It Looks Grim

Diesel 74 said:
Right and they also say some ground is not paid for. The landowners sign it up with ground that does receive a payment. Also taken from the wiha atlas:" if habitat was negatively impacted by the cooperator following signing payment reduction will occur"
Click to expand...
Payment is reduced as long as it is turned in.
 
I’d love to see some proof that KDWP has gone in and restructured payment or asked for a refund from a landowner. Maybe it does happen but I have some doubts. Perhaps some one can enlighten us
 
I have pitched this before to the resounding poo-poo-ing of "Can't-sas" residents, but I'll beat the dead horse again:

KDWP should greatly expand the iWIHA program. An expanded iWIHA program should not focus on access near urban areas (though, in truth, that is where most Kansas live, which, combined with the consolidation of agricultural land ownership, is a much more significant cause of the current problems with Kansas hunting than big, bad boogeyman ooser/deerhunting supervillains). The expanded iWIHA should focus on habitat quality. Each tract should have a maximum daily amount of hunters allowed, based on carrying capacity and habitat. Landowners should be paid based on check-ins, or habitat improvements, or something similar. The iWIHA expansion could be funded by money saved by reductions in WIHA, as well as iWIHA use surcharges. For instance: residents could buy an annual $25 habitat stamp allowing them to check into and out of iWIHAs and non-residents could pay a $25 per-use fee, or whatever.

And the state could start taxing the ever living hell out of guides, landowners who lease land for hunting, and lessees of said land regardless of where they live.
 
Last edited:
s.davis said:
I have pitched this before to the resounding poo-poo-ing of "Can't-sas" residents, but I'll beat the dead horse again:

KDWP should greatly expand the iWIHA program, not just to focus on access near urban areas (though, in truth, that is where most Kansas live, which is the actual root cause of changing access, not big, bad boogeyman ooser/deerhunting supervillains), but to focus on quality habitat. Each tract should have a maximum daily amount of hunters allowed, based on carrying capacity and habitat. Landowners should be paid based on check-ins, or habitat improvements, or something similar. The iWIHA expansion could be funded by money saved by reductions in WIHA, as well as iWIHA use surcharges. For instance: residents could buy an annual $25 habitat stamp allowing them to check into and out of iWIHAs and non-residents could pay a $25 per-use fee, or whatever.

And the state could start taxing the ever living hell out of guides, landowners who lease land for hunting, and lessees of said land regardless of where they live.
Click to expand...
I would agree with most of that, but raise the price of the habitat stamp. $25 won't by dinner for a man and a wife or pay for green fee's. I would raise that to about $100. There should be a mandatory check in by either scanning a code or filling out a card before and after the hunt. Which you have to do to duck hunt on the KS refuges. Actually something very similar was discussed by the KDWP back in 2012. I had emailed in my ideas and thoughts. It fell apart. You have to have a park pass to fish, should be no different for hunting. You are wrong on your NR deer hunting comment. You contradict yourself by saying "(though, in truth, that is where most Kansas live, which is the actual root cause of changing access, not big, bad boogeyman ooser/deerhunting supervillains)" then following up with "And the state could start taxing the ever living hell out of guides, landowners who lease land for hunting, and lessees of said land regardless of where they live." We have all the guides and leasing because of, like you frame it, ooser/deer hunting. NR deer hunting has had a trickle down effect on KS hunting, and how the KS Legislature and KDWP Commissioners regulate.
 
Last edited:
westksbowhunter said:
We have all the guides and leasing because of, like you frame it, ooser/deer hunting.
Click to expand...

You have ooser/deer hunting because for 50 years Kansans have moved away farms and small communities, quit hunting, sold land to entities that don't care about Kansans, especially rural Kansans, much less the ecosystem or the future of your communities or wildlife. And also cause you guys won't pay to fund conservation in your own state.
 
Last edited:
as a NR i paid for licenses for many years, but the landowners now want to void their contracts, cut the CRP and keep the money from enrollment. why would i want to keep paying for nothing? i can imagine a lot of residents feel the same way. the guys that like to hunt
put up with the same shit. and yes, they post up every year in protest. something wrong with the truth??
 
s.davis said:
I have pitched this before to the resounding poo-poo-ing of "Can't-sas" residents, but I'll beat the dead horse again:

KDWP should greatly expand the iWIHA program. An expanded iWIHA program should not focus on access near urban areas (though, in truth, that is where most Kansas live, which, combined with the consolidation of agricultural land ownership, is a much more significant cause of the current problems with Kansas hunting than big, bad boogeyman ooser/deer hunting supervillains). The expanded iWIHA should focus on habitat quality. Each tract should have a maximum daily amount of hunters allowed, based on carrying capacity and habitat. Landowners should be paid based on check-ins, or habitat improvements, or something similar. The iWIHA expansion could be funded by money saved by reductions in WIHA, as well as iWIHA use surcharges. For instance: residents could buy an annual $25 habitat stamp allowing them to check into and out of iWIHAs and non-residents could pay a $25 per-use fee, or whatever.

And the state could start taxing the ever living hell out of guides, landowners who lease land for hunting, and lessees of said land regardless of where they live.
Click to expand...
great ideas, LOL.
 
Nothing is going to change at KDWP. Might as well forget about that. Upland is not a big concern for the commissioners, neither is wildfowling.

The upland population will be what it will be and weather will continue to be the primary determinant of bird populations. If the rains come in just right and on time, if the hail stays away, no drought, not too cold/not too hot....we all know the drill. If you get all that just right, you don't get the emergency haying and what not.

With the weather patterns we've had across the great plains we've had some down years in a row. Even SD, not just KS.

My thoughts are go where you want to go, hunt as much as you can, enjoy your dogs and see old friends. In the evenings, cook some pheasant, drink some good whiskey and tell the tales of past hunts and past dogs.

Don't waste time wishing. Waste time doing. ;)
 
Chestle said:
Nothing is going to change at KDWP. Might as well forget about that. Upland is not a big concern for the commissioners, neither is wildfowling.

The upland population will be what it will be and weather will continue to be the primary determinant of bird populations. If the rains come in just right and on time, if the hail stays away, no drought, not too cold/not too hot....we all know the drill. If you get all that just right, you don't get the emergency haying and what not.

With the weather patterns we've had across the great plains we've had some down years in a row. Even SD, not just KS.

My thoughts are go where you want to go, hunt as much as you can, enjoy your dogs and see old friends. In the evenings, cook some pheasant, drink some good whiskey and tell the tales of past hunts and past dogs.

Don't waste time wishing. Waste time doing. ;)
Click to expand...
Now that is a sentiment I can appreciate.....
 
Haretrigger said:
Now that is a sentiment I can appreciate.....
Click to expand...
Absolutely spot on ! You can't enjoy the dogs if your simply lamenting the "poor" opportunity to find birds. Be grateful you have an option to hunt upland, we here in VA. essentially have non. But I'll be there ( KS ) in January!
 
Just looked at the PF pheasant hunting forecast emailed to me today, it reflects what is being said here, KS looks to be in for a tough season.
 
I hunted last weekend for chickens. Only flushed one solitary rooster. We didn’t see any birds on the roads. Guys I know are saying they haven’t seen much either.
I’m going to stay optimistic that some of the deep cover I hit will have birds.
 
The Kansas section of the PF report is what KDWP will publish for it's upland forecast, nearly verbatim, plus info for quail and chickens. It is not promising, nor particularly rosy, though, I've always found it to be pretty accurate. Maybe I just read with a more critical eye than many of you with regards to PR, but even in the "pockets of birds" years, that's exactly what I have found to be the case. I pretty routinely find fields that hold excellent bird numbers in Kansas still, and I'm sure I will this year again.
 
Well, you got me! I promised myself I wouldn't dip back into these frustrating conversations several years ago, but all this activity on the rapid decline of upland hunting in Kansas (and elsewhere) - and the potential fixes - has drawn me back into the fray. It helps that the solutions that I came up with back in 2010 are falling apart at the seams now, too.

I'll start here, because it seems to draw a lot of attention: KDWP (and to a lesser extent PF). Why the anger? What are they supposed to do? I agree with the sentiment that KDWP shouldn't be paying for (or advertising) 1 million acres, when 70% of it isn't worth hunting. And I do wish there was more fidelity to providing and improving habitat as part of the program. Certainly the State should get their money back if the farmer hays or pastures it. But remove those programs, and you turn a slow death of pheasant and quail hunting into a bullet to the head.

First, I haven't met too many farmers and ranchers in Kansas who are inclined to work with anyone on how they use their land, much less a government agency telling them how to operate. Plus, the macro environment is ensuring that landowners are forced to squeeze every nickel out of their ground. How is KDWP supposed to fight against sky-high land, equipment, seed and fertilizer prices? PF has the same issue - they want to work with landowners, but it takes two tango. Hell, they spent much of the last 4 decades lobbying for, and investing in, everything CRP. In hindsight, that was stupid, because the farmers turned their back on that program the moment it was worth a nickel more to farm it.

Fire away at KDWP and PF, they deserve some of it. But my concern is that this anger towards KDWP and PF distracts us from the real possibilities for change - the farmer, the rancher, the government being too involved (or not involved enough, depending on perspectives) in farming and ranching budgets, the seed/fertilizer companies (I am convinced spraying wiped out the quail in SEK), and our historical inclination to ensure our farming and ranching brothers experience little pain.

The good news is that the possible solutions are pretty simple. The bad news is that none of the folks above are likely going to help us get there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top