I am sure quite a few of you have heard of this Illinois whitetail alliance, but I haven't seen anything posted on bowsite about it so above is a link to some of the details of this groups plan to take a stab and getting the DNR's ear and hoping they listen.
To me, the following statement in the article says it all:
“Let’s face it, Illinois deer hunters are an unhappy lot in the wake of a 2013-14 hunting season that saw the deer kill decline by 18 percent. This year’s preliminary kill total of 148,569 for all deer seasons was down 32,242 and marked the eighth straight season of population decline. It was also the lowest gun season total in 23 years and lowest total deer harvest since 1999”.
It is very refreshing to see this alliance formed. Its also great to see that this group is led by some very well respected guys in deer management. It seems all of their points and initiatives are 100% spot on. I cant wait to learn more.
There is zero chance of making everyone agree with EVERY change. Lets all just be happy and proud of these guys for taking the time and initiative to make these positive changes.
In my opinion there is a little greed coming out in this proposal. Some of their points are fine, and similar to what we've been discussing on here. There are others that I truly do not like, and that I also believe are silly or foolish.
Are any of the folks in this Alliance on Bowsite? I wouldn't mind a little education on why they chose some of their options. Maybe they can sway me to their side. I just feel that the composite result of these changes is a bit too drastic, and probably unrealistic in the DNR's eyes. Maybe they are just using several of the items as bargaining tools, per se??
Politics and it's politicians are not going to get anything right! PAST or present! I have gave up on Illinois period! Now I'm 'just along for the ride' .... and it is a "cheap carnival ride" at best! (Although NOT really cheap) ....Welcome Aboard!
And if I'm wrong please by all means, throw it in my face.
harley261 I believe that you boys will have it all thought out well and I believe that some changes will be made. But I also believe that there will be ZERO progress where pockets are being lined. The fish stinks from the head down. That's what you guys are up against.
The DNR will give concessions that will increase herd quantity but not quality. The concessions will be in areas where it does not interfer with the interests of the special interests. Unlimited NR buck tags is big business and once the bullet left that gun there's no putting it back. Too much money and peoples livelihoods at stake, influencing decision making. It's not as simple as doing the right thing, it's political.
I think you should look at yourselves and your neighbors who take far more deer (both legally and illegally).
As a teacher and being familiar with schools and funding, I liken this blame to a school board trying to balance the budget by releasing volunteer cafeteria workers and part-time janitors.
It seems the sports teams are always fully funded because that is what is seen outside the school walls.
Darn those janitors for using up those cleaning supplies!
The unlimited NR permits led to the proliferation of Outfitters and their acquisition of hunting land, the reduction of access and increased pressure on the remaining available resource. It was a domino effect. The herd quality went down the toilet and pockets of overpopulation developed. The DNR then increased the harvest goals to deal with the overpopulation and now we don't have quality or quantity.
No one is blaming the NR hunters. It's the parties involved in raising the number of NR permits that are responsible. That was politically driven and it was all about money.
I agree that anything that is done will be better, as nothing constructive is being done now. But this is not going to get fixed.
Were the hell is all the money that was supposed to be earmarked for land acquisition?
Here is my assessment of the proposal. If anyone involved would like to answer the questions, feel free.
I feel like asking IDNR to implement a moratorium is a slap in the face (which maybe they need one, but that isn't the point). In one breath they are being asked to do a good/better job of management, yet the Alliance proposes taking away one of their tools of management for 5 years. If they are being asked to manage, they should be allowed to manage both positive and negative.
2b) What would be the reasoning for moving any future A/O seasons to September? In my opinion this would be a stupid and short-sighted move. I'm just not sure why most hunters would like this, as I know I would not.
2d) What is the intent of eliminating OTC sales after November 1?
3)I don't believe a one buck statewide limit is needed? What is the goal? If herd quantity is the goal then the 2-buck limit we have now is a non-issue. If increased herd quality is the goal, then make it obvious. I'm not sure a 1-buck limit statewide is the necessary tool for such a quality objective, but this item alone would not cause me to withdraw my support.
5) I would like to know what "willful intent" is, and who is supposed to determine what it is, and what is the rationale for determination?
The temporary moratorium would be on anything that would increase deer harvest. If you're trying to grow the herd, you don't add in high powered rifles in the gun season, or crossbows in the whole archery season. Believe it or not, these are real threats. If we place limits on harvest, we shouldn't have politicians trying to kill more deer. And IDNR does make decisions based on political motivations as well.
Many reasons to move AO seasons. You'd be saving deer that survived EHD that year and could pass those genes on to offspring. You're killing deer before peak DVA's. You're not using hundreds of thousands of leftover gun tags. You're able to control kill better with a dedicated permit. You're taking out deer early, which leaves more food for the rest of the survivors. Probably not going to shoot as many button bucks, and definitely not shooting shed bucks like the LWS. Lee can elaborate, but biologists favor an early AO season.
Intent of eliminating permit sales Nov 1 is to keep people from buying more and more permits as they fill them. Just another tool to eliminate overharvest. You should know by Nov 1 if you're going to hunt. Keeping permits available all season encourages people to fill tags, as they can always buy more OTC.
Goal of one buck limit is to make sure harvest doesn't just shift to bucks. If we take away doe permits, we don't want people filling every buck permit they have if they can't shoot as many does. Want to make sure we try to maintain quality while we're taking it easy on does.
In the full proposal, we give examples of willful intent. Shooting deer out of season, shooting with an illegal weapon, illegal tagging, killing over the limit, and any Lacey act violation would be some examples. Wanted to make sure we didn't turn people into criminals for simple mistakes. You don't accidentally kill a deer with a rifle, or kill over the limit. Bottom line was... as we work to build our deer herd back up, we have to make sure the ones who try to tear it down are held accountable for their actions. This would need hammered out with law enforcement for exact wording, but it's something that needs addressed.
Moving the LWS to before the rut accomplishes a number of good things - as Kevin mentioned it reduces deer numbers prior to peak vehicle strikes rather than after, which after all is the stated goal for the population reduction implemented by the Deer Task Force. With EHD outbreaks becoming more common (3 of last 7 years) it allows does that survive the disease to pass on that resistance to the fawns they are carrying which will make the herd stronger. It is also very easy to pattern does at this time of year and it is very easy to differentiate does from fawns - which is often difficult to do in late January when fawns are much bigger. It also frees up a lot of resources the rest of the herd could be utilizing - why let them utilize four months of food and then shoot them? Think how tough our winter is this year and how much better off the remaining deer would be if those does had been killed much earlier. As Kevin also mentioned it eliminates all shed buck kills -which is not uncommon and should reduce button buck kills, which impacts buck age structure. Earlier in the year will target does without as much "by bycatch" if you will. One thing of note on the antlerless proposal - we are not advocating eliminating the antlerless only season in counties that still need reduction (and there are counties that still are well above goal) we are simply asking to shoot them at a time of year that makes most sense from a biological standpoint.
I don't think I can add anymore to the other questions Kevin addressed.
One other comment on the doe harvest - from many of those that oppose it they tell me it will be too hot. Personally, with season closed for 8 months I will be ready to get in the woods! Besides it isn't too hot 2 weeks later when we are all hanging from trees with bows in our hands ;).
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions guys. Lee, in your professional opinion, do you feel it is necessary to establish and maintain all of the stated proposal items for a period of at least 5 years to get the statewide deer herd to "recover"?
I can appreciate some of the reasoning behind a few of the items, but others I am not sold on yet. Thanks again. Hopefully you can get the state to implement some changes, however personally, I would like to see a couple of these items knocked out.
I will go through the proposed changes in order:
1). Moving LWA to before the rut - this is the most important change in our opinion; hence it being number 1. It will target the does in the counties still needing reduction and not just "antlerless" deer as it is currently called. It will also protect does that survived EHD as many won't catch it until later in the fall - often into archery season. Timing will also focus the harvest on does in these counties and have an impact on the age structure of the buck herd.
2). The one buck limit OR the modified two buck limit (can't shoot a 2nd buck until the day after 1st shotgun) will have a positive impact on the age structure of the buck segment of the herd. The one buck limit will have the most (at least in the shortest amount of time) but the modified will be significant as well. I could care less what a hunter wants to shoot, be it a spike or a big buck, but every single one of us hears year in and year out "I'm, going to shoot the first decent one I see and then hold out for a good one". This is detrimental to the age structure of the herd, year in and year out. A one buck limit (or modified) will still let a hunter shoot any buck they want to, they will just be done once they pull the trigger or drop the string. I know this will make me think twice about letting an arrow go as I enjoy the hunt and my time in the woods more than just the kill. The modified limit would not allow a 2nd buck to be killed before the day following first shotgun season. We all know how hard it is to kill a buck after the first shotgun season, so in effect this will save many bucks while still giving the hunter the option to keep buck hunting - maybe a 1.5 buck limit would sound better. Either way we will see an increase in the overall age structure of the male segment of the herd in just a few years.
3). The non-resident issue - we feel this needs to be addressed as the state has set it in stone through law that non-resident tags cannot be decreased (as they see deer as a cash cow). However, residents can take a hit! Now how fair is that? I don't hate non-residents at all, in fact I am one when I chase elk, mule deer, or even whitetails in others states as I do most every year. However, these states set a reasonable number (and sometimes MUCH more restrictive number) on non-residents than IL does or than we propose. In 2012, Illinois sold 48,740 non-resident tags (bow, gun, muzzleloader, landowner). However, the archery tags were combo permits so in reality that is 16,604 additional non-resident tags for a total of 65,000 non-resident permits! That is significant. We also want to exclude non-residents from buying an "antlerless only" permit without FIRST purchasing a full ES combo permit. Currently, this makes it much too easy for a non-resident to cheat. I have a Conservation Officer friend that checked 11 non-residents in a row this past season and every single one only had an antlerless tag in their pocket during the rut (our does sure do taste good)! We feel non-residents should have to pay for the PRIVILEGE to hunt our state - the permit doesn't guarantee them a deer just a chance at one and there should be a reasonable cap set. The argument is family should be able to come home at Christmas and hunt for cheap. Our argument is to bring back the lifetime license. This would satisfy both.
4). Stiffer penalties for poaching – We feel people willfully trying to undermine the hard work and sacrifice of honest hunters should receive stiffer penalties than they currently do. Money often isn’t much of a deterrent but the loss of one’s hunting privileges hurts! We are talking “Willful Intent” for actually poaching a deer, be it buck or doe. Things like illegal tagging, not checking a deer, using a rifle, etc. etc. We are NOT talking things like someone buying a bag of the flavor of the month attractant at wal-mart that they didn’t realize was illegal (since you can buy it in bulk).
5). The 5 year moratorium would be to allow the proposed changes to take affect - this will not happen overnight. Age structure will take a few years to increase, for example. There are bills introduced on almost a daily basis wanting to add new seasons, extra days, new weapons (slingbows, rifles, full season crossbow), etc. etc. We aren't talking about Ad Rule changes, just additional seasons/days to kill more deer or make it easier to kill more deer.
In a nutshell, it is a package deal. Some I feel more strongly about then others but we feel they are all important changes that will have a positive impact on the whitetail herd.
But I do think that some change can occur. There is a preponderance of dissatisfaction with the DNR's handling of the deer herd. The heat is on they need to do something. I'm expecting mostly smoke and mirrors though.
What we are encouraging people to do is call their representatives and let their voices be heard. Here's a starting point for some calls to make to get our message heard by the people who matter. When you call, simply state that hunters in Illinois are not happy with the management of the Illinois deer herd, and that you support the direction of the Illinois Whitetail Alliance. Tell them you'd like to see the IDNR work with the Alliance on the proposal that was presented to them on Friday, February 21st. If you want, remind them that there are over 250,000 resident Illinois deer hunters, with family members who also vote, and these hunters (voters) should be listened to as a part of the IDNR deer management plan.
Start with Governor Quinn's office. Don't worry, you won't be talking to Gov. Quinn. But call his office at 217-782-6830 and give them your opinion. It's an election year, and the IDNR is in the middle of a couple of other scandals. Last thing Quinn needs is another issue to pop up on that end of town.
Next up is Representative Brandon Phelps. Brandon is the chairman of the Legislative Sportsman's Caucus (LSC) in Illinois, and is the Illinois delegate to the national LSC. Brandon worked hard on the CCW law the last several years, but he needs to know how unhappy IL deer hunters are with the way things are headed. His Springfield office number is 217-782-5131. His home office is in Harrisburg, IL - 618-253-4189. If anything has to be handled through legislation, it'll have to go through him and the LSC members.
Finally, call your own local senator or representative. The more legislators that are hearing about the issues, the better chance we have to get noticed in Springfield. Here's a link where you can type in your address and get the names and numbers for your local legislators. If you would rather send an e-mail, then call their office and ask for the e-mail address. But don't expect a response. Phone calls are still the best, and the more the better.
Let Kevin or I know if you have questions... and THANKS to everyone for getting involved!!!!! Remember, nothing will happen if we simply kick ideas around on message boards. We all HAVE to get involved and strike while the iron is hot or our chance for change will wither on the vine.
Unlike many who sit behind their computers and just bellyache about policy, I would offer my thoughts on the Alliance's five proposals:
1.Reduce the pressure- There are still many counties with excess deer and any doe seasons must be carefully considered as no state-wide season would meet the goals of doe management.
1a.Public meetings are largely a waste of time and just a general gripe session.
1b. I agree that a September doe season in selected counties with higher than goal deer populations could/would kill enough does (with enough hunter support)to allow for elimination of the late season antlerless hunt.
1c.Not sure if a 1 buck and 1 doe limit in LWS counties would work since bow tags are not county specific. Too easy to fudge the county and too hard to track kills. I would support 1 buck and 1 doe statewide, regardless of weapon used.
1d.Sales of OTC tags after November 1. On the fence here. I would support the sale of first tags after this time, but not multiple or duplicate tags.
The answer may well be to just limit hunters to 1 ES (buck) and 1 doe killed each year period. Everybody still gets to hunt in all seasons if they wish.
2.State wide 1 buck limit, all seasons. This could come back to bite us sportsmen. It will improve buck numbers and age structure(although you don't need old bucks to get the does bred). It will increase natural buck mortality. Older, bigger bucks will draw more NR hunters as well as local poachers.
2 buck limit with date or LWS county restrictions: too complicated and too hard to manage.
3a.Limit NR tags to 10% of total deer killed in all seasons(10K bow and 5 K gun). NR hunters only take about 2-3% of the total deer killed. This appears to be just another attack on NR hunters. The current 15,000 bow tags (allowed but not all used) and maybe 10,000 gun tags allocated is a drop in the bucket compared to the half million or more total resident tags sold. Sorry folks, I don't support this attack on NR sportsmen who, like you, are chasing a dream or just spending vacation time with family or friends.
3b.Limit NR to purchase of combo tags before an antlerless tag purchase. I do not support. I can think of a number of reasons why a responsible NR hunter may choose to buy an antlerless tag without benefit of a ES tag. Some folks will abuse the antlerless tag(no more that resident hunters do). The answer is ENFORCEMENT and vigilance on our part and on the part of IDNR. If you put up with someone hunting illegally, you are just as guilty.
3c.$410 tag fees: All combo tags should be the same price. That is awful steep. I believe antlerless only tags should still be available at $25 (along with appropriate stamps)
3d.NR property purchases after legislation: Do away with all free resident and NR landowner tags. These are hugely abused by residents especially.
3e.Pool funds from NR tags to buy land- Pure BS!! Look at how the state used the lottery funds as well as managed (or rather didn't fund) employee pensions. Wonderful idea on paper but I don't trust them to keep the money away from general funds.
3f.Increase resident tags $10. I am willing to pay more for tags if the State enforces abuses.
4. Stricter penalties- By all means enforce what is in place. Spank 'em hard if they willfully break the law.
5. Five year moratorium on administrative changes. Can't see the State and IDNR agreeing to anything that would tie their hands.
Get rid of the free landowner tags. They are severely abused. OR- Make landowners apply annually for the free tags. So many were applied for and issued years ago and are sent each year with no regard to validity. People stop farming, kids grow up and out of the home, folks get divorced. All would make landowner tags illegal but not reported.
Overall, simply reduce the free and multiple tags sold and you will meet your goal.
On the other hand, I have had extensive experience with registered outfitters and their NR hunters and have not observed the kind of doe tag abuse you mention.
That could be because the outfitter has to document every tag and every hunter. I even have to register when I hunt with them as a freebee.
Landowners that lease their ground may need to be further scrutinized. At this time it is legal to lease if you provide no services. That too is abused and hard to catch. Perhaps that loophole needs to be closed and require landowners to have the same requirements as outfitters. I know law enforcement checks the outfitters regularly for compliance, why not check the landowners too.
The expense of paying for outfitter license and insurance will also close the loopholes as fewer guys will lease once they find it is not profitable.
I further think that the leases should be registered within the county or DNR for compliance checks.
The Illinois TIP hotline is a wonderful tool that should be used more often to report violators.
Does he also need permission or approval or pay a fee to grant permission to hunt for free ?
Does he need to pay fees in order to lease his tillable acres to a farmer ?
I think you are crossing the line on this one .
I have been friends with and dealt with outfitters and their NR hunters off and on for about 12 years. In that time, the only violation I have observed has been failure to case a bow in a 4 wheeler. By and large, outfitted NR hunters obey the laws. I can't say that is the fact for guys who lease ground.
Here is a perfect reason why landowners who lease directly to hunters should be held to a higher standard than someone who leases to an outfitter or just allows residents to hunt.
The landowner who leases his farm ground is still liable in cases where the farmer violates EPA restrictions, conservation laws, fence laws or animal welfare laws. He/she is still responsible for what goes on, on their land. He/she must still report crop and livestock production on an annual basis unless he/she turns over all rights to the tenant. Certain restrictions do apply of course.
Therefore it is reasonable to expect them to answer questions, record hunting/hunter data, and fill out forms concerning wildlife conservation practices. A fee and proof of insurance is not unreasonable.
Illinois law waives liability to landowners who allow trespass for hunting or other legal recreational practice as long as he/she does not receive any compensation for trespass.
If he/she is getting money, it is reasonable to hold them to a higher standard.
The hunters are all blue-collar workers who appreciate the opportunity they have. They spend about $1500 for their hunt so they are not rich.
They have the rules and laws outlined for them and they follow them. Respect the law-abiding sportsmen and spank the law breakers-
Grandpa should be setting a good example and place limits on Johnny and Johnny will grow up to be a proper sportsman.
I am all for family adventures and would not advocate charging Johnny $410 for his tags. A $25 doe tag would be wonderful and give Johnny his chance to hunt. This would not be possible under the proposals put forth above.
Johnny does not qualify for free tags as he does not reside on the farm, nor does he likely own the land.
Mr. Harley-What would you do in that situation?
Sounds like the ones that violate the laws are those who are not supervised or held responsible for following the law. Time for some supervision?
1) you think Director Miller is doing great and you support status quo.
2) You think the IWA proposal is all wrong. Organize a group and float your proposal.
3) you can see enough common ground to support the IWA. In this case, make some calls in support. If we can get Miller to have a dialog, maybe your ideas will eventually make it to the table through this group. With enough people (and votes), the politicians will listen eventually. With the mess of a 2013/14 season, this is the time to capitalize.
4) you don't care as long as you can climb a tree and have a chance at a deer
I actually do own and live on a farm in Morgan County that is a little over 100 acres in size. Not a tree on it except the yard. I have seen 1 deer on it in the past 25 years, so I have to depend upon others for my hunting opportunities. Although I hunt each year, I haven't killed a deer in years. I pay my tags and enjoy the opportunity.
If you also question my passion, commitment or character, I would offer that I am a teacher, a volunteer DNR safety instructor, 4-H leader, elder in my church and have taught outdoor education, hunting, trapping, fishing, and shooting classes to kids in my school.
Read my comments Mr. Harley. I support the continuation of the $25 doe tag so Johnny can hunt with grandpa. If he wants to kill a buck I guess he has to pony up the $410. He can't hunt legally any other way. I ask that IWA doesn't take away that opportunity.
I support all LEGAL hunting.
There have been many unsubstantiated accusations against NR hunters, outfitters, and leasees thrown onto this thread. If you have proof, rather than just hatred, or supposition of a crime, you should make a call to the TIP hotline.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
I would welcome the opportunity to be part of the decision making process. Part of that sometimes is offering differing opinions, which I have done in this thread.
I think the IWA should take baby steps first rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater. I feel the proposal is too extreme and far reaching to be accepted in its entirety. I think we will need a new governor and DNR director to help open the door for change. We are not going to bully the DNR to accept any new proposal. They are the ones that have the data and the professionals to decipher it. They can make it say anything they want.
Whitetail deer have an amazing ability to recoup their populations. We had a big deer kill the last two years due to EHD. Some areas were hit harder than others. Some areas still exceed population 'quotas'.
I think it wise to do a better job in determining accurate populations and allocate tags weighted toward higher harvest in areas that need it.
If tags are reduced, I see no need for some hunters to receive 6-10 tags while others are shut out. Spread them around evenly.
Get rid of or clean up the free tags.
These last two will clean up a lot of the abuse and also reduce total harvest, thereby allowing the population to grow.
I would encourage folks to discuss the facts and proposals rather than throw out accusations. There is nothing positive in making allegations that are false, unfounded, or simply made up, just to make a group of hunters('probably those hated NR that took my hunting spot') look bad. Deal with facts, not rumors, lies and innuendos and you'll be in a happier place.
If you have proof of the alleged poaching some of you profess, turn them in. There is no honor is making accusations you are unwilling/unable to back up.
Deer kill has been down the past couple of years from a point where we simply had too many deer statewide. We are still killing a lot of deer folks! I simply don't think it is that bad state-wide. I still see deer regularly along the roads, although not quite as many as the past. I am OK with that. It will get better if we reduce our tags and deer kill by just 10%. Deer are marvelously fertile creatures and will quickly repopulate.
Good luck folks and have a great weekend!
But, hope my post makes sense. That a local person leasing land would be a FOOL to ask a landowner for their landowner tags and/or making it part of their lease (even foolish for an NR to do).
so should you pay a fee to all the landowners that leave land in wildlife habitat while landowners such as yourself farm from ditch to ditch , road to road , leaving no habitat for even a rabbit in order to maximize their farm income ?
Maybe the government should step in and force you to put a percentage of your acres into wildlife habitat ? A fee could be imposed if you dont want wildlife on your farm . Hows that sound to you ?
Not so good ?
Well I dont feel that you or the government have any business being involved in MY decision whether or not to lease my land , whether I am leasing it for hunting , farming , or any other reason .
Landowners need to pay "outfitter fees" ....... give me a break .
Greedy landowners in illinois are NOT the cause of the decline in deer numbers ......... greedy hunters , most of which hunt on someone elses land , who think they need to kill as many deer as possible are the problem . They are mostly trying to show the world that they are as good as the grinning goobers on the deer porn shows .
There are two major differences between what was in the presumed "original" proposal and what Lee posted above. The first is the inclusion of this modified 2 buck limit, and the second is the removal of the Ad Rule changes in the moratorium. These items are major in my opinion. Perhaps if anyone cares to, they can e-mail me a copy of the proposal (shoot me a PM, and I'll send back my e-mail). FYI, trying to lead me to Facebook will not be of any help, as I believe pretty much anything posted on FB is garbage. Is it a 100% rule? No, but I pretty much try to dissociate myself with FB.
Lee, I am not sure why you directed an entire rundown of each item to me? Maybe you meant it for everyone, and didn't need to put my handle in front, or maybe the confusion I mentioned above is the reason. On any account, I only have/had problems with the items I questioned in my post above (ignoring the numbering of course). Depending on the true content of the moratorium, I may have relaxed my stance a bit on the implementation of all of these items for a period of 5 years. However, you didn't really answer the question I asked about all elements being necessary for recovery over that period of time. I did see some politicking in the response though.
Btw, I hope you don't think I'm trying to pick a fight with you or anything. Hopefully, my comments are at least somewhat constructive. As mentioned previously, there were just too many items in the "original" proposal I was not in agreement with, hence I was not a supporter.
For those mentioning to simply pick out the items you like and phone your reps for support: No disrespect, but I can do that without this "alliance" ever existing. The best way to get anything accomplished though, is to get a large backing of a group with a common goal. Small self-interests groups are not going to accomplish much in the political realm, in my opinion, but if you can get backing from people in different walks of life throughout the state, then maybe something can get accomplished. I'd like to see something done, so the "idea" of an "alliance" was a good one, but at least in the beginning to me it had too much the feel of a self-interest group.
harley261, From what I understand, part of your reasoning for wanting elimination of some of the NR tags is because of the law-breaking and abuse of said tags. The proposal already has that covered, since they are proposing stiffer punishment for breaking the law. This law-breaking would be "willful intent" (at least I presume, since someone will have to define specific actions to implement this), so throw the book at them when they break the law. There is no need to double dip.
Here is the link to the full proposal that I promised - it is still linked through Facebook but this will take you straight to the .pdf. As CCHunter says, you can back us or back your own ideas - of course we would like you to back our proposal but regardless, make some calls if you are unhappy! Now is the time for action. All I ask is you keep it clean and positive when you talk to your representatives or when posting on the internet. Remember you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. At the end of the day if we want IDNR to sit down with us and take us seriously we have to keep it clean. Getting ugly will shut them down - I know it would me.
Here is a link to an excellent article that Kevin Chapman recently penned on the states use of Deer Vehicle Accicents (DVA) as the metric by which the herd is managed. While DVA's are a valid metric, Illinois is the ONLY midwestern state to use DVA's as the ONLY metric to make management decisions - all others use multiple metrics such as population modeling utilizing harvest data, EHD data, hunter input, spotlight and aerial surveys, etc. etc. This metric was put in place in 2008 by the Joint Deer Task Force (JDTF) and forces IDNR to manage utilizing this metric.
IF you figured the amount of roadway in Illinois and how many vehicles transverse these daily.....24 hours a day and 365 days a year (millions + and millions of miles annually driven) the deer vs. vehicle is less than .000001 % ..... Not Important!!
Don't let Politics and Insurance Companies push their STUPID agenda and ideas on you!
Allow anyone as many deer tags as he/she wishes in any combo......but after filling only (ONE) tag your season is over.
That would give time for the deer numbers to recover......as well as keeping revenue up.