Kansas Trespassing Fee for Private Land

BrownDogsCan2

Well-known member
That is what we'd call an opinion - one to which you are perfectly entitled.

But my facts are valid, and both more comprehensive and more current then yours.
Do you have a link. I think you misinterpreted them. Do you think us fish and wildlife puts together it’s own numbers or relies on each state to supply them?
 

KSnative

Active member
Do you have a link. I think you misinterpreted them. Do you think us fish and wildlife puts together it’s own numbers or relies on each state to supply them?
Just Duck/Duck it up, like I did. Not at all hard to find, or I never could have rooted it up all by myself.

But once again you miss the central point. Their numbers are two years more current than what you offered up. See above re: trends, and further under "what's gonna happen if we continue to do absolutely nothing about it".
 

Prairie Drifter

Well-known member
Guys, this has turned into a dungeons and dragons fight with imaginary statistics and more imaginary bully-pulpiting. We have so many reasons why people are not buying licenses or going afield these days without us fighting amongst ourselves and making bad medicine in our existing ranks. Yes, we need access. Yes we need both resident and non-resident contributions. All too often the things you are purporting KDWPT as promoting are actually things the Kansas Legislature is putting forward.

What we need is for every adult hunter to take 2-10 first time hunters afield each year and get them started with some success. We need to quit being game hogs, trying for a limit every time out and share some of that "some of the best hunting in the country" with these youngsters. Last I heard, only about 6% of Kansans hunt! At the start of the 1900's, 50% hunted. As for the birds, they have to be affected by the past 12 years of CRP acreage losses. They suffer too from the degradation of the remaining acres due to limited disturbance. Look at the small towns in western Kansas! A lot of them no longer have a school nor a grocery store. People with families that aren't farmers largely don't want to live out there. Look at how many empty dilapidated houses you while driving to hunting spots. Consider the neonictinoid pesticides that are now the rage even though they are already outlawed in Britain and Europe. Look at the simplified plant systems in our agricultural fields. Folks with a 6 or larger number in front of their age know what wheat fallow used to look like in western Kansas. It was chock full or kochia, Russian thistle, sunflower, foxtail, and pigweed and stood almost 2 feet tall even after harvest! How do you provide insects to hungry chicks when there is only 1 species of plants in the fields when they are green and none after they have been sprayed down with Roundup. Consider that in the '60's western Kansas's most prominent row crop was milo and southeastern Kansas's main row crop was corn. Now those two roles have reversed and we've thrown in soybeans that provide no cover post-harvest, as does cotton. Consider in the 1980's almost no farmer had a chemical spray coupe and now it is a rare farmer that doesn't own one! Consider the reason we put ground into CRP in the first place still exists when they are pulling it out at the end of the contract and they are re-entering the same ill-contrived scheme farming unproductive ground again. If you all feel so strong a need to pound on one another, go to a sports bar with a boxing ring and climb in and be the last one standing! While we are kicking each other's keester, our upland birds are still fighting the same battle in habitat of lower acreage, lower quality, and more fragmented. We need to be kicking the legislators keester in the state and federal tiers to quit making the same mistakes over and over again. My 2 cents!
 

KSnative

Active member
Guys, this has turned into a dungeons and dragons fight with imaginary statistics and more imaginary bully-pulpiting. We have so many reasons why people are not buying licenses or going afield these days without us fighting amongst ourselves and making bad medicine in our existing ranks. Yes, we need access. Yes we need both resident and non-resident contributions. All too often the things you are purporting KDWPT as promoting are actually things the Kansas Legislature is putting forward.

What we need is for every adult hunter to take 2-10 first time hunters afield each year and get them started with some success. We need to quit being game hogs, trying for a limit every time out and share some of that "some of the best hunting in the country" with these youngsters. Last I heard, only about 6% of Kansans hunt! At the start of the 1900's, 50% hunted. As for the birds, they have to be affected by the past 12 years of CRP acreage losses. They suffer too from the degradation of the remaining acres due to limited disturbance. Look at the small towns in western Kansas! A lot of them no longer have a school nor a grocery store. People with families that aren't farmers largely don't want to live out there. Look at how many empty dilapidated houses you while driving to hunting spots. Consider the neonictinoid pesticides that are now the rage even though they are already outlawed in Britain and Europe. Look at the simplified plant systems in our agricultural fields. Folks with a 6 or larger number in front of their age know what wheat fallow used to look like in western Kansas. It was chock full or kochia, Russian thistle, sunflower, foxtail, and pigweed and stood almost 2 feet tall even after harvest! How do you provide insects to hungry chicks when there is only 1 species of plants in the fields when they are green and none after they have been sprayed down with Roundup. Consider that in the '60's western Kansas's most prominent row crop was milo and southeastern Kansas's main row crop was corn. Now those two roles have reversed and we've thrown in soybeans that provide no cover post-harvest, as does cotton. Consider in the 1980's almost no farmer had a chemical spray coupe and now it is a rare farmer that doesn't own one! Consider the reason we put ground into CRP in the first place still exists when they are pulling it out at the end of the contract and they are re-entering the same ill-contrived scheme farming unproductive ground again. If you all feel so strong a need to pound on one another, go to a sports bar with a boxing ring and climb in and be the last one standing! While we are kicking each other's keester, our upland birds are still fighting the same battle in habitat of lower acreage, lower quality, and more fragmented. We need to be kicking the legislators keester in the state and federal tiers to quit making the same mistakes over and over again. My 2 cents!
You make my point, sir. So, now we are down to only six percent of native Kansans hunting - not ten percent as I was bemoaning based on 2020 stats. That is very sad indeed.

I respect your work enormously, and your opinions considerably. I'm the guy you referred to Mr. Rue to help create some of the new (and disabled vet) hunter opportunities for Kansans that you allude to above on my own property. I'm looking forward to working with him toward that end.

But we absolutely need a comprehensive review of KDWPT license allocation practices - and improved Departmental budget allocation and oversight policies. If you disagree, I understand and respect where you are coming from. But the fact remains, the KDWPT is a direct beneficiary of the disproportionate out of state license sales. I don't blame them, and certainly not you - but that does need to change.

Lastly - yes, this is a bully pulpit. And a good thing, too!
Very respectfully,
KN
 
Last edited:

westksbowhunter

Well-known member
Guys, this has turned into a dungeons and dragons fight with imaginary statistics and more imaginary bully-pulpiting. We have so many reasons why people are not buying licenses or going afield these days without us fighting amongst ourselves and making bad medicine in our existing ranks. Yes, we need access. Yes we need both resident and non-resident contributions. All too often the things you are purporting KDWPT as promoting are actually things the Kansas Legislature is putting forward.

What we need is for every adult hunter to take 2-10 first time hunters afield each year and get them started with some success. We need to quit being game hogs, trying for a limit every time out and share some of that "some of the best hunting in the country" with these youngsters. Last I heard, only about 6% of Kansans hunt! At the start of the 1900's, 50% hunted. As for the birds, they have to be affected by the past 12 years of CRP acreage losses. They suffer too from the degradation of the remaining acres due to limited disturbance. Look at the small towns in western Kansas! A lot of them no longer have a school nor a grocery store. People with families that aren't farmers largely don't want to live out there. Look at how many empty dilapidated houses you while driving to hunting spots. Consider the neonictinoid pesticides that are now the rage even though they are already outlawed in Britain and Europe. Look at the simplified plant systems in our agricultural fields. Folks with a 6 or larger number in front of their age know what wheat fallow used to look like in western Kansas. It was chock full or kochia, Russian thistle, sunflower, foxtail, and pigweed and stood almost 2 feet tall even after harvest! How do you provide insects to hungry chicks when there is only 1 species of plants in the fields when they are green and none after they have been sprayed down with Roundup. Consider that in the '60's western Kansas's most prominent row crop was milo and southeastern Kansas's main row crop was corn. Now those two roles have reversed and we've thrown in soybeans that provide no cover post-harvest, as does cotton. Consider in the 1980's almost no farmer had a chemical spray coupe and now it is a rare farmer that doesn't own one! Consider the reason we put ground into CRP in the first place still exists when they are pulling it out at the end of the contract and they are re-entering the same ill-contrived scheme farming unproductive ground again. If you all feel so strong a need to pound on one another, go to a sports bar with a boxing ring and climb in and be the last one standing! While we are kicking each other's keester, our upland birds are still fighting the same battle in habitat of lower acreage, lower quality, and more fragmented. We need to be kicking the legislators keester in the state and federal tiers to quit making the same mistakes over and over again. My 2 cents!
Nice post and most is true, however, people don't hunt anymore because of one simple reason, access!!!!!!!!! When the push for special seasons came, (muzzleloader, antlerless, then NR in 1995), the legislation went where the money was and now you have what you have. Plain and simple. Quail have bounced back in recent years while resident Hunter numbers continue to dwindle. NR deer hunting has taken over and is the focus of the legislature and the KDWP. When you see commercial for long seasons and liberal bag limits on the Outdoor channel, NRs are the target.
 

Prairie Drifter

Well-known member
Nice post and most is true, however, people don't hunt anymore because of one simple reason, access!!!!!!!!! When the push for special seasons came, (muzzleloader, antlerless, then NR in 1995), the legislation went where the money was and now you have what you have. Plain and simple. Quail have bounced back in recent years while resident Hunter numbers continue to dwindle. NR deer hunting has taken over and is the focus of the legislature and the KDWP. When you see commercial for long seasons and liberal bag limits on the Outdoor channel, NRs are the target.
Several things. First, I have had a bunch of friends that have drifted either out of hunting all together or have switched from being primarily a bird hunter to only deer and duck hunting. These folks have the same access they always had but are just in a different place in life than they were years back. Second, a lot of what is construed as coming from within KDWPT is often a function of the legislature and the agency gets little say or little input in the final decisions. As for the door opening for out-of-state deer hunters, that was caused by law suits from other states that were letting our hunters in when we weren't letting their people in. I expect that is here permanent. We could fix most of this and give farmers a better bottom line if unproductive land were taken out of production and planted into native covers and native covers that are now being overrun by exotic species were managed well. Our tree-loving European background has resulted in significant degradation of existing habitats that, if managed properly, would not only produce wildlife but also be multiple times more productive for cattle. Some of that same exotic invasion is causing water issues in parts of the state and that will only get worse if we sit on our heels and do nothing.
 

westksbowhunter

Well-known member
Drifter people quit hunting for all sorts of reasons, but the majority has been squeezed out via access. Plain and simple. Which makes it harder to introduce youth. Yes we all know about the law suits. The state made that clear when we all campaigned against in 1995. Old news. They told us not to worry, only 1500 tags in 1995, that NR deer hunting would be a small percentage. Well they lied. And they didn't tell us about 24,000 tags, the didn't tell us about transferable tags, they didn't tell us about crossbow inclusion, they didn't tell us about 5 month long seasons, they didn't tell us about several special antlerless seasons, they didn't tell us about non regulated outfitters, and the sure didn't tell us about Ken Corbet. Non Resident deer hunting trickled down and effected all hunting in Kansas. It is the focus of legislation and the KDWP.
 

KSnative

Active member
Did any one actually win a lawsuit against Kansas for it's license allocation practices? I'm going to guess not - but please educate me if I am incorrect. I'll hazard a guess in advance that this was not a hard fought legal battle on behalf of the people of Kansas, but rather a French style surrender at the first threat.

In any event, I don't think anyone (judge or cop out artists, which ever applies) ever envisioned that MOST people hunting in Kansas would be non-residents. By a significant - and even more importantly, growing - majority. The relevant question IMHO is - are the policies in place fair. They are not if outcomes are considered, and revised, unbiased policies yielding a better balance would be highly defensible. Potential litigators know that. More defensible, in fact, than what is in place now.

I'm surprised that no concerned group of Kansan outdoorsmen/women has filed suit over this sad state of affairs, yet. Among other things, that would give KDWPT the excuse it needs to do the right thing. Really, many government agencies invite lawsuits against themselves for just that reason - Sierra Club provides a fine template for this course, but there are many others as well.

I'd put the first dollar in the kitty - and I'm not even a Kansan at this point in time.
 

KSnative

Active member
I just read an article that says your current Governor, in April, simply banned via Executive Order (with the full force and effect of law) all non-resident turkey licenses sales. Reason given: COVID (although I kind of wonder who suggested the change to the Governor, and why unless turkey hunting has changed since I was active in that sport - no arena seats filled shoulder to shoulder, at least not back then).

Point being. If your governor can totally ban or limit non-resident turkey hunting, with no crushing law suits behind it - why not an Exec Order limiting non-resident deer sales to no more than 25% of the total? That would be considerably less Draconian than the total turkey ban. And with seven more variants of COVID already identified, cover is already custom made.

Cries to the contrary withstanding - this is not a hard thing to accomplish. The turkey ban absolutely proves that point. The executive branch (not the legislature) can do what is needed easily, and in no time flat. If the Governor was aware there is a serious issue. Which I submit she is not.

Maybe a few articles in the Wichita Eagle and KC Star?
 

Chestle

Active member
Once numbering around 20 to 30 million in North America, the population of the American bison decreased to less than 1,000 by 1890, resulting in the near-extinction of the species. By the end of the century, only 325 were thought to survive in America.


I say let KDWT issue an either sex deer license, in fact multiple deer licenses to anyone who wants a few dozen, resident or non-resident.

Then just wait a few years. Should solve the Kansas Has Big Deer problem.
 

KSnative

Active member
Chestle, you are a pragmatic man. I can see that.

Unfortunately, I don't think that your solution would be fair to the consuming public as I either just read, or just dreamed that Dr. Fauci has determined that Kansas' deer are primary spreaders of COVID. Further, that they refuse to double up on their masks and just run away when approached with a vaccine needle. And that they can sneeze on you, even after they have been field dressed.

There, that ought to start a general panic - shouldn't be hard to get CNN to run it.
 

s.davis

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.


PR fund allocations aren’t based on “tags”, they are based on hunting licenses sold, population and landmass. Because it’s geographically larger, Kansas gets a higher percentage of P-R funds per person than Missouri (and other more densely populated states), which has twice as many residents and way, way more resident hunters, yet doesn’t have 5-10 threads on 4 different forums every year about how no one can hunt because all the out of staters take all their birds/ducks/deer. And that’s without a million acres of P-R (aka - out of state) funded WIHA. Wonder what the difference is? Sure isn’t the “world class” deer or duck hunting Kansans think it has (guess those ads work on Kansans as well as they work on out-of-staters, just not well enough to get them to buy a license or pay for a lease). In about 10 years there won’t be any better bird hunting in Kansas either. Meanwhile, you guys will be filling up threads with yowling about “oosers” - as though just as many Kansans don’t book hunting trips to other destinations - and scratching your heads about why you can’t hunt the old Johnson farm that they sold to AgIS Capital when the none of the Johnson kids would move back to Scott County after college.
 

KSnative

Active member
PR fund allocations aren’t based on “tags”, they are based on hunting licenses sold, population and landmass. Because it’s geographically larger, Kansas gets a higher percentage of P-R funds per person than Missouri (and other more densely populated states), which has twice as many residents and way, way more resident hunters, yet doesn’t have 5-10 threads on 4 different forums every year about how no one can hunt because all the out of staters take all their birds/ducks/deer. And that’s without a million acres of P-R (aka - out of state) funded WIHA. Wonder what the difference is? Sure isn’t the “world class” deer or duck hunting Kansans think it has (guess those ads work on Kansans as well as they work on out-of-staters, just not well enough to get them to buy a license or pay for a lease). In about 10 years there won’t be any better bird hunting in Kansas either. Meanwhile, you guys will be filling up threads with yowling about “oosers” - as though just as many Kansans don’t book hunting trips to other destinations - and scratching your heads about why you can’t hunt the old Johnson farm that they sold to AgIS Capital when the none of the Johnson kids would move back to Scott County after college.
I think the Fish and Wildlife Service will be surprised to learn that state population is a part of the PR funds allocation framework. You should let them know.

In any event, that must be some of that new government math you are applying. Missouri is a bit over 80k square miles; KS, a hair under 70k square miles. That doesn't begin to account for the disparity in PR funds allocated. Could it be possible that the magic in these numbers stems from differences in the way licenses (and permits, tags, fees etc - which is how the USFWS categorizes them when reporting PR fund distribution) are reported by the States? Some more shrewdly than others, perhaps. If that isn't it - what then?

You did come fairly close to the mark IRT KS WIHA funding sources - 75% (not 100%). That is the actual portion of our WIHA that is Wildlife Restoration (PR) funded. The rest comes from license sales. But just think how much more of this publicly accessible land we might have if we received an equitable cut of the PR funds! Does MO have a WIHA (or equivalent) program? Where DO all those PR funds go in your state?

I think there is a real possibility that your model, or at least some of its component parts, might prove beneficial to Kansans if adopted here. Please share it with us.
 
Last edited:

s.davis

Active member
Alternately, you know, the truth:

“Apportionment Formulas
In addition to eligible uses and funding sources, Congress may consider amending Pittman- Robertson’s apportionment structure. Currently, states and territories are treated differently under the program; states are apportioned funds based on area, population, and number of hunting licenses”

Between 2015-2019 Kansas got $56 of Wildlife Restoration Act $ per license sold, Missouri got $40.

Kansas is 82,278.4 sq mi.
MO is 69,707 sq mi.

I mean, damn, man. Look at a map.
 
Last edited:

KSnative

Active member
Alternately, you know, the truth:

“Apportionment Formulas
In addition to eligible uses and funding sources, Congress may consider amending Pittman- Robertson’s apportionment structure. Currently, states and territories are treated differently under the program; states are apportioned funds based on area, population, and number of hunting licenses”

Between 2015-2019 Kansas got $56 of Wildlife Restoration Act $ per license sold, Missouri got $40.

Kansas is 82,278.4 sq mi.
MO is 69,707 sq mi.

I mean, damn, man. Look at a map.
I take it that you are a product of the public school system. And, just a guess, perhaps one of it's perpetrators.

1. 82k is NOT "a bit over 80k" and 69.7k is not "a bit under 70k"? Please tell me you aren't a math teacher. Please.

2. Re: the apportionment formula/basing funds on population of the state - what is your source? Was it recently "reimagined" by
Congress, or executive department "adaptation" by chance? Redefined by Wikipedia?

Here's my source: 2014-pittman-robertson-brochure.pdf (mt.gov) . If you have a site that is more accurate or current, lets see it-
I value accuracy, my source may be behind the times. I also hope that you are correct (are you?) since KS population (remember - that state
that the young folk all wish to abandon because of their regressive policies, or some such line) has increased by about .4 percent for each of the past couple of years, while MO has increased by about half that amount.

Here's another description of the PR fund allocation process. It is much more detailed and a bit more current than the other site.
https://www.nssf.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Pittman-Robertson-Excise-Tax-factsheet.pdf


3. RE: licenses sold. I don't know whether you are toying with us, or are just attempting to deflect attention away from the primary point. Which is that it certainly appears likely that MO more aggressively interprets and reports license/permit/tag/fee sales than KS does, to their advantage when reaping PR money. I know that no state government would ever cook the numbers in its favor when reporting to the federal government - Mario Cuomo told me so, personally. (Hey, if you get to make stuff up - so can I!).

Here's a simple and basic question: since MO gets so much more WIHA money than KS - how do they spend it? KS applies it to pay, in substantial part, for WIHA. If MO does the same - then I'll be coming for a visit this fall, since you must certainly have much more/better WIHA or equivalent than KS. If MO employs a different Wildlife Dept budget model - lets see it, and learn whether KS can benefit from a similar model as it seems that we have some problems in that area that MO does not. Although that would not explain your passion for retaining the pro-NR status quo in KS.

We are having some fun here, I know - but there really are some important questions and issues around this that really need to be squarely addressed. That hasn't happened yet.
 
Last edited:

s.davis

Active member
I take it that you are a product of the public school system. And, just a guess, perhaps one of it's perpetrators.

1. 82k is NOT "a bit over 80k" and 69.7k is not "a bit under 70k"? Please tell me you aren't a math teacher. Please.

KSnative also said: "In any event, that must be some of that new government math you are applying. Missouri is a bit over 80k square miles; KS, a hair under 70k square miles."

Also KSnative again: "I value accuracy".

Give me a break. You are way over your head and pretty clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about. Let me know when you are able to tell the difference between Kansas and Missouri (here's a hint: Kansas is the one that is obviously bigger) then I'll walk you thru the Congressional Research Service Pittman-Roberts data sheets, so I can explain for the 4th time they aren't counting deer tags issued, you buffoon, they base their formula on hunting licenses sold (which you are either unable or unwilling to comprehend) , population (which you were wrong about), and landmass (which you apparently cannot correctly ascertain). I went to pretty rough public schools in Kansas, but kids like me learned reading comprehension, math, and logic. Kids like you learned to shut up before they showed their ass.
 
Last edited:

KSnative

Active member
KSnative also said: "In any event, that must be some of that new government math you are applying. Missouri is a bit over 80k square miles; KS, a hair under 70k square miles."

Also KSnative again: "I value accuracy".

Give me a break. You are way over your head and pretty clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about. Let me know when you are able to tell the difference between Kansas and Missouri (here's a hint: Kansas is the one that is obviously bigger) then I'll walk you thru the Congressional Research Service Pittman-Roberts data sheets, so I can explain for the 4th time they aren't counting deer tags issued, you buffoon, they base their formula on hunting licenses sold (which you are either unable or unwilling to comprehend) , population (which you were wrong about), and landmass (which you apparently cannot correctly ascertain). I went to pretty rough public schools in Kansas, but kids like me learned reading comprehension, math, and logic. Kids like you learned to shut up before they showed their ass.
The mean streets of KS, no wonder you are so darned tough! Move over, Chuck Norris.

Yes, 80k is larger than 70k, just like the map shows. I knew better, just flipped 'em in typing. I confess (is that the right term for you?) that am frequently surprised to observe what I have actually typed, vs what I thought I wrote. Hence my frequent edits. Please forgive me, sir, I lack your secretarial, and editorial, skills. Shame on me. Its still right here in front of me - MO 69,704 sq miles vice KS at precisely 82,277 sq. miles. That was sloppy of me. It WAS my bad, I own it. But the point remains perfectly valid. It does not come close to accounting for the funding differences.

Speaking of which. I take it that you've changed your mind regarding population being a third (or any part) of the PR allocation formula? (See, I can be kind and it doesn't cost a thing!).

Also, have you been able to confirm that only basic license sales are included in the computations? I.e., that the US Fish and Wildlife service includes permits/fees/etc in their PR reporting just for giggles, not for actual use? That's kind of important here. Also - do they tally only resident license sales, or do they include NR sales as I suspect, as it would partially account for what KS gets given the relatively large number of NR sales?

Lastly - sorry, I just can't resist since I'm in over my head anyway. I've heard of those fellows at the Congressional Research Service, and - teaser - worked with them in a rather different capacity than you apparently do. If I told you the whos, you might be able to decipher the whats - so I won't! Wrap your superior intellect around that one, professor Davis. :cool:

Good clean fun but still no clues. Where does MO's abundance of PR funds (however they may secure them) get spent? And what might Kansas learn from it?
 

KSnative

Active member
Oops. Didn't notice the professor was still clinging to the "population" thing that the two sources I provided do not recognize as a basis for funding, and the zero sources he provided (despite several requests) apparently does.

There was an attempt in recent years by some of the professor's pals to "modernize" (their term) the PR act. If it passed, that might have been down there in the fine print footnotes down about page 3,000 - but I can't find any indication that such is the case. Need that cite.

However - all this is quite academic. Useless, unless it leads us toward improvements which I think most might acknowledge would be beneficial.

The professor is advocating for the status quo, and I'm confident at this point that he will prevail as inertia is one of nature's most powerful forces. But dang this is sort of fun!

P.S. Please try not to take me, yourself, or social media forums in general (like this one) quite so seriously. This is meant to be a casual exchange of ideas and, sometimes, even information - or at least, so I think. Our dissertations here are peer reviewed by the viewers of the forum, and their relative worth is measured by the life span (interest level) of the threads. I've learned much here. And even gleaned actionable intelligence from some of the inputs (hello there, Prairie Drifter).
 
Last edited:
Top