Bowsite.com

Herd numbers still not rebounding....

Looking over numerous Facebook sites and all the comments on them and consensus seems to be that once again there was very little shooting during first gun season. Always potential for more than one reason as to why that is but one that seems to get downplayed by most hunters I talk to is just the simple fact that the herd quantity and quality is still significantly lower than what it was in the 2000s through about 2012. Seems to be an overall lack of awareness of the following numbers that I selected from a handful of counties once known to be some of the best on the planet.....

Pike county has 57% less than deer than in 2007. That’s a staggering figure. Brown has 35% less Adams 45% less Fulton 24% less Schuyler 35% less Hancock 38% less McDonough 25% less

These figures are based on the number of deer vehicle accidents in 2019 compared to 2007. Same metric the DNR uses to gauge population trends by county and one that I think is very good/representative. Takes everyone’s opinions out of the equation (“I saw plenty of deer” vs those saying “what’s going on w the rut, not seeing anything”). We’ve not shot any does on the farm I hunt in 7 years now. Not because I’m against the idea of shooting does and keeping the herd balance healthy, but simply because as these statistics show the herd numbers don’t justify it.

Spread this information as much as you can. Like I said I don’t think most hunters are aware of them and it starts with awareness.

Normal. Herd has been going down hill for years. Cross bows didn't help a bit, except for money in their pockets. Go to the well to often, she will dry up.

It's called: "The Paul Shelton Effect"

Overthehillbowhunter, EXACTLY!!!!!!

Ohhh ohhhh I've got 2019 equipment statistics for archery deer harvest

Compound bow 54%

Crossbow 45%

Recurve .7%

Longbow .4%

"Crossbow 45%". Exactly. Take away the cross bows for all of archery season, it makes quite a difference on our herd.

Ah but here's the question how many are new crossbow hunters versus crossbow hunters that have medical problems?

Good question. Why wouldn't the dnr want to seperate the two crossbow users??? They have to have an out. But, remember, the DNR we had 40 years ago, that actually wanted to manage our wildlife, not their wallets, one of the archery rules was you couldn't have a compound bow that was held at a draw with any mechanical mechanism. Why would the DNR of yesteryear list that rule??? You don't have to draw a crossbow. They new it was a dis-advantage to the deer. Getting the bow drawn on an animal, un-detected, is the difference. I don't have any problem with a person with a handicap to use crossbows, to help with them getting a deer. But hey, don't take my word, or the DNR of yesteryear's word. Shoot em up. 8^)))))

I think if you take away compounds that would make the biggest difference. Maybe it's time to split up the archery season. Oct 1 -Jan 17 for traditional gear and then have a season for high tec equipment, compounds and xbows.

So traditional hunters who only have a 1.1 success rate should have the whole season? Seems like they would not be paying their fair share for tags. So it would only be fair in this scenario they pay a significant higher price for the season.

There’s no question that crossbows make harvesting an animal easier than a compound. And the recurve guys can say the same thing about the compound guys. Rather than spend energy infighting within the hunting community about weapon of choice I’d rather see that energy spent towards adjusting the herd management strategies accordingly and encouraging the DNR to reduce/eliminate doe harvest depending on the county. We don’t need the DNR to do that, in theory we control that ourselves, but unfortunately as a hunting community we’ve not demonstrated the ability to do so.

I believe the state has implemented that in some of the counties already.

Not sure where all you guys are located, but in this area, if you eliminate doe harvests it wouldn’t be safe to drive at night. The farmers would be shooting them on sight.

I see on average, 15-20 does every day that I head to the stand. The herds down here are in pretty good shape. Maybe you should broaden your hunting areas. Got several landowners who want multiple does taken every year and it’s not hard to do.

Go ahead and start the thrashing and name calling.

Not me there are county's that need doe management and others that don't. Glad I'm not the one that has to figure it out lol

Jstephens61....that’s why I said depending on county. I’m sure there are a few areas/counties where there’s no need for growing the herd (and farmers, auto insurance companies will NEVER want to grow the herd, they’d be happy with zero deer) but in almost all of west central IL the doe harvest needs to be reduced/eliminated for awhile until population numbers can rebound. What county do you hunt in out of curiousity?

Highlife, I might be wrong but my understanding is that in all of the counties I listed one still gets a doe tag with their buck tag. And I also thought, again could be wrong, that hunters in those counties can easily get multiple doe tags otc. My understanding is that the state has adjusted some of the late season doe tags (tags that in many cases weren’t being bought anyway so it’s not having a net effect on the population just gives the appearance that the DNR cares) but that hunters can still like I say harvest a bunch of does during main season.

I always find it amazing when a NR complains about the Illinois herd and knows what we need to do. Illinois is a agricultural state. To say that the farmers want them all gone isn’t a totally accurate statement, but they want them controlled. Came you blame them? Something is out there eating their profits and they get little or nothing from them. I can tell you that on our farm, the first 20 rows or so had deer damage. I know this is the reason that farmers in this area have gone to leasing the hunting rights.

I’ve always felt that it’s up to the hunters to police ourselves. We may get a doe tag with the combo, but no one is forcing you to fill it. Maybe DNR should go to separate tags for sale. If you want a doe tag, buy one. Or just go to a lottery system. I usually end up with 2 combo tags and one of the doe tags goes unfilled every year.

You’re arguing the same point on another form and as I tried to point out there, the counties you listed used to be the Holly Ground for big bucks. A lot of outfitters in those counties. It only makes sense that when all the hunters want to go to those counties, the deer herd will suffer over time. Maybe we should just close the state to NR hunting for a few years. That’ll help the herd and quality of bucks.

It just doesn't make any sense to me, and hasn't for years, why we, as hunters, have to do the dnr's job in managing our own deer herd, all the while, paying unbelievable income and retirements to dnr employees? It's obvious that the dnr doesn't believe in taking pride and caring about their work. Sad. And, by no means, am I pointing someone out directly.

So, you want DNR to tell you what to do? How many deer you can hunt and where? You want to take no active part or be held responsible for the condition of the herd in your area?

I’d rather make that decision on my own, based on what I see and know about the area I hunt.

No offense taken by those comments any more, I did retire last year.

Well Jim happy retirement where every day is Saturday :)

Lbshooter- I like that idea, how about sept1st thru oct21st for trad equipment. Then let compound in the mix till the end. Crossbows could be used during firearm season unless disabled or over 65. I would love to be hunting on September 1st when they are still in bachelor groups and feeding patterns

Lbshooter- I like that idea, how about sept1st thru oct21st for trad equipment. Then let compound in the mix till the end. Crossbows could be used during firearm season unless disabled or over 65. I would love to be hunting on September 1st when they are still in bachelor groups and feeding patterns

After about 10 really tough years here, the herd is finally working its way back. Unfortunately, I fear the dreaded January shoulder seasons are not far behind. I just wish when the state implements those seasons, they would do it as a temporary season for say 2 years. Heck, put in a plan where it's one season out of every five or something. Errr... forget a scientific management plan, let's let FB decide... coming from a member. Oh yeah, don't forget big insurance.

So we have almost 2 months of no deer being killed so much for deer management lol

There would be a few more people picking up the trad equipment just to take advantage of September hunting season. There would a only be 3 weeks less of the season that you are used to so “almost 2 months of no deer being killed” is inaccurate

I'd be good with "traditional" season in Sept... might even take part. But, what the hell, let's just make the whole bow season "traditional" only, and let cross bows, compounds, rifles, shotguns, pistols, & muzzies have two 3-day weekends. Then we can have sharpshooters come in and take the surplus. Might be enough wounded in the long "tradational" season to minimize the need for the sharpshooters.

Jstephens61....no need to get personal or offensive, just having good honest dialogue back n forth. I could just as easily say that I find it amazing that a NR like me seems to care more about the resource than most residents seem to. Why is it a bad thing that I’m passionate about properly managing the herd in the state that was once not so long ago one of the best whitetail herds on the planet? I’ve hunted the state for 15 years, own a farm there, pay taxes, etc.... I simply want to try and return it to close to what it was (close to the definition of stewardship no?) On your farmer point, my statement about them wanting zero deer was an exaggeration to illustrate a point (although ill guarantee there are plenty of farmers that would absolutely be fine with getting rid of all of them bc I’ve had many tell me just that). But no I don’t blame them for wanting them controlled. Nor do I blame the auto insurance companies from wanting them controlled and I referenced both groups in my earlier post as rightfully having a say in the matter. I also said that it would’ve been reasonable to reduce the herd by 10-15% from their peak levels. But 30-60% is a joke pulled on the hunting community imo and I’m amazed that you or any other hunter would argue with that? You like many I talk to cite the reasons (outfitters, non residents, etc...) as to why those areas have been devastated. And I don’t disagree. But I’m also less interested in why it’s happened rather than what needs to be done about it. Not sure what you do about outfitters, I’m all for keeping them limited and open to how that’s done. I’m also all for limiting NRs like it used to be. But even with outfitters and NRs the DNR could limit doe harvest in those counties super easily. Which is why I’ve said repeatedly that if those outfitters and darn NRs weren’t allowed to shoot a doe I would sure think that within 2-4 years the herd levels would definitely rebound.

Ah no that's 7 weeks of traditional season oh christ I added a week my apologies for wrong math. So what you are suggesting is 1.1 % of the state's archers get their own special season?

As far as shooting does "so the herd won't grow " pardon the flashback I can't recall anyone ever putting a gun to my head to make me shoot one :)

Some more food for thought. The Insurance companies and farm bureau wants the herd gone. So i asked the liar, Shelton, why can't bow hunters continue to bow hunt during gun seasons, since our herd needs gone? His reply was, no one would BUY a gun permit. So, lets see who's out for the money or for the herd. The I.Comp. & FB want the herd gone, but you can't continue to bow hunt during gun seasons, even though the dnr also thinks the herd is to big. But, if you BUY a gun permit, you can use a bow??? Key word here is BUY A PERMIT. Looks like all three (I-comp, FB, dnr) is all about the $$$$$$. The dnr is going to kiss the I-comp & FB's arse, as long as the dnr makes money by doing it. So, "You want the dnr to tell you what to do"? They already do. "How many deer you can hunt & where"? They already do. I just wish we had a good honest DNR that would do their job that they get paid for. It would be nice. I have my own business and if I was as honest and worked liked the dnr we have today, I would be out of business.

Franzen.....is the herd finally working it’s way back though? IL is a big state with lots of counties and I admittedly only track about a 7-10 county area in west central IL. In 5 of the 7 counties I listed in my original post the herd is actually worse in 2019 than it was in 2014. And 2014 was already devastated compared to 2000’s. So at least in much of west central IL it’s not getting better, it’s actually continuing to get slightly worse. Hence my frustration levels at what’s being done, or should I say what’s not being done, in those once phenomenal counties. What area of the state do you hunt? Good to hear like jstephens61 has said that there are areas that may even actually need a reduction in the population.

I don't know statewide... look at the kill stats at the end of the year if you want. I only meant my area when I said "here", which is a pretty small part of the state. Since this is a state forum I was using Illinois as the frame of reference, not the whole country. This is also based on boots on the ground, eyes in the field, methodology, which I trust more than about anything else because I'm in "my area" daily.

Fredbear- not sure how I was offensive or personal, other than saying you’re a NR (non resident).

Bentstick81- again, any rule changes that DNR makes is done wish the blessings of the legislature and JACAR. Not just Sheldon sitting in Springfield thinking “ this sounds good “.

I know a couple of the lobbyists for the insurance industry and they are both deer hunters.

Everyone it trying to find a balance with the management of the herds.

And no, Fredbear, I don’t think I’ll tell you the counties I hunt. We have enough NRs running around now.

"Everyone is trying to find a balance with the management of the herds." Well, you can't find that "BALANCE" with management of the herds, by ONLY increasing the OTC permits both archery & gun seasons, Adding more gun seasons, allowing in-line muzzleloaders with the traditional muzzleloader, adding cross bow for all of archery season, and now allowing archery during gun seasons, ONLY if you BUY a gun permit, also leaving a County open for late season, when shelton had proof the deer herd is hurting. Funny thing is, no one made shelton do that, he did it on his own. Did you ever call shelton and find out who the few guys were? I'm sure you know one of them really well. Manning & shelton both got a talking to years back, and they did NOTHING to help then either. Sorry stephens, If it walks, fly's, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

Exactly Bentstick---and you just listed the Two reasons/names as to why the IL. deer heard/especially adult bucks populations, started down hill back in the early 90's!

Really? I guess you guys didn’t know Brent like I knew him.

It's 2020 so let's keep this conversation in the now not what happened 20 years ago . So the question is how can the Illinois deer herd be managed to where everyone's concerns can be addressed. Knowing no one party is going to be 100% satisfied .

After all this, it makes hunting on public land feel like a lesson in futility. Either that, or I am just a lousy hunter! I usually hunt North/Central IL.

With all due respect Highlife, all this actually started close to 20 years ago. Manning and shelton, two peas in a pod.

Want a good article to read, Look up "The whitetail Disaster by Don Higgins/ Heartland outdoors". Pretty much explains the disaster started by Paul Shelton. But, the dnr is all about excuses.

That the same Don Higgins who was charged with unlawful taking of a whitetail and criminal trespass. Both of those were dropped when he plead guilty to trespassing. A fine and 6 months supervision. He lives not too far from me.

What’s his degree in that makes him an expert?

Jim, no worries, I happened to come across one of your posts on the other forum where u talked about where u hunt but you don’t have to feel threatened, I’m not interested in encroaching upon your turf. As mentioned I have a farm and cabin in west central IL and am pretty entrenched there. Lots of great memories with my dad and now my son who’s a senior in high school and loves the outdoors. I also saw that u worked for the DNR and have nothing but respect for you for that. Doesn’t mean I agree with everything the department has done in terms of the deer herd but my guess is that you aren’t personally to blame haha. Again, my agenda as a passionate deer hunter is nothing more than to try and promote the best deer hunting possible. To take what was once one of the best resources in the country and try to get that back so that it can be passed on to and enjoyed by the next generation of outdoor enthusiasts (my son included). If I was a die hard fisherman and the fisheries around here had 30-60% of the fish removed I’d think it only be normal to ask how/why and then what do we do to try to bring it back (as Highlife just asked). Based on what you’ve said the herd in your neck of the woods is very similar to when it was when it was at its all time best. That’s awesome! That’s the whole idea. So not sure exactly what you’re taking issue with when I’m simply wanting my neck of the woods to be like yours?

Franzen, I’m with ya. Wasn’t talking about the whole country either. That’s why I specifically referenced the 7 counties in IL that I did and just wondered if your county was trending differently than those that’s all. Harvest data state wide, if I’m not mistaken, has seemed to have leveled off at around 30% less than the 2000’s. But again, to me the harvest data is a small piece of the puzzle. If there’s a couple hundred thousand hunters this year and a million deer, every hunter takes one that’s 200k deer killed. Over the next couple years the number of deer gets cut by 50% down to a half million, in theory every hunter can still kill their deer and nobody recognizes that there’s a major issue going on. Thats why I’m not a big fan of putting much stock in harvest data and feel like the DVA data paints a much more accurate picture. That’s a bit of a hypothetical but I feel that’s where IL, at least west central IL, has been for the last 6 years. Hunters seem unaware of it in my experience. Most continue to kill does. Many hunters lots of does.

That’s the question Highlife! My attempt at an answer.... When u talk about not being able to make all parties happy I think u start w identifying those parties. To me u have hunters (want lots of deer, lots of big bucks like 2000-12). U have the farm lobby (would guess they may not say get rid of all deer but certainly prefer limited numbers). And last u have the auto insurance folks and to lesser extent motorists (definitely don’t want lots of deer.) I saw a stat not that long ago that said IL ranks like 34th in the country in DVA’s. So to me it’s not that major of an issue and they should therefore have lots of room to compromise. So imo, as I’ve stated, it would’ve been reasonable to ask the hunting community to reduce herd levels by 10-15% from the levels in the mid to late 2000s and is what we should be targeting and fighting for. But 30-60% in any one county is completely unreasonable. Ask a farmer to reduce his yield by 30-60%. Ask an insurance co to lower their premiums by 30-60%. Both would get a laughable response and yet that’s exactly what’s been done to the hunting community. How do we grow the herd back to within 10-15% of what it was? You have to limit or eliminate doe harvest temporarily. Could even go to a one buck limit in those counties temporarily but I doubt you’d get support for that. Do one/both of those things for a couple years and I’d sure think the problem is pretty close to solved.

I read and had the report that basically used the insurance companies DVA reports to designate how many tags to give out per county. Paul your last thread should have everyone reread it twice lot too digest there. Alot of it rings some truth.

"What's his degree in that makes him an expert?" Because he explains exactly the problem with our diminishing deer. Shelton. No need for a degree to see what's going on. It's what this state gets when somebody gives a friend a job, knowing good and well that the friend has no business being in that position. Good friend network. If Higgins got caught, that's his problem and he's paid his dues. Question is, when is shelton and the dnr going to pay theirs?? Trespassing or not, Higgins hit the nail on the head. Just more EXCUSES to divert from the real problem. Increasing permits, gun seasons, and now crossbows isn't looking for a "BALANCE of management of the herds," but the money is good, right?

Fredbear, I’m missing something. You keep quoting the 30-60% figure. Is there a published statement that DNR is or wants to reduce the herd by that amount? Please provide a link to that statement. I also find it hard to group deer hunting, a sport or hobby, and farming, a business and livelihood, and the auto insurance companies, businesses, in the same way. A farmer cuts yield by 60%, he goes bankrupt, the CEO of the IC cuts rates by 60%, the board fires him. You lose 60% of the herd, you have to hunt harder. I’m sorry, but I don’t see the similarities.

Bentstick81, all I can say is, complaining on this forum will solve nothing. If you can prove that Sheldon is doing something underhanded or he’s not qualified to do the job, start sending letters with the facts to the Director of DNR and your legislators. Start a petition to get him removed. Do something other than complaining.

Y’all have a great holiday season.

Jstephens61..... it’s my understanding that the DNR back in the late 2000s formed a “joint task force” whose mission was to reduce herd levels at the statewide level something like 14% but that each county’s target reduction varied wildly. What I just typed can easily be found by doing a google search. What’s not as easy to find is what each counties target was. So in other words I can’t tell you if in Pike county for example they set out to reduce herd levels by 57% (like it is right now) or if it was supposed to be 34%. No idea but I guess I’m not following your point because in my eyes does it matter?? What I mean is, if they did set out to reduce the herd in certain counties by 30-60% that’s completely unfair to the hunting community imo and I highly doubt the hunting community would have ever “signed off” on something like that IF they were even made aware of it. If they DIDNT set out to reduce the herd levels by that much then why is it that for around 7 years now they’ve not eliminated or drastically reduced doe harvest? So you can see where it feels like it’s been mismanaged and that we’ve been run over either way can’t you? You can see where folks like bentstick and me are angry at decision makers like Shelton. You nailed it perfectly.....I view Shelton and the decision makers at that level of the DNR as your CEO of the insurance co’s that let rates (in this case one of the best whitetail herds ever) decline by 30-60%. Like you said that person would/should be fired.

You can't whip the good ol boy network, stephens. You are the one that mentioned that the dnr is trying to come up with a balance of the herd. You and I both know that that statement is about as far from the truth as can be. You can sit right there and tell everyone on here that you BELIEVE that B.S., and that shelton is doing a good job?? His good job, is diminishing our deer herd. YOU, believing in shelton, is proof of why our dnr is screwed up. Wouldn't expect anything different from you. Not complaining at all. Just worried about our next generation young hunters and the future of hunting here in Illinois. What Higgins pointed out about shelton, you nor the dnr can prove his opinion is wrong. All you can say is that someone is COMPLAINING, or DENYING an opinion against the dnr. I'm used to the dnr and your B.S for quite a few years now. Denial won't solve anything on this forum or our deer herd either. Denial is all you and the dnr do. You have nothing else to bring to the table.

It’s very hard, if not impossible to get fired from a state job. Incompetence is not grounds for removal but merely a reason to be promoted.

Not if you’re a PSA 1-4. You serve at the pleasure of the Director pretty much. Not impossible to remove. Just another excuse to do nothing but blame someone else and complain. JMO

So you do admit that there are a bunch of positions that are hard, if not impossible to get fired from. JMO

The Joint Task Force (JTF) on Deer Population Control was created by House Joint Resolution 65 of the 95th General Assembly,

Per the google search I did. First line on the statement. Funny, doesn’t say anything about P Sheldon.

Call your legislators!!!!!

Deny, deny, deny, deny. Who would've ever thought that?? We need to change our state name to Corrupt, instead of Illinois. 8^)

It has a good sound, and the truth, all in one. CDNR.

Politics has caused The Demise of many things in our life. We have not seen anything yet! Illinois deer herd is NOT what it was 15+ years ago and Never will be again! (sad)

Herman, I couldn’t agree more.

I think you’ll see crossgun harvest surpass vertical within 2-3 years. This is faster than other states because Illinois has so few gun days, none in peak rut. So a lot more incentive for gun hunters to switch over.

Anecdotal - Good numbers of bucks on the property that I hunt, but no mature bucks seen this year. No buck killed by me this year down there. Doe numbers were down on the property. Didn’t kill a doe either.

I can’t control statewide management. I manage my decisions.

With the Covid Apocalypse, I couldn’t take up an invitation to hunt with my buddy in Pike County this year. I can’t attest to the herd there.

I would like the DNR to manage the herd for better numbers. I’ll be happy to kill more deer in more enjoyable locations. In the meantime, I’ll get some more venison from my less than idyllic, garbage strewn, urban honey-hole.

Maybe Jim, with his experience with his previous employer, could give some direction as to the most effective path to lobby to improve everyone’s hunt quality?

Zim - it was at 44.9% last year. It will surpass the vertical bows this year and in less than 10 years from now it will be above 90%. That will cause the hunter success rate to get above 90% also. Do you know anybody that hunts with a crossbow who didn’t kill a deer?

"improve everyone's hunt quality". Never happen. You'll have a better chance at winning the lottery before this happens. Been heading down hill for the last several years. Corruption is too deep. Lining pockets & retirements, is the number one goal. It is illinois.

As for crossbows being a greater part of the archery kill, you do realize that the baby boomers, of which I was in the first wave, has now reached 73 yrs of age and if we want to participate in the archery season, we have be practical and face reality. I was going to be the last one to switch but I gave in this past October. After sitting in the cold for a couple of hours, pulling a 50 pound bow was very difficult if not impossible. Why sit there and when opportunity presents itself you can't close the deal. I know there were a lot of younger people took up the crossbow, but age has caused a lot of us to change.

Rick, what’s the point? Nobody would listen, they just want to continue to blame a couple guys and throw out insults.

A true exercise in futility.

Yep. It's everyone else's fault. Never the dnr's. Same excuse year after year after year. The ONLY way to solve a problem, as in the dnr's case, first they have to admit they have a problem, and quit pushing it off on everyone else. "Nobody would listen". Yep, I found that out when I talked to LYING shelton. He doesn't listen. He prefers to lie instead. Like I said, NEVER HAPPEN. My bet is on the lottery. 8^)

All of you guys wanting the DNR to solve the problem, what is your recommendation? Any idea how to limit hunting pressure on private land? This is a bit more difficult than lowering permit numbers, especially since there are a lot of pockets of well managed private ground with little pressure as well as pockets of private ground with high hunting pressure and a brown is down mentality. Unfortunately, it is more a problem of managing the hunters around you than it is managing the overall number of permits issued in a county.

No, it’s everyone’s fault, but you’ll never grasp that point.

DEnial again I see stephens.. I didn't say it wasn't, everyone's fault. I said the dnr pushes it off to everyone else. YOU, on the other hand, has never partly blamed the dnr's role in the herd being down. But, "You'll never grasp that point". You are living proof that the dnr train their puppets good, but you puppets are not going to try and pull the wool over my eyes. Once again, Never happen. Too corrupt.

shelton leaving a "late season" county open, just because a few ,"well Known" guys went up and proved to him the reduction in deer numbers in that county, proves that the dnr has a problem and a pretty big role in the herd numbers being down. But, You'll never grasp that point, because you don't want to. Typical formal dnr employee dancing around a problem. Oh, that's right. The Ins. companies & farm bureau forced him to leave that County open, for being upset. His hands were tied, right???? Now, you put in the last word. You can deny all you want, but I know better.

Where do you get all your inside information? You must be the most connected individual in the state.

Glad it makes you feel like a important man Jeff, insulting DNR employees. Betting I know more than you do and the majority are honest, hardworking men and women.

I believe you stated that you own your own business. Do you relate your dislike for DNR employees to your customers? I’ll bet not.

You have a save and happy holiday. I’ve got deer to hunt.

"Where do you get all your inside information?" Believe me, I know you will know at least two of them. I see you never called shelton. Call shelton. He knows to. You have a safe and happy holiday. I wish I could deer hunt, but gun season is in. Imagine that. 8^)

Someone asked for recommendations, maybe it's time to limit does to 2 a year or three deer total. Everything is computerized so these shouldn't be difficult to check on.

I would agree to a 1 buck 2 does a year total . I can remember people posting how they were killing 30 to 40 deer on their land . I know you can't stockpile deer but when you wipe out the seed stock how in the hell can you expect deer to be running around the place. Just a thought.

I think the number of guys killing numerous deer is actually very low. That doesn’t mean that I don’t believe that there should be no limit.

I just think that we all have a responsibility to be prudent and less selfish. I enjoy eating venison. When there are an abundance of deer in the areas that I hunt, I’ll kill some does. Where I hunt down South, there are normally lots of does. I did not kill any this year because numbers were down. I did not kill a buck down there either because I did not have a shot at a mature buck.

It might be easier for me to pass on deer because I normally have more opportunities to hunt than a guy who only gets out for a shotgun season, but we can all make our own decisions if we care about the herd and future hunting.

I was sincere Jim. Is there someone in the DNR who a guy like me could contact and respectfully express concern about the direction that the herd in several areas seems to be taking? And express that a reduction in doe tags might be preferred? I believe that simply separating buck and doe tags instead of combo tags could have a beneficial impact.

Sorry. Multiple post.

Rick sent you a PM

Simple people like simple answers to complex questions that way your head doesn’t hurt so much.

Orionsbrother.....about a year ago I emailed Dan Skinner summarizing my frustrations that I’ve laid out in this thread. He and I also had an approximate hour long phone conversation as well. We had a respectful, engaging dialogue back and forth. At the end of the day I would say that while he “heard me” I don’t believe that he felt that there’s any sort of issue. In fact I’d say that his overall tone was that they were essentially close to being on target or if anything still needed to reduce herd levels in many areas based on the targets set forth by the Joint Task Force that was assembled back in like 09 to come up with a plan to reduce deer numbers. So we certainly weren’t on the same page. He flat stated at one point that managing the herd with a good age structure/balance was not part of the equation, kinda scoffed at the notion that it would be in fact. It was an interesting and yet fruatrating conversation. That said, I’ve wondered aloud on many a forum as to why the folks in these hard hit counties aren’t calling the DNR on a daily basis. You’d think the outfitters in Pike and others too would be calling and screaming for action. The more people that call the better. It ps the best chance for getting them to listen and even then they may not. You can easily find his contact info if you get on their website. I’d encourage everyone to make their voices/opinions known.

FWIW - I think that the more guys who make a respectful, rational contact and politely express their views the better.

I am not an idiot. I don’t think that guarantees any outcome, but I don’t believe that personal attacks and recriminations will make things better.

I also haven’t gone down the path of making repeated, fruitless contacts, so I have not felt the frustration that others have. I may become frustrated myself.

I simply ask that others continue their efforts. And that we look to the long game. Even when frustrated, work to make our voices heard in as even and hopefully effective tone as possible.

Life is very hectic. If I can’t check back in, I hope you all have a great, safe Christmas and any remaining hunts.

"I’ve wondered aloud on many a forum as to why the folks in these hard hit counties aren’t calling the DNR on a daily basis." Perhaps the reason may be that the citizens of those counties are not unhappy about being able to raise a crop or drive safely at dawn/dusk. Even with the significant decrease in deer numbers in Pike County, it was still number one in total deer killed the last I checked. Tom

Hey Tom. If I’m not mistaken you’re employed by the DNR so it’s great to have you involved in this thread topic to lend insight to the discussion and some of the complaints that have been expressed. I think you kinda took my quote out of context....The “folks” that I was referring to are the hunters and outfitters. Are you suggesting that they are happy with herd levels/management of the herd? Or should be? I wouldn’t suspect that non hunting motorists or most farmers....the folks you are referring to.... would be anything other than happy if all or most all of the deer disappeared much less be calling your office to complain (both the motorists and farmers certainly should/do have a say or a stake in how the herd gets managed, I said as much in one of my posts above). Of the 102 counties in IL Pike is one of the largest at #14 so I’m not sure that being #1 in total harvest is surprising or has anything to do with whether or not reducing the resource by 55- 60% was fair to the hunting community? Do you know or would you be able to find out what the original 2009 task force target reduction was for that county and let us know? And along those lines maybe you could shed some insight as to why the department hasn’t done more to encourage herd increases in the counties that have been below target for several years? I very much appreciate all of our law officers and DNR officers and the work they do so thank you. Obviously I disagree with how the herd has been managed and hope that we can have a civil discussion about it but that doesn’t mean I don’t genuinely respect what you guys do!

Retired in May of 2016. DNR manages wildlife for all citizens of, and visitors to Illinois. It is impossible to make everyone happy with the divergent desires of various groups. The DVA goal rates agreed upon by the task force were starting points, recognizing that some initial County goals may be too high, some too low. DNR revisited those after about 5 years and increased the acceptable DVA rates (to allow herd growth) in many counties while maintaining the commitment to the agreed upon statewide goal rate. Contrary to popular belief biologists continued to evaluate other data (age/sex ratio of harvest; hunter success; crop damage complaints and removal permits issued to name a few) in addition to the DVA rate data. Some mistakenly thought everything else went out the window after the task force made its report in which DNR deer management would be rated on its ability to reach a statewide DVA rate goal – which was achieved in 2012. Yes, Pike County has been well below the initial goal DVA rate. If memory serves, at the time of the 2014 evaluation Pike still accounted for 20 - 25% of the statewide deer removal permits issued (those are out of season kill permits, primarily for crop damage). Excessive crop damage continued in spite of herd reductions to that point in time in Pike and a handful of other counties. Continued lowering of deer numbers, below initial goal rates, was deemed necessary in those counties. When the herd is at or near goal, management shifts to maintaining numbers – which could explain, in part, why “the herd is still not rebounding”. If below, then increasing numbers becomes the objective, unless CWD or some other factor dictates otherwise. Bear in mind that even in counties with relatively “high” deer numbers there may be pockets of “too few” deer. Conversely, in counties with relatively “low” deer numbers there likely are pockets of “too many.” If you review Annual Deer Harvest Reports, you will see that the number of permits issued for firearm deer hunting (primary means of herd control in most counties) have decreased. Note, especially, the antlerless permit reduction over time. Additionally, in some east-central Illinois counties a Restricted Archery Zone was re-established with the hope of further reducing doe harvest to aid in herd growth. The RAZ may need some additional ‘tweaking’ as the desired doe harvest reduction has seemingly not yet been achieved there.

Congrats on retirement! And thanks for the info in your reply. Lots to unpack there and your first statement of trying to satisfy all interested parties being impossible is certainly understandable. I guess I’d start on that point and where I always do and that is that I/we (hunters in general) will always feel that reducing the resource in most west central IL counties by 27-60% is “swinging the pendulum” too far and unfairly tipping the scales in favor of the farmers/motorists in the balancing act you refer to. On insurance cos— I believe that IL ranks something like 33rd in car deer accidents which in my mind provides further support that the herd was reduced way too far. On the farmers— If I’m understanding you correctly, any farmer that wants to shoot as many deer as he can off his land can essentially do so with these removal permits correct? So from that standpoint it kinda seems like they have the ability to reduce herd levels on their farm if they feel it’s warranted. Would you be able to shed light on who all made up the task force (especially curious to know who the hunting community had representing their voice on the force if anyone) and maybe some background/your opinion as to why and how the JTF was formed to begin with? In other words, it seems as though in relation to its peer states in the midwest IL has gone from near the top in terms of its quality/qty of deer to near the bottom so why did IL decide to take such significant measures when it doesn’t appear that the other states did? On the permits issued comments, is the reduction you refer to in gun permits and antlerless tags a simple result of less tags being purchased or have the quotas actually been reduced and hunters that want one are being denied? My perception, may be wrong here, is that most counties I refer to that have been below goal for many years now still handout antlerless tags with every firearm permit? Not so? My perception is also that the statewide goal of 14% has been well beyond that since 2012 and again it seems like little has been done to reduce or eliminate doe tags to bring the statewide number to the goal. Lastly, would you know where one would find a list of the county goals and where it’s at relative to the goal? Thanks for your insight, appreciate the dialogue.

Well jeeze why didn't you say that in the first place lol

Fredbear: Many of your DTF questions can be answered by reviewing the final report.

Thanks for the link Tom. If I’m reading it correctly, page 15 says that the statewide target number of DVA’s was set at roughly 22,000 annually (this represented the 14% reduction target). It’s been below 16,000 for like 6 years now I believe. Never, since that data has been collected since 1994!, has the number been below 17,000 and yet these last 6 or whatever years now it has. Again, unless I’m looking at something incorrectly which please correct me if I am, can you see why I and other hunters feel like it’s been horribly mismanaged?

22,000 was the raw number of statewide accidents which would occur at a 14% reduction in the accident rate - IF miles driven were held constant. Bear in mind that it is the accident "rate" not the raw number of accidents which is used. Deer numbers and two more things factor into the decrease which you point out: 1) The legislature increased the damage threshold for mandatory reporting of an accident from $500 to $1500 beginning in January of 2009, thus reducing the number of raw accidents reported in subsequent years. 2) Miles driven throughout the state is not a constant as it fluctuates annually. Fuel price affects travel - there was a big drop in 2008 with our first $4/gallon gas; and COVID lockdown will likely have an impact this year.

Hard to quantify what the 500 to 1500 threshold meant to the rate/dva data. But fairly safe to assume that in general there is more miles traveled in the last several years than there were in the 90s or even 10-15 years ago so one would think those things wash each other out or off set each other at least to some extent. So what is the statewide number/rate the last few years in relation to the target rate? And is the same info by county on the website somewhere do you know?

The threshold increase reduced the number of raw accidents reported. To be safe I would assume nothing and look at the data. Calling something "a wash" without data would be a mistake. The DVA rate data by county on the website only goes through 2014. There is no way for me to know 'current' status, by county, as retirement has removed my access to the data sets. The link will take you to the deer management page which includes DVA data (collisions and rates; 1989 - 2014), annual deer harvest reports (2002 - 2019) and deer harvest summaries by county among other things.

Tom, if you go to the deer "harvest by county" page (at your link), they have actually been updating the DVA rate information by county on that report. The graphs look "very" similar to the ones I presented to you and Paul several years ago... with trend line data. Been a while since I looked at it, but I still get the raw accident data every year from IDOT. Pretty cool what you can do with GIS data as well as data intelligence tools... like heat maps in every county, etc.

Fredbear... all great questions... but I doubt you'll get any answers. They've all been asked before... with solid data being presented as a basis to make some needed changes... to no avail. And that was when we had a deer hunter as IDNR chief. And that was also on the heels of the EHD crisis when we started with like 77 counties in the LWS. Now it's just a handful that remain. With the exception of Pike, like Tom stated, all counties have come out when their DVA rate fell below goal for the 2nd consecutive year. Pike is a different animal. But I believe their nuisance permits were drastically cut as well... after a little pressure from some. At one time Pike County alone had about 50% of the total nuisance permits issued in the entire state. And yes... their DVA target was set WAY above that 14% reduction rate. Almost all counties were. But when you factor all the counties into a statewide rate (including Cook that has ~30% of the total statewide miles driven... and a ridiculously low "DVA rate"), it sure makes it more "palatable" to hunters when you promote a "14% statewide reduction rate." If memory serves me right... if you exclude Cook... I think the rest of the counties would have averaged a 23% reduction rate target. You never heard that advertised, did you??

The DVA rate is simply one tool, and it does have its flaws. But I think it's been a pretty good indicator of trends and herd size at the county level.

Don't put too much blame on the JDTF itself. All of those reduction goals and ideas were already on paper way before the House joint resolution created that committee. It was purely symbolic at that point. But it is interesting to read that resolution... and the ideas presented by IDNR... to realize how the wool was pulled over our eyes.

Lots of unanswered questions remain. Interesting to see some of the same things still being discussed...

And now we have the inclusion of crossbows... where the whole season harvest has been turned upside down. Look for more restrictions to come...

KC: I saw the updated, by County pages when I reached that page to confirm a functioning link. An addition to the website since my departure. Good information within that section.

It is easier to communicate a 14% statewide reduction than the widely varying individual County rates - although a "range" of those reductions may have been indicated. The regional meetings we held around the state shared detailed information on the individual county rate reductions needed in each. Nothing hidden.

Questions have been asked and answered. Many personal messages from hunters, including the OP (if memory serves) since then have been answered with data from their "county of concern."

When crop damage complaints/permits issued reached the level of other counties, Pike was removed from the LWS. Herd reduction reduced complaints and the number of nuisance permits issued.

Crossbows are definitely gonna change things. Here in my county the crossbow kill has almost passed the gun kill

I’ve tried to stay neutral with the whole crossbow option and I even considered buying one for my 12 year old daughter to use so that she can come out and deer hunt with me but I just don’t think I can do it. I’m also getting more and more annoyed with crossbow hunters as I seem to always hear the excuse “I use the crossbow because of my shoulder”. These are 30 year old men, you’re using a crossbow because it’s easy to kill a deer with one.

Then a guy who works with me tells me that he shot a doe and couldn’t find it. Complete pass through and tracked it forever but no luck. How far was the shot I ask, 85 yards he responded. 85 yards! That’s just stupid but this is what some people think they can do when they shoot a target that doesn’t move. I’m getting on the bandwagon that crossbows are becoming a problem.

I have to agree. If someone wants to use a crossbow, give them a permit that good in both the firearms and muzzleloader seasons. Every ship I go into around here says the same thing, they can’t keep crossbows in stock.

I don’t care how y’all feel about Pope & Young, but I applaud their stand against crossbows. Our next fight will be against the airbow. Just because it’ll fling an arrow doesn’t make it archery.

Pike county wasn't removed from LWS Until KC, using the same #'s shelton used, called him on it- basically Putting him on the spot -that's when counties started coming out of LWS!

Overthehillbowhunter, Sounds very familiar. I had a $10.00 phone bill to shelton. You have to wear tall rubber boots, when talking to him. $h-t gets pretty deep from when talking to him.

Register here to reply to this topic