Will county Forest preserve deer hunting possible?
05-18-2010, 05:48 AM
#41
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: LaPorte, IN
Posts: 1,111
NoDog, everything is relative when it comes to grammer. Your view is just different from mine. When fe2manz posted that on the Daily Herald blog, how do you think thousands of readers will interpret it??? Regardless of your personal hot buttons? Same this as the dopes wearing camo t-shirts and caps to the public hearings! Just plain bad reflection to the general public, including the committee members.
fe2manz, If you are indeed pro-hunting you need to go back and read the crap you posted on that public forum blog and put yourself in the shoes of a taxpaying non-hunter and think how they would interpret it!!! Still think grammer doesn't matter??? All the difference in the world. Really horribly written. Even the others on this thread interpretted it the same as I!
fe2manz, If you are indeed pro-hunting you need to go back and read the crap you posted on that public forum blog and put yourself in the shoes of a taxpaying non-hunter and think how they would interpret it!!! Still think grammer doesn't matter??? All the difference in the world. Really horribly written. Even the others on this thread interpretted it the same as I!
05-18-2010, 06:31 AM
#42
Spike
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14
well, most of the people got the message--it isn't hunting I am against, or even hunting in preserves--it is this plan, and the fact that people are not drawing distinctions between areas designated forest preserves, state lands, conservation areas, urban multi-use ares, state parks, County property and County preserves, nature preserves and all of the minutia related to the issues.
AND, if you take graphs as proof, you really are not grasping the issues. Ladyforge AGAIN was not talking about a Nature Preserve, a Forest Preserve or an urban multi-use area...it is a rural site of significance that has passed through various entities' hands and ownership and is now partly owned by the UofI and partly by the state--and subject to an entirely different set of regulations, issues and political spin.
fastetti sounds like someone who is just arguing to argue, and as I actually helped put together the stats for the most of Piatt County, Champaign County, Shelby County, Will County and DuPage County for various reports and projects over the last 15 years, I am sure I am familiar with "factual charts" ---by the way, charts aren't "factual", they are like any other statistic and can be made to show anything you want to show--BUT that Allerton numbers were right or wrong had nothing to do with any of this--they aren't relevant here because they aren't a forest preserve and don't reflect in ANY way the plan that is being proposed.
If you haven't figured that part of it out yet, it is a waste of time to explain it further.
The plan is probably doomed, but hopefully if this issue isn't just dropped after it fails, archery will be revisited in coming seasons. Archery lends itself best to hunting in urban areas, but it has a stigma in political circles--hence it was unanimously voted down before even getting to the Board.
This plan has almost no chance of passing or achieving the management goals, but hopefully this opens discourse for future proposals. In fact, what has happened in almost every other county is that hunting was proposed one time and then never brought back up.
My goal is to get people to quit arguing for this plan and pointing fingers and arguing from a position of ignorance. There have only been about a dozen full plans taken form the public meetings and no one has requested the documents used in creating the plan--the 200 PDF documents available on request from the Forest Preserve--so when I say that people have no idea what the entire plan is comprised of, I am telling you that it is the case. The plan as written will not be effective even if it IS passed and if you want hunting then you have to come up with a plan that is modeled on one of the plans on either the east coast or southeast that uses archery and allows longer hunting season--although not the entire lawful season--and allows more hunters into the preserves.
SO, if in telling people the weaknesses of the plan--that few have read in its entirety--and in providing the information on where the documents and resources used to create the flawed plan is,is considered not useful, I would reply that no plan will succeed. Those documents contain information on successful programs, failed programs, information like the number of deer you have to remove to keep your deer population at the staus quo (28% must be removed form 100 deer to keep the population at 100 deer a year later); the documents talk about what reactions people have had to various approaches, they contain the contact information for both activists and advocates---but no one has even requested them, much less read them.
If anyone wants to eventually have hunting in the urban Forest Preserves of Will County, they will need to be familiar with this stuff--pretty much anyone can tell you that archery would be the best bet, but it was already pulled off the table. Why would anyone--even avid hunters--think that the plan as it is--with its 14 hunters in 5 preserves--would be financially responsible or practical?
Granted, I only get out to hunt deer about once every third year, and most of my hunting is either fowl or coyote, and I am a shotgun hunter when deer hunting--but firearms just wouldn't be the best way to do it by the plan as it is.
If you want to be constructive, read the reports and the plan and come up with one that works--not just a few ideas because for every idea someone comes up with there are 10 political reasons why not to do it--so it has to be shown that it does work and why it works and where.
If it was easy, and it really did cost less, more Forest Preserves would be doing it--not that it can't be less expensive or work, but none of the plans have passed in Forests Preserves yet because it is political planning that is proposed--it definitely isn't an issue of common sense or even intelligence--find a plan--with all the details--and propose it after this fails.
I can tell you that most of the biologists--local, state and federal are not anti-hunting---and have usually been the people pushing for hunting...until the plan is put together and it has so many restrictions and buffers and conditions that it is a waste of time.
Every step of one of these plans is subject to multiple committees and meetings and votes--you can't halfway through say, "oh, lets just make these changes and fix it"--you are stuck with the plan as the plan is proposed by whatever board or committee comes up with it and all you can do is pare it down, not change it. that is the way the system works.
AND, if you take graphs as proof, you really are not grasping the issues. Ladyforge AGAIN was not talking about a Nature Preserve, a Forest Preserve or an urban multi-use area...it is a rural site of significance that has passed through various entities' hands and ownership and is now partly owned by the UofI and partly by the state--and subject to an entirely different set of regulations, issues and political spin.
fastetti sounds like someone who is just arguing to argue, and as I actually helped put together the stats for the most of Piatt County, Champaign County, Shelby County, Will County and DuPage County for various reports and projects over the last 15 years, I am sure I am familiar with "factual charts" ---by the way, charts aren't "factual", they are like any other statistic and can be made to show anything you want to show--BUT that Allerton numbers were right or wrong had nothing to do with any of this--they aren't relevant here because they aren't a forest preserve and don't reflect in ANY way the plan that is being proposed.
If you haven't figured that part of it out yet, it is a waste of time to explain it further.
The plan is probably doomed, but hopefully if this issue isn't just dropped after it fails, archery will be revisited in coming seasons. Archery lends itself best to hunting in urban areas, but it has a stigma in political circles--hence it was unanimously voted down before even getting to the Board.
This plan has almost no chance of passing or achieving the management goals, but hopefully this opens discourse for future proposals. In fact, what has happened in almost every other county is that hunting was proposed one time and then never brought back up.
My goal is to get people to quit arguing for this plan and pointing fingers and arguing from a position of ignorance. There have only been about a dozen full plans taken form the public meetings and no one has requested the documents used in creating the plan--the 200 PDF documents available on request from the Forest Preserve--so when I say that people have no idea what the entire plan is comprised of, I am telling you that it is the case. The plan as written will not be effective even if it IS passed and if you want hunting then you have to come up with a plan that is modeled on one of the plans on either the east coast or southeast that uses archery and allows longer hunting season--although not the entire lawful season--and allows more hunters into the preserves.
SO, if in telling people the weaknesses of the plan--that few have read in its entirety--and in providing the information on where the documents and resources used to create the flawed plan is,is considered not useful, I would reply that no plan will succeed. Those documents contain information on successful programs, failed programs, information like the number of deer you have to remove to keep your deer population at the staus quo (28% must be removed form 100 deer to keep the population at 100 deer a year later); the documents talk about what reactions people have had to various approaches, they contain the contact information for both activists and advocates---but no one has even requested them, much less read them.
If anyone wants to eventually have hunting in the urban Forest Preserves of Will County, they will need to be familiar with this stuff--pretty much anyone can tell you that archery would be the best bet, but it was already pulled off the table. Why would anyone--even avid hunters--think that the plan as it is--with its 14 hunters in 5 preserves--would be financially responsible or practical?
Granted, I only get out to hunt deer about once every third year, and most of my hunting is either fowl or coyote, and I am a shotgun hunter when deer hunting--but firearms just wouldn't be the best way to do it by the plan as it is.
If you want to be constructive, read the reports and the plan and come up with one that works--not just a few ideas because for every idea someone comes up with there are 10 political reasons why not to do it--so it has to be shown that it does work and why it works and where.
If it was easy, and it really did cost less, more Forest Preserves would be doing it--not that it can't be less expensive or work, but none of the plans have passed in Forests Preserves yet because it is political planning that is proposed--it definitely isn't an issue of common sense or even intelligence--find a plan--with all the details--and propose it after this fails.
I can tell you that most of the biologists--local, state and federal are not anti-hunting---and have usually been the people pushing for hunting...until the plan is put together and it has so many restrictions and buffers and conditions that it is a waste of time.
Every step of one of these plans is subject to multiple committees and meetings and votes--you can't halfway through say, "oh, lets just make these changes and fix it"--you are stuck with the plan as the plan is proposed by whatever board or committee comes up with it and all you can do is pare it down, not change it. that is the way the system works.
05-18-2010, 07:17 AM
#43
Spike
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14
And as for you r definition of a sharpshooter and who does it--again, not part of this plan as it was proposed...read the proposal --there are also $1600/day IDNR sharpshooters, completely volunteer--no cost sharp shooters--and everything in between--RELEVANT TO THIS PLAN??? This plan would incur only the cost of ammunition and processing--at least for the 1st 3 years and after that , it would be reviewed to see if hiring sharpshooters would be more effective...the pool of completely volunteer shooters is already large--and that doesn't include anyone who may want to qualify with the IDNR from the public who might want to do it as well.
As for "research" and your comment, unless you know what you are talking about, just don't. AGAIN, what is research and what isn't is clearly defined BY THE IDNR and provided in the full report--you are arguing for hunting, not arguing for this hunting program---and still it seems more about my point of view than this plan...maybe that is why the plan will fail, because of issues not related to the plan.
The Board isn't debating whether hunting is good or bad, whether they are pro or anti hunting, they are debating this specific plan--and it is a bad plan. the intent was good, but too much went into making sure every contingency was covered, that no one was left out of the shaping of it, and that it provided the least public outcry or vocal opposition--and since about 5500 hunters register in Will County, less than 1% of the population, the arguments and documentation for any plan will have to be flawless and provide a clear and uncontroversial outline for any hunting proposal to pass.
so fastetti, go read the plan and quit citing generalities, or what you know, or what you were told and tell us what the plan says--because even if what it says is totally incorrect, it IS what is being considered by the Board and voted on and arguing about anything else is a waste of time.
Because no matter what any of us think, or say we know to be true, it does not matter. All the Board is looking at is the proposed plan and the documentation is is backed by. It is too late to make changes or show them other documents--especially if they aren't directly related to Forest Preserves in urban areas--so look at the plan and the research and pick it apart, lay it out for the Board or the newspapers or the web board, but don't waste time and effort arguing opinions or hearsay because it isn't relevant.
Come up with a plan and a budget that works---pull the list of tasks and materials out of the full report and tear it apart or change it to suit a plan you can come up with--and then ask me if I think it will work--and since I work with most of the committees who have tried to get hunting passed, I can tell you if it has been tried before.
I am very very anti-this plan, but would like to see hunting in our natural areas to replace the loss of natural predators. I just haven't seen a plan make it to the table that looks viable. they start out as great ideas, but by the time they make it to whatever voting group needed to approve them, they are twisted and full of restrictions and fail.
there are 3 things that are most detrimental to our natural areas--loss of fire regime, deer and development of surrounding areas. most places are anti-fire and anti-anti-development so reducing deer numbers is the greatest single practical thing we can do to help our natural areas--excluding DVAs and property damage completely, deer are a menace.
Come up with a plan that works and give it to a Board member at a public meeting and see what happens. Or send it to a local biologist for putting it forward, whatever you want, but do something besides argue over who is more pro-hunting and what their opinions are.
Come up with a good plan and let us see it and then maybe we can get some kind of hunting in these areas.
As for "research" and your comment, unless you know what you are talking about, just don't. AGAIN, what is research and what isn't is clearly defined BY THE IDNR and provided in the full report--you are arguing for hunting, not arguing for this hunting program---and still it seems more about my point of view than this plan...maybe that is why the plan will fail, because of issues not related to the plan.
The Board isn't debating whether hunting is good or bad, whether they are pro or anti hunting, they are debating this specific plan--and it is a bad plan. the intent was good, but too much went into making sure every contingency was covered, that no one was left out of the shaping of it, and that it provided the least public outcry or vocal opposition--and since about 5500 hunters register in Will County, less than 1% of the population, the arguments and documentation for any plan will have to be flawless and provide a clear and uncontroversial outline for any hunting proposal to pass.
so fastetti, go read the plan and quit citing generalities, or what you know, or what you were told and tell us what the plan says--because even if what it says is totally incorrect, it IS what is being considered by the Board and voted on and arguing about anything else is a waste of time.
Because no matter what any of us think, or say we know to be true, it does not matter. All the Board is looking at is the proposed plan and the documentation is is backed by. It is too late to make changes or show them other documents--especially if they aren't directly related to Forest Preserves in urban areas--so look at the plan and the research and pick it apart, lay it out for the Board or the newspapers or the web board, but don't waste time and effort arguing opinions or hearsay because it isn't relevant.
Come up with a plan and a budget that works---pull the list of tasks and materials out of the full report and tear it apart or change it to suit a plan you can come up with--and then ask me if I think it will work--and since I work with most of the committees who have tried to get hunting passed, I can tell you if it has been tried before.
I am very very anti-this plan, but would like to see hunting in our natural areas to replace the loss of natural predators. I just haven't seen a plan make it to the table that looks viable. they start out as great ideas, but by the time they make it to whatever voting group needed to approve them, they are twisted and full of restrictions and fail.
there are 3 things that are most detrimental to our natural areas--loss of fire regime, deer and development of surrounding areas. most places are anti-fire and anti-anti-development so reducing deer numbers is the greatest single practical thing we can do to help our natural areas--excluding DVAs and property damage completely, deer are a menace.
Come up with a plan that works and give it to a Board member at a public meeting and see what happens. Or send it to a local biologist for putting it forward, whatever you want, but do something besides argue over who is more pro-hunting and what their opinions are.
Come up with a good plan and let us see it and then maybe we can get some kind of hunting in these areas.
Last edited by fe2manz; 05-18-2010 at 07:56 AM.
05-18-2010, 08:23 AM
#44
Spike
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14
Table 2. IDNR Deer Hunting Licenses Issued to Will County Residents
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Deer Firearm 4,406 4,592 4,485 5,213 5,926 6,549 6,630 6,970 7,111 6,905
Deer Archery 218 211 239 219 267 283 240 278 284 289
These are numbers form IDNR--permits issued for Will County Residents...As for "interest", although hunters may be VERY interested in hunting, when only 1% get permits to hunt, it tells the Board that there is a lack of overall interest from the public--and archery hunters, who I think would be the best option in urban areas, are less than one quarter of 1% of the population in Will County.
this doesn't mean hunters aren't interested, it just means they have to show lots of pluses, and reasons to support a program. SO, when I say there is a lack of support and interest I am speaking of the overall participation and number of people interested out of the entire population--1 avid hunter has no more sway than 1 completely disinterested or anti-hunting person--and honestly most people are not pro or anti hunting--they don't hunt and don't understand or don't care one way or the other--or they are just concerned about what their taxes are paying for and would rather have more teachers and better health care than fewer deer in the preserves. That doesn't make them right or wrong--but they won't be going out to show any support for hunting or voting for people who want to spend tax money on deer management.
And here are the numbers taken in ALL of Will County--and we need to remove about 400 deer from the 5 preserves going to the Board--not to mention all the other preserves...How will 14 hunters help?
Year SG BOW Total
2001 812 269 1081
2002 836 261 1097
2003 80 260 1065
2004 934 272 1206
2005 984 346 1330
2006 922 460 1382
2007 894 510 1404
2008 952 443 1395
2009 911 414 1325
2010 956 398 1354
If someone were to propose recreational hunting at sites not designated multi-use or Nature Preserves, and not as a staple of management, it would reduce the number of restrictions and buffer zones and research requirements by the IDNR--and as a byproduct, you could get more hunters in and remove more deer and it would help manage the population. But, they have tied management--and all the red tape and restrictions by IDNR--to hunting and it has killed it in every other county, and probably here too.
then you could hunt, and when the numbers started coming down in the areas slated as recreational hunting areas, not multi-use ares, you could move hunting into the management areas alongside or in place of sharpshooting but keep it under the auspice of recreational programs, not management. When you tie it to management is when you run into all of the troubles with restrictions and monitoring and accountability--staffing, closing preserves, scheduling events and all of that. If someone comes up with a purely recreational plan and keeps track of the process and its effects, it would be the most efficient and viable tract to get hunting in the actual Nature Preserve areas--and it would allow more hunting by more hunters for now while setting the stage for expansion in the future.
Take the forms from the proposal--the tasks and costs pages of the report--and apply a recreational program that could be less of a burden to resources and allow more hunting because of the less urban setting and lack of necessary monitoring. that is how you can get hunting going. BUT, it will have to show that it has a LOT of interest because it is votes that get things done and if you only have a small percentage of voters, you need them all making themselves heard.
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Deer Firearm 4,406 4,592 4,485 5,213 5,926 6,549 6,630 6,970 7,111 6,905
Deer Archery 218 211 239 219 267 283 240 278 284 289
These are numbers form IDNR--permits issued for Will County Residents...As for "interest", although hunters may be VERY interested in hunting, when only 1% get permits to hunt, it tells the Board that there is a lack of overall interest from the public--and archery hunters, who I think would be the best option in urban areas, are less than one quarter of 1% of the population in Will County.
this doesn't mean hunters aren't interested, it just means they have to show lots of pluses, and reasons to support a program. SO, when I say there is a lack of support and interest I am speaking of the overall participation and number of people interested out of the entire population--1 avid hunter has no more sway than 1 completely disinterested or anti-hunting person--and honestly most people are not pro or anti hunting--they don't hunt and don't understand or don't care one way or the other--or they are just concerned about what their taxes are paying for and would rather have more teachers and better health care than fewer deer in the preserves. That doesn't make them right or wrong--but they won't be going out to show any support for hunting or voting for people who want to spend tax money on deer management.
And here are the numbers taken in ALL of Will County--and we need to remove about 400 deer from the 5 preserves going to the Board--not to mention all the other preserves...How will 14 hunters help?
Year SG BOW Total
2001 812 269 1081
2002 836 261 1097
2003 80 260 1065
2004 934 272 1206
2005 984 346 1330
2006 922 460 1382
2007 894 510 1404
2008 952 443 1395
2009 911 414 1325
2010 956 398 1354
If someone were to propose recreational hunting at sites not designated multi-use or Nature Preserves, and not as a staple of management, it would reduce the number of restrictions and buffer zones and research requirements by the IDNR--and as a byproduct, you could get more hunters in and remove more deer and it would help manage the population. But, they have tied management--and all the red tape and restrictions by IDNR--to hunting and it has killed it in every other county, and probably here too.
then you could hunt, and when the numbers started coming down in the areas slated as recreational hunting areas, not multi-use ares, you could move hunting into the management areas alongside or in place of sharpshooting but keep it under the auspice of recreational programs, not management. When you tie it to management is when you run into all of the troubles with restrictions and monitoring and accountability--staffing, closing preserves, scheduling events and all of that. If someone comes up with a purely recreational plan and keeps track of the process and its effects, it would be the most efficient and viable tract to get hunting in the actual Nature Preserve areas--and it would allow more hunting by more hunters for now while setting the stage for expansion in the future.
Take the forms from the proposal--the tasks and costs pages of the report--and apply a recreational program that could be less of a burden to resources and allow more hunting because of the less urban setting and lack of necessary monitoring. that is how you can get hunting going. BUT, it will have to show that it has a LOT of interest because it is votes that get things done and if you only have a small percentage of voters, you need them all making themselves heard.
Last edited by fe2manz; 05-19-2010 at 06:19 AM. Reason: typos
05-18-2010, 08:48 AM
#45
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: LaPorte, IN
Posts: 1,111
"well, most of the people got the message"
Who are these "people" you speak of?!
Nobody on any of these threads interpretted your initial message as coming from a pro-hunting viewpoint. Nobody. This speaks loud and clear as to the importance of using decent grammer when trying to make one's point, especially on a Daily Herald blog! Highly likely most of the commissioners checked out that public input. Let me guess you were wearing a torn camo t-shirt and a raggety hat when you wrote it. Yikes.
Who are these "people" you speak of?!
Nobody on any of these threads interpretted your initial message as coming from a pro-hunting viewpoint. Nobody. This speaks loud and clear as to the importance of using decent grammer when trying to make one's point, especially on a Daily Herald blog! Highly likely most of the commissioners checked out that public input. Let me guess you were wearing a torn camo t-shirt and a raggety hat when you wrote it. Yikes.
05-19-2010, 06:09 AM
#46
Spike
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14
again, blah blah blah--it isn't about pro hunting or anti hunting--it is about this plan, and this plan is, umm what's the word? Oh yeah, it sucks.
AND I am 100% against this plan--not hunting in general. Hunting is one of the 2 ways to compensate for the loss of predators--sharpshooting being the other--then again, maybe I should go back on the Herald site and spell phonetically--it isn't a test, and anyone who is swayed by grammar instead of the message is an idiot--come up with a viable plan--not just a 3 line idea of what will work--use the outline from the proposed plan, including the budget and cost forms, buffer zones, restrictions for multi-use access, etc.--instead of worrying about how the commissioners will interpret the minutia of grammar and syntax and making personal attacks--and repeatedly pointing out things that have already been agreed upon--things like me being absolutely categorically against the proposed plan of shotgun hunting only in the nature preserves--for all of the previously stated reasons.
This plan is dead--if archery was unanimously removed already, and the plan as it is would allow less than 30 hunters on the selected preserves, it is already gone. Quit arguing about who is right or wrong about grammar and come up with something that works. When this started I was one of the people who proposed the plan--and it was twisted and cut down at every turn--more restrictions and costs built in every couple of weeks.
I HAVE read all of the documents they used to come up with the plan--about half of the documents were reports from other urban deer management efforts--Georgi, St. Louis, Du Page County, Lake County, Winnebago County, McHenry County, D.C., PA, Texas, multiple east coast metro areas--It was widely accepted that archery was the most viable option while shotgun was most efficient--but none were as cost effective or efficient as sharpshooting in urban areas. Here is the pared down list--and there are about 200 more available for the asking--just contact them and they will provide you PDF versions.
AECOM, Inc. 2010. Forest Preserve District of Will County Deer Browse Analysis Report.
Anderson, R. 1994. Height of white-flowered trillium as an index of deer browsing intensity. Ecological Applications. Vol. 4, 104-109.
Angelo, G. 2009. White-tailed Deer Management Plan Robert B. Gordon Natural Area of West Chester University, Chester County, Pennsylvania. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Augustine, D. 1997. Grazing patterns and impacts of white-tailed deer in a fragmented forest ecosystem. M.S. thesis.
Augustine, D. and L. Frelich. 1998. Effects of white-tailed deer on populations of an understory forb in fragmented deciduous forests. Conservation Biology. Vol. 12, 995-1004.
Bowles et. al. 1997. Twenty-year Woody Vegetation Changes in Four Will County, Illinois Forest Preserves. The Morton Arboretum. Report submitted to the Forest Preserve District of Will County.
Bowles et. al. 1998. Twenty-year Woody Vegetation Changes and Groundlayer Species Richness in Northeastern Illinois Upland Forests. The Morton Arboretum. Report submitted to the Forest Preserve District of Will County.
Creacy, G. 2006. Deer management within suburban areas. Texas Parks and Wildlife.
deCalesta, D.S. 1994. Effects of white-tailed deer on songbirds within managed forests in Pennsylvania. Journal of Wildlife Management 58:711-718.
DeNicola, A,J., K.C. VerCauteren, P.D. Curtis, and S.E. Hygnstrom. 2000. Managing white-tailed deer in suburban environments – a technical guide. Cornell Cooperative Extension. 56pp.
DePerno, C.S. et. al. 2000. Female survival rates in a declining white-tailed deer population. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:1030-1037.
Etter, D. 2001. Ecology and management of overabundant white-tailed deer from suburban Chicago, Il. PhD dissertation.
Haulton, S. 2004. Results of 2004 Deer exclosure sampling at Thorn Creek Nature Preserve. Forest Preserve District of Will County staff report.
Haulton, S. 2007. The effects of herbivores on Large-flowered Trillium at Messenger Woods Nature Preserve, 2002-2007. Forest Preserve District of Will County staff report.
Ishmael, W.E., D.E. Katsma, T.A. Isacc, and B.K. Bryant. 1995. Live-capture and translocation of suburban white-tailed deer in River Hills, Wisconsin. Pages 87-96 in J.B. McAninch, editor. Urban deer: a manageable resource? Proceedings of the 1993 Symposium of the North Central Section, The Wildlife Society, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Jones, J.M. and J.H. Witham. 1990. Post-translocation survival and movements of metropolitan white-tailed deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 18(4):434-441.
Keyser, P., et. al. 2005. Population density-physical condition relationships in white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management. Vol. 69: 356-365.
Kilpatrick, H.J. and K.K. Lima. 1999. Effects of archery hunting on movement and activity of female white-tailed deer in an urban landscape. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17:433-440.
Kilpatrick, H.J. and W.D. Walter. 1999. A controlled archery deer hunt in a residential community: cost, effectiveness, and deer recovery rates. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:115-123.
Kilpatrick, H.J., A.M. LaBonte, and J.A. Seymour. 2002. A shotgun-archery deer hunt in a residential community; evaluation of hunt strategies and effectiveness. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:478-486.
Lund, R.C. 1997. A cooperative, community-based approach for the management of suburban deer populations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:488-490.
Missis, D.L. and R. B. Peyton. 1995. Cultural carrying capacity: modeling a notion. Pages 19-34 in J. B. McAninch, editor. Urban deer: a manageable resource? Proceedings of the 1993 Symposium of the North Central Section, The Wildlife Society, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Marquis, D. and R. Brenneman. 1981. The impact of deer on forest vegetation in Pennsylvania. USDA Forest Service General. Technical Report NE-65, GTR-NE-65.
New England Chapter of the Wildlife Society. 2008. An evaluation of deer management options. Northeast Deer Technical Committee.
O’Bryan, M.K. and D.R. McCullough. 1985. Survival of black-tailed deer following relocation in California. Journal of Wildlife Management. 49(1): 115-119.
Pennsylvania Game Commission. 2003. Population Management Plan for White-tailed Deer in Pennsylvania. Bureau of Wildlife Management.
Rooney, T., and D. Waller. 2003. Direct and indirect effects of white-tailed deer in forest ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management. Vol.181: 165-176.
Sage, R.W., Jr., W.C. Tierson, G.F. Mattfield, and D.F. Behrend. 1983. White-tailed deer visibility and behavior along forest roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 47:940-953.
Storm, D. 2002. White-tailed deer ecology and deer-human conflict in an exurban landscape. M.S. thesis.
Szafoni, R., et. al. 1990. A vegetation monitoring program for assessing deer damage on IL DNR properties.
Ver Steeg, J.M., J.H. Witham, and T.J. Beissel. 1995. Use of bowhunting to control deer in a suburban park in Illinois. In J.B. McAninch, ed., Urban deer: a manageable resource? Proceedings of a Symposium at the 55th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, The Wildlife Society.
Williams, E.S., and M.W. Miller. 2003. Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in nondomestic animals: Origins, transmission and risk factors. Revue scientifique et technique Office international des Epizooties 22: in press.
I do think it is funny that while most of the people HAVE gotten the idea, some are stuck on things like "you guys are making me look dumb and wear camo hats!"
Even funnier is that I don't even own any camo! BUT, I also don't think someone wearing camo or a torn shirt or cut off jean shorts is necessarily a backwards redneck moron--decorum and appearance cannot make up for a lack of logic and a foundation in ignorance. It really is too bad that there wasn't a dress code at those meetings--could we all agree on business casual, maybe? EVERYONE has a right to go to those meetings and if the people we elect are so bigoted and ignorant as to hold a camo hat against to their constituents, maybe we should pick better representatives?
Maybe that is the place to start if we really want hunting in these areas--get all 27 Board mementos selected to have a stance on the issue of hunting at the next round of elections. With 1% of Will County's population registered as hunters, it may be tough to do, but it would at least get the idea out into the sunlight.
It all really boils down to 2 things:
1-this plan is not a good way to do it--the hunting proposed will not work
2-hunting can work, but in urban areas it is subject ot much stricter guidelines than other areas--and Nature Preserves as well as Forest Preserves add even more elements that mus be accounted for.
AND I am 100% against this plan--not hunting in general. Hunting is one of the 2 ways to compensate for the loss of predators--sharpshooting being the other--then again, maybe I should go back on the Herald site and spell phonetically--it isn't a test, and anyone who is swayed by grammar instead of the message is an idiot--come up with a viable plan--not just a 3 line idea of what will work--use the outline from the proposed plan, including the budget and cost forms, buffer zones, restrictions for multi-use access, etc.--instead of worrying about how the commissioners will interpret the minutia of grammar and syntax and making personal attacks--and repeatedly pointing out things that have already been agreed upon--things like me being absolutely categorically against the proposed plan of shotgun hunting only in the nature preserves--for all of the previously stated reasons.
This plan is dead--if archery was unanimously removed already, and the plan as it is would allow less than 30 hunters on the selected preserves, it is already gone. Quit arguing about who is right or wrong about grammar and come up with something that works. When this started I was one of the people who proposed the plan--and it was twisted and cut down at every turn--more restrictions and costs built in every couple of weeks.
I HAVE read all of the documents they used to come up with the plan--about half of the documents were reports from other urban deer management efforts--Georgi, St. Louis, Du Page County, Lake County, Winnebago County, McHenry County, D.C., PA, Texas, multiple east coast metro areas--It was widely accepted that archery was the most viable option while shotgun was most efficient--but none were as cost effective or efficient as sharpshooting in urban areas. Here is the pared down list--and there are about 200 more available for the asking--just contact them and they will provide you PDF versions.
AECOM, Inc. 2010. Forest Preserve District of Will County Deer Browse Analysis Report.
Anderson, R. 1994. Height of white-flowered trillium as an index of deer browsing intensity. Ecological Applications. Vol. 4, 104-109.
Angelo, G. 2009. White-tailed Deer Management Plan Robert B. Gordon Natural Area of West Chester University, Chester County, Pennsylvania. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Augustine, D. 1997. Grazing patterns and impacts of white-tailed deer in a fragmented forest ecosystem. M.S. thesis.
Augustine, D. and L. Frelich. 1998. Effects of white-tailed deer on populations of an understory forb in fragmented deciduous forests. Conservation Biology. Vol. 12, 995-1004.
Bowles et. al. 1997. Twenty-year Woody Vegetation Changes in Four Will County, Illinois Forest Preserves. The Morton Arboretum. Report submitted to the Forest Preserve District of Will County.
Bowles et. al. 1998. Twenty-year Woody Vegetation Changes and Groundlayer Species Richness in Northeastern Illinois Upland Forests. The Morton Arboretum. Report submitted to the Forest Preserve District of Will County.
Creacy, G. 2006. Deer management within suburban areas. Texas Parks and Wildlife.
deCalesta, D.S. 1994. Effects of white-tailed deer on songbirds within managed forests in Pennsylvania. Journal of Wildlife Management 58:711-718.
DeNicola, A,J., K.C. VerCauteren, P.D. Curtis, and S.E. Hygnstrom. 2000. Managing white-tailed deer in suburban environments – a technical guide. Cornell Cooperative Extension. 56pp.
DePerno, C.S. et. al. 2000. Female survival rates in a declining white-tailed deer population. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:1030-1037.
Etter, D. 2001. Ecology and management of overabundant white-tailed deer from suburban Chicago, Il. PhD dissertation.
Haulton, S. 2004. Results of 2004 Deer exclosure sampling at Thorn Creek Nature Preserve. Forest Preserve District of Will County staff report.
Haulton, S. 2007. The effects of herbivores on Large-flowered Trillium at Messenger Woods Nature Preserve, 2002-2007. Forest Preserve District of Will County staff report.
Ishmael, W.E., D.E. Katsma, T.A. Isacc, and B.K. Bryant. 1995. Live-capture and translocation of suburban white-tailed deer in River Hills, Wisconsin. Pages 87-96 in J.B. McAninch, editor. Urban deer: a manageable resource? Proceedings of the 1993 Symposium of the North Central Section, The Wildlife Society, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Jones, J.M. and J.H. Witham. 1990. Post-translocation survival and movements of metropolitan white-tailed deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 18(4):434-441.
Keyser, P., et. al. 2005. Population density-physical condition relationships in white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management. Vol. 69: 356-365.
Kilpatrick, H.J. and K.K. Lima. 1999. Effects of archery hunting on movement and activity of female white-tailed deer in an urban landscape. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17:433-440.
Kilpatrick, H.J. and W.D. Walter. 1999. A controlled archery deer hunt in a residential community: cost, effectiveness, and deer recovery rates. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:115-123.
Kilpatrick, H.J., A.M. LaBonte, and J.A. Seymour. 2002. A shotgun-archery deer hunt in a residential community; evaluation of hunt strategies and effectiveness. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:478-486.
Lund, R.C. 1997. A cooperative, community-based approach for the management of suburban deer populations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:488-490.
Missis, D.L. and R. B. Peyton. 1995. Cultural carrying capacity: modeling a notion. Pages 19-34 in J. B. McAninch, editor. Urban deer: a manageable resource? Proceedings of the 1993 Symposium of the North Central Section, The Wildlife Society, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Marquis, D. and R. Brenneman. 1981. The impact of deer on forest vegetation in Pennsylvania. USDA Forest Service General. Technical Report NE-65, GTR-NE-65.
New England Chapter of the Wildlife Society. 2008. An evaluation of deer management options. Northeast Deer Technical Committee.
O’Bryan, M.K. and D.R. McCullough. 1985. Survival of black-tailed deer following relocation in California. Journal of Wildlife Management. 49(1): 115-119.
Pennsylvania Game Commission. 2003. Population Management Plan for White-tailed Deer in Pennsylvania. Bureau of Wildlife Management.
Rooney, T., and D. Waller. 2003. Direct and indirect effects of white-tailed deer in forest ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management. Vol.181: 165-176.
Sage, R.W., Jr., W.C. Tierson, G.F. Mattfield, and D.F. Behrend. 1983. White-tailed deer visibility and behavior along forest roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 47:940-953.
Storm, D. 2002. White-tailed deer ecology and deer-human conflict in an exurban landscape. M.S. thesis.
Szafoni, R., et. al. 1990. A vegetation monitoring program for assessing deer damage on IL DNR properties.
Ver Steeg, J.M., J.H. Witham, and T.J. Beissel. 1995. Use of bowhunting to control deer in a suburban park in Illinois. In J.B. McAninch, ed., Urban deer: a manageable resource? Proceedings of a Symposium at the 55th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, The Wildlife Society.
Williams, E.S., and M.W. Miller. 2003. Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in nondomestic animals: Origins, transmission and risk factors. Revue scientifique et technique Office international des Epizooties 22: in press.
I do think it is funny that while most of the people HAVE gotten the idea, some are stuck on things like "you guys are making me look dumb and wear camo hats!"
Even funnier is that I don't even own any camo! BUT, I also don't think someone wearing camo or a torn shirt or cut off jean shorts is necessarily a backwards redneck moron--decorum and appearance cannot make up for a lack of logic and a foundation in ignorance. It really is too bad that there wasn't a dress code at those meetings--could we all agree on business casual, maybe? EVERYONE has a right to go to those meetings and if the people we elect are so bigoted and ignorant as to hold a camo hat against to their constituents, maybe we should pick better representatives?
Maybe that is the place to start if we really want hunting in these areas--get all 27 Board mementos selected to have a stance on the issue of hunting at the next round of elections. With 1% of Will County's population registered as hunters, it may be tough to do, but it would at least get the idea out into the sunlight.
It all really boils down to 2 things:
1-this plan is not a good way to do it--the hunting proposed will not work
2-hunting can work, but in urban areas it is subject ot much stricter guidelines than other areas--and Nature Preserves as well as Forest Preserves add even more elements that mus be accounted for.
Last edited by fe2manz; 05-19-2010 at 06:11 AM. Reason: typos
05-19-2010, 06:23 AM
#47
Spike
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14
And Zim, I think you meant to say everything is relevant when it comes to grammar, not relative--that it is relative would mean that in some instances grammar was not important and others it was very important and everything in between...just saying...
Sorry about that.
If anyone can come up with a list of articles with data showing successful archery or shotgun programs and the numbers behind them please stick them on here. If nothing else, maybe it can be brought to the attention of the Board for further study.
Sorry about that.
If anyone can come up with a list of articles with data showing successful archery or shotgun programs and the numbers behind them please stick them on here. If nothing else, maybe it can be brought to the attention of the Board for further study.
Last edited by fe2manz; 05-19-2010 at 06:34 AM.
05-19-2010, 02:18 PM
#48
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Darien, IL
Posts: 6,744
Ya know I can handle someone who has an opinion and states it. I can handle when someone disagrees with a proposal. But I can't stand someone who keeps repeating themself over and over and over. And the thing that really ticks me off is when someone will repeat themselves over and over and over and not have any kind of suggestion that is better.
And yes I am speaking about you fe2manz. You have stated some facts you have read. That alone means nothing. I don't know it isn't C&P.
If you haven't noticed we here at this site are pro-hunting. As in HUNTINGnet.com.
So if you can't steer things in a way that might lead to some hunting going on in the WCFPs or offer something, anything in that direction, you are of no help to getting hunting going in the WCFPs.
It looks like you just came here to either get someone to say you are so sharp (don't hold your breath) or just here to start some trouble. I mean how else is someone supposed to look at it?
My advice is try to take all you have and put together something you thing is viable that involves guys getting some hunting in at the preserves. I bet you would be more warmly accepted.
And yes I am speaking about you fe2manz. You have stated some facts you have read. That alone means nothing. I don't know it isn't C&P.
If you haven't noticed we here at this site are pro-hunting. As in HUNTINGnet.com.
So if you can't steer things in a way that might lead to some hunting going on in the WCFPs or offer something, anything in that direction, you are of no help to getting hunting going in the WCFPs.
It looks like you just came here to either get someone to say you are so sharp (don't hold your breath) or just here to start some trouble. I mean how else is someone supposed to look at it?
My advice is try to take all you have and put together something you thing is viable that involves guys getting some hunting in at the preserves. I bet you would be more warmly accepted.
05-19-2010, 03:16 PM
#49
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vernon Hills IL USA
Posts: 382
I lobbied for and participated in the deer reduction program in McHenry, in the first three years it was administered. Those were basically 9 day hunts and you were given a zone and partner groups were allowed. If 5 doe were taken the fees were returned to the hunters. My partner and I took 29 deer over those three years out of our small zone and overall I think it was around 80 deer taken out of a 350 acre park over those 3 years. So archery deer hunting for sure can be an effective management tool. As far as McHenry they have used sharpshooters periodically for a long time on sites where hunting wasn't a reasonable thing to administer.
fe2manz, I think the bigger issue was that even if the proposed plan was poorly designed, it could have paved the way and could have evolved to a cost effective endeavor while opening opportunities for participation in archery deer hunting close to the urban setting. That isn't even a possibility now. The failure to pass, also thwarts potential opportunities that could have been well planned in other districts.
I don't have time anymore for deer reduction type of activities so it doesn't affect me personally, but I think it would have been great even if the initial cost to administer would have been high, to have given the program a chance.
fe2manz, I think the bigger issue was that even if the proposed plan was poorly designed, it could have paved the way and could have evolved to a cost effective endeavor while opening opportunities for participation in archery deer hunting close to the urban setting. That isn't even a possibility now. The failure to pass, also thwarts potential opportunities that could have been well planned in other districts.
I don't have time anymore for deer reduction type of activities so it doesn't affect me personally, but I think it would have been great even if the initial cost to administer would have been high, to have given the program a chance.
05-20-2010, 07:14 AM
#50
Spike
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14
Unclematt, I keep repeating things because every time I say something someone says something like, "how do I know that isn't just C&P" so I restate it with documentation--and then someone else says "it sounds like you are just arguing or anti hunting" and I am arguing, but not anti-hunting. I am arguing that the approach people are taking to this issue is not going to work--and offering up research and reasons why or why not--while trying to keep a professional distance from the problem as I work in a lot of the areas that I would like to hunt or at least see hunting happen--and pointing out what people need to know is the best way to do that and keep my job. I don’t expect hunters to go out and research these issues—not because I think they are morons, but because it isn’t what they do for a living and they probably have lives to live without spending 5 or 6 hours a day running statistics and reading boring scientific journals for tidbits related to whitetail deer hunting in urban areas. THAT IS WHAT ALL THE LISTS ARE FOR—that information is there, but they have to read and disseminate it to lay the groundwork for it to succeed.
As for the remark about coming up with a plan that works---who do you think came up with the original plan to use archer at most sites, shotgun at sites with limited access and no multi-use and supplement with sharpshooting after 3 years?--That would be a team of biologists including myself.
and that is why I am frustrated with people saying what works and doesn't work and why without knowing what went into this plan. This is a hunting site, but if people aren't able to tell the other hunters they know that they need to work on both providing plans to the Board on a regular basis and to work to get people elected to the boards and commissions that are willing to even think about archery as part of a solution--it was rejected unanimously.
If Unclematt would read the documents that are part of the program he would know what they are--what is C&P--they are what the plan was originally built upon. then it went to management and committee and the Board and became a program that had no chance of succeeding--a large portion of the information "I have read" that unclematt hasn't and thinks might be C&P are the plans from other URBAN MULTI-USE DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS AND PROPOSED PLANS AND RESULTS FROM THE PUBLIC TO PROPOSED PLANS, SUCCESSFUL PLANS AND FAILED PLANS--when you end up spending thousands of dollars to remove a single deer via your hunting program, can only accommodate a dozen or so hunters, reject out of hand archery, and have a public that is totally disinterested it won't work.
And when I say people are disinterested I am attacked--the total turnout for all 4 public meetings and the Board meetings was less then 450 people--and emails, snail mails and such is another 400--including petitions form PETA and agencies worldwide--The population of Will County divided by even double that means 2-3% of the county put in ANY opinion. With that much "interest" the political machine is going to say, "We would love to have hunting" in public while applying restrictions that make it impossible to get through a vote in private.
the overall point of all of the pages I have put on here was to point out that as it was submitted (look back through the drafts made available to the Board and the public) the hunting program WAS viable, but as it stands now it is NOT viable.
NO ONE has read all of that information--everyone sits back and says "oh it should work" or "the tree huggers are getting special interest treatment" or "all you have to do is..." but unless hunters can sit down with the Board and address all the arguments buried in this process it will never happen. And once they start down a path of sharpshooting only, it will be handled like it is in DuPage or Cook Counties--the sharpshooting works so why make any changes???
SO unclematt--read the documents I listed up there and you will see a half a dozen or so with my real name on them--on plans that work--and if I could come out and say it directly to the Board without stepping outside my professional boundaries, I would, but i can't and hope to stay employed--all I can do is show hunters the information and tell them why it didn't work--and HOPE they read it and provide it to other hunters who can then go to the voting booths and to their elected official and make changes--and, people who complain about special interest, hunters are a special interest group in Will County--we have 1% of the population who hunt so we need to find out what has worked other places and keep bringing it up to our officials.
SO Unclematt, everything I have said could be used to come up with something that works, but apparently people would rather sit back and send an email to a board member or a post to a message board than spend the hours and hours of time needed to do the background work and then approach the Board with a plan that works--or even go back and pull out the plan from the DRAFT of this plan and use it as a template.
I would love to be able to come on and just talk about what works for hunting, but getting hunting pushed into the Forest Preserves is about a lot more than sight lines, daily movement patterns, recognizing an early rut or anything else practical.
You can't pull out things like the plans for Allerton or McHenry or Iriquois County or Kankakee State Park and say--"look, this works" because those plans do not have anything in common with the Forest Preserve plans that have and have not worked except they include hunting of some kind.
Areas available to hunt will continue to shrink. if hunters don't get into the movement to push data and plans that have worked and an agenda to get elected officials on board, spaces that should be hunted will continue to fall to sharpshooters.
As for the remark about coming up with a plan that works---who do you think came up with the original plan to use archer at most sites, shotgun at sites with limited access and no multi-use and supplement with sharpshooting after 3 years?--That would be a team of biologists including myself.
and that is why I am frustrated with people saying what works and doesn't work and why without knowing what went into this plan. This is a hunting site, but if people aren't able to tell the other hunters they know that they need to work on both providing plans to the Board on a regular basis and to work to get people elected to the boards and commissions that are willing to even think about archery as part of a solution--it was rejected unanimously.
If Unclematt would read the documents that are part of the program he would know what they are--what is C&P--they are what the plan was originally built upon. then it went to management and committee and the Board and became a program that had no chance of succeeding--a large portion of the information "I have read" that unclematt hasn't and thinks might be C&P are the plans from other URBAN MULTI-USE DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS AND PROPOSED PLANS AND RESULTS FROM THE PUBLIC TO PROPOSED PLANS, SUCCESSFUL PLANS AND FAILED PLANS--when you end up spending thousands of dollars to remove a single deer via your hunting program, can only accommodate a dozen or so hunters, reject out of hand archery, and have a public that is totally disinterested it won't work.
And when I say people are disinterested I am attacked--the total turnout for all 4 public meetings and the Board meetings was less then 450 people--and emails, snail mails and such is another 400--including petitions form PETA and agencies worldwide--The population of Will County divided by even double that means 2-3% of the county put in ANY opinion. With that much "interest" the political machine is going to say, "We would love to have hunting" in public while applying restrictions that make it impossible to get through a vote in private.
the overall point of all of the pages I have put on here was to point out that as it was submitted (look back through the drafts made available to the Board and the public) the hunting program WAS viable, but as it stands now it is NOT viable.
NO ONE has read all of that information--everyone sits back and says "oh it should work" or "the tree huggers are getting special interest treatment" or "all you have to do is..." but unless hunters can sit down with the Board and address all the arguments buried in this process it will never happen. And once they start down a path of sharpshooting only, it will be handled like it is in DuPage or Cook Counties--the sharpshooting works so why make any changes???
SO unclematt--read the documents I listed up there and you will see a half a dozen or so with my real name on them--on plans that work--and if I could come out and say it directly to the Board without stepping outside my professional boundaries, I would, but i can't and hope to stay employed--all I can do is show hunters the information and tell them why it didn't work--and HOPE they read it and provide it to other hunters who can then go to the voting booths and to their elected official and make changes--and, people who complain about special interest, hunters are a special interest group in Will County--we have 1% of the population who hunt so we need to find out what has worked other places and keep bringing it up to our officials.
SO Unclematt, everything I have said could be used to come up with something that works, but apparently people would rather sit back and send an email to a board member or a post to a message board than spend the hours and hours of time needed to do the background work and then approach the Board with a plan that works--or even go back and pull out the plan from the DRAFT of this plan and use it as a template.
I would love to be able to come on and just talk about what works for hunting, but getting hunting pushed into the Forest Preserves is about a lot more than sight lines, daily movement patterns, recognizing an early rut or anything else practical.
You can't pull out things like the plans for Allerton or McHenry or Iriquois County or Kankakee State Park and say--"look, this works" because those plans do not have anything in common with the Forest Preserve plans that have and have not worked except they include hunting of some kind.
Areas available to hunt will continue to shrink. if hunters don't get into the movement to push data and plans that have worked and an agenda to get elected officials on board, spaces that should be hunted will continue to fall to sharpshooters.
Last edited by fe2manz; 05-20-2010 at 07:17 AM. Reason: typos