Kansas Hunters getting screwed
06-15-2003, 10:42 AM
#71
Join Date: May 2003
Location:
Posts: 437
RE: Kansas Hunters getting screwed
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
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
06-15-2003, 09:38 PM
#72
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 57
RE: Kansas Hunters getting screwed
We will do that meeting one day. I attended one yesterday, refreshing to see that more and more hunters are starting to step up. The State Reps who have a problem with commissioners, KDWP and KBA are not liking opposition put up by these folks. They have all fought against liberalizing tags and allowing the commercial vultures to have more access to profits off OUR deer. This is why they dont like them, they are worse than some of us when it comes to pointing fingers and bickering.
I imagine the ones you talked to were on the Sen. Ag. Comm, and the House Comm on Travel and Tourism, they are real tired of being lambasted with mail, e-mail, phone calls and visits from KBA members who take the time to fight BS bills like SB#125 and HB#2078.
Randy
I imagine the ones you talked to were on the Sen. Ag. Comm, and the House Comm on Travel and Tourism, they are real tired of being lambasted with mail, e-mail, phone calls and visits from KBA members who take the time to fight BS bills like SB#125 and HB#2078.
Randy
06-15-2003, 10:51 PM
#73
Join Date: May 2003
Location:
Posts: 437
RE: Kansas Hunters getting screwed
Randy,
The Senators I talked with are on the Narural Resources, Governmental Ethics, and State Affairs committees. They are a little removed from the eye of the storm so to speak, but have some input. The ones I have talked with were more intent in allowing more access and herd management issues. In fact one I talked with was very upset about the centerfire extension study KDWP did in 1997 and tried to keep quiet. That study showed that the extension of rifle season was acceptable to almost everyone except the archery hunters. I cannot and willnot believe that all those surveyed who were in favor of extending the centerfire season did not care about the deer herd or deer management issues. The KDWP reasoning not to extend the season was Trophy management and concern that the herd population would be lowered. Two years later, the KDWP and Commission came out with the extended doe season and the game tags....not the legislature... to reduce the population. It is all in public records, very well documented. As you can see that seems a little like 2 sided logic. The public meeting minutes are available and document the progression of all the issues.
The Legislators had nothing to do with liberalizing of tag #' s and entended doe season acccording to the recorded testimony, commission discussion, commission voting record, and public input in Public meeting minutes of the time. You would be very suprised whose names come up in the public input section. Some of the same people fighting with you were the ones who were lobbying for taking of does just 3 short years ago for trophy management concerns. I have collected those over the years to go along with the research I have been doing. The excess tags idea originated in KDWP and the Commission voted on it because of the large doe/buck ratios. The concern was to produce Trophy bucks and to do this the theory goes you need a low doe/buck ratio. I think when you review these meeting minutes you will find the legislature was not involved in this one issue. Thiat places it clearly at the foot of KDWP and the Commission. Why do you think I have been hollering for data and information all these years? The statements in public record clearly indicates this and is the reason the public meetings are recorded and are supposed to be put in transcript. The whole idea is to have consistancy.
The KDWP and Game Commission are clearly in full CYA mode. I really doubt that any sitting commissioner will gain reappointment (whenever that is to happen) in the confirmation stage of the process due to many of the activities that have gone on it the past.
Dana
The Senators I talked with are on the Narural Resources, Governmental Ethics, and State Affairs committees. They are a little removed from the eye of the storm so to speak, but have some input. The ones I have talked with were more intent in allowing more access and herd management issues. In fact one I talked with was very upset about the centerfire extension study KDWP did in 1997 and tried to keep quiet. That study showed that the extension of rifle season was acceptable to almost everyone except the archery hunters. I cannot and willnot believe that all those surveyed who were in favor of extending the centerfire season did not care about the deer herd or deer management issues. The KDWP reasoning not to extend the season was Trophy management and concern that the herd population would be lowered. Two years later, the KDWP and Commission came out with the extended doe season and the game tags....not the legislature... to reduce the population. It is all in public records, very well documented. As you can see that seems a little like 2 sided logic. The public meeting minutes are available and document the progression of all the issues.
The Legislators had nothing to do with liberalizing of tag #' s and entended doe season acccording to the recorded testimony, commission discussion, commission voting record, and public input in Public meeting minutes of the time. You would be very suprised whose names come up in the public input section. Some of the same people fighting with you were the ones who were lobbying for taking of does just 3 short years ago for trophy management concerns. I have collected those over the years to go along with the research I have been doing. The excess tags idea originated in KDWP and the Commission voted on it because of the large doe/buck ratios. The concern was to produce Trophy bucks and to do this the theory goes you need a low doe/buck ratio. I think when you review these meeting minutes you will find the legislature was not involved in this one issue. Thiat places it clearly at the foot of KDWP and the Commission. Why do you think I have been hollering for data and information all these years? The statements in public record clearly indicates this and is the reason the public meetings are recorded and are supposed to be put in transcript. The whole idea is to have consistancy.
The KDWP and Game Commission are clearly in full CYA mode. I really doubt that any sitting commissioner will gain reappointment (whenever that is to happen) in the confirmation stage of the process due to many of the activities that have gone on it the past.
Dana
06-16-2003, 10:07 PM
#74
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 57
RE: Kansas Hunters getting screwed
Dana, I think if you compare the roster of the Ag Comm, to the Natural Resource Comm, you will find they are almost identical, with the exception of one or two Senators. Its late tonight, had a rough day. Will try and respond to the rest of your post tomorrow.
Is tomorrow now.
Have you ever went in a spoke with Lloyd Fox or Keith Sexton when he was big game cood.? I think if you havent done this, you will find they have a greater grasp on how many deer we have than you think they do. I can' t answer for their reason for how they handled the management changes, but I do know they were told by members of the legislature to do something about reducing the herd or laws would be passed. The original complaints in SE Kansas were an attempt to get more NR tag access to profit off of. KDWP only issued extra doe tags. I was at one of the meetings and listened to the complaints fly from Outfitters and large land owners who were upset because NR hunters wouldn' t bring their money here to spend on skinheads. When asked if they wanted herd reduction or profits, they clammed up and would not respond.
I would be willing to bet I know which Sen/Reps. you talked with. They have responded to my letters questioning why I so against allowing landowners to sell tags" to help save the farm" , their other political nose yank they are using. Funny you were told the KDWP, KBA, and archery hunters are to blame. In the reponses I have gotten, they have been supportive of my conservative views. They named KFB, KLA, Outfitters, and the insurance lobby as the ones pushing them to act, guess like most polititians it depends what side of the fence you are on as to how they respond.
I agree they could do better with their data collection. But I truly feel that the State Reps are mad because they didn' t get what they wanted, not because they wanted more data. Next time you have any contact with the Natural Resource Senators, ask them how many of them sold T-tags and either Outfit or lease their ground, if they respond truthfully, you will see the motive for pushing these kind of bills thru. Its not for herd reduction, its for $$$$.
Randy
Is tomorrow now.
Have you ever went in a spoke with Lloyd Fox or Keith Sexton when he was big game cood.? I think if you havent done this, you will find they have a greater grasp on how many deer we have than you think they do. I can' t answer for their reason for how they handled the management changes, but I do know they were told by members of the legislature to do something about reducing the herd or laws would be passed. The original complaints in SE Kansas were an attempt to get more NR tag access to profit off of. KDWP only issued extra doe tags. I was at one of the meetings and listened to the complaints fly from Outfitters and large land owners who were upset because NR hunters wouldn' t bring their money here to spend on skinheads. When asked if they wanted herd reduction or profits, they clammed up and would not respond.
I would be willing to bet I know which Sen/Reps. you talked with. They have responded to my letters questioning why I so against allowing landowners to sell tags" to help save the farm" , their other political nose yank they are using. Funny you were told the KDWP, KBA, and archery hunters are to blame. In the reponses I have gotten, they have been supportive of my conservative views. They named KFB, KLA, Outfitters, and the insurance lobby as the ones pushing them to act, guess like most polititians it depends what side of the fence you are on as to how they respond.
I agree they could do better with their data collection. But I truly feel that the State Reps are mad because they didn' t get what they wanted, not because they wanted more data. Next time you have any contact with the Natural Resource Senators, ask them how many of them sold T-tags and either Outfit or lease their ground, if they respond truthfully, you will see the motive for pushing these kind of bills thru. Its not for herd reduction, its for $$$$.
Randy
06-23-2003, 08:23 AM
#75
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 57
RE: Kansas Hunters getting screwed
They didn' t get what they wanted in the legislative session, past complaints only got them doe tags and an extended season. Last year they continued with crop damage complaints and applied for and got over 50% of the depridations tags issued in the entire state. Result of their lobbying efforts? KDWP is again proposing an extended-extended season for three SE counties in Unit 12 and having a drawing for 4 extra doe tags on top of the 6 already available in that area while having the season run until Jan 3lst. Micheal Pearce of the Wichita Eagle had an article about the subject in Sunday' s posting on their website. He quoted Fox as saying that he doubted this would help reduce the problem because " Landowners are possessive of their deer. Alot of the property has been purchased for the deer hunting. They wont want to shoot off all the deer."
For those of you who are unfamiliar with how politics involve half truths, and exaggerated claims to get what you want, this means the farmers of Unit 12 want to sell deer and hunts to NR hunters who are willing to pay for the privelege. They do not want to reduce herd size, they are not suffering the crop damage they claim they are having. They are playing political games to pressure KDWP to liberalize regulations to allow them the tags they want.
This proposal will pass. Come this January, hunters who apply for and draw the special " bonus tags" will find it real difficult to gain access to any ground in these three counties. There will be land available, but the trespass fees/hunting rights will come at a steep price, and guess what that means? More claims/complaints during the next legislative session.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with how politics involve half truths, and exaggerated claims to get what you want, this means the farmers of Unit 12 want to sell deer and hunts to NR hunters who are willing to pay for the privelege. They do not want to reduce herd size, they are not suffering the crop damage they claim they are having. They are playing political games to pressure KDWP to liberalize regulations to allow them the tags they want.
This proposal will pass. Come this January, hunters who apply for and draw the special " bonus tags" will find it real difficult to gain access to any ground in these three counties. There will be land available, but the trespass fees/hunting rights will come at a steep price, and guess what that means? More claims/complaints during the next legislative session.
06-23-2003, 08:40 AM
#76
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 57
RE: Kansas Hunters getting screwed
Need more proof that commercialism is taking over Kansas deer hunting?
Fewer residents bought tags last year for many reasons. IMO this includes areas that have been over hunted reducing deer numbers, and leasing locking resident hunters out of a place to hunt. Fewer NR tags are available this year, 462 to be exact. They base the total number of NR tags off a percentage of the number of resident tags sold the year before. This year there was an increase in the number of tags applied for(3629 more) 20620 instead of 16991 applied for last year. NR hunters only accounted for 632 tags of that increase. Who applied for the other 3000 tags? T-tag applications went from 5827 last year to 8824 this year. Not hard to see where the increase came from is it? That means that half of all the available NR tags will go to Kansas landowners and outfitters this year. I feel sorry for the NR hunters who do self guided hunts, they are effectively being forced out of the game as well.
Fewer residents bought tags last year for many reasons. IMO this includes areas that have been over hunted reducing deer numbers, and leasing locking resident hunters out of a place to hunt. Fewer NR tags are available this year, 462 to be exact. They base the total number of NR tags off a percentage of the number of resident tags sold the year before. This year there was an increase in the number of tags applied for(3629 more) 20620 instead of 16991 applied for last year. NR hunters only accounted for 632 tags of that increase. Who applied for the other 3000 tags? T-tag applications went from 5827 last year to 8824 this year. Not hard to see where the increase came from is it? That means that half of all the available NR tags will go to Kansas landowners and outfitters this year. I feel sorry for the NR hunters who do self guided hunts, they are effectively being forced out of the game as well.
07-03-2003, 09:30 PM
#78
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 57
RE: Kansas Hunters getting screwed
No Norsemen, that ended 7-8 yrs ago thanks to threats and political pressure from other states. NR Tags are hard to get, limited number in draw, and now resident landowners get half of the NR tags and then turn around and resell them for a much higher fee.
07-05-2003, 06:42 AM
#79
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: western N.Y.
Posts: 196
RE: Kansas Hunters getting screwed
TREBARK, thank' s for the head' s up
I did a little reasearch and view thing' s
in this manor, there are two type' s of state' s, non res friendly, and nonres
unfriendly, there are few 2 whitetail state' s I view as unfriendly K.S. and Iowa,
and all the candian province' s, one that make' s the non res, jump through hoop' s,
and charge' s a small fortune, I can buy an archery elk tag over the counter, the
day before a hunt in C.O. cheaper
we cant deni the quality of the buck' s in
these states, but there are far better, and a state with great B&C potential,
that I can drive into the day before a hunt, and buy a lic at wal-mart, is the reason
I will be in Kentucky this fall, sorry but kansas economy losses[X(]
I did a little reasearch and view thing' sin this manor, there are two type' s of state' s, non res friendly, and nonres
unfriendly, there are few 2 whitetail state' s I view as unfriendly K.S. and Iowa,
and all the candian province' s, one that make' s the non res, jump through hoop' s,
and charge' s a small fortune, I can buy an archery elk tag over the counter, the
day before a hunt in C.O. cheaper
we cant deni the quality of the buck' s in these states, but there are far better, and a state with great B&C potential,
that I can drive into the day before a hunt, and buy a lic at wal-mart, is the reason
I will be in Kentucky this fall, sorry but kansas economy losses[X(]
07-05-2003, 07:52 AM
#80
Spike
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Murray KY USA
Posts: 16
RE: Kansas Hunters getting screwed
Okay, guys, I need your advice. I live in KY but have friends in KS. I was drawn for a nonres either sex tag in Unit 9 so I can hunt Unit 19 as well. My frineds have a big farm for me to hunt on in Unit 9 but I would love to also hunt the early gun season in Unit 19. My problem is that I have no clue as to where to hunt there. Does anyone have any advice as to good public hunting land in Unit 19 or how to gain access to good private hunting land there?
Thanks
Thanks