Committee hears bill to let licensed drone operators locate wounded deer for recovery

The Committee on Federal and State Affairs heard testimony on House Bill 2423, the Kansas Wounded Deer Recovery Act, which would allow a hunter to use an FAA‑licensed drone operator to locate a wounded or recently deceased deer for recovery if the operator holds the appropriate hunting license and has the landowner’s permission.

A Revisor’s office staffer, Mike, told the committee the bill defines “drone” and permits recovery flights by licensed drone operators under federal rules, provided the operator also holds the required state hunting license and launches from property where permission has been granted. “The bill title is the Kansas Wounded Deer Recovery Act,” Mike said in opening remarks, outlining the bill’s scope.

The bill sponsor (identified in the hearing as a representative) emphasized the measure is limited to recovery, not hunting. “We’re not hunting with drones. No. We’re just looking to locate a wounded or recently deceased deer so that we don’t waste a deer,” the sponsor said, adding a proposed amendment to allow the services of a licensed drone operator to assist a hunter who is not himself an operator.

Opponents and some committee members raised enforcement, ethics and privacy concerns. Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks Director Jake George, who submitted neutral written testimony and appeared to answer questions, said the department’s primary worry was enforceability: “It would make it difficult because then it offers an avenue for them to say, ‘no, I’m not pursuing game at this point; I am tracking something that was wounded,’ and there’s no way to ascertain between one activity or the other for those law‑enforcement officers,” he told the committee. George also cited fair‑chase and wildlife‑ethics questions, potential trespass and privacy risks from thermal imagery, and possible harassment of wildlife.

Representative Will Carpenter testified in opposition, warning the bill could open another avenue for abuse and noting limited game warden resources. “I stand in opposition to this. Mainly I want to talk about the potential abuse of this… Unfortunately we have criminals out there that will take advantage of this situation,” Carpenter said, adding he feared the technology could be used for aerial hunting rather than recovery.

Proponents argued drones can be quieter and less disruptive than packs of tracking dogs and could improve recovery rates. The Professional Bow Hunter Society representative (name not provided in the hearing) urged amendments to strengthen enforcement and privacy protections, recommending a post‑pursuit no‑hunt period (the group suggested 48 hours), licensing or check‑in requirements for drone operators, and limits on public dissemination of recorded drone footage to protect neighbors’ privacy.

Committee members suggested possible compromise approaches: limiting recovery to private property, restricting flights to nonhunting hours, requiring notification or a fee tied to Wildlife and Parks to fund enforcement, or adopting a short no‑hunt window after drone use. The sponsor and Director George said they would review language and precedent from other states (committee members cited Missouri and Tennessee) to inform amendments.

The committee closed the hearing without a vote and moved to the next agenda item. The committee chair said further hunting‑related bills will be discussed at upcoming meetings.