It Looks Grim

westksbowhunter

Well-known member
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"
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
 

s.davis

Active member
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:

westksbowhunter

Well-known member
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.
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:

s.davis

Active member
We have all the guides and leasing because of, like you frame it, ooser/deer hunting.

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:

hunter94

Well-known member
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??
 

hunter94

Well-known member
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.
great ideas, LOL.
 

Chestle

Well-known member
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. ;)
 
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. ;)
Now that is a sentiment I can appreciate.....
 

remy3424

Well-known member
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.
 

Uplandhunter67

Active member
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.
 

s.davis

Active member
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.
 
Top