Kansas Trespassing Fee for Private Land

[KSnative]

Reading the coyote post, I found a solution to the problem. Stock wolves in Kansas, they'll eat all the coyotes, and a lot of the deer. Once the deer are gone leases will dry up, and bird hunting permission will be easier.

No need to stock wolves - our neighbors in Colorado are taking care of that, I believe, and more than a few are certain to find their way across the state line! Not sure the net impact will be as great as we might hope for - coyote eat a lot of fawns, and more healthy adult deer than they usually get credit for.

What do you think of the "money from CRP must be tied to public access" notion?

 

[KSnative]

No need to stock wolves - our neighbors in Colorado are taking care of that, I believe, and more than a few are certain to find their way across the state line! Not sure the net impact will be as great as we might hope for - coyote eat a lot of fawns, and more healthy adult deer than they usually get credit for.

What do you think of the "money from CRP must be tied to public access" notion?

A bit more factual data on pros/cons of CRP/access linkage from the Habitat string:

KSnative said:
What losses? CRP enrolment is competitive, at least in my neck of the plains. How much CRP money has been declined in your county? State?

You may find the facts here to be of interest. The potential for large scale expansion of hunting opportunities is substantial. Why would you NOT want that? https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/safe08.pdf

Plus. What impact do you think the many tens of thousands of sportsmen and women who would benefit from increased access might have on the political incentive to expand the CRP program? ("CRP - its not just for the farmers anymore").

The result would almost certainly be more - not less - total CRP acreage.

Reply
Report Edit Delete

 

[Thatguy]

As a landowner if you tied public access with CRP there is no way in hell I would sign up and I am betting I am not alone.

 

[KSnative]

As a landowner if you tied public access with CRP there is no way in hell I would sign up and I am betting I am not alone.

How many acres do you have in CRP at present?

 

[KSnative]

Some interesting viewpoints on this topic from another thread:

McFarmer said:
It certainly wouldn’t increase CRP, probably reduce it drastically. I entered some ground into CRP in 2020, just an area that is too wet to farm and not big enough to tile, three acres. No way would I have done it if hunting was part of the mix. The payment is about 2/3 of the rate on the rest I entered in earlier.
I will be putting much more in the EQUIP program, it pays very well but there has to be water quality issues.

New emphasis on environmental preservation with the current USDA might increase land in some sort of reserve. Long term easements would get more attention if the qualifications were lower.

If there was some sort of bonus on top of a decent payment rate to allow public use that might attract some. When we were in the IHAP program there wasn’t any payment to the landowner.
Click to expand...

Well, the good news - I guess - is that controlling the environment is now considered a priority project for each and every federal government agency. However, as I understand it, the current thinking is along the lines of new governmental mandates - not additional "incentives".

Reply
Report Edit Delete

K

KSnative​

Active member​

• 12 minutes ago
• New
• Add bookmark
• #15

remy3424 said:
We have IHAP here in Iowa, a program where the CRP landowner can get another incentive payment to allow hunting. Most CRP doesn't have the signage for this, so most don't accept this extra incentive. I think that a decent percentage of CRP is put into the program for the landowner's family to hunt. I am not sure if the IHAP program has liability protection for the landowners, it almost has to, if not, that alone would discouage participation. I think most landowners not want the general public out on their land, whether they are hunting or doing who knows what. Sportmen that have purchased land and enrolled it in CRP wouldn't be down with this either. If allowing the public to hunt on CRP acres was required, it might save a lot of government payments, but would not create near the acres or have the bird populations we now have, due to the enrollment being even lower than now with that requirement. I was thinking KS had lots of public ground already, not so much?

What losses? CRP enrolment is competitive, at least in my neck of the plains. How much CRP money has been declined in your county? State?

Well, as far as CRP funds declined, I would say in my area I have seen ZERO new CRP since 2016, so ALL of it has evidently been declined. There are programs open to enrollment, but no takers at the current rates it seems. Make it required to allow public hunting on the CRP contracts and then you will see the losses in the reduction in renewals. Our IHAP acres compared to the acres in CRP not enrolled in IHAP, will show how popular that would be. Dig up that info for Iowa and post it here.
Click to expand...

What is the source of your information, sir? Not saying it isn't so in your particular county - but how is it that you came to know that a large and growing amount of CRP money has been left on the table in your county? Even more to the point, how much have you - personally - withdrawn from the CRP program because the payments (computed, as I understand it, at average dry land farm rental rates for your individual state) weren't sufficient to compete with alternate uses? Your analysis overlooks a very significant point. Today, you can collect CRP funds and opt not to also accept the headaches that go with a small additive amount of IHAP funding. And that is very cool for you. However, if CRP funding without public access ceases to be an option - you might reconsider. Active farmers and businessmen, for the most part, would.

I understand your point of view. You don't much care for the notion of a taxpayer quid-pro-quo in return for your not farming unproductive or environmentally ill suited ground that you already own. One might say you have a dog in that fight - a big one. But I think that it would be fair to say that the tax paying, hunting community also has a stake in this. They pay for the CRP that we then lease out to them for hunting. Correct?

Reply
Report Edit Delete

K

KSnative​

Active member​

• 4 minutes ago
• New
• Add bookmark
• #16

BrownDogsCan2 said:
Contracts expired in Sept I believe. A lot was turned over and planted to wheat. A lot of it has been turned over since the first of the year. A lot has been hayed in preparation of being turned over. Several of the walkin pieces I have been in, ones that didnt look like those listed above, which I’ve driven by plenty, have been driven all over some with track machines and surveyed evident by pink paint in the fields which I can only assume has something to do with filter strips.

Pardon my apparent ignorance, but are we given to understand that you continue to maintain that you can visually identify current and future ex-CRP by driving past it. And that pink paint means a planned CRP withdrawal and/or that filter strips are somehow incompatible with CRP (as opposed to being the very embodiment of it)? Must be unique to your part of Sedgewick county. Are you sure the pink paint isn't laying out new housing developments, or new malls?

Reply
Report

 

[Thatguy]

How many acres do you have in CRP at present?

None. Nearly enrolled 30 acres in the pollinator program but dont like the feds having a say in what I do with my property. I do have acres in the habitat first program which is a State of Kansas program. They have given me native grass seed, paid for tree removal, and they drop off food plot seed to plant a plot for upland birds. They would pay me more to allow public access, I said no thanks.

 

[KSnative]

None. Nearly enrolled 30 acres in the pollinator program but dont like the feds having a say in what I do with my property. I do have acres in the habitat first program which is a State of Kansas program. They have given me native grass seed, paid for tree removal, and they drop off food plot seed to plant a plot for upland birds. They would pay me more to allow public access, I said no thanks.

So - I rest my case. Hunting access to the taxpaying public is not a significant driver of acreage going in to, or coming out of, CRP - even in your immediate case. Importantly, we have found some common ground. I don't like the government telling me what to do, either. In a non-public forum, yikes, the (factual) stories I could tell you...

Even more important to remember that we are on the same side here - more/better hunting and fair treatment for the citizenry. I don't think you'd take issue with that.

 

[Thatguy]

So - I rest my case. Hunting access to the taxpaying public is not a significant driver of acreage going in to, or coming out of, CRP - even in your immediate case. Importantly, we have found some common ground. I don't like the government telling me what to do, either. In a non-public forum, yikes, the (factual) stories I could tell you...

Even more important to remember that we are on the same side here - more/better hunting and fair treatment for the citizenry. I don't think you'd take issue with that.

I guarantee that if you mandated public access to CRP there would be so much coming out it would make your head spin. I also guarantee you would see very little new enrollment. You are utterly clueless.

 

[KSnative]

I guarantee that if you mandated public access to CRP there would be so much coming out it would make your head spin. I also guarantee you would see very little new enrollment. You are utterly clueless.

And you declined CRP even without the "threat" of access for those who pay for it - while accepting numerous game-benefitting projects funded by your fellow Kansas taxpayers. Who you do not afford access. Selfish, much?

Post THAT on Facebook.

 

[Thatguy]

And you declined CRP even without the "threat" of access for those who pay for it - while accepting numerous game-benefitting projects funded by your fellow Kansas taxpayers. Who you do not afford access. Selfish, much?

Post THAT on Facebook.

Yep. For what its worth I am up to 26 and have heard folks call you a f---ing idiot more than once. I am done with this website.

 

[KSnative]

Yep. For what its worth I am up to 26 and have heard folks call you a f---ing idiot more than once. I am done with this website.

I'm just glad it was Zucker's Zombies, not you calling me a fxxxing idiot as that might be interpreted as borderline discourteous.

 

[KSnative]

White flag. I didn't mean to start a riot, or even a mostly peaceful protest - just spit balling ideas in search of solutions. I surrender to the court of internet opinion, and plead nolo contendere to the many charges leveled. Except the racism one, that one was bogus.

The discussion was helpful to me, though - and I did learn a thing or two (clueless or not). Below may be of interest.

• #30

Matt D said:
For the guy that doesn’t own any CRP that sounds like a great idea(IE the original poster) but in reality you would see renewals and new enrollment go way down. As an example I am looking at buying a piece of ground that currently has decent amount in crp with the idea and hope of keeping it on n CRp beyond this contract. If there was a condition that had to allow public access there is not a chance in hell I would be looking at buying it.

I’m not sure where this idea originated from but it really is one of the most off the wall, no way it would work I have heard!

FWIW, I'm the original poster and have owned CRP for a very long time. I disagree with your conclusions, but acknowledge that my notion is DOA by popular demand. I can't say I've seen better (or any) other solutions proposed here for the widespread loss of access due to leasing that so many complain of here - but I don't personally lack access, so I guess one might say its not my problem. I'm just surprised at how many people who more/less demand more public access, who at the same time emphatically insist they would decline CRP if they had to return the favor.

With CRP payouts now being increased by as much as 20%, and with about a million acres expected to be added to the existing program nationwide under the new administration, I plan to sign up for even more.

 

[KSnative]

White flag. I didn't mean to start a riot, or even a mostly peaceful protest - just spit balling ideas in search of solutions. I surrender to the court of internet opinion, and plead nolo contendere to the many charges leveled. Except the racism one, that one was bogus.

The discussion was helpful to me, though - and I did learn a thing or two (clueless or not). Below may be of interest.

• #30

FWIW, I'm the original poster and have owned CRP for a very long time. I disagree with your conclusions, but acknowledge that my notion is DOA by popular demand. I can't say I've seen better (or any) other solutions proposed here for the widespread loss of access due to leasing that so many complain of here - but I don't personally lack access, so I guess one might say its not my problem. I'm just surprised at how many people who more/less demand more public access, who at the same time emphatically insist they would decline CRP if they had to return the favor.

With CRP payouts now being increased by as much as 20%, and with about a million acres expected to be added to the existing program nationwide under the new administration, I plan to sign up for even more.

KsHusker said:
You claim to own land in KS - how much I dont know - I think flint hills region and it seems you get some CRP payments and live out of state. Is your land enrolled in Walk in Hunting?

No, I have never taken one dime in WIHA funds and yes, I do "claim" to own land in Kansas. It is precisely the type of attitude you demonstrate that sells purple paint by the bucket - may be an internet phenomenon.

You kind of remind me of some fellows with out of state tags who ran me down and attempted to place me under citizens arrest while they called the sheriff. They were quite upset with me, as they had hunted the place for years and objected to my poaching. I let them go on for a while before pointing out that I was the fellow who pays the taxes on the property we were all standing on - and had been for many years. True story.

But they were a rare exception, at least in my experience - and one I've not had with Kansas hunters.

Reply
Report Edit Delete

K

KSnative​

Active member​

• 3 minutes ago
• Add bookmark
• #37

westksbowhunter said:
Yes he does. You and I hunt the same general areas, mostly Ness and Rush for me. I lost well over half of my good hunting spots this year.

Curious. How did you lose "your" properties? You have a rather entitled attitude, one I'm seeing way too much of here (to my great surprise).

 

[KSnative]

I'm not sure we share a common understanding of the term "hypocritical" or "ironic". What I proposed was that if one does accept CRP funds - which I DO - then one should provide the public an opportunity to enjoy what they paid for. That means that the access I provide would cease to be at my discretion. The intent was to broadly increase hunting access (and maybe snuff out a deer lease or two). It wouldn't do a thing for me, personally - I just think it would be more fair to others who don't have the good fortune to have the limitless access to great ground that I enjoy.

Mine was not a popular notion, as I have learned. But that's OK, this forum at least gave me an opportunity to float the idea and that's all I could ask for.

I will cut/paste this to the "Trespass" string, hope you don't mind - it just seems to have gotten a lot of views. Over 12k when I last checked. That's good for a full airing of the issue, and I think good for this great forum.

 

[KSnative]

• Yesterday at 7:43 PM

I’ve explained it to the best of my ability, I’m done.

KSnative​

​

And I sincerely thank you for that, McFarmer. I think I am beginning to grasp the basics.

FWIW, the difference between a "grant" and "forgiven loan" is that for the first, you have to convince a bureaucrat that the effort being funded lacks sufficient economic merit to justify the expense on the front end; for the latter, you just have to prove it by failing.

The administration's "totality of government' goal, as I understand it, is to ensure that 30 percent of our land surface remains idle, one way or another. Although it will be done anyway, there may not be much of a need to grow funding for CRP (or carbon trapping, or whatever the new way of reimagining terms may be). Thanks to the intentional shut down of American oil independence, crude oil prices are projected to double (roughly) by year end. Agriculture is a particularly energy use intense industry - not just for trucks, tractors, combines etc but especially for production of fertilizers and other chemicals. Coupled with recent advancements in our ability to rather precisely identify outputs vs inputs for sub-components of any agricultural field, this will significantly reduce the economic motivation to farm marginal soils - CRP (or carbon banking, or "improved practices") expansion not withstanding.

 

[KSnative]

More information and maybe a stray fact or two re: the possibly prematurely announced death of CRP.

More than semantics here. The source you provide (Farm Bureau) has been previously widely cited as a bad actor on this forum - yes? I am as shocked as you are that the Farm Bureau would advocate for higher payments, as any good lobby would. Even as they note in the source you provide that "individual contract data is not available" for comparison purposes. Meaning - they cherry picked their data. Furthermore, you can't compare the economics of good bottom ground soil productivity to that of marginal soils (as targeted by CRP) and conclude that payments are inadequate.

We've heard widely here that farmers are walking away from CRP in droves. This is, to date, an entirely unsupported assertion (excluding the FB lobby "data"). The proof is in the pudding - has CRP money been left on the table in significant amounts? That would be a simple yes or no, unless one has an axe to grind. Looking for facts here, not "positions".

And welcome back!

Reply
Report Edit Delete

M

McFarmer​

Active member​

• Today at 5:10 PM
• New
• Add bookmark
• #59

“ Even as they note in the source you provide that "individual contract data is not available" for comparison purposes. Meaning - they cherry picked their data.”

No, it doesn’t mean that at all.

This has gotten absurd.

Like Reply
Report

[IMG alt="BrownDogsCan2"]https://forum.ultimatepheasanthunting.com/data/avatars/m/3/3936.jpg?1590547251[/IMG]

BrownDogsCan2​

Well-known member​

• Today at 5:20 PM
• New
• Add bookmark
• #60

KSnative said:
More than semantics here. The source you provide (Farm Bureau) has been previously widely cited as a bad actor on this forum - yes? I am as shocked as you are that the Farm Bureau would advocate for higher payments, as any good lobby would. Even as they note in the source you provide that "individual contract data is not available" for comparison purposes. Meaning - they cherry picked their data. Furthermore, you can't compare the economics of good bottom ground soil productivity to that of marginal soils (as targeted by CRP) and conclude that payments are inadequate.

We've heard widely here that farmers are walking away from CRP in droves. This is, to date, an entirely unsupported assertion (excluding the FB lobby "data"). The proof is in the pudding - has CRP money been left on the table in significant amounts? That would be a simple yes or no, unless one has an axe to grind. Looking for facts here, not "positions".

And welcome back!
Click to expand...

................2.5 million acres were left on the table in 2020

USDA releases CRP rental rates, grants higher rates to 121 counties​

By Max Fisher, Vice President of Economics and Government Relations The U.S. Department of Agriculture has released the 2020 county average cash rental rates for non-irrigated cropland that will serve as the starting point for calculating rental rate offers for this year’s Conservation Reserve...

www.ngfa.org

Last edited: 56 minutes ago
Like Reply
Report

[IMG alt="BrownDogsCan2"]https://forum.ultimatepheasanthunting.com/data/avatars/m/3/3936.jpg?1590547251[/IMG]

BrownDogsCan2​

Well-known member​

More of the same......

Reviewing 2020 CRP Enrollment​

USDA’s Conservation Reserve Program is one of the largest federally administered private land retirement programs. Under CRP, in exchange for annual rental payments ranging from $10 per acre to nearly $300 per acre, farmers and landowners voluntarily remove environmentally sensitive land from...

KSnative​

Active member​

• McFarmer said:
  “ Even as they note in the source you provide that "individual contract data is not available" for comparison purposes. Meaning - they cherry picked their data.”
  
  No, it doesn’t mean that at all.
  
  This has gotten absurd.

  Incomplete data is cherry picked information in my lexicon, but if you are more comfortable with the term "flawed" - OK, we'll go with that. Can you at least recognize that the Farm Bureau just possibly might have an axe to grind?
  
  I, like you, would personally benefit from higher CRP "rental" rates (although not as much as Bill Gates most likely would). But what would truly be absurd would be the reliance on patently biased and entirely unsupported (and very self serving) assertions to form conclusions that the facts simply do not support. Farmers are not economically clueless.
  
  So, again - how much CRP money is actually being declined, and what percentage of the total does that represent? Lets identify and attack real problems, and not waste our attention and energy on possibly self serving opinions or pink paint scares.

 

[BrownDogsCan2]

More information and maybe a stray fact or two re: the possibly prematurely announced death of CRP.

More than semantics here. The source you provide (Farm Bureau) has been previously widely cited as a bad actor on this forum - yes? I am as shocked as you are that the Farm Bureau would advocate for higher payments, as any good lobby would. Even as they note in the source you provide that "individual contract data is not available" for comparison purposes. Meaning - they cherry picked their data. Furthermore, you can't compare the economics of good bottom ground soil productivity to that of marginal soils (as targeted by CRP) and conclude that payments are inadequate.

We've heard widely here that farmers are walking away from CRP in droves. This is, to date, an entirely unsupported assertion (excluding the FB lobby "data"). The proof is in the pudding - has CRP money been left on the table in significant amounts? That would be a simple yes or no, unless one has an axe to grind. Looking for facts here, not "positions".

And welcome back!

Reply
Report Edit Delete

M

McFarmer​

Active member​

• Today at 5:10 PM
• New
• Add bookmark
• #59

“ Even as they note in the source you provide that "individual contract data is not available" for comparison purposes. Meaning - they cherry picked their data.”

No, it doesn’t mean that at all.

This has gotten absurd.

Like Reply
Report

[IMG alt="BrownDogsCan2"]https://forum.ultimatepheasanthunting.com/data/avatars/m/3/3936.jpg?1590547251[/IMG]

BrownDogsCan2​

Well-known member​

• Today at 5:20 PM
• New
• Add bookmark
• #60

................2.5 million acres were left on the table in 2020

USDA releases CRP rental rates, grants higher rates to 121 counties​

By Max Fisher, Vice President of Economics and Government Relations The U.S. Department of Agriculture has released the 2020 county average cash rental rates for non-irrigated cropland that will serve as the starting point for calculating rental rate offers for this year’s Conservation Reserve...

www.ngfa.org

Last edited: 56 minutes ago
Like Reply
Report

[IMG alt="BrownDogsCan2"]https://forum.ultimatepheasanthunting.com/data/avatars/m/3/3936.jpg?1590547251[/IMG]

BrownDogsCan2​

Well-known member​

More of the same......

Reviewing 2020 CRP Enrollment​

USDA’s Conservation Reserve Program is one of the largest federally administered private land retirement programs. Under CRP, in exchange for annual rental payments ranging from $10 per acre to nearly $300 per acre, farmers and landowners voluntarily remove environmentally sensitive land from...

KSnative​

Active member​

• 
  Incomplete data is cherry picked information in my lexicon, but if you are more comfortable with the term "flawed" - OK, we'll go with that. Can you at least recognize that the Farm Bureau just possibly might have an axe to grind?
  
  I, like you, would personally benefit from higher CRP "rental" rates (although not as much as Bill Gates most likely would). But what would truly be absurd would be the reliance on patently biased and entirely unsupported (and very self serving) assertions to form conclusions that the facts simply do not support. Farmers are not economically clueless.
  
  So, again - how much CRP money is actually being declined, and what percentage of the total does that represent? Lets identify and attack real problems, and not waste our attention and energy on possibly self serving opinions or pink paint scares.

10 percent god damn you’re a stubborn bustard now stfu

 

[KSnative]

10 percent god damn you’re a stubborn bustard now stfu

Thank you, but that's stubborn "bastard", not "bustard".

At last, you present an actual fact that we can verify. Which I will do, if you could be so kind as to cite your source. Unless latex gloves would be required for the independent confirmation but I'm hoping you have a new source.

What's a "STFU"? Mom used to say that a lot when she was off the street and straight, but I never did quite know what it meant.

 

[KSnative]

3car said:
You use big words... lol Thats our reallity tho. No-till farming practices coupled with better fertilizer/chemical plans and seed genetics allows for higher yields in those otherwise marginal areas and last year guys did really good considering the mess they have been in. CRP is still coming out to be farmed as soon as the contract is done. But really if you want an answer get a hold of your local District Conservationist from the NRCS and pose the question to them. I am sure they have other reasons why. It boils down to money.

I have yet to be able to confirm wide scale withdrawals, or any significant amount of money being left on the table. USDA web sites offer no substantiation (in fact, suggest the contrary) so I called USDA this AM and asked about it. It was a mystery to them, not a problem on their radar - but of course I just talked to one guy in DC, so no hard proof there. Kind of like asking your FaceBook friends - no science behind it.

FWIW, not clear to me how no-till (with its increased chemical requirements) or state of the art genetically engineered seeds would change the economic balance. Tons of chemicals and high tech seeds cost more; more input coupled with more output would equal a net zero gain for the most part. Furthermore - watch oil prices. Rocketing upward. That will translate very shortly into much higher chemical prices, and that won't favor working marginal soils by any means.

What I thought you'd overlook in your analysis (OK, that's kind of tricky - but you one upped me by not dong one!) was the one factor everyone seems to miss: risk. Or more precisely, lack thereof. Farming is, was and likely always will be a highly risky business. Everything from weather, to pestilence, to pandemics, to strained international relations, to God knows what all act to make tilling the soil a real crap shoot, each and every year. Yes - I may make double the net profit one year by planting soybeans, corn, wheat, alfalfa etc --- but I may also lose every dime of fuel, seed, chemical, equipment purchase or rental and capital cost - along with every labor hour of input. And often do.

With CRP that government check just keeps on coming in, no matter what. No risk, no worry, no labor. In business terms - that is an excellent deal. They are always welcome to send me more OPM (other people's money) if they wish, but I'm all in at current rates.

 

[KSnative]

BrownDogsCan2 said:
Ok so I am done after this.
"In mid-March, the FSA announced that the agency succeeded in enrolling 3.4 million acres into the program. Unfortunately, 5.4 million acres currently in the program will expire just as those contracts go into effect.

Here’s how this all shakes out:

22.5 million acres—or 2 million acres below the 24.5-million-acre cap—were enrolled in CRP as of December 2019
+ 3.4 million acres enters CRP in October 2020
– 5.4 million acres expire by October 2020
20.5 million total acres—4.5 million acres below the 25-million-acre cap—will be enrolled in CRP as of October 2020

This more than doubles the current acreage shortfall, and another 7 million acres is set to expire by October 2021. [It’s important to note that sign-ups are still ongoing for the continuous CRP, as well as CRP Grasslands, Clean Lakes Estuaries and Rivers (CLEAR), and the Soil Health and Income Protection Program (SHIPP), but enrollment in these programs will not make up the growing acreage shortfall.]"
Click to expand...

"Expiring contracts" is not synonymous with a "shortfall", although FSA offices have been a lot slower than usual in getting around to renewing them (at least, such has been my personal experience). Due to COVID issues and widescale computer issues that compounded the inefficiencies attending "work at home". All at just the wrong time (for those wanting to re-up their CRP). Hence the shift to "continuous signups" instead of the customary annual one shot deal that, as the clip you provided explicitly points out, "is important to note".

It is not my objective here to be obnoxious, stubborn, stupid, racist or any other shade of naughty here so as to miff you (and maybe Remy and McFarmer). Rather, to work toward a better understanding as to whether farmer bailouts from CRP is a significant problem for Kansas' hunting public. It doesn't appear to be.

Which does not mean there are not real problems with good hunting access for Kansans - there obviously are. These problems need to be tackled in an effective way, at their source. Starting with finding ways to ameliorate exclusionary leasing practices that exist primarily, it would appear, due to the success of KDWPT's non-resident deer tag marketing efforts.

And that is a problem that Kansas residents and voters can and should solve. Lets get 'er done.

Reply
Report Edit Delete