IWA and MDDI

[TMIL]

I have been following the MDDI thread here on habitat talk. I sympathize with your situation. The IL deer herd is down, but its nothing like what you guys are facing.

We have the Illinois Whitetail Alliance. I am starting this thread to kind of show you guys where the IWA has stumbled, in my opinion. Here is the latest disappointment in IL and I wanted to share it with you all.

This is an article by the outdoor writer for the Chicago Sun-Times. He reaches lots of voters, a small percentage of which are hunters probably.

http://chicago.suntimes.com/outdoors/7/71/238231/declining-deer-harvest-big-issue-illinois

How very disappointing to me.

A member on the IWA facebook page email the writer to invite him to join IWA, here was the writer's response:

"I will take a pass. More and more the IWA feels like a group designed to pound the IDNR, not just for deer reasons, but for election season reasons. I will take a pass. Originally I had written about the group some and kept interest going"

Now many of you will recognize a name from that article and might guess what part of the problem is, but I won't delve into that ... yet. Haha!

 

[SD51555]

Amazing that hunter effort was blamed. Like I've said before, we deserve better excuses. o_O

 

[wiscwhip]

Before I read it I will guess DH.

 

[wiscwhip]

Of course, who else could it have been.

 

[j-bird]

I have a growing concern in IN. The state continues to increase the weapon choices (current proposal is to add high powered rifles next year). They have also extended seasons and added an antlerless only season in roughly 75% of the counties as well. We have had very high (record setting in some cases) harvest lately and the last 2 years had EHD outbreaks as well. So deer numbers have to be down. Not to a critical level, but I want to avoid that critical level if possible.

I fear the political game is becoming much more involved. I fear our DNR is getting pressure from the insurance companies to continue to drive deer numbers down. I also think they are getting some push from retailers as well. When they legalized crossbows - they flew off the shelves! When they legalized handgun cartridge rifles - those flew off the shelves! Now they want to add high-powered rifles to the list, and guess what - those too will fly off the self. Folks seem to gripe about not seeing the deer they once did (and I am certain there are places the deer numbers did need to come down), but seem to be willing to embrace these expanded options. They don't seem to see the DNR is supporting this outside agenda to drive numbers down while selling it as "increasing hunter participation". Sort of like a Dentist handing out candy to kids! The DNR has not produced any scientific evidence of the NEED for the expansions. Hell they don't even publish an estimated harvest figure. How do we know how many we need to take if we don't even know how many we have. For years all we heard was "kill more deer". They have stopped that banter, and have started this more subtle route.

Maybe I am just being paranoid but I hear of the issues MN has had as well as other states starting to have the same type of concerns. If they could just show us some scientific numbers that they base the management decisions on, but they don't - instead they make statements like - IL or MI does it. Well if your friend jumped off a bridge......

 

[j-bird]

What I fear is that there isn't a single "group" that has any true power to affect it either. Sound familiar????? We have IBHA (Indiana Bow Hunters Association), IDHA (Indiana Deer Hunters Association) and others but they don't have any true regulatory power. They simply have no true input into the equation unless the DNR allows it. I fear that as soon as we "challenge" the system, obviously the DRN and the establishment is going to push back and then things get ugly - again sound familiar???? This is why I have growing concern - this is starting to have the same M.O. as others and yet they want to refer to other states as examples of "why not". LOOK AT MN - AND THEN ASK WHY NOT!!!! Not trying to say these other states are bad, but I was always told you need to think for yourself - that is what sound management is, doing what YOUR property needs to support a HEALTHY animal population. I fear our DNR is starting to be influenced by politics vs serving their true purpose of protecting the natural resources. I fear our hunters collectively are unaware of the plight of those of you in MN - I will promise you my DNR isn't going to draw ANY attention of our hunters to the issues going on in MN.

 

[dipper]

The reduced herds everywhere in the country are a response to Cwd. Like it or not the dnrs research indicates long term survival of the deer hinges on low deer density. That is the only way they know to possibly ride the Cwd storm.
There is a reason all wildlife agencies are reducing the herds like never before. They will not listen. Politics over turned that effort with the wi dnr. It will remain to be seen long term how that will pan out. Maybe our generation will never see the outcome?
You can never be overcome by the old saying, be careful what you wish for......

 

[dipper]

I personally have a hunch I will get a front row seat to what Cwd will or will not do to the high deer density of central wi.
The Cwd reaper is right at our feet, and increasing slowly at this point. I'll let you know in 30 years who was right. No one has a crystal ball.
I'd like to say some more but I'll hold back those personal reservations.

 

[sandbur]

I would be somewhat accepting of low deer numbers if the DNR would say it is because CWD is a problem in our state or in a specific part of our state.

We just keep hearing excuses from the DNR, and the real factors are wolf lovers, groups that fear global warming is ruining our forest and we need to cut deer numbers to allow the forest to adjust to the warming, and probably insurance and ag interests.

 

[MoBuckChaser]

I would be somewhat accepting of low deer numbers if the DNR would say it is because CWD is a problem in our state or in a specific part of our state.

We just keep hearing excuses from the DNR, and the real factors are wolf lovers, groups that fear global warming is ruining our forest and we need to cut deer numbers to allow the forest to adjust to the warming, and probably insurance and ag interests.

Maybe it's none of the above. Maybe our DNR are just piss poor at managing the deer herd! That is what it seems like to me!

 

[sandbur]

Maybe it's none of the above. Maybe our DNR are just piss poor at managing the deer herd! That is what it seems like to me!

Sometimes I think they just do not care. They get their money from deer hunters and spend it on removing brush and trees from state lands, for sandhill crane hunts, sharptail grouse habitat, prairie chickens, duck and geese projects, elk in the northwest, and maybe even on fish.

All of these are great projects, but lets spend some money on deer habitat and issues.

 

[MoBuckChaser]

What told me they have no idea what they are doing is when at the cambridge meeting, some idiot said we did a fly over of zone such and such. The count was too low, so we are not going to use it.

That was all the proof I needed that they have no idea what they are doing. When they can physically count the number of deer and not believe it!:eek:

Did anyone just hear what I said......they counted the number of deer and said it was too low, so they will throw that count out..........WTF?

And they wonder why a guy gets so pissed off!

 

[sandbur]

What told me they have no idea what they are doing is when at the cambridge meeting, some idiot said we did a fly over of zone such and such. The count was too low, so we are not going to use it.

That was all the proof I needed that they have no idea what they are doing. When they can physically count the number of deer and not believe it!:eek:

Did anyone just hear what I said......they counted the number of deer and said it was too low, so they will throw that count out..........WTF?

And they wonder why a guy gets so pissed off!

And guess who lives and hunts in that specific area? Guess who has managed his land in that area for deer habitat for 25 years.

 

[MoBuckChaser]

And guess who lives and hunts in that specific area? Guess who has managed his land in that area for deer habitat for 25 years.

I did not want to mention the zone Art, but I guess everyone knows anyways.

 

[dipper]

they weren't always incompetent were they? What was the reason they changed. I know everyone likes to fall back on the conspiracy theory, of insurance companies, and such. You think that matters they just rack up your rates anyway. They will make their money one way of the other.
Just ask yourself why this change, and why is it happening everywhere, and so drastic.
Some sleezy politicial did exactly what this article cited, and it worked. Wi hunters were told by James kroll to not worry about Cwd anymore. Ha-who's being made a fool. Now herd management is left to the people of wi. Ha
These dnrs can't come out and blame it on Cwd. Look at the controversy it creates on capitalism.....the deer industry. It happens every time it's brought up on this forum or any forum. It brings out our friends, just like my words will likely do to this thread.

 

[Steve Bartylla]

I tend to agree with Dipper on this one. I really don't know if other DNRs are striving to hit the same goals the WI DNR is aiming for...That said, I've had a bunch of "off the record" conversations with several active and one retired big shots in the WI DNR, with one being in a key position for dealing with CWD in WI. They've all essentially told me the same thing. They believe they need to drop deer #s to around 5 dpsm to slow the spread of CWD in WI. Now, they aren't fools to the point where they believe they will hit those goals, but that is/was the goal in WI and why, according to off the record statements. heck, there convos with me were very similar to the one Dipper reported a few weeks back that he had with a DNR employee at some social gathering. So, either they really mean it or there is a well coordinated effort to spew it as backdoor propaganda.

 

[TMIL]

I'm not going to debate CWD, EHD, insurance companies, etc. In any event, I believe the hunters need a voice, in IL, MN, and everywhere else. As the MDDI tries to get its feet on the ground, I'd like to point out some things the IWA has done right, as well as wrong.

What the IWA has done right:

IWA made a facebook page. The page has ~4000 likes. After that, they made a website where folks can go sign up to become an official member. There are ~2000 official members now. Whereas those aren't huge numbers, its at least something.

IWA has a couple semi-well known (in Illinois) outdoor writers/bloggers that are on board and all-in. I believe they are effective in getting the word out. To what degree, I don't know, but its a good thing to have the platform and use it.

What the IWA has done wrong:

There's plenty of it, mostly starting with you-know-who. The IWA was started in completely the wrong way. A facebook page was started and thousands came to check it out. They stated their purpose and told everyone they needed to get on board. They let us know that the IWA had some meeting with officials where 'our' proposals would be presented. Well, of course, we all started asking, what are the proposals? We were told they were not ready to be released and that we needed to just support the Alliance, and they would tell us what we were supporting later. Haha! After the first week or 2, it got so bad on the facebook page that they reset the whole page. They cleared everything off. I'm not saying I was the main reason this happened, but I played no small part, I'll promise you! I almost took the argument to the QDMA forum, where DH couldn't censor me, but I decided it against it.

The IWA proposal didn't hit the mark either. They tacked on a 1-buck limit idea (its now 2 bucks per year), which just seems to me like a QDM idea, rather than a deer population concern.

There are other things, I'll post more later as I have time.

 

[TMIL]

On, New Year's Day some poor soul showed up on the facebook page asking where to get food plot seed. People came out of the wood work, along with Don Higgins himself, suggesting "Real World Wildlife Seed!"

Anytime anyone offers constructive criticism, Higgins is quick to show up with his standard ... "Well, what are YOU doing for the herd? I'm the only one working for the herd". He is just a polarizing a-hole who is not someone to be put in front of people. As you read in the above article, the idiot is out there claiming he got the new governor elected! He sure does think alot of himself and his ideas are the only ones that matter, he wants to come to be known as the guy who saved the deer in Illinois, and he wants to sell his BOB seed.

I would love to more actively support the IWA, but none of this sits very well with me. Sadly, its the only game in town, as Don will frequently let you know.

 

[Steve Bartylla]

The issue I have with IWA is that it has such a trophy deer management feel to it. I had to push REAL hard to get an answer to what exactly, "responsible deer management" meant, which was the answer I kept getting when asking what IWA was pushing for. I didn't like the answers, when I finally got them. To me, much of it had nothing to do with managing deer responsibly and everything to do with growing gagers. Now, that works out in my own selfish interests perfectly, but loathe seeing deer managed for inches of antler by the states. Individuals doing so, so long as they aren't obnoxious about it? More power to them, but that's a personal goal and I firmly believe, for an extremely long list of reasons, state SHOULDN'T force managing deer for inches down their hunters' throats.

I personally don't believe in this entire "unified voice of the hunters" theme that's been going on lately. I get and even have tried to help support you guys' goals for shaking things up in MN. That said, I don't want anyone outside of the DNRs to determine what should be done to manage deer. If they DNRs are failing, push to fire the key decision makers and replace them with the best available "experts," but don't strip the DNRs of their power, like we are doing so steadily in WI.

 

[TMIL]

Right on Steve. They had their 'biologist' try to justify the 1 buck idea. It seemed so silly to me. I don't even remember the drivel. As I recall, he started with a theoretical initial population of 4 deer or something. Come on, really?