|
Post by huxbux on Mar 8, 2008 19:13:22 GMT -5
Everything is always about the money. And what a shame some folks have to view wildlife in that light. The state is not out to make a huge profit off of deer hunting like the outfitters are. Not yet anyway. Could be the outfitters may change all that if they can convince enough people in government that there's big money to be had for all, if only they're given control to run the show. I can think of no better example of conflict of interest than to let the outfitters and lessors control the deer herd. Once this happens, it's only a short time before deer hunting will be strictly a rich man's pursuit.
|
|
|
Post by jkd on Mar 9, 2008 1:32:53 GMT -5
timex - it's not one person's opinion... it's a fact that the illinois governor took control of deer management in that state... Indiana's DNR is still directly in charge of our herd... of course they answer to the governor, but Mitch isn't out there setting permit levels... big difference...
Again, their legislature is setting up local governments to come up with their own deer control measures... that's not opinion... that's a fact! You say ask their DNR... what are they going to say different... those bills are a matter of public record... go look it up if you don't believe me...
Nothing like that going on Indiana... the high fence legislation is the only thing that's been attempted here, and that hasn't even made it out of both sides of the statehouse... nothing relating to herd management has been submitted here....
|
|
|
Post by lugnutz on Mar 9, 2008 2:32:04 GMT -5
you take that 125,000 hunters and add up those hours and compare it to all the biologist in the state. And you'll see hunters spend way more time in the field, and from more locations. If you want the DNR to run our wildlife fine. But don't let them use these lame surveys, and check-in station results. If the biologist are so darn smart they don't need the input from the hunters, remember we are just a tool that they use to manage wildlife. i'd think almost all hunters have their own special interest, and just cause some groups speak louder than others, its considered a bad thing? How many guys on this website really wanted(s) PCR'S? OBR? Telecheck? and so on. I'm sure most of us has supported some, and been totally against others. I hate it when people gripe about small special interest groups, when in reality we all are part of at least one of some sort.
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Mar 9, 2008 5:25:44 GMT -5
Hunt Illinois and you'll see a lot of other similarities with Indiana, except for the two buck limit. Illinois is the number ONE whitetail state for a reason and that won't change soon. As for the the comments, Illinois hunts the rut, in fact they open the same weekend as Indiana. Deer are normally chasing hard that weekend. In the last two years, I've seen 61 different bucks on the first day of the Illinois gun season, all of them hard rutting. Camby says the herd is out of control. Not so. Illinois residents kill plenty of does. NR's kill a few. With Illinois being a CWD state, that doesn't help, but overall the deer herd is not out of control by a long shot. I've talked with very few Illinois residents that want fewer deer. So you saying they don't need to cut thier firearm and muzzleloader days to get controll of their herd? I was asking because there was a suggestion recently that the Indiana DNR was not doing it's job, because Indiana would harvest more deer if we took away firearm and muzzleloader days. They also said that is how Illionis (and Ohio) keep their deer herd in controll, cutting firearm and muzzleloader days. Oh yea, the added benefit is more landowners would be happy because ONLY firearm and muzzleloader deer hunters trespass, thus with fewer "gun" days there would be less trespassing. There must be an overwhelming majority of landowners thats having a problem, I guess law enforcement agencies in Indiana no longer respond or take action on trespassing calls, kind of like J-walking.
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Mar 9, 2008 6:36:43 GMT -5
you take that 125,000 hunters and add up those hours and compare it to all the biologist in the state. And you'll see hunters spend way more time in the field, and from more locations. If you want the DNR to run our wildlife fine. But don't let them use these lame surveys, and check-in station results. If the biologist are so darn smart they don't need the input from the hunters, remember we are just a tool that they use to manage wildlife. I'd think almost all hunters have their own special interest, and just cause some groups speak louder than others, its considered a bad thing? How many guys on this website really wanted(s) PCR'S? OBR? Telecheck? and so on. I'm sure most of us has supported some, and been totally against others. I hate it when people gripe about small special interest groups, when in reality we all are part of at least one of some sort. You confuse me.......I think you want to argue just for the sake of arguing. Small special interests groups want to change things for them self for personal gains and not for the benefit of the masses. They want to stop or take away from others to benefit them selfs and the reason is always antler size. The Indiana DNR manages the herd for size and health and not trophy hunting which seems to be happening in Illinois. When the state starts to manage the herd for trophy hunting like some want it will be the start to the end of deer hunting for the average hunter. Don't believe that then try to hunt some where in Pike Co. Illinois without paying. The DNR uses several tools to make decisions on deer harvest. Some one posted on here once the numbers they look at, like deer/car accidents, crop damage and harvest numbers. They use hunter surveys to determine how much game we are seeing. I fill out a bow hunters survey every year. I guess we at HI are considered a small interest group but the difference between us and other groups is we promote hunting and weapon choices of all kinds and we don't want to shorten a season, take away opportunity or limit the weapon used by other hunters to benefit our selfs. h.h.
|
|
|
Post by freedomhunter on Mar 9, 2008 8:22:27 GMT -5
At the start of this thread I posted a question about what Illinois could have done differently to prevent their current problems. Trying to put out there the idea that maybe Indiana should get prepared for potential problems when we become the next hot spot for trophy hunters. Sticking our heads in the sand and saying it will never happen is going to leave us unprepared if it does in fact happen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2008 8:58:51 GMT -5
Everything is always about the money. And what a shame some folks have to view wildlife in that light. The state is not out to make a huge profit off of deer hunting like the outfitters are. Not yet anyway. Could be the outfitters may change all that if they can convince enough people in government that there's big money to be had for all, if only they're given control to run the show. I can think of no better example of conflict of interest than to let the outfitters and lessors control the deer herd. Once this happens, it's only a short time before deer hunting will be strictly a rich man's pursuit. Keep thinking that if you want, but the reality of the situation is that ALL game agency have a bunch of expenses that aren't paying their own way, even non-game animals they are task to manage. The have to have the ones making money to make ends meet. So yea, they do run the agency to make money, else they fold in a very short time. All game agencies are run as a business, not unlike the outfitters you all hate.
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Mar 9, 2008 11:10:27 GMT -5
And what a shame some folks have to view wildlife in that light. The state is not out to make a huge profit off of deer hunting like the outfitters are. Not yet anyway. Could be the outfitters may change all that if they can convince enough people in government that there's big money to be had for all, if only they're given control to run the show. I can think of no better example of conflict of interest than to let the outfitters and lessors control the deer herd. Once this happens, it's only a short time before deer hunting will be strictly a rich man's pursuit. Keep thinking that if you want, but the reality of the situation is that ALL game agency have a bunch of expenses that aren't paying their own way, even non-game animals they are task to manage. The have to have the ones making money to make ends meet. So yea, they do run the agency to make money, else they fold in a very short time. All game agencies are run as a business, not unlike the outfitters you all hate. Certainly they're run as a business, but it's pretty much a non-profit. The state requires me to buy a tag at a very nominal cost to pay for managing the resource which is managed for the benefit of all residents of the state, not just hunters who, by virtue of their vast numbers, help keep those costs reasonable by carrying some of the burden of providing habitat. The idea is everyone benefits in some way. The system seems to have worked pretty well for quite awhile. Now come the antler worshipers, who are no longer satisfied at hunting what is there. They want bigger and better and insist on imposing whatever restrictions they deem necessary to achieve that end and causing an explosion in the outfitting/leasing business where the herds can be artificially managed to produce big racks, effectively taking wildlife management out of the hands of state biologists on these vast private properties, even though these deer belong to the people of the state For whatever reason (I'm sure there's more going on than this one article reveals) some folks in Illinois now advocate taking away deer management from the state biologists and giving it to the legislature? LOL, can you imagine our own lovable Patrick Bauer in control of our deer herd?
|
|
|
Post by freedomhunter on Mar 9, 2008 12:39:56 GMT -5
I thought proper management included a balanced herd that includes a better percentage of older age class bucks, maybe I'm wrong. The impending doom of leasing and outfitting is nothing more than glorified scare tactics, imo. Something most hunters I know wouldn't fall prey to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2008 13:13:16 GMT -5
Certainly they're run as a business, but it's pretty much a non-profit. The state requires me to buy a tag at a very nominal cost to pay for managing the resource which is managed for the benefit of all residents of the state, not just hunters who, by virtue of their vast numbers, help keep those costs reasonable by carrying some of the burden of providing habitat. The idea is everyone benefits in some way. The system seems to have worked pretty well for quite awhile. Now come the antler worshipers, who are no longer satisfied at hunting what is there. They want bigger and better and insist on imposing whatever restrictions they deem necessary to achieve that end and causing an explosion in the outfitting/leasing business where the herds can be artificially managed to produce big racks, effectively taking wildlife management out of the hands of state biologists on these vast private properties, even though these deer belong to the people of the state For whatever reason (I'm sure there's more going on than this one article reveals) some folks in Illinois now advocate taking away deer management from the state biologists and giving it to the legislature? LOL, can you imagine our own lovable Patrick Bauer in control of our deer herd? I think you missing the part that DNR's are a part of State Govn. and all of State Govn. is controlled by the State Legislature. Doesn't matter if it's in Illinois or Indiana or Ky., without a cooperative effort along with the Legislature, the DNR will not function. This doesn't mean that the deer managers still don't manage the herd. They will. It's guaranteed by past legislation.
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Mar 9, 2008 16:03:34 GMT -5
I think you missing the part that DNR's are a part of State Govn. and all of State Govn. is controlled by the State Legislature. Doesn't matter if it's in Illinois or Indiana or Ky., without a cooperative effort along with the Legislature, the DNR will not function. This doesn't mean that the deer managers still don't manage the herd. They will. It's guaranteed by past legislation. I'm not missing the point at all, but I believe you are. The Illinois legislature is asking for zero input from the Illinois DNR. The legislature is not cooperating with anyone. Apparently they no longer value the input of their biologists. If this article has it's facts correct, which I agree is merely an assumption at this point, then the Illinois DNR is merely a figurehead. I thought proper management included a balanced herd that includes a better percentage of older age class bucks, maybe I'm wrong. The impending doom of leasing and outfitting is nothing more than glorified scare tactics, imo. Something most hunters I know wouldn't fall prey to. I strongly disagree about the glorified scare tactic comment. It will take many years, I agree, but this trophy antler craze is bringing more big money into the sport and will eventually eliminate the average hunters opportunity. To disbelieve that, you would have to deny the situation in Pike county Illinois.
|
|
|
Post by indianahick on Mar 9, 2008 16:53:14 GMT -5
Unless I am totally incorrect, which could well be. I remember talking (like this) to a gentleman that moved to southern Ill and was looking for a place to hunt. He said something to the effect that not only was Pike county outfitter controlled but so were several of the surrounding counties, Pike was just getting the most publicity from the video community. In my opinion outfitters can be harmful for the little guy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2008 17:08:02 GMT -5
Well, if your correct, there's probably a lot of states out there envious that they don't have Legislators like thise in Illinois.....where you will find the absolute best managed deer herd in the world. If what you say is true, more states would be doing it.
From my personal experience, Illinois is the best in area that I've hunted including Ky. and Ind. That includes overall management and law enforcement. You can call them and they come out. I've been in 6 or 7 counties and none of them are out of balance, we see more bucks then does on most farms.
|
|
|
Post by lugnutz on Mar 9, 2008 19:02:59 GMT -5
You confuse me.......I think you want to argue just for the sake of arguing. Small special interests groups want to change things for them self for personal gains and not for the benefit of the masses. They want to stop or take away from others to benefit them selfs and the reason is always antler size. The Indiana DNR manages the herd for size and health and not trophy hunting which seems to be happening in Illinois. When the state starts to manage the herd for trophy hunting like some want it will be the start to the end of deer hunting for the average hunter. Don't believe that then try to hunt some where in Pike Co. Illinois without paying. The DNR uses several tools to make decisions on deer harvest. Some one posted on here once the numbers they look at, like deer/car accidents, crop damage and harvest numbers. They use hunter surveys to determine how much game we are seeing. I fill out a bow hunters survey every year. I guess we at HI are considered a small interest group but the difference between us and other groups is we promote hunting and weapon choices of all kinds and we don't want to shorten a season, take away opportunity or limit the weapon used by other hunters to benefit our selfs. h.h. Don't worry i confuse myself on a regular basis. ;D I wouldn't say we, just your interest group. Its not my interest on those topics, and thats what i've meant to say.
|
|