Bowsite.com on Facebook
  • Deerbuilder Food Plot Website
  • Trail Cam Photos
  • Bowsite.com Elk Section
  • Mathews Solocam
Summit Treestands Mathews Solocam Carbon Express Arrows Moultrie Game Cameras Sitka Gear LaCrosee Footwear 3RiversArchery
Whitetail Deer Section Elk Section Black, Brown, & Polar Bear Section Moose Section Mule Deer Section Sheep Section Bowfishing Section Mountain Goat Section Pronghorn Section Mountain Lion Section Wild Turkey Section Caribou Section Hogs & Exotics Section Small Game Forum Africa Section Food Plots on DeerBuilder.com Bowhunting / Archery Equipment

Illinois Whitetail Alliance


Main/Big Game Conferences
forum rules Registration
PRINTABLE VERSION

EMAIL TO A FRIEND




Messages posted to thread:
CCHunter 22-Feb-14
connectthedots 22-Feb-14
Bentstick81 22-Feb-14
harley261 23-Feb-14
Bentstick81 23-Feb-14
petedrummond 23-Feb-14
HeadHunter 23-Feb-14
harley261 23-Feb-14
Lynn W 23-Feb-14
bo hntr9 23-Feb-14
voodoochile 23-Feb-14
BowMad23 24-Feb-14
Bentstick81 24-Feb-14
HeadHunter 24-Feb-14
harley261 24-Feb-14
Buckfever 24-Feb-14
harley261 24-Feb-14
Buckfever 24-Feb-14
harley261 24-Feb-14
LLBUX 25-Feb-14
connectthedots 25-Feb-14
Buckfever 25-Feb-14
Lee 28-Feb-14
Lee 28-Feb-14
harley261 28-Feb-14
BowMad23 28-Feb-14
starbux 01-Mar-14
KC 01-Mar-14
Bentstick81 01-Mar-14
Lee 01-Mar-14
connectthedots 02-Mar-14
BowMad23 03-Mar-14
Lee 03-Mar-14
voodoochile 03-Mar-14
CCHunter 03-Mar-14
Buckfever 03-Mar-14
SouthernILbowhunter 04-Mar-14
IL.BowHunter 04-Mar-14
connectthedots 04-Mar-14
Bentstick81 04-Mar-14
Lee 04-Mar-14
connectthedots 04-Mar-14
Bentstick81 04-Mar-14
Lee 04-Mar-14
LLBUX 05-Mar-14
harley261 05-Mar-14
LLBUX 05-Mar-14
voodoochile 05-Mar-14
harley261 05-Mar-14
harley261 05-Mar-14
LLBUX 06-Mar-14
harley261 06-Mar-14
LLBUX 06-Mar-14
DeerBanger 06-Mar-14
voodoochile 06-Mar-14
harley261 06-Mar-14
harley261 06-Mar-14
starbux 07-Mar-14
LLBUX 07-Mar-14
bo hntr9 07-Mar-14
harley261 07-Mar-14
LLBUX 07-Mar-14
harley261 07-Mar-14
DeerBanger 07-Mar-14
harley261 07-Mar-14
voodoochile 07-Mar-14
BowMad23 07-Mar-14
Lee 08-Mar-14
starbux 08-Mar-14
CCHunter 09-Mar-14
CCHunter 09-Mar-14
Lee 09-Mar-14
Lee 09-Mar-14
HeadHunter 10-Mar-14
Lee 10-Mar-14
petedrummond 10-Mar-14
Brew 21-Mar-14
Brew 21-Mar-14
HeadHunter 24-Mar-14
IL.BowHunter 25-Mar-14
Brew 04-Apr-14










From: CCHunter ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 22-Feb-14


http://www.heartlandoutdoors.com/scattershooting/story/illinois_whitetail_alliance_update/

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.

From: connectthedots ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 22-Feb-14


AGREED. Haven't had a chance to check out the website but will. I'll back them up 100%. Just looked in our local Daily News and the big announcement of the future of deer hunting in Illinois as far as numbers go. I guess my county ( Crawford ) still has too many deer. That is according to the results of their 2 year review. Who does the DNR think they are kidding? Anyone remember Shelton's phrase of Carrying Capacity? What a bunch of B.S. All we are worrying about are pleasing everyone but the hunters in the state right now. I wish them luck and all I can say is " It's About Time" an alliance is put together to be a voice in the deer management process.

From: Bentstick81 ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 22-Feb-14


I wish them luck, but we just don't have much to work with in the DNR. If Shelton & Miller would do the right thing, and step down, because they can't handle their job, that would be GREAT for the State of Illinois, and the Whitetail Alliance. Hopefully we will get some good news.

From: harley261 ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 23-Feb-14


Bentstick, This alliance isnt just a group of deer hunters that are working together. There are lobbiest, reps, and a former dnr directer involved heavily also.

From: Bentstick81 ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 23-Feb-14


I understand that, harley261. Its getting the DNR to actually do their part. That is what i was getting at in my last post.

From: petedrummond ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 23-Feb-14


Their agenda is pretty direct including single buck and doe tags, no over the counter, and other very specific issues. They are led by former IDNR director Brett Manning.

From: HeadHunter ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 23-Feb-14


Ohhh boy ....... what a leader! (not)

From: harley261 ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 23-Feb-14


headhunter, i had the same thought But hes trying and has alot of support. And you are right bentstick. we have major issues with our dnr currently. thats why this is going to take a team effort. I encourage everyone to join the facebook page and stay informed on the plans this group is taking.

From: Lynn W ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 23-Feb-14


Brent is NOT, nor is he trying to be, the leader of this group. He has just stepped up to VOLUNTEER his time, to help to try be part of the solution !!!

From: bo hntr9 ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 23-Feb-14


I would support a one buck, one dow limit. The herd in southeast Illinois is in need of much reduced hunter pressure. This is really under hunter control if we take responsibility for our actions.

From: voodoochile ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 23-Feb-14


whatever changes you are hoping for better be for 2015 because you can bet yer arse that decisions for 2014 have already been made . Even if the dnr wont admit it.

From: BowMad23 ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 24-Feb-14


Although I have been a big proponent of changes in whitetail deer management for our state, at this point I'm not sure I can support their cause. I liken their approach to a lowball offer on real estate from a potential buyer to a seller. Yes, the seller may negotiate or bargain with the potential buyer, but there's also a very good chance that he tells the potential buyer to go pound sand.

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??

From: Bentstick81 ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 24-Feb-14


Manning is one person i don't really trust. I'm pretty sure that him and Shelton were pretty much buds, tears past. I wish Tim Walmsley was in Mannings place. Tim would be a better leader. I will try and keep an open mind about this. Interesting to see how long this will drag out before we get some answers, good or bad. I kinda agree with voodoochile, i see the DNR dragging this out so they won't have to make decisions, before this hunting season, that will make them lose money. I guess time will tell.

From: HeadHunter ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 24-Feb-14


I've been around too long! Way to long. I've seen the growth of The Illinois Deer Herd and it's High Point and unfortunately it's Down SLIDE.......DNR and it's "managers" (present & PAST) are a big reason for the Down SLIDE. In fact it was 'him' that changed The Department of Conservation (name) to The DNR. (BIG MISTAKE)= Lands, Mines & Minerals, etc. = Dept. of Natural Resources . Since that and his appointment The Illinois Deer Herd has suffered.

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!

From: harley261 ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 24-Feb-14


ya know... manning is with us and manning knows the politics and has connections. its good that hes on our side very good. I just hope he stays that way. Bowmad, while i am not one of the founders of the alliance, i am pretty active in their cause and speak to several on a regular basis. Lynn is in the same boat i believe and very up to date on their cause. If none of them are here maybe we can help you understand their rational.

From: Buckfever ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 24-Feb-14


To increase the herd is hardly a challenge. To bring back the buck quality, without rolling back the # of NR permits is not going to happen. The problem is that there's too much money involved for the special interests that have been catered to and that is not going to be touched. There will be half measures and idle talk and little of substance.

And if I'm wrong please by all means, throw it in my face.

From: harley261 ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 24-Feb-14


rolling back NR permits is part of the proposal. Also taking away their ability to buy a doe tag until they first purchase a buck tag. This will have a huge effect on NR hunters in this state because they will have to pay to play and not just come here and group hunt or use the landowners buck tags after they first purchase a buck tag.

From: Buckfever ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 24-Feb-14


"rolling back NR permits is part of the proposal. Also taking away their ability to buy a doe tag until they first purchase a buck tag. This will have a huge effect on NR hunters in this state because they will have to pay to play and not just come here and group hunt or use the landowners buck tags after they first purchase a buck tag."

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.

From: harley261 ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 24-Feb-14


Its not really you boys, i had nothing to do wish writing the proposal. But these ideas are very good in my opinion. It was well thought out with input from some people who are very bright when it comes to whitetails and management. I do agree with you that their major issues will be when they butt heads with big special interest groups. Special interest controls this deer herd but we do have some things that may help. Many of these changes have been adopted in other states with good success. With places like IN and KY taking alot of the nr pressure now, the outfitters are going to have problems getting NRs who wanna pay 3gs for a deer herd thats shot to hell in a few years.

From: LLBUX ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 25-Feb-14


You folks can't be serious in blaming NR hunters for the decline in herd numbers. How many bucks do you think they take each year? They are only here for a week on average. Out of 15,000 or so bowhunters, maybe 3,000-5,000 bucks are killed.

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!

From: connectthedots ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 25-Feb-14


Fact of the matter is that no matter what the IWA can accomplish it's got to be more than what we currently have. Which by the way is nothing. There has been a need for an organized voice in this state's deer hunting world for too long. There are so many ways to improve. We might gain something and we might not. Either way, at least for the first time we have representation from hunters and not insurance companies and head bobbing political figureheads. It's been about everyone else too long. It's time the land owners and sportsmen have a voice. I'm 100% sure that the DNR knows exactly what they are doing but are acting from orders above to generate more money. They have to know, unless the short bus picks them up and drops them off everyday. More than anything......I'd just like to see the appointed ones do their jobs. Serious, get offs your butts and come to my house and show me this surplus herd that needs to be reduced. Challenge that won't be accepted because there is no observations anymore, it's all from the office in a world of pretense. If there is anything that WE can do to support the IWA we ALL need to support them. Let's get our herd back to a balance that pleases everyone not just the few. BTW.... Has everyone received their insurance rebate for overpaid premiums? I think the state must have gotten mine by mistake.LOL

From: Buckfever ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 25-Feb-14


"You folks can't be serious in blaming NR hunters for the decline in herd numbers. How many bucks do you think they take each year? They are only here for a week on average. Out of 15,000 or so bowhunters, maybe 3,000-5,000 bucks are killed."

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?

From: Lee ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 28-Feb-14


Guys, I am part of the alliance and have been a member of Bowsite since the mid-90s. I would be more than happy to answer any questions about the proposal. The entire .pdf proposal is on our Facebook page and discusses our reasoning for each proposal in much more detail than the article referenced at the beginning of this thread did.

Thanks,

Lee

From: Lee ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 28-Feb-14


Lee's Supporting Link

Here is a link to the documents page on Facebook.

Thanks,

Lee

From: harley261 ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 28-Feb-14


Lee, i got to thank many members of the alliance personally on saturday at the show! Thanks lee! we have needed this in illinois for awhile now!

From: BowMad23 ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 28-Feb-14


First off, has this proposal been presented to the DNR, and if so what was the outcome?

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?

From: starbux ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 01-Mar-14


I called all of my state legislators in support. The first thing the group said is that you don't need to support every item, but if you only agree with certain ones...tell your legislators the bullet points that you support. The key is to make the calls if you're concerned with the direction of the deer herd.

From: KC ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 01-Mar-14


Bowmad, I'll try to answer your questions...

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.

From: Bentstick81 ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 01-Mar-14


My personal opinion about the Antlerless Season, with the declining deer herd, should be a non issue. It shouldn't even exist for a couple to three years. Lee, i appreciate your involvement, and what you and others are doing to help the herd. I just think that the DNR need to do away with the A/O Season for a few years. There is no point in it. JMO

From: Lee ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 01-Mar-14


Sorry - out of pocket and couldn't respond. Kevin did a good job of answering your questions Bowmad. I will add that a one buck limit would increase age structure of the buck segment of the herd without hardly trying - it is hard to argue that our age structure hasn't suffered over the last few years. Also in regards to the limit, the link to the full proposal has an alternative limit if the one buck limit is too much for many to swallow.

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.

Thanks, Lee

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 ;).

From: connectthedots ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 02-Mar-14


Lee, I agree with bentstick81. The AO season needs to go away until the herd gets a little more establish and a better picture of the where we really are including future outbreaks of EHD . That's managing what you have. Sounds like you're more in tune with the whole picture but what counties still need a herd reduction? I hear mine will still will have the AO season but what is it based on? I don't think, I know that we are suffering like much of the remaining counties. Do you know what's used as a measuring stick? Please don't tell me DVA's. If the state wants to feel like they are on top of it and make the attempt to manage the counties individually then they need to get out in the real world and not only make that decision but be able to back it up with observations. If the facts ( whatever that is ) and the observations support it then so be it. Don't base it on DVA's. Has it ever dawned on the DNR that much like the deer herd in Illinois so is the diversity of the counties themselves. Some have interstates running through them and some have more highways than others. Whatever develop...... I appreciate the efforts and the people working to resolve these poor management practices being utilized by the DNR. Good Luck

From: BowMad23 ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 03-Mar-14


All you need to do is go on the IDNR website and do a little reading connectthedots. DVAs are a primary tool for establishing seasons (where applicable). They just went through a broad scale change in objectives, mostly raising them. Diversity amongst Illinois counties was at least somewhat accounted for because the objectives were at least partly based on pre-existing conditions of each county. Highly suburbanized counties are just not going to have their DVA objectives raised.

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.

From: Lee ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 03-Mar-14


BowMad,

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.

Thanks,

Lee

From: voodoochile ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 03-Mar-14


I like it

From: CCHunter ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 03-Mar-14


This is an absolutely great explanation of what the alliance is trying to do. Really, I don't need much of an explanation, all I need to hear is someone is taking the time to make an improvement to our deer herd, by limiting tags. There hasn't been one positive change to impact our deer herd in over a decade, the only changes made have been to kill more deer and make it easier to do so. Thanks to the alliance, we can be hopeful, that is if the DNR has any common sense, and lets each and every one of these proposals pass.

From: Buckfever ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 03-Mar-14


I don't want to be the resident downer. But I'll tell you any proposal that is not in alignment with the interests of the DNRs decision makers will not happen. I like this proposal because it throws every thing at them plus the kitchen sink and we'll see what sticks. But as far as the proposal being effective if it's thought out from the perspective of what's best for the deer herd first, you can forget about it. You need to think about what can the DNR decision makers agree to given how vested they are in the relationships that are driving their decision making. Because any proposal that is predicated on those ties being severed is nothing more than a wing and a prayer.

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.

From: SouthernILbowhunter ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 04-Mar-14


I used to have 2 guys from Alabama come up and bowhunt, they would buy an antlerless tag and hunt on that. (hunt during the first gun season too, with out a tag) I got wind of that, now they dont hunt here anymore.

From: IL.BowHunter ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 04-Mar-14


SouthernILbowhunter, We can expect that residents are doing the same thing.... because IL. does not require hunters haveing back tags that must be displayed when hunting.

From: connectthedots ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 04-Mar-14


Thanks BowMad23 and Lee for the info. I like what I hear but Buckfever is right. The IWA is throwing a lot at them. I appreciate what they are doing and give them my support in any way I can. For the first time I actually feel like we have a positive voice representing the deer herd in this state. The DNR is going to do what they are told and I don't expect any major changes but there will have to be some. When money comes into the picture and we are talking about Illinois, you can bet the best interest of the deer herd won't be a overall consideration. When it all comes down.... if there are no bees, there will be no honey. Whether the DNR wants to admit it or not, that's exactly what they are looking at next year. Next season will be a disaster. No way out of it. That's what gets me. They have failed so miserably and for some reason they have the misconception that they can actually manage what they have by a county by county basis. How can you even believe or begin to trust such a failed system? If you can't do the little things right how are you going to micro manage? Those that can be trusted with little can be trusted with much. In this case it's time to jerk the rug out from under someone and start doing what they have been entrusted and appointed to do. In the end..... I guarantee we ( the sportsmen in Illinois ) will pay more to hunt and it will all be due to poor deer management practices sung to the tune of more money.

From: Bentstick81 ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 04-Mar-14


There are a couple of things that should be eliminated at this particular time. The OTC gun and archery permit sales, and do away with the A/O Season. We have a DECLINING DEER HERD, and don't need to be just jockeying the dates. Connectthedots, i agree with your points. JMO.

From: Lee ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 04-Mar-14


Lee's Supporting Link

All, I agree it will be a tough road to hoe and the thought of getting political turns my stomach. However, as we all know politics drives the train on almost everything in Illinois, to include wildlife management (think Joint Deer Task Force). If we are proactive and demand our voices be heard, we can institute change.

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.

Thanks,

Lee

From: connectthedots ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 04-Mar-14


Consider it done and I will pass these names and phone numbers to my buddies.

From: Bentstick81 ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 04-Mar-14


Thanks Lee. Appreciate your efforts.

From: Lee ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 04-Mar-14


Thank you guys - it won't happen without your support!

Lee

From: LLBUX ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 05-Mar-14


I appreciate the work put forth by the men and women of the Alliance. I respectfully disagree with some of the tenets they are trying to achieve.

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.

From: harley261 ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 05-Mar-14


LLbux, i do not feel you understand the level of abuse that the NR doe tag is allowing NRs to do. I know i do not see the normal NR hunter here but i cant find one legal. I turn them in for things constantly and when they are checked they are basically illegal on every count from tags to plugs in guns everything pretty much. They generally have a doe tag and a landowner tag they got from some landowner they know for a 100 dollar walmart gift card. Farmers are leasing out their land from locals (which i have no problem with) and giving their landowner tags as the package deal (which i do have a problem with). I know of 3 farmers who have done that in the past. Locally i do not know of one single farmer that isnt doing this when they choose to illegally outfit their ground. And the worst thing is, you cant catch them! The very best way to stop poaching it to make their tactics illegel so they cant hid behind some stupid law and be legal 99.9 percent of the time with the full intent of being illegal. This isnt residents being mean to NR hunters, this is NR hunters that have done this to the good honest NRs.

From: LLBUX ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 05-Mar-14


Abuse of the landowner tags is rampant. I have not heard of including them in with lease agreements. That is just plain wrong. It is another example of why the free landowner tags need to go away and the perps spanked hard.

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.

From: voodoochile ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 05-Mar-14


so you feel that a landowner needs permission from some organization or the state or pay a fee in order to lease his farm ?

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 .

From: harley261 ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 05-Mar-14


LLBUX im going to go as far as saying that locally the majority of the NR's hunt while illegal or do as i stated and intend to be illegal if the wrong buck walks by. we dont have a large outfitter population here. Most of our NR's are friends distant friends of a landowner that swindle their way in because the residents treated them so poorly that a 100 dollar gift card and a few trinket of thanks are enough to swindle the landowner into risking a high dollar ticket. Also some landowners feel that well they pay 5000 a year to come and hunt our property why should they have to worry about running out of tags that just aint right... so they bypass the regulations. Im all for the good honest guy that wants to come here and hunt the right way but man they seem like an endangered species here. The NR's on the neighboring property fired 20 times in about 15 seconds. I knew they didnt have a plug in their guns. After a visit from the warden they didnt have plugs, tags, or much else. They got 10 tickets total for the 3 poachers. I can go ON and ON about NR's causing problems.

From: harley261 ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 05-Mar-14


Just to be fair, i can go on and on about residents too...

From: LLBUX ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 06-Mar-14


That is unfortunate that these bad apples have spoiled the reputation of NR hunters in general. I fully support the CPO's efforts to keep them in check. If all is true as alleged, they should have hunting opportunities revoked.

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.

From: harley261 ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 06-Mar-14


LLBUX, i would say if your friend is a reputable outfitter his clients are probably top notch guys. I tend to see the ones who are trying to save every nickle they can while hunting. It is sad this has happened. A kid from indiana should be able to come and hunt his grandpas farm cheaply during xmas break but from what i have seen, the bad outweighs the good BY ALOT.

From: LLBUX ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 06-Mar-14


Yes, I do hunt with reputable outfitters that are frequently checked by the local CPO. They have the CPO and neighboring landowners on speed dial when there is a possible trespass issue. They work with the DNR and have zero issues. Observe the law and you have no trouble.

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?

From: DeerBanger ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 06-Mar-14


A bit offended by the accusations against locals who lease and that "99.9% are using the land-owner's free tags". I've leased the same property for 8 yrs now. I have no clue if our landowner gets these free landowner tags (he's older and no longer hunts) nor would I EVEN THINK of asking to use them. Who knows how he would react - and it's not worth losing my lease over or worth what impression he would have of me moving forward by asking for them. Considering the $$$ I spend on my lease, gear, fuel, etc shelling out another $15-$25 for additional tags is a drop in the bucket. I truly believe a GREAT lease relationship is 99.9% based on trust and really nothing to do with hunting - I'm not going to jeopardize that over $15 tags. So be careful how you smear all local leasers.

From: voodoochile ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 06-Mar-14


LLBUX ........... just guessin but YOU dont own an acre of land do ya ?

From: harley261 ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 06-Mar-14


Deer banger, what are you talking about? Actually read what i posted before you comment please.

From: harley261 ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 06-Mar-14


LLbux, What do you do? Little johnny doesnt get to hunt plain and simple. The bad outweighs the good. There are 1000s of acres locally controlled by illegal NRs here. And dont blame that on this proposal, Blame it on the MANY guys who couldnt follow the rules.

From: starbux ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 07-Mar-14


I think it's safe to say that there will never come a day when all hunters agree on a two pronged proposal, much less the one put forth by the IWA. The see 4 choices:

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

From: LLBUX ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 07-Mar-14


Mr. voodoochile- So you are going THERE to support your position-

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.

From: bo hntr9 ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 07-Mar-14


4 hunters from out of state hunted in a 2 mile circle around my property in 2012. They took home 16 deer, some said to be landowner tags. Its not hard to understand how this taints the attitude of the local residents trying to manage the herd the best they can.There were several times they were on land without permission. I hunt out of state every few years, and always respect the boundaries and regulations. It is difficult to manage the deer herd locally with this kind of unregulated harvest. I support the alliance.

From: harley261 ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 07-Mar-14


LLBUX, I know you support johnny being able to shoot a deer on grandpas farm and while you are doing it you are supporting the poachers that are hurting many honest deer hunters. Deer can recover but look how long it took the deer to recover the first time they were wiped out? If not for the few private landowners that have protected the herd, it would ALREADY be at that stage under the current dnr management.

From: LLBUX ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 07-Mar-14


Unfortunately this thread has degraded to accusations against hunters or arguments with/about me rather than debating/discussing the changes that are being proposed by the IWA.

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!

From: harley261 ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 07-Mar-14


The ole i cant be wrong you have to be lying argument huh?

From: DeerBanger ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 07-Mar-14


harley261 - ok, I went back and re-read your post. Sorry! I got your post (which was referring to NR's) and a previous post (blasting local leasers - this thread has gotten to long for me to go back and find that one!) mixed up. My bad.

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).

From: harley261 ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 07-Mar-14


Deerbanger, time is also a different meaning of the word time. Meaning that the NR is actually legal until he fires a shot. Hes legal when caught by wardens if he is caught by wardens until they actually harvest something. There are LOts of situations in hunting where a hunter is totally legal when caught by wardens but hunting with the intent to be illegal as soon as a harvest is made. Think of someone hunting the edge of a game preserve where there is no cover on the property they are hunting. They are legal until they actually intend to recover. Making them extremely hard to catch. Fence sitters near posted land also fall into this. Legal to be where they are doing what they are but a clear intent to be illegal upon harvest.

From: voodoochile ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 07-Mar-14


"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"

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 .

From: BowMad23 ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 07-Mar-14


I apologize for my lapse in posting. I was at training out of town up until today. First off, I believe there is a disconnect here between my posting and what Lee has posted. I was basing my rationale on the original proposal I was e-mailed several weeks ago. To start, the numbering between his posting and myself were not matching up because of that. It also appears either the proposal is evolving, or someone is blowing smoke. I'm guessing it is evolving, but don't really have any way of knowing.

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.

From: Lee ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 08-Mar-14


This thread has digressed from last time I looked! It does little good to get ugly with each other. Bowmad I thought I posted the proposal in its entirety (which addresses the modified limit) but apparently I didn't and I can't figure out how to do it from my smartphone - apparently it is smarter than me. I will do it when I get to a real computer. As far as it being self serving not sure what you mean? Actually shooting does and not just antlerless, increasing the age structure of the bucks, having NR's share our pain, stiffer fines and giving the proposal time to work is about as straightforward as you can get. I apologize for not postin it - guess I just referenced facebook as it does have the proposal in .pdf.

Thx, Lee

From: starbux ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 08-Mar-14


Voodoo, good post....

From: CCHunter ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 09-Mar-14


It would be nice if hunters could learn to bite their lip for once and embrace the fact that this group has been assembled to make an attempt at pushing changes that will have a positive impact on the Illinois deer herd. I agree, that it would be nice if we could all agree on every change, but that is impossible. Can we all just head our heads out of our ===== and realize there has not been a single change to Illinois whitetail hunting in a long long long time and this group is putting a lot of effort towards influencing our incompetent DNR? If you read through these posts, it will almost make you sick with the amount of "opinionated" (heard that term before?) B.S. that progressively ends up with hunters arguing about changes that are not even mentioned by the alliance. If you care about the Illinois whitetail herd, you will do one of two things, or maybe both: back the alliance, or make a call to our representatives voicing your opinions. Quit your whining and do something!

From: CCHunter ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 09-Mar-14


single positive change

From: Lee ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 09-Mar-14


Lee's Supporting Link

All,

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.

Thanks,

Lee

From: Lee ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 09-Mar-14


Lee's Supporting Link

All,

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.

Thanks,

Lee

From: HeadHunter ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 10-Mar-14


I have to add one comment on Deer/Vehicle Collisions. The 'metric' don't mean squat!

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!

From: Lee ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 10-Mar-14


The DVAs are per billion miles driven. Whether we like it or not it IS the metric that IDNR is required to use.

Lee

From: petedrummond ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 10-Mar-14


Lee you are a class act.

From: Brew ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 21-Mar-14


Brew's Supporting Link

See the attached link about the recent "North American Whitetail Summit". Were any of the IWA members there? How will the information and expected action from this summit be leveraged to "help" the IDNR do a better job in managing Illinois' deer herd and improving hunter opportunities?

From: Brew ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 21-Mar-14


Remember the "Deer Task Force". Looking back at what it did for Illinois deer hunting, wouldn't it have been more appropriately called the "Whitetail Task Force" (i.e. WTF)? Just saying.

From: HeadHunter ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 24-Mar-14


"Whitetail Task FARCE" is more appropriate.

From: IL.BowHunter ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 25-Mar-14


Everyone is crying about IL's current deer population.....so lets make IL. a "ONE AND DONE" state.

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.

Everyone wins!

From: Brew ........ No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual No Violations Reported on this individual ....... Date: 04-Apr-14


The harvest should be balanced, that is taking an adequate number of does to the number of bucks taken. Better herd monitoring and wiser allocation of permits will help, but to underharvest does would be disastrous as well. I've lived in a state with a high deer density and a terrible buck doe ratio. The quality of hunting fell through the floor. Increased transparency and better education of the deer herd monitoring relative to herd management would help too. Surely there are more goals than reduced Deer Vehicle Accident rates.




Reply to Thread

Subject: RE: Illinois Whitetail Alliance

You are not registered - please click here to register now.

 
Copyright © 1996-2013 Bowsite.com
No duplication without expressed written consent of the author and Bowsite.com.

Privacy and Registration Policy