Kansas wildlife agency proposes shorter trout season, eases blue catfish limits; committee presses for data

The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules and Regulations heard testimony on a proposed agency regulation that would change several fishing creel limits, including shortening the trout season and loosening limits on blue catfish.

Curtis Wire, chief counsel for the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, told the committee the regulation under review is K.A.R. 115-25-14 and that it updates creel limits based on fisheries science. "It shortens the trout season from November 1 through April 15 to December 1 to March 31," Wire said. He also said the agency was proposing to "liberalize the blue catfish restrictions in the state allowing anglers to harvest more" because fisheries staff concluded blue catfish now reproduce reliably and do not require continued stocking.

Committee members, including Senator Ole Warren and Representative Dan Carmichael, questioned the basis for the changes and asked whether the agency had consulted stakeholders. John Reinke, assistant director of the Fisheries Division, described the department’s use of roving creel surveys and licensed-angler surveys: interviewers conduct one-on-one interviews at impoundments over multiple years to estimate angler effort and preferences. Reinke said catfish-specific survey work and periodic licensed-angler surveys informed the blue catfish changes and that creel work at Cheney Lake supported lowering the crappie daily limit from 50 to 20.

Several legislators pushed back on the reliance on sociological survey responses rather than population counts. "Is it not based on fish surveys — counting the fish — the scientific stuff you usually use to set limits and seasons?" Representative Carmichael asked. Fisheries staff responded that biological sampling such as fall gill-netting and other population-estimation methods are part of their analysis and that some creel-limit changes are driven by angler preferences where biologists concluded the change would not harm fish populations. "This type of regulation falls into a sociological regulation versus a biological regulation," Reinke said, adding that crappie population studies indicated the limit change would not have a biological impact.

Committee members also pressed the agency on the economics of the trout program. Wire and other staff said Kansas must purchase trout for stocking because most Kansas waters do not sustain reproducing trout populations; costs for trout have risen, primarily because suppliers face higher feed costs. The department acknowledged the trout program’s rising costs and agreed to provide additional cost and revenue information. Senator Warren specifically asked the department to submit an amended economic-impact statement (EIS) after acknowledging the agency had mistakenly marked the proposed rule as an environmental regulation on the EIS. "I can submit one, yes, to the division of budget," Wire told the committee when asked whether he would correct the EIS.

Committee members asked for more documentation: the creel and fall-net survey results that support the Cheney Lake crappie change, the department’s cost information for trout purchases and stocking, and an amended EIS that explains how shortening the trout season might affect local businesses that serve anglers.

The committee did not take a vote on the regulation during the hearing. Agency staff said they would provide the requested documents and clarify the EIS.

The department’s presentation and the committee’s questions highlight the tradeoffs agencies face when balancing fishery biology, angler preferences and program costs; committee members indicated they expect more detailed biological and economic evidence before advancing the regulation.