Don't want to step on your post, excellent thoughts as usual. Wondering what KDWPT comeback will be. Hope I'm wrong, guessing the response will teeter between non-existent, evasive and/or defensive. On this one, it may be that they favor the status quo because they think it generates more revenue for them, and for the commercial tourism interests, than offering lower cost 3, 5 or 10 licenses to non-residents. This forces people who would opt for a lower cost short term license to shell out for an entire year - which encourages them to stay longer (hotel reservations required) and perhaps even to return more often. In other words, semi-advanced, kind of sneaky marketing of the resource.
Kansas Trespassing Fee for Private Land
- Thread starter Birdman2
- Start date
Based on the facts, the changes we are recommending should be a slam dunk but in scanning another related forum, I came across this ominous thread: Commissioners are a complete embarrassment | Refuge Forums - it ran for 5 pages! I am hoping that was because emotions were running high (changes to fall turkey limits sparked it) and that the Commissioners are generally fact driven, not politically motivated- but I've not heard back from a single Commissioner, myself, to date. So perhaps you got the one and only response anyone will get (and one of seven isn't encouraging). I'd have been more encouraged the Mr. Sporer had chosen to speak for himself rather than hiding behind the Gang of Seven at what I am beginning to fear will be a well controlled, agenda driven session with strictly managed "outside" input. A tidal wave of input is needed, one thinks, if we are to run any chance of moving the needle.
Posted this on another string but occurs to me that more forum viewers might see it here. If Commissioners don't respond, I'd encourage any and all good people here to apply for a seat on the Commission "their ownself". (Big fan of Gun Smoke, and of Festus Hagan who's phrase I just stole). Link below is how-to.
Commissioners are seated (appointed by the Governor, no Senate confirmation required). Governing statute is KSA 32-800. I am trying to find out how one dislodges one or more Commissioners if the need arises - best bet is that only the Governor can replace them once seated for their 4 year gig. By law, the Gang of Seven (my term, not theirs) must be a mixed bag of Democrats and Republicans, so I guess anyone can play, at least theoretically. Compensation unknown - that might be interesting, too.
One actually applies for the job - here: Apply to serve - Governor of the State of Kansas
Kansascutter
Member
I’ll give you the cliff notes on that Commission meeting, it’s a long story. Commissioner Lauber has been on at least 2 terms. Somehow. He’s not supposed to serve that long. He is a huge proponent of the fall turkey season. He hunts it and takes his grandkids. Turkey numbers have been way down in KS. The TRAINED department biologists recommended a fall closure to help the numbers recover. During the fall season you can shoot hens. Biologist wanted the closure to ensure hen carryover. Lauber has fought this tooth and nail for his own self serving purposes, not for the good of the resource or what the TRAINED state biologist have recommended. People from NWTF came and spoke trying to get what the biologist wanted. Lauber got to keep his fall turkey season. My best description of him is that he is a bully. I have no idea why these other commissioners acquiesce to him. I watched this s**t show meeting go down. It was disgusting. As a side note, Lauber is in the banking business. I’ve heard the state deposits money in his bank. If true, that’s a huge conflict of interest. I won’t go into it but Commissioner Don Budd did this same type of thing a few years backs. He changed duck season zones/dates because he owns a duck property in SE KS.
Sounds like Lauber is probably the Chair(?) - if so, is chosen by the Governor. In any event, bullies - and people who knuckle under to them instead of fulfilling their obligations to the citizens of Kansas and the resource (they actually take an oath, for all the good that seems to do) - gotta go. This upcoming meeting might be interesting - if any one here has an avenue to do so, might be worth asking the Governor to sit in by Zoom, just to see what the Commission appears to have become. SHE is the one that can fix it - but needs to be made aware that it needs doing. See subpara. 32-805(c) below.
KSA 32-800 is the enabling legislation. It is actually uncommonly brief and clear:
32-805. Wildlife, parks and tourism commission; membership; powers and duties; compensation and expenses; meetings, quorum. (a) There is hereby created within and as a part of the department the Kansas wildlife, parks and tourism commission which shall be composed of seven members. The governor shall appoint residents of this state to be members of the commission. One member of the commission shall be chosen from each fish and wildlife administration region as established by the department. In the appointment of members of the commission, the governor shall give consideration to the appointment of licensed hunters, fishermen and furharvesters, park users and to nonconsumptive users of wildlife and park resources. No more than a majority of the members shall be of the same political party. Each member of the commission shall hold office for a term of four years and until a successor is appointed and qualified, except that in appointing the original commission members, the governor shall designate one member for a term ending July 1, 1988, one member for a term ending July 1, 1989, and two members for terms ending July 1, 1990. The governor shall fill any vacancy on the commission prior to the expiration of a term by appointment for the unexpired term.
(b) Each member of the commission shall take and subscribe an oath or affirmation as required by law before taking office.
(c) The governor may remove a commissioner after opportunity for a hearing in accordance with the provisions of the Kansas administrative procedure act. If the commissioner is removed, the governor shall file in the office of the secretary of state a complete statement of all charges made against such commissioner and the governor's findings thereon, together with a complete record of the proceedings.
(d) The commission shall have such powers, duties and functions as prescribed by law. Other than rules and regulations pertaining to personnel matters of the department, the secretary shall submit to the commission all proposed rules and regulations. The commission shall either approve, modify and approve, or reject such proposed rules and regulations. The secretary shall adopt such rules and regulations so approved or so modified and approved. Fees established for licenses, permits, stamps and other issues of the department shall be subject to the approval of the commission. It also shall be the duty of the commission to serve in an advisory capacity to the governor and the secretary in the formulation of policies and plans relating to the department.
(e) The governor shall designate one commission member to serve as chairperson of the commission. Members of the commission attending meetings of the commission, or attending a subcommittee meeting thereof authorized by the commission, shall be paid compensation, subsistence allowances, mileage and other expenses as provided in K.S.A. 75-3223, and amendments thereto. A majority of the members of the commission shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Meetings may be called by the chairperson and shall be called on the request of a majority of the members of the commission.
KSA 32-800 is the enabling legislation. It is actually uncommonly brief and clear:
32-805. Wildlife, parks and tourism commission; membership; powers and duties; compensation and expenses; meetings, quorum. (a) There is hereby created within and as a part of the department the Kansas wildlife, parks and tourism commission which shall be composed of seven members. The governor shall appoint residents of this state to be members of the commission. One member of the commission shall be chosen from each fish and wildlife administration region as established by the department. In the appointment of members of the commission, the governor shall give consideration to the appointment of licensed hunters, fishermen and furharvesters, park users and to nonconsumptive users of wildlife and park resources. No more than a majority of the members shall be of the same political party. Each member of the commission shall hold office for a term of four years and until a successor is appointed and qualified, except that in appointing the original commission members, the governor shall designate one member for a term ending July 1, 1988, one member for a term ending July 1, 1989, and two members for terms ending July 1, 1990. The governor shall fill any vacancy on the commission prior to the expiration of a term by appointment for the unexpired term.
(b) Each member of the commission shall take and subscribe an oath or affirmation as required by law before taking office.
(c) The governor may remove a commissioner after opportunity for a hearing in accordance with the provisions of the Kansas administrative procedure act. If the commissioner is removed, the governor shall file in the office of the secretary of state a complete statement of all charges made against such commissioner and the governor's findings thereon, together with a complete record of the proceedings.
(d) The commission shall have such powers, duties and functions as prescribed by law. Other than rules and regulations pertaining to personnel matters of the department, the secretary shall submit to the commission all proposed rules and regulations. The commission shall either approve, modify and approve, or reject such proposed rules and regulations. The secretary shall adopt such rules and regulations so approved or so modified and approved. Fees established for licenses, permits, stamps and other issues of the department shall be subject to the approval of the commission. It also shall be the duty of the commission to serve in an advisory capacity to the governor and the secretary in the formulation of policies and plans relating to the department.
(e) The governor shall designate one commission member to serve as chairperson of the commission. Members of the commission attending meetings of the commission, or attending a subcommittee meeting thereof authorized by the commission, shall be paid compensation, subsistence allowances, mileage and other expenses as provided in K.S.A. 75-3223, and amendments thereto. A majority of the members of the commission shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Meetings may be called by the chairperson and shall be called on the request of a majority of the members of the commission.
Chestle
Well-known member
Here's the thing. The length of short term license doesn't have to follow the SD model exactly. It could be a 10, 12, 14 or 15 day license and (with today's computerized everything) the splits could be flexible as well. Let the OOS use the days in any and all combos not to exceed the purchased days. E.G. a 12 day license could be 4 three day hunts or 3 four day hunts. Even 6 two day hunts. It just doesn't matter.
Why? Because OOSers that want to hunt KS or SD will hunt as many days as they can manage. They will rent as many hotel rooms as necessary, buy as much gas, eat meals in cafes, etc., etc. as necessary to complete their hunt. They will come back as many times as they can manage if the hunting is good enough.
How many people here make multiple trips to SD? Do they care how many licenses they need? I doubt it. The license is ancillary to the hunt, like a pair of boots.
That said, hunters that have shorter travel time to good spots in KS will probably hunt more than someone coming from say, Florida. The Florida guy will probably make one trip but plan on a longer stay than a guy that lives just across the border in say Oklahoma. The Oklahoman would probably make more shorter trips. The monetary benefit to the Kansas economy is essentially the same for either guy whether it is a season license or a 10 day license.
I don't think a OOSer's total hunting days per season in KS is determined by having or not having a season long license. People get whatever licensing they need to hunt the number of days they can or want to hunt in either KS or SD.
The desired thing though is to generate a bit more revenue and increase numerical license sales (increase P-R funds). So some type of SD model is warranted IMO.
Chestle
Well-known member
On picking Commissioners.
I have a very close friend that was offered a spot on a wildlife Commission by the Governor of a Midwestern state that is a popular upland hunting destination. For personal reasons, he declined. I could have choked him!
I figured we'd get on some really GOOD ground if he had taken the job.
Why did he get the offer? Because he had been a major campaign contributor to the Governor's run for office. From there they developed a close personal friendship; golfing together, etc.
What am I saying here? I'm betting almost all the Commissioners in the plains states get their slot in similar fashion. Be friends with the Gov. Contribute to the campaigns.
Ever seen any Commissioners in any state that were actually trained conservationists/biologists/ecologists? I haven't.
I have a very close friend that was offered a spot on a wildlife Commission by the Governor of a Midwestern state that is a popular upland hunting destination. For personal reasons, he declined. I could have choked him!
I figured we'd get on some really GOOD ground if he had taken the job.Why did he get the offer? Because he had been a major campaign contributor to the Governor's run for office. From there they developed a close personal friendship; golfing together, etc.
What am I saying here? I'm betting almost all the Commissioners in the plains states get their slot in similar fashion. Be friends with the Gov. Contribute to the campaigns.
Ever seen any Commissioners in any state that were actually trained conservationists/biologists/ecologists? I haven't.
You have excellent insights. But I do wish we could separate the perfectly natural desire of the hospitality and gas industries to build their businesses, from what should be the hard science of wildlife resource management for the benefit of the resource first, Kansans second and all else on a space available basis. I kind of cringe every time I read inputs along the lines of "my group spends beaucoup bucks in Kansas, so I demand access to primo hunting grounds at my pleasure" - a fairly common thread on various forums. Most troubling is the fact that the KS Wildlife/Parks/Tourism establishment seems to be in perfect agreement. Perhaps the Commission should review their legislated mission statement from time to time.
Last edited:
Sir, are you suggesting the Commissioners' seats on State agencies are political plums?? I am shocked. Shocked I say!On picking Commissioners.
I have a very close friend that was offered a spot on a wildlife Commission by the Governor of a Midwestern state that is a popular upland hunting destination. For personal reasons, he declined. I could have choked him!
Why did he get the offer? Because he had been a major campaign contributor to the Governor's run for office. From there they developed a close personal friendship; golfing together, etc.
What am I saying here? I'm betting almost all the Commissioners in the plains states get their slot in similar fashion. Be friends with the Gov. Contribute to the campaigns.
Ever seen any Commissioners in any state that were actually trained conservationists/biologists/ecologists? I haven't.
You'd be shocked, too, if you took a look at the incredibly lengthy, multi-multi-multi page listing of similar KS Commissions on subjects you never even knew needed governance at the state level (but that's off topic, I guess).Speaking of which, I think we are SOL unless turnout in the form of direct input from the members here to each Commissioner, and perhaps the Governor, is too overwhelming to ignore or patronize away. I did, just now, receive an email response to my inquiry of same days ago from Lauren Sills, who copied Lauber for some reason. Not encouraging, read like a form letter. Did not directly address the issues at all, just suggested that there are many stakeholders with varying perspectives (I read "money talks") and that the issue is highly complex. Difficult, yes, but hardly complex if the Commission would elect to honor their oath, and take measures to stop selling out Kansans while selling off KS wildlife resources. She invited me to sit in on the Zoom meeting, of course, and I hope many here do that - although I am inclined to think, based on evidence to date, that it will be a well controlled kangaroo court aimed at legitimizing the blow-off. Ask a hard or unpopular question, I imagine, and your portal will blink off - "don't you know who we are"? I would be extremely pleased to be proven wrong.
Chestle
Well-known member
Response from Lauren Sill came in now at 8PM. I view that as a good sign. I think it’s a good response as well. I am actually hunting out of state myself on the 14th but if I can manage it I’ll get on the zoom.
The response:
“
Thank you for taking time to write and share your concerns. Your genuine passion and concern are evident. And as you are aware, the issues are complex. I am sharing your email and my response with several key individuals within the Department whose work is closely related to your concerns. While you may have received some misinformation on a few pieces of data, you are not alone in your concerns for the multiple areas in which non-resident hunting impacts our state and resources. While there are some very positive effects of non-resident hunting, there are also a number of significant challenges.
One key component in improving our conservation program is for concerned individuals to actively engage. This is becoming easier to do through the virtual format that Commission meetings are utilizing. The next Commission meeting is this Thursday, Jan 14. There is opportunity for public input on non-agenda items at the beginning of both the afternoon (1:30 pm) and evening (6:30 pm) sessions. I encourage you to participate, if you are able. The agenda and information on connecting can be found at: https://ksoutdoors.com/KDWPT-Info/Commission/Instructions-to-Participate-in-Virtual-Meeting.
Again, thank you for taking time to write.
Respectfully,
Lauren”
The response:
“
Thank you for taking time to write and share your concerns. Your genuine passion and concern are evident. And as you are aware, the issues are complex. I am sharing your email and my response with several key individuals within the Department whose work is closely related to your concerns. While you may have received some misinformation on a few pieces of data, you are not alone in your concerns for the multiple areas in which non-resident hunting impacts our state and resources. While there are some very positive effects of non-resident hunting, there are also a number of significant challenges.
One key component in improving our conservation program is for concerned individuals to actively engage. This is becoming easier to do through the virtual format that Commission meetings are utilizing. The next Commission meeting is this Thursday, Jan 14. There is opportunity for public input on non-agenda items at the beginning of both the afternoon (1:30 pm) and evening (6:30 pm) sessions. I encourage you to participate, if you are able. The agenda and information on connecting can be found at: https://ksoutdoors.com/KDWPT-Info/Commission/Instructions-to-Participate-in-Virtual-Meeting.
Again, thank you for taking time to write.
Respectfully,
Lauren”
Any one besides Chestle (and me, but I don't really count) attempting to communicate with the Commissioners - and if so, any replies, constructive or otherwise? Planning to Zoom in on the meeting this week, or better yet -attend?
At the link below, please find some bio information on the 3of the 7 Commissioners that I know have been appointed by the current Governor. No value in chunking clods at any of them, and I'd bet a majority (if not all) are very decent hardworking people who just happen to be politically connected (perhaps at the pocketbook level) with the Governor, as someone else pointed out here. Not a dig, that is just how things work most everywhere. But it is kind of interesting to note that there is - I think - a total of ZERO experience in habitat management, wildlife biology, or pretty much anything that one might connect with the actual functions that hold our interest. Quite a lot of formal education and business management reflected - which are not bad things - but honestly not what I was expecting to see, at least to this extent. Good to have some feel for who we are dealing with, what their backgrounds and qualifications are. Link here: 3 Appointed to Wildlife and Parks Commission (ksal.com)
Update:
I don't know a thing about Lauren Sill, but she (alone - so far - among the Commissioners) has been responsive and seems interested in the issues at hand. FWIW - she has advised the Commissioners are uncompensated (except for per diem expenses, which we certainly can't begrudge them). I don't want to be prematurely optimistic, but her responsiveness does suggest there is a real opportunity at hand if enough folks weigh in and follow through. Do you know who the Governor appointed as Chair of the Commission, by chance?
Where I am going with this is, I'll bet it would be a first if the Governor actually removed one or more Commissioners - especially, those she appointed (which is at least 3 of the 7) - for non-responsiveness to the needs of Kansans at large. Not too likely. But what she might be willing to do is to re-designate the Chair (if that isn't already Lauren Sill) if enough people suggest that Ms Sill would be helpful in increasing responsiveness to Kansans and to the needs of our wildlife resources. It might also suggest to the balance of the Commissioners that a cultural shift (towards a more pro-Kansas stance) might be in order - and beneficial changes favoring the citizens of Kansas might ensue.
Kansascutter
Member
Lauber is the chair. He is also the one who has been there for multiple terms. I’ve already discussed the issues with him.
Sill sent me a reply. She was very nice and acknowledged there was a problem. She went on to say she lost deer hunting ground due to outfitters. She went on to say her and her father tried public. It wasn’t working out for them so they went out of state to deer hunt. I believe she is aware of the issues here. We’ll see what happens.
Sill sent me a reply. She was very nice and acknowledged there was a problem. She went on to say she lost deer hunting ground due to outfitters. She went on to say her and her father tried public. It wasn’t working out for them so they went out of state to deer hunt. I believe she is aware of the issues here. We’ll see what happens.
If the chair steers the outcomes - which appears to be the case, given previous reports of "we can do whatever we want" and bullying unchecked by the bulk of the Commissioners - then this isn't going to fix itself. Nor can Ms Sill fix. It could not hurt if the other 5 non-chair/non-Sill Commissioners were activated/motivated via very large numbers of inquiries - if not from the members and viewers at this forum, then who? That would be a start. But if that fails, only one thing will make a damned bit of difference - and that is large political push on the Governor to have her direct reports (Commissioners) fix this thing. Just not that hard - there is simply no will, yet.
Don't make it too hard by trying to fix everything at once - start with the low hanging fruit. That being, in this instance, a full-blown push to achieve parity with our neighboring states in Pittman-Robertson funding. If the current Commission structure fails to do that - surely the Governor would take interest in why the current slate thinks that it is a good idea to shortchange voting Kansans.
Much appreciated. Just hope it gets some traction.
FWIW, below is an email inquiry I sent a day or so ago to Ms Sill. No reply yet, but it is still early. Also sent to a couple of the other Commissioners, just to test the theory that she may be the only responsive Commissioner. And lastly, plan to call the Commissioners (all of them) today. Any Kansas voters here doing the same?
I was reviewing your well considered testimony before the Kansas Senate re: deer tags. I'm sure that you are already painfully aware that the major degradation of our wildlife resources due to excess pressure from non-resident license sales isn't limited to deer - waterfowlers and upland bird hunters are in the same pickle.
Some excellent discussion has occurred and suggestions made on a social media forum (the Pheasant Forum) in the Kansas section.
In a nutshell - Kansas wildlife and residents are clearly being shortchanged. This won't get better on its own. A simple, low cost/high return start would be to simply adopt some of the practices of our neighboring states to GREATLY increase our share of the Pittman-Robertson act funds that are going to other states at our expense. This would allow a large reduction in non-resident deer license sales at no cost to the state, and greatly enhance the outdoor experience for a very large number of Kansans.
What a great many of us are wondering is - what does it take to implement simple changes such as these? What (or who) are the roadblocks and most importantly do you have the tools you need to correct the situation? If not - how can we help you make it so?
Respectfully,
Don
Mid-day update, only attempted a call to Mr. Lauber (chair, hence key) as I'd heard back from none of the Commissioners IRT previous emails. No dice so far, call neither answered nor returned.
So far, I'm not getting the impression that the Commission is much interested in improving wildlife management or access for Kansans. Perhaps they are essentially honorary positions with no real authority to act. The alternative - no, or even contrary motivation - would be even more disheartening. Not particularly encouraging to learn that a Commissioner who own land feels compelled to leave the state just to hunt the deer that were once abundant, pre-mass marketing of non-resident licenses. If Commissioners don't bother to hunt what remains of the resource available in Kansas, God help us little people.
Does the Governor know what is happening to her state and its people?
So far, I'm not getting the impression that the Commission is much interested in improving wildlife management or access for Kansans. Perhaps they are essentially honorary positions with no real authority to act. The alternative - no, or even contrary motivation - would be even more disheartening. Not particularly encouraging to learn that a Commissioner who own land feels compelled to leave the state just to hunt the deer that were once abundant, pre-mass marketing of non-resident licenses. If Commissioners don't bother to hunt what remains of the resource available in Kansas, God help us little people.
Does the Governor know what is happening to her state and its people?
Birdman2
Well-known member
Native. If you can't get responses from these board members, go to the next step. Talk to your state representatives, and or Senators. Tell them what you are trying to do for Kansas. Ask them to contact the board members. Put some heat on them. Surely out of all the guys here someone knows a rep or Senator personally. You may even have to contact your Governor's office about the lack of response from those board members. Keep up the good work !!!