Will it be enough, is it just them reacting for the sake of complaints or do they actually care? A Message from Director Marc Miller There has been a lot of discussion in Illinois about deer management in the aftermath of a 2013-14 hunting season in which the deer harvest declined. Illinois was not alone, as other Midwestern and Great Lakes region states reported lower harvests for firearm seasons and/or all deer seasons. Biologists cited a number of factors for the declines, including adverse weather, herd reductions to achieve management goals and, in some locations, deer mortality due to outbreaks of epizootic hemorrhagic disease (EHD). Our deer management in Illinois seeks to balance hunters’ desires to see more deer with the wishes of landowners and others who believe the size of the deer herd ranges from “just right” to “too large.” Each year, IDNR analyzes data on deer harvest, deer mortality, and survey results from hunters and non-hunters in determining deer management strategies, including details on deer seasons. Based on a two-year review of our deer management program, and some of the data already in from the 2013-14 deer seasons, some changes are coming. In 2009, IDNR implemented the recommendations of the General Assembly's Joint Task Force on Deer Population Control, intended to reduce the herd from peak levels by about 14 percent. Illinois hunters have been moving the state’s deer herd toward that goal. IDNR manages its deer population on a county-by-county basis. As individual counties reach their deer population objective, IDNR adjusts permit quotas and hunting seasons so deer populations can stabilize. As a result, when population objectives were reached during the past two years, 11 counties were closed to the Late Winter deer season. For 2014-15, IDNR has identified 41 more counties for which we can adjust deer season regulations and permit quotas to allow an increase in deer population goals. Deer hunters have also provided input, through an online survey, on a proposal to end the recent practice of selling remaining firearm deer permits over-the-counter through the end of the firearm season, except for youth under age 16. The IDNR manages deer by county and state population goals, and we’re making changes for many counties to adjust our strategy from deer herd reduction to maintaining or increasing the deer population in some cases. I am committed to professional management of our wildlife, and as always, we want to hear from hunters, landowners, and other stakeholders on our deer management program. Yours in Conservation, (Was signed Marc Miller)
It really doesn't matter what it means, some will say its too much and some will say not enough. I actually will be disappointed about the otc tag sales. Only because it was so much easier to walk in and buy them besides mail them off. In Adams or Pike counties the only downside was you had to be in within that first week or you only got a doe tag. E/S sold out pretty quick. But not really that big a deal.
In the eyes of the IL DNR the sharpshooting program is working as designed. We're seeing no significant increases in CWD infection rates in the areas where they are testing animals and it's not spreading as rapidly as it did in WI when it was first discovered. If that means populations in these areas suffer because of it, then so be it. Keep in mind our infection rate is something like 2-3% of adult males in areas where testing is occurring, as opposed to the nearly 25% in the CWD 'ground zero' of SW Wisconsin just a few miles North. WI's infection rate is increasing at a rapid clip in many areas where there is no longer any sort of management plan in place for reducing overall deer numbers. I know a lot of people don't agree with the sharpshooting program but again, in the eyes of the DNR it is working as planned. Don't expect an end to it anytime soon. If you've got time here's a good read on CWD Management from the IDNR. It may be a bit of "propoganda" but there's some good factual information in here including harvest data for counties where sharpshooting has occurred, which has remained flat. http://www.dnr.illinois.gov/programs/cwd/documents/cwdmanagementfactorfiction.pdf As for Mr. Miller's email it really doesn't offer much substance. It simply says what we has already been said and we already knew - harvest was down, deer population "goals" have been met in many areas, and changes are coming. What those changes will be exactly still remains to be seen. If the IL Whitetail Alliance boys had their way we would simply be annexed into Iowa and adopt their rules.
Been watching these forums for quite a while and figured I'd better register. Anyway, I'm curious as to what part of the IWA proposal you disagree with? Do you support the way our deer herd is currently managed? I personally do not believe the proposal resembles Iowa at all at this point although I'd love to see our gun season be out of November completely. I obviously support the proposal and I'm interested in seeing what the hang up is with a lot of other hunters.
If they do anything I don't think it will be this year. And if they do wait until next year I'm not sure it will be anything significant. I honestly have no faith in the state of Illinois in making changes in anything that will do any good. If they do anything it will be way overboard.
From the above letter: "Based on a two-year review of our deer management program, and some of the data already in from the 2013-14 deer seasons, some changes are coming." Anyone know what and when?
By and large I agree with the proposal, there's just a couple things that stick out to me. 1. No guaranteed tags for non-resident landowners. This is something that's always bugged me about Iowa. If I am lucky enough to have the financial resources to purchase a piece of land in a State outside where I live why should I potentially be denied the right to hunt that land? That's absurd. The proposal talks about these non-resident privately owned lands that are "deer sanctuaries that cannot be effectively managed" yet I fail to see how making it more difficult for these landowners to get tags is going to help that problem. 2. I'm not convinced that the one buck limit is going to help either the quantity or overall quality of the deer herd. Yes, I understand it will help the age structure and allow for bigger bucks in general but managing for the quality of the herd and quality of big bucks are two different things. The proposal talks about managing for diseases such as EHD and Blue Tongue but the reality is those diseases just showed up in many parts of the state for the first time and are heavily dependent on weather conditions to have outbreaks. It's tough to truly manage for a disease like that, and simply reducing deer harvest "in case" it happens again isn't the optimal solution, IMO. Additionally, having antlerless seasons in September won't eliminate the possibility of harvesting animals that are tolerant to the disease. Sure, it may mitigate it but it's not going to eliminate it entirely. Again, I'm not against a 1 buck rule but I'm also not sold on the fact that this portion of the proposal isn't simply a case for bigger bucks. Consider me a skeptic. 3. Stiffer penalties for game violations. I'm certainly not opposed to this at all, I just don't see how it fits into a proposal for managing the deer herd. I can't imagine that game violators are having such a large impact on the herd that we're seeing lower deer numbers because of it. Again, I support these increased penalties in general perhaps just not in this proposal. It seems to water down the heart of the matter which is management of legal hunting practices and how they need to be changed to increase deer numbers. No, but making the assumption that because you don't support the IWA's proposal 100% that you support existing management practices is a bit of a stretch. I'd much rather see the IWA proposal put into effect than leave things the way they are right now. Really? One buck limits (or 2nd late season buck). Issuing fewer non-resident tags. No guarantee for non-resident landowner tags. Increase in non-resident licensing costs. Sure sounds a lot like Iowa to me.
Definitely some confusion going on and I appreciate your well thought out response. Hopefully I can clarify some of it. First, let start off by stating that I was told first hand that no changes will be made or announced until the 2013 DVA's are made available. IDOT said August but the IDNR wasn't so sure. So who really knows for sure. The non resident landowner tag issue you spoke about would be for "new" landowners meaning that all current ones are grandfathered in. So going in to buy property, a potential non resident landowner would know this upfront and have the choice to purchase in IL or not. The One Buck Rule is obviously a controversial part of the proposal but I agree with it. If we are asking hunters to significantly cut back on doe harvests, the same must be done for the buck harvest. Many hunters would potentially replace lost doe harvests with a 2nd buck harvest which in turn would create a completely unbalanced deer herd similar to what many non midwestern states currently have. Does it have trophy benefits as well? Absolutely but that is not the overall goal for this. It is in there to preserve the quality in my opinion. As far as EHD goes, it has been around for decades and it is a disease that happens every where, every year. The weather/ severe droughts enhance it and while it can be very widespread, it can be equally as spotty. Not accounting for it is irresponsible and can't be part of a good well balanced proactive approach. It has to be a factor in every management plan. There has been some significant EHD outbreaks all across the midwest in 3-4 of the last 7 years so you have to account for it. Hopefully this severe winter we just had broke the trend and we can get back to more normal summer weather and precip. It's not a matter of reducing in case it happens, it's a matter of accounting for it and cutting back in a year after it happens and this goes along with better reporting of it and better record keeping. Any well balanced proposal and management plan has to include strict penalties for game violations to protect what everyone works so hard to hunt and enjoy. The proposal would not have been complete without it. These are not just accidental violations that are included in the proposal. The proposal includes very strict penalties for "willful intent" and would definitely help to prevent game violations and violators in general. I haven't heard of anyone who opposes the basis for this. To my knowledge, Iowa is not a 1 buck state. Although I've never hunted there, I thought it was actually a 3 buck state for residents. Is that correct or is that just for TV personalities? Yes fewer non resident tags are included in the proposal but they would still average close to 3X what Iowa offers each year. Again, you cannot ask only the residents to cut back on permits without asking non residents to do the same and I believe this is a well thought out plan for non resident permits. We already covered the non guarantee for non resident landowners, but even with selling less non resident tags, getting a non resident archery tag would still be all but guaranteed when compared to permit sales in recent years. Firearm permits could become a little more difficult to get but it is a matter of each group having to give a little to get a little. Although, i will admit I would love to see IL go to a 7 day straight gun season running Dec 1-7. Get it completely out of November and let the majority of the breeding season run it's course without interruption. Now that's more Iowa like and just my opinion. The only increase in non resident license cost was to the firearm permits, which the Alliance proposes raising the non resident firearm permits to the same price of the non resident archery permits, to $410. Just like the $10 resident permit fee increase, revenue or lost revenue had to be a part of the proposal to have any chance to be taken seriously. To you and I, this is our passion, but when it comes to dealing with a government agency, the revenue lost from decreasing permits had to be accounted for and I feel this is why those changes were in the proposal. When you sit back and think about it, the founders of the Illinois Whitetail Alliance had a heck of a task at hand just to simply write the proposal as I'm sure each one had a different version in mind just as everyone else would have. As a whole, it addresses our current needs while setting the state and the deer herd up for a successful future which would lead to better hunting for everyone. This is why I fully support the IWA.
I also want to add, if you are not happy about the state of the deer herd in your area, you need to be calling your local legislators regularly and voicing your concern. Regardless of whether or not you support the entire IWA proposal, let the know you are not happy with the current management system and would like to see permits cut back and LWS eliminated. This is how we all do our part! In addition, I see you are from Algonquin and I want to say that I am originally from up that way and am more than familiar with the CWD challenges many areas are facing up there. I've seen the bait piles and the helicopters running deer off of private land back into the parks. I don't know exactly how the IDNR plans in the northern CWD counties play into the management of the entire state but I do know that the proposal would benefit everyone.
Whether it's for new landowners or not, I still strongly disagree with this. Not only do I feel it is a penalty against those who want to purchase land for their own recreational use I fail to see how not allowing landowners to hunt their own property is going to help deer management. Again I look back to the proposal which mentions these non-resident owned properties as being "unmanageable" and ask how not allowing them to hunt changes that? Or is the goal here to simply prevent non-residents from purchasing land to hunt on? Effectively telling them "We don't like your type 'round here" (in my best southern drawl of course) My sticking point on this is the "potentially" clause. I'm personally not in favor of any law or regulation that eliminates someone from "potentially" doing anything. Until there's valid factual evidence to show that something is happening that negatively effects our deer management program why have a regulation for it? IMO that's like eliminating guns because someone may "potentially" kill someone. I'll say again, I'm not 100% dead set against a 1 buck rule I just don't believe it's necessary at this point in time. Personally I would rather see it limited to a single buck during early archery and the 1st firearms season, and then a 2nd buck after the 1st firearms season is over. I believe this would cut back on the sheer number of bucks being harvested as hunting is clearly more difficult after 1st firearms season due to hunting pressure, weather and the rut being over. I agree with accounting for it after it happens, but there needs to be a plan for increasing tag numbers once the herd is back to where it needs to be. Again, I agree with stricter violations for game laws I just feel that within the confines of this proposal it's only serving to water down the real agenda, which is deer numbers and management. The real discussion here needs to stay focused on that and not drift off to game violations which have very little effect on those numbers. I could be wrong but I believe during the early archery season and firearms season you can only harvest one buck. If you're lucky enough to own land you can get a 2nd tag, however just like IL the majority of people don't own their own property that they hunt on. There is a late winter "primitive weapons" season which takes place in late Dec/early Jan and would allow for harvest of another buck with either archery or muzzleloader. So yes, it is possible to harvest 3 bucks in a perfect situation. I'm fine with all of this as well as increase in permit fees for both residents as well as non-residents, provided it's written into law what those increased fees will be used for. Unfortunately our state has a habit of taking those funds and spending them elsewhere... There's no doubt the IWA the IDNR and everyone involved in this has a large task at hand trying to come up with regulations that are a compromise between what hunters, landowners and biologists want. I give the IWA credit for being the driving force behind change, even if I don't agree with it 100%. Like I said earlier, I'd much rather see the IWA's proposal implemented as-is than see no changes at all.
I could have sworn I received an email from DNR about discontinuing the OTC sales on remaining firearm permits along with closing late winter for more counties. Just received an email from the DNR stating remaining firearm permits will go on sale OTC on Oct. 22nd. Am I mistaken that they said they were stopping it this year after hunter complaints of EHD and reduced numbers?
I don't think IL should raise the cost of non-resident archery tags. Both IN and OH are $150 for non resident tags while IL is almost three times that amount. I am a former IL resident and I still regularly hunt in IL but I only bought a doe tag this year because of the cost.
Never heard they actually stopped it just that it was being discussed. Last time I looked at idnr website I thought it said the 16th was when they went on sale. I'm guessing they waited too long this year to announce anything so people would of been complaining they couldn't make the deadline for mail in. Interestingly enough after all the complaining of over selling tags last year I'm pretty sure the deer report said archery and firearm both were the lowest it's been in last several years as far as sales go. So who knows
I frequently work in rural Northern IL and talk to landowners during service calls, particularly Mchenry county and East Boone county. I bring up hunting on a regular basis when I see any sign of hunting interests. They say the sharpshooting continues. I dont follow the changes but I don't know why they wouldnt afford hunters a chance in these areas to help instead of the hefty license fees for land that you know the deer have been chased off and reduced. I live 3/4 of a mile from the borderer and personally don't consider some of the land I could gain access due to these conditions. Is it due to the $$$ Illlinois makes off the western part of the state?
