Illinois Outdoors at PrairiestateOutdoors.com
RulesIllinois Outdoors at PrairiestateOutdoors.com

Prairie State Outdoors Categories

Top Story :: Opinion :: Illinois Outdoor News :: Fishing News :: Hunting News :: Birding News :: Nature Stories :: Miscellaneous News :: Fishing :: Big Fish Fridays :: Big Fish Stories :: State Fishing Reports :: Other Fishing Reports :: Fishing Tips, Tactics & Tales :: Where to Fish :: Fishing Calendar :: Hunting :: Hunting Reports :: Hunting Tips, Tactics & Tales :: Where to Hunt :: Tales from the Timber :: Turkey Tales :: Hunting Calendar :: Big Game Stories :: Nature and Birding :: Birding Bits :: Nature Newsbits :: Critter Corner :: Birding Calendar :: Stargazing :: In the Wild :: Miscellaneous Reports and Shorts :: Links :: Hunting Links :: Birding Links :: Video ::

Big Buck Stories

1960s :: 1980s :: 1991-92 :: 1992-93 :: 1993-94 :: 1994-95 :: 1995-96 :: 1997-98 :: 1998-99 :: 1999-2000 :: 2000-01 :: 2001-02 :: 2003-04 :: 2004-05 :: 2005-06 :: 2006-07 :: 2007-08 :: 2008-09 :: 2009-10 :: 2010-11 :: 2011-12 :: 2012-13 ::

Scattershooting

Flathead's Picture of the Week :: Big bucks :: Birdwatching :: Cougars :: Dogs :: Critters :: Fishing :: Asian carp :: Bass :: Catfish :: Crappie :: Ice :: Muskie :: Humor :: Hunting :: Deer :: Ducks :: Geese :: Turkey :: Upland game :: Misc. :: Mushrooms :: Open Blog Thursday :: Picture A Day 2010 :: Plants and trees :: Politics :: Prairie :: Scattershooting :: Tales from the Trail Cams :: Wild Things ::


Print

DNR license fees up, sales down

June 26, 2010 at 09:22 PM

Fee increases instituted by the DNR this year have cut into the sales of hunting and fishing licenses, but are also pumping much-needed cash into the agency. Through Monday, license and permit sales were off by about 18,000 while revenues were up $2.2 million according to Miller.

Sales of resident either-sex firearm deer tags were down by 8,900 and sales of antlerless-only deer tags were down 2,900. Waterfowl stamp sales are down 1,900 and combination licenses are off 4,700.

On the fishing side, resident license sales are down 2,600 but resident 24-hour licenses are up 2,300. Inland trout stamps are off by 1,000 but sales of salmon stamps are actually up by 116.

Your CommentsComments :: Terms :: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

go figure, gov’t gets more revenue, and more people aren’t allow to enjoy the resource.

next they will spend money on advertising to get more people involved in the outdoors.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/26 at 10:15 PM

Hunter & fisherman taking it on the chin again.

I remember our new IDNR stating that other outdoorsmen were going to be FINALLY having to pay some fees, BUT they are all still using our states parks for FREE. Meanwhile hunter & fisherman have been hit even more so AND a lot of us don’t even use IDNR ground ????
Hunter & fisherman who use private ground are hit by these new fees.

The IDNR is hiring more staff to run the IDNR & even some more biologist, but is it a good thing to have to price more Hunter & fisherman out of the outdoors so our IDNR can have a bigger staff now ??????

When is the IDNR going to live up to the promise that hunter & fishermen are not going to have to continue to pay the bulk of running our own state DNR. When is the free ride, for the chosen few, going to end ????

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/27 at 05:40 AM

Government has nothing. It only takes from the people that have earned it. This is a great case where higher taxes and fees proves to be harder on people and the government gets more money to waste.

I only put in for 1 muzzelloader tag this year. I had been doing 2 tags every other year.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/27 at 08:32 AM

I agree with much of what you say Lynn, making other users pay is critical. Too bad nobody is brave enough to make it happen (particularly in an election year).

But I don’t think DNR is really bigger. At least not in the areas they need to be bigger. I think it is important to have people to oversee the critters. I think it’s less important to have so many people in Springfield who attend meetings, have nice titles and earn lots of money while effectively doing very little.

Posted by Jeff Lampe on 06/27 at 09:25 AM

There are no suprises here. Everytime in the past 30 years that there has been a fee increase by the Department of Conservation/DNR, license sales numbers have gone down the first year of the increase. This increase will see the numbers larger than normal because of a second factor and that is they have not hired a CPO class for 5 years now. Fishing license sales are influenced by the number of wardens out checking for them. There is a certain percentage of people who do not buy a license if they think they will not be checked. The warden force loses about 1 CPO a month to retirements, career changes or other reasons. Thus in a five year period of no hires, the number of license compliance checks has dropped a lot this time. Jeff is right about the hires, valid positions have been left unfilled while bureacrats positions are created. You can hire 3 district biologists or CPO’s for one of the top level meeting managers salaries.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/27 at 10:09 AM

does anyone know what the new turkey biologist is getting paid? i have looked for info online and cant find any. Many counties in illinois have 1 CPO to cover 3 or 4 counties. my opinion would be to hire a couple more CPO’s rather than hiring someone with a kush desk job. CPO’s would create some revenue and enforce the laws, which is almost impossible to do with 1 officer covering over 1,500 square miles!  i think we could do without a canoe czar for $85,000 a year and just hire 2-3 CPO’s. im not sure of the turkey bio’s salary but the population in the counties i hunt have been just fine and growing, i would rather see more CPO’s! but thats just my opinion.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/27 at 10:52 AM

Fee increase + Fewer tags/licenses = no net gain.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/27 at 11:08 AM

DNR has huge potential to raise more $$ from landowners…like me.

Why not allow landowners to buy a deer permit that is transferable to another person?

Let’s face it, there is no biological difference whether I harvest the deer or someone else does.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/27 at 11:56 AM

Spoon River….why can’t those other people, buy their own deer tags, like everyone else ????

Most of what I have heard about it transferable landowner tags is, landowner/outfitter/the Farm Bureau wanting FREE landowner tags to be transferable and lots of them too.

So wouldn’t landowner or outfitters, being able to give free permits to anyone, cost the state a whole lot of money ?????

I sure don’t see how the state raises more money, by giving away more FREE tags ?????

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/27 at 01:16 PM

I’m not talking about giving away “free” tags.

I saying I’m willing to purchase my landowner tags if they are transferable.

Right now, for shotgun, at least, non-landowners have to draw for a tag in a specific county.  Don’t do it in time and you are out of luck.

A paid-for transferable landowner tag would allow complete flexibility for landowners and hunters to get together without all the drawings and other BS.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/27 at 01:25 PM

Why dont these people just pay the extra 50 bucks so they can do whatever they want in the forest?  Its 50 bucks.  I do feel this extra money should go into CPOs.  I personally feel they should triple the fines on poaching and make this point system gone.  Shooting from the road and well outside of legal hours should lose hunting rights FOREVER as well as examples being made with fines that help reimburse the cost of CPO’s to taxpayers.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/27 at 05:25 PM

People, Illinoisans, have been trained for years and years to pay nothing for park use.  The only thing I use State Parks for is to ride horses.  I think it’s like $10 per night at Jubilee State Park but free if you’re only a day-rider.  Here’s the problem….with the users as well as the parks themselves.  As far as the users go, they’ll never pay to hike or anything else.  NEVER.  They’re much too cheap.  They’ll pull up with a $40,000 horse trailer with living quarters being pulled by a $50,000 King Ranch and complain about the $10 they pay for a night’s stay.  Crazy but true.  On the flip side, parks like Jubilee are never open to horseback riding anyway so most horse owners already know to go elsewhere or ride on private land, which in turn means less money for the parks.  It’s a vicious cycle that’s hard to put a stop to.  I see other states like Indiana making a killing on their equestrian areas while Illinois just considers it a hassle.  When parks like Jubilee are donated to the state, I’m pretty sure they were donated for the people to actually use.  This state’s government is just so damn lazy that they consider everything a hassle.  Raising license fees, selling fewer of them, yet making more money.  I wish I could run my business like that.  Maybe it’s time for us hunters to get together and reduce our own tag consumption to teach them a lesson.  I’d be more than willing to shoot fewer deer for one or two years to make a point.  Plus, that’ll increase our deer herd and give them another shot in the arm.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/27 at 05:37 PM

Most of the problem lies with the amount of money that is stolen from the IDNR every year. By stolen I
mean that the yahoos in springfield help themselves to the IDNR money pit. I will promise you that the IDNR does not operate in the red. It would be very interesting to see their budget and how much money they bring in.
They give away way to much money in the grant program. For example they gave 2.25 million dollars to purchase 276 acres-this is ridiculous.I think that the total dollar value of these grants was like 19 million. Also guess what part of the state got the biggest share-Northeast-no surprise there.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/27 at 08:51 PM

Also forgot to mention 77,200 dollars for 1.22 acre site on Ash Drive somewhere in Cook county-wonder who owned that???????

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/27 at 08:53 PM

This might actually be a topic where we are almost all on the same page. 

I wonder how many people bought lifetime licenses last year in anticipation of the fee increase?  I know I did.  Is that influencing the numbers much???

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/27 at 09:19 PM

I invested in the LL too, skeptic.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/28 at 07:12 AM

“Sales of resident either-sex firearm deer tags were down by 8,900 and sales of antlerless-only deer tags were down 2,900.” A lot of the resident deer hunters continued to buy tags as they were displaced by lease after lease during the past few years. They have crowded onto public land, or bought tags and hoped to find another place to hunt. As one can only expect- sooner or later they have run out of options and will fail to buy tags. There will also be a rolling effect on hunting/trapping license sales. Ground that is leased (mainly for deer hunting) has now excluded the squirrel hunters/trappers/coon hunters - those are pursuits that are almost on life support in Illinois.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/28 at 08:37 AM

Skeptic,
I bought a combo LL for me and my 6 year-old son.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/28 at 08:38 AM

I want to know how the person who wrote this reached the conclusion that was presented in the first line of the story.  I didn’t see any evidence to support the assertion.  It may be correct, but to say that license sales are down because of the price increase is a giant leap.  Maybe it’s the poor economy, poor hunting the last few years, etc.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/28 at 09:48 AM

I have a question, How many new fees and fee increases will it take before we all learn we pay more the DNR gets less?
..
Wow 2.2 million more yet looks like instead of 54 million from the general fund the DNR is going to get 46 million or less this year from the general fund. Hmmm now I know I’m not the smartest person, but the math there doesn’t show a gain for the DNR.
..
I wonder why there hasn’t been a story about that on here, seems like it would belong.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/28 at 03:36 PM

I wonder how many deer will be poached this year? The number of deer shot last year was not even close to being correct, with out check stations people are just reusing there tags. Go IDNR

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/28 at 05:40 PM

Like I said…as a landowner I am willing to buy my permit if it is transferable.

Correct me, please, if I am wrong, but aren’t outfitters allocated tags that they can transfer?

If so, then the DNR tag system for deer is unconstitutional…in that it favors one group. outfitters, over another, landowners.

Correct me, again, if I am wrong, but don’t outfitters have to control a certain number of acres?

If so, then DNR is responsible for the lease boom that’s displacing hunters.

If DNR really wants to raise money and provide access for more hunters onto private land, they should allow landowners to buy transferable tags…they’d sell a ton of them…but I could be wrong…

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/28 at 08:52 PM

That’s possible…but of a different kind.  Instead of gobbling up places to hunt and throwing people out, as outfitters do, I suspect you’d see a broader range of options for how landowners treated those transferable tags.  Yes, some might close their property to current hunters, but I’m guessing still more would take the approach that, if you want to hunt my property, you are going to have to share it with me, the landowner and a few other guys.

My argument about constitutionality centers on the outfitters having the benefit of buying transferable tags, but landowners do not.  How is that equal treatment?  Hell, you’d think that private landowners would be the ones given preferential treatment over commercial outfitters.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/28 at 10:10 PM

Fine by me…call me an outfitter…

I would just like to have some easy, no BS mechanism to earn some income off the deer on my farms without giving up complete control to a commercial outfitter…that’s all.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/28 at 11:16 PM

The minute that you charge for hunting access, you are liable for any and all accidents incurred. In addition, you are now a “business” and are held to the same standard that a Walmart is for the persons useing your property. Solid, all perils insurance is critical if you want to maintain your assets. Don’t take that trespass fee Spoon River without a minimum of at least 2 million in liability coverage. Your standard farm policy will leave you out in the cold.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/29 at 07:32 AM

Spoonriver - your idea SUCKS! plain and simple! having transferable permits is exactly what the Farm Bureau and outfitters want ...... more control of OUR deer herd to sell it to the highest bidder. Every landowner in the state would get the free tags and the only way anyone would get to hunt their property would be to be the highest bidder for those tags. Result - Illinois residents lose even more land they once hunted on.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/29 at 09:19 AM

Spoonriver = “I would just like to have some easy, no BS mechanism to earn some income off the deer on my farms “

That is called the ‘commercialized hunting industry’ & that is the biggest problem with our hunting today. Every Tom, Dick & Harry, trying to find ways to make some “easy” money, off of our IL deerherd.

Now your scheme to make easy money, is to get the state to sell you & every other landowner in the state, lot of transferable deer permit, so you can sell them to the highest bidder you can find anywhere ????????? 
Noble idea. 8^(
This article centers around the state of IL losing more & more resident hunters & this is what you come up with here
??????
You are trying to solve your problems, NOT help IL hunters solve theirs.  8^(

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/29 at 11:40 AM

Ah geez - Spoons been tippin the jug again.  Can you go one post without mentioning you are a landowner for the love of pete? 


I thought the wolves were eating all YOUR deer?  So you want all the tags to be filtered through you, so you can make some easy money?  Grand idea.  Will you still be a lover of wolves if you get your way? 


You do not own the deer on your land…how many times do I have to tell you that?  Sell out and move to europe. 


Spoon claims to be a hunter, but as mentioned he is no friend of the average sportsperson.  Come on spoon….

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/29 at 05:24 PM

Outfitters do not get transferrable permits… nor do they HAVE to operate a minimum number of acres.  Deer permits are not transferrable in IL, period… whether they come from landowners, leasors, or regular hunters.

**

Murdy, just because you call it a “short-term lease” does not mean you’re not an outfitter.  For example, if you lease land, then sub-lease the hunting priviledges, you’re automatically an outfitter.  Even if you’re a landowner, you COULD be an outfitter if you provide ANY of what the state refers to as guide services (providing transportation, lodging, stands, guides, meat care, etc.).

**

Not sure why anyone needs transferrable permits.  I don’t know of ANYONE who can’t get the permit they desire by just going through the normal application process.

Posted by KC-IBS on 06/29 at 06:22 PM

Private land is just that…private. If someone has money to burn and the opportunity presents itself, then have at it. I’m not a landowner, but I find it almost as ridiculous for people to complain that a landowner is considering a financial opportunity on the land that they own. Call me crazy but it’s my opinion that we will see a boom-bust cycle in IL deer hunting as supply and demand drives most of the availability and participation. Fewer permits sold = less potential competition (with the exception of illegal activity). If everyone were like me, then landowners would get very little for leasing their property to hunters cuz I ain’t buyin’. Public land suits me well. But hey - to each his own. wink

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/29 at 08:13 PM

Murdy, why do you think landowner’s don’t have a chance to make money from selling access to their land?  There’s an endless supply of permits.  Landowners can lease their land without buying an outfitter permit.  They can sell weekly hunts without buying an outfitter permit.  What exactly is stopping landowners from kaing money from their land?

Posted by KC-IBS on 06/29 at 09:46 PM

AJ…so nice to see you’re still kickin…

Look, I think it’s an option to raise more money for DNR from “the willing”.  And I think it would it would increase access.  That’s all..

As for my wolf buddies, they are doing a standout job and have really made themselves at home.  How can I tell?  Well, the coyote population has either crashed or they have learned to shut-up and say nothing!

I named the black one AJ…

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 07/01 at 09:02 AM

That is funny because if I saw a pack of wolves I would shoot the black one first.


Then I would have a full body mount done using the sitting/howling form.  When I get one someday and have it with my other mounts I will name Spoon.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 07/01 at 11:31 AM

Hey, AJ, the wolves are yucking it over a new joke going around the neighborhood…

“Bambi…it what’s for breakfast!”

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 07/01 at 12:51 PM

I have lived and hunted in central IL for over 15 years. I went to Missouri for college and have fallen in love with the state. After living here and hunting here I don’t know how IL is doing it. Even as an out of state student hunter I paid less in Missouri than I did as a resident in IL to hunt. Almost everyone across the river hunts, not just a a fun time but because they can afford it. Due to the large number of hunters in the state the Missouri dept of conservation is making money and is very stable (I know this because I interned with them). If IL is not careful they are going to push the hunters who are already supporting the IL DNR away. I hunt the family farm in IL and the past few years I have bought waterfowl stamp, either-sex firearm, antler-less only firearm, muzzleloader and archery tags…this year I have only bought firearm and I will buy archery tags but antler-less only and muzzleoader have fallen by the way side because i can use that money and pay to hunt either-sex with a rifle in Missouri. I love hunting central IL but as a college student if this keeps up I am afraid I will have to stay and hunt only Missouri.

Posted by menardhunter72 on 07/01 at 02:12 PM

That’s why I haven’t bought a lifetime license - I don’t know how many more years I’ll be actually hunting in IL. Land prices are so much cheaper and hunting access is so much easier in surrounding states. IA, KY, and MO do it right.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 07/02 at 07:37 AM

?Bambi?it what?s for breakfast!?


Well Spoon - have you tried to sell them deer permits?  Maybe you could ‘make some easy money’ off those deer.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 07/02 at 08:38 AM

It is disturbing how some people get so worked up over what another person wishes to do on their own property.  While I have never used an outfitter for deer, I have hunted on commercial clubs for geese.  Are these guys bad people because they offer someone the opportunity to hunt in exchange for $$$?  Or charter fishing boats…are they bad people?

When it comes to deer, it seems all logic is pushed aside to fit one’s own prejudice.  The western outfitter who offers Illinois hunters a chance to hunt elk or moose are OK by us, but just let a guy in Illinois offer some out-of-stater the chance to hunt Illinois deer and, well, the crying never stops.

Yes, hunting has changed over the years, right along with the opportunity for landowners to earn compensation from something of value…access.

Property tax bills arrive in June and September.  My guess is that the biggest cry-babies against someone earning $$$ off their hunting prospects are the same people who live in rented houses.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 07/04 at 10:37 AM

WOLF UPDATE

Yesterday at the family get-together, my aunt mentioned that people are telling her there are wolves in the neighborhood.

That prompted another in-law to mention that a neighbor of her’s had reported watching three wolves for an extended period of time through field glasses.

I recall that last summer I was in that general area, going down the road, and saw what I thought was a wolf laying on a high road bank right next to a heavily traveled deer trail.  Guess I could have been right.

Note to IDNR and the Feds…the wolves are here.  You need to get your act together and protect this endangered species.

Sorry guys…I can’t help myself…

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 07/05 at 10:24 AM

Comment Area Pool Rules

  1. Read our Terms of Service.
  2. You must be a member. :: Register here :: Log In
  3. Keep it clean.
  4. Stay on topic.
  5. Be civil, honest and accurate.
  6. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Log In

Register as a new member

Next entry: Muted cries about invasive swans

Previous entry: Wet spring great for chorus frogs

Log Out

RSS & Atom Feeds

Prairie State Outdoors
PSO on Facebook
Promote Your Page Too

News Archives

September 2014
S M T W T F S
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30        
Copyright © 2007-2014 GateHouse Media, Inc.
Some Rights Reserved
Original content available for non-commercial use
under a Creative Commons license, except where noted.
Creative Commons