WIHA acreage expansion ideas...

kansasbrittany

kansasbrittany

Banned
I've sent emails to KDWP officials asking why they hadn't implemented a WIHA "habitat/access" stamp system yet. I know they have a donation program, but how many of you have actually contributed? Personally, I'd rather be mandated to purchase a stamp to access WIHA fields, but ONLY if the $ were being used to lease more acreage. Nobody has ever responded to my requests, but I figure if several people mention it, the idea may receive more attention. I don't want the stamp to cost $30 or more, just enough to help lease more acres for an the increasing upland pressure that KS public lands have seen recently.

If we make it more valuable for farmers to put their land in WIHA, perhaps this trend of pay-to-hunt operations will be slowed and more opportunities will be made available to all of us freelance hunters. Not saying pay operations are bad, but I like freelance hunting a great deal and would love to see it expanded. The only way this can be done is w/ more $!

If you are in favor of such a program I encourage you to send emails to officials affiliated with KDWP. Who knows, maybe we could make the whole state WIHA:D First, let them know where you're from and why you've chosen to start hunting KS (I know there are lots of new folks coming to KS these days). Second, tell them how much of your time you spend on WIHA land. Third, tell them about the pressure you've witnessed on these lands. Finally, suggest that you wouldn't be detered by a small fee for a stamp if it were going to go toward leasing more ground for public access. Our licenses are relatively inexpensive for non-resident hunters, so a small additional fee wouldn't make too many folks find another state to hunt....in fact, it has the potential of sweetening the pie for all of us.

I look forward to hearing what everyone has to say about this.
 
I live in Georgia and come to Kansas every year openig week to hunt pheasants. I would be willing to pay $30 for more land to hunt. I am surprised KDWP hasn't had these in their system already!
 
kansas brit-

you are spot on with your idea.........but what i would like to see is the stamp fee ($25) be used to pay extra payments to the farmers who leave CRP in place, as this is the type of cover to most likely disappear as many contracts are expiring over the next few years.

i have noticed in some locations the KDWP is including way too much corn and milo stubble in their walk in acreage, simply because the grass is not there for the program. row crop production is beginning to become too prolific. i can remember when i would pass up a lot of walk in CRP cover, unless there was a crop field in close proximity to it, now it is becoming the opposite, i pass a lot of milo or corn stubble, as there seems to be no grass or CRP close by.........you got to have both to have a good pheasant population or one worthy of the effort to hunt them...the other thing they could do is pay the landowner extra to leave the damn waterways unhayed....there are just way too many waterways in fields that would help hold birds, that get hayed every fall, taking away some valuable cover from predators, which in turn would hold birds.......this would be a huge improvement as well.
 
Last edited:
hunter94 said:
kansas brit-

you are spot on with your idea.........but what i would like to see is the stamp fee ($25) be used to pay extra payments to the farmers who leave CRP in place, as this is the type of cover to most likely disappear as many contracts are expiring over the next few years.

i have noticed in some locations the KDWP is including way too much corn and milo stubble in their walk in acreage, simply because the grass is not there for the program. row crop production is beginning to become too prolific. i can remember when i would pass up a lot of walk in CRP cover, unless there was a crop field in close proximity to it, now it is becoming the opposite, i pass a lot of milo or corn stubble, as there seems to be no grass or CRP close by.........you got to have both to have a good pheasant population or one worthy of the effort to hunt them...the other thing they could do is pay the landowner extra to leave the damn waterways unhayed....there are just way to many waterways in fields that would help hold birds, that get hayed every fall, taking away some valuable cover from predators, which in turn would hold birds.......this would be a huge improvement as well.
Click to expand...


That makes perfect sense. Include something of this nature in your message if you send one please. I hadn't considered this angle, but I'm noticing the same trends. If some of the $ goes to CRP incentive payments locally, and some of it goes to leasing more acreage, I'm good with it. One thing about a stamp for WIHA access is that more than just bird hunters might support it. I don't think the deer hunters benefit from the CRP much. Perhaps a $10 stamp for WIHA access, and a $5 upland stamp would be more appropriate....this is only brainstorming....I don't like unnecessary fees any more than the next guy....please keep the ideas coming guys. KDWP will continue to receive emails from me and I will include your ideas, but nothing is more effective than each of you sending them an email yourself.

Thanks!!
 
Bullet1 said:
I live in Georgia and come to Kansas every year openig week to hunt pheasants. I would be willing to pay $30 for more land to hunt. I am surprised KDWP hasn't had these in their system already!
Click to expand...

Please call or send them a message to show your support.

Thanks!!
 
WiHA

I like the idea as well. I would point out that unlike other walk-in states, Kansas excepts donations of cash to the program, and solicits for it in the Kansas Hunting annual. I think we should all send them a contribution. I intend to. I also think we should form a group like Kansas Pheasant Hunters United,as an example, give us a voice to the KDWP, as well as the legislature. We could do group fund raisers, using all excess funds, for donation to WIHA program. I have no idea what Kansas pays the landowner, but I read some time ago Nebraska pays approximately 5.00 per acre! So if it's similar, it's going to take quite a bit of dollars to raise the acreage much. By the way, a do not think direct contributions to KDWP for the WIHA program is tax deductable, but, contributions from a Non profit organization to the program probably can be, allowing us to fund raise from outside corporations, like ammo makers, firearms manufacturers, etc.
 
I couldn't agree more with each of your proposals. A Kansas license, especially a non-resident license, is extraordinarily cheap. Frankly, I think an increase in the license fee AND a stamp fee are in order. It seems reasonable that the license and stamp should be $125ish (non-resident); $50ish resident. That's still really cheap and very competitive with SD et al.

Unfortunately, I have already voiced my opinion and, like you, received no response. I did mention it to a friendly (if not altogether bright) game warden last year during a check. He said they "talk about it. But the program is as much for the business it brings to the state (e.g., hotels, food, gas ect.) as for the farmers and hunters." That made sense on a macro level - don't want to chase off paying customers with the license fee - but did little to explain why they wouldn't raise the fees to ensure more comfortable access. My response was "If their decision to come to KS or not depends on $50, they ain't spend crapola once they get here anyway."

Dang it, now I am reinspired. I will send another email!
 
all good thoughts guys, thanks for bringing up the topic kansas brit, we all need to "fire one off" to KDWP sometime this week and maybe even follow up with a phone call and see if we can stir up some forward thinking in the department.

any time "clients" suggest ways to keep spending their dollars in a state that appreciates it, they should be willing to listen to ways to enhance that revenue and tourism opportunity for the economic good of their folks...keep it up! :thumbsup:
 
Wiha

I discussed these issues with the Pratt Office staff last year. It was well received by the agent that answered my e-mails. Based on his reply, the expansion ideas were to be discussed at spring meetings. Part of the problem is that the department has all hunters (upland, deer, etc.) in the mix. That I still believe is why it will take more input from all Kansas hunters. I would suggest that all readers send and e-mail to one of the 5 regional offices expressing your expansion views.
 
I too agree. Seeing some of my good spots disappear every year without new ones in the program. Pressure is way up and feilds are down. At some point these areas will lose hunters who opt for for areas or states.
 
Rusty Trigger said:
I too agree. Seeing some of my good spots disappear every year without new ones in the program. Pressure is way up and feilds are down. At some point these areas will lose hunters who opt for for areas or states.
Click to expand...

That's why I'd like to capitalize on the opportunity we have right now:cheers:
 
I live in SEK.Most of the guys I know think that "the boys" in Pratt really only care about big game hunting.How else can you explain the hugh increase in the deer population.They managed it.30 years ago,you could walk out into about just any field in SEK,and bust a covey of quail(or three).Now,there might be only one covey per section,if your lucky.I feel that the boys are thinking with their wallets(out of state deer permits ect)and do not really care about the upland hunting anymore.
Just my two cents.
 
gsh lover said:
I live in SEK.Most of the guys I know think that "the boys" in Pratt really only care about big game hunting.How else can you explain the hugh increase in the deer population.They managed it.30 years ago,you could walk out into about just any field in SEK,and bust a covey of quail(or three).Now,there might be only one covey per section,if your lucky.I feel that the boys are thinking with their wallets(out of state deer permits ect)and do not really care about the upland hunting anymore.
Just my two cents.
Click to expand...

I understand your feelings. However, we need to put some faith in them and continually encourage them to support our interests. It is obvious to them that plenty of people come to hunt big game. What they may not realize is just how many people are visiting solely for upland game.......please send an email whether you've lost faith in their thought process or not.

Thanks!
 
Doesn't Colorado have a "stamp" system forcing you to pay to hunt walkin land? I'm all for it, if the money goes to increase the upland bird walkin type of habitat!
 
Wiha

I read that Colorado did away with their stamp, " because they thought it discouraged hunter numbers", it was only 10.00 or something! Who drives even 60 miles each way, and gets discouraged by 10.00. I drive 300 miles, and I'd gladly pay many times that for open access. Nebraska has a habitat stamp, 11.00, and has for years, they have become very agressive in pursuing more open access, NRD conservation corners, open field and waters program, as well as WIHA. I might also add that I believe the Deer hunters benefit from the WIHA program in both states as well. If Kansas has 50000 hunters of all kinds using WIHA, and each one pays 25.00 for a stamp dedicated to the WIHA program, thats an additional 1.25 million, which could at 5.00 per acre, add 250,000 acres of WIHA. If the landowners are interested.
 
Last year was it for us. We've gone opening weekend every year for the last 10. Getting way too hard to find a field that hasn't already been hammered. It's still good, but in my experience, it's not near as good as just five years ago. We're calling it quits. Too much money and planning to fight the crowds. It's still a good place to hunt, but just getting too tough for me. I know it's public and everyone else has paid their license fee like me, but something doesn't seem right about 20 to 30 guys sweeping across those WIHA fields. It makes it a lot tougher on the small groups.
 
akp said:
Last year was it for us. We've gone opening weekend every year for the last 10. Getting way too hard to find a field that hasn't already been hammered. It's still good, but in my experience, it's not near as good as just five years ago. We're calling it quits. Too much money and planning to fight the crowds. It's still a good place to hunt, but just getting too tough for me. I know it's public and everyone else has paid their license fee like me, but something doesn't seem right about 20 to 30 guys sweeping across those WIHA fields. It makes it a lot tougher on the small groups.
Click to expand...

Yes, many of us feel the same way. We're not going to improve our experience by sitting by and doing nothing. If 250,000 acres were added through a program like the one we're discussing, I bet you'd have better luck finding a place that hadn't been hammered yet. I knew there were people feeling the same way as you b/c that's how I feel. 5 years ago it was much easier to have a good hunt on WIHA in KS than it is now. More hunters isn't necessarily a bad thing b/c more hunters = more buying power. KDWP needs to expand supply to keep up with increasing demand and they're simply not doing it. If we sportmen suggest that we're willing to contribute more funds, perhaps they'll realize that it is in their best interest to collect more revenue and expand our possiblities.

Please don't give up on them. Give them suggestions that might help to improve your experience so you and you're friends can come back for many generations to come.

Thanks!
 
WIHA- What is the limiting factor?

Good point about the numbers of hunters, Kansas Brittany. I remember when opening day in Kansas and Nebraska was lkike a carnival. All the towns across 36 hiway had welcome banners, special events, even parades, towns like the size of Hays, had shopping, and antique shows for non-hunters. have to think we had more hunters then than we do now, and then there was no WIHA! I think the concentration issue is the problem, lots of folks don't have any access to private ground at all, rely on the WIHA, very difficult to find the landowners to even ask to hunt private! Owner might be 5 miles away or 500. Expansion if possible is the solution, making Kansas even more of a fall destination. We know they will come, shoot just look at the forum members, they hail from everywhere. Any that aren't here wish they could be here, or South Dakota. We got quail too! Not what it was, but a darn site more than anybody else. Talk about economic stimulus, I am glad to see the traveling hunters, we need to roll out the welcome mat with some more access. Million dollar question I have, is it the money, or is it landowners willing to enroll? What is the limiting factor.
 
More Comments about Walk-In

First, I believe Kansas at 1.1 million plus walk-in acres is waaaay ahead of other states. I think the KDWP is deserving of a hearty "Well Done!" for that.

One thing I have noticed is the great variation in the amount of walk-in from county to county in our pheasant hunting areas. I would be interested in finding ways for the KDWP to get more walk-in acres in counties that have comparatively fewer walk-in acres.

I ran into a small scale, non-governmental walk-in program in NE last year. A Lions Club chapter had gotten some local landowners to donate (I think donate) their land to a walk-in program where the Lions Club made maps of the donated fields, ID tags for the hunters and their rigs, and charged $40/hunter/season.

We need to keep talking and exchanging ideas to help the program improve.
 
Last edited:
No doubt Kansas has done a wonderful job with their WIHA program. That's why we've got so many people coming to KS....and for that I commend them. However, like any good thing in life, there is always room for improvement. Apparently there are some folks that think it is time for improvement/expansion. AKP is frustrated and is planning not to return b/c of the pressure he's experienced in the last couple of years. I'll say that I've been looking at leases b/c of the ridiculous amount of pressure I've been seeing too. We're by no means suggesting they haven't done enough. In fact, I'm suggesting we come up with ideas to make the best WIHA program even better. They built the WIHA program and the hunters came. If they continue to expand the WIHA program, the # of hunters should also expand.
As hunter9494 mentioned though, I'm sure there is a limiting factor, but I don't know what it is.

You also make a great point that there are some parts of the state that have all but been ignored when it comes to WIHA acreage. This is something else you may want to add to your messages if you send them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top