Wiha Tracking/Management

BirdGuy

BirdGuy

Member
I think about this topic often when i hunt a patch of wiha where it looks fairly obvious that its been hunted earlier that day due to finding the covey already flushed and you only get into singles.

Does it make sense to convert more of these tracts into iWIHA limiting the number of hunters per day for the health of the covey and future populations?

Maybe not even taking it that far, but maybe increasing the efficiency of isportsman so that way a hunter can tell if somebody is actively hunting a specific tract and or if its already been hunted that day? Gives that hunter the opportunity to decide if they want to try hunting that patch again that day despite it already being hunted.

Downside, could limit the potential number of tracts to hunt in an area in a specific day. Does it help the remaining bird numbers on that specific tract?

Thoughts?
 
I've been in favor for a while of expanding the iWIHA program to include most, if not all, WIHA and limiting the number of hunters or parties per day based on the carrying capacity of each individual iWIHA. I also think you should have to buy an annual iWIHA pass to hunt Kansas iWIHAs and that the money should be reinvested in the program, especially habitat projects. Ideally your iWIHA pass purchase would allow you to log on to the iWIHA reservation system and access the maps, then you would not be able to log in at another iWIHA until you'd checked out of the first.
 
Last edited:
interesting concept. some of that money could be reinvested into the software/systems used to manage iWIHA as well. I'd imagine that is half the battle right there, simply funding to support a vision like that.

I share similar thoughts to you, it's hard for me to come up with a long list of cons against enrolling more of the ground into iWIHA.
 
Is there an overabundance of decent, huntable upland walk-in already? If so, limiting access to a certain number of parties in each walk-in might be beneficial. I don't believe that is the case, however. I think KS is kinda short on decent, huntable upland walk-in. So if KS limits access how does that affect upland hunters, both Resident and Non-Resident? We've all seen comments on too much hunting pressure here on this board already.

Putting all walk-in in the iWIHA program would probably be just computer keystrokes and signage. Shouldn't really cost that much; some $ but not a budget buster-item. It would be nice if you could tell how many times a walk-in had been hunted.

No need for an annual pass either. The need is for more quality upland public hunting. Just jack the cost of the license or require a Habitat stamp to get more public hunting areas. Didn't KS have a Habitat Stamp in the past? Face it, KS is cheap upland hunting compared to an SD license.

That said, any price increases should actually go to acquiring/improving habitat, not bloating the Pratt bureaucracy or advertising, etc., etc.

Not that ANY of this is going to happen, LOL. KDWP doesn't seem to interested in changing anything at all.
 
Chestle said:
No need for an annual pass either. The need is for more quality upland public hunting. Just jack the cost of the license or require a Habitat stamp to get more public hunting areas.
Click to expand...

Kind of amounts to the same thing, as we both at least would envision it. More money devoted to better habitat. MN has a WIHA stamp you are required to purchase to hunt walk-ins. Same idea, but a more expensive pass for ground that was more intensively managed than the average KS WIHA, which is a pretty low bar. The state could pay landowners to enroll in iWIHA more money and also have a higher bar for enrolling, maybe also help to mitigate some of the negative aspects of WIHA for landowners (litter, driving on WIHAs, disturbing livestock, etc.).

It would also, I would think, help at least alleviate some of the root cause of Kansas's problem with hunting pressure, which is that the Department has to rely on non-resident money for most of its funding, and the only way they can do that is by attracting hunters with the promise of a cheap license for a long season of unlimited access to mostly marginal ground.

Maybe a $50 or $75 iWIHA pass that is good for a limited amount of access, x number of hunts, or y number of days?
 
Chestle said:
Is there an overabundance of decent, huntable upland walk-in already? If so, limiting access to a certain number of parties in each walk-in might be beneficial. I don't believe that is the case, however. I think KS is kinda short on decent, huntable upland walk-in. So if KS limits access how does that affect upland hunters, both Resident and Non-Resident? We've all seen comments on too much hunting pressure here on this board already.

Putting all walk-in in the iWIHA program would probably be just computer keystrokes and signage. Shouldn't really cost that much; some $ but not a budget buster-item. It would be nice if you could tell how many times a walk-in had been hunted.

No need for an annual pass either. The need is for more quality upland public hunting. Just jack the cost of the license or require a Habitat stamp to get more public hunting areas. Didn't KS have a Habitat Stamp in the past? Face it, KS is cheap upland hunting compared to an SD license.

That said, any price increases should actually go to acquiring/improving habitat, not bloating the Pratt bureaucracy or advertising, etc., etc.

Not that ANY of this is going to happen, LOL. KDWP doesn't seem to interested in changing anything at all.
Click to expand...
There is a need for an annual pass, but should be for all state and federal managed land. Have you ever been the MIned Land Wildlife areas in SEK? It is not stop traffic. People camping, partying, mudding, target shooting, dumping trash, etc. An annual pass would be a positive thing to limit traffic of all sorts.
 
I can see a pass for state managed land, much like the KS Parks Pass. I doubt the state can mandate a pass for federal land though.

However, I don't think WIHA is actually managed by the state. Basically, the state pays the landowner what amounts to a trespass fee to allow public hunting access.

As usual, everything comes down to money. If we all want more access to land with better opportunities for upland or other hunting, it's going to cost. Pay a private land trespass fee is one way. Paying the state more money thru higher licenses prices, habitat stamps, WIHA annual passes or anything else is another way.

The private landowner that makes good money from trespass fees is going to ensure he has some good crop strips or cover strips to hold birds and draw the hunters. He has a vested interest in creating good habitat.

The problem with the state is we may give them a huge amount of money for upland habitat improvements but money can siphoned away into management or advertising etc., etc.. I could be a lot more enthusiastic about giving them more money if I saw more being done for upland with the money they get right now.
 
Chestle said:
As usual, everything comes down to money. If we all want more access to land with better opportunities for upland or other hunting, it's going to cost. Pay a private land trespass fee is one way. Paying the state more money thru higher licenses prices, habitat stamps, WIHA annual passes or anything else is another way.

The private landowner that makes good money from trespass fees is going to ensure he has some good crop strips or cover strips to hold birds and draw the hunters. He has a vested interest in creating good habitat.
Click to expand...
Fundamentally I think this is the key in Kansas. Some on here will argue that profit-maximizing ag practices CAN be favorable to pheasants and quail, and that the fundamental issue is education/resistance to change/etc. I think there is some truth to that, but not enough to really move the needle. I believe that there IS substantial conflict between profit-maximizing ag practices and good habitat for pheasants and quail. Under that assumption, a couple solutions are available: pay producers to take land out of production, eg, CRP, etc., and/or, create enough commercial value for pheasants and quail that a landowner/producer can pull land out of production or modify management practices and make up the difference through whatever awful, nasty, commercialization strategy he or she prefers.

A simple approach of just taking land out of production via CRP helps, but we're seeing the limits of it. One of these limits is the political process that impacts the availability of programs, payment rates, bureaucratic red tape, conflicting priorities, etc. Another is natural succession that causes a decline in suitability of habitat over time.

I doubt anyone on here wants to see Kansas turn into SD, with $100+/day trespass fees, pen-raised "early-released" birds marketed as being wild, etc. But some degree of increased commercialization seems to be necessary, at least to me.
 
Chestle said:
I can see a pass for state managed land, much like the KS Parks Pass. I doubt the state can mandate a pass for federal land though.

However, I don't think WIHA is actually managed by the state. Basically, the state pays the landowner what amounts to a trespass fee to allow public hunting access.

As usual, everything comes down to money. If we all want more access to land with better opportunities for upland or other hunting, it's going to cost. Pay a private land trespass fee is one way. Paying the state more money thru higher licenses prices, habitat stamps, WIHA annual passes or anything else is another way.

The private landowner that makes good money from trespass fees is going to ensure he has some good crop strips or cover strips to hold birds and draw the hunters. He has a vested interest in creating good habitat.

The problem with the state is we may give them a huge amount of money for upland habitat improvements but money can siphoned away into management or advertising etc., etc.. I could be a lot more enthusiastic about giving them more money if I saw more being done for upland with the money they get right now.
Click to expand...
I completely concur, I would be willing to bet the average return on a dollar "paid" to the state is .50 cents @ best. While in general people don't like the idea of a trespass fee paid directly to to the land owner by the user is the ideal way to go. Certainly not the most practical though and more money will generally win the day which unfortunately leave many of us on average @ best cover.
 
Again, I doubt KDWP reads any of our posts. If they did, they'd likely ignore the advice. Remember a while back when there was an effort to get a lot of people to make input to the Commissioners prior to a meeting. Lots of suggestions, more input to them than usual I expect and....nada. At best generic replies thanking people for the input. Years later...no changes at all.

That said...maybe a combo of ideas. Make all the walk-in into iWIHA. No fee to hunt it BUT when checking out the hunter could electronically leave a tip so to speak. If it was good habitat the hunter could check a box designating various additional amounts to be paid to the landowner. This would be funded through reserved license fees or even habitat stamp money that would be held in an account and used ONLY to reward landowners that provided good iWIHA habitat. Basically some way to reward those landowners that provide some good cover. A way to give them a vested interest in good habitat.

Yeah, I know. Won't happen either.
 
poor idea, sets up for over regulation and more restrictions. would require the honor system, would lock you in to reserved areas with limited ability to change from day to day. the real problem is this, CRP is vanishing by the day, anything remotely viable is going into row crop production.
over a million acres has come out over the past year alone. the state would be unable to compete with lease money versus what the crop would produce. paying a fee has never increased the hunt quality, only becomes a slush fund for a few boat docks and parking areas for vehicles.
 
Chestle said:
Again, I doubt KDWP reads any of our posts. If they did, they'd likely ignore the advice. Remember a while back when there was an effort to get a lot of people to make input to the Commissioners prior to a meeting. Lots of suggestions, more input to them than usual I expect and....nada. At best generic replies thanking people for the input. Years later...no changes at all.

That said...maybe a combo of ideas. Make all the walk-in into iWIHA. No fee to hunt it BUT when checking out the hunter could electronically leave a tip so to speak. If it was good habitat the hunter could check a box designating various additional amounts to be paid to the landowner. This would be funded through reserved license fees or even habitat stamp money that would be held in an account and used ONLY to reward landowners that provided good iWIHA habitat. Basically some way to reward those landowners that provide some good cover. A way to give them a vested interest in good habitat.

Yeah, I know. Won't happen either.
Click to expand...
most farmers would have little interest in such a program, no hassle, when they break ground and plant row crops, fence row to fence row.
 
matto said:
Fundamentally I think this is the key in Kansas. Some on here will argue that profit-maximizing ag practices CAN be favorable to pheasants and quail, and that the fundamental issue is education/resistance to change/etc. I think there is some truth to that, but not enough to really move the needle. I believe that there IS substantial conflict between profit-maximizing ag practices and good habitat for pheasants and quail. Under that assumption, a couple solutions are available: pay producers to take land out of production, eg, CRP, etc., and/or, create enough commercial value for pheasants and quail that a landowner/producer can pull land out of production or modify management practices and make up the difference through whatever awful, nasty, commercialization strategy he or she prefers.

A simple approach of just taking land out of production via CRP helps, but we're seeing the limits of it. One of these limits is the political process that impacts the availability of programs, payment rates, bureaucratic red tape, conflicting priorities, etc. Another is natural succession that causes a decline in suitability of habitat over time.

I doubt anyone on here wants to see Kansas turn into SD, with $100+/day trespass fees, pen-raised "early-released" birds marketed as being wild, etc. But some degree of increased commercialization seems to be necessary, at least to me.
Click to expand...

That could be one way - the other is a pie in the sky dream of working with mother nature instead of fighting it - however that would cut out profits for large ag companies. (Bayer AG, Pioneer, etc) -- they have too deep of pockets to allow policy changes that will affect their pocketbooks. Grassroots will be the only thing that can help - Realistically the only thing that will awaken people is the brewing environmental disasters -- The draining of the Ogallala will likely be one we see in our lifetimes and will drastically change the western part of the state, if it dont happen in mine it will certainly happen in my sons. Producers know what's coming but I've seen little change -- who knows what the new generation coming up will - could be hope yet.

NE KS is a lost cause - I never hunted here - have tried a couple times since I moved here in 2017 but by talking to many folks it seems it was good just 8-10 yrs ago. Crazy how fast it changed.
 
It might make sense in WIHA's near more populated area's but I don't think it's needed in most places. I mainly hunt in NW KS near Colby where we have an old homestead and usually hunt a couple of WIHA's each day I'm out there. The only time I ever see any other hunters or signs of any other hunters is opening weekend.

In fact I don't think I have ever ran into another hunter on a WIHA in that area besides opening weekend and they were across the road on another plot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top