mitchmedic

Amendment would limit hunters to one deer unit.

BY MICHAEL PEARCE

The Wichita Eagle

An 11th hour amendment that would limit Kansas bowhunters to one deer management unit is drawing fire from sportsmen and conservation groups.

Resident archery permits have been good state-wide since the first season in 1965.

"It's pretty much a kick in the teeth," said Dick Christian, a Wichita bowhunter. "They're catering to the non-residents and the outfitters. The Kansas sportsmen are getting the short straw... again."

The Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, Kansas Wildlife Federation and Kansas Bowhunters Association have spoken out against the proposed change.

The amendment was made last week by Rep. Gary Hayzlett, a Lakin Republican, to get more non-resident archery hunters for Kansas guides and outfitters.

Hayzlett said non-resident outfitters are drawing the majority of the state's non-resident archery permits, and using them in western Kansas.

Drawn non-resident archery permits are currently good state-wide. Transferable permits are legal in up to two counties where the landowner has property.

Kansas outfitters asked Hayzlett to equally distribute non-resident archery permits through Kansas' 19 deer management units.

Federal law says such non-resident limitations must also be imposed on residents.

"It shouldn't be that big of a deal to pick one unit," Hayzlett said.

Christian, owner of a Wichita archery shop, said Kansan archers need as many units as possible to succeed.

"It's getting tough to find places to hunt (because of commercialization) we have guys that drive 100 miles just to have two places to bowhunt," Christian said.

"Gun hunters can make drives and make things happen. They can shoot 300 yards. We like deer at 20 yards. Things have to be right."

He also said many bowhunters have invested years gathering permission on lands under the existing system.

Many routinely travel on annual hunts with family members in other units.

Christian cited examples of clients who own land in a distant unit, but depend more on properties closer to home.

Many hunters also maintain leases in multiple units.

Mike Hayden, Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks secretary, said planned substantial increases in non-resident archery permits would probably appease resident outfitters while taking little from resident hunters.

"They just need to give the current system a little time," Hayden said.

Hayden also opposes another recent amendment by Rep. Larry Powell, a Garden City Republican.

It would allow Kansas landowners and tenants to transfer personal hunt-on-your-own-land permits to non-residents.

Hayden said the increase in non-resident permits could force the agency to severely restrict resident permits to compensate for the added non-resident hunters.

Similar amendments and bills have failed in past sessions because of public outcry.

Hayden said he's not sure that will happen this time due to the late-session timing of the amendments.

"Here they go doing it in what's basically the dark of the night, pushing a very dramatic change on the Kansas public with no public hearings, no input from our commissioners.," Hayden said.

"It's pretty sad, and pretty discouraging."

Christian agreed, saying, "It's kind of tough for people to get the word and get involved. Hopefully they'll get a hold of (their representatives and senators) or this could be a very bad deal."

AmHunter

Do you know the house or senate bill number?

Thanks

Landowner

Interesting article. Tying all tags to one unit does make sense as far as managing the deer herd. The state of Kansas has been trying to manage the herd statewide and that doesn't work. To do it properly it should be broken down into units. The western half of the state needs to be broken down into even more units. To much variation in the deer population.

holepuncher

I'd love to be able to draw an out of state tag to hunt Kansas, but not at the expense of the locals. Good luck guy's you had better get the word out fast.

Howler

Well I'm not a resident, but I do own part of the family farm in KS. and most of my family hunts, but I'd like to take a poll of resident hunters and see how many of them would agree with the above statement. More non-resident tags equals more leases to outfitters and to BIG money! If KS. isn't careful, it will be another Ill. or TX.[:'(]

kansaswiderack

I own property in 2 different units and have a good friend with property in a 3rd. If this bill passes I would have to pick between the 3 units. Right now I hunt my friends property more than I do mine and would probably make that same decision under the new bill. In the article it said that if they were to limit permits to management units for non residents they would have to limit them for residents. Apparently there is a federal law that requires this. At the same time in Colorado they only allow residents to draw for ranching for wildlife permits. That doesn't add up with what the article says. The whole deal boils down to they are looking for a way to get the outfitters more permits for non residents as it is the non residents who will pay the big bucks. As a resident we have always had the ability to hunt anywhere within the state that we choose. This would change this completely. I also believe that the outfitters that will benefit the most from this are non residents such as USO. They over publize the Kansas deer herd and make it appear that there is a B&C buck behind every tree. It is not the case. We do have some excellent deer but we are no where near the top in P&Y or B&C bucks in the book. This is a case of the law makers trying to override what the Wildlife and Parks boys are trying to do for game management. The politicans are trying to apease their constiuents and are not looking out for the overall good of the herd. The outfitters are only looking to harvest the big bucks and this is not necessarily good for the herd. Our w&p boys have been trying to get more does killed to help the farmers with crop problems and the insurance companies with the car-deer wrecks. The land that the outfitters lease will be closed to residents and no one will be taking does on these areas which will continue what is percieved as a problem right now.

cherokee_outfitters

Most of my relation lives in Kansas and I was born there and moved as a small child to Colorado. Kansas was one of the smart states by not letting non-residents hunt for years and building their deer herds and the massive bucks they have today. Over the past few years they have let non-residents hunt in Kansas. I'm sorry to say people and Outfitters like the one mentioned above have turned hunting into a money game and are making it hard to for people to keep their hunting leases and hunt land their family has hunted for generations. If I was a resident of kansas I would want to preserve my right as a resident to hunt and not be turned over to politicians for money gain. I wish you all luck in your up coming battle on this. Its going to take alot of voices and alot of signatures, so start now while its still fresh. They did it in New Mexico when the state passed a law that non-residents had to hire an outfitter to hunt in New Mexico. I'll give you one guess as who the main push came from on that one too. Non-residents and outfitters should not set the rules for hunting in a particular state. That's not fair to the residents. With all the anti hunters out there it makes me really sad to see a resident of another state lose hunting rights to fellow hunters and sportsmen. We all share a common need for the future and we are tearing ourselves apart in the name of money and selfishness. Residents should have priority and the first say in what happens in their state. When sportsmen or outfitters get so big they can upend the balance in the deciding votes then those people are no longer in it for the love of what hunting is all about and are in it for strictly personal gain. All this just makes me ill.

Howler

You got that right, we have already seen that around my family farm. A lot of land has already been leased by local outifitters, and you can bet your bottom dollar that most of the guys that come in from out of state aren't going to shoot a doe, because they aren't there lookin' to help manage the herd. So, I agree, this will only add to the problem of too many deer, which is IMO not a problem state wide. And you can bet that the little local outfitters will gain momentum with this too, not just the big boys like USO. But I'd also bet that USO is one of them pushing the hardest for it[:'(]

MarkIIVT

Why is this a Bad thing for archery hunters, but is perfectly OK for all the rest of the KS hunters? I know a lot of hunters that have the same issue, but are limited to the smaller only 1 of 19 DMU's on something such as hunting tool choice.

And you are complaining about getting limited to 9 DMU's. AND, how do you know where the unit lines will be drawn, they have not established the archery DMU's yet, there could be 9 they could go with the 18.

THis again is the same uninformed BS that runs through the resident archery hunters, and people take "gossip" as "fact".

wolfen68

B@$tards!!![:@][:@][:@][:@][:@]