Illinois Deer Harvest Numbers

Doe shooter I agree that money is driving the IDNR. I don't believe it is the out of state hunters that are the problem with the deer population though. I see that as more of a local problem. When you have locals killing a dozen deer just to show they could it becomes a problem. The out of state hunters are killing their buck and going home for the most part. I know out in West Central Illinois outfitting is a much bigger business than what it is on my side of the state and I believe you are correct that as far as trophy destinations go the golden triangle is not so golden anymore. Other parts of the state like where I am from still have the quality of bucks running around but have lost some quantity due to EHD in back to back years and the IDNR still allowing locals to massacre whatever herd is left. I just don't agree with letting us locals go buy as many tags as we can fill, limits need to be set. Archery hunters can fill both their tags in the morning and be back in the tree with new tags in the afternoon killing more deer. I know of one guy that killed 21 deer this year. Who in the world could possibly need 21 deer?
 
Blizzard Ridge said:
Doe shooter I agree that money is driving the IDNR. I don't believe it is the out of state hunters that are the problem with the deer population though. I see that as more of a local problem. When you have locals killing a dozen deer just to show they could it becomes a problem. The out of state hunters are killing their buck and going home for the most part. I know out in West Central Illinois outfitting is a much bigger business than what it is on my side of the state and I believe you are correct that as far as trophy destinations go the golden triangle is not so golden anymore. Other parts of the state like where I am from still have the quality of bucks running around but have lost some quantity due to EHD in back to back years and the IDNR still allowing locals to massacre whatever herd is left. I just don't agree with letting us locals go buy as many tags as we can fill, limits need to be set. Archery hunters can fill both their tags in the morning and be back in the tree with new tags in the afternoon killing more deer. I know of one guy that killed 21 deer this year. Who in the world could possibly need 21 deer?
Click to expand...

Not to disagree too strongly,here is the scenario I see. A local guy leases 300 acres for 10K. He sets up 20-30 stands. He starts bringing in 5 hunters a week through end of December. If a guy shoots a couple does ,the lease guy tags the deer.He can buy as many tags as he wants. As long as the guy in the tree has a buck tag ,they are good. Guys who pay big bucks to hunt want to shoot something ,even if it's a doe,or several does. The lease guy is making money, the out of town guy is happy, the landowner got paid. The buck had ground shrinkage? Let the coyotes have it. I sympathize with your situation. But we have game hogs too.
 
Doe Shooter said:
Not to disagree too strongly,here is the scenario I see. A local guy leases 300 acres for 10K. He sets up 20-30 stands. He starts bringing in 5 hunters a week through end of December. If a guy shoots a couple does ,the lease guy tags the deer.He can buy as many tags as he wants. As long as the guy in the tree has a buck tag ,they are good. Guys who pay big bucks to hunt want to shoot something ,even if it's a doe,or several does. The lease guy is making money, the out of town guy is happy, the landowner got paid. The buck had ground shrinkage? Let the coyotes have it. I sympathize with your situation. But we have game hogs too.
Click to expand...

I think all outfitters should be "audited" initially and once every 3 years to make sure practices like this don't continue, because that is a way too common practice that we've all heard happening. You want to make money selling hunts? Fine, but you should have to prove that you're doing it legitimately, just like in any business. Although putting a hard cap on the number of deer per hunter would help, some folks have family members tag deer for them who don't even own a bow....

It would further legitimize the outfitter business and regulate things, instead of the DNR's current system which is to simply charge outfitters to get a license.
 
Doe Shooter said:
Not to disagree too strongly,here is the scenario I see. A local guy leases 300 acres for 10K. He sets up 20-30 stands. He starts bringing in 5 hunters a week through end of December. If a guy shoots a couple does ,the lease guy tags the deer.He can buy as many tags as he wants. As long as the guy in the tree has a buck tag ,they are good. Guys who pay big bucks to hunt want to shoot something ,even if it's a doe,or several does. The lease guy is making money, the out of town guy is happy, the landowner got paid. The buck had ground shrinkage? Let the coyotes have it. I sympathize with your situation. But we have game hogs too.
Click to expand...
That could be partly true. But my experience when hunting leases not within my state, most of us tend to eat our tags. If we are driving 10-25 hours to hunt a state that tends to have higher quality bucks in age and racks, then most of who I have been with hold out for something above the norm they can shoot at home. And no need for a doe as they can have a truckload of those back home. I have a couple friends that hunted Saskatchewon for 14 years and only shot 4 bucks between them, with multiple chances at trophy class bucks. And never shot a doe. I've hunted multiple areas and have passed many a buck that I'm sure locals would jump on, waiting for what my standards were set. We see the same thing in this state in reverse as we can take 7+ and 2 buck deer legally and border state hunters will come here to max out their quota. because they live in states with very limited permits. I guess it depends on the group you are with.
 
Doe Shooter said:
Not to disagree too strongly,here is the scenario I see. A local guy leases 300 acres for 10K. He sets up 20-30 stands. He starts bringing in 5 hunters a week through end of December. If a guy shoots a couple does ,the lease guy tags the deer.He can buy as many tags as he wants. As long as the guy in the tree has a buck tag ,they are good. Guys who pay big bucks to hunt want to shoot something ,even if it's a doe,or several does. The lease guy is making money, the out of town guy is happy, the landowner got paid. The buck had ground shrinkage? Let the coyotes have it. I sympathize with your situation. But we have game hogs too.
Click to expand...
This would be illegal in the state of Illinois so if that is the case then that outfitter needs his license stripped. I personally have never seen that as a matter of fact all of my properties are under a strict no doe kill management until I see the population is fit for it. So say I hunt 25 guys in a year on 20,000+ acres and half of them kill a buck then we take 13 deer off of all of our farms for the year. I am pretty sure that is far less than the trespassers would have killed off these properties if I hadn't leased them. Now use that same theory of 10K for 300 acres and the fact that I have 20,000+ acres leased from one owner mind you. Now is the guy leasing the ground making money on 25 hunters? We also have a 140" buck limit, if ground shrinkage happens that hunter loses another $500 and will never be asked back again. None of these activities will take place on my farms and as far as I know I have not heard of any activity like that from any of the other locals. We killed 6 deer off of 20,000+ acres this year, 2 of which were myself and my son. I looks like you may have a problem locally but I just don't see that in my part of the state and hope we never do.
 
g squared 23 said:
I think all outfitters should be "audited" initially and once every 3 years to make sure practices like this don't continue, because that is a way too common practice that we've all heard happening. You want to make money selling hunts? Fine, but you should have to prove that you're doing it legitimately, just like in any business. Although putting a hard cap on the number of deer per hunter would help, some folks have family members tag deer for them who don't even own a bow....

It would further legitimize the outfitter business and regulate things, instead of the DNR's current system which is to simply charge outfitters to get a license.
Click to expand...
That isn't 100% correct. Outfitters are audited every year. Strict guidelines are in place to log every kill. The log includes all info about the harvested deer, hunter's license and tag info, location of kill. This is all submitted to the state along with income generated and paying taxes just like everyone else. So the auditing system is in place and is a valuable tool for me to keep track of where deer were killed and managing my herds etc. I see it as being audited more strictly than any other business actually. I have other businesses and believe me I do not have as much paperwork for the state as I do with the hunting business. I think putting a cap on tags for hunters is the key to it. The unethical hunters are going to do their thing regardless if they have tags for the deer or not. All that the letting people kill unlimited deer does is allow the poachers to be more legal. Most ethical hunter's would not kill a dozen deer off a farm unless that farm was in serious need of thinning the herd IMO.
 
dogghr said:
That could be partly true. But my experience when hunting leases not within my state, most of us tend to eat our tags. If we are driving 10-25 hours to hunt a state that tends to have higher quality bucks in age and racks, then most of who I have been with hold out for something above the norm they can shoot at home. And no need for a doe as they can have a truckload of those back home. I have a couple friends that hunted Saskatchewon for 14 years and only shot 4 bucks between them, with multiple chances at trophy class bucks. And never shot a doe. I've hunted multiple areas and have passed many a buck that I'm sure locals would jump on, waiting for what my standards were set. We see the same thing in this state in reverse as we can take 7+ and 2 buck deer legally and border state hunters will come here to max out their quota. because they live in states with very limited permits. I guess it depends on the group you are with.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what we see. All of my hunter's this year either tagged a trophy deer for them 140"+ or they ate their tag. That is including the guys that were on leases. Every hunter I had in camp this year was after a trophy or nothing, they understood what I wanted for my management practices and each one of them strictly followed those guidelines. It was even tough for my son who is in college and could have used the meat but he did let tons of doe and good bucks walk because he knows what our ultimate goals are. He let many deer over that 140" mark walk because he knew they wouldn't be at least 4 years old or thought I should say. This is a good talk I am always curious as what the local hunters are thinking. I am fairly thick skinned so I take the criticism fairly well. I am always glad to see when someone else proves my point for me thanks dogghr!
 
Blizzard Ridge said:
That isn't 100% correct. Outfitters are audited every year. Strict guidelines are in place to log every kill. The log includes all info about the harvested deer, hunter's license and tag info, location of kill. This is all submitted to the state along with income generated and paying taxes just like everyone else. So the auditing system is in place and is a valuable tool for me to keep track of where deer were killed and managing my herds etc. I see it as being audited more strictly than any other business actually. I have other businesses and believe me I do not have as much paperwork for the state as I do with the hunting business. I think putting a cap on tags for hunters is the key to it. The unethical hunters are going to do their thing regardless if they have tags for the deer or not. All that the letting people kill unlimited deer does is allow the poachers to be more legal. Most ethical hunter's would not kill a dozen deer off a farm unless that farm was in serious need of thinning the herd IMO.
Click to expand...
The flaw in your argument is the assumption that outfitters are registered with the state. I'd be willing to bet most are not IMO. Knowing human nature and their independent streak, this is an agreement between a couple of people and there is no need to get the government involved. I'd also bet no income is claimed. Realistically, who is going to catch them? Just sayin.......
 
I would like to see Illinois go to a 3-deer per season limit with only 1 buck (regardless of method by which buck was taken); voluntary restraint would be best but this would at least eliminate situations where people shoot large numbers of does during a single season.
 
Oakseeds said:
I would like to see Illinois go to a 3-deer per season limit with only 1 buck (regardless of method by which buck was taken); voluntary restraint would be best but this would at least eliminate situations where people shoot large numbers of does during a single season.
Click to expand...
I don't have a problem with the two buck thing. My biggest problem is with the slaughter of doe when there just are not enough around. I would think there is a happy medium of two or 3 max that would help the herd. Just slow the folks down that kill a dozen or more for a household. I can't imagine there are too many households that eat more than 3 or 4 deer in a years time. Most of the people I am seeing doing the doe slaughter are either donating or giving it away which is great but not if it is hurting the deer herd. There just has to be a happy medium for everyone to live with.
 
Doe Shooter said:
The flaw in your argument is the assumption that outfitters are registered with the state. I'd be willing to bet most are not IMO. Knowing human nature and their independent streak, this is an agreement between a couple of people and there is no need to get the government involved. I'd also bet no income is claimed. Realistically, who is going to catch them? Just sayin.......
Click to expand...

Would these folks actually be outfitters or are they just landowners that are leasing their land out? There is a difference between the two. If it is a lease agreement between a couple people then they would not be considered outfitters. Unless they are providing a service, hanging of stands, information about how the herd travels on the farm, food and lodging and the like. If they are just saying here is my property lines go kill a deer then it wouldn't be considered outfitting under the DNR regulations. Also, if this is an agreement between a couple people what is the difference than me being a landowner and allowing people to hunt my farms? I don't think one is different from the other, the difference for me being a registered outfitter is I am keeping logs of every animal harvested, I also do not allow any doe taken off any of my farms until I see a improvement in the area deer population, even if a specific farm has a good herd. I have to count on the neighbors killing several of them each year. Also, what I feel is an advantage to outfitting land compared to leasing or giving permission to hunt for pay is I can control what deer are killed off of my farms, if you just give a lease you really do not have control of what is getting killed on your farms (if that makes sense). Believe me I have looked at every possible scenario and what is my best approach with this much ground to manage. I am a hunter first so my deer herds are my #1 priority with being able to pay for the land being my second priority. I can't control the herd if I don't control the land. If I didn't control the land it would be trespassers/poachers or a big outfitting group looking to make big bucks controlling it.

I do know what you are saying though, all outfitters are not created equally. Some do not have the ethics they should have. I just have not witnessed that myself from any friends or acquaintances I have met in this field. Everyone I have met has the deer herd as their #1 priority and want to provide the best service possible for their customer. If you don't have the deer then you don't have the customers.
 
Ended up not being too bad in counties I have farms. Clark was just down 22 and Edgar 86. The problem is it is still trending down at some point we need to hit the mark that stabilizes the herd IMO. If it continues to trend down at some point we no longer have a herd. I am going to do my best on my ground to help that mark start trending back up a little.
 
Was thinking about this topic in the middle of the night for some odd reason.

Anyway, I was thinking that a group like IWA should file a FOIA request for raw tag data. It's obviously there, and recently license data was used by the DNR to compare with the Indiana database for a license fraud crackdown. I'd love to apply some analytics - for example, sort by address and then Pareto results to find the households and individuals tagging 6, 8, 10, deer per year. It would be nice to know what neighbors need peer pressure or a friendly chat. That same data would be useful for the opinion driven dialogue on outfitters and out of state hunters.

Devils advocate, I'd hate to have PETA or HSUS get that same list.
 
MattJK said:
Was thinking about this topic in the middle of the night for some odd reason.

Anyway, I was thinking that a group like IWA should file a FOIA request for raw tag data. It's obviously there, and recently license data was used by the DNR to compare with the Indiana database for a license fraud crackdown. I'd love to apply some analytics - for example, sort by address and then Pareto results to find the households and individuals tagging 6, 8, 10, deer per year. It would be nice to know what neighbors need peer pressure or a friendly chat. That same data would be useful for the opinion driven dialogue on outfitters and out of state hunters.

Devils advocate, I'd hate to have PETA or HSUS get that same list.
Click to expand...

It would be great to see who the people are that are killing large numbers of deer. Households would be great as well but say a household of 6 people, 2 parents and 4 kids all of which hunt as in my household. One family could take a lot of deer out of the woods. I am blessed in my family that we never take doe out of the herd and will only take bucks that are mature. My kids grew up with this philosophy so it really never was an issue for us. We will take 3 to 4 deer tops a year. This year we only took 2 both were bucks.

It would be great to be able to talk to folks over harvesting deer just to explain the long term effects this is having on our deer herd. Of course they can take that info or leave it but at least they would be informed. If our state doesn't make the necessary changes who are we to tell someone how to hunt when they are legally doing so. I am sure that is how that conversation would go with the majority of these people but at least we did what we could. Heck I do it anyway. Most the people in my area know me and follow me on Facebook, etc. so they know how I feel.
 
Blizzard Ridge, I feel like the problem people you are speaking of are VERY few and far between. I don't really know any of these hunters that I would call "slob hunters." I hunt 170 acres in Mercer County (10% decrease in harvest) with my dad and my buddy, and we have shot probably 2 does a year plus a buck (except this year), but numbers were very low this year. We have decided to take a few years off of killing does. I am really hoping we get a bounceback on numbers.

I agree, hunters need to start taking responsibility for their actions. We all know the state isn't going to help us!
 
Sam we have several people around us killing an excess amount of deer. It is what is. They are legally hunting so really not much I can say about it. I just try to do my part by not allowing does to be killed until the population comes back around. All we can do is educate the people that do not grasp the concept that the herd numbers are down and the only way to build it back is to let does, especially bred does live. You are correct our state will never help us out on this problem. Money talks.

Mercer County - You all have some great football over your way. We have never played Aledo in the State Championship but I have watched your high school team up there a few times.
 
I have no issue with taking multiple deer to eat them. Struggle a bit with those killing 6-8 deer and just donating them or giving them away.

On one hand, people are getting good quality meat at a low cost... on the other hand easy excuse to whack another deer.

I'd like to see a two tag rule (antlerless/either sex) and a choice to buy a third either sex tag.

Max two bucks and max three deer.

This should appease most everyone that is hunting. You could also hunt 3 seasons this way, bow, firearm, muzzle loader.

I think the 3rd tag should be more expensive also. They can make up some money that way. Make it double the cost of a previous tag. Then you really have to decide.


Sent from my iPhone using Deer Hunter Forum
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
What do you say to anti-hunters?
Replies
15
Views
767
yoderjac
yoderjac
S
Processor question from a newbie
Replies
4
Views
283
buckdeer1
B
S
How old is my buck?
Replies
11
Views
1K
TimberGhost
TimberGhost
Mennoniteman
IT TAKES TWICE THE LAND TO GROW 3 YEAR OLD BUCKS AS IT DOES TO GROW 2 YEAR OLD BUCKS
Replies
18
Views
2K
yoderjac
yoderjac
A
Welcome to Ackley, Wisconsin 40 Acres
Replies
5
Views
1K
Drycreek
Drycreek
Back
Top