KDWP meets with Outfitters on Tuesday

Grif

Elite Refuge Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2019
Messages
18,168
Reaction score
49,925
IMO reducing bag limits won’t get much traction. Private hunters will have no interest in something less than the Federal framework. Maybe public hunters too.

I can't see how it makes a difference either....according to these guys nobody is shooting a limit anyway....and yet they're still coming. :scratch :l
 

Timber Hole

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2015
Messages
3,185
Reaction score
4,279
Location
MO
IMO reducing bag limits won’t get much traction. Private hunters will have no interest in something less than the Federal framework. Maybe public hunters too.
I have made this exact comment before. The private land hunters won’t pay much attention to this noise unless it starts gaining traction. At that point they will get very vocal. I’m guessing those guys are generally better connected than the public Hunter. Right or wrong, follow the money!

#bigduck
#getoverit
#findanotherway
 

golden boy

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
May 22, 2001
Messages
2,905
Reaction score
1,073
Location
KS
Feds allow 8 Canadas, Kansas chose 6

for many years feds allowed 2 hen mallards, Kansas chose 1

nobody complained, not even private hunters


I stand with tuleman
 

Minn ducker

Refuge Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2016
Messages
86
Reaction score
135
One solution would be like in Saskatchewan, (maybe other provinces also, don't know). Make it illegal for a landowner to accept payment for hunting rights on their land. The rationale is that the game is a public resource and no one should make a profit from the resource. The outfitter we hunt with there, has exclusive rights to lots of land. He was born and raised in the area, he hosts a wild game dinner for area farmers every year to show his appreciation, and he shares the processed meat from waterfowl and big game hunts with the landowners as well.
 

bird junkie

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
4,236
Reaction score
2,945
Location
Front Royal, Va.
One solution would be like in Saskatchewan, (maybe other provinces also, don't know). Make it illegal for a landowner to accept payment for hunting rights on their land. The rationale is that the game is a public resource and no one should make a profit from the resource. The outfitter we hunt with there, has exclusive rights to lots of land. He was born and raised in the area, he hosts a wild game dinner for area farmers every year to show his appreciation, and he shares the processed meat from waterfowl and big game hunts with the landowners as well.
How about NO! This is not Canada. Telling a man what he can do with his land ain’t working
 

Grif

Elite Refuge Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2019
Messages
18,168
Reaction score
49,925
One solution would be like in Saskatchewan, (maybe other provinces also, don't know). Make it illegal for a landowner to accept payment for hunting rights on their land. The rationale is that the game is a public resource and no one should make a profit from the resource. The outfitter we hunt with there, has exclusive rights to lots of land. He was born and raised in the area, he hosts a wild game dinner for area farmers every year to show his appreciation, and he shares the processed meat from waterfowl and big game hunts with the landowners as well.

Oh yeah....let's be like Canada. :l :l :l
 

Dogone

New Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2023
Messages
22
Reaction score
35
If Saskatchewan having free access is a problem for you: STAY HOME. Seems tens of thousands of American residents are happy with our management each year.
 

Grif

Elite Refuge Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2019
Messages
18,168
Reaction score
49,925
If Saskatchewan having free access is a problem for you: STAY HOME. Seems tens of thousands of American residents are happy with our management each year.

Yeah, no thanks. :l :l
 

Minn ducker

Refuge Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2016
Messages
86
Reaction score
135
"Telling a man what he can do with his land ain't working." Really? Have you heard about designated wetlands and drainage restrictions? That seems to be "working" for waterfowl. How about requirements for buffer strips? That "works" for reducing run off of agricultural chemicals and fertilizer. Sometimes landowners should be told what they can and can't do with their land. Waterfowl are a public resource, that in a large part exist only because of hunting license dollars, and hunter's contributions to organizations like DU, Delta and others. That landowner certainly has the right to decide who, if anyone, can hunt on his land. But it's wrong for him to get money for the taking of wild game, which is a public resource.
 
Top