Kansas Trespassing Fee for Private Land

[KsHusker]

"Fast forward to now - there is only one KDWPT biologist worth the money he's paid and he is able to still get WIHA land enrolled that is quality upland habitat near Wichita - the rest has all went away due to deer leasing and likely biologists who dont give a crap."

I wanted to take a second to address this, as the topic being discussed is extremely near and dear to my heart, and the rest of our Wildlife Division staff. We are constantly having this same discussion, day-in and day-out. When we are out leasing WIHA tracts, don't you think we're running into the same issues that the hunter is, when out searching for a quality property to access? It's a struggle in most parts of the state, given our limited budget. We keep plugging away though, day-in and day-out. I think when most folks view our Wildlife Biologists, from the outside, they see Government Employees. These employees are here because they have the same burning desire for the Kansas hunting heritage as all of you on this Forum. Many of them, like myself, only hunt on WIHA lands, as we've invested so much in the program. When we lose a quality tract due to any of the reasons mentioned on this thread, it truly ruins our day.

If we have an employee who "doesn't give a crap", which is highly unlikely, it is because they are as beat down as all of you in regard to the access issues at-hand in our state.

Thank you so much for your clear passion and respect for the wildlife of Kansas! I assure you, our Biologists are hard at work on securing the next great tract of WIHA.

I'm sure most are good or it's an issue of limited resources. My comments were based on results. The biologist hitting that area is competing with LOTS of deer leasing and multiple outfitters yet somehow has had success in enrolling a large # of good WIHA not just for deer but for upland and the person is getting it done within 60-90 miles of 500k people after they had all but vanished in that county a few years prior. Perhaps they are employing a method that works better than others are using. Other parts of the state - and bordering counties they just keep disappearing - as to why I do not know. So I should be ashamed of myself for casting assumptions - but something seems to be broken with some of the folks or systems in place -- I dont know what it is.

All of us appreciate the hard work - but the executive level of the government and at KDWPT making the rules are broken. Big game biologists haven't been able or allowed to do their job for many years due to being hamstrung by folks on the commission or legislators concerned with their self interests.

No idea what your title is but you are correct - something I'm very passionate about. Can the deer problem be fixed or am I correct in that the problem lies in those making the rules?

 

[KSnative]

I'm sure most are good or it's an issue of limited resources. My comments were based on results. The biologist hitting that area is competing with LOTS of deer leasing and multiple outfitters yet somehow has had success in enrolling a large # of good WIHA not just for deer but for upland and the person is getting it done within 60-90 miles of 500k people after they had all but vanished in that county a few years prior. Perhaps they are employing a method that works better than others are using. Other parts of the state - and bordering counties they just keep disappearing - as to why I do not know. So I should be ashamed of myself for casting assumptions - but something seems to be broken with some of the folks or systems in place -- I dont know what it is.

All of us appreciate the hard work - but the executive level of the government and at KDWPT making the rules are broken. Big game biologists haven't been able or allowed to do their job for many years due to being hamstrung by folks on the commission or legislators concerned with their self interests.

No idea what your title is but you are correct - something I'm very passionate about. Can the deer problem be fixed or am I correct in that the problem lies in those making the rules?

One tool KDWPT has for gaining quality WIHA near Wichita - they pay about double per acre as an incentive for counties with less than average WIHA availability. Which likely includes any county next to or near Sedgewick county.

It appears that the Commission has every bit of authority required to change the non-resident deer equation. Question is - how do we get the Commission's ear (with no laughing)? Vested interests appear to be at stake (and maybe some egos, as in "why didn't WE think of this"). I sent an inquiry to each of the 7 several days ago - without so much as a "FU" or "I'll get back to you later, and FU then" from any to date. How about you? Or anyone? Numbers do matter.

Next rung would be the Governor (not legislature) who appoints these people. I believe they serve at her pleasure.........

 

[Kansascutter]

One tool KDWPT has for gaining quality WIHA near Wichita - they pay about double per acre as an incentive for counties with less than average WIHA availability. Which likely includes any county next to or near Sedgewick county.

It appears that the Commission has every bit of authority required to change the non-resident deer equation. Question is - how do we get the Commission's ear (with no laughing)? Vested interests appear to be at stake (and maybe some egos, as in "why didn't WE think of this"). I sent an inquiry to each of the 7 several days ago - without so much as a "FU" or "I'll get back to you later, and FU then" from any to date. How about you? Or anyone? Numbers do matter.

Next rung would be the Governor (not legislature) who appoints these people. I believe they serve at her pleasure.........

I have received 1 reply from commissioner Sporer. He urged Zoom attendance on January 14 for the commission meeting. I haven’t heard from any of the others. I hope it’s because they’re getting inundated.

 

[Chestle]

Ok, I finally got a chance to write all 7 commissioners. A bit disappointed that the KDWPT site posts a wall-o-text with no formatting. Unless I missed something.

Anyway, I hope it's not TLDR for them. Here it is. Feel free to use any or all. I admit I stole a lot of good ideas from some other fine posters in this thread.

Dear Commissioner XXXXXXX,

I feel that the outdoorsmen and women of Kansas are being rather quickly deprived of their hunting heritage. I am appealing to you for help in preserving our FORMERLY excellent resident upland game, waterfowl and deer hunting.

Unfortunately the nearly 50,000 non-resident deer licenses being issued by KDWPT has resulted in a significant decline in acreage available for residents to hunt deer as well as upland game. Any truly good cover is quickly leased up and reserved for the elite few. Kansas is slowly drifting into the Texas Model, where it takes $20,000 to lease deer ground. This also results in a decline in the Walk In Hunting Areas (WIHA) because any good WIHA is soon leased for far more than the WIHA remuneration. This in turn reduces the WIHA available to the average Kansan, creating more overcrowding in the remaining WIHAs.

Do we really want all the good Kansas hunting areas leased by a relative handful of Non-residents and Residents? I certainly hope not!

Waterfowl areas also are insufficient for the pressure they receive. As you know Kansas has very few WMAs and even fewer that support waterfowl. This forces more residents and nonresidents into the remaining public areas. Once again, the elite few are leasing all the good private ground. Like deer and upland, any productive waterfowl WIHAs are soon leased out to the highest bidder. This overcrowding of what remains has led to fist fights over spots, blocking boat ramps, sky busting and driving boats thru other’s decoy spreads. The waterfowl suffer unrelenting pressure from sun up to sundown. A drive thru Cheyenne Bottoms in season will turn up 3:1 NR vehicles compared to residents.

Something must be done. These are some of the problems I see. Here are a few suggestions. The Air Force taught me not to complain unless I also suggested solutions!

Deer

1. Reduce the number of Non-resident deer licenses and institute a lottery system. There should be no guarantee of a tag. Simultaneously, raise the cost. Absolutely prohibit the transfer of Kansas landowner tags to Non-Residents. Last time we did that it was a disaster.

2. Delay the opening of Non-Resident deer seasons by one week. Allow Residents to start one week earlier than the Non-Residents. This will allow Residents a chance at the public hunting areas before the Non-Resident crowds arrive.

Upland

1. Kansas has a good pheasant population complimented by the opportunity to harvest quail as well. I suggest going to the South Dakota Model for Non-Resident licensing. Sell a 10 day license (with the ability to split into two 5 day hunts) for $125 and require a $25 habitat stamp. (More about that later) While South Dakota routinely harvests more pheasants than Kansas, they harvest absolutely no quail at all. Our mixed bag is worth it.

2. As in the deer suggestion, delay the opening of Non-Resident upland seasons by one week. Allow Residents to start one week earlier than the Non-Residents. This will allow Residents a chance at the public hunting areas before the Non-Resident crowds arrive. South Dakota does this as well and it's a great idea.

Waterfowl

1. This situation is similar to the other two and I believe similar changes are in order. Non-Resident waterfowl licenses should be awarded by lotteries. These licenses are separate from a General Hunting License and have a separate fee structure.. Increased Non-Resident fees need to be implemented. This is the successful South Dakota Model.

2. Once again, delay the opening of Non-Resident waterfowl seasons by one week. Allow Residents to start one week earlier than the Non-Residents.

Additional Revenue for KDWPT

Increased NR fees will help KDWT with its budget, with creating more WIHA areas and hiring more biologists and Conservation Officers. That still won't be sufficient.

1. Require both Resident and Non-Resident guides to be licensed. Non-Resident guide licenses should cost twice as much as the Resident license. At present there's no testing or training of guides nor is there any oversight. These folks charge literally hundreds of dollars per day to lead hunters to Kansas game. They can well afford to pay for the use of this public resource.

2. In Kansas, our Pittman-Robertson funding lags far behind our neighboring states of Oklahoma and Missouri. In 2019 Kansas received $ 12,381,483, while Missouri received $ 17,819,728 and Oklahoma received $ 17,143,599. I believe this difference is mostly due to those states playing the game a bit better.

It's my understanding that state apportionment of P-R funds are disbursed for wildlife restoration projects based on the land and inland water area and the number of hunting licenses sold in each state. It's also my understanding that if a state sells a small game license and requires (for instance) a special tag for pheasant or a habitat stamp, those add-ons count as licenses. If this IS the case, Kansas needs to implement multiple stamps and add-on licenses to increase our P-R funding. While overall hunting cost could remain the same, the added requirements could significantly increase our P-R funds.

In closing, I again request your help in preserving the Kansas hunting heritage for the common man.....and my Grandchildren!

Best Regards,

 

[KSnative]

OUTSTANDING. I would have hit the button but there was only "like", not "love".

Sure hope hundreds (and hundreds, and hundreds) of viewers here take advantage of the hard work you put into this, and copy the heck out of it.
You've made it so easy.

 

[Kansascutter]

Outstanding sir. If anyone is on the fence now is the time. Contact the commissioner's and your representatives. We’re running out of time. Squeaky wheels boys.... squeaky wheels

 

[Chessie 67]

Ok, I finally got a chance to write all 7 commissioners. A bit disappointed that the KDWPT site posts a wall-o-text with no formatting. Unless I missed something.

Anyway, I hope it's not TLDR for them. Here it is. Feel free to use any or all. I admit I stole a lot of good ideas from some other fine posters in this thread.

Dear Commissioner XXXXXXX,

I feel that the outdoorsmen and women of Kansas are being rather quickly deprived of their hunting heritage. I am appealing to you for help in preserving our FORMERLY excellent resident upland game, waterfowl and deer hunting.

Unfortunately the nearly 50,000 non-resident deer licenses being issued by KDWPT has resulted in a significant decline in acreage available for residents to hunt deer as well as upland game. Any truly good cover is quickly leased up and reserved for the elite few. Kansas is slowly drifting into the Texas Model, where it takes $20,000 to lease deer ground. This also results in a decline in the Walk In Hunting Areas (WIHA) because any good WIHA is soon leased for far more than the WIHA remuneration. This in turn reduces the WIHA available to the average Kansan, creating more overcrowding in the remaining WIHAs.

Do we really want all the good Kansas hunting areas leased by a relative handful of Non-residents and Residents? I certainly hope not!

Waterfowl areas also are insufficient for the pressure they receive. As you know Kansas has very few WMAs and even fewer that support waterfowl. This forces more residents and nonresidents into the remaining public areas. Once again, the elite few are leasing all the good private ground. Like deer and upland, any productive waterfowl WIHAs are soon leased out to the highest bidder. This overcrowding of what remains has led to fist fights over spots, blocking boat ramps, sky busting and driving boats thru other’s decoy spreads. The waterfowl suffer unrelenting pressure from sun up to sundown. A drive thru Cheyenne Bottoms in season will turn up 3:1 NR vehicles compared to residents.

Something must be done. These are some of the problems I see. Here are a few suggestions. The Air Force taught me not to complain unless I also suggested solutions!

Deer

1. Reduce the number of Non-resident deer licenses and institute a lottery system. There should be no guarantee of a tag. Simultaneously, raise the cost. Absolutely prohibit the transfer of Kansas landowner tags to Non-Residents. Last time we did that it was a disaster.

2. Delay the opening of Non-Resident deer seasons by one week. Allow Residents to start one week earlier than the Non-Residents. This will allow Residents a chance at the public hunting areas before the Non-Resident crowds arrive.

Upland

1. Kansas has a good pheasant population complimented by the opportunity to harvest quail as well. I suggest going to the South Dakota Model for Non-Resident licensing. Sell a 10 day license (with the ability to split into two 5 day hunts) for $125 and require a $25 habitat stamp. (More about that later) While South Dakota routinely harvests more pheasants than Kansas, they harvest absolutely no quail at all. Our mixed bag is worth it.

2. As in the deer suggestion, delay the opening of Non-Resident upland seasons by one week. Allow Residents to start one week earlier than the Non-Residents. This will allow Residents a chance at the public hunting areas before the Non-Resident crowds arrive. South Dakota does this as well and it's a great idea.

Waterfowl

1. This situation is similar to the other two and I believe similar changes are in order. Non-Resident waterfowl licenses should be awarded by lotteries. These licenses are separate from a General Hunting License and have a separate fee structure.. Increased Non-Resident fees need to be implemented. This is the successful South Dakota Model.

2. Once again, delay the opening of Non-Resident waterfowl seasons by one week. Allow Residents to start one week earlier than the Non-Residents.

Additional Revenue for KDWPT

Increased NR fees will help KDWT with its budget, with creating more WIHA areas and hiring more biologists and Conservation Officers. That still won't be sufficient.

1. Require both Resident and Non-Resident guides to be licensed. Non-Resident guide licenses should cost twice as much as the Resident license. At present there's no testing or training of guides nor is there any oversight. These folks charge literally hundreds of dollars per day to lead hunters to Kansas game. They can well afford to pay for the use of this public resource.

2. In Kansas, our Pittman-Robertson funding lags far behind our neighboring states of Oklahoma and Missouri. In 2019 Kansas received $ 12,381,483, while Missouri received $ 17,819,728 and Oklahoma received $ 17,143,599. I believe this difference is mostly due to those states playing the game a bit better.

It's my understanding that state apportionment of P-R funds are disbursed for wildlife restoration projects based on the land and inland water area and the number of hunting licenses sold in each state. It's also my understanding that if a state sells a small game license and requires (for instance) a special tag for pheasant or a habitat stamp, those add-ons count as licenses. If this IS the case, Kansas needs to implement multiple stamps and add-on licenses to increase our P-R funding. While overall hunting cost could remain the same, the added requirements could significantly increase our P-R funds.

In closing, I again request your help in preserving the Kansas hunting heritage for the common man.....and my Grandchildren!

Best Regards,

Very well thought out and written. I am an out of state hunter and agree with all of your points.

 

[KSnative]

FWIW - if I read it correctly, there are currently no regulatory changes up for review at the upcoming Commission meeting - so the deck is clear. Plus due to COVID, the room should be emptier than usual. Meaning now may be the perfect time to actually have the ears (unavoidably, I guess) of the Commissioners.

I wonder if any on this board are active in the Kansas chapters of, e.g., Pheasants Forever and Ducks Unlimited? I'd think that the state level senior leadership of these and other similar organizations, at the state level, would have a strong interest in supporting Mr. Chestle's excellent points. Can anyone on this board pass along the Chestle-gram to the right people (who may already know about the upcoming Commission meeting but might appreciate being reminded)?

 

[KSnative]

Any one here follow/post on the "Texas Hunting Forum"? Found this while looking for other venues for the Chestle-gram. It amplifies the fact that this really is a horrific state of affairs that demands corrective action, and soon. I'm not a member but if anyone here is - what perfect timing to add to the growing voice for improvements.

DU Migration Update for Kansas | Page 2 | Refuge Forums

Frankly - I was shocked. I thought the OOS deer gripers were more (justifiably) irate than the pheasant gripers. Wrong. We pale alongside these duck guys. I am confident that a copy of Chestle's "letter" would get replicated on the KDWPT's doorstep many times over if someone could post it up over there.

 

[Birdman2]

Very well written. Coming from a NR, I would suggest raising payouts to farmers for the WHIA program. They don't make enough money.
Organize and lobby D.C. for the CRP program. I think there is a good chance to increase CRP programs with the new administration.

 

[KSnative]

Very well written. Coming from a NR, I would suggest raising payouts to farmers for the WHIA program. They don't make enough money.
Organize and lobby D.C. for the CRP program. I think there is a good chance to increase CRP programs with the new administration.

Good grief, lets not distract from the actionable opportunity at hand. And no, the new administration will not bless rural communities or farmers.
KDWPT Commissioners - not the Feds - are the problem and the cure on this one.

 

[Birdman2]

Native,

I was just suggesting that if the CRP program could be expanded that would help wildlife. Please don't think that was a political statement. I know better than that.

 

[Chestle]

Thanks for all the kind words.

However, I am certain many of you recognize your own words and ideas in that letter. It is definitely a team effort.

Let's just hope somebody listens.

 

[chase0109]

This is a very interesting thread. As a long time reader, rare poster, and OOS hunter who hunts a lot in Kansas I thought I might be able to add to this topic. I have been hunting Kansas since 2006. Mainly for jackrabbits over the years. The last few mainly for pheasants. All of my upland hunting in the last few years has been on WIHA property.



I do feel for the residents of Kansas who feel their hunting opportunities are decreasing both to resident and NR pressure. As a couple of people have said this is not just a Kansas issue. It is a national Issue! Every single state is getting more pressure on public land due to our increasing US population and decreasing land access issues. I hunt 5-8 states every year from everything from jackrabbits and birds to elk. I very much enjoy hunting Kansas for upland and jackrabbits. I don’t waterfowl hunt and couldn’t care less about whitetail deer LOL.



My personal opinion on Kansas upland opportunities. Kansas is a great opportunity state. I don’t think it is a top upland state at the current time like it was in 2000-2010. Weather conditions (drought) has had a big impact in the last decade. Lack of CRP enrolment and increase of private land being leased has dealt a major blow to upland opportunities in Kansas. I very much appreciate the WIHA program and the KDPWT employees who work hard to create these public access opportunities! There are some great WIHA properties and a lot that isn’t of any value for upland. But it’s a numbers game. I do feel most of the WIHA property is over pressured. I move areas of the state each day and make it a point to only hunt a WIHA property once per trip. Birds are easy to push to private and I’d rather not add to that happening.



I average about 10 miles a day (8-13) and run 2 good GWP’s. My goal each day hunting in Kansas is to bag 1 rooster. Of course, I love to get more lol. I usually leave the hotel in the dark and finish hunting at legal shooting time. I don’t stop for anything and hunt pretty hard all day. I have limited out twice this season on pheasants, count those as blessed by the pheasant god days. Some days I only get one 1-3 shot opportunities. I do like the mixed bagged opportunity for PC's and I have been focused on areas where I can get a chance at PC’s as well as roosters. That said I personally don’t think Kansas is the best state for upland hunting. I love Kansas and will continue to hunt there when possible. But next year I will probably spend just as much time in SD hunting upland hunting. They have more public access, more pheasants, better prairie chicken opportunities, plus sharptails. I am more than happy to spend more money for better hunting opportunities.



I understand limiting NR hunters like myself to create more opportunities for residents. I am not opposed to that at all. I am more than happy to help fund the KDPWT with additional funds, provided all hunters see a return on investment. Meaning I would be happy to pay more to see increases in WIHA properties and better habitat on those properties. Also more game wardens. I don’t think a lottery for small game licenses is needed, but would support it if brought up. I wouldn’t support the SD system of 10 day licenses. I would support raising license fees for both Resident and NR proportionate of course. Make the Resident small game license $100 and the NR small game License $300. Create a habitat stamp required by all hunters with any license $50. Like it or not all hunters Res or NR are going to have to foot the bill for access in states without much state owned land (Kansas). It will only get worse as time goes on. Basically I’m saying I will open up my wallet to crate better hunting as a group deal. I think a lot of hunters res or NR would feel the same if we could see results by doing so.



I’m not sure how Kansas taxes work. I assume they have state income tax. The outfitters (I believe) are paying a lot of tax dollars to Kansas. I run a small business and my work requires me to provide my services in multiple states. I have to file state taxes in each state where I physically did work and made money. So I pay state income tax to those states. I assume outfitters in KS (regardless of where they are based out of) file Kansas income tax and pay into KS on the money they made while outfitting/guiding in KS. Also the farmers getting paid for leases will have to pay income tax on the money they get from the outfitters. None of that helps KDPWT, but it does go into KS state taxes.



Bottom line is we need to create more resources and game. The pie is getting smaller each year due to loss of hunting areas, habitat, and game. Yet we keep pulling more chairs up to the table by increasing the US population. IMO the best way to combat that is to create a bigger pie. I’m not a deer hunter but I do see how much land is leased up for deer hunting. Let's be honest, that is never going to change. Look at all the western states. You can lower deer tags to NR and all it will do is create more demand for the limited tags. Guys will apply and wait as long as it takes to get a tag. Outfitters are still going to lease just as much property. They’ll just market bigger bucks because of less pressure. Until KDPWT can compete on the same dollar level, that leased land isn’t coming back. Same for CRP. I certainly don’t blame any property owner for wanting to make money on their investment.



I would suggest KDPWT might look at working with outfitters for the betterment of all hunters. See if outfitters will enroll their leased property in WIHA after the deer season ends. Make those properties upland/waterfowl only. Doesn’t hurt the deer population, outfitter makes some extra money on a property they are paying for but not using. Could be a win/win. Outfitters may need extra incentives. I have no idea how deer tags work in KS but maybe give them an extra landowner deer tag for each X number of acres they enroll in WIHA after deer season.



Upland

1. Kansas has a good pheasant population complimented by the opportunity to harvest quail as well. I suggest going to the South Dakota Model for Non-Resident licensing. Sell a 10 day license (with the ability to split into two 5 day hunts) for $125 and require a $25 habitat stamp. (More about that later) While South Dakota routinely harvests more pheasants than Kansas, they harvest absolutely no quail at all. Our mixed bag is worth it.
Personally, I don’t like the 10-day license idea. I could see the 10-day license for $125 as you suggest if they also offered a regular entire season license for $300 as well. I honestly don’t think there is enough value there for what Kansas currently offers to buy more than 1 NR license per year.

What hasn’t been mentioned yet is that residents should also help foot the bill. Make them buy the same 10-day license at the current rate of $27.50 or $100 for the entire season.



Chase

 

[Kansascutter]

Any one hear follow/post on the "Texas Hunting Forum"? Found this while looking for other venues for the Chestle-gram. It amplifies the fact that this really is a horrific state of affairs that demands corrective action, and soon. I'm not a member but if anyone here is - what perfect timing to add to the growing voice for improvements.

DU Migration Update for Kansas | Page 2 | Refuge Forums

Frankly - I was shocked. I thought the OOS deer gripers were more (justifiably) irate than the pheasant gripers. Wrong. We pale alongside these duck guys. I am confident that a copy of Chestle's "letter" would get replicated on the KDWPT's doorstep many times over if someone could post it up over there.

Native ,
This is some of the other forum traffic I’ve been talking about. Guys are flat fed up. I’ve known several residents that have hung it up. They are too frustrated from the state of affairs here in KS. This is part of the reason you’re seeing a drop in resident licenses. Keep reaching out to the commission!

 

[Chestle]

This is a very interesting thread. As a long time reader, rare poster, and OOS hunter who hunts a lot in Kansas I thought I might be able to add to this topic.

Chase

I DO think you are adding to this topic.

I think out-of-state hunter opinions are valuable and I appreciate you and others taking the time to post them.

I hope that you OOS folks will also make input to the DKWPT Commissioners as well. Whether pro or con to some ideas posted here, they need to hear it all from LOTS of us. They need to know we are ALL paying attention.

Thanks for posting.

Here's that link to send email to the Commissioners: KDWPT Contact Commissioners - Emails

 

[Kansascutter]

Any one here follow/post on the "Texas Hunting Forum"? Found this while looking for other venues for the Chestle-gram. It amplifies the fact that this really is a horrific state of affairs that demands corrective action, and soon. I'm not a member but if anyone here is - what perfect timing to add to the growing voice for improvements.

DU Migration Update for Kansas | Page 2 | Refuge Forums

Frankly - I was shocked. I thought the OOS deer gripers were more (justifiably) irate than the pheasant gripers. Wrong. We pale alongside these duck guys. I am confident that a copy of Chestle's "letter" would get replicated on the KDWPT's doorstep many times over if someone could post it up over the

I posted Chestle’s letter on the KS forum of the Refuge Forum. It’s under the Bird Reports thread. You guys should read that one along with the one Native linked. I appreciate the NRs weighing in with common sense ideas. I think most get it. I’ve said time and time again I don’t believe in banning NRs. We just need some common sense regulation that every other state in the Midwest is doing. TIME to step up KS!

 

[Kansascutter]

A quote taken from the Texas Hunting Forum. Anyone see a problem here? For those that don’t, KS will allow you to hunt 2 seasons on one license if you play it right. There’s your huge shortfall with the PR act ...... TOTAL BS! I won’t even go into how much ground this single outfitter ties up.

“I just got back from a 3 day hunt in KS with Sandhill Flyway. Awesome experience. A non resident Kansas license was around $115 and is good all year. I don't mean for the season, It's a year to date license. I purchased a license in DEC 20 and it will not expire till DEC 21. I can still go back to KS and hunt next season without having to get a new license.”

 

[KSnative]

A quote taken from the Texas Hunting Forum. Anyone see a problem here? For those that don’t, KS will allow you to hunt 2 seasons on one license if you play it right. There’s your huge shortfall with the PR act ...... TOTAL BS! I won’t even go into how much ground this single outfitter ties up.

“I just got back from a 3 day hunt in KS with Sandhill Flyway. Awesome experience. A non resident Kansas license was around $115 and is good all year. I don't mean for the season, It's a year to date license. I purchased a license in DEC 20 and it will not expire till DEC 21. I can still go back to KS and hunt next season without having to get a new license.”

Good eye, Cutter. It is hard to be sympathetic to constant "need more resources" cries from KDWPT (and some well intentioned people who are taken in by their schtick) when it is they who are leaving so much available PR funding on the table. Could it be that the "T"(ourism) component is putting a thumb on the scale? Nothing against the hotel, fast food or retail petrol industries - but it seems misguided to allow commercial interests to shape wildlife resource management policies. The results speak for themselves.

 

[Chestle]

I purchased a license in DEC 20 and it will not expire till DEC 21. I can still go back to KS and hunt next season without having to get a new license.”

That is not completely unheard of.

I bought a SD hunting license after December 15, 2020. It's good for two 5 day hunts. I hunted one 5 day right after Christmas. My second 5 day is set for the October 2021 opener. So in some states you can roll over a license.

HOWEVER, this highlights the idea of selling licenses for a particular term of days, like a 10 day license which can be split into two 5 day runs. Kansas needs to look into that because a 365 day year-to-date licensed doesn't make too much sense for a lot of reasons. P-R funding being just one of those.