Will county Forest preserve deer hunting possible?
05-20-2010, 07:26 AM
#51
Spike
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14
I work with science and truly I don't care if I am warmly accepted--I would rather someone get angry and annoyed and dig through the research and the original drafts made available to the public and the Board and find something that works or figure out why it didn't work.
So prove me wrong, prove that you can find the errors in the current plan and figure out how it got from a reasonable viable draft to what it is now/ find out why we can't get more hunters into the preserves-- OR show that there is more interest and 2-3% of the population. DO any of that because you hate me and I would love it--BECAUSE WE WOULD BE CLOSER TO GETTING THE DEER NUMBERS DOWN AND HUNTING IN THE PRESERVES!
So prove me wrong, prove that you can find the errors in the current plan and figure out how it got from a reasonable viable draft to what it is now/ find out why we can't get more hunters into the preserves-- OR show that there is more interest and 2-3% of the population. DO any of that because you hate me and I would love it--BECAUSE WE WOULD BE CLOSER TO GETTING THE DEER NUMBERS DOWN AND HUNTING IN THE PRESERVES!
05-20-2010, 04:26 PM
#52
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vernon Hills IL USA
Posts: 382
I work with science and truly I don't care if I am warmly accepted--I would rather someone get angry and annoyed and dig through the research and the original drafts made available to the public and the Board and find something that works or figure out why it didn't work.
So prove me wrong, prove that you can find the errors in the current plan and figure out how it got from a reasonable viable draft to what it is now/ find out why we can't get more hunters into the preserves-- OR show that there is more interest and 2-3% of the population. DO any of that because you hate me and I would love it--BECAUSE WE WOULD BE CLOSER TO GETTING THE DEER NUMBERS DOWN AND HUNTING IN THE PRESERVES!
So prove me wrong, prove that you can find the errors in the current plan and figure out how it got from a reasonable viable draft to what it is now/ find out why we can't get more hunters into the preserves-- OR show that there is more interest and 2-3% of the population. DO any of that because you hate me and I would love it--BECAUSE WE WOULD BE CLOSER TO GETTING THE DEER NUMBERS DOWN AND HUNTING IN THE PRESERVES!
05-20-2010, 07:47 PM
#54
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Darien, IL
Posts: 6,744
I should mention that I am not in this for myself. It is really pretty doubtful I would ever hunt in a WCFP. I already have adequate private properties to bow hunt in WC and property to gun hunt down in SIL. I hunt several properties right around Keepetaw. So I am not in it for myself but think it is potentially an awesome opportunity for many and I have always worked/contributed as a volunteer to bring opportunities regarding activities I feel are worthwhile.
Truly, any input would be appreciated. And I ask anyone else running along with this thread to give fe2manz some room. Let's see if we can get something that the Board has to consider and can't brush aside.
05-21-2010, 06:07 AM
#55
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
What you need to do is contact some areas that had similar problems and find out what they did.Pa is loaded with them,especially around Phily and Pittsburgh.Pittsburgh has a very successful program that was adopted to hunt the county parks in that region.I have the contact info for the people that got it established.
I live in a private residential community in northcentral Pa.We have 9500 acres that include approx 3500 acres of undeveloped land,1800 homes,two lakes and two golf courses.The property had no hunting since about the 1960's so the deer herd was out of control and the habitat was absolutely devistated.About 6 years ago,I helped form a wildlife management community along with two foresters to devise a plan.It wasn't an easy road and it didn't happen overnight because several people on the board of directors were rabid ant-hunters.The first thing we did was get valid scientific information that proved we had a major problem.We had nationally renowned experts come in and do open house presentation to the residents explaining how serious the problem was.We Also enlisted the help of Penn state University to help us with population analysis and browse impact surveys.I believe we gathered three years worth of data to show that we had an undeniable problem.We then researched different methods of reducing the deer herd.Hunting was the only real option but we had to be careful how it was presented.That was my job.Although much of this property could safely be hunted with a rifle,we knew that would go over like a turd in a punchbowl.Archery was the first logical step so we presented a program that wasn't too restrictive yet put people fears at ease.I contacted the Pa game commission and got statistics on archery related hunting accidents.I believe in 25 years and over 2.5 million archety tags sold,there was one accident.We then made up a set of simple rules.Here's a short list.1.Every hunter had to possess a bowhunter ed certification card.2.every hunter had to pass a proficiency test with broadheads.3.every hunter had to harvest a doe first.4 hunters at first had to hunt from an elevated stand.5.Deer had to be covered for transportation off of the property.There's more but that's the general idea.We wanted residents to know that we'd have skilled hunters but we didn't want things to be too restrictive.
After the first year,residents calmed right down because the hunters acted professional to the pint that most people didn't even realize a hunt was occuring.Legal hunters also helped crack a few poaching cases because now there were eyes in the woods.It's turned out to be a positive experience for the community.We're really not reaching our harvest goals but more deer are getting killed every year.In fact,last year the board actually approved the use of muzzleloaders in one large area.You have to take these things a step at a time but you can't loose focus on why hunting was allowed inb the first place.
It was a pretty tough battle and you get to meet some real winners in the process.Stay focused,use science and don't make it appear to be a recreational hunt.Good luck.
I live in a private residential community in northcentral Pa.We have 9500 acres that include approx 3500 acres of undeveloped land,1800 homes,two lakes and two golf courses.The property had no hunting since about the 1960's so the deer herd was out of control and the habitat was absolutely devistated.About 6 years ago,I helped form a wildlife management community along with two foresters to devise a plan.It wasn't an easy road and it didn't happen overnight because several people on the board of directors were rabid ant-hunters.The first thing we did was get valid scientific information that proved we had a major problem.We had nationally renowned experts come in and do open house presentation to the residents explaining how serious the problem was.We Also enlisted the help of Penn state University to help us with population analysis and browse impact surveys.I believe we gathered three years worth of data to show that we had an undeniable problem.We then researched different methods of reducing the deer herd.Hunting was the only real option but we had to be careful how it was presented.That was my job.Although much of this property could safely be hunted with a rifle,we knew that would go over like a turd in a punchbowl.Archery was the first logical step so we presented a program that wasn't too restrictive yet put people fears at ease.I contacted the Pa game commission and got statistics on archery related hunting accidents.I believe in 25 years and over 2.5 million archety tags sold,there was one accident.We then made up a set of simple rules.Here's a short list.1.Every hunter had to possess a bowhunter ed certification card.2.every hunter had to pass a proficiency test with broadheads.3.every hunter had to harvest a doe first.4 hunters at first had to hunt from an elevated stand.5.Deer had to be covered for transportation off of the property.There's more but that's the general idea.We wanted residents to know that we'd have skilled hunters but we didn't want things to be too restrictive.
After the first year,residents calmed right down because the hunters acted professional to the pint that most people didn't even realize a hunt was occuring.Legal hunters also helped crack a few poaching cases because now there were eyes in the woods.It's turned out to be a positive experience for the community.We're really not reaching our harvest goals but more deer are getting killed every year.In fact,last year the board actually approved the use of muzzleloaders in one large area.You have to take these things a step at a time but you can't loose focus on why hunting was allowed inb the first place.
It was a pretty tough battle and you get to meet some real winners in the process.Stay focused,use science and don't make it appear to be a recreational hunt.Good luck.
05-21-2010, 06:13 AM
#56
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vernon Hills IL USA
Posts: 382
"I will ask you then to please help me (us) out. Could you lay out some basic things that you feel are necesary for a viable plan to get a hunting program rolling in WCFPs and avoid the sharpshooters only approach."
No I don't think I can. The vote was 0-10. It was clearly stated that recreational hunting was not actionable. I don't think with the current board it can happen presently.
The thing that McHenry did well, was that the proposed hunting in similar settings to WCFP, was positioned as an archery "deer reduction" program. Deer reduction and safety were emphasized rather than hunting. Earn a buck and hunters being returned their fee if 5 antlerless deer were taken exemplified this, again emphasizing "deer reduction" and this was much more palatable. Also the structure of it, limited to 9 days where the parks were closed, elevated stands, qualifications, hunter safety certification, archery only, all emphasizing safety was very well positioned.
That said it's political. McHenry's board was sympathetic to the effort, the influence on WCFP's board was such that it is not. That's your real hurdle.
No I don't think I can. The vote was 0-10. It was clearly stated that recreational hunting was not actionable. I don't think with the current board it can happen presently.
The thing that McHenry did well, was that the proposed hunting in similar settings to WCFP, was positioned as an archery "deer reduction" program. Deer reduction and safety were emphasized rather than hunting. Earn a buck and hunters being returned their fee if 5 antlerless deer were taken exemplified this, again emphasizing "deer reduction" and this was much more palatable. Also the structure of it, limited to 9 days where the parks were closed, elevated stands, qualifications, hunter safety certification, archery only, all emphasizing safety was very well positioned.
That said it's political. McHenry's board was sympathetic to the effort, the influence on WCFP's board was such that it is not. That's your real hurdle.
Last edited by Buckfevr; 05-21-2010 at 06:16 AM.
06-04-2010, 11:00 AM
#59
Spike
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 4
Frankly the only ones who should get to hunt the forrest preserves are the residents of Will County. The only ones who voted for the members on the forrest preserve boards are residents of Will County, so Will County residents should be the only ones that the forrest preserve board should be listening to pro or con.
Non residents of Will County have not paid the taxes to support the forrest preserves so until every resident in Will County who wants to hunt has been afforded a chance to hunt then it really is no one else's concern.
Non residents of Will County have not paid the taxes to support the forrest preserves so until every resident in Will County who wants to hunt has been afforded a chance to hunt then it really is no one else's concern.
06-07-2010, 06:55 AM
#60
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Darien, IL
Posts: 6,744
Here's the latest news article on the situation.....
Board aims at deer options
Comments
June 7, 2010
By BOB OKON [email protected]
Hunters
• Must be 18, meet state requirements for firearm owners and hunters, submit to background check, obtain a hunting zone permit from the forest preserve district and attend a hunter orientation course created by the district for the program.
• Limited number of hunters to be chosen by lottery. Will County residents would get preference.
• Hunting would occur Nov. 19-21 and Dec. 3-5.
• Hunting would be restricted to sections of Goodenow Grove/Plum Valley Preserve in Beecher and Sand Ridge Savanna/Kankakee Sands Preserve in Braidwood.
• Hunters would be required to use shotguns and shoot from tree stands.
Sharpshooters
• Participants would be forest preserve police, other trained professionals or individuals who meet marksmen standards as certified through the Illinois Department of Natural Resources.
• Sharpshooters who are not forest preserve police would be subject to background checks and would be required to take training course.
• Sharp-shooting would take place in restricted areas of McKinley Woods Preserve in Channahon, Lockport Prairie in Lockport, and Messenger Woods/Messenger Marsh in Homer Glen.
• Sharpshooters must use modern rifles or shotguns. • Usable deer carcasses would be processed for venison that would be donated to charitable organizations.
The program proposed by staff involves shooting deer because they are reportedly trampling vegetation and spoiling certain forests due to overpopulation.
Members of the board's operations committee didn't seem to mind that deer would be shot and killed when they voted 5-3 to move the program to a vote by the full board. What divided the committee members was whether to allow hunters to shoot the deer or restrict the program to trained marksmen.
Residents speaking to the committee voiced worries about the safety of hunters and themselves.
"Every contact I've had with a hunter has been negative," said Melony Rios of New Lenox. Rios said she lives in a rural area where she encounters hunters who don't take necessary precautions when shooting with people are nearby.
But committee members in favor of the program also voiced support of hunters.
"They, too, are having problems finding a place to hunt," said Commissioner Katrina Deutsche, D-Crete. Deutsche noted that she grew up in a rural area where, "I would watch hunters haul out deer that they had killed. I was not traumatized by it."
Some committee members, however, pointed to a staff analysis of the program that projects higher costs for the forest preserve district when hunters shoot deer (between $605 and $1,200 per deer) than when sharpshooters do it (between $103 and $227 per deer).
Commissioner Tom Weigel, R-New Lenox, said he's not against either method of deer management. But pointing to the costs linked to hunters, Weigel said, "I don't think we should pay that much for public hunting."
Forest preserve board President Cory Singer, R-Frankfort, said the answer is to allow more hunters.
Calling the cost a matter of "economies of scale," Singer said the expense would go down if you allow more hunters. At a certain point, if enough hunters take part and fees are sufficient, Singer said, the forest preserve district would generate revenue from the program.
The program now is designed to allow 17 hunters to take part, Singer said, and, "We could employ a safe and well-managed program with a significantly higher number than 17."
Singer suggested 75 hunters.
Board aims at deer options
Comments
June 7, 2010
By BOB OKON [email protected]
Hunters
• Must be 18, meet state requirements for firearm owners and hunters, submit to background check, obtain a hunting zone permit from the forest preserve district and attend a hunter orientation course created by the district for the program.
• Limited number of hunters to be chosen by lottery. Will County residents would get preference.
• Hunting would occur Nov. 19-21 and Dec. 3-5.
• Hunting would be restricted to sections of Goodenow Grove/Plum Valley Preserve in Beecher and Sand Ridge Savanna/Kankakee Sands Preserve in Braidwood.
• Hunters would be required to use shotguns and shoot from tree stands.
Sharpshooters
• Participants would be forest preserve police, other trained professionals or individuals who meet marksmen standards as certified through the Illinois Department of Natural Resources.
• Sharpshooters who are not forest preserve police would be subject to background checks and would be required to take training course.
• Sharp-shooting would take place in restricted areas of McKinley Woods Preserve in Channahon, Lockport Prairie in Lockport, and Messenger Woods/Messenger Marsh in Homer Glen.
• Sharpshooters must use modern rifles or shotguns. • Usable deer carcasses would be processed for venison that would be donated to charitable organizations.
The program proposed by staff involves shooting deer because they are reportedly trampling vegetation and spoiling certain forests due to overpopulation.
Members of the board's operations committee didn't seem to mind that deer would be shot and killed when they voted 5-3 to move the program to a vote by the full board. What divided the committee members was whether to allow hunters to shoot the deer or restrict the program to trained marksmen.
Residents speaking to the committee voiced worries about the safety of hunters and themselves.
"Every contact I've had with a hunter has been negative," said Melony Rios of New Lenox. Rios said she lives in a rural area where she encounters hunters who don't take necessary precautions when shooting with people are nearby.
But committee members in favor of the program also voiced support of hunters.
"They, too, are having problems finding a place to hunt," said Commissioner Katrina Deutsche, D-Crete. Deutsche noted that she grew up in a rural area where, "I would watch hunters haul out deer that they had killed. I was not traumatized by it."
Some committee members, however, pointed to a staff analysis of the program that projects higher costs for the forest preserve district when hunters shoot deer (between $605 and $1,200 per deer) than when sharpshooters do it (between $103 and $227 per deer).
Commissioner Tom Weigel, R-New Lenox, said he's not against either method of deer management. But pointing to the costs linked to hunters, Weigel said, "I don't think we should pay that much for public hunting."
Forest preserve board President Cory Singer, R-Frankfort, said the answer is to allow more hunters.
Calling the cost a matter of "economies of scale," Singer said the expense would go down if you allow more hunters. At a certain point, if enough hunters take part and fees are sufficient, Singer said, the forest preserve district would generate revenue from the program.
The program now is designed to allow 17 hunters to take part, Singer said, and, "We could employ a safe and well-managed program with a significantly higher number than 17."
Singer suggested 75 hunters.
