Howler - I think you have captured the essence of the whole problem we have here in Kansas. (IMO)

In the 80' s we had about half the deer numbers (or less) as we have today and well over 5000 (or more) Any Deer tags issued thru the draw - now we have less than 3700 Any Deer tags issued thru the draw and dropping fast. This is all happening because there is a general belief that the (Mule) deer herds are being decimented. It might well be fact, but where is the data. Where we hunt we are neck deep in Mule Deer and can' t get the Any Deer tags to hunt them. We have also heard that the VERY areas we hunt are the areas that are hardest hit for mule deer and has the most drastic reduction in numbers - is it propganda or fact?? Nobody in this state knows - that' s certain!

Hard data is required to verify that the tags do indeed need to be adjusted and that they are being correctly adjusted in the appropriate and corresponding areas. I' m an Engineer, I' m real easy to convince with hard verifiable data.

I personally have had the Any Deer tag issued to me only twice in the last 9 years(and I am a resident and I file religiously EVERY year). I don' t dispute that there might be a problem in the deer population that needs to be addressed - but it would sure be nice to have hard population figures with tag allotment vs. success rate figures at the game commission meetings when they make tag cuts(or adjustments. We NEVER go up in tag allotments). Heck we even have game commissioners complaining about the lack of data in the public meeting forums. Given the current situation I really think the NR hunters don' t really have a good chance here in Kansas of getting a really good tag(at this time). I think that is a big mistake. Here' s the rub - A NR has a better chance of getting a tag thru the T-tag system than he/she does going thru the state agency. Cost of that tag will be whatever the market value is at that time - it will probably be no worse than other states. The whole situation stinks because it is not inconceivable that in the future a resident hunter might well have a bigger problem getting the quality tags because a larger portion would be T-tag issued and less would be avaliable for the resident issues. Those tags will go where the money goes.

The data that we so badly need now would be the PERFECT tool to force some sanity into this T-tag situation.

BTW - I don' t really believe that shortening or lengthening the season has a thing to do with harvest numbers. In this state harvest is controlled by carcus tag - one tag, one deer - 2 tags, 2 deer, - etc. It has nothing to do with length of season! In this state almost ALL deer taken during the firearms season are taken in the first 5 days of the 13 day season (alot taken on the opening Wednesday and a huge amount take on the opening weekend - Saturday and Sunday). EXTREMELY few deer are killed after the first 5 days. Season length has absolutley nothing to do with harvest figures. Tag allotment vs. success rate is the secret and that' s why the lack of data is our biggest problem in this state.

When we stop hearing population suppositions, nonprofessional polling and about how our herds are being decimented and start seeing hard data on the subject(s), then and only then will our problems be on the path to resolution.

The bigger question is - Why don' t we have this data avaliable? If the projects I have worked or am currently working operated like this, I tell you with complete certainty our budgets would be cut and we would be out of business!!!!!

This whole lack of data issue is even more serious than the T-tag issue!!

Dave

Good to see you back on here Dave. More data, better explanations of decisions(thats an oxy-moron with a State Agency involved)and zone management returning to the overall plan will help loads. T-tags came about simply because KDWP refused to liberalize buck and NR tags as the commercial minded folks wanted. The ones who pushed the hardest are in Unit 12, they are once again demanding more and might be getting the extended season till Jan 31st this yr.

Issuing extra doe tags statewide when the obvious solution was to promote urban hunting where the deer are too numerous, is nothing short of political games. When deer numbers did not decline, KDWP was forced to develop the Unit 19 hunt.

Even if accurate data is provided to the Legislators, they will always vote in favor of $$$$ generation. Now that commercialism has gotten started, I am afraid nothing will stop it, other than the resource being wiped out for the second time in Kansas history.

The unlimited doe tags were also preached and touted by KDWP statewide 1998-2000 according to the Pyblic meeting minutes and the multiple statement made to the newspapers. Much discussion with the commissioners in favor of it as well, with your 3 favorites making the loudest noise (documented of course) for reducing the doe population for 2 reasons. The 1st for " Trophy Buck Management" and getting a better buck/doe ratio, and 2nd to reduce the then expanding population. The Buck/doe ratio was the biggest issue to commissioners of the time 1997-2000. It was again a 50/50 deal with the Leg./KDWP.

Fighting bad legislation is very difficult. We have NO hope of overturning these issues IF we get no data $$$ will reign in absense of information. If your assessment is correct Randy, then using hard data will make it tougher to advance legislation in favor of dollars over proper management. Without data, again if your assessment is correct, this was a cakewalk and that lack of data guarnteed our lose. That is why KDWP must answer quantify the herd population. That is why I asked these 2 questions and got very indefensible answers.


How can a population be managed if the extent of that population is misrepresented or unknown?

While the department does not - and cannot - know the exact number of deer in the state, this information is not necessary to manage the deer resource. By utilizing consistent trend information, primarily deer/vehicle accidents per billion miles traveled, along with hunter success rates, the department is able to determine population indices that are sufficient to manage the population growth, or decline, on a unit by unit basis.

What are the current and past populations of the Kansas Deer herd?

Again, the department does not - and cannot - deal with the actual number of deer in the state. Trend information indicates that the whitetail herd has increased in size from the 1950' s through 1999. In 2001, a slight increase is again seen. See attached annual accident rate.xls.

Dana

Not being argumentative with you Dana, you quoted everything I said last except the part where I said I agreed more data is needed. Trouble is, KDWP is the only one who could provide the data we desire and their response obviously says they have no intention of providing any more than what they do.

IMO, part of the reason they do not wish to try and get an accurate count of the deer herd is man-power, they cannot get more staff now as it is. NASA flyover counts, I am sure most tag recepients would not have a problem paying a bit more for accurate data collection, but the legislature is looking for incoming revenue, not outgoing. Consider that over 95% of Kansas property is privately owned, many landowners would not allow KDWP on their ground to get an accurate count, how would they ever convass the entire state every year?

I have never had much faith in the documenting of meeting minutes. Very rarely do they document the entire meeting. I have viewed their written meeting minutes to see if what had taken place was included. One of the last meeting I went to lasted nearly 3 hrs, with much debate and discussion, there was one page of minutes, and none of the deer issues were included. Media releases, samething, they give them what they want read, not all sides.

TTT

Randy,
This is a document from 1995-6 of a Legislative post audit of KDWP and I think clearly answers the Problems of " Manpower shortages" these State Agencies Claim. " We can only hire Managers and Administrators" LOL. This is not funny though. Hot Points in Italics.

Reviewing Issues Relating to the Financial Management, Efficiency, and Effectiveness
of the
Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks

Summary of Legislative Post Audit' s Findings

In 1987, the Park and Resources Authority and the Fish and Game Commission were merged creating the Department of Wildlife and Parks. The primary goals of the merger were to cross-train the agencies' law enforcement staff, institute one-stop shopping for licenses and permits, and develop joint park and wildlife facilities. The Department is responsible for he State' s outdoor recreational activities, for promoting the use of natural resources, and for enforcing laws to protect them.
Has the Department of Wildlife and Parks established adequate and appropriate financial-management practices related to State parks and fish and game activities? The Department' s financial-management practices are not adequate to provide needed accountability for moneys restricted by federal or State law. During fiscal years 1989 through 1992, the Department spent $1.7 million in violation of federal regulations and $3.9 million in violation of State law. In addition, the way the Department manages its cash flows and fund balances does not always make full and effective use of the moneys available to it. Finally, the Department is not meeting its financial obligation to the Corps of Engineers related to El Dorado State Park.

Have the potential savings and efficiencies from merging the Park and Resources Authority and the Fish and Game Commission been achieved? The merger did not result in any overall cost savings; costs actually increased because of an increase in the number of employees and reclassification of employee positions. Efficiencies did result from the merger primarily when the parks and public lands (wildlife areas) staffs were combined creating flexibility in the use of staff and equipment. However, recent Department attempts to solve the diversion of federally restricted funds have negated this efficiency.

Are the primary missions, goals, and objectives of the State' s parks and fish and game areas being met, and if not, how can those operations be improved? The Department is not meeting all of its primary goals and objectives. Although the Department generally has increased outdoor recreational opportunities at State parks and fishing lakes, it has not one as well with its wildlife areas. In addition, it has not done a good job of maintaining its facilities.

How can the Department be structured more efficiently? Even though the combination of parks and public wildlife area programs into one division contributed to organizational inefficiency because of an increased need for procedures to prevent diversion of restricted moneys, the combination of these two programs created offsetting efficiencies. The Department has a layer of general management the other states we looked at don' t have. Finally, the Department has devoted proportionally more of its employee resources to support activities and less to field programs than the other states we reviewed.


This report includes numerous recommendations for the Department of Wildlife and Parks. We would be happy to discuss these recommendations or any other items in the report with any legislative committees, individual legislators, or other State officials.

Barbara J. Hinton
Legislative Post Auditor

Dana and Dave, did you see the press release KDWP has on their website about the new commissioners? Go check it out and then let me know how you feel about it.

Randy,

It sucks BIG TIME. How the heck could the GUV appoint 2 antigun antihunting nuts and a releative to the commission. I think that we need a Gov. Recall here in Kansas!! I AM INSENSED!!! I have been on the phone and sending all the email out that I possibly can.

Dana

If you want to get rid of gun hunting in the State of Kansas, this is the kind that will do it!!

I think she better not get real comfy in her new lodgings at Cedarcrest or whatever they call the mansion on the hill. Her appointments show her liberal agenda, it is a threat to hunting in general, not just gun season.