KDWP meets with Outfitters on Tuesday

[Old Critter]

Kansascutter: I used the word “generally”. Both of the Dakotas and I believe Montana had to deal with the application of the Commerce Clause. If you look up hunting cases you’ll see the Commerce Clause played a role. It’s a tricky legal analysis and just saying it “doesn’t apply” is wrong.

And you’re right, private landowners can do as they wish. That includes leasing the hunting rights to individuals and outfitters. Nothing is going to change that. Whatever “door Knocking” privileges you have now will evaporate. Not by law, but by landowners who choose to monetize their investment … or rather have nobody at all on their land.

S Davis: Waterfowl hunting is already monetized. And it’s going to get worse. Makes no difference if you hunt public or private. Money always plays a role in any state decision.

But all said, your hunting opportunities are better protected if you have the means to hunt private. That shouldn’t be a surprise to anybody. That’s why hunters buy land.

 

[MudderDucky]

If kansas wants to take care of their residents including outfitters the best course of action is to ban outfitting on leased and public lands and allow the landowner (which can be an outfitter) to lease directly to the hunter no middle man. That way you are leasing the land from the farmer or owner to hunt and not paying an outfitter for the commercial harvest of waterfowl. Thats an easy solution. And for safety reasons you could also limit the number of hunters per distance and shot shells per hunter. For the birds we should limit to no more than four per blind and 25 shells per hunter. Many wildlife refuges that I hunt have adopted that principle and it really works to get groups out earlier and make better shots. I.e. no more spray and pray. I would also advocate no gas motors only electric on wetlands to keep birds around and two afternoons statewide where all waterfowl hunting shuts down at 1pm. Mon. and thurs. to be nice to the guides. Compromises can be made and waterfowl hunting can be restored but over pressure and massive party hunting (anytime you don't know who killed what) which is technically illegal just not enforced, has to be stopped.

 

[Timber Hole]

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.

Don’t lose sight of the big picture. Even out of staters opinions are valid. It’s just like, uh, their opinion man! In many cases I think out if staters have offered opinions that they believed might be helpful but many of the residents are too hard headed to see that. Your commission just met with outfitters before they met with you in state hunters so whatever the residents are doing is not working!

 

[ED Vanderbeck]

Send all those outfitters a 1099 tax form make them pay their share for what they harvest. That's a concept that will go nowhere Corbett will make sure of that. I bet the so called loss of 750k would end up being a gain if they paid taxes and a tax on everything harvested. 200 dollars a deer, 25 dollars a duck, 20 bucks a pheasant, 10 a quail you would have a huge gain in income and then add a license for guides of 2500 per man even if they only scout every one needs a license or lose lifetime privileges don't mess with them. If money is what they want. let the outfitters pay for what the take out of nature states like South Dakota used to require every pheasant killed to be replaced with a pen raised bird I believe. 5k

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.

BEST QUOTE OF THE DAY

 

[Grif]

Send all those outfitters a 1099 tax form make them pay their share for what they harvest. That's a concept that will go nowhere Corbett will make sure of that. I bet the so called loss of 750k would end up being a gain if they paid taxes and a tax on everything harvested. 200 dollars a deer, 25 dollars a duck, 20 bucks a pheasant, 10 a quail you would have a huge gain in income and then add a license for guides of 2500 per man even if they only scout every one needs a license or lose lifetime privileges don't mess with them. If money is what they want. let the outfitters pay for what the take out of nature states like South Dakota used to require every pheasant killed to be replaced with a pen raised bird I believe. 5k
BEST QUOTE OF THE DAY

As long as the same "per bird" fee applies to everyone who harvests game, then yeah, go for it. Singling out certain groups or people who have to pay a "per bird" fee...... Yeah, run with that.

 

[Riverfisher]

A $25 guide license, and business registration requirement with the SOS and DOR would run most of the unreported cash in pocket outfitters out. They would have to file tax returns to maintain their licenses.

 

[Grif]

A $25 guide license, and business registration requirement with the SOS and DOR would run most of the unreported cash in pocket outfitters out.

And that's fair enough.

 

[Bullet21XD]

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”.

North Dakota has no problem regulating guides/outfitters. They only allow a certain amount of permits(2000 I think, could be wrong) and if all are in use, you can't get one until someone gives theirs up. Then there's mandatory "education" you'll need.

 

[kansascutter]

North Dakota has no problem regulating guides/outfitters. They only allow a certain amount of permits(2000 I think, could be wrong) and if all are in use, you can't get one until someone gives theirs up. Then there's mandatory "education" you'll need.

Exactly. It’s being done and done well in other states. As usual KDWP is behind the 8 ball as per usual…..

 

[Grif]

North Dakota has no problem regulating guides/outfitters. They only allow a certain amount of permits(2000 I think, could be wrong) and if all are in use, you can't get one until someone gives theirs up. Then there's mandatory "education" you'll need.

I think capping Kansas outfitters at 2000 is a good idea.