When do we start the push for change?

[GetTothePoint]

This is for sure, the BS on this thread is getting way too wearisome and pounding on each other isn't going to help anyone's cause. But you all did accomplish one thing...as a nonresident upland hunter, I NEVER want to hunt in Kansas where I'm not wanted. All you "residents" can spend your own money to improve your habitat, you can put your money where your mouths are and see how far that gets you. Good luck!

I don't think anyone came down on NR bird hunters. I do wish KS would give us a week like SD but whatever. The point of this thread was to join the masses against what we see as the top threats against upland hunting. Now I hope we all have sent letters to higher-ups as well as posting to this but I think its constructive to see what others see as the biggest problems. We do come down hard on the NR deer mess but I don't think anyone is trying to chase off NR bird guys. I honestly feel for you guys and the propaganda you get from the state to go off of.

 

[westksbowhunter]

No, Weim, I think I got the point exactly. Since December of last year I've been following the posters as they have been cussing/discussing the role of nonresident hunters vs. residents, the Kansas Fish & Wildlife Department, and the politicians and the role each plays in the blame game for ever-descending bird populations in Kansas. Did it ever occur to any of you that there are FAR MORE deer hunters in most every state than upland hunters? With the license fees, ammo, liquor, guns, gas, hotel and lodging money these people bring to your state (AND your Fish & Game coffers!) from where I sit your state would have a lot less money to address habitat if you chased these people away.
WHY are there more deer hunters? There could be several reasons, as follows:

1. Upland hunting is WORK, done right--lots of walking in often inclement weather--takes prep time to get in shape.
2. Most (not all, but most) serious upland hunters have at least one dog--and you dog owners know about the cost, time, effort and often a host of disappointments as well as joys, that accompany dog ownership. A lot of would-be hunters are just not up for that.
3. Many hunters watch the constant bombardment of deer hunting shows on the Outdoor and Sportsman, etc. channels and they get a bang (pardon the unintended pun) out of seeing some over-engineered, sometimes baited, BS hunts on TV where the successful hunter carries on like an idiot after the shot.
4. Big game taken legally gives some guys bragging rights and to them it just seems strange to spend all that time and energy for a few small (in comparison to deer) birds, when they could be out slaying Moby Buck.

I like to hunt deer. I like to hunt birds a lot more. But I just get the sense from the 8+ pages of thread here that I'd be more welcome spending what bird money I do have, in another state.

I don't think any of us have a problem with NR hunters. What we do have a problem with is the way our state regulates NR deer hunting. So our problem is with management and regulations, not individual hunters that enjoy what we residents enjoy. None of what you mentioned above has anything to do with descending bird populations. That falls on the landowners. Especially in a state that is nearly 98% privately owned. However the federal gov't can create programs that encourage landowners to set something back. Remember that the state of Kansas lied to us residents and sold us out to larger corporations and commercialism. They don't manage with conservation in mind.

 

[matto]

I checked out of this thread a long time ago, not sure why I decided to catch up with it now. The only thing I'll add is this: I'm rooting for CWD. Not that it needs my help, though. It's only a matter of time before CWD completely changes the face of whitetail hunting nationwide. I think it will happen even if it becomes widely accepted that there's no risk to humans.

 

[KsHusker]

This is for sure, the BS on this thread is getting way too wearisome and pounding on each other isn't going to help anyone's cause. But you all did accomplish one thing...as a nonresident upland hunter, I NEVER want to hunt in Kansas where I'm not wanted. All you "residents" can spend your own money to improve your habitat, you can put your money where your mouths are and see how far that gets you. Good luck!

No, Weim, I think I got the point exactly. Since December of last year I've been following the posters as they have been cussing/discussing the role of nonresident hunters vs. residents, the Kansas Fish & Wildlife Department, and the politicians and the role each plays in the blame game for ever-descending bird populations in Kansas. Did it ever occur to any of you that there are FAR MORE deer hunters in most every state than upland hunters? With the license fees, ammo, liquor, guns, gas, hotel and lodging money these people bring to your state (AND your Fish & Game coffers!) from where I sit your state would have a lot less money to address habitat if you chased these people away.
WHY are there more deer hunters? There could be several reasons, as follows:

1. Upland hunting is WORK, done right--lots of walking in often inclement weather--takes prep time to get in shape.
2. Most (not all, but most) serious upland hunters have at least one dog--and you dog owners know about the cost, time, effort and often a host of disappointments as well as joys, that accompany dog ownership. A lot of would-be hunters are just not up for that.
3. Many hunters watch the constant bombardment of deer hunting shows on the Outdoor and Sportsman, etc. channels and they get a bang (pardon the unintended pun) out of seeing some over-engineered, sometimes baited, BS hunts on TV where the successful hunter carries on like an idiot after the shot.
4. Big game taken legally gives some guys bragging rights and to them it just seems strange to spend all that time and energy for a few small (in comparison to deer) birds, when they could be out slaying Moby Buck.

I like to hunt deer. I like to hunt birds a lot more. But I just get the sense from the 8+ pages of thread here that I'd be more welcome spending what bird money I do have, in another state.

Non res upland hunters were always welcomed with open arms. You've misinterpreted most of the discussion if you have come to any other conclusion.

Where do you live Wolfchief and how long have you been hunting in KS?

 

[BrownDogsCan2]

In all fairness some of the ground that we are seeing hayed is no longer receiving a crp payment. Some was not reenrolled a year ago . It takes time to farm. I don’t know how that is going to play out with the future of the walk-in program.

 

[Wolfchief]

I've never been hunting in Kansas--you missed MY point---never been, and after all this bashing I never intend to hunt there. You're so outraged at these farmers/landowners---the AUDACITY of them to hay and graze THEIR land in a drought so as to feed their livestock....yes, they entered a payment program but you know what?? Shit happens ! And if they needed the forage to survive financially, more power to them. I am as avid a bird hunter as you all, but I wouldn't hold it against anyone in ag to do what they must to survive. And the out of state deer hunters I assume followed the law, bought the land at the going rate (if not more!) and legally have the right to hunt too. You may not like it, but some of your neighbors must or they wouldn't have sold the NR's the land. I'm done with this, do what you gotta do. That's what I'm gonna do.

 

[westksbowhunter]

I've never been hunting in Kansas--you missed MY point---never been, and after all this bashing I never intend to hunt there. You're so outraged at these farmers/landowners---the AUDACITY of them to hay and graze THEIR land in a drought so as to feed their livestock....yes, they entered a payment program but you know what?? Shit happens ! And if they needed the forage to survive financially, more power to them. I am as avid a bird hunter as you all, but I wouldn't hold it against anyone in ag to do what they must to survive. And the out of state deer hunters I assume followed the law, bought the land at the going rate (if not more!) and legally have the right to hunt too. You may not like it, but some of your neighbors must or they wouldn't have sold the NR's the land. I'm done with this, do what you gotta do. That's what I'm gonna do.

Well we have not had any drought really to speak of the last several years. The hay is going to Texas. As for NR deer hunters, that isn't the problem. The problem is how they are managed. Take crossbow inclusion. Do you know how that was passed? If you knew the entire story of it you would be outraged. Most people who jump on these threads don't understand the history and process of how regulations were weaseled through. It was dirty and underhanded. We have been dealing with the Ken Corbetts, Randy Wood's, and Mike Hayden's for years. They are corrupt and only care about themselves and those who throw money to them.

 

[KsHusker]

I've never been hunting in Kansas--you missed MY point---never been, and after all this bashing I never intend to hunt there. You're so outraged at these farmers/landowners---the AUDACITY of them to hay and graze THEIR land in a drought so as to feed their livestock....yes, they entered a payment program but you know what?? Shit happens ! And if they needed the forage to survive financially, more power to them. I am as avid a bird hunter as you all, but I wouldn't hold it against anyone in ag to do what they must to survive. And the out of state deer hunters I assume followed the law, bought the land at the going rate (if not more!) and legally have the right to hunt too. You may not like it, but some of your neighbors must or they wouldn't have sold the NR's the land. I'm done with this, do what you gotta do. That's what I'm gonna do.

Great -- I'm sure wherever you live will be glad to keep you.

 

[westksbowhunter]

In all fairness some of the ground that we are seeing hayed is no longer receiving a crp payment. Some was not reenrolled a year ago . It takes time to farm. I don’t know how that is going to play out with the future of the walk-in program.

It isn't just the crp that has expired, it is every draw in every field. They cut and bale everything. Back in the day, there were always great little draws to hunt. It might be 10 yards wide by 50 yds long but held a solid handful of birds. Those are gone now. Shelter belts push out. Old homesteads leveled. All to farm every inch to the road.

 

[s.davis]

Food for thought:

Expand the iWIHA program. Sell an iWIHA stamp that allows for access. Limit the amount of hunters/day based on the carrying capacity of the property, limit the amount of iWIHAs a person can check into per day, and pay landowners based on how many people hunt it in a season.

 

[Nick]

It isn't just the crp that has expired, it is every draw in every field. They cut and bale everything. Back in the day, there were always great little draws to hunt. It might be 10 yards wide by 50 yds long but held a solid handful of birds. Those are gone now. Shelter belts push out. Old homesteads leveled. All to farm every inch to the road.

Shot alot of pheasants out of those draws back in the day.

 

[KsHusker]

Food for thought:

Expand the iWIHA program. Sell an iWIHA stamp that allows for access. Limit the amount of hunters/day based on the carrying capacity of the property, limit the amount of iWIHAs a person can check into per day, and pay landowners based on how many people hunt it in a season.

You can't do that - per my understanding it would decrease the pitman robertson funds the state receives to enroll and pay for WIHA

My simple understanding of how to increase the funds is it's partially based on the # of hunting licenses you sell

(Hence another good reason KS missed the bandwagon in keeping Upland hunting the primary focus -- = more hunters than deer in a season and more licenses sold)

Anyways you can go to the Oklahoma forum where I posted an article where OK's governor killed a deal they had with the First Nations tribes to purchase hunting licenses at a discount -- the tradeoff was they could keep more of the gambling money.

The OK governor wanted to squash the deal and did - what is going to happen is next year when not as many licenses are sold- the OK Department of Wildlife and parks is going to have their funding cut by ASTRONOMICAL amounts due to the money they will lose from the feds -- Again my understanding as this is all a game -

KS representatives are TOO STUPID to play it as well as the Upper Mgmt of the KS Wildlife and Parks.

 

[westksbowhunter]

You can't do that - per my understanding it would decrease the pitman robertson funds the state receives to enroll and pay for WIHA

My simple understanding of how to increase the funds is it's partially based on the # of hunting licenses you sell

(Hence another good reason KS missed the bandwagon in keeping Upland hunting the primary focus -- = more hunters than deer in a season and more licenses sold)

Anyways you can go to the Oklahoma forum where I posted an article where OK's governor killed a deal they had with the First Nations tribes to purchase hunting licenses at a discount -- the tradeoff was they could keep more of the gambling money.

The OK governor wanted to squash the deal and did - what is going to happen is next year when not as many licenses are sold- the OK Department of Wildlife and parks is going to have their funding cut by ASTRONOMICAL amounts due to the money they will lose from the feds -- Again my understanding as this is all a game -

KS representatives are TOO STUPID to play it as well as the Upper Mgmt of the KS Wildlife and Parks.

Actually requiring a stamp, just like a park pass for fishing, was discussed a few years ago. Some of the KDWP workers wanted it. I thought it was a great idea. I think you should have to sign in electronically or have a box to check out once you have hunted any WIHA or state ground. They could track how many hunted a particular property and what was harvested. Should be done for all forms of hunting. It would also let them know which WIHA properties produced. Plus it would be added revenue. Iowa does it on property similar to WIHA on their IHAP properties, not all but some.

 

[KsHusker]

Actually requiring a stamp, just like a park pass for fishing, was discussed a few years ago. Some of the KDWP workers wanted it. I thought it was a great idea. I think you should have to sign in electronically or have a box to check out once you have hunted any WIHA or state ground. They could track how many hunted a particular property and what was harvested. Should be done for all forms of hunting. It would also let them know which WIHA properties produced. Plus it would be added revenue. Iowa does it on property similar to WIHA on their IHAP properties, not all but some.

Per many discussions - anything charged for accessing WIHA property (I believe) such as a stamp etc would decrease the funds from the feds - so it appears to be a zero sum game. I'm sure there's other work arounds. It's been discussed on here before - think even the KDWP maybe piped up - I could be wrong. Slept since then.

 

[s.davis]

You can't do that - per my understanding it would decrease the pitman robertson funds the state receives to enroll and pay for WIHA

My simple understanding of how to increase the funds is it's partially based on the # of hunting licenses you sell

You are correct that P-R money is allotted on a formula based (half, if I recall correctly) on licenses sold as well as the land area of the state. But that doesn't mean "you can't do that". Now, I'm sure it's not a simple as merely saying "we will spend all that federal $ on iWIHA instead of WIHA". But it's not a question of can or can't. Maybe it's a dumb idea, or not workable with the paltry budgets, maybe a disproportionate amount of hunters are old and technology-averse (though they seem to have no problem internet scouting, or hottspotting all over Facebook and Instagram). There are a lot of reasons such an idea might be rejected, but can't isn't one of them..."we can't" just seems to be the default setting in Kansas to any obstacle, challenge or problem.

 

[s.davis]

Per many discussions - anything charged for accessing WIHA property (I believe) such as a stamp etc would decrease the funds from the feds - so it appears to be a zero sum game. I'm sure there's other work arounds. It's been discussed on here before - think even the KDWP maybe piped up - I could be wrong. Slept since then.

Hmmm. Minnesota has a Walk-In stamp you have to purchase to access their walk-ins, and while I'm not 100% sure, I'd bet they are P-R funded.

 

[KsHusker]

You are correct that P-R money is allotted on a formula based (half, if I recall correctly) on licenses sold as well as the land area of the state. But that doesn't mean "you can't do that". Now, I'm sure it's not a simple as merely saying "we will spend all that federal $ on iWIHA instead of WIHA". But it's not a question of can or can't. Maybe it's a dumb idea, or not workable with the paltry budgets, maybe a disproportionate amount of hunters are old and technology-averse (though they seem to have no problem internet scouting, or hottspotting all over Facebook and Instagram). There are a lot of reasons such an idea might be rejected, but can't isn't one of them..."we can't" just seems to be the default setting in Kansas to any obstacle, challenge or problem.

My point is - if you charge $15 per person to access Wiha via a stamp and are losing Federal money why do it?

I'm starting to see why this discussion forum is dying.

 

[Weimdogman]

P-R money is huge after the run on guns and ammo this past couple of years. I would like to know where it goes and why it goes where it does.
I am part of a navhda chapter trying to buy land. We looked into the state giving us land but we had to put up a bldg and maintain the grounds. Oh and it had to be a certain portion of use for youth. All of which is fine but that is serious coin.

 

[GetTothePoint]

We pay an extra $25 in SD for a habitat stamp. I'd love to hear from residents up there to see if they can see where the extra money is going. I had never hunted there before the stamp so can't speak on that.

 

[GetTothePoint]

Per many discussions - anything charged for accessing WIHA property (I believe) such as a stamp etc would decrease the funds from the feds - so it appears to be a zero sum game. I'm sure there's other work arounds. It's been discussed on here before - think even the KDWP maybe piped up - I could be wrong. Slept since then.

When you see the kdwp follows threads on this forum but won't reply to this just frustrates/angers the hell out of me. Is there a way to bump them to make sure they've seen this? I'd love to get their views on this thread and what we can expect from their opinion going forward. I won't hold my breath though, and yes still waiting for replies from the state on emails/letters sent.