Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
01-19-2005, 11:11 AM
#21
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Rural Kansas... Where Life is Good
Posts: 4,139
RE: Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
You're right, the system is broke. It seems the only ones happy with all the changes are the outfitters, the agriculture lobbying groups and the tourism group. None of which view hunting as I and the vast majority of hunters do.
01-27-2005, 05:32 PM
#22
Join Date: May 2003
Location:
Posts: 437
RE: Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
What I wrote to my legislators.
RE: House Bills 2079 and 2115, Archery Units, Equity in Resident Hunting Opportunities, Game Management, &KDWP Functions and Activities.
Other Elected Representatives and yourself have received an email campaign and a petition from the fellow resident hunters who use archery equipment. They do have some viable points...but do not address the entirety of the scope of the problem. It is important that you read this letter in total, it encompasses that scope and all problems that exist in the deer related issues facing the State of Kansas. I would support resident archery statewide IF and ONLY IF, the legislature finds some solution to allow the firearms hunters greater access in terms of time afield, we have been wanting it so long, and have been paying the majority of the revenue into the Big Game Program. I will address the issues by the petition they sent to you. Most are from the Kansas Bowhunting Association (KBA), which numbers only 800 members. Please understand the numbers, the resident archery number is 12,000 (the remaining 7,000 is Non resident archery hunters) and dropping, and resident firearms number in the 85,000 ( and another 20,000 nonresident firearms hunters) and growing, and financial support is proportionally that ratio also. However the resident firearm hunter while supplying fully 8 to 1 financing revenue, are allowed only 10-12 days to hunt and by unit only. So those who finance the program and not allowed equal participation and unequally regulated. This is not a protected process, we are talking of killing deer, so equal protection exemptions DO NOT apply. Additionally the greater number of firearms hunters in the field for the same hunting season have even less land available. The Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP) game managers (many of whom belong to KBA prior to 2002) were shutting down public lands to firearms hunters, and the 4 National Wildlife Refuges in Kansas also banned firearms hunting for deer. This is NOT happening in other states, and could not have occurred in Kansas without willing participation of KDWP. Since 1965 KDWP was not managing deer population, but hunter participation to give unfair access in terms of land, time, and season placement to a small group ie resident archery hunters.
FIRST paragraph of the KBA petition:
We, the undersigned, would like the Kansas legislature to reconsider, and revoke, legislation that would tie Kansas bowhunters to management units in 2005. It would be better if resident archery permits were left statewide, as they've been for 40 years, because --
---The creation of the regulation was done very late in the 2004 session, and accomplished in a few short days. Legislators weren't given enough time to research how the move would impact their constituents. Kansas sportsmen were also denied enough time to get politically educated and involved.
MY RESPONSE:
I agree, legislators should fully educate themselves on the issues, however getting a bunch of letters from a small vocal angry group should not sway your position away from the right solution. As for the “40 years”, times, population, and culture has changed in Kansas, and the deer management goals and procedures have not changed with the times. The legislature did give KDWP plenty of time last session to change and they refused, so the legislature stepped in. Another interesting piece of information, KDWP uses Car/Deer strikes to estimate population. ALLOTHER STATES abandoned this long ago (10 years) because it gave erroneous results. Car/Deer accidents are not population based, but are relational to the number of cars and LOCAL miles driven. KDWP takes total miles (which more are rolled up in the metro areas) and applies them state wide which does not represent Grinnell, Sublet, Cherokee, etc. So that CONCERN of the Archery hunters is discredited.
NEXT Section of the KBA petition:
--- Many bowhunters have been at the sport for much of their lives, and have collected hunting spots without regard to unit boundaries. Such a change would negate the years, or decades, they've spent developing relationships with landowners and getting to know the patterns of localized deer herds. The latter greatly helps with controlling the deer population.
--- The spread of commercialization within deer hunting (guiding, leasing, the buying of property for hunting) has made it increasingly difficult for the average Kansan to find new places to deer hunt. Many deer hunters are now confined to a few small, and widely scattered, tracts of land that may be within several management units. To limit a sportsman to one unit would greatly decrease his enjoyment of the sport AND his ability to help control the Kansas deer population.
MY RESPONSE:
85,000 + firearms hunters are also in the sport much of their lives. The resident firearm hunter has continually lost greater track of land, AND MOSAT IMPORTANT, we are having higher hunter densities. Remember, there are 8 times the number of resident archery hunters ON LESS AVAILABLE HUNTING LAND. The “controlling the deer population” is laughable. KBA and resident archery hunters continually argue against expanding rifle hunters based on the fact that archery hunting has very little effect upon population and in no way is a control or management tool in deer population control. Their repeated statements on this can be seen at bowsite.com/kansas or the public record at KDWP public meetings. They are literally talking out of both sides of their face.
PETITION: “--- While firearms hunters are already restricted to units, we'd like to remind the legislature that bowhunting is a sport that requires far more time and dedication. Many archers have invested 30 to 40 days of preparation and hunting before they succeed, while many firearms hunters are only out a few days.”
RESPONSE: Firearms are not out in the field more than a few days because it is illegal to be out more than the season allows! Geez! Difficulty in season IS A HUNTERS CHOICE, and they need to take responsibility for that choice. Limiting the majority of hunters because a select few chose a process that has a lower success rate is not proper public policy, however if you are going that route, the last 2 years firearms hunting has been even or LESS than archery success rates. So that argument does not wash either.
PETITION: “There's no way for a bowhunter to know which property, within which unit, will be productive when a particular portion of the season arrives. We need as many options as possible if we're to help manage the Kansas deer herd.”
RESPONSE: There is even less for a resident firearms hunters, which are limited to 1/16 of the land area AND have 8 times the hunter density. And lastly, the archery hunters DO NOT have an effect on population, check about what KDWP states about that.
PETITION: “The legislative action was made in an effort to provide a better distribution of non-resident archery permits for some Kansas outfitters. Good or bad, we think it's important that the Senators and Representatives also consider the needs of all Kansans. While the legislation might benefit a few dozen guides and outfitters, it could have a very negative impact on tens of thousands of Kansas sportsmen. There are ways to better serve both the minority outfitters and majority sportsmen.”
RESPONSE: Agreed! And you need to recognize that firearms hunters have GREATER BURDENS than any resident archery hunter is having. The majority of sportsmen in the Big Game, specifically DEER, it the KANSAS RESIDENT DEER FIREARMS DEER HUNTER at 85,000 strong and that is a lot of votes, which has been repeatedly disregarded. This group has paid the lion’s share of the program and have reaped the least benefit, has been regulated the most, and are currently suffering even greater amounts of negative impact, land accessibility, and season length in comparison to the other deer hunters numbering 1/8 of their total.
PETITION “With great respect to the job done by the Kansas House and Senate, we also feel such wildlife-related rules and regulations are best handled by the Kansas Wildlife and Parks Commission. The seven-member commission is non-partisan and unbiased, with only one bowhunter and four hunters overall. They have the time, and the resources, to properly research such regulations. We elect our legislators to run matters such as taxes, schools, state government spending....and would like them have as much time as possible to invest in such issues.”
RESPONSE: KDWP is a mess. In 2002, they had an offer from NASA for an satellite infrared survey of Kansas for deer population, and cattle population with included analysis for $70,000!! They passed it up! Cheaper than current exercises in futility, and increase of accuracy by orders of magnitude! In 2003-2004, 2 conservation officers used information in an ongoing investigation to discredit a Senator. The KBA also tore into multiple legislators and harassed them OUTSIDE of the legislature. You need to check up on that. Both are felonies, both were by perpetrated by KDWP personnel and documentation to that does exist. Multiple members of the KDWP are or were past KBA members, and over the years have used their influence not for the resident Kansas or hunter, but for pleasing the KBA. The commission process in KDWP needs to be replaced it is a relic of the past. The commission is seems less concerned with the wildlife issues, but appeasing the very vocal. Many times in public record the commission routinely voted on policy WITH NO FACTS, and NO DATA. One commissioner last year even stated that point blank. I made a statement in public record with written documentation, and got the commission to admit that they had no concrete population information. The chairman admitted that they had nothing like that for ANY specie of Big Game!! It was removed from the minutes and not reported that way...a violation of the Kansas Open Meeting Act. Open meeting rules are violated all the time, as KDWP, some members of the commission, pass information to the KBA PRIOR to the meetings I had to do a KORA request, and it took 120 days to get my information! It is all there in the past commission meetings minutes. There are great many problems in KDWP, least of which is the Big Game Program funds. The Big Game Program takes in an average of $5 Million annually, of which an average of $400,00 is actually spent on the program. This is why the legislature stepped in last year. They were forcing KDWP to get it’s act together, and KDWP failed to do so. I would rather keep the management of Big Game concerns with the legislature currently, until the KDWP gets its house in order.
I have a file box full of information from KDWP, and other sources information which sheds light on this and other issues. I am an Environmental Scientist and a hunter. The information and research I have done stands peer review quite nicely. I have also developed a process for indexing deer population based on biomass production on Kansas as a ratio of Agricultural production. It accurately predicts deer population numbers in Oklahoma, and Nebraska. KDWP wanted NO PART of it. I did it for free. They (KDWP) get paid to do it, and it is their responsibility to do it, and they cannot do it, accept those who can, and fail to use innovation.
Lastly, as with the numbers, in terms of “tourism” dollars, it is quite clear, the firearms hunters hold the bag of money, with an 8 to 1 advantage. Let participation occur in terms of servicing the representative population and the market will follow. Policy is made in this country for good reasons usually, in Kansas it has been my experience that bureaucratic momentum, attitudes of “this is the way we have always done it”, and a lack of innovation permeates the Kansas Governmental agencies. This produces inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and worst of all, the agencies start to do business for the protection of the agency, and not to do the peoples business or to fulfill their legislated responsibilities with their legislated appointed authorities. Reform of all agencies, and enforcement of laws and legislative will of the people, will give Kansas economic prosperity, and a large State Revenue stream to carry out pro Kansas programs. Clean it up, prosperity will follow.
A Kansasan,
Dana E Brown
RE: House Bills 2079 and 2115, Archery Units, Equity in Resident Hunting Opportunities, Game Management, &KDWP Functions and Activities.
Other Elected Representatives and yourself have received an email campaign and a petition from the fellow resident hunters who use archery equipment. They do have some viable points...but do not address the entirety of the scope of the problem. It is important that you read this letter in total, it encompasses that scope and all problems that exist in the deer related issues facing the State of Kansas. I would support resident archery statewide IF and ONLY IF, the legislature finds some solution to allow the firearms hunters greater access in terms of time afield, we have been wanting it so long, and have been paying the majority of the revenue into the Big Game Program. I will address the issues by the petition they sent to you. Most are from the Kansas Bowhunting Association (KBA), which numbers only 800 members. Please understand the numbers, the resident archery number is 12,000 (the remaining 7,000 is Non resident archery hunters) and dropping, and resident firearms number in the 85,000 ( and another 20,000 nonresident firearms hunters) and growing, and financial support is proportionally that ratio also. However the resident firearm hunter while supplying fully 8 to 1 financing revenue, are allowed only 10-12 days to hunt and by unit only. So those who finance the program and not allowed equal participation and unequally regulated. This is not a protected process, we are talking of killing deer, so equal protection exemptions DO NOT apply. Additionally the greater number of firearms hunters in the field for the same hunting season have even less land available. The Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP) game managers (many of whom belong to KBA prior to 2002) were shutting down public lands to firearms hunters, and the 4 National Wildlife Refuges in Kansas also banned firearms hunting for deer. This is NOT happening in other states, and could not have occurred in Kansas without willing participation of KDWP. Since 1965 KDWP was not managing deer population, but hunter participation to give unfair access in terms of land, time, and season placement to a small group ie resident archery hunters.
FIRST paragraph of the KBA petition:
We, the undersigned, would like the Kansas legislature to reconsider, and revoke, legislation that would tie Kansas bowhunters to management units in 2005. It would be better if resident archery permits were left statewide, as they've been for 40 years, because --
---The creation of the regulation was done very late in the 2004 session, and accomplished in a few short days. Legislators weren't given enough time to research how the move would impact their constituents. Kansas sportsmen were also denied enough time to get politically educated and involved.
MY RESPONSE:
I agree, legislators should fully educate themselves on the issues, however getting a bunch of letters from a small vocal angry group should not sway your position away from the right solution. As for the “40 years”, times, population, and culture has changed in Kansas, and the deer management goals and procedures have not changed with the times. The legislature did give KDWP plenty of time last session to change and they refused, so the legislature stepped in. Another interesting piece of information, KDWP uses Car/Deer strikes to estimate population. ALLOTHER STATES abandoned this long ago (10 years) because it gave erroneous results. Car/Deer accidents are not population based, but are relational to the number of cars and LOCAL miles driven. KDWP takes total miles (which more are rolled up in the metro areas) and applies them state wide which does not represent Grinnell, Sublet, Cherokee, etc. So that CONCERN of the Archery hunters is discredited.
NEXT Section of the KBA petition:
--- Many bowhunters have been at the sport for much of their lives, and have collected hunting spots without regard to unit boundaries. Such a change would negate the years, or decades, they've spent developing relationships with landowners and getting to know the patterns of localized deer herds. The latter greatly helps with controlling the deer population.
--- The spread of commercialization within deer hunting (guiding, leasing, the buying of property for hunting) has made it increasingly difficult for the average Kansan to find new places to deer hunt. Many deer hunters are now confined to a few small, and widely scattered, tracts of land that may be within several management units. To limit a sportsman to one unit would greatly decrease his enjoyment of the sport AND his ability to help control the Kansas deer population.
MY RESPONSE:
85,000 + firearms hunters are also in the sport much of their lives. The resident firearm hunter has continually lost greater track of land, AND MOSAT IMPORTANT, we are having higher hunter densities. Remember, there are 8 times the number of resident archery hunters ON LESS AVAILABLE HUNTING LAND. The “controlling the deer population” is laughable. KBA and resident archery hunters continually argue against expanding rifle hunters based on the fact that archery hunting has very little effect upon population and in no way is a control or management tool in deer population control. Their repeated statements on this can be seen at bowsite.com/kansas or the public record at KDWP public meetings. They are literally talking out of both sides of their face.
PETITION: “--- While firearms hunters are already restricted to units, we'd like to remind the legislature that bowhunting is a sport that requires far more time and dedication. Many archers have invested 30 to 40 days of preparation and hunting before they succeed, while many firearms hunters are only out a few days.”
RESPONSE: Firearms are not out in the field more than a few days because it is illegal to be out more than the season allows! Geez! Difficulty in season IS A HUNTERS CHOICE, and they need to take responsibility for that choice. Limiting the majority of hunters because a select few chose a process that has a lower success rate is not proper public policy, however if you are going that route, the last 2 years firearms hunting has been even or LESS than archery success rates. So that argument does not wash either.
PETITION: “There's no way for a bowhunter to know which property, within which unit, will be productive when a particular portion of the season arrives. We need as many options as possible if we're to help manage the Kansas deer herd.”
RESPONSE: There is even less for a resident firearms hunters, which are limited to 1/16 of the land area AND have 8 times the hunter density. And lastly, the archery hunters DO NOT have an effect on population, check about what KDWP states about that.
PETITION: “The legislative action was made in an effort to provide a better distribution of non-resident archery permits for some Kansas outfitters. Good or bad, we think it's important that the Senators and Representatives also consider the needs of all Kansans. While the legislation might benefit a few dozen guides and outfitters, it could have a very negative impact on tens of thousands of Kansas sportsmen. There are ways to better serve both the minority outfitters and majority sportsmen.”
RESPONSE: Agreed! And you need to recognize that firearms hunters have GREATER BURDENS than any resident archery hunter is having. The majority of sportsmen in the Big Game, specifically DEER, it the KANSAS RESIDENT DEER FIREARMS DEER HUNTER at 85,000 strong and that is a lot of votes, which has been repeatedly disregarded. This group has paid the lion’s share of the program and have reaped the least benefit, has been regulated the most, and are currently suffering even greater amounts of negative impact, land accessibility, and season length in comparison to the other deer hunters numbering 1/8 of their total.
PETITION “With great respect to the job done by the Kansas House and Senate, we also feel such wildlife-related rules and regulations are best handled by the Kansas Wildlife and Parks Commission. The seven-member commission is non-partisan and unbiased, with only one bowhunter and four hunters overall. They have the time, and the resources, to properly research such regulations. We elect our legislators to run matters such as taxes, schools, state government spending....and would like them have as much time as possible to invest in such issues.”
RESPONSE: KDWP is a mess. In 2002, they had an offer from NASA for an satellite infrared survey of Kansas for deer population, and cattle population with included analysis for $70,000!! They passed it up! Cheaper than current exercises in futility, and increase of accuracy by orders of magnitude! In 2003-2004, 2 conservation officers used information in an ongoing investigation to discredit a Senator. The KBA also tore into multiple legislators and harassed them OUTSIDE of the legislature. You need to check up on that. Both are felonies, both were by perpetrated by KDWP personnel and documentation to that does exist. Multiple members of the KDWP are or were past KBA members, and over the years have used their influence not for the resident Kansas or hunter, but for pleasing the KBA. The commission process in KDWP needs to be replaced it is a relic of the past. The commission is seems less concerned with the wildlife issues, but appeasing the very vocal. Many times in public record the commission routinely voted on policy WITH NO FACTS, and NO DATA. One commissioner last year even stated that point blank. I made a statement in public record with written documentation, and got the commission to admit that they had no concrete population information. The chairman admitted that they had nothing like that for ANY specie of Big Game!! It was removed from the minutes and not reported that way...a violation of the Kansas Open Meeting Act. Open meeting rules are violated all the time, as KDWP, some members of the commission, pass information to the KBA PRIOR to the meetings I had to do a KORA request, and it took 120 days to get my information! It is all there in the past commission meetings minutes. There are great many problems in KDWP, least of which is the Big Game Program funds. The Big Game Program takes in an average of $5 Million annually, of which an average of $400,00 is actually spent on the program. This is why the legislature stepped in last year. They were forcing KDWP to get it’s act together, and KDWP failed to do so. I would rather keep the management of Big Game concerns with the legislature currently, until the KDWP gets its house in order.
I have a file box full of information from KDWP, and other sources information which sheds light on this and other issues. I am an Environmental Scientist and a hunter. The information and research I have done stands peer review quite nicely. I have also developed a process for indexing deer population based on biomass production on Kansas as a ratio of Agricultural production. It accurately predicts deer population numbers in Oklahoma, and Nebraska. KDWP wanted NO PART of it. I did it for free. They (KDWP) get paid to do it, and it is their responsibility to do it, and they cannot do it, accept those who can, and fail to use innovation.
Lastly, as with the numbers, in terms of “tourism” dollars, it is quite clear, the firearms hunters hold the bag of money, with an 8 to 1 advantage. Let participation occur in terms of servicing the representative population and the market will follow. Policy is made in this country for good reasons usually, in Kansas it has been my experience that bureaucratic momentum, attitudes of “this is the way we have always done it”, and a lack of innovation permeates the Kansas Governmental agencies. This produces inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and worst of all, the agencies start to do business for the protection of the agency, and not to do the peoples business or to fulfill their legislated responsibilities with their legislated appointed authorities. Reform of all agencies, and enforcement of laws and legislative will of the people, will give Kansas economic prosperity, and a large State Revenue stream to carry out pro Kansas programs. Clean it up, prosperity will follow.
A Kansasan,
Dana E Brown
01-28-2005, 10:06 AM
#23
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Rural Kansas... Where Life is Good
Posts: 4,139
RE: Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
Good Post Mark,
But you would have saved a lot of typing if you would've said:
I don't like bowhunters because they have what us firearm hunters do not have, including season/regs. So if us rifle hunters can't have at least the same then why should bow be able to?
The unitization of resident bow permits will not lengthen or liberalize your rifle season. Every one of your responses(except for the last one) responded with the same type of response, if rifle hunters can'tdo it, then why should rifle hunters. The same implementation of seasons (as you want) for same species to be the same is not always the way to go. If you feel your rifle season system is broke, then do something about it, but don't go about trying to break the system for the bowhunters anymore than it is. You have a lot of good points on why the rifle season should be different. But yet that is a different issue. You make an arguement that Bowhunters should be unitized because you feel rifle hunters don't good a season... Huh??? Doesn't sound like a rational arguement.
Like the saying goes, "Just because the classmate as school has a better car than you doesn't mean it's "okay" to key it". That speaks volumes in your post. Not often do I read an "Elitest" attitude from a rifle hunter. But boy have I now! Just my .02
But you would have saved a lot of typing if you would've said:
I don't like bowhunters because they have what us firearm hunters do not have, including season/regs. So if us rifle hunters can't have at least the same then why should bow be able to?
The unitization of resident bow permits will not lengthen or liberalize your rifle season. Every one of your responses(except for the last one) responded with the same type of response, if rifle hunters can'tdo it, then why should rifle hunters. The same implementation of seasons (as you want) for same species to be the same is not always the way to go. If you feel your rifle season system is broke, then do something about it, but don't go about trying to break the system for the bowhunters anymore than it is. You have a lot of good points on why the rifle season should be different. But yet that is a different issue. You make an arguement that Bowhunters should be unitized because you feel rifle hunters don't good a season... Huh??? Doesn't sound like a rational arguement.
Like the saying goes, "Just because the classmate as school has a better car than you doesn't mean it's "okay" to key it". That speaks volumes in your post. Not often do I read an "Elitest" attitude from a rifle hunter. But boy have I now! Just my .02
01-28-2005, 10:09 AM
#24
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Rural Kansas... Where Life is Good
Posts: 4,139
RE: Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
On a different, non-anti-bowhunting note:
It would be a great idea for all who want to maintain a Statewide Archery, either sex, either species permit to show up for the meeting at the Capitol on Feb 2nd. The meeting is at 3:30 in Room 241 North. If everyone who reads this were to get a vehicle full of their bowhunting friends and make an appearance at the hearing, it would show STRONG support for HB 2079. Sounds as if we have Reps that support that bill.
It's up to us to show them that we're serious about keeping our Statewide permits. I'd love to see standing room only at the hearing. Everyone wouldn't have to speak, just make an appearance in support. Are you willing to take a Wednesday afternoon off, drive to Topeka, to keep our permits statewide?? My buddies are going, and I'm doing everything I can to get off work myself.
It would be a great idea for all who want to maintain a Statewide Archery, either sex, either species permit to show up for the meeting at the Capitol on Feb 2nd. The meeting is at 3:30 in Room 241 North. If everyone who reads this were to get a vehicle full of their bowhunting friends and make an appearance at the hearing, it would show STRONG support for HB 2079. Sounds as if we have Reps that support that bill.
It's up to us to show them that we're serious about keeping our Statewide permits. I'd love to see standing room only at the hearing. Everyone wouldn't have to speak, just make an appearance in support. Are you willing to take a Wednesday afternoon off, drive to Topeka, to keep our permits statewide?? My buddies are going, and I'm doing everything I can to get off work myself.
01-28-2005, 04:12 PM
#26
Join Date: May 2003
Location:
Posts: 437
RE: Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
But you would have saved a lot of typing if you would've said:
I don't like bowhunters because they have what us firearm hunters do not have, including season/regs. So if us rifle hunters can't have at least the same then why should bow be able to?
I don't like bowhunters because they have what us firearm hunters do not have, including season/regs. So if us rifle hunters can't have at least the same then why should bow be able to?
Resident Kansas Firearms hunters have 8 times the number of resident archery hunters in 10 to 12 days of season. Additionally, ALL four of the NWRs are CLOSED to centerfire, additional PUBLIC land is closed to centerfire, and leasing has removed even more available land from resident firearms hunters. This is NOT a different issue, it is about hunter access and hunter participation. I support (really) your efforts, and I would add to endorse state wide archery permits for residents IF AND ONLY IF there is an address of the issues faced by resident firearms hunters. I and many others have a problem with resident archery hunters complaints about loosing access, when our group is effected to an even larger degree in terms of land accessibility and hunter density levels within the season. KDWP has not even considered it at all. ANd as for "the way we did it for the last 40 years..." well, Kansas culture, social structure, etc., has changed, and thus the management principals must change.
As for units for management, either all are units or not. The KBA position is for management principals, if you are going to manage by units then by all means do so. We need all the points of data.
Like the saying goes, "Just because the classmate as school has a better car than you doesn't mean it's "okay" to key it". That speaks volumes in your post. Not often do I read an "Elitest" attitude from a rifle hunter. But boy have I now!
01-31-2005, 07:48 AM
#27
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Rural Kansas... Where Life is Good
Posts: 4,139
RE: Kansas Bowhunters: A must read
Coming from a rifle/bow hunter, who yearly hunts with both, I am always interested in way to improve Kansas and their laws, seasons, and regulations. But right now, on this post, the issue at hand is the unitization of bow permits. I'm not against you're discussing of our rifle season, but geez lets discuss what is at hand, the unitization of bow permits. The biggest direct correlation between unitization of bow permits, and rifle season is people like you. I would love to discuss the rifle seasons and complaints you have about it, just on a different post. Sounds like an interesting discussion I'd be interested in...
You're just reinforcing what I said in my previous post.
If this is true then why ONLY support another style of hunting ONLY if yours is addressed first? The 2 statements above don't coincide with each other. Let's unit as hunters and try to achieve as one.
I support (really) your efforts, and I would add to endorse state wide archery permits for residents IF AND ONLY IF there is an address of the issues faced by resident firearms hunters.
I fully support a hunter's right to participate regardless of equipment choice. An affront to hunting of one is an affront to all.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
thehairlessone
Bowhunting
2
02-17-2008 04:31 PM
