nodog,

"You got 10 what are you braging about and check your grammar badge at the door, this is a hunting site anything above a grunt is a plus."

I am both Zim and KZim. A while back I had log in problems and was locked out for some reason which later corrected itself. During that time I just gave up and reregistered. Thus I have nearly 500 posts and would have more if the site were more active. As to the grammer. That is simply a matter of opinion. I went to the crapiest HS in Indiana (state that is bottom 10 in education) and am not gifted but I can still spell decent. I would not profile hunters as uneducated.

A bit of data from the Robert Allerton Park Hunt in Piatt County the results show that the hunt is indeed working to reduce the number of deer within the park and surrounding areas, Reducing DV Accidents and the beenfits to the park also include

Volunteering Deer Hunters;
Between March & September 2007 Sixty Four Allerton Archery Deer Hunters Donated a total of 2,752 hours of their time to Allerton Park.
Using figures from the Independent Sector Website the value of the Allerton Hunters Volunteer effort is estimated at roughly $49,500.00.

As for Allerton Park--THAT IS NOT A FOREST PRESERVE---I know this because I grew up hunting Allerton Park, the Sangamon River flood plains and the rest of Piatt County--having grown up in Bement. AGAIN--we are NOT talking about just HUNTING--this is an agenda pushed by politics, not ecology or sport hunting. The restrictions PLACED BY THE BOARD ON THIS PROPOSED HUNTING PROGRAM AS IT IS WRITTEN, AND AS THEY HAVE REPEATEDLY BEEN PROPOSED BY EVERY OTHER FOREST PRESERVE DISTRICT IN ILLINOIS THAT HAS DONE SO, HAVE FAILED BECAUSE THEY DO NOT ALLOW IT TO WORK because it is too restrictive--whether or not you are pro or anti hunting, it is the program you have to dissect, not my opinion.
You guys are arguing apples and oranges--this is an urban Forest Preserve, including designated Nature Preserves and multi-use activity areas. It, as proposed, requires multiple staff on site at all times, preserves to be closed, buffers above and beyond IDNR regulations--IF it was allowed in a form similar to Allerton, Champaign County CONSERVATION DISTRICT, Kankakee State Park, etc. hunting would work--but as the plan is being proposed in the areas it is targeting it will not work. There are a MAXIMUM of 14 hunters in 5 preserves as it stands--even if you break them up into 2 weekend seasons, you can't remove even 10% of the numbers needed to get to the PROPOSED targets/goals...2 seasons means 28 hunters and 18 staff. I am not saying HUNTING DOESN'T WORK FOR ANYTHING, but it won't work AS PROPOSED for this plan. Read the plan or go to the Board meetings--Oh, and make sure the person you are trying to educate doesn't know more about something--say like a hunting program in Allerton Park--before you lay it all out there...one more time for the slow folks...Allerton Park is not a Forest Preserve District.

Fact is the way it is proposed now, sharpshooters will do most of the damage. However, the shotgun hunters that have been voted in are at minimum a foot in the door. If they set a good example, future hunting expansion would be a definite possibliity. I understand the politics involved.

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

I think the hunters would do a good job of being ambassadors and it would open doors and opportunities, BUT as it is proposed, it doesn't stand a chance

In fact, until the committees nixed bow hunting and only narrowly passed ANY attempt to do shotgun hunting, most of the biologists watching this proposal (the local county people from the area are wondering if they will follow with hunting if Will County does it)thought the plan might have legs---but not now--and why waste the time so that 14 hunters can hunt---it works out to about $1200-1300/deer for a hunting program assuming everyone gets 2 deer.
THOSE ARE NOT NUMBERS I CAME UP WITH--THEY ARE WHAT THE BOARD IS REVIEWING
That would be an awful expensive foot in the door--and the money could be spent better elsewhere. It should be proposed that areas with no public access--and there are about 2 dozen of them that would be huntable--be used as part of a recreational hunting program and that the numbers hunters take be looked at to see if management is feasible. Then the management goals and objectives aren't directly linked to any particular form of removal. Instead the program states that the target numbers of hundred and hundreds are the goal and then the plan asks if hunting will achieve them. It was done this way so that management would be the over-arching message so as to deflect a lot of criticism, but all it did was cripple the plan.

I see, good job of explaining your reasons. Sounded as if you werre against hunting not the program presented.

I still say bring on a bounty after the politicians have done their worst. I say the same for the wolf problem else where.

Why shouldn't the hunter get a litle something for doing the hard part? Only reason I can think of is it just never crossed his or her mind. Bout time it does.

Never said they weren't educated HUNTERS (why were here)and some people type faster than their brains go and the letters get put in the wrong order. Some just have big fingers and what wasn't decent about the spelling? You obviously understood what was being said.

I was new here once and paid my dues to the grammar/rude police. Didn't like it then and I don't like it now. Commenting on a persons spelling does what to prove a point in a hunting forum? IMO it proves the commenter has very little to draw from.

If it wasn't for spell check all you could read of this is grunt grunt.

Nothing I've ever read on here has ever taken me more than a few minutes to read even by people who spell much worse than I do. All decent in my book so far even by people who don't speak English well.

FWIW I'm married to a grammar nazi whom I love very much and when someone goes off on someone else's grammar and she happens to be looking over my shoulder she just laughs and starts pointing out all the problems with the posts grammar. You do not want her to read yours as even I can see some, but I don't care. Decent to me. To her, after the giggles just groans and says "I can't read anymore". She even looks pained when I ask her to come and read something written here. I do it for fun mostly.

Great information provided by Lady Forge, even FACTUAL charts to go along with it rather than just someone saying what they said they saw. I think it is a great idea what Piatt county is doing with the volunteer work. Id gladly do something like that in Lake County to help out with the parks in order to pay and deer hunt. Heck, I have a bow stand about 60 feet from Forest Preserve land in Lake County right now. Got a decent 10 pt with my bow at 9 yards coming from the FP property. I'd gladly put in some time on that Forest Preserve to help with the day to day operations when I can. Clear brush, help with mowing and clearing drainage, all would be fine by me. Plus, It would almost be like scouting as well.

I'm curious, this new poster coming on here just to ruffle some feathers talks about how there would be "no interest". Again, this is comical that you say this which is why most of your other so called facts aren't even believable. If there is no interest, why is Mchenry County RAISING their fees every year and now doing a point system for those who don't draw areas? The prices have gone up 3 consecutive years and if I am correct almost tripled in the past few years and every year they are getting more and more applicants. I know a few of the points that you are raising are false as well, but Im not getting into a pissing match with someone who is stating things that are not true. Lady Forge already showed that you are incorrect on your facts and I would like to thank her about that. That county should really be a model on how all counties should be run.

I also was told how the proposals for Will County were put together and the numbers that were quoted were biased and made to make it look like this program is a lot more expensive than it was. You get people who don't want to put the program in place and have them influence the numbers and research and you wonder why the numbers are so high? I can tell you price for a registered sharp shooter to come in (which is usually an off duty cop) getting paid time and a half because it is overtime, baiting, the time it takes to get the deer out, testing and then butchering is a lot higher than in probably mentioned is this so called research.

Fe2manz, you are not being beneficial to this sight, providing no good information and pretty much just trying to start fights. You made your point that you are against hunting in FP and we clearly see that but unless you want to add some information that is beneficial to hunting on other posts, please leave the site. Thanks