Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43

Thread: Nw or sw

  1. #21

    Default

    I have to agree that habitat and weather are going to be your biggest indicators of bird numbers for any given year. According to a few different studies I have read, one of which was posted on this website and conducted in Oklahoma, correlates less than 10% population loss due to hunting. Their study showed predation as the largest factor in population reduction. They noted a 44% loss from mammal predators, and 33% loss from raptors. That's 77%!!!! Good habitat decreases the risk of predation, thus increasing numbers. As far as quail numbers not being like they used to, I think there are way more contributing factors. I would venture to guess that nearly all of the land hunted in the 60's, 70's and 80's was private land. Meaning less hunting pressure per tract of land due to lack of permission. Those parcels were probably only hunted a few times a month at most, compared to present times where one WIHA tract can be hunted several times per day. I think that, along with the obvious cleaner farming practices, spread of urban development in the eastern part of the state, and likely a change in climate/weather patterns are all contributing factors. Now, I was not hunting quail back then, so feel free to correct me if I am wrong.There are still opportunities to have really good days hunting, they just might not be as frequent as they used to be. I had a day last year that I hunted WIHA in the morning and flushed 3 coveys of quail, all on different tracts. In the afternoon we hunted a quarter section of private ground and, I shit you not, flushed 11 coveys. It was an insane, once in a lifetime kind of hunt!

    Question for you all. What's your opinion on limiting non-resident hunting to a certain time frame? For example, Maybe the first 2 weeks of the season are for resident hunters only. In the end it probably wouldn't effect overall population, but it would give residents better opportunity. Curious what both residents and non-residents would have to say about this.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Wichita,KS.
    Posts
    1,202

    Default

    During the 70s and 80s quail didn't open until the second weekend. Guys from the eastern part of the state would go west the first weekend, western guys east the second weekend, a lot of them hunting together. I've thought we should delay the quail opener until the weekend before thanksgiving.
    Habitat and weather are number one for sure. Hunting pressure and nonresidents have little affect on the overall bird populations. But I do believe nonresidents are beginning to hurt the population on land that is public access, two years ago if someone had told me that I would have disagreed. With the license system being changed to 365 days from purchase instead of the old system of the calendar year upland birds are still being pressured into the month of Jan. Something you used to not see.

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrownDogsCan2 View Post
    During the 70s and 80s quail didn't open until the second weekend. Guys from the eastern part of the state would go west the first weekend, western guys east the second weekend, a lot of them hunting together. I've thought we should delay the quail opener until the weekend before thanksgiving.
    Habitat and weather are number one for sure. Hunting pressure and nonresidents have little affect on the overall bird populations. But I do believe nonresidents are beginning to hurt the population on land that is public access, two years ago if someone had told me that I would have disagreed. With the license system being changed to 365 days from purchase instead of the old system of the calendar year upland birds are still being pressured into the month of Jan. Something you used to not see.
    Going back to keeping quail season closed in the western half of the state the opening weekend of pheasant season would be a good ideal. It would keep the large groups from butchering coveys opening weekend. The only reason they changed it was for money to draw more hunters. No benefit to wildlife, decisions are now based on money.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    South Central, KS
    Posts
    598

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by akp View Post
    The bobwhite habitat keeps moving west so itís concentrating hunters in a very well defined area from about I35 to 150 miles west of there.... from northern Kansas down through Oklahoma. Running out of good native habitat. What I saw in the Oklahoma panhandle in 15-16 would hard pressed to be beat by any period ever. Thing is the good stuff habitat wise has shrunk to a relatively small area. The good, uninterrupted stuff...

    Also, the conversion of so much to Bermuda and fescue cannot be ignored. All of the places I had here in eastern Oklahoma when I was a kid are pretty much void of birds. Theyíre gone and not coming back. Thatís just the simple fact of it. Eastern Oklahoma and Eastern Kansas are done for most part. Thereíll be little upswings but what many consider good hunting will never happen again in those areas. Like west said.. Itís a habitat thing. Iíd also guess that the 50s to the say early 80s was an anomaly. The birds really responded to the farming practices of that era and their high numbers were not natural. Just my opinion of course.
    Isn't it ironic now that the farming practices and poisons being forced by the select few chemical/seed companies that control our politicians and nations food supply are responsible for the drastic decline we've seen in wildlife from butterflies/insects to pheasants and other birds.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    NE Oklahoma
    Posts
    384

    Default

    Good points there Husker. Just the ethanol craze alone. Look at how much habitat was converted to corn.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    20 miles south of Ft. Worth, Tx
    Posts
    408

    Default

    Been a few years since I lived in Kansas but I spent most of my life living and hunting there. Bought my lifetime license in 1992 but probably bought my first annual license in 1968 or so.

    I am not a fan of KDWP for a few reasons. One, I think they lied about the non-resident deer hunting from the get-go. At first it was going to just be for the leftover tags after residents had taken their fill. Unused wasted tags; what could be wrong with that. OK, maybe they didn't lie; either they had this plan all along or the scent of money was just too strong for them and it evolved. It almost seems to me that non-res deer money drives the KDWP bus. Compare KDWP upland programs and work to Nebraska Game & Parks Berggren Plan. Well...you can't....because there IS no comparison. Nebraska upland hunting just keeps getting better. Kansas? Not so much.

    I have seen the discussion about upland access and that's why I really posted. I sure don't think the emphasis on Kansas's BIG BUCKS has helped upland access; it's definitely a detriment IMO. I also don't think that's the only reason access is tougher though.

    I think all of us realize that access used to be a lot easier in the late 60s and 70s. However as the decades have passed, hunting access, particularly to private land, just kept getting incrementally harder. Public land access seems to really center around CRP programs and probably crop prices. Undoubtedly there's a multitude of interrelated factors. High crop prices make marginal land more likely to be farmed. Same when CRP programs are not considered a decent deal. When there's birds everywhere, it seemed easier to get access to me. When birds are scarce...access gets saved for family/friends/paying customers. Again, IMO.

    Funny that as hunter numbers have actually steadily declined over the decades, hunting access has declined as well. There's some cause/effect for discussion right there. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? One might think with fewer hunters asking, access might become easier. Hasn't been the case, IMO.

    Just some random thoughts as we turn the corner on 2019, hoping for a perfect Spring breeding season for the upland birds.
    Last edited by Chestle; 12-31-2019 at 11:39 AM.

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chestle View Post
    Been a few years since I lived in Kansas but I spent most of my life living and hunting there. Bought my lifetime license in 1992 but probably bought my first annual license in 1968 or so.

    I am not a fan of KDWP for a few reasons. One, I think they lied about the non-resident deer hunting from the get-go. At first it was going to just be for the leftover tags after non-residents had taken their fill. Unused wasted tags; what could be wrong with that. OK, maybe they didn't lie; either they had this plan all along or the scent of money was just too strong for them and it evolved. It almost seems to me that non-res deer money drives the KDWP bus. Compare KDWP upland programs and work to Nebraska Game & Parks Berggren Plan. Well...you can't....because there IS no comparison. Nebraska upland hunting just keeps getting better. Kansas? Not so much.

    I have seen the discussion about upland access and that's why I really posted. I sure don't think the emphasis on Kansas's BIG BUCKS has helped upland access; it's definitely a detriment IMO. I also don't think that's the only reason access is tougher though.

    I think all of us realize that access used to be a lot easier in the late 60s and 70s. However as the decades have passed, hunting access, particularly to private land, just kept getting incrementally harder. Public land access seems to really center around CRP programs and probably crop prices. Undoubtedly there's a multitude of interrelated factors. High crop prices make marginal land more likely to be farmed. Same when CRP programs are not considered a decent deal. When there's birds everywhere, it seemed easier to get access to me. When birds are scarce...access gets saved for family/friends/paying customers. Again, IMO.

    Funny that as hunter numbers have actually steadily declined over the decades, hunting access has declined as well. There's some cause/effect for discussion right there. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? One might think with fewer hunters asking, access might become easier. Hasn't been the case, IMO.

    Just some random thoughts as we turn the corner on 2019, hoping for a perfect Spring breeding season for the upland birds.
    Do you mean residents instead of non residents taking their fill?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    20 miles south of Ft. Worth, Tx
    Posts
    408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by westksbowhunter View Post
    Do you mean residents instead of non residents taking their fill?
    Yes, I did! Thanks for the good catch. Fixed it with edit.

  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chestle View Post
    Yes, I did! Thanks for the good catch. Fixed it with edit.
    I just don't remember there being left over tags for residents. In 1995 we still had residents who would not draw a gun a tag. Some that drew received and antlerless only.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    South Central, KS
    Posts
    598

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chestle View Post
    One, I think they lied about the non-resident deer hunting from the get-go. At first it was going to just be for the leftover tags after residents had taken their fill. Unused wasted tags; what could be wrong with that. OK, maybe they didn't lie; either they had this plan all along or the scent of money was just too strong for them and it evolved. It almost seems to me that non-res deer money drives the KDWP bus. Compare KDWP upland programs and work to Nebraska Game & Parks Berggren Plan. Well...you can't....because there IS no comparison. Nebraska upland hunting just keeps getting better. Kansas? Not so much.

    I have seen the discussion about upland access and that's why I really posted. I sure don't think the emphasis on Kansas's BIG BUCKS has helped upland access; it's definitely a detriment IMO. I also don't think that's the only reason access is tougher though.

    I think all of us realize that access used to be a lot easier in the late 60s and 70s. However as the decades have passed, hunting access, particularly to private land, just kept getting incrementally harder. Public land access seems to really center around CRP programs and probably crop prices. Undoubtedly there's a multitude of interrelated factors. High crop prices make marginal land more likely to be farmed. Same when CRP programs are not considered a decent deal. When there's birds everywhere, it seemed easier to get access to me. When birds are scarce...access gets saved for family/friends/paying customers. Again, IMO.

    You hit the nail on the head with the BOLDED part -- I've been harping on this for a few years now - the state F'd up royally by putting emphasis on deer instead of upland hunters. If they were looking big picture they would have realized KS does NOT have the carrying capacity for big deer to run through as many deer hunters per year as you could upland/waterfowl/turkey hunters with a healthy upland bird population and access to the uplands/water fowl spots. Instead they've allowed too many loose restrictions on big game (statewide units for residents -- I am one but dont think I should be able to hunt statewide and for nearly 4 mos if I did archery, unlimited tags for residents, and virtually unlimited tags for non res with them having the ability to hunt in more than one unit -- dont get me started on where the mule deer went -- my hypothesis is due to the loose restrictions on white tail tags MANY tags meant for a white tail were placed on a muley by someone who didnt know the difference - they are far easier to shoot out and easier to do when you do not have enough wildlife officers and concentrating hunters in specific areas of the state)


    The Economic impact of having MANY more upland hunters visit your state with ample access and your own residents getting out to hunt in the uplands more than once per year would be far greater for smaller communities than a MUCH smaller # of big game hunters -- IT IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE KDWPT AND LEGISLATORS

    DEER have been responsible for cutting off GREAT upland bird access and letting GREAT upland habitat go to crap when out of state folks buy land that has become an overgrown forest and good for nothing more than habitat for nest robbers such as coons or avian predators. What the out of state hunters that buy these recreational properties or outfitters locally or out of state that lock places up is if they got rid of and controlled the trees - they'd have healthier ecosystems/habitat that deer here LOVE and will grow big bucks and as a by-product the upland species and other species will also benefit.

    Guys just cant understand you dont need a damn tree or a 10,000 lb pile of corn to kill a deer or to kill a big deer. Healthy grasslands and a managed deer herd are what is needed here - all other species and hunters will benefit - upland birds need the more specific recipe and all others will benefit.

    This year I plan to start being a squeaky wheel at a commission meeting or two and bending some elected officials ears as I live near Topeka and own a business here. Whether or not it will do any good I dont know = but I think the ones currently making decisions have Zero clue about reality. Biologists at the KDWPT have not been allowed to do their job for several years due to legislative meddling and hunting opportunities and upland birds have suffered as a result. It sucks watching it all go down the toilet -

    Due to the deer declines and lack of access I'm looking forward to an out of state big game hunt - never thought I'd have to or want to plan one.
    Last edited by KsHusker; 12-31-2019 at 04:58 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •