Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

KS guys I hope we get through this year without destroying the KDWP and our deer herds

Gravel Road said:
Cat,
If you get the bill number, I'd like to have when I email Rep Carlin. I could not find it on the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources website. Thanks
Click to expand...
Sorry, the original poster didn't give us the bill number. I just rechecked that thread and nothing new. Since it's a conflict of interest bill I wonder if it's somewhere other than the Ag and Natural Resources website? I imagine if you email her she'll know exactly what you're talking about.


Strike that, looks like we ^^^ were posting at the same time.
 
buckdeer1 said:
All of the reps names and emails are on the Kansas Bowsite.com ready to be copied and pasted
Click to expand...
I was just on there to get the list I can't seem to find it. Where do I look on that website?
 
Gravel Road said:
I don't see anything in the pdf about this particular bill. I'll try to email Rep Carlin and see if I get a response.
Click to expand...
I just emailed Rep. Carlin and expressing my thoughts on Mr Corbet and asking her to vote against any wildlife bill he presents and that I would be happy to testify on any bill that I am able if asked to do so.
 
Brian662 said:
If I could afford it, I'd hunt mature bucks in EVERY state. It would have nothing to do with my state's regs or your state's regs.
Click to expand...

One of skip sligh’s talking points is that IA, KS, and others are constantly under pressure to sell out their deer herd and create abundant opportunity that would degrade the quality of the hunt because the michigans, Minnesotas, PA’s, etc are full of hunters who throw their $ into other states because of how shitty the herd has been managed in their own state. If the herds were better managed across the Midwest there wouldn’t be such a high demand and $ value for IA and KS deer hunting from NRs. I can’t argue with that logic.
 
Howboutthemdawgs said:
I listened to a podcast with higgins and it sounded like he use to be very involved in trying to influence legislation. Sounds like he found it to be pissing up a rope and pretty well gave it up.
Click to expand...

Yep, seems he’s burned out on the idea grassroots involvement would move the needle at all. I have heard him say in the last year a couple times he’s happy to consult on how change could be made, and it’s with lobbyists and $ rather than a small group of vocal passionate hunters. The crossbow manufacturers have that part figured out.
 
Skip sligh is a treasure. MT has something similar in Randy Newberg. I wish MN had such a personality!
 
Wind Gypsy said:
One of skip sligh’s talking points is that IA, KS, and others are constantly under pressure to sell out their deer herd and create abundant opportunity that would degrade the quality of the hunt because the michigans, Minnesotas, PA’s, etc are full of hunters who throw their $ into other states because of how shitty the herd has been managed in their own state. If the herds were better managed across the Midwest there wouldn’t be such a high demand and $ value for IA and KS deer hunting from NRs. I can’t argue with that logic.
Click to expand...
I mean, ok? Land is cheaper in southern Iowa than it is anywhere I hunt and I'd have to become a resident to make it worthwhile to own land in Iowa. Have to imagine Kansas is the same in regards to land prices. If you could get 200 acres in MN for the same price as 300 or 400 in Kansas, is it simply a mismanagement issue?

The crazy part about Kansas to me is that from what I understand they just recently had to start turning NR away due to limiting tags, so obviously demand is up. Somehow, despite this they want to lower the cost of license for NR? Seems like supply/demand malpractice.
 
Brian662 said:
I mean, ok? Land is cheaper in southern Iowa than it is anywhere I hunt and I'd have to become a resident to make it worthwhile to own land in Iowa. Have to imagine Kansas is the same in regards to land prices. If you could get 200 acres in MN for the same price as 300 or 400 in Kansas, is it simply a mismanagement issue?
Click to expand...
I think that's part of the point. If NR land owners got easy tags in IA and/or NR tags were OTC there would be more NR competing for recreational land and more land leased by outfitters that pushed the average hunter out. There would be fewer bucks and mature bucks on accessible lands. The bulk of hunters are people who are into it but aren't going to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to hunt out of state, 6 figures for their own land, or thousands of dollars for a lease. The idea is a state should cater to it's residents so they have ample opportunities for quality hunting without having to pay thousands of $ to shoot a deer or some birds in their home state. If hunting was better in the rest of MN I doubt rec land in your part of the state would cost as much.

Brian662 said:
The crazy part about Kansas to me is that from what I understand they just recently had to start turning NR away due to limiting tags, so obviously demand is up. Somehow, despite this they want to lower the cost of license for NR? Seems like supply/demand malpractice.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that idea is dumb! "We have more demand than supply, lets increase the demand" WTF? These guys outfitting businesses must not be that good if the current NR license fee is that big of a deterrent. The WY fees i referenced before went the polar opposite direction. For NR tags they had regular elk tags ($750 ish and 60% of the total allotted tags) and Special elk tags (were $1200 ish but jumped to $2k this year, 40% of allotted tags). The only difference in the tags is the price and the # of applicants you are competing with. The idea was if you pay more you'll be competing with fewer applicants and have better odds. When the "special" tags were $1200 they weren't moving the needle in draw odds compared to regular tags so the OUTFITTERs lobbied to have the special tag fee increased so their clients with more money could draw tags more regularly.
 
Wind Gypsy said:
I think that's part of the point. If NR land owners got easy tags in IA and/or NR tags were OTC there would be more NR competing for recreational land and more land leased by outfitters that pushed the average hunter out. There would be fewer bucks and mature bucks on accessible lands. The bulk of hunters are people who are into it but aren't going to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to hunt out of state, 6 figures for their own land, or thousands of dollars for a lease. The idea is a state should cater to it's residents so they have ample opportunities for quality hunting without having to pay thousands of $ to shoot a deer or some birds in their home state. If hunting was better in the rest of MN I doubt rec land in your part of the state would cost as much.


Yeah, that idea is dumb! "We have more demand than supply, lets increase the demand" WTF? These guys outfitting businesses must not be that good if the current NR license fee is that big of a deterrent. The WY fees i referenced before went the polar opposite direction. For NR tags they had regular elk tags ($750 ish and 60% of the total allotted tags) and Special elk tags (were $1200 ish but jumped to $2k this year, 40% of allotted tags). The only difference in the tags is the price and the # of applicants you are competing with. The idea was if you pay more you'll be competing with fewer applicants and have better odds. When the "special" tags were $1200 they weren't moving the needle in draw odds compared to regular tags so the OUTFITTERs lobbied to have the special tag fee increased so their clients with more money could draw tags more regularly.
Click to expand...
Wy outfitter lobby also succeeded in making it mandatory for NR to have a guide to hunt wilderness I believe. Bunch of bs. That is federal land generally too.
 
Wind Gypsy said:
One of skip sligh’s talking points is that IA, KS, and others are constantly under pressure to sell out their deer herd and create abundant opportunity that would degrade the quality of the hunt because the michigans, Minnesotas, PA’s, etc are full of hunters who throw their $ into other states because of how shitty the herd has been managed in their own state. If the herds were better managed across the Midwest there wouldn’t be such a high demand and $ value for IA and KS deer hunting from NRs. I can’t argue with that logic.
Click to expand...
Excellent point.

That's happening within the state and putting pressure on areas that aren't horrible yet. The entire north woods of MN is quickly losing hunters as that land is perceived as useless for deer hunting. Mismanagement has taken away millions of acres of land in MN alone. Now those public hunters have no public land -with wildlife- to hunt, and less opportunity than ever to buy their own. "But they promised..."

Same is happening to fishing. Where the people live, and where the fish are, are 3+ hours apart now. Minnesotans drive past 14,997 free lakes to get to 3 that still have fish, or they all pour into the Dakotas to fish. I worry about the Dakotas, because they've got to take the pressure from Minnesota, Iowa, and Nebrasksa. It's also raised the cost of free fishing. Used to be you could have a beater truck and a sketchy trailer under a homemade fishhouse, and still partake in the sport cause you only needed to go 6 miles on gravel to a nearby lake with some fish. Now you've gotta have something that can go 150+ miles, and those houses and pickups will put your winter fishing rig north of $100,000 real quick.

I don't have enough money to partake in the free fishing and free hunting world.
 
Wind Gypsy said:
I think that's part of the point. If NR land owners got easy tags in IA and/or NR tags were OTC there would be more NR competing for recreational land and more land leased by outfitters that pushed the average hunter out. There would be fewer bucks and mature bucks on accessible lands. The bulk of hunters are people who are into it but aren't going to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to hunt out of state, 6 figures for their own land, or thousands of dollars for a lease. The idea is a state should cater to it's residents so they have ample opportunities for quality hunting without having to pay thousands of $ to shoot a deer or some birds in their home state. If hunting was better in the rest of MN I doubt rec land in your part of the state would cost as much.
Click to expand...
I certainly agree with the idea of doing right by your residents. It's great what Iowa has done to fight off the crossbows and NR license sales to keep quality hunting for their residents. However I think the limited NR license quota probably keeps the public land options better for residents than anything.

I don't think you can say definitively that NR landowners mean fewer bucks or mature bucks. Most NR landowners I know practice some form of QDM, at least to a degree higher than the local permission(meat) hunters do.

Have rec land prices plummeted in the Northwoods? I still see people on here complaining that the cost of land makes it inaccessible to most which leads me to believe that prices haven't (yet) followed the hunting success or lack thereof trend.
 
Last edited:
I wouldnt claim deer management is perfect in MN, MI, or PA - but managing for quality deer in a state with 700,000 hunters is exponentially more difficult than managing for quality deer in a state with 250,000 hunters - as in IA or KS
 
Wind Gypsy said:
One of skip sligh’s talking points is that IA, KS, and others are constantly under pressure to sell out their deer herd and create abundant opportunity that would degrade the quality of the hunt because the michigans, Minnesotas, PA’s, etc are full of hunters who throw their $ into other states because of how shitty the herd has been managed in their own state. If the herds were better managed across the Midwest there wouldn’t be such a high demand and $ value for IA and KS deer hunting from NRs. I can’t argue with that logic.
Click to expand...
He’s definitely right on that . Skip is long time friend and I knew him before he was well known. He’s a busy guy, but finds time to answer texts/calls.

He’s as knowledgeable as anyone on buying farms, management, good regulations, bad regulations, food plots, habitat, buck age.. all that .

He’s at another level !
 
Brian662 said:
I don't think you can say definitively that NR landowners mean fewer bucks or mature bucks. Most NR landowners I know practice some form of QDM, at least to a degree higher than the local permission(meat) hunters do.
Click to expand...
Not so much NR landowners = fewer/less mature bucks but more NR licenses (including if they gave separate NR LO licenses not included in NR quota) and less accessible land to residents due to more competition from NR pushes more hunters onto less land. More hunters, more pressure = lesser hunting.
Brian662 said:
Have rec land prices plummeted in the Northwoods? I still see people on here complaining that the cost of land makes it inaccessible to most which leads me to believe that prices haven't (yet) followed the hunting success or lack thereof trend.
Click to expand...
That's a good question. I haven't had that area in my ongoing searches to monitor it. I know my interest in owning land up north has decreased significantly over the last 5 years.
 
I think nr landowners are way more apt to pass on younger deer. I think to the contrary, nr lessees and guided hunters are more likely to shoot something to justify their short term investment. Less skin in the game=more likely for something to die.
 
Howboutthemdawgs said:
I think nr landowners are way more apt to pass on younger deer. I think to the contrary, nr lessees and guided hunters are more likely to shoot something to justify their short term investment. Less skin in the game=more likely for something to die.
Click to expand...

Agree with that logic. The old conundrum of managing for a quality herd vs access/opportunity comes into play there as well. Seems the NR landowner in that case is a preferable alternative to the outfitter. Something Resident hunters and NR DIY freelancers or NR Landowners can probably agree on.
 
Howboutthemdawgs said:
I think nr landowners are way more apt to pass on younger deer. I think to the contrary, nr lessees and guided hunters are more likely to shoot something to justify their short term investment. Less skin in the game=more likely for something to die.
Click to expand...
I agree, but you'd think that given it takes 3-5 years to draw a NR archery license in Iowa, that it is likely someone who draws for the year either leases or hires an outfitter. This approach would seem detrimental to the trophy hunting herd.

To summarize this whole hypothetical conversation: "it depends"
 
Brian662 said:
I agree, but you'd think that given it takes 3-5 years to draw a NR archery license in Iowa, that it is likely someone who draws for the year either leases or hires an outfitter. This approach would seem detrimental to the trophy hunting herd.

To summarize this whole hypothetical conversation: "it depends"
Click to expand...

Makes sense that a higher % of hunters would lease or hire outfitter when the wait is that long. But if twice as many NR could get tags, Id have a hard time seeing that result in a decrease in total outfitted hunts/leases by NR hunters just because the wait is half as long.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top