Land prices...thoughts on future of WIHA

nwkansnative

nwkansnative

Member
300 plus acres of average cropland in Rooks County (twin mounds area if you are familiar with the County) sold last week for $2,400 an acre. As far as I know that is a record. It had oil production (5,000 a year in royalty payments) but 2,400 seems slightly insane. Good cropland with some mineral rights has been going for 1,500 ish. A guy from Iowa bought it. No one knows if he was buying it to hunt or to farm.

It is becoming increasingly clear that buying land for hunting is becoming prohibitively expensive. WIHA has been great but it seems like it goes down every year in number of acres leaving same number of guns chasing less acres to hunt for free. If we are going to save WIHA, it seems like to me that KS needs to impose a fee and use that money to increase payments to property owners. Texas charges a fee of like 50.00 for access to public hunting. I would pay it and I expect serious bird hunters would as well. I am going to contact KPWD about this and see what they say.
 
The state really needs to double the price of out of state licenses in my opinion. Raise the price of in state guide licenes and quadruple the amount of out of state guide license fees.

I would pay an xtra 10 dollars maybe but 50 seems a little steep to me. Who would enforce it? There would still be people hunting the WIHA's who never buy a permit to do so.
 
I think it is a great idea, always have, but they will never go for it. Part of the allure of kansas hunting is reasonable non-resident license, unlimited days hunting for nearly 3 months, and a ton of wiha. They are far more interested in out of stater's spending money in gas stations, hotels and restaurants, then they are in us residents having quality hunting readily available.
 
carptom1 said:
I think it is a great idea, always have, but they will never go for it. Part of the allure of kansas hunting is reasonable non-resident license, unlimited days hunting for nearly 3 months, and a ton of wiha. They are far more interested in out of stater's spending money in gas stations, hotels and restaurants, then they are in us residents having quality hunting readily available.
Click to expand...

Carptom1 that last sentence in your post sums it all up very well.
 
The WIHA access fee gets brought up every year and kicked around. I have been told that charging a WIHA fee would cause the state to forefeit the Pittman-Robertson money that is currently paying for WIHA acres. Effectively, they might charge us all $50.00, and still end up with less money than they are getting back from the feds. So it's kind of a losing proposition for everybody.

Regarding the future of WIHA suffering from rising land prices, I don't understand the correlation.:confused: I understand how CRP could be in danger since CRP competes with production. But WIHA doesn't, IMO. Plenty of crop acres are enrolled in the program.

For me personally, I am more concerned about a loss of CRP and shelterbelts and the effect that will have on the future of upland hunting.

I think that charging hunters more money so the state can lease the best available land is ultimately a losing proposition. We'll never have deeper pockets than the guides and hunt clubs. Ultimately, everybody but the weathiest folks would get priced out of hunting. Also, if push came to shove, the state would put money into leasing land for deer hunting, since that's where the big money comes from anyway.

Personally, for upland birds, I think it is a better plan to try to encourage (financially) good farming practices everywhere and improve habitat everywhere. Give the farmers a good incentive to put in useful shelterbelts and make CRP a viable option on sensitive areas.

If we could somehow improve habitat statewide on a broad scale, then good hunting opportunities could be found everywhere. Just a dream, I know, but I think it is the best hope for the future.
 
To me the correlation is that the more expensive the land, the more the WIHA fee becomes deminimis. Last time I checked (and it has been a couple of years) State paid $2.00 an acre for WIHA. That is not even close to being meaningful with land going for $1,500 plus an acre. WIHA acres keep disappearing for a reason. My guess is that one of those reasons is that at $2 an acre it just isn't worth the trouble. $4 or $5 might be different. Look at a WIHA map for Rooks County from 2011 to the current map. Lots of sections are just no longer enrolled.

WIHA is a privilege not a right. Don't want to pay any extra to keep the program going? That is fine, but don't bitch in 10 years when there isn't a program.

BTW, CRP pays $48 or $49 an acre in Rooks.
 
I agree an added fee is acceptable for access to WIHA. After all, one must buy a hunting license to hunt one's own land. Since the KDWPT pays for WIHA access, an additional fee is reasonable. With a fee, how about restricting WIHA to residents for a short period at the beginning of the season as other states do?
 
Last edited:
An answer to improving the WIHA land is to maybe do like South Dakota has done with the CREP program. This is a special type of CRP program designed to improve water quality. South Dakota has made it available to hunters and I believe if I am looking at it correctly, it pays around $140 an acre. I don't know if that is just start up cost or if that is payment for the life of the contract, 10-15 years.
 
BritChaser said:
I agree an added fee is acceptable for access to WIHA. After all, one must buy a hunting license to hunt one's own land. Since the KDWPT pays for WIHA access, an additional fee is reasonable. With a fee, how about restricting WIHA to residents for a short period at the beginning of the season as other states do?
Click to expand...

HUNTING LICENSE EXEMPTIONS

The following persons are not required to have a hunting license:

owners of land or tenants of land leased for agriculture, and immediate family members living with resident landowners and resident or nonresident tenants, while hunting or furharvesting on this land;
legally-defined Native American Kansas residents (apply for free license);
nonresidents using field trial permits issued by KDWPT; and
residents 15 and younger or 65 and older.

http://www.kdwpt.state.ks.us/news/H...eral-Information/Hunting-Furharvester-License
 
nwkansnative said:
WIHA is a privilege not a right. Don't want to pay any extra to keep the program going? That is fine, but don't bitch in 10 years when there isn't a program.
Click to expand...

The point I was trying to make in the first part of my post is that I was told by a KDWP biologist that charging a WIHA access fee would be a net loss for the program because they would lose all of the pittman-robertson money they get back from the feds. Charging hunters $50.00 more and funding the program less? How does that help the program?

Maybe they do need to increase the WIHA payment to make it more appealing to landowners.:confused: I don't know what the payment currently is, but I still suspect that the state would lose a bidding war over the prime acres if they were in direct competition with an outfitter or hunt club. I still think that protecting and improving the landscape on a large scale is the best way to protect the future of our sport.

I think TreeDaddy brought up a good point. Maybe they could devise a CRP program that would be attractive to landowners and include hunting access.

Our goals are the same, although our philosophy and methods may be different. I am 100% interested in protecting the future of bird hunting in KS. And I am willing to pay my own way also. I just want my dollars to count for something significant and long-lasting.
 
The "FINAL SOLUTION" is for the the Feds to make a one-time purchase of the surface rights to 15% of all agricultural land through eminent domain(a purchase for public purpose) in "pheasant land" and plant CRP grass and shelter habitat in this 15%. I describe "pheasant land" as that land which easily supports large pheasant numbers if 15% grass/shelter habitat is combined with crops and MOST IMPORTANTLY where people numbers are LOW. This eliminates all the eastern states including the eastern half of Iowa and most of Minnesota. Wide open praire farmland "out west" is what we're interested in - LOTS of elbow room and very little human encroachment.

The benefits and return on investment:

1. Higher crop prices for farmers and they will have 15% less work to
do and a large cash payment to enjoy.

2. Soil conservation and air/water quality improvement.

3. The economics of Small Town, USA would vastly improve with the
advent of phenomenal pheasant hunting throughout "pheasant land".

4. Would use up money that otherwise would be wasted by our
government on "foreign projects" and bailouts that we get little or no
benefit from.

It's really not that complicated.
 
Hmmmm. Ok I'll buy in. Who do I vote for? Just kidding, no political theads allowed. But I have seen money spent in alot worse ways, and like most here I am willing to pay my way.
 
Everybody thinks the cure for everything is to raise the fee/License cost. Let me tell you something, raising the cost will without a doubt kill the sport. Take snowmobiling in Minnesota. I use to have 7 machines. The state kept robbing the snowmobile fund. So the snowmobile clubs got a snowmobile trail sticker fee passed. Many people chose to not buy the trail sticker and elected to only use their machine in the back country or for ice fishing. The trail sticker doubled the cost of licensing. They couldn't get our money that way, so they decided to combine the two and make the trail sticker mandatory. It's now near $90.00 per machine. Mine will stay put in the shed. A friend of mine still has 4 machines is a club member and groomer operator. His machines are now for sale. He also refuses to pay this ridiculous increase. Nobody I know is planning to pay the increase. Back in 1996, it was nothing to see over a 100 machines at any local water hole on a Sat. at any given time of day. Now, if you see 10 sleds it's a record crowd.

The same thing is going to happen to hunting. Keep raising the cost, people will just find other things to do to occupy their time. Less voices carrying the needs of hunters to our elected. Less of a chance that hunting will be of any importance and will fall by the wayside.
 
My position on hunting is precisely this:

1.Wild game animals are part of the public domain and no "person" owns them.

2. There should be an implied easement to enter private property for the purpose of obtaining what is owned NOT by the landowner but by the public at large, under the following conditions:

1. The hunter(s) do not cause damage to the property or interfere in other activities of the landowner.

2. Stay a determined distance away from occupied structures based upon the projectile and firearm used.

3. Notify the landowner prior to entering the property.

4. The principle of first come-first enter and reasonable and safe separation from other hunters.

Free ranging wild game is NOT owned by the landowner NOR is it a "crop" of the landowner to be autioned off for personel financial gain. That's sad and perverse.

Under this scenario, farmers would go back to farming - NOT policing restriction to public game animals. And hunters would simply go hunt.

Hmmmmm..... just like it should be...... AND used to be.

Ahhhh..... farmland, free from the ugly litter of posting signs.
 
Toad said:
The point I was trying to make in the first part of my post is that I was told by a KDWP biologist that charging a WIHA access fee would be a net loss for the program because they would lose all of the pittman-robertson money they get back from the feds. Charging hunters $50.00 more and funding the program less? How does that help the program?

Maybe they do need to increase the WIHA payment to make it more appealing to landowners.:confused: I don't know what the payment currently is, but I still suspect that the state would lose a bidding war over the prime acres if they were in direct competition with an outfitter or hunt club. I still think that protecting and improving the landscape on a large scale is the best way to protect the future of our sport.

I think TreeDaddy brought up a good point. Maybe they could devise a CRP program that would be attractive to landowners and include hunting access.

Our goals are the same, although our philosophy and methods may be different. I am 100% interested in protecting the future of bird hunting in KS. And I am willing to pay my own way also. I just want my dollars to count for something significant and long-lasting.
Click to expand...

Pittman-Robertson funding is based off of the size-area of the state and the total number of hunting license sold. In 2010 KS. sold 105,000 in state and 65,000 non-res. licenses. For somewhere in the neighborhood of 6,000,000 P/R dollars. For math purposes lets leave the area out of the equation. A single license sale is worth about 35.00 P/R dollars. These are land dollars, admin. and hunter ed. P/R dollars subtracted out.
75% of walk-in hunting is eligible to be funded by P/R dollars, KS. has to pay at least 25%.

The best way to increase WIHA funding is to increase license sales. Seniors:(,spouses, children. Hunters or not.:eek:
 
RK Special K said:
My position on hunting is precisely this:

1.Wild game animals are part of the public domain and no "person" owns them.

2. There should be an implied easement to enter private property for the purpose of obtaining what is owned NOT by the landowner but by the public at large, under the following conditions:

1. The hunter(s) do not cause damage to the property or interfere in other activities of the landowner.

2. Stay a determined distance away from occupied structures based upon the projectile and firearm used.

3. Notify the landowner prior to entering the property.

4. The principle of first come-first enter and reasonable and safe separation from other hunters.

Free ranging wild game is NOT owned by the landowner NOR is it a "crop" of the landowner to be autioned off for personel financial gain. That's sad and perverse.

Under this scenario, farmers would go back to farming - NOT policing restriction to public game animals. And hunters would simply go hunt.

Hmmmmm..... just like it should be...... AND used to be.

Ahhhh..... farmland, free from the ugly litter of posting signs.
Click to expand...

RK, lots of good points, they can keep their cattle and equipment off public land also. If they can't feed their animals on what they are able to raise, even on bad years. They have too many cattle. I'm plain sick and tired of going to MWA's, WPA's and finding them mowed for hay or grazed by live stock. Wrecks where I'm able to hunt. Then charges people on their own ground.
 
sdt-Evergreen,

No "buy-in" required. No new fees or taxes. Just a shifting of priorities back to OUR country and let the rest of the world "figure it out" on there own. They never appreciate our "help" anyway and they certainly can't learn from it. People died in our revolution - and many will die in theirs. Part of life on this planet. It's a natural culling or thinning of the population of the world.

This country can only be great again by staying out of others' business and affairs. Our private enterprise will handle the necessary trade between other countries' enterprise.

That's it - no more government money spent in foreign lands. Got too many good and worthwhile projects right here.
 
In theory that is great. But in practicality with our "Global" Economy the private enterprise (Corporations) is what gets us into the wars and foreign bailouts which we call "National Interest".

The way I see it is: I pay to go to the ballgame, which we tax payers built the stadium, I pay for the ballet which we as tax payers subsidize. I see very little difference in hunting. We all want less taxes and government and with it comes restricted budgets and less of what we are or were used to. The only way I see it playing out in the near and distant future is "pay to play", license and fees.
 
sdt-Evergreen said:
In theory that is great. But in practicality with our "Global" Economy the private enterprise (Corporations) is what gets us into the wars and foreign bailouts which we call "National Interest".

The way I see it is: I pay to go to the ballgame, which we tax payers built the stadium, I pay for the ballet which we as tax payers subsidize. I see very little difference in hunting. We all want less taxes and government and with it comes restricted budgets and less of what we are or were used to. The only way I see it playing out in the near and distant future is "pay to play", license and fees.
Click to expand...

Raise the fee's/cost, less people doing it, unpopular things cut. Everybody thinks if something has a problem...just throw more money at it. that will fix it. When in fact, it only pounds more nails in the coffin of hunting. Make it more affordable, more popular and it will survive because of shear numbers of people doing it. Anything free or cheap is always popular. What our problem is, is greed. Too many want it all to themselves. Lock up as much land as possible from others. If they want on...MAKE THEM PAY! When hunting became a business instead of recreation. That's when it's health problems began. When a big buck started being sold to highest bidder by the size of it's horns. When a guide tells a client if he can afford a certain animal by looking through his binoculars and adding up the inches. It drove many from the sport and continues to do so each and every year. Selling public owned animals off private land for profit id flat out wrong. You know how you know their public owned, because if you shoot one out of season or without a license...you find yourself in trouble. Get the greed and pay thing out of hunting and hunting will thrive but that's not what those with wealth want. Reap what they can, well their here. What happens after I'm gone..who cares, as long as I profit is all that matters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top