Mar 10, 2024

Kansas lawmakers angle to undercut governor by overhauling state wildlife and parks commission

Posted Mar 10, 2024 12:00 PM
 Brad Loveless, secretary of the Kansas Wildlife and Parks, said a bill limiting the governor’s appointments to the Wildlife and Parks Commission and subjecting nominees to Senate confirmation was unnecessary. (Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector)
Brad Loveless, secretary of the Kansas Wildlife and Parks, said a bill limiting the governor’s appointments to the Wildlife and Parks Commission and subjecting nominees to Senate confirmation was unnecessary. (Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector)

Consternation about possible ban on feeding deer on private land triggers backlash

By TIM CARPENTER  Kansas Reflector

TOPEKA — The administrative rebellion waged in the Capitol against the Kansas Wildlife and Parks Commission is being led by men and women with expertise in firearms, arrows, hooks and other tools of hunting, fishing and trapping.

But implements on this conflict are paper and ink used to advance House and Senate legislation to dissolve the current commission appointed unilaterally by the governor and to create a new seven-person commission selected by the Republican Senate president, House speaker and attorney general and by the Democratic governor.

Gov. Laura Kelly would get four selections and the three other politicians would make one each. Democratic Party leaders in the Legislature would have no appointment authority in terms of the new commission.

In addition, legislation endorsed by the Senate and a House committee would mandate all commission appointees be subjected for the first time to the Senate confirmation process. That would include background investigations, fingerprinting, submission of tax information, filing of statements of substantial interest and appearances before a legislative committee before a vote of the Senate. The commissioners would remain unpaid volunteers.

For good measure, legislators frustrated by the commission have sought to strip the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks secretary of eminent domain power to create public parks or expand access to these recreational magnets.

El Dorado Rep. Will Carpenter, a Republican, said the current commission wasn’t sufficiently invested in hunting or fishing for consumptive purposes.

“I know from past experience, lots of times it’s a political appointment,” Carpenter said. “You get a lot of ‘parks’ people on there … who are not consumptive fishermen or hunters. They’re making policy decisions, quite frankly, that they don’t even know about because they don’t hunt or fish.”

Rep. Pam Curtis, D-Kansas City, said the existing appointment system worked well and the proposed overhaul of the commission would intensify the politics of wildlife and parks administration.

“I don’t think we want to make this a political body,” Curtis said. “That would push us much more into the political realm versus science and experts in managing our wildlife and parks. Do we want to pass something we think will have some muster? Or, do we want to pass something we know is going to be DOA?”

‘Not real hunting’

Hunting and fishing enthusiasts have let it be known they were irritated the commission and department entertained the idea of prohibiting bait feeding of deer on private property. The practice, banned on public land in Kansas, enticed deer to take advantage of a regular food source on property accessible to landowners who hunted or to individuals from other communities or states who paid for the opportunity to hunt a trophy. Skeptics of baiting believe it granted hunters an unethical advantage. In Nebraska, for example, it was illegal to hunt any big game animals or turkeys within 200 yards of a baited area.

“I see a huge problem with fair chase in Kansas,” said Troy Sporer, a current wildlife and parks commissioner from Oakley. “It’s not real hunting anymore. Let’s just go bait ’em up, figure out what time they’re there and lets go shoot ’em.”

The commission’s interest in the ethics of baiting deer and creating for wildlife a fair-chase environment was interpreted as a financial threat to the hunting industry in Kansas and inspired lobbying at the Capitol to tilt commission appointments toward people vested in maintaining a business-like approach. Commission critics also raised issues about timing of hunting seasons or availability of hunting licenses.

“I believe the current department leadership and the current commission has lost their way over the past three years,” said Don Budd, a former wildlife and parks commissioner appointed by Republican Gov. Sam Brownback.

Jeff Cooper, an attorney and representative of Hunter Nation headquartered in Mission, said lack of practical knowledge among commissioners allowed for reckless debates about the possibility of a bait ban. That could be avoided in the future with passage of a law diversifying the commission, he said.

Cooper recommended a nine-member commission that would leave the governor with three appointments and guarantee two each for the House speaker, Senate president and attorney general. The idea of giving GOP politicians the opportunity to shape a majority on the commission was included in a House bill sponsored by Rep. Ken Corbet, a Topeka Republican who operates a hunting lodge.

“The current commission has recently demonstrated an inability to bring any meaningful experience to the table as well as think critically about information,” Cooper said. “No issue better demonstrates this failure of decision making than the commission’s recent crusade to end deer feeding.”

Confirmation unneeded

Brad Loveless, the state Department of Wildlife and Parks secretary, has faced a wave of questions at the Statehouse about the commission’s regulatory deliberations.

In multiple legislative committee hearings, Loveless said the seven current members were quality appointees who would sail through confirmation if subjected to that process. He said Senate confirmation would slow the filling of vacancies on the commission. He also said it would place commission nominees under a level of scrutiny unequal to people serving on other commissions without budget or personnel duties.

Loveless said the wildlife and parks commission’s main purpose was to solicit public input during development of regulations. He said administrative functions of the KDWP weren’t within the commission’s purview. Nor did the department’s secretary, as a Cabinet-level appointee, report to the commission.

“The commission is therefore different than other boards or commissions that currently require Kansas Senate confirmation,” Loveless said. “These Senate-confirmed boards oversee agency budgets or personnel. Whereas KDWP is overseen by a secretary, which is already confirmed by the Senate and answers to the governor.”

Deer hunting disputes represented different perspectives on how best to prevent the state’s trophy deer resource from being wiped out by overhunting, Loveless said.

Loveless, who announced plans last October to retire in 2024, said the mission of the commission and department was to sustain high-quality wildlife populations and to welcome people who want to be outdoors in the state’s park system. He said some people want to open the gate to as many hunters and fishermen as would come to Kansas, but that would be unsustainable. The state turned away about 10,000 nonresident applicants for deer licenses, Loveless said.

“We’re victims of our own success because we have this trophy deer population. It’s worth a lot of money, millions of dollars every year. Of course, when there’s money involved, then people develop their own agendas. They say we’re just throwing money away. But we’re trying to help people understand that unless we manage the population it will crash,” Loveless said.

More politics?

Republican Sen. Virgil Peck of Havana and other legislators have asserted there was cause to believe the commission might not be willing to protect the constitutional right of Kansans to hunt, fish and trap. Senate confirmation of nominees to the commission was essential, Peck said.

“This will allow elected representatives of the people — the Kansas Senate — to ask the commission questions about their beliefs,” Peck said. “We don’t want a commission that’s going to diminish those rights.”

Jackie Augustine, a representative of the Audubon Society, said the state wildlife and parks commission included people who were good listeners and represented the people of Kansas well. She said amendment of the appointment process — stripping governors of authority to appoint the seven members — could have unintended consequences.

“This process will encourage political ideology to become more important than protecting the natural resources of Kansas,” she said.

She said it would be a logistical challenge for four elected officials to share the task of appointing seven people to the commission. The current version of the bill specified a commissioner be appointed to represent each of seven wildlife administration regions, that a cap be placed on partisan representation and that preference be given to licensed hunters, fishermen, fur harvesters, park users and those who don’t consume wildlife.

“How can different appointing authorities ensure that all of these factors are considered when nominating a commissioner?” Augustine said. “It seems like it will develop into a situation where one appointing authority will always have to appoint someone that meets a limited set of criteria, like a Republican non-consumptive user from southeastern Kansas.”

Moriah Day, executive director of the Kansas State Rifle Association, said he had a different take on proposed reform of the commission. He bristled at the notion lawmakers should be cautious about altering the system.

“Our entire form of government is based on the principle that complicating processes can be a good thing when done properly,” Day said. “Efficient tyranny is the enemy of freedom and a well-structured series of checks and balances removes power from any one political figure or office, more effectively protecting our citizens from both blatant consolidation of power and the far more common tendency of human nature to gradually accumulate influence or control.”