Think pumpkins are only good for Halloween decorations?  Think again!  Pumpkins offer far more than seasonal decor. They are a delicious source of vitamins, minerals and great flavor. Consider preserving uncarved pumpkins for future recipes before a solid freeze reduces them to front-yard mush.

This is also the prime time to buy pumpkins at seasonal prices.  For best preserved quality, look for sugar or pie pumpkins– better for cooking and baking– rather than the big jack-o-lantern pumpkins which produce a paler and more watery product.

Here are some ideas for preserving pumpkin from USDA and the National Center for Home Food Preservation:
1. Freeze- Rather Than Can- Pureed Pumpkin. Food preservation enthusiasts are advised to freeze, rather than can, mashed or pureed pumpkin and pumpkin butter.  Home canning is NOT recommended for pumpkin butter or any mashed or pureed pumpkin due to the density and slow heat penetration of the thick puree. The only recommended directions from USDA for canning pumpkin (and any other winter squash) are for cubed pumpkin. In fact, the directions for preparing the product include the statement, “Caution: Do not mash or puree.”

2. Canning Cubed Pumpkin.  Only pressure canning methods are recommended for canning cubed pumpkin.  Pumpkins are low-acid vegetables capable of supporting growth of Clostridium botulinum bacteria that can cause serious foodborne illness (botulism) and death. To be safe, all low acid foods, including pumpkin, must be canned using tested pressure canning processes.

An average of 16 pounds of pumpkin is needed per canner load of 7 quarts; an average of 10 pounds is needed per canner load of 9 pints. Small size pumpkins (sugar or pie varieties) make better products. Wash; remove seeds, cut into 1-inch-wide slices, and peel. Cut flesh into 1-inch cubes. Boil 2 minutes in water. Caution: Do not mash or puree. Fill jars with hot cubes and cover with cooking liquid, leaving 1-inch headspace. Adjust lids and process following USDA recommendations at www.homefoodpreservation.com/how/can_04/pumpkin_winter_squash.html.  At most Ellis County altitudes, process pints of cubed pumpkin 55 minutes at 12 pounds pressure; quarts are processed 90 minutes.

3. Freezing Pumpkin. Freezing is the easiest way to preserve pumpkin, and it yields the best quality product. Wash, cut into cooking-size sections and remove seeds. Cook until soft in boiling water, in steam, in a pressure cooker, or in an oven. Cool until able to handle. Remove pulp from rind and mash or puree. Pack into rigid containers leaving headspace, and freeze.

4. Pumpkin Preserves. Most fruits have natural acids so resulting sweet spreads can be safely canned in a boiling water bath process. Pumpkin, however, is a low acid vegetable and cannot be safely canned in the boiling water bath process. Consequently, USDA does NOT offer recommendations for safely canning pumpkin preserves (jams, jellies, conserves, or pumpkin butter) and storing them at room temperature. These pumpkin products must be stored in the refrigerator or freezer and treated the same as fresh pumpkin products.

5. Think Safety. Think safety when planning to preserve pumpkins. As a low acid vegetable, pumpkin requires special attention for preparation and processing. Use excellent sanitation in handling the fresh or preserved pumpkin. Do not let cut pumpkin sit out at room temperature for more than 2 hours during preparation.  Preserve following only approved USDA guidelines.

For more information and step-by-step directions for preserving pumpkin, call the Ellis County Extension Office at 785-628-9430 and ask for the Extension publication “Preserve It Fresh, Preserve it Safe- Vegetables” or download from the K-State Research and Extension Bookstore at www.bookstore.ksre.ksu.edu. Use the search function to locate Extension publications of interest.

Linda K. Beech is Ellis County Extension Agent for Family and Consumer Sciences.

This election will see the legalization of recreational marijuana up for vote in nine more states. The arguments often center on increased state income, analogies with Prohibition, questionable claims of medication not being available otherwise, etc. But rarely does a citizen stop to think about the possibility of a teacher being high on marijuana in the classroom.

The Kansas State Board of Education (KSBE) faces this situation on a near monthly basis.

The Professional Practices Commission (PPC) is charged with examining the cases of teachers who commit felonies or otherwise violate the professional standards we expect of the teachers who stand as role models for our children. That also includes considering prior diversion agreements. Teacher licenses are revoked for conviction of passing bad checks, sex-with-students, and other felonies. And recently, there has been an increase in diversions or convictions for possession of marijuana.

Recommendations from the PPC must be approved by the State Board of Education at a regular monthly meeting. These are open public records and the September 2016 KSBE meeting agenda details one interesting case that should give advocates of legalization of marijuana pause.

Usually, the teacher who has a record of marijuana use—revealed by conviction or a diversion agreement—can be approved to keep their license and teach in the classroom if they can show that they are no longer using, test clean, regret their prior behavior, and ensure the PPC they will not use in the future.  The PPC then recommends they keep their license, as in the cases in the November agenda.

However, in September [as noted on page 115 of the KSBE agenda], one teacher did not agree to submit to hair follicle drug testing seven days after his hearing and again later. Based on his refusal to cooperate with their request for drug testing, as well as other concerns this raised, the PPC recommended his license be revoked. The State Board agreed.

While this action received no attention in the press, it raises a very big question. The Professional Practices Commission relies on specific “triggers” or “tripwires” (diversions and felony convictions) to draw their attention to problems in the profession. What if this teacher was teaching in Colorado where possession of marijuana and related paraphernalia was not a felony?  Unlike alcohol, there is no easy breathalyzer test for marijuana levels.  And THC remains in the blood longer than alcohol. There would be no felony conviction to trigger revocation. If he kept his usage low enough not to demonstrate gross impairment, it is likely that this teacher could keep his teaching license until retirement. He was just in the wrong state.

Citizens prone to minimize the consequence of legalizing marijuana might think twice if they realized that their children could be spending a year in a classroom with a buzzed teacher.

A year ago, in assessing nascent opposition to some of Governor Sam Brownback’s policies, I quoted Winston Churchill’s famous lines: “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

Bearing in mind the precipitous drop in tax revenues and the death spiral of Governor Brownback’s approval ratings, Republican senators like Jeff King (Independence) and Jim Denning (Johnson County) had begun to question the income-tax exemptions of 330,000 small businesses. Fast forward a year, and King has declined to seek re-election, while Denning is locked in a close re-election battle, even as he has sought to modify Brownback’s tax policies.

Some of the key decisions of the 2016 campaign were being made in the fall of 2015. Potential moderate Republican and Democratic candidates could anticipate an upcoming election that would be a referendum on the Brownback administration, featuring taxes and a host of other policies, from Medicaid expansion to the delivery of social services to raids on highway funds.

No matter what voters think on given issues, effective candidates must put themselves forward to translate opinion into campaign discussions and legislative actions. Recruiting candidates is difficult, but overall an impressive array of moderate candidates – both Republicans and Democrats — have emerged over the past year, from the Johnson County suburbs to medium sized-communities like Leavenworth and Pittsburg to Wichita to the expansive districts of western Kansas.

In 2014 Democrat Paul Davis’s attempt to hold Governor Brownback accountable was seriously compromised by the immense outside spending on behalf of incumbent senator Pat Roberts, which nationalized the gubernatorial election. But this year national forces have played a lesser role in Kansans’ decisions, especially in the GOP legislative primaries, where many Brownback allies either did not run for reelection or lost, often by wide margins.

Republicans this year must run not only with the Brownback albatross but also with the uncertainty of Donald Trump’s wavering support, especially in Johnson County, where he trails by 10 points or so. Moreover, various suburbs have become more Democratic over the past few years, and the outcomes of some moderate Republican-Democrat races will demonstrate the extent of this trend.

In short, this Tuesday Kansans can profoundly reshape the legislative mix in Topeka over the next two years, and beyond.

Running parallel to the legislative races are the retention elections for Supreme Court justices. In 2014, two sitting justices came close to losing their seats, and their opponents anticipated that in 2016 they could unseat the four incumbents they opposed, largely based on death penalty and school finance rulings.

It now appears, based on public and private polling, that the opposition campaign has faltered. The retention and rejection forces have raised roughly equal amounts of money, but the retention supporters enjoy the advantage of supporting justices whom Governor Brownback, the least popular chief executive in the country, has vigorously opposed. In addition, pro-public education sentiments favor the incumbents, who have consistently ruled that more state funding for public education is required.

For many, the 2016 election will be defined by the unlikely emergence of Donald Trump and his bizarre campaign, but for Kansans, who will reluctantly give Trump their six electoral votes, the real news is that an independent judiciary and a more moderate legislature may well increase the chances of more responsible governance to address the state’s profound array of problems.

Maybe, just maybe, our 2016 elections will be “the beginning of the end.”

Burdett Loomis is a professor of political science at the University of Kansas.

By RON WILSON
Huck Boyd National Institute for Rural Development

What’s your platform? No, not fancy shoes or the policy statements which are debated and adopted by the political parties every four years. I’m talking about what has been referred to as a “regional change platform.” In fact, it is a grassroots network that is working to improve the lives of citizens across a multi-county region of southeast Kansas.

Project 17 is the name of this project for regional economic development and community engagement in the southeast region of the state, led by the Advanced Manufacturing Institute (AMI) within Kansas State University’s College of Engineering. Jeff Tucker is executive director of AMI. Since 2004 AMI has been working with companies, communities, and regions throughout Kansas to help cultivate rural, innovation-based economies.

Back in 2011, AMI was contacted by four senators who also went to the governor and expressed their concerns about the 17-county region of southeast Kansas which they represented in the legislature. The concerns they expressed were real. Southeast Kansas has long suffered from concentrated poverty and unemployment rates which significantly exceed the state average. Most of the counties had suffered significant economic losses due to a shrinking manufacturing base. Many lacked adequate access to high speed internet for business, education, or health care. Public health indicators were chronically among the poorest in the state.

The senators asked K-State’s Advanced Manufacturing Institute to become the backbone organization to organize a response to these serious needs. In response, AMI worked with a small initial coalition of civic leaders and partner organizations to plan the response. A series of community meetings were held across the region to engage the public in a civic conversation about the challenges.

These seventeen counties go from Chautaqua County to Miami County and from Coffey County down to Cherokee County. From corner to corner, this includes lots of rural communities, from Bucyrus to Cedar Vale, population 709, and from Galena to Bushong, population 54. Now, that’s rural.

To address the deep-seated issues in the region, it was clear that a different approach was needed. The result was what AMI calls a “regional change platform.” Rather than a traditional top-down driven change program, this project was designed as a network-based, grass-roots supported program that enables all citizens to participate. It actively recruited volunteers and partners, focused on linking and leveraging regional assets, placed priority on strategic doing over strategic planning, and launched multiple initiatives to seed large-scale change.

Based on lots of grass-roots input, Project 17 is built on four pillars: Health, Economic Development, Education/Workforce, and Leadership. Work teams were formed and specific activities are organized under each of those pillars.

Based on the number of counties in the region, the project became known as Project 17. Heather Morgan was selected as executive director of Project 17 in 2013. From a core planning group of about 15 people, this project has mushroomed across the region to engage thousands of citizens.

Of course, resources were needed to accomplish these activities. AMI led a proposal team that was awarded a Rural Jobs and Innovation Accelerator grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration and U.S. Department of Agriculture – Rural Development, with matching funds coming from the Kansas Department of Commerce and K-State.

Many partner organizations were engaged with these activities. The results are remarkable: More than 1,800 citizens were engaged in this work, over 1,000 citizen leaders were trained, 674 jobs were created and 431 jobs retained, 194 businesses were assisted, 107 entrepreneurs were engaged, and $25.54 million in private investments were leveraged.

For more information, see www.twsproject17.org.

What’s your platform? No, not the policy statements of the political parties. This is Project 17, which is what has been described as a regional change platform for economic and community development in southeast Kansas. We commend the Advanced Manufacturing Institute and all those involved with Project 17 for making a difference with grass-roots involvement to make their region better. They are helping to hold this platform high.

And there’s more. Beyond the numbers, this program is changing lives for the better, one person at a time. We’ll learn about that next week.

I would like to take this opportunity to write this letter of support for State Rep. Sue Boldra, who is running for re-election for House District 111.

Sue has taught in the Hays public schools, current FHSU professor, former business owner, grandmother, mother of children who are in education and a wife. I have had the opportunity to serve with Mrs. Boldra for two terms in the House of Representatives while serving on two House committees with her. I know the long hours she puts in and the deep devotion she has for all of the 111th District residents.

Sue Boldra is a good listener and puts in extra time to research and study the many issues that comes before the Kansas Legislature. She has a great understanding of how the legislative process works and is a strong and respected voice in Topeka for the 111th District.

Thank you for taking time to vote and for supporting Sue Boldra.

1117th District State Rep. John L. Ewy, Jetmore

I just read the negative mailer sent out by my Democrat opponent attacking me. It saddens me that someone would send these types of mailers based on misinformation and fear.  My campaign will not go down this road, and I will continue to put out my positive message.

I am a common sense, conservative with a solid record of support for Western Kansas. Many of you are familiar with my record in the House of Representatives and remember my weekly information articles, which are provided to all newspapers within my district explaining issues and the process of the legislature. I believe it’s my duty to explain the issues and their importance to Western Kansas and our entire state.

To set the record straight, in 2012, I voted against the Brownback tax cuts, which went too far too fast and led to the State’s credit downgrades and a deficit and shortfall in revenues.

I voted twice to fix the income tax and LLC loopholes the last two sessions. I voted no on the budget last year due to the fact it was not balanced. I voted yes to fix KPERS. KPERS was on the verge of bankruptcy. I did vote no against the block grants for our schools. I even voted twice to override Gov. Brownback’s vetoes. Some of my yes votes were to keep schools open, funds for K-12 and higher education, raises for prison guards, and yes to outlaw dismemberment of the unborn.

Some of these votes were the same as Republicans, some the same as Democrats, and some were signed into law by the Governor. But I consider every vote taken seriously. My rapport with my colleagues in the House is respected and seen as a strong, honest voice for Western Kansas. I am able to work with the different factions within the legislature.

You can rest assured that 100% of the time I will vote for my constituents in Western Kansas.

Please remember when you hear or read these negative ads they do not tell the entire story or may not be telling the true story at all. If you have any questions on my voting record please feel free to contact me by email or telephone and I would be more than happy to discuss the issues with you.

Thank you for taking the time to find out the truth. It would be an honor and pleasure to serve the 40th District.

Thank you and God Bless You.

Richard (Rick) Billinger

Two, three and four decades ago, most farmers took great pride and pleasure in looking across their recently planted fields and seeing green seedlings emerging against a backdrop of black soil. That looked beautiful then. Still does.

Today, some farmers look across their land and see residue cover. That looks beautiful too.

The benefits of residue can far exceed the way the field looks. In case you don’t know, residue cover is developed without tillage across today’s Kansas countryside.

This buildup of soil structure with the remains of crop field stubble and other residue can be a farmer’s best friend. Uniformity is the key to a successful no-till farming system.

When producers think of uniformity, they should think of it every day of the year. When they look at their fields they should see uniformly spread residue, uniform soil conditions and uniform soil moisture.

This same uniformity is something producers must work at continually over the long haul. Members of the Thompson Farm & Ranch in Norton County understand this concept. Richard and sons, Michael, and Brian, represent the fifth and sixth generations to farm in northwestern Kansas.

On their family farming operation, they focus on their most important resource ­– the soil. They know their livelihood is dependent upon it being healthy and productive. They believe their soil not only needs to be conserved, but rejuvenated with best management practices such as rotational grazing, cover crops and no-till.

The Thompsons have been continuously no-tilling since 2000 when they gave up conventional tillage.

“The most difficult time for those beginning no-till occurs during the first three to five years,” Michael says. “That’s when anything and everything that can go wrong, will go wrong. Believe me, I know. We’ve experienced it.”

Producers tend to blame these problems on no-till without realizing it is something in their system.

“That’s why you need a friend or another producer who has been successful at no-till to share his (or her) experience with you,” he says. “You can’t afford to make all the mistakes by yourself.”

The Thompsons understand a producer cannot go back to conventional tillage to level residue. Level residue begins at harvest time with uniform distribution of straw and chaff. If a producer has clumps, piles and bunches of the residue from a crop, the next implement that goes through the field will plug up.

Cover crops have also helped the family reduce the number of chemical applications applied in a season and the need for pesticides.

“The residue of cover crops provides an armor for the soil by buffering the impact of rain and creating a protective layer to reduce weed pressure,” Michael says. “They also create habitat for wildlife, pollinators and beneficial insects.”

So often producers worry about how much rain they receive.

“We like to keep, and use, the moisture where it falls,” Michael says. “That’s where cover crops and residue are critical.”

The use of cover crops has also helped provide their cattle operation with supplemental grazing. The Thompson family uses high-stock density grazing with daily moves. While cattle are grazing cover crops it allows their native range much needed rest and recovery, allowing more grass to be grown on their range acres.

The family continues to add windbreaks, and have begun work on a more permanent water facility for their cattle.

While it’s hard to figure exactly how much extra moisture the Thompsons gain with the use of their no-till program, it may be the equivalent to five extra days of moisture each year.

Regardless, the use of continuous no-till farming makes their system work and causes buildup of the soil structure.

The Thompsons label no-till in conjunction with cover crops a win-win situation. That includes their cropping and livestock operation.

John Schlageck, a Hoxie native, is a leading commentator on agriculture and rural Kansas.

Since being elected to the Kansas Legislature in 2012 Representative Sue Boldra has put funding education a high priority. Sue is uniquely qualified to understand the real needs of education and how legislation can help or hurt teachers and students. She’s able to put her direct experience as a teacher in high school and college classrooms to educate other legislators about realities of the needs of our schools.

We urge you to re-elect (vote) for Sue Boldra on November 8. Review her record on legislation such as HB2326 and SB36. You’ll see she brings her experience to the table for the good of our students.

Mike and Vallerie Karl, Hays

Democrat Eber Phelps wants voters to believe he puts good government ahead of party politics. But the public record proves otherwise.

Phelps has made a career of advancing his party’s pernicious liberal agenda. Take, for example, Phelps’ unrestrained enthusiasm for Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. She proved to be the most rabidly anti-life politician in state history, receiving huge donations not only from infamous late-term abortionist George Tiller, but from out-of-state lobbyists like EMILY’s List and Planned Parenthood, all to ensure the slaughter at Kansas abortion mills would continue. When Sebelius and her cronies in the pharmaceutical industry tried to establish a tax-subsidized human cloning and harvesting industry in Kansas, Eber Phelps gushed about Sebelius in the opinion section of the Hays Daily News, admiring her “vision” and her concern about “giving kids a healthy start in life.” Seriously, Mr. Phelps? Not very healthy for those who’d have been on Sebelius’ macabre chopping block.

And speaking of chopping blocks, what about Phelps’ material support of Kansas’ notorious abortion industry? Recall that he campaigned vigorously to unseat Attorney General Phil Kline, who’d made news investigating Tiller and Planned Parenthood for manifest violations of state law. Phelps supported pro-abortion Republican-turned-Democrat Paul Morrison, even though it was common knowledge that Morrison had been bought and paid for by Tiller. Despite this, Phelps tried convincing Hays Daily News readers that Morrison “never will play favorites or bend the law to suit the persons involved in a controversy.” Phelps’ true colors were downright vivid when he wrote that Morrison “will not pursue a narrow, ideological agenda, as has been occurring in the Kansas attorney general’s office for the past four years, and he will not embarrass us by causing us to be held up to ridicule nationally, as has happened during the tenure of the incumbent.” Why did Kline’s efforts “embarrass” Phelps? Why did Phelps feel that investigating malfeasance, including injuries and deaths of young mothers, falsification of medical records and refusal to report evidence of rape, was a source of “ridicule” for Kansans? And why would Phelps so derisively characterize attempts to stem the bloodshed of abortion as the pursuit of “a narrow, ideological agenda”? The answer is obvious: Eber Phelps has no objection to butchering children.

So, what happened after Phelps helped advance their careers? Morrison, whose integrity Phelps swore was “unquestioned,” resigned in disgrace after his attempts to undermine the state’s abortion investigations came to light. And Sebelius went to Washington and took charge of Obamacare, masterminding a health care travesty and fiscal nightmare that promotes abortion, encourages euthanasia and tramples the civil rights of Catholics, Evangelical Protestants and others who respect human life.

Contrary to the mendacious smear campaign Phelps is waging, Rep. Sue Boldra has broken with Gov. Brownback and the Republican leadership whenever the issues required it. A widely respected professional educator and business owner, she has voted consistently to protect Kansas schools, farmers, businesses, families and the arts. Eber Phelps, on the other hand, repeatedly voted to raise our taxes, drastically cut funding for K-12 education and slash funds for law enforcement. And, ever the obliging party hack, Phelps voted against common sense voter ID laws that would ensure the integrity of our elections.

With the White House now up for grabs, the last thing Kansans need is another liberal in Topeka undermining our state’s efforts to resist the appalling abuses of federal power that a Hillary Clinton administration would bring. On Nov. 8th, I’m voting pro-life, pro-liberty and pro-Kansas: I’m voting for Sue Boldra and for Rick Billinger, as well.

John Francis Borra, Hays

Remember when mom told you she didn’t want you hanging out with “that crowd”?

When you were growing up, “that crowd” might have been the guys with tattoos, or car without mufflers, or for girls it was “that crowd” that wore their skirts too short or wore mascara to junior high school.

Well, we’re in the final week of campaigning for Kansas House and Senate seats and your mailbox is going to be filled with flyers either for or against your local candidates.

Now, of course, if you live down the street from a candidate, you can literally toss out the campaign mailers. You know whether he/she keeps the yard mowed or has obnoxious yard art.

And you know based on seeing the candidate around town and maybe from talking to him/her about taxes or schools or the off-ramp into your town.

Those personal relationships, or maybe just seeing them at the parade or city festival, are the most solid bases on which to cast your vote. But many Kansans couldn’t pick their local senator or representative—and much less a new candidate—out of a group photo of the local Rotary.

So, it is probably time to bring out the reading glasses to see the tiny type at the bottom of those flyers in your mailbox or stuffed in the screen door or which wind up in your e-mail.

Very practically, if that flyer says it was sponsored by the candidate, and his/her campaign treasurer, you know it is the candidate and PR consultants painting the rosiest possible picture of the candidate. That’s direct selling, and you can easily sort out the candidates by what they say about themselves. If they are for issues that you aren’t, well, that makes things pretty simple, doesn’t it?

But it gets different when the flyer or advertisement is sponsored by someone else.

Now, we can figure out that if the Kansas Rifle Association supports a candidate, that candidate is likely going to be OK with the right to have guns. But even 2nd Amendment folks probably need to make a phone call to the candidate or the KRA to see just where guns are OK. Should criminals be able to carry guns? College freshmen carry them to class which is likely after next July 1, or are there little provisions that are important to you?

That might mean a little more investigation if it turns out that your district’s candidates get a gun lobby endorsement.

And everyone’s for good schools, but it is probably worth a call to that political action committee that talks about schools to see just what it is that it is encouraging a legislator to do. Raise taxes, or at least divert money from something else in state government to school districts? Encourage proliferation of private schools by letting students take the money that the state spends on their education to a private school?

Just examples, but “that crowd” becomes something that will take some extra work if you want a legislator to take issues where you want them, regardless of the catchy and friendly name of the group supporting the candidate.

So, in the last week of the campaign, while candidates are making their final round of door-knocking and campaigning anywhere they can find a crowd, voters probably ought to be spending some time doing research on what an endorsement really means—to what you want your legislator to be voting for or against, or amending this way or that.

With the national campaigns pulling the oxygen out of the room this year, the energy level for electing legislators who deal most closely with you and your district and your home is ebbing. So, you might want to doublecheck what crowd you’re hanging with.

Syndicated by Hawver News Company LLC of Topeka; Martin Hawver is publisher of Hawver’s Capitol Report—to learn more about this nonpartisan statewide political news service, visit the website at www.hawvernews.com.

A few weeks ago, I got a rather frantic phone call from an older gentleman I know who had just opened the most recent issue of his NRA magazine “the Rifleman” to find a full page add regarding question #1 on the upcoming Kansas ballot.

Officially known as House Concurrent Resolution 5008, question #1 proposes adding an amendment to the Kansas Constitution protecting our right to hunt, fish and trap. It reads on the ballot exactly as follows:

“The people have the right to hunt, fish and trap, including by the use of traditional methods, subject to reasonable laws and regulations that promote wildlife conservation and management and that preserve the future of hunting and fishing. Public hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. This section shall not be construed to modify any provision of law relating to trespass, property rights or water resources.”

Nineteen states already guarantee these rights in their constitutions and Kansas is one of several more moving that direction. The general thinking is that by guaranteeing these rights with written constitutional amendments, it will become much harder and more expensive for “Anti groups” to cause trouble in those states.
I hadn’t planned to write any more about this before the election, but my friend seemed quite upset and confused about the meaning and need for this proposal, so I decided to address the questions and concerns he had, hoping these answers will help others also.

His first concern was that this proposal was put on the ballot by some “Anti-Group.” No anti-group is directly responsible for the presence of question #1 on the ballot. When this proposal first surfaced in 2015, I questioned the need for it, but in speaking with one of the congressman who sponsored the bill and with a representative of the Kansas Rifle Association, it became clear that they were thinking ahead and being proactive in trying to prevent anti-groups from getting footholds in Kansas. Even though all Kansans already enjoy the right to hunt, fish and trap, (which I see more as privileges instead of rights) having those given to us as “rights” by a written constitutional amendment will be very powerful.

His next concern was whether to vote “yes” or “no.” Evidently the written language of the proposed amendment confused him, but voting yes passes the proposal and it becomes an amendment; voting no fails the proposal and it does not become a constitutional amendment. Please vote “YES.”

His final concern seemed to upset him the most, and that was what happens if it fails? The possibility of this proposed amendment failing here in Kansas is about as slim as me winning the lottery. However, should this proposal fail November 8, NOTHING will change. We will all wake up the next morning with the same hunting, fishing and trapping rights we had when we went to bed. By not having those rights given to us by our state constitution, we won’t have that leverage against anti-group’s shenanigans here in our state we would’ve had with its passage.

There you have my spiel about HCR 5008, otherwise known as question #1 on the upcoming ballot. I first questioned its worth, but after seeing how many other states are passing these sorts of constitutional amendments, I’m onboard. You will find this as the very last question on the back of your ballot. I see no downside to its passage, so please vote YES to question #1 on November 8. This is Steve Gilliland, author of Exploring Kansas Outdoors, and I approve this message!

Steve Gilliland, Inman, can be contacted by email at [email protected].