Contributors to this thread:
Prices may be set to increase
Contact information if you wish to speak up.
I like it. They should also require a park permit to be displayed on the windshield for hunting and fishing any public lands.
Not sure why they are striking the "Commercial Guide" permits? The rest of the proposals are just potential maximums, which may or may not ever be implemented.
If they are going to be about raising funds let me in there. I can come up with all kinds of ways to raise funds without hammering the majority. Mule deer stamp, 10k Starter Bond permit for qualified applicants, annual $500 for guides/outfitters + .25 cents per acre leased.
Dang, I hate to tell Kyle he’s right, but he is. Y’all might want to remember this is the same department that went 30 years between raising resident deer permits and over 10 with hunting and fishing licenses. Every state agency has to have an approved maximum. It’s common as costs go up. No increases are planned. We’re in good shape financially, (though I obviously have no say in say in the matters). Geez, I can’t believe the panic on this. West ..would t work. Tourism can not take any money from parks, public lands, wildlife or fisheries.
I'm not sure what I'm reading on this small phone, but if they want to increase NR deer tags then I hope it happens.
KDWP + Tourism.... which one will the New $$$ Profit go too.... I wouldn't complain about the increases I agree with Matte on the guides/outfitters an .25 cents per leased acre. Wonder if they'd also raise Poaching penalties ??
Tourism gets no money from wildlife, fisheries or park fees, just like those three can’t take from each other. Not sure who sets fines, but any such money does not go to KDWPT.
What do y’all like to see happen with the increase in NR deer fees and what effect do y’all hope comes from this ?
Raising NR deer fees will not change the amount of NR deer tags purchased. Look at Iowa. Iowa is still quite a bit more expensive than KS for NR deer tags.
If Kansas wants less NR hunters they will have to decrease the amount of NR tags. We all know that won't happen Kansas loves NR $'s.
At this point I hope the could cut back resident hunters. The any season tag has created a flood.
Some of you might can answer.... Did the allowance of crossbows bring an increase of hunters?
Also I personally don’t understand why anybody can buy 4-5 more doe tags either. I see in the meat pole threads folks killing multiple does. And they’re not NRs that I’ve seen.
I usually eat 3 or 4 deer a year, and give a little to family/friends who want some. So I often fill all of my doe tags.
NR are given 1 either sex and 1 antlerless only tag with the option to buy 5 more for $52.50
Do residents get more than 1 antkerless with their initial purchase?
Residents don't get a doe tag with their initial purchase. We have to purchase every tag individually. I don't feel that the introduction of the crossbow has brought many new hunters into hunting. It has allowed more young hunters to hunt during the archery season and it has flooded the archery season with rifle hunters due to the any season tags we have and Non resident hunters wanting to hunt the rut. I see more non resident hunters now in the archery season than during the rifle season. I feel we are paying more as a resident for hunting and fishing licenses not than we should and they keep talking about recruitment. I also have to agree on the Outfitter comments. Why this state refuses to mange the outfitters that are making a profit off of the resource and have some form of accountability for their operations is amazing. No requirements what so ever.
I don't like the "any season" tags at all. Make hunters decide and stick with it. A lot of rifle hunters would permanently hang up their crossbow if that was the case.
I don't think crossbows brought more people in, but like said above did some shifting from one season to another.
I also agree on doing away with the any season tag. Unfortunately, it’s not an end, it’s a means to the end. It has been made very clear to me,by my rep, that there is a strong contingent in Topeka working toward their goal of an any weapon, 3 month season.
How anyone can support continuously increased license fees is beyond me. Increasing fees isn't the answer to a NR issue that's for sure.
Had to laugh at the "I like it. They should also require a park permit to be displayed on the windshield for hunting and fishing any public lands"
Why give the government yet another hand out? So they can piss it away? I swear, some people want to die from a 1000 cuts.
Cazador, aren’t there some states with tourist driven economies that do not have state income tax? I think the poster you’re referring to was talking about non-resident fees. The only tourism KS has going for it is hunting. Now will KS spend that money well in the wildlife department? Maybe??
Kansas has a lot more to tourism than hunting, though it’s probably #1.
Laugh all you want. I noticed your first snide comment went straight to me pointing towards NR hunters. If you continue to read you will see that I was actually pointing towards "Residents". But you seem to like to make your own assumptions. The park permit has been discussed several times. It would be a major help to the KDWPT workers who have to constantly haul trash, couches, wash machines, swimming pools, microwaves, tires, etc out of the Mined Land Areas. It is the KDWPT workers that pushed for it a couple of years back. It is a great idea and park pass is required to fish most of the lakes in Kansas, so I see no reason to not have it for hunting as well. Public lands are over ran with traffic. I see no good reason to not require a pass for mushroom pickers.
I can't find exact numbers of economic impact form hunters considered tourist. If you estimated the value based on liscense and tag sales you could probably get close with a factor of 5. Dodge City does about 124 million in tourism with Dodge City Days and Boothill. Kc metro was 3.1 billion with Johnson county estimate of 986 million. This is just a perspective of two different regions.
At one time the biggest tourist draw in KS was Cabelas in KC. May not be that since the big take over by BP.
West. Not a bad idea. Wouldn’t need to be expensive but have to have a hunting license to buy one. That could cut down on illegal use and make it easier to enforce access.
..there has been talk of access permits needed for places like Cheyenne Bottoms, so wildlife watchers contribute. State park passes are only used for state parks.
$7.50 for a window sticker sounds fair to me. I don't think you should have to have a hunting license to buy one because not everyone hunts, some just fish, some don't do either. Some just camp. Some just go muddin'. But if you use public lands, you should have to have some sort of fee. Go drive through the state strip pits in SEK and you will see what I mean. They haul trash by the truck loads. About 4 years ago someone dumped a pile of shingles in there that was at least 6 feet tall and about 10 feet in diameter. Cazador would not know that since he doesn't live here.
Aren't public lands paid for through taxation? Seems to me residents already pay their dues every single yr. Why charge me twice or discriminate against the poor when the general population has contributed? I also have my doubts that additional $$$$ generated would be dumped back into the resource... seems departments like to "borrow" from each other. Am I wrong, where does funding for state public land come from?
Because I would be willing to pay more if it would help to keep the trash dumpers out. I think it would help with road hunting and general traffic. You have to have a sticker on the window for fishing, only makes since for hunting.
I'm fine with increased prices if KS would actually use the revenue to implement a check in system that at least feigns care about deer harvest numbers. I remain staggered by he way KS "keeps track" of harvest numbers- selected, voluntary, somewhat burdensome, surveys. Crazy.
Use the money to provide a telecheck type system and actually get serious about managing the resource. From that data, reasonable regulations about weapon usage and season length can be determined.
Anyone price increases on licenses will reduce the number of young hunters and fishers, and also fund ways for politicians to give more to the richest of the rich.
Youth do not have to purchase a hunting or fishing license.
I took my son and a few of his friends to hunter safety when they were kids, and took them hunting for a few years. Once they turned 18 and I said ok you are on your own to buy this stuff now they all quit because their income was low and the expense of it was not trivial. The young people added up the cost in their heads and said no thanks not worth it.
West relax, breathe. It had nothing to do with NR other than the fact raising fees isn't going to limit NRs. Only limiting the number of tags will do that. I see you always pump up when someone has a different point of view than you. You only see red, go back an read what I said.
My point is we simply love to tax ourselves anyway possible. Pretty soon our windshields will have more stickers and permits than an UBER driver. All these excess fees paid by sportsman are getting old.
Outdoorspeople nickle and diming themselves is no solution. If the Parks need more budget, call Kansas Senate President Susan Wagle. She just created a committee, made herself chairwoman, and is delivering a $137,000,000 Kansas Sate tax cut to corporations. (She is lining up corporate support for the next election). Talk her into keeping 10% of that for the Parks and that friends will make a real difference. Many Politicians believe outdoorspeople vote straight Republican ticket, this might be a good time to remind them maybe not always if she doesn't keep some of that for KDWPT.
I agree with Cazador. Oh what did we ever do 15,20,30 years ago to fund parks departments all over the country. The money grab in this Industry from manufacturers to the state level is getting crazy. The Tv shows do a great job of selling a dream no matter the cost. The states see this as a great revenue source with no end and alot of hunters buy into it. I think we will start seeing a mjor back lash to the cash grab. I had a father text me the other day on what it would cost him to take his three teenagers hunting. If he headed west to look for access and a better chance at success he said he figured it could cost him almost 1k for a three day hunt. That were his figures and he said he would be done if prices go any higher. The passtime of hunting is not a any expense passion for alot of hunters.
Cazador I am not advocating limiting anyone hunting or fishing. I want to limit trash dumpers, beer drinkers, mudders, hell raisers. That is why I disagree with Writer on making a park fee part of a hunting license. I believe a park pass for any purpose on public land would have zero effect on hunter numbers and would make the hunting experience better for everyone on state land. You keep going back to NR hunting for some reason. Matte, did I mention funding anything? A simple park pass for all public land directed at the general public. You guys seem to think that public land is for hunting only. You never mention anything in your post other than hunting. People fish, people bird watch, people hike, people camp, people swim, and people do undesirable things on public land. Let them all pay a small fee.
Comments were not ever pointed towards you west. Only that I agree with Cazador on this one.
Jeff....do you think people that dump trash etc on public lands are going to buy a permit? They don't give a damn about laws obviously if they are dumping trash. I am not for or against your idea, but to think it is going to limit the people you mention above is a pipe dream imo.
I would be on board with increased fees... if I knew it would pay for more Game Wardens. I still don't trust that the state would place the funds where they should be though, and I still don't think residents should pay extra fees to be on the public land that their taxes paid for in the first place.
I agree with Matt. Nobody who dumps illegally is going to buy a permit so they can dump illegally nor will they think twice about going into any public lands without a permit. That's just silly.
No it wont stop it and one would be foolish to think otherwise. But it mightt detere one or 2 and would give an assist to the hard working kdwpt workers. If it cut down traffic it would be a big help in maintaining roads. If you are not familiar with the mined land area I would not expect you to understand. Those workers you respect are for it, that should be enough.
I am not against it for funding KDWPT and helping with the trash clean up. I worked as a seasonal at a state fishing lake and people are slobs and rather disgusting. Point is, the permit will not cut down on any traffic, etc imo. People will still be slobs and look at that as a place to dump waste, etc. Having more employees to patrol the area like someone mentioned above would be helpful as well. I can't recall how mined lands area is set up but I suppose if there are defined entrances maybe people won't risk going in without a permit. I was thinking it was pretty spread out though.
Kansas is not alone in raising fees. Many states are doing it. Talked with a buddy who lives in CO and PP are going to go to $50 bucks per species for both residents and NR. That will price out their resident hunters in some situations, especially young hunters who don't have the funds.
It is just getting crazy. In Colorado they have an over abundance of people applying so I can see the cash grab. Here in Kansas we have declining resident participation. There are two schools of thought when this happens. #1 Raise rates to make up for the decline. #2 Improve your product as to increase volume. I have asked and still have no answers on how the lifetime liscense and federal funds work or if we can track who is still hunting that has a lifetime. Time will only tell how all this plays out and if the right decisions will be made.
Always thought the lifetime was a great deal for young folks. When they decided us old geezers had to buy a cheap tag for hunt or fish from 65 to 75. I thought what a great deal buy a combo for $40. and the state gets credit for 10 years license buyer to apply to apply to Pittman Roberts matching fees, a great deal. THEN I found out that the feds did not buy the deal and KS only got credit for a license buyer for one year. Then when the wife turned 65 and just wanted a fish found out you cannot just buy the fish, so she can hunt until 75 but won't. Still think the fed decision is a rip off.
Maybe you should have to buy a $5 “stamp” to shoot a species of Kansas animal. The more species you hunt, the more $5 stamps you buy. Could make two of your choice included with a hunting license. So most people wouldn’t pay any extra. I only shot turkey and deer. Some would pay an extra $20. Deer, turkey, upland, waterfowl, coyote, rabbit, etc... Might be a deterrent for the youth hunters we want to get re-engaged tho.
It looks like this has been shut down.
“The bill would, however, give the agency latitude over time to respond to alterations in wildlife populations, changes to environment and the fiscal demands of agency operations.” So funny!I'm on the outside looking in and have been hesitant to comment on this issue but this phrase must come out of a canned book various State Depts use cause it's near identical to what I've seen in another State. The real operative part being 'fiscal demands of agency operations'. The usual euphemism for adding layers of bureaucracy instead of cutting layers to get funds.And,sadly as you know I'm sure,they will eventually get their wishes.
With the right people, in the right places, using the right tools hopefully prices can stay in check. Social Media, Twitter and even email prove effective to get ahold of your representatives.
how much is paid in nr. tags every year and who does it go to, and how is it spent
Just make it 1,000 for license and 1,000 for tags already,let’s break this dependence on smartphone calculators and thin those Texarkalousissipians.
I’m sure this is public information somewhere but I was told by a pretty credible source that the revenue from KDWP has been relatively flat over the last ten years even with the rise in NR dollars coming into the state. He stated less resident hunters and a huge decrease in revenue from upland hunters.
According to these numbers we’re at a 35 year high on license sales. I would assume the recent uptick has to be upland hunters? Droughts in South Dakota and the state’s ad campaign directed at roosters and quail seem to have WIHA’s as crowded as ever from what I saw this year.
The areas I hunt for pheasants had a sharp decrease this year. If this continues upland bird hunter numbers may decrease. We have a lot of private land to hunt but in the last two years that has been cut by about 50% due to loss of CRP acres.
do ya'll have a guess on the % chance this increase passes and if so, would it be implemented for the tag costs this spring's application?
100%. This spring. Straight to maximums. Non residents should boycott and stay home. We’re all screwed!
I kid. Read Matte’s link.
I see that link now- thanks
Stealthy - it was never for a price increase. It was to get the ceiling raised if there’s a need to raise them down the road. Before someone goes to the “well you know they’re gonna...” No, I don’t know that. The state was 30 years between big game permit increases and 13 years between license increases and things are currently looking pretty good. (Semi-rant over...thanks.)
Call your local state rep........I called ours this past thursday and he verified this bill was shot down immediately. However, he did say it is possible it will be brought back to the house again, after the bill was re-written.
This was the best thing yet to deter the onslaught of NR tag sales(see link)...and it was just a proposal for "caps". It's amazing how few people actually took the time to read the proposal, and instead jumped to conclusions. Next year I hope they propose $2k tag caps ;?)
Please explain the 'need',if there isn't one.A government rainy day fund?Please.
I think a lot of people read it Sito. They realized they were caps but don't agree with the possibility of hitting those caps. My fight on bills like this are for the state to make financial sense for the regular Joe hunter, not the guys buying $2500 crossbows, $1500 compounds that watch way to many hunting shows. Prices on gear has sky rocketed with the rise in popularity with cable hunting shows and the states seem to be following that trend with no economic back up or justification based on historic budgets. If KDWPT raises a ton of funds and has them in reserve what keeps the Governor from pirating those funds, like KPERS and the highway funds. If we as hunters could be guaranteed more access, more wardens and other services I could see the some rate increases. Until then maybe price with median wage increase and or 2% inflation.
Guess we can agree to disagree, but from the comments here and everywhere else I've seen it posted, it certainly seems as though folks thought the costs were going up. In fact, most talked about the "max's" as next year's cost structure.
Regardless, if it lessens the "demand" that's good for all resident hunters in the way of access which is exactly what we need to get more KS hunters afield.
I totally agree on the access part and that people fear the max price as if we're to already be instated. I hope common sense and price structure continue. I compare prices for Resident hunters to surrounding states and other major deer hunting states. I think as word gets out more and more non residents will shop around. One thing is certain though the Non Resident hunting population is unlimited unlike the local resident population which I would like to see grow.
Another big issues Kansas is seeming to face is outbound movement. We rank in the top five states with outbound relocation. High Energy, taxes, and property taxes seem to be the driving factors.
I'm seeing that as well, amongst friends and even relatives...but usually I hear weather as the reason? I've been in all 50, and I like KS and the weather just fine...I need all four seasons.
All of the surrounding states have lower tag fee's for WT, and I think some have areas with better quality deer. Our herd has been decimated by the unguided decisions the legislators have made in the last 10yrs.
“What keeps the governor...” Federal freaking laws, and yes they are monitored regularly. Been over this so many times...parks can’t take from wildlife, wildlife can’t take from fisheries, parks and wildlife can’t take from fisheries and tourism can’t take funds from wildlife, parks or fisheries. All four are on their own.
I hope that is so. I hope wildlife funds never get raided. You would think KPERS wouldn't get touched but when they go that direction some feel no money the state has is safe no matter what department. Very good to know it can never be touched no matter what.
Writer: there was a real dust up some years ago when an ex gov was in charge about cominglinging of funds?
No, it was before him by quite a bit. Steve Williams had to clean it up as soon as he was hired. Either wildlife was spent on fisheries or v/v. Sizable fine. Those federal excise taxes (P-R and D-J) can only be used for very specific uses related to fishing, or hunting and shooting. Feds really monitor the books.