Contributors to this thread:
What do y'all think
Forest bows's Link
Just so I understand, if I own land in KS and get a tag, I could sell it to a non-resident? Hmmm.......my first thought is hunting in general already involves greed and the almighty dollar, this wouldn't help.
1.) How many acres does one need to own to qualify? They can't offer this to everyone that lives in Topeka or any other city. 2.) Is it an open market on what they can get for the tag in regards to $$$?
On the surface, I would say I’d be opposed to it. It says landowners in Kansas. Does that include nonresidents that own land there? Lots of potential for opening an even bigger can of worms than what already exists there. Too many nonresident tags being issued there each year, IMO (and I’ve never hunted or even applied for a tag there).
Plus, it might give some of our legislators here in Iowa some ideas about trying here as well :-(
It’s not perfect here either, but compared to any other of the top whitetail states, Iowa’s system is, by far, set up better than any other that I’m aware of, and I’d like to keep it that way.
If it created problems in the past what makes them think it would be any different this time.
Tag per every 80 acres or one tag per landowner no matter how many acres I've heard it both ways.
They do it in Colorado and New Mexico right now I believe. Great for non-residents hunters, bad for resident hunters
Why don't you tell us what you think Forest? Realizing that's a contradiction in terms.
You're a KS landowner, and outfitter, shall we revisit the "Operation Cimarron case" for a refresher?
I think the T tags are a horrible idea, and is going to do nothing but hurt bow hunting in Kansas. I also think that's what you do by constantly bashing bowhunters that are doing nothing wrong. But my opinion doesn't matter only yours.
So if I had a friend who lives is Kansas and they had a tag they could sell it to me at their cost and that would allow me to hunt. Would I be confined to the property owners land with the tag or could I hunt anywhere that the tag allowed. Say, Public lands?
So, if approved you will not participate correct Forest?
Dan, it's been amended several times...you need to read the bill for the accurate description.
I'm not a outfitter. I formed a hunt club, and my friends and I lease and buy land to hunt on. If this bill passes I may be forced to buy tags from a land owner or lose the property. I will make that decision when I have to. Unfortunately alot of guys might have to make the same decision, and I'm sure you will be quick to spin that and bash every one that does.
Didn’t they do this years ago in Kansas? Why did they do away with it back when?
Could be worse. Tags as I read are only good for the originating property. If they could be transferred and used anywhere, it would be bigger issue. Surely one could argue that a business minded outfitter could lease out more land, and then receive more tags, but being as KS was "Almost" OTC as it was, I don't think this is as damaging as it sounds. I guess outfitters could promote "Don't worry about the draw I have tags" and just come to Kansas. If the ground was already locked up, no big deal.
Make no mistake though, this bill is written for outfitters. Why else would the tags be needed? Residents get tags so if Billy has 5 little Johnnies and two little Suzies, as a resident getting a tag is as simple as a trip to Walmart.
I myself would make out very well. The couple landowners I have permission on would only charge me the cost of the tag not jack the price up. I now have to draw and my total cost is around $600 now for my tag to hunt Kansas. I agree it would not be good for the deer hunting in Kansas but it would benefit me. I belong to Kansas Bowhunters Association even as a NR and whatever the those folks decide to support or not support will be fine with me. I defer to that great organization. Shawn