Illinois Whitetail Disaster

What's the hunt looking like this year in your area? Share!
MZS
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 8:20 am
Location: Northern Wisconsin

Re: Illinois Whitetail Disaster

Postby MZS » Thu Feb 13, 2014 5:45 pm

No amount of "education" will be of much benefit when that cougar gobbles up your small child. And no amount of education will help when all that is left of your dog that was tied up behind your house is an empty leash and some wolf tracks. Cougars attack humans. Wolves prey on dogs. These are well documented. And both species will carve up your deer population quite well.

Black bears can wreck a deer herd as well, as well as plenty of backyard garbage cans.

Better keep an eye on these guys!!

User avatar
Deebz
 
Posts: 963
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 8:25 am
Location: Illinois

Re: Illinois Whitetail Disaster

Postby Deebz » Thu Feb 13, 2014 11:30 pm

http://www.dnr.illinois.gov/news/Pages/ ... 14-15.aspx

Looks like somebody is actually paying attention here.

The IL DNR is changing it's goals of reducing the deer herd to either maintaining or increasing the herd for something like 41 counties according to this ILDNR press release.

There is a link to a survey as to whether or not IL should stop selling leftover firearm permits over the counter unless you are under 16 yrs old...

I'm all for increasing deer herds in my area...kind of hitting home that I might not have the option for that bonus tag. However, after killing a total of ZERO deer this year and eating 2 bow tags and 3 gun tags, I'm thinking not being able to buy extra tags isn't really a big deal...
"When a hunter is in a tree stand with high moral values and with the proper hunting ethics and richer for the experience, that hunter is 20 feet closer to God." ~Fred Bear

msbadger
 
Posts: 2374
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 3:59 am

Re: Illinois Whitetail Disaster

Postby msbadger » Fri Feb 14, 2014 9:14 am

This thread has been a great read with many fine points. Shamans contention of poaching having a significant impact ,I believe is spot on. In NYS I know that through enough complaints the DEC has been upping their game with successful sting operations down state. Though even if check stations were to return there are so many private hunting lands and bigger camps with hunters knowing how to butcher, I feel they would make a very slight impact on it.
We do have bear and they have been protected with no shooting one from a group(in the southern zone) no baiting, a fall season, no hounds. Well this is what it has resulted, a New 5 yr plan where in they discuss possible baiting ,hounds,early gun seasons in the Catskills open season across the state, no more yearling cub protection and spring hunts
They have protected the bobcats and now are opening hunting for those in areas where it wasn't allowed.
They have yet to address the coyote problem and in my opinion should have a year round season instead of Oct1 to March 31. Our turkeys and grouse are on the decline,yet feral cats are protected. We are experiencing a feral hog problem that they had originally allowed a shoot on sight policy...but amended to report only, for fear of scattering them far and wide. Now the DEC has helicopters out searching for them with snipers...but they can only shoot with owners permission...NYS Timber is a huge commodity, any land owner that timbers knows what a bullet to a veneer log does to his bottom line...I know I would not say sure go ahead and shoot up my timber chasing hogs with guns from the air, We won't even delve into cost. Now how in the world they think that won't scatter them far and wide is truly beyond me, This is not Texas type terrain.
To the idea that mountain lions are not in the North/ East states...take a look at the map of expansion in the National geographic article

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/12/cougars/chadwick-text

State, all state conservation dept. need to up their game a bit in regards to not waiting until something HAS to be done to reverse a problem...be it over or under populations of any species. Putting in 5-10 years plans does not address things like predation,weather,or breeding ie...As you know I manage our place and keep very close tabs on what is happening...with the increase in food...both my plantings...and new neighboring ag operations(2yrs), complimented by low snow and (until this winter) mild winters...we have had a large increase in fawns and survivals...but in this increase due to a healthy herd it has been buck fawns that are being born over doe. When the number of doe tags are continuing to increase as well as the number of ppl planting crops just for deer,with a state increasing areas of AR...What happens when a healthy herd translates to more buck and far fewer doe then mother nature hits you with disease or a winter kill and the state hits the herd with large doe kills..I do not believe any agency can adequately mange more than 2 years ahead in any state.
Romans 14:10
Romans 14:13
James 4:11
Luke 6:37

User avatar
Big Horse
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: Illinois Whitetail Disaster

Postby Big Horse » Fri Feb 14, 2014 2:09 pm

I got that e message today too Deebz, Took the survey and wrote them a letter with some of my thoughts...


Today I participated in another DNR survey, and while I appreciate that you are seeking input from the people, there was no place to comment on why I answered the way I did, so I find myself writing this explanation. In regards to eliminating over the counter purchasing of deer firearms permits, I voted that I strongly disagree. I disagreed because I don’t see a correlation between the convenience/ inconvenience of purchasing permits and the issuance of the proper amount of permits. If the amount of permits made available is appropriate for the desired harvest needs to sustain the herd whether they are available through a lottery system or available over the counter makes no difference. Personally, I like the convenience of over the counter. And, if the appropriate amount of permits issued has not been reached it allows for those who forgot to apply in the lottery, a common mistake, a later chance at obtaining a permit.

And while I’m commenting, I’ll take the time to address a few other subjects. I also took the time to read the prior survey results you have posted on the website. And I agree that taking larger amounts of does is not compatible with increasing populations. Killing unlimited does, antler restrictions, and earn a buck programs are the result of Quality Deer Management programs. A management practice geared at trophy bucks. The Q stands for quality, not quantity. And while maintaining the healthiest herd that we can, should be the goal, raising trophy bucks should not be the primary objective of wildlife management. Maintaining maximum sustainable yields should be. While QDM is fine for individual management of private properties, it is not an appropriate herd management practice for governing bodies. Regulating or legislating for trophies is as misconceived as emotional based regulations such as protecting white deer. A management program protecting a gene deficient animal in the population is counterproductive, has no scientific basis, and is void of logical management concern.

Further, while the survey indicated majorities were against using sharpshooters for CWD control in your hypothetical, “IF scientist concluded”, your survey results took the time to make special note “that there is no scientific evidence to date that any state has been successful in controlling CWD while using hunting programs as the only management tool.”

First, I would suggest you restrain your questions to what is in evidence rather than what is not. The use of hypotheticals indicates there’s a lack of evidence concluding that sharpshooters are not the most effective means of controlling CWD. Misleading questions based on hypotheticals skew the results and give the appearance of an agenda. While those against sharpshooting were a clear majority I suspect those against might have been even higher had fact based questions rather than leading questions been asked.

Secondly, has there ever been a single proven case of a deer dying from CWD? All the research I’ve read on CWD starts conclusions with lines like, “In the absence of empirical data, such effects have been forecast using models…”. Is creating rules, regulations and laws based on likely outcomes resulting from data comparison of hypothetical variables really good wildlife management practice?

Perhaps it is this absence of evidence that helps bring people to find the use of sharpshooters objectionable. That combined with the fact that the only way to positively identify CWD is by testing the deer, in the case of sharpshooters, a deer that has been killed. I haven’t seen the DNR publish the numbers, but I suspect the number of deer killed by sharpshooters that tests negative for CWD out ways the deer killed by sharpshooters that tests positive for CWD. If those suspicions are validated, then aren’t sharpshooters serving to eradicate the population, as much if not more than they are in controlling disease?

Ultimately, while there are necessary limitations, I want to see the deer herd managed to thrive at its maximum sustainable population. And while disease control is a concern, we must regulate ourselves to evidence based management practices.
Live to Hunt, Hunt to Live.

User avatar
Woods Walker
 
Posts: 4933
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:21 am
Location: Northern Illinois

Re: Illinois Whitetail Disaster

Postby Woods Walker » Fri Feb 14, 2014 4:10 pm

I vote for Big Horse to be the new head of the Illinios DNR!!!

Of course, he'd never get it. He makes too much SENSE........(not to mention not having a "Chinaman"!!!)

***Those who know Illinois politics will know exactly what I mean!!!***

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinaman_(politics)
Hunt Hard,

Kill Swiftly,

Waste Nothing,

Offer No Apologies.....

>>>--------------------------------->
NRA Endowment Life Member

stevenjackson
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 11:17 am

Re: Illinois Whitetail Disaster

Postby stevenjackson » Sat Feb 15, 2014 4:01 am

Woods Walker wrote:http://www.heartlandoutdoors.com/guest_blog/story/the_illinois_whitetail_disaster/

Interesting read....not good.....
thanks for sharing that

User avatar
rthomas4
 
Posts: 644
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:07 pm
Location: Hampton, SC

Re: Illinois Whitetail Disaster

Postby rthomas4 » Sun Feb 16, 2014 12:37 pm

The only check in stations in SC are on WMA lands; but the majority of deer hunting in the state is done on private property, and there isn't an accurate method used by the DNR to record the number of deer killed in the state. They depend on the licensed game processors and the QDMA enrolled properties for their numbers. I've never, ever reported any deer I've killed in any manner, other than what I've killed on a private plantation that's a QDMA property, and I've never gotten one of the surveys the SC DNR claims they send out to 97% of the licensed hunters in the state.

Our DNR denies the existence of cougars/panthers in the state, yet I've seen them along with hundreds of other people just here in my county. Also, just recently the state DNR admitted that every county in the state, with the exception of one has verifiable populations of black bears, yet bear hunting is restricted to one game zone in the mountain region of the state. BTW the one county that they claim hasn't verified any bears, is 20 miles from me and I contend that they just haven't confirmed the bear's existence since every other county has been confirmed.

Our DNR claims that coyote predation, along with a major influx of hogs has caused a decline in deer numbers; yet the one study conducted was done on a Federal impound known as the Savannah River Site, which is a nuclear weapons production facility and dumping ground for the entire East Coast. There are limited deer and turkey hunts on SRS, but no predator hunting is allowed, so in my opinion the numbers are skewed and don't reflect the entire state. However, DNR at the request of non resident hunters and the upper state hunters want to institute a restriction on the number of bucks we can kill, and also eventually eliminate our antlerless tags and days in an effort to restrict the deer kill numbers while supposedly leading to future antler restrictions. This is something that has been fought at every level by local resident hunters when DNR has bothered to hold meetings for discussion. Thankfully, in SC our legislature is the only body that can make changes to the hunting regulations based on DNR and public input. So far our grass roots organization of resident hunters has been successful in getting the legislature to side with us and against the out of state pressure and the DNR, which would not only place those limits, but also outlaw hound hunting for deer in the low country and coastal game zones where it's our traditional method of deer hunting.

BTW, we can place the blame on the state DNR for the introduction of coyotes and red wolves along with the illegal importation of coyotes by upstate fox pen operators, in the first place. This was done without public knowledge and at the request and with the financial support of the automobile insurance companies as a means of curtailing deer numbers in order to cut down on vehicle collisions with deer in the state. Now while the incidence of deer collisions hasn't declined, DNR wants to change our hunting based on that one survey that shows the results of coyote predation on deer withing a single limited access area. At least we don't have a closed season on 'yotes, hogs, or beaver, and can hunt them 24/7-365.
NRA LM, NAHC LM, Buckmasters LM, The Second Amendment Foundation, GOA, NAGR, Palmetto Gun Rights, QDMA, DU, NWTF, ASAdisabled sportsmens' alliance, EDH, and Proud SC redneck REBEL for life.

User avatar
Big Horse
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: Illinois Whitetail Disaster

Postby Big Horse » Mon Mar 10, 2014 3:19 pm

Well I'll be damned. I received a reply on my comments to the DNR.

Mr. Fox:

Although you didn't need a reply, I felt it appropriate to respond to at least a portion of your note to our agency.
Thank you for taking the time to share your observations and concerns; and my apologies for having taken so long to get back to you. You will find my comments in blue, below.

If you should have any other deer-related questions, comments or concerns, don't hesitate to drop me an email at any time.

Tom


Tom Micetich

Deer Project Manager
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
700 S. 10th Street
Havana, IL 62644
ofc - 309/543-3316 ext 231
fax - 309/543-6914

Primary area of interest: General information.

Question/comment: Today I participated in another DNR survey, and while I appreciate that you are seeking input from the people, there was no place to comment on why I answered the way I did, so I find myself writing this explanation. In regards to eliminating over the counter purchasing of deer firearms permits, I voted that I strongly disagree. I disagreed because I don’t see a correlation between the convenience/ inconvenience of purchasing permits and the issuance of the proper amount of permits. If the amount of permits made available is appropriate for the desired harvest needs to sustain the herd whether they are available through a lottery system or available over the counter makes no difference. Personally, I like the convenience of over the counter. And, if the appropriate amount of permits issued has not been reached it allows for those who forgot to apply in the lottery, a common mistake, a later chance at obtaining a permit. You are correct. Quotas for firearm/muzzleloader permits remain in place, are reviewed and adjusted as needed annually. The convenience, especially to those seeking additional permits once their lottery-assigned permits have been filled, cannot be argued.

And while I’m commenting, I’ll take the time to address a few other subjects. I also took the time to read the prior survey results you have posted on the website. And I agree that taking larger amounts of does is not compatible with increasing populations. Killing unlimited does, antler restrictions, and earn a buck programs are the result of Quality Deer Management programs. A management practice geared at trophy bucks. The Q stands for quality, not quantity. And while maintaining the healthiest herd that we can, should be the goal, raising trophy bucks should not be the primary objective of wildlife management. Trophy buck management is not our priority (nor is it the priority of the QDMA), but trophy animals are a by-product of sound management practices. Maintaining maximum sustainable yields should be. MSY is not our priority, either. Illinois citizens complained of too many deer in 2007, resulting in the establishment of the Legislative Deer Population Control Task Force (deer task force). We are working to keep deer at what is termed a "cultural carrying capacity" or tolerance level. While QDM is fine for individual management of private properties, it is not an appropriate herd management practice for governing bodies. Regulating or legislating for trophies is as misconceived as emotional based regulations such as protecting white deer. A management program protecting a gene deficient animal in the population is counterproductive, has no scientific basis, and is void of logical management concern. QDM has been applied to limited state-owned/managed properties over the years, as well. There has been little evidence, however, that those antler point restrictions had any impact on increasing abundance of older age class animals on those properties. You are correct, it may best be carried out on private land. However, QDM is not just about trophies as it includes consideration for adequate antlerless (doe) harvest. That is sometimes missed in a review of QDMA literature; and by QDM practitioners on properties under their management.

Further, while the survey indicated majorities were against using sharpshooters for CWD control in your hypothetical, “IF scientist concluded”, your survey results took the time to make special note “that there is no scientific evidence to date that any state has been successful in controlling CWD while using hunting programs as the only management tool.” First, I would suggest you restrain your questions to what is in evidence rather than what is not. Science has shown that hunters alone will not adequately reduce deer numbers in CWD management zones. It has been proven repeatedly (everywhere it has been attempted) that hunters will not take numbers low enough to have any impact on this disease. Only Illinois, using post-season, intensive culling in areas known to have the disease, has shown no increase in disease prevalence over the past 10 years while the disease has increased in all other states. I have attached the most recent scientific evaluation of our program for your information/use. In it you will find a comparison to Wisconsin which conducted a program similar to ours until 2007. At that time, they abandoned their sharpshooting due to political pressure -- and have experienced prevalence rate increases annually since. The use of hypotheticals indicates there’s a lack of evidence concluding that sharpshooters are not the most effective means of controlling CWD. The use of the word "hypothetical" was to avoid any argument to the contrary while asking the question. IF it was shown to be effective, would it make any difference in the way you feel about sharpshooting? For hunters where CWD exists, the answer was "no." They are opposed to sharpshooting because it is directly impacting their hunting (bad for them). However, it is keeping prevalence rates low, reducing the rate of spread to surrounding counties and downstate (good for the herd) -- but that doesn't matter to a high percentage of CWD-county hunters. Misleading questions based on hypotheticals skew the results and give the appearance of an agenda. While those against sharpshooting were a clear majority I suspect those against might have been even higher had fact based questions rather than leading questions been asked. Those against "in the majority" were from areas where the disease exists. Hunters residing outside current CWD counties, and downstate, were in favor of doing anything/everything possible to keep the disease from spreading to their locales. Secondly, has there ever been a single proven case of a deer dying from CWD? It is difficult to find a dead deer in the wild that has not been ravaged by predators/scavengers. Sick, dying deer tend to succumb to predation, or even road-killed, before any disease actually kills them. Pneumonia tends to kill a high percentage of CWD-infected animals in research pens. All the research I’ve read on CWD starts conclusions with lines like, “In the absence of empirical data, such effects have been forecast using models…”. Is creating rules, regulations and laws based on likely outcomes resulting from data comparison of hypothetical variables really good wildlife management practice? Early on, there was much speculation. Today we know far more than we did in 2002. Perhaps it is this absence of evidence that helps bring people to find the use of sharpshooters objectionable. That combined with the fact that the only way to positively identify CWD is by testing the deer, in the case of sharpshooters, a deer that has been killed. I haven’t seen the DNR publish the numbers, but I suspect the number of deer killed by sharpshooters that tests negative for CWD out ways the deer killed by sharpshooters that tests positive for CWD. Yes, more deer are negative than positive, even among sharpshot animals. That is to be expected when the prevalence is around 1%, overall. Sharpshooters are more likely to kill a positive than hunters, because we are working only where the disease exists. If those suspicions are validated, then aren’t sharpshooters serving to eradicate the population, as much if not more than they are in controlling disease? Ultimately, while there are necessary limitations, I want to see the deer herd managed to thrive at its maximum sustainable population. Illinois' citizens were upset about high numbers of deer and let their elected officials know it. The deer task force mandated herd reduction to the extent that deer-vehicle accidents were reduced by 14% compared to the 2003 level. And while disease control is a concern, we must regulate ourselves to evidence based management practices. Exactly! If Illinois' CWD management had not been proven effective in dealing with the disease, we would have discontinued it years ago. Other states now look to Illinois' management methodology as the best management practice for CWD when it shows up within their borders.



Tom
Live to Hunt, Hunt to Live.

User avatar
Woods Walker
 
Posts: 4933
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:21 am
Location: Northern Illinois

Re: Illinois Whitetail Disaster

Postby Woods Walker » Mon Mar 10, 2014 9:17 pm

HOLY MOLY! There's actually a wildlife PROFESSIONAL at the Illinois DNR!!!

Maybe there is some hope.........I hope.
Hunt Hard,

Kill Swiftly,

Waste Nothing,

Offer No Apologies.....

>>>--------------------------------->
NRA Endowment Life Member

User avatar
Deebz
 
Posts: 963
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 8:25 am
Location: Illinois

Re: Illinois Whitetail Disaster

Postby Deebz » Mon Mar 10, 2014 9:21 pm

Interesting... Kind of cool that you got a response. The guy comes off a bit snarky though...

I'm curious to know what avenue the Illinois Citizens used to complain about the high deer numbers in 2007. I LOVED the deer numbers in 2007... This still reeks of political pressure from the insurance lobby...
"When a hunter is in a tree stand with high moral values and with the proper hunting ethics and richer for the experience, that hunter is 20 feet closer to God." ~Fred Bear

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 12 guests