BrownDogsCan2
Well-known member
I’m guessing licenses include resident and nonresident, lifetimes, 2seniors, 2 active military, apprenticeships and maybe a few others
Kansas Trespassing Fee for Private Land
- Thread starter Birdman2
- Start date
Yes sir. Lots of guessing going on here.
I'm not even sure what Walk In Hunting Areas, as much as I love them, really have to do with "Wildlife Restoration" as envisioned by the PR Act. Some do have wildlife improvement projects embodies somewhere on the premises, but I don't think most do. Might be an area where I should stifle my curiosity while I still can!
I'm not even sure that 75% of KS WIHAs are PR funded, as some have said - that is just a cap, not mandatory level.
But what do I know? Not much. You can see why. Like pulling teeth to extract an occasional verified, or verifiable fact!
I'm in a heap of trouble with some rather tough guys (maybe). Appears that I accidentally (temporarily) shrunk KS.
westksbowhunter
Well-known member
It would be interesting to know how many lifetime resident license holders actually still hunt. I know several who don't. I would imagine there are many who are in their golden years.
BrownDogsCan2
Well-known member
Yep I do too, about everyone I used to hunt with. I never got one
s.davis
Well-known member
Far from advocating the status quo: I have, here and elsewhere, repeatedly advocated for very drastic changes to Kansas's (my native state, where I own property, pay taxes, and a place for which I have a deep and abiding emotional attachment to based, in part, on the fact that my family has lived there, literally, since white people arrive to Kansas territory...and the place I hunt the most) as well as Missouri's wildlife and hunting laws, opportunities and quality. Beyond that, I have also time and again expressed a belief that the residents of Kansas should advocate for the changes they think are in the best interest of the public resource of wildlife and the outdoors, regardless of my own opinions, as a non resident. I just think it's important to be aware of the potential repercussions of knee-jerk reactions that do not and will not benefit the resource.
I will answer a couple of your questions, again, since you seem kind of committed to being wrong. First, P-R funds are distributed based on license sales, not sales of tags and permits. That information is widely available and easily verified. And yes, that includes non-resident licenses sold - meaning that Kansas not only funds it's wildlife and hunting programs disproportionately from non-resident licenses sold, but also benefits from those license sales in the formula by which it is allotted federal funding. Secondly, yes, population figures are used to calculate Pittman-Roberts funding for section 4(c) and section 10 funds. Again, easily verifiable. It's quite literally in the law, which is, shockingly, public record.
To wit:
"State apportionments for wildlife restoration projects are based on the land and inland water area and the number of hunting licenses sold in each state. State population is used to determine apportionments for both the Basic and Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety programs. "
(emphasis mine, for your benefit)
Hunting licenses sold:
Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Kansas 239,335 245,647 245,779 251,390 250,877
Missouri 496,583 502,652 499,489 498,319 494,030
Again, Kansas was allocated $56/license for those years, Missouri was allotted $40/license, despite having more than twice the population. That's not tags/permits/etc., which by your own dubious calculation are some 4 times higher in Missouri. That's hunting licenses. Period. Kansas is 1.19 times bigger than Missouri geographically, yet received 1.4 times as much funding per license sold.
That's the kind of math we learned in the public schools I attended, you know, the ones you disparaged. And as to the toughness of the streets I grew up on, private school softies didn't run around my neighborhood shooting off their mouths. I'm sure they still don't. Sorry that doesn't fit your narrative. I guess they were tough enough we didn't run around crying "that's not fair" in my neighborhood, you'd have got laughed off my block on a nice day.
I will answer a couple of your questions, again, since you seem kind of committed to being wrong. First, P-R funds are distributed based on license sales, not sales of tags and permits. That information is widely available and easily verified. And yes, that includes non-resident licenses sold - meaning that Kansas not only funds it's wildlife and hunting programs disproportionately from non-resident licenses sold, but also benefits from those license sales in the formula by which it is allotted federal funding. Secondly, yes, population figures are used to calculate Pittman-Roberts funding for section 4(c) and section 10 funds. Again, easily verifiable. It's quite literally in the law, which is, shockingly, public record.
To wit:
"State apportionments for wildlife restoration projects are based on the land and inland water area and the number of hunting licenses sold in each state. State population is used to determine apportionments for both the Basic and Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety programs. "
(emphasis mine, for your benefit)
Hunting licenses sold:
Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Kansas 239,335 245,647 245,779 251,390 250,877
Missouri 496,583 502,652 499,489 498,319 494,030
Again, Kansas was allocated $56/license for those years, Missouri was allotted $40/license, despite having more than twice the population. That's not tags/permits/etc., which by your own dubious calculation are some 4 times higher in Missouri. That's hunting licenses. Period. Kansas is 1.19 times bigger than Missouri geographically, yet received 1.4 times as much funding per license sold.
That's the kind of math we learned in the public schools I attended, you know, the ones you disparaged. And as to the toughness of the streets I grew up on, private school softies didn't run around my neighborhood shooting off their mouths. I'm sure they still don't. Sorry that doesn't fit your narrative. I guess they were tough enough we didn't run around crying "that's not fair" in my neighborhood, you'd have got laughed off my block on a nice day.
Last edited:
BrownDogsCan2
Well-known member
I grew up with an s davis in south Wichita. He was a tough sob he was catholic school tough. I think us south siders were all tough.
I dont know
In my small circle - my brother, and 2 friends have their lifetimes as well as I do. One friend buys his license yearly and never bought the lifetime
My brother wasnt planning on moving out of state but was basically sold by Koch industries as one of their business deals when they sold a business so they forced him into moving basically - anyways he lives in TX now and has made it back a couple times to hunt. So the small group of hunters I am with all of us with our lifetimes get use out of them. I'm the oldest and will just call myself 41 as my birthday is coming up this week.
I quote: "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." And further "as to the toughness of the streets I grew up on, private school softies didn't run around my neighborhood shooting off their mouths. I'm sure they still don't. Sorry that doesn't fit your narrative. I guess they were tough enough we didn't run around crying "that's not fair" in my neighborhood, you'd have got laughed off my block on a nice day."
FWIW, if it makes you feel any better, I never attended private high schools. Or for that matter public, either, very much. I had other things to do. Sorry if I misconstrued your intent, but I never knew an actual tough guy who felt it necessary to present as such from behind a keyboard. Either way, I beg your forgiveness and indulgence, but believe that any slow witted, ignorant buffoon is entitled to toss a few ad hominem comments out, if only in an attempt to distract from his own academic and intellectual inadequacies.
More in the general direction of the primary subject of this thread, you are quite correct that there are a number of different minor buckets (Admin expenses, range construction, firearm safety etc) scattered amidst the PR program. That is in one of the cites I provided you (you're welcome!). However these were not the topic at hand. Public access by Kansans to their own state's wildlife resources was, and is - and that is funded by the Big Bucket (and primary original object of the act itself) -Wildlife Restoration (WIHA, for the most part). It is more than a bit misleading to jump to a minor side pocket in attempt to make your point. Population is not the basis for allocation of the vast majority of PR funds, any more than PR taxes on suppressors provide a principal source of PR funds. Practical math, not academic theory.
I still don't believe there is any one on this thread that I haven't learned something from, or couldn't. Although my mind remains open on that.
Last edited:
Prairie Drifter
Well-known member
Guys, this has turned into the old "my dad can beat up your dad" argument with no realistic landing spot. From all of the input, it is fairly logical that the only variable we have any control of is the number of licenses being sold. We have control of that in that we can start taking kids that don't have the opportunity to hunt without our taking them, and get them started into hunting so that when they hit 16, they too will be a license buyer. If you want to do even more for them and the balance of bird hunters in the field, go ahead and buy them that 5 year license that will carry them to the age of 21. As for management on our limited Kansas public ground, the math about 5 years ago was we had 135,000 acres of fee title land, 210,715 acres of licensed ground owned by COE or BOR, and 6,086 acres of land managed under other agreements. We had 53 regional and field staff as well as 2 administrators to manage that land. With an annual visitation estimate of 4.5million, and an average of 7,000 acres per employee, those managers are carrying a significant load. Add to that the fact that most of our acreages are located on riparian corridors where plant succession is at it's highest speed, and you have a lot of work to do just to not backslide. When the surveys also show that 18% of the hunters are supported on this .6% of the ground in the state, it's no wonder that our bird populations on public ground cannot keep up with the demand. If you want upland bird management to be accomplished on the public land you hunt, maybe a visit with the manager and an offer to volunteer to get trained on prescribed burning and help would push that cart a bit further than it would get without your assistance. Just some thoughts! For instance, right now it is just me. In a week or two my 72 year old help will start. Currently I have 3 applications for helpers and none of them have more experience than my 5 year old grandson. That makes burning require 2-3 areas to burn together, wasting at least 2 hours a day just getting there and back.
We are not going to change Pitman Robertson, so the way they figure Kansas's slice of the pie will be similar. We all need to work on the 1 variable that we have some control of and limiting the non-resident portion of that variable shoots us all in the foot.
We are not going to change Pitman Robertson, so the way they figure Kansas's slice of the pie will be similar. We all need to work on the 1 variable that we have some control of and limiting the non-resident portion of that variable shoots us all in the foot.
PD, you often make a great deal of sense -but I think you may have missed the intent on this one. Not trying to change the PR act; rather, suggest that there might be ways of increasing KS success in its interaction with it. But more than that; resourcing in general. From my perspective - KS natives are being done a disservice across the board in this regard. Great game at the ground level. Less so at the leadership and management level. Just my opinion of course.
Still, I would be very interested in learning more about KDWPT's budget formulation, approval, execution and oversight processes. It remains a mystery to me and, I think - most here. That's not the fun stuff of course. wildlife management is - but you will never have enough of the latter without a lot of attention to the former.
I'm here to help if I can, but I'll drop the subject as I don't think I'm making any headway. I do look forward to meeting you out at Byron Walker in the near term - and will be looking to Mr. Rue for some assistance at the micro level.
Prairie Drifter
Well-known member
I appreciate that, but the personality rubs were getting in the way of reasonable information transfer. I can't quote numbers, but the Public Lands Division Director sent his assistant to Denver for training on federal aide in the past 3 years or so. As a result, we have changed the method we use to draw federal aide from PR. For me, that has increased my budget 318%. Instead of recycling nuts, bolts, washers, etc. and doing things with a chainsaw; I now can purchase equipment that increases our productivity by a similar margin. I finally have equipment that will complete projects that before I had to hire done. That doesn't mean I won't still hire much of it done, but I am not a prisoner of the contractor or contract. When I moved here in 1992, I had $0 for hiring seasonal help. Now I have more $ than I want for help and have more trouble finding experienced help. I'm not involved in the inner workings of how our budgets are broken down between divisions, so I can't comment on that. I suppose every division would consider itself a bit more important than others. I just know in the 36 years I have worked for the agency full time, and the 40 years I have worked for the agency, I am in the best shape budget and help-wise than I have ever been.
Last edited:
Prairie Drifter
Well-known member
There are employees in KDWPT that are really good at scrounging. As an example, I'll offer up my latest scrounge list. In 2012-2014 KDOT was upgrading the highway through my wildlife area from a super 2 lane to a 4 lane. I found out that the contractor was paying my neighbors to take broken concrete. I had been trying to get the lake dam armored for 20 years, but the $250,000 price tag prevented it, so I approached the contractor offering to take the concrete without being paid. They delivered more than enough concrete to complete the dam armoring project and I went quickly to work getting the concrete broken and sized and the dam cleared off and repaired. We laid down erosion fabric then placed the concrete with the agency excavator and operator. That cost about another $30,000. With some of the remaining concrete, I built 2 additional rock jetties for better fisherman access and fish habitat at my lake and 2 additional jetties on the youth pond at the KDWPT headquarters in Pratt.
My boss at the time came by and asked me, "you have over $250,000 worth of match, have you ever considered doing a NAWCA project"? I told him I was the quail guy and he'd have to educate me a bit on what that was. Seems the North American Wetland Conservation Act will provide matching funding at a rate of 1 for 2 to improve wetlands. I started working on the idea and got DU involved and we jointed a larger Kansas NAWCA grant application to improve the dikes, water control structures, and increase the acreage of my then 25 acres of wetlands north and west of the lake. The grant was approved and 2017 I started work on the project. The project added 13 acres to my existing wetlands and improved our ability to capture water. DU was impressed and promoted my area in front of donors and Phillips 66 donated another $100,000 to the Byron Walker Wildlife area to build more wetlands. I again went to work and sited and designed 5 new wetlands to build. My good friend is the District Conservationist at NRCS in town and also the local DU president so I bumped him to see if he knew where I might get additional on the ground match to add to our holdings. He came up with $120,000 worth of completed wildlife projects to add to the Phillips 66 money and we are just this month putting in for another NAWCA grant at a 1:1 match to build those 5 wetlands. There are many other managers doing just this kind of work. We know that our basic budgets won't facilitate the maximum use of our areas, so we go the extra mile getting that done too. The unfortunate part is that this often sets me behind on my general habitat work. But I have been pretty good at finding talented help to fill that void. The magnifier there is that about 8 of my former employees are now working for the agency and doing the same type of magic in their roles for KDWPT and some are also working in Missouri and Arkansas to name but 2.
I guess what this all boils down to is, the lowest rungs within KDWPT are capable of changing the funding base for their areas by being innovative. There are a lot of ways to achieve that, from volunteers, support groups, to club work days, to clubs improving my area to facilitate their activities. Many managers, including myself, use grazing, cropping, haying, and timber sales to improve the habitat while, at the same time, adding to the funding base for their areas. While the big dogs are dividing the PR and DJ monies coming down to us, that hasn't always precluded us from going above and beyond on our own to make sure our ideas become reality!
My boss at the time came by and asked me, "you have over $250,000 worth of match, have you ever considered doing a NAWCA project"? I told him I was the quail guy and he'd have to educate me a bit on what that was. Seems the North American Wetland Conservation Act will provide matching funding at a rate of 1 for 2 to improve wetlands. I started working on the idea and got DU involved and we jointed a larger Kansas NAWCA grant application to improve the dikes, water control structures, and increase the acreage of my then 25 acres of wetlands north and west of the lake. The grant was approved and 2017 I started work on the project. The project added 13 acres to my existing wetlands and improved our ability to capture water. DU was impressed and promoted my area in front of donors and Phillips 66 donated another $100,000 to the Byron Walker Wildlife area to build more wetlands. I again went to work and sited and designed 5 new wetlands to build. My good friend is the District Conservationist at NRCS in town and also the local DU president so I bumped him to see if he knew where I might get additional on the ground match to add to our holdings. He came up with $120,000 worth of completed wildlife projects to add to the Phillips 66 money and we are just this month putting in for another NAWCA grant at a 1:1 match to build those 5 wetlands. There are many other managers doing just this kind of work. We know that our basic budgets won't facilitate the maximum use of our areas, so we go the extra mile getting that done too. The unfortunate part is that this often sets me behind on my general habitat work. But I have been pretty good at finding talented help to fill that void. The magnifier there is that about 8 of my former employees are now working for the agency and doing the same type of magic in their roles for KDWPT and some are also working in Missouri and Arkansas to name but 2.
I guess what this all boils down to is, the lowest rungs within KDWPT are capable of changing the funding base for their areas by being innovative. There are a lot of ways to achieve that, from volunteers, support groups, to club work days, to clubs improving my area to facilitate their activities. Many managers, including myself, use grazing, cropping, haying, and timber sales to improve the habitat while, at the same time, adding to the funding base for their areas. While the big dogs are dividing the PR and DJ monies coming down to us, that hasn't always precluded us from going above and beyond on our own to make sure our ideas become reality!
Troy - I love Finance and Arbitrage -- is there a way I could volunteer to help guys like you with getting the funding for projects like you mentioned or creative ways on how to pay for them? I dont know if that makes sense - But from what you described it seems the upper levels of mgmt may delegate finding the funding/financing of projects down to the land managers and likely some are very talented craftsman/land managers but no so good or have a desire to deal with the financial stuff if that makes sense.
I dont live too far from the western edge of Clinton lake - I'd gladly load up my skid loader and start tearing the hell out of trees lol --
Prairie Drifter
Well-known member
I get a chance Husker, I'll ask! Thanks!
PD, I know you work very hard, and that your heart is right. But you prove the point: "As a result, we have changed the method we use to draw federal aide from PR. For me, that has increased my budget 318%." At no increase in expense to KS taxpayers.
You did that on your own because you are an exceptionally dedicated and highly motivated individual. My point would be - you shouldn't have to. And most likely wouldn't, if there was even a tiny sliver of effective budget planning and oversight at KDWPT.
Prairie Drifter
Well-known member
Native, you WERE right to a point. However, there has been a wholesale turnover in the leadership of KDWPT in the past 3-5 years and the result was this change in the way we do our federal aide. We have full-time folks whose job is federal aid. Now with current leadership, they have worked together to get us to where we need to be. One thing that is pretty well hidden in all this is the fact that PR tax is collected on "wholesale" firearms sales to retailers. That is important now in the pandemic due to the fact that many retailers have exhausted their stock while the gun makers were idle due to covid. Now that production is ramping back up, the manufacturers are bound by contracts to produce military and police firearms that have been on contract first. PR receives no tax on those sales. As a result, there will be a lag in PR monies due to this emphasis on contracted sales.
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.
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.