Oppose Illinois SB-1657 Springfield Armory Illinois gun laws
Heartland Outdoors Forum | Protect our herd...too many seasons
 
   
3 of 4
3
Protect our herd…too many seasons
Posted: 05 January 2017 08:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  89
Joined  2013-03-15
droptine - 04 January 2017 09:01 PM

And another ridiculous thing.. It is illegal (and rightfully so) to feed deer, but yet there are 3 damn aisle of food at Cabelas and Bass Pro… Yes, I know.. its for my “out of state” property or where it is legal…riiiiight.

Well all those sharp shooters have to get all that bait from somewhere!!!!  They must be driving the whole market in IL.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2017 11:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  33
Joined  2014-12-10

The baiting is for pen raised deer.  People raise deer as pets and sell them to places for hunts.  People who can not afford to lease or buy like to go to these places to get trophy antlers.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2017 05:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  71
Joined  2012-01-23
buckbull - 04 January 2017 08:23 AM

RTT - I’m trying to understand your argument for check stations.  Are you saying guys are buying and using the tags but not calling them in?  Reusing tags?  Or something else?

BB, I’m sure there is a certain number of people that do take advantage of the system, and reuse the tags, and there is also a large element that just feels its no big deal, and don’t even bother calling them in after behind closed doors. You see BB the DNR closed the check stations, and for many hunters that was the only contact they had with the DNR on a regular basis, so when the DNR closed the check station it created a feeling amongst many hunters that there were plenty of deer, and the state didn’t need anymore information. This is what has been perceived by many a hunter BB, and many landowners as well, not good.

What I’m saying is the check station kept the honest guys honest, and presented a face of the DNR in the field with the sportsmen/women, and that interaction no matter how small was important to many. With all the BS over the last several years taking place within the DNR might not be a bad idea for a little PR work to take place upon their part( DNR), and I doubt that the interaction would not be helpful in some manner.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2017 05:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  71
Joined  2012-01-23
bw - 04 January 2017 08:57 AM

“Look once again it does not matter what you, or I, or anyone else thinks, but rather what is actually happening. Look there are many hunters out there that feel they have purchased a tag, so they have paid their due to the state, so what does it matter if they report it, hell they (DNR) stop having check statins, so all should be good. That is the mind set your deal with people, and to ignore it is just not right.” -RTT

Who’s ignoring it?  Read the last sentence in my last post.  And understand that the two biggest problems we have is over harvest (partially because of too many tags), and EHD.  So take away a substantial amount of tags.  Now suddenly these people you speak of don’t have as many tags to abuse.  And we still won’t need check stations.

Also, IDNR can get all the CWD samples they can possibly want….straight from the meat lockers.  No check station required.


BW, please tell me this, what do the check stations hurt ?? What would it hurt to have a little interaction ??  What I feel everyone is ignoring is the very fact that it is becoming part of some hunters culture now, and that is what concerns me. What’s next ?? If we are going to manage the wild life, then lets get to the business of managing it, and that may mean some people might have to be a little inconvenienced once in awhile. Suck it up buttercup.

RTT

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2017 10:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  122
Joined  2010-11-05

I’ll play devil’s advocate here.  Does it really matter if folks are calling in their deer kills if IDNR doesn’t use that information to manage the herd? Deer Vehicle Accidents are the only thing they use to manage the herd, according to their press releases.  Maybe thats why IDNR gave up on check stations; they ignore the data anyway since they use DVA’s to manage the herd.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 January 2017 10:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  106
Joined  2010-10-08

Here we go with the check stations again. LOL.  grin  That was what - like 7 or 8 years ago?  I miss them too but I agree with the change.  Probably one of the biggest downsides to the in-person check stations was all the data entry that was required.  Even if it was provided for free by volunteers, it was inefficient and error prone. Now the DNR, like other states, has shortcutted that to allow hunters to provide that information directly to the system over the phone (still highly prone to errors, mind you). But like was said previously, I don’t think the DNR really cares about addressing the accuracy of that info. . . there are going to be errors regardless. 

We live in an era of fast data. Immediate. Now. I’m actually surprised a state DNR agency hasn’t created a cell phone app to record deer harvests where hunters can upload a cell phone photo of their deer kill to the app and it automatically records sex and size information based on facial recognition algorithms.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 January 2017 10:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  89
Joined  2013-03-15

BW, please tell me this, what do the check stations hurt ?? What would it hurt to have a little interaction ??  What I feel everyone is ignoring is the very fact that it is becoming part of some hunters culture now, and that is what concerns me. What’s next ?? If we are going to manage the wild life, then lets get to the business of managing it, and that may mean some people might have to be a little inconvenienced once in awhile. Suck it up buttercup.

RTT

BB pretty well summed it up in his last response.

But Ill also point out that it actually DOES hurt the DNR budget.  Something that is in dire straits right now as it is.

Even though those check stations were manned by college kids, there are still costs involved.  Other paid staffing, data entry, data analysis, food, fuel, etc.  They can’t even afford to pay our CPO staff.  And anyone with common sense would choose to keep them over check stations.

I also already told you I could take or leave the check stations.  And I specifically said that I’d get over my own personal inconvenience if they were brought back.  So you can keep you pet names.

But let me ask you a question…..its two part.

Part one-  What states in the Midwest are perceived to have the healthiest and most envied deer herds?  And what states are producing the most top end bucks for the record books?

Part two-  Which of the states on that list have physical check stations?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 January 2017 03:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  33
Joined  2014-12-10

Going back to a check in station would be worse.  Many people that live in rural areas will not drive 45 min or more to check in a deer and they will just butcher it themselves.  The rural folks will call it in though.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 January 2017 07:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  71
Joined  2012-01-23

BW, I have to say I really don’t know the answer to either of your questions. I just don’t say up on what many of the other states are doing, and yes that is my own fault, and yes maybe I should pay more attention to what is going on around me in other states.

So many feel that any information gathered in the past, and currently as well is bogus if I’m reading things right ?? That would encompass check station of the past, and the current call in requirements. If that is the case then I would agree that if the DNR is unable to gather information in any manner, then why have reporting requirements at all ?? I don’t think the check station became a problem until the DNR had budget problems, and then what problems the check station presented were then brought forth full throttle in order to help push the agenda of closing them. In a nut shell the DNR has been raped & pillaged so much over the last two decades, that we may never return to the days of old when we had a good number of professional wildlife people in place with many years of experience under their belt. Yes I know we still have a few, but nothing like we had, and people the political hacks flushed down the toilet is unreal.

My thoughts on what could be done. Two deer a year limit no matter what means of legal harvest we already have. Make the gun season longer, and let a hunter have a chance to practice selective harvest. Many here speak of it, but the reason we purchase a tag in the first place is to harvest a deer, and like it or not many hunters are just happy to harvest a deer with only 7 days to hunt in the regular gun season. Give them a chance to harvest deer over a period of time, and you might just be surprised how many people choose to wait for a more mature deer. Asking a gun hunter to wait for something more mature with the limited number of days afield is a joke, and the reason the term ” If it’s brown it’s down ” come about. Limit the number of deer, and give the hunter more days afield, and you will get what you want in the end.

RTT

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 January 2017 09:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  11
Joined  2011-02-27

RTT…Unfortunately the checks stations are probably a thing of the past. I don’t agree. It just kept the people a little honest. I hunted Shawnee National Forest for the past forty yrs. Ten plus yrs ago there were shots all over and now very few but the DNR stills claims the county is killing the same amount as last year. No way. So either the DNR is getting bad info or don’t know how to use it. Use your own imagination. I would love to go to a 2 deer limit but it won’t happen. The DNR would lose too much money for lost permit sales. Just my opinion.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 January 2017 10:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  71
Joined  2012-01-23

Deer1, I know deep down the check stations are done for, and to never return, but I can’t believe they were as bad as they were made out to be, and your right they at least they kept the honest guy honest.

As a kid I never thought I would see the day when you could go out and not kill a rabbit all day hunting. I’m sad to say I have lived to see it, and I just hope I’m gone before it becomes the same with the deer. We have certain species of game in this state that are almost no existent to the levels they once were, and to say they have all been managed well would be a dam lie.  I knew back in the late 80’s that the deer at some point would go the way of the rabbit, just a matter of time, and the direction things were headed one could tell that if we had 20 good years of deer in Illinois we would be lucky. It held out a little longer than that, so I feel we were lucky to have it as long as we did. Now so many different groups a chiming in on how to manage the resource, and there always seems like there is someone in the DNR willing to compromise with one of these groups, and give them what they wish for, and all at the expense of the resource most of the time.

I’m not saying all these groups are bad, and yes there are some that do their best to put the resource first, but many get caught up in the act of hunting lots of time, and lose sight of the real meaning behind hunting, and what purpose it serves for our resources. I don’t have all the answers to all the problems our wildlife resources face, and I know its going to take someone a whole lot smarter than me to figure it all out, but if we place the resource first in all the management decisions concerning them, then I think in the long run we would find us, and our wildlife in a far better place.

RTT

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 January 2017 02:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  89
Joined  2013-03-15

RTT, the answer to the question is that NEARLY NO STATES have physical check stations.  A couple still do, BUT they are voluntary.  And they still offer online or phone in check.  Massachusetts still has mandatory physical check stations.  And there might be a couple more in the country, but none jump to mind at the moment.

But realize that I don’t think anyone here is saying check stations were BAD.  They just weren’t necessary.

I do however agree that our DNR has been raped.  It’s a crying shame.  And it will likely never get better.

I also would love to see some changes made to our season dates.  Make the general firearm season one day longer and push it back a week.  Have it run the Saturday after Thanksgiving through the following Sunday.  Have a week of muzzle loader only starting the first Saturday in January.  And let everyone use a bow through all days of hunting.  Even cross bows are fine with me.

You can only kill one buck from 10/1 - 12/31.  You have to kill your second buck in the new calendar year.

And while we are at it.  Make residents only eligible for 2 firearm tags total.  And put a cap on NonResident archery tags….5,000 should be plenty.  And another 5k of NR Firearm tags.

Fire everyone that’s currently in charge of managing our deer herd.  Even the one or two good ones.  And hire truly qualified professionals.

Do all this.  And things will get better.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 January 2017 10:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  11
Joined  2011-02-27

RTT..BW..I loved your comments. It really got me thinking. I remember in the 60’s with the government acres and farmers having wide fence rows (pheasants and rabbits everywhere). All gone. Seeing the deer herd grow and where it is now. Unfortunately seeing hunters attitudes change from happy to get one to shoot them all. The DNR once being one of the best in the nation to no common sense and money comes first before the wildlife. It’s a total shame.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 January 2017 05:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  71
Joined  2012-01-23

BW, I like your idea as for the tags, but think it should be two deer no matter the season period. Nobody needs more than two deer a year per person, and anymore is just greed in my opinion. Like I said let the seasons run longer, and give the people a chance to be selective, and chance to deal with what mother nature tosses us. I see no problem with a two week gun season, or maybe even longer. The bow season is fine like it is, but the gun season could include modern firearms, and muzzleloader, no need to split them up.

I don’t really know who many non-resident tags we are sell these days, but if numbers continue to drop off like many think, then that will take care of itself at some point. Nobody is going to pay big money to look at an empty corn field, at least not for long. The problem I have is there are now certain people in this state that depend upon those non- residents to help pay the bills, and if a person owns the property, and manages it correctly, and puts in all the effort and work, then whom the hell I’m I to tell him he can’t be an outfitter? Now I do think we should restrict state sites to Illinois residents only. You want to be a non-resident hunter for whitetail deer, then your more than glad to use one of our many different outfitter we already have in place. This would create more opportunity for our residents, and also help support the outfitter we have. We could then restrict the permit flow into the outfitters, and issue permits according to the management plan the outfitter submits to the DNR. That plan would be reviewed, and permits allocated based upon the management goals agreed upon by landowner & DNR. Makes this a requirement to receiving an outfitters license. I do think some states have something like this already in place, but I not for sure what states. If not what I described then something similar, or along these lines. Any thoughts ??

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 January 2017 06:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  122
Joined  2010-11-05

You asked for thoughts so here it goes…

Ringtailtrapper - 10 January 2017 05:20 PM

BW, I like your idea as for the tags, but think it should be two deer no matter the season period. Nobody needs more than two deer a year per person, and anymore is just greed in my opinion.

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.

Ringtailtrapper - 10 January 2017 05:20 PM

I don’t really know who many non-resident tags we are sell these days, but if numbers continue to drop off like many think, then that will take care of itself at some point. Nobody is going to pay big money to look at an empty corn field, at least not for long. The problem I have is there are now certain people in this state that depend upon those non- residents to help pay the bills, and if a person owns the property, and manages it correctly, and puts in all the effort and work, then whom the hell I’m I to tell him he can’t be an outfitter? Now I do think we should restrict state sites to Illinois residents only. You want to be a non-resident hunter for whitetail deer, then your more than glad to use one of our many different outfitter we already have in place. This would create more opportunity for our residents, and also help support the outfitter we have. We could then restrict the permit flow into the outfitters, and issue permits according to the management plan the outfitter submits to the DNR. That plan would be reviewed, and permits allocated based upon the management goals agreed upon by landowner & DNR. Makes this a requirement to receiving an outfitters license. I do think some states have something like this already in place, but I not for sure what states. If not what I described then something similar, or along these lines. Any thoughts ??

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.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 4
3