Contributors to this thread:
HB 2331 Transferable Tags
FYI - A bill was introduced in the Kansas House to implement transferable deer permits. In House Agriculture Committee. Introduced by Representatives Corbet, Barker, Garber, Highland, Hoffman, Newland, Seiwert, and Tarwater.
http://kslegislature.org/li/b2021_22/measures/hb2331/ HB 2331 | Bills and Resolutions | Kansas State Legislature Short Title. Providing for the limited transfer of landowner or tenant deer hunting permits to nonresidents. kslegislature.org
Hopefully this doesn't get any traction but wanted to get it out there asap.
Help me remember, but wasn't this a thing a while back? Landowners were buying tags then marking them way up and selling to NR's...
This will get a lot of traction.
Don’t turn your back on it, if you’re against transferable permits.
Even when we tried to get them restricted to Hunt on your own land tags,Landowners that didn't have a deer anywhere near their property were wanting to get them and re sell.If this is done they should be required to hunt on the landowners property they purchased the tag from.Example in NM they do this and some of their tags are ranch only and some or anywhere in unit.Don't know why they are pushing this now as darn near everyone that applies can get a tag.
I should have read bill first I guess,looks like they can't transfer until all tags given out in that unit,KDWP can charge up to half the cost as a fee to transfer and can direct what areas of the area that landowner would have been able to hunt that new tag holder has to hunt in. so at least there are some restrictions
Would an outfitter who leases land count as a tenant under this bill?
Link to PDF of the Bill.
I have a hard time believing that any NR will "hold off" applying for the draw, just to see if their unit of choice sells out? The philosophy of "meet the demand" has already ruined the deer herd dynamics...will folks want to pay even more for even less? Regardless, it was BAD business when we had it before and I hope it doesn't "grow legs".
I think they would have to lease for ag use
I sent out several emails to reps last time this crap came up. Less than 2 years ago, I think? This has come up too many times for them to roll over this time. It’s going to eventually pass... follow the money. Probably leads to a giant landowner OR an outfitter/club in some way.
As a farmer and landowner I think it’s a horrible idea. This spits in the face of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which they’ve been using as toilet paper to wipe the arses of the elite.
If Corbet was half as motivated to be a decent politician as he is to get this passed, he’d be president by now. He’s an outfitter too, right?
After reading the bill it looks like, AGAIN, there is no limit to how many tags a family that qualifies as “landowner” can sell.
Own 80 acres and have 5 kids? That’s 6 transferable tags on that 80 acres. Don’t think for a second this won’t be abused and manipulated.
Ray, this comes up nearly every year, and has for over 20 years now. If it meets resistance, is denied, is not allowed onto the schedule for debate, they will attempt to amend it into other pieces of legislation. It will require a large voice from those against allowing individuals to profit off the deer tag sales to get it stopped again. Hopefully sensible people step up once again to stop this from happening.
Corbet runs a hunt for money outfit SW of Topeka (Ravenwood) and just loves this idea. The same guy that wanted the illegally poached antlers of a deer that might have crossed his place sometime.
Unless I misunderstood the rule for landowner tags it is 80 acres per tag of that type.If you own 80 acres you can only get 1 deer tag on a landowner and then 1 turkey tag.These are different tags than the hunt on your own land and I also thought I had heard at one time that even with hunt on your own land it couldn't cross units.
Habitat, multiple people can be listed as owners of 80 acres thus creating a potential for more tags allotted. I purchased a property (114 acres) 3 years ago that had 3 different owners and a trust that had listed additional owners on the title
It could be different with the transferable tags but on the land I bought they said I can get only one deer tag. My kids qualify to hunt there but only one tag is given out.
But it takes 80 acres to qualify for 1 tag so I don't think legally you can buy more than 1 and thats why when you purchase a landowner tenet tag at a discounted rate you have to answer how many acres
I believe it was one T-tag per 80ac back when it was in effect. Randy will know for sure, he fought it and helped get it eliminated the first time as I remember. Some LO's could get a bunch of these obviously...heck the main ranch I hunt out West could get 175 or more.
I'd be up for telling them what I witnessed back in 05' when I guided and these were being used. NR hunting wrong units just because they got a KS tag, untold amounts of property leased because they came with a tag regardless if the property was actually hunted or not, and outfitters springing up all over the state because tags were easily found. Who do I talk to, to give them an earful?
Thornton: did you tell the folks in Topeka how bad an idea this was or did you continue to continue guiding and making money from KS wildlife?
Depends who the “owner” of the property is. If you are listed on the title you would qualify for a landowner tag. If you just own a percentage of 80 acres you would still qualify. More than one person can have a landowners tag on the same 80 acres.
Dave- I have no idea who you are, nor do I care. I am tired of passive agressive, smart ass comments. If you have a bone to pick, feel free to PM me, or I can give you my number, or we can meet. I guided for a short, 4 seasons and made enough to pay some bills during college. I stopped guiding because it's a greed driven business, and I was tired of dealing with clients and landowners. Since I quit, I enjoy hunting ten times more than I used to, and it is stress free. My only regret is not quitting sooner so I could hunt more with my dad and friends.
"I believe it was one T-tag per 80ac back when it was in effect."
Landowners with 80 acres or more were allowed to get one t-tag. I was able to prove that many landowners were getting multiple tags. I also proved multiple people were applying for the same property using different names, some landowners were brazenly applying for multiple tags by changing the spelling of their names- using initials instead of full name- listing the same address but writing them differently (Rural Route 2 - RR#2).
"Who do I talk to, to give them an earful?" Jason, start with your State Rep, your State Senator, all members of the House Committee this is assigned to. Be respectful and tactful in your communication, provide detailed factual information not opinions and beliefs. State why you are against the measure, please consider speaking against allowing individuals to profit off of license sales, giving NR individuals the opportunity to avoid the draw and bypassing the management plans that are in place to preserve our wildlife resources.
I thought this was an interesting link. Basically a break down state by state of how other states manage the land owner tags. I am sure some things have changed as Mt has some new bills changing everything.
Jason, as Randy said, start with your Rep and Senator and really stress that you are a landowner who is against it. “As a tax-paying landowner in your district...”
As for Dave, I will say we first met at a commission meeting probably 35 years ago, and he was speaking against possible changes he thought would harm Kansas deer hunting.
He was well ahead of the game as per crossbows and scopes on muzzleloaders and bows.
Of the 90 commission meetings I attending in a stretch of 95, he was one of the most consistent KBA members to attend. He did a better job of conveying his message than many.
Not telling you how to feel about him, but he was fighting for a just cause before you shot your first deer.
15 years ago tags were at a premium due to scarcity - so money to be made. Today, only a small number do not draw, so, don't see the end goal for the state (they could increase the number of tags if they desire) or the landowner (not much premium resale value) unless somebody needs a tag AFTER the draw?? Without the exact numbers I'd guess there are 3X or 4X number of tags today vs say, 02000? Thanks.
Scenario 1 .. maybe for the positive? 1,000+ acre Farmer realizes he can sell his tag and his wife’s tag. No longer leases to an outfitter... sells the tags and lease to a couple of individuals and might make more money. I could see long term relationships with high-rolling out of staters developing with this scenario.
Scenario 2, More than likely it will be this.... Farmer/landowner leases to outfitter. Out of state hunter puts money down on a hunt, but doesn’t draw a tag now he has a guaranteed option (more money of course).
Scenario 3, people that are used to getting whatever they want because their wallet is fat, that does not want to be bothered with the formality of obtaining licensing like the common folk, that get bored one day and decide to fly to Kansas for the weekend to kill wildlife, want to be able to do so.
Scenario 4, landowner is wanting to turn deer into a cash crop, is under the misguided impression that the deer belong to them, that they should be the ones to decide how many people should get tags to hunt their land, that the money for licenses should be going to them.
Scenario 5- The outfitter/guides (insert above scenario)
Good points Randy. None of the scenarios mentioned above are researched based or effective wildlife management practices. So, what’s the need?
Good points Randy. None of the scenarios mentioned above are researched based or effective wildlife management practices. So, what’s the need?
The need is a lot of folks are trying to make money off KS wildlife.
Ray there were people applying for the t-tags that had no intention of hunting themselves, had zero deer habitat to begin with (urban area or other no hunting areas), by people that had absolutely no intention of leasing or allowing anyone to hunt their own land. They were doing so just to cash in on the demand to hunt here, promoted by commercial hunting operations and other deer pimps. The tags were often sold to NR outfitters or tag brokers. Many were sold for thousands of dollars on the internet, tags were easily found advertised on-line using a search engine.
One well known politician, one that helped to bring them to Kansas during the time they were last allowed in Kansas, was exposed for illegally having applied for and receiving five of the t-tags for one of his own properties the last year that they existed. The legislation only allowed one t-tag per family, not one tag for every 80 acres.
Read the newly proposed piece of legislation carefully. Their proposals have nothing to do with management practices, they are simply desired for allowing additional tags beyond what are allotted for each unit, are desired as a revenue source for commercial hunting and individual landowners. They have tried to make it more appealing to KDWP by allowing the agency to make additional money off the t-tag sales (with a limit to keep the price down) by including the following section in the legislation;
(4)?the secretary of wildlife, parks and tourism may charge a transfer fee, not to exceed half the cost of a nonresident hunting permit issued under K.S.A. 32-937(l), and amendments thereto, for transfers designated for antlered and antlerless white-tailed deer, and not to exceed the cost of the original permit for the regular landowner or tenant hunt-on-your-ownland big game permits under K.S.A. 32-937(g), and amendments thereto, for transfers designated for antlerless white-tailed deer;
Note they did not set a limit on how much the original tag holder could charge for the tags.
Ray...people were applying for TTs for children as young as three years old, to sell.
It was ripe with problems, including fraud. Many of the cases made in Operation Cimarron were hunters using TT, the outfitter had purchased, from far eastern Kansas, in Unit 16.
The entire process began with falsehoods when the then speaker of the house said Wildlife and Parks endorsed his plan.It was timed for when the secretary or attorney weren’t there to respond. Randy and Dave were deep into it at the time and no doubt remember all of process.
It was often billed as a way to “better control the deer population,” That was about when a panic spread through the legislature about an exaggeration of the problems. Of course, it did not.
Some of the bills brought to kill more deer were terribly asinine. Things are calm now compared to 20 years ago.
I look at this as a "foot in the door". Proposed as not being sold until the designated unit tags are allotted for, but next year...
This is an interesting thread and answers some of my questions above. But, it still doesn't resonate totally because they are close to demand saturation as compared to 20 yrs ago. Reminds me of IL, where they went from a limited draw to OTC and their quality went down hill with it. If they need the funds, just increase NR licenses to offset the amount of tags decrease = keep revenue, quality of hunting stays high and residents and NR are happier. NR will pay esp if the quality gets better and demand will increase. Otherwise it morphs into a state like NE, which, has great potential but OTC (and rifle rut) leads to many young deer harvested.
My motive for fighting against t-tags has always been, and continues to be to not allow any individual to profit from nor control the distribution of deer tags (essentially licenses). The wildlife resources do not belong to any one person, nor should any person resident or not personally profit from license sales.
Good point Randy, I agree. That's where us and Corbet split ways.
One other thing Mark-S, it is not the KDWP asking for the tags or additional revenue, they too were and am sure still are against t-tags. This is 100% outfitter and landowner driven greed and their desire to further profit off their commercialized deer hunting ventures. They want to assume ownership of the deer, to have 100% tag availability for every hunter that they can sell hunts to.
Trebarker - thanks for the clarification; now it makes sense. For outfitters, it seems like short term thinking (maybe get as much as i can then move on). Scarcity - would lead to better deer and hunting and create demand that would make their business more sustainable and likely allow for higher pricing for their hunts short and long term.
Sent my e-mail "against HB 2331" to my District 87 house rep. this morning. How many others on here have actually done the same? Will be interested in seeing a response from her office.
My state representatives response below:
Jason, thank you for your input. I will talk to the Secretary as other in the field to help deepen my understanding. Thank you for your cell phone number, it is nice to know I can reach out. Best, Susan O. Estes Kansas House of Representatives, District 87 Appropriations, Education, and K-12 Education Budget The Capitol I 300 S.W. 10th Ave, Rm 268 West, Topeka, KS 66612 I (785) 296-7388 The District I PO Box 781244, Wichita, KS 67278-1244 I (316) 371-0800
I don’t have to reach out to my rep, he is the main opposition to Corbet and company every time they bring this up. They have tried to bring the proposals through other committees in the past to try and avoid him killing it in committee.
I just heard back from Rep. Blex. He said transferable tags aren’t the only thing Corbet is trying to get passed. Corbet really is a snake! Doug Blex’s text message:
“Corbett has 2 bills transferable deer tags and requiring a KDWPT officer to go to a judge and get a warrant to enforce an open fields doctrine case not your house or buildings but if I see a violation in an open field that would mean I would have to go get a warrant before I could come on your land yes we could need some help residents can’t find a place to hunt now we don’t need any more land tied up by outfitters”
Some of us have been trying to tell about Corbet for years. Wildlife to him means dollars. His life is around Ravenwood hunt for money and tried a few years ago to get possession of some antlers from a poached deer that may have been on his ground at some time because he thought he could sell them. The fake auction that happened was a scam with only two bidders. Some classmates of mine that live in the area received letters from him asking for support in this effort. I told them if they wanted to sell their soul to reply.
I started a thread on the other bill James, it's down the list a bit here. It's a mess.
Still no reply from my representative. Doesn't surprise me though, he is a sponsor as well. Will let you all know if I receive anything.
My rep is also on the list.
No reply from mine yet either, been a week.
It looks they are going to try and slip this through somewhere other the the agriculture committee; it was probably going to meet too much resistance there.
I just got this from Rep. Blex:
"The bill has been switched to commerce committee. It will be heard on Monday at 1:30pm. Sean Tarwater is chair and cosponsor of the bill."
James...thx for the heads up. I made my rep. Susan Estes (noted above) aware of the same.
Just talked to Rep. Doug Blex, it’s bad guys. They made the switch of committees and scheduled the hearing Monday at 3:30. Now they moved it up to 1:30. The reason for this schedule change is to suppress opposition. It was a little confusing, but written opposition has to be in the day before by 11:30, that’s why they scheduled it when they did. Doug said it wouldn’t have survived the ag committee. He also said if this passes, it might be better to simply make Kansas OTC. What they are proposing is MUCH different than the transferable tags of old. His main allies in battling this are Representatives Will Carpenter and Lonnie Clark.
Wonder if that’s their endgame?
"foot in the door"...same "MO" as the xgun legislation
Seems every “foot in the door” policy has snowballed into a disaster the last several years.
Rep. Blex sounded really tired of fighting this battle seemingly year after year.
In KS, on my land. Paradise!
In KS, on my land. Paradise!
As a KS landowner, deer hunter, wildlife conservationist, and current state senator I do not support HB 2331. If it passes the House, I will be on the Senate side to work to kill it. Please help me stay up to date as to its progress.
Now that is cool! State senator on Bowsite?
Keep up the fight sir!
Yes it is, thank you Mark!
And that’s a beautiful giant buck by the way!
Several senators and representatives check KS Bowsite, just don’t comment. That includes some pushing this bill.
It's also fairly common to move some of these controversial bills around to see where they might get a little traction. And if all else fails stick it in the last big bill that has to pass this session.
Have been busy the last week taking care of my mother's medical needs, but sent out over 30 emails this morning against 2331.
Learned that Corbet also amended the KDWP&T Budget to have them pay back the $16k to the individual that bought the poached antlers! That amendment passed thru the budget sub committee hearing. This as well as HB#2025 need to be defeated along with t-tags.
Why would the State pay back something that was purchased from them? Are they buying the antlers back?
Very nice to hear Mr. Steffen that someone is on our side. Really appreciate you posting on here that you’re willing to put in the time to fight and preserve Kansas. As you can see there’s a lot of worry that Kansas can even slide further down from where it used to be. Again thank you. Nice pic too in capturing the moment and a great looking deer.
Guess buyers remorse resonated with Rep Corbet when they found out they could not sell the horns for more than they paid for them.
The more I hear about Corbett, the more I feel he is corrupt. I wonder if he’s corrupt in all his politics, or just the wildlife end. My guess is he’s a snake across the board.
It would be my bet that Corbett wants to pay back the buyer, BUT let him keep the antlers!
Are you serious Randy about Corbett trying to get reimbursed for the antlers?
Wait... is Corbett the guy who bought the rack from the state, and now he is trying to use his position to get the money back?
Sen. Steffen, thank you for making your presence know on this site and announcing your intentions to support and preserve KS wildlife.
Corbet did not buy the antlers at auction from KDWP.
Nor did he set up the auction with only two bidders - Bass Pro and Tim Nedeau. That was set up by KDWP. Even the politician who had the office where the auction was held, didn’t know anything about it.
Nedeau had tried tirelessly, for years, to get the antlers because he said the buck was shot on his parent’s property, though it died elsewhere.
At least for a while, the mount, after purchase by Nedeau, hung in Corbet’s office so he show it to people , and explain their side of the story.
Nedeau has worked hard to gain allies in the house and senate.
Whoever it is, is Corbett trying to get reimbursement for the purchase?
If so, it seems pretty dang sketchy. I remember hearing about that auction... that was an embarrassment and Bass Pro and KDWP should be ashamed.
Thanks for the reply Writer. I somehow had gotten turned around on info and needed clarification.
Yes thank you writer for clearing up the details of the transaction that I failed to provide.
No Corbet did not purchase the rack, he has been fully involved in the drama about it though and is trying to get the money refunded to the buyer.
We talking about that poached 7x7 state record? I drove all the way to Salina to that huge KDWP auction to see it and bid on some guns, but govner called off the auction on the rack.
That is the buck, Jason.
And that is what happened.
H B 2331 must be stopped. Please contact your Rep. and talk to your fellow deer hunters. The members of the committee that will decide this do not understand the issues and traditions that conservation minded hunters care about. Rep. Corbit got it moved there so it could be passed. He did it two years ago and we stopped it in the Senate. Please go to http://www.kslegislature.org/li/ and read the bill and find your Rep. I am new here but I have has a good bit of experience following issues in the Legislature.
Thanks Spencer, good to see you here. This moving to commerce without notice over a weekend is just crooked politics Corbet is famous for. Done with two days notice over the weekend putting it into peoples control that have NO idea what is happening.
Typical tactic of Corbet and many before him, a learned behavior. He is promoting it for what it truly is this way, it's simply a money making proposal, it is not needed for game management, nor resulting from biological studies. It benefits those that have no intention of ever hunting themselves, commercial hunting operations, and those that failed to draw a tag. It belongs in the commerce committee, but moving it, getting it on the schedule when it is nearly impossible for anyone to offer opposition to it, involved more than Corbet. The majority leader and the committee chair had to be involved as well.
....and the scheduled hearing on HB 2331 today at 1:30. Anyone have an update? I also wonder how KDWP&T's testimony on this bill and HB 2025 went?
What's the progress to take away the "T" from KDWPT?
Dave.....your just gonna have to stomach it until July. That order already approved by the Gov. will take effect July 1 unless the Senate or House adopts a resolution disapproving it. TTTTTtake care!
Haven’t heard anything as of yet.
Looks like the hearing today was cancelled on 2331
One should never witness legislation or hot dog making?
...sausage and politics ...
I watched it. They ran out of time for the opponents. Will Carpenter and Kdwpt secretary did good jobs. The problem is that it is not getting a fair treatment because It was moved from a committee that has experience with wildlife issues to a committee that does not understand wildlife issues and it had 8 cosponsors on the committee including the Committee chair. Please send and email to your Legislators opposing H B 2331. If you know a Commerce Committee member, Let them know. We can stop this. We have four days Committee on Commerce, Labor and Economic Development Rep. Sean Tarwater Chair Rep. Marty Long Vice Chair Rep. Stephanie Clayton Rep. Avery Anderson Rep. Francis Awerkamp Rep. Jesse Borjon Rep. Tom Burroughs Rep. Will Carpenter Rep. Chris Croft Rep. Pam Curtis Rep. Michael Dodson Rep. Ron Highland Rep. Kyle Hoffman Rep. Steven Johnson Rep. Tom Kessler Rep. Les Mason Rep. Vic Miller Rep. Jason Probst Rep. Bradley Ralph Rep. Louis Ruiz Rep. William Sutton Rep. Kristey Williams Rep. Rui Xu
Has anyone received any replies to your e-mails to these folks? I sent over a dozen and have heard back nothing.
Thank you for the update Spencer!
No response, but know my Senator and Rep will oppose it, as they have in the past.So far they’ve always backed biologist over special-interest legislators.
I learned today that our letters our having an effect. Best place to send a letter now is to the Secretary of the commerce committee. KDWPT Talking Points
Negative Biological Impact • Nearly 22,000 landowner/tenant (LO/T) permits issued; at least this number of individuals are eligible to apply for this new permit type. • Many more parcels of land without LO/T hunting are eligible to get this permit, putting additional pressure on age structure of bucks. • Will result in additional harvest of bucks, professional and scientific management is more difficult as a result. • Will not result in more “control” of herd size as non-residents (NR) typically come to take bucks, but harvesting does is the key to controlling herd size.
No Need • Not needed - 97 percent of NR who apply get permits through the draw already • Real value for LO/T is controlling access to land, not guaranteed permits • NR family members already have a method to obtain permits to allow them to hunt family ground • The department already issues depredation permits to address deer damage complaints.
Will Result in Less Hunting Access for Residents • Residents will lose access opportunities with this permit type - already a very common complaint. • Will reduce number of younger and beginning hunter opportunities, typically more affluent hunters will obtain these permits. • Kansas has highest NR proportion of hunters in Midwest already, 24 percent • Kansas has lost nearly 12,000 resident deer hunters since 2015. The number one complaint of residents is loss of access, and this will exacerbate the problem.
Negative Economic Impact to Department and State • Permits transferred for less than department charges non-residents, with the residual going to landowners/tenants, undercutting the department. • The economic impact of deer hunting to the Kansas economy is estimated at $177 million, based on professional and scientific management, using figures from a federal economic study. • Sustainable deer harvest and preserving our reputation for trophy deer is key to keeping this important economic engine running – the potential harvest under HB 2167 is unknowable and could significantly spike, jeopardizing this resource and our reputation.
Fraud and Administrative and Enforcement Complexity Could Result • Hunters and landowners desire less complication and the bill adds another layer of confusion. • The bill will result in a larger burden of administration to a complex system. • Confusion and eligibility for permits will burden law enforcement.
It’s Been Tried Before and Failed Miserably
Got a nice reply back from my area rep yesterday. Says he is a landowner and could possibly see the income from A PERMIT, but would like to hear as much info as possible in order to be informed when it comes to the floor for a vote. Joe Newland from Neodesha, KS.
MDW; you might want to reply to Rep. Newland. Tell him that this was tried before and it did not work well.Passing the bill has a potential in bringing in more non resident hunters and harvesting too many bucks. It was the most often abused permit the agency had.
I think Rep Newland was a co-sponsors that introduced this legislation.
Marvin, Glen is spot on.....Rep Newland is an original and current sponsor of this bill. Pretty clear to me what his vote is going to be. Too bad his reply to your e-mail made him appear to be neutral when obviously he ain’t. Watch his vote and then remember when it comes time for your vote! Take care.
I'll shoot him another note to see if he explains it in any form.
Here is his original reply to my query; Thank you Marvin for reaching out to me on this. The more knowledge I have on this the better. As a landowner myself I can see the advantage of being able to acquire one of these permits, but I also understand how frustrating it is to the public on having limited places to hunt. I do not lease any of my land out so as to allow locals to hunt. Again thank you for taking the time to contact me. Just shot him another question asking about his sponsor /co-sponsor of this bill and if he knew what all was in it. Will post when / if he responds.
At least you got a reply, my rep., Ron Highland, was one of the originators and has ignored two e-mails
I emailed my rep, who's on the Commerce Committee, and he shared his opposition to this bill. It looks like its still in committee, so contacting the representatives on the committee might be an effective place to start. Here's the list of the committee members and a link to lookup who your rep is. I'd start with these folks, especially if you live in their district. I let my rep know that I'm one of his constituents.
Commerce, Labor and Economic Development: Tarwater, Chairperson; Long, Vice Chairperson; Anderson, Awerkamp, Borjon, W. Carpenter, Croft, Dodson, Highland, Hoffman, S. Johnson, Kessler, Mason, Ralph, Sutton, Williams Clayton, Ranking Minority Member; Burroughs, Curtis, Miller, Probst, L. Ruiz, Xu
Still no word from Highland or Awerkamp. Not sure I expect one, but I think without a response, the messages help if they are at all near or on the fence.
The word is that it did not make it out of committee but it still can be slipped in on something else, politics really stinks!
I had not checked my email in some time, but found this response when I did this morning. I had faith that it would not sneak in and go unchecked knowing he was on the committee.
Randy, good to hear from you. I lead the opposition on this bill. I think we have it killed for this year but I think it will be back next year. We must educate the legislature on this issue. Will Carpenter 75th district Rep.
Thanks for update Randy, good to hear!
Will has been a good helper over the years, hope he gets re-elected. Corbet will again bring it back.
Will was fighting commercialization bills 20 and more years ago.
That was about the time back when I first met him Michael.
He may have been a commissioner back then. He got to be friends with Graves by guiding him on the Gov's Turkey Hunt and got appointed. Good guy on the commission. Really works hard at hunting and understands the needs of the "average Joe." He would also only allow someone at a commission meeting to rant for so long, before...
A lot of respect for him. Hope he eventually gets to head some important committees that deal with our natural resources.
Great news! Thanks for the update Randy!
He was a commissioner when I first met him, was a great contact and welcome site on committees at the Capital when he was voted into the legislature and continues to be on wildlife issues introduced there.
I do not feel it is over completely during this session, nor in any future sessions, as long as there are legislators either personally involved in commercial hunting operations, or acting on their behalf to introduce such bills. We all need to keep watch and stay involved in protecting our wildlife resources and hunting heritages.
To those of you who through the years, and right now, have defended bowhunter interests (and hunting interests in general) in this state, thank you!