KS wants more out of state hunters

https://www.refugeforums.com/threads/du-migration-update-for-kansas.1068003/page-4

"It is a similar story out west at Cheyenne Bottoms, where area manager Jason Wagner says around 150 hunters are hitting the area’s shallow wetlands on a daily basis. In a typical year, that number might be closer to 10 or 15."
https://www.ducks.org/hunting/water...as-hunters-struggle-as-season-progresses

That's worse than the pressure was on the coastal WMAs during the peak of Duck Dynasty craze. Don't think I will be going to the CB this season.

Up the OOS fees, easy solution.

If they do that, those Okies might start driving South instead. The trend in recent years has been to go to lotteries and draws to address public hunting pressure problems. Some requiring preference points even. All of my past multi day out of State hunting road trips to KS, OK, and CO have included drawn waterfowl or Upland hunts for one or more stops on those trips.

Quotas and draws certainly seem to be the trend in most states.
The feds report that duck stamp sales continue to fall from year to year. (this year being the exception I suspect.)
This isnt good from the standpoint that we need hunters as advocates to protect the sport now more than ever.
Instead of "crowded public hunting means we need to reduce the number of hunters"; it needs to be "crowded public hunting means we need more places to hunt".

I mentioned to a manager there that it should cost 500 dollars for non-residents to hunt the state wildlife areas. When I mentioned how I thought that money could be used to open up more areas he explained there is a TON of res tape KDPWT has to go through to acquire new lands over 160 acres.

Not sure WTH is wrong with you exactly. Hunting is pretty expensive already. That said the expensive license fees Non resident hunters pay do exactly the opposite of what you want as in the State game and fish people then cater to the out of staters. Limit the number of licenses sold to OOS hunters. To say 10% of the total.

I’m all for it, as long as it applies with Texas as well. You do realize the revenue that would be lost? How would you propose to offset that if they reduced the number of non resident licenses?

Point being you actually think F&G departments will spend that money to expand hunting opportunity? That lost "revenue" would not make one bit of difference. The difference with Texas and OOS licenses is that the vast majority of OOS hunters hunt private property managed by people who own the property and have a vested interest in providing a quality experience, something most G&F departments are not interested in because their checks will cash no matter how poorly they do their jobs.

You could make the non-resident license a $1000, and a person that can take two weeks off of work is still going to pay it.

If you don't folks from out of state you do a draw, but they also need to put in as someone suggested no hunting past noon. And limit the days.

Did you read the link? The OOS that come to Texas that hunt private property (ie leases), drive the prices up. Supply and demand. I know several people that lease in the hill county/S Tx that are OOS. Possibly if the demand wasn’t so high for leases and high fence exotics, and pigs for that matter, the cost wouldn’t be as high

I just got back from a 3 day hunt in KS with Sandhill Flyway. Awesome experience. A non resident Kansas license was around $115 and is good all year. I don't mean for the season, It's a year to date license. I purchased a license in DEC 20 and it will not expire till DEC 21. I can still go back to KS and hunt next season without having to get a new license. Have any of you priced what it takes for a non resident to hunt waterfowl here in TX? Its outrageous. Hunting will become a rich mans sport and we will all be priced out because people are complaining about over crowding. If the state would spend the money on land improvement then we could easily have more public places to hunt. TPWD boasts to have over a million acres of land to hunt, but how much of that is actually accessible? How many of those acres are actually habitat that hold animals? We as waterfowlers know for a fact that the majority of that land is not waterfowl habitat. So we spend that $48 a year and get what out of it? Other states put so much more in to waterfowl habitat, and Texas does what? We have a handful of managed WMAs that are accessible to hunting. Put more pressure on TPWD to have better quality land projects, not price out your fellow hunter.

People would be pissed off if they knew just HOW MUCH land TPWD is sitting on that is not open to the public - furthermore - not to mention how much land is offered/available to TPWD that is owned by other state agencies or controlling authorities - with a bunch of that being excellent duck hunting habitat - that TPWD doesn't have the "resources" to open or manage.

TPWD squanders away money and spends it on stupid [censored] rather than opening up all the public land available to them.

Although there is a definite trend over the years of more hunting pressure on public land, I think this year is an aberration because of Covid. People cancelled "real" vacations but still have vacation days to burn, and hunting/fishing trips are a natural alternative. Lots of folks are teleworking and are more flexible on getting outside. I went on a DIY elk hunt in Colorado this year. We didn't encounter anything out of the ordinary during our week, but I spoke frequently with the unit biologist leading up to our trip. He said the amount of backpackers in the area during the summer was the most he'd ever seen. There were also 40% more elk tag draw applicants this year than last year in CO. The OTC numbers were through the roof as well. This isn't just the story in CO, but other western states - Idaho sold out of nonresident deer and elk tags months before the season started, which has never happened before.

All that to say, yes, more people have been hunting out of state across all species. And with Arkansas getting blown out the past few years, Kansas and Missouri are the next on the target list. But you can't look at what's happening this year and think "oh my gosh, it's going to be like this forever!"

Or else I hope.

I see what your saying but remember we are hunting a limited resource. There are only so many ducks. Increase hunter numbers and harvest goes up then we have to reduce hunting days and limits or risk losing our ducks. The reality of it is is it takes alot of money and man power to build duck habitat, then you got to put water on it which is another limited resource.

I brought up a topic a few months ago about increasing the cost of the federal duck stamp so the funds could be used to increase habitat. Overall I dont think the topic was very well rcvd. Most people thought by increasing the cost would only deter people from hunting ducks or result in people hunting ducks without the federal stamp.

The federal stamp went from $15 to $25 in 2015. It was $15 for 24 years before that. It's difficult to raise fees at the federal level since it requires an act of Congress, and I don't see them revisiting the issue for a long time. I think an alternative to what you're suggesting is increase the state migratory game bird endorsement. It's only $7 today. Increasing it to $10 wouldn't deter anyone from buying it, but it would increase the state's take by 43%. More funding at the state level - particularly in Texas - would help them build new and enhance existing wetlands.

Ok, a 43% increase sounds good. But I still don't see a $3 increase creating much habitat or changing anything.

How many acres of quality habitat does each hunter deserve every season? I think that number depends on how often the property will be hunted since birds need to rest. I think you need 15-20 acres per hunter and limit hunting that unit to 2 days a week. And that's just wintering habitat. How many acres does a duck need to raise a brood on nesting grounds? We should be just as concerned with that aspect.

I think if hunters really wanted to make a difference for nesting and wintering ducks, and expect the government to build the habitat hunters better be prepared to shell out $1k a year.

But then again thats why people spend alot of money to join private leases and clubs. You want quality grounds like that offered to the public, the public better be prepared to shell out the money to.

Until then, you get what you pay for. And alot of pressure on the few areas that hold good concentrations of ducks which is why alot of units/wma's go to draw hunts.

You do have to remember the Pittman-Robertson act when it comes to wildlife funds. Even though the state may only bring in $3 more per person that money can then be matched 3 to 1 by federal funds.

Whoptido... $9. What does $9 do for anyone these days? What will that cover? A pound of seed? 4 gallons of gas for the tractor?

I dont want to give the government anymore money than I already do. But if your going to bitch at them for the lack of habitat then you have to have a full understanding of the economics and money it takes to build and maintain that habitat. $10, $25, $50, even a $100 doesn't go very far in today's world. If you want to see the habitat in a large enough scale to make a difference than you need to be willing to pony up the money.

Last year TPWD sold 3.1 million hunting and fishing licenses. The state estimates there are 300,000 dove hunters. For argument's sake let's assume there are 500,000 migratory bird endorsements sold. So, $1.5 million extra annually after a $3 increase on top of the $3.5 million they already get, just from that fee. Then there's the Pittman-Robertson math. No, it's not enough to create a Bayou Meto for us. But it would make a difference on what they're able to do with existing WMAs and lakes. A few land donations here and there in the future, which is where the latest wave of parks and WMAs are coming from, and maybe you see something significant. It's the long game.

Do you consider the tp&w dove fields a viable solution for the dove hunter?

Bc i don't, some do hold birds at times but for the most part they are over hunted and have very limited food, shelter, rest, and water for the birds to stay in/around the fields for any length of time.

Another thread, same conclusion. I have lived here since 2006, and have yet to see 1 thing wildlife and parks does for waterfowl hunting. I don’t know where the money goes, but it isn’t to anything remotely useful for waterfowl or migratory birds. Maybe if Texas duck hunters had anywhere at all to hunt they wouldn’t be flooding KS, OK or Arkansas quite as much

False equivalency. The migratory bird stamp does not just fund dove fields. It’s all the inland wetlands, playa lakes, coastal prairie refuges, and research.

The barrier to entry for quality dove hunting is not high. Dove habitat is also not a priority for the department nor should it be. Therefore, it’s unfair to suggest the quality of dove fields is a barometer of TPWD’s ability to provide waterfowl habitat and hunting areas.

All I’m saying is if it wouldn’t cost hunters THAT much more through license fees to provide more waterfowl opportunities, it’s something they should look into.

TPWD budget does not work like that. When you buy a migratory bird stamp endorsement it does not go directly to migratory bird management. It goes to the general Game, Fish and Water Safety Account (fund 009). https://tpwd.texas.gov/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_rp_a0900_0679_01_19.pdf#page=10
As for Pittman-Robertson aka Sporting Goods Tax? It provides for 50% of Fund 64's budget aka the State Park fund.

I admit that I havent studied the distribution of TPWD funds across the huge list of things they are tasked with.
And I'm not attacking the TPWD folks. I think they are hard working, outstanding folks that do a great job.
BUT;
A couple things that always make me twitch -
Helicopter surveys on private lands. (Helicopters are cheap arent they?)
TPWD officers doing all of the things they do that have nothing to do with Texas wildlife. (Literally everything not covered by a city law enforcement agency)
TPWD doing work that should be done by Federal Agencies such as the Coast Guard or Border Patrol. (Glad they do but its at the expense of Texas)

To an earlier members post, if TPWD could just focus on Texas wildlife, maybe they would have enough resources to open up additional state owned or available lands.(?)

I see the waterfowl projects done in other states. How can they do those things but Texas cant?

[quote=Littledog]

Amen. A friend in the state gov sent me a pic of a river patrol boat the Game Wardens just got. It was seriously something the SEALs would use. Twin M240s on the bow. God knows what it cost.

Thank you Sniper for the link!!
Really informative.

Wow. I'm gonna need to read that budget publication about three more times.

A couple things that catch my eye already -
1. Read the "Roles and Responsibilities" section.
In my opinion; for a state the size of Texas, this is absolutely absurd. These responsibilities need to dispersed across several agencies that would have their own budgets and be able to focus on their assigned areas of concern.

2. For the $419m budget, less than 8% of it goes into "Wildlife". "Wildlife" does not include fisheries. My assumption is that this portion of the budget goes to game "management" on both public and private lands, etc. (see item 1) It looks to me that if there were any wetland habitat improvements or projects, it would come from this part of the budget (?)

3. The bulk ($280m, 66%) of the budget supporting revenue comes from licenses, registrations, and sales tax on sporting goods. State Park revenue and Federal dollars make up most of the balance. In other words - Hunters pay a much bigger portion of the budget than they see applied to hunting. (see item 2)

It looks to me like Texas hunters and fishermen fund ALOT of non-fishing and hunting stuff.
Maybe I got this wrong. As I said, I'll read the report again.

A quality duck hunting trip normally runs around $200, about twice what a day in the dove field runs. I wouldn't call the cost a barrier, especially when you consider what people pay for concert or sporting event tickets.

I brought up the dove fields bc if the state can't do a better job than what they do there, they damn sure can't be trusted to build and maintain waterfowl habitat.

I still believe it will and does cost alot of money to provide quality waterfowl habitat.

And I agree it would be nice if the state of Texas would drastically improve the current state of public waterfowl habitat. I really don't know why the local chapters of DU and delta can't partner with the state and work on providing said habitat.