Kansas license fees to increase
Whitetail Deer
Kansas Wildlife and Parks is considering raising hunting and fishing license fees across the board.
Non-resident deer permits would climb from $315 to $415.
Non-resident hunting permits would climb from $70 to $95.
That would put the fees for a deer hunt at $510.
Any thoughts?
Might thought is that is a lot of $ for a deer. But it is where the world is going , and does not surprise me at all. I am all for funding wildlife and wildlife agencies, but it can become a hard pill to swallow.
That said it would not be the most expensive deer tag/lisc I have ever bought, and I would certainly put down the coin if I had the right ground to hunt. So I guess it probably wouldn't effect me too much other than the principle of sticking it to the NR...
--Jim
As license fees continue to climb, I worry about the impact on families and the ensuing impact on hunting.
Fees have made most NR hunts destination hunts. The expense precludes many from doing a three day weekend hunt with family or friends.
I'm concerned that will erode some of the natural bonds of hunting and accelerate attrition.
But game management needs to be funded. I don't have any brilliant ideas. Family member/resident sponsorship discount? I doubt that'd be complicated to manage.(Ha!)
So, I'm just wishing it were different.
If I were king....
NR license/tag fees would be tied to resident license/tag fees with something in the ballpark of a 10X limit. (i.e. If a resident tag was $30, the most a state could charge for a NR tag would be $300.)
NR's would also not be forced to purchase any additional tags, license, stamps, etc...that are not mandatory for a resident to hunt the same species.
If I were king...
I'd feel better if they raised residents $2 for principality.....:)
Actually it's been a long time coming.You can probably dig up an old post about 10 yrs old where I said that I would charge NR 425/tag only then $100 licence
I think KS offers a quality opportunity over IL but under IA so fees should dictate that.The increase is fair.
Glad to hear it. Maybe it will cut down on all the poorly informed NR that think we have a huge buck on every farm
I'd rather spend just a little more and go chase elk in the mountains for a couple weeks.
The guys that have a spot and the diehard whitetail hunters, they'll continue to come. $100 dollars won't deter them.
I enjoyed my KS hunt last year, enjoyed the buck I killed and was happy to pay for the tag. A 25% increase while steep wouldn't deter me from making the trip and I am happy to say I lucked out an drew a tag for this fall... So I am Kansas bound once again.
In short, NR hunting fees are already extremely high and not reasonable. On the other hand, and I have to tell my wife this all the time, when was the last time you went to buy something and said, wow, I can't believe how cheap it is?
Some have mentioned the impact on family hunts, but really most, not all, but most hunters who are NR, are not into the hunt for a family tradition, etc. Rather most family oriented hunts are done locally in their home state. And before anyone gets upset about this comment, again, I said, most, not all.
In the end, I think a very large percentage will grumble, or not, and anty up the extra cash. My biggest issue, as has already been mentioned, personally, it is more frustrating when I buy a hunting license that is around $400 to $500 when a resident can buy the same license for $12. I believe that the resident hunter should help shoulder a larger percentage of the budget necessary for sustaining a healthy wildlife budget.
If I were King, I would set the NR license cost at no more than double the resident cost.
As far as how it will effect me, I will most likely pay the extra money. I have been hunting Kansas for 12 years and nothing less than a catastrophe would deter my future visits.
Since I moved to Colorado from Oklahoma, Kansas whitetail has taken the place of my annual out of state hunt. This year I did not draw a tag and I have access to quite a bit of private ground in the last two years. I'll pay that amount to hunt there as long as they still offer the antlerless tag as well. If the price increases again, I'll start looking to secure an opening on a lease back in Oklahoma with some of my friends (EmbryOklahoma & JTreeman) or I'll hunt Eastern Wyoming for whitetails. I'll have just as good a chance at killing a PNY in Oklahoma as I would in Kansas.
My take, seems to be the rage these days.
I drew this year, and agree, if they include the doe license with that cost it's like a bad pill, you can swallow it knowing things will be better in the end.
Pretty funny that hunting deer in KS is about the same as an elk tag in CO. Just doesn't seem right.
In the end, it would be nice to know what the states do with this extra cash. Seems like more government waste to me.
I have yet to see and Oklahoman come to KS and take a buck he couldn't have shot in the suburbs of OKC. Booners are rarer in KS as they ever have been
A couple years ago when gas prices were $4.00 per gallon there was a thread asking guys if they would reconsider going on long hunts due to added costs. This is a similar question in that with every thing else we expend from time, energy and money this is a small part of the pie! I'm in!
Bring it on and raise the residents rates as well. It's all for a good cause:)
I still get my statewide tag for $11 due to the resident landowner discount
I qualify for the landowner, but just pay the regular resident rates.
Then again, my employer buys most of my permits and licenses. :-)
Thanks for the responses, guys.
Thanks for your hospitality, Thornton. That's the attitude I expect from A KS resident that keeps me coming back.
For the record, in my travels hunting in Kansas I have met a bunch of awful nice people. I have never met Thorton though......
I am glad they are looking to raise prices. One more thing off the list to improve Kansas hunting. Now to lobby for smaller hunting units that can be managed better and a little harder to draw for some to create some really good regions.
I think it should be a reciprocating fee. Maybe add 10% to the cost of the non-residents states license fee. Illinois has gotten crazy high as well. Ohio and Indiana still have the best bang for the buck as far as good hunting and good deer as well. Shawn
I'm all for limiting NR tags. Would be fine with every 3 years or so type odds. I come there too see some farmer friends and hunt. We also help around their place during wheat harvest in the summer. I'll be heading out there next summer (tag or no tag) to help with wheat harvest.
As long as tags are available I'll continue to hunt, visit friends and piss residents like Thornton off.
For the record, more NR does not affect me killing a large buck. I live here, and hunt approx. 25-40 + days a year and I always shoot a nice one. I own my primary hunting property and have family than owns even more. I have assisted several NR bowsiters on here and gave up my best hunting spots on public land near where I shot my biggest, a 164". These guys hunted 3 years in a row on public and some private they gained permission on. They all went home empty handed. One wounded a buck, another missed, and they all saw small bucks. My comments on here have been nothing more than years of observation mixed with opinion. If you cannot take something as slight as I have said, then maybe you should go hang out at Bed Bath and Beyond or perhaps take up yoga.
Makes my purchase of a lifetime license when I lived in Kansas (Left in 1988) look even better. Turned out to be one of my better investments especially since a Kansas resident friend and I purchased a chunk of land about ten years ago.
Good for you, Thornton. I'm glad it does not effect you or your hunting. Guys like myself and others that I know that do not pay for outfitters or leases that upend residents from places they have hunted for years. That's the real point of the issue for Ks residents and I can sympathize.
Just don't point your distaste for the non-resident hunter influx at guys like me when it's your own state leadership that should receive the blame. As for the "pointed" Oklahoma comments, I wouldn't expect anything less from a Jayhawk.
For the record, I only go to Bed, Bath and Beyond during the semi-annual sales.
Who the hell said he was a Jayhawk?
Now that hurts!
Aaron, a respectful request for an explanation of? -
"Just don't point your distaste for the non-resident hunter influx at guys like me when it's your own state leadership "
Thanks
Everyone in Kansas is a Jayhawk fan when basketball season comes around. Then they are a Wildcat fan when football Season rolls around. Duh. :)
Sorry. Wildcat? Shocker? Friends University Falcon? LOL... sorry, no offense. I'm an Oklahoma State guy so fire away....
I'm assuming Government leadership at some level is approving increased tag quotas, correct? I'm not familiar with the in's and outs of like you would be, Michael. If I'm off base here please educate me.
My point is that the high numbers of tags allowed it all but guarantees outfitters and groups of guys that lease land tags every year. It seems like those are the guys that would be a burden to residents who have hunted areas for long periods of time then lose their places because the landowner is just unable to turn away from the money. That's the heartburn I've heard in the past anyway.
That said, I'm not leasing land in Kansas. Never have and most likely never will. I hunt on a farmer friend, a couple of others by knocking on doors and some WIHA's. A couple of the places I hunt I'm not the only one that has permission. I respect those guys and if they want to hunt the area I would simply go to another location. Nobody is losing a spot to hunt because I'm there, that's my point.
By the way, enjoy our guy that you have as a head coach. The only opposing coach I have ever seen get a standing ovation at Gallagher-Iba arena. That and T-Boone's money couldn't pull him away. Maybe someday...
Do u guys ever stop to think about the AVG hunter in the USA not all can afford tags on this price scale. A father wants to take his kid to KS over a grand just in tags , when will it stop u guys saying well it funds wildlife i say BS ,these agencies cry wolf take more and do less .
Embry - described my wife and I perfectly. Hard to not respect Bill and what he's done at KSU. (Way too many Wildcat fans can't pull for the Jayhawks, though.)
Aaron - thanks for the explanation. I wasn't judging your previous response, just wanted to make sure I understood it as you intended. Now I do, thanks...and thanks for Bill Self, too. No, you can't have him back.
But hey, Eddie Sutton was a native Kansan, so...
City - point well made. Technically, youth get some big discounts in Kansas and many states. Nebraska almost gives away permits to out-of-state youth. Still, what it costs for two to do a Kansas deer hunt would by quite a few books when that kid goes to college.
Some of the resident fees they're wanting to increase haven't risen in about 30 years.
Most serious resident hunters would gladly pay a bit more if it got more game wardens afield, and/or, got better pay and conditions for all agency field people. Probably wouldn't happen, though, because the department budget has to be approved by the legislature.
Even though KDWPT is funded by fees, and not state general fund money, they don't want agency workers to get a raise if the state can't give the same to their employees.
Kansas and Oklahoma are Red States. Thank you very much!
Thorton you couldn't slight me if you tried. Thankfully your attidtude toward non resident hunters isn't indicative of most the KS hunters and residents I have met. I guess that shows how rare and special you are. We are all very fortunate for that. Hopefully you find that your distain is not often mirrored by others if you ever find yourself as non resident hunting another state or country.
Too many state game agencies look at the non-resident hunter the same way a stripper looks at a business man walking into a Gentleman's Club...a walking ATM machine that can be fleeced. When agencies are short on cash it is far easier to raise the cost of non-resident licenses because complaints will be fewer and less-loud than if they try to raise resident license fees. Agencies should tie resident license fees to non-resident license fees so that when more funds are needed the license costs go up proportionally for all.
Michael, Eddie May of been a KS native but he was smart enough to leave and obtain his higher education in Stillwater.:^)
Aaron,
When Eddie moved to Oklahoma the average IQ in both states sky-rocketed! :-)
Thornton
"I still get my statewide tag for $11 due to the resident landowner discount"
I'm confused, please indicate where you buy a landowner tag for $11 and please show me were it is valid statewide. To my knowledge, it is ONLY valid on your own property. which i highly doubt is statewide.
Price list as posted by kdwpt
Resident Any-Season White-tailed Deer permit (white-tailed deer buck, doe or fawn
$32.50 General residents $17.50 Landowner $17.50 Tenants $12.50 Youth 15 and Younger Resident Any-season White-tailed Deer permits are valid statewide in any season, provided legal equipment is used for that season. Available Aug. 3 - Dec. 31.
This sounds like you are deer hunting wiha, with a landowner/tenant tag, which to my knowledge is illegal. If i'm wrong, someone please clarify
"For the record, more NR does not affect me killing a large buck. I live here, and hunt approx. 25-40 + days a year and I always shoot a nice one. I own my primary hunting property and have family than owns even more. I have assisted several NR bowsiters on here and ""gave up my best hunting spots on public land"" near where I shot my biggest, a 164"."
fwiw, the state is looking to raise the fees across the board for all hunting, from licenses to tags, turkeys, deer, fishing, etc,..for both residents and non residents. To the tune of about an additional $6 million.
I do wish they would get a lot more selective with the wiha property they lease. There are many properties which they lease merely because the landowner says take it all or none of it. For example, a 320a pasture with a few scrubby cedars and a few osage orange and its open for spring turkey hunting. i have never, ever seen a turkey on the place.
Current NR tag fees
$116.34 Nonresident Youth White-tailed Deer Permit (youth 15 and younger)
$346.96 Nonresident White-tailed Deer Permit Fee (16 and older)
$77.50 Nonresident Hunt-Own-Land Deer Permit (available over the counter and online)
Current NR hunting license fees
Nonresident: $72.50
Nonresident under 16: $37.50
A father and son currently would pay $573.30, far from the $1000+ speculation even with the increase
The state has turned into the largest outfitter in Ks, leasing near or over 1.2 million acres, paying up to $6 per acre, with ZERO conservation or management on these properties. I wish they would implement some form of management to them, rather than the free for all that goes on, especially once bird season opens.
I'm sure with an additional $6,000,000 in revenue, they will continue to lease more property in the name of opportunity.
Z -Landowner permits are not tied to that piece of property. It's simply a price break for landowners because they control 97 percent of the land in Kansas, and "feed" the wildlife.
Interesting idea about managing habitat on WIHA, but who is going to do the work?
District biologists, of which there are too few?
The landowner? That's a great way to lose access to the lands.
I need further clarification writer,.. I see the word "ONLY"
Please read the last few lines, about Hunt Own Land Permit
Schedule A - Choices for General Resident Deer Permits By Drawing only: 2015 Resident Either-species/Either-sex Firearms Deer Permit Application Deadline: July 10, 2015
There will be no paper applications or mail in forms for 2015. All draw applications will need to be submitted thru the online application process.
Applicants must apply online from June 8 thru July 10, 2015 or apply by phone 620-672-0728.
All fees listed below will have an internet convenience fee added at time of applying online for a permit or preference point.
Resident Firearm Either-species/Either-sex Firearms Deer permit (white-tailed or mule deer buck, doe or fawn)
$37.50 General residents; $22.50 Landowner $22.50 Tenant $22.50 Manager $17.50 Youth 15 and younger. Firearms Either-species/Either-sex Firearms Deer * Permits are valid either in the east unit (3, 4, 5, 7, 16) or the west unit (1, 2, 17, 18) during the regular firearms season using any legal equipment.
$6.50 Preference Point * A resident hunter who does not want to hunt in the current year season can purchase a preference point that will count toward a firearm either species, either sex deer permit in a future drawing.
For purchase over-the-counter or online for 2015 season:
Resident Any-Season White-tailed Deer permit (white-tailed deer buck, doe or faw)
$32.50 General residents $17.50 Landowner $17.50 Tenants $12.50 Youth 15 and Younger Resident Any-season White-tailed Deer permits are valid statewide in any season, provided legal equipment is used for that season. Available Aug. 3 - Dec. 31.
Resident Archery Either-species/Either-sex Deer permit (white-tailed or mule deer buck, doe or fawn)
$32.50 General residents $17.50 Landowner $17.50 Tenants $12.50 Youth 15 and Younger Resident Archery Either-species/Either-sex Deer permits are valid statewide with archery equipment only during archery season. Available Aug. 3 - Dec. 31
Resident Muzzleloader Either-species/Either-sex Deer permit (white-tailed or mule deer buck, doe or fawn)
$32.50 General residents $17.50 Landowner $17.50 Tenants $12.50 Youth 15 and Younger Resident Muzzleloader Either-species/Either-sex Deer permits are valid either in the east unit (3, 4, 5, 7, 16) or the west unit (1, 2, 17, 18) during the early muzzleloader season and the regular firearm season using muzzleloading equipment only. Available Aug. 3 - Dec. 31
Hunt-Own-Land Deer Permit
$17.50 Resident Landowner $17.50 Tenant Available to individuals who qualify as residents landowners, including family members living with the landowner or tenant. Permit valid for any white-tailed or mule deer "only" on land owned or operated by landowner or tenant during muzzleloader-only, archery, and firearm seasons using equipment legal for that season. Available Aug. 3 - Dec. 31
Hunt Own Land Permits and Landowner permits are two different things.
Thorton is getting a landowner permit because of his farm. My best friend ranches 9,000 acres, farms another 6,000 or so, but still gets the landowner archery so he can hunt other places where he has permission. He gets a price break, but has to follow the same regulations I do, and you do.
Note the Hunt Own Land permits allow the taking of a mule deer, with whatever weapon is legal at that time, but only on the "owned" land.
Call 620-672-5911 ask for licensing, or information.
Gotchya, thanks for the clarification
Don't know how but I double posted....
It seems to me that the states do a lot more experimentation with pushing the limits of NR tag prices to see how much people will spend than they do experimentation with cutting costs.
We all want the mgmt and poachers nailed, etc, but these are still government agencies, and as such, need to have their hands held to the fire as far as costs are concerned as waste is the rule and efficiency the exception in all government.
Additionally, it's my opinion, but I think it's crap when NR prices are raised without residents sharing part of the burden. This runaway method of funding is not sustainable, much less fair. In my home state, resident prices increase every year.
I think all opportunity and pricing should be the same for every US citizen on any federal land. <1% of KS. Otherwise, pay the price or don't. Up to you.
Resident rates are scheduled to increase, too...and they're quite a bit more than the resident rates in most states.
Richard, I'm shocked! :-)
Ten to twenty years ago about the only game people on a large scale would go out of state to hunt were Elk and Mule Deer. I do not see any point in taking my kid to deer hunt anywhere else but home. He has asked to hunt Alaska if he finishes all four years of high school with a 4.0 GPA and I agreed to that. So I do not see an argument of oh I can't take my kid to Kansas. Understand these prices will need to keep going up until demand is left. If your to cheap you sell out every year thus leaving cash on the table. Also for every 25% increase you make you would need a decrease to effect revenue and at every state agency it is always about revenue. Smaller units will shuffle hunters around more thus alievating some of the leasing issues and maybe help the state aquire more ground. Hard for a NR to lease a place that he/she may not get to hunt but every three or four years.
When are we going to argue about health insurance costs going up? EVERY YEAR!! LOL!
[Just in case you fall out of your tree stand in Kansas]
Double the price and sell half as many every year. There's a recipe for better trophy hunting. :)
I like that! It's the only way they can assure they aren't overloaded by non-resident hunters. I like it a lot better than draw only which is coming.
If you are saying they are going to no longer sell left over tags to fill the quota, Im all for it. Have been for years. If the demand for a unit doesnt exist during the initial draw, there shouldnt be any left overs, after a couple of years of leftovers, the tag quota for that unit should be lowered to meet demand.
Writer hit on a point that no one else seems to have considered. A non land owning R hunter in KS is paying more for a deer permit than most any other state I am aware of. It is 30.00 and has been for as long as I can remember. 1970? I remember other states being 10.00 or even less when Ks was 30.
I would like to see all buck permits prices sharply increased and also on a draw.
One of the issues that we as hunters do not often consider is the pressure to draw the NR hunters is not so much about the permit price as it is the theoretical amount spent by the NR once they arrive. (I think this number is grossly inflated but that is another topic.)
There is a reason KDWP was changed to KDWPT.
Sorry but it seems to me that all the outfitters leasing up the land is the problem for folks in Kansas and the guys who can afford $4500 for a guided hunt will cough up another 100 for a non-resident tag easily. I myself am going to Kansas this year and hunting public land and walk in areas and actually a bit of private ground. The cost is getting crazy for a NR tag and hurts guys like me, who may be able to afford a guided hunt but refuse to pay those high prices. I am going for 20 days or so and my total cost will be about 2 grand including a room for 16 of those days. Tenting it the other days. If I have a good hunt, I will return even if they rip me off for another 100 bucks. As I said, I feel it should cost me what it does for a NR to hunt my state. I also agree that it should be harder to draw a tag. I would rather get a tag every 3 years and have a quality hunt than draw every year and settle for a so-so hunt. Again, I don't believe it is the NR's hurting the hunting as much as the outfitters and the KDWPT not managing things so well. I know are DEC does a lousy job managing our herd as well. Shawn
Im sure you would love to hunt ks for $140,..I dont believe NY is anywhere near the midwest, nor does it contain the quality of bucks which reside in Ks. otherwise, you wouldnt be coming here.
This yr, there were 21816 nr whitetail tags and 210 mule deer nr tags, so 22026 total nr hunters that get to hunt Kansas.
I would estimate that 50% of them actually hunt with a guide or outfitter, the other 50% are either diy public (state leased/owned property), have a landowner friend, or have their own Ks lease, or they are a nr landowner/tenant. I think your blaming outfitters is skewed.
In 4 short years, ks has gone from 8612 nr bow hunters to having 11860 this year. many of which are bringing xguns now that the state allows them. The state also just received a $2.7 mil grant, they plan to lease and ruin another 40,000 to 60,000 private acres,..leasing more land will let them open the door to more nr hunters in their quota.
The state has done nothing for conservation or management. Besides become much more liberal with every thing from seasons, weapons, etc,.plus the 1.2 million public acres and expanding. NR hunters are having an impact, as the state has continually thru the years added more and more NR hunters to their quota,..this being the 1st time they have ever actually reduced numbers, by 210 i believe. NR deer hunter numbers used to actually be zero. So yes, having 22000 of them does make a difference.
IF you want to kill a big mature buck, the best places are on Private managed properties, away from wiha and public access. Not saying a few bucks dont get big on public. Some guides do have fines for shooting say below 130 class bucks, management which the state doesnt do,..actually, the state doesnt manage the wiha or public land at all, they just lease it and let any number of hunters kill any number of everything they legally can.
Yeah, i am a guide, and your $4500 quote is also wrong. Youre just reaching for a number that is very high with some guides, and very low with others,..nor does it take $4500 to be some magical great hunt.
Weapon technology, clothing, scent control, stands, blinds, decoys, bait, you name it, its all made killing deer much easier, not to mention now the nr hunter also has 2 tags.
NR hunters are not just leasing ks, they are buying it, which also hurts locals,..locals have HAD to start leasing also,. There is a much bigger picture than what you describe.
Ks used to be littered with thousands of small farmer/landowners,..now you have large corporate farms owning thousands of acres, and yes, each time they buy a property, they gain control, they may or may not allow hunting, they may wish to lease it to help pay for it or its taxes.
Urban sprawl, it has swallowed countless thousands of former amazing whitetail properties,..again,..squeezing hunters to fight for the places they can still hunt,...wind farms,..highways,..etc, all do the same.
100's if not thousands of miles of hedgerows and windbreaks along with other treelots have been bulldozed also removing thousands of acres of habitat for not just deer, but also pheasants, quail, and any number of other critters., crowding hunters even further
Not sure where you are going in Ks, but good luck with your hunt, theres a lot of friendly people in ks, knock on a few doors while you are here and you may find yourself a great piece of private property to hunt.
Might i add, its funny, cuomo reduced hunter fees for everyone in new york, including for nr hunters in the name of tourism,..why cant he be our gov??
Well said Z hunter. I miss the lands I used to be able to hunt before the NR invasion. People point out I hunt other states which is true. But those western states have hundreds of thousands of Nat'l forest that has always been open to NR hunting.
City got it right. These funds aren't going to purchase lands, fund habitat, etc... they are going to be wasted like all government money. Therefore, where is the help these fees are supposed to provide? I know it just started but, you'll see no increase in wildlife or hunting due to them.
And, when the dumbtards that think hunters need to be the only group to finance the states animal management agencies, see's how this will affect participation, they'll get the hint. When is this raping going to stop? I imagine when participation gets so low that no one will come and finance the small business and economies that depend on hunting dollars for living revenue.
BTW, Idlly got it right as well.
Just my rant. God Bless
Zhunter, you must realize if your are an outfitter that I was giving a hunters total cost. I know most 5-6 day bow hunts are $2750-to $3500, so say three grand. Now add 400-500 for license and tags. Than add another 500 or more for airfare or even if driving from say(New York)than add in a few meals that are not provided and $4500 is darn close. I say this as I know several guys who have driven out and all said and done their cost was right around $4500. One did shoot a 183" gross buck just this past Nov. in Cloud county, I think!(If that is a county out there?( LOL!) I am not disagreeing with you on really anything you said, I just think the costs of licenses and tags is getting out of hand. If the money was going to improve the hunting or even doing studies to see what would help the deer herd. I would not care or as writer said pay these guys better. The biologist and wildlife guy I have been speaking to have been a huge help. By the way we have close to 6 million acres of public hunting, but our DEC does a terrible job, just as most seem to do at managing our deer herds. I myself am hunting NW Kansas(units 1 and 3) I have a room in Norton for 16 days and am gonna camp another 4 days or so. I am also bringing my Llwellen Setter(Mollie)and hope to hunt pheasant for a couple days as well. I have no illusions of shooting a giant out there, actually probably have a much better chance right here at home of killing a good buck but I am interested in the experience and just want to see your great state. I have found some great looking walk-in areas but I am concerned about other hunters, the biologist I am talking with said I should not be as mid-week he said there should not be a lot of pressure and also said if I know what I am doing, I should get into some good deer. So I think I am in good shape but time will tell! Have Fun! Shawn
I saw the big increases in hunters when outfitters started moving in ... crossbows had zero impact, in fact I've never seen one being used in KS
Always compounds (except the man I hunt with and when I used a recurve)
Amazing how much some of you guys know about Kansas, when at most you've been here a week or two per year.
Now,what would you like for me to tell you about elk hunting in Arizona. I went once, back in 2001. I've got it all figured out. :-)
Writer, I get what you are saying. As a resident you obviously have a better understanding of what is going on there than any NR. But, I can say undoubtedly that in the 12 years I have hunted there things have changed tremendously and it hasn't been for the better. Though I would hate to be denied the opportunity to hunt Kansas each year, I can easily understand the frustrations of the lifelong resident avid hunter. Unfortunately there is no perfect answer that will make everyone happy.
I've never hunted Kansas, which shocks and shames me, as I only live about 50 miles from the border.
Last couple years I've put a toe in and made some efforts to find a lease, without success. . .
I would have zero problem paying the increased rate if I had a quality place to hunt. That's still less than any elk tag I could buy
One of these days I'll find a decent place to hunt, and I'll have zero problem with the increase.
Bake
This is what I got from your last post writer.
As long as you are in favor of the fee increase, things are great. If not, you are too stupid to know the value of this opportunity.
According to Thornton, R.Hale, and most Kansas residents posting, this is long over due because non resident tags have ruined their hunting.
And, Some will pay and some won't.
If you only wanted resident opinions, you should have posted it in the Kansas forums. God Bless
The famous term if I were King.
#1. Keep the 18 hunting Units but have 53 permitted areas within the 18. You might always draw your Unit but not always a certain permitted area. In theory this would open up vast amounts of hunting property that is now leased by NR and Residents alike. Landowners and their immediate family would of course draw their area if in agricultural production of 80 acres or more (with a limit of buck tags per 80 acres owned) #No more cousins, Uncles, they can buy a full priced tag from the Draw.
#2 Have a Mule stamp for Residents as of right now they have no idea how many players are in that game. I see from a hunters standpoint it has gone up 10 fold. I now see 10 guys when there was only 1.
#3 Youth Season moved to the Week of Thanksgiving Wed-Sunday)
#4 Muzzle Loader season moved to directly after Rifle Season (to many guys riding around with a Muzzle Loader Any Deer tag and and a rifle for their doe with a rifle right next to them. Hunters are not allowed to have both the Any deer Muzzle Loader Tag and Rifle within reach at the same time.).
#5 Enlist a e-check system mandatory before another tag or hunting license can be purchased (they make an App for that you know)
#6 Cased and Unloaded at all times (most Western states have this law why not Kansas)
#7 No use of trail cameras after August 15th. No food plots or bait of any type ( I even grow plots and have a poultry feeder but we need as hunters to give this crutch up)
#8 Outfitters need to be permitted and must decree their leased acres and pay sales tax on those acres. They must also go through an Ethics class with their guides and have some sort of First Aid Training. Restaurants and all other establishments that serve people have to do this why not Outfitters.
#9 Kansas needs to buy more ground in acreages of 40 acres or more (funds these new chunks by Special permits to hunt the area $2-5 per person per area per day) Open up more River access points and charge special fees for that as well. People have the money in small amounts and are willing to pay for recreation.
#10 We have commissioners but why not have a panel of regular Joes that the commission can propose things to as well and get natural feedback.
If I were King, and instituted these items my coffers would be full, Wardens of Wildlife Plentiful and the people happy. Only if...
It is on the Kansas forum, WV.
The point I was making is that few know the financial shape of our agency, or the desperate (not an exaggerated term) lack of game wardens.
An area the size of Connecticut with TWO game wardens and we have some of the most fertile poaching grounds in the nation?
Few, even residents, realize how tightly our biologists have their hands tied by a legislature that wants to eradicate all does, but promote high-dollar trophy hunting so outfitters and landowners can make a lot of money.
The same legislature won't allow the department to buy more public land, or even accept if it is gifted to the agency.
I've been covering this agency for 34 years, at varying levels, and never has it been so complicated and screwed up in some important areas.
Richard is a good friend, but we don't agree on everything.
I like Jason, and respect what he's accomplished in his young life. But we don't agree with everything, either.
Justin,
Since when are the big game forums closed to the residents of the state in question? Are residents of a state somehow less knowledgeable about what goes on in the state than NR one week per year hunters? Or, is their opinion just less valid?
Not sure where you see above that I stated my hunting is ruined??
People who come to Kansas from out of state today have no idea what it was like prior to the NR sell out.
I myself like to read the state forums and try and get a feel how the residents of those different states feel about hunting issues. The one common theme in most if not all of those state forums is what a lousy job the state does at managing their deer herds. I for one have never hunted Kansas but have done hundreds of hours of research trying to get a feel for the states deer herd and how the different parts of the state are hunted. I chose NW Kansas and a bunch of my friend who have hunted Kansas tell me I am nuts. As I said I have done my research and for me and the type of hunt I am doing, I thought it offered me the best chance at a good buck. Several reasons, less pressure(hopefully?)quite a bit of walk in areas as well as some good wildlife areas and the fact I was told in that part of the state landowners may be more receptive to someone knocking on their door as, although land is being leased more and more it is no where near as bad as other parts of the state. Also it appears that I can cover a lot of ground with a good spotting scope and aerial photos. I also will say that people(at least me)do have an idea of how Kansas was before the NR sell out and can honestly say I feel for you folks. This is true of a lot of states due to the great hunting and the media outlets. Today when big deer are killed anywhere it is on the internet in most cases within a few days and people come out of the wood work looking for spots to hunt where all these big deer are coming from. As I said earlier, I hope for you Kansans as well as some of us NR's that they do change the system and make it harder to draw a tag and reduce the numbers of tags available. This may not be a cure all but it would help in my opinion. Have Fun! Shawn
R.Hale, understand the sarcasm that came from that post. I can accept that no one understands the selling out you speak of, better than the residents that live there. But, understand that the sarcasm came from the same insinuation you made your last post, about the nonresident being the problem.
FWIW, I didn't express my opinion on Kansas deer hunting. I expressed it on the fee increase. Two entirely different things. This isn't the only thread I have done so on. I do it because it confuses me why the idea that increased license and tag fees will fix the problems plaguing hunting. It never has and, never will.
If you don't want to come here that suits me. If you do, come on. We have been dealing with selling out to the nonresident a lot longer than Kansas. The largest bow only hunting area in this country, dominated by public hunting ground, cheap hunting fees, and all the land you could walk in 10 years. No fear sharing the love here. Free room and board too.
What I did say is the money wouldn't increase hunting opportunity's because increased state fees never do that when the wildlife division has to share interest with parks and tourism. It is only an excuse to raise money to find another home for hunters dollars.
And, I read a whole thread, on a Big game forum, where a person could sense the resentment of the nonresident, by the resident hunter in Kansas, that included NONRESIDENT in the title. I may have misunderstood writer but, I didn't misunderstand any of that in this thread or, in any other about Kansas deer hunting. I may not live there but, I liked the idea possibly hunting it one day.
R. Hale, I mean this with respect but in comparison, it should go without saying that if you post a topic on a forum for discussion, that is what you are going to get. While no nonresident will understand the way things were, we don't care either.
I won't address the Islam comparison. It was classless. But, I say God Bless because even if we don't see eye to eye, we are just talking. There is no harm in disagreement. And, there is no reason you can't wish God's best to someone that may not agree with you. It is just deer hunting. Not life and death. God Bless
Wv, you just said in one line what most residents think "They just don't care". They don't care who they tresspass on, they don't care who they poach on, the don't give a goshdarn rats ass if the ruin my sons hunt on private property as long as they get what they came here for.
Wow, has this ever gotten off topic.
Imagine that, on Bowsite. :-)
Thanks to those who gave thoughtful responses.
Special thanks for those who consented to interviews.
Matte - you get those kinds of people regardless if they're resident of non-resident ..... in Arkansas, people come for the duck hunting and its the same stories told of non-residents that are told in Colorado elk hunting, Wyoming pronghorn hunting and Kansas whitetail hunting.
It sucks
It sucks...and much of the time it's the residents that are creating most of the problems, blamed on others.
Well that maybe true. My point was, we need change the attitudes for all hunters to care regardless of state.
writer - I disagree
when your hunting area, where maybe you were born and raised, where you taught your kids to hunt, where you know all the farmers and landowners by name etc is slowly turned into a place where a ranch is leased here, a farm leased there, creekbottoms leased by outfitters who are there for 3-5 years to exploit the deer populations and then they go to the next whitetail hot spot ...
man its hard to blame residents isn't it ?
and I'm one of the non-res that come out ... I'm invited by some great men to come hunt with them and I know how lucky I am and I try to be as appreciative as I can be ... why everyone who goes can't be I do not understand.
I will say I'll not pay an outfitter - ever. I got no problem slipping the landowner something and sending a Christmas gift, leaving a bottle of whiskey behind etc - that's the very least I can do but the exploitation of outfitters ... I've grown to dislike them all.
feline- I disagree. That might be the case in Wyoming or Colorado if you are talking to a 100 year old. Many of those western states have always catered to the NR hunter. After all, the oldest Nat'l forest in CO was established in 1919. KS held out until the 90's before NR were allowed to deer hunt. I have a friend whose family has resided near Delta and Hotchkiss Colorado since the 1800's. They homesteaded the area of Crystal Creek and have photos of NR friends hunting with them when photos were still black and white
I will add that it is hard to blame residents because without the deep pockets of NR, resident landowners would not lease.
Kitty, it may be in a different form than Kansas, but that happens where I am from all the time. Only it is housing developments and soccer fields and huge blow up stadiums to play sports in. I am very lucky where I live as I can walk out my back door and once I clear the little south Albany airport I can hunt, well actually I hunt the airport as well. Now as Writer said this has gotten off topic so I will say again, I feel the increases would be justified if the money went to the right programs, give the people who do all the ground work a raise, add personnel so they can get a grip on some of the poaching that is seems so prevalent and actually figure out to manage the deer herds and other wildlife so that it is good for everyone, the residents and non-residents as well. Shawn
this was about fee increase didn't take long to derail !!
Question when will enough be enough some have said well it goes to conservation blah blah blah u guys need wake up! I call bullshit If its about conservation then all hunters RES and NONRES need to have a increase .
serious when is enough ENOUGH ? some on here are so out of touch with the avg american hunter. Many hunters cannot afford these non res tag fees , but many on here like the fee increase, gives them a edge on those that cant or refuse to pay .
KS is selling tags faster then they can print them .They are testing the waters to see what guys will pay. Sad these fees bounce so many hunters out of the game ,, OHH yea we are all suppose to stand together against the antis haha . The avg american hunter just had his hunting privileges yanked in KS.
It bothers me when i talk to guys about hunting out of state and they reply i wish cant afford it , these are hard working people ,whitetail deer suppose to be a poor mans hunt .
Mark my words fee increase will promote poaching! guys buying tags on OK / party hunting and all sorts of BS
Stealthy....a heck, never mind.
City Hunter agreed. I am spending under 2 grand to hunt Kansas for 20 days this year so spread out not to bad, but if I was only going for 8-10 days it would not be worth my $500 in tags and license. I also believe that like a my state, a lot of the poaching is residents as well as non-residents. I know we have had a bunch of 160-180" deer killed here in NY by poachers the last few years and even a couple 220" deer and most have been poached by New Yorkers. I am hoping to make Kansas a yearly hunt if this year works out but if the fees get any higher I will not be able to afford it. Shawn
Being from Kansas I see this all differently. I recently went to an auction of 16 wooded acres and an old farm house looking for a place to nurture and retire. By local standards it was worth about 70K. A lawyer representing an out of state hunting (California?) ran two of us up to 87K. I think he would have gone up to 150 or more. He showed no signs of stopping. This scenario is has played itself out an unsettling number of times in our area lately. There is no intent to live there or to nurture the property. Average locals cannot complete with the money. Maintaining rural population and keeping agriculture viable is a problem as is. I hope I can find a country home suitable soon. Rural locals are organizing against this sort of thing. Wonder if anyone has a response.
I really don't see much difference than if a local farmer would have bought it. The first thing he would have done was bulldoze the house and all the habitat to add it to his continuous 10, 000 acres of land with not one inche of habitat.
At least if a nonresident buys it for hunting it will have habitat for wildlife.
For the record I don't agree with either scenario but it is reality. Grab what you can when you can cause the world will never stop changing.
Plain and simple......Money talks ! Friend of mine just leased SOME of his hunting ground to 4 guys from out of state, they will be there for rifle season only, $40,000 for the season.
Doesn't seem like that long ago Kansas managed their wildlife with zero nonresident deer revenue. Was the hunting better or worse before they had this money?
Money does speak, but to many of us it's not about that any more. It's about who intends to nurture. Money wins. The wealthy can exploit property, people, and nature itself to serve themselves with no regard. Those of you reading this are not of those. The politicians in this state who are exploiting you are no better. I don't know the answer, but when a craze like this keeps growing, it has unintended consequences, collateral damage that you dont see unless you're here.
All the "bunny huggers" need to do is sit back and wait. The state governments, outfitters and landowners, as-well-as hunters themselves (for paying the outrageous gambling fees) are destroying hunting from within. Like Europe, we hunting has become a rich man's sport. Young hunter recruitment? How the heck is a kid supposed to get into hunting when he needs to pay $1k for a gun, 500.00 for a scope, $40.00 for ammo, $1200.00 for hunt clothes, $6k for a hunting lease and $510.00 for a single tag? It has become increasingly difficult to find a place to hunt that isn't leased even in the midwest. Nobody cares about recruitment or our hunting heritage... they only are about the mighty dollar.
My friend is a 3rd generation Kansas rancher with many sections of land, rolling hills , river bottoms, shelter belts and ag fields. His family has hunted for ever and they all have big, big bucks hanging on their walls but now days they seem to have lost interest in hunting with everything else they have going on and when some guys call and offer enough money to them for the use of their land and they don't have to do a thing but open the gates (self guided DIY) it would be hard to turn that down. Their cattle are still going to graze their land , they will still grow their wheat and corn and go about their daily life all through hunting season only with an easy , extra $40,000 in the bank for letting 4 guys hunt it for 2 weeks.
Manitou1, that is funny. A kid can buy a used recurve for 100 bucks, some broadheads and arrow and have 250 total invested. Camo is over rated and there is a lot of public land in most states. I can hunt 3 weeks in Kansas for about 100 bucks a day and that includes tag, gas and all. It may get the way you say, but not in my childrens' lifetime. jdee that is not realistic!! That is 10 grand a piece to hunt for 2 weeks. If people are paying that, they need their head examined. I understand it is not good, but it is no where near as bad as people are making it out to be, not yet anyway! Scooby
Hunting out of state is a luxury. Scooby-doo is right. In most states kids can hunt small game for little to nothing.
Big game hunting in "trophy areas " is a rich man's sport. Always has been, always will be.
Folks need cars. Folks don't need Lexuses and Mercedes.
Didn't refer specifically about kids hunting out of state. Been hunting for 49 years and always had an easy time getting permission to hunt private. When I moved where I live now, here in MO 11 years ago, all good farms were leased. All my neighbors farms are leased. Land I did hunt was leased from under me. Even leases I have had have been leased from under me and buddies, without opportunities to bid. It is the culture as much as anything else. Kids don't want to small game hunt... it is all about big game now. Not many have an interest in a hundred dollar recurve either. Anybody that has hunted for a couple of decades or more can see the change in access, costs, etc. Not blaming landowners as it would be dumb to look a gift horse in the mouth and give away what could bring in easy income. My point is that hunting is a lot more expensive than in the past. Personally, I don't subscribe to all the new hunt clothes and gear. I have decent optics and footwear... and nice bows/guns but could do with less. Clothes... whatever is on sale. I use a lot of my out of service issued military clothing because it is functional and works. I began bowhunting with an old recurve and wooden arrows with Bear razorheads myself, but there wasn't a lot out there back then. My reference is not to the kid that has a dad or uncle to take him out with "dads" gun and gear and a place to hunt. My reference is to those young people who didn't or don't have those luxuries... and I see that a lot. I hunt mainly public now and have hundreds of thousands of acres of public to access. It is over hunted and crowded outside of bow season. It is MUCH tougher to achieve success. I have killed a truckload of turkey and much more in deer with various weapons and can say without reservation that public hunting in MO IS tough. Hunting in general is a lot more expensive than just ten years ago.
Problem is that the perception within states is that nonresident hunters all conform to a single stereotype: "Rich guys from the big city." Add to that the fact that everybody knows that all trespassers, litterers, game hogs, and rule-breakers are ALL nonresidents and you get the whole picture. Residents NEVER do anything wrong, it's always "those guys" from out of state. Nobody has any sympathy for this stereotype, so there is zero resistance to jacking up the non-res fee.
It's kind of like asking non-smokers if they care if the Government raises the taxes another buck a pack. Hell no, jack 'em up. Make those smokers think again about quitting, it's just another reminder it isn't good for you...
Of course, the reality is that raising fees won't have any impact on the big money set, but what % of the non-resident hunters really conform to this stereotype?
I worry mainly about the impact the "screw the non-residents" mindset has on families and young hunters. IMO this "charge 'em till they squeal" mentality is creating a major barrier for younger folks to keep hunting and to eventually get their kids into hunting.
For example, what happens to the young person who goes off and goes to college or joins the service, then gets a job in another state where they don't have land access. They want to go back to their home state, but now they have to buy a non-res tag for $$$. Then they get married and have kids and it's even MORE money to be able to hunt.
I feel a genuine sympathy and that's why I offer my farm occasionally to folks who want to hunt for the first time with a son or daughter. And I'm in MN where land access is not what I'd call the critical problem it is in other places like back east or in some of the central or western states.
But states and residents are never going to care about the impact of tag fees on the overall sport of hunting. It's all about grubbing a few extra bucks wherever you can without hurting "our" people.
Us versus them, the new America.
Grouse
I am far, far from wealthy but hunting out of state is also far, far from a rich mans sport. I am going to hunt 3 states this year for the whole month of Nov. and I will do it for under 3 grand total. Too me that is pretty cheap. Scooby
I agree with your sentiments. I wish it could be like the old days, but big money is really hurting the average hunter. A little update on my attempt to buy a small plot by auction last Saturady. I spoke with 4 large ranchers in the area. That same lawyer and "the man" from CA flew into a small town airport in a private. They came out and offered the ranchers ungodly amounts of money for their properties - This would be thousands of acres. It's their land and their heritage. Of course they resisted. "The man" as it turns out, has purchased a lot of property in that area. It will never be returned to a local owner. It's collateral damage on a community. I'm hanging in there. When I get what I'm looking for, I'll invite you.
I have enjoyed the realness and civility of this site. Glad to know all fo you.
Double the price have half the hunting presher
All you said is correct writer but I don't think a landowner can get it for 11.00 and even if the landowner buys a landowner tenet tag you can still only buy one discounted tag per 80 acres owned.I didn't know the cost for a mule deer tag was higher than a whitetail only until I looked at the 2017 prices.It always seemed strange why Kansas caved to NR protest but the states that drove that Kansans can't hardly draw a tag in.Max of 6% chance in NM and yes I can buy a whitetail tag in Oklahoma but not mule deer but they can hunt Kansas Mule deer.
I understand and sympathize with having to watch an outsider come in and overpay for property that you would like to purchase. Look at it from the other viewpoint...the local farmer who is ready to retire and is looking at funding his retirement through sale of his property. I bet he is glad that someone wants his property bad enough to overpay.
