Monday night bass tournaments
Heartland Outdoors Forum | ‘The answers lie within the facts’
 
   
2 of 3
2
‘The answers lie within the facts’
Posted: 27 December 2014 10:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  73
Joined  2012-01-23

My main point here is that thousands of does have been saved this year from the blatant over kill of our IL deerherd


Lynn, you know as well as anyone that we will have to see if this trend continues, and not just base it off one year results. I hope you are correct, and we do see a change, for the power to control this whole thing is in the hands of the hunter. You hold the bow, gun, and have the power to harvest, or let walk, and I feel many hunters do try to manage the resource properly upon the properties they hunt.
Lynn, you will never get 100% compliance with what the IWA has proposed, or membership either as far as that goes, but the IWA can help pave the way for hunters to help managed the resource themselves, and to help create a culture of sound management practices for years to come. That Lynn is a worthy goal no matter what the membership numbers are…...........RTT

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 December 2014 10:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  23
Joined  2013-12-11

Just heard of a guy who killed two does friday in an area he was persuaded not to by surrounding neighbors because of low numbers. I hope we don’t get a late surge of desperate tag fillers . Goodsoil- Don’t you think it would be a better message to the dnr to show your public support of the IWA by being a member? To me numbers matter when presenting a case.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 December 2014 11:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  843
Joined  2010-10-15

In all honesty if numbers really matter when presenting a case as you say then I think they could just do like the DNR and fudge the numbers a little bit.  They could double their membership overnight.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 December 2014 12:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  73
Joined  2012-01-23

Just heard of a guy who killed two does friday in an area he was persuaded not to by surrounding neighbors because of low numbers.


And right there is the living proof that you will never get complete compliance. If you want a two deer a year limit, then you better darn well do it via the legislature, or your just wasting your time…..............RTT

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 December 2014 01:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  843
Joined  2010-10-15

A guy I work with told us last night that his buddy called him and asked if he wanted a deer.  He had just given him one the week before!  Said this was the 8th doe he’s killed this year! 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 December 2014 06:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2013-12-19

Goodsoil- Don’t you think it would be a better message to the dnr to show your public support of the IWA by being a member? To me numbers matter when presenting a case.

Nope.  TO YOU, numbers matter when presenting a case.  TO THE CURRENT DNR, they couldn’t care less if the IWA has 1,000 members or 10,000 members.  They fully understand the proposals set forth by the IWA and the SCIENCE behind them.  The problem is that the DNR does not have the best interest of the deer herd, or the deer hunters in mind and no amount of negative feedback will change their minds.  There is 0 hope for things to change for the better under the current leadership of the DNR.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 December 2014 08:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  5
Joined  2014-03-17

Riverrat, I apologize if you felt you were singled out. As I’ve said numerous times, when any of us 4 Board members (who are admins of the page), delete something, it’s nothing personal and only to assure that conversations are kept clean and on track.

I’m curious to learn more about the “strong arm tactics” that were implemented?

Jeff

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 December 2014 09:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  73
Joined  2012-01-23

RTT, I apologize if you felt you were singled out. As I’ve said numerous times, when any of us 4 Board members (who are admins of the page), delete something, it’s nothing personal and only to assure that conversations are kept clean and on track.

I’m curious to learn more about the “strong arm tactics” that were implemented?

Jeff

 

Jeff, are you speaking of this topic upon this thread ??? I don’t think I ever said anything about any strong arm tactics upon this thread, or any other for that matter. I did say the power at hand would have a say, and that a certain person of the IWA did chime in on some trapping issues a couple of times upon another thread. Is that what your talking about ?? I have never insulted anyone, or called anyone a name like many have upon this site, and I may disagree with few people, but they have every right to their opinion as I do mine. That is what makes this country great Jeff, and lots of times some of us may disagree on how to go about things, but most of the time we all are shooting for the same target. You know what opinions are like, and we all have one.  LOL ........RTT

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 December 2014 09:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  5
Joined  2014-03-17
Ringtailtrapper - 28 December 2014 09:02 PM

RTT, I apologize if you felt you were singled out. As I’ve said numerous times, when any of us 4 Board members (who are admins of the page), delete something, it’s nothing personal and only to assure that conversations are kept clean and on track.

I’m curious to learn more about the “strong arm tactics” that were implemented?

Jeff

 

Jeff, are you speaking of this topic upon this thread ??? I don’t think I ever said anything about any strong arm tactics upon this thread, or any other for that matter. I did say the power at hand would have a say, and that a certain person of the IWA did chime in on some trapping issues a couple of times upon another thread. Is that what your talking about ?? I have never insulted anyone, or called anyone a name like many have upon this site, and I may disagree with few people, but they have every right to their opinion as I do mine. That is what makes this country great Jeff, and lots of times some of us may disagree on how to go about things, but most of the time we all are shooting for the same target. You know what opinions are like, and we all have one.  LOL ........RTT

RTT, I apologize. I was referring to comments from Riverrat. Sorry about that but I do agree with you. It is only when things get out of hand and headed in the wrong direction that the admin’s step in.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 December 2014 10:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  56
Joined  2013-11-30

Goodsoil - numbers may not matter too this admin. However to the new admin. Coming in it very well may . The iwa is too easy to sign up for there is no reason not too . I look at it like im giving my permission for them to use my name for a petition signing on an issue i agree with. Numbers do matter to people that care and hopefully thats what we get from gov. Rauner . If half the deer hunters in the state would sign up i guarantee they would listen . It all starts with one guy and him telling his friends and so on . I sure hope we can all come together before its too late. Hell we beat quinn and the chicago dems why cant we win this ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 December 2014 11:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  60
Joined  2010-10-14


Mike…. I know full well that 100% restraint is the last thing that is needed.
100% compliance has not been asked for & like I said not need.
” not just base it off one year results” ???
Be carefull there, you are starting to sound like our current IDNR. Make a change, wait a few years to see what happens!......?????
Heck Mike if enough voluntary restraint happens this year, in conjunction with the 20 counties coming out of the LWS…. heck enough does may get saved that ‘voluntary restraint is not need as much next year ?????
Maybe it isn’t enough???  maybe we need more changes &/or better ones ????
We will have to see what all happens in the next month, beg our IDNR for the sex ratio break down from the gunseasons this year, see what the DVA #‘s say for 2014, talk to our new director & his people, talk to deerhunters across the state, ect, ect .........
Right now RTT we have absolutely no idea if gunhunters killed as many does as last year OR 10,000 less OR 10,000 more ??????
That is because our IDNR no longer gives that top secret info out till June, when the annual report is posted.
WHY ???????
It is kind of sad that our current IDNR, does not think that the public needs to know, how many does are taken during the one season that over half our annual harvest, comes from !
Don’t worry we are getting ready to ask & hopefully my friend doesn’t have to file another FOIA, to get data all deerhunters, should all be given at the end of every season !!!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 December 2014 11:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  73
Joined  2012-01-23

Jeff, thank you for clearing that up, thought I had done something nasty, and not realized it…  LOL


Matt, I understand what your saying, and to tell the truth on certain issues you would be correct when it comes to numbers of members. That is not the case so much with most wildlife issues. one must first take on and education program, yes you need to educate the legislator upon what you hope to achieve, and why, and spell it out for them. Give them the numbers in a manner they have something in hand to make an educated decision. Most of the legislators have no idea about your issue, but if you bring proof to the table , and have sold numbers that are backed by sound science, then it makes your battle less of a job.

I have seen certain individuals come on here , and say they were not planning to try to do this via legislation, well that is fine but still talking, and educating your legislators will also help in the other process as well. The legislators that would back you position could help put pressure upon the agency, and the administration if needed. Call it getting all your ducks in a row Matt before making a push. I would say if things are done correctly membership numbers will not have much bearing upon the outcome of this issue, but having the right information, and educating your legislators before hand could make all the difference…............RTT

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2014 12:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  843
Joined  2010-10-15

Newbie

Total Posts:  5
Joined 2014-03-17
Riverrat, I apologize if you felt you were singled out. As I’ve said numerous times, when any of us 4 Board members (who are admins of the page), delete something, it’s nothing personal and only to assure that conversations are kept clean and on track.
I’m curious to learn more about the “strong arm tactics” that were implemented?
Jeff

Yea me too!  Spill the beans

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2014 12:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  73
Joined  2012-01-23

Lynn said,

Be carefull there, you are starting to sound like our current IDNR. Make a change, wait a few years to see what happens!......?????


Now Lynn when have you ever known a trapper to wait for anything…. LOL

look all I am saying is take what you have and build upon it. Use the numbers you have to move forward with it now, and lay the ground work. Yes everything you have just said is exactly what I have said before. Yes your going to have to see what happens after the new governor takes office, and whom will be, or will not be in the DNR, and yes you may have to wait for more numbers to come in if you just try to make these changes via ad rules, and not the legislative route. You know that whoever is in wildlife at the time will want more numbers, or studies, just the nature of the beast Lynn, heck you, and me and several others have had to deal with that animal over the years, and under many different administrations. You know the game Lynn , and so does Kevin, and many others.

The roll the IWA should take on now is as educator, upon many levels. educate the legislators, the hunters themselves, and may even mean those that chose not to be members of the IWA. The IWA could create a culture almost like that within the fishing community of catch and release., call it let them walk, or let them grow. Yes please send me the check for the royalties off the tee shirt sales for that little marketing nugget. LOL…........RTT


Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2014 09:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  47
Joined  2010-10-17

RTT, I think there’s a difference between “educating legislators” and “changing things through legislation.”  Nobody ever said that we were ONLY suggesting ad rule changes and not doing anything with legislators.  IWA is definitely talking to legislators and educating them on the issues.  I have a complete breakdown of every piece of administrative rule and statute that would need changed if parts of the IWA proposal were implemented.  You don’t WANT every piece of deer management tied down by legislation.  That’s what gets us in trouble… it gets written into statute and then it’s very hard to change later when different management strategies are needed.  The Wildlife Code is meant to be a framework that IDNR should operate within.  I, for one, don’t want lawmakers to have that much influence on deer management on a year to year basis.

For example… certain groups lobbied the lawmakers to get higher limits on NR permits.  They wrote it into law that IDNR HAS to issue a certain number of permits to NR’s.  Now that we’re looking at cutting the number permits to reduce the deer harvest… NR’s CAN’T be limited because that number is set into law.  Now that part will be very hard to overturn… when NR’s should be sharing just as much of the management responsibility as resident hunters.  Most of the changes we’re talking about need to be made by the management professionals within IDNR, as these pieces of the proposal talk about harvest limits and season dates that already exist within the statutory framework.

One thing that we were told by legislators, early in the process, was that we needed to meet with IDNR and talk about our proposal.  Well, we did that, and the deer biologists still refuse to believe there’s anything at all wrong with the IL deer herd.  They’re still making quotes in newspapers around the state that the low harvest is ONLY due to bad weather and not low deer numbers.  So now we’ll go back to the same legislators and let them know that the people they represent are being ignored… and show them the IDNR’s own data to prove our points.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2
 
‹‹ What should I have done?      Orange Clothing ››