HB 2207 and HB 2208
Kansas
There are two bills that I feel we as sportmen need to be concerned with at this time. This information came in a KDWPT Legislative update.
HB2207 This bill would require anyone hunting, shooting, fishing, fur harvesting or pursuing any bird or animal on private land to have written permission form the owner or person in possession of such land or body of water. It would also prohibit any person from pursuing a wounded bird or animal on private land without written permission.
HB2208 This bill would establish a transferable regular landowner or tenant hunt-on-won-land big game permit, which could be transferred to a nonresident solely for the purpose of hunting white-tailed deer.
Geez, who's behind these do we know?
This sheds a little light on hb2208..boohoo,..some nonresident didnt draw a tag for a sold out unit..so now we have to re-implement transferable tags..
Honestly if they would implement the number of transferable tags x acreage and make it like Colorado where the tag holder must only hunt on land owners land I could see this as a positive as long as the allocated tags to Non Residents is not increased.
Example: I own 3000 acres that equals 10 Transferable tags I could sell to be used on my farm. The state could now get as much as $442.50 + the transfer fee of$221.25 for a total of 663.75 to the state for a Whitetail deer tag. I as the land owner then could charge what ever the market will bear. All tags would have to be pre-purchased by land owners at the time of the draw.
Positives: This gives land owners the ability to make a profit off of having access to their lands for hunting purposes which may be better than leasing as they could still let locals and family members hunt when applicable. Now some may still choose to lease lands as they may make more than market conditions will bear for their piece of property. This could also help the state better manage herds on private property while at the same time reducing pressure on public grounds.
Negatives: If the state allocates more tags to non residents and allows them to hunt an entire unit. I am sure there are many more that can be listed.
As a business man I see no reason why not to let the farmers and ranchers who own land to generate an income make more money by having the ability to sell tags. I think the important thing is; as long as they are allocated before the general NR Draw, they have to pay for them up front and tags are only good on lands owned by the transferring party. It will be interesting to read comments on the bill.
Another enforcement nightmare.
Matte, have you even read the proposed bill? This bill has none of the verbage you are spewing. Colorado this,..3000 acres that...
It is obvious that a disgruntled land owner has a friend who was denied a tag. So, he wants to re-implement a transferable tag system to circumvent the lottery! This "transferable" system would guarantee a non-resident hunter a tag to hunt his buddies land every year, at a cheaper price! All he has to do is wait for the lottery to end,..for his unit to sellout of tags,..then buy his transferable.. The lottery does in fact LIMIT the number of tags available in each unit. A means of conservation and management. Some land owners will most certainly remove their properties from the wiha syastem if they can return to selling tags on the black market to the highest bidder..i do not think this will open up hunting opportunities for locals, youth, or any other diy hunter..
It doesnt even make sense that you toss out pointless numbers of 3000acres,..10 tags..bla bla....there are 3000a properties which dont even have 10 deer!
You want a tag system? Make it similar to Iowa!
I would agree on that Keepemsharp. However I did speak with a rancher friend about it and he was super excited to see it come back.
Simply look at last years unit 1 results. 850 Whitetail tag quota, there were 1169 applicants...so the unit SOLD OUT..with this new transferable system..another 319 people could have potentially bought a transferable tag and hunted the transferees land.. Im appalled you support this bill
Z the way I read it is. The tag cost plus a transfer fee that can be no higher than 1/2 the cost of the tag. It was an example that I posted and yes I have read it even posted a link to it. Like I said there could be many negative things but from the owners I spoke with today they are all for it and why not it is extra income and we are on a verge of another farm crisis. I am all for it. I wish they never would have gotten rid of T tags in the first place.
No individual, outfitter, landowner etc should ever be allowed to profit from the sales of wildlife permit, period! That is the motive behind t-tags plain and simple. It also allows individuals to guarantee a tag to those with disposable income willing to pay whatever price to get to hunt Kansas every year even if unit sales have been met and they did not draw a tag.
There is no way to enforce such a plan you described Matte. The sales of big game tags needs to stay with one source, KDWP&T.
The tag cost at a NR rate or at the landowners cost as a resident? That would be my question cause if the landowner say pays 100 for a tag I would reimburse him his 100 and then pay 221.25, that would be a deal for me. Otherwise I would just take my chances in the draw with the 3 times I have put in, I have drawn. Shawn
Ok they could sell the tag that is only good on his/her ground and charge an access fee to said ground. I'm all for profit of a hunting opportunity as that brings more value to the wildlife. With that added value wildlife seems to thrive rather than get shot and left for dead because they cost a farmer money. I have purchased many land owner tags over the years and while expensive it was worth it as the ranchers ranched for wildlife as well as their cattle.
Looks like a way for the state to get around their own law setting limits on number of NR tags issued.
Personally I would be in favor of HB2207 - I've been taken advantage of a few times by people "claiming" to have wounded an animal, with no sign of a hit, and crossing property lines without asking.
As for HB2208 - As a farmer and landowner I would be completely against it as it's currently written. However, I might just take advantage if passed... it's been a rough couple of years.
07 would really suck. So for pheasant hunting, I am going to have to carry 50 letters of permission with me? Every body gets punished because deer hunting trumps all. It is ashame that all forms of hunting has to cave in to deer hunting.
Question - My son and daughter (5 and 2) both qualify for hunt own land permits. Obviously I will not allow them to hunt for several more years, but could those be sold? I'm not seeing anywhere where it states a landowner gets a certain # of tags for so many acres. (Ex. 80 acres = 1 t-tag).
I'm thinking a can of worms will be opened if they hand out t-tags based off of acres owned/farmed.
West... yeah wasn't thinking about Pheasants/Quail. Was automatically thinking deer/turkey/coyotes. That would suck, the permission cards are pretty easy to fill out, but you'd have to carry a notebook around in western KS. I haven't seen a quail hunter around this part of KS for a couple years now. I haven't read HB2207 in its entirety yet.
A few years back I had a guy tell me he wounded a coyote (illegally from the road, during rifle deer season) and was wanting to go track it onto our family farm... don't usually tell people no, but I think I might have actually chuckled as I said it. If I hadn't been driving by I think he would have went in with that excuse if caught on the property.
Its all about deer hunting. I am just to the point that maybe we should just kill em all. Money used to be the route of all evil, now it's just deer. If I have to have written permission for every property, I will just take up disc golf. That's ridiculous!
I can see it now,..
I hearby give larry, moe, and curly permission to find the pheasant they shot which flew into my pasture..this permission is only valid for todays date, from the time they start looking until the time they quit looking..no dogs are allowed to be off leash while searching..this better not happen again,..when was the last time you practiced shooting..why do you use 7.5 shot dang it.. and a 28ga,. (Mocking laugh) roosters need to be hit witha 12ga and# 4s..if you cant knock em down on your side of the fence,..dont take the shot..you can look to find him.but leave all guns on your side of the fence..
As if anyone is going to walk 1/2 a mile out from a hunt, to find an out of town landowner to get WRITTEN permission to go look for a rooster..
As a NR who could benefit and would be able to get these T-Tags at no additional cost to me I think this Bill is a BAD idea. The last thing KS deer hunting needs is tags on Ebay, more bucks tags, more WIHA taken out of the program, more programs that are hard to enforce. This just means having less deer and less quality deer to hunt for both NR's and Residents. Leasing and T-Tags should be able to get every hunting celebrity/TV Show to come to KS every year.
Ray, there is nothing stopping you from selling hunts under the current laws.
The transferable tag deal in CO has been terribly abused. Then it was expanded, which took more resident tags out of the pool and have them to outfitters to sell. One of the sponsors of the bill actually told me there was no evidence tags were being sold on the open market. I forwarded Craigslist ads, ads from national tag brokers, and after that she wouldn't respond.
CPW loves it because they bring nonresident revenue instead of lower revenue from us resident scum. Since they are unit wide, someone can get multiple tags for a property with few or no deer, sell them to nonresidents to hunt other properties with deer. It has become a form of outfitter welfare instead of the intended plan to allow landowners and family/close friends to hunt their own land.
Quinn are you a land owner?
Have you written your Rep yet? Working on mine now.
OK. I normally keep my mouth shut on things like this. I guide firearm hunts in Kansas. I grew up in Kansas and now live in Missouri. I guide those hunts so that I can lease ground to bowhunt. I know that makes me a bad guy in many eyes. Let me tell you how I see t tags working in my case. I don't think I will lose any leased ground. I can get my landowners to buy and sale t tags to hunters I can guide. The landowner makes more money than presently, but land still stays tied up. This is how it worked before. I don't think this has any profit for res. or helps improve deer hunting in Kansas.
Absolutely will do nothing positive for residents, as usual. I can't believe we have guys on here supporting this. Farming is getting tough. Really? When has farming not been tough? Like mentioned above, this will also basically put tag allotment and wildlife in the hands of landowners, like it is theirs. It also states that these T-tags are for NR after the draw and normal draw(unlimited basically). I'm in no ways ever for this kind of move but why would it not allow the T-Tag to be transferred to a resident? More opportunity for the rancher to still allow locals and family to hunt around the NR buying the tag? I think not. This will be the final nail in the coffin if passed. Sick for our kids!(doubledrop)
If you read the letter the landowner would purchase a hunt-own-land permit which would cost them $22.50 and KDWPT could asses at transfer fee of half the cost of a Non Resident permit $221.25. I don't see the huge increase in income for the state or KDWPT. I see a huge increase in the income for outfitters. This is simply a way for outfitters to guarantee a set number of tags for the land they lease so they can guarantee tags for their hunters if they happen not to draw a permit. If you thought leasing was bad already this would be the end to hunting for many more residents. If an outfitter can guarantee tags to NR hunters then they have no reason to not lease more ground. The more ground they control the more tags they are allowed.
As for HB 2207 you would have to have written permission to do anything basically on property you didn't own. Fish, hunt, trap, pursue wounded game. All you guys that like to fish farm ponds will have to have written permission on each piece of property. What a nightmare this bill will be. If you think it will stop the trespassing you are wrong. They are already breaking the law. Do you think this is going to change that any? No!!! Just like many laws the only people hurt or inconvenienced are the honest sportsmen that are gaining permission in the first place.
If you own enough ground to make a deer hunt reasonable what you could gain from this crap will not save the farm.
The main lobbying effort for the t-tags 17 yrs ago was done by NR Outfitters and tag brokers, and a very rich NR landowner who owned large tracts of land in SC Kansas who felt he should be able to provide NR buck tags every year to guests coming to his ranch.
A few years ago a couple hundred of us flooded a hearing room in the capitol building to get rid of these with the one exception being the president of Ks. Guides and Outfitters all there were opposed. At that time the committee chairman from Clifton thumbed his nose at us.
I'm not sure what the big problem is with written permission. I would think that most of you get permission before you hunt ,fish or what ever on someone's land. When you get that permission have them do a permission card. they are very short and easy to fill out. You can fill it out for them and have them sign it. I have several that are for my life time on any land the owner has.
Scenario Charlie.....driving to hunting spot and giant buck crosses road and beds down in a perfect spot. It isnt a spot you typically hunt but you have a number for the owner/operator and you call him and he says go get them. You tell him you need to get written permission first and he says he is out of state. You are SOL even though he gave you permission. That is a bad deal imo. If a text message works for written permission it could alleviate this problem possibly.
NOW THAT'S A FREAKIN' TRAIN WRECK!!!!!!
Matte,
Not in KS.
Might be a good time to buy some land in KS if this transfer tag thing gets approved. I wonder how much you'd have to own to qualify for the tags?
Right now for just a resident land owner tag I believe it is 80 acres.
Charlie I have some places that I can pheasant hunt only, some places deer hunt only, some places duck hunt only, some places turkey hunt only, some places dove hunt only, some places to fish, etc. So I guess I will carry about 5 file folders to fumble through when the game warden stops me. I have at least 50 different land owners that let me pheasant hunt and fish. If it comes to this, I will pheasant hunt and give up everything else. Besides many of the land owners will say to hell with it if they have to fill out a card to let people hunt. Deer hunters might hunt a couple of different properties but we pheasant hunters hunt about 1/3 of the state.
Matt good point, but remember, deer is not the only game species.
I will lose a lot of permission simply because a farmer won't sign a slip. Has happened in the past "if I have to sign something and my word isn't good enough, then have the warden come talk to me" If this is the law, then this won't fly and will cost me property. Deone
Z, I understand that... believe me I have looked into it. May even possibly start selling hunts in the very near future. Where this would be more profitable is the sale of the Hunt-Own-Land permits on my personal property I use for outfitting. It would also be much more appealing to landowners I would lease from to give them extra cash.
Not save the farm? Not so sure about that.... some of profit numbers I hear from outfitters are staggering and a t-tag could be very appealing to NR's who do not draw. For a newbie trying to start an outfitting business that could be an edge to get started.
I would like to state again that I am NOT for this... at all. Actually going to be emailing a rep soon enough about this and a few other issues related to education. However, if it comes to pass and the continual cheapening of this "sport" continues I will be looking into it.
Matt - I would think a text message would work in that scenario. I believe courts have said they can be considered "contracts". It would be hard for the department to monitor... how are they going to know the number is the right one?
Something to keep in mind. Please read and understand how difficult things can be right now for farms.
would allowing T-tags also kill off all the fly by night "outfitters" though ?
I believe Quinn is saying what I said in the thread on main page. I do not believe he owns land. He like me has a friend who owns land. I have become friends with several landowners in the area I hunt. I am sure any of them would purchase a tag for me and then charge me only their cost. If it is true what some are saying 22.50 plus 240 or whatever that would save me at least 300 bucks on a tag. If this creates more tags being issued then already are being issued it is a lousy idea!! Shawn
You would only get to buy a t-tag IF you were unsuccessful in the april draw
Any concerns about over-harvest of the deer, with too many permits? And on probably 99 percent of the farms and ranches, landowners are "sharing" deer with their neighbor. And who does wildlife belong to in Kansas? A huge, and unpopular non-resident outfitter once told me he wouldn't be happy until Kanas residents had to draw for deer permits at the same, or worse, odds than non-residents. We parted ways. The written permission thing is a major hassle when some places I hunt, are owned by friends anywhere from 20 minutes to more than 1,200 miles away.
I have been on coyote hunts with the dog wagons, we will easily cover 30+ landowners in a day..now, lets say an out of town friend wants to ride with me..he cant, as he wouldnt have permission..
Lots of gun hunters do deer drives on various landowner properties with verbal permission to do so.
Will the kdwpt comment on bills HB2207 & HB2208?
I highly doubt a 5000a farmer will want to write written permission to a father & son Dove hunter, for 1 80a field,..then write permission for x-amount of Pheasant hunters, then write permission for the various muzzleloader, archery, or firearms deer hunters,..then write a guy permission to trap,..and write it again for a group of coyote hunters ...around here, landowners have met the dog wagon owners, they leave pasture gates open so we can just roll..or, some say yes,..we can chase yotes but keep gates closed..along comes spring turkey season...youth hunters get permission 1st..then archery hunters,..and then shotgun hunters..
Matte did you stumble on a patch of peyote mushrooms looking for birds on 1-31-17? Basically unlimited NR tags........and that would be good for Kansas? I am on to you....I know that your chewing on shrooms having a vision quest in a sweat lodge in Utah with internet connections. Nothing else makes sense.
Well little late in the season for Colorado Chew. I think if handled right it could be good for farmers and ranchers. Either way I have purchased many land owner tags in the past for Colorado, New Mexico and always thought of it as a good deal. Paid premium but it was worth it. If that type of money can get spent here locally I'm all for it. I understand most here may not like the idea however I doubt most of those hunters own ground. I can see the delima
I remember as a guide I witnessed quite a few infractions regarding transferable tags. Landowners and outfitters would nab as many as possible and many times the hunter buying them would not even hunt in the correct unit as the tag allowed. I turned an unlicensed outfitter into a very well known warden for doing this and no charges were pressed because "there's no proof they shot any trophy bucks with those tags." I do not foresee bringing back the transferable tags will have a positive outcome for residents, landowner or not. With as many tags that are given out now, there is no problem with landowners finding hunters to lease for a premium.
I think you're are looking at a multidimensional hunting bill from one dimension. Ttags are not going to save the family farm.
Z - you are an exception. In over 20 years I've never had a coyote hunter asked me for permission... not once. They are on my property weekly during this time of the year.
I own ground Matte and I am vehemently opposed to it
FIP not saying the family farm is in the toilet but I am saying every little bit helps. I will give you one example of a farmer down by Attica. He owns well over 3,000 acres, his main money maker was oil at one time. Now that oil work has slowed to a crawl he depends mostly on farm income and dirt work. He would rather have the chance to sell t-tags as he did in the past than lease out his ground. Simply put he knows the market for t-tags and that the same amount of money can be generated without having to lease his ground. Thus the family and friends who he likes to invite out (me included) are still able to hunt. This will not be for all farms as this is only one example but I am sure a lot of ranchers/farmers look at it the same way. I am waiting on a return call from my Aunt and Uncle who outfit on their 4500 acres in Smith County to get their opinion as well. For my ground I will have to see the fine print of the bill and how many maybe allocated. If it helps pay the payments , a kids college tuition, heck even a grocery bill again I am all for it. Owning land is a business not a privilege. You have to make the numbers work in your favor as much as possible. Just like having a job, most will take the over-time dollars if offered it may not make the house payment but it helps.
Thoughts from an out of stater......
What if the landowners got their transferables first and they counted towards the OOS quotas? Would that make some like it better?
written permission isn't a problem with me. If you have permission have the landowner write it for you and keep it in your wallet with your lisence...easy enough. This could actually cut down on trespassing/poaching.
Written permission for go onto property to track a deer might be an inconvenience. Especially if you can't locate them at that time. We always contact them before for permission but who's to say they aren't out of town or something. I guess the deer lays and rots then...?
It's not that simple though. I am a waterfowler first. See birds using a field. Before I can call and ask. Now I may have to drive 4 hrs round trip. Should I go before the season and ask for written permission on every corn, bean, and winter wheat field I can find knowing damn well 90% of them will never get touched. If you are a deer hunter that hunts one property owned by one person it's easy.
I can see where it wouldn't work for your situation.
In my opinion it's selling the wildlife and that's not legal.
In most western states they call it a tresspass fee. The tag is generally only good for that land owner's property. Thus to get the tag you also agree to pay a tresspass fee or the better way of selling it to protect you, is a lodging fee as long as you have a hotel tax stamp and a place to lodge hunters. Then they get to use the land for free thus absolving any liability.
Matte, which western states have landowner tags good for only their land? All the ones I know of are unit-wide. Even WY, which restricts landowner tags to immediate family, allow unit-wide hunting.
For most western states anyone can buy unit-wide landowner vouchers through brokers or Craigslist and eBay. There is no restriction on the price. I know of elk vouchers that sell for $10,000 in one of the NW CO premier units. In CO the landowner must agree to give permission to also hunt his land. But sometimes that land doesn't hold the species during hunting season so the hunter hunts elsewhere or public land. For others it's a "wink, wink" deal with agreement that the person will hunt elsewhere. It's badly abused in many places. Other situations it's worked into the price of the guided hunt.
I agree with the guys who say it would make hunting a rich mans only thing in Kansas and hurt the average hunter. I also think the tags should come from the existing allotment, otherwise it will have a real negative effect on the deer herd. Scooby
David from Texas, some of us hunt more than deer here in Kansas. No way can we carry written permission slips in our wallet.
Its best to carry written permission if the landowner doesn't live on the property. I have hunted a large piece of land for 21 years and there is a "squatter" on the property that wormed his way in several years after I started hunting it. He rarely asks for yearly permission but takes advantage of the fact the landowner doesn't care much about the place. I have tolerated the corn piles and stands in every ravine for years. They educate the deer to the point that they rarely shoot one. A few years ago, he turned me in because he did not believe I had permission. The warden was called, and a big deal was made of it. After they finally reached landowner and his wife, I was cleared. I now request yearly written permission and I am always given it.
West, I realize that now. Wasnt really thinking about that. Sorry!!
Every time I hear hinting will become a rich man's sport. I can only think "Trophy Hunting" will become a rich man's sport. There will always be opertunities for the regular Joe to hunt. It just may not be what he sees on TV.
Matte that is how it has been for quite some time now.
Well I hope hunters someday realize that hunting is always what you make of it. Heck 9 of my last biggest bucks were taken on WIHA and the muff on last year's buck was on an 80 acre bean field with less than a hundred trees in the entire section. Hunters only need to look at the potential new world record elk taken by a resident of the state on public. Success is not always had on the best grounds, sometimes it just finds you.
Both of these bills are bad ideas in my opinion. I would bet that a huge majority of landowners that allow recreational use of their lands are not in favor of giving written permission. For me having written for the places I deer hunt is not an issue. However, as others have stated I Pheasant hunt quite a few properties. Some of these landowners simply want a phone call before hunting preferring that we do not stop by there home. Others do not want the problem of giving written permission.
I feel that nobody should be responsible for giving out tags except wildlife and parks. Allowing the landowners to transfer tags does imply that they own the deer and we do not want to go there.
I sent emails to everyone on ag committee but didn't receive a response
Heating on the bill was today so there should be an update soon.
I have probably shot 25 bucks in this state on public ground. Just a handful or so on private ground. But I see very few good deer on public ground, but then again I see very few good deer on private ground either.
Big deer are where you find them. At one time I was scouting as much as 21,000 private acres and that many public. The key always seemed to be no roads and broken country with lots of grass. Places the typical deer hunter that is from East of 281 looks for.
Matte did you notice how short the meatpole thread has gotten the last several years and how much smaller the deer have gotten? That thread gets lets posts every year and the size of deer are shrinking. We need to rename it the "harvest thread" like we use to 15 years ago. Big deer have always been where you find them. But there used to be a time when you could find them everywhere. You could hunt any section in this state and see several deer a year that would crack the 150's, true 150's and not today's.
Well as most have said the only people in favor of the Transferable Tag are those that hope to profit from selling them to cover the cost of the ground they are leasing or those who own ground and are outfitting. I don't know many farmers that are going to go through the trouble of this. There may be a few that have family from out of state and they will be able to save them money on a tag as long as they have decent ground to hunt. There is nothing good about this bill for any resident deer hunter that isn't trying to be a outfitter.
It appears that there is a hearing on HB 2208 today at 3:30 in Rm#582-N.
There is a hearing on HB2207 on Wednesday at 3:30 in Rm#582-N.
Just wanting to let anyone who may want to attend one of these meeting to voice their concerns on these bills as a citizen.
If you can not attend this meeting as many will not be able to due to work a well worded email to the Committee Ag. Chair Kyle Hoffman ([email protected]) or Vice Chair Kent Thompson ([email protected]) would go far or if your local elected official is on the House Ag Committee then send them an email as I have. Since it is to late to get on the agenda to speak on this bill the only option would be to appear and speak as a concerned citizen.
I sent emails to ag committee and this was the only response I got back
Thank you for your email regarding deer hunting licenses. We heard HB 2207 yesterday and will hear 2208 today in the Agriculture Committee. I appreciate your concerns on both of these bills and will continue to educate myself on the issues. These two bills might not make it out of committee, but I will keep you updated on their progress.
If you have any other concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely, Representative Cindy Neighbor
That's a lot more then I've gotten out of Hibbard and Blex.
Different subject, but its nice to FINALLY see the kdwpt end the home printed tags..never understood why they allowed that in the first place.
What was wrong with home printed tags? Similar line of reasoning to the basis for HB 2207.
Nothing to stop someone from printing 10 tags..go shoot a buck, tag it, get it home and processed,..Go shoot and tag another.. I dont think the state would be doing-away with home printed tags if they hadnt found abuse..
can't you do that with the green tag? shoot it, tie it on, take it home...go shoot another, tie it on, repeat.... need more wardens and less stipulations IMO
If the state was so concerned about abuse, why did they make it legal to kill the same day you purchase your tag? Why don't we get a locking tag to attach to antlers along with our carcass tag? Why don't we have check stations? Why don't we have adequate law enforcement in place?
They're not concerned about abuse Z. They're concerned about making money, saving money, and keeping those most responsible for that outside income happy.
These latest proposals and changes would/will make it tougher on 1000's of law abiding outdoorsmen in order to potentially persuade a few cheaters from wrongdoing? I don't see it.
Most wardens are smart enough, I think, if you ask to see their permit and it is bloody, validated, and signed, the tag has been used before. You print ten tags at home, you have a unused tag to use again. It is really that tough to go to any walmart and buy your big game permit?
Session of 2017 HOUSE BILL No. 2208 By Committee on Agriculture 1-31 AN ACT concerning wildlife; relating to the transferability of deer permits. Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas: Section 1.?(a) The secretary shall establish a system to approve and administer the transfer of regular landowner or tenant hunt-on-your-ownland big game permits issued under K.S.A. 32-937(g), and amendments thereto, from the original recipient of such permit to a nonresident of the state of Kansas solely for the purpose of hunting white-tailed deer. (b)?Such transfer system established under subsection (a) shall meet the following requirements: (1)?Any transfer shall not occur until all nonresident hunting permits issued under K.S.A. 32-937(l), and amendments thereto, have been filled in each management unit where the regular landowner or tenant hunt-onyour-own-land big game permit was issued for the applicable white-tailed deer season; (2)?any recipient of a nonresident hunting permit issued under K.S.A. 32-937(l), and amendments thereto, is not eligible for a transfer under this section during the applicable white-tailed deer season of the permit issued under K.S.A. 32-937(l), and amendments thereto; (3)?the secretary shall allow the transferee to designate whether the transferee will hunt both antlered and antlerless white-tailed deer or only antlerless white-tailed deer pursuant to the permit transferred under this section; (4)?the secretary may charge a transfer fee, not to exceed half the cost of a nonresident hunting permit issued under K.S.A. 32-937(l), and amendments thereto, for transfers designated for antlered and antlerless white-tailed deer, and not to exceed the cost of the original permit for the regular landowner or tenant hunt-on-your-own-land big game permit under K.S.A. 32-937(g), and amendments thereto, for transfers designated for antlerless white-tailed deer. (5)?The secretary shall not prohibit nor restrict the sale of regular landowner or tenant hunt-on-your-own-land big game permit under K.S.A. 32-937(g), and amendments thereto, by the original permit holder to a nonresident, so long as the transfer is approved under the transfer system established by the secretary pursuant to this section.?
The bill as submitted by the House Agriculture Committee.
Member of the House Ag Committee.
Chair Rep. Kyle Hoffman Vice Chair Rep. Kent Thompson Ranking Minority Member Rep. Sydney Carlin Members House     Rep. Dave Baker     Rep. Doug Blex     Rep. Lonnie Clark     Rep. Debbie Deere     Rep. Ronald Ellis     Rep. Larry Hibbard     Rep. Ron Highland     Rep. Trevor Jacobs     Rep. Jim Karleskint     Rep. Greg Lewis     Rep. Adam Lusker     Rep. Cindy Neighbor     Rep. Boyd Orr     Rep. Jeff Pittman     Rep. Don Schroeder     Rep. Joe Seiwert     Rep. Tom Sloan     Rep. Eric L. Smith     Rep. Virgil Weigel     Rep. John Wilson
If you see your Representative on the list, and do not support allow individuals, both resident and NR citizens, being able to profit from the sales of deer permits, please contact your legislator and let them know. If your legislator is not a member of this committee, please contact them just the same and ask them to not support HB-2208 and explain to them why you are against the proposed bill.
Treebark you should get on the AG forums and see how many farmers support this. Again not a way to profit off a tag but a way to have profit from access to your land (where the tag is good for) without giving up total control during hunting season by leasing.
Matte, there is nothing stopping landowners from charging hunters for access to their land to hunt now without t-tags.
T-tags are desired for individual profit off the sales of NR buck tags and as a way to get around the lottery and NR tag quotas!
I am a landowner of rural agriculture acreage and do not support allowing any individual to profit from the sales of game licenses. I do not own the wildlife resources that are my land, nor does any other landowner. If I wanted to sell access to my land for hunting purposes, there is not a law in place that says I cannot do so. That argument is moot.
Matte, there is already a ton of landowners who lease their property for 1 week, or maybe they lease it to a few guys for archery season only,..or maybe they lease out the firearms season..no lease is all inclusive and shuts out the landowner UNLESS that is what is in the lease.
This t_tag proposal is nothing more than a way to ensure that a landowners friend will get to hunt each yr..as written, it will only allow a t-tag be available to a landowner "IF" the unit nr quota sells out,..there were 5 units last yr that did not sell out,..which means NO t-tags for those landowners.
As for the western units which already have low mule deer numbers, and low whitetail numbers,..to think you want even more tags issued for these units is ludicrous.. It only kills more bucks! It will only further decimate the herds in "Sold out units" by giving them more tags!
Im in unit 7, it tends to always sell out,..i do not want another 10, 20, or 300 t-tags added to my sold out unit! If some nonresidents dont draw a tag, they will only sit out one year, the next yr, they will have 1pt and will most certainly draw again!
I always thought you were for the state to manage, conserve, and provide quality opportunities for all hunters,..not just the landowners..evidently i was mistaken about you..
Is it possible to get an answer, ..Is this legislative proposal originating from the kdwpt? Or is it simply more legislation being spoon fed to the kdwpt by some lobbyist who didnt draw a tag and missed a hunt on his buddies ranch,..allbeit, in a sold out unit? The state of Ks has practically Doubled if not TRIPLED the amount of nr tags over the yrs..there have been many nr hunters leasing their own farm or hunting diy public and drawing tags yearly..then enter the huge xgun influx of new nr hunters wishing to hunt Ks,..these new 1st time people are taking tags away from the guys who have not had competition..
The legislative website says the bill was introduced by the ag. committee as a whole. Back in the day when I spent a bunch of time in Topeka, the legislature website told who introduced a bill, not anymore I guess. From the list of names on the committee, I recognized one name that stuck out like a sore thumb. He is most likely behind both of these pro-commercialism bills. He represents the Hutchinson area, tries to turn the wildlife resources over to private parties every year.
A few notes from a very dependable source at the hearing; The Chair (Kyle Hoffman) asked Ken Corbet, a Rep, but not on this comm. to introduce this bill. Corbet made it sound like KS. landowners were being denied opportunities. He was asked why it was limited to Whitetail deer only and he said it was just a first attempt.
Next up Mike Beam, KS. Livestock Assoc Next Wes Traul, Hunt KS. Unlimited Joe Ludlin, KS. Farm Bureau Irish Creek Outfitters, written testimony
Only Robin Jennison was asked to testify against the bill. He did an excellent job pointing out problems with past t-tags and answered lots of questions.
For some reason the committee did not get notifyed of a couple other folks that wanted to testify. COULD YOU CALL THAT STACKING THE DECK?
Meeting ended at 4:45, no motion or other normal procedures. Hoffman asked committee to get back to him on what should be done. "It was the damnedest hearing I've ever seen." There were no hunters at the hearing!
It sounds to me like we as hunters need to keep sending in our letters as several on the committee have no idea which to go. AND HAVE SOME HUNTERS AT THE NEXT MEETING!!
From what I understand Rep. Ken Corbet sponsored the bill and presented it to the Ag Committee at the request of Rep. Hoffman. The biggest drive behind the bill would appear to be Wes Traul from Richmond, KS (Hunt Kansas Unlimited) because he had a few clients in the past year that did not draw a tag. He wants to be able to guarantee any client that books a hunt with him a tag. That is the majority of what this bill is about. Joe Ludlin (Farm Bureau) was concerned with crop damage and supposedly had photos of 70 deer on a 20 acre soybean field but leases his ground to a NR from Arkansas. Hum? Wonder why he may have a deer problem. No other hunters allowed to hunt his ground?
From his website:
Hunt Kansas Unlimited, Inc. offers both rifle and archery hunts in North Central Nebraska. This region known as the Keya Paha is a region of farmland, sand hills and deep canyons. The region is drained by the Niobrara River and is home to both Mule Deer and Whitetails. The Whitetails will range from the 100 to 140 class. The Mule Deer will be 3x3s and 4x4s with good tine and main beam length with respectable mass.
Hmmmm, guess maybe he wants Kansas to do what Nebraska allows him to do?
Know of at least two members of the Ag. committee voting against 2208. Have any of you that took the time to write them heard back or gotten responses?
No responses to my e-mails yet.
I have not gotten any responses.
One response from Rep in neighboring area. He is aginst it!
KDWP thinks it's pretty much a dead issue, but one they're very much against.
These folks in Topeka have bigger problems to deal with than a dang deer tag. We have seven commissioners that are the ones to deal with wildlife issues. But, as politics goes once a power is acquired they never want to give it away.
I hope it's dead, but wouldn't bet a lot of money on this thing being dead. To many things like this have a way of re-appearing in the middle of something else at the last minute.
It will need to be watched closely, they will play possum for awhile maybe, then when they think no one is watching it will be off and running again.
sitO had it right with his pic and writer is spot on in asking who owns the wildlife?
Pretty interesting article on North American Whitetail.com..One of the writers talking about hunting Kansas and how much better it would be if they restricted their NR permits to cut back on NR crowding
That ain't happening. Have you not seen the commercials on the outdoor channel? The commercials promote long seasons and liberal bag limits. Basically come one and come all, including residents.
I know it won't with the corrupt state gov we have right now for sure.We need a bowsiter to run to replace Brownback
There you go, Jeff, your next career. Governor Jones. A Lab in every living room, half the general fund money goes to making better duck and pheasant habitat. Oh, and non-residents can only draw one in ten years, too. He'd have Greg Marshall as Lt. Gov, of course.
Now Writer, that sounds pretty good! And we would stock small mouth bass in every lake in the state. Nothing better than bronze backs and roosters.
That would be a pretty good day.
Why not stock something that's good to eat?
Because when I become governor we will be total catch and release. Hell I might start shooting arrows with suction cups instead of broad heads.
It appears there is an attempt to amend HB 2208 into SB25 today to get it out of the House since it was not getting much traction. Now is the time to send those emails to let your elected officials know what you think about the Transferable tags. Of course we know what those few that are outfitters or own land and want to be able to give these tags to their buddies think.
This bill is in the house commerce committee and they are the ones to contact with your concerns on this mater.
I got a few responses from some of the Committee members that I emailed this morning with concerns about this bill. I'm going to paste a list of all the members of this committee so you can send emails. One of the Representatives I got a response from said they were going to discuss this bill again tomorrow. Chair Rep. Les Mason Vice Chair Rep. Ken Corbet Ranking Minority Member Rep. Brandon Whipple
Members House Rep. Dave Baker Rep. John Carmichael Rep. J. R. Claeys Rep. Stephanie Clayton Rep. Erin Davis Rep. Roger Elliott Rep. Jan Kessinger Rep. Tom Phillips Rep. Bradley Ralph Rep. Louis Ruiz Rep. Joe Seiwert Rep. Jerry Stogsdill Rep. Sean Tarwater Rep. Patsy Terrell Their emails will be their first [email protected]
I hope we can get some effort at beating this again.
Have heard back from about six so far, four said they agree with us, one required a reply to point out to her a couple more points. We really should press the issue to them about the coalition with violations in other states. A land owner selling one of these would not have access to this information.
Im unfamiliar with the coalition Dave..please explain..thanks
Rep. Seiwert, imagine that........
Randy the only one that I got a response from that was in favor of the bill was Rep. Patsy Terrell. I tried to explain to her that this was basically allowing unlimited tags to Non Residents if they didn't draw a tag in the regular draw. I also pointed out that I felt it would lead to an increase in leasing with outfitters being able to guarantee a tag to any Non Resident.
Not sure, but maybe Dave means compact. If a person is convicted of serious game violation in any state in this group, that person can not big game hunt in any of the 40+ states in this group. Sent my e-mails yesterday!
I know my stance is not very popular coming from a landowners side of things but I'll give you guys an example of what choices some of us are in a position to make. Lease all the ground to an Outfitter so that no one can hunt except his clients which will be mostly non residents or get a tag or two that can be transferred to an individual who is willing to pay a tresspass fee. Thus still letting the 12 or so people that hunt for free continue to do so when the other hunter/hunters are in town. This an example of a friend of mine that would like to see some extra income if possible. Now I know not all land owners will be the same but I do feel quite a bit would like to make a few dollars from a tresspass fee and not give up hunting control during hunting season?. I do feel that if we keep the status quo of advertising on TV some of very best areas will eventually get leased in the next ten years unless something drastic changes in the AG industry. There are plenty of ways to stop the leasing and make it a bit more difficult to say hey I'm an outfitter book a hunt with me. However it does not look as if the state cares to slow this down from an economic? stand point. I have ran business for the last 20+ years and there are a lot of loop holes that could be tightened up for better commerce and oversight in our states hunting industry. One example is a sales tax collected for all ground leased and also if it passes any treespass fee should also have a county sales tax applied to it. There is also no reason why not to have outfitters have a state issued business license and any other individuals that lease land or sell hunts in state. Also if Outfitters do have to apply they must be residents of the state. Like I said there are a lot of ways to enforce better commerce rules and regulations for the states benefit and also for the residents of many small communities to benefit from sales tax fillings. Either way the AG industry is pushing hard to educate farmers on how to draw more Income both from crops and outside sources such as hunting. I'm for anything that helps the farm and ranching families of Kansas, with that being said only if not abused.
Matte, you keep saying if the outfitter leases the property, that no one else can hunt..that is simply not true!
It all depends on how the land owner leases the property..
The landowner could retain any season he so chooses..its a matter of the agreement.. i have a lease right now where the property is mine for all of archery season, except our firearms season..my landowner likes to rifle hunt, so its all his.. The landowner could retain any particular season if he wants too..
There are also many landowners who lease to the unmanaged state wiha system...yes, everyone can hunt...the hunting goes downhill quick, .but the owner gets money..
There is currently approx. 22,000 non resident tags state wide.
Your theory of a land owner getting a transferable tag is only dependent upon the unit tag quota selling out.... so the legislation does NOTHING for the units that dont sell out.
There is NOTHING stopping a landowner from selling a trespass fee now.
This legislation merely allows a landowner the chance to buy and sell a transferable tag to someone who was DENIED a tag during the initial draw..i suppose it will also allow a landowner to buy and sell a transferable tag after all the leftover tags are sold..
It will most certainly increase outfitting..especially when they have basically unlimited tags at their disposal..
DO you seriously want to see unrestricted quantities of tags available in Kansas? That is exactly what this will do.
If the farmer is selling the T-tags because they need the money, then it would make sense for them to manage access in a manner that makes the tag as valuable as possible. That doesn't equate to letting any more "friends" hunt in my opinion.
If the landowner felt that strongly about letting "friends" hunt his land, he can include that in leasing terms currently. But they would rather take more money and the outfitter gets exclusive access.
I have no problem with the farmers doing either of these. It is their land and their decision. But I do not see T-tags opening up any more opportunities.
You are correct Z, there are so many what ifs. What if the state audited outfitters for sales tax compliance and turned in the ST-36, my guess is most outfitters do not submit. I wonder if the submit sales tax on grounds leased, my guess is most do not. So many what ifs.
I have taken some heat in the past by making the statement that I believe 10% of lease money is on the tax rolls. Not saying land owners are dishonest but if the NR shows up with the Ben Franklins that's it. So flame away on me some more. Just don't like the commercialization of a public resource.
I'm betting 10% is generous Dave.
I wonder how many landowners would support the idea of KDWP&T offering a land specific premium tag at 4x normal price to allow "NR friends and family" to be able to hunt on their land deeded in their name only? The tags could be only be issued by KDWP&T staff, not via vendors. The tags would be issued with the hunter's name who purchased the tag written on the tag, no transfers being needed nor allowed.
This would take out the true motive for any t-tag proposal, which is bypassing the tag lotto and personally profiting off the deer tag sales. It would eliminate the tags from being offered to the highest bidders on web auction sites.
under this bill, if a landowner leases his place would he get the transferable tags or the person leasing the land, or both? the letter up top said "landowners and tenants"....
"Rep. Seiwert, imagine that........"
I know, go figure... You obviously know, Joe.
If the landowners leasing to a outfitter or anyone else they should be showing that income from that lease and then in turn they could deduct things such as liability insurance.Also in the state of Kansas landowners need to watch that someone doesn't lease their land and turn around and sublease for hunting.They can do this unless landowner specifies in the contract that they withhold all rights pertaining to the land.I have seen farmers lose the rights to farm ground because they leased ground out for hunting without checking with landowner.It's still a BS way of trying to get an unlimited amount of NR tags, no if ,and or buts about it
3 pages of opponents and proponents for HB2208
Z hunter, Good link,it really shows what the proponents are trying to do.Make money for all the food deer eat,ok give them 4 antlerless tags that they can sell.Predation tags have always been a way for game depts. to tell landowners if you think they are eating your crops then use these or let someone that wants to hunt and shoot does hunt.I have crops on my land and i will say that coons and turkeys along with blackbirds if it's milo cause 10x the damage deer do.If it hurt for deer to graze a green wheat field then why put cattle on it?And then whats the deal with the Kansas Sport hunting Assc?For the leading group in Kansas,never heard of them and asked several others,same answer.KFB your answer is why I am not a member anymore,as they only listen to their board members and not their paying members.If a deer tag is going to save the farm theres other issues.Make it easy,doe tags,only good on that land,and landowners have to start paying income taxes on leases and resale of tags,then it's fixed
They discussed this a little last night at the Commission meeting. None of the Commissioners are in favor of this bill and it got no support at the meeting but it will continue to pop up as bills in the House and Senate with the Livestock Association pushing it. One issue that came up last night at the Commission meeting is there were several Muzzleloader hunters that are requesting the season be moved to the last week of Sept. and the first week of Oct. I would like to hear what others think about this issue.
Bob: I bowhunt during the Muzzleloader season. It seems to me that it would be much easier to kill a good buck during the current muzzleloader dates than the later dates some appear to want. Most years I see quite few bucks feeding in the fields the first week of Muzzleloader season and they disappear about the last week of September.
I personally would not be in favor of moving the season. If they get this change they will find out that this is not a better time to hunt and request a later season. They will not be happy until they get to hunt the rut.
The muzzleloader season is what spurred it all in the early 90's. It was all down hill after they allowed them to hunt in September. That was the first big change to a perfect management system along with all the stupid doe tags. Good ole muzzleloader hunters and Dr. James Kroll were the pioneers for disaster.
One of the C.O. that I talked with thought it might be that they hope more of the crops would be cut in Western Kansas where they are chasing Mule Deer. Thus offering better spotting of Mule Deer not bedded in standing crop fields.
That is part I guess I left out. These guys are hunting mule deer and not Whitetails. They didn't really care to hunt Whitetails but did suggest that maybe the Commission could work with them and allow them to trade their Mule Deer tags for Whitetails tags if they could not tag a Mule deer. I have to give them credit they had all kinds of ideas to allow them to kill a deer. They didn't want to drive back out to Western Kansas for the regular rifle season. Just my thoughts anyways.
If it were whitetails I would want as early as possible but since they are hunting mule they want it easier to see.They got scopes they shouldn't have any problem.One person whines and it becomes something to vote on?
These muzzle loaders now with pellets, scopes and primers are just single shot rifles with long range ballistics. Why make us Bowhunters wear orange while they are using long-range shooting?
I wish you had to draw a mule deer permit no matter what weapon was used. Put in for a rifle, ughh I didn't draw oh well I can get an over the counter Muzzleloader? Mule Deer permit or archery permit.
Oh wow, there it is,.. you want a draw only for Mule deer, but want transferable tags for Whitetails. You want to protect Mule deer and exploit Whitetails which will only reduce their numbers even farther.. seems rather hypocritical.
Transferable tags should be good for either species, not just whitetails. Afterall, its the landowners property, the landowners tags, the landowners crops,...the landowners should be able to sell tags to anyone who doesnt draw a tag thru the regular draw or who doesnt buy a tag thru the leftover system..regardless of any state management quota..
Hows that statewide written permission only bill doing?
July 11th, 2003
As written by Trebarker
Sorry to quote you, but i believe this sums up exactly why and who is pushing for this again
First, lets let the people know the REAL truth behind the birth of Transfer Tags.
They used claims of over deer population, too many car/deer accidents, and crop damage claims to the Kansas Legislature to get them to pressure KDWP to act. KDWP was responsible for the management plan that built our herd up from non-existence over 30 yrs of restricted access. KDWP was aware that the herd was not well established enough to support the commercialistic desire to open the access and there to be unlimited tags. The commercial lobby had lobbied KDWP for a long time trying to get more access to NR tags so they could turn to deer hunting for another source of income. When they didnt get the results they wanted, they went to the legislature, KDWP' s boss. Natural Resource Comm of the legislature and the Ag Comm. members are mostly from farm backgrounds. It was not hard work for the lobbyists to get the legislators to react in their favor. Several Senators and State Reps have profited from the sale of transfer tags they obtained. This measure was supported by large farm operations that receive millions of dollars of crop subsidy money every year, and by Outfitters who will be able to control the sale of Kansas Hunts. This measure was not to help the small farmers struggling to survive as they have claimed.
NR hunters have had their chance of drawing a tag reduced by 50%. They can still hunt Kansas does, but the buck tags in the t-tag system are reserved for the privileged few who can afford to buy them. Instead of paying $205 for a tag, they are currently being sold for $800 and up. Some have sold for as high as $3000.
Z- I have been for draw on Muleys for years. Whitetails are not very hard to come by and their range is not concentrating into ever smaller areas. Not a hypocrite at all. So I'm for something that the AG is for, that doesn't mean I'm against at better management. My guess is both will never pass. Am I for written permission? Yes I am as it will make things easier to enforce. If t-tags go through and is managed right I am for that as well. As a hunter and land owner I see both sides of the coin. Most land owners I know out west want all the deer dead, mule deer or Whitetails. If you can add some sort of financial incinitive to not shooting every one on sight that may just be better for the deer population.
Your coin has the same face on both sides.
I noticed Irish creek outfitters, as well as several others are members of this so called sport hunting association..
Z you know I'm not an Outfitter right. I hunt take a bunch of kids and friends hunting. I am not the enemy, I just have an opinion and it is the same for a bunch of ranchers and Farmers I speak with every week.
Dbl post,..look up 5 posts,..not sure how it got in front of others, the Trebarker quote.
Real world numbers, What units do you like to hunt. I realize a few of these people may have only been buying a preference point, but im not sure that someone buying only a pp is included in the numbers of people applying for a tag.
Unit 1 could have had a 37% increase in the number of hunters..
I predominately hunt and guide in units 7 & 8. And No, i do not want to see an additional 300+ hunters here each year.
Unit 11 and 12 could have had 935 more nr hunters last yr
Wasn't all that long ago that resident gun hunters had to draw a tag to hunt either species. A fairly high percentage did not draw a tag period for anything (including an antlerless permit). Then along came the age of entitlement. Not only does everyone draw a tag but they can use it during any season. The whole system is disgusting.
I have advocated for years to extinguish the any season tag. It is more harmful than any transferable tag. I really believe it has destroyed the mule deer population. I know residents in our county out west, that residents tagged anything they shot with the any season tag by the hundreds.
z- of course it's the same folks wanting t-tags to come back. The people who want to use their financial advantage to avoid not drawing a tag, and those that cater to the rich and shameless. Let's not forget the tag brokers looking to cash in on them.
I see Tim Nedeau is a proponent of hb2207.
They sell Purple Paint in 55gln drums Tim, they also make signs which say no hunting or trespassing without written permission. I can see the kdwpt having "No pursuit or trespassing without landowner permission" rule, but it shouldnt require written permission to do this state wide.. and force those of us who have verbal agreements with our neighbors to also write written permission..if you know your neighbors and they know you, i would think you already had an agreement of receiving a phone call before 1 of them pursues an injured deer on your property..
If you catch them without calling,..prosecute them..
Looking at the attachments, each one is almost verbatim what the other guy said..
This is the response I got back from Rep. Doug Blex. It sure is nice having a rep. that worked for KDWP for years. "Already ahead of you, smoked the carrier. I am finding out a lot Lazarus up here I killed in committee and on House floor, went to another committee by a self- serving guide and we found out and killed it again. Hope it is dead I will fight all the way."
Page 2
Page 2
HB2207, has had the verbage rewritten.
Have to buy Rep Blex a drink next time I see him!
For sure he did a great job
HB 2208 seems to still have some life.
Wonder who the self serving guide was?
Brian, what leads you to believe it still has "leg's"? Maybe I'm missing something but from the testimonies I read, Fox and Jennison are opposed as are many others. Those in favor are Farm Bureau, KLA, an outfitter, and a couple of grain farmers.
Seems it was "heartshot" on Valentine's day, and everything is adjourned until Jan...at least that's what I'm reading?
Exactly, its still posted, its set for some discussion in january..who knows what plans the enemy has up their sleeve to get this passed.. people on the thread are for it...the cattle/beef associations... some legislator is being paid by lobbyist.. as always.. I wont believe its dead until its no longer posted
I see your point, we need a lobbyist on our side...or 100.
The bill will remain posted until the end of the next session. They have not killed it completely so it will remain alive until the end of next year if I understand the process and what Chris Tymeson explained at the Thursday meeting.
I was at a meeting yesterday and a lady talked about being an effective lobbyist, and that any of us can be a 'lobbyist'. The legislators are there to represent us.
I have her Top 10 tips and 3 rules to live by and started to post them, but I will summarize. It is important to get to know your legislators. Reach out at a minimum of 6 times a year, even if you don't have an issue.
When you do have an issue, keep things short and to the point.
Make sure to tell them Thank you, even if you don't agree with them or they didn't side with you. You are investing in the future and if you treat them like garbage they likely won't work with you again.
One thing that did turn me off is that she mentioned the fundraising side of things and to donate to your reps, even if it is 10 or 20 bucks. It should have nothing to do with money imo and that is what is wrong with our political process, but it obviously does unfortunately.
She also said, reaching out to them now when they aren't in session is effective because they have more time.
Bottom line is reach out to them if there are issues you don't like....squeaky wheel gets the grease!!
Matt
Good info, thanks for sharing Matt!
It's always been on my "bucket list" to buy a vote...maybe I could just donate an X-gun?
I have bought landowner tags in other states and the only way it can work is if it is limited to 1 per landowner and it has to be used on land they own,not lease for hunting or to put 1 cow on it and if a landowner did this he would not be able to use his landowner privileges with the purchasing of any other deer tag.I think they would have to take immediate family out of clause also so every kid can't sell one.Make it deeded name
Landowners already have the option of collecting money to hunt on their land and controlling whom gets to hunt on their acreage. At no time should any individual be allowed to sell and profit from a license or tag, they should only be available from the state agencies.
Gee, Tree, almost reads like you've been through this, deeply, once before. :-)
I agree,guess I am confused somewhat because it is already a law that you have to ask permission to track wounded game and it can be refused.
I just heard today that there was a meeting on this a week or two ago. I don't think it is dead.
