Are Kansans being shortchanged? (Yes)

K

KSnative

Active member
Pittman-Robertson funds (federal tax on sporting and shooting goods as most all know) appear not to be equitably distributed. See 6th page down, here:
WRFinalApportionment2020.pdf (fws.gov)

KS shows about $11 mil in receipts - about the same as Virginia, with which I am personally familiar. Not much to commend the state, for upland game or - for that matter - trophy deer. Same for North Carolina - another state that I am well acquainted with --- and they are allocated about 50% MORE than KS. Same for OK which, at the least, I'd think would be on par w/KS.

Fire at will.
 
It is all about the matrix. We have the acres, we just don't have the number of licenses sold as more populous states. That is why R3 is the buzz word of the day!
 
Prairie Drifter said:
It is all about the matrix. We have the acres, we just don't have the number of licenses sold as more populous states. That is why R3 is the buzz word of the day!
Click to expand...
Oklahoma has 50% more license sales than Kansas - even with the active out of state marketing of Kansas deer? Virginia has about the same as KS-
I doubt one percent of Virginians, especially in the populous areas (NOVA, Richmond, Norfolk) buy licenses.
 
Prairie Drifter said:
It is all about the matrix. We have the acres, we just don't have the number of licenses sold as more populous states. That is why R3 is the buzz word of the day!
Click to expand...
I'll bite - what is "R3"?

Noting that acreage is a definite plus for Kansas (which is half the basis for apportionment) -- and given the relative paucity of PR funding to KS, it would be very useful to examine the other half, i.e., "license" sales as a percentage of US totals. Looking at the states that immediately abut KS, in the last year for which numbers are available, KS got about $11mil - but MO and OK each got nearly DOUBLE that. Each. Are their hunting opportunities (and sales) really twice as good as ours? Poor Nebraska did just about as poorly as KS did - but best I can tell, aren't nearly aggressive in their non-resident wildlife marketing activities.

It would appear that KS is leaving a lot on the table, and making up the difference (inadvertently, perhaps) at the expense of Kansas residents by promoting deer leases vis non-resident sales. Surely we can improve significantly on this, in ways that would not increase costs to KS taxpayers - but would restore some of the lost resident hunting access.
 
Prairie Drifter said:
It is all about the matrix. We have the acres, we just don't have the number of licenses sold as more populous states. That is why R3 is the buzz word of the day!
Click to expand...

Troy R3 is a good concept - however the chicken or the egg argument pops up here regarding access issues.

If KS wants to sell more licenses you can sell more licenses with good upland opportunities vs people buying deer tags. I just do not understand why the folks making the regs do not understand that. When I get around to it I'll make some comparative spreadsheets of what other states sell that are more upland focused and economic impact vs having a free for all on deer and taking the low hanging fruit. That probably wont be for a month or two as I've got some other projects I'm working on. PR Funds should have seen a boon with Corona Virus in 2020 if there was a silver lining to it -- more and more people were looking to do more activities outside and many places were sold out of outdoor gear/fishing equip etc.

Hope you've been able to get the setters out this year.
 
KsHusker said:
Troy R3 is a good concept - however the chicken or the egg argument pops up here regarding access issues.

If KS wants to sell more licenses you can sell more licenses with good upland opportunities vs people buying deer tags. I just do not understand why the folks making the regs do not understand that. When I get around to it I'll make some comparative spreadsheets of what other states sell that are more upland focused and economic impact vs having a free for all on deer and taking the low hanging fruit. That probably wont be for a month or two as I've got some other projects I'm working on. PR Funds should have seen a boon with Corona Virus in 2020 if there was a silver lining to it -- more and more people were looking to do more activities outside and many places were sold out of outdoor gear/fishing equip etc.

Hope you've been able to get the setters out this year.
Click to expand...
Or, you could just work the system like most of our neighboring states do, to rake in the PR money being left on the table. Hence, no need to externally market any of KS wildlife resources, furred or feathered. Meaning more access and less crowding for Kansans.
 
Our chunk is about to get smaller. Colorado has gone to requiring hunting or fishing licenses to access state owned land. When that becomes the norm Kansas at 49 on the list of percentage of federal and state owned public land is ......well you know.
 
BrownDogsCan2 said:
Our chunk is about to get smaller. Colorado has gone to requiring hunting or fishing licenses to access state owned land. When that becomes the norm Kansas at 49 on the list of percentage of public land is ......well you know.
Click to expand...
I am assuming you mean, our chunk will get smaller of we don't make changes in the way we structure tabulate license sales. Which is doable. In short order. Do you plan to point this out to our Commissioners, and maybe their boss?
 
KSnative said:
I am assuming you mean, our chunk will get smaller of we don't make changes in the way we structure tabulate license sales. Which is doable. In short order. Do you plan to point this out to our Commissioners, and maybe their boss?
Click to expand...
I think our chunk is going to get smaller regardless. We don't have the natural resources to attract the non hunter and fisher.
What we do have is nonresidents willing to pay 10 times what a resident is charged to shoot a deer or 20 times that if an instate bird hunter. We probably have lost 50 percent of our resident hunters and that is partly to blame. But financially which one makes more sense.
 
Last edited:
BrownDogsCan2 said:
I think our chunk is going to get smaller regardless. We don't have the natural resources to attract the non hunter and fisher.
What we do have is nonresidents willing to pay 10 times what a resident is charged to shoot a deer. We probably have lost 50 percent of our resident hunters and that is partly to blame. But financially which one makes more sense.
Click to expand...
Not sure where you are wanting to go here. More of the same?

The facts are the Pittman-Robertson pays for our KDWPT for the most part, and we have (inadvertently, I fervently hope) left large sums of PR money on the table by not following the same models for structuring and tabulating license sales that most of our neighbors have. We have a lot of room to help ourselves, without resorting to selling out KS wildlife resources - and Kansans.
 
KSnative said:
Not sure where you are wanting to go here. More of the same?

The facts are the Pittman-Robertson pays for our KDWPT for the most part, and we have (inadvertently, I fervently hope) left large sums of PR money on the table by not following the same models for structuring and tabulating license sales that most of our neighbors have. We have a lot of room to help ourselves, without resorting to selling out KS wildlife resources - and Kansans.
Click to expand...
I’m not following you either. We have 1.2 million acres of state leased land 75 percent funded by pr money and the other 25 percent mostly funded by the out of state hunters we all like to hate. So what’s the solution short of limiting nonresidents and being underfunded, or charging residents an exorbitant amount of money.
And let’s face it, no amount of t in kdwpt in goiing to bring many into the state to spend their summers at the state parks
 
BrownDogsCan2 said:
I’m not following you either. We have 1.2 million acres of state leased land 75 percent funded by pr money and the other 25 percent mostly funded by the out of state hunters we all like to hate. So what’s the solution short of limiting nonresidents and being underfunded, or charging residents an exorbitant amount of money.
And let’s face it, no amount of t in kdwpt in goiing to bring many into the state to spend their summers at the state parks
Click to expand...
Not sure I understand what solution you are proposing - annex Colorado, with its ample non-private lands? I think we could take 'em, if accounts that they are mostly stoned are correct.

I don't hate out of state hunters. I AM one (although I was born, bred and hope to die in KS, where my heart has always been). I somehow doubt that 100% of out-of-state hunters will cease and desist buying KS licenses if the number of NR deer licenses issued are halved - check any Motel 6 parking lot in the western 2/3 of the state for the pheasant opener. And more importantly - kind of the main point - more Kansans will have better access, leading to more Kansans and, especially, fewer kids wearing their thumbs out on video games vice enjoying some healthy outdoor play time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top