KDWPT Wildlife Commission

KsHusker

Active member
I have no idea if any of you joined the meeting or not - I heard 3 folks I believe speak to the duck issue - commissioner Sporer even piped up on the issue which was nice.

My son was with me at home and I did not have quiet so could not speak verbally but did present a question regarding deer - it was completely ignored by all. I needed to elaborate more regarding the economic piece but typed it in a hurry - oh well - I was referred on somewhere else via the chat.

The meeting reminded me of the one I went to in person - it's all just a formality and their minds are made up beforehand on what will happen. I predict the waterfowl issue will be paid a lot of lip service but nothing will get done. Think the only way to get anything accomplished is play fire with fire and play dirty as others do.


I'll keep watching the commission meetings and will get more content for a future website. Lauber seems to like to hear himself talk. Suggestions were offered but no action will be taken - typical government.


Also for those that didnt listen - the reason you are not getting responses or in the future if emailing anyone at the KDWPT or on the commission you will get silence or a formatted reply - something to do with the open meetings statutes -- their legal counsel mentioned something to the effect. Funny they were able to find and implement a solution for that. I can see that 2 or 3 of the commissioners need to be replaced.
 
Last edited:

KSnative

Active member
I have no idea if any of you joined the meeting or not - I heard 3 folks I believe speak to the duck issue - commissioner Sporer even piped up on the issue which was nice.

My son was with me at home and I did not have quiet so could not speak verbally but did present a question regarding deer - it was completely ignored by all. I needed to elaborate more regarding the economic piece but typed it in a hurry - oh well - I was referred on somewhere else via the chat.

The meeting reminded me of the one I went to in person - it's all just a formality and their minds are made up beforehand on what will happen. I predict the waterfowl issue will be paid a lot of lip service but nothing will get done. Think the only way to get anything accomplished is play fire with fire and play dirty as others do.


I'll keep watching the commission meetings and will get more content for a future website. Lauber seems to like to hear himself talk. Suggestions were offered but no action will be taken - typical government.


Also for those that didnt listen - the reason you are not getting responses or in the future if emailing anyone at the KDWPT or on the commission you will get silence or a formatted reply - something to do with the open meetings statutes -- their legal counsel mentioned something to the effect. Funny they were able to find and implement a solution for that. I can see that 2 or 3 of the commissioners need to be replaced.
I was away on business but did get get an shoulder shrug email response from Aaron Riding. Essentially, the Commission (as I read his reply, and he ought to know since he "are one" is that Commission is a figurehead that exists solely to provide top cover for KDWPT to do what ever they want to - and what they want to do is sell high revenue (non-resident) deer tags; KS voters aren't a concern (see under "top cover"). Lauren Sill,
alone, seems to give a rats rear and she can't do much alone on that gang.

So. I guess we at least learned who really drives that train - not big ag, or the farm bureau, or prior governors (or even really the current one, unless she is called upon to do so by significant numbers of action-oriented resident Kansas voter/hunters). Just an observation, not a dig - nothing I've seen suggests any probability of that.
 

KsHusker

Active member
I was away on business but did get get an shoulder shrug email response from Aaron Riding. Essentially, the Commission (as I read his reply, and he ought to know since he "are one" is that Commission is a figurehead that exists solely to provide top cover for KDWPT to do what ever they want to - and what they want to do is sell high revenue (non-resident) deer tags; KS voters aren't a concern (see under "top cover"). Lauren Sill,
alone, seems to give a rats rear and she can't do much alone on that gang.

So. I guess we at least learned who really drives that train - not big ag, or the farm bureau, or prior governors (or even really the current one, unless she is called upon to do so by significant numbers of action-oriented resident Kansas voter/hunters). Just an observation, not a dig - nothing I've seen suggests any probability of that.
You need to pay closer attention.

The commission does have some say as others have pointed out over things like Turkey seasons and if one is a landowner that is in support of opening up deer regs to sell deer hunts etc.

However a lot of policy is legislature driven which is what I've been pointing out. Others on the other thread piped up how the legislature drives some of the policy. If you're bored - I haven't had time but there's some sort of ag or wildlife committee in the legislature - it's best to start digging there I think as well. Our state legislature is only in session a limited time - so the chance to affect anything for next year is a very slim window. The only way to claw any of this back is to give the power of managing the deer herd back to the biologists -- you can't manage it via things I've pointed out before - simple things like the large units, long seasons and virtually unlimited tags is not how you manage a resource such as big game that is hunter driven unlike something like upland birds which hunter pressure plays a much lower if not very insignificant role in the population as compared to habitat and mother nature for them.


Believe it or not before the legislature made the KDWPT a political tool to drive revenue for their constituents the KDWP's biologists were in the drivers seat using sound science.

Big ag in a roundabout way drives things via brainwashing of dirt farmers in how they use their products, Legislature drives things in that (if a big landowner gets elected) he/she will drive things to their benefit or vice versa if they have someone giving large donations will drive their policy --



The power of the KS Biologists has slowly been stripped away -- Mike Hayden IMO back in the day started this downward trend IMO to benefit his or his families business Hayden Outdoors. So it took years to get here - may never get it back - but the power of the internet could be an equalizing factor and the fact people can't hide as easily as they used to be able to.

I'm saddened so many piped up on the other thread that they'd take action but did not log on for the zoom meeting which was easy. It does bear to mention they brought up the large amount of emails they received and summarized the email written by I'm assuming KS Native - KS Native as someone pointed out your data was incorrect on the # of out of state tags -- I think WestKS Bowhunter may have corrected you - but not sure you listened -- the commission seemed to take issue with that - something to do with the data you were looking at seemed to be that the # of OOS deer tags could be misinterpreted as they were claiming the amount of permits issued to OOS folks was half what you quoted as the figure you looked at included an either sex permit and a doe permit -- (When an out of state resident purchases a White tail tag they get two -- an either sex permit (buck tag if you will) and an additional doe permit) -- but truth be told most will not shoot a doe so it's really all for naught).
 
Last edited:

KSnative

Active member
You need to pay closer attention.

The commission does have some say as others have pointed out over things like Turkey seasons and if one is a landowner that is in support of opening up deer regs to sell deer hunts etc.

However a lot of policy is legislature driven which is what I've been pointing out. Others on the other thread piped up how the legislature drives some of the policy. If you're bored - I haven't had time but there's some sort of ag or wildlife committee in the legislature - it's best to start digging there I think as well. Our state legislature is only in session a limited time - so the chance to affect anything for next year is a very slim window. The only way to claw any of this back is to give the power of managing the deer herd back to the biologists -- you can't manage it via things I've pointed out before - simple things like the large units, long seasons and virtually unlimited tags is not how you manage a resource such as big game that is hunter driven unlike something like upland birds which hunter pressure plays a much lower if not very insignificant role in the population as compared to habitat and mother nature for them.


Believe it or not before the legislature made the KDWPT a political tool to drive revenue for their constituents the KDWP's biologists were in the drivers seat using sound science.

Big ag in a roundabout way drives things via brainwashing of dirt farmers in how they use their products, Legislature drives things in that (if a big landowner gets elected) he/she will drive things to their benefit or vice versa if they have someone giving large donations will drive their policy --



The power of the KS Biologists has slowly been stripped away -- Mike Hayden IMO back in the day started this downward trend IMO to benefit his or his families business Hayden Outdoors. So it took years to get here - may never get it back - but the power of the internet could be an equalizing factor and the fact people can't hide as easily as they used to be able to.

I'm saddened so many piped up on the other thread that they'd take action but did not log on for the zoom meeting which was easy. It does bear to mention they brought up the large amount of emails they received and summarized the email written by I'm assuming KS Native - KS Native as someone pointed out your data was incorrect on the # of out of state tags -- I think WestKS Bowhunter may have corrected you - but not sure you listened -- the commission seemed to take issue with that - something to do with the data you were looking at seemed to be that the # of OOS deer tags could be misinterpreted as they were claiming the amount of permits issued to OOS folks was half what you quoted as the figure you looked at included an either sex permit and a doe permit -- (When an out of state resident purchases a White tail tag they get two -- an either sex permit (buck tag if you will) and an additional doe permit) -- but truth be told most will not shoot a doe so it's really all for naught).
Big ag is brainwashing farmers? Gimme a break. You seriously underestimate - and insult - our working farmers. And perhaps you misread Aaron's email statement - the KDWPT biologists, not the Commission drive deer season dates and limits. Can you clarify?

The fact is, KDWPT gets a disproportionate share of its operating revenue from non-resident license and tag sales. True or false? You are the expert here, so I'll ask you - NOT rhetorical - does the legislature appropriate or allocate the funds so gathered? I'd guess there was no interest expressed at the meeting in the fact that our neighboring states eat our lunch when it comes to collecting PR funds. After all, who needs PR funds when you have cornered the market on state wildlife export sales.

Bottom line: Kansans are being unfairly crowded out of hunting opportunities in their own backyard. Abraham Lincoln didn't do that. Nor did Big Biz. Governor Kelly is the individual with the responsibility and authority to correct that. The proof here is simple: keep doing exactly what you are doing. You will get the same results you have to date. Little/none.

Prove me wrong and I will gladly buy you a beer or three, and happily embrace all of the gloating you can muster up.
 

Thatguy

Member
Here is an excerpt from the comments for and against a bill pushed back in 2000 to increase NR deer access.
Screenshot_20210117-200043_Drive.jpg
Kansas has the highest rate of NR deer participation in the midwest at 24% of the hunters.

Couple more testimonies on increasing tags in recent times
Screenshot_20210117-201524_Drive.jpgScreenshot_20210117-201730_Drive.jpg
 

Thatguy

Member
KSA 32-937
(1) The total number of nonresident deer permits that may be issued for a deer season in a management unit and which may be used to take antlered deer shall be established with the goal of meeting demand for those permits, using a formula developed by the department
 

KSnative

Active member
KSA 32-937
(1) The total number of nonresident deer permits that may be issued for a deer season in a management unit and which may be used to take antlered deer shall be established with the goal of meeting demand for those permits, using a formula developed by the department
Good stuff here. Seems to corroborate the theory that KDWPT is essentially autonomous when it comes to marketing the resource, which just happens to serve as their primary income source. I personally believe the objectives of maximizing Department income, and of managing the resource for the benefit of the wildlife and the citizens of Kansas conflict with one another.
 

Thatguy

Member
Good stuff here. Seems to corroborate the theory that KDWPT is essentially autonomous when it comes to marketing the resource, which just happens to serve as their primary income source. I personally believe the objectives of maximizing Department income, and of managing the resource for the benefit of the wildlife and the citizens of Kansas conflict with one another.
Kdwpt did not write the law. Our senators and representatives did and put it in the wildlife code (which is chapter 32 in the legislature if anyone is bored). Do they get input into the laws, sure, but in govt there is alot that gets mandated to a department(s) then it is the department's job to figure out how to implement it. Kdwpt has spoke in opposition to every bill to increase deer tags in recent memory. But eventually it is going to get rammed down their throat.
 

KSnative

Active member
What part of "using a formula developed by the Department" am I failing to understand? The KDWPT didn't draft, in substantial part, the legislative initiative that gives it essentially a self funding blank check and - each and every year (for the past 21 years no less) they have struggled throw off that oppressive yoke. Unsuccessfully.

And I have a very fine bridge to sell you, sir. I think we'd all love to struggle with implementing that type of enabling legislation, or the equivalent, in our own jobs! In the meantime, perhaps you can further elucidate on the role of the Kansas Wildlife Commission in approving annual deer sales. KDWPT is an executive branch, overseen (loosely, it would appear) by a Commission appointed by the Governor. And your theory is that - this notwithstanding - 21 year old legislation is holding the Governor, Commission and Department hostage? Pshaw.

What, exactly, is the Governor's position on all this? Has she vetoed any legislation mandating increases in NR deer sales? Or advocated (or even just supported) improvements to the 21 year old authorizing legislation?
 

KSnative

Active member
What part of "using a formula developed by the Department" am I failing to understand? The KDWPT didn't draft, in substantial part, the legislative initiative that gives it essentially a self funding blank check and - each and every year (for the past 21 years no less) they have struggled throw off that oppressive yoke. Unsuccessfully.

And I have a very fine bridge to sell you, sir. I think we'd all love to struggle with implementing that type of enabling legislation, or the equivalent, in our own jobs! In the meantime, perhaps you can further elucidate on the role of the Kansas Wildlife Commission in approving annual deer sales. KDWPT is an executive branch, overseen (loosely, it would appear) by a Commission appointed by the Governor. And your theory is that - this notwithstanding - 21 year old legislation is holding the Governor, Commission and Department hostage? Pshaw.

What, exactly, is the Governor's position on all this? Has she vetoed any legislation mandating increases in NR deer sales? Or advocated (or even just supported) improvements to the 21 year old authorizing legislation?

And dang it. Almost missed it. You note that the Department consistently advocates against every bill to increase deer tags - after pointing out that the existing legislation burdens that self same Department with the task of determining (formulaically) the number to be sold each year. You would have us believe, then, that the Department consistently advocates against increasing its own revenues, and against applying their own formula?

None of which speaks to the core issue which is - how many of those licenses/tags will be sold to non-residents, vice residents, hence fueling the spread of "outfitting" and the attendant leases that unfairly crowd out Kansas residents.
 

KsHusker

Active member
And dang it. Almost missed it. You note that the Department consistently advocates against every bill to increase deer tags - after pointing out that the existing legislation burdens that self same Department with the task of determining (formulaically) the number to be sold each year. You would have us believe, then, that the Department consistently advocates against increasing its own revenues, and against applying their own formula?

None of which speaks to the core issue which is - how many of those licenses/tags will be sold to non-residents, vice residents, hence fueling the spread of "outfitting" and the attendant leases that unfairly crowd out Kansas residents.
Thank you for the extra details "ThatGuy"- I see none other than my present elected state official Ken Corbett presented some of the heinous legislation years ago just like he presented it in 2018 to bring back landowner transfer tags.


Yes - I've heard and read many times over the years that the biologists of the KDWP oppose the legislation. There'd be digging to be done to find these articles/minutes - but they are there somewhere I'm sure on the web.

Problem is the legislators and partially the wildlife commission.
 

KSnative

Active member
Thank you for the extra details "ThatGuy"- I see none other than my present elected state official Ken Corbett presented some of the heinous legislation years ago just like he presented it in 2018 to bring back landowner transfer tags.


Yes - I've heard and read many times over the years that the biologists of the KDWP oppose the legislation. There'd be digging to be done to find these articles/minutes - but they are there somewhere I'm sure on the web.

Problem is the legislators and partially the wildlife commission.
No sir. The problem is not that some people did something over two decades ago, nor is it a FAILED legislative initiative submitted by your boogey man 3 years ago. But thanks for (FINALLY) acknowledging "partial" culpability on the part of the Commission while conveniently overlooking which each of the seven have in common - their boss. Your Governor - today, in 2021.

If you are suggesting that the good scientists/biologists are eternally at loggerheads with their leader at the top of the KDWPT (who reports to the Governor, not the legislature) - you might just have rooted up an acorn. Who approves the deer sales formula that the biologists, by law, produce?
 

KsHusker

Active member
No sir. The problem is not that some people did something over two decades ago, nor is it a FAILED legislative initiative submitted by your boogey man 3 years ago. But thanks for (FINALLY) acknowledging "partial" culpability on the part of the Commission while conveniently overlooking which each of the seven have in common - their boss. Your Governor - today, in 2021.

If you are suggesting that the good scientists/biologists are eternally at loggerheads with their leader at the top of the KDWPT (who reports to the Governor, not the legislature) - you might just have rooted up an acorn. Who approves the deer sales formula that the biologists, by law, produce?

It really is pointless trying to get you to understand.
 

KSnative

Active member
It really is pointless trying to get you to understand.
Of course I understand. The KDWPT is an arm of the executive branch and, as such, reports to the Governor via a Commission she appoints - but the sale of Kansas' wildlife resources is totally beyond any of their ability to influence, much less direct. Right?

I really do appreciate your efforts to educate me, though. I stimulates thought; e.g. - as opposed to the current arrangement, which directly leads to Kansans being crowded out, what exactly would be so bad about allowing landowners to peddle their deer tickets to others. At least, our farmers and ranchers would then no longer be incentivized to lease out their property and there would be some possibility of access to state residents, e.g. after the out of state money bags who bought the tickets had tagged out. Sounds like an improvement over the current mess, at least. Even modest results would, in my book, beat just whining about fertilizer, Round Up, thirsty mono-cultures and short stem wheat (you had overlooked that one, just helping you out).

You may fire at will, sir.
 

s.davis

Active member
Kansas could ban all out of state hunting next season and the number of resident hunters would still continue to fall. Everybody loves a scapegoat, but there's a level of delusion at play here that is remarkable.
 

KSnative

Active member
Kansas could ban all out of state hunting next season and the number of resident hunters would still continue to fall. Everybody loves a scapegoat, but there's a level of delusion at play here that is remarkable.
And your solution is?

I am presuming (dangerous!) that the question is still "how can we reduce the leasing mania, so as to increase opportunities for Kansas residents".
Hard to see how increased opportunities for resident hunters could be anything BUT a good thing. What am I missing?
 

Kansascutter

New member
And your solution is?

I am presuming (dangerous!) that the question is still "how can we reduce the leasing mania, so as to increase opportunities for Kansas residents".
Hard to see how increased opportunities for resident hunters could be anything BUT a good thing. What am I missing?
Native,
It’s obvious you’re a NR but actually get what is going on here. You’ve weeded thru the BS that has been going on in this state for way to long. You’re passionate and educated and I don’t detect too much self serving interests in your posts. That being said, S. Davis is what we residents term a border jumper. He claims to be Kansas born but is obviously a MO resident. He wants his cake and the ability to eat it too. He howls and name calls any KS resident who thinks there is a problem here. I’d be more than happy to copy and paste his multiple posts disparaging KS residents on other forums who think it’s way past time for NR lotteries and addressing the leasing/outfitter problems. In short, you aren’t missing anything. S. Davis and thousands like him, love the KDWPT/Legislative status quo. They get to reap what KS sows and want zero change in that.
 

s.davis

Active member
Cut and paste away. I'll sit back and enjoy another round of watching Kansas residents cry about how the free market they love to worship so much actually works.
 
Top