Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Kansas lawmakers threaten wildlife department funding

Catscratch

Catscratch

5 year old buck +
Bold to outright threaten a million off the top and to pursue every line item to find more they can cut from the department of wildlife. As dirty as politicians can get! No wonder game laws get so screwed up. To listen to the meeting made me sick.

www.outdoorlife.com

Kansas Lawmakers Threaten to Strip $1 Million in Wildlife Funding if Agency Bans Deer Baiting

At a public hearing, Rep. Lewis Bloom warned Kansas Wildlife and Parks he'd strip their budget of over $1 million if they enacted a bait ban to slow CWD.
www.outdoorlife.com www.outdoorlife.com
 
Catscratch said:
Bold to outright threaten a million off the top and to pursue every line item to find more they can cut from the department of wildlife. As dirty as politicians can get! No wonder game laws get so screwed up. To listen to the meeting made me sick.

www.outdoorlife.com

Kansas Lawmakers Threaten to Strip $1 Million in Wildlife Funding if Agency Bans Deer Baiting

At a public hearing, Rep. Lewis Bloom warned Kansas Wildlife and Parks he'd strip their budget of over $1 million if they enacted a bait ban to slow CWD.
www.outdoorlife.com www.outdoorlife.com
Click to expand...
So this is the hill they are willing to die on. They are so resolute in ensuring bubba from garden city doesn’t have to actually put in any effort to kill a deer that they are willing to blow it all up. Brilliant. Best of the best leading this country.
 
I know both of our State Reps in my County and they are absolute clowns. I graduated with one and out of 180 students, his GPA ranked 181st.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Howboutthemdawgs said:
So this is the hill they are willing to die on. They are so resolute in ensuring bubba from garden city doesn’t have to actually put in any effort to kill a deer that they are willing to blow it all up. Brilliant. Best of the best leading this country.
Click to expand...
They're resolute in leasing out their personal land to NR hunters and padding their own pocketbooks. Using their positions in government to threaten/bully wildlife agencies for personal gain. I have a VERY low opinion. So damn crooked!
 
T-Max said:
I know both of our State Reps in my County and they are absolute clowns. I graduated with one and out of 180 students, his GPA ranked 181st.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I don't know them personally so I can't speak to their intelligence... but making threats like that at a public forum sure leaves it in question.
 
Catscratch said:
They're resolute in leasing out their personal land to NR hunters and padding their own pocketbooks. Using their positions in government to threaten/bully wildlife agencies for personal gain. I have a VERY low opinion. So damn crooked!
Click to expand...
Are hunters really that lazy and honestly so bad at hunting, that they wouldn’t come to an amazing state like Kansas if they can’t dump a pile of corn out of the side by side in front of their blind?
 
I imagine that guy is probably in one of those 75%+ red districts, so the only way to get rid of him is in a primary. Those state house races were my favorite to work on. A small but determined team of people can tip the scales in those small races. Here's the campaign: "I'm just as rocked ribbed and patriotic as him, but this baiting stuff has to go." See what the people think.
 
Not to be on "their" side, because I don't like the idea of baiting personally. But I find the reasoning for the ban to be questionable. I can't get my head around how not baiting will slow the spread of CWD. If the logic is sound shouldn't we be hiring teams of people to go out and remove natural licking branches?
 
Bill said:
Not to be on "their" side, because I don't like the idea of baiting personally. But I find the reasoning for the ban to be questionable. I can't get my head around how not baiting will slow the spread of CWD. If the logic is sound shouldn't we be hiring teams of people to go out and remove natural licking branches?
Click to expand...
Hell, they may as well go after bean and corn fields too, as they concentrate deer.
On the other hand, that knucklehead must have something way bigger at stake to make a stand like that. I don't know too much of the inner workings of state gov't, but I highly doubt this tool could actually back up what he threatened.
I bet him and his constituent buddy may have their hunting interest under the microscope by the wildlife dept now. Bullys like that generally get their ass handed to them in the end
 
I don't think it was ever posted here, but the Kansas hearings on trail camera use on public lands in KS made the rounds on the web earlier this year. Hearing some of their questions or statements really made me question how much they actually understand of the wildlife and agencies they govern.

I actually have a mixed opinion on trail camera use on public land, but the way they went about it did not instill a whole lot of confidence in the process.
 
Bill said:
Not to be on "their" side, because I don't like the idea of baiting personally. But I find the reasoning for the ban to be questionable. I can't get my head around how not baiting will slow the spread of CWD. If the logic is sound shouldn't we be hiring teams of people to go out and remove natural licking branches?
Click to expand...
I don't give a damn about how someone hunts, baiting or not. It's none of my business on how a stranger gets their rocks off... like how I don't care how another dude makes love to his wife. If they're happy and content so be (even if my way is better)! And I'm with you on not being convinced that baiting speeds up the transmission of CWD specifically. That ultimately isn't the issue of this thread though. What I care about is the political bullying and threats. IT'S DIRTY! I don't know enough about politics, is there a recourse or punishment for acts like this?
 
Last edited:
Hoytvectrix said:
I don't think it was ever posted here, but the Kansas hearings on trail camera use on public lands in KS made the rounds on the web earlier this year. Hearing some of their questions or statements really made me question how much they actually understand of the wildlife and agencies they govern.

I actually have a mixed opinion on trail camera use on public land, but the way they went about it did not instill a whole lot of confidence in the process.
Click to expand...
I was for the trailcam ban on public. In my mind someone wanting to get out into the woods should have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Our cities and towns are too crowded and busy. If someone wants to leave town to go for a walk, fishing, hunting, etc it'd be nice they weren't constantly finding themselves looking at the lense of a camera. My stance has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with the average Joe who doesn't have the privilege and comfort of private land to explore.
 
Catscratch said:
I was for the trailcam ban on public. In my mind someone wanting to get out into the woods should have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Our cities and towns are too crowded and busy. If someone wants to leave town to go for a walk, fishing, hunting, etc it'd be nice they weren't constantly finding themselves looking at the lense of a camera. My stance has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with the average Joe who doesn't have the privilege and comfort of private land to explore.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with you about trail camera use on public land. I go back and forth on it though. In MN where I hunt public land and live, there are no trail cameras allowed on public land. I still find a few dozen or so every year, but I also find dozens of tree stands hung illegally too. I feel like it makes it orders of magnitude more difficult to find and successfully harvest a mature buck on public land without a trail camera. Considering the complaints about quality of hunting in MN, I feel like it is probably a good thing they are not allowed.

What I didn't like about the whole Kansas thing, is that their arguments for or against camera use really seemed uneducated. They had experts on the panel but clearly had an agenda and their minds made up from the beginning. I think one could argue that the quality of hunting public land in KS will actually increase. It might also mean more hunting pressure if people are having to do more in-season scouting to find the deer. If you watch a bunch of the hunting youtubers that are out on public all over the country, they almost unanimously mention the importance of cell cams (the exception being Zach from THP). I have spoken with a few of these youtubers who live in or around MN and asked why they pretty much never hunt public in MN and they have said the lack of camera use makes it too difficult to reliably get on bucks.
 
And the politician in question has a dog in the fight as the owner of a high priced outfitter business. Incredible to be so bold publicly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sounds very similar to the big master baiters in ND and the stuff they pull. I like no baiting but don’t have strong feelings towards it in states that have always had it especially since I’m not a resident in them. I even hunted over a buddy’s feeder in ND last year. But the measures and actions these bait addicts take to keep their bait piles really makes it hard to not want to stand against them. Screw those guys.
 
weekender21 said:
And the politician in question has a dog in the fight as the owner of a high priced outfitter business. Incredible to be so bold publicly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Which one?
 
Hoytvectrix said:
I tend to agree with you about trail camera use on public land. I go back and forth on it though. In MN where I hunt public land and live, there are no trail cameras allowed on public land. I still find a few dozen or so every year, but I also find dozens of tree stands hung illegally too. I feel like it makes it orders of magnitude more difficult to find and successfully harvest a mature buck on public land without a trail camera. Considering the complaints about quality of hunting in MN, I feel like it is probably a good thing they are not allowed.

What I didn't like about the whole Kansas thing, is that their arguments for or against camera use really seemed uneducated. They had experts on the panel but clearly had an agenda and their minds made up from the beginning. I think one could argue that the quality of hunting public land in KS will actually increase. It might also mean more hunting pressure if people are having to do more in-season scouting to find the deer. If you watch a bunch of the hunting youtubers that are out on public all over the country, they almost unanimously mention the importance of cell cams (the exception being Zach from THP). I have spoken with a few of these youtubers who live in or around MN and asked why they pretty much never hunt public in MN and they have said the lack of camera use makes it too difficult to reliably get on bucks.
Click to expand...

Trail cams are still legal on federal land in MN.
 
So sick of this hate crap in politics. It's like a bunch of babies. Sounds like the outfitters and buddies have their good ol' boy system working overtime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top