|
Post by steiny on Aug 13, 2006 8:03:48 GMT -5
Kinda what I was thinking lugnutz. Those jobs are paid for by tax payers, and tax payers darned well ought to be able to question their decisions, and expect to hear intelligent answers.
Nobody seems to give a hoot about ragging on Mitch Daniels. Why defend the state DNR when their decisions questioned?
|
|
|
Post by wolfhound on Aug 13, 2006 9:29:27 GMT -5
So what happens when the biologists aren't listened to even by the game agency?
I agree with the article but that's not what's happening in Illinois. My father in law knows a state biologist and the state isn't letting them do their job. The biologist was told that he can do his job their way or he won't have a job. Too much pressure here for those out of state dollars to risk lowering the deer herd properly. With CWD in the north Illinois deer herd is a ticking time bomb. And it's all about greed.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Aug 13, 2006 12:22:39 GMT -5
So what happens when the biologists aren't listened to even by the game agency? I agree with the article but that's not what's happening in Illinois. My father in law knows a state biologist and the state isn't letting them do their job. The biologist was told that he can do his job their way or he won't have a job. Too much pressure here for those out of state dollars to risk lowering the deer herd properly. With CWD in the north Illinois deer herd is a ticking time bomb. And it's all about greed. I agree.. I saw that last year or the year before when the legislature was setting NR permit numbers. They want as many as they can and charge what the traffic will bear. I doubt that very many NRs are coming to Illinois to hunt does. .
|
|
|
Post by wolfhound on Aug 13, 2006 15:00:11 GMT -5
I doubt that very many NRs are coming to Illinois to hunt does. True. They really need to implement an Earn-a-buck rule in the high population area's just for that reason.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Aug 13, 2006 15:08:28 GMT -5
I doubt that very many NRs are coming to Illinois to hunt does. True. They really need to implement an Earn-a-buck rule in the high population area's just for that reason. The only way I can see an NR shooting a doe is they kill a buck the first day and have 4 or 5 days left to hunt on a paid hunt. I know numerous deer hunters from Indiana that do hunt Illinois and wouldn't shoot a doe on a bet over there. This is on private ground, but on their own hunts. This "passing of does and hunting only big bucks" bubble will burst one of these days. .
|
|
|
Post by dec on Aug 17, 2006 8:50:27 GMT -5
What!?!?!?!?!?
I go away for a couple days and check posts, only to find that I've been edited by a moderator for a comment that in no way was offensive!
Give me a break. I simply offered a simple comment based on the "Greed" comment in the original post. I simply can not beleive what this site is becoming.
|
|
|
Post by cedararrow on Aug 17, 2006 9:11:50 GMT -5
here is the issue I have with our state biologists. They think the general public is stupid. Much like the rest of our government officials. We can clearly see through numbers that the OBR did help the overall health of the herd. It did help the age structure, it did help to move the overall ratio of bucks to does to a healthier number. Most anyone can look at the numbers and see that. However the biologists of this state sit in front of a generated public and say it didnt do any of that. Its a fluke in the last couple of years. The OBR isnt helping our herd at all.
If for one time they said look the numbers show that it did what we expected and the age structure did move. Overall hunters are killing more does in comparison to bucks, the deer that are being checked are older, but we cant afford this type of season structure anymore. It is costing us too much money right now.. OR We acknowledge that the obr is a good tool but we want to explore other means of managing a higher age structure. After a couple of changes and other trial periods we might return back, but we have to find a means of maximizing income, and hunter satisfaction within our deer hunting seasons.
Instead they sit there and say it didnt work look at the numbers they arent showing you what you think. Thats the only beef I have with our biologists. This has nothing to do with the OBR I can argue why i think its great till the cows come home but nobody wants to start that. I do have a problem with a grown man sitting in front of me lying to my face because he doesnt want to admit that he we screwed up with past decisions. Bottom line people in office need to realize that the overall population in this state are becoming far more educated than in years past. The use of the internet and mass media is moving current issues into a thing of "old news is what msn had up a minute ago" its turning most of the worlds news into not being current enough. A few years ago all we had were newspapers printed once a day or the evening news played at 6-7 in the afternoon. Now we can get news anytime and it is almost real time news. We are an educated group of people, dont lie to me thinking I wont catch it or dont tell me that what is clearly in front of me isnt really there. Thats all I have to say about that. Now lets go kill some squirrels and set some stands.
|
|
|
Post by mullis56 on Aug 17, 2006 9:36:14 GMT -5
Interesting article.
480 - you have a copy of your article? Congrats on getting it published!!!
|
|
|
Post by chicobrownbear on Aug 17, 2006 9:51:39 GMT -5
The management decisions that biologists make could have almost nothing to do with hunting and almost everything to do with a thousand other variables or goals that they are trying to work out. A biologist's decision to manage a deer herd may have less to do with the deer herd specifically and more to do with the regeneration of vegetation (or one of the other thousand things). As hard as it will be for some hunters to swallow, its important for every hunter to understand that biologists shouldn't and don't cater to hunters. They have the monumentous task of trying to figure out (on microgeographical scales) how things are affecting one another, and then trying to make an informed decision on what to do to balance that out. The last thing they need is a bunch of people trying to influence their decision. THey will work it out eventually.
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Aug 17, 2006 17:42:28 GMT -5
Interesting article. 480 - you have a copy of your article? Congrats on getting it published!!! Thanks for the congratulations-and I can`t tell you how much I would LOVE to share my article here, but I`m guessing that Deer & Deer Hunting wouldn`t think much of it if I shared it prior to them printing it. Dan Schmidt is supposed to have a publishing contract in the mail to me, but I haven`t seen it as of today. And he told me they have all their articles lined out through mid-2007, so it`s probably gonna be this time next year before it runs......it`s killin` me. I`m trying to get started on the next one now, and I`m thinking this time I`m gonna try Indiana Game and Fish.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Aug 17, 2006 18:37:20 GMT -5
Please post where any IDNR official said that the OBR did NOT work.
Everything that I have read they say they do not know for sure one way or the other.
Jim Mitchell was quoted as saying…
"This trend has been developing for 10 years," he said. "The rate of change has not been significant since the implementation of the one-buck rule."
"We know there isn't a biological need for the regulation," Dr. Mitchell explained. "Is it having a biological effect? We won't know unless we go back to the former regulation (one buck with a bow, one with a gun). That could tell us if the increase in mature bucks is due to a natural trend or a result of the one-buck rule."
"Yes, we're seeing more two and a half- and three and a half year-old bucks in the harvest," he noted. "But we can't assume that is a direct result of the one-buck regulation."
"Now that they have more experience under their belts and know how to hunt bigger bucks, they're more selective in the deer they take," Dr. Mitchell said. "Their desires and abilities have changed over time, and I think that is a big factor."
Again he said -"I think that is a big factor." He did not say that it was the only factor, did he?
There are a lots of explanations for an age shift.
Unfortunately some do not want to consider any other possibility at all no matter what.
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Aug 17, 2006 19:33:02 GMT -5
Posted by chicobrownbear: "The management decisions that biologists make could have almost nothing to do with hunting and almost everything to do with a thousand other variables or goals that they are trying to work out. A biologist's decision to manage a deer herd may have less to do with the deer herd specifically and more to do with the regeneration of vegetation (or one of the other thousand things). As hard as it will be for some hunters to swallow, its important for every hunter to understand that biologists shouldn't and don't cater to hunters. They have the monumentous task of trying to figure out (on microgeographical scales) how things are affecting one another, and then trying to make an informed decision on what to do to balance that out. The last thing they need is a bunch of people trying to influence their decision. THey will work it out eventually."
I disagree-While it`s true that the deer herd is managed with many factors taken into consideration, it`s baseless to state that hunting has nothing to do with decisions made and that they don`t cater to hunters. Hunters foot the bill for the vast majority of wildlife financing-both game, as well as non-game wildlife.
Biologists do consider carrying capacity, the estimated number of wildlife the habitat can sustain, and they do also consider insurance companies because they pay out for car/deer collisions, and they consider crop damage, and you`re correct that it`s a balancing act. But of course biologists consider hunters and do cater to us as much as they can, since they understand that we foot the bill.
If they weren`t catering to us, the wild turkey would never have been re-introduced in Indiana, and the farmers and insurance companies would have had every deer in the state wiped out.
Kind of what the new antlerless regulations might allow for.
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Aug 18, 2006 11:06:50 GMT -5
Looking at all of the data objectively before making a decision, does not in any way, shape, or form mean that the DNR thinks the public is stupid.
How exactly can we clearly see that it was the OBR that caused a small age shift when the data simply tells us that it occurred, not what caused it?
If you want to believe badly enough then I suppose you can see anything you want to see, but if you look at it objectively as Dr. Mitchell has then you will see that there are other possibilities besides the OBR.
Why would they acknowledge that the OBR is a good tool when that has not yet been proven either way?
Yes people are far more educated than they were any time they were ever before, but people need to understand that they are still not as educated about the subject as the professionals they critize. Anyone can read literature and information on the internet but no one can learn everything a professional biologist knows simply from reading the internet.
It is easy to sit back and call someone a liar when they don't tell you exactly what you want to hear but next time before you do so you may want to remember that you will not be held responsible if you are wrong as Dr. Mitchell will be. You can say or do whatever you want when you lack the burden of responsibility for your opinions but if you are held responsible then you must have all the facts before you act.
|
|
|
Post by polypros on Aug 18, 2006 12:07:19 GMT -5
Close down the site and lock the doors Woody. We all agree to leave this to the biologist The reason we shouldn't question 8 doe per buck is the same as why we don't question the doctors method of removing the cancer. My guess is we will still have does next year. Don't forget how hard it is to kill 8 does. If it is easy then you probably have too many does.
|
|