Giant Goose Ranch
Heartland Outdoors Forum | Protect our herd...too many seasons
 
   
4 of 4
4
Protect our herd…too many seasons
Posted: 10 January 2017 10:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  89
Joined  2013-03-15
buckbull - 10 January 2017 06:12 PM

I realize many think IL should not even allow non-residents to hunt or restrict where they hunt.  I enjoy hunting out west as much as possible.  All my hunts are do it yourself on public land (mostly BLM and USFS).  The ability to hunt these great lands just because I’m a US citizen is truly a treasure.  All states out west offer non-residents the chance to hunt their great states; and these states certainly have less opportunity.  Many residents there have to go draw in the lottery same as non residents.  Should IL deny non-residents the opportunity to hunt; these states would most certainly create reciprocal laws denying non residents.  These non residents bring lots of money into the state with license fees, gas, motels, outfitters, processing plants, etc.  and certainly a good thing for the folks dependent on these expenditures.

I totally agree with your first paragraph.

And I certainly don’t think we should ban NR hunters altogether. But there should absolutely be some restrictions on how many are allowed to hunt here on a given year.  Just like any good western unit, you shouldn’t be able to buy a tag on a whim.  If you’ve been out west then you already know that it takes multiple years to get a tag in the best areas.

It takes 3 years to draw a NR archery tag in Iowa.  Why should IL be any different?

They don’t set a sky high cap on tags in the best areas out west.  So high they don’t even sell them all.  Because they know it would ruin the hunting.  Just like we have done here in many areas where over harvest has played a role.

IL had a cap on NR permits back in the 90s.  And they sold them out every year.  So they raised it .....and raised it…..and raised it…..until they finally stopped selling all of them.  Nothing less than pimping out our resources and making our deer herd the whore.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 January 2017 10:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  126
Joined  2010-11-05

Don’t confuse my support for non resident hunting with how DNR is handling NR tag opportunities.  Overall, there are too many tags being issues, resident or nonresident.  Most western states that have high NR demand limit the total quotas to up to 10%.  Some units may not even issue NR tags.  Well aware of the financial and time burden it takes to draw good tags out west. Starting to wonder if its even worth it with all the point creep going on.  I hunted elk unit 35 in wyoming in 2010 on 2 preference points with the “special” tag.  It now requires 6 preference points in the “special” draw.  Start talking about sheep or moose; some tags take 150 years to draw.  Thats not a typo.  Once my points are done; I think I may just do OTC opportunities in Colorado and maybe Idaho if they ever get the wolf issue taken care of.  Of course, if the GOP is successful in selling the public land out west (which is their mandate) then I guess my days going west will be over.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 January 2017 11:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  89
Joined  2013-03-15

We are on the same page then BB.

And I feel your pain on point creep.  The WY antelope unit I want to hunt was attainable with 1.5 points on the special draw just a few years ago (one of us had an extra point).  Now its approaching 4.  So it’s a great privilege to hunt high end areas.  I think it should go back to being that way for NRs to hunt IL as well.

That alone would have a tremendous impact on a lot of people.  Some good and some bad.  But one of the good would be the lower demand for hunting land.  That would greatly benefit local hunters.  But it would negatively impact local land sellers.  I could certainly live with that.  Because I’m definitely a buyer rather than a seller.  I can’t afford to own anything the way prices are right now.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 January 2017 04:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  8
Joined  2014-11-15

Just a casual deer hunter (hard core duck hunter)

But if the DNR starts restricting tags, and I think they should, you better start with a two deer limit.  They tell the casual gun hunter they can’t have a tag while allowing the bowhunters unlimited tags is going to make the pool of people who care about the deer herd even smaller and easier to ignore.

Personally, I think it is VERY greedy that there are guys taking 10 deer a year when the herd is declining.  I know most claim they donate any extra meat, but I also know human nature and I am willing to bet a lot of those extra deer go to waste.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 January 2017 04:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  71
Joined  2012-01-23

BB, I would agree with you 100%, but like you said the DNR is ignoring certain facts, so if your going to have a DNR that refuses to manage the resource, then maybe a two deer limit is not out of order .

As to the non resident issue, Non-n resident hunters out west are restricted in many ways, and as far as denying anyone I never made mention of denying anyone. Are you saying that non resident hunters in other states are never restricted in any manner ?? I think you better look into that a little more before you make a blanket statement like that. My I advise looking into game laws of these other states, and look at the details in whole, because you will find in several cases non residents are restricted, or in some cases flat out denied to hunt some species. 


RTT

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 January 2017 06:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  13
Joined  2011-02-27

Two questions. Any of the changes that have been brought up would be a big improvement. Just be fair across the board. What do we have to do to get the DNR to listen?  Question 2..Unfortunately what’s the percentage of hunters who don’t care?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 January 2017 06:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  126
Joined  2010-11-05
Ringtailtrapper - 11 January 2017 04:52 PM

BB, I would agree with you 100%, but like you said the DNR is ignoring certain facts, so if your going to have a DNR that refuses to manage the resource, then maybe a two deer limit is not out of order .

As to the non resident issue, Non-n resident hunters out west are restricted in many ways, and as far as denying anyone I never made mention of denying anyone. Are you saying that non resident hunters in other states are never restricted in any manner ?? I think you better look into that a little more before you make a blanket statement like that. My I advise looking into game laws of these other states, and look at the details in whole, because you will find in several cases non residents are restricted, or in some cases flat out denied to hunt some species. 


RTT

As someone who applies in multiple states out west for elk, mule deer, and antelope; I’m well aware of the restrictions in place for non resident permits.  I’m not sure how you came to this conclusion after reading my reply to you and the back and forth between myself and BW concerning point creep and access to tags out west.

Requiring non residents to hunt via an outfitter is a big restriction that you mention.  Not many folks can afford a $4500 3 day gun hunt for whitetails (that’s what the SOB next door to me gets).

I’m all for restricting NR permits.  Actually, I’m for restricting all permits in order to get back to the JDTF agreed upon objectives.

I think we all agree the deer herd needs help but opinions differ on how to get there. 

Looking forward to Turkey season.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2017 09:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  45
Joined  2010-10-17
buckbull - 10 January 2017 06:12 PM

I think the deer herd needs managed based on their population objectives.  By limiting individuals to 2 permits you are really just managing hunters and may or may not make a difference on the health of the deer herd.  If the IDNR would have stuck to the agreed upon plan developed by the Joint Deer Task Force for Deer Population the deer herd would be in a much better position.  Deer permit numbers (firearm and shotgun) should be determined by county population and county goals.  If the county is running under the population objective, provide fewer permits.  If the county is running high on deer population, issue more permits.  In cases where the population is under objective, perhaps a person only gets 1 permit for the year.  High density areas, a person my get 5 or 7.  Managing the herd with just DVA data is a freaking joke.  I guess its cheap for the IDNR to use it since it comes from IDOT.  But it is what it is.

buckbull, you are spot on with your comments.  We can’t continue to manage with “statewide” limits across all counties when we have very different management issues from one to another.  Some counties can support hunters taking 2 bucks and unlimited does… since they have that today and are still overpopulated.  Other counties may need a 1 buck/1 doe limit across all weapons… and maybe fewer gun permits on top of that.  It’s ridiculous to see counties below their population goal for 5-10 years while our DNR does nothing (cutting unsold permits) to move it the other direction.

Until we get a DNR who cares and will listen to hunters… good luck.  Been beating our heads against the wall with these kinds of issues for years.  If you’re lucky (as a hunting group), you might get one meeting a year with IDNR.  Most of the time all they want to do is portray hunters/hunting groups as the enemy and make us look bad… since we don’t agree with their archaic management practices.  Can’t tell you how many times IWA has been “written off” before we even get to a meeting… after IDNR has already convinced others that we’re a bunch of greedy trophy hunters who want the maximum deer population in every county.  Nice way to “work together.”  Other times, IDNR blocks hunting groups from even addressing their governing advisory board… outside of a 3-5 minute “public comment session” at the end of their meetings… in which we’re not allowed to even have a dialogue.

Got a buddy who just took a job with Michigan DNR who says the difference between our states’ DNR’s are night and day.  MI seeks out public involvement and they make natural resources a priority.  All we get in IL is the political brush-off.  IDNR may ACT like they want our input, but then hide survey results and pretty much do what they want to do anyway.

Perfect example was the NR antlerless-only permit that everyone knew was being abused.  Vast majority of IL residents wanted it stopped… DNR law enforcement wanted it stopped… so IDNR stopped it in 2015.  First year they stop the cheap AO permit, the $400+ NR combo permits increased for the first time in years (more revenue to IL).  Then they reversed their decision less than a year later and offered the AO permit again, but at a higher price ($100).  Still cheaper than the $400+ permit.  Net revenue impact to IDNR will be negative this year again, even though they raised the price.  Can’t run things that way.

But then… our legislature just elected the same house/senate leaders in Springfield again yesterday (i.e. - Speaker Madigan)... so why would we expect things to ever change as long as we keep putting the same people in power over and over and over?

Sorry… rant over…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2017 10:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  126
Joined  2010-11-05

I just noticed my mistake in Kevin’s reply.  I said “(firearm and shotgun)” but meant “(firearm and archery)”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2017 04:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  137
Joined  2010-10-06

I have pretty much accepted the DNR is not about managing any of our resources, but more how to exploit them, whether it is political or just plain poor management, it is what it is.  However I was impressed by an article in Outdoor news on a retiring superintendent at Jim Edgar on how he implemented what many private places do as far as dove hunting, ie. actually rest a field so as not to burn in out in two days, wow I wonder how he got away with that.  I knew a superintendent at a large state park by me and I remember him telling me his orders from the uppers where to get ten more hunters per field for the up and coming season.  He said those uppers need to come down here and see what a joke it is already with hunters at 20-25 yds apart.  He finally had enough and took early retirement.  Like everything said above its about more hunters, more permits and less resources, there is no regard as to the effects of heavy hunting pressure.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 January 2017 09:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  89
Joined  2013-03-15
BIGPOND - 12 January 2017 04:17 PM

I have pretty much accepted the DNR is not about managing any of our resources, but more how to exploit them, whether it is political or just plain poor management, it is what it is.  However I was impressed by an article in Outdoor news on a retiring superintendent at Jim Edgar on how he implemented what many private places do as far as dove hunting, ie. actually rest a field so as not to burn in out in two days, wow I wonder how he got away with that.  I knew a superintendent at a large state park by me and I remember him telling me his orders from the uppers where to get ten more hunters per field for the up and coming season.  He said those uppers need to come down here and see what a joke it is already with hunters at 20-25 yds apart.  He finally had enough and took early retirement.  Like everything said above its about more hunters, more permits and less resources, there is no regard as to the effects of heavy hunting pressure.

For whatever reason, site superintendents are either brainwashed or directed to manage most sites based on OPPORTUNITY and not QUALITY.

I found the same situation on some public ground I hunted.  It was probably the best piece of property I’d ever set foot on. And had the legitimate chance to see world class deer.  And when the DNR took over management of the place, it was basically ruined within 2-3years.

When it first opened, I talked a couple times with the Super about how he intended to regulate pressure on the property.  And he basically told me exactly what I just said.  He was going to make it a free for all.  And that’s what he did.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 January 2017 01:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  137
Joined  2010-10-06

BW, I think all the old timer site supers are long gone, most took their retirement and where happy to get out.  Seems like the new supers never came up through the ranks, may have gotten there because somebody knew somebody who knew somebody.  They more than likely are responsible for several sites, and unlike the old timers who took pride in managing their site, these guys do whatever their told and probably have no idea on how it use to be run.  Perfect example is Woodford and Marshal.  It all started years ago by extending shooting hours on the river till 1:00, and yes the ducks adjusted to that pressure, but then in recent years they needed to add more blinds ie. more hunters and more pressure, and yes the ducks adjusted,  then its lets put blinds close to the refuge and that just about sealed the fate.  What use to be the states gem in duck hunting has become a highly crowded area as to were the ducks leave the private clubs in the morning, they just don’t come back like they use too, and what use to be huge raft of ducks in the refuge is a thing of the past, to which the site super has no clue - first of what what your talking about and even less as to why. Sort of the same with the deer management.  Its just a matter of time before they hammer the turkeys.

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 4
4