WIHA acreage expansion ideas...

V, when we raise hunting license or fishing license fees, we usually get a 13-16% loss of license buyers. Many times we end up losing money from the increase. The complicated answer to your second question is that there is a funding matrix with PR that designates what our federal matching fund is. Income outside of that matrix (Like this stamp) counts directly against our matching total and comes right off of the top. On question 3, every state is structured different, have different priorities, and have varying capabilities. As an example, to increase enforcement on WIHA acres we would need additional officers. That requires legislative or executive involvement. It is hard to get that political ball rolling, and there are other needs to compete with. If you've ever worked in government, you can understand. If you haven't, it's hard to fathom with a private business mentality. All of our divisions are doing great things with tiny budgets and inadequate manpower. The same is true of WIHA, can we post, map, manage additional acres? There are many other demands on the same staff. As for maintaining CRP, this is the responsibility of the landowner. Like every business owner, they have to make the $ in balance with the $ out. They are not going to do this work just to make things better for sportsmen. They need things better for their families too. If we can maximize each landowner's involvement in all of the federal programs, many of them will see improved quality of life income and reduced outputs. Sportsmen will benefit from the improved game populations. Other citizens will benefit from a stabilized farm economy, higher water quality, soil conservation, added recreation opportunities, etc. It has to start with the landowners benefitting. If we make that happen, then the other benefits are possible.
 
I don't know my brain is full can I go home

I just delete my last post while editing it what a day.
 
Kansas Brit, would you be willing to put together a lease coop for a group of hunters from this board? I know several of us hunt the same areas and could benefit from a coop lease arrangement.

Just a thought.
 
Another Walk-In Tweak from Out-of-State

I think one or both Dakotas dissallow non-resident hunters on walk-in the first two weeks of the season or something similiar. So early season walk-in is for their residents only. Something to think about.
 
Guys,

I'm on board with all of you, as far as exploring ways to expand WIHA.

However, as we're all brainstorming back and forth, I think it would be good if we could get somebody to weigh in who really understands the numbers.

When I hear numbers like $5 to $10/acre being paid to enroll in WIHA, I don't think that's even close. I believe it's much lower (good news for us, right? since whatever add'l revenue we can generate will have a bigger potential impact).

The reason as I say this, is because perhaps like many of you, I've often contemplated/dreamed...jeez, what would the numbers look like to buy some property that would support hunting?

In the process of researching the KS real estate listings, oftentimes they ballpark the income sources from their land, and anytime they reference WIHA income (if the property happened to be enrolled), it wasn't anywhere near $5-10. More like $1.50 to $2 from what I could discern.

So, as we're brainstorming on ideas, it would be good to understand the numbers. ie. a typical KS CRP contract pays $X/acre per year, and, WIHA offers an add'l $Y per year, and figure out how we do something impactful that keeps the current land enrolled, and expands it in the coming years.

Anybody have a good handle on the numbers?
 
Rusty Trigger said:
Kansas Brit, would you be willing to put together a lease coop for a group of hunters from this board? I know several of us hunt the same areas and could benefit from a coop lease arrangement.

Just a thought.
Click to expand...

This has crossed my mind on several occasions. I am and will continue to search for a couple of places to lease this fall. I'm taking to the roads for a week in September and I plan to make some offers. A small group from this board could work very well. I already have 2 others that are interested in splitting a lease so I'll put some effort into it. The biggest challenge is picking a part of the state everyone can agree on. I plan to pick a place that is within an hour of I-70 and is an hour or more past Salina......I guess I'll see who is still interested after I do that. Thanks for your interest!
 
BritChaser said:
I think one or both Dakotas dissallow non-resident hunters on walk-in the first two weeks of the season or something similiar. So early season walk-in is for their residents only. Something to think about.
Click to expand...

I really like this idea too, but I'd hate to deter folks from coming to our state. SD's rule kinda makes me feel like they'd rather support their locals than support non-resident business. However, I'm sure the residents appreciate having the first opportunity at "their" public lands. This would make our resident hunters very happy I'm sure. Maybe PD can enlighten us as to why we don't have a resident only w/e here in KS.
 
As I stated earlier, I live in Georgia and travel to Kansas opening week every year to hunt pheasants. I am not in complete control of when I can take vacations, as vacations are taken on a senoriorty basis where I work, and after the 2nd week in November the rest of the year is taken by more senior people. Therefore if the first week was closed.....I for 1 and the party i travel with would be hunting in another state. Just my 2 cents worth!
 
Bullet1 said:
As I stated earlier, I live in Georgia and travel to Kansas opening week every year to hunt pheasants. I am not in complete control of when I can take vacations, as vacations are taken on a senoriorty basis where I work, and after the 2nd week in November the rest of the year is taken by more senior people. Therefore if the first week was closed.....I for 1 and the party i travel with would be hunting in another state. Just my 2 cents worth!
Click to expand...

This is the scenario that most concerns me. I'd hate to see our state losing revenue over a resident only season.....though it would be one heck of an incentive to move to our great state:rolleyes:
 
The money we recieve from the govt. is certainly something we don't want to lose.

PD,

Are there any thoughts of trying to get more revenue for the state's outdoor activities? Is there any sign that we're becoming one of the premier places to hunt upland game? I believe this is a great time for KS to step up the pace and become the "South Dakota" of combination hunts. Continue to support big game initiatives b/c there is a great deal of $ to be made there. It just seems to me we have the opportunity to become the place that people think of when they pack up their bird dogs for a long trip.

I'm not sure how the $ thing breaks down so I don't know what the ROI would be for upland vs. big game. Lots of states have deer and turkey so it seems like combination upland hunts is an area that we could really stand out in.

Thanks for you input Sir!! I am only a speculator that has no "inside" information. My ASSUMPTION was that many WIHA acres weren't be re-enrolled b/c there was a lack of $ in some form.
 
Last edited:
yes it would be a nice reason to move here but at the same time my community almost completely caters to the outside hunters other than on a sunday when nothing is open but during the week everyone welcomes the extra business
 
WIHA per are cost- Leasing

I may have started this 5.00 price per acre talk. I used the value because, I know for a fact, it is the starting point for crp acres enrolled in their WIHA program. If there are mitigating circumstances, such as limited access as to time of year, quality of habitat, etc. the price bid is reduced. But 5.00 per acre is the most and the assumed bid if all is is right. I have no idea what Kansas pays, just by association with what I was told by Nebraska. I personally think that that figure is high. I also know for a fact that ground in Kansas can be leased privately for less. I currently lease 300 acres in NW Missouri, all prarie grass crp surrounded by crop ground for $2.50 cents an acre, and that is also to much, but it's really good too. I would also be interested in lease in Kansas, if you need additional partners. I have been looking as well, I really don't care where, but I would want enough ground where everybody could hunt without bumping into each other, and the pressure wouldn't equal a public hunting area. I would think starting in the 2560@ and up neighborhood. If I turn something up I'll start a post.
 
oldandnew said:
I may have started this 5.00 price per acre talk. I used the value because, I know for a fact, it is the starting point for crp acres enrolled in their WIHA program. If there are mitigating circumstances, such as limited access as to time of year, quality of habitat, etc. the price bid is reduced. But 5.00 per acre is the most and the assumed bid if all is is right. I have no idea what Kansas pays, just by association with what I was told by Nebraska. I personally think that that figure is high. I also know for a fact that ground in Kansas can be leased privately for less. I currently lease 300 acres in NW Missouri, all prarie grass crp surrounded by crop ground for $2.50 cents an acre, and that is also to much, but it's really good too. I would also be interested in lease in Kansas, if you need additional partners. I have been looking as well, I really don't care where, but I would want enough ground where everybody could hunt without bumping into each other, and the pressure wouldn't equal a public hunting area. I would think starting in the 2560@ and up neighborhood. If I turn something up I'll start a post.
Click to expand...

Please do! I'm thinking that 160 acres per person involved and max group sizes of 3,4,5, or 6 may be a good place to start.

We should start another thread b/c if this one gets off track, we may not get to hear any more answers from PD or the other guy he mentioned.
 
Wiha

We've driven from South Georgia every year for the past 10 years to hunt quail. $10, $20, or $30 extra wouldn't stop us. More land to chose from would be great.
The out of state license is cheap - it's just a tank of gas.

Ya'll have a great thing going in Kansas. Keep it up. Improve it.
 
Kansas Brittiany,
I'm sorry that I'm not well informed on the interior workings of the program or the mandays of use it has gotten over time. I work in the Public Lands section of the Fish and Wildlife division and don't get in on the WIHA stuff. Still hoping the Private Lands coordinator chimes in. He can answer all of these questions.
 
Walk-In Payments to KS Landowners

oldandnew said:
I may have started this 5.00 price per acre talk. I used the value because, I know for a fact, it is the starting point for crp acres enrolled in their WIHA program. If there are mitigating circumstances, such as limited access as to time of year, quality of habitat, etc. the price bid is reduced. But 5.00 per acre is the most and the assumed bid if all is is right. I have no idea what Kansas pays, just by association with what I was told by Nebraska. I personally think that that figure is high. I also know for a fact that ground in Kansas can be leased privately for less. I currently lease 300 acres in NW Missouri, all prarie grass crp surrounded by crop ground for $2.50 cents an acre, and that is also to much, but it's really good too. I would also be interested in lease in Kansas, if you need additional partners. I have been looking as well, I really don't care where, but I would want enough ground where everybody could hunt without bumping into each other, and the pressure wouldn't equal a public hunting area. I would think starting in the 2560@ and up neighborhood. If I turn something up I'll start a post.
Click to expand...

I doubt if the KDWP (Kansas) pays $5/acre for any walk-in. Five bucks per acre on average would make the annual Kansas walk-in bill about $6 million. Nebraska has a very small fraction of walk-in acres compared with Kansas, so it may be able to pay $5/acre or more from the budget it gets from the Nebraska legislature.
 
Last edited:
Loss of CRP Correlated to Loss of Walk-In?

kansasbrittany said:
The money we recieve from the govt. is certainly something we don't want to lose.

My ASSUMPTION was that many WIHA acres weren't be re-enrolled b/c there was a lack of $ in some form.
Click to expand...

I think when CRP contracts expire on land enrolled in walk-in, some owners terminate the walk-in because they will again be farming or running stock on the land and they just don't want the hassles that might arise from having hunters on it.
 
Prairie Drifter said:
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!
Click to expand...

PD,
Thank you for your response.What you say makes sense,although I do disagree with some of your statements.First,fescue conversion.If I'm not mistaken,I do believe that there is more native grass CRP and buffer zones then ever before.I do not ever remember walking through native grass fields 25-30 yrs ago.Seems to me,that nesting conditions are alot better now then then.
Next, not real sure what you mean by woodland expansion.Just about and section of land in SEK,has Less timber then there was 30 yrs ago.Regardless,to the best of my knowledge,quail don't really like timber anyway,they will hang out on the edges,but perfer grass,and scrubby land ,as we put it.
Please answer this question,if you can. Why can't you guys bring back the quail farm,that used to be west of Pittsburg ? I know for a fact that the state used to raise several hundred chicks ever year and release them in various locations in SEK.
I truely feel that the habitat is there to support quail,just the fact that the numbers have gotten so low,that the adults can't produce enough chicks to provide a solid increase in the quail population.
Some people blame the turkeys,I really don't believe that.The increase of predetors might have some merit.Coons can eat alot of eggs.Here's another question.30 yrs ago,you would NEVER see any armidillos,now they are every where.Could this have something to do with the decline ?Do the speed bumps eat quail eggs?
If somehow,KDWP could firgure out how to help increase the adult birds and we could get a little help from mother nature,maybe we could have a desent quail population again.
Sorry about the lenght of this post,maybe an all timer for me,but thats just how I feel.
 
GSH lover,
Never worry about the length of the post, the questions need answered for you. Many of these questions have been answered before on this forum. You might read some of the habitat threads in archives. My normal challenge to folks asking the questions you ask and making the statement you've made is: go to the NRCS office and get aerial photos of several sections you hunt. Get them from 2010, 2000, 1990, 1980, and 1970. Then compare habitat type, size, and structure over those decades. You will see significant changes in succession, interspersion of habitat types, and variance in cropping systems. The problem across all of the quail range from east coast to central Kansas is often the same, advanced succession. Timber has matured, grasslands have been converted, crop fields are much larger. KDWP knows what needs to be done. We just don't control the land nor do we have the $ to do the work that needs done. There have been so many changes that figure in. Things so small as households not being run on wood heat and cooking figure in. Things like equipment size, cattle size, changes in use of fire, loss of fencelines, the list goes on and on. ALL of the information concerning stocking of gamebirds gives the same results. That is: 90+% death loss in 30-90 days. Stocking inferior birds into inferior habitat = wasted $. We have to spend out $ on things that work and will provide benefits beyond the year of manipulation. There are books devoted to just this topic, so I can hardly address it properly in a paragraph or two. As for predators, quail and these very same predators have interacted and evolved together for eons. The increase in predators, deer, turkey, and many other species is due to the same habitat changes that are responsible for the quail decline. They go hand-in-hand. Unfortunately, quail are capable of occupying a much narrower ecological niche than several of the species listed. Once the threshold of their adaptation has been exceeded, they will decline. They are a lower successionally adapted species. As you've noted, they don't like mature timber. I forget the exact stats, but the expansion of timber in eastern Kansas is well over 20% since 1980 as I recall. That's significant. Remember too that quail are not big travellers. The increase in field size and decrease in useable habitat size has a significant affect too. It all comes back to programs on PRIVATE land that are beneficial to those land owners. Unless we can make it fiscally beneficial to them, they won't be interested. We have to show them that fescue isn't the boon it was predicted to be. We have to show them how to manage woodlands to provide income and result in improved habitat. We have to show them grazing systems that will improve their ability to profit from cattle with fewer inputs and higher return. There are ways to do this, but they know what they know and find it hard to turn loose of what has worked in the past. The first step is to educate ourselves so that, when the opportunities present themselves, we can provide the information they need to improve their operations to the benefit of their bottom line and our wildlife at the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top