Kansas House Bill HB2268

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/5/25
• Refer: 2/5/25

Caption

Prohibiting nonresidents from hunting migratory waterfowl during certain times and places and increasing fees for migratory waterfowl habitat stamps.

Summary

HB 2268 would change Kansas wildlife law in two main ways. First, it would restrict nonresident hunters from taking migratory waterfowl except on Sundays, Mondays, and Tuesdays during established waterfowl seasons. That restriction would apply on department lands and waters and on certain federal lands and waters, including specified U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reservoirs, Bureau of Reclamation reservoirs, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refuges. The bill would exempt walk-in hunting access areas, navigable rivers in Kansas, and the conservation order for light geese season. Second, the bill would amend the state fee schedule for hunting and fishing-related licenses, permits, and stamps. The most notable change is a reduction in the maximum fee for migratory waterfowl habitat stamps from $15 to $8. The bill also updates the fee table in K.S.A. 32-988, including a correction to the mussel fishing license amounts and retaining the secretary’s authority to set fees within statutory maximums for a wide range of wildlife-related licenses and permits.

Impact

The bill would amend K.S.A. 32-939 and K.S.A. 2024 Supp. 32-988, thereby altering both hunting access rules and the department’s fee authority. It would create a new statutory limitation on when nonresidents may hunt migratory waterfowl and extend that limitation to specified state and federal properties, while preserving access on certain exempted lands and during the light geese conservation season. It would also lower the statutory cap on migratory waterfowl habitat stamp fees and revise other fee provisions in the wildlife licensing schedule, affecting nonresident hunters, stamp purchasers, and the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks’ regulatory administration.

Sentiment

Based on the bill caption and text, the measure appears to be aimed at favoring resident hunters and managing pressure on waterfowl hunting opportunities, while also reducing one related fee. There is no committee transcript or recorded vote history provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, amendment activity, or formal support/opposition in the available record. The overall framing suggests a policy preference for limiting nonresident access rather than expanding hunting opportunities broadly.

Contention

The likely points of contention are the new weekday-only restriction for nonresident waterfowl hunting and its application to popular public lands and reservoirs, which could be viewed by nonresident hunters and some land managers as a significant access limitation. By contrast, resident hunters and supporters of resident preference may favor the measure as a way to reduce crowding and preserve opportunity. The fee reduction for migratory waterfowl habitat stamps may be less controversial, but the broader restructuring of access rules on state and federal lands is the central issue likely to generate disagreement.