Kansas Trespassing Fee for Private Land

Prairie Drifter

Well-known member
Well, that's something - at least I used to be right. To a point. Until recently. :)

You are a great cheerleader for the organization at all levels, but my jury is still out.

What does "doing" federal aid consist of? Not sure that will serve as a substitute for effective budget planning, execution and oversight - though it may help gloss over some of the Departmental management and leadership shortcomings. Just a guess, as facts have proven to be elusive things in this regard. Some transparency might help dispel my misgivings. I didn't get a lot of good vibes from the organization's "face" (the Commission). Have they reformed themselves, as well?

Curiosity question. Do you keep stats on the number of residents vs non-residents who take advantage of the Byran Walker resource? Being near Wichita, I'd expect the numbers to be skewed toward residents.
Political and commission questions I'll leave for someone else to touch. As for keeping track of residents vs non-residents, I have 4685 acres that I manage myself. I have seasonal help mostly in the summer. We had permits for 9 years that took 7% of my time to manage and none of that time did one thing for habitat or infrastructure. There are well over a dozen entry points for our users and about 16 miles to drive all the roads. I don't consider keeping track of that as a priority when I still have many habitat and infrastructure shortcomings to address. When I started here, there was probably over 90% surrounding county users. That has shifted some with the out-of-state deer permits. However, I would still say we are dominated by neighboring counties.
 

KSnative

Active member
Really a "management 101" question - not political, or at least not intended to be.

Keep up the good work. And keep asking questions about KDWPT's budgeting and funding processes. You, even more than the rest of us here, deserve straight answers and a better understanding of how our wildlife resources are being funded, and marketed.
 

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.
We have 25 pages and only a bit short of 20k views on this string!! That's what a vigorous exchange of views and even the occasional fact can do, IMHO. Good stuff, I think. Better yet, if it results in more KDWPT funding at no cost to Kansas taxpayers. There seems to be real potential for that.

Prairie Drifter is, in my view, easily the most informed participant in this discussion. He advises that "we have changed the method we use to draw federal aide from PR. For me, that has increased my budget 318%."

This seems to suggest that PR allocation is not as crisply formulaic as some here have implied. I'd dearly love to see the lessons learned at Byron Walker applied across the board, at the state level. Along with some other management improvements - but hey, one step at a time!

Note for KSHusker - it couldn't hurt to take your offer to assist to the State level. I'd suggest a systemic, vice individual project approach. Best chances, that way, for institutionalizing improvements.
 

Prairie Drifter

Well-known member
We have 25 pages and only a bit short of 20k views on this string!! That's what a vigorous exchange of views and even the occasional fact can do, IMHO. Good stuff, I think. Better yet, if it results in more KDWPT funding at no cost to Kansas taxpayers. There seems to be real potential for that.

Prairie Drifter is, in my view, easily the most informed participant in this discussion. He advises that "we have changed the method we use to draw federal aide from PR. For me, that has increased my budget 318%."

This seems to suggest that PR allocation is not as crisply formulaic as some here have implied. I'd dearly love to see the lessons learned at Byron Walker applied across the board, at the state level. Along with some other management improvements - but hey, one step at a time!

Note for KSHusker - it couldn't hurt to take your offer to assist to the State level. I'd suggest a systemic, vice individual project approach. Best chances, that way, for institutionalizing improvements.
That was state wide, not just Byron Walker. There are 3 methods of drawing down through PR. The new division director, as a result of his deputy director's training with USFWS, found one that provided the division that kind of improvement! I had nothing to do with that, just benefitted.
 

KSnative

Active member
That was state wide, not just Byron Walker. There are 3 methods of drawing down through PR. The new division director, as a result of his deputy director's training with USFWS, found one that provided the division that kind of improvement! I had nothing to do with that, just benefitted.
Thanks for the clarification, and confirmation - and VERY good to hear. More than three times the funding to benefit KS wildlife at zero cost to the KS taxpayers. That is a major win for ALCON.

Any chance of similar initiatives to modernize KDWPT's budget development, execution, and oversight/transparency functions as well? I know, I know - broken record. But we went from "no meat left on the PR chicken bones" to triple the funding in relatively short order. We have no reason to doubt similar results would be possible IRT budget management. If nothing else, this could increase public confidence in the process - and that, in and of itself, is very important.
 

Prairie Drifter

Well-known member
Again I am not explaining this well enough. The division's budget did not go up 318%. It did go up some, but the new method of doing federal aide allowed us to move areas in and out of PR as needed. Some area's budgets went up, others went down, and some may have stayed the same. What it did do is let us more equitably distribute our management dollars across the state. It is as complicated as it seems, so I'm better off telling you that we are now in the best of the 3 methods for Kansas right now and have the people with the knowledge to shift to one of the other two methods if they become more feasible. Our annual reports are on the website. They may help folks better understand.
 

KSnative

Active member
Again I am not explaining this well enough. The division's budget did not go up 318%. It did go up some, but the new method of doing federal aide allowed us to move areas in and out of PR as needed. Some area's budgets went up, others went down, and some may have stayed the same. What it did do is let us more equitably distribute our management dollars across the state. It is as complicated as it seems, so I'm better off telling you that we are now in the best of the 3 methods for Kansas right now and have the people with the knowledge to shift to one of the other two methods if they become more feasible. Our annual reports are on the website. They may help folks better understand.

Yes, but of course the real point is/was/remains that there was a ton of PR money being left on the table by KDWPT. Emphatic pronouncements by miscellaneous "experts" notwithstanding. This never should have happened. The lack of transparency in and effective oversight of the KDWPT's budget process is what allowed it to happen.

And with absolutely all respect to you, PD - when something as simple as a budget, or budget allocation process is just too damned complicated for us simple folk who pay for it all to understand - the reason is generally to avoid (make that, evade) effective oversight. I think Kansans deserve better.
 

BrownDogsCan2

Well-known member
Again I am not explaining this well enough. The division's budget did not go up 318%. It did go up some, but the new method of doing federal aide allowed us to move areas in and out of PR as needed. Some area's budgets went up, others went down, and some may have stayed the same. What it did do is let us more equitably distribute our management dollars across the state. It is as complicated as it seems, so I'm better off telling you that we are now in the best of the 3 methods for Kansas right now and have the people with the knowledge to shift to one of the other two methods if they become more feasible. Our annual reports are on the website. They may help folks better understand.
Wish I would have copied it, but someone shared a list last year on the Facebook page of where , what the states pr money is going towards. Much more to it than I had thought.
 

KSnative

Active member
Wish I would have copied it, but someone shared a list last year on the Facebook page of where , what the states pr money is going towards. Much more to it than I had thought.
Well, that would have told us what the state did with the pittance it did manage to retrieve. But nothing of the process for allocation - or how much more the state would have garnered had it pursued these funds in a more robust manner. So - generally - a PR (public relations that is, groan) piece. Not my definition of transparency, and I doubt yours either.

I hope the point is not lost that we are very much on the same side of this, or at least so I think. More/better KDWPT funding spent more wisely for the benefit of KS wildlife - and Kansans.
 

KSnative

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.
S. - I sent a PM but no reply, so I'm thinking that perhaps it hasn't occurred to you to check that. I'm still in the learning mode here, so here goes.

PD says he squeezed 318% of prior levels out of the PR goose. Some of which was drawn from other KS wildlife areas but the point being, total funding was increased quite substantially - a very good thing., of course.

You noted previously, in the public string, that "PR fund allocations aren’t based on “tags”, they are based on hunting licenses sold, population and landmass." Does this mean that Kansas annexed some of Missouri's land mass, tripled their population in one year, or sold 3X the number of licenses as the prior year? Of course not. So here's what is important to come away with: how DID KS work the system more successfully, and how can we help make sure they continue to do that?

As you can probably tell, I'm not one to hold a grudge. If I didn't suspect there was some substantial value to be extracted from your noggin, I wouldn't keep poking at it. Would I be wrong if I were to guess that you do some grant funded research work on wildlife management related subject areas?

I'm particularly interested in ways to improve what I think is already fairly good habitat on my own little spread. Is this something you can help with?
 

KSnative

Active member
Remember Andy Rooney's television observations and commentary?

One he might make here if he was still with us: did you ever notice that the more facts emerge, the more the supply of "experts" dries up? :cool:
 

s.davis

Active member
S. - I sent a PM but no reply, so I'm thinking that perhaps it hasn't occurred to you to check that. I'm still in the learning mode here, so here goes.

PD says he squeezed 318% of prior levels out of the PR goose. Some of which was drawn from other KS wildlife areas but the point being, total funding was increased quite substantially - a very good thing., of course.

You noted previously, in the public string, that "PR fund allocations aren’t based on “tags”, they are based on hunting licenses sold, population and landmass." Does this mean that Kansas annexed some of Missouri's land mass, tripled their population in one year, or sold 3X the number of licenses as the prior year? Of course not. So here's what is important to come away with: how DID KS work the system more successfully, and how can we help make sure they continue to do that?

As you can probably tell, I'm not one to hold a grudge. If I didn't suspect there was some substantial value to be extracted from your noggin, I wouldn't keep poking at it. Would I be wrong if I were to guess that you do some grant funded research work on wildlife management related subject areas?

I'm particularly interested in ways to improve what I think is already fairly good habitat on my own little spread. Is this something you can help with?
Just saw it and replied. The amount of time I spend on this forum drops off a little in the down season.
 

KSnative

Active member
Woo Hoo!!!!

Over 20k views.

Who says there is no room left in America for honest discussion and even a bit of debate? Great forum, great people.

Perhaps even dog turds are good for somethin', after all. And don't forget the rats who, we are reminded, clean up such messes in nature.
 

KSnative

Active member
20k views and rising. We can do better - at least 30k, maybe even 50k with a little help from our friends McFamer and Hare - thanks for stimulating the repartee, to wit:


Me too.

No way to know but for the most part, I'd guess the most frequent faceless, anonymous (I'd add, spineless) tattlers are the very individuals who (ever so innocently) themselves put a leftward spin on things then cry foul if anyone should respond. Personally - I have no issue with anyone saying anything they believe and letting us all sort things out for themselves, without benefit of political cleansing. Barring that - I'd consider it more than fair to tabulate and post the number of "reports" per poster. Wouldn't even have to say exactly what or who they tattled about - just include it with the other data like "reaction" scores.
Some posts are like dog turds on a sidewalk. Yes, I can walk around them, ignore them, but they stink the place up and generally make the neighborhood look bad. On this forum I can’t pick the turd up myself, I have to report it.

It’s a civic duty.

Like Reply
Report
  • Like
Reactions:turkhntr16 and Haretrigger
 

KSnative

Active member
McFarmer said:
Sounds like you are all butt hurt. I will gladly endorse a listing of those whom report, as long as we have a list of whom is reported.

I‘m thinking maybe you would top the later list.

Name calling I didn’t think was allowed.

Rather low don’t you think ?
A rat is just that - a rat. It's not a name; its a description. And accurate, by your own account. Own it.

Meanwhile - I respect your right to share any opinion you may have, including just exactly what you think of me and my inputs. How could you ask for more than that?

In a free society, I mean.

Reply
Report Edit Delete
 

KSnative

Active member
Haretrigger said:
Mr. McFarmer
No butt pains here......seriously, I enjoyed the hell out of it..
Wouldn't worry about ol native...he steps on his dick more than any poster I've seen.....and the beauty of it all ...is just how proud he is to do so
Ick. For a guy so deeply offended because he thought he heard someone imply that a coed felt uncomfortable for reasons she couldn't quite put her finger on with a young, paraplegic Congressman - don't you think all these anatomical references are more than a little offensive?

I'm outraged.

But carry on, the view count is GREAT!!!
 

KSnative

Active member
A dickhead is, well, you know, a dickhead....it's not just a name,it's a description ........that fits you to the tee....own it
You are certainly entitled to your opinion but I'm a little bit worried about you. Sounds like you may have had some negative personal experiences - lots of references to butts, dicks, latex and the like. Prison? :cool:
 
Top