AND in regard to the McHenry County and how successful they have been comments--no it hasn't--in comparable areas (and that is being generous). Again, a political agenda that needs to show positive spin gloats about its success--while hiring sharpshooters to come in starting last year....why? Because they were not even close to getting to their targets in urbanized areas.
Again, read this slowly...in areas that have no public access or mulit-usage hunting has worked.
BUT in areas that have adjacent public use or on-site public use, they aren't hunting or are only hunting on a limited basis---and have hired sharpshooters to take out the numbers that they need to get to their targets--EVEN MCHENRY COUNTY.
As for "my staffing numbers"--those are the numbers enumerated in the plan--read the details. And with regard to your "taking quotes from books by other tree-huggers" comments--AGAIN, this is information from the PROPOSED PLAN and the list of documents being used to support it.
The staffing and cost for the hunts--3 staff per site per shift per day--all day for a total of 6 peope per site per day based on 2 shifts--THIS IS A REQUIREMENT OF THE PROPOSED PLAN. As for the cost of $5000/per day per site as operating cost--THIS IS FROM THE BUDGET ATTACHED TO THE PROPOSED PLAN--and that is actually only about HALF of what they are proposing--I cut what looked like fat out of it to me to cut it from $12-15,000 down to $5,000 PER DAY PER SITE---IT IS IN THE PROPOSED PLAN.
Believe me, I want the deer gone as much as anyone--more than most because I work with them every damn day and see the damage they do to habitat, forage, ecosystems, vehicles, endangered species, etc... I was one of the biologists who was pushing hunting--but not at the expense of thousands of dollars that could be used elsewhere if you are restricting hunting to 15 people a year.
So take your tree hugger, bad grammar, min-van comments and stick them. I am not on here to bash hunting, just to inform people of a couple things:
This isn't a plan that has much chance of succeeding
This isn't a plan that has much chance of being approved
This IS a plan that is so restrictive that it cripples itself
This is a plan that has much more to it than is in the outlines, pamphlets or slide shows.
This is not the 1st time a plan like this has been attempted
This would be the only plan like this to ever be approved in an IL Forest Preserve--not the same as a park, conservation district, state lands, etc...
I am just telling you that pretty much every county in the Chicago-metro area has already tried to do this--and failed for the same reasons---all of them tied to the highly restrictive nature of the programs as proposed.
Read the documents--and if you need them rewritten down to a 6th grade level, let me know and I will translate them. there is THE PLAN--about 115 pages, and then there is a list of supporting PDF documents--articles, research and plans from other FOREST PRESERVE DISTRICTS IN URBAN AREAS--about another 200 documents in all--and, unlike you, I HAVE read them all.
Talk to me in a month and I will paste the answers to why the plan is not approved on here for you.
For hopefully the last time--I am NOT anti-hunting, only anti hunting via the proposed plan. And why