Ks wiha fees?

KDWP Self-Supporting to 80% of Its Budget

Pointer Man said:
I was mainly concerned about the tight budget that is facing the state and I don't to see the program dwindle if they reduced the price they are paying for the current WIHA land. I read a short note on the KDWP related the fee increases and I guess I figured that if we payed an additional cost directly for the WIHA program that money wouldn't be taken away and spent on something else. It was just an idea and I was curious if anyone else had concerns or not. I am glad I live in a state that does have a large amount of public land to hunt and I wouldn't want to see that change.

http://kdwp.blogspot.com/2009/01/comments-invited-on-proposed-fee.html
Click to expand...

I believe that the KDWP and all its expenses are paid for by hunting licenses and other hunting related fees/taxes. WRONG. I later checked the KDWP website and learned that only 80% of its budget is non-general revenue funds. It is proposing raising a number -- but not all -- hunting and other licenses and some fees. I found nothing to indicate that a special fee for walk-in access was being considered.
 
Last edited:
Point! has Important Data

Point! said:
KansasBrittney said:



Great post - Applause for Kansas Brittney!


BritChaser said:



Of course the KDWP doesn't say anything about a decrease in acreage. Why would they? But if you'll recall, they sure talked about it when the program was increasing. There was a big push to get to 1 million acres and the KDWP leased pretty much anything they could to get to that magic number. This was for marketing reasons. After hitting 1 million, the program appears to have been "put on the shelf".

I don't recall anybody saying the program is being evaluated, however I'm the one that said that acreage is shrinking. What do I base that on? The actual numbers. I've been keeping a spreadsheet for every county showing the acreage and number of WIHA's in every county since program's inception. It's one of the ways I find new areas and which areas have been deleted without spending hours comparing year to year maps. It's easy find out how much total land the program has by simply totaling the columns.

In addition, I have made transparencies that can be used as overlays showing the change from one year to the next. This highlights the new spots and also lets me know what spots have been pulled from the program. This along with copies of every WIHA atlas since the beginning has proven VERY helpful.

Bottom line, total WIHA acreage is shrinking very quickly. What isn't shown on the maps is that the spots with good habitat are shrinking at an alarming rate. Many of these spots get hunted/tried out until the contract expires then they get leased up.

For those of you who believe we're not losing acreage, take you favorite county and check it against last year's map. See how many new spots you find (there are some). Then see how many spots are gone. Now, look at the difference.

Perhaps an easier way is to simply check the total acreage available in a given county at the front of each WIHA booklet and compare it to the same county last year...or the year before. Just because we've currently got the best program in the nation doesn't mean that it will stay that way. Some might even argue that the best hunting offered by the WIHA program is behind us. That's scarey.

While the program is successful, it needs some work if we're going to continue to try and sustain both a good upland bird population and good hunting.

Point!
Click to expand...

Please publish your findings so that we can review it and take action. Thanks.
 
BritChaser said:
I believe that the KDWP and all its expenses are paid for by hunting licenses and other hunting related fees/taxes. WRONG. I later checked the KDWP website and learned that only 80% of its budget is non-general revenue funds. It is proposing raising a number -- but not all -- hunting and other licenses and some fees. I found nothing to indicate that a special fee for walk-in access was being considered.
Click to expand...

You are correct a special fee is not being considered by KDWP. I brought up the topic of the fee to see if people wouldn't mind paying a fee that would be directly for the improvement and growth of the WIHA program. I just wanted to see what the consensus was.:)
 
Pheasant Stamp

I would probably _prefer_ a Pheasant/Qail Stamp w/ a portion of proceeds going to WIHA. Since it is much more $$ for a NR Deer there. More of a pay 4 want you want model.
 
I would gladly pay anywhere from $20-$40 (maybe even $50 without a fuss), as long as there was accountability & proof-in-the-pudding that the money was being used for it's intended purpose & not diverted elsewhere!

I am not happy at all that CO is dropping their walk-in fee & I have made my voice known to the CDOW!!! I have repeatedly been told that supposedly, it is to help foster/encourage youth participation. Pretty weak reasoning if you ask me - if youth is truly the target, then why not let the kids go free (I'm 100% for that) & charge all the rest of us adult upland hunters double (up it to $40 instead of the current $20) - then use the extra funds raised to actually increase an already excellent program!

They say not to worry, that the money will now come from elsewhere - but can somebody please pray-tell me where exactly that might be if NOTHING in addition to before (and actually less) will be charged??? Don't want to get into a rabbit-trail on politics here - but it all makes about as much sense to me as trying to up government payouts while charging less taxes. That = very fuzzy math!!! Smells like the slow suicide of a very good program to me! :confused:

Even (or should I say especially) when it comes to wildlife & habitat - somebody's gotta pay the piper if a really "sweet" tune is gonna keep getting played! :thumbsup:
 
Encouraging to see the amount of support and as a non-resident hunter I would gladly pay the extra fee.

The key here (as others have mentioned) is being proactive and getting out in front of the obstacles to the acquisition of future access. CRP acreage reductions will limit the pool of worthwhile available acres. Competition from those willing to pay trespass fees will eventually raise rental rates.

A larger pool of money would also allow wildlife officials the option of targeting better "more expensive" habitat. If as someone mentioned above the rate paid by the KDWP is around $1.50 an acre your only looking at $1280 dollars for a section of land needed to beat the state bid by 25%. That's within a lot of peoples budget especially if they are splitting costs with a partner.

Concerns about state accountability are valid but potential problems can be addressed if the language used to create the program is clear. I also believe state budgets and spending activity is public information and it should be auditable. Doesn't guarantee every dollar will be spent absolutely appropriately but for freelance hunter the risk/reward on something like this pretty favorable. Other states do this successfully.

Anybody know how to start one of those internet petitions?
 
I'm not sure about how to start a petition, but would anyone know who we could call at KDWP to inquire with them about the possibility of such a program and the steps we would need to take. I would just rather take action instead of talking about what should be done all time and praying everything works out and that the program will continue to be successfull.
 
You have an option to Donate Money for the WIHA program check the Hunting regs or WIHA atlas for the part that you tear out and send in with your donation. If you donate over a certain amount they will send you a hat or subscription to their magazine. If you want to know how that money is being spent before you donate you can call KDWP and find out. I believe I talked to a guy named Jake. 620-672-5911

I don't believe they are trying to eliminate the number of acres in the program but without a doubt expiring CRP tracts that are tore up for crops could cause serious issues in the future not only for WIHA but for the birds as well
 
Thanks, coveyrise, and welcome to the Forum.

picture.php



That's from page 10 of the Kansas Hunting & Furharvesting Regulation Summary.
 
This is an opportunity for hunters and anglers to assist with leasing more land for public access by making a voluntary donation to the WIHA and F.I.S.H. Programs. Currently [August 2005], demand by landowners or tenants to enroll their property in the WIHA program exceeds the amount of funds available to accept the property. Surveys indicate that hunters and anglers would pay a fee to be able to hunt or fish on these properties, however, KDWP's goal is to keep the programs at no addtional charge to the sportsmen. Additionaly, some users of these access programs have expressed the desire to be able to contribute voluntary donations. Now anyone can make a contribution that will go into leasing more private land for hunting and fishing. Contributions in any amount can be made at any time. For a contributions of $25 or more, you can receive a limited edition hat recognizing your support to the programs or a one-year subscription to Kansas Wildlife & Parks magazine.

Send check or money order payable to:

KDWP Access Wildtrust Account
Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks
512 SE 25th Ave
Pratt KS 67124

Include your name, address and for contributions of $25 or more indicate whether you would like a hat or magazine subscription. â?? http://www.kdwp.state.ks.us/news/la...dlife/Walk-in-Hunting/Access-Donation-Program
Click to expand...

----------
 
Kansas walk in fees

I would even go so far as to suggest we form an informal/ or formal group to raise larger contributions. What do any of you think? This day and age when you find a government program that works directly for your interests, you better hop in and support it before it dies or changes! My guess is that they also use the numbers to justify the program, we sure can't afford to lose it. I would be happy to pay for a stamp, as well, ( I think kansas had one years ago), but I think all these fees would need kansas legislative approval, difficult in any year,( see parimutual legislation), in this enviornment impossible with a state budget shortfall of immense proportions, more likely, if the legislature figures out how much money is used for the walk-in program, they would try to grab it for the general budget.
 
Seems like this topic comes up every so often. Just curious to see if people still tend to think the CRP and WIHA acreages won't be decreasing.
 
my concern is the noticable loss of crp walk-in ground in kansas. $7 wheat, $15 beans is going to take out more grass, unless there is a supplemental payment coming from somewhere, a stamp with the funds properly allocated may someday prove necessary, planning ahead would be wise.
 
Loss of CRP

hunter94 said:
my concern is the noticable loss of crp walk-in ground in kansas. $7 wheat, $15 beans is going to take out more grass, unless there is a supplemental payment coming from somewhere, a stamp with the funds properly allocated may someday prove necessary, planning ahead would be wise.
Click to expand...

I have heard that quite a few CRP contracts recently expired and were unrenewable. Some owners who had their now lost CRP in walk-in probably terminated the walk-in because they are going to farm or run stock on it and don't want the hassles that can arise from hunters.
 
Kansas has a state waterfowl stamp, $5 i believe? wonder what precipitated that fee? and why it would be any harder to assess the same amount to an upland license to support better or more habitat?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top