WIHA my thoughts

2

20bore

New member
Wanted to share some of my thoughts regarding WIHA. I have been hunting KS since the 90's before the program began, only missing 2011/12/13 due to the extreme drought and very low bird numbers. Have hunted most areas of the state...SE, NE, North and South Central and NW.

First, I want to thank KDWPT for the WIHA program, leasing the private land and allowing public access! I have found many great wiha tracts (over the years) that hold birds late into the season and have shot limits of both pheasant and quail off of wiha

However, the last (2) seasons 2014/15....I took notice of many (wiha) tracts that were plowed under to bare ground! Not even grain stubble....all trees, plumb thickets, and weedy ditches gone.....It's very frustrating to travel 1,000 miles every trip only to arrive at a wiha tract that is bare ground!

With respect, I do understand some farms are pulled out of the program after maps are printed....And that expiring CRP contracts also add to the affect! Also the sever drought of 2012/13 has a dramatic effect on the Kansas landscape...


My questions to KDWPT is that given the large number of acres (promoted) at over 1 million acres, what criteria is used to enter a tract of land into the program? What is the minimum habitiat / cover % on that tract to be considered for whia? Is each tract visually inspected by a wildlife biologist?
Would funding from a habitat stamp allow more land to be acquired? And is the Nebraska CRP-MAP model albeit much less land a possibility to consider for Kansas? Please correct me if I'm wrong....the Nebraska program only acquires tracts with good to excellent existing habitat that meet certain requirements...
 
I agree on much of the above stated. I have been hunting in NC Kansas for the last 7 years. I agree that some of the land enrolled in WHIA may as well be a sand dune as far as wildlife goes. I also understand though that some of the worthless land enrolled belongs to the same land owner as some of the great habitat tracts. The landowner enrolled it as a package deal.I think the loss of CRP has hurt the program's quality worse than anything.
 
I am in agreement with you guys , there is quite a bit of land that is not great for upland birds .

Some of these tracts are good for other species feild hunt waterfowl , coyote hunt , other fur bearers , squirrell , rabbit , fall turkey , dove , And deer .


I would definitely support a mandatory or voluntary Upland Habitat Stamp .

I have been told by people from Kdwpt that when prices or fees go up they loose hunters . I think they would gain some from improved habitat . I would suggest a resident and a non- resident pricing on the stamps .

The other states I have hunted require a habitat stamp .

I would appreciate input from KDWPT staff
 
back in the late 90's early 00's the Wiha program was rolling. Bird numbers were high. Farmers enrolled enjoying the extra $ on top of the CRP $ they were already getting. I think many farmers liked the idea of their land serving as a means of enjoyment for others.

Then some things changed some big some small. The decline in the enrollment in CRP being an oft discussed big one. But I think some other changes had a big impact too.

In some ways the WIHA program worked as a "Hunting Land Realtor" It put together a book full of listings of "hunting ground for lease". Everyone who enrolled in the program was getting paid for the use of their land at a standard rate. If someone found a field that had good bird numbers and was in a suitable location for them all they had to do was use GIS or go to the courthouse to find out who owned the land. Give that farmer a call and say "I saw that the state was giving you x amount of dollars for the WIHA program. I would be willing to give you the same amount. Plus you would not have random people littering your land and causing you any issues.

Boom there is 1 more good field gone from the system.

By this time Kansas is getting famous for its WIHA program. The thousands and thousands of acres of free accessible land. So there is a need to keep that number of acres up. With good spots being lost to paying hunters and CRP being plowed to corn, they had to start adding lesser quality land. Add some drought on top of that and some "lesser land" became "barren hunting wastelands"

I have talked to some farmers that were asked to be in the WIHA program. They told me they felt like the payout was not worth dealing with having the people walk around their land.

I think this is very disappointing as WIHA is where I learned to hunt. I am sure without WIHA I would not be a bird hunter today. So what can be done about it?

I like the idea of a WIHA stamp. I think there are plenty of hunters who would pay $5-$40 for the opportunity to hunt WIHA. Especially if they are able to see the money being used on more and better land. I also think having a WIHA watch program would be great. Some kind of system that allowed Hunters to give the state feedback on the WIHA tract. I am sure there are plenty of tracts out there that the state thought they were paying for grass waterways and treerows in a Milo field, but it is now nothing but soybeans.

I also miss the tract info that they used to have:
tract 12 - P,Q,T,D
tract 14 - W

It saved many miles of driving just to find out you went to a cut cornfield for Geese when you were actually looking for quail.


Those are my thoughts. That and $2.78 will get you a cup of coffee. Although if you came to Manhattan I would probably pay for coffee as payment for having to listen to that never ending rant.
 
Some of this land the way I understand is enrolled early in the year while it still has cover. What the farmer does with it between then and hunting season seems to be up to him.

Last two years one of my best local phez spots was grazed. And I mean grazed down the the nub. It looked like a golf green. Yet we paid for that.

I say double the out of state license costs to help fund this program and make it more attractive to farmers with nice habitat.
 
WIHA - paying for a stamp

WIHA _ paying for a stamp


This has been rehashed here many times - right now the way the laws and funding for WIHA are set up - it makes zero sense and would be a zero sum game to charge a stamp or access fee. The money comes from the Federal level for WIHA and any money that may come from fees elsewhere will offsett the Federal money KS gets for this program.


(Troy aka PrairieDrifter has went in depth on this a time or two and can correct me if I'm wrong in my basic understanding above)



I'm in full agreement I would and many others would pay a fee if the money went for this program and to improve it - however our own cash strapped state would be shooting themselves in the foot by setting something up like this unless the rules change. :cheers:
 
I think farmers will enroll acres in the walk-in program only if it is perceived to be and actually is not a burden to them. The money is meager. If farmers had to report the condition of their acres every year to the KDWPT, I think we'd have a fraction of the acres we now have. Moreover, the manpower to monitor what's on the thousands of walk-in plots is just not there and never will be. Hunters are encouraged, however, to report to the KDWPT enrolled plots that are unhuntable which could result in a claw back of the money paid and denial of re-enrollment. It is a simple system and has to be that way to work.

That said, I share the frustration of navigating to a plot to find it offers nothing to hunt. But there's usually another plot that does a few miles away. For those who are willing to spend the money, there are businesses that sell recently taken aerial and satellite photos which may show plots not worth driving to.

For non-residents, be thankful that in Kansas your walk-in opportunities are identical to those of residents. That is not so in the Dakotas and perhaps other states too where residents have exclusive early season hunting rights on walk-in.

All in all, I think the KDWPT has it just right and the great number of acres enrolled in walk-in is the irrefutable evidence.
 
Last edited:
We have talked about this often and most of the normal points have been made. I'll just add a couple that are at least a little bit different.

First, it's not tough to correlate the maps with free, publicly available satellite photography. That's not going to prevent all the "dry holes", especially those cause by emergency haying/grazing or normal crop rotation. But, most of us can look at a satellite photo and tell if we're looking at a crop field, a pasture, or a crp field. I do that often before going out of my way to a new tract.

Second, I also support a habitat "stamp". I understand the funding ramifications of tying the stamp to WIHA access, so we'll have to go another way. IMO, the stamp should be about pheasant and/or quail hunting in general. In other words, to hunt pheasants or quail in the state of Kansas, ANYWHERE, you need a hunting license and a habitat stamp.

WIHA isn't perfect, and in some cases there are unfortunate outcomes. On whole, I think we're far better off than without it.
 
Holy smokes! Some of the complainers need to come hunt my state. You literally get one day a year to hunt public ground and that's if you get picked in the lottery. I'm like a kid in a candy store when I go to Kansas to hunt and yes I've drove the hours and miles just to find out a WIHA is worthless but that's part of the fun for me. My issue is with the leasing up of the WIHAs as talked about earlier that's what killed our state.
 
Good old Illinois! I might have been brash with my comment but yes Illinois allows you one day permit for one upland managed area per year by a lottery which means you might not even get a permit. Now yes there are other public use areas but not managed for upland which means you get to fight the deer hunters for the small parcel that might hold a 3 bird covey if that! Or I can drive 6 hours and be in what I consider bird mecca! Ha.
 
Regarding 20bore's reference to Nebraska's WIHA, I take exception. I lived in Nebraska for over 36 years which includes the period that the WIHA started until just recently. Of the thousands of acres enrolled in western Nebraska, most of it was garbage. The dog and I walked many miles thru many tracts and nary a bird of any kind was present. We walked all times of day and all days of the week. Most times I did not bother carrying a gun. The land had no protection from bad weather nor predators--aerial or ground. There were no food plots in close proximity. I never saw another hunter on all these tracts. I never saw evidence that hunters had ever been on the tracts--no shell casings, no footprints, etc... It was tremendous waste of funds. We did get our exercise though. The post that Kansas is still better than most is indeed my opinion also. And please no more hunting fees. The HIP permit was free in Nebraska. A HIP permit for dove hunting seems a bit ridiculous anyway.
 
padrone said:
Regarding 20bore's reference to Nebraska's WIHA, I take exception. I lived in Nebraska for over 36 years which includes the period that the WIHA started until just recently. Of the thousands of acres enrolled in western Nebraska, most of it was garbage. The dog and I walked many miles thru many tracts and nary a bird of any kind was present. We walked all times of day and all days of the week. Most times I did not bother carrying a gun. The land had no protection from bad weather nor predators--aerial or ground. There were no food plots in close proximity. I never saw another hunter on all these tracts. I never saw evidence that hunters had ever been on the tracts--no shell casings, no footprints, etc... It was tremendous waste of funds. We did get our exercise though. The post that Kansas is still better than most is indeed my opinion also. And please no more hunting fees. The HIP permit was free in Nebraska. A HIP permit for dove hunting seems a bit ridiculous anyway.
Click to expand...

For years now Nebraska has had a focus on pheasant areas threw out the state there crp or open fields & water lands have criteria to stay enrolled like they have to improve the grass stand to get $$$ & stay enrolled etc. This is the 1st year KS has Any such focus on pheasant program I'm aware of at least that was what i read.

. I've hunted in NW KS for turkey hunted wiha & managment areas I've scouted a lot of areas in KS never hear many pheasant or quail a few here few there as many prairie chickens as other upland... I've also hunted all over Nebraska every corner except SE & extreme SW Nebraska I've lirterly seen more pheasant & quail chicken & grouse in Nebraska hands down pound per pound the public land in Nebraska holds more birds in my experience I have never found enuff pheasant or quail to warrent a upland hunt to KS & I have valid hunting license but I dream of going back to hunt pheasant & quail in Nebraska I've seen controled burns food plots & top notch quail habitat in Nebraska not the case in KS I love Kansas & have had great turkey hunts there friendly people & all but Nebraska I feel has more birds on its walk in in system statewide over KS better quality habitat as well... I've seen tons of junk wiha in KS fall wiha but 95% of the crp lands open to public in Nebraska I've been on held quail pheasant & turkey deer etc.

I know the biologist I've talked with for spring wiha say they enroll wiha due to roosting availability & use etc. They want guys to have a crack at. Birds off roost & going back to roost they don't enroll wiha cuz they see birds here or there or cuz the farmer enrolled that good track so we gotta enroll thus bad field etc. Not sure on the KS fall wiha requirements???

Prairie drifter would have a solid idea in how wiha are enrolled...

I love KS but Nebraska has quality lands open to public state wide maybe less acres then KS but pound for pound NE public is better managed I'm talking walk in public private land open to public...
 
Last edited:
Nebraska has a pathetically small amount of walk in, Kansas is wayyyyyyy ahead in quality and acreage......forget Nebraska.
 
hunter94 said:
Nebraska has a pathetically small amount of walk in, Kansas is wayyyyyyy ahead in quality and acreage......forget Nebraska.
Click to expand...


Nebraska U get WPA walk ins wheat stubble land wildlife management ares all better managed then KS wiha program... plus in Nebraska u get NRD NWR army corps land to hunt... I look at it I guess In a quality over quantity type situation if u have to look at 4-5 wiha b4 u find 1worth walk & u only have to hunt 1 ofw land to get a limit in Nebraska witch state is worth hunting??? I just looked in new PF magazine says Nebraska has 800,000 acre public lands to chase roosters not all private lands open to public but I doubt most of us would only hunt wiha if we had other options in KS that's all u got really public land wise so u gotta make best of it ...

I'm not sure I'll have to look but I think Nebraska mite have harvested more pheasant then KS last few years???

All i can say is what I seen while out sitting out turkey hunting & or driving back roads & listing at parking spots or in the field over last 5 years KS it was rare to hear a rooster crow or bobwhite whistle... I herd more pheasants standing by a ponderosa pine tree in the pine ridge of Nebraska lol???

Talked with a nice man from TX on this forum last winter he hunted both states & he had similar thoughts in Nebraska & its pheasant situation I flushed more pheasants walking my dog in Nebraska in between turkey hunts this year then any walk in KS I've walked many miles in pheasant land KS NW KS
 
Last edited:
20bore said:
It's very frustrating to travel 1,000 miles every trip only to arrive at a wiha tract that is bare ground!
Click to expand...

It's the same thing in many states that have similar programs offered by Game and Fish. Seems like they have to have a million acres in to compete with other states.

Regardless of public or private it comes down to cost, quality and management.

The license money goes to tie up acres for the public. But at $1-5/acre you get what you pay for. In SD for example the 81,000 acres of CREP put in the last few years costs the public $40/acre to open the access on that CRP.

Bottom line is regardless of what state, when the state leases private land for a fee and gives out maps they are in the outfitting business and compete with everything else out there that competes for those acres for $ whether cattle, Big Ag or access to hunt wildlife.

Quality has a cost.
 
Last edited:
BritChaser said:
I think farmers will enroll acres in the walk-in program only if it is perceived to be and actually is not a burden to them. The money is meager. If farmers had to report the condition of their acres every year to the KDWPT, I think we'd have a fraction of the acres we now have. Moreover, the manpower to monitor what's on the thousands of walk-in plots is just not there and never will be. Hunters are encouraged, however, to report to the KDWPT enrolled plots that are unhuntable which could result in a claw back of the money paid and denial of re-enrollment. It is a simple system and has to be that way to work.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you about the farmers. They are not making much money on this program and having to do any extra work would cut the enrolled acres.

However I disagree about the manpower to monitor. It's called crowdsourcing. It would be efficient and effective.

Hunters may be encouraged to report poor WIHA land, but I think less than 1% of hunters even know that's an option. I have bird hunted in Kansas mostly on WIHA since the mid-late 90's I can't recall every reading or hearing that I could report land conditions to anyone.
 
Jakeismydog2 said:
I totally agree with you about the farmers. They are not making much money on this program and having to do any extra work would cut the enrolled acres.

However I disagree about the manpower to monitor. It's called crowdsourcing. It would be efficient and effective.

Hunters may be encouraged to report poor WIHA land, but I think less than 1% of hunters even know that's an option. I have bird hunted in Kansas mostly on WIHA since the mid-late 90's I can't recall every reading or hearing that I could report land conditions to anyone.
Click to expand...


Frankly they do not have the manpower to police it anyways. Until we get Brownback out of office the chances of the KDWPT taking a turn for the positive are nill. They need more manpower, (specifically wardens) technology and folks who's sole intent is not to cater to the commercial interests.

Brownback has killed funding for everything. Been to your local DMV lately to get a car title or renew your license? The DMV is a joke and a good chunk of DL offices were shut down. Schools...need we go there....You know there is a problem when even those on the higher income brackets are complaining a bit about the state cash crunch and getting their taxes cut too much.

Crazy isn't it?

I'm all for limited tax, but I just dont think he went about it the right way - the only good thing is this idiot will go away and hopefully we wont have to hear he is running for president again to further embarrass us. We needed some economic development before he started his idea of taking tax down to zero.

Raising out of state license fees higher is one way to help the department and getting someone with balls to think outside the box and revive some of the smaller towns out there but that is another discussion and another day.

/Brownback rant I stupidly voted for him the first time if I recall - I absolutely did not the 2nd time.
 
Last edited:
duckn66 said:
Some of this land the way I understand is enrolled early in the year while it still has cover. What the farmer does with it between then and hunting season seems to be up to him.

Last two years one of my best local phez spots was grazed. And I mean grazed down the the nub. It looked like a golf green. Yet we paid for that.

I say double the out of state license costs to help fund this program and make it more attractive to farmers with nice habitat.
Click to expand...

Well the outta state license jumped from 72.50 to 98.50 last year. Which is fine. Not gonna stop me from coming out and I pay for a prairie chicken stamp so its an even 100 bucks. I would pay for a stamp on top of that if need be. But at that point it would start to get ridiculous. If the stamp was $25 then you're out 125 before you get out of the truck. Missouri has the problem with deer. Cheapest place to kill a deer, same rights as residents, during gun season it looks like someone is throwing a kegger at every public spot! I personally like the WIHA in Kansas, and some of those WIHA's that look bad actually produce. I saw a bare looking one last year wheat stubble down to the ground. The next day there were guys out there blasting snow geese and having a ball! So these areas may serve a purpose too. You can get burned out hunting WIHA exclusively, but there is plenty of other land out there to mix in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top