Contributors to this thread:
T-tags being proposed again
Time to go to work writing emails again.
I just don't care anymore. It's basketball season anyway.
Makes me sick to my stomach...please keep us posted on what you hear Randy & Mike!
That is a very vague bill. If they would make it useable only on land owned by the land owner like Colorado does and add in a trade for WIHa it might have a chance. Example enroll 160 acres of prime deer habitat be eligible for one T-tag (this may add more access in Central and Eastern Ks). I know a lot of farmers who don't want to lease but would like t-shirt to come back. I'm against this bill as written.
Yes! Let’s put a fork in this thing and be done with it already!
Man, I’m sick of this crap.
Matte the Colorafo Landowner vouchers are good unit wide. Some are only good on private land only but still unit wide. Not aware of any that are tied to just the landowners property only.
Kansasclipper quality post there.
Hmm maybe it has changed. I know it was awhile back I purchased a land owner tag for Mule Deer up north of Grand Junction. Crazy story followed, two neighbors were like the Hatfield's and Mcoys and some of their ranch hands got into taking pop shots at each other. We left law tracked us down for our part of the story, then got into a heated argument with Nona Powell the land owner telling her she had to find somewhere for us to hunt as our tags were good for her property. Again along time ago a crazy situation and $$$$ wasted.
Thought we had this snake dead. Who is sponsoring this thing?
I’ll try and find out from my rep what’s going on.
Ken Corbett is trying to bring it back to life, he’s trying to avoid any committee Doug Blex is a part of because Doug will kill it. That’s why Corbett’s not bringing it through the ag committee. Doug is working with a group to get the bill proposal killed.
Corbett owns a shooting preserve btw...:/
Don't like the idea of transferable tags at all, BUT if we have to have them, they should be tied to the property that was used to get them in the first place.
I agree with MDW. Tie it to the WiHa program and make landowners sign in a parcel. Win win, landowners get the T-tag public gets more access. However how this bill is written I am against it as it is to vague.
I remember the first year I guided, I would discover clients hunting with the outfitter were hunting sometimes half a state from where their t-tag unit was. Some of the hunters were so wealthy, they would fly in, hunt a day or two, then head to another state where they thought the hunting was better. One guy left for Iowa, another for Giles Island Mississippi. Since they left early, I turned them in after my season ended. The warden mulled it over and decided not to pursue it because they didn't kill any trophy bucks.
Thanks for bringing this up let us know what we can do as it goes along.i agree tie it to the land it came from.that will prevent all these trying to sell tags from landowners that haven't had a deer cross their property for a year get NR tags,or this would be a good time to enact points system to NR.Wouldn't this quota still have to fall under total NR quota or did that completely fall apart when they changed the wording?
I have said some of this before, but it is a slippery slope. Once they pass the bill to sell them tied to the land they could introduce another bill or amend the regulation to allow it to be unit wide, etc. I agree with Randy, all tags need to be sold by the state, not by landowners to the highest bidder.
Any of you have Ken Corbett as your rep?
NOONE but the state should be distributing tags. The idea stank last time and it stinks now.
I know Senator Corbet was sent an email today from my group of people. I have yet to see a response back.
Ken corbett owns ravenwood lodge in Shawnee county. Is this not a conflict of interest, pushing laws to improve his business?
Depends on how many T-Tags and how they maybe used. If he was only get one tag as a land owner or tenant it would not make that big of a difference. However 10+ tags I could see how that could increase sales enough to justify an inquiry of conflict of interest.
Judge: as for conflict of interest, we once had a KDWP director that ran an outfitting business.
The last time I knew about this bill it was being backed by the Kansas Livestock Assoc. also. I do feel it is a conflict of interest to have any state elected or appointed official that can manipulate bills for their own interest and benefit.
Griff that is the normal for all states and all gov. how do think they all get rich
Every landowner gets a tag now I guess this bill would allow them to transfer it to somebody else is that correct?
No, not "every landowner" gets a tag now, did you read the proposed bill?
So.Matte, if EVERY landowner bought a tag, and could transfer them, including those that don't hunt, don't allow hunting on their land, are only buying them for outfitters and tag brokers that do not live in Kansas (exactly what happened last time) you'd still be okay with that?
Again, no individual should be allowed to profit from license sales. Landowners can do what they want with their land and access to it. They do not have the right to profit from tags
Don't let it go through in any way, shape or form. Once a foot is in the door the door will open.
You got that right Chas, every year following they would want more of them, more liberal options to allow unrestricted use of them.
99.9% of politicians run to make their businesses more profitable, to influence legislation that affects their personal businesses/occupations. Most are smart enough to not make it so obvious though.
I just don't get it, how far from meeting demand are we already? I'm assuming a transferable tag would not allow someone to shoot an additional buck. Back when these were being sold, the draw was much more restrictive. Why on earth would someone pay a rancher/farmer $900 for a tag (just grabbed that out of the air), when he had a 95% chance of drawing a tag for almost half the cost? I get that only those who didn't get drawn would be interested, I just don't see there being much of a market for these tags... I still think it is an awful idea and just the start of something much bigger, because this doesn't make much sense numbers wise.
Some have asked for TT, or OTC, for when NR clients want to hunt but the draw has passed.
every landowner gets a tag now you're either a resident and you buy a resident tag or you're a non-resident landowner and you buy a non-resident landowner tag
Land will be worth a lot more money if you can shoot more than one deer each off of it.
Just so nobody's confused I don't agree with that I don't like the idea of this bill at all
Have you ever even read the regs on what it requires to purchase a "Landowner Tag" in KS Forest? Serious question.
Forest has confused us all!
Trebarker I have already said I don't agree with this bill as written. I would be in favor of T-tags that have to be used like a hunt on own land tag with the WIHA access of a minimum 160 acres attached. Land owner gets a voucher that is then taken to an official KDWPT office and then a tag would be issued. After that the agreement between the hunter and landowner is their business. Tie WIHA access (had be deer habitat) and it is a win for the lad owners and the public land hunter. That is just my idea on how I would like to see it work. Large Landowners out vote all hunters if we are going to see T-Tags might as well try and get some access. Colorado had a pretty interesting program. I have included a link as for bowsiters to read and research. If the state is going to go down this road we should all educate ourselves as to what works in other states. Again as the bill is written I'm not for it.
T-tags are nothing more than a convenience tag for those that don't want to be bothered with applying for tags, those that aren't used to not getting what they want, those that can afford to drop $1k-$10k or more for a hunt without being bothered with regulatory roadblocks. The tags are also desirable/very profitable to NR guides, outfitters and tag brokers.
"After that the agreement between the hunter and landowner is their business." What would be the qualifying requirements to get a T-Tag? Just the 160 acres? Only landowners with 160 acres or more would qualify? If they owned 6000 acres, would they be able to get a tag for each 160 acres they own? Who would determine that the land meets the suggested requirement of "prime deer habitat". When landowners can easily find someone willing to pay $3-$10k to lease their "prime deer habitat", those wanting to profit off t-tags are not going to give up those profits to allow the public to hunt their acres. What I am saying, is KDWP NROs are stretched pretty thin as it is, there is no way to enforce the requirements you are suggesting.
The last time tag pimps had these tags, I proved to KDWP that people were obtaining them illegally. The regulations on the t-tags clearly stated that only one tag could be purchased by landowners, the members of their family could not each buy one. I asked for, and got a list of the tags sold that year (public info, can be obtained). I went thru the long list and found that multiple tags had been sent to many of the same addresses. I found one address that had gotten 10 t-tags. The applicant used multiple names, spelled the address differently (RR#2- Rural Route #2) spelled the names differently (Robert Jones- Robt Jones- Bob Jones). I even found a Kansas politician, one known to support wildlife commercialization, one that went to DC for a term, that had illegally applied for and had gotten multiple t-tags. I showed what I had discovered, very easily I might add, to KDWP staff who were at our convention. My list with the violators names and addresses highlighted in yellow came up missing following that meeting. Someone decided to take it out of the meeting room when they left. I suspected it could have been taken by a member who didn't want their name seen on the list. I hoped at the time it was taken by staff member of KDWP to further investigate.
Now you guys are confusing me.
What Trebarker said! It will increase hunters,almost exclusively NRs I suspect.If transferable It guarantees outfitters a certain number of tags to use AFTER having their clients apply for the 'draw' and fail.It will likely increase outfitting and decrease public access cause the 'value' of hunting land goes up the more 'secure' income from it becomes.It will also likely create another profitable layer that drives the cost of 'hunting' up to it's overall detriment-TAG BROKERS.Not rocket science. You want to study other States,take a look at New Mexico.A mess!
The motive here is confusing. Any NR with half a brain can draw his/her preferred tag with near 100% certainty every year if they understand the system. Yes, there are a few units in the 70-80% first choice success, but they all border a unit with 98-100% odds. If you’re not drawing your tag, you should do some homework.
Having said that, I think the “attach a bordering unit” rule is ridiculous. I’d sure like to draw a 2 point Wyoming elk tag and have that rule in effect. Quick scan of the numbers shows a potential of 12,000 tags that could attach Unit 14 as their second area. Little unlikely all of them do, but what kind of management is that with unlimited access to a few reservoirs and very little WIHA? This rant was probably better suited for a different thread, but if we want to make a positive difference we should be fighting for unit-specific NR tags, with a good percentage of those being private land only.
Thanks for keeping us in the loop once again Randy. Don’t see this one going anywhere.
KB your spot on. You understand units and how well they work in Western states. I have asked multiple times at commission meetings if they will ever consider smaller GMUs. I was hopeful for a brief second when the new Big Game guy came from the west.
Without it Matt, I bet Units like 7, 8, 11, 12, and 14 would move closer to 50-70% draw odds. What do you think that would do to the lease market in those areas that many were complaining about in another thread? All while not taking a single tag out of the NR pool and any dollars from KDWP.
We had smaller GMU's back around 2004, didn't work at all. I lived on the border of 3 units and could not hunt some of my properties 3 miles from my house. Hated it.
Smaller units would eventually lead to a true Preference Point System. In turn if and only if Outfitters were regulated it could open up some access. There are so many ways this could work. Smaller units with some areas OTC for residents or they open up statewide after rifle. Not only has non resident hunters had an impact but out of area residents are also having an impact. I don't think we will get away from leasing but if it was hard to draw a certain area that may take the large non resident dollars out of the equation where a local could afford it.
I still think giving landowners something they want in turn for something the public needs is the solution to a lot of things left to be desired.
Will T-Tags affect how most hunt = no
Would more access affect how most hunt = yes
Things have changed so much in the last 25 years on the Kansas landscape be thankful for the private landowners (especially those enrolled in CRP and WIHA) without them where would we be.
Not talking about residents Jeff.
Edit - I guess Matt is. I could be in favor of more restrictive resident opportunities, especially in regards to mule deer. But I don’t see anything like that gaining ground anytime soon. A lot of guys who have lost ground east like the option to run west for a weekend or two, but still have one or two pieces worthwhile near home. I’m fine with that. If you take the potential 12,000 add-on tags off the table for Unit 14 I bet some of those guys will stick around to hunt Council Grove, John Redmond, Melvern, etc if there isn’t a NR pickup parked at every entrance.
Jeff, do you have an old reg book with those smaller units? Would be interested to see what that looked like. I don’t recall anything different in my lifetime, just that we had to pick two there for a bit.
Kansas does almost absolutely nothing to protect against tag fraud as it is right now. anybody who wants to be crooked could beat the system no problem. There are a lot bigger issues that I believe you guys should look into and fight for. Somehow the state of Kansas needs to find funding to employ more game wardens because there's not enough to enforce the rules now let alone making up new ones.
My bad,I thought there were areas that you weren't assured tags as a NR. Still a horrible idea though.And,it will eventually result in less land available to residents.Just watch.
I may have something I can snap a picture of. Where I lived in Ness County, it was right on the border of 4 units so I had properties with in walking distance of my house that I could not hunt since we had to choose 2 units. Can't remember if it was for just 1 season or 2 but I hated it. I would have thought Matte would have hated it since he hunts some in Ness County and western KS. Each year we have to drive further and further to hunt properties and the ones we hunt are spread out over several counties. Those small GMU's we had would be a disaster and really limit the properties we hunt. I may hunt east of Great Bend after school on Monday and then go to Ness City on Tuesday. Please don't ever bring those GMU's back.
Now that I go back and look and don't know if they were any different. It may have been just where I lived in Ness county that I was on the border of those 4 units we still have. It was a big blow to hunting where I had permission back when it was easy to get permission. It would have a major impact on gaining permission for residents if we had it now.
I don't ever remember being restrictions a as a bow hunter. I get what your saying though. I don't mind choosing though as I have to do it every year Elk hunting. I also agree we need to streamline tags and regs. I had a Warden at the R3 summit mention there were already like 20 different deer tags so there is an issue there. As Kansas we have a long way to go and catch up to what needs to be done. We need ideas though and we need to be open minded to those ideas. Not every idea is a cure all but if we can take bits and pieces from many maybe we find great solutions.
The Colorado system may look good on paper, but if you dig a little deeper it has it's faults. It should be noted that vouchers are not private land only tags. They are unit wide, and not private land specific, which makes them very appetizing to outfitters.
What you see is outfitters end up getting landowners to put their properties into the system so they can acquire tags and re-sell at a much higher cost. The bigger the property, the more tags there are available. Even worse, those tags can come out of the "public pool of tags".
Also keep in mind they are selling just the voucher, once the hunter has the voucher in hand, they still need to purchase the actual tag at the NR price or the R price if they reside in state.
Another issue is the hunter who purchases a tag via the voucher system does not lose their preference points.
Why do they have to break the state up into units, I don't understand why a tag is not good state wide where you can hunt where you have permission to hunt, then regulate leasing
You don't remember having to choose 2 units? If you hunted then you had to. It was in 2004 or 2005. One of the worst restrictions ever!!!!!!!!!!! As much as you like to bow hunt, I would think you would be the last to advocate for it. Hunting elk in a western state is much different than hunting deer in Kansas with a mile road on every section. Why in the world would you want to restrict residents? Some land owners have properties in several different counties and you want to limit them to which properties they can hunt. Ness county had 4 different Units in it. So you could have permission to hunt a land owners land (like I did) and not be able to hunt all of his properties in one county. It was ridiculous.
"We had smaller GMU's back around 2004, didn't work at all. I lived on the border of 3 units and could not hunt some of my properties 3 miles from my house. Hated it."
And here I thought you were all about the resource? Goes to show, it's not what's good for the resource, but what's good for you.
Cazador we are having an intelligent discussion. Why start pointing fingers? Add something intelligent or shut up! What do you know about the small GMU's we had and how did they work? You don't know so you just have to smart off.
Read above, I posted twice. Both showing the facts. The second post being even more factual than the first. I'm not sorry if that rubs you the wrong way.
PS.... as a NR, I have to pick "2 small units" every time I apply in KS. Not to mention what goes on over here when I apply. I think I know a little about "picking units".
CLIP, I don't remember but heck that was 15 years ago. At that time I worked way more than I wanted to and was busy with toddlers. I know from about 1999-2005 I hunted my own place for deer pretty hard and went west for pheasants and holidays with the Family.
Cazador, Thanks for your response on Colorado. It is just an example to use. Regrettably nothing is ever perfect in everyone's eyes. I wish we had the federal lands like what we all enjoy in Colorado. Do you have any ideas on how to improve access here in Kansas? I'm all ears and have an open mind for the benefit of the hunter and the resources in mind.
I would not benefit from T-Tags but increased access and smaller unit could lead to a lot less pressure and more enjoyable hunts.
Again as the bill is proposed it is to vague and I'm against it. However if the state came to us (the hunting public) and said what are some other options, I want to have those ideas and options out there ready to present.
'Why do they have to break the state up into units, I don't understand why a tag is not good state wide where you can hunt where you have permission to hunt, then regulate leasing"
Units are for game management purposes. There is no other way to limit the number of hunters to a given area. Regulating leasing will never be an option. Go to the Capital and propose such an amendment, you will be escorted out the door and likely be taken to the Haha Hilton for evaluation.
We don't have units in okla and have a great deer Hurd don't seem to have any of the problems you guys do. How do you explain that
Kansas can't manage a deer herd that they can't count they have no clue how many are even killed each year your laws are a mess. It's all about money
I’m trying to remember if I hunted illegally in 2004. We hunted in SEK and had permission on a big ranch north of dodge city that we would spend the first week of November on, it was leased so we lost it in 2007. Maybe all of the ground I hunted in SEK was in the same unit? I don’t remember the archery only tag not being statewide.
Again, I agree with KB, I don’t see any reason for these tags; except for them having a much bigger, worse plan and this just being another small step.
Management and Revenue will never work together in regard to Conservation. You have to decide which is most important, you can't have both.
James I think most paid no attention to the units. Kinda of like the stupid Any Season Tag. Lots of mule deer killed on those without people knowing they were poaching.
I don't think the TTags will have the value they had back in the day. I can remember those tags going for $2000 on Ebay before the flood gates opened.
Definitely agree they will not bring as much. I think last time those tags were available there were only around 8,000 Nr tags so demand was high. Now with 24k tags plus a price increase could be less useful.
If landowners can sell the tag,sure not likely to let any others not buying tags hunt their land.The more tags they get,less likely they will go WIHA as well.
If 24,000 nr tags are sold around twelve million dollars are raised why doesn't the state lease more private for public like ok does .we have quite abit of public leased from land owners
You guys need to demand where your money is spent. I don't think there is a deer in this world worth $500.00 we buy the tag because it's kinda a vacation but I think I'm about done
Body — how many acres in that OK program? You can’t force landowners to lease their lands to the state.
I think around sixty thousand. I would think alot of land owners would do just as good as they would as leasing to outfitters, not though you would probably no more than me
Neat data on Hunting ground and acres per hunter.
Kansas walk-in program is a tad north of 1 million acres. State can’t come close to competing with what most outfitters and some NR hunters are willing to pay.
I’ve been doing a ton of research on current lease rates.
A lot of outfitters are paying between $8 and $15 dollars per acre... if it’s exceptional ground $20.
Private individuals are paying a lot more than that, depending on the land. I’ve heard a lot in the $25-$30 range and some near $50.
A good duck pond can bring around $1,000... great one can bring $1,500-$2,000+ depending on size and success.
I think the t-tags will hold value well, especially if they clamp down on the nonresident tenant tags... heavily abused.
The older I get the more I realize how foolish I’ve been... It’s all a game. Are you going to pursue animals or money?
What is the state pursing?
This is just an opinion.... I think the state could afford to pay more for public access, but the nonresident money is pretty influential, I don’t think the return on Public Land can touch that, so I wonder if they even have the “want to” to tie up additional acres for Public Access.
I agree with that Mike. Any great ideas on how to increase the program? It has been around that million acres since 2004.
WIHA needs to be 5 year contracts at a minimum to discourage leasing to Outfitters. On a better note, Representative Larry Hubbard said today the increase in hunting/fishing license costs was defeated
The state could certainly compete, but there are many more costly endeavors that get more "press" and have more backing. IMO, simply eliminate baiting and none of this matters.
The state would never do anything like that and lose all that revenue. And in my opinion the state of Kansas needs more revenue to fund the Parks and wildlife department. no need for new laws if you don't have enough money to enforce the ones that you already have.
The money coming in now could just as easily be used to provide more warden coverage. Just because you and your friends have no knowledge of, or regard for, "laws" doesn't mean others don't.
No greedy bxxtards in fish and game because there hasn’t been a “fish and game” for over 30 years!
There you go again making comments you have no idea what you're talking about.
In my experience which is hunting Kansas for the last 10 years spending two to three months a year there for the last five and living there for a year and a half solid a couple years ago I have seen tenfold hunting violations committed by residents over non-resident it's not even close. Residence poaching deer is by far the biggest problem Kansas has right now.
Most Resident violations occur because you nonresidents took all our land.
Had a conversation with your neighbor to the south in a coffee shop in Eureka the other day. Told me all about the times he's called the game Warden on you, all the dead deer he finds laying around with arrows in them, all the problems that he's had with you over the years. I don't think I would even get involved in this conversation Jason.
You're a liar Forest. Kind of like the time you bragged to Kyle you had the hunting items stolen from his Yukon. My neighbor to the south is my cousin so that proves you are a lying POS which is funny because you call yourself a Christian. Every deer I've shot with an arrow on my farm has died within 60 yds and all were retrieved. The only deer lost or killed with an arrow were from the guys from Texarkana that bought the 80 1/2 a mile south of me 3 years ago. 2 years ago, there were 4-5 bucks that died from EHD which was investigated and confirmed by the area KDPWT manager. I can come to your farm anytime and we'll sort this out like men. Until then, you are nothing but a slanderous liar that hunts with convicted poachers (Operation Cimmarron).
Neat land chart but it misses a million acres here and there.(appears a million acres in 'Walk In' in Ks and SD for instance)
Here's a view of some of the SD programs.A program that has made a HUGE difference in my part of the State is CREP.It pays landowners well but it enrolled some of the BEST land around and it lasts 10-15 years per contract.It even got some big blocks of religious colony land that is some of the best pheasant/deer/waterfowl ground in the State. Brief discussion on the program attached if you click on the 'CREP factsheet' at the bottom. http://habitat.sd.gov/resources/access.aspx
We have always had poaching. It was bad 40 years ago and bad today. Although I tend to think there is less of it now than there was back in the late 80's and early 90's simply because we don't have anywhere near the quality of deer we had back then. It has been years since I have seen anyone out spot lighting but back in the 80's you would see it on a nightly basis. It is a different kind of poaching now simply do to the ridiculous amount of regulations. You had 2 tags back then, an archery tag or a gun tag. Now look at all the choices. Everyone is looking for a "Loop Hole" like Spook. Residents have and will always poach. But now we have poaching from out of state to go along with it. Poaching is Poaching, doesn't matter if you live within or outside the lines. But it is nice that Forrest was able to share his vast amount of experience that he has picked up in his couple of years hunting here. 10 years is not much history or knowledge of hunting here, Green Horn. Forrest if you have seen that much poaching, please tell us the number of poachers you have helped convict?
Clip we hunted late seventy eightys and ninety and almost all land owners we stayed with shot deer to eat, not really trophy hunting alot of people just trying to survive because the economy was so poor I never thought bad about it back then
I've called the game warden three times on poaching incidents with no convictions. I agree 100% more regulations are just bad for hunting anywhere.
Here's a roadhunter I caught on that property during for season. He was not wearing the required amount of orange and his passenger shot from the road on property they didn't have permission on. That place is for sale now, but the locals all hunt it when the nonresidents aren't there.
Forrest, I spoke with Ryan, and that conversation "you had the other day" must've been a few years ago. The same time he and I found 5 bucks dead at the end of summer/ early season and we both called the warden. The area manager showed up and ruled they all died of EHD. Ryan is not a hunter, nor does he understand hunting. He told me he assumed the Texarkana guys killed those bucks and left them lay. Turns out, they are managing for size and numbers just like I am. I do not kill young deer nor do I let all of my friends kill young deer like you do. So until you know the whole story, shut up.
So do you turn in the locals for hunting it jason?
3 times in 10 years on suspected poaching incidences is not very many at all. I have turned in 3 incidences since 2012 that led to citations. 2 from Missouri and 1 from Pennsylvania. Turned in many more that were never caught. Had an incident with a resident several years back that led to a citation but it was on a duck hunt.
The conversation I had with him was 2 weeks ago, the guys from Texarkana bought that property 2 years ago I was at the auction. The guy who bought it name is Jay hickey.
Forrest, once again I don't think you are telling the truth. Ryan showed up around 2016 so "all the years he's had problems with me" doesn't make sense. Not to mention, he drives by me daily and I've only spoken to him maybe twice and he never accused me of anything. He doesn't even own the property next to me but stores his equipment there. A lawyer in Wichita owns it. Second, Jay is not the sole owner of that south place and I speak with his co-owner Brian frequently during season via Text. He sends me trailcam photos and I send him photos. I'm curious, where was the auction? I didn't see you there and that place went cheap so why didn't you bid on it?
What this would amount to is guaranteeing any outfitter that his client would be able to get a tag. The outfitter would either buy the tag and sell to his client or the landowner would be asked to purchase a tag to transfer to the outfitters client. This is simply a go around for any limit that might be instituted by KDWP&T on tags.
Stinks just as much as it did last time.
Good point Griff. Didn’t think of the outfitter angle... should have. It’s done in other states.
It is a rich man's tag, a way to always be able to hunt Kansas without being hassled with application dates etc.
Kansas didn't learn any lessons the last time commercialization of wildlife was allowed.
"It is a rich man's tag"
not always - but with the outfitters in Kansas now a very high % would be sold to outfitters yes I agree, with a few not being
Ok Stealth, it's a rich man's and spoiled brat's that not used to being told no or left out tag. Is that better?
The HB-2167 has a hearing Tuesday at 1:30pm in the House Commerce Committee in Topeka. Most hunting related bills do not go thru that committee. The sponsor of the bill is trying to get it thru using the $$$$$ factor
If you still aren't sure how this is all coming about. The bill was requested for introduction by Ken Corbet on behalf of C&W Ranch Bed and Breakfast. If you look at C & W Ranch they are also and outfitter and guide for Deer, Turkey and Pheasant and Quail hunts. Its not hard to figure that this guy wants to be able to guarantee his clients a tag. He probably buys pheasants from Corbet's Ravenwood Lodge game preserve to plant for his clients hunts. Nice how this all works out.
Yesterday, I sent my District 87-Wichita rep. an e-mail of strong opposition to HB 2167. Her e-mail response back to me:
Renee Erickson Wed, Feb 13, 9:27 PM (23 hours ago)
Jason, Thank you so much for reaching out and sharing this information on HB 2167. I have not seen this bill yet, but can assure you I will contact you with any questions. You obviously know a lot about this issue. Thanks again and please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns. Renee Erickson
It is important for everyone to contact their own representatives, for the district they live in. Contacting members of the committees that will hear this or any other wildlife related bill is great, but your input thru the Senators and Reps serving your area is very important too should the bill(s) make it to the floor for debate and vote.
Members of the Kansas Senate, 2017–2021 District Representative Party Residence First elected 1 Dennis Pyle Republican Hiawatha 2004 2 Marci Francisco Democratic Lawrence 2004 3 Tom Holland Democratic Baldwin City 2008 4 David Haley Democratic Kansas City 2000 5 Kevin Braun Republican Leavenworth 2018? 6 Pat Pettey Democratic Kansas City 2012 7 Barbara Bollier Democratic Mission Hills 2016 8 Jim Denning Republican Overland Park 2012 9 Julia Lynn Republican Olathe 2006 10 Mary Pilcher-Cook Republican Shawnee 2008 11 John Skubal Republican Overland Park 2016 12 Caryn Tyson Republican Leawood 2012 13 Richard Hilderbrand Republican Galena 2017? 14 Bruce Givens Republican El Dorado 2016 15 Dan Goddard Republican Parsons 2016 16 Ty Masterson Republican Augusta 2008 17 Jeff Longbine Republican Emporia 2010? 18 Vic Miller Democratic Topeka 2019? 19 Anthony Hensley Democratic Topeka 1992 20 Eric Rucker Republican 2018? 21 Dinah Sykes Democratic Lenexa 2016 22 Tom Hawk Democratic Manhattan 2012 23 Robert Olson Republican Olathe 2011? 24 Randall Hardy Republican Salina 2016 25 Lynn Rogers Democratic Wichita 2016 26 Dan Kerschen Republican Belle Plaine 2012 27 Gene Suellentrop Republican Wichita 2016 28 Mike Petersen Republican Wichita 2004 29 Oletha Faust-Goudeau Democratic Wichita 2008 30 Susan Wagle Republican Wichita 2000 31 Carolyn McGinn Republican Sedgwick 2004 32 Larry Alley Republican Winfield 2016 33 Mary Jo Taylor Republican Stafford 2016 34 Ed Berger Republican Hutchinson 2016 35 Rick Wilborn Republican McPherson 2016 36 Elaine Bowers Republican Concordia 2012 37 Molly Baumgardner Republican Louisburg 2014? 38 Bud Estes Republican Dodge City 2016 39 John Doll Independent Garden City 2016 40 Rick Billinger Republican Goodland 2016 ? Senator was originally appointed.
Name District Capitol Phone Email Rep. Alcala 57 785 296-7371 email@example.com Rep. Alford 124 785 296-7641 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Arnberger 112 785 296-7363 ToryMarie.Arnberger@house.ks.gov Rep. Aurand 106 785 296-7637 email@example.com Rep. Awerkamp 61 785 296-6989 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Baker 68 785 296-6997 email@example.com Rep. Ballard 44 785 296-7697 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Barker 70 785 296-7674 email@example.com Rep. Becker 104 785 296-7196 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Bergquist 91 785-296-7681 email@example.com Rep. Bishop 88 785 296-5016 Elizabeth.Bishop@house.ks.gov Rep. Blex 12 785 296-5863 Doug.Blex@house.ks.gov Rep. Brim 39 785 296-7675 Shelee.Brim@house.ks.gov Rep. Burris 82 785-296-7693 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Burroughs 33 785 296-8153 email@example.com Rep. Capps 85 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Carlin 66 785 296-7657 email@example.com Rep. Carmichael 92 785-296-7650 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Carpenter 81 785-296-7567 email@example.com Rep. Claeys 69 785 296-7670 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Clark 65 785-296-7483 email@example.com Rep. Clayton 19 785 296-7548 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Concannon 107 785 296-7644 email@example.com Rep. Corbet 54 785 296-7679 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Cox 17 785 296-7331 Tom.Cox@house.ks.gov Rep. Crum 98 785 296-7468 Steven.Crum@house.ks.gov Rep. Curtis 32 785-296-7430 email@example.com Rep. Davis 15 785-296-7658 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Deere 40 785 296-7653 Debbie.Deere@house.ks.gov Rep. Delperdang 94 785 296-7663 Leo.Delperdang@house.ks.gov Rep. Dierks 71 785 296-7642 email@example.com Rep. Dietrich 52 785 296-7648 Brenda.Dietrich@house.ks.gov Rep. Dove 38 785 296-7677 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Elliott 87 785 296-7476 Roger.Elliott@house.ks.gov Rep. Ellis 47 785 296-5623 Ronald.Ellis@house.ks.gov Rep. Eplee 63 785 296-8621 John.Eplee@house.ks.gov Rep. Esau 14 785 296-7688 email@example.com Rep. Finch 59 785 296-7655 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Finney 84 785 296-7649 email@example.com Rep. Francis 125 785-296-7466 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Frownfelter 37 785 296-7630 email@example.com Rep. Gallagher 23 785-296-7482 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Garber 62 785 296-7665 email@example.com Rep. Gartner 53 785 296-7673 Jim.firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Good 75 785 296-7660 MaryMartha.Good@house.ks.gov Rep. Hawkins 100 785 296-7631 email@example.com Rep. Helgerson 83 785-296-7668 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Henderson 35 785 296-7697 email@example.com Rep. Hibbard 13 785 296-7380 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Highberger 46 785-296-7122 email@example.com Rep. Highland 51 785 296-7310 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Hineman 118 785 296-7662 email@example.com Rep. Hodge 72 785 296-2361 Tim.Hodge@house.ks.gov Rep. Hoffman 116 785 296-7643 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Holscher 16 785 296-7659 Cindy.Holscher@house.ks.gov Rep. Horn 10 785-296-7652 email@example.com Rep. Houser 1 785 296-7679 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Huebert 90 785 296-1754 email@example.com Rep. Humphries 99 785 296-7699 Susan.Humphries@house.ks.gov Rep. Jacobs 4 785 296-7616 Trevor.Jacobs@house.ks.gov Rep. Jennings 122 785 296-7447 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Johnson 108 785 296-7696 email@example.com Rep. Jones 5 785 296-6287 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Judd-Jenkins 80 785 296-7671 Anita.Judd-Jenkins@house.ks.gov Rep. Karleskint 42 785 296-7683 Jim.Karleskint@house.ks.gov Rep. Kelly 11 785 296-6014 email@example.com Rep. Kessinger 20 785 296-7436 Jan.Kessinger@house.ks.gov Rep. Koesten 28 785 296-7646 Joy.Koesten@house.ks.gov Rep. Kuether 55 785 296-7669 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Landwehr 105 785-296-7488 email@example.com Rep. Lewis 113 785-296-7682 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Lusk 22 785 296-7651 email@example.com Rep. Lusker 2 785-296-7698 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Markley 8 785 296-7695 Patty.Markley@house.ks.gov Rep. Mason 73 785-296-7640 email@example.com Rep. Mastroni 117 785 296-7396 Leonard.Mastroni@house.ks.gov Rep. Miller 58 785 296-7656 Vic.Miller@house.ks.gov Rep. Murnan 3 785 296-7426 Monica.Murnan@house.ks.gov Rep. Neighbor 18 785 296-7690 Cindy.Neighbor@house.ks.gov Rep. Ohaebosim 89 785 296-7684 KC.Ohaebosim@house.ks.gov Rep. Orr 115 785 296-7392 Boyd.Orr@house.ks.gov Rep. Osterman 97 785 296-7689 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Ousley 24 785-296-7366 email@example.com Rep. Parker 29 785 296-5413 Brett.Parker@house.ks.gov Rep. Patton 50 785-296-7460 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Phelps 111 785-296-4683 email@example.com Rep. Phillips 67 785 296-7402 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Pittman 41 785 296-7522 Jeff.Pittman@house.ks.gov Rep. Powell 30 785-296-5593 email@example.com Rep. Probst 102 785-296-7645 Jason.Probst@house.ks.gov Rep. Proehl 7 785 296-7639 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Rafie 48 785-296-7680 email@example.com Rep. Rahjes 110 785 296-7463 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Ralph 119 785 296-7501 Brad.Ralph@house.ks.gov Rep. Resman 121 785-296-7636 email@example.com Rep. Rooker 25 785 296-7686 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Ruiz 31 785 296-7885 email@example.com Rep. Ryckman 78 785 296-2302 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Sawyer 95 785 296-7691 email@example.com Rep. Schreiber 60 785 296-2721 Mark.Schreiber@house.ks.gov Rep. Schroeder 74 785 296-7500 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Schwab 49 785 291-3500 email@example.com Rep. Seiwert 101 785 296-7647 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Sloan 45 785 296-7632 email@example.com Rep. Smith, E. 76 785 296-7557 Eric.Smith@house.ks.gov Rep. Smith, A. 120 785 296-0715 Adam.Smith@house.ks.gov Rep. Stogsdill 21 785 296-7692 Jerry.Stogsdill@house.ks.gov Rep. Sutton 43 785 296-7676 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Swanson 64 785-296-7642 email@example.com Rep. Tarwater 27 785 296-7685 Sean.Tarwater@house.ks.gov Rep. Thimesch 114 785 296-7105 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Thompson 9 785-296-7451 email@example.com Rep. Trimboli 26 785-296-7654 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Trimmer 79 785 296-7122 email@example.com Rep. Vickrey 6 785-296-7748 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Victors 103 785 296-7651 email@example.com Rep. Ward 86 785 296-7630 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Waymaster 109 785 296-7672 email@example.com Rep. Weigel 56 785 296-7104 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Wheeler 123 785 296-7461 John.Wheeler@house.ks.gov Rep. Whipple 96 785 296-7366 email@example.com Rep. Whitmer 93 785-296-7567 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Williams 77 785-296-3971 email@example.com Rep. Winn 34 785 296-7657 firstname.lastname@example.org Rep. Wolfe Moore 36 785 296-042
However, it is much easier to type in the area where you live, to find your area reps and sen. if you don't know them. Mass mailing info above.
Thanks Chief, great job Jason!!
This coming Tues. 2/19/19 the State Commerce Committee will have a Hearing on T-Tags with Action following on the next day Wed. 2/20/19. If you haven't already contacted your State house district rep's. in opposition to this proposed bill please do so. However, more importantly "if YOU want to make a difference" please do so by also reaching out to the Commerce Committe members (listed below and per attached link) via phone calls, emails and or social media. To make it easier to contact them, I have provided the Capitol phone # and e-mail of each below. Thank you for your efforts!
Commerce Committee Members:
Rep. Tom Burroughs: Phone: 785 296-8153 Email: email@example.com
Rep. Will Carpenter: Phone: 785 296-7660 Email: Will.Carpenter@house.ks.gov
Rep. Chris Croft: Phone: 785 296-7695 Email: Chris.Croft@house.ks.gov
Rep. Pam Curtis: Phone: 785-296-7430 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Rep. Ron Highland: Phone: 785 296-7310 Email: email@example.com
Rep. Don Hineman: Phone: 785 296-7384 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Rep. Kyle Hoffman: Phone: 785 296-7643 Email: email@example.com
Rep. Jan Kessinger: Phone: 785 296-7436 Email: Jan.Kessinger@house.ks.gov
Rep. Marty Long: Phone: 785 296-7641 Email: Martin.Long@house.ks.gov
Rep. Les Mason: Phone: 785-296-7640 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Rep. Jason Probst: Phone: 785-296-7645 Email: Jason.Probst@house.ks.gov
Rep. Bradley Ralph: Phone: 785 296-7501 Email: Brad.Ralph@house.ks.gov
Rep. Louis Ruiz: Phone: 785 296-7885 Email: email@example.com
Rep. Kristey Williams: Phone: 785-296-3971 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Just wanted to let you guys know Twitter. Use Twitter it makes it more public and that is what you want. A letter, an email, a phone call is great but Twitter has the power of the public eye.
What Jason put forward is more personal.
Emails disappear ask Hillary. Tweets are still personal but also calls them out in public as to what their constitutes want. I think either way is great but politicians fear Twitter more than an email they can just blow off.
Here's a video from Ken Corbet's FB page...will make you cringe. I'm sorry I can't figure out any other way than to post the link, so if you don't have FaceBook you won't be able to view in this format.
Interesting...at the 1:45 mark of that video Ken says quote “these tags are only good for the landowners that own the land and not meant to be spread out anywhere.” Then he goes on to say that it gives the struggling landowner/farmer a chance to make a few thousand dollars. Hmmmm???
Thanks for posting that Kyle. I hope all the resident hunters and resident landowners recognize the deceit and mindset of the people pushing these kinds of bills.
"It would improve landowner/hunter relations" "Would increase land access for hunters" "KDWP&T wouldn't need to spend money on WIHA"
They do not care about resident hunters, they only care about being able to profit off the NR hunters and the demand to hunt here.
So as the bill is written, each landowner gets two of these tags? And they can still get a tag for themselves as well?
And the hearing was on the 19th... how did that go?
Well, the bill made it out of the committee and is headed to the floor. I encourage any of you that OPPOSE this bill who haven’t yet contacted your District rep to make them aware of that fact...well your time is getting shorter by the day. Info to easily contact your District Rep’s. has been provided in posts above or you can go to the state website.
If you OPPOSE and do nothing, you have no right to gripe and belly ache about it later.
I have very little doubt which group has more influence, land owning "politician farmers", or resident hunters. It is a shame that the resident hunter has been tossed under the train for nearly 20 years now, but that is the way it is. Main reason I quit hunting and they all can stick hunting in this state up where the sun don't shine.
That last sentence Chief... feel the same way.
In closing... can’t beat them, join them. Peace out.
If you quit deer hunting because of state politics, you probably never really liked it that much to begin with?
Chief I am very sorry you feel that way. I still have faith in the outdoors and the animals I chase that give me joy. They may not be on ground I'm accustomed to hunting but I know they are still there out there somewhere.
How many tags is one person allowed to have?
Should have read Chiefs last sentence in its entirety... I won’t ever quit hunting, but I understand where Chief is coming from.
If you have never loved something so much that you hate it(at times), then I have to wonder if you are truly passionate about it. From college football, to boxing, to hunting... I’ve hated it at some point. The season I logged over 60 days without a decent buck sighting... I hated it, but it’s also one of the most memorable. It’s the constant grind that makes you hate it, and what makes the victories so sweet. Throw in outside forces you cannot control (legislating game management) and it can kill the passion... I do not doubt Chiefs love of hunting, just because he gave it up and don’t blame him for doing so. Hopefully he can rekindle that passion and get back out there. I’m going to bet Chief actually hunted when he was still active in the sport, unlike the livestock shoot we have now.
As for “this state can stick hunting where the sun don’t shine” totally agree... it’s a money game, that we cannot win. The fact this made it out of committee does not surprise me one bit.
Watching that video made me want to puke...... it amazes me how politicians spin things.
Why did you hate it? If doing something more causes you to hate it, maybe you should just limit the amount you go out? I hunted a lot too, and didn't see many decent bucks. I didn't for one minute hate it. If I ever hate it, I sleep in. Or go do something else. Probably why I don't kill big deer, but I enjoy my time out almost every time.
Not sure why my opinion matters to you so much? And I could care less.
I’ve got over 800 acres up for lease if anyone is interested. PM me
It doesn't matter much to me, just don't like to hear when guys that love hunting say they hated hunting because they didn't kill something the first week. I see guys say it on here all the time... "Season was a beat down." "Rough season for me, 40+ sits..." I like to punch tags as much as anyone, but it seems lofty standards are sucking the joy of hunting from a lot of guys... just as much or more than limited access and dwindling herd quality.
Killing a buck has nothing to do with it. I can confidently say I’ve ate more consecutive tags than just about anyone... except maybe Sito:-) it doesn’t bother me.
Watching the buck you passed for 3 years or hunted 60+ days for in a single season get killed over a corn pile or end up on an outfitters page as a commercial does eat on me. It’s all legal, so I shouldn’t let it bother me. I mean hell I did all the habitat work, tree plantings, native grass plantings, food plots, etc. The outfitter that dumps a corn pile in the 50 foot wide draw next to me has just as much rights as I do. No reason to hate that.
Hunting has been 365 for me since I was 12. I can sit 180 days in a row... yeah, I’ll get worn down, but I’ll still love to hate it.
haha good deal. I hate baiting as much as anyone....except maybe Sito. I do like his attitude toward hunting while maintaining his disdain for baiting. He is always excited to go the next morning no matter how slow his sit was. It's easy to get discouraged by the baiting and outfitter situation. I do quite often. I try not to let that eat at me, and I also try to not let myself use it as an excuse. Does it make it harder to do it without bait? Probably. Should I pout about the fact that it's not nearly as easy to kill a great buck as it was 30 years ago? Maybe, but instead, I'll keep trying to get better, and probably keep shooting small deer until I do.
The people on the video would be raising quite a ruckus if Lumber suppliers would be asking the legislature to be able to sell building permits. They would laugh off churches that asked to be able to issue marriage licenses, car dealerships asking to be able to sell drivers licenses to be able to sell more cars.
That's a stretch to compare those things to deer hunting some would say. Deer tags are regulatory licenses to hunt deer. They exist for the exact same reasons the others do.
Saying I don't like it so I am quitting hunting. THEN say I have 800 acres up for lease.! Therein lies the problem.
Chief has killed more giant bucks than most in an era where deer towers and corn feeders flat out didn't exist. He chose to hunt from the ground or standing in the form of a tree. He is one of the few who have hunted 200" bucks and has the stories to tell. Saying he never liked to hunt in the first place is a stupid statement. Age and declining health sometimes take our strongest out. I saw it with my dad. He didn't care if he hunted anymore or not, but sure enjoyed taking drives in the country.
On another note, if I'm able to get a tag for my farm, can I just kill a buck with it myself? Back in the 90"s I drew two buck tags one year.
I had 2 tags in the 90’s... got left over muzzleloader permit.
Didn’t fill either!
Never said I was quiting, pay attention.
Don’t worry Keepem... keep fighting the good fight. I’m sure it will all work out in your favor.
I’m just a spoiled rich boy, who had it all handed to him;-) and now I’m going to go make some money off the handouts (in this case land) I was given, so I can turn that into more money. Did I mention, I was given every acre of it, never earned it or had to work for it at all. Livin’ the life.
I shot two, an 8 pt and a 10pt. I looked at them the other day and they are so small. I was 15 or 16 at the time and they looked so big
Talked to a representative today that is fighting the bill and he said that the version that came out of the committee wasn't as bad as what was being proposed initially. Each landowner can get one tag that is transferrable. Doesn't matter if you have 80 acres or 8000. I haven't seen this in writing yet however.
That said, still need to push forward trying to eliminate the bill. Contact your local representatives if you want to try to make a difference. Hopefully against the bill, but if you are for it you should let your voice be heard as well. We all have that right.....
Good info Matt - If it were ONE transferable tag per family farm I could see it being “okay”, but I’m sure there is a spouse loophole.
My wife is listed on every farm we own. So I’m guessing we could get 2 transferable tags. What about my kids... Can they buy transferable tags? I’m guessing my mom and dad could each get one as well. I’m up to 4 guaranteed tags already.
$$$$$$ dang, maybe I won’t lease it all out. With my dads land (he was given all his as well), we can sell t-tags and be on the beach every winter!
Hi Thornton, long time no nothing. If you look and read what he wrote, you'll notice he actually said "It is a shame that the resident hunter has been tossed under the train for nearly 20 years now, but that is the way it is. Main reason I quit hunting". So I guess I'm stupid for deducing that state politics was the main reason he quit hunting. Thanks for always getting me straightened out.
"If it were ONE transferable tag per family farm I could see it being “okay”, but I’m sure there is a spouse loophole."
Last time it was supposedly in the regulations that each landowner could only get one tag if they owned 80 acres or more. It was proven that the system wasn't set up to catch those that figured out that every member of the family could get a tag if they listed their address in different formats, spelled their names differently (Robt-Robert etc) applied for them in different sections of their property.
No matter how they word it, they would be allowing tags to exceed the NR demand quota set by KDWP&T from the previous year, they would guarantee certain NR hunters would always get a tag regardless if they applied for one in the draw or not, they would be permitting folks to get a tag that had never applied while turning down those with PP for some areas, they would be allowing individuals, both resident and NR, to profit from license sales, they would again be opening a nightmare for the NRO's if they try to add land specific stipulations to the tags.
This whole thread has dissolved into nothing. Whole problem is hunting for money and scores and Kansas residents suffer.
Would this bill allow for someone to easily harvest more that one buck? One could buy or apply for their normal tag, resident or NR, then buy more from multiple land owners or outfitters? Or am I missing some sort of regulation to prevent this? Surely this has been thought of?
Not that they keep great track of deer harvest numbers now, but I can't imagine how much worse this would make it with so many more tags floating around, not knowing if they were punched or pitched in the trash.
Looks like KS isn't the only place around with a bunch of nitwits in their legislature. Link shows info about some OK proposals, a bit vague but sounds pretty miserable.
If It makes any of you Kansas residents feel better I lost hunting privileges on a lot of places I used to hunt 50 years ago for free . Come hunt Georgia with OTC tags that allow you to harvest 2 bucks and 10 does each year . But .... you have to get permission from a private landowner or outbid the Florida boys for prime ground . As a side note I like people/NR from Florida. I also to go to the beach in Florida and fish there to . Hope they don’t go to a draw system for beach privileges within a small unit for 12 days a year for over $600.00 though .
Wow, OK has some real wildlife issues.
Maybe I’ll take my grain bin full of corn and the millions from my lease and go buy some land in OK to make more $$$!
Money, money, money!
According to the bill, can someone with a tag buy a TTag as a second tag?
I don’t think that’d be a good idea
Edit: (2) any recipient of a nonresident hunting permit issued under K.S.A. 19 32-937(l), and amendments thereto, is not eligible for a transfer under this 20 section during the applicable white-tailed deer season of the permit issued 21 under K.S.A. 32-937(l), and amendments thereto;
So this says NR can’t purchase both. That’s good.
I believe in the current regs it states that no one may kill more than one antlered buck.
I think even if you purchased the Commisioners permit you could only kill one buck.
I hope this would be the case for this as well, but the way things are going, who knows?
Those with commissioners permits can have two in one year. It’s been done, legally. Just like they can have more than one any-elk permit in a limited draw area.
Well there ya go.
Learned something new today.
Kyle , Randy, don’t always agree with you but appreciate the way you stick to facts, don’t give up on an issue and don’t resort to cliches rather than effort.
Since we are throwing all these “facts” around can someone verify that t-tags cannot be transfered to yourself as a second buck tag?
Or is this yet to be seen?
In the past, they could not. They are considered deer permits.
So, it’s yet to be seen.
Anyone have this crap in writing as it came out of committee yet?
If, ifs and buts were candy and nuts...
Keepem, it’s all about the money.
Nearly, every single farmer I know leases their ground out.... some for peanuts, some for big $$$. All I know is that it gives them an edge and I realized from this thread that I’ve been looking at this all wrong because I “thought” I loved it.
Would this allow a NR to hunt any season with any weapon? That would bring the value of the t-tag up.
Also, let’s say a farmer is a tenant of over 2000 acres. He’s not the landowner. What if he has 20 landowners he’s working the ground for? Could he then “broker” the t-tags for each landowner? He gets a tag, his wife gets a tag. I see a ton of loopholes.
Tracking nightmare for NRO’s.
I may be in the minority (as far as NRs go) but I think the transferable tags are a bad idea
drb, leftee, they are a terrible idea, would appreciate you dropping a line to KDWP&T and or the legislators that will be voting on this proposed piece of legislation. Let me know if you need email addresses or phone numbers
Will do,contact info is in this thread.
Any idea when the vote is?
Not seeing anything on the kslegislature website.
They said yesterday that the proposed bill will be presented this week. They haven’t even seen the actual bill. Sounded like it would go in front of the house in the next week or two.
I was just told that emails and calls are very important right NOW, the bill is above the cut off line at this time, meaning it will be heard over important pieces of legislation that everyone can relate to. If it can be pushed down, via opposition messages, it would die during this session of the House.
Just got the "Legislative update" email below...
"HB2167 - This bill would require the Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism to establish a system to approve and administer the transfer of regular landowner or tenant hunt-on-your-own-land big game permits to a nonresident of the state of Kansas solely for the purpose of hunting white-tailed deer. The transfer would not occur until all nonresident permits were issued in the management unit where the landowner/tenant permit was issued. The Department opposes this bill. This bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Labor and Economic Development.
A hearing was conducted on Tuesday, Feb. 19, 2019 and this bill passed as amended out of committee. The full House plans on taking action on the amended version of this bill on Tuesday, February 26, 2019."
what if outfitters couldn't buy the tags, only individuals ?
would that make it any better or no ?
No, landowners can already buy a tag. For themselves. Why should anyone be able to buy a tag for someone else?
Stealthy...outfitters can’t buy them.
Outfitters could be a broker between the landowner from whom they lease the land and the NR. Huge advantage in guaranteeing a hunt for a client.
The last time this trash became law a big time NR outfitter threatened to sue KS because he could not get all the tags we wanted for the land he had locked up. The rep that is sponsoring this bill runs a hunt-for-money operation in SN Co. He says he would not benefit if it came to be law, speaks with forked tongue.
How can he say that with a straight face keepemsharp?? I sent his office an email, that I'm sure he'll never see, calling him a disgrace for sponsoring a bill that would appease his clients and line his pockets.
How would they even know if the applicant was an outfitter? They no longer need to be licensed and there is no current database. Every redneck and his cousin are outfitting now!
It just passed out of the House 63-60...contact your Senator
This doesn't surprise me. I hoped for comprise instead of all or nothing. Looks like nothing. The players behind this go way beyond Corbet. Let's hope it doesn't pass Senate as currently written.
Money is involved... Integrity, values, principles, biology, conservation, etc go right out the window. KS lawmakers have proven the direction they will choose many times.
Looks like there's still a chance to stop it in the House, see KBA FB link here(most recent post).
Just emailed my senator, it's absolutely ridiculous that it has come to this. I just emailed Corbet again too. Can you get into trouble emailing a rep too much??
Use Twitter. CALL THEM OUT IN PUBLIC!
Front page of the Topeka Cap Journal today. He said "I will not benefit if this goes".
I called Tim Hodge and left a voicemail. Sent an email to McGinn and Hodge. No response or returned call yet.
I believe Mcginn owns a lot of land if not directly the family does.
Emailed all my local reps. Heard back from one, he did not indicate which way he would vote.
McGinn owns a lot of land...but has been a strong ally of KDWPT for years.
I have not drank coffee with Mic for awhile but next time I see him I will ask what him, Mike and Mark are thinking on this deal. They lease all their ground now so who knows.
I have now heard back from 2 legislators... again, no indication on how they would vote, but they at least read what I wrote and are taking it into consideration.
Couldn’t ask for more, but if you don’t contact them they will not know your feelings. We are their constituency.
I have now heard back from 2 legislators... again, no indication on how they would vote, but they at least read what I wrote and are taking it into consideration.
Couldn’t ask for more, but if you don’t contact them they will not know your feelings. We are their constituency.
Once again, idiots in charge.
I guess Ill write my Sen to night.
Anyone know how to find out who voted YES and who voted NO.
Hey Charlie, It should be in the Journal within the next couple of days.
Rep. Paul Waggoner wrote the following,
Chris: The bill did pass 63-60, but I voted No. I really could go either way on this. But now you need to focus on the Senate. My main reason for voting no was that I heard from Local Reno County people like yourself FYI.
Paul Waggoner Kansas State Representative, 104th District (785) 296-7196 Paul.Waggoner@House.KS.Gov
Just to prove that it's not a lost cause. Rep. Waggoner voted yes yesterday and NO today. Now onto my Senator.
63 people wanting to merchandise a KS resource 60 did not want to do so. Too many people that are now too far removed from natural events and only see dollars.
Is there anyway to speak against this bill at this point? Or is it just presented and voted on?
Man, this is like watching a slow motion train wreck. Probably a whole new set of legislators who weren't around for the first failure of T-tags. You guys need to get to the capital and educate them.
No N2, as I emailed the House members, I recognized man familiar names.
Be sure to start discussing this with your Senators now. Don't wait for it to go to committee. Yes One Arrow, once it goes to committees.
The votes are up. 8th page of this Journal. Those four comments are unreal! As many have said, most of these people are clueless when it come to wildlife management. Yet they play a significant role somehow. Crazy.
Kwch just did a snipit. Really wish we could have sent out a press release to the media with the amount of dissent. It would have been great to have some well spoken residents on there voicing the reason for all the backlash. Who has that job though? The KDWPT if opposed could have done a news blitz maybe. The KBA, Pheasants Forever, And or many other groups. We as hunters need a lobby if you are a bow hunter and don't belong to the KBA please join. Numbers mean alot and there are some very good individuals that are working night and day for a better Kansas hunting experience.
Like Corbet's comment, "It will open up thousands of acres" IF you have the money.
95% of the public comments on social media I've read(Capital Journal, KWCH, FaceBook, etc) has been against this bill, and the premise of "selling wildlife".
They aren't listening...does that really surprise anyone? I agree, and have said for years, that we need a lobbyist...it's a "game" and we aren't playing with the same pieces.
Unreal is right KB....Corbet's comments baffle me completely. 'allow farmers and ranchers to help with crop deprivation' Really? Hanging our hat on that when they can already purchase LO tags to do that, and if they have serious issues the state will give them deprivation tags. Then to say, 'it will open up thousands of private acres for Kansas hunters and their kids to enjoy'. an even bigger REALLY?? I would love to sit down with him and learn where all these acres are going to be opened that I can enjoy with my kids.
Then Tarwaters comment...'if I own 7000 acres and I have a wife and 7 children who each have seven children, I can only transfer one deer tag under this bill. That is how much we vetted this bill' Sounds pretty good doesn't it? However, did anyone ask or consider if his wife, 7 kids, and 7 grandkids are listed as owners on part of that land? Can they only get 1 transferable tag still or can they get 16 like I expect?
Contact your senators and try to get this stopped. It is likely an uphill battle since the legislators talk amongst each other and in their eyes they have vetted this bill to being perfect. I hope Mr. Tarwater is right, but I have my doubts.
Did anyone read the prayer by Chaplain Brubaker prior to the session?
“...be guarded against blind self-interest”.
They aren’t even listening to the Chaplain.
I am completely dumbfounded at their comments.
“Mr. (Insert Kansas legislators name here) what you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.“
And who brings “Bambi’s” well-being into this?! What a nut house!
Matt, you are correct. As the bill is written there is no “One t-tag per family” it is per owner. I’ve read it multiple times... it’s a major loophole.
Corbet’s I can understand after seeing the video Kyle linked. He’s obviously a self serving crook. Flat out lying to help his case. The other three are out there though. Quail don’t matter, save Bambi, and as I read it, Mr Tarwater has 51 potential tag holders in his immediate family. Seven kids “each” with seven kids. That’s a talented group.
I don’t think there’s anything to be done about the multiple landowners in a family ordeal.
One question I have. In both Supplemental notes it states the KDWP acknowledges there would be extra revenue generated by transfer fees. I understand Mr Loveless was opposed, but if some of the members weren’t in attendance for discussion or generally not paying attention I would think that statement would come across as a positive and even a backing for the bill to some. In a vote so close I would hate to think a couple yea’s were simply based on the fact it may generate some extra money for the department. Is it clear that all 120-some reps understand KDWP’s stance? Guess it’s too late now, so hopefully the senate does and will take that into consideration.
I thought that as well, the one 'no' talks about a Disney character:( And excellent Billy Madison reference:)
Didn't even read the riddle right:) Nice catch Kaleb. I can't answer you questions. If we are talking about revenue why not make the transfer fee the same price as a NR license rather than up to half of NR tag fee?
Any chance of getting a couple groups to have a 'news conference'? Alert media and tell them 'heated/controversial stuff'(conflict of interest/self serving etc)coming and they will be there.
Matt is it not the price of a Nr tag and upto half of that price as a transfer fee? I always thought that was how it was going to be charged. Lots of questions on that wording.
Email sent to my senator today hope everyone is doing the same!!
"He’s obviously a self serving crook." ............... says the guy who less than a week ago stole a man's snake chaps so he could use them as a prop for his table dancing exhibition to impress the single ladies at after hours... You're right. The more I read these comments to the speaker, the less faith I have that any rational input will be able to do any good. Guess we just need to convince half the senators that it's bad for the state in both the short term and long term.
Well I now know why my rep did not reply to my emails. Even though he didn't like the bill he still voted for it. Here is why he didn't like it. He wanted every land owner to be able to buy a tag for each 80 ac he owned or farmed. All I can say is that "T Tags Cost Votes"
Does this now go to a committee in the Senate?
I really doubt t-tags is going to cost anyone in the general election.
In my book wildlife trumps a lot of issues, but unfortunately they have me by the short and curly’s on abortion and other conservative ideals.
Need conservation minded conservatives to run against these politicians in the primaries.
A lobbiest would help, when I was considering joining a few years back I thought I read in one of their newsletters the KBA had one on the hook?
That's nuts, Charlie. That would allow landowners to buy 600,000+ deer tags statewide. I repeat, 600,000+.
That's an estimate... might only be like 500,000. Not sure how many acres are occupied by landowners owning less than 80 acres.
It’s my understanding this is been referred back to the committee?
Rep. Steven Owens is answering questions on why he voted yes on the Kansas Hunting and Fishing Facebook site.
Our Sen. Ed Berger says he opposes the bill.
Dear Senator Longbine, (insert appropriate senator) better yet email them all. This is my plead, if you agree feel free to use the wording.)
I ask you to please vote NO on HB2167. If farm families need additional income then I would ask that Deer Transferable tags be available to RESIDENT deer hunters ONLY, and not restricted to Non Resident hunters only. This state has over the last twenty years become a "go to state" for Non resident hunters and has brought millions of commerce to this state, but in doing so it has also effectively put a stranglehold on resident hunters, who like myself have been pushed out ESPECIALLY on state lands operated by the KDWPT, These state owned lands have become overrun by out of state hunters. The opportunities to find lands to hunt on has either been bought or leased by both non resident and resident who already have paid farmers huge amounts for this leasing or to own this land, mainly not for agriculture but for selling hunting rights. I believe the selling of deer should be left up to the KDWPT people and hopefully regulated from year to year through proper management of the heard, and not just for the revenue.
I know this is kind of long winded, but I think you for your time and consideration for a NO vote on HB2167.
It looks like the Senate sent the bill back to the Committee of Commerce.
Ray I wasn't saying it cost him an election. But I have voted for him several times. I wont be agine and Im not the only one around here that feel that way. So it will cost him votes.
Joel admits locals dont hunt his property
Joel admits locals dont hunt his property
Some of their old bs statements. Which joel proves ken corbet is lying about ttags providing opportunity for resident hunters
Charlie, I understand. I was just commenting in general. A lot of times in my area we don’t even have another conservative candidate running in the primaries.
Matt, I thought I read somewhere that the tags will only cost the landowner $20 with up to half the cost of a NR tag being charged as a transfer fee by kdwpt. I'll see if I can find that. May have dreamt it up.
I made sure to email Joel and thank him for his admission that Corbet is full of it.
Btw, in our smaller districts, issues like this can cost elections. Many of them are decided by double digits in the end; meaning the primaries.
Just heard from Rep. Doug Blex, he testified on the floor against the bill. He said it’s a new group in the house and that’s the reason for the loss in the house. He is very worried this is just another step down a continual path and the end result will be otc tags. He has told me in the past the next step after that will be a much longer rifle season. One day we might all be giving it up like Chief.
Why doesn’t Joel allow locals to hunt for a fee? That is if he really needs the money....
A NR permit is $450. Sell a weekend hunt to locals for the $225 he can get for a TTag.
The farm service bureau stated today that 20% of farm loans are in default, with Kansas farm loans being slightly better off than that figure. Maybe farmers do need a boost. Hell I don't have a stake in this issue either way. Maybe it would help farmers bottom line, but those that run a deer for sale business, take a hike. Might just keeps some of them (NR) off of state pubic lands.
KWCH 12 just ran a short story on these, and Skip Lloyd(KBA Member) spoke as well as Mike Miller from KDWP. Both are against and made some good points...might run again at 10pm?
I heard the same story on the radio today Dale, said 9% of KS farmers are in default, but that it was lower than national average which you stated. Regardless, I think we both agree that deer are owned by nobody, and should not be for sale. This is a bad bill, and an even worse preface to what could come if passed...not to mention that it hasn't been proposed with any honesty or integrity.
Can anyone confirm that the bill was sent back to the house ? Or confirm that it wasn't?
Worst thing that ever happened to KDWP was when the “T” was added.
Worst thing that ever happened occurred in 1995. That was the "Gateway Drug" to everything that has happened since. Residents lost their voice 24 years ago. Once they got it passed, no one has listened to us since.
Senate is adjourned until Wednesday. It was referred to a committee, but I think next Wednesday is the vote if I understand these things. I’m not sure it’s going to get a hearing at this point. Still has a chance at dying or being amended, I believe.
If you don’t mind I’ll give a “farmers perspective”.
Times are tough, but not the toughest I’ve seen. Some of my “rant” above is because of this stress couple with the horrible weather we are having.
Prices are in the tank because of this tariff issue and other reasons. Prices seem to be pretty flat with little hope for a big jump in the near future.
We personally came off a very low yielding corn crop. Well below average. Not the worst, but I’ve only weathered 3 other corn crops that were worse. Beans were above average overall, but the bean prices are not good.
Not all farmers are in the same boat. Some are much worse off than we are and some are WAY better off. I can see how this could benefit any farmer.
We farm around 3,500 acres and run a few cattle. In our area we are considered relatively small to most farms. I could tie up all 3,500 acres and basically be an outfitter if this goes through. Broker tags for family and landlords... I could potentially make thousands just in tag sales and I don’t think I’m exaggerating. I pay several thousands of dollars in property taxes every year... I pay more in property taxes than what all my vehicles put together are worth. Seed, feed, chemicals, fertilizer... all adds up. Big time.
I am, for the first time in my life, considering leasing a large portion of my ground because of these issues. I love my farm. I’ve got 7 plus generations of history on this farm. I’m not default, but if I were and I can find a way to keep my farm, I’m going to exhaust all resources to make sure that happens. I’m not losing this land.
However, as with all things farming, it can turn on a dime. We may end up having our best year ever this year and I’ll regret leasing it. However, I have to plan for worst case scenario... if we have another year like we did this year, this land lease may save my arse.
One of my most vivid memories as a child is my father sitting me in his lap and telling me we were going to have to move to town because he was selling the farm. The early 80’s... one of only a handful of times I saw tears in my dads eyes. Fortunately he fought/thought threw it. Several didn’t.
I am also extremely passionate about One Arrow, so I will not lease it all out. Selfishly I’m keeping a couple hundred acres for my family and some kids. My big buck days are likely over, but I’d rather see a kid hunting anyway. Am I spoiled? Perhaps. But I hope you all would understand the love a farmer has for their land. No farmer wants to tell their child they have to sell the farm. No farmer wants to move to town.
With all this said, I DO NOT support this bill. I have emailed my senator and asked him to vote no.
I’ve lost a lot of sleep over this, more than I care to admit, but...
I believe I have found a good group of guys to lease part of my land... bowhunters, very successful, who have kids they want to experience the outdoors. I’d rather more farmers go that route than pimp out the whitetail like this bill allows.
Yes, referred to the “Senate” Commerce Committee. Too many rumors swirling around about this. At this point, the best use of time is to get on this and send every Senator on the “Senate” Commerce Committee an e-mail or call them directly in opposition to HB 2167.
It is always wise to know the type of people on these committees and their backgrounds. That way you know what you are dealing with. So here ya go:
Chair: IT Business Owner
Vice-Chair: Software Engineer/Publisher
Ranking Minority Member: IT Consultant
Committe Members: Retired, Community College Professor, Special Ed Admin., Auto Dealer, Real Estate Banker, Business Owner, 2 unknowns.
Atleast there aren’t 3 or 4 farmers and ranchers on this committee like there were on the “House” Commerce Committee. No wonder this bill made it out of House Commerce Committee to House floor so fast.
One Arrow, I married into a farming family, they are now a ranching family. My father-in-law loves to be in a tractor, but poor grain prices and high input costs turned him into a rancher. My mother-in-law loves cattle, so she’s thrilled. They have turned the vast majority of their 2500 acres into pasture ground and share crop the remaining. All that said, they have done well, they just paid cash for 320 acres last year. I truly hope things get better for you.
Crested, like I said up above, corbet had to avoid the ag committee in the house because Doug Blex is a part of it and the bill would have never made it to the floor.
Bill was sent to the Senate commerce committee, instead of natural resources, as usual. Several on the NR committee have voiced opposition, including Sen. Carilyn McGinn.
Farming and ranching is a business plain and simple. Good businessmen survive the bad times and usually end up owning the ones that didn't make it. I've seen several businesses go under because of the economy or a bad year not once did I see our state try and do anything to make it easier for them by giving them free anything. But I could care less if a farmer or rancher wants to sell a hundred deer tags as long as it ties it to the land it was purchased for. So if the business I own has a bad year will the state allow me to sell state owned property to offset my losses? Maybe a lawsuit might change their views. Maybe we are all going the wrong route with all the bullshit I've seen this year in the media about people suing people because they felt wronged hell it would probably get lots of media attention.
I totally agree antlerhunter. If I’m putting my trust on a whitetail deer to save my farm I’ve got huge problems. It does help, but to exploit it in this fashion is immoral... in my opinion. Selling access rights vs. selling the animal... big difference in my opinion and is a road we should not go down.
Ksq232... my dad is more of a rancher and he’s doing better than me. He does not have the equipment costs or input costs like I do. I’m not a fan of cattle, but I’m slowly going that route. I’m lucky that my wife has a good job.
Mike, what would be the reasoning for sending a bill to the commerce committee vs natural resources? Just because who is on the committee? That sounds a little fishy. I keep hearing “tourism” being thrown around by some reps I have emailed and seen posts online.
And one other thing...
Every farmer I see/know doing much better than others, leases out their property for hunting. It’s all business.
Still should NOT put this type of control into the hands of a farmer. Crosses a line and t-tags should not even be discussed, I don’t care if it ties it to the property.
I have voiced my opinion to my senator in regards to this and I will be emailing the committee members today in opposition. Everyone should
You’re not seeing state tourism officials make those statements for several reasons. Yes as per commerce vs. natural resources.
Ray, do you know who is on that committee? I could look it up, but it might be good to share it here for everyone wanting to send emails to them.
Patrick, here are the Commerce Committee Members.
Their names are in the email address. I posted it this way so you could just copy and paste.
Larry.Alley@senate.ks.gov, Molly.Baumgardner@senate.ks.gov, Bruce.Givens@senate.ks.gov, Jeff.Longbine@senate.ks.gov, Rob.Olson@senate.ks.gov, Eric.Rucker@senate.ks.gov, Gene.Suellentrop@senate.ks.gov, Dinah.Sykes@senate.ks.gov
The only positive I see right now is that the tags are restricted to the property where they originated from. That isn't as bad as it could be but who knows. Either way you will see outfitters leasing up lands and then re-issuing the tags. Hopefully the bill doesn't get modified to where the tags are good on any property private or public. That's when it will be a total mess.
It's pretty sad as of late, in almost all of the states I'm familiar with, things are just being developed behind closed doors and once released, it's pretty much over.
Cazador I also think their not going to be given out until after the NR lottery. Do these TTags only happen if there is OTC’s for sale? Or will they be in addition to the NR totals?
In addition to. And they are on a per unit basis by my understanding. If say, Unit 11 sells out then the t-tags will become available for Unit 11 only. Most units sell out... I believe only 3 total did not last year.
If the tags could be transferred and used anywhere, it would be a much 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 for NR, I don't think this is as damaging as it sounds as written. If modified to "tag good for any property, public or private" it changes things big time.
I guess outfitters could promote "Don't worry about the draw I have tags" and just come to Kansas but that would mean 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.
Anyone have any idea if these would be considered any season, any weapon tags?
I believe what you will see Caz is more farmers operating as their own outfitter... thus, more land tied up.
A NR is not going to buy a $1,500+ tag without some assurance the land they are hunting is going to be for their use only.
I see a farmer leasing out their property at a slightly reduced rate to individuals and then “guaranteeing” a tag for an additional fee. That’s going to be very appealing to NR’s.
It doesn't really specify if they have to be sold out in the draw or just all available tags sold does it? Point being, all leftover tags get sold as well so every unit would end up with TTags
I read somewhere in the amended version that if a unit sold out, then in that unit only NR's would be eligible for a t-tag. But you are right... it doesn't really matter. Only 3 Units did sell out in the draw and I'm sure they were gone shortly after that.
Bottom line; The last time this crap was slammed through it was a disaster for residents and law enforcement and took us YEARS to get rid of it. It still stinks despite what a HUNT_FOR_MONEY man from Sn county says to an uneducated bunch of Kansas reps voted for.
I'm out if I can't transfer it to myself
What’s the point of transferring your own tag to yourself? From what I’ve heard so far some local guys think they’re going to get to hunt on wives’, parent’s, kid’s tags, etc. And they don’t understand that if they transfer THEIR hunt own land tag they void their right to hunt that year. Going to be a mess for sure.
Would appreciate the names of any SE Ks senators that are known to hunt deer.
The regular Mr Hunter will stick to the draw the people with money will continue to pay stupid money to kill a deer and the state will take it. I've said it before there's not a deer on this earth worth paying thousands of dollars to kill just for bragging rites
KB- I was hoping to get a second buck tag out of the deal for myself like I did back in the 90's. I'll never lease my place unless I'm homeless.
A SECOND BUCK TAG???? WHY!!! You that hungry.
You don’t need a second buck tag. You need a friend or kid with a buck tag. Just my opinion.
Why not? I feed the things and pay over $8k a year to the bank for a small farm where they live and eat everything. Back in the old days you could draw two buck tags. It's just sad that landowners support most of the herd yet the state gives out too many tags to NR.
I don't remember being able to draw 2 tags in the "Old Days". There was a year or 2 in the late 90's or early 2000's but not in the "Old Days". In the "Old Days" the draw percentage was about 60% of even drawing a buck tag. The rest got an antlerless tag or didn't draw at all. Sure as hell didn't get 2.
West do you remember what year the draw ended for residents?
If I remember right, I believe in 1989, 90 and maybe 91,(not sure of the years) all resident bow hunters who had statewide deer tags, could also purchase what the department called leftover rifle permits, in certain units that failed to sell all the rifle permits. If a unit had unsold resident rifle permits then bow hunters could purchase them and actually have two permits which allowed the hunter to take two bucks with a bow.
Chief I thought it was more toward the mid to late 90's but I might be wrong. Ray I would assume right around 1995 or shortly after. 1995 was the year all management was thrown out the window. Makes since doesn't it?
Thanks for the info. You know, someone really should write all this stuff down... starting from the beginning.
It would be great for younger generations to understand the history of Kansas wildlife management.
Chief? I’m betting a lot of guys on here would be willing to help to make sure it’s factually correct.
The extra doe tags surfaced around 1988 or 1989 or so in Chautauqua County, and you could get up to 6 I think. Those game tags were only valid on private land. Then around 1991 or 92 came the early muzzle loader season the last week of September. Those were the first 2 major changes that started the chain of tragic events that soon would follow. I thought that year or 2 where you could get the extra buck tags was several years after this.
Left over buck tags were the worst thing I ever personally experienced for buck management. The 2 years that I had them I shot the youngest bucks of my life. Feeling was that I could draw blood and get it out of my system... then hunt for a big buck the rest of the season. I never shot 2 bucks in one season but I did lower my standards and shoot younger bucks. Completely on me for making those decisions (I was young) but as I look back it was a bad option for me to have at the time.
Hope this works, interesting read. I posted it before, but you can never read it enough to see how much things have changed.
I remember in the nineties we nrs could buy up to five doe tags for ten dollers each which I thought was crazy
Catscratch do you remember the years those were available? I personally never purchased one.
I don't remember the years.
I believe you are correct it was the late 90’s... maybe early 2,000’s.
I had 2 buck tags at least one year, didn’t fill either.
Early muzzleloader first early season was 1989. Ray - memories on here aren’t nearly good enough for education, but the dates and details could easily be gotten.
That is what I thought. Definitely not the "Good Old Days". Do you all remember having to purchase your Archery Permit by or before September 30th? Are you saying I have "Alzheimer's" or "Dementia" Writer?
Body man, we NR can still buy additional doe tags (up to 4 more I think), but at $52.50. I haven’t bought one in a couple years though
I agree Mike, but I think we would easily be able to “fact check” it with some KDWPT officials.
Personally I’ve never seen a written version of the history. Doesn’t even need to be a narrative, just bullet points.
I also think it would be interesting to add the legislation that was NOT passed and recognize the key players/organizations who helped stop it and why.
Good read.Thanks.A 'history' otherwise difficult to learn. '1985-a year that should live in infamy'(to residents) to paraphrase Pres Roosevelt. 1.15,000 bowhunters.Residents only. 2.30% archery success rate.
Ray unfortunately there is only a handful of people that would be interested in seeing the highlights of past management regulations. Hunting has become "Progressive" vs "Conservative". The word "Conservation" used to go hand in hand with hunting, it is never mentioned anymore. Now that word is "Tourism".
So much in there.So much of the past and so dramatic in terms of illustrating change.Quotes such as this speak volumes as to where things were and where they've gone."A hunting arrow may travel at less than 200 feet per second,yet at close range it can penetrate better than a centerfire bullet".
A key portion of Fish and Game's proposed 1986 legislation will deal with deer permits. One proposal is to allow the Commission to alter the 50:50 ratio of landowner and general resident permits when awarding deer permits not given out in the initial drawing. The current law does not allow leftover, general resident permits to be sold as landowners permits. This purpose of this change would be to allow issuance of more landowner permits. Another legislative proposal is to allow nonresidents who own 80 acres or more in the state to apply for Kansas deer permits. It would also allow nonresidents to apply to hunt deer in units where the number of available permits is unlimited. The Commission also proposes to allow 14-year-olds to participate in all big game hunting in the state. The current law allows 14-year-olds to hunt big game with archery equipment,-but not with firearms.
Your definition of the good ole days and mine differ simply because you are older than me. I remember a time when deer and permissions were plentiful and I was allowed to kill two bucks. The first day of the first antlerless season I sat on a huge rise in the Flint Hills and watched 111 deer feed below me on an alfalfa field. If I remember right, I had 4 or 5 for tags and I shot all of them. Now, I usually don't even shoot one a year.
Those were the days of "Greed".
I'd say the days of greed are upon us, with NR and outfitters leasing or buying every good piece and kicking all the locals off.
Kansas the play pen for Southern deer hunters. Where most "deer hunters" don't even eat the deer they shoot. I've had personal encounters with many and I mean many that give away or throw away the deer they shoot. We as Kansas residents have less of a chance of getting the laws changed than we do of shooting a unicorn. It's plain and simple greed by the Kansas law makers and legislators. I'm 98% sure I will quit deer hunting here and move to a more resident friendly state with better opportunities than Kansas. The 2 % is just the hope that my daily tax dollars I spend here every single day might mean something to them but I highly doubt it.
I have a close friend that runs a deer processing business. He said the amount of deer “donated” by nonresidents is overwhelming.
Appreciating the whole animal, not just the antlers, is missing... and I honestly believe provides a lot of fuel the anti-hunting crowd. These t-tags put a value on “trophies”. Access is one thing, putting a $ sign on wildlife is another.
"or throw away the deer they shoot"
you turned them all in right? that's illegal
Yes I have but most get warnings or just pay the fine. Actually had an outfitter from Georgia get caught shooting deer and cutting the heads off and would drag the carcass into the nearest tall grass or thicket. Game warden gave him tickets. His comment was that was the cost of doing business. I've turned in so many non residents and residents breaking game laws that the wardens almost seem irritated when I call them now. Just turned in 2 guys from Oklahoma yesterday for trespassing and illegal shed hunting on a closed federal wildlife refuge. No tickets were issued just warnings.
Los of Arkansas guys come here and break multiple laws guess they can't read especially during Turkey season.
Received a positive reply to my email to the comitee members from Bruce Givens that he's with me 100%.
Thanks for posting all the info and making it easy to at least attempt to halt this ludicrous bill.
Ray— great idea of a collection, but a lousy reality. Way, way too much material — 2 month “doe season” in Feb and March, make KDWPT responsible for crop damage, KS National Guard doing deer drives with shotguns by highways, all permits go through landowners, aerial guns Ning, Sept - December gun season. Top person defeating these — Chris Tymeson, Most active media — me. Most active sportsman - Randy Smith Most responsive organization — KBA, KWF distance second.
KS National Guard doing deer drives with shotguns by the hwy????!!!!
Never mind... might give me nightmares.
By Randy or me a beer sometime, Better yet, Chris Tymeson. Better plan on staying a while .,,
If I'm the most active, sportsman need to step up A LOT more. I have done very little in the last 15yrs. Thanks for the kind words just the same Mike.
Mike, I owe you a dozen, Kyle a dozen, and I’ll throw another dozen in for Randy.
Meet at Free State?
Ray - you’ll never get Kyle in Lawrence. He’s just not comfortable with his inner-liberal. Randy, I don’t do “kind” words, only facts. I can carry on a conversation about these clusters with you better than any sportsman. You remember what it was like year after year after ....
I get that. Let’s compromise...
How about “The Tropics”?
Kyle in Lawrence would be a hoot. Some things never change, some of the same names, same old sad stories being told and believed. I will have to give credit to them this time taking it a different route.
Ray, if you are a member of KFB, KLA, or donate funds to KSU, I will tell you that you have been funding the lobbying efforts that have brought us 100% of the changes to deer hunting in Kansas since the last year's of the 90's.
Dropped KFB years ago... more due to lack of management.
Not sure was KLA is?
KSU... wasn’t smart enough to be accepted :-)
I was, ...smart enough not to go. Kansas Livestock Association.
Should have known. Nope, not a member
You're so smart, writer. Proud of you. :D
Gee, Chern. Glad to hear it. When I woke up this morning I thought, “Now, what can I do to make Chern happy?” Had a hard enough time not skipping classes to go hunting while at KU. I’d have flunked out af KState or Fort Hays with so many other students doing the same. Our son accepted an offer from KSU, but KU topped it at the last hour. Would have been interesting.
I can send a list if you'd like to make that a daily ritual. Glad you enjoyed your time at KU. The world may not have been able to handle a KSU educated writer.
Withdrawn from Committee on Commerce and referred to Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources... I believe that’s a good thing?
Could be good, when will it be voted on now?
Time to send some more emails, this change could be the result of contacts from sportsman. Here are the members, be sure to contact the Chair etc listed at the top, not just the Members listed lower on the page.
Link posted not working? Try this
Chair Sen. Dan Kerschen Vice Chair Sen. Bud Estes Ranking Minority Member Sen. Marci Francisco Members Senate Sen. Ed Berger Sen. Rick Billinger Sen. Carolyn McGinn Sen. Dennis Pyle Sen. Mary Jo Taylor Sen. Mary Ware
At least two of those have been major allies of KDWPT. At least it’s on the right table. No matter which side you’re on, get involved.
Ed.Berger@senate.ks.gov, email@example.com, Rick.Billinger@senate.ks.gov, firstname.lastname@example.org, Carolyn.McGinn@senate.ks.gov, Dennis.Pyle@senate.ks.gov, MaryJo.Taylor@senate.ks.gov, email@example.com, Mary.Ware@senate.ks.gov, firstname.lastname@example.org, Marci.Francisco@senate.ks.gov, Bud.Estes@senate.ks.gov, email@example.com, Dan.Kerschen@senate.ks.gov, firstname.lastname@example.org
Ag and NR Committee meets at 8:00 AM tomorrow. Senate is adjourned until 2:30 PM tomorrow, I have no clue if that means this will be finalized tomorrow or not. This stuff seems hard to follow from the limited information online... if anyone has any suggestions on how to better follow this please let me/us know.
Your choices; you have to be there in person each day to be in the know, check the web updates after 8-9pm sometimes later each day, work there, know someone working at the Capital or someone that is involved in the process to get up to the minute reports.
When attendence is minimal at hearings, there is very little time spent on discussion of the bills, many are decided before the hearing takes place. It is vital that the resident hunter's side of the hunting issues are heard, often it is not.
I was introduced to the KBA while attending KDWP Commission and Legislature meetings on my own. At that time, there was a large contingent of green shirt bowhunters attending both of those meetings, at every single meeting I went to. The KBA had a representative at the Capital speaking on their behalf on every hunting related issue. The two major ag lobbying groups, the outfitters, and the Muzzleloaders all had reps at the meetings as well. I was impressed with how the KBA fought for the conservation of our wildlife resources, and for all Kansas resident hunters against the push to commercialize hunting in Kansas. I joined the group, and ended up being their Legislative Chair for a time until I could no longer do so due to my employment.
I have to say I am a little disappointed in the response I’ve gotten via email.
I’ve sent probably 20 - 30 emails and have only had 3 responses... nothing in-depth.
I realize they see several bills everyday, and probably get several emails, but I thought I would get more of a response.
I have received little response as well. I am sure in their eyes this is small potatoes compared to budgets, KPERS, prisons, schools, etc. etc.
These game plan changes at the last minute are hard for normal folks to follow. Maybe that's intentional?
Sen. Ed Berger agrees with our stance and is against this bill. I hope this gets shot down today.