Committee tightens tenant rule for landowner deer permits, then tables Senate Bill 80

The Senate Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources on Feb. 12 amended Senate Bill 80 to narrow the definition of a tenant eligible for landowner deer permits and then tabled the bill for future consideration.

The amendment added a residency and activity requirement to the tenant definition in statute, specifying that a tenant must be a resident of Kansas and be “actively involved in agriculture,” and it created an exception for people who live in counties that border Kansas so long as they lease significant acreage in the state. The committee adopted that amendment on a voice vote before later rejecting separate language offered from the Nature Conservancy and ultimately voting to table the bill.

Why it matters: The bill and the amendment affect how the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks allocates landowner deer permits, a practice that has drawn criticism from law enforcement and stake‑holders for enabling people who are not actively managing land to claim tags. Supporters said the changes would curb misuse of tenant tags; opponents said the amendment does not address broader wildlife management and allocation questions.

The committee chair said the amendment was drawn after concerns from the Kansas Livestock Association and law enforcement that the existing tenant definition allowed anyone leasing land to claim tenant status and obtain landowner deer tags. “Currently tenant would allow pretty much anyone to say they are leasing land and then have a deer tag,” the chair said while offering the balloon amendment. The change adds the words “a resident of Kansas” and requires active agricultural involvement for tenant eligibility.

Centra Blue, who represents outfitters in his district, raised concerns that out‑of‑state hunters were not receiving tags through the lottery and asked whether land purchasers or managers leasing land would be limited to hunting only on land they own. The chair responded that the amendment did not change current statute regarding where hunting may occur.

Senator Shane urged a broader approach to deer management, saying narrowing tenant eligibility “doesn’t get to the heart of addressing wildlife and deer management in the state” and recommended the committee consider allocation rules that reflect per‑acre hunting pressure rather than broad prohibitions.

After the tenant amendment passed, Senator Francisco moved to replace section K with language submitted by the Nature Conservancy that would have limited nonresident landowner permits to lands enrolled in “qualified management activities that promote improved native habitat,” and would have directed the Department of Wildlife and Parks to publish a list of qualifying programs and accept conservation organization requests for qualification. That motion failed on a voice vote.

Following the failed Nature Conservancy substitute, Senator Shane moved to table Senate Bill 80; the motion to table carried on a voice vote and the bill was set aside with no date for further consideration.

Discussion in the committee noted enforcement difficulties for the Department of Wildlife and Parks in verifying that tenants who claim tags are actually engaged in agricultural operations and that tightening the tenant definition was intended to address those law‑enforcement concerns while leaving broader allocation questions to later discussion.

The committee will return after legislative turnaround to continue hearings on other bills and related budget items.