Originally Posted by
PastorJim08
Zim, very well written and thought-out opinion. I agree with most of what you said but I must disagree with you and onion on pushing back the gun season opener by one week unless you were going to make that the only week of firearms. But there again, you would be reducing the firearms season by almost half. So I don't see how that would be much different than the proposed changes that are drawing so much flack. The stated purpose of the rule changes were to reduce the deer herd due to pressure from the insurance companies. I believe the proposed changes would have done little to accomplish this. The proposed mid-October doe only season would serve to cause room for abuse from those who would take that opportunity to kill a buck with a firearm and then claim it as a bow-kill. The proposed second doe only season would be nearly useless as most guys are not going to brave the cold of the late season with only the oportunity to take a doe. Is this right...maybe not but it is reality. I hope the DNR can come up with solutions because if they fail to address this issue, the insurance companies will begin pressuring the state lawmakers for a solution and I don't think any of us want that. One more thing. When it comes to class basketball, lay off. lol. We had the greatest most watched high school tournament in the US until the eggheads got ahold of it. One thing we all need to remember is that we are not each others enemy. We need to bind together and work with the state game agencies to work out the issues that we as hunters and game managers are facing. Thank you for your responses.
Blessings.....Pastorjim
The insurance companies were not the driving force behind the scrapped deer regulations. A few of the states legislators were. Insurance companies do not loose money from car-deer accidents. They just raise your rates.
I feel our state has no issues, especially with an over population of female deer. In 2007 EHD wiped out 50% of the herd in my county. It still has not recovered. It' is getting better, but no where near prior 2007. I do think the state has pockets that have a human deer conflicts, mostly urban areas and areas were hunting access is not granted.
I'm personally happy IL is known as a trophy state and gets all the pressure from non resident. hunters. I don't have to pay 30-50 bucks an acre to hunt private land here.
The biggest reason I didn't support the the rules was the ploy used to try and get them enacted. Reducing deer numbers as claimed by those that supported them was a farce and not the intended results. Growing large antlers was. I myself hunt mature deer, but that is my choice and not every hunter makes this choice.
Shortening the muzzle loader season and not allowing cross bows in early archery proved my point. 80% of the muzzy season harvest is does, why cut that out?