Hayden is out of KDWP

More Commercialized Hunting Ahead for Kansas

A knowledgeable friend said Brownback is all for commercializing hunting in Kansas to bring more money into the state.
 
PassItOn said:
Looks like Robin Jennison is the new guy.

We'll see what happens.

This quote from the Topeka paper is a bit concerning:

The governor-elect said he was counting on Jennison to help elevate the hunting and fishing industries in Kansas as part of a broader economic development strategy for the state.

"I want to market it aggressively," Brownback said in a statement. "I want to show America why Kansas has the best hunting in the world, some of the most unique recreational lakes and parks in the region, and unmatched tall grass prairie land that takes you back in time."

Mike C.
Click to expand...

I think Brownback wants Kansas to become like Texas -- nearly all pay hunting. I wonder about the future of walk-in.
 
BritChaser said:
I think Brownback wants Kansas to become like Texas -- nearly all pay hunting. I wonder about the future of walk-in.
Click to expand...


I didnt vote for Brownback. Voted primarily Libertarian. We as voters need to make the term Career Politician extinct.

I am distinctly starting to despise him more and more. His office would never write back if I had written them. Pat Roberts would take the time to respond (or at least an aide would).
 
BritChaser said:
I think Brownback wants Kansas to become like Texas -- nearly all pay hunting. I wonder about the future of walk-in.
Click to expand...

If they are using Texas as a model I would say the future of walk-in will be bleak at best.

My fear is that Brownback/Jennison will view hunting through a lens tinted with dollar signs. If they approach it with a mindset of "what's in it for me? How can I enhance my resume? How can I improve my 'electability'?" the working class, blue collar hunters who aren't desirable to ambitious politicians will get the shaft and quality hunting that is available through the WIHA program will only be available to the wealthy and well connected. Not real comfortable with a lawyer and lobbyist getting together. (before you build a fire under the tar pot, my daughter is a KSU grad and will graduate from Law School this spring)

IF Brownback/Jennison will take the attitude to "first, do no harm" and don't try to "fix" what "ain't broke" then there is hope for the future. I am not saying that KDWP is perfect but I am saying it is the best. Keep the focus on improving the hunting and fishing and in the long run the dollars will come.
 
KsHusker said:
I didnt vote for Brownback. Voted primarily Libertarian. We as voters need to make the term Career Politician extinct.

I am distinctly starting to despise him more and more. His office would never write back if I had written them. Pat Roberts would take the time to respond (or at least an aide would).
Click to expand...

I too voted liberatarian practically the entire way through the ballot. I agree w/ your political stance apparently. I didn't want to see Brownback get it either, though I was sure he would. More Kansans would probably vote liberertarian if they knew what the party stood for. Not many folks even know what it means though.
 
Dog Gun Time said:
If they are using Texas as a model I would say the future of walk-in will be bleak at best.

My fear is that Brownback/Jennison will view hunting through a lens tinted with dollar signs. If they approach it with a mindset of "what's in it for me? How can I enhance my resume? How can I improve my 'electability'?" the working class, blue collar hunters who aren't desirable to ambitious politicians will get the shaft and quality hunting that is available through the WIHA program will only be available to the wealthy and well connected. Not real comfortable with a lawyer and lobbyist getting together. (before you build a fire under the tar pot, my daughter is a KSU grad and will graduate from Law School this spring)

IF Brownback/Jennison will take the attitude to "first, do no harm" and don't try to "fix" what "ain't broke" then there is hope for the future. I am not saying that KDWP is perfect but I am saying it is the best. Keep the focus on improving the hunting and fishing and in the long run the dollars will come.
Click to expand...

I hate to throw this in the NR's face, but if the State wants to generate additional income from the program, the cost for NR's to hunt and fish should be the first item to be considered. NR's get to hunt and fish (especially hunt) in this state for what I consider bargain prices.

Perhaps we, as a rather large community, should begin to write our representatives in both Topeka and Pratt, and make sure they don't take our great program down the wrong path.
 
Yeah make the OOS hunters pay the way for the rest!!!! Just this past opener took a Missouri boy out west with me. Cost him like $75 for a license, gas from Fort Scott to Hays ,motel and eats and drinks and refreshments bought in kansas, gas back to Fort Scott for a whopping 4 roosters. He later told me he spent right at $1950 in kansas. He also forgot about 10 boxes of shells he purchased at West Side Bait in Iola Kansas. Guys dont make Kansas into South Dakota. OOS hunters are already paying their share. I am not trying to be an ass but if you figure what he spent in less than a week in kansas he could have bought a butcher steer to eat for the year.
 
Turtle,

I wasn't trying to be a dick either, but my post still has merit. Sure, the Kansas economy benefited from your friend coming here to hunt, but not as much as you'd think. The biggest portion of your friend's spending likely went to fuel. Kansas sees very little in terms of sales tax on fuel. Some diners and local hotels most likely made some profit on his stay, which may keep someone employed, which is good as well. However, the actual money Kansas received from your friend's trip was likely not much more than the cost of his license.

I have the same expenses as your friend when I head West (although I see $1,950 a little steep, were you staying at the Four Seasons or something?), my only break is the $50 difference in the cost of my hunting license. But, I and the rest of the resident hunters pay income tax year-round. Part of which goes to hunt our own state's resource. I think non-residents should pay more for the same privilege.
 
$1,950 sounds like a ton. $75 for license. 10 boxes of shells @ $15/box would be $150. Gas to Hays and back plus driving around while hunting should be three tanks max so let's go with $200. So that's $425. We usually get at least two guys (usually more) to a room at $75 total (on the high side) per night. Even if you stay four nights that's another $150. So now $575. So almost $1400 for food and refreshments. Just doesn't seem to add up. Also, I agree with Wildcat, those of us in state have all of those same expenses except for the difference in the cost of the license. I don't think we need to go nuts, but we could get a little more out of NR's without being out of line compared to most states.
 
Well

I'm an out of stater from Texas - and I wouldn't mind if the OOS license fee was doubled. It's dirt cheap. But if the WIHA is killed, it's a moot point. There's no reason to buy an OOS license if there's nowhere to hunt. Don't let it turn into Texas, we have very little public hunting, and what IS there is crappy except for a few refuge/wildlife areas. Everything here is private / lease, and the lease prices are getting purely insane.
 
RJT said:
I'm an out of stater from Texas - and I wouldn't mind if the OOS license fee was doubled. It's dirt cheap. But if the WIHA is killed, it's a moot point. There's no reason to buy an OOS license if there's nowhere to hunt. Don't let it turn into Texas, we have very little public hunting, and what IS there is crappy except for a few refuge/wildlife areas. Everything here is private / lease, and the lease prices are getting purely insane.
Click to expand...

I guess if you don't want NR hunting ,then doubling the price would be the thing to do!!!!!!
 
Nick and RJT,

That was exactly the point I was trying to make. $70 is a drop in the bucket in terms of most pheasant hunting trips. Who in the hell needs a case of shells to hunt wild pheasants anyway? It's not a European hunt where they throw hundreds of birds out of a tower. Not trying to point fingers, but buying a case of shells was a needless expense.

BleuBijou said:
I guess if you don't want NR hunting ,then doubling the price would be the thing to do!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Wow. I would happily pay double for my RESIDENT license, to keep the habitat. It's a shame you wouldn't support the same. I'd even go for a habitat stamp for upland game. For a person such as yourself who enjoys hunting private land here in our state, so close to home for such a bargain, is kind of an insult. We need money to finance this shit, bottom line. Every state is broke these days.
 
-Wildcat- said:
Nick and RJT,

That was exactly the point I was trying to make. $70 is a drop in the bucket in terms of most pheasant hunting trips. Who in the hell needs a case of shells to hunt wild pheasants anyway? It's not a European hunt where they throw hundreds of birds out of a tower. Not trying to point fingers, but buying a case of shells was a needless expense.



Wow. I would happily pay double for my RESIDENT license, to keep the habitat. It's a shame you wouldn't support the same. I'd even go for a habitat stamp for upland game. For a person such as yourself who enjoys hunting private land here in our state, so close to home for such a bargain, is kind of an insult. We need money to finance this shit, bottom line. Every state is broke these days.
Click to expand...

Why are they broke????? Better management maybe???? Over Spending???

For every action there is a reaction! So what would doubling the price ultimately do? Does what everyone on here says they do not want to see happen!! Pushes everyone to the preserve hunt !! Why spend 150 bucks for a license and drive 5 1/2 hours , when they can go to their local preserve less then an hour away from any metro area here and spend 75-100 bucks and be home for lunch and most will have a good time!!! If you want to make it a rich mans game then say so!! There are a dozen ways to skin a cat, no reason to double the price for a small game license. There are resources in the ground, whether mined or drilled for that in some way disturb habitat and sometimes cause pollutant problems that can easily chip in to protect the resource. You can't have a knee jerk reaction without thinking down the road what will happen.

I hunt both Private and Walk-in and am happy I can at this stage. Do I think it is a bargain at 72.50 for a small game license. No!! Priced just about right to be perfectly honest!!! Do I think NR Elk or Deer license in my state is a bargain?? Hell no!!! Way over priced!!!! Over 500 for a bull and 350 for a cow!! C'mon !!! I guess if you feel insulted that I think paying out the nose to have the privledge to hunt such great country should be done only by the folks that can dig deeper in their pockets , then we really are at both ends of the spectrum.

A stamp for 5 or 10 bucks may not be over the top, I wish everyone would get together and find a solution without the "we need to raise prices" the first thing that comes out of everyones mouth.
 
Who supports who?

I find myself on both sides of the issue. I am and have been willing to pay higher out of state license fees for a quality product. Do I think a system like South Dakota, where residents get a huge break and non residents get treated like second class citizens, ( later opener, 10 day license, etc.) or North Dakota, ( non-residents can't hunt PLOT lands for a week or two, at the beginning of the season, paid for in part by Pitman-Robertson funds aka federal dollars we all pay), or heaven forbid Texas, where nobody hunts without paying a fortune to a private landowner, no I do not. Do I think there is room for an increase in Non Resident fees, absolutely. If Kansas can continue to provide a quality experience, with WIHA, then why not. Remember that the WIHA is paid for largely by grant money from the US Fish and Wildlife via Pittman Robertson Funds, taxes paid on guns, ammo, by everyone who buys retail, all over the country. Which is why there is reluctance to charge a higher fee, via stamp or permit to use the resource. Your Kansas tax dollars are not on the table, so it is actually the Nationwide Non Residents, most of whom don't ever even hunt in Kansas who actually support you! I'll be happy to support an increase in non-resident fees, along with and linked to a meaningful increase in resident fees as well. As far as biggame permits, charge what ever the non residents state would charge a Kansas Resident to hunt the same game. Meanwhile if you want to continue to have WIHA, you might want to hug a non resident, because the state of Kansas, sure didn't do it for you residents, and you benefit unequally in your favor.
 
oldandnew said:
I find myself on both sides of the issue. I am and have been willing to pay higher out of state license fees for a quality product. Do I think a system like South Dakota, where residents get a huge break and non residents get treated like second class citizens, ( later opener, 10 day license, etc.) or North Dakota, ( non-residents can't hunt PLOT lands for a week or two, at the beginning of the season, paid for in part by Pitman-Robertson funds aka federal dollars we all pay), or heaven forbid Texas, where nobody hunts without paying a fortune to a private landowner, no I do not. Do I think there is room for an increase in Non Resident fees, absolutely. If Kansas can continue to provide a quality experience, with WIHA, then why not. Remember that the WIHA is paid for largely by grant money from the US Fish and Wildlife via Pittman Robertson Funds, taxes paid on guns, ammo, by everyone who buys retail, all over the country. Which is why there is reluctance to charge a higher fee, via stamp or permit to use the resource. Your Kansas tax dollars are not on the table, so it is actually the Nationwide Non Residents, most of whom don't ever even hunt in Kansas who actually support you! I'll be happy to support an increase in non-resident fees, along with and linked to a meaningful increase in resident fees as well. As far as biggame permits, charge what ever the non residents state would charge a Kansas Resident to hunt the same game. Meanwhile if you want to continue to have WIHA, you might want to hug a non resident, because the state of Kansas, sure didn't do it for you residents, and you benefit unequally in your favor.
Click to expand...


Wow... Spot on. Nicely put.
 
the problem with doubling the prices for a nonresident licence is a blue stated pointles unless the plan is to drive away the NR hunters who not only help support wildlife from the purchase of a licence but also give alot of us small town businesses more business I can guarante you that if the nonresidents are not coming back to hunt becouse of higher fees alot of these little places will not make nearly as much money during the year I know for a fact that restaurants motels and even my trailer business all benifit greatly by the amount of out of states hunters surly the state can spend more of their money that they keep saying they don't have and support the WIHA a little more rather than raise the prices of NR licences or even resident licences it sure as hell wont hurt anything and makes more sense than spending more money every year to raise salaries of the pompas asses in the legislature that got this state and country into the financial state we are in today

I think we need to just do away with half the BS that the tree hugging congress men and women are doing and focus on making everything in this state better including but not limited to the WIHA program we can start by doing away with the road construction every year for the past 3 years they have worked on the interstate here in gove county and the retarded bastards still cant get it right come on talk about a waist of money if we are going to spend the money why not do it 1 time rather than 3 times sorry for the ranting but it burns my hide as a sportsman to know that the WIHA program is suffering becouse we would rather flush our money down the crapper than to pay the farmer a little more to help better the ground that is enrolled in the program
 
Non Resident speaks out.

I just got done reading everyone's comments and opinions. I am a NR who hunts South Dakota every year at least once and sometimes twice. I also come to your state on average of about 4 to 5 times per year. My friends and I have always thought that Kansas at $75 was a much better deal because of the length of season versus S.D.'s 10 day nonsense. We only continue to go up there for the hundreds of birds you see everyday. It's almost mind blowing really. I spend approximately $350 to $500 per trip in Kansas depending on how many days we're there at one time. That amount won't change unless gas fluctuates greatly. I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't know a single NR from my Great State of Missouri that would complain if a $15 use stamp or use tax was put on for the use of WIHA because it's for the entire season. Everyone likes a bargain, but I for sure would pay more to hunt quail in your fine state especially since ours are nearly gone! Thanks for having us, and any tips on Southwest Kansas would be great.
 
as a resident i am all for having a stamp or something similar hell we do it for waterfoul but i don't believe it needs to be fifteen dollars the hip stamp only costs a dollar so somewhere in that range would be fine and it shouldn't be restrained to only NR hunters but even to instate hunters as well if the government is going to change things then it should be equal to everyone OH WAIT GOVERNMENT-CHANGE-EQUALITY FOR EVERYONE yeah right thats what got us in the bind we are in now
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top