Norsemen, Our state is non-resident unfriendly but for a totally different reason than what you think. A limited draw is a herd protection issue and that makes tags hard to get thus increasing the excitement when you do get one. It specifically limits permit numbers to benefit the deer herd not just to make KS unfriendly to non residents. The reason KS is unfriendly to non-residents is because of transferable tags. NR tag numbers are given at a percentage of the previous years resident tag numbers, then 50% of the NR tags are reserved for KS landowners who can then sell those tags to the highest bidder in effect taking a permit the average NR can get for a couple hundred bucks through the draw and scalping it for whatever someone is willing to pay. We do have some good deer here but like you said the potential for a trophy is just as high in other states but Ks has been the golden goose for a couple of years now and soon someone is going to kill it.

rmfloyd, Good luck finding a place to hunt with a gun in unit 19. As you may know it' s a target area for herd reduction because of urbanization. That is also the reason it will be hard to find a place to hunt. How many people want a guy with a rifle running around the sub-division? On the surface it' s a numbers issue but down below it' s all about habitat encroachment. Good luck on finding a place and good hunting.
TJ

FFTJ, I agree with you on the golden goose, no doubt, a state that can grow
large typical frame' s in a younger age structure, will produce the next golden goose kansas is on my short list, however my pick for the next world record typical is kentucky, within the next 3 year' s

I' ve read nearly all of this thread, and it does have some interesting information. My family farms in N.C. Ks., where I also own 100 acres that is incorporated into the rest of the family farm. I see leasing getting to be more and more every year, mostly by outfitters. I agree that the T-tags are driving the leasing and outfitting big money businesses. It' s happing all around our farm. But, I also am one that gets a T-tag every year through my dad, but it is a special land owner T-tag, which only enables me to hunt the land that my dad owns or is the primary operator on, including my own land. But, we have several friends (NR) that have been applying for tags in the past couple of years, and none of them have drawn an any deer tag. I also think it stinks that 50% of the NR tags basically go to the highest bidder. It makes it hard for my family to invite our freinds to hunt on our farm, unless of course they don' t mind hunting does only, which, some do, but after awhile, most of them would like a chance to hunt for a buck. I am glad that they did finally start a preference point system of some sort, so at least now they will have a better chance after a year or two of drawing that any deer tag. As far as the original comment by Nomercy and the late seasom being shortened, I guess it' s not that big of deal to me, I have to take time off from work to hunt, so if they can only hunt on weekends, guess they need to make the decision for themselves, take time off to hunt or time off to do something else. We all have to make these decisions from time to time. I beleive that there are areas that have probably gotten a check on the deer numbers and the shorter season makes sense, but I don' t beleive the state should be lumped all together. If they would have some hard facts on deer numbers, then they could at least determine what parts of the state should or shouldn' t have a shortened season. One other thing that bothers me about outfitters moving in and leasing up land, is just how many of the hunters that they bring in are going to shoot does? And like my dad has always said, " There ain' t a deer, turkey, pheasant, or any other critter with anyones name on it, so what' s it matter who' s side of the fence it' s on" . And that' s why my family still doesn' t post any of our land, and we do allow other hunters on to hunt, as long as it' s not opening weekend or if family is planning on hunting, if they will ask to hunt, they will be directed to some land to hunt and will even be givin some ideas where they might find the game. Just like in the good ol' days. It' s even been hard for my in state family members to draw an any deer tag, I suppose that has to do with bring in more money in from else where too. I won' t go into the rifle vs. bow part of this thread. Part of my family rifle hunts and the other part bow hunts. I started bow hunting primarily because I can have a couple of doe tags with me and an any deer tag, special transfer, and most likely will kill at least two deer, if not all three. With the deer numbers that there is, it' s not that hard to fill several tags with a bow. And I enjoy being out there when the deer aren' t pressured, the creeks are quiet, and life is just going by at a crawl. Good Hunting to every this fall.

rmfloyd- there is very little public land within Unit 19. KDWP website will have the maps and info about what is there. If you have public land access in unit 9, would recommend concentrating on it. I am predicting that most will get turned down with firearms permits in Unit19. I have always liked the hilly country North of Lawrence, towards Tonganoxie, never hunted there but it has always seemed to me to be deer heaven and have seen alot of deer travelling thru there.

Randy,

I have had 2 different KORA requests submitted to the KDWP. The latest one was March 2002. At the same time I sent the same requests to the surrounding 4 states plus Texas. KDWP took over 120 days to fill the request. The other states filled the information request within 60 days. Some very interesting things came up. I do not need to sit down with an employee of the State and have a chat. This is Public Policy issue and as such must have policy statements and documentation required by law. The population and management policy of KDWP should be in a document and readily available. This would help the cause against T-tags more than anything else I can think of.

Follow the money always follow the money. I am with you on the issue of t-tags and making money from the State resource without the proper appropriations hearings. However the KDWP is doing the same thing. This TAX (a fee collected by the government is a tax in legal definition) is not used for the reason it was proposed and appropriated. Pay attention in all other states and start asking the questions on where the money goes and who gave authority to divert said money from original purpose. The results for the request for money issues.

YR Big Game Permits Big Game Budget
2000 $5,094,416.50 $614,077.38
2001 $5,235,204.00 $403,242.85
2002 $5,662,456.25 $252,205.96 (Incomplete Yr.)

As you can see the vast amount of money is not and will not be used on the Big Game Program. We have to fund the Stream data collection program that cannot fund itself. This is clearly robbing Peter to pay Paul. And to think for only $70,000 we would have NASA baseline realtime data with high accuracy. In fairness though there are off budget issues not shown such as enforcement and the other wildlife managers input which is on other budgets. These totals do not include the income generated from the hunting license purchases or the portion of money generated from taxes collected from gun, ammo, powder, and hunting accessories sales out of the national tax and state sharing revenues. As you can see there is a large amount of money diverted away form the participants and programs.

I am very good at this documentation chain research; someone ought to hire me! I know a lot more than you give me credit for. Get the Deer Management 1989 report and 1998 report and compare them. There are large inconsistencies on a number or determinations made that directly effect resource management. There are also clear incorrect assumptions made from the tendencies. Remember in Kansas we do not manage by population, but from tendencies that are assumed to represent population….such as car/deer accidents.

The following came from that KORA request and is the KDWP official response and statements.

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.

What is the population of each indigenous species?

For whitetails, see above question. Mule deer have shown a slight decline in recent years.

How were the population totals determined?

The main index used is deer/vehicle accidents per billion miles traveled. Department observations and hunter success trend information is also utilized.

Were Kansas non-report of accidents numbers factored in?

No. There is no way to determine the exact number of non-reported accidents; however, as long as the reported trend information is consistent, this value is unimportant to the overall index.

So that is the end. Data will set us free. Data will defeat the t-tag. Data will come to show all that leasing will have the opposite effect.

On another note, if the taking does limits the population, why does the KDWP eliminate all Mule Deer antlerless deer. Would that not increase our mule deer population. Why limit the Buck Tags??

I meant eliminate all antlerless mule deer TAGS. That would let all the reproduction move forward with only natural mortality. Keep the Mulie buck tags consistant, eliminate mule deer doe hunting statewide for all forms of hunting. This would increase the mulie population quickly.

Dana

Dana, you got the slow response because you requested the info directly from KDWP. Next time you want State of Kansas ORA info, go to http://www. ink.org/public/kdot/ and you can get links there to any State info that they will mail directly to you in days, not weeks. Thats where I asked for the car/deer accident data, received a large envelope full of copies in two days. The office is in KCKS, they have all public info there, not just KDOT.

Randy

Was not surprised by the numbers you received, as with any State agency, very little of the collected money goes to the program that the fees come from. I would not be surprised that most of the money that comes in from PR act, tag fees etc goes towards prisons, colleges, and pet projects that have nothing to do with KDWP or the wildlife resources.

The entire mule deer herd is hurting Dana. IMO they need to stop all mule deer tag issuance until they are given a chance to recover.

Tried the INK.org. I think Information Network of Kansas (INK) is now no longer. I tried through accesskansas.org/public and nothing either. There is supposed to be a statute in Kansas about monies appropriated and taxation, that stipulates that revenue must be used for the purposes upon which it was gained by taxation. Sounds like this may be a constitutional issue (US) against taxation without representation. The representation is usually there at first, but when we have economic slowdowns, they pass special budget proposals that allow use in either agency general fund or state general fund.

As I stated before this is larger than just deer hunting. That is the main reason I M pushing hard on this issue. It can be addressed within the hunting faction and fixed. Otherwise I would be going after KDHE they have even more problems!!

Dana

TTT