2 day walk in trip

lonejackfool

lonejackfool

Member
i did more planning for this trip than ever. walk in only, because deer season was starting, and knocking would be a waste of time. consulted the drought map, severe storms and hail maps, kdwp forecast and counts, onx hunt map with trees crops and cover filter. i targeted cover (crp, draws, waterways, and fencerows with cover) with bordering crops corn, milo, cut wheat, beans. with those parameters, i easily cut the amount of walk ins that looked possible in half.

i say 8 out of 10 of my best picks turned out to be hayed, mowed, including all waterways, or grazed too much for upland cover. hunting buddy says 9 out of 10. more cows in crop fields bordering the walk ins than usual. the walk in map booklet, after all these years has still not improved its road classifications. we backed out of alot of closed roads that werent marked by sign, walkin book, or onx.

i apparently need a lesson in onx, because im not a fan right now. i could of beat their crop and cover layer with blindfold and a dartboard. they must not have changed last years layer. i have noticed this in 2 states this year.

the fields that did turn out to have some cover had a few pheasant, so we did get a few. only quail seen were roadside.

i don't blame the landowner for lack of upland cover. we do what we think is best for our land and family. its going to take some targeted incentives or complete collapse for upland birds to ever rise again.

i had fun, always great to follow a bird dog, and get a few opportunities.
 
whatsnext said:
Maybe the uplands need something similar to the duck stamp to help pay for habitat and land management.
Click to expand...
Whatever it is, it has to start with landowners. But we could utilize public utilities much better. Farmers don't own to the road, yet crops are planted to the road. Ditches are mowed and sprayed. A little habitat along county roads goes a long way.
 
westksbowhunter said:
Whatever it is, it has to start with landowners. But we could utilize public utilities much better. Farmers don't own to the road, yet crops are planted to the road. Ditches are mowed and sprayed. A little habitat along county roads goes a long way.
Click to expand...
We as hunters are the ones complaining about lack of habitat, so maybe it should start with us trying to make it appealing for farmers to leave some habitat. What is a hunting license cost ? 25 or 30 bucks for a resident, I'm not saying money will fix everything but i do believe that it will never change and only get worse if we don't put more skin in the game somehow.
 
as i said, landowners do what they think is best for their land and family. road right of ways and corners should be targeted as habitat projects like pollinators or warm season buffers. we ran into places where a hot wire was strung on the road side of the ditch to get every last bit of grass. it burns me that dozing out draws/waterways is a cost share program that specifies planting fescue or brome to stop erosion. then allow it to be mowed or hayed. until "farm the best, habitat the rest" becomes a program that pays enough, its not going to happen. government cost share projects should have a percentage of habitat restoration built in as an incentive. not that hard to mandate, if your going to doze out 10 acres of hedgerow or draw, you have to put 2-3 acres back as habitat. with modern farming equipment, you can tell exactly what ground doesn't produce year after year. its a fact that grassland birds need (like) warm season grass hilltops to breed, nest, brood , and loaf. oh well, i get to vent at a QF meeting next week with a department of conservation head of upland. i'm sure i can tell him how to make upland qreat again. that was a joke.

i'm not going to hotspot or coldspot any towns or counties, we covered a small percentage of 4 counties. do your homework, drive and walk your rear off, wear out your dogs, have fun. it could be worse. i will play conservation department game. north central
 
Strength in numbers, it always seems that some KS fellas are the ones dogging PF. PF have lobbyists that try to push our conservation agendas, they can create additional incentives for landowners, they can assist landowners improve habitat. When they partner with other organizations land acqusitions are possible. Go to their annual banquets and take some buddies, spend some money in their raffles and auctions...it all takes money to improve things...are you really wanting to change things? Volunteer to be on their board and help with ideas that can make the changes you want to happen. It is strange how where there are birds and habitat now, the chapters have huge support and where no one supports them, habitat and bird numbers aren't there...coincidence?? Here in NWIA, no one bitches about them as the chapters are making habitat improvements, hosting youth events and such. Their banquets and usually on the verge of sellouts.
 
whatsnext said:
We as hunters are the ones complaining about lack of habitat, so maybe it should start with us trying to make it appealing for farmers to leave some habitat. What is a hunting license cost ? 25 or 30 bucks for a resident, I'm not saying money will fix everything but i do believe that it will never change and only get worse if we don't put more skin in the game somehow.
Click to expand...
Anytime that is brought up people start throwing around the poverty card. “ it will kill the sport because people can’t afford it “. I have seen this argument many other places. I am not rich by any standards, but I would gladly pay an extra fee for better habitat. The problem is we advertise tons of public, long season, year long NR license and the greatest daily limit of any state that allows pheasant hunting. It’s all a fucking smoke show to draw in the tourist dollars. Someone should by prosecuted for fraud. The first thing I would do is raise the license fee and then offer an incentive to farmers that were willing to enroll in CRP with a no hay clause. Make it enticing and you will get takers. But you have to care first and no one cares about bird hunting
 
carptom1 said:
Anytime that is brought up people start throwing around the poverty card. “ it will kill the sport because people can’t afford it “. I have seen this argument many other places. I am not rich by any standards, but I would gladly pay an extra fee for better habitat. The problem is we advertise tons of public, long season, year long NR license and the greatest daily limit of any state that allows pheasant hunting. It’s all a fucking smoke show to draw in the tourist dollars. Someone should by prosecuted for fraud. The first thing I would do is raise the license fee and then offer an incentive to farmers that were willing to enroll in CRP with a no hay clause. Make it enticing and you will get takers. But you have to care first and no one cares about bird hunting
Click to expand...
I buy an out of state license every year for Iowa and Kansas, they could tack on another 100 or 200 dollars if it went to habitat improvement i would gladly pay it with a smile on my face. People waste more money than that a month on stupid stuff that does nothing for anyone, I keep saying that we as hunters need to make it worth it to landowners so they don't hay that waterway and don't plant that ground that really is not that productive. Look at Iowa and how many fields have signs that say the land was made available through the duckstamp program, why couldn't that same principle be applied to a wider range of habitat for the uplands?
 
whatsnext said:
I buy an out of state license every year for Iowa and Kansas, they could tack on another 100 or 200 dollars if it went to habitat improvement i would gladly pay it with a smile on my face. People waste more money than that a month on stupid stuff that does nothing for anyone, I keep saying that we as hunters need to make it worth it to landowners so they don't hay that waterway and don't plant that ground that really is not that productive. Look at Iowa and how many fields have signs that say the land was made available through the duckstamp program, why couldn't that same principle be applied to a wider range of habitat for the uplands?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately as a Kansas resident I see the amount that the state charges for non resident deer tag and licenses and don't know where the money goes. Not speaking ill of the GW and they always seem to be hiring new ones so the extra money isn't going to wages and salaries to retain GW. My guess would be lobbyist and attorneys claiming to help would be the majority of it. What is the state didn't pay for some of the WIHI that is horse pasture? What is the state paid the WIHI based upon the habitat that was there, and would reevaluate the property every 2 years or so, send a warden by to send pictures to Pratt or whoever needs to see it. Maybe the states sells off a section or two of ground they they own but don't allow hunting or fishing on and throw that money towards improving properties. Lots of things can be done by us hunters to help but we unfortunately can't do it all.

At this point my faith in KDWP is dwindling....
 
NR from Colorado here, poking in to say I think this is actually a good thread that covers most of the main angles of the issues we all see. I do still hunt KS every year, and do fairly well, but attribute that more to having a few honey holes that are still dependable, and the fact I hunt by myself. The number of birds I see has certainly declined over the last 5-10 years. I absolutely agree better regulation/fine-tuning of the WIHA enrollments would go a long way, but I'm not holding my breathe on that. And the roadside thing that WestKS addresses - pisses me off every time I see a "bald" ditch, which is getting to be most of the time. I think those strips are a lot more important than people realize.

But sadly, I think Tom's last comment - "no one cares" - is maybe the closest to the truth, and is sort of the flip side of Remy's "strength in numbers"; hard to achieve that when there just aren't that many of us, I'm afraid. Or maybe I'm just getting too old!

And a final note, I agree with whatsnext - I'd have no problem doubling the cost of my NR license if I knew it was going to habitat improvement in some real way.
 
i brought up a federal upland stamp with QF and Conservation Federation of Missouri 8-10 years ago. was pretty thoroughly poo-poo'd. couldn't figure out whether it was just another one of my bad ideas, or just wasn't their idea, or it was just too difficult to pull off, but they weren't interested. just because migratory birds travel several states and a few countries, and use our waterways they are more important and easier to regulate? yet the canary's of the prairie have disappeared at an alarming rate over the past 30 years in several states, even localized extinction in some areas that once had great populations, and the best answer is "if you build it they will come", "its up to the landowner", "its loss of habitat".

im going to raise the upland stamp idea at my next meeting.

kansas sells (roughly) 60,000 nonresident hunting licenses per year. this includes deer, turkey, and migratory. i'll let somebody else work on that math.

im fairly sure cost share projects, and CRP have a system of award by ranking certain parameters. top priority for awarding money should go to projects that create habitat, especially those that are destroying habitat.

last rant, can't somebody come up with a habitat friendly waterway/draw planting specification that does not include fescue or brome?
 
remy3424 said:
Strength in numbers, it always seems that some KS fellas are the ones dogging PF. PF have lobbyists that try to push our conservation agendas, they can create additional incentives for landowners, they can assist landowners improve habitat. When they partner with other organizations land acqusitions are possible. Go to their annual banquets and take some buddies, spend some money in their raffles and auctions...it all takes money to improve things...are you really wanting to change things? Volunteer to be on their board and help with ideas that can make the changes you want to happen. It is strange how where there are birds and habitat now, the chapters have huge support and where no one supports them, habitat and bird numbers aren't there...coincidence?? Here in NWIA, no one bitches about them as the chapters are making habitat improvements, hosting youth events and such. Their banquets and usually on the verge of sellouts.
Click to expand...
Been a member of PF for nearly 30 years.
 
whatsnext said:
We as hunters are the ones complaining about lack of habitat, so maybe it should start with us trying to make it appealing for farmers to leave some habitat. What is a hunting license cost ? 25 or 30 bucks for a resident, I'm not saying money will fix everything but i do believe that it will never change and only get worse if we don't put more skin in the game somehow.
Click to expand...
I will pay $1000 or more each year for a license if it helps improve habitat.
 
carptom1 said:
Anytime that is brought up people start throwing around the poverty card. “ it will kill the sport because people can’t afford it “. I have seen this argument many other places. I am not rich by any standards, but I would gladly pay an extra fee for better habitat. The problem is we advertise tons of public, long season, year long NR license and the greatest daily limit of any state that allows pheasant hunting. It’s all a fucking smoke show to draw in the tourist dollars. Someone should by prosecuted for fraud. The first thing I would do is raise the license fee and then offer an incentive to farmers that were willing to enroll in CRP with a no hay clause. Make it enticing and you will get takers. But you have to care first and no one cares about bird hunting
Click to expand...
I think the KDWP implemented WIHA with deer hunters in mind, not upland game. It just seems ironic that the WIHA program and NR deer hunting both started in 1995. Prior to 1995 you could get permission to hunt almost anywhere you asked. The WIHA was strictly for NR hunting.
 
remy3424 said:
Strength in numbers, it always seems that some KS fellas are the ones dogging PF. PF have lobbyists that try to push our conservation agendas, they can create additional incentives for landowners, they can assist landowners improve habitat. When they partner with other organizations land acqusitions are possible. Go to their annual banquets and take some buddies, spend some money in their raffles and auctions...it all takes money to improve things...are you really wanting to change things? Volunteer to be on their board and help with ideas that can make the changes you want to happen. It is strange how where there are birds and habitat now, the chapters have huge support and where no one supports them, habitat and bird numbers aren't there...coincidence?? Here in NWIA, no one bitches about them as the chapters are making habitat improvements, hosting youth events and such. Their banquets and usually on the verge of sellouts.
Click to expand...

PF is pretty worthless like most 501(c)(3)'s -- follow the money. If you are ever near KC/Lawrence/Topeka I'd love to buy you lunch or coffee and have a civil discussion - change my mind. I dont buy what they are selling - I used to until I did more digging. They're good at spinning to bird hunters - I'll give them that.
 
KsHusker said:
PF is pretty worthless like most 501(c)(3)'s -- follow the money. If you are ever near KC/Lawrence/Topeka I'd love to buy you lunch or coffee and have a civil discussion - change my mind. I dont buy what they are selling - I used to until I did more digging. They're good at spinning to bird hunters - I'll give them that.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with following the money. And its no different if you added $1,000 to the license cost... The state, KDWP, you name the bureaucrat will find a way to screw off any additional money that we donate. Another fine example as to why you should not rely on the government to manage your money and tell you how to live.
 
lonejackfool said:
as i said, landowners do what they think is best for their land and family. road right of ways and corners should be targeted as habitat projects like pollinators or warm season buffers. we ran into places where a hot wire was strung on the road side of the ditch to get every last bit of grass. it burns me that dozing out draws/waterways is a cost share program that specifies planting fescue or brome to stop erosion. then allow it to be mowed or hayed. until "farm the best, habitat the rest" becomes a program that pays enough, its not going to happen. government cost share projects should have a percentage of habitat restoration built in as an incentive. not that hard to mandate, if your going to doze out 10 acres of hedgerow or draw, you have to put 2-3 acres back as habitat. with modern farming equipment, you can tell exactly what ground doesn't produce year after year. its a fact that grassland birds need (like) warm season grass hilltops to breed, nest, brood , and loaf. oh well, i get to vent at a QF meeting next week with a department of conservation head of upland. i'm sure i can tell him how to make upland qreat again. that was a joke.

i'm not going to hotspot or coldspot any towns or counties, we covered a small percentage of 4 counties. do your homework, drive and walk your rear off, wear out your dogs, have fun. it could be worse. i will play conservation department game. north central
Click to expand...
You should know most of the time the farmer/rancher owns the land to the middle of the road so be careful about that argument. That is the #1 pet peeve of landowners and ditch hunting.
 
Weimdogman said:
You should know most of the time the farmer/rancher owns the land to the middle of the road so be careful about that argument. That is the #1 pet peeve of landowners and ditch hunting.
Click to expand...
I thought there was a supreme Court decision saying they didn't. Maybe I am not remembering correctly though.
 
roughneck09 said:
I completely agree with following the money. And its no different if you added $1,000 to the license cost... The state, KDWP, you name the bureaucrat will find a way to screw off any additional money that we donate. Another fine example as to why you should not rely on the government to manage your money and tell you how to live.
Click to expand...
I don't think its about that, its more about paying for a renewable resource that we are using. While i agree with the sentiment of relying on the government for managing money and how to live, The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and The Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act, and the duck stamps have been fairly successful . Why cant something like that be done for the uplands that would not just benefit bird hunting but also deer, grassland's, insects , water etc etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top