KDWP meets with Outfitters on Tuesday

[MudderDucky]

I like the lease / own option as stated above. It gets rid of the outfitter completely or at least to a large degree. To combat pressure there should only be allowed 4 guns max within 200 yards of each other to stop group or party shooting which is also illegal for waterfowl. You could also implement a set number of people per section or quarter to 4 in the field to stop the over pressuring by large groups sometimes 25 in the same blind. Limit the number of shot shells to 25 per hunter on public to ease pressure and stop hunting statewide at 1pm two afternoons during each week and watch the bird counts soar. I would also advocate getting rid of all gas powered motors on all Kansas wetlands. You would still have electric for the mobility but wouldn't spook the birds with the ruckus. My 2 cents.

 

[kansascutter]

I’ve been a Kansas landowner. Developed a deer and duck hunting farm there .
I’ve never been around a bigger bunch of cry babies and I have done farms in 4 different states.
The funny thing is they have ZERO clue about how over crowded other states can be . I’ve owned property in 3 states that you would be laughed off a man’s porch if you stopped to get permission to hunt anything!
Actually still possible in Kansas.
In my state (tn) you will only hunt a man’s property for anything if you have it leased or own it.

And the thought of being cross w a grown man or woman because they get paid for access to something they own and pay taxes on is hard for me to even wrap my head around.

Oh were aware of the overcrowding in other states. We just don’t want ours to become the dump those other states are.

99.9% here believe a landowner can and should do whatever the hell they please with their ground. It’s their fricking ground.

It’s the outfitters that need controlled. There currently isn’t any regulations whatsoever but KDWP believes they need to deal with them from their knees with outstretched hands…

 

[Ramblingman]

Da fowl slayer....no chit sherlock...why the hell do you think we don't want to become one of those other states? Outfitters are ruining this state and your from TN, so your perspective doesn't translate. Kansas is quickly becoming a state that will be off limits for private access like your state. Too many people from out of state trying to compare my home with where they're from.

 

[Ramblingman]

I've never had anyone laugh me off their porch here. I wouldn't live in a place like that, too bad that's your experience fowl slayer. I get turned down, but not very often. People are still pretty decent around here. Too bad the outsiders are trying their best to bring their trash here.

 

[Old Critter]

Kansascutter: Why are you wanting to control outfitters? They lease and hunt private land. And private is mostly off limits for door knockers … just like it would be for others if you owned it.

 

[kansascutter]

Kansascutter: Why are you wanting to control outfitters? They lease and hunt private land. And private is mostly off limits for door knockers … just like it would be for others if you owned it.

There are resident outfitters guiding on public land. It’s illegal. A registry would help combat that. There are NR outfitters running wild thru this state. They don’t live here, don’t contribute to the tax base and are allowed to profit off a public resource.

Twice now, KDWP has held discussions w/the outfitters to get input. There has not been a meeting to get input from the general public. This question was posed at the last commission meeting. KDWP’s reply was that they had not scheduled public meetings for their “upcoming workshops”. They were however meeting with the outfitters in a couple days. ***? Outfitters shouldn’t have a seat at the table w/o the same gratuities being extended to the general public.

Lastly, KDWP and you NRs like to point out perceived lost revenue if restrictions are put into place. KDWP doesn’t believe in managing for the resources anymore, they manage for the dollar. These resident outfitters need to be charged to operate to contribute to the state coffers and replace alleged lost revenue from NR restrictions. NR outfitters should be banned.

 

[Old Critter]

Non-resident and resident outfitters shouldn’t be hunting on public land. That can be enforced without a registry or outright banning of OSS outfitters. As for guiding on private land, that’s no concern of yours.

Here’s more food for thought. The Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution generally prohibits states from interfering with lawful businesses that conduct operations across state lines. As you know, there are all sorts of companies that operate businesses in multiple states Here’s an easy one … think interstate trucking.

OSS guides are conducting an interstate business because they attract OSS clients. The Commerce Clause protects them too. In some situations states can encroach on the Commerce Clause but that’s too complex to explain here. That’s why I used the word “generally”.

 

[jayhawkmarauder]

Thought of the day "Sure is a lot of concern about NR losing their experience." But none from them about what residents have lost. Just them telling us how bad it is in their state.

 

[kansascutter]

Non-resident and resident outfitters shouldn’t be hunting on public land. That can be enforced without a registry or outright banning of OSS outfitters. As for guiding on private land, that’s no concern of yours.

Here’s more food for thought. The Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution generally prohibits states from interfering with lawful businesses that conduct operations across state lines. As you know, there are all sorts of companies that operate businesses in multiple states Here’s an easy one … think interstate trucking.

OSS guides are conducting an interstate business because they attract OSS clients. The Commerce Clause protects them too. In some situations states can encroach on the Commerce Clause but that’s too complex to explain here. That’s why I used the word “generally”.

I didn’t say a thing about guiding on private land. Read it again. What happens on private land is that owners right. I’ve always supported that and have never said anything to the contrary.

I don’t believe the Commerce Clause would apply here. Hunter Vs. Hunter specifically grants the states right to set regulations. Other states already ban NR Outfitters. The precedent has been set. I liken it to your state selling weed. They’re doing it even though it’s still a schedule 1 drug allegedly regulated by the feds.

 

[S.davis]

Until midwestern hunters and the general public adjust their beliefs and, in the case of Kansas, their laws, about public resource management as well as land acquisition, ownership and access, you guys are just slapping band-aids on an arterial hemorrhage. The fact that your state wildlife Department is meeting with outfitters at all, much less before the people of the state, is all you need to know about the intersection of so-called "free" market capitalism and wildlife conservation. You can put silly right to hunt nonsense in your state constitution, but it's meaningless without codified respect for publicly owned resources and public access. Your future is pay to play as long as you allow wildlife resources to be inappropriately monetized.