Whitetail Deer Hunting Gain a better understanding of the World's most popular big game animal and the techniques that will help you become a better deer hunter.

Kansas Transferable Tags

Old 07-15-2003, 09:37 PM
  #11  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 57
Default RE: Kansas Transferable Tags

I couldn' t find where SB#568 ever made it out of committee, ever became law Dana. I will check with a lobbyist friend of mine and see what he can tell me.
Trebarker is offline  
Old 07-16-2003, 12:51 PM
  #12  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location:
Posts: 437
Default RE: Kansas Transferable Tags

Randy,

I think SB568 was the original T-tag bill that was to sunset.

I have digested mostly the study on T-tags by the Dept. of Ag Econ. at KSU. You (and all hunters) have a lot to be concerned with. This is a marketing paper! As you know I have been vociferious in my criticism about archery hunters (but not on THIS issue), but you guys are about to be shut out of SW Kansas according to what the research findings state. This will take a little to explain. As you stated about $$$, Cyndi Lauper, that great philosipher stated " Money changes everything."

" Findings have important policy implications. This suggests policy makers regulating transferable permits should carefully consider regional defferences, given return to landowners is a policy objective."


This quote is about the SW Kansas area being the most valued and desireable tags with muzzleloaders highest then rifle and archery last. Archery is last in value because of the time and effeor to pursue this type of hunting and the T-tag hunter has limited time. Therefore the archery is not valued in this instance so what will be done with the policy regarding this to the rest of the state.

Can you say a pay to hunt archery free SW Kansas hunting area?

" Board and field guide services increase the hunting packages and in turn bring revenue to Kansas providers."

The average mean tag price brought into Kansas with the Guide services included is $760. with approx. 3720 T-tags it is about $1.7 million taking out the original $202. That is an average of $560 to each landowner transferee. I do not think this offsets any damage allegedly occuring because of deer.

Arbitaging the Transferable permit. " ...guides only receive this additional premium ($488.31 Mean) if the hunter does not arrange their own services. Hence, we find some evidence that guides are anticipating profits from value added services and not on averagetrying to arbitage the transferable permit."

I see nothing in the research to support this assumption. This does open another issue though, if this program is to offset damage done to landowners and to bring revenue to a stagnant farm economy my question would be why the guide and outfitters are even being discussed? The State should not be in the business of promoting individual industries and businesses on a publicly held resource.

Most chilling statement in the research.

It is clear that changes to the transferable permit program must take into consideration the significant spatial differences across the state. Policy changes affecting the type of permits available will have differing affects on beneficiaries of the program; rifle, muzzleloader, and archery permits are valued differently. Moreover, service providers (i.e., guides) benefit form this program as well as landowners. Policy changes that limit the involvement in the market will likely alter revenues to the state of Kansas."

It seems to be slanted research at best in favor of service providers and maximizing the spatial area of SW Kansas for the T-tag permit system. I really would like to know who paid for this pice of crap research. Bought and sold data. That is why I holler for data. This particular issue cannot be defended by the data or purpose.

Other issues is the fact that we do not need the T-tag process to expand revenues to landowners or guides, and the State should not be in the business of redistributing wealth, ideally. The landowners, outfitters, and guides can enter into contractual agreements for the land legally and therefore have revenue come into the process without taking resources of the State to promote this industry.

" Transferable permits were designed with the purpose of providing landowners compensation for damages caused by deer."

Your argument and " spirit of the law defense" by tying the tag to the land is exactly right on and I will support you in this. If there is deer damage occurring on the landowners land, the deer must be on the land or surrounding parcels, or within the range of free ranging deer. So the t-tag must be tied to the land and surrounding parcels or there must be verification of damage caused by deer. The service providers and recipients of this program cannot then also argue that too many deer exist and the need for more permits. If part of their income is from deer hunting and leasing hunting land, well then more is always better, and the majority of Kansans do not want more deer. They cannot also use the damage issue if there allowances and already existing legal remedies such as opening the ground to hunting, or leasing, etc.

This does not match the mandate or the purpose of the original bill or management policies. It has got to go!


Dana
MarkIIVT is offline  
Old 07-16-2003, 04:02 PM
  #13  
Nontypical Buck
 
kshunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Rural Kansas... Where Life is Good
Posts: 4,139
Default RE: Kansas Transferable Tags

I don' t like that it is being done, since it is making my state more of an Illinios type hunting state. But beyond that, it does a lot of great things for the state and for everyone else that lives here. Basically it all comes down to, it is bringing money into the state. Not saying I am for it though.
kshunter is offline  
Old 07-17-2003, 04:37 PM
  #14  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location:
Posts: 437
Default RE: Kansas Transferable Tags

New Thread on New Commissioners for Kansas in Midwest Forum
MarkIIVT is offline  
Old 07-17-2003, 09:48 PM
  #15  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 57
Default RE: Kansas Transferable Tags

A pair of Lawyers, one a member of the Sierra Club and The Brady Center, yes the Anti gun one. One Lawyer has the same last name as the Governor. The third is involved in the Kansas Assoc. for Conservation and Environment Education(can you say Tree Hugger?) not that being environmentally aware is a bad thing mind you. Should prove real interesting to watch the commission at the next year of meetings.
Trebarker is offline  
Old 07-17-2003, 09:50 PM
  #16  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location:
Posts: 437
Default RE: Kansas Transferable Tags

And don' t forget a member of the Nature Conservancy..on the damn Commission!?!?
MarkIIVT is offline  
Old 07-23-2003, 04:39 PM
  #17  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location:
Posts: 437
Default RE: Kansas Transferable Tags

No more debate? No more information gathering? Does anyone want to expend some effort and overturn this thing? This is where we start.
MarkIIVT is offline  
Old 07-27-2003, 11:46 AM
  #18  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location:
Posts: 437
Default RE: Kansas Transferable Tags

ANY discussion??


TTT
MarkIIVT is offline  
Old 08-03-2003, 11:07 AM
  #19  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location:
Posts: 437
Default RE: Kansas Transferable Tags

ttt
MarkIIVT is offline  
Old 08-14-2003, 05:15 PM
  #20  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location:
Posts: 437
Default RE: Kansas Transferable Tags

OK, I have been doing a little research on the topic of T-tags. I have researched the legislative testimony, legislative records, legislator interviews, and web based information searches. The connections are very interesting to say the least. IT also has much to do with the divided Kansas Republican party.

If you check with the Ethic Commission you will see that those organizations that supported and endorsed elected officials that voted in favor of the T-tag issue are Kansas Livestock Ass' n. (KLA), Kansas Farm Bea. (KFB), Kansas Republican Assembly (KRA), and Kansans For Life (KFL). These organizations are concerned about agricultural interests and religious dogma rather than about wildlife management and beneficial use. It was shown with the choice given for Governor by the Republican and the preannounced appointment of Jennison to Sec. of WP. These organizations also are coincindentally strong 2nd Amendment right supporters, probably the only issue I agree with these organizations. SO, some of our own ranks are our own worst enemy. AFA, the KRA, they are basically a fundamentalist religious lobbying group, they are the ones wanting creationism being taught in Kansas schools. Somehow we need to seperate that religious component out of the wildlife debate. Any members or officers of this group need to get or make a PUBLIC statement wither in support of or opposition to the T-tag legislation. In that way members will know better to continue their support of these organizations.

It is because of these " single issue" groups that the Kansas Republican Party is divided in this state. If you are Republican, call your local Party HQ and let them know your stance via email, phone, or letter. The " silent majority" is what is killing Kansas in all areas, not just the T-tag issue. It is almost impossible in the rural areas of Kansas to get elected without the support of KLA, KRA, and KFB. That is where the base of the problem lies.

On to the Non Profits. We need to get an official public statement from Quail Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited, Seirra Club, Safari Club, Kansas State Rifle Ass' n, Nature Conservancy, National Wilflife Fed., and all other outdoor and conservation groups on where they stand on the T-tag issue. I have heard NO GROUP make any statement official or otherwise, on this issue(with the exception of the Kansas Bowhunters Ass' n). They have the responsibility to the membership to make that stand so members can decide if they will continue to support these groups. ALL need to respond, period. The KDWP Big Game Program has given support to habitat and support to programs that ALL Conservation, Outdoor, and hunting groups are concerned with and for a long time. This support has been on the backs of our great KANSAS DEER HERD. It is time for a little payback from the organizations that have benefited from the Big Game Program. I bet the next time you see a deer you will see it in a different way. On the back of that fawn, doe, or buck you see in Kansas is 40-60% of the funding of the Kansas Wildlife programs. They are a wonderful animal and ought to be treated more respectfully than auctioned off on E-bay!

On a side note with the Agriculture component of this issue. The response in favor was to assist a down turn in the agriculture economy. The Fed Ag. subsidies on each dollar are prorated to include monies for Best Management Practices and non-point source pollution prevention (Local Environmental Business developement). Well, guess what! The KDHE Division of Environment provides that service for free to the agricultural business. Yes it is true. So this is the simple breakdown of the money inputs:

Ag Subsidies: Money for BMP and NPSPP and not being used for the purposes
they were allocated for
T-Tag: Money to assist in an economic downturn
KDHE: State Delivered Environmental Services delivered at no cost to Ag. Ind.

Boy I wish the State and Feds would assist my business in the same way! The KFB and KLA have gotten into KDHE up to their necks in the Division of Environment issues. I believe this is now happening in KDWP. Once these organizations get their claws in there is no going back. The reason that Kansas is not in Compliance with the EPA Clean Water Act is because of the wishes of the KLA and KFB. The Use Attainability Assessment (UAA) is still not complete and has been executed not in complicance with EPA requirements and COURT ORDER of a Federal judge.
MarkIIVT is offline  

Quick Reply: Kansas Transferable Tags


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.