Kansas Trespassing Fee for Private Land

turtle

Member
What will happen eventually is that anyone wanting to hunt Kansas, be it resident or non resident, will have to go to an outfitter. KS has lost about half of the resident Hunter numbers we had 30 years ago the way it is. Those outfitters don't lease 4000 acres, they lease 40,000.
Not being a smart ass on this so bear with me. You say that Kansas has lost about half its hunters in the last 30 years. On those numbers am I figured in as a lost hunter to Kansas since I have moved to Missouri? So in the numbers if Kansas lost 1 then Missouri should have gained one. I don’t know if this scenario is part their formula or not. I guess my question is do you know? It seems dumb to most but people like to Manipulate the numbers in favor of their views. I am not directing this at you, just wondering if you know if that is a factor or have we lost half the hunters. If we have lost half the hunters then I feel like I have failed to recruit people into our circle of fun.
 

KSnative

Active member
Even though I have it on good authority that I AM, not infrequently, a smart ass (and big mouth) - and do not want to step on westksbowhunter's response - you do raise an interesting point here re: numbers manipulation. Missouri has some good hunting, I am sure, but I surmise it is by no means the hunting mecca that Kansas has become. Yet, they get a far larger larger slice of PR funds - which is allegedly meted out based on these very numbers. I hypothesize that KDWPT is - with apologies to the consummate front line professionals who clearly know their business and are totally dedicated to wildlife management and to our sport - lazy as hell at the top end. And frankly a bit sneaky, in that they are continue to successfully avoid any effective oversight or public scrutiny via the "user fee" approach. Buckets of money flow directly from the disproportionate flow of mostly deep pocket non-resident sports to the kingpins at KDWPT (no, not bribes though one wonders how many urban directors drive new "fee" funded gas guzzlers to their downtown offices). Just unlimited and unsupervised "expenses". Which is why they so actively promote non-resident wildlife ticket sales. Which drive leasing. Which limits "local" access.

Anyone from the management/"leadership" end of KDWPT care to elaborate on the budget process within the organization? You know you are watching. Specifically how do the license and other "fee" revenues get allocated, into what (I suspect) broad/vague buckets - and what levels of approval EXTERNAL TO KDWPT (or their sham oversight commission) are engaged in allocation, and execution oversight?

Strong words from a faceless keyboard pounder and, as I said, just a hypothesis from a smart ass. But if I'm wrong, I'd expect an immediate and vigorous response. Make me happy, prove me wrong. The outdoorsmen and women of Kansas deserve that much from you.
 

westksbowhunter

Well-known member
Not being a smart ass on this so bear with me. You say that Kansas has lost about half its hunters in the last 30 years. On those numbers am I figured in as a lost hunter to Kansas since I have moved to Missouri? So in the numbers if Kansas lost 1 then Missouri should have gained one. I don’t know if this scenario is part their formula or not. I guess my question is do you know? It seems dumb to most but people like to Manipulate the numbers in favor of their views. I am not directing this at you, just wondering if you know if that is a factor or have we lost half the hunters. If we have lost half the hunters then I feel like I have failed to recruit people into our circle of fun.
People always come and go. Just look at all the NR who have bought land here just to deer hunt. Hunters are declining in most every state, not just Kansas. It's not as simple as just buying a weapon and heading out the door. You now have to drive a ways to just find public land. And Kansas ranks about last in public hunting opportunities. 1% or so of the state is public land. Access and expense drive hunter numbers down. I had read somewhere that since 2015, that Kansas residents deer permits have declined by about 25,000.
 
Last edited:

KsHusker

Active member
Absolutely blasphemous to post an article spouting the truth about what Big Ag has done to the environment/habitat. :cool:

Talk about there being very limited pheasants and the resident experts that move from pocket to pocket year to year will call you a liar - very few people I've seen can take the macro view of anything - they always have the micro view or what's immediately in front of their face and lack an ability to step back and look at the big picture.
 

s.davis

Active member
Missouri has some good hunting, I am sure, but I surmise it is by no means the hunting mecca that Kansas has become. Yet, they get a far larger larger slice of PR funds - which is allegedly meted out based on these very numbers

Twice as many people hunt Missouri as Kansas each year. That and acreage is what PR funds are distributed based on, if I recall correctly.
 

KSnative

Active member
Twice as many people hunt Missouri as Kansas each year. That and acreage is what PR funds are distributed based on, if I recall correctly.
That IS an eye opening fact. Are Kansans really THAT discouraged, or forced out due to leasing? If so, then perhaps we have at least properly identified the problem.

Definitely merits analysis. What is your data source? I think what you may be saying is that about 10% of Missourians buy licenses each year, and about 10% of Kansas also buy licenses each year and that, w/St Louis and KC in the mix, MO has about double the population of KS - giving the surface appearance of having twice as many hunters.

But does this include non-resident license purchasers as well as resident license purchasers? Therein may lie the rub, since one of the core problems we have discussed at length here is precisely that a disproportionate number of licenses to hunt in Kansas are peddled to non-residents (some say - OK, me too - at the expense of "locals").
 

KSnative

Active member
Are you serious or joking? I can't tell.

Busch Latte = Busch Light.
I don't know myself, half of the time. However, in this instance the fact is that I prefer not to acknowledge the possibility that our Administrator, who otherwise has revealed himself to be a man of taste and refinement, might stoop to drinking "Light" or "Lite" fake beer. Say it ain't so!
 

KSnative

Active member
That IS an eye opening fact. Are Kansans really THAT discouraged, or forced out due to leasing? If so, then perhaps we have at least properly identified the problem.

Definitely merits analysis. What is your data source? I think what you may be saying is that about 10% of Missourians buy licenses each year, and about 10% of Kansas also buy licenses each year and that, w/St Louis and KC in the mix, MO has about double the population of KS - giving the surface appearance of having twice as many hunters.

But does this include non-resident license purchasers as well as resident license purchasers? Therein may lie the rub, since one of the core problems we have discussed at length here is precisely that a disproportionate number of licenses to hunt in Kansas are peddled to non-residents (some say - OK, me too - at the expense of "locals").
Hmmm.

I pulled us US Fish and Wildlife Service stats for 2020 (latest available). Very interesting, and telling.

We were fundamentally correct about KDWPT's operating mode. MO (and other neighboring states) do gundeck the numbers for PR reaping purposes. Under the heading "Total licenses, tags, permits and stamps" - a miracle of sorts occurs. MO sells nearly two million of these various permission variants per year - KS comes in at under half a mil. LESS THAN one fourth as many. With just double the number of reported hunting license sales. So yes, Kansas leaves a ton of PR money on the table. To the gross detriment of Kansas residents.

But wait, there's more! Again recalling that MO claims right at double the number of total license sales - here's the cherry on the sundae. Logically, we would expect that MO would have double the number of non-resident license sales as KS - right? Bet you see where this one is going. MO shows just 91k non-resident licenses of all types; KS (with half the total license sales) shows 168k non-resident sales. Translation: almost 70 percent of Kansas license sales go to non-residents. Versus less than 20% of MO's licenses (not the inflated count of tags/permits etc used for PR reaping purposes).

Do you suppose that KDWPT's top end has a preference for unsupervised and unlimited cash flow from non-resident sales vice more publicly observable PR funding? If I was a resident Kansas hunter, I'd be outraged. I think people are just worn down the futility of taking on city hall.
Nothing more marginalizing than simply being ignored. I submit that is exactly what has occurred.
 

s.davis

Active member
PR funds are allocated based on formulas drawn from license sales (I don't believe that includes tags, permits and stamps), population and acreage. It's acreage is obviously not going to change, but it's population is not growing at the rate of most of America and it's resident license sales (which were always lower than a lot of peers) are declining rapidly. If Kansas cuts its NR license sales, it loses PR funding. The fundamental problem is that KDWPT doesn't have dedicated tax funding from the state of Kansas and doesn't have a lot of resident hunters. It relies more heavily on out of state hunting to fund its wildlife department to a greater degree than most of it's peers.
 
Last edited:

KSnative

Active member
Utter nonsense.

Kansas offers some of the best hunting in the country, yet only 10% of its residents buy licenses. That is nothing short of pitiful. Dwindling access seems to be the primary issue. A drop in outfitter/out of state leasing would open access to "locals" driving sharply increased sales.

Also, you conveniently (I'm being very kind here) overlook the fact that MO sells twice the licenses, but shows 4x the PR yielding permits, tags etc).
This proves they, like most states, understand the system and choose to tap existing federal funds instead of further burdening their own citizens as you suggest Kansas should do. I take it that you are not a Kansas taxpayer - right?

I don't think many here are drinking your Kool Aid.
 

BrownDogsCan2

Well-known member
Utter nonsense.

Kansas offers some of the best hunting in the country, yet only 10% of its residents buy licenses. That is nothing short of pitiful. Dwindling access seems to be the primary issue. A drop in outfitter/out of state leasing would open access to "locals" driving sharply increased sales.

Also, you conveniently (I'm being very kind here) overlook the fact that MO sells twice the licenses, but shows 4x the PR yielding permits, tags etc).
This proves they, like most states, understand the system and choose to tap existing federal funds instead of further burdening their own citizens as you suggest Kansas should do. I take it that you are not a Kansas taxpayer - right?

I don't think many here are drinking your Kool Aid.
Where do you come up with your numbers. Kansas is a little over 50 percent nonresident not including resident lifetimes.
 

KSnative

Active member
Where do you come up with your numbers. Kansas is a little over 50 percent nonresident not including resident lifetimes.

I cited my data source. What is yours, and what year(s) are you looking at? Even more importantly - where does the trend line tell you that number is headed over the coming years? I don't think you are going to much like where it winds up if nothing changes, or nothing is done to change it.

But lets say the US Fish and Wildlife Service is incorrect, and your number is spot on for some reason. For the sake of discussion - what is the difference in the validity of the conclusions drawn, if the correct number IS over 50% vice under 70%? Not much of a gap to begin with, and either way - just way out of balance, unless you happen to be an out of state outfitter, or direct beneficiary thereof.

Just curious. To what do you attribute the stunningly low percentage of Kansans taking advantage of the incredible hunting your state has to offer,
if not diminished access?

A top to bottom review of KDWPT policies regarding the promotion and sales of non-resident sales is much needed. I'm sure you will disagree - but why?
 
Last edited:

BrownDogsCan2

Well-known member
Correction resident and non resident lifetimes. Thats a number I’d be interested in seeing. How it breaks down total sold to date and how many still reside in state
 

BrownDogsCan2

Well-known member
I cited my data source. What is yours, and what year(s) are you looking at? Even more importantly - where does the trend line tell you that number is headed over the coming years? I don't think you are going to much like where it winds up if nothing changes, or nothing is done to change it.

But lets say the US Fish and Wildlife Service is incorrect, and your number is spot on for some reason. For the sake of discussion - what is the difference in the validity of the conclusions drawn, if the correct number IS over 50% vice under 70%? Not much of a gap to begin with, and either way - just way out of balance, unless you happen to be an out of state outfitter, or direct beneficiary thereof.

Just curious. To what do you attribute the stunningly low percentage of Kansans taking advantage of the incredible hunting your state has to offer,
if not diminished access?

A top to bottom review of KDWPT policies regarding the promotion and sales of non-resident sales is much needed. I'm sure you will disagree - but why?
 

KSnative

Active member
My numbers are two years more current than yours. And contain much more data. From the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

The end.
 
Top