Illinois Deer Management
#11
![Default](https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
ORIGINAL: dtk913
Thanks for posting that article. I am an outfitter in Iowa. Altougth I am an outfitter I still believe that the deer herd state wide needs to be strictly managed. For the most part I think Iowa does a pretty good job of that. I have had discussions with DNR officials in the past about licensing outfitters here in Iowa. Right now there aren't that many here. The relatively small amount of tags, and the difficulty of drawing those tagsfor non residents keeps the amount of outfitters down. I do believe that the license limits will change someday, and I don't want our state to end up in the same predicament Illinois is in, with outfitters running the state. That is not a good thing for the deer herd, or the resident hunters.
My conversations have really lead nowhere, because the state doesn't want to get involved with the outfitters. I have proposed licensing fees, a cap on the number of outfitters statewide, a cap on the amount of land that can be leased by an outfitter, but they don't think it is a problem right now, so they really don't care. I agree it is really not a problem right now when compared to Illinois, but why should we wait for the problem when we could do something now to prevent the problem from happening in the future. I am sure people will find flaws with my thinking, but it is just an idea to get the ball rolling.
Anyways, I think the article gives some credence to some of the points I was trying to make with our offcials here. Maybe it will help me convince them something needs to be done.
Thanks
Dan
Thanks for posting that article. I am an outfitter in Iowa. Altougth I am an outfitter I still believe that the deer herd state wide needs to be strictly managed. For the most part I think Iowa does a pretty good job of that. I have had discussions with DNR officials in the past about licensing outfitters here in Iowa. Right now there aren't that many here. The relatively small amount of tags, and the difficulty of drawing those tagsfor non residents keeps the amount of outfitters down. I do believe that the license limits will change someday, and I don't want our state to end up in the same predicament Illinois is in, with outfitters running the state. That is not a good thing for the deer herd, or the resident hunters.
My conversations have really lead nowhere, because the state doesn't want to get involved with the outfitters. I have proposed licensing fees, a cap on the number of outfitters statewide, a cap on the amount of land that can be leased by an outfitter, but they don't think it is a problem right now, so they really don't care. I agree it is really not a problem right now when compared to Illinois, but why should we wait for the problem when we could do something now to prevent the problem from happening in the future. I am sure people will find flaws with my thinking, but it is just an idea to get the ball rolling.
Anyways, I think the article gives some credence to some of the points I was trying to make with our offcials here. Maybe it will help me convince them something needs to be done.
Thanks
Dan
#12
![Default](https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
ORIGINAL: salukipv1
Also why not more expensive tags? Particularly non-residents, I pay 10-15X for a non-res tag out west, I think here in IL we aren't charging that much, let's increase both res and non-res. I think a non-res is like $250 bucks? Our whitetail deer is to IL what an Elk is to Nevada/utah/arizona. We really only have 1 big game specie and it's phenominal, a non res elk tag in nevada is around $1200 through the state and we're charging $200-250? I know deer out west vary from about $250-450 for a non-res, I think if we increased res by$10 and therefore non-res by 50-100 depending what our multiplier is, that would help, I'm sick of gov't talking about problems, making all of us crazy about them, then doing nothing about them, when in a weekend most of them could be well on their way to being solved, if we just implemented change/ made it mandatory. New bill: kill a doe for a 2nd buck tag, done, period, next issue. That didn't take long. And requires no effort etc...
Also why not more expensive tags? Particularly non-residents, I pay 10-15X for a non-res tag out west, I think here in IL we aren't charging that much, let's increase both res and non-res. I think a non-res is like $250 bucks? Our whitetail deer is to IL what an Elk is to Nevada/utah/arizona. We really only have 1 big game specie and it's phenominal, a non res elk tag in nevada is around $1200 through the state and we're charging $200-250? I know deer out west vary from about $250-450 for a non-res, I think if we increased res by$10 and therefore non-res by 50-100 depending what our multiplier is, that would help, I'm sick of gov't talking about problems, making all of us crazy about them, then doing nothing about them, when in a weekend most of them could be well on their way to being solved, if we just implemented change/ made it mandatory. New bill: kill a doe for a 2nd buck tag, done, period, next issue. That didn't take long. And requires no effort etc...
For my tastes, antler restrictions are the way to go produce big bucks, which is what I care about. I know, not a super popular thing to say, but tis the truth. For meat, bring on the does. Definitely no easy answers.
#13
![Default](https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
The problem with Illinois is much "thicker" than just that article explains.
Our legislative branch of govt. here in Illinois does not care for any outdoorsman period. Starting with the gov. Rod Blagohevich.. who's policy thus far has been to completely dismantle the IDNR. Laying off and firing a few hundred IDNR employees a few years ago as Illinois was faced with a budget crisis.. the best part was when he stole moneys from hunting/fishing license sales and used it for "other" purposes. The majority of this money is supposed to be re-directed into the states conservation as well as IDNR employee pay checks.
So without the proper personal... the IDNR is faced with employee shortage's making the state's game management nearly impossible.
Illinois has long been the most corrupt state in the counrty. In fact our last 2 govenor's where indicted on criminal charges. Our latest moron.. ROD.. is currently under investigation. The "old" Chicago books still run the state.
Our legislative branch of govt. here in Illinois does not care for any outdoorsman period. Starting with the gov. Rod Blagohevich.. who's policy thus far has been to completely dismantle the IDNR. Laying off and firing a few hundred IDNR employees a few years ago as Illinois was faced with a budget crisis.. the best part was when he stole moneys from hunting/fishing license sales and used it for "other" purposes. The majority of this money is supposed to be re-directed into the states conservation as well as IDNR employee pay checks.
So without the proper personal... the IDNR is faced with employee shortage's making the state's game management nearly impossible.
Illinois has long been the most corrupt state in the counrty. In fact our last 2 govenor's where indicted on criminal charges. Our latest moron.. ROD.. is currently under investigation. The "old" Chicago books still run the state.
#15
![Default](https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Duke don't hold back
I would just like a leader in the national and state level who's not crooked.
Is this soooo much to ask.
#16
![Default](https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
ORIGINAL: dukemichaels
I just can't stand the dude. And the people keep following him... like lemmings.
I would just like a leader in the national and state level who's not crooked.
Is this soooo much to ask.
Duke don't hold back
I would just like a leader in the national and state level who's not crooked.
Is this soooo much to ask.
Becareful what you ask for, in MI we have the NRC which makes all are deer management decisions. We even past a proposal in 96 "G". Which created the NRC. We were duped into it IMO.
Public Act 377 of 1996 would:
1) Grant the Natural Resources Commission the exclusive authority to regulate the taking of game including bear hunting.
(Currently under the authority of the director of the Department of Natural Resources).
2) Require the Natural Resources Commission to utilize "principles of sound scientific management" in making decisions regarding the taking of game and to minimize human/bear encounters.
3) Require that a public meeting be held prior to the issuance of any orders by the Natural Resources Commission regarding the taking of game.
Now we have a committe makes are mangement laws in MI. NRC was the worst thing to happen to MI. As far as I am conceared DNR should be making the decisions. Now we use Social Science involved in our decisions
![Frown](https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/images/smilies/frown.gif)
.
#17
![Default](https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
NRC was the worst thing to happen to MI. As far as I am conceared DNR should be making the decisions. Now we use Social Science instead more and more
For some reason average people just believe they can make better decisions than those paid professionals of any DNR who have studied game management.. and made a career of it. I like to call those people "couch biologists".
#18
![Default](https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Duke I am also from Illinois and I could not agree with you more about all the problems in our goverment.If we keep this meat head in goverment any longer there will be no more conservation in this state.We have to make sure he does time like the previous crooks.BUCK FLAGOEVICH
#19
![Default](https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Duke said every perfectly and I might add its not only the governor but other state legislators as well when it comes to our deer herd. Some legislators are using their ties with certain outfitters to help orchestate our game laws.
I still say Chicago should be its own state.
I still say Chicago should be its own state.