Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
 

Kansas Bowhunting Regulations/Initiative

I know this is political, but I feel many bowhunters will miss this unless it is posted here. We need to Act Now!!!

I found this on Bowsite. Not sure if it is too late to rid of the upcoming bowhunting legislation, but is worth a shot. Plus, with all the new legislators voted in this recent term we can influence their decision making process in regards to our longstanding bowhunting regulations. This is a beginning for a petition that you can mail to your local representatives. Even if you don't bowhunt, this is still a good cause to unite as hunters and get good things done.

If you are a resident bowhunter of the state of Kansas, it is still not too late to act to repeal the unit legislation brought forth by SB364. Rep. Ruff is on the tourism/wildlife board and is arguing against the bill.

Rep. Ruff e-mailed a friend today and asked that he notify all resident bowhunters he knew to please write, call, or personally visit with all of the members of the Tourism/W&P committee in support of her proposed legislation to lift the archery unit hunting restriction.

The bill will be introduced this coming week, and a hearing is possible by Jan 26th. She asked that he consider testifying at the hearing, unfortunately he will not be able to get off work that day.

It is very important we participate positively in this. Be brief, try to avoid negative comments, and stress the importance of game management that protects the resource instead of the bottomline.



We, the undersigned, would like the Kansas legislature to reconsider, and revoke, legislation that would tie Kansas bowhunters to management units in 2005. It would be better if resident archery permits were left statewide, as they've been for 40 years, because --

---The creation of the regulation was done very late in the 2004 session, and accomplished in a few short days. Legislators weren't given enough time to research how the move would impact their constituents. Kansas sportsmen were also denied enough time to get politically educated and involved.

--- Many bowhunters have been at the sport for much of their lives, and have collected hunting spots without regard to unit boundaries. Such a change would negate the years, or decades, they've spent developing relationships with landowners and getting to know the patterns of localized deer herds. The latter greatly helps with controlling the deer population.

--- The spread of commercialization within deer hunting (guiding, leasing, the buying of property for hunting) has made it increasingly difficult for the average Kansan to find new places to deer hunt. Many deer hunters are now confined to a few small, and widely scattered, tracts of land that may be within several management units. To limit a sportsman to one unit would greatly decrease his enjoyment of the sport AND his ability to help control the Kansas deer population.

--- While firearms hunters are already restricted to units, we'd like to remind the legislature that bowhunting is a sport that requires far more time and dedication. Many archers have invested 30 to 40 days of preparation and hunting before they succeed, while many firearms hunters are only out a few days. There's no way for a bowhunter to know which property, within which unit, will be productive when a particular portion of the season arrives. We need as many options as possible if we're to help manage the Kansas deer herd.

---The legislative action was made in an effort to provide a better distribution of non-resident archery permits for some Kansas outfitters. Good or bad, we think it's important that the Senators and Representatives also consider the needs of all Kansans. While the legislation might benefit a few dozen guides and outfitters, it could have a very negative impact on tens of thousands of Kansas sportsmen. There are ways to better serve both the minority outfitters and majority sportsmen.

-- With great respect to the job done by the Kansas House and Senate, we also feel such wildlife-related rules and regulations are best handled by the Kansas Wildlife and Parks Commission. The seven-member commission is non-partisan and unbiased, with only one bowhunter and four hunters overall. They have the time, and the resources, to properly research such regulations. We elect our legislators to run matters such as taxes, schools, state goverment spending....and would like them have as much time as possible to invest in such issues.

RE: Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
 

I do not agree at least in part. Kansas residents should be state wide. Non-residents should be unit bound. but because of how Kansas ties the draw in with residents (landowner tags) it becomes iompossible to seperate the two. Outfitters will flock to buy up all the lanowner tags they can from SE and NE kansas and sell them to guys who hunt the SE portions of the state. Two years ago a KS transferable tag went on EBAY for $750-1000. Thats money the landowner made not the KDFW and it hurt Kansas overall I think. This past year tags were $350-500 for the most part if no land was included. Big difference there and it allowed more average income people the opportunity to Hunt Kansas.

RE: Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
 

datamax, if that is the case then make the resident landowner tags unit bound just like the non-resident tags and open all the units back up to Kansas residents. Either way resients should be able to hunt in any unti. That is quite honestly one of the stupidest laws that I have ever heard of.

RE: Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
 

Why not have a resident landowner and non-resident landowner tag. It's works for other states.

Why not unitize non-resident tags only? Wouldn't this fix the problem too, which was the basically the initial reasoning behind the law?

RE: Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
 

Ks-I didn't see where I should reply to. Can you fill me in?

RE: Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
 

The e-mail addresses for the Capital are: For the Senators it is their last [email protected]. If there is more than one with the same last name, they add the first letter of the first name. For the House Reps. they are last [email protected]

I'll have to do some digging for the mailing addresses, I don't have them here at this computer. I'll post when I have them.

RE: Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
 

Thats what I am saying. This petition is to remove all the unitized tags and that is a terrible idea. launch a new initiative to remove those unitized tags for residents and leave them for nonresidents.

RE: Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
 

D- Geraldine Flaharty Member

D- Broderick Henderson Member

D- Candy Ruff Member

R- Lynne Oharah Member

R- Patricia Kilpatick Member

D- Margaret Long Member

D- Ann Mah Member

R- Judy Morrison Vice-Chairperson

R- Don Myers Chairperson

R- Clarck Shultz Member

R- Dale Swenson Member

D- Mark Treaster Member

R- Shari Weber Member

R- Virginia Beamer Member

R- John Grange Member

R- Gary Hazlett Member

R- Mitch Holmes Member

All e-mail addresses can be accessed on www.kansas.org Click on house roster look for their names then click on their email addy. Or go to here: http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-...searchHouse.do


Please be sure to email the committee members which are posted above. These are the important ones to email.

RE: Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
 

What's so terrible about that? Lots of states don't have units. Even some "trophy" states don't with Illinois being the prime example

RE: Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
 

silentassassin there are many reasons. What seperates Kansas is that they allow resident landowners with 80 acres or more to apply for a tag from the pool of non-resident tags available. What then happens is that outfitters like USO pays big dollars for those tags. Lets say USO gets 250 people from around the Kansas City area to apply for and recieve tags. They then sell the tags in their trophy hunts, but the hunts take place on land in south and central Kansas, nowhere near the land the owners own. That creates big management problems as well as making it very tough to have a fair draw system. USO can lease up a 25000 acre ranch in southern Kansas, buy 500 tags and kill the heck out of deer off that ranch, then move on. USO has a terrible reputation for doing underhanded things all in the name of money.

Kansas realized this, made adjustments and in the process hurt residents. Perhaps IL doesn't allow for landowner tags to be transferred ? Is it an archery draw ? I don't know.

RE: Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
 

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.

RE: Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
 

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.

RE: Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
 

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.

RE: Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
 

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.

RE: Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
 

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.

RE: Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
 

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.

RE: Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
 

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.

RE: Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
 

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.

RE: Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
 

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.

RE: Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
 

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 :(

RE: Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
 

You're right, the system is broke. It seems the only ones happy with all the changes are the outfitters, the agriculture lobbying groups and the tourism group. None of which view hunting as I and the vast majority of hunters do.

RE: Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
 

What I wrote to my legislators.

RE: House Bills 2079 and 2115, Archery Units, Equity in Resident Hunting Opportunities, Game Management, &KDWP Functions and Activities.

Other Elected Representatives and yourself have received an email campaign and a petition from the fellow resident hunters who use archery equipment. They do have some viable points...but do not address the entirety of the scope of the problem. It is important that you read this letter in total, it encompasses that scope and all problems that exist in the deer related issues facing the State of Kansas. I would support resident archery statewide IF and ONLY IF, the legislature finds some solution to allow the firearms hunters greater access in terms of time afield, we have been wanting it so long, and have been paying the majority of the revenue into the Big Game Program. I will address the issues by the petition they sent to you. Most are from the Kansas Bowhunting Association (KBA), which numbers only 800 members. Please understand the numbers, the resident archery number is 12,000 (the remaining 7,000 is Non resident archery hunters) and dropping, and resident firearms number in the 85,000 ( and another 20,000 nonresident firearms hunters) and growing, and financial support is proportionally that ratio also. However the resident firearm hunter while supplying fully 8 to 1 financing revenue, are allowed only 10-12 days to hunt and by unit only. So those who finance the program and not allowed equal participation and unequally regulated. This is not a protected process, we are talking of killing deer, so equal protection exemptions DO NOT apply. Additionally the greater number of firearms hunters in the field for the same hunting season have even less land available. The Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP) game managers (many of whom belong to KBA prior to 2002) were shutting down public lands to firearms hunters, and the 4 National Wildlife Refuges in Kansas also banned firearms hunting for deer. This is NOT happening in other states, and could not have occurred in Kansas without willing participation of KDWP. Since 1965 KDWP was not managing deer population, but hunter participation to give unfair access in terms of land, time, and season placement to a small group ie resident archery hunters.

FIRST paragraph of the KBA petition:
We, the undersigned, would like the Kansas legislature to reconsider, and revoke, legislation that would tie Kansas bowhunters to management units in 2005. It would be better if resident archery permits were left statewide, as they've been for 40 years, because --
---The creation of the regulation was done very late in the 2004 session, and accomplished in a few short days. Legislators weren't given enough time to research how the move would impact their constituents. Kansas sportsmen were also denied enough time to get politically educated and involved.

MY RESPONSE:
I agree, legislators should fully educate themselves on the issues, however getting a bunch of letters from a small vocal angry group should not sway your position away from the right solution. As for the “40 years”, times, population, and culture has changed in Kansas, and the deer management goals and procedures have not changed with the times. The legislature did give KDWP plenty of time last session to change and they refused, so the legislature stepped in. Another interesting piece of information, KDWP uses Car/Deer strikes to estimate population. ALLOTHER STATES abandoned this long ago (10 years) because it gave erroneous results. Car/Deer accidents are not population based, but are relational to the number of cars and LOCAL miles driven. KDWP takes total miles (which more are rolled up in the metro areas) and applies them state wide which does not represent Grinnell, Sublet, Cherokee, etc. So that CONCERN of the Archery hunters is discredited.

NEXT Section of the KBA petition:
--- Many bowhunters have been at the sport for much of their lives, and have collected hunting spots without regard to unit boundaries. Such a change would negate the years, or decades, they've spent developing relationships with landowners and getting to know the patterns of localized deer herds. The latter greatly helps with controlling the deer population.
--- The spread of commercialization within deer hunting (guiding, leasing, the buying of property for hunting) has made it increasingly difficult for the average Kansan to find new places to deer hunt. Many deer hunters are now confined to a few small, and widely scattered, tracts of land that may be within several management units. To limit a sportsman to one unit would greatly decrease his enjoyment of the sport AND his ability to help control the Kansas deer population.

MY RESPONSE:
85,000 + firearms hunters are also in the sport much of their lives. The resident firearm hunter has continually lost greater track of land, AND MOSAT IMPORTANT, we are having higher hunter densities. Remember, there are 8 times the number of resident archery hunters ON LESS AVAILABLE HUNTING LAND. The “controlling the deer population” is laughable. KBA and resident archery hunters continually argue against expanding rifle hunters based on the fact that archery hunting has very little effect upon population and in no way is a control or management tool in deer population control. Their repeated statements on this can be seen at bowsite.com/kansas or the public record at KDWP public meetings. They are literally talking out of both sides of their face.

PETITION: “--- While firearms hunters are already restricted to units, we'd like to remind the legislature that bowhunting is a sport that requires far more time and dedication. Many archers have invested 30 to 40 days of preparation and hunting before they succeed, while many firearms hunters are only out a few days.”

RESPONSE: Firearms are not out in the field more than a few days because it is illegal to be out more than the season allows! Geez! Difficulty in season IS A HUNTERS CHOICE, and they need to take responsibility for that choice. Limiting the majority of hunters because a select few chose a process that has a lower success rate is not proper public policy, however if you are going that route, the last 2 years firearms hunting has been even or LESS than archery success rates. So that argument does not wash either.

PETITION: “There's no way for a bowhunter to know which property, within which unit, will be productive when a particular portion of the season arrives. We need as many options as possible if we're to help manage the Kansas deer herd.”

RESPONSE: There is even less for a resident firearms hunters, which are limited to 1/16 of the land area AND have 8 times the hunter density. And lastly, the archery hunters DO NOT have an effect on population, check about what KDWP states about that.

PETITION: “The legislative action was made in an effort to provide a better distribution of non-resident archery permits for some Kansas outfitters. Good or bad, we think it's important that the Senators and Representatives also consider the needs of all Kansans. While the legislation might benefit a few dozen guides and outfitters, it could have a very negative impact on tens of thousands of Kansas sportsmen. There are ways to better serve both the minority outfitters and majority sportsmen.”

RESPONSE: Agreed! And you need to recognize that firearms hunters have GREATER BURDENS than any resident archery hunter is having. The majority of sportsmen in the Big Game, specifically DEER, it the KANSAS RESIDENT DEER FIREARMS DEER HUNTER at 85,000 strong and that is a lot of votes, which has been repeatedly disregarded. This group has paid the lion’s share of the program and have reaped the least benefit, has been regulated the most, and are currently suffering even greater amounts of negative impact, land accessibility, and season length in comparison to the other deer hunters numbering 1/8 of their total.

PETITION “With great respect to the job done by the Kansas House and Senate, we also feel such wildlife-related rules and regulations are best handled by the Kansas Wildlife and Parks Commission. The seven-member commission is non-partisan and unbiased, with only one bowhunter and four hunters overall. They have the time, and the resources, to properly research such regulations. We elect our legislators to run matters such as taxes, schools, state government spending....and would like them have as much time as possible to invest in such issues.”

RESPONSE: KDWP is a mess. In 2002, they had an offer from NASA for an satellite infrared survey of Kansas for deer population, and cattle population with included analysis for $70,000!! They passed it up! Cheaper than current exercises in futility, and increase of accuracy by orders of magnitude! In 2003-2004, 2 conservation officers used information in an ongoing investigation to discredit a Senator. The KBA also tore into multiple legislators and harassed them OUTSIDE of the legislature. You need to check up on that. Both are felonies, both were by perpetrated by KDWP personnel and documentation to that does exist. Multiple members of the KDWP are or were past KBA members, and over the years have used their influence not for the resident Kansas or hunter, but for pleasing the KBA. The commission process in KDWP needs to be replaced it is a relic of the past. The commission is seems less concerned with the wildlife issues, but appeasing the very vocal. Many times in public record the commission routinely voted on policy WITH NO FACTS, and NO DATA. One commissioner last year even stated that point blank. I made a statement in public record with written documentation, and got the commission to admit that they had no concrete population information. The chairman admitted that they had nothing like that for ANY specie of Big Game!! It was removed from the minutes and not reported that way...a violation of the Kansas Open Meeting Act. Open meeting rules are violated all the time, as KDWP, some members of the commission, pass information to the KBA PRIOR to the meetings I had to do a KORA request, and it took 120 days to get my information! It is all there in the past commission meetings minutes. There are great many problems in KDWP, least of which is the Big Game Program funds. The Big Game Program takes in an average of $5 Million annually, of which an average of $400,00 is actually spent on the program. This is why the legislature stepped in last year. They were forcing KDWP to get it’s act together, and KDWP failed to do so. I would rather keep the management of Big Game concerns with the legislature currently, until the KDWP gets its house in order.

I have a file box full of information from KDWP, and other sources information which sheds light on this and other issues. I am an Environmental Scientist and a hunter. The information and research I have done stands peer review quite nicely. I have also developed a process for indexing deer population based on biomass production on Kansas as a ratio of Agricultural production. It accurately predicts deer population numbers in Oklahoma, and Nebraska. KDWP wanted NO PART of it. I did it for free. They (KDWP) get paid to do it, and it is their responsibility to do it, and they cannot do it, accept those who can, and fail to use innovation.

Lastly, as with the numbers, in terms of “tourism” dollars, it is quite clear, the firearms hunters hold the bag of money, with an 8 to 1 advantage. Let participation occur in terms of servicing the representative population and the market will follow. Policy is made in this country for good reasons usually, in Kansas it has been my experience that bureaucratic momentum, attitudes of “this is the way we have always done it”, and a lack of innovation permeates the Kansas Governmental agencies. This produces inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and worst of all, the agencies start to do business for the protection of the agency, and not to do the peoples business or to fulfill their legislated responsibilities with their legislated appointed authorities. Reform of all agencies, and enforcement of laws and legislative will of the people, will give Kansas economic prosperity, and a large State Revenue stream to carry out pro Kansas programs. Clean it up, prosperity will follow.

A Kansasan,

Dana E Brown

RE: Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
 

Good Post Mark,

But you would have saved a lot of typing if you would've said:

I don't like bowhunters because they have what us firearm hunters do not have, including season/regs. So if us rifle hunters can't have at least the same then why should bow be able to?

The unitization of resident bow permits will not lengthen or liberalize your rifle season. Every one of your responses(except for the last one) responded with the same type of response, if rifle hunters can'tdo it, then why should rifle hunters. The same implementation of seasons (as you want) for same species to be the same is not always the way to go. If you feel your rifle season system is broke, then do something about it, but don't go about trying to break the system for the bowhunters anymore than it is. You have a lot of good points on why the rifle season should be different. But yet that is a different issue. You make an arguement that Bowhunters should be unitized because you feel rifle hunters don't good a season... Huh??? Doesn't sound like a rational arguement.

Like the saying goes, "Just because the classmate as school has a better car than you doesn't mean it's "okay" to key it". That speaks volumes in your post. Not often do I read an "Elitest" attitude from a rifle hunter. But boy have I now! Just my .02

RE: Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
 

On a different, non-anti-bowhunting note:

It would be a great idea for all who want to maintain a Statewide Archery, either sex, either species permit to show up for the meeting at the Capitol on Feb 2nd. The meeting is at 3:30 in Room 241 North. If everyone who reads this were to get a vehicle full of their bowhunting friends and make an appearance at the hearing, it would show STRONG support for HB 2079. Sounds as if we have Reps that support that bill.

It's up to us to show them that we're serious about keeping our Statewide permits. I'd love to see standing room only at the hearing. Everyone wouldn't have to speak, just make an appearance in support. Are you willing to take a Wednesday afternoon off, drive to Topeka, to keep our permits statewide?? My buddies are going, and I'm doing everything I can to get off work myself.

RE: Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
 

kshunter nonresidents don't get either species tags. Its whitetail only

RE: Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
 

I have counted the times I stated my postition, which is not your oversimplification. I have stated 16 times on this bbs alone, I wanted to expand the opportunity for firearms hunters. I have NEVER stated that rifle season should include the rut and be 2.5 months long. Only an alternating possibility of hunting close to the rut, when there is a large expanding deer population. I am not anti-bowhunting, as a matter of fact I joined in signing petitions against HSUS position on banning bowhunting. I fully support a hunter's right to participate regardless of equipment choice. An affront to hunting of one is an affront to all.

Resident Kansas Firearms hunters have 8 times the number of resident archery hunters in 10 to 12 days of season. Additionally, ALL four of the NWRs are CLOSED to centerfire, additional PUBLIC land is closed to centerfire, and leasing has removed even more available land from resident firearms hunters. This is NOT a different issue, it is about hunter access and hunter participation. I support (really) your efforts, and I would add to endorse state wide archery permits for residents IF AND ONLY IF there is an address of the issues faced by resident firearms hunters. I and many others have a problem with resident archery hunters complaints about loosing access, when our group is effected to an even larger degree in terms of land accessibility and hunter density levels within the season. KDWP has not even considered it at all. ANd as for "the way we did it for the last 40 years..." well, Kansas culture, social structure, etc., has changed, and thus the management principals must change.

As for units for management, either all are units or not. The KBA position is for management principals, if you are going to manage by units then by all means do so. We need all the points of data.

I think I have shown you that is not what I have been saying, and I will try to use less facts and more rationlaizations.

RE: Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
 

Coming from a rifle/bow hunter, who yearly hunts with both, I am always interested in way to improve Kansas and their laws, seasons, and regulations. But right now, on this post, the issue at hand is the unitization of bow permits. I'm not against you're discussing of our rifle season, but geez lets discuss what is at hand, the unitization of bow permits. The biggest direct correlation between unitization of bow permits, and rifle season is people like you. I would love to discuss the rifle seasons and complaints you have about it, just on a different post. Sounds like an interesting discussion I'd be interested in...;)

You're just reinforcing what I said in my previous post.

If this is true then why ONLY support another style of hunting ONLY if yours is addressed first? The 2 statements above don't coincide with each other. Let's unit as hunters and try to achieve as one.