New administration, old idea with legs?

O

oldandnew

Active member
Well, we have talked about this many times before, I am thinking maybe with new leadership in the state house, and KDWP, maybe once again. How about a Habitat Stamp, or WIHA fee, to increase access, foster improved habitat on WIHA's, hire a few more Conservation Agents even? I realize the funds are Pitman-Robertson grants currently, and there is some limitation/complication to the way funds are able to be collected additionally, I know Colorado did away with theirs, because they thought a 10 dollar fee discouraged participation. Personally, If 10 dollar fees discourage pheasant hunters, I say good! make it 40.00. More or the same money with 1/2 the headache, and competition. It would need to be resident and non-resident alike, but ideally it would apply ONLY to WIHA's, If you hunt only priviate, no stamp or fee, if you hunt WIHA, res. or non, you have to have one. Opinions?
 
I wouldn't mind paying a little extra for a habitat stamp. Hell, that's pretty much what the waterfowl stamps are supposedly for. However, I wouldn't pay $40 for it - $10 or $20 seems more reasonable.

I take that back. I'd pay $40 if it came with two spring and two fall turkey tags. I've never understood turkeys being classified as "big game". A daily limit of pheasant is nearly as much meat as one turkey. I will admit though, spring turkey hunting is quite the rush. Nothing like pulling the shotgun or bow up on a Tom, after calling the big fella' in.
 
I think it's a great idea

I have (as a nonres.) hunted NM, MT, CO, and now KS. KS is the only state that I haven't had to buy some sort of a "conservation/improvement" stamp. I almost expect to pay it. KS nonres. licenses are still inexpensive as compared to other states.
 
GSP said:
I have (as a nonres.) hunted NM, MT, CO, and now KS. KS is the only state that I haven't had to buy some sort of a "conservation/improvement" stamp. I almost expect to pay it. KS nonres. licenses are still inexpensive as compared to other states.
Click to expand...

Isn't that great? Just kidding, in all honesty as a NR, would you support a habitat stamp? Especially if it improved already great habitat, and opened more public hunting opportunities?
 
-Wildcat- said:
Isn't that great? Just kidding, in all honesty as a NR, would you support a habitat stamp? Especially if it improved already great habitat, and opened more public hunting opportunities?
Click to expand...

That was precisely the point I was trying to make. Yes, I would without a doubt support a habitat stamp. And I believe that most other nonres. hunters would too. Hell, they're used to paying for one already if they're hunting other states. When I bought my license for KS online, I literally kept looking for some sort of a stamp. I was shocked that all I needed was a license.

That reminds me, I'm camping at a state park. I assume I need to buy some sort of pass while there or is that included in the fee to use the park?
 
Fees are typically "all inclusive" at state parks. You shouldn't have to pay any additional fees.

Thanks for the input as well. We, "the people" need to get together, and use our collective bargaining power to fix things ourselves, instead of depending on bureaucrats.

Edit: there are differences between day-use fees, and camping fees. Just a FYI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top