I had occassion to talk with both the WIHA coordinator, and the enforcement department this A.M. Some information. Likelyhood of moving the pheasant opener to November 1st is a none starter. It is apposed by Kansas Farm Bureau, and individual landowners who are leary of crop damage, in fact the KDWPT is regularly lobbied to make the opener later. This would make a delayed quail opener difficult, though I voiced support anyway. Accordingly the science of the species indicate there is not a reason to lower bag limits, again I would disagree. Large group hunting- there is no law limiting the numbers of hunter and or dogs. It's not my thing, but there it is. There is no sentiment to limit group numbers. Kansas recieves 75% of the funds used for WIHA from Pitman-Robertson funds as administered by the USFG. As I have said before, a sportsman who lives in NY or California, buying ammo or guns, pays a share of Kansas WIHA, and may never even hunt there. The remainder of funds are from the sale of hunting licenses. The simple math is obvious, a non resident is worth something like 7 times the value of a resident in terms of these funds. Now some actual good news we can all agree on. The KDWPT has received grants from the UDSA, called open fields and waters, it is a long term lease, 10+ years, public access program, which will be marked just as WIHA, 100% federally funded, with a requirement for conservation measures such as crop buffers, etc. to provide access to public outdoor recreation. This will roll out in 2012. The project administrator said clearly, that without non-resident hunters, the WIHA program could not exist, since their participation for a few days each per year, allow residents the ability to hunt all year, at a reasonable expense. Kansas gets a lot of this federal money precisely because the state is attractive to non-residents for outdoor opportunities. If it's not broken, why fix it.
News from KDWPT
- Thread starter oldandnew
- Start date
SetterNut
New member
Thanks for the info.
I tend to agree with KDWP on the limit for pheasants. They are not like quail, One rooster can service lots and lots of hens, as long as you don't shoot the hens, hunting should have marginal effect on the next years breeding compared to the weather.
Quail limits, I question some, but we have some very knowledgeable guys like Troy, and I would deffer to them.
I don't want to see them move the start of the hunting season up. You end up with crops still being in the field on some years. That is a loose, loose deal. The birds all stay in the uncut crop, and farmers can't have people walking thru they crops.
On top of that the 2nd weekend in Nov is a tradition that I like
I tend to agree with KDWP on the limit for pheasants. They are not like quail, One rooster can service lots and lots of hens, as long as you don't shoot the hens, hunting should have marginal effect on the next years breeding compared to the weather.
Quail limits, I question some, but we have some very knowledgeable guys like Troy, and I would deffer to them.
I don't want to see them move the start of the hunting season up. You end up with crops still being in the field on some years. That is a loose, loose deal. The birds all stay in the uncut crop, and farmers can't have people walking thru they crops.
On top of that the 2nd weekend in Nov is a tradition that I like
wolfcreeknc
Member
Ok, I've been watching these threads from a distance, about 900 miles to your wonderful state of Kansas and yes I am an out-of-stater that has the good fortune of finding my "field of dreams" out your way.
One thing that I have not seen tossed out as a consideration is not having the opener start on a weekend. For what ever reason, here in NC they open all the small game seasons on a Monday and I have always wondered why but now I am starting to understand why that might be. If this were the case in Kansas it might limit some of the NR traffic and keep it more conducive to residents being able to hunt opening day(+) without the larger crowds. Yeah, that cuts into the work week but taking a day off and heading out before the weekend masses might be advantageous to the residents. Just a thought.
A special thanks to all those out there to all the fine people that have welcomed myself and my close hunting buddies and the wonderful people that I have met and had a chance to hunt and enjoy evenings with
:cheers:
One thing that I have not seen tossed out as a consideration is not having the opener start on a weekend. For what ever reason, here in NC they open all the small game seasons on a Monday and I have always wondered why but now I am starting to understand why that might be. If this were the case in Kansas it might limit some of the NR traffic and keep it more conducive to residents being able to hunt opening day(+) without the larger crowds. Yeah, that cuts into the work week but taking a day off and heading out before the weekend masses might be advantageous to the residents. Just a thought.
A special thanks to all those out there to all the fine people that have welcomed myself and my close hunting buddies and the wonderful people that I have met and had a chance to hunt and enjoy evenings with
:cheers:
BritChaser
Well-known member
Sounds like the NC hunting authorities are smart folks.
Prairie Drifter
Well-known member
O & N, if you were in Pratt and didn't stop by my place 24 miles to the east, I'm hurt! First, check the math. Residents pay $20.50, nonresidents 72.50. That's much closer to 3.5:1 instead of 7:1. Second, science says you cannot stockpile quail. They typically live an average of 7-9 months, which makes them unsuitable for long term bets on longevity. That is why it usually takes more than 1 year to overcome a significant low. However, nature being developed over eons of adaptation, the fecundity of quail increases inversly to density. As for out-of-state gun and hunting supply buyers funding Kansas programs..........that's fuzzy math. Pitman Robertson monies are awarded back to the States based on a fairly confusing matrix based on population, license sales, size, etc.
If we want to increase our budgets, there are some easy ways to do that. We need to quit giving people exemptions from buying licenses. EVERYONE should have a license. Why? Because the matrix is partly based on license sales! Can we work the system and get to a similar place without losing participants? Yes. If we would sell a special license to folks at a reduced cost/extended period to these groups instead of making them exempt, they would be counted in the matrix and increase our draw down. Our new "youth" license is an example. A 16 year old can now buy a license for $37.50 that lasts until they turn 21. We could do the same for military personnel, landowners, people over 65........ Also, our public wildlife areas and fishing lakes are used by many people that possess neither a fishing or hunting license. Some surveys put this group at 40-60% of the users ( campers, berry pickers, mushroom hunters, bird watchers, bank spawners, etc). If we would require these folks to have either a fishing license of hunting license in their possession in order to use these areas, our license dollars and numbers would both increase in the matrix. I may have wandered off topic, I'll catch my breath.
If we want to increase our budgets, there are some easy ways to do that. We need to quit giving people exemptions from buying licenses. EVERYONE should have a license. Why? Because the matrix is partly based on license sales! Can we work the system and get to a similar place without losing participants? Yes. If we would sell a special license to folks at a reduced cost/extended period to these groups instead of making them exempt, they would be counted in the matrix and increase our draw down. Our new "youth" license is an example. A 16 year old can now buy a license for $37.50 that lasts until they turn 21. We could do the same for military personnel, landowners, people over 65........ Also, our public wildlife areas and fishing lakes are used by many people that possess neither a fishing or hunting license. Some surveys put this group at 40-60% of the users ( campers, berry pickers, mushroom hunters, bird watchers, bank spawners, etc). If we would require these folks to have either a fishing license of hunting license in their possession in order to use these areas, our license dollars and numbers would both increase in the matrix. I may have wandered off topic, I'll catch my breath.
OKIEGunner
New member
Prairie Drifter,
Again your knowledge and wisdom enlightens us all. I alsoappreciate Old&News original post as I think it also answers some concerns that hunters have.
From an NR standpoint and one that deals with state licensing issues, let me say that the licensing process can become extremely convoluted and confusing. Oklahoma has such a system that targets each individual activity or species. We have a specific license/ tag/ stamps/ permit or such fee’s for each recreational activity. Yes, a lifetime license simplifies the confusion of “what do I need” to go hunting, hiking, bird-watching etc. To the tune of over 60 different license/ tag/ stamps/ permit or such fee’s. The KISS rule does not apply in the Oklahoma licensing program.
I do have to agree with you on not giving exemptions. A reduced cost is okay and would also show useful data. If Kansas would add a Donation Option when selling online licenses for Habitat Management, I would be the first NR willing to give a donation. I see Kansas as the Model State for others to emulate as far as providing hunters access.
Again your knowledge and wisdom enlightens us all. I alsoappreciate Old&News original post as I think it also answers some concerns that hunters have.
From an NR standpoint and one that deals with state licensing issues, let me say that the licensing process can become extremely convoluted and confusing. Oklahoma has such a system that targets each individual activity or species. We have a specific license/ tag/ stamps/ permit or such fee’s for each recreational activity. Yes, a lifetime license simplifies the confusion of “what do I need” to go hunting, hiking, bird-watching etc. To the tune of over 60 different license/ tag/ stamps/ permit or such fee’s. The KISS rule does not apply in the Oklahoma licensing program.
I do have to agree with you on not giving exemptions. A reduced cost is okay and would also show useful data. If Kansas would add a Donation Option when selling online licenses for Habitat Management, I would be the first NR willing to give a donation. I see Kansas as the Model State for others to emulate as far as providing hunters access.
Prairie Drifter
Well-known member
Okie, I don't have any significant problem with oldandnew's original post. I provided clarification to help him understand the answers he got from the Pratt folks. One thing we must all understand is, much of licensing and funding is based in politics and may or may not be supported by science. That is one of the reasons our state seems to be focusing on deer. The significant increase in the costs of vehicle/deer encounters has put significant pressure on politicians to address. Instead of reducing speed limits, they have chosen to get involved in the licensing/sale of the resource with the goal of reducing it and increasing funding. More voters would respond to speed limit changes than would be impacted by deer regulation changes. Back to funding. To raise the price on existing licenses, past experience teaches us we lose a certain % of our current users to do so. I contend that, until we get everyone using the resource to pay, we shouldn't charge the ones already paying more. We have only a few ways to significantly affect the matrix that we draw down PR funds from. Increasing license buyers without making a significant new burden on people that have been exempted makes sense. Increasing income by getting people already reaping benefits from our areas who aren't already paying also makes sense. Oldandnew and I are on the same page, a pot of coffee in my office and we could have gotten several chapters in
OKIEGunner
New member
I appreciate both of your posts. The grassroots Recruitment and Retention programs that KDWP has is a great start. I remember reading one “Pass it On” a few weeks back.
I appreciate the clarifications. I would add that Kansas does allow and mildly solicit in the WIHA map book donations. I believe I got a hat and I think some printed material as well. It's a great state and a great program. A model for all other states and should be the envy of the all the rest. It can be even better, the Open fields and waters program is a great start. Write your federal representatives and other elected officials. It takes involved participation to keep the ball rolling, resident and non resident alike. Prairie Drifter I was no where near Pratt, just called to visit, rest assured if I get in the neighborhood, I'll visit and buy lunch.
Who in their right mind wants to move the KS opener to the first of November when crops are still in the field? It's already hotter than hell most opening weekends anyway. Not to mention I'm sure the farmers would like to carry on with their business of crop harvesting without having to deal with interference.
This argument that you keep trying to reiterate is ridiculous. Let me put it bluntly. WE ARE AWARDED THESE DOLLARS. Award, meaning we earn them by putting a program in place that gives us an advantage. As I have also said before, it's not our fault that our legislators get the job done. These funds are available to every state in the union.
To use your analogy, we also as tax payers give Federal foreign aid to countries that harbor terrorists... maybe we should have them out for a pheasant hunt as well, and kindly ask that they not wear suicide bombs in the field.
kansasbrittany
Banned
O&N, PD, OKIE, WC; please continue to post. The past week on this board has been very educational, entertaining, and englightening.
I found it hard to appreciate opening on the 1st w/e of November. Sunburns and pheasant hunting don't go together like sunburns and bass fishin'. I hope it is never considered seriously again!
I found it hard to appreciate opening on the 1st w/e of November
. Sunburns and pheasant hunting don't go together like sunburns and bass fishin'. I hope it is never considered seriously again!
Last edited:
Soonerhead
Member
Ok, I have to chime in...as a NR hunter and fisherman, to ANY state as far as that goes, when I do travel to another state to hunt or fish, I almost always buy all of my equipment, food, etc., in the state I am going to be hunting or fishing in. It may not be but a drop in the proverbial bucket, but it's my way of showing respect and appreciation for that particular state, and local economy, for giving me the opportunity. When I was a kid, about 5 years old, my Dad took me fishing at a pond that belonged to a friend of his. When we were done, he had me help him pick up trash, beer cans, etc. I asked him why we were doing this since none of it was ours. He told me, "if you leave a place better than you find it, you will always be welcomed back." That is what I teach and preach to my kids as well. No soap box, but just maybe some of the other NR hunters who read this will take the advice. It's a win-win for all involved!!!:thumbsup:
Bilbo Baggins
Active member
That was a GREAT post, I learned a ton of good stuff. Thanks.
You betcha! "I want no one to regret that I have passed this way", is a motto I picked up in late childhood, and try to live by. My truck is often nasty inside, but I never trash the out of doors, and I'll pick up my hulls when I can find them! There is no reason ever to throw something out of my window. I took a friend (I thought) flyfishing in a mountain lake once. He threw a coke can out of the canoe while sitting in front, and I picked it up as my end came by, and asked him not to do it again. He said it was no harm and laughed. I discovered then, that we did not think enough alike to share my treasures ever again. Makes me thankful for my parents. If yours are still alive tell them!
I have proposed this in the past, maybe it's time to form a not-for-profit corporation called "Friends of Public Access/WIHA. We would except donations and pass 100% on as a donation to Kansas and other states on a merit basis to help defray costs and show support for the program. maybe we all buy additional licenses, even if we don't use them to up the participation?
jeffstally
Member
I wouldn't mind if you had to have an extra stamp or permit to hunt the WIHA areas in any state. I would gladly pay more to have more areas to hunt.
Appreciate the sentiment Jeff, but as I understand it, any funds generated from a mandatory stamp, or additional fee is contrary to the goals of the program and might actually cost the wildlife department matching funds, as bizzare as it sounds. That's why I suggested donated funds, which are permissable. Colorado had a stamp till a couple of years ago, did away with it, due to concerns that a $10 stamp discouraged participants! Go figure!
OKIEGunner
New member
I nominate Old&New as the first President of the proposed "Friends of Public Access /WIHA. I will gladly be the first one too donate $100.
Prairie Drifter
Well-known member
Oldandnew is correct! It is called "Program Income". Any additional funds generated over the base of licenses and permits is deducted from the Federal drawdown. We have the same problem with oil and gas production. It doesn't pay to allow drilling as we lose anything that we get.
Troy am I correct that cash donations are permissable and not subject to the same restrictions? Is there a dollar limit on gifts by any one entity? Would it help to buy additional licenses? Maybe we buy licenses for our non-hunting relatives and friends to help the cause?