Kansas Transferable Tags
07-11-2003, 03:02 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location:
Posts: 437
Kansas Transferable Tags
OK. We are going to examine this subject. I just got the 27 page report from KSU. I am still going through this research, lotta stuff in there. Seeing on how this hotbutton issue seems to overshadow other hunting issues in Kansas I figured we need another thread to discuss it. So Starting a thread to discuss this T-tag issue only. Please limit the discussion to T-Tags. Not other side issues. Read the Research, keep passions lower and let' s figure this thing out. I would like discussion not passionate unsubstanciated rants. Let' s examine this thing with DATA. Case histories and any help with legal cases in sporting issues and publicaly held resources management and exploitation.
For all out of State hunters, our Legislature passed laws compelling the KDWP to release 50% of the NR tag allotment to be landowner transferable to anyone. What is your opinion of this? It' s purpose it to offest deer damage on agricultural production lands and supplement farm economies. Opposition to the T-tag issue is the commercialization of a public resource for sole individual benefit, to scalping equilivilant in sports tickets. Leasing is a seperate issue here for discussion although in the grand scheme of things they are linked.
Let' s let it rip. Be heard on this important issue in Kansas Big Game Hunting. Let' s not make this a NR vs Resident hunter flame out too....OK?
Dana
For all out of State hunters, our Legislature passed laws compelling the KDWP to release 50% of the NR tag allotment to be landowner transferable to anyone. What is your opinion of this? It' s purpose it to offest deer damage on agricultural production lands and supplement farm economies. Opposition to the T-tag issue is the commercialization of a public resource for sole individual benefit, to scalping equilivilant in sports tickets. Leasing is a seperate issue here for discussion although in the grand scheme of things they are linked.
Let' s let it rip. Be heard on this important issue in Kansas Big Game Hunting. Let' s not make this a NR vs Resident hunter flame out too....OK?
Dana
07-11-2003, 05:24 PM
#2
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 57
RE: Kansas Transferable Tags
Dana, welcome back, thought you had hung it up.
First, lets let the people know the REAL truth behind the birth of Transfer Tags.
They used claims of over deer population, too many car/deer accidents, and crop damage claims to the Kansas Legislature to get them to pressure KDWP to act. KDWP was responsible for the management plan that built our herd up from non-existence over 30 yrs of restricted access. KDWP was aware that the herd was not well established enough to support the commercialistic desire to open the access and there to be unlimited tags. The commercial lobby had lobbied KDWP for a long time trying to get more access to NR tags so they could turn to deer hunting for another source of income. When they didnt get the results they wanted, they went to the legislature, KDWP' s boss. Natural Resource Comm of the legislature and the Ag Comm. members are mostly from farm backgrounds. It was not hard work for the lobbyists to get the legislators to react in their favor. Several Senators and State Reps have profited from the sale of transfer tags they obtained. This measure was supported by large farm operations that receive millions of dollars of crop subsidy money every year, and by Outfitters who will be able to control the sale of Kansas Hunts. This measure was not to help the small farmers struggling to survive as they have claimed.
NR hunters have had their chance of drawing a tag reduced by 50%. They can still hunt Kansas does, but the buck tags in the t-tag system are reserved for the privileged few who can afford to buy them. Instead of paying $205 for a tag, they are currently being sold for $800 and up. Some have sold for as high as $3000.
First, lets let the people know the REAL truth behind the birth of Transfer Tags.
They used claims of over deer population, too many car/deer accidents, and crop damage claims to the Kansas Legislature to get them to pressure KDWP to act. KDWP was responsible for the management plan that built our herd up from non-existence over 30 yrs of restricted access. KDWP was aware that the herd was not well established enough to support the commercialistic desire to open the access and there to be unlimited tags. The commercial lobby had lobbied KDWP for a long time trying to get more access to NR tags so they could turn to deer hunting for another source of income. When they didnt get the results they wanted, they went to the legislature, KDWP' s boss. Natural Resource Comm of the legislature and the Ag Comm. members are mostly from farm backgrounds. It was not hard work for the lobbyists to get the legislators to react in their favor. Several Senators and State Reps have profited from the sale of transfer tags they obtained. This measure was supported by large farm operations that receive millions of dollars of crop subsidy money every year, and by Outfitters who will be able to control the sale of Kansas Hunts. This measure was not to help the small farmers struggling to survive as they have claimed.
NR hunters have had their chance of drawing a tag reduced by 50%. They can still hunt Kansas does, but the buck tags in the t-tag system are reserved for the privileged few who can afford to buy them. Instead of paying $205 for a tag, they are currently being sold for $800 and up. Some have sold for as high as $3000.
07-11-2003, 05:55 PM
#3
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location:
Posts: 437
RE: Kansas Transferable Tags
Hey Randy,
Hell no will not hang it up. This is important for larger issues than just deer hunting. I think you know I will disagree with you on how the t-tag came to be and we argued that out in the other thread, so any of that KDWP vs Legislature stuff I disagree with you will be posted back on the other thread, I think it is a 50/50 blame there. I do care what came first, but for the sake of discussion I would like to address in this thread the influences on this tag and examine what pushed it.
The Damage reimbursment issue. On this I can see ag CROP producers having a stake in this (though I still can' t support it), but the livestock producers getting the KLA involved with the T-Tag was a huge push. I am going over the numbers in the study that was released today and there is not a good argument that the gain in average total money received would even dent any damage crop wise, but how do deer inflict damage on livestock producers? We need to get someone to make a statement on how much damage deer do to livestock producers, I have not even heard of this in any discussions on this subject. That is one that needs to be brought up next legislative session and at the public meeting for Unit 12 expansion.
The question to be asked is: What damage is occurring in nature and cause to the ag producers that would warrant the liberalization of tags in that area? Or Is the public tolerance low for deer in that area? How can people leasing land to hunt get t-tags and extensions on tags and depred. tags and still make the justification that the herd needs to be reduced if they lease? You know I think that the leasing will actually explode the deer population and we will be hip deep in does again like in 1999. As hunting land is closed off less deer will be taken giving a good pool to reproduce. These are some of the questions that come in my mind that seem to get lost in the haze. At the heart of the problem in my mind is twofold: If deer damage is an issue can we control or influence legislature to address the issue of leased hunting land being limited in depred. tags and input on management since they are going outside the influence of the State (KDWP) on their own private ground, and if leasing is the paramount push from one group it needs to be offset by public influence, just as public influence indicated to reduce the herd. If they lease and increase the population then couldn' t it be argued the deer produced by that land is the responsibility of that land and the damage therefore goes to the leaser. In Environmental Law, if one upsets the balance or changes conditions to a less desireable one, the responsible party pays, would this not apply in this case?
I would like to see some figures on the leasing. If the people in the Unit 12 are leasing to hunt how can the claim be made that they need to reduce the herd?
A little scatterbrained thinking, but some good things to think about.
Dana
Hell no will not hang it up. This is important for larger issues than just deer hunting. I think you know I will disagree with you on how the t-tag came to be and we argued that out in the other thread, so any of that KDWP vs Legislature stuff I disagree with you will be posted back on the other thread, I think it is a 50/50 blame there. I do care what came first, but for the sake of discussion I would like to address in this thread the influences on this tag and examine what pushed it.
The Damage reimbursment issue. On this I can see ag CROP producers having a stake in this (though I still can' t support it), but the livestock producers getting the KLA involved with the T-Tag was a huge push. I am going over the numbers in the study that was released today and there is not a good argument that the gain in average total money received would even dent any damage crop wise, but how do deer inflict damage on livestock producers? We need to get someone to make a statement on how much damage deer do to livestock producers, I have not even heard of this in any discussions on this subject. That is one that needs to be brought up next legislative session and at the public meeting for Unit 12 expansion.
The question to be asked is: What damage is occurring in nature and cause to the ag producers that would warrant the liberalization of tags in that area? Or Is the public tolerance low for deer in that area? How can people leasing land to hunt get t-tags and extensions on tags and depred. tags and still make the justification that the herd needs to be reduced if they lease? You know I think that the leasing will actually explode the deer population and we will be hip deep in does again like in 1999. As hunting land is closed off less deer will be taken giving a good pool to reproduce. These are some of the questions that come in my mind that seem to get lost in the haze. At the heart of the problem in my mind is twofold: If deer damage is an issue can we control or influence legislature to address the issue of leased hunting land being limited in depred. tags and input on management since they are going outside the influence of the State (KDWP) on their own private ground, and if leasing is the paramount push from one group it needs to be offset by public influence, just as public influence indicated to reduce the herd. If they lease and increase the population then couldn' t it be argued the deer produced by that land is the responsibility of that land and the damage therefore goes to the leaser. In Environmental Law, if one upsets the balance or changes conditions to a less desireable one, the responsible party pays, would this not apply in this case?
I would like to see some figures on the leasing. If the people in the Unit 12 are leasing to hunt how can the claim be made that they need to reduce the herd?
A little scatterbrained thinking, but some good things to think about.
Dana
07-13-2003, 08:41 AM
#4
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Elizabeth Colo. USA
Posts: 4,413
RE: Kansas Transferable Tags
I wish ya luck in getting this T-tag system changed. I, for one think it stinks worse than a week old dead skunk! I agree that most outfitters that lease up the land and bring in out of staters to hunt, won' t being killing very many does. So, in that regard, I think that the state is shooting themeselves in the foot in thinking that they are helping manage the deer herd. It really bends me wrong that I can' t bring my friends back to hunt deer because 50% of the NR tags are going to the highest bidder. It is taking about 2 years to draw a tag in the unit where my family farms now, and it is only going to get worse if something doesn' t change soon. As far as the T-tags helping the local farmers, that' s hog wash, the outfitters are the ones lining thier pockets. I' d like to see the T-tags go away, or before too long Ks. will be another Illinois or Texas!
07-13-2003, 11:51 AM
#5
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location:
Posts: 437
RE: Kansas Transferable Tags
Randy,
Do you have totals for T-Tags released for years 2000-20002? If please post them. Let' s do a little math here in public! In reading the research I found out that the NR tag total was determined by TOTAL tags including the game tags and WT antlerless is this correct . I thought that ratio and the % NR was based on what was the " primary permits" and the Extra permits game tags and WT antlerless only were not taken into account. In the research on page 4, with review of SB568 (2000) the legislature increased the % NR by doubling it to offset the number of NR tags taken up by the T-tags. So they decreased the number of available NR tags by making T-tags, then because of revenue loss of other NR direct hunters doubled the available % NR permits that KDWP could release. My question is did KDWP increas the NR tags up to the maximum levels allowed by the Legislature?
I was living in Japan the year this bill was passed, that' s why it (SB568) is news to me. I still would like to hear your take on the Damage issue if you can follow my crooked line of thinking in the above post.
Dana
Do you have totals for T-Tags released for years 2000-20002? If please post them. Let' s do a little math here in public! In reading the research I found out that the NR tag total was determined by TOTAL tags including the game tags and WT antlerless is this correct . I thought that ratio and the % NR was based on what was the " primary permits" and the Extra permits game tags and WT antlerless only were not taken into account. In the research on page 4, with review of SB568 (2000) the legislature increased the % NR by doubling it to offset the number of NR tags taken up by the T-tags. So they decreased the number of available NR tags by making T-tags, then because of revenue loss of other NR direct hunters doubled the available % NR permits that KDWP could release. My question is did KDWP increas the NR tags up to the maximum levels allowed by the Legislature?
I was living in Japan the year this bill was passed, that' s why it (SB568) is news to me. I still would like to hear your take on the Damage issue if you can follow my crooked line of thinking in the above post.
Dana
07-13-2003, 11:56 AM
#6
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 57
RE: Kansas Transferable Tags
Howler, we can use all the help we can get, that includes from you NR hunters that are being cheated and capitalized off of, and your family that farms in Kansas. They (pro-commercial folks) as a way to help the farm economy(if a few hundred dollars or even a grand is going to make or break you its time to update the resume and call a realtor) and a way to deal with deer over population. What deer over population? Car deer accidents are they favorite claim. There are counties that have had fewer than 100 CD reports or less in 10 years, but resident hunters can get 6 deer tags there too.
07-15-2003, 09:03 PM
#8
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 57
RE: Kansas Transferable Tags
Dana,
No I do not have the totals for the previous two years, but I know that they did NOT have as many applicants as available tags the first two years. I was shocked to hear that bit of info. This year, word has gotten out about the way they sell on E-Bay, and how much in demand they were last year, and all available t-tags were applied for. I am not sure about SB568 in 2000, was not as deeply involved then but I will look it up. I am only aware that they have introduced plans to up the percentage of tags available to NR hunters in the next few years, but read into that it will also increase the number of t-tags(still 50% of the tags available) if they are continued.
My take on crop damage claims is simple, politics and a lobbying technic used to get what you want. Most of the guys crying to the Topeka group about crop damage receive large amounts of subsidy money. The money they get each year is broke down into several categories, two of which concern wildlife. The first dictates that they must plant nature grasses etc to return the ground to a natural state, hence wildlife habitat. The other addresses damages caused by natural occuring events such as storms and damage by WILDLIFE. Simply put, they are compensated now. Go to the EWG website and click on the facts links, there is alot more info on there that I am sure some wish wasnt there. One of the Farmers pushing for more tags is very high on the subsidy $$$$ list, but he is claiming the most damage of all.
No I do not have the totals for the previous two years, but I know that they did NOT have as many applicants as available tags the first two years. I was shocked to hear that bit of info. This year, word has gotten out about the way they sell on E-Bay, and how much in demand they were last year, and all available t-tags were applied for. I am not sure about SB568 in 2000, was not as deeply involved then but I will look it up. I am only aware that they have introduced plans to up the percentage of tags available to NR hunters in the next few years, but read into that it will also increase the number of t-tags(still 50% of the tags available) if they are continued.
My take on crop damage claims is simple, politics and a lobbying technic used to get what you want. Most of the guys crying to the Topeka group about crop damage receive large amounts of subsidy money. The money they get each year is broke down into several categories, two of which concern wildlife. The first dictates that they must plant nature grasses etc to return the ground to a natural state, hence wildlife habitat. The other addresses damages caused by natural occuring events such as storms and damage by WILDLIFE. Simply put, they are compensated now. Go to the EWG website and click on the facts links, there is alot more info on there that I am sure some wish wasnt there. One of the Farmers pushing for more tags is very high on the subsidy $$$$ list, but he is claiming the most damage of all.
07-15-2003, 09:32 PM
#10
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 57
RE: Kansas Transferable Tags
www.ewg.org/farm/state.php?
Go to that website, follow the links to Kansas farms. Is an easy site to use. I think you will be surprised just how much money is poured into the Kansas economy thanks to subsidy money and will see why I don' t buy into the claims being made to the legislature for damage claims, more tags and depridation permits. State Senators involved in the t-tag and deer issues are on that website. One of them will proudly tell you he supports t-tags but doesnt like to discuss that he and his wife have profitted off t-tags.
Go to that website, follow the links to Kansas farms. Is an easy site to use. I think you will be surprised just how much money is poured into the Kansas economy thanks to subsidy money and will see why I don' t buy into the claims being made to the legislature for damage claims, more tags and depridation permits. State Senators involved in the t-tag and deer issues are on that website. One of them will proudly tell you he supports t-tags but doesnt like to discuss that he and his wife have profitted off t-tags.