Thoughts on the future of the WIHA program..

[1pheas4]

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.

Keep in mind money flows. It's the movement of money that brings revenue to the state businesses and gov't agencies such as the DNR.

So, $100 million directly spent "turns into" God only knows how much $ flow for your state.

$ Flow results in heating up commerce, this in-turn results in revenue throughout an expanded period of time for your state. This then brings tax revenue into state agencies as money flows and exchanges hands on and on and on turning into more and more revenue.

 

[Gove County Britts]

If we play our cards rite maybe all the revenue from hunting will go into paying for another state entity and we will do away with WIHA all together

 

[carptom1]

I have read through this post with interest. Not that anybody has been waiting for my two cents but here it is. As been discussed on here before, the fundamental problem with hunting in our state is that kdwp has become more interested in tourism dollars (out of state hunters) than the quality of the hunting itself. I personally had more private land to hunt prior to WIHA. I have lived in Kansas my entire life and had made good contacts. Much of that land has been leased in WIHA and other private leases. I'm not mad about it, it is what it is. I still have some private to hunt, and mix it with public and in good years it is more than adequate. The amount of pressure I have seen in western kansas on public land equals or exceeds what I have seen in SD. It borders on rediculous. I don't blame out of state guys from wanting to hunt here, Why wouldn't you. Long season, long hunting day, tons of land, large bag limit and in good years plenty of birds. I have always thought licenses were too cheap. I also feel some type of harmony needs to be achieved between the federal government ( crp) and state government ( kdwp). I don't know if fee pay WIHA would make it better, if that's all that is done I doubt it. I do know that as long as KDWP's primary concern is how many tanks of gas are bought, or how full the motels are, we are all in trouble.

ps I feel a guy should be able to do what he wants with his own land. At least part of denying access has to do with peoples attitude. If you treat landowners with respect, and their land, you would be suprised at the response. Any attitude of entitlement and you are probably done.

 

[Toad]

I have read through this post with interest. Not that anybody has been waiting for my two cents but here it is. As been discussed on here before, the fundamental problem with hunting in our state is that kdwp has become more interested in tourism dollars (out of state hunters) than the quality of the hunting itself. I personally had more private land to hunt prior to WIHA. I have lived in Kansas my entire life and had made good contacts. Much of that land has been leased in WIHA and other private leases. I'm not mad about it, it is what it is. I still have some private to hunt, and mix it with public and in good years it is more than adequate. The amount of pressure I have seen in western kansas on public land equals or exceeds what I have seen in SD. It borders on rediculous. I don't blame out of state guys from wanting to hunt here, Why wouldn't you. Long season, long hunting day, tons of land, large bag limit and in good years plenty of birds. I have always thought licenses were too cheap. I also feel some type of harmony needs to be achieved between the federal government ( crp) and state government ( kdwp). I don't know if fee pay WIHA would make it better, if that's all that is done I doubt it. I do know that as long as KDWP's primary concern is how many tanks of gas are bought, or how full the motels are, we are all in trouble.

ps I feel a guy should be able to do what he wants with his own land. At least part of denying access has to do with peoples attitude. If you treat landowners with respect, and their land, you would be suprised at the response. Any attitude of entitlement and you are probably done.

I was waiting for your .02!:thumbsup: I think you have expressed some very valid concerns. If we came up with some ideas for improving the program, I wonder what it would take to get some action.

 

[Toad]

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

If anybody is keeping track, I am also in this camp. Air belongs to everybody too, but my neighbors can breathe the air at their house and I'll breathe the air at mine.

 

[oldandnew]

I think we are all wrong. The flaw seems to be that some sportsmen subscribe to the theory that "game" is held in trust by the federal government, the flaw being is if you can avail yourself to access to harvest the game, which they don't imply, it is ultimate catch-22. To avoid this issue we should legislate that the game is owned by the landowner where it resides. This would put the habitat and repercussions on the landowner. Access is denied at the discretion of the landed gentry. If the government wants to do WIHA programs, let them, with a special tag to allow access. Saving can be huge! We don't need the Fish and Game guys, no reason for the state to legislate limits, or seasons, it's at the landowners discretion. No state fees to pay, their out of it. Anytime the crops are harvested on your kingdom, open the gates, charge if you want. If there is a government program to provide access, national forest, national grasslands, WHIA, Ditch hunter program in South Dakota, BLM ground, there would be an access permit to purchase, and regulations. Basically the only reason that the government perpetrates the theory that the game is "everyones" allows them to charge big fees to "regulate" it. Actually the Native American's have right, you get a permit from them and permission to actually hunt is implied in the deal, unlike Missouri, where you get a permit and make do with a paltry bit of state owned land, unless you are a deer or turkey guy. So forget some archane theory that you own the game, the landowner owns the game. It's been that way as soon as some sodbuster strung the fence across virgin prairie and with the governments help began to remodel it to his own vision. First he kept off the free range cattle, now he fences in the free range pheasants, and fences out the free range hunters. Now we all know the truth of the matter, whether we thought of it in this way before or not. We have done it that way since the 1860's, Seems with the discussion here, we must like it! In the new world order, things we will have to do, have friends who have land, and really like you, buy you own land, or be prepared to subsidize someone who owns ground to make it game friendly, and allows you to hunt on it. Or get by with less, this is the part where it gets squemish, reduce demand for the sport. The fact that more hunters who don't own land, or don't have a lot of money to help the cause, are a drain. So forget the recruitment of "new" hunters, unless you are willing to support them with land, cash, your own opportunities. We did that in Missouri, we went from 200,000 quail hunters, harvesting 2,000,000 birds, to Around 16,000 hunters, who harvest about 200,000 birds. We took a "let", on water, soil, and the quail population. It was easy! Those hunters are dead and gone, no new hunters or tradition to go forward, but still to many for the quail to support. Remember we have virtually taken goverment out of game management, so voting will not help us, there is no relief line for wildlife, it's the landowner who does all that, and does it on his own. We will see how much he does, without a goverment conservation program, or your good personal financial support. By the way, this sport is going to cost a lot of money, so teach your son's golf, your daughters quilting, it will be less costly.

 

[Toad]

I think we are all wrong. The flaw seems to be that some sportsmen subscribe to the theory that "game" is held in trust by the federal government, the flaw being is if you can avail yourself to access to harvest the game, which they don't imply, it is ultimate catch-22. To avoid this issue we should legislate that the game is owned by the landowner where it resides. This would put the habitat and repercussions on the landowner. Access is denied at the discretion of the landed gentry. If the government wants to do WIHA programs, let them, with a special tag to allow access. Saving can be huge! We don't need the Fish and Game guys, no reason for the state to legislate limits, or seasons, it's at the landowners discretion. No state fees to pay, their out of it. Anytime the crops are harvested on your kingdom, open the gates, charge if you want. If there is a government program to provide access, national forest, national grasslands, WHIA, Ditch hunter program in South Dakota, BLM ground, there would be an access permit to purchase, and regulations. Basically the only reason that the government perpetrates the theory that the game is "everyones" allows them to charge big fees to "regulate" it. Actually the Native American's have right, you get a permit from them and permission to actually hunt is implied in the deal, unlike Missouri, where you get a permit and make do with a paltry bit of state owned land, unless you are a deer or turkey guy. So forget some archane theory that you own the game, the landowner owns the game. It's been that way as soon as some sodbuster strung the fence across virgin prairie and with the governments help began to remodel it to his own vision. First he kept off the free range cattle, now he fences in the free range pheasants, and fences out the free range hunters. Now we all know the truth of the matter, whether we thought of it in this way before or not. We have done it that way since the 1860's, Seems with the discussion here, we must like it! In the new world order, things we will have to do, have friends who have land, and really like you, buy you own land, or be prepared to subsidize someone who owns ground to make it game friendly, and allows you to hunt on it. Or get by with less, this is the part where it gets squemish, reduce demand for the sport. The fact that more hunters who don't own land, or don't have a lot of money to help the cause, are a drain. So forget the recruitment of "new" hunters, unless you are willing to support them with land, cash, your own opportunities. We did that in Missouri, we went from 200,000 quail hunters, harvesting 2,000,000 birds, to Around 16,000 hunters, who harvest about 200,000 birds. We took a "let", on water, soil, and the quail population. It was easy! Those hunters are dead and gone, no new hunters or tradition to go forward, but still to many for the quail to support. Remember we have virtually taken goverment out of game management, so voting will not help us, there is no relief line for wildlife, it's the landowner who does all that, and does it on his own. We will see how much he does, without a goverment conservation program, or your good personal financial support. By the way, this sport is going to cost a lot of money, so teach your son's golf, your daughters quilting, it will be less costly.

Strange.... I was under the impression that our forefathers didn't do the best job of managing the buffalo, deer, and turkeys. Restraint and discretion are two traits that don't come naturally to most of us. But you honestly believe that we would have more game without any regulations?

Or perhaps this post is just another attempt to blast us all with your rainbows and sunshine.:laugh:

 

[carptom1]

Strange.... I was under the impression that our forefathers didn't do the best job of managing the buffalo, deer, and turkeys. Restraint and discretion are two traits that don't come naturally to most of us. But you honestly believe that we would have more game without any regulations?

Or perhaps this post is just another attempt to blast us all with your rainbows and sunshine.:laugh:

Actually I think he is saying that he thinks kansas should have a resident only weekend

 

[Point!]

Interesting comments.

Old and New, I have no idea where you stand on the issue, but you certainly seem passionate about it!

After following ALL the posts, I still haven't decided whether or not the WIHA is a good idea. I'm leaning further toward not supporting it than supporting it. There have been lots of excellent points made.

What's been interesting is that I keep reading about all the money that pheasant hunting brings into the state. Owning a business in "pheasant country" that benefits from increased tourism (including pheasant hunters), I can say that it just isn't that big of a deal. Yes, we see an increase in revenues on during the season, but if it went away we really wouldn't notice it much.

IMO opinion probably the best point was made by Toad when he said that the program for the farmer was "VOLUNTARY".

What I found interesting is that nearly all the points made were based on: voting, selfishness, and always....money.

It's my opinion that the vast majority of posters on this web site are not anywhere near the "average voter". The fact we visit this web site at all (even if you just lurk) indicates that you have much, much more interest than the "average Joe" in upland hunting. It is for this reason that my next point may be lost to those visiting this web site. It is my opinion that talking about voting in or voting out our leaders based on what they do for hunting is just plain silly. There isn't enough on either platform (Dems or Reps) to warrant a vote based for one or the other on hunting (the second amendment is a different issue). Bottom line is that IMO hunters don't vote based on a candidate's position on hunting, they vote based on some other part of a candidate's platform (fiscal, social, big government, smaller government, etc). You may be different, but you're not the average hunter.

How many of you vote for a candidate based on his position on what he's going to do for hunting? (remember, the second amendment is a different subject). I can't find where any candidate has made a comment about what he's going to do for hunting. We hear them talk about preserving the second amendment, but I can't find a thing about a hunting program. (please don't turn this into a second amendment thread - no candidate can do away with the second amendment).

Regarding selfishness, my opinion is that many here are hiding their selfishness under the guise of "giving" everybody a place to hunt or talking about how the revenue brought into the state is such a good thing for Kansas residents vs. going out and doing it on your own. This appears to break down into two categories 1) I've got a place to hunt so go "pound sand" 2) I want the government to do my work for me and provide me a place to hunt. The politically correct on this board will have a field day with that one!

Overall, my thought is that this program (WIHA) like many, many government programs has the best intentions in mind. At and near the peak of the program (enrollment) it looks to have been wildly successful in drawing hunters into the state. It has also been successful in taking a lot of land away from resident hunters.

Based on the current program, at this point, I'm no longer 50/50 in WIHA...I'm leaning toward being against the program. It can be argued that the program ends up on the plus side for the Kansas resident because the money for the WIHA program comes from the Federal government. However, I simply don't see the benefits outweighing the costs to the resident hunter anymore.

Perhaps we should start a thread on what needs to be done to make the program better. Toad?

Point!

 

[oldandnew]

Strange.... I was under the impression that our forefathers didn't do the best job of managing the buffalo, deer, and turkeys. Restraint and discretion are two traits that don't come naturally to most of us. But you honestly believe that we would have more game without any regulations?

Or perhaps this post is just another attempt to blast us all with your rainbows and sunshine.:laugh:

I think the tongue in cheek, comment missed the point. Interestingly enough as a bird hunter, who sees dozens of deer and turkey, in my yard, daily, I could go a long time before I saw another one. As far as buffalo go, there are some many, that there is no market for them, and outcry from ranchers that they may introduce them to new range in Montana. They lanowners, solution? restrict their land to hunters, because they are responsible. Buffalo are the great government program, were exterminated by the Government, to use the buffalo as a weapon against the Native Americans to force their copitulation. Once the Natives were docile, there was a frantic effort to "restore" the population. Wax on, Wax off. The landowner either allows wildlife, and hunting or not, the government has no influence. It's a talking point, use it as you will. Or tell me an alternative. I get tired of the landowner-sportsmen conflict. The system we have is flawed, is it so bad we need to scrape it, or can we appreciate for what it is.

 

[oldandnew]

Actually I think he is saying that he thinks kansas should have a resident only weekend

I have re-thought my position, local residents only? why not! Heck the landowner owns the game, allows who he wants! No season, no bag limits, shoot the first duck down the flyway, and the last duck back north. Shoot those pesky pheasants year-round, their easy nesting in alfalfa, your could get money for them! Rather than mow 'em down with a 16 foot disc mower.

 

[kansasbrittany]

carptom, actually, more ppl than you might think would anticipate your response.

All, we must be evolving around here b/c nobody's panties are in a wad yet

Please continue the discussion, be it in this thread or a new one!

"Perhaps we should start a thread on what needs to be done to make the program better."

http://www.ultimatepheasanthunting.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4807&highlight=wiha+expansion

Prairie Drifter was kind enough to share a nugget with us in the thread "linked" above. He speaks at length about the consequence of losinig fed $ if we start charging for WIHA. If you do start another thread about how to improve the program, there were a lot of good points made by several other posters in the above thread that can be built onto in the new thread. I'm glad we're talking about this again. The KS WIHA program is great. Kudos to KDWP. It is up to us, the end users of WIHA, to help come up with ways of improving it if we want it improved. I'm an excitable guy, but creative I am not. I can assure you I'll read every post in any WIHA related thread. It seems to be a real driver of the KS hunting experience these days, whether you hunt WIHA or private exclusively or even a mix.

 

[Dog Gun Time]

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.

If we ever get the chance to meet and discuss dogs and hunting over a meal and a beverage or two, I've got the check.

I am right there with you, my favorite days are the ones where it's just me and the dogs, I guess that's why I hunt the rougher terrain and thicker, heavier cover. When I add it up I realize that my good experiences on WIHA far outnumber the bad but it's easier to recall the bad ones.

 

[hunter94]

If we ever get the chance to meet and discuss dogs and hunting over a meal and a beverage or two, I've got the check.

I am right there with you, my favorite days are the ones where it's just me and the dogs, I guess that's why I hunt the rougher terrain and thicker, heavier cover. When I add it up I realize that my good experiences on WIHA far outnumber the bad but it's easier to recall the bad ones.

the drought has many folks on edge.....this too shall pass.

 

[1pheas4]

Interesting comments.



What's been interesting is that I keep reading about all the money that pheasant hunting brings into the state. Owning a business in "pheasant country" that benefits from increased tourism (including pheasant hunters), I can say that it just isn't that big of a deal. Yes, we see an increase in revenues on during the season, but if it went away we really wouldn't notice it much.

Let's face it Point, the root of these issues we sportsmen and landowners are facing is money. Unless we experience mammoth proportional changes in land management practices, it's going to take money to get use out. I unfortunately don't see this happening anytime soon.

Anyway, I really shouldn't be posting on this thread. I was hesitant to do so with my first post because here in IL we don't have these kinds of problems.

I really can't relate. I suppose if IL politicians could get a whiff of some of those NR hunter dollars maybe I could be of more help to you

P.S.--your last sentence Is that really the case? If so, I'm a bit jealous!!!!! You folks from KS are truly blessed and very fortunate

Toad--what's the prize for "wining" the persuasion war on this thread and who's buying? Point or us losers?:cheers:

 

[Toad]

Wiha is for lazy people who don't want to do their own work? I drove almost an hour today and then walked several miles in search of prairie chickens. Lazy? Okay, if you say so.

I think this thread is played out for me. But it was an enlightening conversation.

On to happier topics. My PC search was fruitless, but I got my dogs into a nice covey of quail so I am in a good mood.