kshunter

After saying this again, this makes over 1/2 of what you wrote, irrelevant.

If you would talk to real-hunters from KS more than just on the range, with a complete open mind, you would understand, and until then you won't. Cut and dry, I get my information from the person-to-person interaction with everyday KS hunters. And majority, probably 80% of the hunters I interact with are riflehunters. If any biased view were to appear, it would be for the rifle hunters and against the bowhunters. And I tell you here, with both weapon hunters included I estimate 95% of the hunters are against the unitization of archery permits, or just don't care because it doesn't effect them. Talking to people on forums is good, but doesn't give the broad perspective and opinions like hundreds of hand-shake discussions do. And yes, I'd love to see the list of all the websites and forums I frequently visit??? If it's close a large list of over a dozen.

The last thing I am going to do is get a discussion going about which is better, bow or rifle. You may be able to with someone else, but not me. I love to riflehunt and love to bowhunt, and again the attempt create a rifle vs bow discussion, is not only irrelevant to this discussion, but stupid, just what the anti's would love to see.

There are plenty of fields that go 2-3 hundred yards across, and since you've claimed to live in unit 19 you should know that. Yes there are many places where a 2-3 hundred yard is not possible. And yes, I have talked to many riflehunters who did just as I said above. And what does being able to shoot this far or not have to do with anything? This was just an example.

And what makes you think I hunted anywhere close to Oakley, you must be thinking of someone else??? LOL And yes, I am going out again this year, had a blast last year hunting there, and will be out again next year. I love taking hunting trips for 4-5 days, and having a good time out hunting. Who doesn't? I seen just as many whitetails as mulies, which was roughly 7-8 deer a day, on roughly 7 square miles. Are there too many mulies out there, no and far from it, and this was prime hunting land.

Thanks for sharing all of your political information, only makes everyone more wise, including me. But until you actually get out and talk to real Kansas Hunters in person, and not just enough to count on one hand, you will realize that the vast majority is not for unitization of archery permits. And that is why your political blowback theory doesn't add up. It's based upon hypethical evidence that could be real but not until you actually get out and test it, is it turned into being true. Once you get out and mingle with real KS hunters and see the vast majority's opinion when it comes to unitization of archery permits, your "political blowback" theory will change from a "my perspective", to the "hunters perspective". And until then, I'm done discussing this obvious problem with your theory.

MarkIIVT

You debate like Clinton. No facts, just opinions and polls inyour favor. The rest doesn't mean a thing to you. Just repeat lies, misrepresentations, or misdirect the debate. Clinton must be your hero and buddy.

You got a job at a sporting goods store and now you think you have ultimate insight of the majority of Kansas hunters. Just one of how many stores in the state??? I strongly doubt that 80% of the rifle hunters are not in favor of it or don't care. How do you they just didn't want to debate that point with you because they wanted a better deal.

Ruger1

Sapper, congradulations on the job. I hope you find some great spots in Ks. to hunt. It is a great state and has a lot to offer.

Kshunter - the things that you say and spout is the same tired old crud that elitist bowhunters in this state have been spouting for far too many years. You guys really need to get a new gig - you are getting to sound silly and alittle bit eccentric.

I think you have an elitest attitude and I think you are most upset about the fact that the unregulate 2 1/2 month bowseason in this state is FINALLY being look at as the problem that it is. What erks me most is the hypcrosy that you elitiest operate from. You guys have had all these great exemptions from the state of KS but have a problem shareing any of your ill gotten gains (the KDWP has been VERY good to RESIDENT bowhunters). I don't think there is anything wrong with leveling some reasonable requirements for the sake of bettering the herds. Having bowhunters hunt in DMU's is NOT a determental effect to time afield or to the deer heards. Quite the contraty, DMU's will serve a very useful purpose in starting to acquire verifiable data for purposes of PROPER Deer management. Face it - without hard population data we will never get any where battling the TT tags issue or properly controling outfitters.

You are also very free with your acusations about splitting up hunters - I have news for you, that happened many years ago - and it happened when firearms hunters weren't looking. I for one am looking forward to the leveling of the playing field that is about to happen in this state, I and many other firearms hunters will be working diligently righting many of the wrongs that have happened over the years. If a bowhunter has to have all the exemptions this state offers, we need to start looking very seriously at the bowhunting system in this state. You can call it jelousy if you want - in fact, you can call me anything you want - you have absolutely zip credibility to me.

By the way - you and Kelly Johnson have a lot on common. You both claim to be neutral in areas where you truly are not. Many bowhunters in this state have claimed to be backers in firearms rights afield. There are KBA members and independant bowhunters that have no problem with Kelly Johnson being on the game commission because he will work to the means they want - to end firearms hunting in the state of Kansas and have a bowhunting only state like Iowa and Illinois. It has been stated to me on several occasions in dicussions about Kelly Johnson. So please - stow YOUR crud about us splitting the hunters.

I don't know what kind of hunters your are talking to (probably your elitest bowhunting buddies that calim to use a rifle now and again). Those statements are extremely hollow. The previously stated discussion board and this one should be an obivious indication of how far we have to go.

It is extremely difficult to battle TT's and control outfitters when it is very plain that execmptions can be acheived (thank you KBA for showing outfitters how to get the exemptions they are very likely to acheive). In Government structures it's called setting a presidence, and just like any hypocrit, you don't like it when they achive thier exemptions at your expense. Face it, it is going to happen, and you had a hand in showing them how.

You say MKVTII hasn't said anything that really matters - I challege you to come up with just 5% of the relative cold hard data that he has. You make wild claims and and present no data. You speak as if the people you speak to have more clout than to whom he speaks. I have a feeling that you are also one of those that blames the legislature for many of the problem that happened inside the KDWP. You blame Outfitters and you blame insurance companies and you blame guys like me for what you see a wrong in this state. You see every one else a problem to deal with in the name of herd management. Blame is such an easy game. Heck, I bet you're just like Mike Pearce and you blame landowners for access problems - even though the KDWP has closed more acreage to firearms hunters than any group of landowners.

You have misrepresented him (MKIIVT) in everyway that I can think, he really is someone you should look for to be on your side - he is extremely proficient with cold hard data. You really need him on your side UNLESS of course the relative pertatent data exposes problems you have difficulty dealing with. The things you have said about him is like calling Charleton Heston antigun.

You will understand why YOU have absoultley no creditablility with me (and MANY hunters reading this thread). I also think you need to get just a little more educated about the whole issue - not just from a bowhunting perspective.

BTW - I have absolutley no problem with what anyone wants to hunt with - Bow, rifle, Pistol, crossbow, muzzleloader, shotgun - all I ask is be proficient with your choice and don't expect me to agree to a lot of exemptions so you can participate with it. If you need exemptions you need to rethink your choice.

kshunter

When I say real hunters, I say the average hunter regardless of rifle, bow, ML, or HG. Guys if you would seriously get out and talk to the average public hunters out there it'd so obvious. You hear the views on a few politicans and expect it to be the "whole public". You make it sound like I agree with nothing of the "Political Blowback" theory when in fact I do agree with a majority of it, except for the idea that the unitization of bow permits was because of the backlash from riflehunters. The only people that agree with that are yourselves, and yes you are the minority.

Earlier Posts

Kshunter
MarkIIVT
Exactly!

In the past 3-5 years KDWP has given into legislative demands, commercial lobbying and landowners complaints. TO make a long story short, a vast majority is about the money, not because riflehunters are getting fed up with what bowhunters have.

And no I can not prove it, and neither have you gave any reason for me to believe you on this single topic. It's common sense you'd gain by mingling with the average hunters out there. Not just the ones in your group. I work not for the money but mainly information and enjoyment at the top tourist attraction in the state, and top 5 in the midwest, that just happens to be an outfitter store known by majority of the hunters even on this forum to be the best outdoor store in the world. I get plenty of feedback on many issues, and this is not popular by the hunting public.

Question 1: How would one get an opinion on whether a Kansas hunter is for or against the unitization of bow permits in Kansas????? My point exactly!

I'm sorry, but this is something we'll just agree to disagree on, you speak with too much bias opinion. And I trying to prove something that can't be proved unless extensive polls, etc were taken. Just like the ex. common sense can't be taught in school, but yet nobody can prove it? We also have different ideas of game management. I'm not trying to convince you ruger, and even if you had experienced info, i doubt you'd feel different, ignorant-not in a bad way but neither in a good way. Mark, you obviously seem to know more than anybody I've met, except a small handful of people, from what I see. You have accurate info on the politcal info, but inexperience information on this particular issue(riflehunter backlash) because of bias opinion/ jealousy, and whole perception of the hunting public.

And like anyone that meets me, knows me, or reads what I say, knows i never have been or am bias for or against and legal weapon style of hunting.

Check out my hunting site: http://geocities.com/collguy82/ I picked up guns way before I picked up a bow. I have one bow and about a dozen guns, including my recently customizing my own target rifle, which I spent countless hours and dollars putting together myself. I have a love for shooting guns and being around them. Even my g/f tells me to stop spending so much time with them.

It's not me trying to split up the styles of hunting further than they already are... sadly it's you, another hunter. Just read-read this whole topic, you'll all see.

Look who speaks as "You guys", "Elitist Bowhunters", "Kansas Bowhunter's and their anti-non-resident and anti-firearms attitude", "Knuckle Heads", "Greedy Bunch", need I go further? You guys speak for yourself, it's obvious your bias views.

Since I have made between 0-4% of hard data, I would love to see the 96-100% of cold hard data that anyone has produced that shows that unitization of bow permits was because the 100,000+ Kansas Riflehunters were getting fed up with bowhunters??? And when it happens, I'll be the first to say I'm stupid and don't know what I'm talking about. But until then, I along with the majority of hunters out there aren't going to buy the BS!

MarkIIVT

[b]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. [/b

NO that is not what I want, and I have said so many times. Very clearly, you just do not want to hear it. You just don't know what you are saying. That is the incorrect fundamental start of your argument.

Is everyone who disagrees with you NOT talking to any other hunters?? Is that what you just said???
Everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, though you can't prove it, and you claim to posssess "common sense" and you base your assessment on conversations and heresay? What a hoot! I M glad you and people like you are not likely to influence public policy based on idle gossip at a sporting good store!

Then you admit I have great political information, then turn it around and disagree with yourself. You aren't listening to the root problem. And you took the quote about the replacement of influence out of context (something you do a lot). It was Rifle hunter's complaints to the Legislature because of inaction of the Game Commission (Around the 1999 season), then when the concerns were not being addressed by either KDWP and the Commission, the Legislature had no choice but to take action, based on stakeholder share. When it got to the legislature that's when the pork got spread around. Not before, after the registration of complaints, and many hunters talking to many representatives. That is when KLA and KFB got into it. Again check the public record, you will see, the KLA and KFB at that time (1999) were getting the DA's to allow seasons anytime to offset agricultural deer damage. In 1998 (that's a year before), I must have talked to 50% of the representatives myself, and STATEWIDE, they were hearing the same thing from hunters (of course those were not real hunters according to you). We were knee deep in deer in 1999-2000, and Rifle permits were being CUT. No extension of a week or 2 would even be entertained. Loyd Fox's assessment in the newspapers was "We haven't reached the Kansas Carrying Capacity". Well no kidding! (Again, I never proposed hunting the rut, just expanded rifle season during population increases). WHY? The myth of Statewide "Trophy Management" of the deer herd. Impossible and infeasible. Can't be done on large tracks of land, because varibles cannot be controlled. All you will do in "Trophy Management" is produce LOTS of DOES. Could not tell KDWP that. Neither would they listen to the legislature. In Kansas in nutrient rich environment, the herd will produce disproportionately even more does without "Trophy Management". Not in 1:4 b/d ratio reported by the KDWP(Maybe on Department lands), more like 1:9 or 1:11 for the state. It simply cannot be done statewide. That's how we ended up with does, and KDWP knows that, and viola, we have game tags, doe seasons, extended tags, 4+ and all the other BS. They attempted to clean up their mess their mistake caused the Kansas Public.

All we had to do to avoid all of this was to.....expand rifle season (the management tool) to meet up with the increased population for a year or two, and reduce the impact of the deer population on public tolerance levels. You act like these seasons must be chisled in stone. The seasons are not time determinate or demand driven......but population driven. That has been my argument since 1998, deer management based on sound principals, accurate data, and statistically defensible trends, all of which KDWP lacks.

You seem to care more about your "exclusive season" and any threats to it, than to be concerned with actual deer herd management processes. If you REALLY cared about the deer herd you would LEARN about it, and learning is not easy or hearing what you want to hear. I had very clear beliefs about what was going on with the deer herd in Kansas...til I got the data, and had to change some basic issues in my argument.

You would also know, that KDWP has layed down on the job on Deer Management.

I give you an example:

In 1987, the Deer Management Plan stated that the Hunting season successfully lowered the deer population based on accident trends. Well they forgot to take into consideration that the reduction was NOT because of harvest, but because of....yes ANITLOCK BRAKES.
That's right boys and girls, they only looked at hunting data. If they looked at the total accident reduction with the intorduction of antilock brakes on the Kansas Automobile accident totalsdid not JIBE. The deer accident rate was down 5-8%, and the total auto accidents were down 35%. So, when KDWP said the DVA trends showed a downward trend, they said they reduced the herd, but DVA and total accidents likedw with a reduction in auto stopping distance and control whould have reduced the DVA'a more than the 35%, if population was going down. SO< when they thought they "reduced the herd", the herd was growing ALOT. Which gave the exact growth curve to 1999 and showed they blew it in 1986-1990, based on DVA's.

You have to look at more then "hunting" to manage a herd. You must take into account as many varibles as possible, and Know what that data means. KDWP employees were more interested in "hunting" than conservation to allow hunting to continue.

This is but a exceeding small sample of what is going on. And All the hunters in the world did not know that, but worshiped at the alter of KDWP. Instead of criticizing it for their incompetence, lack of vision and ability.

Common sense........you said it. Now walk the walk.

kshunter

Thanks for the info. I understand what more riflehunting does for the population management, and don't disagree with it. Thank you for sharing that information, nobody can ever learn enough. But what does it have to do with what I disagree with you on.

I'll answer your question:

Absolutely not, just not enough!

I have answered your questions...

Now how about you answer the original repeated questions, that you have been trying so hard to beat around.

Question 1:
Question 2:
I've been wrong many times, and will accept if I am(I'm that kind of an honest guy), and hope to expect the same from you. But neither will I give into something I know isn't correct. Stop beating around the bush. I would love to learn new information about this since somehow it must be way different from the 1000's of hunters I talk to on a regular basis. So please prove it, walk-the-walk and show me i'm wrong! Show me the cold hard evidence that you've been bragging so much about.


TTT

Landowner

Interesting conversation you all got going here. But I do have a few questions.
Define a real hunter? Define what is best for Kansas hunting? I realize asking a hundred people what is best for Kansas hunting you would probably get a hundred different answers. But the real hunter one throws me.
Now as one of them there greedy landowner/farmers I'll give you all my version.
1. I lease. Looking back on it I am so glad I did. Why you say. It sure wasn't the money. I leased to an outfitter. I get no money. None. Zero. Now you all really think I'm crazy huh. Here's why I did. TRESPASSERS. I've got great deer hunting. Good numbers. But my goodness I was getting overrun with trespassers. A small percentage were rifle hunters. The majority was bow hunters. I had more treestands hanging than I did trees. Good ol 2 x4 with plywood hanging everywhere. When I was approached by the outfitter I asked about trespassers. I was told it would stop. It did. Some got turned in, but the word got out and it ceased.
2. I have not been enlisted or contacted by the KLA, Farm Bureau, any Politician.
3. Deer numbers will rise quite rapidly on leased ground. I am already seeing it.
4.I am for unitization for all. Reason: Resource management.
5. Deer population declined when OTC whitetail rifle tags were issued to all residents. Some units can support this. Other units cannot.
6.T-Tags. I think there is a better way than this. Got my own opinion on how. Do I apply for one. You bet. Why you ask? Because I can.
7. Damage by deer. Yes I get damage. Quite abit of electric fence along the creeks get tore up. I think they get a kick out of plowing through it just to watch me fix it. Does it make me want to get rid of them. No. Regardless of popular oppinion, I like having them around. They're fun to watch and fun to hunt. I use to bowhunt years ago but I wasn't getting the work done so it's been rifle. I don't care if I shoot one so much, it's just fun out there playing hide and seek with them. Most of your farmers take better care of them than they are given credit for. I make sure the windmills with overflow into small ponds keep water in it year round for all the game. When it's cold and snowy I throw corn and wheat out to the quail, turkeys, etc. They get hungry too.
8. Does the state own the deer. Yes. However, I will maintain that I take better care of them than the state ever could. I feed them. I see that they have water year round. I'm not kind to poachers or trespassers. I've seen dogs chasing them. The dogs died.
I select who goes on my land to hunt the states deer. You the hunter buying a license gives you the right to harvest a deer. It does not give you the right to hunt on me. That's for me to determine. I might add that just because I lease that no one else is not allowed. That is not true. I have a working agreement for others to hunt. So far it is working very well.
8. Leasing I think is here to stay. I have talked to some of them other greedy landowner/Farmers.Here's what they are saying. If the State would kick out all nr hunters, their ground that they lease would either close up or the hunter would pay to play. There appears to be some friction between some landowners and resident bowhunters. Not good. Trashing each other does no good for either. We all are guilty.
I could continue but my toes are getting numb from typing. Like it or not there is some of this greedy landowner/farmers views.
Want to wish you all a safe 4th of July and say a prayer for our troops. They're the ones that have it rough.

Howler

That's an interesting perspective you've got Landowner. I hate to see land leased out/up by anyone. It just makes hunting cost more for everyone, except for the outfitters and land owners, if he/she recieves moneys from the lease, which I'd say that you are in the minority on. Also makes it harder for the average hunter to find a place to hunt!
Question for ya though, if tresspassers were your only reason to lease, what about posting your land with signs that included your contact info. so that the average Joe hunter had a way of knowing who owned the land so that they could contact you to hunt on your land? Was that an option for you?
My family does not post any of our land, and I'm sure we have some trespassers, no problems with deer stands, like you, but we really don't have enough of a problem to get worked up about. I'm sure the problem with tresspassers varies greatly from one area to another across the state.
And, if you don't want to answer this qeustion I'll understand, but why is it that you don't recieve any funds from an outfitter, who is probably charging each hunter, a lot of money to hunt on YOUR land? Farming isn't a reliable income, so why not get all you can get?

Howler

Mark, would you clarify this:
The way I understand is that nonresidents can do a combination of online and a hands-on course, but not just pay extra and hunt? Did I miss some thing on that?

kshunter

The way I understand is that nonresidents can do a combination of online and a hands-on course, but not just pay extra and hunt? Did I miss some thing on that? [/quote]

I've heard breifly on this also, i'm interested in what it is about would love to know more about it as well.