kshunter

Kansas Bowhunting Regulations/Initiative

I know this is political, but I feel many bowhunters will miss this unless it is posted here. We need to Act Now!!!

I found this on Bowsite. Not sure if it is too late to rid of the upcoming bowhunting legislation, but is worth a shot. Plus, with all the new legislators voted in this recent term we can influence their decision making process in regards to our longstanding bowhunting regulations. This is a beginning for a petition that you can mail to your local representatives. Even if you don't bowhunt, this is still a good cause to unite as hunters and get good things done.

If you are a resident bowhunter of the state of Kansas, it is still not too late to act to repeal the unit legislation brought forth by SB364. Rep. Ruff is on the tourism/wildlife board and is arguing against the bill.

Rep. Ruff e-mailed a friend today and asked that he notify all resident bowhunters he knew to please write, call, or personally visit with all of the members of the Tourism/W&P committee in support of her proposed legislation to lift the archery unit hunting restriction.

The bill will be introduced this coming week, and a hearing is possible by Jan 26th. She asked that he consider testifying at the hearing, unfortunately he will not be able to get off work that day.

It is very important we participate positively in this. Be brief, try to avoid negative comments, and stress the importance of game management that protects the resource instead of the bottomline.



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.

--- 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.

--- 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. 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.

---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.

-- 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 goverment spending....and would like them have as much time as possible to invest in such issues.

datamax

I do not agree at least in part. Kansas residents should be state wide. Non-residents should be unit bound. but because of how Kansas ties the draw in with residents (landowner tags) it becomes iompossible to seperate the two. Outfitters will flock to buy up all the lanowner tags they can from SE and NE kansas and sell them to guys who hunt the SE portions of the state. Two years ago a KS transferable tag went on EBAY for $750-1000. Thats money the landowner made not the KDFW and it hurt Kansas overall I think. This past year tags were $350-500 for the most part if no land was included. Big difference there and it allowed more average income people the opportunity to Hunt Kansas.

silentassassin

datamax, if that is the case then make the resident landowner tags unit bound just like the non-resident tags and open all the units back up to Kansas residents. Either way resients should be able to hunt in any unti. That is quite honestly one of the stupidest laws that I have ever heard of.

kshunter

Why not have a resident landowner and non-resident landowner tag. It's works for other states.

Why not unitize non-resident tags only? Wouldn't this fix the problem too, which was the basically the initial reasoning behind the law?

kansaswiderack

Ks-I didn't see where I should reply to. Can you fill me in?

kshunter

The e-mail addresses for the Capital are: For the Senators it is their last [email protected]. If there is more than one with the same last name, they add the first letter of the first name. For the House Reps. they are last [email protected]

I'll have to do some digging for the mailing addresses, I don't have them here at this computer. I'll post when I have them.

datamax

Thats what I am saying. This petition is to remove all the unitized tags and that is a terrible idea. launch a new initiative to remove those unitized tags for residents and leave them for nonresidents.

kshunter

D- Geraldine Flaharty Member

D- Broderick Henderson Member

D- Candy Ruff Member

R- Lynne Oharah Member

R- Patricia Kilpatick Member

D- Margaret Long Member

D- Ann Mah Member

R- Judy Morrison Vice-Chairperson

R- Don Myers Chairperson

R- Clarck Shultz Member

R- Dale Swenson Member

D- Mark Treaster Member

R- Shari Weber Member

R- Virginia Beamer Member

R- John Grange Member

R- Gary Hazlett Member

R- Mitch Holmes Member

All e-mail addresses can be accessed on www.kansas.org Click on house roster look for their names then click on their email addy. Or go to here: http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-...searchHouse.do


Please be sure to email the committee members which are posted above. These are the important ones to email.

silentassassin

What's so terrible about that? Lots of states don't have units. Even some "trophy" states don't with Illinois being the prime example

datamax

silentassassin there are many reasons. What seperates Kansas is that they allow resident landowners with 80 acres or more to apply for a tag from the pool of non-resident tags available. What then happens is that outfitters like USO pays big dollars for those tags. Lets say USO gets 250 people from around the Kansas City area to apply for and recieve tags. They then sell the tags in their trophy hunts, but the hunts take place on land in south and central Kansas, nowhere near the land the owners own. That creates big management problems as well as making it very tough to have a fair draw system. USO can lease up a 25000 acre ranch in southern Kansas, buy 500 tags and kill the heck out of deer off that ranch, then move on. USO has a terrible reputation for doing underhanded things all in the name of money.

Kansas realized this, made adjustments and in the process hurt residents. Perhaps IL doesn't allow for landowner tags to be transferred ? Is it an archery draw ? I don't know.