Kansas Trespassing Fee for Private Land

[V-John]

Lot of good comments and thoughts on this thread. I hear all the talk about the way things used to be and can’t believe I didn’t know about bird hunting up until 6 years ago!!

Since that time, I’ve been blessed to start and work with 3 dogs from pup to where they are right now, raised three others that just didn’t have it IMO. All of their bird work took place on public land and I’d like to say I gave them all ample opportunity. Sure we do what we can in the back yard but I don’t have access to birds. 2 of them hit the jack pot right off the bat, got them in birds and made a dog quick. My GSP female that is not quite 2 just didn’t get into good positions last year (not the best year we ever had and what good opportunities you do have it’s hard to burn on pup training) made it a point to hit it hard and put her in birds this year, got creative and went outside the box going to different areas, I had my doubts of her over the summer, shame on me, my goodness her development has been unbelievable this fall/winter. She’ll never have another owner feed her.

The fun in it for me is the challenge to put them in the right position and it is AWESOME to watch their natural ability take over. Do have a question, I have always been timid to put my dogs on a preserve, I think there is something to be said for dogs learning how to get it done in a wild condition. Am I right in thinking that? I probably base it off my early days of working with rabbit dogs (beagles for 12 years), never had a pup make a dog that I trained in a starting pen. The good ones learned it all in the wild. The kicker for me is I know bird dogs are sooo much smarter than beagles, absolutely zero comparison. Can a fella make a bird dog at a preserve based on their smarts/ability or is there significant risk associated with that? I’ve wondered just haven’t pulled that trigger and tried it.

To each their own, I respect it all, I just love the sport and hearing all of the different perspectives. Thanks in advance for any comments that you guys might have.

In my opinion, you can certainly make a bird dog at a preserve... Given that the birds are good flying birds. Like you said, it takes birds to make a bird dog, and I have started dogs in really tough times in terms of bird numbers and those dogs were a bit slower to develop. They still did, it just took longer. The pointer I have now, he was fortunate to start in good times and I sent him off to continue his education. It's paid off.
That being said, if you can't find birds, I see no issue with a preserve, given that the birds fly well. (Well, for us pointy dog types) Certainly don't want your dog catching a bunch of crappy flying PR birds...


To me, the importance is the dog and the success for the dog. Dog doesn't care whether the bird was born in the wild or in a pen. I don't disparage those that don't either.
Wild birds if in abundance are the best obviously... But I'd rather the dog learn something rather then run in birdless habitat and learn nothing.

 

[KsHusker]

Ok, I'm uninformed on Farm Bureau. Why are they so interested in deer licenses? Too much deer depredation on crops of their members? Not enough of their member's land getting leased?

I understand the interest of the Outfitters. $$$$$$$

Maybe KS should go to unlimited OTC res & non-res tags. Eliminate the herd as quickly as possible and leave nothing but forkies! Leasing would probably drop off then. (I jest)

Farm Bureau's schtick along with other insurance companies is they want virtually unlimited tags for a few reasons:

1. Increase tags - their arguments are it will decrease deer pops which will result in fewer insurance claims -- IE deer vehicle collisions and crop damage -- not sure if you can claim animal crop damage or not - but that is an argument used for their farm based customers to at least lessen their crop damage by having more deer shot
2. Increase tags - it gives their customers -- Farmers - more opportunities to increase their revenue to sell leases or hunts
3. All of it is hypocrisy as you increase the leasing - less deer are shot - less people have an opportunity to hunt and the guys that are leasing are only going to shoot a buck worthy of the dollars they paid or the first thing they perceive as big that walks by relative to the standards of the state they came from.
4. The most absurd are the farmers who will complain about deer crop damage on one hand but then if you'd ask to hunt deer they'd tell you no -- they have it leased to John smith for X or they will charge you X to shoot a deer -- at that point they have no right to complain about the crop damage -- they need to accept that as a business expense for turning wild game into a business.

Ken Corbet is my rep and I emailed him in 2018 when he introduced legislation to bring bag transfer tags -- I was surprised he called me - we spoke a while - have attempted to meet him to discuss further but no such luck. His lodge isn't too far from where I live. He listened to my viewpoints and some of his were valid - but I still disagreed.

What the uninformed folks do not understand is it doesnt matter who votes - it matters who has the money - landowners/farmers/ranchers, outfitters association are better organized with more money - they typically are going to get policies they want which has happened - doesnt mean there are not a # of people still fighting them - there are some guys in the Kansas Bowhunters association that have free time and are able to make it to the KDWPT meetings

Some are several hours across the state from where some people live as the locations change (during non pandemic) times -- you have to compete with Billy Bob who has 2 teeth and spouting ignorant statements so at least the meetings I've been to it's difficult to be heard - if you are heard they've already got their minds made up so the meetings are for show - not to take public input and do anything with it. See above - those with the money and lobbying power are setting the policy which is part of my disappointment with PF -- I'd love to see them partner with other organizations that are pro hunting such as DU which has a huge following here to make some policy changes regarding deer - but everyone is fat and happy so they choose to do nothing and just have banquets to send money to corporate.

 

[KsHusker]

You may not realize this but you couldn't be further from the truth. The Kansas Outfitter Association is powerful. Kansas Farm Bureau is one of the most powerful lobbyist in the state. Farm Bureau has been a huge driving force behind deer regs. I have seen the meetings when a Farm Bureau rep shows a bean field with 30 does in it and uses it as fodder to try and get more NR tags. In fact there is a legislative mandate to "meet demand" for NR deer tags. Representative Ken Corbet (owner of Ravenwood lodge) tried hard last session to get OTC non resident deer tags. Said its not fair that if his nephew wants to come down over a holiday and hunt but didn't put in for the draw he doesn't get to. Hell at the last KDWPT meeting I went to a rancher from Elk county got up and said he leases a bunch and last year his leasees did not draw a deer tag. He wants to do away with the draw or let them buy tags at increased cost. Said "these poor counties we need that money". OTC NR deer tags are coming. And the leasing isn't going away. Check out the KS Hunting lease facebook page. There is a huge demand. Land is being gobbled up at an alarming rate. I am actually looking to buy another chunk. Its already turning into a pay to hunt deal here in EC Kansas and I don't see anything stemming the tide.

FWIW rumor has it they are moving the Tourism branch back to the department of commerce. Also there are alot of duck hunters complaining about pressure this year on forums and they are bending the commissioner's ears on that issue. But when it comes to deer the legislature rules the roost.

I have not seen any recent rumblings about the OTC non resident tags? Do you have any links to any pending legislation or rumors etc?

I could peruse the KBA KS page as they usually have info there - but will have to weed through all the hunt posts -- anyways if you have anything to narrow it down would appreciate it - you can guarantee I will call and email my reps about this if it will be introduced in the upcoming session. Unfortunately Ken Corbet probably wont listen - was surprised he won re-election -- he voted for something against our business at the last hour in the 2020 session due to a curveball Gov Kelly concocted. Gov Kelly can go to hell to with what she pulled. Hopeful she's voted out in the next election.

 

[BRITTMAN]

Farm Bureau holds many hats ... it is a business (primarily insurance) ... but it is also a strong lobbying arm for the ag industry that is often at odds with most resident hunters interests.

FB is engaged because some (and it might be a small, but vocal minority) landowners want to maximize $$ revenue via outfitting or leasing.

FB is also very pro commercial agriculture and pro landowner rights (which I support up to a certain extent). Whether intentional or not their lobbying stance is often anti-conservation.

In ND there are several sportsman's groups that also lobby and just as important mobilize the average ND sportsman to contact their specific state represenatives before key votes. It most often works to BALANCE legislation.

 

[BRITTMAN]

Most interestingly ... In North Daktoa, it is the city (both large and small) representatives (both Democrats and Republicans) that often are the deciding vote in favor of more balanced (if not pro) legislation regarding issues for resident sportsman. These people need to be informed and aware of the impact on their constituents.

 

[KSnative]

Ok, I'm uninformed on Farm Bureau. Why are they so interested in deer licenses? Too much deer depredation on crops of their members? Not enough of their member's land getting leased?

I understand the interest of the Outfitters. $$$$$$$

Maybe KS should go to unlimited OTC res & non-res tags. Eliminate the herd as quickly as possible and leave nothing but forkies! Leasing would probably drop off then. (I jest)

Farm Bureau's schtick along with other insurance companies is they want virtually unlimited tags for a few reasons:

1. Increase tags - their arguments are it will decrease deer pops which will result in fewer insurance claims -- IE deer vehicle collisions and crop damage -- not sure if you can claim animal crop damage or not - but that is an argument used for their farm based customers to at least lessen their crop damage by having more deer shot
2. Increase tags - it gives their customers -- Farmers - more opportunities to increase their revenue to sell leases or hunts
3. All of it is hypocrisy as you increase the leasing - less deer are shot - less people have an opportunity to hunt and the guys that are leasing are only going to shoot a buck worthy of the dollars they paid or the first thing they perceive as big that walks by relative to the standards of the state they came from.
4. The most absurd are the farmers who will complain about deer crop damage on one hand but then if you'd ask to hunt deer they'd tell you no -- they have it leased to John smith for X or they will charge you X to shoot a deer -- at that point they have no right to complain about the crop damage -- they need to accept that as a business expense for turning wild game into a business.

Ken Corbet is my rep and I emailed him in 2018 when he introduced legislation to bring bag transfer tags -- I was surprised he called me - we spoke a while - have attempted to meet him to discuss further but no such luck. His lodge isn't too far from where I live. He listened to my viewpoints and some of his were valid - but I still disagreed.

What the uninformed folks do not understand is it doesnt matter who votes - it matters who has the money - landowners/farmers/ranchers, outfitters association are better organized with more money - they typically are going to get policies they want which has happened - doesnt mean there are not a # of people still fighting them - there are some guys in the Kansas Bowhunters association that have free time and are able to make it to the KDWPT meetings

Some are several hours across the state from where some people live as the locations change (during non pandemic) times -- you have to compete with Billy Bob who has 2 teeth and spouting ignorant statements so at least the meetings I've been to it's difficult to be heard - if you are heard they've already got their minds made up so the meetings are for show - not to take public input and do anything with it. See above - those with the money and lobbying power are setting the policy which is part of my disappointment with PF -- I'd love to see them partner with other organizations that are pro hunting such as DU which has a huge following here to make some policy changes regarding deer - but everyone is fat and happy so they choose to do nothing and just have banquets to send money to corporate.

I am definitely one of those uninformed Billy Bobs, if the qualifying view point is that our votes don't matter. They do. If they didn't - Ken Corbet would never have called you back - unless you had (per your theory) contributed heavily to his campaign chest. What if 500, 1000, or 5000 people had emailed and/or called on the same lines?

Important to know, who is the "they" who have already made up their minds, hence are not listening? This is a serious question and I'll ask that you not blow it off, just because you might have more teeth (and probably hair, too) than I. I could find nothing in DuckDuckGo to help me understand - WHO sets the Kansas seasons and limits, and what is the process for doing so? I'd guess that KDWPT proposes these, and the legislature gives a thumbs up or down. Important to understand how best to influence outcomes, if we are to act on it, vice just complain - so please inform and educate us. Me, especially.

Serenity now, serenity now, serenity now........

 

[KSnative]

I am definitely one of those uninformed Billy Bobs, if the qualifying view point is that our votes don't matter. They do. If they didn't - Ken Corbet would never have called you back - unless you had (per your theory) contributed heavily to his campaign chest. What if 500, 1000, or 5000 people had emailed and/or called on the same lines?

Important to know, who is the "they" who have already made up their minds, hence are not listening? This is a serious question and I'll ask that you not blow it off, just because you might have more teeth (and probably hair, too) than I. I could find nothing in DuckDuckGo to help me understand - WHO sets the Kansas seasons and limits, and what is the process for doing so? I'd guess that KDWPT proposes these, and the legislature gives a thumbs up or down. Important to understand how best to influence outcomes, if we are to act on it, vice just complain - so please inform and educate us. Me, especially.

Serenity now, serenity now, serenity now........

It does NOT explain the process (hmmmm), but a start point on gaining knowledge of how season dates, limits and non-resident rule setting really works can be found at link below, including names/contact information on the "Commissioners" (what ever their role may be - why don't we all ask 'em, and let them know we are watching?):

Commission

The official website of the Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks

ksoutdoors.com

NO need travel, mid-COVID. The link provides their meeting schedule, and how to attend by "Zoom". Let surprise them by showing up, with questions!

 

[Alaskan swamp collies]

One would think KDWP would be aware of the potential to make truckloads of money off the pheasant and quail population, not just the deer.

Yes, KS gets a lot of ink as "the" deer hunting state. It is also routinely mentioned as either the 2nd or 3rd best pheasant hunting state (SD usually #1). Additionally KS usually ranks in the top three states for quail harvest, something SD really doesn't offer. The upland news seems to be overshadowed by the deer news though.

So with a stronger focus on creating more public hunting areas with greatly improved habitat KS could become a top tier destination for both deer and pheasant/quail. Habitat/acreage would benefit both deer and upland game.

Currently KDWP charges almost $550 for non-res deer hunting (hunting license + deer permit). Upland is just the hunting license, ~$100 for the entire season.

If they really worked at expanding public hunting acreage along with greatly improved habitat, KDWP could move to the SD method of licensing. Charge the non-res $100 for the 10 day license with the ability to split. Might be a pot-o-gold for the Department and the businesses in the small towns.

Just a thought. Bound to be unpopular with Non-res hunters. I get that. But SD non-res hunters willingly do it because....it's worth it. That's what KDWP needs to do...make it worth it.

I have no problem with being charged more as a nonresident hunter. $100 is a ridiculous bargain. With what I spend on dogs, guns, travel, motels and time not working the $100 fits in the misc category of expenses. I always have believed that residents should have preference in their own states. In ND only residents can hunt PLOTS land the first week of the season. I believe in SD don't youth resident hunters get the first weekend? Treat your neighbors well and welcome the local kids to hunting. If and I mean IF you can charge the nonresident bird hunter more and use that money to make more high quality land available in the walk ins you should have better hunting opportunities for all. Yes I am a public land hunter and yes I could afford to hunt a preserve, but choose to shoot a few wild birds over released ones. In my case, I just don't need to pull the trigger that much anymore, but have nothing against someone who does want to shoot more birds. As far as deer go my only input is to charge the nonresident more and limit the availability, it mostly works up here. You would be amazed at what it costs a NR to hunt in AK and yet they still come.

 

[BRITTMAN]

The issue swamp is that often long relationships with landowners where knowing the person and a Christmas card w/gift card, some special foods or drink at year end was enough. Outfitters can work into an area and even landowners that swore they would never fall into the trap sometimes do over time.

I am primarily a public land hunter, but will note that I have lost 1000s of acres of access to outfitters - especially in my birth state of ND. The landowner is often (not always) humble and apologetic. Or sometimes the father retires and the kid taking over is friends with the outfitter. Or... plenty of other scenarios.

That does not include land that was once private, but not leased and now asking is mute ... So replacing the lost land is not that simple unless one makes a wholesale area change ... but what if I live in that county or township ? What was once a 10 minute drive is now an hour each way.

This can place even more pressure on public land as hunters that once prided themselves on the relationships they had developed are too relegated to public land.

 

[Chestle]

No matter your perspective on Outfitters, leases, private, public, whatever...it's clear (as they say) that the price of poker is going up. Part of that will be the coming inflation. Congress can't keep spending trillions we don't have without something changing and not for the better.

The other part is demand. As I said upthread, there's people who want something bad enough that they are willing to pay a LOT to get it and there will always be people willing to fill that need. That goes for the thirty point buck as well as lots of upland birds.

For the average guy probably the two best routes have already been pointed out upthread. Sure, knock on doors; all they can say is "no". You just might find a bonanza that keeps on giving or maybe just a good day's hunt. I think in both SD and KS, door knocking is more likely to be successful after Thanksgiving and especially after Christmas. The family hunts are about done after those holidays.

The other truism pointed out above is that we upland hunters have got to get more involved at the political level. We need to make an effort to get the game departments to realize we can be a huge source of revenue just like deer hunters. Because it seems in state game departments now the money talks and the BS walks. Yep, in the end more and better public hunting will cost us all one way or another. Won't be as much as individually leasing land though.

 

[tbob131]

Very educational thread, I am an out of state hunter who has been traveling to Kansas for about 13 years now. After this discussion I am going to count my blessings that I have the private ground to hunt that I do. Its not a destination for pheasant hunting but it is a great place to find quail. Multiple thousands of acres I have permission on all by knocking on a few doors and making a few calls. Now while I'm there I take them out to the local steak house and treat them and their family, some have even made the trek to Kentucky to stay with me and visit. While the trend seems to be towards leases there are still some good old folks out there if you are willing to make the effort and not be scared of hearing the word no. I LOVE KANSAS!!!

 

[rockhilldog]

In my opinion, you can certainly make a bird dog at a preserve... Given that the birds are good flying birds. Like you said, it takes birds to make a bird dog, and I have started dogs in really tough times in terms of bird numbers and those dogs were a bit slower to develop. They still did, it just took longer. The pointer I have now, he was fortunate to start in good times and I sent him off to continue his education. It's paid off.
That being said, if you can't find birds, I see no issue with a preserve, given that the birds fly well. (Well, for us pointy dog types) Certainly don't want your dog catching a bunch of crappy flying PR birds...


To me, the importance is the dog and the success for the dog. Dog doesn't care whether the bird was born in the wild or in a pen. I don't disparage those that don't either.
Wild birds if in abundance are the best obviously... But I'd rather the dog learn something rather then run in birdless habitat and learn nothing.

Thank you sir, that makes a lot of sense, very much appreciated

 

[KSnative]

It does NOT explain the process (hmmmm), but a start point on gaining knowledge of how season dates, limits and non-resident rule setting really works can be found at link below, including names/contact information on the "Commissioners" (what ever their role may be - why don't we all ask 'em, and let them know we are watching?):

Commission

The official website of the Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks

ksoutdoors.com

NO need travel, mid-COVID. The link provides their meeting schedule, and how to attend by "Zoom". Let surprise them by showing up, with questions!

I've sent an inquiry to one of Commissioners IRT who sets seasons and resident/non-resident apportionment, will follow up with one or more of them if no reply. Meanwhile, this from "The Kansan" suggests that it is, in fact, the Department that proposes dates, limits etc and the Commission (appointed by the Governor) who approves them:

"The Kansas Wildlife, Parks and Tourism Commission voted to approve the 2020-21 hunting season dates for waterfowl and big game, among other items, during its video conference public meeting April 23.

Several provisions were approved in regards to big game hunting during the meeting. The commission voted to expand the Urban Deer Management Unit 19, approve the use of draw-lock devices as legal archery equipment and approve a provision allowing big game animals taken with an antlerless-only permit to be quartered in the field as long as sex organs remain naturally attached for proof of sex during transport."......

So - it would appear that it not the legislature opening the state to very large numbers of deer hunters (hence inviting Outfitters/leasing that wind up broadly reducing pheasant hunting access). Rather - to be confirmed of course - it is the KDWPT itself, as sanctioned by the Governor's commission. I'm a bit surprised that no posters here were, apparently, aware of this.

So - the question now is how to more effectively influence the process, or so I would think. If there is any interest, based on the actual facts.

 

[Chestle]

I don't think there's any way at all to beat the deer lobby. I think the only hope is to build a powerful upland lobby as a counterweight. Not sure how to do that though.

 

[Thatguy]

Fight for Kansas deer tag transfers shifts to Senate

Hutchinson resident Lauren Sill recalls hunting deer with her dad decades before rule changes turned the joyous excursions into a nightmare. Sill told a state Senate committee about the access she…

www.hutchnews.com

Wildlife official, lawmaker at odds on deer permits

Joel Wimer believes state officials are impeding tourism with restrictions on deer-hunting permits. He operates the C&W Ranch southwest of Salina, where operations include outfitting and guiding hu…

www.google.com

Bird Reports

I thought you said you were one of the OOS'ers that spends tons of $$ at Bass Pro (post #205) and the only thing you have of theirs is a jacket for a goose? :scratch Tuleman, you used to be so much better at reading.... The only thing I have RedHead is the jacket....

www.refugeforums.com

From KSNT:
Each year Kansas residents can buy one deer tag, but the number of purchased tags has gone down by more than 26,000 since 2015.

To make more money, because the department is fee-funded and doesn’t get money from the state, people from out of state are allowed to buy a tag. That number has gone up in the same time period.

 

[KSnative]

I don't think there's any way at all to beat the deer lobby. I think the only hope is to build a powerful upland lobby as a counterweight. Not sure how to do that though.

Well, now we understand who is being lobbied. Not the legislature, but the KDWPT itself. The deer lobby consists of who? Mainly, out of state outfitters and the larger landholders. Not a large group by any means and, in any event - we, here (upland bird community) has yet to even show up. So - we entirely deserve the outcome. IMHO.

 

[KsHusker]

Fight for Kansas deer tag transfers shifts to Senate

Hutchinson resident Lauren Sill recalls hunting deer with her dad decades before rule changes turned the joyous excursions into a nightmare. Sill told a state Senate committee about the access she…

www.hutchnews.com

Wildlife official, lawmaker at odds on deer permits

Joel Wimer believes state officials are impeding tourism with restrictions on deer-hunting permits. He operates the C&W Ranch southwest of Salina, where operations include outfitting and guiding hu…

www.google.com

Bird Reports

I thought you said you were one of the OOS'ers that spends tons of $$ at Bass Pro (post #205) and the only thing you have of theirs is a jacket for a goose? :scratch Tuleman, you used to be so much better at reading.... The only thing I have RedHead is the jacket....

www.refugeforums.com

From KSNT:
Each year Kansas residents can buy one deer tag, but the number of purchased tags has gone down by more than 26,000 since 2015.

To make more money, because the department is fee-funded and doesn’t get money from the state, people from out of state are allowed to buy a tag. That number has gone up in the same time period.

As I believe you and others have pointed out -this downward trend of residents hunting is because near the metro areas where everyone lives it is near impossible to find a place to hunt - and just do the family thing of going out opening day to a deer camp or on the weekend and hunting two days - it's all leased out - I've stopped deer hunting and dont care for it that much due to all the turn offs - I like hunting mulies but they are getting harder to come by and poaching and changing habitat since 2010 has ruined what was once a great spot for us and with a family I haven't had 10 days to throw at it all rifle season since before my son was born - maybe next year.

When I deer hunt again seriously I'm honestly more apt to want to mule deer hunt out of state vs shooting anything here - if I get a tag here it will be to just murder some does and kill all I can within legal limits if I want some meat. As my son gets a bit older I'll probably reactivate again - but still will be attracted to going out of state where you have an inkling of freedom and public lands in the west, along with a state big game system that limits hunters to actual units and manages their big game herd instead of selling to the highest bidder relegating the few to having people constantly run in on you on the small smattering of public here (Also as pointed out allowing people to hunt wherever they hell they want without being attached to a unit doesnt help in the least bit either in KS)-- on small or even large WIHA parcels it's tough to rifle deer hunt or drive 3 hours to a spot and do a sit then have someone walk by you etc. So I get why a lot of residents have stopped myself included. Greed also ruins it and with as aggressive as some guys are it just takes the fun out of it - the most possessive A holes Ive ever met hunting wise get some sort of deer mania and lose their damn minds over possessiveness of deer. It's meant to be shared. Too much selfishness in a lot of deer people. TV and our society trends have done nothing to help that aspect. From stories my buddy who loves to big game hunt elsewhere and here - elk hunters seem to be just as bad in some places.

KS keeps trending towards a Texas and southern hunting model. The south needs to keep their absurd traditions where they belong along with their german shepherd sized deer.

 

[KSnative]

Fight for Kansas deer tag transfers shifts to Senate

Hutchinson resident Lauren Sill recalls hunting deer with her dad decades before rule changes turned the joyous excursions into a nightmare. Sill told a state Senate committee about the access she…

www.hutchnews.com

Wildlife official, lawmaker at odds on deer permits

Joel Wimer believes state officials are impeding tourism with restrictions on deer-hunting permits. He operates the C&W Ranch southwest of Salina, where operations include outfitting and guiding hu…

www.google.com

Bird Reports

I thought you said you were one of the OOS'ers that spends tons of $$ at Bass Pro (post #205) and the only thing you have of theirs is a jacket for a goose? :scratch Tuleman, you used to be so much better at reading.... The only thing I have RedHead is the jacket....

www.refugeforums.com

From KSNT:
Each year Kansas residents can buy one deer tag, but the number of purchased tags has gone down by more than 26,000 since 2015.

To make more money, because the department is fee-funded and doesn’t get money from the state, people from out of state are allowed to buy a tag. That number has gone up in the same time period.

Well, now we understand who is being lobbied. Not the legislature, but the KDWPT itself. The deer lobby consists of who? Mainly, out of state outfitters and the larger landholders. Not a large group by any means and, in any event - we, here (upland bird community) has yet to even show up. So - we entirely deserve the outcome. IMHO.

And by the way - the fact that KDWPT opposed sales of permits by landowners desired by the state legislator - and prevailed - tells us where the real power base is, does it not? This very forum is probably the best available tool to get upland hunter voices heard for the first time (though I'd think that Pheasants Forever, among others, would have an active interest as well).

KDWPT is said to be "primarily" funded by license fees, but Federal PR funds and "grants" - which Kansans pay taxes for - are also a substantial part of their revenue stream. Would be nice to have a look at total Department revenues and their sources -- and where they are being spent. Not knocking anyone or anything, but it is the nature of all organizations that they will find a way to spend all of the revenue they can generate - creating new, higher "floors" on "essential" income. As described - revenues increased very substantially via the increased sale of deer tags to non-residents in recent years. What changed? What increases in required services consumed the spike in available cash? This trend preceded COVID - so lets just skip that line.

If you really want to influence any organization - knowledge of and input to their budget process is the fast track. Why not do that?

 

[Thatguy]

And by the way - the fact that KDWPT opposed sales of permits by landowners desired by the state legislator - and prevailed - tells us where the real power base is, does it not? This very forum is probably the best available tool to get upland hunter voices heard for the first time (though I'd think that Pheasants Forever, among others, would have an active interest as well).

KDWPT is said to be "primarily" funded by license fees, but Federal PR funds and "grants" - which Kansans pay taxes for - are also a substantial part of their revenue stream. Would be nice to have a look at total Department revenues and their sources -- and where they are being spent. Not knocking anyone or anything, but it is the nature of all organizations that they will find a way to spend all of the revenue they can generate - creating new, higher "floors" on "essential" income. As described - revenues increased very substantially via the increased sale of deer tags to non-residents in recent years. What changed? What increases in required services consumed the spike in available cash? This trend preceded COVID - so lets just skip that line.

If you really want to influence any organization - knowledge of and input to their budget process is the fast track. Why not do that?

I wouldn't say the KDWPT opposed the legislature and that is how it got stopped. A grass roots effort got them turned back. I know I talked to my Rep Eric Smith and he was very much against them and did everything he could to not let it get out of committee. I fired off alot of emails to both House of Representatives and the Senate. Some of them do listen.

What really set us back was having Mike Hayden as the head of the KDWPT then following it up with Jennison. Here is a quote from the Capital Journal on Jennison
"During his tenure in the House, Jennison was known as a conservative who often supported issues important to Kansas landowners and agriculture.
That stance at times had him at odds with Wildlife and Parks.
Jennison was a champion to landowners and outfitters for selling more permits to out-of-state hunters so landowners could profit from leasing and guiding operations."

 

[KSnative]

I wouldn't say the KDWPT opposed the legislature and that is how it got stopped. A grass roots effort got them turned back. I know I talked to my Rep Eric Smith and he was very much against them and did everything he could to not let it get out of committee. I fired off alot of emails to both House of Representatives and the Senate. Some of them do listen.

What really set us back was having Mike Hayden as the head of the KDWPT then following it up with Jennison. Here is a quote from the Capital Journal on Jennison
"During his tenure in the House, Jennison was known as a conservative who often supported issues important to Kansas landowners and agriculture.
That stance at times had him at odds with Wildlife and Parks.
Jennison was a champion to landowners and outfitters for selling more permits to out-of-state hunters so landowners could profit from leasing and guiding operations."

So, we are back to ancient history as the source of all of our current woes. Who runs KDWPT and the Commission, now and for how long? If prior administration policies were bad (and I kind of agree that they were) - then why hasn't the current crew changed them? New day, old tune.

There seems to be a recurring theme on this thread that landowners and farming are our foes. That mindset works against us. There will be no solution to what I see as an imbalance between non-resident deer sales interests, and bird friendly policies that does not involve the landowners of Kansas and a few extra (or even 10s of thousands) of acres of state owned lands would not change that much.

So. We don't need to punish farmers; we need to alter the reward structure, which I submit the KDWPT has actively tilted in favor of out of state deer interest for the same reasons landowners lease for deer. Money. Change that, and deer leasing will be held at bay and probably decline. That'd be a win in my book.