Brownback Administration to Ramp Up Promotion of Hunting

waterdog09 said:
Ok here goes, I have read every post on this topic and cannot believe what I am hearing!! I am from MN and can tell you that from the days that I was a kid hunting with my dad to what it is now, is a large contrast....When I was a child hunting in SW MN with him 25 years ago there were birds everywhere. Now we are finally starting to get some of them back. As for the govenor speaking out about this in a public forum, I see no problem with it. If you would look up some facts about what SD does on a yearly basis as far as resident and non-resident hunters I will clue you in on it sense I looked up the figures because this topic and discussion was driving me nuts. SD in 2009 the resident hunters spent 40.9 million dollars, compared to almost 200 million from non-resident out of state hunters!!! that is almost 5 times the amount! I can tell you from 17 years of hunting experience in SD that the bird populations have done nothing but gone up, right now the 10yr average is up over 13% and I know for the fact that there were more than a few tough winters in that time that brought the population back down. For all you people that a worried about out of staters coming in and buying up all the land and leasing everything. I only have one thing to say, don't worry about it!! I for one do not have the money to do this, but can tell you from my years hunting in SD that this has done nothing but improve hunting for all the people that hunt in the area. One, the farmers become concerned about the habitat on there land and what happens on there land as far as birds go, when this happens habitat improves and we all benefit!! If they plant shelter belts and CRP for hunters to come in and hunt, this benefits everyone not just the guys that get to hunt that land, the birds move around. I hunt a mix of public and private land, and can tell you that any public ground that is close to a nice private field, has just as many birds on it! Also I don't know if you can hunt road ditches in KS but in SD you can hunt them and I can tell you that it is some of the best hunting in SD, this is all made possible by hunters (non residents) and farmers working together even if it may be for leasing/buying land. Again we all benefit from this. So to all you residents, stop your bitching about this because in the long run it will benefit you more than if your state doesn't promote it's great hunting!!!
Click to expand...

you make some good points, and i for one will be the first one to look at the opinion of another. I do agree that an influx of cash can certainly influence the habitat and bird numbers. I also agree that habitat benefits everyone not just the land that it is on. Were we differ is the ability of our state to pull off what south dakota has. For one there is no ditch hunting in kansas, not legally anyway. For another out of state license fees in south dakota are a cash cow. As you well know your license buys you two five day periods in a season. In kansas 72.00 buys you unlimited access for the nearly 3 months it runs. What you have to realize is that for a bunch of us we have been a little shell shocked the last few years from the volumes of out of staters hunting here. When surrounding states Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa had good upland opportunities, you basically had kansas to yourself after thanksgiving. I went out on a couple of saturdays in december last year and was amazed at the amount of out of state hunters pounding the ground that late in the year. I don't think anyone on here wants no out of staters, but we are a little worried about the way it is going. I just wish these other states would get there chit together so there would be good opportunities in other states. I used to have great hunts in Iowa and Missouri.
 
waterdog09 said:
For all you people that a worried about out of staters coming in and buying up all the land and leasing everything. I only have one thing to say, don't worry about it!! I for one do not have the money to do this, but can tell you from my years hunting in SD that this has done nothing but improve hunting for all the people that hunt in the area.
Click to expand...

You state "don't worry about it". I didn't used to worry about it, then I lost the main place I hunted in eastern Kansas due to leasing. Probably what bothers me the most is it was family ground, that I grew up on. We lost the private property in western Kansas we had hunted for 5 or 6 years due to it being leased.

I'm not whining, I understand I have the opportunity to pay for a lease just the same as happened on those two farms, and I have the opportunity to buy my own property, its all about capitalism.

Don't say it won't happen, because it does. Add in the fact that Kansas is one of the top states that hunters want to deer hunt in, and you're not only competing against pheasant hunters for land, but deer hunters as well.
 
waterdog09 said:
Ok here goes, I have read every post on this topic and cannot believe what I am hearing!! I am from MN and can tell you that from the days that I was a kid hunting with my dad to what it is now, is a large contrast....When I was a child hunting in SW MN with him 25 years ago there were birds everywhere. Now we are finally starting to get some of them back. As for the govenor speaking out about this in a public forum, I see no problem with it. If you would look up some facts about what SD does on a yearly basis as far as resident and non-resident hunters I will clue you in on it sense I looked up the figures because this topic and discussion was driving me nuts. SD in 2009 the resident hunters spent 40.9 million dollars, compared to almost 200 million from non-resident out of state hunters!!! that is almost 5 times the amount! I can tell you from 17 years of hunting experience in SD that the bird populations have done nothing but gone up, right now the 10yr average is up over 13% and I know for the fact that there were more than a few tough winters in that time that brought the population back down. For all you people that a worried about out of staters coming in and buying up all the land and leasing everything. I only have one thing to say, don't worry about it!! I for one do not have the money to do this, but can tell you from my years hunting in SD that this has done nothing but improve hunting for all the people that hunt in the area. One, the farmers become concerned about the habitat on there land and what happens on there land as far as birds go, when this happens habitat improves and we all benefit!! If they plant shelter belts and CRP for hunters to come in and hunt, this benefits everyone not just the guys that get to hunt that land, the birds move around. I hunt a mix of public and private land, and can tell you that any public ground that is close to a nice private field, has just as many birds on it! Also I don't know if you can hunt road ditches in KS but in SD you can hunt them and I can tell you that it is some of the best hunting in SD, this is all made possible by hunters (non residents) and farmers working together even if it may be for leasing/buying land. Again we all benefit from this. So to all you residents, stop your bitching about this because in the long run it will benefit you more than if your state doesn't promote it's great hunting!!!
Click to expand...



I respect your opinion, but SD and KS are like comparing apples to oranges. We are not the same makeup.

SD has way more public land hunting opportunities than KS ever will. And until you have lived here most of your life and seen first hand what it was, where we've been and what we've turned into and are likely headed, then Id heed your opinion a little more on KS.

The residents here dont want to keep all non residents out, we simply want to have the opportunities for all, right now we do not. As far as habitat, its not getting better, A lot of ground is coming out of CRP and being reclaimed for farm land. In the interim its good for birds as the ground is partially disked with some residual loafing cover, thinned out etc...however once its fully reclaimed for farmland to be planted to wheat, corn or whatever, Im wondering how this will affect things.

As many have said, I have never in my life seen as many people from out of state hunting ground here in the sheer numbers and all throughout the season. The past few years, after deer season most people would be at home and not hunting KS. Not so this year.

We simply dont want to become the next Texas which is quickly the way we are headed.

If you'd like proof on diminishing opportunties for hunters, residents and non residents alike, Ive kept every WIHA atlas since the programs inception. If I had a way to scan them in or obtain digital copies of all of them and post them online I would. Opportunites have greatly diminished, and often great hunting spots enrolled in WIHA that I have kept track of are leased within a year or two. Sometimes it seems the WIHA program is nothing but a free showcase for people who want to lease the land when the WIHA contract is up.

Just my .02
 
RoosterTim said:
For this reason we as a group must contact our legislators and ask for an increase in the amount the land owner gets to enroll in the walk-in hunting program with the stipulation that the land be somewhat managed for wildlife. I have a strong belief that Kansas can lead the way in this keeping hunting great and accessible to the average Joe.
Click to expand...

Just guessing here . . . but my guess is that the Brownback administration looks at the WIHA program as socialism, the government being in the business of hunting rather than merely policing hunters by enforcing licensing and regulation requirements. I am guessing they will take a run at reducing or eliminating the WIHA program to eliminate government "waste." I HOPE I AM WRONG.
 
Add in the fact that Kansas is one of the top states that hunters want to deer hunt in, and you're not only competing against pheasant hunters for land, but deer hunters as well.[/QUOTE]

I think the deer hunting is a larger factor to this than we might think. I think the main factor in TX going to lease is deer hunting. I have seen more and more TX deer hunter up in the flint hills in recent years all trying to find some walk in ground to set up for the season and with Manhattan's booming economy its just getting more and more crowded.

To me this is not about the increased revenue from hunting which I think we can all agree that would be a huge increase for the birds and habitat its about loosing what I consider the greatest public/private cooperative hunting has seen. I know of no other state where a person can get in his vehicle and drive 3 hours and be guaranteed a place to hunt with out making prior arrangements.
 
My concern with this topic isn't the "average Joe" that comes up here to enjoy some hunting - it's the not-so-average Joe with a fat wallet, or a group of them that decide leasing acreage by the thousands is the way to go.

I too think the deer hunters are much more of a threat than our pheasant hunting brethren. Have you seen how much some of those outfitters charge for a five-day deer camp ?!? :eek: However, I imagine there are lots of folks that would lease land just for upland hunting opportunities as well.

On the other hand, how much does Kansas actually spend on advertising our hunting opportunities? Does anyone know? I sure don't. I've only seen some "Welcome Hunters" signs and such on the highway. I think television programs coupled with our excellent public hunting program are more to blame than anything when it comes to drawing hunters into the state. Almost every week you can turn on Versus or the Outdoor Channel and some guy is taking a huge mulie or whitetail, or hammering pheasants and quail.
 
Wiha

I've posted this before, and for the record I grew up hunting in SE Kansas, and I own land there today, half of my extended family are Kansans, and are spread out from Greenbush to Longford. My point is,I have a vested interest as well, no more than any of you here, but certainly not less. I live in Missouri, the state of Missouri has done little but pay lip service to efforts to rebuild quail and pheasant populations, or provide access to private acreage within the state. Currently, besides a pilot program of habitat manipulation on public wildlife areas, nothing is planned. It takes money, and the best funded conservation department in America, doesn't want to spend the coin, prefering to invest in urban nature centers and elk stocking in the ozarks. I hate to tell you but from a management effort KDWP, is not a lot different, with the exception of the WIHA program. Kansas has the last of the best of what upland hunting is left. It's not due to Kansas's enlightened management, it's due to a happy accident of fate! If the weather and soil allowed, Kansas would be, and in some places is, an endless, birdless, featureless, landscape of plowed and vacant fields, like much of Illinois. and points farther east. Those of you who lament to influx of out of staters, need to look in the mirror, and get a reality check. It might surprise you that the state of Kansas doesn't give a rip if you hunt or not, they won't tell you that because it wouldn't be politically correct. The fact remains the WIHA program is aimed at non-residents and beginning hunters, not the veteran resident hunter. Do you think your 10.00 permits pay for all that acreage? Hardly, it's paid for largely, by Pittman Robertson grants from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. People who buy arms and ammo all over the country pay for Kansas WIHA. Most of these people will never hunt or fish in Kansas. In fact a better argument would be that the rest of the country subsidizes Kansas residents and their access to WIHA acres. OH yes, there will be your response that some, and I emphasize "some" amount of "general" fund money in the form of matching funds to qualify for the Pittman money is required, and because you are tax payers contribute in that way as well, but the fact remains that without Federal subsidy, this program would not exist or would be dramatically smaller. Kansans paid taxes for over 100 years and ever had a WIHA program until the Pittman grants were available. What I read on this blog, the continuing vilification of non-residents, and whinning about competition, embarrasses me on your behalf. If you don't like competition I would encourage you to follow my lead, buy land, and or go scrounge up some private contacts like the good old days, and leave the WIHA's to the newbies and out of staters, the state tourism board/KDWP and state economy will thank you. Might even change the hunter/landowner culture for the better.
 
oldandnew said:
I've posted this before, and for the record I grew up hunting in SE Kansas, and I own land there today, half of my extended family are Kansans, and are spread out from Greenbush to Longford. ............If you don't like competition I would encourage you to follow my lead, buy land, and or go scrounge up some private contacts like the good old days, and leave the WIHA's to the newbies and out of staters, the state tourism board/KDWP and state economy will thank you. Might even change the hunter/landowner culture for the better.
Click to expand...


I honestly really dont care where the funds for the WIHA program comes from. I personally have come to hate it and wish it'd go away, if it did many people would stop coming here and it'd solve numerous problems. A lot of the land enrolled anymore is mismanaged garbage or CRP so thick that only a deer would love it. x We'll agree to disagree.


The change in farming practices, habitat and the pimping out of the deer herd are the main reasons the bird #'s arent what they used to be.

As far as the previous posters comments about deer, Deer Hunting is the key to the whole issue. The WIHA program opened about the same time out of state deer hunting opened up here and the rest is history. I deer hunt myself and had nearly given up on it until about 6 years ago when I made a good friend that I shared the same views and interests with who happened to have some connections to the land still. I was more than happy to introduce him to bird dogs which Im glad he took a liking too. I still have to drive 4 hours from where I live to have any sort of decent access to deer without having to annually mortgage my house.

Old and New - you say you have ties to SE KS - you of anyone should have noticed how there is virtually no WIHA in Eastern KS much less SE KS anymore, there used to be plenty of it, now theres a leased sign everywhere you go, you can thank your MO, AR, TX and OK bretheren for that. I used to hunt that way all the time as the quail hunting used to be pretty good, not anymore, the deer, as Ive stated, I dont want to mortgage my house to shoot one, so they can continue running into cars and destroying farmers crops there.

As a side note, theres a unique feature in western KS that attracts every damn white tail for 10 miles once gun season opens up and it turns into a 3 ring circus. My buddy happened to get the owner that owns a good chunk of land surrounding this feature to let him shed hunt the other weekend....the owner was complaining about the #'s of deer but he doesnt let anyone hunt??????? We've asked to just shoot does (you'd have one, and if you had a semi auto way more than that in 10 minutes in the morning) but he doesnt want them to be shot....I just want to smack the guy in the back of the head...they tear the fences up, destroy the crops around there and the genetics of the bucks is getting crappy as there are too many now. I just dont understand some peoples line of thinking. I believe the KDWP has even been on the owners to do something about it as well, as the way this place is, the local herd is setting itself up for problems if they ever get a case of CWD. Its in cattle country and that wouldnt bode well for anyone.

Anyways, I dont see our situation improving.


People here and other parts of the US who have no birds still cant seem to get it through their heads that loss of and lack of habitat, farming practices etc are the reasons there are no birds. The same things are happening here, they have just been happening slower than elsewhere.

As far you you trying to discount any sort of economic impact I have on my local community and state, I take offense to that argument, I guess all the sales tax I pay on purchases throughout the year (the same sales tax a non resident pays for the 2 days hes here), my vehicle taxes, property tax, income tax, gas tax, utilities tax, telecom tax, air tax (i kid but christ, KS taxes everything) mean nothing. :rolleyes:

The jury is out on the new administration, but quite frankly Im sick of lifelong politicians. I didnt vote for Brownback and in his later Senate years didnt care for him much. His office would never respond to anything, Pat Roberts would at least have an Aide personally respond to any comments you would send him. We need term limits on everyone.
 
Last edited:
Kansas will lose more ground to lease hunters, it is inevitable and BB will accelerate the process with wrong headed policies.

i don't go to SD because of the ridiculous prices for pheasant hunting and the lack of sufficient public land to hunt, so i spend most of my time in Kansas.

incidentally, i would never pay the huge NR fee to shoot a stinking deer in Kansas, but the season long upland game license is reasonable...if they screw that up and try to sell 10 day licenses like SD, i am done in Kansas too.

we'll see what happens, but i am betting it won't be good.
 
This is typical B.S. from "todays" politicians (American royalty). The WIHA program is great but will probabley die on the vine in the short order as the states resources are exploited for commercial value. Once the resources are expended then what will be left is a failed policy and a few that "got theirs" while the getting was good.
Kansas has less than 1% of public land (not counting WIHA's) and probabley won't invest in more even as they try to exploit the state. It seems that half of that is "quarranteened" in the name of conservation as game preserves and most of whats left is "ok" at best. If they got serious and purchased LARGE amounts of land, then managed that land, it might work out for all and we would at least have something more stable than the WIHA's. In the 90's the state of Georgia started a program (I think it was called Preservation 2000 or something like that) by adding a few dollars to license sales then began purchasing large amounts of land for public hunting and conservation. It seemed to work.
 
oldandnew said:
I've posted this before, and for the record I grew up hunting in SE Kansas, and I own land there today, half of my extended family are Kansans, and are spread out from Greenbush to Longford. My point is,I have a vested interest as well, no more than any of you here, but certainly not less. I live in Missouri, the state of Missouri has done little but pay lip service to efforts to rebuild quail and pheasant populations, or provide access to private acreage within the state. Currently, besides a pilot program of habitat manipulation on public wildlife areas, nothing is planned. It takes money, and the best funded conservation department in America, doesn't want to spend the coin, prefering to invest in urban nature centers and elk stocking in the ozarks. I hate to tell you but from a management effort KDWP, is not a lot different, with the exception of the WIHA program. Kansas has the last of the best of what upland hunting is left. It's not due to Kansas's enlightened management, it's due to a happy accident of fate! If the weather and soil allowed, Kansas would be, and in some places is, an endless, birdless, featureless, landscape of plowed and vacant fields, like much of Illinois. and points farther east. Those of you who lament to influx of out of staters, need to look in the mirror, and get a reality check. It might surprise you that the state of Kansas doesn't give a rip if you hunt or not, they won't tell you that because it wouldn't be politically correct. The fact remains the WIHA program is aimed at non-residents and beginning hunters, not the veteran resident hunter. Do you think your 10.00 permits pay for all that acreage? Hardly, it's paid for largely, by Pittman Robertson grants from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. People who buy arms and ammo all over the country pay for Kansas WIHA. Most of these people will never hunt or fish in Kansas. In fact a better argument would be that the rest of the country subsidizes Kansas residents and their access to WIHA acres. OH yes, there will be your response that some, and I emphasize "some" amount of "general" fund money in the form of matching funds to qualify for the Pittman money is required, and because you are tax payers contribute in that way as well, but the fact remains that without Federal subsidy, this program would not exist or would be dramatically smaller. Kansans paid taxes for over 100 years and ever had a WIHA program until the Pittman grants were available. What I read on this blog, the continuing vilification of non-residents, and whinning about competition, embarrasses me on your behalf. If you don't like competition I would encourage you to follow my lead, buy land, and or go scrounge up some private contacts like the good old days, and leave the WIHA's to the newbies and out of staters, the state tourism board/KDWP and state economy will thank you. Might even change the hunter/landowner culture for the better.
Click to expand...

Old and new, you bring up some good points, but you've missed the target a bit on a few items. I'll try to explain. For starters, our upland bird decline is "landscape wide". In as much as KDWP only owns, leases, or manages less than 1%, the effects of the best management would be only slight. If you look at those acres, many of them are located on riparian corridors (as are most of the Bureau of Reclamation and Corps of Engineers reservoirs) and are more conducive to deer and turkey habitat than upland game. Consider too that changing those acres management to make them more productive for upland game could cost as much per acre a buying upland acres, then it makes little sense to change them and more sense to manage them for deer and turkey. Conversely, if 99% or so is held in private ownership, then the greatest capability to reverse the decline is on private acres. KDWP will work with land owners that want to improve their acreage for any game animal, but they have no capability to encourage land owners who don't want to spend money on that pursuit to do so.

When funding comes into question, even many of our legislators don't understand the federal nexus related to the PR funds. To start, no State General Funds are spent on WIHA. If my information is correct, the only State General Funds that KDWP receives goes largely to the Parks Division. The PR funds are based on a matrix that includes license sales, state population, and a number of other variables that set the maximum $ amount that can be drawn down. When license $ are spent on a PR approved project, then for every $1 that is spent from the license fund, $.75 is drawn down from PR. One estimate I heard was that a $20 license is actually worth about $27 when the PR money is counted with it. Along with all of these equations are rules for spending those federal $. They generally say that the money must be spent on Hunt, Fish, Furharvest, and Wildlife Viewing if you look at both PR and DJ. From what I've heard, Mr. Brownback wants to expand WIHA and, KDWP has received a federal grant of $1.5 million the first year and $4 million over the following 2 years that they will be using toward that end. There are problems competing with private renters who pay higher prices for land that the KDWP can afford. This is why many of the WIHA acres are upland oriented. Deer habitat is too expensive. In the eastern part of the state there is a higher density of deer and turkey habitat and finding landowners willing to lease to the WIHA program is more difficult. The same is true around population centers.

Purchasing land was mentioned. The fact that land prices are now in the $1000-$2000 per acre range, the KDWP can lease 100-400X the amount of land with the same funds. Further, there is quite a bit of resistence to public ownership of land in some groups. As I mentioned earlier, much of the land owned and managed by KDWP is not the upland habitat we favor fo bird hunting. The addition of WIHA gives upland hunters the acres to hunt. The system of planting and managing those acres has improved since 1985, but there are still problems keeping CRP from getting too rank, being invaded by trees, and productive as brood-rearing habitat. The USDA is responsible for the contract management for those CRP contracts and we depend on them to enforce management requirements that keep these acres productive. This is getting long, so I'll leave it here.
 
Last edited:
Troy, that's why I'm glad Pheasants Forever has established Farm Bill Biologists in the Western third of the State to consult land owners in design and development of upland habitat, and also to assist in obtaining government money for these projects. I believe there are only two at the moment, but it's a start.

As for the question of funding, who actually knows dollar-for-dollar where our state and federal dollars go. I did find a draft of a previous fiscal year report on the WIHA program in Kansas, where it states that nearly 48% of the total funding came from the state general fund. If you run the numbers for State to Federal dollars without the overspend, it was originally supposed to be exactly one-third of the total cost. Overspending, which is described in the report brought that total to 47.8% I hope that puts the issue that "Kansas residents only pay a small fraction" argument to bed. I'll let the numbers argue for themselves. :D

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie...ts/Example of Hunter Access Annual Report.pdf
 
Last edited:
I'd say you may have better numbers than I have. I work on the public land side, if I can come up with better numbers, I'll try to straighten out my post. I'm coming more from the knowledge of being told almost all of our general funds go to parks than knowing what goes to WIHA.

Yes, the PF bios in western Kansas are sure a plus. I have one coming up to tour my wildlife area in about a week. Where many of our biologists are spending significant parts of their year enrolling and posting WIHA tracts, the PF bios can work with landowners on helping them utilize the numerous federal programs to stabilize their income and create wildlife habitat at the same time. I heard the head researcher from Mississipi State talk at the PF annual meeting over a year ago. He contends we can achieve our upland bird goals if we can get landowners at a landscape scale to enroll unproductive acres into these federal programs. It's a huge undertaking, but achievable.
 
Wildcat, I read your study and the numbers are actually 2/3rds federal, 1/3rd KDWP funds of which non was identified as Kansas general funds,but rather fees from internal funding like license sales. The breakout was a little under 900,000 state,and 1,800,000 federal. It also states that of the sample of hunter survey done by KDWP,there were twice as many Kansas residents using WIHA as non- residents, 200 + to 100+. If I missed something please advise, but as Troy stated no general fund money was included or used, only funds from the user fees to support the activity. Amount available is determined by the amount of use and funds spent toward that pursuit. I continue to contend that the WIHA program is largely subsidized by the non-residents, and Federal money from USFW, but you miss my point completely, I as a non-resident don't mind a bit, what I object to is the continued vilification of non-residents as is prominent on this very post. I think that it is the non-resident interest in Kansas that makes the WIHA program work. In the eyes of the Federal grant program for access, each non-resident is worth at least 3.5 times the value of a resident. I suspect the state tourism department has the same data. Same can be said about Missouri or any other state, the most amazing example being Alaska.
 
You're right Old and New! Nonresident deer licenses and the associated nonresident hunting licenses are a significant source of income for the department. Those out-of-state dollars are spent in Kansas on programs that will always benefit Kansans. It is unwarranted to vilify them as they are the same as we are. They pay for the opportunity to come and join us in the field just as we pay to visit their back yards.
 
Brian, I called my private lands biologist buddy and he confirmed that license $ and PR $ pay for WIHA. State General funds are not being used for WIHA.
 
oldandnew said:
Wildcat, I read your study and the numbers are actually 2/3rds federal, 1/3rd KDWP funds of which non was identified as Kansas general funds,but rather fees from internal funding like license sales. The breakout was a little under 900,000 state,and 1,800,000 federal.
Click to expand...

Yeah apologies for that transposition error with my numbers. I had a wedding yesterday, so I had been hitting the bottle a little. :D I also re-read the report, and seen no mention of General Fund usage - again, apologies.

I suppose I'm on the other side of the coin that you are. Besides licensing costs, I dump just as much money into the state economy as non-residents do when I go out upland hunting. I'm not fortunate enough to have pheasants in my back yard, so I have to go out and chase them same as anyone driving in with tags from another state.

I hope you don't think I'm trying to "vilify" all non-residents, I just think that if the state does slowly convert to a lease-to-hunt system, it's going to be due to the demand of out-of-state hunters who share the lease-to-hunt mentality that drives that model.
 
I understand Brian. I do wonder if a lease to hunt system can be done here. To do so landowners would have to do some progressive management, especially on the upland bird side, and I haven't seen many willing to do so. Like you, I generally drive at lease 70-100 miles to start. I rarely motel up, but with gas prices, it may be cheaper in coming days. I'll probably start living in the topper before that. I think that a lot of the leasing we see is related to deer, but I am seeing more CRP with signs on it. I guess this makes me glad I'm 50, not 20. I'd hate to be starting out. At least I can remember the "good ole days". If that end happens, it may lead to a big change in my line of work. If we get rid of the many to the benefit of the few, a license based wildlife agency is in trouble.
 
I sympathize as well. I to now have to travel ever farther to find reasonable hunting. I used to have in my back yard. Now it's a couple a hundred miles minimum. I still am drawn to my old haunts, NE Kansas, NW Missouri, SE Nebraska, places I've hunted for 30+ years, now I feel guilty if I shoot the few birds I see there. To frame the discussion, I think what we all are fearful of is the conversion of upland hunting to an elitist sport. Europe of course has been this way for centuries, here in America, duck hunting went that way 100 years ago, with the best spots leased or bought up by the rich and famous. Upland hunting has always been the democratic sport, success relying upon legs, lungs, superior dogs, knowledge of terrain and the birds and their habits, not on how big a check you can write. The flaw in the system was inherit in the original constitutional model, the game is owned by the people, the land title is held privately, when this was done, public ownership of game was believed to solve the issue, but 200 years ago the land mass of the United States was 90% public, now the percentage is reversed and our ability to harvest public game, held in trust for everybody is compromised. Lets hope the WIHA program continues to evolve and be successful, because I don't know if there is an acceptable alternative. I fear we lose upland hunters to age, frustration with game numbers, and lack of access even faster than we lose birds and habitat. The current presidential adminstration is encouraging from a rather unexpected source because outdoor recreation fosters excercise and better health in a relatively inactive public. Access is a necessary component, and has been a priority, even in a tough economy. Habitat and access are the issues of the immediate future and will determine whether the upland sports continue or slowly disappear. Even now I can take you to areas I have hunted for years, and on opening day you wonder if you are legal,or hunting the wrong day, because you don't see any other hunters anywhere. Scary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top