Crying? Who is crying? Now whining - that's another matter. But that appears to be mostly NRs, not Kansans.
KDWPT Wildlife Commission
- Thread starter KsHusker
- Start date
I hate to be the bearer of news Kansans can't stomach but the solution, like the problems, is largely political, and this forum is pleasant in no small part because it's devoid of the political horror show that's allowed elsewhere. But I'll try to minimize the partisan aspects as much as possible while still answering your question:
1. Strictly regulate guiding and leasing.
2. Properly fund your state wildlife agency. Prioritize public access over private profits. Stop electing shills for industry and expecting them to do something besides shill for industries.
3. Hunting is a rural pastime and rural Kansas is dying. The general population is getting older. The hunting population is getting older even more quickly, and older people are dying or not hunting anymore. Meanwhile neither the state nor the hunting community is replacing them with young people, much less young people who hunt. That's not unique to Kansas. In fact, I think even Kansas's non-resident hunting numbers had begun to decline before COVID. That should tell you all you need to know, but the truth is sometimes hard to face. Especially when there's an intellectually lazy way to lay blame at some one else's feet ("OOSers take all OUR birds by deer hunting!"), that simpletons go around cutting and pasting on every internet board they can find. It is especially hard in a place with politics as radical and fringe as Kansas, because the young people who are born there flee the social, cultural and political climate of Kansas to a degree that doesn't happen as badly in moderate to states, even agrarian ones, or states with better functioning economies (and Kansas' economic woes are as much a function of it's radical politics as anything else). Young people who aren't from Kansas recoil in horror at the thought of living there, because everyone in the rest of this country know how far into the fringe Kansas's politics are, and there's not an economic or cultural reason to ignore them. Add to that the fact that there is not an urban area of size or import in Kansas to attract young people, save for the suburbs of a pleasant but not particularly remarkable city in Missouri, nor even a well-funded higher education system to attract them for their college years, and you get to sleep in the bed you all made.
But by all means, make non-residents draw lottery deer tags. I certainly don't object. I've drawn lottery tags in actual big-game hunting destinations (the only game species Kansas is a legitimate destination for are bobwhite and prairie chickens), it's never bothered me in the slightest. I would put in for the a deer draw every year in Kansas because I hunt with a good friend on a his farm that's been in his family since the came from Ireland in the 1850s, and I have enough money to spend some on being sentimental. But it won't make deer hunting in Kansas better, it won't improve access, and it won't reduce leasing or guiding. The only things that will accomplish those tasks are Kansans deciding to prioritize those things politically.
1. More regulation of guides will provide KS residents improved access? How?
2. At last! A point of agreement. KDWPT funding should be "proper". Meaning no longer off-budget and completely without effective oversight. Something is seriously amiss when the Department can turn their back on a fair share of federal PR funds in favor of self-funding via a de facto tax on the sales of KS wildlife - an arrangement that heavily favors sales to non-residents.
3. Again - some agreement (although that may support your conclusion that I am a simpleton). Yes Kansas, like most every other state, is becoming increasingly urban and suburban. Kids can't walk out the back door and go bust a covey anymore. Which is precisely why it is more important than ever for these town kids to have access to relatively nearby hunting (maybe 20-50 miles distant), rather than having no access at all. Unless they are capitalist moneybags than can buy access, in KS or another state.
Perhaps you could elaborate as to what, exactly, you really mean when you state that the "social, cultural and political climate" in KS are driving young people away. Last time I checked, KS had a "progressive" governor of the ilk you appear to favor. Are you suggesting that she and the party she represents are racists, redneck, excessively religious - what, exactly?
Kansans' generous, warm and welcoming culture is among the primary reasons I intend to return there before I die. I wouldn't want you to let facts get in the way of your agenda (although it can sometimes be refreshing to embrace new experiences), but last time I checked there is something of a mass exodus underway from the most urban, politically "woke" states (e.g. CA, NY, VA) to the backwards states (TX, UT, NC, FL). And even more specifically, within the confines of the "woke" states, people are fleeing your fully regulated, "properly managed" cities to the suburbs and exurbs.
2. At last! A point of agreement. KDWPT funding should be "proper". Meaning no longer off-budget and completely without effective oversight. Something is seriously amiss when the Department can turn their back on a fair share of federal PR funds in favor of self-funding via a de facto tax on the sales of KS wildlife - an arrangement that heavily favors sales to non-residents.
3. Again - some agreement (although that may support your conclusion that I am a simpleton). Yes Kansas, like most every other state, is becoming increasingly urban and suburban. Kids can't walk out the back door and go bust a covey anymore. Which is precisely why it is more important than ever for these town kids to have access to relatively nearby hunting (maybe 20-50 miles distant), rather than having no access at all. Unless they are capitalist moneybags than can buy access, in KS or another state.
Perhaps you could elaborate as to what, exactly, you really mean when you state that the "social, cultural and political climate" in KS are driving young people away. Last time I checked, KS had a "progressive" governor of the ilk you appear to favor. Are you suggesting that she and the party she represents are racists, redneck, excessively religious - what, exactly?
Kansans' generous, warm and welcoming culture is among the primary reasons I intend to return there before I die. I wouldn't want you to let facts get in the way of your agenda (although it can sometimes be refreshing to embrace new experiences), but last time I checked there is something of a mass exodus underway from the most urban, politically "woke" states (e.g. CA, NY, VA) to the backwards states (TX, UT, NC, FL). And even more specifically, within the confines of the "woke" states, people are fleeing your fully regulated, "properly managed" cities to the suburbs and exurbs.
Come on over, I think you'd find that thread to be of equal or greater interest to this one, and a lot of people are actually viewing it. Don't worry about having nothing to contribute - I learn a lot more than I "contribute" here. Sometimes I like to stimulate discussion, for that very purpose.
Seems like a bad idea to pursue that line of discussion, because I think it leads directly to a violation of this board's policy on political discussions (if it already hasn't). To answer your first question, you are (one of) the one(s) spouting:
"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"
and
"our farmers and ranchers would then no longer be incentivized to lease out their property"
and
"how can we reduce the leasing mania, so as to increase opportunities for Kansas residents"
Maybe, if leasing is the big driver of access issues (and I do think that it is one), you should elect people to your government who will make laws to change the way that industry is allowed to operate in a way that would ameliorate the negative effects it has on Kansas residents and their access to a publicly owned resource, namely wildlife. There are probably a million different ways to do that. Whinging all over the internet about the obvious consequences of allowing people to monetize a public resource with next to no governmental regulation probably isn't one of them.
You politicize the thread, then complain when I respond with direct, non-political facts. Then dissemble as to the source of the problem, and corrective action. If you can make it appear complicated enough - few will bother to try. So far, so good.
Kansas' Governor, alone, appoints the Commission assigned the task of overseeing the KDWPT, and she alone can direct or replace them. It is the KDWPT that is actively marketing the resource to non-residents, in lieu of applying the effort needed to recover a fair share of PR funds. Ergo, therein lies the fix. Today, right now - without a single new regulation or law to be mangled or manipulated in creation, interpretation or application.
You've lost me. What's the fix? Recovering a "fair share" of PR funds? Do you know how PR funds are allocated...or where that money comes from? You said on multiple occasions that the problem was non-residents leasing land? How would getting its "fair share" of tax money collected almost entirely from non-residents result in less leasing? Also, what makes you think only non-residents lease hunting land in Kansas? Or that the people or corporations who own land in Kansas would suddenly start allowing public access hunting on their land if they couldn't lease it to deer hunters from other states? Or that if they did, there would be some magical rebirth of a dying hobby in Kansas? This ridiculous position you guys take is like insisting the solution to food insecurity in rural Kansas is to quit exporting wheat.
Last edited:
You are welcome to join the conversation, but you do need to keep up. Yes, I know exactly how PR funds come from, and how they are allocated.
So do our neighboring states. And so would you if review this thread. It has some actual facts in it that might prove informative.
1. KDWPT favors selling NR licenses and tags because it gives them near total autonomy from normal budget and oversight processes.
2. A fair share of PR funds for Kansas would greatly reduce dependency on NR license/tag money at KDWPT. Review this thread for specific facts previously provided.
3 Reduced NR license/tag sales would reduce the incentive for the dirty, rotten capitalist Outfitters to lease up ground (and their ability to do so, for that matter).
4. Leases and citizen access don't mix well. Fewer leases wouldn't guarantee access for Kansans, but it would certainly greatly increase the possibilities.
What part of that of that thought process do you pronounce "ridiculous"?
And here I was thinking you might need a booster for that anti-fact and counter-logic vaccine.
TryAgain207
New member
So, the argument is to limit the number of non resident tags to then provide resident hunters more opportunities and removing the leasing that is happening from out of state hunters? That's fine, I have no issue there. Leasing however.....If I owned land and wanted to lease it out to a licensed hunter, local or not, its no one else's business. There are only three things I wish would change. 1. More attention on birds and less on bucks , 2. no guided hunts on public lands (this drives me nuts), 3. Bigger public lands across the state, this really condenses the hunting pressure and is the smallest public hunting lands that I have seen!
, 2. no guided hunts on public lands (this drives me nuts), 3. Bigger public lands across the state, this really condenses the hunting pressure and is the smallest public hunting lands that I have seen!westksbowhunter
Well-known member
Well this resident failed to draw a Unit 4 turkey tag again this year. I have been turned down twice in the last 3 years. That idiot Corbett wants transferable tags to cater to NR's and someone who has hunted here for 55 years can't even get a turkey tag for Unit 4. Go figure!
Prairie Drifter
Well-known member
You're so lucky! I believe guiding on public land was made illegal in 2020. Trying to add acres to my area right now. It was introduced in the Senate a week or two ago. As for #1, I do all my management directed toward quail on the uplands as I know all quail habitat is also deer, turkey, and rabbit habitat, but not all deer, turkey, or rabbit habitat is also quail habitat. You just keep doing what you are doing with the wishes. Seems luck is on your side!!!!So, the argument is to limit the number of non resident tags to then provide resident hunters more opportunities and removing the leasing that is happening from out of state hunters? That's fine, I have no issue there. Leasing however.....If I owned land and wanted to lease it out to a licensed hunter, local or not, its no one else's business. There are only three things I wish would change. 1. More attention on birds and less on bucks