Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

Yet more from FOI

m_kat said:
A Comparison of Harvest,​

Participation and Land Access
among Resident and Non-resident​
Deer Hunters in Illinois

http://www.inhs.illinois.edu/programs/hd/Special Reports/Deer Hunter/RNonResDEER0607.pdf
Click to expand...
And this was the mega buck destination of the 80's! I have several friends from Iowa and Wisconsin who bought land in Illinois during the haydays of the 80's. Now they don't even hunt in Illinois. It's even a sore subject to bring up! They paid premium price for their land then, but probably got their moneys worth. But the fact is that the land is almost worthless now.
 
For Illinois being in the dumper, according to everyone, they seem to maintain their top 10 ranking. Keep comparing Iowa to Illinois it's not a valid argument.

Top 10 States to Hunt Whitetail Deer as scored by B&C:
(2009)

1. Iowa: 615
2. Minnesota: 608
3. Wisconsin: 589
4. Illinois: 552
5. Texas: 316
6. Missouri: 285
7. Kentucky: 279
8. Kansas: 255
9. Ohio: 235
10. Michigan: 155

Top 10 states
According to Buckmasters Whitetail Magazine, the top 10 trophy-producing states, in order, are Illinois, Ohio, Louisiana, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Kentucky, North Carolina, Arkansas and Texas

Have you ever dreamed of going on a guided hunt? I know I have been wanting to go for years on a guided hunt. I have always dreamed of deer hunting in for big bucks in the snow. I just have never done it. I thought it would be fun to make a list of my top dream deer hunting trips

10.Kentucky- I think Kentucky is quickly rising up as one of the top deer hunting states to bag a trophy deer. Todd and Christian counties in western Kentucky have beautiful open fields and heavy dense timbers, with some really nice big bucks.
9.Nebraska- When I think of Nebraska deer hunting I think of corn. Thats all I need to know. With the wooded river valleys and farmlands it’s prime habitat for big bucks.
8. Iowa- Corn same as above. Iowa ranks #3 in the nation in Pope and Young Bucks yet hands out the fewest tags. Its firearms season consisit of muzzleloader and shotgun only. Iowa is home of the new world record Lowenstein buck.
7.Kansas- Ranks #4 in the Pope and Young record book. 6 of the top 10 Pope and Young typical entries belong to Kansas. Kansas is the greatest location to harvest a non-typical Boone and Crockett buck.
6.Illinois- Pike county is #2 in the nation in highest nomber of Pope and Young and Boone and Crockett bucks. It’s in extreme west central Illinois. Lying between the Illinois river basins and the Misssissippi. The firearms season consist of muzzleloader and shotgun only.
5.Ohio- Home of the world record Beatty buck. Ohio is awesome for trophy bucks. With plenty of farm land and trophy bucks. During the 2006-07 season Ohio hunters harvested a state record 237,316 deer.
4Texas- I’d like to hunt San Miguel Ranch in south Texas. With 30,000 acres of prime brush country. And some really big trophy deer.
3.Georgia- My home state. I’ve had the chance to hunt alot of places in Georgia. It’s beautiful with some really nice trophys. I’d like to hunt on the Banks farm in madisonGeorgia. Man they take some nice whitetails every year.
2.Canada- Anywhere that has 300 pound whitetail has got to be awesome. I’ve always wanted to go to Alberta and hunt in the snow, for world class whitetails.
1.Montana- I’ve always liked the Milk river in Montana. It just looks so beautiful. With some really big trophys.

Field & Stream in Jan 2011 ranked the top 3 trophy states in this order:
1. Wisconsin
2. Illinois
3. Iowa


ILLINOIS
Illinois' reputation as a megabuck hotspot is well deserved. Even though there now is far more pressure on trophy deer there than was the case even a decade ago, the Prairie State keeps cranking out giants. While Pike County along the Mississippi River gets the most publicity, monsters come from all over.
 
Jdubs said:
For Illinois being in the dumper, according to everyone, they seem to maintain their top 10 ranking. Keep comparing Iowa to Illinois it's not a valid argument.
Click to expand...


Go over the the "golden triangle" of Illinois and try to have a quality hunt for the price of the NR tag.

Think about it.... You would be a non-resident hunter over there just as I would. Now pretend your a resident in that area and don't own land. How is the public hunting ground.... Think you can get acess to any private with a handshake?

Iowa keeps it regs as are and both of those people can have a quality hunt for the price of a tag.
 
I don't know the answer to these questions, but of the top 10 states what is their non res landowner policy? What is ther NR hunter policy? Could it be that Iowa with 615 BC bucks is that way because we protect a good thing? Or is it because the 6K NR buck tags all get thier trophys scored? Could it be that Iowa would eventually drop like Illinios did after they went OTC tags for non residents?
 
Jdubs said:
For Illinois being in the dumper, according to everyone, they seem to maintain their top 10 ranking. Keep comparing Iowa to Illinois it's not a valid argument.
Click to expand...

The point is not that Illinois doesn't produce a lot of big bucks, the point is that the outfitters and NR's have bought or leased up so much land that the local resident hunters don't have anywhere to hunt anymore.

Ask the average joe in Pike county Illinois how he feels about the number of NR tags IL gives out. Ask him if he wishes he could turn back the clock to before they raised the NR quota so drastically.
 
Jdubs, not to pile on, but the blue links all come back to iowawhitetail and the black links go to that world renowned fact based web site deerhuntingbigbucks.com
 
cedar creek said:
I have several friends from Iowa and Wisconsin who bought land in Illinois during the haydays of the 80's. But the fact is that the land is almost worthless now.
Click to expand...

I'll buy that land sight unseen for the same price they paid in the '80s. It's worth 2-5(maybe more) times what they paid for it.
 
Last edited:
Bonker, when I copied the article the links popped up by themselves. I just tried to copy the article I don't know how that happened. I'm pretty much computer illiterate.
 
MK M GOBL said:
I'll buy that land sight unseen for the same price they paid in the '80s. It's worth 2-5(maybe more) times what they paid for it.
Click to expand...
I should have said worthless for hunting. Actually one was only 40 acres, and was sold to a subdivision over 10 yrs ago. He made a killing. I think the other guy is still holding onto his land, but doesn't hunt there anymore. He used to hunt opening weekend in Wisconsin gun season; then hunt the following weekend in Illinois opener. He divided his time between the two states bowhunting. With time restrictions; he gets larger bucks by hunting his home state of Wisconsin, and Iowa every three years. The point is; Illinois used to be where we are now. Do we really want to go down that road?
 
Monsterbuck said:
The point is not that Illinois doesn't produce a lot of big bucks, the point is that the outfitters and NR's have bought or leased up so much land that the local resident hunters don't have anywhere to hunt anymore.

Ask the average joe in Pike county Illinois how he feels about the number of NR tags IL gives out. Ask him if he wishes he could turn back the clock to before they raised the NR quota so drastically.
Click to expand...


So what you're saying is that it is not NR's per se, but outfitters.

Why not regulate/license outfitters? Put restrictions on the amount of land outfitters can lease or restrict the actual number of outfitters or a combination of the two?

I'm not saying I support that, I'm just throwing it out there.
 
kbnelson3 said:
So what you're saying is that it is not NR's per se, but outfitters.

Why not regulate/license outfitters? Put restrictions on the amount of land outfitters can lease or restrict the actual number of outfitters or a combination of the two?

I'm not saying I support that, I'm just throwing it out there.
Click to expand...

No, Outfitters are only a symptom of increased NR tags.

Increasing NR tags will lead to two things, the NR's that have the money and the inclination to hunt Iowa every year will buy and/or lease land displacing residents. Those that don't go to that extent and might only want or be able to afford hunting here occasionally will create a market for outfitters who cater to NR hunters. Those outfitters will buy and lease up land and sell hunts to NRs, displacing residents.

Regulating and restricting outfitters MIGHT help with the second but not the first. I say might because I don't know how it could be implemented or if it could be. My guess is it would have to be a fight after the fact and getting them regulated might be too little too late.

By the way, real nice avatar. I take it you are mad you can't hunt Iowa whenever you want so you'll just resort to insulting the residents on here?
 
Last edited:
It could be more that I go to the University of Wisconsin and absolutely loathe the University of Iowa in every aspect, especially football, but since I'm a non-resident, it must be an insult to Iowa residents because I can't get a bow tag every year right?
 
kbnelson3 said:
It could be more that I go to the University of Wisconsin and absolutely loathe the University of Iowa in every aspect, especially football,
Click to expand...
Too bad you chose a party town over a quality education. This might be why you are having a difficult time understanding how the regulations in Iowa benifit everybody.
 
A nrlo cant lease land and hunt on it, if landowner tags were granted! Just like a resident has to use his landowner tag on HIS own land.Outfitters would be the problem, although I am sure more nr would buy more land, not as many as you think.:thrwrck:
 
All those articles we all read about the B&C entries.... For some reason I PERSONALLY don't find those are at all accurate to the quality of hunting. I've hunted 15+ different farms in Fulton & Schuyler county IL, 4 farms in NE, 30+ farms in SW MI (where I grew up AND my old home counties show the B&C entries in dark red- meaning 20+ B&C or whatever- that is a JOKE, the hunting is an absolute JOKE there- so glad I don't hunt there or have to live there in regards to hunting), etc. NONE of these farms compare to ANY of the places I've hunted in IA. I have hard-core buddies in WI, MO, MN, etc and I strongly believe IA puts ANY of the other big states to shame. I could STILL hunt IL to this day- MULTIPLE "good" farms & I will never step foot there again. And then there's the area in SW Michigan (in the best counties) I could go back and hunt- I wouldn't go there if the state PAID me to hunt there- I am not joking. Not sure why it is BUT I just don't think all those B&C & ESPECIALLY- P&Y statistics are a good indicator of the hunting. Not sure why that is BUT maybe it's something to do with certain states have lots of hunters who never enter their big deer? Or maybe it's just such a vastly smaller amount of hunters out there hunting (like .5 hunters per sq mile in KS VS like 15 hunters per sq mile in other states like MI)?

*Sorry for the distracting post on this thread, just wanted to throw a little perspective to the trophy-state stats earlier in the thread. I always like reading those stats too, I just find them innacurate for some reason.
 
Last edited:
fishnhunt said:
A nrlo cant lease land and hunt on it, if landowner tags were granted! Just like a resident has to use his landowner tag on HIS own land.Outfitters would be the problem, although I am sure more nr would buy more land, not as many as you think.:thrwrck:
Click to expand...


I believe you are wrong on that one. A person can lease land and use a landowner tag to hunt it. The only difference is that they must use it for agricultural purposes. They themselves don't even have to farm it. They can have it custom farmed just as long as the person leasing the ground makes the farming decisions. I know of a number of people who do just that. It seems like a bit of a loop hole to me and I'm sure it would be exploited even further if NRLO were allowed to receive tags each year.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this. I have asked this very same question to my CO and he said that the above statement is correct.
 
Not correct the landowner is theonly one that can hunt it. You cannot lease hunting rights and hunt it with a landowner tag.
 
fishnhunt said:
Not correct the landowner is theonly one that can hunt it. You cannot lease hunting rights and hunt it with a landowner tag.
Click to expand...

Wrong you may want to look at the DNR hunting regulations before you post.

Here is what defines an owner.

A tenant in this case does not own the land but could lease it and still get a landowner tag as a tenant of the farm.


“​
Owner” means an owner of a farm unit who
is a resident of Iowa and who is one of the following:​

A.​
​
​
​
​
Is the sole operator of the farm unit.​

B.​
​
​
​
​
Makes all farm operating decisions but contracts
for custom farming or hires labor for all or part
of the work on the farm unit.​

C.​
​
​
​
​
Participates annually in farm operation decisions
or cropping practices on specific fields of the
farm unit that are rented to a tenant.​

D.​
​
​
​
​
Raises specialty crops on the farm unit
including, but not limited to, orchards, nurseries or
trees that do not always produce annual income but
require annual operating decisions about maintenance
or improvement.​

E.​
​
​
​
​
Has all or part of the farm unit enrolled in a
long-term agricultural land retirement program of the
federal government.​

F.​
​
​
​
​
Rents the entire farm to an adult child who
operates the farm.​

G.​
​
​
​
​
An owner DOES NOT mean a person who
owns a farm unit and who employs a farm manager
or third party to operate the farm unit, or a person
who owns a farm unit and who rents the entire farm
to a tenant who is responsible for all farm operations​

(unless the renter is the owner’s child).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom