Thoughts on the future of the WIHA program..

P

Point!

Member
I didn't want to hijack the thread below so I thought I'd start a new one.

It's amazing how minds can begin to change. In the early days of the WIHA program it was as if the land had come from heaven. Good habitat, plenty of game, and folks treated it as if it was a true privilege to get to hunt on it. I even enrolled some of my land in the eastern part of the state.

Today my land in the east is still enrolled...but I've begun to reconsider my positive attitude toward the WIHA program. I still hunt a little (very little) WIHA, but I'm beginning to think that I may be against the WIHA program. I'm saying this as a Kansas resident, a landowner, and most of all as an avid upland hunter. The question I'm asking myself is, "What does the WIHA do for me as a resident hunter"?

I've come up with some answers that are a bit disturbing. I've begun to realize that the program has dramatically increased the number of hunters with whom I now have to compete. This competition extends far beyond getting to your favorite spot at 3:30 AM (or even sleeping in your truck there).

1) It's now tougher get permission because you're the 50th guy that season to ask.
2) It's increased the amount of land that has been leased. The WIHA has become a "showcase" for land that is available for lease. The general thought is that the wealthy will contact the landowner and outbid the state. The WIHA maps give these folks a good place to start. In addition, they get to "try it before they buy it" while it's in the program. Have you noticed that the WIHA acreage has declined the last 3 years?
3) It's getting much harder to "get away" as so many folks whiz up and down the roads looking for game.
4) I believe it actually promotes "pay to play". Many hunters feel that the WIHA's nearly have paths worn through them by the end of the season. For this reason we're seeing more and more groups, clubs, or outfitters lease up land. This leaves less opportunity for the average Kansas resident to find his own private spot(s).
5) The amount of money that it brings into the state is a silly argument. In 2011 there were 61,882 out of state hunting licenses sold for a total of $4,317,740 in revenue. If each of those out of state hunters spent $1000 in our state the revenue would be $61,882,000. Sixty-one million sounds like a lot of money. Let's go ahead and round up to $100 million. Lets further assume that all $100 million is profit....and is evenly distributed to every man woman and child in the state. That means that every man woman and child would receive roughly $35.

I'm currently down to 4 dogs. Upland hunting is not my only reason for existence, but it's close to the top. That being said, I'm actually thinking about not replacing my string of dogs as they get old. It's my opinion that it's getting very close to not worth it.

We (Kansas) are "selling" a resource (upland game) that is supposed to be renewable. Unfortunately, the CRP is being cut back, the drought (temporary), the lack of land, and the increase in demand are having too much of an impact to continue to "market" our state with regard to upland hunting. I'm not saying hunting is additive, just that we're "selling" a resource when there's not enough to go around.

My argument is that if the WIHA program didn't exist, at this point and under current guidelines, Kansas residents may actually have more and better opportunities to hunt. I'm not saying that this has always been the case, but given the current demand, price of land, and competition for leases; things are different today than they were at the beginning of the program's inception.

Now, I know I'm going to get "flamed" for this...and I haven't totally made up my mind, that's why I'm posting it. I'd like to hear from those of you that agree or disagree. Most importantly I'd like to hear why.

Point!
 
Last edited:
As a Kansas resident I hunt a lot of WIHA ground.
I really like the program.

But I will have to give some though to your post. Its a different point of view than I am used to.

But I have decided that I am going to buy some land.
 
Point! said:
I didn't want to hijack the thread below so I thought I'd start a new one.

It's amazing how minds can begin to change. In the early days of the WIHA program it was as if the land had come from heaven. Good habitat, plenty of game, and folks treated it as if it was a true privilege to get to hunt on it. I even enrolled some of my land in the eastern part of the state.

Today my land in the east is still enrolled...but I've begun to reconsider my positive attitude toward the WIHA program. I still hunt a little (very little) WIHA, but I'm beginning to think that I may be against the WIHA program. I'm saying this as a Kansas resident, a landowner, and most of all as an avid upland hunter. The question I'm asking myself is, "What does the WIHA do for me as a resident hunter"?

I've come up with some answers that are a bit disturbing. I've begun to realize that the program has dramatically increased the number of hunters with whom I now have to compete. This competition extends far beyond getting to your favorite spot at 3:30 AM (or even sleeping in your truck there).



1) It's now tougher get permission because you're the 50th guy that season to ask.

if you don't press the first 2 weekends and deer season, it is still not that hard to get permission, i would rather work all day to get on 2 or 3 private spots than walk through all the WIHA that i can cover...........

2) It's increased the amount of land that has been leased. The WIHA has become a "showcase" for land that is available for lease. The general thought is that the wealthy will contact the landowner and outbid the state. The WIHA maps give these folks a good place to start. In addition, they get to "try it before they buy it" while it's in the program. Have you noticed that the WIHA acreage has declined the last 3 years?

a lot of walk in ground is now back in production, so less in CRP......i still don't see a big increase in leased ground

3) It's getting much harder to "get away" as so many folks whiz up and down the roads looking for game.

i guess i don't see this either, especially if i hunt during the week.........


4) I believe it actually promotes "pay to play". Many hunters feel that the WIHA's nearly have paths worn through them by the end of the season. For this reason we're seeing more and more groups, clubs, or outfitters lease up land. This leaves less opportunity for the average Kansas resident to find his own private spot(s).

in a normal year, when cover is adequate, i would welcome a path, occasionally, through the waist high CRP.....my dods do all the work.

5) The amount of money that it brings into the state is a silly argument. In 2011 there were 61,882 out of state hunting licenses sold for a total of $4,317,740 in revenue. If each of those out of state hunters spent $1000 in our state the revenue would be $61,882,000. Sixty-one million sounds like a lot of money. Let's go ahead and round up to $100 million. Lets further assume that all $100 million is profit....and is evenly distributed to every man woman and child in the state. That means that every man woman and child would receive roughly $35.


come on man......that is a lame calculation....the 61 million supports motels, resturaunts, bars and gas stations, primarily.....with some incidental spill over to other businesses.....tell them it is "small taters", if you dare.


I'm currently down to 4 dogs. Upland hunting is not my only reason for existence, but it's close to the top. That being said, I'm actually thinking about not replacing my string of dogs as they get old. It's my opinion that it's getting very close to not worth it.

We (Kansas) are "selling" a resource (upland game) that is supposed to be renewable. Unfortunately, the CRP is being cut back, the drought (temporary), the lack of land, and the increase in demand are having too much of an impact to continue to "market" our state with regard to upland hunting. I'm not saying hunting is additive, just that we're "selling" a resource when there's not enough to go around.

My argument is that if the WIHA program didn't exist, at this point and under current guidelines, Kansas residents may actually have more and better opportunities to hunt. I'm not saying that this has always been the case, but given the current demand, price of land, and competition for leases; things are different today than they were at the beginning of the program's inception.

Now, I know I'm going to get "flamed" for this...and I haven't totally made up my mind, that's why I'm posting it. I'd like to hear from those of you that agree or disagree. Most importantly I'd like to hear why.

Point!
Click to expand...


finally, i understand you, as a resident, wanting less pressure on the WIHA.....honestly, do yourself a favor, get out each season with a goal of getting permission to hunt on 3 new properties each year...NR's do this all the time, soon you will have more than you need....stay positive and go find "your" spots.....WIHA is easy access, work at finding access to private and enjoy your efforts!
 
Last edited:
I don't think that WIHA is a showcase for the land. I feel that there are many reasons why it's becoming increasingly difficult to find land to hunt. I used to hunt a dandy field a mile up the road for geese. It was never WIHA but was leased last year by a hunt club.

I do think that you have some very valid points though. And here are a few of my thoughts as well.

1. People work harder, longer and it leave little time to do anything such as scouting ect. They want a quality hunt and they want it the day they go hunting. May also be contributed to a change in times/behavior. People typically have less patience these days. They want stuff now, right now. Not next weekend or in 2 weeks.

2. Hunting clubs are leasing a ton of land. Clubs like Mid America who realized that guys have little time or gumption to scout their own places to hunt and that they would be willing to pay X amount of money to have what they want. Phone into the club and say you want to hunt land such and such and reserve the spot for the day.

3. Landowners have changed their perspective on allowing people on their ground. It's a complete different generation than it was in the 80's and earlier.

4. I think a lot of land owners are also scared of law suits.

5. If land owners lease their land to a club then the club will police their own. If something is torn up, trash left, fences knocked down ect then the land owner can complain to the pres of the club and they will handle the problem instead of the land owner getting involved.

6. Farmers are realizing that not only can they make money off of their land via crops but also pay to access as well.
 
Point! said:
I didn't want to hijack the thread below so I thought I'd start a new one.

It's amazing how minds can begin to change. In the early days of the WIHA program it was as if the land had come from heaven. Good habitat, plenty of game, and folks treated it as if it was a true privilege to get to hunt on it. I even enrolled some of my land in the eastern part of the state.

Today my land in the east is still enrolled...but I've begun to reconsider my positive attitude toward the WIHA program. I still hunt a little (very little) WIHA, but I'm beginning to think that I may be against the WIHA program. I'm saying this as a Kansas resident, a landowner, and most of all as an avid upland hunter. The question I'm asking myself is, "What does the WIHA do for me as a resident hunter"?

I've come up with some answers that are a bit disturbing. I've begun to realize that the program has dramatically increased the number of hunters with whom I now have to compete. This competition extends far beyond getting to your favorite spot at 3:30 AM (or even sleeping in your truck there).

1) It's now tougher get permission because you're the 50th guy that season to ask.
2) It's increased the amount of land that has been leased. The WIHA has become a "showcase" for land that is available for lease. The general thought is that the wealthy will contact the landowner and outbid the state. The WIHA maps give these folks a good place to start. In addition, they get to "try it before they buy it" while it's in the program. Have you noticed that the WIHA acreage has declined the last 3 years?
3) It's getting much harder to "get away" as so many folks whiz up and down the roads looking for game.
4) I believe it actually promotes "pay to play". Many hunters feel that the WIHA's nearly have paths worn through them by the end of the season. For this reason we're seeing more and more groups, clubs, or outfitters lease up land. This leaves less opportunity for the average Kansas resident to find his own private spot(s).
5) The amount of money that it brings into the state is a silly argument. In 2011 there were 61,882 out of state hunting licenses sold for a total of $4,317,740 in revenue. If each of those out of state hunters spent $1000 in our state the revenue would be $61,882,000. Sixty-one million sounds like a lot of money. Let's go ahead and round up to $100 million. Lets further assume that all $100 million is profit....and is evenly distributed to every man woman and child in the state. That means that every man woman and child would receive roughly $35.

I'm currently down to 4 dogs. Upland hunting is not my only reason for existence, but it's close to the top. That being said, I'm actually thinking about not replacing my string of dogs as they get old. It's my opinion that it's getting very close to not worth it.

We (Kansas) are "selling" a resource (upland game) that is supposed to be renewable. Unfortunately, the CRP is being cut back, the drought (temporary), the lack of land, and the increase in demand are having too much of an impact to continue to "market" our state with regard to upland hunting. I'm not saying hunting is additive, just that we're "selling" a resource when there's not enough to go around.

My argument is that if the WIHA program didn't exist, at this point and under current guidelines, Kansas residents may actually have more and better opportunities to hunt. I'm not saying that this has always been the case, but given the current demand, price of land, and competition for leases; things are different today than they were at the beginning of the program's inception.

Now, I know I'm going to get "flamed" for this...and I haven't totally made up my mind, that's why I'm posting it. I'd like to hear from those of you that agree or disagree. Most importantly I'd like to hear why.

Point!
Click to expand...

I agree because it's happening where I hunt most. I've watched several good WIHA tracts become private leases. The point you make about being denied permission because you're the 50th guy to ask in a season is well-taken. As is the one about it being difficult to find that feeling of isolation, even in the back country.

In the beginning it was just great. Good cover was abundant and the pressure was relatively light. It didn't take long to get the backroads buzzin'. I felt more WIHA was the answer. Why wouldn't additional support and funding be the answer (assuming it was invested appropriately)? I felt our interests as outdoorsmen were more likely to be protected had the state had something to gain financially. More pockets greased by hunting means we get more votes, right? They'll take care of us if they have something to gain.....maybe that's faulty reasoning. I suppose I'm up in the air about how I feel about the WIHA program. I've made a couple of decent contacts lately and they've given me new hope in asking permission. If it doesn't bring serious revenue to the state, I most certainly want want the program to go away.

I'm getting closer to my goal of buying land every month:) The plan is to buy it near the acreage of a like-minded individual;) I've considered every possibility, including a lease. Buying land makes better sense IMO. The prices are nothing short of scary right now though. Unless you're absolutely loaded, buying enough land to really make an impact requires partnerships. Still, I'll be pretty happy with a quarter of CRP, even after reality hits and it's only 80 acres.:rolleyes:

Point, I too had 4 dogs. 1 died and I'm down to 3. I'm gonna let that number dwindle to 1 for all the same reasons. With any luck there will be reason to have 4 again when my boys are a little older.
 
Last edited:
It is funny, I started the other thread because of a concern about dwindling WIHA and after reading the posts about an "implied easement" and this thread basically arguing that if WIHA goes away, hunting will get better for the rest of us, I am at the point of agreeing to let WIHA die. I have my land to hunt and if there was no WIHA I wouldn't have to run people off who ALWAYS use the excuse "I thought it was Walk-in." And by the way, to the "implied easement" guys, you can go straight to hell. It is my land, I paid my hard earned money for it and you can KMA if you think you get to hunt because wildlife is a "national resource."

sds
 
Agreed, "implied easement" is a non-starter. I remain a full supporter of WIHA. I think it has created tremendous opportunities. As for the people who claim they thought your land was walk-in, a few no hunting signs and calls to the sheriff or warden will take of that problem.
 
Nwkansnative I couldn't agree more about what you said about the guys thinking they should have an implied easement to hunt on my land. Its just another example of the entitlement society we live in today. People think that anybody that may have something they don't owes it to them. If somebody ask me to hunt and I knew they espoused this view, they wouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell of setting foot on my land.
 
Many years ago, Hunters were kind of unusual after opening day, surely after Thanksgiving, you could be alone in January. I had thousands of acres I could hunt, never see a shell casing. We now have WIHA, I was away for a time, my contacts died, sold, remodeled there topography. Sometimes the ground we can't hunt, is a reservior for quail, in particular to survive in. No WIHA, is directly apposed to what we have now. I did fine without WHIA, I am sure game to go back! We had birds back then.
 
The whole easement thing is a horrible idea. Can you imagine someone invading what is yours? Now a deal like North Dakota has with if its not posted you can hunt it I could see. If a land owner in Kansas wants to allow everybody to hunt they are most likely in the WIHA program. Those who want to treasure what is theirs probaly is not and that good to. WIHA may lose some amount of land in the future but I don't think it will ever go away.
 
Last edited:
I'm glad to see the majority of posters on here are sane and see how ridiculous the idea of allowing the public to access private ground at will is. I don't remember the last time I heard something as assinine as this proposed. Maybe we should allow public access to peoples houses that use the mortage interest deduction. The public has interest in them the same as the wildlife they say they own that lives on my ground so its the same difference.
 
I like the WIHA program, I can't imagine why killing it would be a good idea. I hunt WIHA every year. Exclusively in some areas, and as a "filler" in other areas where I have some private access, but not enough to last all day or all weekend. And I ALWAYS use it to make pit stops on my trips out West. I enjoy making three or four stops to break up the drive and run the dogs.

I think times have changed and I don't think they will go back. Good hunting land is getting leased or posted every season. I highly doubt that killing WIHA would change that. If anything, I think it would increase the "pay to play" mentality. Just like SD, you would be shelling out a hundred bucks a head everywhere you stop. And you would pay it too, because you wouldn't have anywhere else to go.

I dunno, guys.:( The common sentiment that seems to be swirling around this thread is disturbing to me. I'm just hearing more selfishness and more entitlement. Say it aint so, Kansas!:(

I think WIHA is win-win-win. Win for the landowner, who gets money for VOLUNTARILY giving us access to his land. Win for the rural communities, who get outside $$ coming in every season. Win for us hunters, who have access to a ton of acres, at an extremely affordable rate.

Does the WIHA program have challenges? Yes it does. A couple of "Point's" original points are, I believe, valid. But I don't think killing the WIHA program would solve a darn thing. Would it decrease the number of hunters? Yes, and only very short-sighted person would be in favor of that!
 
Last edited:
Point! said:
We (Kansas) are "selling" a resource (upland game) that is supposed to be renewable. Unfortunately, the CRP is being cut back, the drought (temporary), the lack of land, and the increase in demand are having too much of an impact to continue to "market" our state with regard to upland hunting. I'm not saying hunting is additive, just that we're "selling" a resource when there's not enough to go around.
Click to expand...

I fundamentally disagree with everything in this paragraph.

Birds ARE renewable, ESPECIALLY pheasants. Bird numbers are down through much of their range for many reasons, primarily habitat loss and drought. Hunters are not the reason for this decline. We are the only ones who seem to care about the future of upland birds, and have the motivation to try to improve the birds' situation. Reducing the number of hunters only reduces the number of people who care about the future of upland bird hunting.

Should WIHA be tweaked and improved somehow? Sure, take some initiative and let's come up with some ideas. Should CRP be tweaked and improved somehow? Sure, let's take some initiative and come up with ideas for that too. Just don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, that's all I'm saying.
 
Toad always puts a lot of thought into his posts and they're always worth reading.

I should not harp on the WIHA program. I have developed a love/hate relationship with it though. I know what hunting here was like before it (solitary after the opener). I've also enjoyed the many great benefits of the program and it would be foolish to wish it away before my sons had a chance to enjoy those same benefits. For me to say it's the greatest thing to happen in my favorite state would be ridiculous.

At one time I was completely sold-out to the WIHA program. Visiting different parts of the state and not having to worry about obtaining permission when you get there is a blessing. The number of them being gobbled up by leases is certainly a "con" of the program. I'll enjoy the WIHA program for the benefits it provides and do my best to embrace the negatives that come along with it:)

Oh, and to the point of wildlife belonging to everyone and everyone should have permission to hunt anywhere....I don't subscribe to that school of thought. I do NOT agree that I should be able to access any land I like, simply because a "public resource" is on their property. I wish to separate myself from that crowd;)
 
Here are some thoughts from a nonresident. I hunted Kansas (Hill City Area) in 2009 and 2010. It was a wonderful experience. While I joined Mid America, I also hunted the WIHA a lot. I hunted in December, so there were not a huge number of hunters, but there certainly was competition for good areas.
I grew up in California in the 50's at the end of the great pheasant hunting there. I lived in Oregon in the early 60's and there was some pheasant hunting there at the time. In the mid 60's I moved to Idaho, and I think it was the best in the world at the time. Clearly a lot more birds per acre than I saw in Kansas. In each state, competition leased up good areas, and Agricultural changes ended the high bird populations. The same is happening in Kansas.
There is little or nothing you can do about agricutural changes. The dollars are too significant. It is easy to say a farmer should sacrifice 10% of his net income to save pheasants, but it is not going to happen.
Leasing cannot be stopped, but it can be reduced to some extent by the WIHA program increasing payments to farmers. Kansas should do that, and pay for it by hunter fees. Perhaps $15 per hunter. In addition, I would suggest charging non residents $100. Finally, the non resident license fees are too good a bargain. My state of Idaho and every adjoining state charges at least $160 for a non resident bird license. These states provide almost no leased land for hunting (but do have vast acreages of public land).
Face it. Hunting is expensive, and getting more so. Just my fuel bill for each trip was over $1200. Raising hunting license fees will reduce non resident hunters slightly, but could help to save the WIHA program for at least a few more years. In time you will lose the "free" pheasant hunting. If you think the average commercial farmer is going to give away hunting that is worth several thousand dollars a year, think again.
 
Point! said:
I didn't want to hijack the thread below so I thought I'd start a new one.

It's amazing how minds can begin to change. In the early days of the WIHA program it was as if the land had come from heaven. Good habitat, plenty of game, and folks treated it as if it was a true privilege to get to hunt on it. I even enrolled some of my land in the eastern part of the state.

Today my land in the east is still enrolled...but I've begun to reconsider my positive attitude toward the WIHA program. I still hunt a little (very little) WIHA, but I'm beginning to think that I may be against the WIHA program. I'm saying this as a Kansas resident, a landowner, and most of all as an avid upland hunter. The question I'm asking myself is, "What does the WIHA do for me as a resident hunter"?

I've come up with some answers that are a bit disturbing. I've begun to realize that the program has dramatically increased the number of hunters with whom I now have to compete. This competition extends far beyond getting to your favorite spot at 3:30 AM (or even sleeping in your truck there).

1) It's now tougher get permission because you're the 50th guy that season to ask.
2) It's increased the amount of land that has been leased. The WIHA has become a "showcase" for land that is available for lease. The general thought is that the wealthy will contact the landowner and outbid the state. The WIHA maps give these folks a good place to start. In addition, they get to "try it before they buy it" while it's in the program. Have you noticed that the WIHA acreage has declined the last 3 years?
3) It's getting much harder to "get away" as so many folks whiz up and down the roads looking for game.
4) I believe it actually promotes "pay to play". Many hunters feel that the WIHA's nearly have paths worn through them by the end of the season. For this reason we're seeing more and more groups, clubs, or outfitters lease up land. This leaves less opportunity for the average Kansas resident to find his own private spot(s).
5) The amount of money that it brings into the state is a silly argument. In 2011 there were 61,882 out of state hunting licenses sold for a total of $4,317,740 in revenue. If each of those out of state hunters spent $1000 in our state the revenue would be $61,882,000. Sixty-one million sounds like a lot of money. Let's go ahead and round up to $100 million. Lets further assume that all $100 million is profit....and is evenly distributed to every man woman and child in the state. That means that every man woman and child would receive roughly $35.

I'm currently down to 4 dogs. Upland hunting is not my only reason for existence, but it's close to the top. That being said, I'm actually thinking about not replacing my string of dogs as they get old. It's my opinion that it's getting very close to not worth it.

We (Kansas) are "selling" a resource (upland game) that is supposed to be renewable. Unfortunately, the CRP is being cut back, the drought (temporary), the lack of land, and the increase in demand are having too much of an impact to continue to "market" our state with regard to upland hunting. I'm not saying hunting is additive, just that we're "selling" a resource when there's not enough to go around.

My argument is that if the WIHA program didn't exist, at this point and under current guidelines, Kansas residents may actually have more and better opportunities to hunt. I'm not saying that this has always been the case, but given the current demand, price of land, and competition for leases; things are different today than they were at the beginning of the program's inception.

Now, I know I'm going to get "flamed" for this...and I haven't totally made up my mind, that's why I'm posting it. I'd like to hear from those of you that agree or disagree. Most importantly I'd like to hear why.

Point!
Click to expand...

I don't mean to get personal but based on what you have written here the bottom line is "What's in it for me?" In my mind the perfect program would be the entire state of Kansas is off limits to everyone except me and my dogs. I could shoot as many birds as my dog could find and the entire Iron Chef staff would be following me around fighting for the opportunity to clean and cook my birds for me. The Victoria Secret models would be back at the lodge all a quiver with anticipation at the opportunity to pamper me and soothe my aches and pains when my day of hunting was over. George Hickox and Delmar Smith would be in a bidding war to keep my dogs trained and conditioned for peak performance. Michael McIntosh and Gene Hill would return from the dead to combine their talent and genius for one more column praising my shotgunning skills and proclaiming me the greatest shotgunner to ever pull a trigger.

The WIHA program is not perfect and a large part of why it's not perfect is because of human nature. Some people who hunt are game hogs, vandals and trespassers. The WIHA program has given me and my dogs opportunities that would not be available otherwise. I have tried to show my gratitude by patronizing the local businesses and being a good steward and an ethical sportsman but based on your words I'm a non-resident and therefore a part of the problem. I respect property lines and boundaries, if I am not sure whether a piece of property is WIHA I don't enter. If I see another vehicle parked at "my honey-hole", I drive on to another spot. I leave the property I hunt cleaner than I found it. If you and I meet in the field and we decide to hunt together and your dog(s) go on point, hand me your camera and I'll take some photos of you and the dogs and hopefully some of you flushing and shooting a big rooster. I avoid livestock and crops that have yet to be harvested. I appreciate the opportunity provided by the WIHA, it' s the best that is available to me and if I could afford to lease private property I would certainly do it.
 
Dog Gun Time said:
I don't mean to get personal but based on what you have written here the bottom line is "What's in it for me?" In my mind the perfect program would be the entire state of Kansas is off limits to everyone except me and my dogs. I could shoot as many birds as my dog could find and the entire Iron Chef staff would be following me around fighting for the opportunity to clean and cook my birds for me. The Victoria Secret models would be back at the lodge all a quiver with anticipation at the opportunity to pamper me and soothe my aches and pains when my day of hunting was over. George Hickox and Delmar Smith would be in a bidding war to keep my dogs trained and conditioned for peak performance. Michael McIntosh and Gene Hill would return from the dead to combine their talent and genius for one more column praising my shotgunning skills and proclaiming me the greatest shotgunner to ever pull a trigger.

The WIHA program is not perfect and a large part of why it's not perfect is because of human nature. Some people who hunt are game hogs, vandals and trespassers. The WIHA program has given me and my dogs opportunities that would not be available otherwise. I have tried to show my gratitude by patronizing the local businesses and being a good steward and an ethical sportsman but based on your words I'm a non-resident and therefore a part of the problem. I respect property lines and boundaries, if I am not sure whether a piece of property is WIHA I don't enter. If I see another vehicle parked at "my honey-hole", I drive on to another spot. I leave the property I hunt cleaner than I found it. If you and I meet in the field and we decide to hunt together and your dog(s) go on point, hand me your camera and I'll take some photos of you and the dogs and hopefully some of you flushing and shooting a big rooster. I avoid livestock and crops that have yet to be harvested. I appreciate the opportunity provided by the WIHA, it' s the best that is available to me and if I could afford to lease private property I would certainly do it.
Click to expand...

Good post. Thanks for helping me put my selfish thoughts in perspective as well. I never thought I'd have a negative word to say about WIHA. Nor did I ever think my state would become so popular. There are days I think it's a good thing and days I wish I could just have some alone time out there. This program has provided great opportunities for residents and non-residents alike. Deep down, I don't want folks to ever feel like they're not welcome in KS, but I have my days when I romanticize about having the place to myself....that line of thinking is just not right. Again, thanks for posting.
 
the Kansas WIHA program is unique and offers as much high quality public hunting as any state with a pheasant population...it is popular because it works.....shut it down and you will live a life of regrets.
 
I guess I'm a bit of a odd-ball.:rolleyes: A dream of mine is to some day purchase land, improve it, then donate for the purpose of wildlife production and public pheasant hunting. I long to propagate our hunting heritage and traditions here in America. They are vitally important to me and I do what I can to make a difference.

Nothing beats those hunting moments with my dad when I was a young boy. What a bonding experience hunting brings to a father and his child. If I can re-create those memories and moments within others I'll die a happy man.:)

In your situation (with your WIHA) you have an opportunity to do such a thing. I suppose you already have without even knowing it. We are living in a time when tides are about to change. All of use can do something to tilt it in our favor. Some do much more than others of course. Then to top it all off, the world doesn't let any good act get away without a headache and a good a$$-kickin'. Life's tough. Period.

So, I guess it comes down to where your heart is. It's your land. Do as you please. Think about what's important to you and go from there.;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top