Howler

Except for the hunter that has land in two, or three, adjoining units!! Go figure, why would the outfitters be against non-resident hunters, that's where thier bread and butter comes from!! I'd guess it's not just bowhunters, but rifle hunters alike that don't want non-resident hunters!!
You wouldn't happen to have the numbers of rifle hunters compared to bow hunters would ya. And, how about the numbers for rifle hunter success! ANd you're saying that out of 20,000 bow hunters, that 16,000 of them killed bucks! Come on, I don't beleive that for one minute!
Sounds like to me you need to buy a bow, and get out in the woods while it's quiet and relax a bit!!

MarkIIVT

Quote: Except for the hunter that has land in two, or three, adjoining units

Sorry dude but no other hunter in the state of Kansas can make that complaint, only archery. Rifle hunters, ML, and HG hunters all have to choose a UNIT why would archery be exempt???

Quote: Go figure, why would the outfitters be against non-resident hunters, that's where thier bread and butter comes from!! I'd guess it's not just bowhunters, but rifle hunters alike that don't want non-resident hunters!!

Again, you don't know what U R talking about. Check the Public meeting minutes, you will see that before t-tags (shich I don't like) KBA was against non-residents. Aren't you from Colorado???

Quote: You wouldn't happen to have the numbers of rifle hunters compared to bow hunters would ya. And, how about the numbers for rifle hunter success! ANd you're saying that out of 20,000 bow hunters, that 16,000 of them killed bucks! Come on, I don't beleive that for one minute!

YES I do have the numbers, again available in a public records request. AND they have a 40.1% to 46% success rate (resident Archery) and take 76-80% bucks. Not all hunters are successful. Rifle went from a historical stable 65% success rate with a 50/50 split to a 45% success rate with a 40B/60D split. I know the numbers and you are talking out a lower body orifice.


Quote: Sounds like to me you need to buy a bow, and get out in the woods while it's quiet and relax a bit!!


Sounds like to me you should check the facts before you holler so loud. Keeps you from looking like a raving lunatic. I got the numbers and have researched this a great deal over 5 years. You responded with an emotional uninformed heresay rant. Hope U don't hunt that way.

Howler

Marky, Marky, Marky, when some one yells on the computer, they usually use CAPITAL LETTERS!! I never raised my voice, so calm down!!
I simply questioned a couple of your comments, that's all! I am from KS., and own part of the family farm and hunt there annually!! So, that should salidify that I was simply questioning you!! I can hunt there no matter what you say or do, so again, I am simply asking questions!!
Now, Is the success rate, buck to doe ratio, with rifle hunters including the late doe season? Is that possibly why the success rate would seem like it is trending down for rifle hunters?
Are the out-fitters the ones that pushed the T-tags through, or who come up with that idea?
And with the number of bow hunters only being approx. 20,000 it seems that they aren't much concidered as far as "herd managers", where as rifle hunters are. At least that is how it is in CO, bow hunters kill so fewer animals than rifle hunters, even though bow hunters have lengthy seasons, so if bow hunters can't and don't kill nearly as many animals, why limit them to any one certain area?
Hope this reply doesn't look that way, 'cause I am simply asking questions, and apparently it's hot and humid in KS. right now And yes I do hunt that way, you know, yelling like an indian on the war path with my bow in hand, it really works well!
On another note, I will tell ya what does irk me a bit. Here I am a KS. land owner, lving on the wrong side of the state line, but yet I have to pay more to hunt my land than a landowner on the other side of the state line! I don't quite understand that! Maybe you can shed some lite on that for me!

MarkIIVT

It is called the US Constitution, Equal Protection clause. That means that the rules and restrictions apply to all equally. thats why archery was unitized. You can't limit the t-tags and non-resident draw to units if you don't limit the residents. That is a Constitutional issue. so what are you a communist or a fachist? That means all hunters are treated equally. So are all people for that matter.

If that is true how come they don't extend rifle season to do with the lowering of the success rate. And no the extra doe season actually INCREASES success rates, but lowers the buck numbers. So now you got your rationalization wrong, it is lowered and there are even less bucks being taken for the rifle hunting community.

Here's advice, before you post, look up the numbers, ask for official policy and records. These records and official policy statement are not kept down at the local bar, and the individuals on barstools probably do not know what is Fact, but will keep repeating the same tired old rumors over and over. Just like the cougar thing! Don't get me wrong I like bars, however decesions affecting public policy of a shared resource should include everybody, and that determination should be made in the legislature.

As for the T-Tag, it was a combination of things. 1st there was a loud cry from the outfitters and land owners (you get t-tags btw??) and 2nd the legislature was opposed by KDWP to extend gun season at all turns, so they said OK, If you aren't going to play ball, we will take the bat and go home and shut out of the deer management biz. So there you go tied up in a neat package.

Didn't want to extend Gun Season
Didn't want to open new ground to Gun season
Didn't want to over turn the limitations on Rifle hunting.

All three of those are the largest segement of Deer Hunters...Nationally, as well as by state. So 1 group the rifle hunters were p[aying for the whole program and being limited to 13 days and limited permits.

Archery on the other hand
2.5 months
All areas open
NO limitations on tag
No limitations on Unit

HMMMM. Now you see why a heck of a lot of people were upset, and a few upset bowhunters are not going to overturn it, no matter how big a tantrum they throw or how many hypotheatical (that means imaginary) situations they throw out. Kind of like what you do. You ask inane questions with very general and hypothetical nature, I OTOH, give straight answers, compare, and stipulate with facts.

You are kind of boring to respond to. Same tired old BS that keeps getting repeated. But I am not letting hypotheticals, lies, BS, urban legends (or rural ones at that) rule KS hunting regulations or deer herd management as they have historicaly.

Again for your slow thought process:

If rifles are the management tool, why were the rifle hunters being restricted and issued less and less buck tags???? The only tag increase for rifles was does, and I have already shot my pile of does. So have alot of other rifle hunters. Yes I know you have to kill a disproportionate amount of does to control population. SO. What does the archery hunting crowd have anything to say when the does are being taken out almost exclusively by rifle hunters. Remember YOUR WORDS:

HMMM do the math on effect on management. 80% of what bowhunters in Kansas Kill is Bucks, and they have the largest amount of time and area to do that. And granted with this, there is little effect on the herd. Then why when a population is going up as it was/is in Kansas, do you not deregulate and apply less restrictions to your management toolmmmm Rifle hunting.

See??

Just quit making stuff up and what if's. OPEN YOUR EYES, CLOSE MOUTH, LISTEN.

You will learn a lot more.

MarkIIVT

That one I am in your corner on. I feel it is a taxation without representation issue, You pay taxes, suffer agri losses, but cannot participate in the privlige you paid taxes for!!!

Have 80 ac or more in Kansas, you can get a HYOL tag. You can also apply for a T-tag, provided those ac, are not in CRP. Acreage in CRP is by the CRP law "not for agricultural purposes, but taken out of agricultural purposes" Can't graze on it, can't hay unless you have a drought issue. And that 80 ac for Kansas must be for "agricultural purposes".

Howler

I'll stop taking up your time Mark, but for the record, since you're counting, in the last 4 seasons I have taken 11 deer on our farm in KS, and only ONE of them was a buck!!
Also, seems to me that the late doe season was implemented to kill more doe, isn't that working as a management tool?
WOW, thanks for throwing me a bone I do have 180 acres, none of which is CRP! Great all around hunting too! But, with my dad being the primary operator of my farm ground, it is cheaper for me to have him buy a HYOL and transfer it to me. Saves me about $10, plus I get to hunt my own land and all the rest of it that he owns/operates!
It's not like I have the opportunity to attend your local meetings, or have the time to go on line to find all the answers! Shess, just question you and I have all the answers in no time flat!! Keep up the good work!! I'm really sorry to "bore" ya, I am just pickin' your brain, which seems to be full of good info!! Lighten up already please

kshunter

KLA, Farm Bureau, Famers, Outfitters, Politicians, etc could care less about the deer in Kansas as long as they can get a piece of the pie of money in the process by lobbying the legislature to tweek things their way. The commercialists have been pushing for more liberal tags the last few years so they can do business. They have enlisted the farmers, insurance and livestock lobby, and money hungry legislators to help push KDWP to let up on buck tag restrictions. The only thing that has been accomplished to their benefit have been the t-tags and getting more landowners interested in profiting off the deer and leasing their land.

Now the rifle hunters have always wanted to hunt the rut, wanted OTC tags, wanted statewide tags, didn't want to have to draw an Any deer tag to be able to hunt mulies, wanted to hunt from the start of muzzleloader season to Dec 31st like archery etc etc etc. Rifle hunters always resort to the "What's good for them should be good for us" theory which is really pathetic logic. KDWP knows that lengthing the rifle season, allowing rut rifle hunting, allowing open season on mulies, etc would be detrimental to the herd, basically real poor management of the resource. The KDWP has been doing it this way for 33 years and doing a good job at that. Since KDWP has given into legislative demands, commercial lobbying, landowners complaints, and rifle hunters requests in the last 3-5 years, consider what has happened to the deer resource and hunting as you once knew it, and what it is all turning into.

Restricting archery tags for resident hunters will prevent us from addressing issues like overpopulation problems that they have in their districts. The initial portion of SB#363 is to make it easier for NR hunters to come here(bypassing safety issues in the name of additional revenue)but then the new amendment to the bill will restrict their access to one Unit making it harder for them to find a place to hunt in Kansas. Making a lot of sense right?

Here's something interesting according the the stats, that was sent out from Lloyd.

Archery success rate is 47.1% Rifle Whitetail Either Sex success rate 46.1%

17340 Archery Hunters tagged 8,167 deer 41,662 Rifle Hunters tagged 19,206 deer

WOW, 29% of Whitetail Either Sex are Killed bowhunters. The above rates are the % of deer killed with antlers.

Here is some information on Mike Hayden from a previous question:

He is a politician appointed by a politician. He holds a position that the public has no say in(job security does not pivot on public opinion but rather on pleasing the political power that put him there). His previous experience includes work as a politician in Washington DC, as Kansas Governor, and previous political work in Topeka. He is part owner of an Outfitting Business. He comes from a big farm family. He will represent farming and agriculture interests first before outdoors people. Now combine and compare what you know about him, and with how legislation is being handled and dished out, you have the reason things are being handled the way they are.

There is very little we can do to stop this right now. The resident hunters were shoved aside a long time ago. The only recourse we have is to exercise our voting power to unseat the politicians that voted the way they did. I hope we all can remember how they represented the outdoors people at election time.

Mark, I understand what you are saying, about it not being all just for the outfitters, but it is obvious this is being put in for reasons other than quality deer management. And from the posts you make, you make one obvious point, which is since bowhunters can do it, then why can't rifle hunters do it, or vice-versus? Sorry, but doesn't make much sense to me. And just for everyones information, I hunt both rifle and bow every year in Kansas.

MarkIIVT

Actually this gentelmen's argument has already been settled. I refer you to "Kansas Hunter's Getting Screwed" thread in the deerhunting forum. I put it TTT so you could review all the propaganda that was put out by Kansas Bowhunter's and their anti-non-resident and anti-firearms attitude. People finally came to notice what it was all about. ALL the information pointing out that KDWP has no idea on the hear size or population is already public record. More than 2 years ago.

QUOTE: Here's something interesting according the the stats, that was sent out from Lloyd.

Archery success rate is 47.1% Rifle Whitetail Either Sex success rate 46.1%

17340 Archery Hunters tagged 8,167 deer 41,662 Rifle Hunters tagged 19,206 deer

WOW, 29% of Whitetail Either Sex are Killed bowhunters. The above rates are the % of deer killed with antlers.

My point exactly. BTW that is for PRIMARY TAGS. I already have that info, and was what I was referring to. Thank you for making the point I already made. Look at the percipitious drop in Rifle hunting success rate and decline in Bucks taken. This is the same side discussion, why would you restrict your main management tool during a population increase??
All the information I presented at public meetings were from the KDWP on a request for information, however my request took aver 6 months to fill, how did you get it co quick. Bowhunters helping bowhunters??

Quote: He is part owner of an Outfitting Business.

Yes and he divested his percentage, and reported it. Old news by about 3 years.

I proposed in 2000, to expand rifle season and require Doe + bounus with no additional tags issued. Have to take a doe first. Not to hunt the rut, to expand the rifle time afield to offset the then increasing population. When the population does go down, then collapse the season back to where it was. The idea was shot down by the commission and rabidly ridiculed at the public meeting over 2 years ago by bowhunters.

What did we hunters get? T-tags, extended season, more permits, game tags, and vehicle strike that did not appreciably decrease. No the previous KDWP methods for setting seasons was not anything to do with herd management, the numbers just don't add up. It was about restricting the rifle hunter, to increase tag sales. That has been the policy since the inception of the deer hunting in Kansas. It is in their policy and management statement, "reduce the success of rifle hunters in order to sell tags to increase revenues into the big game program.

Go ahead, it is all there in the Thread mentioned above.

Like I stated before, the same old misrepresentations stated over and over does not make them true. And many agree with my point of view, than a handful of upset resident bowhunters not having run of the entire state.

In the end is about equality in access and participation. Just because you chose a more challenging (I call it ineffective) tool, does not give you the right of success or gaurnteed access to the part of the season that gives you big bucks. It is quite simple, you are not paying your fair shair for the program, that is shouldered by.... you guessed it the resident firearm hunter.

And no the "They can do it, so we can do it" argument was wearing thin 1-2 years ago, and it has already been dispelled. You have no basis to exclude other hunters just because they use different equipment, they all should be limited the same. Again, you picked a "more challenging" (I call it wounding) method. So don't cry about it. You are not in the majority. Ande everything against bowhunting is not in now way against deer hunting or deer management. I have heard this eglatarian, elitist BS way too long, and just because you pick up a bow doesn't make you automatically concerned about the herd and an ethical hunter. Any more than picking up a rifle makes on a game slob and poacher. Which is what KBA preached for many years, and it came around to bite them in the butt.

Howler

Good points Kshunter, but Mark will shoot it full of holes, just give him time! Another point, Gee imagine that, it takes a bow hunter longer to bag a buck, might be becuase a bow hunter needs to get with in, what about 30 yards or so, and a rifle hunter needs to get with in what, about 300 yards.!! Now why would a bow hunter need more time?[]
What, offering upto 4 doe tags per hunter, including non-residents, isn't enough to put a dent in the population?[]
I don't know, all of my family members don't seem to have any trouble filling their deer tags in the given 10 days or so, with time to kill?
As far as rifle hunters wanting to hunt during the rut, it seems that the rut is still going during rifle season around where my family hunts!

MarkIIVT

This was stated over a year ago by a very wise man in the "Kansas Hunters..."

Sounds like to me you are making the same argument but only applying it to bowhunters.

From Ruger1


A backlash is looming. I believe more firearms hunters are going to be doing business with outfitters(if you loose accesses you move to the next desirable option). On checking these guys out they are very adept at herd management and extremely knowlegable. They operate from hard data. In my opinion that gives them a leg up on the KDWP and this commission. They don' t take such anti-gun stances and they certainly are more welcoming of firearms hunters. One problem about being out of touch with the firearms hunters, is they are the majority and that puts you out of touch with the majority. A time will come when outfitters with the backing of firearms hunters will have the clout to help appoint commissioners to this commission that are far more fairness minded. I and many other hunters will be right their with them.


It appears that that happened in the last legislative session, now doesn't it??

If you read the whole thread, it happened exaclty like we said it would, not what we wanted, but the writing was on the wall. I didn't being right on this one. It was like watching a train wreck or airliner crash in slow motion and I could do nothing to stop it.