A market can be created, but if there is no demand it will not continue. What is driving the need or demand. That is basic Econ 101. A landowner has the right to do anything on the land if it does not infringe upon others rights and impact adjoining resources. This is not only a wildlife legal precedent, but it is a pollution and environmental impact burden of proof as well. I am an Environmental Scientist and have considerable professional experience dealing with legal issues, regulation and compliance, and scientific data and what it means. I have done heavy metals remediation on Midway Island for Goonie bird protection to hazmat work at Johnston Island for a host of things. Put Johnston Island or Johnston Atoll in your web browser and looked where I worked, you will be amazed, trust me. The above is just to let you know you are not talking with a professional lightweight here. What I have been and am saying has scientific and legal basis.

Back to the Econ Issue. Who is leasing and what is their motivation to lease? People do not part with money for no reason. I explained my exasperation in public land and the free for all that is going on. So for me it is worthwhile to even consider leasing, how many other people are considering if for the same reasons I am? The amount of deep pocket hunters is a limited pool one that I am not a member of regretably. Hunting is so important for many people that the parting of a portion of a limited income stream in order to have a higher quality level of hunting experience justifies the considerable expenderature, even with limited funds. It is what I am considering, how many others are considering the same for the same reasons?? The demographics of the economic standing in Kansas residents is fairly consistant, and the majority of people leasing to hunt are residents with resident permits. That is your demographic for this particular market, other Kansas Hunters.

My main concern is the unaddressed issue of impact on the herd and the lack of herd characteristic information. Is an uncontrolled increase likely or a massive crash? This point is where you want to spend your effort and is the ammo you need. It is not what you think, and would be of GREAT Value to you in your efforts to push back the issues you are concerned with. It is the silver bullet...well for you the platinum arrow.

As for the legislature. The People of the State of Kansas own the deer. The stakeholder breakdown is 80% nonconsumptive and 20% consumptive. Using these numbers, if this 80% decide we have too many deer, we have too many. I don' t agree, my agrument is we don' t know how many we have and whether it is too much or too little is a whole nother argument. What is the pop. and what is the MSY???

As for the consumptive 20%, 15% is rifle/ML and 5% is archery roughly. That 15% wants to hunt the rut, the 5% doesn' t want this...but the 80% set the season, KDWP did it, but it was at the will and pleasure of the People. If the 80% decided to centerfire rut hunt, that will happen. A few Senators getting linig their pockets might be happening, but the bill was passes with an overwhelming vote.

please pay attention to this, it is very important, I have been saying this for several years:

By using the car/deer strike as a basis for population, KDWP opened the door to the insurance industry to get into deer management. IF KDWP stated that deer population and deer/car accidents were unrelated (which is true in almost all other states), the insurance companies would not have a legal leg to stand on to influence tag increases. But since the KDWP uses this it assisted the insurance company for it' s burden of proof. If KDWP used other data and followed all the research, the insurance lobby would have burden of proof to tie population to accidents, instead of the true factors for car/deer strikes: car density, miles driven per vehicle, human population density levels (surburban vs metro), and car technology. Randy, the map you made is the same argement I am making. If you have any influence, get rid of this index and the waste of time and resources it involves. The only reason it has continued, because agancies are too slow to change even in the face of lucid arguments.