MarkIIVT

Hey Randy,

No, the discussion is not over. I think we need to keep it going. I haven' t responded as I have been out of town. 2 weeks ago I was in Bemidji, MN to deliver a HAZMAT conference for the FD, PD, and Emer.Prep, and in Jax, Fl to instruct a class on microscopic analysis of asbestos in air. Almost hit a deer south of Bemidji, and saw some game farms of elk and deer, ugly.. very ugly. Make sure you read the bit about SB 125 coming up this next year.

I liked your statements on the filling of tags by other than hunters. This issue, enforcement, data collection, and characteristics of the herd, can be represented to a higher degree with field collected data and/or the computer database or field check stations, without using extoplited data in calculations. I believe this the central core issue in wildlife management... an accurate representation of the population and a maximum sustainable yeild determination. Without these basic tools all management is a guess at best. I will keep hammering this issue until it changes or I run out of breath.

I talked with a couple senators and a representative about 2 months ago. Yes, I have alienated the commissioners and KDWP personnel with my statements, however, many in the legislature according to the elected reps I have talked with have also been alienated by the KDWP, a few commissioners, and the KBA. KDWP is barred from many legislators offices until facts come through and investigations are satisfied (no I don' t know what). One of the problems in the Legislature is that they are not getting the information they need from KDWP. Do you remember that proposed admendment on the SB 2078 (I think that is the number)? The one with unlimited statewide archery T-tags is the one I am talking about. It seems it was proposed as a political fishing trip. A political hat trick. The legislature apparently wanted to see if and where there where connections and lines of influence in the deer management issues politically. The situation as explained to me is in 1996-7 many were wanting extended seasons without increasing tags to deal with the then increasing population and KDWP refused up to 1999 when we had the high deer/vehicle accidents. KDWP information to the legislature at the time was the deer herd was stabilizing. In 2000 I think, we got the game tags in short order. We doubled our total tag numbers in less than 2 years (which I opposed at the time). The question is still what would be the need of increasing the tags this much if the herd was stabilizing according to KDWP? I have always wonered if the season extensions in primary seasons in 1997 went into effect if we would even be talking about T-tags, the need would simply not be there. It is my opinion that the t-tags came about by the failure of KDWP to act in a timely and to work with the legislature in a positive manner.

As you can see I am not a fan of Governmental Agencies. IMO, they are inefficient, ineffective, and drastically need oversight. I have worked with Gov' t. Agencies professionally for years internationally, commonwealths, US Federal, States, Muncipal and have found this to be true. Our Civil Servants want to do a proper job, however the agency is more concerned with self preservation. When was the last time a Gov' t. Agency came to the Legislature and stated they failed to fulfill their mission, or did not used public funds effectively? NEVER!! The legislators I talked with are very upset with all our State Agencies because they fail to provide information, it is SOP. The criticism comes from the outside only. I also believe this is one of the missions of the Game Commission in our state, as an oversight entity. You know how I feel on this one.

With SB 125. The damage permits. We need to fight this one by splitting the support. The T-tags could have been overcome by doing this. Damage permits if they come to be should only be applied to crop agriculture. The KLA is a very powerful lobby. I do not see how deer can increase damage in livestock producers. This daffy bill will probably be considered, they are trying to sell the turnpike I have heard. There would have to be elimination of deer depredition permits and an exemption on those who lease for hunting. If you lease out land for hunting how could one also have deer damage incurred??? How would we track that?? Again, back to the computer database. We will need to cross correlate that information as we need to do for hunters who fill others tags, or tags with the wrong deer.

It comes down to data pure and simple. Quantification is what we need. With clear quantification we would know what is happening with the herd expanding or decreasing. I am begging all hunters in the Great State of Kansas to pressure all involved to require quantification, free and clear information on management, explanation of tax and fee collection and allocation, and proper oversight of public entities.

I also believe that leasing in the State will drastically increase the population once it really gets wound up. I wish I had data to back that up, or I wish that KDWP was collecting data so we would know what the effect of leasing will have on the herd. It will have the opposite effect upon which SB 2078 was proposed, that was never brought out in debate. We are of the same opinion that the leasing is in some way decreasing the quality of hunting.

I still want to get with you and discuss some things.

Dana