Kansas Looking to bring Back T-tags
Contributors to this thread:Whitetail Deer
From: Matte
08-Feb-17
Matte's Link
HB 2208 is looking to bring back land owner transferable tags. For the non resident this might mean if you do not draw you could still purchase a tag at cost + transfer fee + what the land owner charges on top.
From: sitO
08-Feb-17
Matte, are you seriously encouraging this? I'm confused bud.
From: Matte
08-Feb-17
Yes. I have alot of friends who farm that will stand to gain some income from these tags and that is alot better than having to lease ground for the same income that then shuts out friends and family. Maybe not for all of the bill but I wish they would have never gotten rid of T tags.
From: Scooby-doo
08-Feb-17
I read the bill but was curious what the cost is too the landowner and also the cost of the tag. Do I just need a NR license and then buy the tag from landowner. I would really like that cause I have a few friends that would not make any money on the tag. I guess what I am asking, would it be cheaper then the $500 plus it costs me now?? Scooby
From: Matte
08-Feb-17
Not the way I read it I believe it would be the price of a NR tag plus the transfer fee which can not exceed 50% of the cost of the tag. Last time there were t tags prices started $1500-$5000
From: IdyllwildArcher
08-Feb-17
Are they limited to the private property they're from or are they unit wide?
From: Habitat1
08-Feb-17
If they do hopefully they won't like NM and not even require to own land where a deer lives.They should require the tag buyer to hunt on that land. At least NM gives a rats butt about their residents.There really can't be any benefit to resident hunters from this.The state is probably just looking at the income tax they will get when a landowner sells a tag
From: Matte
08-Feb-17
Farmers ranchers do not pay income tax under current tax laws in Kansas. The way it reads as I interpet it will be a hunt on own ground (so land owners ground only).
From: Glunt@work
08-Feb-17
The way I read it, the State can charge a transfer fee equal to 50% of the tags cost and the land owners are unrestricted in how they sell it.
I'm no lawyer.
From: jdee
08-Feb-17
The way cattle prices have been last couple of years that's a good deal for the big landowner rancher.
From: MichaelArnette
08-Feb-17
Yeah not cool! This will really hurt residents (I'm not one)
From: Matte
08-Feb-17
How is this going to hurt residents? Most ground is already leased up right now anyhow. Some ranchers and farmers may go back to selling ttags to supplement income instead of leasing their spread. This in turn still gives the land owner the right to hunt and give permission to hunt to whomever. This is not the case when the ground is tied up all season by just a few hunters on a lease.
From: sitO
08-Feb-17
Do you think some NR's might buy up land, instead of leasing, and sell these Matte? Would that make things better or worse? Do you think they will subtract these from the already over abundant tag allotment? There's nothing good that can come from this...nothing.
From: Glunt@work
08-Feb-17
When a land owner sells access to hunt on his land, he is selling something he owns. When he sells a deer tag, he is selling something he and all Kansans own equally. If he sells it for $500.00, what do the 3 million co-owners each get?
From: Matte
09-Feb-17
As I mentioned above the land owner could sell the tag and fee for the equal amount charged by the state and then sell a tresspass fee to use the tag on their land (the only place it would be valid). Sito I think there would be very few who would come here and buy land banking on the ability to always sell ttags as they have been taken away before. They have not detailed all the fine print on tag alotment. However by the wording it does look like there will be extra tags available. The only thing about the extra tags is they would have to be used on private as they are land owner tags. I would speculate most of the private ground is off limits to most people already. We will have to see how it all plays out on Tuesdays hearing. If it helps farmers and ranchers I'm all for it.
From: Genesis
09-Feb-17
Bad business...again.Transfer fees will amount to little boost in most farmers coffers and will add to confusion and further politicalization of resource management .Hoping for defeat
From: LINK
09-Feb-17
Matte I'm sure you have a better understanding than me on this but I don't see where farmers are going to get tag money and decide they don't need lease money. They guys that are leasing now are doing so to maximize profits. It only makes since that now they will have a little more.;)
From: Griff
09-Feb-17
Matte the way I read it the landowner will buy a Hunt -Own-Land permit which cost them $22.50 and half of the cost of a NR permit is $221.25 so the answer if they were to impose as the letter is written would amount to landowners getting tags for $243.75 which would allow them to see them to the highest bidder. The people that will benefit the most are the outfitters that are going to be able to guarantee a tag to anyone who books a hunt with them. If they don't draw the tag then the outfitters puts in for a t-tag and simply transfers it to the NR at the cost the outfitter sets. No resident gains by this bill except for the farmers that want to sell hunts on their ground and many may loose ground since an outfitter will be able to guarantee a tag for the ground he leases then they may choose to lease more ground to make more tags available to his hunters.
From: Habitat1
09-Feb-17
Thats funny I sure pay for income off all crops harvested, so why would this be different?Also they are talking about some tag issues out west and how they are going to be looking at if they are paying tax on the sale of vouchers.It's just a bad idea all the way around and as said before the only reason is it's acting as a loop hole to get around the numbers they set for NR tags
From: boothill
09-Feb-17
If the T-tag is not tied to that landowners property they are worthless. It will also create a major issue for wardens to try and police these tags. I see a major screw up just like when some folks on Bowsite got popped a few years ago for hunting outside unit lines. If folks can't stay inside a large unit, you think they will care about crossing a fence onto another piece of ground that doesn't belong to their landowner? I highly doubt it.
From: MDW
09-Feb-17
Wrote a nice long note to my Rep and tried to explain things as I see them. My last line said that IF this thing went through, it must at least be tied to the property that was used to get the tag in the first place!
From: Scooby-doo
09-Feb-17
To me and others who have friends that own property this would be great!! If it is as Griff said it is. My friend who owns the land would not make a dime on me and sell me the tag for whatever the cost to him was, if it is $243.75 that would save me $300. I agree it is not a good idea and if it was bad before why would it be better now? Scooby
From: Quinn @work
10-Feb-17
Scooby,
You need to read the bill. It won't save you $. It will just guarantee you a tag. You will still pay the NR tag cost plus a transfer fee the way I read it.
From: Buffalo
10-Feb-17
"How is this going to hurt residents? Most ground is already leased up right now anyhow. Some ranchers and farmers may go back to selling ttags to supplement income instead of leasing their spread. This in turn still gives the land owner the right to hunt and give permission to hunt to whomever. This is not the case when the ground is tied up all season by just a few hunters on a lease. "
I think this is one of the biggest problems for Kansas residents and the system today. A couple of people lease a piece of ground for deer hunting and it limits that ground for all other activities year round. Anything from fishing it's ponds, horse back riding, spring turkey, doves, rabbits and ect. I don't blame the guys leasing it. If I was leasing it I wouldn't want other people disrupting the deer patterns either. It just stinks that all other actives are negated for a 90 day deer season.
From: XMan
10-Feb-17
MDW, I agree with your comment, should be tied to the land for which its given. I don't like the Ttags either, only guys with money can buy them and less tags in draw and more confusion.
From: MichaelArnette
10-Feb-17
Buffalo you do have a point
From: stealthycat
10-Feb-17
it would be good for me because I know the landowners - it would be bad for KS to add those additionally to all the other tags
From: jingalls
10-Feb-17
As a Kansas landowner this is bad for everyone including out of state hunters. Matt if you think this is going to help the average farmer rancher your not thinking straight. This will help the outfitter make more money and in turn push hunting further away from the average guy!
A bad idea is a bad idea no matter how many times it's recycled!!!
From: Bowdeer
10-Feb-17
From: JSW
11-Feb-17
I'm a Kansas landowner as well, but primarily a deer hunter. It was a bad idea when they did it before and it's a bad idea now. Everywhere this is tried, it gets out of control, takes opportunities away from those with shallow pockets and will lead to fewer draw tags. Always. About half of the elk tags in New Mexico go to landowners to sell for any price they can get. They have the votes and the lobbyists and they get more and more tags, and most of the elk are on public land. All hunters should oppose this bill. Kansas already gives out way too many NR tags. This will change how they do it and cost hunters more money. They need to look at how Iowa does it. I think they do it right.
From: MDW
20-Feb-17
"Bad idea years ago, bad idea now. Just another attempt to appease resident voters. Hope it fails too."
From what I hear out of Topeka, the drivers are two main outfitters! Also, one of the state Reps on this comm. does not like resident hunters Period.
From: Trial153
20-Feb-17
James(Jsw) sees the big picture. Great post.
