Committee hears HB 2268 to restrict nonresident waterfowl hunting, raise habitat-stamp fees

A Kansas House committee opened a hearing on House Bill 2,268 on March 18 to consider a package of changes that would limit nonresident hunters’ access to many public wetlands and raise migratory-waterfowl habitat-stamp fees.

The bill, presented by reviser Kyle Hamilton, would define “nonresident” as someone who has not been a bona fide Kansas resident for the preceding 60 days, prohibit nonresidents from hunting migratory waterfowl on many Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP) lands and certain federal properties except on Sundays, Mondays and Tuesdays during established seasons, and raise the statutory maximum for the state migratory-waterfowl habitat stamp from $8 to a higher maximum (the bill text sets a $20 cap for residents and a $100 cap for nonresidents). Section 1 of the bill also excludes walk-in hunting access areas, navigable waters in Kansas, and the conservation order for light geese from the hunting restriction. The bill would take effect upon publication in the statute book.

Why it matters: KDWP and multiple resident hunters told the committee that a rapid rise in nonresident participation on limited public wetland acres has reduced hunting opportunities and increased pressure on the resources. KDWP Deputy Secretary of Operations Stuart Schrag said the agency’s data showed nonresident participation on some public wetlands rose from about 19% in the mid-2000s to roughly 40% in the 2021 season; at Cheyenne Bottoms in 2021, he said, nonresidents exceeded residents. Schrag described the proposal as a response developed after agency review, consultation with federal partners and public meetings.

Supporters: Representative Will Carpenter, who said the change was prompted by resident complaints and by regulatory changes in surrounding states, told the committee the influx of nonresident hunters has grown from about 4,900 in 2006 to roughly 17,000 and that “our residents are getting pushed out by the nonresidents that are coming in.” Michael (Mike) Castelli, a Kansas resident and waterfowl hunter, urged passage, saying public wetlands cannot absorb the current levels of hunting pressure and that restricting nonresidents for most of the week would give residents better access.

Opponents and concerns: Multiple speakers said the bill could harm rural economies that rely on out-of-state hunters. Representative Dale Helwig and local business owners described large parts of southeast Kansas that depend on nonresident visitation for lodging, restaurants and outfitters. Tanner Temple, deputy state director for Americans for Prosperity, said restricting nonresident hunting would likely reduce local revenues and could raise legal issues involving interstate commerce. Several opponents urged the committee to study the economic impacts and consider alternatives such as fee increases and habitat expansion.

Fiscal note and data limits: Heather O’Hara of Legislative Research read the fiscal note prepared from KDWP materials. The agency told Legislative Research that fee revenues would increase if the bill were enacted but that KDWP “cannot estimate a fiscal effect” because the agency must adopt a regulation to set the actual fee amount within the statutory maximums. Schrag offered county-level property-tax payment figures and told members he could supply additional data and comparisons with other states’ nonresident restrictions on request.

Committee discussion and next steps: Committee members asked about enforcement, effects on family hunting and on federal lands, how licenses are currently issued, and whether limiting nonresidents statewide would displace pressure to other wetlands. KDWP said some restrictions (for example, reporting requirements or boating limits) had been used locally but did not fully solve the pressure problem. The committee did not take action on HB 2,268; the chair closed the hearing and said members would reconvene the following day. The committee also recorded a voice vote allowing the reviser to communicate possible amendments ahead of the next meeting.

What did not happen: The committee did not vote on HB 2,268 or adopt any amendment. Testimony included multiple calls to delay action for a targeted study of local economic impacts and habitat capacity; several witnesses requested a multi-year study rather than immediate statutory change.

For readers: Key provisions in the bill are the 60-day residency definition, the three permitted days for nonresident hunting on many public and certain federal properties, the explicit carve-outs for walk-in access areas, navigable waters and the light-goose conservation order, and the separate fee schedule that would allow a higher nonresident habitat-stamp amount.

Background and context: KDWP said public lands acreage in Kansas is low by national comparisons and that conservation groups and KDWP expanded wetland habitat in recent years; those improvements, the agency and proponents said, have attracted more nonresident hunters. The agency also reported that some changes in other states contributed to hunter movement into Kansas. The bill is mirrored in the Senate as Senate Bill 213; committee staff noted the Senate measure had passed out of its chamber with a large margin prior to the House hearing.