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

Medium-risk for deer collisions in Illinois

September 28, 2009 at 03:39 PM

While Illinois remains one of the country’s top deer-hunting destinations, it’s not in the top 10 in terms of the likelihood of deer-vehicle collisions.

According to State Farm insurance, West Virginia is the likeliest state for vehicle crashes involving deer.

Using its claims data along with state motor vehicle registration figures from the Federal Highway Administration, State Farm estimates drivers in West
Virginia have a one in 39 chance of hitting a deer in the next 12 months. That’s up from a one in 45 chance last year.

It’s the third straight year West Virginia has been so identified by the Bloomington, Ill.-based insurer. Curtis Taylor, chief of wildlife resources for the state Division of Natural Resources, does not have to think hard about what that might be.

“The state is pretty much 100 percent deer habitat,” he said. “We don’t really have any big urban areas where you can’t find deer.”

The state has plenty of company. Nationwide, there were roughly 2.4 million crashes involving deer between July 2007 and July 2009, State Farm estimates, an increase of 18 percent from five years earlier.

Joining West Virginia in the top five are Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa and Montana. Two of West Virginia’s other neighbors, Virginia and Maryland, are also classified as “high risk” states for deer collisions by State Farm. Virginia is 10th overall and Maryland 13th in collisions.

Illinois checked in as a medium-risk state, with the odds of hitting a deer deemed 1 in 228. That ranks 30th in the nation.

Here’s the complete chart. Deer-Vehicle_Collision_Chart.pdf

The least likely state for collisions is Hawaii, where drivers have a one in 9,931 chance of hitting a deer. State Farm says the odds of hitting a deer there are about the same as picking a piece of clover and finding it has four leaves.

State Farm also outlined percent increases for states in regards to deer-vehicle collisions. Illinois showed just a 3 percent increase since June 2002. Nebraska and New Jersey, meanwhile, led with 54 percent increases. Here is that chart: Increase_in_deer_collisions.pdf

West Virginia has about 1 million deer, according to the DNR, and 1.8 million people.

Deer collisions have been a recurring topic in the West Virginia Legislature, with lawmakers proposing legislation on the subject as recently as this year’s session. The bill, which would have limited drivers’ liability for repair costs when hitting a deer, failed to win passage.

The most effective way to reduce the problem is to reduce the number of deer, Taylor said.

“Hunting is the only way to control the deer population,” he said.

To that end, the state has opened its first-ever September archery season in the middle of the month, allowing bowhunters to pursue deer in 36 counties. The following week, West Virginia opened a muzzleloader season. Four cities in the state, including the largest, Charleston, have urban deer hunts within city limits.

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

What? Opened a season in September to reduce the popluation? Do they have enough data? Lets see, that’s going to make IL. one of the very few states that deosn’t have a Sept. season. Hopefull, we’ll find a way to aquire that ever eluding, hard to find “data” that nearly every other seems to have! IDNR, keep looking!

Posted by Marc Anthony on 09/28 at 05:46 PM

Marc:  In order to find anything, first you must be willing to look for it.  It is interesting to find out that Illinois, despite what our DNR tells us, is not the worst state in car/vehicle collisions.  In fact, we rank a lowly 30th, just about where I would rank us in quality of deer management.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/28 at 07:22 PM

Illinois is not in the top 10?
....
Top 20 perhaps??
....
How about the top 30???
....
Yup, there you have it, Illinois is ranked by the new State Farm data in the 30 spot, at the very bottom of the “medium risk” category, and that includes states like Hawaii that don’t have any frikin’ deer. So exactly why are all these bureaucrats and politicos complaining that we have too many deer and unleashing antlerless seasons in counties that don’t need it? Somebody please explain…...

Posted by Henry Holt on 09/28 at 07:26 PM

Hey BigD check this one out from the same state farm report.

http://www.statefarm.com/_pdf/deer_map_increase.pdf

Posted by Henry Holt on 09/28 at 07:31 PM

Yup, there you have it, Illinois is ranked by the new State Farm data in the 30 spot, at the very bottom of the “medium risk” category, and that includes states like Hawaii that don’t have any frikin’ deer. So exactly why are all these bureaucrats and politicos complaining that we have too many deer and unleashing antlerless seasons in counties that don’t need it? Somebody please explain…...

My thoughts exactly.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/28 at 08:50 PM

What a joke. All this hype about DVCs in this state and we are ranked 30th in the nation.  I am begining to wonder if the people we elected know exactly how many states there are. In the mean time we have people at the helm that couldn’t manage a deer herd properly if there was a book written called “Deer Herd Management for Dummies”.  It will be interesting to see what spin Marc Miller and the boys put on this report.  Could it be that the Farm Bureau calls the shots (no pun intended) in this state and not the people whom are paid to manage our natural resources?  It still seems to me that when it comes to data collecting the only division that has a clue on how to do this properly is the fisheries division. Quality???? What quality.  Data? What data?  I have been told that when our IDNR is asked questions in reference to deer mangement they get that look like the deer do in WV when a car is getting ready to plow into it.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/28 at 08:52 PM

I totaly agree- Shame-Shame-Shame on you John and Paul- And to the CLUELESS Legistative Joint Task Force! We not only didn’t need 4 more “Antlerless” gun days, “Which the public stated loudly”, We may not even need the current Jan. season! Take the 4 Chicago counties out of this report, and Illinois Doesn’t have a growing DVA problem- Whow! Not a surprise!

And I was going to Manage deer on my farm by how many blood spots I see on our 4 lane! Well, That’s out!

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/29 at 07:53 AM

Hmmm….......... less than a half a percent increase per year over the last 7 years with more miles driven in Illinois. Sounds like at best a stable population of deer or more likely a slight decrease. Given the fact that DNR Wildlife just tied their managment plan to deer vehicle collisions does this mean that they will follow through and hold permit numbers stable or decrease them? NOT! Time for a new management plan…..... to implement Farm Bureaus wishes…...... this one will be based on accepted scientific standards of a combination of sun spot activity and tarot cards.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/29 at 08:02 AM

Our great state needs money it can’t lay off any state workers. Like 10% of tax payers that are out of work now. So Springfield thinks lets see how can we make a little dough. How about the deer herd, theres away. Next year when the kill count is in that will tell the story. So we just have too wait but I’m betting it won’t be good news!

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/29 at 08:16 AM

Here’s a suggestion.
....
Instead of the current “management plan”, which consists of tying county by county DVC data to a COMPLETELY ARBITRARY matematical formula which treats each county as if the rest of Illinois doesn’t even exist, WHY NOT IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM AREAS and come up with categories of high/medium/low DVC risk! Gee whiz, maybe State Farm is on to something here.
....
Here in Madison County for example, we are nowhere near the top of the list for DVCs per miles driven, yet we are being forced to reduce our herd according to the EXACT SAME A+B/2 formulaic scheme as high risk counties. Why is that?
....
I had hoped we would be taken off the herd reduction list for this year, and every hunter I have spoken with here in Madison agrees with that, but unfortunately we haven’t reached the magical mythincal mean which in my humble opinion has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

Posted by Henry Holt on 09/29 at 08:36 AM

In all fairness to the beleaguered IDNR, it is not fair to criticize without offering constructive criticism or a solution to the problem.  So here goes:

1.  Tear up the DVC data and throw it away.  It’s great for insurance companies managing claims, but not so much for managing a deer herd.

2.  Institute the September doe season starting next year.  If we have a problem with car/deer collisions in some areas, the time to thin out the herd is before the rut (peak DVC season), not after.

3.  Do away with the nonsense of all these stupid drawings and endless complicated permits, tags, and licenses.  Make licenses available for over the counter sales, with the advent of the computer, biologists can set quotas for sales in various counties and when the county sells out, cut off the sales.  The youth season this year was a good start.

4.  Why do we charge $400 for a non-resident archery tag and only give them one buck, one doe?  Lets give them their monies worth with one buck, and multiple does in the counties where deer overpopulation is a problem.  If we really have a deer overpopulation problem then start managing to overcome the problem with more hunting opportunities not fewer.

5.  Simplify the deer hunting regulations and permitting, there is no reason that it has to be so complicated.  Have a firearms season that comes in on November 15 and runs for ten days.  Allow hunters to choose the firearm they want to use.  This complicated system of shotguns this weekend, muzzleloaders next weekend, pistols in some counties but not in others. No centerfire rifles, when every other State surrounding us has a rifle season, is insane!  What is the difference in a modern muzzleloader and a centerfire rifle, anyway?

6.  If the deer overpopulation problem is worse in the areas where there is an abundance of leasing and outfitting (WCI), why not have an Earn-a-Buck program in those counties?  I would venture to bet that the overpopulation problem would be solved within a year of implementation of EAB.

7.  Bring back the deer check stations, even if they have to be manned by volunteers.  Right now the whole deer harvest is based upon the honor system.  The check stations, although not perfect, made hunters prove a harvest.  The way it is now with telephoning and e-mailing, there is no proof of anything.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/29 at 08:51 AM

” Absolutely Nothing to do with Anything”—Henry, that IS our current DNR’S mangement motto! And The Joint Task Force’s Deer management legacy!

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/29 at 08:54 AM

The Joint deer task force is a joke, its almost entirely made up by politicians and their friends. This is why I like point number 3 of BigD’s at least then biologists, not politicians who I am sure are getting nice donations from insurance companies and other special interest groups, would be managing the deer herd. Yeah I suppose ol Blaggo was right about one thing when he said he didn’t do anything that any other politician doesn’t. Pay to play is still the driving force in this state.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/29 at 01:17 PM

It’s what we knew all along. Our state’s DNR could care less about our deer and will disregard ANY DATA that is sent their way. Don’t get me wrong, they do have a plan but we’ll never see it! That plan was created behind closed doors by non-deer hunters who have something else in mind. Now that we have DVA reports that go against the grain of their agenda, there will be yet another excuse not to do what needs to be done.
...
Just got back from hunting 2 different states. KY has enough hunter support to carry over into IL. and OH. has game wardens who can respond in a moments notice, among other things. Why can’t we? It’s just sickening.

Posted by Marc Anthony on 09/29 at 01:32 PM

Poor response times by our conservation police and a deer management plan based on scientifically untested hypotheses are both the result of the same thing, a lack of fundung and the repeated gutting of our DNR.
....
Where’s out turkey biologist? where’s our foresters and habitat/heritage biologists? Where’s our C2000 program? where’s our deer herd research? The list goes on and on.
....
Unfortunately it’s sure to continue until we can trade politics for dedicated funding.

Posted by Henry Holt on 09/29 at 02:35 PM

Hey, but Marc Miller has an assistant DNR director. He may be acting in another position but I say promote from withing.  Thats what most companies/organizations do.  Turkey Biologist, who needs one.  Thats the current thinking there.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/29 at 07:44 PM

I may be wrong, but the State Farm data only includes STATE FARM vehicles.  Country Insurance is easily the largest downstate auto insurer. I would like to see their data. I worked for Country for a year and had multiple deer collisions called in daily. It was by far the most common auto claim, especially outside of the Chicagoland area, where Country insures a good chunk of the farm/small community areas. 
I do not put weight in the state farm data.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/29 at 08:22 PM

Here’s an idea….no federal or state subsidies to farmers who do not allow public access on their 1000+ acre farmland where all the deer are. Here in Southern IL all the farmland has over population of deer. I know… I count them everyday from where I work. Hundreds of a deer every night and no hunting pressure.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/29 at 08:29 PM

Again, we arent over populated in 95 percent of the state and in many areas, the population is dropping.  Unless the cover is optimum the deer population has been destroyed in many areas of my county.  And what do we get?  More deer seasons where the state can take advantage of misinformed hunters to work for the insurance companies and farmers.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/30 at 03:34 AM

It really does not matter which insurance company data is used, State Farm, Country or Lizard for that matter. The important information is what the tend in the data shows….... up down or stable. More miles were driven by illinois drivers in all years except for one out of the seven should statistically translate into more DVC’s just by it’s self with either a stable or dropping deer population.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/30 at 06:59 AM

The Colonel is absolutely on target with the “trend in the data.”  By their own data used in the public meetings they held last year, the DNR biologists admitted that the statewide deer population in Illinois has been stable or slightly on the decline since 2002.  The DVC reports statewide clearly show that trend in the data.  The fact is that in the Fall of 2007, a severe drought in some 14 counties in Illinois and the resultant epidemic of EHD wiped out nearly 40% of those counties’ deer herds.  These are facts that anyone can check out on-line.  This combination gave us a decline in the 2008 deer harvest.  Especially hard hit in 2007 by the EHD epidemic were the bucks, which showed a decline in the harvest by over 10,000 animals in the 2008 harvest.  It is a fact that the DNR is not managing the deer herd in Illinois by biological carrying capacity of the land, but rather, the “politically acceptable carrying capacity” of insurance company claims, crop depredation reports, suburbanites’ flower garden and fruit tree damage reports, and a host of other factors that have nothing to do with deer biology or professional wildlife management.  The sad truth is…...we live in a society where deer hunting has been regulated to the point that hunters are nothing more than a means to kill off the deer herd until there are no more complaints registered by the public.  Unfortunately, that may mean that deer will be getting pretty scarce before all the complaints are silenced.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/30 at 09:09 AM

Harvey what county do you live in? In my county fulton i and my wife carry mail and we see deer even when it’s 90 degrees out. You can’t drive around here anytime without deer running in front of you and it’s worse this time of year.Wxman is right on.Plus think about how many dvc’s don’t get reported il is a joke from the capital to the dnr.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/30 at 10:36 AM

The Colonel is right about the trend of the information, but really if you read the story you will learn that its not just State farms information this is based on, but also the federal highway admin as well.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/30 at 11:28 AM

Big D- You have sum’d it up Completely! Exact, to the point, and right on the money!

Claydog, you see what you see in Fulton because you now live in the RED ZONE- One of the highest outfitted “Red” counties in Illinois- In a meeting with DNR John Buhnerkempe, he showed a map with Fulton counties DVA’s on the rise- I stopped him and asked WHY he thought that was happening in Fulton? His Answer- Quote- “Probably Oufitting”!!!!!!!! So there you have it- Your county has a Deer/DOE problem because of outfitting- But He-Buhnerkempe/Shelton,Miller- WILL NOT address it and do anything about solving it! Like I say, that came from the “Horses” mouth- TW

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/30 at 11:51 AM

PS: Fulton has quickly become the “NEW” Pike county- Congratualations is NOT in order!

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/30 at 11:53 AM

The deer and turkey habitat on my 150 acres in Southern Illinois is pretty darn good (crops, timber, two creeks, wetlands and CRP) and I’m lucky if I see a deer once every few weeks, but then I’m probably 50 miles from the nearest outfitter. Lots of turkey quail and rabbit, but not a lot of deer, far from it.

Posted by Henry Holt on 09/30 at 12:23 PM

I find it a little crass to think that the state agency does not care about deer and deer management.  You seem to be under the impression that IL DNR is sitting on this glorious stack of data that would address all the biological, political, social, and economic issues associated with deer management.  However, given the horrendous state that IL DNR has been in for the past several years, I seriously doubt that this is true. Data on deer populations at the state or ecoregional scale is some of the most difficult, expensive, and time consuming information to collect and to be honest, few (if any) states actually collect detailed deer population biology data at that scale that could be use in a decision making framework, so saying IL does not care about deer seems to me to be just fanning artificial flames.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/30 at 12:46 PM

Artificial flames? How hard is it to gather data from ALL of the surrounding states that have already used new methods based on solid data? Our INDR simply doesn’t care about our herd or it’s hunters! Sell em all to the out-of-staters, we’ll make more, is their motto! No need to implement solid planning because that would take too much work. Call in all of the resident professionals and ask them their opinions, only to shut them up and not heed their advice. Illinois is so far behind the other states and with quadruple the revenue, it’s just sickening. The DNR is just a money maker for someone else’s pocket.

Posted by Marc Anthony on 09/30 at 01:03 PM

What ‘data’ and ‘new methods’ and ‘solid data’ are you talking about?  I assume that you mean that some states are running small scale road-based transect spotlight surveys to count deer in localized areas or public properties (which, cannot be expanded to the larger area), or are using localized camera surveys to look at deer sex ratio at small scales (which have been shown to be biased).  AFAICT, most of the states surrounding IL are using a online check system (including KY where I think you are fond of hunting), supplemented by limited field check states where basic biological data (age, sex, weight) are collected from harvested deer (which, btw is useless in itself for prediction future population status—it would be like trying to use cars in the junkyard to predict what will be on the road next year), but few are estimating age and sex specific harvest rates or using current population reconstruction methods to estimate or predict current or future population size?  In fact, you can look at predicted population size numbers put out by most states surrounding IL every year and they don’t change very much from year to year, so I guess that indicates that everything is ok and they are doing great management (or maybe they just don’t know how many they have).

I (and I assume everyone else here is as well) am all for sound, structured population management based on the best biological data at hand at a biologically and socially appropriate management scale, but you seem to be under the mistaken impression that other states know 1) how many deer they have (they don’t), 2) know how many deer will be harvested based on how many hunters there are (they don’t), and 3) know how that will affect populations next year (they don’t).  Deer biology is the bane and curse for all state agencies across the US because starting about 1 month before deer season, everyone gets delusions of grandeur and decides they are a biologist because they go hunting, it ain’t that simple and people should not treat it as such and surely should not complain unless they offer reasonable solutions that can be backed up biologically.

So, back to my original point, I think it is inaccurate (and truthfully I think offensive to many people working for IL DNR working to ensure sustainable natural resources in IL for the long-term) to state that they don’t care about deer or deer hunters.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/30 at 01:40 PM

And here is a slant on the same information i found on another site here the thread as titled ” we all have to do our part”

EVERY 26 SECONDS, SOMEONE HITS A DEER

September 29, 2009


D’oh! A deer!

One in every 228 Illinois drivers will hit a deer this year, according to a State Farm analysis.

Illinois deer-car collisions are up 3 percent from five years ago, a slight uptick compared with the 18 percent increase in collisions around the country in that same time period, State Farm is reporting.

The insurance agency’s research suggests that every 26 seconds in America, someone slams a deer with a vehicle.

Dick Luedke, State Farm spokesman, said the data didn’t break out specifics for the Chicago metropolitan area.

Illinois drivers don’t need to journey far to find themselves more likely to be in the path of one of the beasts.

Neighbors Michigan and Iowa are second and fourth on the State Farm list. Rounding out the top five places drivers are most likely to hit a deer are West Virginia (1), Pennsylvania (3) and Montana (5).


This is how someone can completely understand data… everyone from the initial writer to the person who reposted it.  By doing alittle logical thinking… the average person drives a car for about 60 years. with a little sense that means that one in every 3.5 people will EVER hit a deer in their life. That doesnt seem too bad…Specially when you hear things like most claims are deer oriented like what was already stated above. When you think most people pay 50 to 100 k in a lifetime for their own car insurance… It seems to me with just a little common sense that insurance companies are pretty uncaring about anything but the bottom dollar and that they are doing really really well anyway.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/30 at 02:32 PM

Clintharvey - I’m trying to follow your math.  And if correct, the “one in ery 3.5 people will ever hit a deer in their life” is a disurbing statistic to me.  I’m married and have 2 kids.  So, your statements means that one of us in my family of four will hit a deer in our lifetime.  That seems REAL bad to me.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/30 at 04:25 PM

gilly, my advice would be to buy them helmets and hard hats and never let them take them off if that worries you.  Maybe you should duct tap extra foam on the front of these helmets to make them extra safe.  that way when they hit a 100 pound animal with a 2000 pound metal machine which 99 percent of the time.  Someone dies in a car wreck every 13 minutes in the united states.  130 people are killed each year by deer.  Nearly half of which are driving motorcycles. There is about 20,000 alcohol related deaths while driving each year.  About 600 in illinois each year.  So the most dangerous animal is the stupid human because they are so plentiful…

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/30 at 04:35 PM

Relax Gilly its actually better than what it seems the reality of it is your hole family has a cumulative total of 240 years of driving and one of you might have a chance of hitting a deer withing your own individual 60 year driving career. Keep in mind its just a broad stat which means its not keeping tabs on things like comercial traffic or people that may have hit more than one deer. All this is also missing the human element, how many drivers were not paying attention talking, texting, eating, ect and could have avoided the accidents. The reality is its not as likely to happen as some would have you think.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/30 at 04:43 PM

Cumberand Landowner: FACT, Illinois is the only state in the USA solely relying on DVC data to manage theit deer herd.
....
Fact #2, no peer reviewed wildlife management study has indicated that DVC data alone can be sucessfully used to manage a herd at any scale larger than a wildlife preserve.
.....
Waiting for an explanation…...any explanation above and beyond the fact that our DNR has been completely gutted in the last five years and needs dedicated funding to conduct responsible research on behalf of wildlife stakeholders.
....
It’s that simple.
....
Housemarms that plant shrubs don’t count.
....
Anti Hunters don’t count.
....
Farmers who lease their land and then bitch about overpopulation don’t count.
....
Illinois resident hunters aren’t asking for deer populations at biological carrying capacity. We’re asking for reasonable management that watches out for the interests of the sportsmen that foot the bill.
....
Comprendo?

Posted by Henry Holt on 09/30 at 05:05 PM

gilly, my advice would be to buy them helmets and hard hats and never let them take them off if that worries you.  Maybe you should duct tap extra foam on the front of these helmets to make them extra safe.  that way when they hit a 100 pound animal with a 2000 pound metal machine which 99 percent of the time.  Someone dies in a car wreck every 13 minutes in the united states.  130 people are killed each year by deer.  Nearly half of which are driving motorcycles. There is about 20,000 alcohol related deaths while driving each year.  About 600 in illinois each year.  So the most dangerous animal is the stupid human because they are so plentiful…

Gotta say Jerry, Clint has you beat on this one. Never thought I’d say that, but he speaks the truth, deer aren’t the problem here.

Posted by Henry Holt on 09/30 at 05:12 PM

Cumberland, one thing I do know about information is I trust my own eyes and what others are seeing in the woods than what some politician reciving donations from insurance companies and their friends tell me to see. Tell me since some of us are being offensive to the DNR, just who in the DNR is making the sound biological choices you speak of? The deer herd population is now in the hands of the Deer task force which surprisingly is made up of mostly lawmakers and their appointed friends. What no biologists? Yeah I think people have a right since I do not see where biology is even being used.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/30 at 05:13 PM

Cumberland_Landowner, obviously you or an acquaintance of yours works for the DNR. Here’s some answers to your questions.
...
With your response in ridiculing “data”, that’s my response exactly! You just made fun of the very excuse, “data”, that the DNR gave us when we requested a September hunt. Thanks for degrading the issue so I don’t have to. Over 20 states have a Sept. whitetail season, yet the DNR says they can’t find enough “data” to support one for us. If it were any closer, we would run over it!
...
Your statement “... everyone gets delusions of grandeur and decides they are a biologist because they go hunting, it ain’t that simple and people should not treat it as such and surely should not complain unless they offer reasonable solutions that can be backed up biologically”. For starters, a group of us were asked to join the DNR staff because they needed help and support with regard to making positive changes for our Illinois deer herd and its’ people. I can assure you, this group of people were more than just a few individuals that go “hunting”. We had professional land managers, a business doctorate, an accountant, a professional outdoor radio host/writer, and an outfitter/businessman. We had by far enough material to support the DNR in its efforts to make some positive changes. We offered our services free of charge and an endless amount of help just as a service to our fellow Illinois hunters and our DNR. There is nothing worse, in my opinion, that being listened to with a phony interest only to be pacified and to have your professional suggestions thrown into the dumpster because of a hidden agenda. Please don’t waste your time explaining to me how our DNR employees work hard for us, I know the employees do! It’s their bosses that don’t! They have been approached for years by avid outdoorsmen, educated ones at that, so please don’t throw these people into the category of “people who just hunt”.
...
Did I hit a nerve when I posted in my blog that I hunted Kentucky? Great, take it back to your boss! Ask him to call their DNR and hear how fast, efficient and dedicated these people are. They have a fraction of the revenue that Illinois has and their parks are all open and offer many, many great places to hunt. They also have quality trophy bucks in their state and they don’t pimp them out to the highest bidder. They manage their bucks!
...
FYI, I have freinds that work for the DNR and I know the quality job they do, please don’t make this about them. This is about the folks who run it.

Posted by Marc Anthony on 09/30 at 05:31 PM

I love a good discussion.  I cannot respond to politic-type questions, not my area, I will stick with biological ones.

First, unless I am mistaken, the quote I responded to was:  “Our INDR simply doesn?t care about our herd or it?s hunters!”  I guess I misunderstood that you were not talking about the folks who work for IL DNR, my mistake.

I can honestly say that I have no idea how ILDNR collects data on which they make management decisions for white-tailed deer other than the phone-in check and that they used to do check stations, so I was guessing. I absolutely concur that management for deer should be be based on the best data available or collectable (see my above post where I said basically that).  As for whether that is a fact or not regarding they only using DVC data, I will defer as I don’t know.  As for no peer-reviewed study has indicated that DVC data is useful singly for management, I agree, I have not seen anything in the literature on this specific topic either, most DVC work in literature is focused on management strategies to reduce collisions or predicting hotspots, not to manage herds.  Also, no one is arguing the agency has been gutted (see my above comment on this exact issue regarding the state if IL DNR).  Seems we are in more agreement on this issue than not??

No idea on KY thing,you seem to think I have a boss in this.  Point was that KY does not collect any more data than IL seems to yet you seem to be very happy with what they are doing, what is so different?  As for September hunting, I am not entirely sure on the timing, but I think early season hunting is confined to primarily those states historically considered in the SE states primarily (Carolina’s, KY, TN, AL, AR, etc) but I would have to check.  Biologically, I am not sure what the argument for earlier hunting is, I assume that it is to reduce herd size?  That is not why it is used in ‘most’ SE states I know of, rather, they start earlier cause everything is early (I think SC starts regular hunting 15 August just as part of their general season).

Nothing personal, but if I was an IL DNR biologist attempting to develop a management plan for a deer herd, then the last people I want in the room is a guy with a business doctorate, and accountant, a radio/talk show host, etc(the land managers can stay).  Why, because all those people have an ax to grind (as it obvious on this board for as long as I have watched it) and truthfully none of them has any experience in addressing or managing wildlife populations at the multiple temporal or spatial scales under the biological, social, or fiscal constraints that IL DNR has to address on a daily basis (see my delusion comment).  Why were there not 5 or 6 professional PhD population biologists from IL sitting in this meeting developing the deer plan (maybe there were) from SIU (one of the good ones is there), WIU, EIU, U of I, etc?  Those are the people who should be getting leaned on, as they are typically able to render unbiased opinions wrt data at hand and data needs and make suggestions to better serve future management needs. 

Brings up an interesting point, has there been a groundswell of people complaining about deer population management throughout the state?  Or, have a few vocal individuals with a bully pulpit been attempting to sway the masses. I have seen a lot of talk on the fact that we need to manage our deer populations, but I am wondering, what is the meat of the issue here?  Did someone not get to shoot a 180+ class buck last year?  Are overabundant deer in localized areas causing crop depredation? are there too many DVC?  Did someone think the season needs to be longer? What is everyone so upset with IL DNR about?

Final comment:  Marc, have to disagree:  deer population management is not buck management and you are perpetuating a myth that has cost more deer biologists their jobs (or hair) in the last decade than any other topic.  IMHO, it is not the responsibility of any state wildlife agency to manage deer herds with the focus on maximizing a single phenotypic characteristic. Rather, state management plans should focus on maximizing recreational hunting opportunities for deer relative to biological and social carrying capacity.  Anyone wanting to manage solely for big antlers bucks can do so on their own time and dime.  All states have bigger issues to address managing populations than to worry about maximizing antler size.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/30 at 07:13 PM

Cumber land good luck seperating the politics out of this. Here are the people in charge.
.
Joint Task Force Members (15 members)

Director Sam Flood, Illinois Department of Natural Resources

Representative Dan Reitz, Chairman of the House Agriculture and Conservation Committee

Representative Jim Sacia, Minority Spokesman, House Agriculture and Conservation Committee

Senator John Sullivan, Chairman, Senate Agriculture and Conservation Committee

Senator Gary Dahl, Minority Spokesman, Senate Agriculture and Conservation Committee

Senator Gary Forby, Appointed by the President of the Senate

Mr. Jim Riemer, Jr., Appointed by the Senate Minority Leader

Representative Robert Flider, Appointed by Speaker of the House

Representative David Reis, Appointed by Minority Leader of the House

Officer Jason Sherman, Conservation Police Officer Appointed by IDNR Director

Director Larry Trent, Director of State Police

Mr. Jerry Beverlin, United Bowhunters of Illinois

Mr. Jim McFarlane, Illinois Federation of Outdoor Resources

Mr. Kevin Martin, Illinois Insurance Association

Mr. Henry Kallal, Illinois Farm Bureau
.
Joint Task Force Technical Support Group
- Mike Conlin, Director of the Office of Resource Conservation
-
John Buhnerkempe, Chief of the Division of Wildlife Resources
-
Paul Shelton, Forest Wildlife Program Manager
-
Tom Micetich, Deer Project Manager
-
Marty Jones, Urban Deer Project Manager
-
Chris Hill, Systems and Licensing Manager
-
Brian Clark, OLE License and Permit Program Manager

Look at all the politicians wow. Hey want to see the data thats being used here is the states management objectives.
.http://dnr.state.il.us/CWD/DVA Objective worksheet for web.pdf

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/30 at 08:26 PM

http://dnr.state.il.us/CWD/DVA Objective worksheet for web.pdf

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/30 at 08:27 PM

Cumberland_Landowner, let me address some of your comments.
...
First, buck management is deer management and I’ll tell you why. When you allow everyone and their monkey to shoot as many bucks in a state like Illinois without giving them the responsibility to take does, over population begins. Limit to one buck or make them kill a doe in areas that have too many and you’ll see a difference in the herd. Add a Sept. hunt and you’ll have very few bucks killed and more does taken in problem counties. This is also buck management because it allows bucks to mature for breeding and trophy hunting and it reduces the doe population where it’s needed. It’s a no brainer. I’ll help you out on your Sept. state count also, there’s over 20 states that have a Sept. hunt and it’s for the aforementioned reasons. They did their homework. If you count Wis, Oh, KY, Mass, Conn, WV, Minn, Wash, Ore, etc, etc, etc, as southern states with a Sept. hunt, then you would be correct but it’s right here in the Midwest! IL. refuses because they have ins. companies/politicians in running the show.
...
Regarding your other comment, these professionals who were asked to the meeting with the DNR for help (accountants, etc) are also hunters. A great combination if you ask me as they needed financial help, media help, deer management help, land management help in addition to business structure advice. A great combo! All professionals who are also hunters. They never bothered to look at the free advice.
...
By their own admission, they base their deer regs on DVA’s and not biological reasons. Mind you, Chicago is included in that study. What a joke!
...
When you say people on this board have an ax to grind, that’s an understatement! let me tell you why. It’s these very ax grinders that probably pay your salary(yes, I believe you work for the DNR) and Miller’s yet we have to sit back and watch the herd decline year after year in many counties and over populate with does in other counties only knowing that someone in Springfield is taking our money and shipping it somewhere else than our parks, animal management plans, etc. It also sickens us that no one will listen and we have to sit back, pay to play, and watch the quality decline even further. Yeah, we have an ax to grind!
...
Balancing a deer herd on social and biological capacities, as you stated, would be great, unfortunately, we’re not even near that limit. If that is your wish, I suggest you go back and tell your boss that we have a lot of catching up to do!
...
Your comment “Why were there not 5 or 6 professional PhD population biologists from IL sitting in this meeting developing the deer plan”. Great question! Ask the DNR as we have been asking them for years to get at least one!
...
Your question regarding KY. and what they do different. They provide service! People answering the phone, knowledgeable staff, great parks, deer management (bucks too) and all with a smaller revenue stream. Where’s our money going? How can they do it on less?
...
Your comments reagrding bullies on this board? They’re in Springfield, where you work.

Posted by Marc Anthony on 09/30 at 08:48 PM

Above in my comments “Limit to one buck or make them kill a doe in areas that have too many and you’ll see a difference in the herd.” should read one buck AND make them kill a doe…

Posted by Marc Anthony on 09/30 at 08:52 PM

Amen Marc… looks to me like Cumberland landowner is the one that has an ax to grind. Did someone hit a nerve? Good luck tommorow and don’t worry, I won’t be too hard on you for using a scouting camera.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/30 at 09:40 PM

Buck management is not done for deer population management, any buck management that is done is done to appease the hunting public.  Doe management is deer management (one which MarcA and I agree and his point above really makes).  Bucks, other than being semen carriers, are really unnecessary (biologically) to healthy deer populations, buck age structure has been shown to not have as much influence as people think (e.g., male dominance does not mean 1 big buck does all the breeding, multiple paternity is ~24% as well, so 1 in 4 does has fawns with different father’s)  Trophy bucks should not even come into the equation, not the states responsibility to manage for a phenotype, management should be for healthy populations, and populations can be healthy without a bunch of old bucks.


Sure, having hunters involved and buying into the process is important, but, having hunters assisting with decision making at a large scale is not as helpful as usually they are self-centric and only base decisions on what they ‘think or see’ on their local area or read in some hunting magazine rather than anything biologically founded.  Apparently everyone agrees that the historical way that deer management in the state was applied and politicized was an issue, but there is a lot of hollering but very little solving because most of the people trying to solve it are not biologists and have extremely set opinions (Sept hunting-seriously, you think September hunting will solve the problem?)  How many deer are shot from 1 Sept to the beginning of gun season in those states?  I made some calls to folks in a few of the states you listed cause I like to be prepared, <5% on average of the total harvest, and 65% of the Sept harvest was bucks.

I would bet that a lot of the frustration everyone is feeling is that you think you have been ignored for years under the past gov’t, fair enough.  But, you are letting that roll onto a new group trying to hold an agency together with wire and duck tape.  I would damn sure tread lightly on any major changes if I was DNR, as I could not see the science historically being at a level to back up regulation changes in the future.  The point is, where to go from here, my opinion, if your not a professional practicing biologist, back off, all you do is muddy the water with half answers and ‘what I thinks’ which is not as helpful as you think.

No ax to grind, just want deer management based on experimental science and not on who yells loudest and longest.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/01 at 09:03 AM

Cumberland wrote:
“What ‘data’ and ‘new methods’ and ‘solid data’ are you talking about?  I assume that you mean that some states are running small scale road-based transect spotlight surveys to count deer in localized areas or public properties (which, cannot be expanded to the larger area), or are using localized camera surveys to look at deer sex ratio at small scales (which have been shown to be biased).”
....
Check out this link Cumberland, go straight to page 53, but do take the time to look over the entire report, it makes for an interesting read.
....
http://www.iowadnr.gov/wildlife/files/files/draft_report.pdf
....
Iowa is doing a pretty good job of keeping their public informed. Anyway my point is that most states utilize a variety of data to set harvest objectives. Illinois is strictly using DVCs
....
Another good link is http://www.deerchrash.com the website for the multi-state consortium studying deer/vehicle crashes. Lots of good info there and I think many hunters would be more knowledgeable if they took the time to educate themselves on the issues. The papers are technical, but they are very interesting. Now if we could only get our legislators to educate themselves above and beyond the inane and childish “I own the Illinois deer herd” remarks we’d be making real progress.
....
For the record Cumberland, the only deer I killed last year was a doe fawn, just lost it’s spots. Tasted damn good too. No 180 inchers here at all in Madison County, cougars et’ em’ all >>>———>

Posted by Henry Holt on 10/01 at 09:11 AM

Cumberland are you even reading peoples posts? Show me all these biologists managing the deer herd on the list. The bottom line is as long as lawmakers and not biologists are managing the herd, no one should back off.
.
So the insurance industry donating millions of dollars doesn’t have an ax to grind? Funny how all changes pretty much go in the direction they want. Maybe thats who is employing all these biologists right?
.
How many deer are shot from 1 Sept to the beginning of gun season in those states?  I made some calls to folks in a few of the states you listed cause I like to be prepared, <5% on average of the total harvest. Yeah and I bet the hunter could tell the difference between a buck and doe that time of year since it was before the shed, or did they not teach you deer do that in bio?
.
Now take a look at what was all ready a draw back to the late season hunt.
. (Hunter participation during the existing late-winter season has been disappointing. This
is probably due primarily to poor weather, and perhaps because many hunters have
already have their fill of hunting and/or have taken as many deer as they need in their
freezer.
o Hunter success rates are significantly lower this time of year than in fall.
o It appears that much of the antlerless harvest during late seasons like this may be
“compensatory” rather than “additive”. What this means is that having a special)
Wow the elite deer management team states the late season is not very effctive, yet refuses to hear any of it when others say it. How can this be they agree with us non profesional biologists, yet do nothing?
.
I hate to say it but your reading comprehension is not so good. Saying the state should make hunters earn a buck by taking a doe in no way means the state needs to carefully manage for trophies, but for some reason you keep bringing up the trophy issue not others. Maybe you need a break from springfield your putting words into people mouths.
.
I know all us dumb rednecks with an ax to grind need to back off and let the politicians and insurance lobbyists decide what kinds of harvests are feasable, since they have a true understanding of things. I’m just glad we all live in a country that we don’t have to. I do find it funny you keep talking about biological stats yet none can be found on the DNR’s own website while DVC is real easy to find.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/01 at 09:49 PM

The dnr just sets the dates and amount of permits. It is the landowners and the hunters who control the pop.I am just tired of hearing the farmers in my area complain about the deer,but then lease the land.They need to wake up,the locals will control the pop if given a chance.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/02 at 08:07 AM

Cumberland_Landowner stated: “I think it is inaccurate (and truthfully I think offensive to many people working for IL DNR working to ensure sustainable natural resources in IL for the long-term) to state that they don?t care about deer or deer hunters.”

From your postings on here, and a little research on-line, I understand where you are coming from with your statements on deer management in Illinois.  Obviously, anyone that writes the book on “How to Plan a Wildlife Management Study,” should know something about wildlife biology.  That said, what you don’t seem to know is that most of the people posting on this site are the ones that care enough about what has happened and what is happening to the IDNR and the Illinois deer herd to get involved and try and do something to change it.  The frustration that most of us heave onto our posts here are the result of years of perceived abuse of the Illinois deer hunter at the hands of the IDNR.  Most of us by now have figured out that the hands of the biologists at the DNR are tied by the political hacks who are calling the shots in the back rooms in Springfield.  Pay to Play is still very much alive in Illinois, as witnessed by the recent criminal behavior of our former governor and his appointments to various State posts, including Mr. Grandberg, the one month wannabe Director of DNR.  That said, there are plenty of dedicated professional employees left at the DNR who are working to ensure sustainable natural resources in IL, but that is not enough. Illinois deer hunters are going to grumble, as long as the DNR supports a system that favors “hi-roller” non-resident deer hunters leasing and outfitting, over providing for hunting access to resident deer hunters. As more and more resident deer hunters are displaced from traditional hunting lands and are forced to “pay to play” there will always be plenty to grumble about.

You are probably familiar with the INHS Technical Report (68) entitled: “Results of the 06-07 Non-resident Deer Hunter Survey.”  How would you respond to the last paragraph of that report that states: “Distribution of limited resources to address high importance issues, over lower importance issues, may be most productive and efficient in maintaining or increasing non-resident satisfaction and participation.  It must be noted, however, that non-resident desires may be in direct conflict with the broader objectives for white-tailed deer management from a statewide perspective.  Any efforts to satisfy non-resident hunters must be weighed against the potential impacts on resident hunters and non-hunters.  In these cases, efforts to effect the desires of non-resident deer hunters may be necessary to avoid reductions in participation and political intervention by or on behalf of non-resident deer hunters.”  So, how does raising the quota of non-resident archery deer hunters from 12,000 to 25,000 at $400/tag, benefit the Illinois resident deer hunters and help “to ensure sustainable natural resources.”

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/02 at 08:52 AM

Save your breath everyone.  Cumberland_Landowner, AKA Bret A. Collier, is using us as a test subject. He apparently works for Texas A&M University and is doing similar studies all across the nation. He’s trying to get us stirred up as to feed his pet project with the needed animosity towards state run agencies (DNR) based on deer and deer hunters attitudes. Maybe we gave him enough to take back with him? I’m not sure but if he would have just identified himself instead of playing childish games, we would have gave him what he needed.

Posted by Marc Anthony on 10/02 at 09:17 AM

Marc, he’s got the PhD so he must know WTF he’s talking about, and if that’s the case I’m just gonna hang my head and let my wife Doctor (aka Mrs.) Holt do all the talking. On second thought, that probably a really REALLY bad idea. Anyway it looks like he’s either done lecturing, ran outa ammo, or just plain ‘ol plugged his muzzle in the dirt and pulled the trigger. Have at it boys, $20 says Collier doesn’t know who was quoted as saying “I own the Illinois deer herd” LOL.

Posted by Henry Holt on 10/02 at 12:47 PM

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

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: Tales from the Timber: Bundren buck

Previous entry: Parrish Brown’s bucks

Log Out

RSS & Atom Feeds

Prairie State Outdoors
PSO on Facebook
Promote Your Page Too

News Archives

August 2019
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 31
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