about how deer management in Kansas has effected all of us upland hunters, both resident and non resident.
 
Top