Once the cat has been let out of the bag its not easy to put back in. Short of a mira The KDWP faces alot of pressure from your elected officials. I would start by contacting your elected officials. The members of the commission are appointed by the governor. I've been a squeaky wheel in the cog for a long time. Ultimately big ag has a larger voice than most in KS. Money talks and your elected representatives know where their bread is buttered, and they make sure the KDWP know where that is too. Deer are very much viewed as a cash crop. I'll let you guys be, but I have been fighting the battle for years. We started losing spots here to deer leasing around the year 2000. I grew up quail hunting. My dad quit about a decade ago. He tried the walkin thing, but anything locally that had game got leased or sold. Driving west and hunting all day to see 2 coveys of quail and 12 pheasants with no pheasant being in range as well as bad knees took its toll. He hasn't bought a license in years. My last true bird dog died in 2010. I know have a pair of pointing labs for the few times a year I upland hunt. I am far more concerned with the new way waterfowl guides lease. They offer a farmer $50 or $100 a gun to allow them to hunt. However they pay nothing up front. When a guy asks for persmission he declines it then calls the outfitter. Outfitter shows up with 10 guns each paying $300 a day. Outfitter doesn't have to waste gas for scouting, farmer gets $500 for letting them hunt that day, and the outfitter makes $2500. Its locking up alot of land in this area like that.
Kansas Trespassing Fee for Private Land
- Thread starter Birdman2
- Start date
Chestle
Well-known member
It's certainly a conundrum.
If you change the money aspect of deer hunting for landowners/outfitters, will they not view that as a huge negative or even punishment?
If somehow WIHAs were improved for upland habitat, would those grounds not become a leasing target for either birds and/or deer?
If you change the money aspect of deer hunting for landowners/outfitters, will they not view that as a huge negative or even punishment?
If somehow WIHAs were improved for upland habitat, would those grounds not become a leasing target for either birds and/or deer?
I think we are making this more complicated than it actually is. You change the equation by making deer leasing less profitable. How? By reducing the huge number of licenses allocated for non-resident hunters. This immediately reduces the client base - and what outfitters are willing to pay for leases plummets immediately. The tough nut to crack here is not landowners, or outfitters - it is KDWPT, and their enjoyment of the easy stream of money from those license sales. Expose that and change it, and the non-resident/outfitter deer lease problem will evaporate in a single season.
Chestle
Well-known member
Then about the only case I can see to make to both KDWPT and the Legislature is that the large number of Non-Res tags has severely and negatively impacted both deer and upland hunting for residents. IE: the argument Lauren Sill made before the KS Senate as reported in the hutchnews article on page 7 of this thread.
I'm willing. I'll email, go to meetings, whatever. All the while understanding that the landowners like Wimer and the outfitters will be fiercely opposed along with the KDWPT faction that loves that deer money rolling in.
I guess I start by enrolling for legislative updates at this page: KDWPT Legislative Update Report
I also need to keep an eye on the Commissioners page: About the Commission
Looks like the next Zoom meeting is Jan 14 at 1:30pm
I'm willing. I'll email, go to meetings, whatever. All the while understanding that the landowners like Wimer and the outfitters will be fiercely opposed along with the KDWPT faction that loves that deer money rolling in.
I guess I start by enrolling for legislative updates at this page: KDWPT Legislative Update Report
I also need to keep an eye on the Commissioners page: About the Commission
Looks like the next Zoom meeting is Jan 14 at 1:30pm
Sounds like a winner. And since Lauren Sill is a Commissioner today, if I'm not mistaken, we are already 1/7th of the way to victory!
One hundred percent with you on this, and hope many more will join in the fun. We have the numbers - all we need to do is use them.
I plan to send something similar to below to each of the seven Commissioners (see link previously provided for names/email addresses) prior to the next meeting. I want to be sure that I've correctly captured the essence of the problem so your editorial improvements/comments will be appreciated, as would your sending something along these lines to the Commissioners, your governor, and perhaps local newspapers or other media outlets. There will be a lot of inertia and no small amount of pushback, I think, given that money is involved so overwhelming force right out of the chute would probably be helpful here. Here's my draft for comment:
Dear Commissioner,
A grave disservice is being done to the citizens of Kansas. Your help is required to remedy this problem.
The very high number of non-resident deer licenses being offered by KDWPT has driven an exponential increase in the number of acres leased to outfitters and the like, effectively removing access to a majority of working Kansans - not only for purposes of deer hunting, but for other uses such as upland bird hunting which once benefited much larger numbers of Kansans. Perhaps even worse, diversion of land usage to deer leases appears to have significantly reduced the acreage that landowners are willing to enroll in the excellent WIHA programs that provided excellent access to so many Kansans and non-Kansans alike, stressing the remaining WIHAs to the breaking point in many instances.
Kansans are well known for their generosity, but the de facto sale of our wildlife needs to end. We ask that you move to immediately limit the number of non-resident deer licenses to the number sold to Kansas residents in the prior year. This will significantly improve both the quality and the quantity of access to this resource to local Kansas sportsmen and women, and help foster the next generation of Kansas hunters. Further, although Kansas wildlife is not (or at least, should not be) for sale, to ameliorate any adverse impact on landowners currently profiting from these deer leases, we recommend that landowners who demonstrate a reduction in farm/ranch income as a result of this action be provided the first opportunities to enroll their acreages in an expanded WIHA program - again benefiting native Kansans and non-residents alike through restoration of access.
We will be looking forward to observing the outcome of your actions.
Dear Commissioner,
A grave disservice is being done to the citizens of Kansas. Your help is required to remedy this problem.
The very high number of non-resident deer licenses being offered by KDWPT has driven an exponential increase in the number of acres leased to outfitters and the like, effectively removing access to a majority of working Kansans - not only for purposes of deer hunting, but for other uses such as upland bird hunting which once benefited much larger numbers of Kansans. Perhaps even worse, diversion of land usage to deer leases appears to have significantly reduced the acreage that landowners are willing to enroll in the excellent WIHA programs that provided excellent access to so many Kansans and non-Kansans alike, stressing the remaining WIHAs to the breaking point in many instances.
Kansans are well known for their generosity, but the de facto sale of our wildlife needs to end. We ask that you move to immediately limit the number of non-resident deer licenses to the number sold to Kansas residents in the prior year. This will significantly improve both the quality and the quantity of access to this resource to local Kansas sportsmen and women, and help foster the next generation of Kansas hunters. Further, although Kansas wildlife is not (or at least, should not be) for sale, to ameliorate any adverse impact on landowners currently profiting from these deer leases, we recommend that landowners who demonstrate a reduction in farm/ranch income as a result of this action be provided the first opportunities to enroll their acreages in an expanded WIHA program - again benefiting native Kansans and non-residents alike through restoration of access.
We will be looking forward to observing the outcome of your actions.
Chestle
Well-known member
I definitely like the idea of course.
At first glance this quote above stood out.
Using the 2018-2019 report linked previously, there were 129,863 resident permits issued and 49,384 non resident permits issued for the 2018-2019 season.
Unless I don't understand something about that harvest report, I don't think matching non-res licenses issued to res licenses issued would be a reduction.
Are you from Bowsite? What is your first name?
Also regarding comments above - I think folks are close but missing the big picture. As pointed out if KS made uplands a focus the big picture is what needs to be focused on -- Upland hunters will travel far and wide for a good experience -- Farmers could even charge for the experience (this would bring daily rates down IMO unless they are doing full service) for those that still want to monetize the wildlife - but it will also give them an incentive to pay more attention to the habitat to groom it for birds and farming practices and quite possibly their neighbors that may have no reason or inclination to charge may follow suit if they can see the increased hunter traffic is good for their communities. I'd like to think even though society is generally getting shittier many in KS and across other states still have a broad sense of community not found in larger cities and especially coastal places.
Not locking up land for deer by allowing the unlimited deer tag access and lack of any deer management opens other sources of revenue for farmers ...upland hunters which are a much smaller niche to focus on and IMO a dedicated market. Who in their right mind drives 10-15, even 20-24 hours from some places with a couple friends, complete with motel stays in small far off places and their dogs in tow to go for a nature walk content to see a few wild birds. I'd like to think upland hunters may not be as fickle or child like as the vaunted trophy deer hunter can get.
Tax revenues and revenues for local communities, motels, restaurants etc would have a much large effect to their bottom lines with more hunters visiting than the few that are afforded the opportunity under the present deer model. All anyone cares about is money so show the logic and that more money could be made by all by thinking a different way and I think it may help. Who knows - plenty of stubborn old white men still run our state so they may need to transition out of positions of power before anything can change.
Another part of this big picture is increased license sales so there solves the KDWPT's revenue problem -- the argument is there and a prime example exists in South Dakota --- When I have some more time I will focus on presenting this in a professional manner and focus on rescheduling my sit down meeting with the Sec of KDWPT -- I had one scheduled last year in Feb or March - but got busy and had to reschedule one of them - then Covid hit so the sit down meeting went out the window.
Anyways it wont mean much coming from me I'm sure - bigger organizations with more weight behind them need to pull their heads out of their arses and make these pitches as well.
Excellent catch, thanks! I thought I had recalled a previous poster saying something about some 49K non-resident licenses vice about half that KS licenses, will have to run that down. Might have been specific to, say, rifle seasons license --- or just early onset senility (OK, not really - too late for "early"!). Seriously - thanks. Exactly why I floated the draft here - people who know what they are talking about.
I think that the more people who pay attention, and take the time and trouble to object to the current process (best with recommendations as to how to improve) - the better. Its all good.
However - just one man's opinion, of course - but I'd like to avoid the $$$$ angle, especially the emphasis on drawing in out of state hunters, as much as reasonably possible. Not really looking to more effectively market KS wildlife (e.g., gas/motel/restaurant sales from long distance travelers) by shifting target species. Rather, to share the resource in a way that does not diminish opportunities for Kansas residents, which I think I gathered from various posts appears to be the primary underlying issue here.
Not on bowsite. Oldgobbler and crappie.com. i do dabble in bowhunting since the folks I let hunt refused to shoot a doe for me so I started doing it for meat.
To give you an idea of the money you are facing, I know one farmer making $20k a year from a lease, another 18k. $38k for 2 farms and they will fight like heck to protect that income. The guy that bought the property across the creek from me has bought 120 acres and built a hunting cabin. He comes up from Louisiana around halloween and stays through xmas deer hunting and some of his buddies come up with him as well as his wife and son. $240k plus the cost of a cabin as well as electric, water, etc all year long is alot to shell out for deer.
BrownDogsCan2
Well-known member
I think you guys numbers are off I think there are something like 24thousand non residents primary deer permits sold a year The confusion might be in nrs buying doe tags on top of their either sex whitetail permits I thinks the either sex permits have been capped for a while
Doe tags are included with their either sex tags. He is probably also including NR landowner tags, however he could be including the doe tag as well. Fwiw that initial started as a bill to give them to KS residents...
A POX on these Bad BAAD farmers, who want to increase their income when for the last couple of years, crop prices have been in the toilet! That's the way to impress them, by creating an adversarial relationship with the people who literally FEED the game you aspire to hunt. I've seen recent statistics indicating that in some Plains states, Government payments have made up 40-50% of net farm income. Most farmers I've dealt with in over 40 years of ag lending do NOT want to be on the government dole, nor do they want to destroy wildlife habitat---they want to produce food and fiber and have a sustainable market to sell to! I've seen their financial statements and ag cash flows, and I know what I'm talking about---very few farmers are getting rich in agriculture these days. Like it or not, owning farm real estate invests the owners with certain legal rights---rights like ingress/egress, the right to farm it, the right to lease it, the right to sell it and the right not to do any of these things.
Even in my own state, we have out of state hunters and they hunt deer---and birds too----they come in with their thousand dollars worth of electronic B.S., Sitka crap, shooting $2,000 guns and driving fancy Jap SUV's...they can piss you off for sure, but if you think you can stop it, good luck.
In the process just don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Even in my own state, we have out of state hunters and they hunt deer---and birds too----they come in with their thousand dollars worth of electronic B.S., Sitka crap, shooting $2,000 guns and driving fancy Jap SUV's...they can piss you off for sure, but if you think you can stop it, good luck.
In the process just don't bite the hand that feeds you.
BrownDogsCan2
Well-known member
Would residents even want them though. I was looking through some kdwpt numbers trying to figure out how many nr mule deer and either sex whitetail permits where awarded in the 2018 draw. 23000 ish. The really sad number was in the same year only 1100 in state kids had gone through hunter safety
Chestle has a good eye, as do you. If I read and understand correctly, 21,142 non-resident permits were sold in 2019 (to 24, 024 applicants - so supply for non-resident licenses fell short of demand). Hard to find apples-to-apples res/non-res comparison data, and there might be a reason for that. In any event, US Fish and Wildlife Service shows 2019 total KS resident license and tag fee revenue to be $8,205,661 vs $16,575,652 for non-resident licenses and tags (all, not just deer). So from the mist emerges one salient fact - KDWPT derives over twice as much revenue from non-resident fees, as from resident. THAT is where the influence is - a lot to fight. Unfortunately, it appears that our wildlife IS for sale. That's what I'd like to see end.
Below is a cleaned up version of what I plan to send to the seven commissioners, and that I hope others will replicate in some form. It doesn't give specific numbers since the ones I've been able to find are a bit soft - but would go far, if acted on, to thwart the growth of the lease culture because, unless I miss my guess, much of the lease money comes from well-heeled out of state folks. Fact: I've been approached, unsolicited, by a couple of players about leasing my place for deer from Texas to New York state. No interest on my part, the hunting is for friends and relatives who all happen to be in state - but the point is, the money offers (at least in my instance) were entirely from out of staters.
Here's my new draft, feel free to use any or all of it for your own letters and emails if it suits you:
Dear Commissioner,
A grave disservice is being done to the citizens of Kansas. Your help is required to remedy this problem.
The very high number of non-resident deer licenses being offered by KDWPT has driven an exponential increase in the number of acres leased to outfitters and the like, effectively removing access to a many working Kansans - not only for purposes of deer hunting, but for other uses such as upland bird hunting which once benefited much larger numbers of Kansans. Perhaps even worse, diversion of land usage to deer leases appears to have significantly reduced the acreage that landowners are willing to enroll in the excellent WIHA programs that provided excellent access to so many Kansans and non-Kansans alike, stressing the remaining WIHAs to the breaking point in many instances.
Kansans are well known for their generosity, but the de facto sale of our wildlife needs to end. We ask that you move to reduce the number of non-resident deer licenses, from over 1,000 for every state of the union during the 2018-2019 season, to no more than half that number. This will significantly improve both the quality and the quantity of access to this resource to local Kansas sportsmen and women, and help foster the next generation of Kansas hunters. Further, although Kansas wildlife is not (or at least, should not be) for sale, to ameliorate any adverse impact on landowners currently profiting from these deer leases, we recommend that landowners who demonstrate a reduction in farm/ranch income as a result of this action be provided the first opportunities to enroll their acreages in an expanded WIHA program - again benefiting native Kansans and non-residents alike through restoration of access.
.
Well put (except maybe the "Jap" part, perhaps - hey, I'm a sensitive guy, can't you tell?).
I think that more posters here than not probably would agree with us on that, upon reflection. Yes, money talks but I think the least we should be able to expect is a level playing field. I'm not sure that a state Fish/Wildlife Department (KDWPT) that relies on non-resident game sales for more than two thirds of it's revenue is likely to be highly conducive to that. It would be a good thing to see exactly where all that license and fee money goes - not primarily for habitat improvement, I would guess.
Birdman2
Well-known member
I think that is a great idea ! To get something done you have to get political.
Who's doing that? The issue is no deer management - which equals a free for all - even in other states such as colorado, new mexico, montana etc where big game is highly commoditized there is not the free for all system we have here -- the pendulum has swung too far one way - I for one do not want a full Texas based system of hunting which is exactly the model that is slowly being rolled out.
No one is saying bad farmers - bad system is more like it. I do not support sucking all the water out of the aquifers that took millions of years to form nor spraying poison all over the great plains because Bayer AG and Pioneer say it's perfectly fine to do so amongst other things - if that makes me anti farmer I guess Im guilty.
nwkansnative
Active member
I don't really understand a lot of this thread. Out in my part of the state, Rooks/Graham County you can still buy land for less than a thousand an acre. Buy 80, have it farmed to raise birds (helps with bank payment) get additional government money to improve habitat i.e. CRP and shelter belts. In 15 years it's yours. Some of you pay 50k for a pick up. Stop whining and do something about the "disappearing habitat." By the way, when you do this, see how anxious you are to let someone hunt on it for nothing because really the birds belong to us all.