WIHA acreage expansion ideas...

I should add that I don't want to sound too critical of the WIHA program. It's awesome. I wish we had something close down here in Oklahoma for quail hunting. I spoke to a KDWP worker one opening day down there a couple of years ago and he told me how they funded the program. I don't remember the details, but something about federal dollars pay for a large chunk of it.

Anyway, I probably have a bigger problem with lack of suitable habitat on many of the WIHA's in the area we hunt than I do hunting pressure. This is becoming worse every year. Last year just really burned me out. I thought that the hunting wasn't near what the reports had stated....not that they ever are totally, but last year really burned me.

I've always wanted to hunt South Dakota and we have a new baby so I'm going to take this opportunity to plan a big trip in a couple of years if everything goes well.

If I was going to continue to hunt pheasants every year then Kansas is definitely the best bang for your buck. It's great for us because it's only a five hour drive. I'm sure I'll be back to Kansas fairly soon, just not this fall. Taking a break.
 
last year was one of the best i have seen in Kansas for quite awhile, knowing where to go and when helps.
 
would be nice to get a KPWD guy to comment on this thread. Maybe clear up the limiting factor. As the counties with few WIHA's, if I remember correctly from a past post/comment, that the areas are based around towns that can support the hunters, ie-hotels.
 
Regardless of the pressure, I will continue to make the 10.5 hour drive four times a year to hunt. I have invest lots of time and money in gear, dogs, training and training new hunting partners to let pressure get in the way. Just pick your oppertunities wisely.
 
Just a thought...

If you want the best quality hunting, you generally have to "pay to play". You call a guide or outfitter who leases prime land, or somebody who farms their land to create wildlife habitat. The nice thing about the WIHA program is that it's free. No, it isn't he best land... but it's free. Anybody with a hunting license can go there and get some exercise for them and their dog. The FREE part is what's good about it.

If I were a betting man, I would wager that a $30.00 habitat stamp program would get me about the same results on WIHA that I am getting now. It would still be crowded. It would still be pressured. The habitat and bird numbers would still be marginal.

The best land would still be getting snapped up and leased by guides, outfitters, and hunting clubs. The suburbs would still be expanding. CRP contracts would still be expiring. Retiring Baby Boomers would still be buying their 80 acres of peace and quiet.

My advice for people who aren't satisfied with WIHA would be (respectfully) that they might consider joining a hunt club or leasing their own land. Leave the WIHA free, appreciate it for what it is, and don't try to make it something that it isn't. No reasonable amount of money in the form of a habitat stamp will magically turn the WHIA land into the ultimate hunting experience. IMO, you're just raising the price of the cheapest alternative.

I thought the lion's club program that BritChaser mentioned sounded interesting. I would probably participate in something like that if it was available locally.
 
Good thread. Email sent to KDWP.

Freelance hunters must quickly come to the realization they need to band together and compete for available (and shrinking) access and habitat. Not just upland hunters either. When deer hunters, waterfowlers & upland groups combine efforts some pretty good thing usually come out of it.

IMO a great way to accomplish this is self funded and\or self subsidized WIHA programs. Couple that with a willingness to support tax dollars for long term conservation programs in the farm bill and the sport could get healthy enough that maybe my children will enjoy similar opportunities as me.

DB
 
Toad said:
Just a thought...

If you want the best quality hunting, you generally have to "pay to play". You call a guide or outfitter who leases prime land, or somebody who farms their land to create wildlife habitat. The nice thing about the WIHA program is that it's free. No, it isn't he best land... but it's free. Anybody with a hunting license can go there and get some exercise for them and their dog. The FREE part is what's good about it.

If I were a betting man, I would wager that a $30.00 habitat stamp program would get me about the same results on WIHA that I am getting now. It would still be crowded. It would still be pressured. The habitat and bird numbers would still be marginal.

My advice for people who aren't satisfied with WIHA would be (respectfully) that they might consider joining a hunt club or leasing their own land. Leave the WIHA free, appreciate it for what it is, and don't try to make it something that it isn't. No reasonable amount of money in the form of a habitat stamp will magically turn the WHIA land into the ultimate hunting experience. IMO, you're just raising the price of the cheapest alternative.

I thought the lion's club program that BritChaser mentioned sounded interesting. I would probably participate in something like that if it was available locally.
Click to expand...


Sound advice at that: I've been searching for some land to lease Toad. I have the $ to do it at this point in my life, but not everyone does. I also have plenty of private connections so I don't really need WIHA. In fact, I only hunted WIHA 2 times last season. I too find the Lions Club thing interesting.

I just don't believe that this free opportunity will last forever. Seldom is anything sustainable that comes free. Sure, for the KS guys, the WIHA program is plenty big. We can drive our 3 or 4 hrs and experience marginal success. If there is too much pressure or not enough good cover, we always have next week to try a different part of the state. No problem. However, there are guys visiting our state that have driven 20hrs, only to find some winter wheat fields enrolled and CRP fields with paths worn in them. They don't have the opportunity to scout much, so they get out and walk a 1/4 section and see 3 hens.......then they never return. Again, no problem for the KS guys right? Well, if SD gleans all of the potential revenue from these visitors, they'll have the means to sustain their programs and good reasons for improving habitat. Do we want some of that revenue here or do we want folks to have poor experiences and start taking their $ somewhere else? I plan to die here so I prefer they spend their $ here to support this great state's hunting agenda. Truth of the matter is, the more money our state government makes from outdoor activities, the more they'll do to support them.

Perhaps I'm wrong in assuming that additional acres will help improve things. I don't see how it could hurt, but I'm not going to argue that. Maybe what we need is a habitat improvement stamp.....I'm not sure. I just see that folks aren't having the same caliber experiences in KS that they may have in years past and it is not b/c of bird #'s. The birds are out there, but the access is in short supply relative to hunter #'s IMO.

Limiting factor.....still don't have any idea. I just know that the more hunters we have = the more revenue the state receives = increased and continued support of our TRADITIONS:cheers:
 
There are some really good ideas and views here guys, congrats and keep the brainstorm coming!
I have had the ability to see this issue from both sides of the fence. Prior to moving to Kansas 2 1/2 years ago, I made the 15 hour drive from Utah to hunt here for over 5 years. The first year we hunted KS was amazing, the next was good, the next not as good and it has continued to decline each year. The main problem isn't the bird numbers, they are down but there are still a lot of them out there, the problem (in our area) is the amount to land that is being taken out of WIHA and being leased to those with more $$$$$. I can't blame the farmer, I know if I was being offered $5/acre by the state and knew was land was going to get trampled or $10/acre by a private group and knew the land would only have X amount of hunters on it, I would go for Option B! You are probably wondering if the numbers were going down, why were we still coming? Why were we choosing to drive for an entire day (one way) and spend hundreds of dollars on gas, licenses, hotels, food, etc....? Two reasons: 1. No matter how bad the hunting was in KS, it was better than Utah! 2. Tradition, the pheasant hunt has turned into a family reunion for us. Would we chip in a little extra to try and help fund more acreage or the possibility to outbid the private groups, you bet we would! Kansas hunters are blessed to have the amount of property available to them to hunt, go to Utah and see how many fields you can find to hunt, let alone fields that actually have birds in them and good luck finding one bigger than 10 acres without running into barbed wire. We have a good thing going here and I would really hate to lose it!

Rut
 
I have hunted Kansas extensively for 30 years, and traveled all over doing it.
I am fortunate to have developed relationships with several landowners and have some great places to hunt.
That being said, I still make trips where I only hunt WIHA areas exclusively.
I think the WIHA program is great just the way it is. If you are willing to do your homework and hunt hard, you can find plenty of pheasants and quail on WIHA areas. I have taken limits many times over the years.
Compared to what you will find in most other states, those who hunt Kansas are blessed by the opportunities that the WIHA program provides.
As with anything else, there could be improvements in the program, but I don't think throwing more money at it will make much difference.
Keep up the good work KDWP.
 
WIHA appreciation

I don't think anyone here questions the value of the current WIHA program. I thnk the concern is, that most of us remember a time when we had nothing like it and certainly do not want to return to those days again. The fear is that all things funded with year to year, or sunset funding measures, not permanent allocation, will face challenges going forward in a tight economy. If we loose this program, what do we as a group do? Better to find a permanent source of money now, to fund the program in perpetuity. While we are at it, maybe increase the participation of landowners in the program. I don't know what criteria is used by KWP for inclusion into the program, I am referring here to the winter wheat field comments, but I will say that I have hunted many properties over the years that looked sparse, or had no obvious food source, and yet for some reason the birds were there! You can't always tell by looking, and I suspect hunting pressure had a good deal to do with it, as well. We look at property like a human hunter, with those bias, while the birds have a different perspective, as does the KWP employee, who's looking at the property in June, or maybe last year when it was milo stubble, which it might be again the following year.I think they do a fine job, I think if we can the responsibility help them, so much the better.
 
This is certainly the best thread started on this site. Good work.

One thing that isn't drawing our ire that probably should is the lack of WIHA in surrounding states. I am always a bit miffed when I see a Nebraska or Iowa (rarely) truck on opening day. It just surprises me that people who are from a top tier pheasant state are in KS hunting WIHA. But then I remember that Nebraska's (and I assume Iowa's) WIHA programs are - as noted - pathetice compared to KS. Why can Kansas make this work and Nebraska can't? If IA, SD, ND, NE, KS, and OK all had respectable programs, the pressure would also ease significantly. Kansas is the only state where a person of modest means can show up and not know anybody and still have a fair shot at shooting birds. Pretty cool, but it may not last if something doesn't change.

Regardless, I am still for the increased fees. If for no other reason, I would love to see KDWP pay top dollar for CRP acres (read: $10 or more/acre), which should help incentivize farmers to keep more acres in the CRP program - they get the fed money and the WIHA money, making it difficult to justify farming any marginal acres.
 
I have heard no rumblings from KDWP that the WIHA program is in danger of ending for lack of funding or any other reason. I may be mistaken but I think I read that there is a planned increase in the near future for non-resident small game hunting licenses in Kansas. This may be a shot in the arm for the WIHA program. This seems to me to be a much better way to raise additional revenue for KDWP programs and to cover increased costs. I do not favor an additional stamp for WIHA users. Colorado has eliminated their upland habitat stamp in 2010 to encourage small game hunter recruitment and youth participation.
 
Upland Hunter said:
I may be mistaken but I think I read that there is a planned increase in the near future for non-resident small game hunting licenses in Kansas. QUOTE]

Isn't this a sign that they need to create more revenue to continue providing the services they currently provide????? What about the rabbit hunters from KY that don't necessarily care for the WIHA b/c they spend all their time at the federal reservoirs and state areas? Should they have to pay additional license fees to help support the WIHA program if they don't use it?

Either way they do it, it sounds to me like they need more revenue. If they need more revenue to keep the WIHA program alive and well, I welcome the idea of a stamp program.

I know the program is great gentlemen....that's the only reason I care to share my ideas for improvement and went one step further to request yours. Sure we may have the best WIHA program in the country, but does that mean we should stop trying to improve/expand/maintain the program by not contributing to it when/if such action is needed...I don't think so. I for one would like to see KS become the premier upland hunting state. SD can have the title for pheasant capital, but I dream of the day that KS gets the title of #1 upland state! ESPECIALLY, if there is a great deal of public access at a relatively low cost. Free is great, it just isn't sustainable.
Click to expand...
 
Upland Hunter said:
That being said, I still make trips where I only hunt WIHA areas exclusively.
I think the WIHA program is great just the way it is. If you are willing to do your homework and hunt hard, you can find plenty of pheasants and quail on WIHA areas. I have taken limits many times over the years.
Compared to what you will find in most other states, those who hunt Kansas are blessed by the opportunities that the WIHA program provides.
As with anything else, there could be improvements in the program.
Keep up the good work KDWP.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you've said here.

"but I don't think throwing more money at it will make much difference"

This is where I would say I strongly disagree. $ is all that supports programs like this. Every time I do the math it goes like this....

some $ = good program.......a little more $ = a little better program

Like anything else, when the bag of $ runs out, there is nothing left to support it. KS is at a point where it can continue to drastically increase the # of hunters visiting the state or those hunters will move on. I want the economy to do well in KS so I'm hoping that we'll find a way to keep and recruit more visitors.

Thanks a great deal for your input. :cheers: I look forward to reading your response.
 
I havent read this whole entire thread.... so if someone has already said this I apoligize.

But from scanning through this, it seems there are some complaints about Walk-in areas pulling out of the program due to someone leasing the ground. From most of the farmers I've spoke to, thats normally not the case. It's due to Hunters trashing their land, camping on their land etc...

I know this is beating a dead horse, but money won't fix that issue. There's always a few that ruin it for everyone else.
 
Spence said:
From most of the farmers I've spoke to, thats normally not the case. It's due to Hunters trashing their land, camping on their land etc...

I know this is beating a dead horse, but money won't fix that issue. There's always a few that ruin it for everyone else.
Click to expand...

Good point! If this is indeed the reason the majority of tracts are taken out then I agree, money probably won't improve the situation. I hope this isn't the actual case, but it very well may be. If that is the case, the department may be able to use any additional revenue to police the areas a bit more. I don't know, this is where the conversation turns into something that I'm not familiar enough with to truly understand viable solutions. I mean, how much $ would it take to more effectively patrol these lands....is it really even feasible? Probably not b/c what would you do with the "extra" law enforcement during the remainder of the year?

Great point Spence......I hope the cases your referring are isolated and most farmers are just taking it out for better financial opportunities.
 
Last edited:
"From most of the farmers I've spoke to, thats normally not the case. It's due to Hunters trashing their land, camping on their land etc... "

I can't factually dispute this claim - I only know of one WIHA that was subsequently leased. (Anyone who camps when they go is completely undermining the program - i.e., to increase spending in small, dying towns. Spend some money, guys!!) But I can promise you that eventually people will lease these properties, unless funds for the program are increased. For two reasons. One, more money allows for more and better ground in the program. Two, more money allows the state to pay more. If that doesn't happen, the 5-10 gentlemen from OKC who used to hunt WIHA because they did well and didn't feel crowded will instead lease their 3 favorite spots. My guess is it would be easy to lease 600-700 acres of prime ground for +- $4,000. Split 4 or 5 ways, that's nothing. Heck, a lot of people would just pay the $4k themselves. It will be a slow process, but it may happen.

Arguing that a relatively small increase will affect participation - whether in Colo or KS - is nonsensical. In fact, many Colorado hunters objected to ending the stamp fee. It's 25-30 bucks. Less than a fill up in the truck. Frankly, if $25 bucks sways whether you can go or not, you probably shouldn't!
 
Thanks for all of the comments folks and for the desire to keep/improve our WIHA system in Kansas! As with anything in life, it could be better. But, as has been pointed out already in the thread, we are way ahead of much of the country. I have asked Jake George, the KDWP private lands coordinator to comment on this thread due to my not working on the private lands side of the F&W division. I'll try to not steal much of his response here. However, I do have some comments that might help. First, this is a voluntary program where interested landowner opt into the program themseves. Yes, frequently private interests pay more and show up with fewer hunters, this prevents us from renting from many landowners. We don't necessarily focus our pursuits around areas that can support the hunters. We do have a special program directed toward eastern Kansas, Jake can elaborate on that. It is harder to find interested landowners further east due to a higher population base, higher renter interest, and smaller ownership. The idea of an upland game stamp or some other way to direct money toward this effort isn't new. A problem exists with the Pitman Robertson program in that such a fee would interfere with our eligibility to receive federal funds to match our state funds for doing wildlife work in the state. Yes, there have been problems with quality as some of the patches in the system aged. The KDWP is not capable of doing much with that on the older CRP contracts as that is managed by the NRCS and those early contracts had no provisions for managing the cover. More recent CRP contracts have mid-contract management requirements written in and these manipulations should restore some of the quality in these offerings. You do have to remember that not all of these tracts are being rented for upland game. Some are in green wheat or stubble and may be directed toward geese, ducks, deer, turkey, or other wildlife and may appear useless to the upland hunter. GSP lover, you brought up several points about the agency and conditions in SE Kansas. Specifically, much of the problems with quail in SE Kansas are due to habitat succession. Since >97% of the state is in private ownership, the KDWP has little control over the management on those acres. Fescue conversion, woodland expansion and aging, and changes in farming practices are largely responsible for the quail decline in that area. Joe Kramer, chief of the Fisheries and Wildlife Division in KDWP is on the 5 member National Bobwhite Conservation Initiative board. This should indicate that KDWP has a very high interest in upland game management not only in the state, but over the entire range where bobwhite are found. This goes for pheasants as well. We are working with Pheasant Forever to hire PF biologists in the state to maximize landowner participation in the various federal farm programs that can benefit upland game. Further, we do have the bobwhite quail initiative working in a focus area in eastern Kansas trying to make significant improvements there. Hopefully, Jake will give you all more information on these and other aspects of what is going on. I'll bow out and leave him room. Thanks again for the interest!
 
Last edited:
That's very informative Prairie. Thanks!

I never knew that a stamp fee could interfere with federal funding. Makes sense. Three questions, though. First, couldn't you raise small game licenses instead of imposing a stamp? Or would that still affect eligibility?

Second, if you could raise enough $$ through the stamp to have a fully enrolled WIHA program, couldn't we use federal dollars for some of the other issues raised in your email - e.g., maintaining CRP during their term?

Third, why aren't other states (NE, for example) using the money the same way?

Thanks again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top