HB 2207 and 2208

Some of you guys must not hunt much ground. I have at least 50 landowners that let me hunt. So I guess I will get a bunch of 3 ring binders to keep all my written permission slips in. Then when I see a bunch of roosters on a property and call the landowner and he says go hunt them but is out of town, I can't go in there because I don't have written permission. Plus a lot of landowners just are not going to write written permission. Most of them are like me, a handshake is good enough.

If you like these bills you need to have your head examined. If you think we have to many whitetails, then you have double vision.
 
westksbowhunter said:
Some of you guys must not hunt much ground. I have at least 50 landowners that let me hunt. So I guess I will get a bunch of 3 ring binders to keep all my written permission slips in. Then when I see a bunch of roosters on a property and call the landowner and he says go hunt them but is out of town, I can't go in there because I don't have written permission. Plus a lot of landowners just are not going to write written permission. Most of them are like me, a handshake is good enough.

If you like these bills you need to have your head examined. If you think we have to many whitetails, then you have double vision.
Click to expand...

You may not have to many whitetails but we do. My uncle receives damage control permits to shoot them every year. Almost all of the local farmers around say they had more damage in there corn here last year than ever. There is a reason KDWP is issuing the amount of doe permits they do.

I may need my head examined, but I do support both bills. I probably have permisson to hunt at least 50k acres and hunt a lot in a dozen counties. It won't bother me a bit to get written permission, and I don't know any landowners that wouldn't give it to me. I know a lot of farmers, it's what I don for a living, so I know a lot of landowner. The majority of the ones I know will support the written permission bill. I am going to shoot my rep an email now.
 
fsentkilr said:
I have emailed written permission to guys in Finney County who have called me to ask in the past. With today's technology it isn't hard to get written permission, being to hard to do in no excuse. You can put "I give written permission to Joe Blow and anyone who is with him hunting" if you want to as a way to address everyone in a group needing written permission.
Click to expand...

Anyone can text or email permission, that does not make it legit or prove anything. It has to be written and signed. Hell why not have a notary stamp it? Hopefully it does not pass but if it does, it should be enforced that everyone hunting a property has written permission. That would help break all the big groups which needs to be stopped as well.
 
fsentkilr said:
You may not have to many whitetails but we do. My uncle receives damage control permits to shoot them every year. Almost all of the local farmers around say they had more damage in there corn here last year than ever. There is a reason KDWP is issuing the amount of doe permits they do.

I may need my head examined, but I do support both bills. I probably have permisson to hunt at least 50k acres and hunt a lot in a dozen counties. It won't bother me a bit to get written permission, and I don't know any landowners that wouldn't give it to me. I know a lot of farmers, it's what I don for a living, so I know a lot of landowner. The majority of the ones I know will support the written permission bill. I am going to shoot my rep an email now.
Click to expand...

Coons do more damage to corn than deer. You watch the WIHA come out when landowners start selling their tags.
 
westksbowhunter said:
I agree. Landowners who are able to sell their tags will take their WIHA out and lease it to those buying their transferable tags. If you like WIHA please don't support this crap.
Click to expand...

I disagree. You don't have to lease out the ground just give the one you sell your tag to a place to hunt. It will make some less likely to lease their ground to private individuals, then it's off limits to everyone. Most really good deer hunting isn't in WIHA anyway. There are exceptions, but as a rule if it's really good deer hunting it''s leased privately. Here in eastern Kansas good deer ground will bring 20 bucks an acre leased privately versus 3 bucks or so in WIHA.
 
westksbowhunter said:
Coons do more damage to corn than deer. You watch the WIHA come out when landowners start selling their tags.
Click to expand...

I know the difference between coon damage and deer damage. I will have 3000 acres of corn this year, we raise around 400k bushel on a normal year. I don't just pull this out of my @ss.
 
fsentkilr said:
I disagree. You don't have to lease out the ground just give the one you sell your tag to a place to hunt. It will make some less likely to lease their ground to private individuals, then it's off limits to everyone. Most really good deer hunting isn't in WIHA anyway. There are exceptions, but as a rule if it's really good deer hunting it''s leased privately. Here in eastern Kansas good deer ground will bring 20 bucks an acre leased privately versus 3 bucks or so in WIHA.
Click to expand...

Thanks you just proved my point. $20 an acre versus $3. Any WIHA left will get leased. And I am not talking about deer hunting on WIHA. There are a lot of pheasant hunters who hunt WIHA only. Those guys will be out so go ahead and support these bills and sell out all the people who enjoy hunting pheasants on WIHA.

Again thanks for proving my previous post. You did a great job!
 
fsentkilr said:
I know the difference between coon damage and deer damage. I will have 3000 acres of corn this year, we raise around 400k bushel on a normal year. I don't just pull this out of my @ss.
Click to expand...

Every farmer I know, especially the ones who farm 3000 acres, don't have time for social media.
 
westksbowhunter said:
Thanks you just proved my point. $20 an acre versus $3. Any WIHA left will get leased. And I am not talking about deer hunting on WIHA. There are a lot of pheasant hunters who hunt WIHA only. Those guys will be out so go ahead and support these bills and sell out all the people who enjoy hunting pheasants on WIHA.

Again thanks for proving my previous post. You did a great job!
Click to expand...

My point is if it is good deer hunting it more than likely isn't in WIHA anyway. If it is the bird hunters make it hard to hunt it. It will give landowners a way to make some money on the deer without leasing their ground. I could save a spot or two for whomever bought the tag for deer season instead of leasing it to a gun club, then it's off limits the entire season.
 
fsentkilr said:
My point is if it is good deer hunting it more than likely isn't in WIHA anyway. If it is the bird hunters make it hard to hunt it. It will give landowners a way to make some money on the deer without leasing their ground. I could save a spot or two for whomever bought the tag for deer season instead of leasing it to a gun club, then it's off limits the entire season.
Click to expand...

Do you think a non resident is going to care? The non resident is looking for a place to hunt. If he buys a tag for $1500 what is to stop him from offering the WIHA owner another $1500 to secure the hunting rights to ground. Hell with the other bill he can get written permission. Can you not see the downside? I have killed a lot of 150 inch deer on WIHA. Matter of fact, shot another this fall.

All a non resident needs is a Browns Map and a WIHA map and he can see what landowner has WIHA ground and start making calls trying to buy a transferable tag and and leasing up the WIHA. WIHA can be taken out anytime.
 
Last edited:
westksbowhunter said:
Do you think a non residents is going to care? The non resident is looking for a place to hunt. He he buys a tag for $1500 what is to stop him from offering the WIHA owner another $1500 to secure the hunting rights to ground. Hell with the other bill he can get written permission. Can you not see the downside?
Click to expand...

What is going to stop them from buying a nonresident tag now and offer the landowner more money? The answer is nothing, it happens a lot that's why good WIHA often end up being leased privately. No I don't see any downside. I believe if the landowner doesn't want to use his tag he should be able to sell it if he wishes. Like I said, I won't I like to hunt, but I think others should be able to if they wish.
 
fsentkilr said:
What is going to stop them from buying a nonresident tag now and offer the landowner more money? The answer is nothing, it happens a lot that's why good WIHA often end up being leased privately. No I don't see any downside. I believe if the landowner doesn't want to use his tag he should be able to sell it if he wishes. Like I said, I won't I like to hunt, but I think others should be able to if they wish.
Click to expand...

Because getting a tag through the draw system is much different than buying directly from the landowner. Selling transferable tags will have a trickle down effect to pheasants hunters and WIHA. Just watch if it passes.
 
westksbowhunter said:
Because getting a tag through the draw system is much different than buying directly from the landowner. Selling transferable tags will have a trickle down effect to pheasants hunters and WIHA. Just watch if it passes.
Click to expand...

I have two friends from Georgia that come every year to hunt and they have never failed to get a tag. It may be different in my unit than others. I know of lots of ground that used to be in WIHA that is privately leased now. A guy hunts it one year says this is really good contacts the landowner and it's gone.
 
fsentkilr said:
I have two friends from Georgia that come every year to hunt and they have never failed to get a tag. It may be different in my unit than others. I know of lots of ground that used to be in WIHA that is privately leased now. A guy hunts it one year says this is really good contacts the landowner and it's gone.
Click to expand...

Yep and you will see even more of this with transferable tags. So now the pheasant hunter on WIHA has no where to go. Your starting to see my point now. Just get your focus off of deer only and start thinking of upland hunters.
 
Martin vs. Wadell; wildlife belongs to all the people, a concept commonly known as the Public Trust Doctrine or the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.

The Feds and the States manage the wildlife that belongs to the people.

I have no problem with the States allowing a Hunt Own Land tag to go to a landowner. However, when that landowner can then sell the tag to anyone else, that bypasses the normal draw system.

The law of Unintended Consequences is always rigorously enforced. I think both of these laws will generate various unintended consequences and I suspect most of those will be negative for the average hunter.
 
westksbowhunter said:
In Kansas wildlife belongs to the state not the landowner.
Click to expand...

There is also a state law that landowners can dispose of wildlife doing damage to their property, thus the nuisance tags. Private landowners do own most of the ground so they control who hunts and when. It isn't hard to lease ground to deer hunters, they are knocking down doors looking for places to lease. I don't think allowing landowners to sell their tags will affect the amount of public ground to hunt on at all. I would be more likely to give mine to out of state friends then sell it, I mainly shoot does anymore anyway to thin them out more and they are better eating. I also don't have any more wall space for bucks to hang on.
 
westksbowhunter said:
In Kansas wildlife belongs to the state not the landowner.
Click to expand...

I believe it is more correct to say the State manages the wildlife within the state boundaries. The State doesn't own the wildlife but it does manage the wildlife.

True, in the US wildlife does not belong to the landowner. That is the "European Model" and is quite different than our "North American Model of Wildlife Conservation".

This selling of landowner tags is pretty much in the way of the European Model, not a way I would like to see things go.
 
Chestle said:
Martin vs. Wadell; wildlife belongs to all the people, a concept commonly known as the Public Trust Doctrine or the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.

The Feds and the States manage the wildlife that belongs to the people.

Great but stay off my f'ing land to hunt your wildlife that belongs to all people. I cannot tell you the number of times I have run people off my land standing within 50 yards of a no hunting sign or purple post. Attitudes like this are exactly why I post no hunting signs.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top