You nailed it datamax, that is the original reasoning behind the unitization of permits. It does make sense.


But this should only involved non-residents, that's what needs to change about it, and that's where the whole idea went sour, and the resident Kansas bowhunters who are getting the boot. That's why I posted this and hopefully we'll have some fellow sportsman that react to this quickly in hopes of getting this corrected.

Illinois landowner tags are nontransferable and most be used on your land. Also, Illinois does have unitezed areas for shotgun just not archery... At least when I appled for my shotgun tag I had to say what county I was applying for.

kshunter how do you like the new rules on checking deer killed ?

People buying tags or drawing them in one county and using them in another country hundreds of miles away must be a game managment nightmare.

datamax,

IL Rancher answered before I was able. Illinois has successfully navigated this issue without implementing units. All Kansas would have to do is make the landowner tags non-transferrable or make it illegal for them to be used anywhere but on the landowners ground.

The "Deer Checking" wasn't really a big deal for me. It is only required in select areas(from what I've seen). I hunted out west this past year, and my buddy arrowed a big mulie(in the select area), that we checked in. They didn't really do anything except mark one down on the list, and where it was roughly killed. The people who checked it said it was for reasons like getting a game count, rather than anything with CWD. They didn't take any samples of the deer at all. I don't mind it, if it helps somebody manage the herd here in Kansas.

I don't think KS will do that. Why ? Money. Ranchers and landowners like to be able to sell tags they draw from the non-resident pool for extra cash. Nobody wants to draw a tag they cannot transfer because they can go out and buy an over the counter tag.

Thats the catch right there and it backfired a bit on Kansas residents and it needs ammended I agree. Again, the greedy likes of USO Outfitters and others have a lot of pull in how these laws are "adjusted" and rarely do they come out on the short end sad to say.

datamax,

Very good explanation, that's the way I view it too. T-tags are starting to sell the Kansas resident hunter out and will even more in the future. I think landowners should be able to transfer tags and make money if they like, but only with their own landowner tags, not non-resident T-tags. This makes the landowner have absolutely no responsiblility for the tag that they drew and are basically making money from the sheer fact of being a landowner and nothing else. It's something that helps only some landowners, most all outfitters, and the deep pockets of out-of-state hunters that can hunt regardless of whether they draw or not.

There are several BIG mistakes made by the KDWP including this one. But that's another completely different issue. Right now the important one is stopping the unitization of resident bow tags. There is not a logical reason in restricting resident bowhunters to units.

Well Illinois gets around the whole "Why draw for the landowner when you can by OTC" issue by giving the landowners the permits. They are free. other states have these too, they are called nuisance tags that are given to land owners who are having too much crop damage or damage to feed storage areas. To me the whole idea of landowner permits should be that you are able to use them on your land only and only by people who own/operate the property. You can get landowner permits on ground you rent in Illinois for agriculutural purposes if you get the landowners permission. It is not an altogether bad system. I can't remember how the acreage goes but it is something like every 160 acres you can get a permit. Never gone through the process to do it, maybe this year I will.

Just a note on this debate. We have to strike down the whole piece of legislation, it is already passed into law, so we cannot line item veto...i.e, make non-residents only unitized. I agree that it does need to be modified, but lets do it right and not negatively harm everybody with a widesweeping law. This is why we must stand up now, and lobby our representatives with compelling, intelligent arguments as to why this new law should be changed.
Datamax--I am more apt to hold the landowners tags to a certain unit or county, as I would be for all out-of-staters. Seriously, I know that whenever I have hunted in other states I don't have enough time to effectively hunt more than one area, if an out-of-stater wants a statewide let them draw it. We are up against some big money here, the outfitters, the agriculture lobbying groups and the tourism group. We really need to stand untied on the bowhunting platform, like Iowa, and try to help preserve our sport, our heritage for the next generation. It can't all be done at once, but repealing SB364 is an excellent start.

The only logical reason I can think of is herd management. You have thousands of hunters living in Kansas City and vicinity that hunt other units, right ? How do you know which units have how many animals killed in them ? How do you set tags and seasons without haivng that important information ?

I don't know that it (repealing the whole thing) can be done and still have the landowner tags. The T tags were a huge selling point, repealing the whole thing might as well be like not letting nonresidents hunt Kansas like it was a few years back. That isn't a reality either with the outfitters and everyone use to the extra money and businesses made from it.


As a non resident, all I ask is for a fair chance to draw tags that are available to nonresidents and thats getting harder and harder to do so the system is broke for everyone right now in my opinion