meat hunter vs man who wants to work his dog. The issue is the word "limit" somehow some hunters feel they are cheated if they don't get there limit. Put the limits down to a pair of birds or 3 a day & you will quickly find out who enjoys hunting and who enjoys killing. I can hear them bitch now I aint paying $100 to only kill 2 birds a day..........just a thought????
Raise out of state fees!!
- Thread starter AteUp
- Start date
Straightup82
Active member
If instituted as you notes, I suspect there would be some in-state resident "bitchers" at $27.50, unless of course you meant there would be two different standards for limits. That sounds simple...
westksbowhunter
Well-known member
I wouldn't bitch. I think the price out to be upwards of a $100 for resident and triple that for non residents. Put that money into more WIHA. That would help out with all the leasing that is destroying hunting and hunting access. It might also get those out of the fields and woods who aren't passionate. While were at it lets break up the group hunting too. 15-20 guys walking a field isn't really hunting. Might as well release a bunch of Rhode Island Reds and shoot em. Lets get rid of the deer and pheasant drives, it isn't hunting it is "herding".
Last edited:
s.davis
Well-known member
Would lowering the limit help populations? Doesn’t seem like it would. The average pheasant killed per hunter per day in Kansas is something like 1.25. The problems with pheasant hunting in Kansas would remain unchanged. There’s very little public land, there is increasingly less open access to private land, and there is very little meaningful respect for the environment or wildlife from most residents, landowners or the government of the state. If paying higher out of state fees would help alleviate any of those problems, I’d happily pay more.
I am not saying lowering limits will help populations grow but what I am saying is by lowering limits you might have some out of state hunters saying its not worth my driving X amount of hours just to kill 2 quail a day for the $$$ I am spending. If you are used to having limits at say 5-8 birds a day some may feel its just not worth it. Then the people that are left the purist by nature wont kill every bird in the covey just to satisfy the blood lust in there veins , hopefully leaving some birds for seed so the covies would exist for many years to come. Again just a thought.
westksbowhunter
Well-known member
We had more quail 50 plus years ago when there was no limit. You could shoot as many as you wanted. Farming practices changed and habitat has been lost, which has led to a population decline. Back in the 70's and 80's when you talked about hunting Kansas you talked about pheasants. That has changed, it is all about deer now. Leasing and Outfitters have locked up hunting land and limited access. KDWPT is going to do everything they can to attract more hunters, with no regard to conservation. Which is why you see them advertise on the Outdoor Channel more than any other state in the U.S. There motto is "Show Me The Money".
Last edited:
s.davis
Well-known member
Out of state hunters are something like 20% of Kansas’ hunter populations (which is a higher percentage than most states, though not a higher gross number), but those out of state hunters fund most of it’s conservation and wildlife capabilities. I’m for anything that helps wildlife populations, ecological preservation and public access in Kansas, but I’m not sure bankrupting it’s natural resources department is the way to do it, especially if that only eliminates at most 1/5 of all hunters.
westksbowhunter
Well-known member
westksbowhunter
Well-known member
1980
https://www.fws.gov/news/Historic/NewsReleases/1981/19810601.pdf
If you compare today to the non residents licenses sold back 40 years ago do you think there is a correlation with leasing? Leasing was unheard of back then.
https://www.fws.gov/news/Historic/NewsReleases/1981/19810601.pdf
If you compare today to the non residents licenses sold back 40 years ago do you think there is a correlation with leasing? Leasing was unheard of back then.
s.davis
Well-known member
Maybe the 20% number I read only referred to deer hunters. That said those numbers only further make my point. There are half as many hunters as there were in 1980. Meanwhile nonresident hunters have gone up 1.5 times and now make up just over half of everyone who hunts in Kansas. Yet the pay 80% of the licensing fees. To say nothing of the Pittman Roberts dollars that fund WIHA, most of which comes from out of state. I don’t know how much state funding goes to KDWPT, but any way you slice it, you get eliminate all out of state hunting, but resources to protect wildlife and hunting would be absolutely decimated.
westksbowhunter
Well-known member
Who said anything about eliminating out of state hunting? The state needs to find a better balance for non resident deer hunting. The way it is structured now is not anything close to what we were told it would be in 1995. Which we all knew would lead to this. There is half as many resident hunters because of non resident and resident leasing. Simply very little access. Hunting can not be about money. When it is, this is what you get. Non residents always want to point to the revenue brought in, like a slap in the face. That is what the KDWPT has done to us residents, slapped us in the face. In 10 years residents will make up less than 25% of hunter numbers in Kansas. Residents are frustrated. The KDWPT obsession with non resident deer hunting is ruining all hunting opportunities. The proof is in the numbers.
Last edited:
s.davis
Well-known member
There’s a lot less than half as many resident hunters. There’s only like 1/4 as many resident hunters. There are half as many hunters total, including non residents. I don’t think deer leasing is the primary cause for that, and you’d have a lot of trouble convincing me it is.
Access is definitely the problem, and I totally believe you that deer leasing is a large contributor to that. But what are the solutions? If you don’t outright eliminate out of state hunting, but just reduce it, I don’t think leasing will change too much. Fewer and fewer will just lease more and more. There’s always somebody with the money to monopolize a resource. And if it wasn’t out of staters, residents would lease everything they could.
The only solutions I can imagine are:
1. Regulating leasing, which doesn’t seem like something Kansas would have the political stomach for, though I personally am all for it.
2. Creating more public access. But that takes money, and public hunting access in Kansas is dependent on out-of-state money. Without that influx of cash, there wouldn’t be as much access as there is now.
What solution am I missing?
Access is definitely the problem, and I totally believe you that deer leasing is a large contributor to that. But what are the solutions? If you don’t outright eliminate out of state hunting, but just reduce it, I don’t think leasing will change too much. Fewer and fewer will just lease more and more. There’s always somebody with the money to monopolize a resource. And if it wasn’t out of staters, residents would lease everything they could.
The only solutions I can imagine are:
1. Regulating leasing, which doesn’t seem like something Kansas would have the political stomach for, though I personally am all for it.
2. Creating more public access. But that takes money, and public hunting access in Kansas is dependent on out-of-state money. Without that influx of cash, there wouldn’t be as much access as there is now.
What solution am I missing?
westksbowhunter
Well-known member
Leasing would change. We did not have a leasing problem until 1995 so your statement on residents leasing up everything is just spewing. They need to drastically cut back the number of non resident deer tags and allow a non resident to only draw every 3 years. If we did that do you think that a fellow from Colorado would pay $4000 for his annual deer lease of 160 acres? Every Tom Dick and Harry would not have an outfitting business either. Most non residents do not realize that Residents had to go through a strict draw for a resident gun tag prior to 1995. Many residents did not draw a tag and many drew a doe only tag. When they opened up NR deer hunting they went to over the counter for residents. And now to an any season tag. Non resident deer hunting had a horrible trickle down effect.
Reduce NR Tag Numbers
Allow NR to draw every 3 years
Regulate Outfitters
Address Leasing
Shorten deer season to 3 months like it used to be
Put crossbows back into the gun season
Do away with any special seasons (like early muzzle loader, antlerless season, etc)
Do away with the Any Season Tag
Require Bowhunters Ed like we used to have
Put the age restriction of 12 back in place for big game
Make all license sales at Court House only and require 3 forms of ID that show residence and require a KS DL for all resident tags and licenses
Do away with Land Owner/Tennant Tags
Require a parking permit for use of all public lands (We do for fishing all State Parks)
Gun Season should consist of Muzzle loader and Slug only (No High Power)
Raise the prices of all fees
Last edited:
s.davis
Well-known member
Probably some items we agree on in that list. But most of them don’t seem to address the problem, they just seem like you spewing personal pet peeves or half-cocked knee-jerking. I mean, what would be your goal? I thought you just wanted to reduce leasing or improve access for residents? Are 11-year-olds and people parking for free really the problem?
I mean, it’s pretty hard and expensive to get a non-resident deer tag in Iowa and leasing is worse there than Kansas. I don’t think just making it harder and more expensive is really the solution, but again, you seem less concerned with the problem of hunting access and more concerned with...well, what is not exactly clear. If making hunting in Kansas like Iowa is your goal, then I don’t think we are going to agree on much. Maybe people in Iowa love it, but it certainly hasn’t been particularly good for the environment, for wildlife in general, and especially not for upland hunting.
I mean, it’s pretty hard and expensive to get a non-resident deer tag in Iowa and leasing is worse there than Kansas. I don’t think just making it harder and more expensive is really the solution, but again, you seem less concerned with the problem of hunting access and more concerned with...well, what is not exactly clear. If making hunting in Kansas like Iowa is your goal, then I don’t think we are going to agree on much. Maybe people in Iowa love it, but it certainly hasn’t been particularly good for the environment, for wildlife in general, and especially not for upland hunting.
westksbowhunter
Well-known member
See you just don't have any history. Most of the the things I mention were all regulations that we used to have in place. For example, the age limitation. That was lifted about 14 years ago. Shortly after that KDWPT dropped Bow hunters ed. Crossbows were allowed into the archery season just a few years ago. The any season tag was put in place about 7 years ago. The length of our season was Oct. 1-Dec. 31 and was in place for over 40 years. We have to have a parking permit for fishing so why not for hunting? This has been discussed and many of our KDWPT workers would like this. Basically I would like to see us go back to the management practice that we used to have. It was the best in the United States. It is not half cocked or knee jerking, it is what we used to have. I don't want it to make like Iowa, I want to make it the way Kansas used to be.
BrownDogsCan2
Well-known member
I don't know if I buy into all of that. People have lost their ties to the land. People my dads age left the farm or retired from it. How many kids do you know that are farming in their 30s. How many schools have you consolidated? Take rush county for example,,,in the 30s and 40s there were 10000 people in the county, what is their now three.
s.davis
Well-known member
You don’t know what history I have, I don’t know yours. You’d better just leave it at that.
What I do know is:
1. “get off my lawn!” is not a management practice (especially when it’s not yours and other people pay for most of the seed, the fertilizer, the watering and the mowing) and
2. “everything was better back in my day” is not history.
What I do know is:
1. “get off my lawn!” is not a management practice (especially when it’s not yours and other people pay for most of the seed, the fertilizer, the watering and the mowing) and
2. “everything was better back in my day” is not history.
Last edited: