If they had good upland bird hunting they'd probably make just as much if not more and still be able to sell their deer hunts. What they dont realize is that income will not be guaranteed forever if they do not manage their deer population - Im guessing the guys shelling out that money if it's an outfitter are going to harvest all the good bucks - deplete the genetics in the area and then move on and potentially leave them in an overpopulation situation as none of the locals or regular guys were shooting the old "mature" bucks or keeping the does down, the trophy quality will go to crap as the population will all be out of whack and every 5x5 will have been taken out of the gene pool -- it doesnt happen overnight but over a period of time it will - it's starting to happen in places like the Pratt/Kinsley area and on properties my friend manages -- he's able to keep some of it at bay by the doe murdering spree that will happen soon - but that only does so much when most of the neighbors do nothing.
Kansas Trespassing Fee for Private Land
- Thread starter Birdman2
- Start date
If they had good upland bird hunting they'd probably make just as much if not more and still be able to sell their deer hunts. What they dont realize is that income will not be guaranteed forever if they do not manage their deer population - Im guessing the guys shelling out that money if it's an outfitter are going to harvest all the good bucks - deplete the genetics in the area and then move on and potentially leave them in an overpopulation situation as none of the locals or regular guys were shooting the old "mature" bucks or keeping the does down, the trophy quality will go to crap as the population will all be out of whack and every 5x5 will have been taken out of the gene pool -- it doesnt happen overnight but over a period of time it will - it's starting to happen in places like the Pratt/Kinsley area and on properties my friend manages -- he's able to keep some of it at bay by the doe murdering spree that will happen soon - but that only does so much when most of the neighbors do nothing.
Have you left your home territory to explore other parts of the state? It's not whining - it's reality and buying one plot of land does nothing in the grand scheme of things unless policies are changed.
Kansascutter
Member
Do yourself a favor and go read the Refuge Forums post ThatGuy linked in page 7. Multiple NRs telling residents how this state needs to be run. The resident waterfowlers are fed up with the unrelenting pressure on state WMAs by NRs. There is a bit of ground swell over there to reach out and contact the commission with our concerns. I see much of the same concerns here. I have reached out to every commissioner. I don’t believe in banning NRs but lotteries and increased NR fees for NR waterfowlers and deer hunters need to be implemented. Increased NR fees along with outfitters being required to be licensed and pay an outfitters license will more than make up for any perceived revenue lost by limiting NRs. The outfitters are making bank on a public resource and pay nothing to do it. The time is NOW! Write your commissioners, attend the ZOOM meeting on 01/14/21. Were on the precipice of losing what we all love to do to the highest bidder. It’s time to take back our state.
I think we can agree that if all or most of us do nothing - then nothing will change. I do think (with all due respect) that you are a bubble off plumb IRT the "how", assuming the primary target is still reining in the ongoing deer leasing mania that is crowding out KS resident hunters of all ilks. Specifically, Increasing fees on NR deer hunters, and on outfitters, won't help - a few hundred or even thousands of dollars in expense added to what they already shell out without blinking won't slow many of them down a bit. Worse - those added funds will likely go to KDWPT "operating costs" - meaning, would be yet another financial incentive to the Department to - you got it - sell more of our deer.
Below is the note I wrote (with great input from Chestle and Birdman2). I've sent it to each of the seven Commissioners who pretty much run this railroad, and will post here (unless I'm asked not to) any replies I get. I'll hazard a guess the silence IRT a single inquiry of this nature will be deafening - so pile on, please, if you wish. It could only help - but I presume they serve at the pleasure of the Governor who appointed them (hint for KS residents!). I'd also invite your attention to the link kindly provided by Chestle summarizing current proposed legislation related to this topic. If you doubt that KDWPT (good people all, I am quite certain) could benefit from a bit more transparency and more effective oversight (and maybe an occasional reminder that the good people of Kansas SHOULD be their primary constituency) - note in the legislative initiatives how many - pretty much all with real meat - were submitted by the KDWPT itself. Several, perhaps most, are not focused on the wildlife resources, but on expanding the already substantial authority and autonomy of the Department. Further, I'd bet that most get approved essentially as is, and then routinely passed by the legislature. Not my first rodeo, one might say.
So - here's what I sent to the seven Commissioners (repeated from above, so you don't have to scroll back IF you choose to send some variant yourself):
Dear Commissioner,
A grave disservice is being done to the citizens of Kansas. Your help is required to remedy this problem.
The very high number of non-resident deer licenses being offered by KDWPT has driven an exponential increase in the number of acres leased to outfitters and the like, effectively removing access to a many working Kansans - not only for purposes of deer hunting, but for other uses such as upland bird hunting which once benefited much larger numbers of Kansans. Perhaps even worse, diversion of land usage to deer leases appears to have significantly reduced the acreage that landowners are willing to enroll in the excellent WIHA programs that provided excellent access to so many Kansans and non-Kansans alike, stressing the remaining WIHAs to the breaking point in many instances.
Kansans are well known for their generosity, but the de facto sale of our wildlife needs to end. We ask that you move to reduce the number of non-resident deer licenses, from over 1,000 for every state of the union during the 2018-2019 season, to no more than half that number. This will significantly improve both the quality and the quantity of access to this resource to local Kansas sportsmen and women, and help foster the next generation of Kansas hunters. Further, although Kansas wildlife is not (or at least, should not be) for sale, to ameliorate any adverse impact on landowners currently profiting from these deer leases, we recommend that landowners who demonstrate a reduction in farm/ranch income as a result of this action be provided the first opportunities to enroll their acreages in an expanded WIHA program - again benefiting native Kansans and non-residents alike through restoration of access.
Kansascutter
Member
Native,
I agree with you for the most part. We want the same thing. My proposal of limiting NR deer/waterfowl hunters achieves what we both want. Less hunters, no guaranteed tags and perhaps the leasing demand goes down. I promise you that the commission will howl and the outfitters will use alleged loss of revenue with limiting NRs in their fight to keep/raise tag numbers. Keep the NR revenue level or rising with increased fees. Fill the KDWPT coffers with outfitter fees. They are the root of the problem. Prostitution of everyone’s resource with zero oversight or paying to play. A simple search will bring up many instances of these outfitters going down on federal indictments over the last few years. Regardless, thanks for reaching out and voicing your concerns. Everyone here needs to do it.
I agree with you for the most part. We want the same thing. My proposal of limiting NR deer/waterfowl hunters achieves what we both want. Less hunters, no guaranteed tags and perhaps the leasing demand goes down. I promise you that the commission will howl and the outfitters will use alleged loss of revenue with limiting NRs in their fight to keep/raise tag numbers. Keep the NR revenue level or rising with increased fees. Fill the KDWPT coffers with outfitter fees. They are the root of the problem. Prostitution of everyone’s resource with zero oversight or paying to play. A simple search will bring up many instances of these outfitters going down on federal indictments over the last few years. Regardless, thanks for reaching out and voicing your concerns. Everyone here needs to do it.
Farmer hit it on the head -- I've searched for about 10 mins on google but can not find it -- there was a podcast -- I think Capitol Insider where they interviewed Robin Jennison when he was Sec of KDWPT -- it is fairly recent - but it's buried now or offline -
Anyways I can save you some time - he detailed in this podcast how after the cuts of Brownback which haven't been fully reversed due to the states revenue cuts and lack of economic development that he had to run the KDWPT more like a business.
Whomever above was saying you need to cut their money off - if you want to get laughed out of their office please present that argument. This is all about money -- frame the argument that more can be made via upland focus, saving the butterfly and other bs and you'll get people who will listen -- also revenue replacements and solutions would need to be found for landowners -- IE South Dakota's model.
Another solid point I'm tired of repeating for guys who do not deer hunt nor know squat about it is our state has NOT been managing the deer herd AT ALL for quite a few years --- You can not have sound management of the resource by allowing guys to hunt statewide, in seasons as long as they are and not forcing a doe harvest to get #'s down. The biologists have been prevented from doing their job - they used to be able to do so which is why KS was noted for big deer -- look in the record books - most of the records are quite old and none are going to be broken anytime soon the way things are ran.
Sound management will curtail some of the leasing which is what I'd like to see - 2 benefits - is it hopefully opens things up for residents a bit - and #2 since I did like to deer hunt it should increase the quality if they aren't letting it be a free for all which is what it is now.
Management and revenue are what need to be harped on - these are govt bureaucrats - they will probably get a glazed over look when talking about management - but talk about their bottom line and they'll listen.
Chestle
Well-known member
One idea I’m kicking around is the structure of the various seasons.
Some states allow Residents a week (maybe two?) of hunting before Non-residents get to hunt. This can in effect shorten NR seasons for upland/deer/waterfowl which might reduce demand.
Possibly coupling that with further limiting NR tag numbers, going to lotteries on waterfowl etc
Just some thoughts
Some states allow Residents a week (maybe two?) of hunting before Non-residents get to hunt. This can in effect shorten NR seasons for upland/deer/waterfowl which might reduce demand.
Possibly coupling that with further limiting NR tag numbers, going to lotteries on waterfowl etc
Just some thoughts
I am not into waterfowl but appreciate seeing them and would like to go on a good duck hunt with some guys in one of those fancy blinds you see with heaters and cooking breakfast lol -- I'd share an upland hunt for the invite...HA
Anyways what are the issues facing waterfowl?
Kansascutter
Member
The waterfowl issues can be tied to leasing and/or outfitters. Much like the deer crowd untold acres are getting tied up with leasing. This includes private water and ag fields. Day leasing is becoming a big thing for these outfitters. They tie up the land but only pay on the days they actually use it. This locks out everyone for the entire season. As you know KS has very little WMAs and fewer that support waterfowl. What’s happening is more residents and nonresidents alike are forced to hunt the remaining public areas as they are locked out without fat wallets. Problems abound. There are people getting into fist fights over spots, blocking boat ramps, sky busting, driving boats thru other’s decoy spreads. The amount of litter and wanton waste observed this year alone is sickening. There is unrelenting pressure from sun up to sundown. A drive thru Cheyenne Bottoms will turn up 3:1 NR vehicles compared to residents. This is why I’m a proponent of lotteries for the NR duck crowd and limiting of NR deer tags. Both of the Dakotas limit NRs in some fashion and it works. People pay the higher price for licenses and deal with restrictions on allotted hunting time and in turn they have a better chance at a quality experience. If you have an hour to kill read the refuge forums post referenced on page 7.
Yes, and it certainly shows!
You are tired of repeating your unsupported assertions for these annoying little people who keep asking mostly unanswered questions? I hope that isn't KDWPT's stance, too - we'll see.
This has been a very productive discussion for the most part, IMHO , with a couple of notable exceptions. Facts, analysis and honest discussion -good; heuristics - not helpful. KDWPT needs more money 'cause they (you) said so, and if we don't pay them tribute they'll laugh at us. Breaking news - they'll be laughing even harder when you pay them even more for screwing over us, and the wildlife of KS they've been selling.
SHOW us the before and after staffing and funding levels. Very basic information. No insult intended, honest question - are you now, or have you ever been an employee (contractor or direct) of the state of KS? Just trying to understand the underpinnings of your position.
No I have not ever been an employee of the state. Our business is heavily state regulated so we deal with the state employees in our appropriate regulating bodies routinely and also receive some of our funding via Fed money so have to stay up to date on what goes on at the state house. If you are a resident of KS you must not pay attention to the political goings on and underpinnings of our government.
If you dont live here - then fine I'll excuse the ignorance - our state has had cuts in all facets of services the Government typically provides from the DMV, Tags/Titles to the KDWPT - you name it (Any members that are KS residents and have bought a vehicle in the past few years can attest to some of the fiascos that have happened there and this has been an ongoing issue for a # of years)
So if you want hard data I'm sure you'll be able to chase it down - I'm not wasting my time as I dont need to prove a point to you - if you'd like to fact check me you'll be able to find it.
If you think you're going to win any sort of argument by wanting to cut funding to a government entity and win any friends there - then you're sadly mistaken. I wish I could find that podcast Former Sec of Wildlife and Parks Robin Jennison did - he explained in a clear and concise manner how the department needed to be ran and is being ran under present conditions.
KS hardly has any Game wardens - in the western part of the state - one may cover several counties -- Read PrairieDrifters posts and filter through them - I've met him on a couple occasions and he's a great guy - he works for the KDWPT -- he has alluded to some of the things the dept has went through as well....the KDWPT office runs on a lean budget - I live here and see what's going on - I'm not in the court of law where I need to present the facts - other residents have reported the same - You'll find your budgetary concerns somewhere online and by making phone calls if you wish - I guess I'm spending my time typing this reply but dont want to spend the hours it will take to find what you're after. I'd guess you'll find the info either in some department at the Capitol or by connecting with the right person in Pratt at the KDWPT HQ. The state websites are all running on old tech so it's probably going to be hard to find what you're after online unless you know exactly where to go.
As for deer - if you cant understand with the information we've presented you why there is no deer management going on and why herd control and proper management is important - then it's going to be like talking to a fence post. If you dont hunt deer fine - but read up on the subject - understand it and then see what KS allows vs other trophy states such as Iowa, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico etc. Look up their deer regulations for residents v non residents - look at the size of the units - their season dates etc then you may be able to get some sort of understanding in how KS is not doing anything.
I see. Your industry is heavily regulated at the state level, for which you receive Federal funds. To keep receiving fed money, you must stay abreast of state politics, which has provided you with in depth knowledge of KDWPT's mission and funding. That's an intriguing business that you are in - you big tease!
This is an argument, only to the extent that you choose to make it one - although I would point out that your assertion that "I don't need no stinking facts because I don't need to prove anything" sort of validates my point about your input, doesn't it? There has been a lot of good discussion and some excellent information shared here, IMHO. If the result is some impetus toward better resident access, via reduced leasing, due to fewer out of state deer sales - that is a win, in my book. At least we didn't execute the wrong booger men (Farm Bureau, farmers/ranchers and Monsanto) as some suggested at the outset of this exchange of information and views.
NO doubt whatsoever about the very fine front line people at KDWPT (which was the topic of discussion before you expanded it to the DMV, inter alia). That line is spread thin, and I have the utmost respect for every single one of them and what they do. However. That doesn't mean that the people at the top end of that pyramid live by the same rule set. When I call a conservation officer ("game warden") to inquire about this year's plans for dove fields, for instance - I always get a prompt, helpful and courteous response. So far my inquiries about non-resident deer sales at the policy making level, not so much. Which may be a clue here. Your results may vary - I certainly hope so - and will look forward to hearing all about it.
Sounds like the voice of reason - follow the money if you want results.
Although it will probably take about 5 minutes for "experts" to advise otherwise while producing no actual data, facts or evidence to the contrary (jump in, lads) any kind of specific information on KDWPT dollar inflows and outflows has proven elusive to date. However, I did find this broad, generic description of the KDWPT funding process: KDWPT-Funding-Overview-1.pdf (tiak.org)
There may actually be a valuable nugget of actionable information in this link. Which is that apparently a very large part (significant majority, it sounds like) of KDWPT funding actually comes from Federal PR funds. That apparently includes salaries, benefits, perqs, and all forms of overhead. Good news - that sort of decouples KDWPT's lifeblood from non-resident deer sales - right? Nope. Because the take from PR funds is driven by total (resident and non-resident) license and tag sales. Not clear whether this is based on the total dollar take, or the quantity of licenses and tags but it sounds like it is quantity-driven.
Which gives rise to a thought. A, bureaucratic one - but this appears to be a tough nut to crack, and it isn't likely to solve itself (deer extinction wishes in some quarters notwithstanding). Why not increase the quantity of "license and tag" sales by reducing the general hunting (and maybe fishing) license fees greatly - while adding "tag" fees to hunt, say - pheasant, quail, rabbit, squirrel, coyotes - you name it. And perhaps blue cats, flat heads, crappie.... Such that the total cost per resident hunter or fisher averages about the same, but he/she (see, I AM political attuned) has a fistful of "tags" (maybe checkoffs on the backside of the license) to go with it. This ought to increase Kansas' share of the PR money that funds about 75% of the Department sufficiently to offset a reduction in NR deer tags. Plus some, maybe.
I suppose one might say that I am suggesting that we game the system - but isn't that what the Outfitters have already done, to our great detriment?
Kansascutter
Member
Native,
You may be on to something. I’m certain ND does this exact thing. To upland hunt there you have to purchase 3 “licenses”. A Hunting certificate for $2, a General Game/Habitat License for $20 and a small game license for $100. They then limit you to 2 weeks. Waterfowl is a totally separate license. If you want to hunt coyotes you have to purchase a NR furbearer. Maybe they have figured out a “loop hole”. I still think the outfitters need to pony up. There are also NR outfitters that have set up shop. They need to pay even more. They don’t live here and don’t contribute squat to the general tax base throughout the year. Somehow they get to profit off of Kansas wildlife with zero input????? It’s beyond ridiculous.
You may be on to something. I’m certain ND does this exact thing. To upland hunt there you have to purchase 3 “licenses”. A Hunting certificate for $2, a General Game/Habitat License for $20 and a small game license for $100. They then limit you to 2 weeks. Waterfowl is a totally separate license. If you want to hunt coyotes you have to purchase a NR furbearer. Maybe they have figured out a “loop hole”. I still think the outfitters need to pony up. There are also NR outfitters that have set up shop. They need to pay even more. They don’t live here and don’t contribute squat to the general tax base throughout the year. Somehow they get to profit off of Kansas wildlife with zero input????? It’s beyond ridiculous.
KDWPT_Wildlife_Division
New member
"Fast forward to now - there is only one KDWPT biologist worth the money he's paid and he is able to still get WIHA land enrolled that is quality upland habitat near Wichita - the rest has all went away due to deer leasing and likely biologists who dont give a crap."
I wanted to take a second to address this, as the topic being discussed is extremely near and dear to my heart, and the rest of our Wildlife Division staff. We are constantly having this same discussion, day-in and day-out. When we are out leasing WIHA tracts, don't you think we're running into the same issues that the hunter is, when out searching for a quality property to access? It's a struggle in most parts of the state, given our limited budget. We keep plugging away though, day-in and day-out. I think when most folks view our Wildlife Biologists, from the outside, they see Government Employees. These employees are here because they have the same burning desire for the Kansas hunting heritage as all of you on this Forum. Many of them, like myself, only hunt on WIHA lands, as we've invested so much in the program. When we lose a quality tract due to any of the reasons mentioned on this thread, it truly ruins our day.
If we have an employee who "doesn't give a crap", which is highly unlikely, it is because they are as beat down as all of you in regard to the access issues at-hand in our state.
Thank you so much for your clear passion and respect for the wildlife of Kansas! I assure you, our Biologists are hard at work on securing the next great tract of WIHA.
Good feed. I've yet to meet a CO who "doesn't give a crap" - quite the contrary, and I think we can safely assume that game biologists are equally dedicated. Which makes it all the more important to make sure that KS receives a fair cut of the PR funds that pay most of your salary - without out sourcing our wildlife resources. This can - and should - be done; see the new "Are Kansans being shortchanged" thread.