Since it is slow I figured I would try to spur some conversation about the top B & C states for whitetails. I did a quick query and found that according to the Boone and Crockett Club, from 2005-2010, Illinois had 299 entries, in second place, and Iowa showing 224 in third. Even though many argue Illinois is a model Iowa should not follow they produce more record bucks than Iowa. Any thoughts.
Liv4Rut
Active Member
Gun season during the rut???? I would have many B&C on the wall if I had my savage 220 in my hands during November. Especially around Thanksgiving time frame.
Illinois has 4.4 million acres of forested land where iowa only has 2 million. More habitat in illinois with similiar agricultural. More habitat equals more deer in my mind.
My thoughts anyways without looking into it much.
Illinois has 4.4 million acres of forested land where iowa only has 2 million. More habitat in illinois with similiar agricultural. More habitat equals more deer in my mind.
My thoughts anyways without looking into it much.
hoosierhunter
Active Member
Way more hunters. Typically out of state hunters report more deer than state hunters to record books as well.
The two best states IMO for B&C are Iowa and Kansas. Kentucky is flying up the charts and Nebraska is also a sleeper.
Hardwood11
It is going to be a good fall!
Big Bucks
Minnesota used to be #1 for many years and now it is barely top 10, because of the intense gun pressure. Hard to get a buck old enough to qualify. SE MN has made some changes and you will see more big giants come from that area.
Overall Wisconsin and Iowa probably have the most qualifiers running around, Wisconsin tends to register more than Iowa.
I think Wisconsin still has the top county
Minnesota used to be #1 for many years and now it is barely top 10, because of the intense gun pressure. Hard to get a buck old enough to qualify. SE MN has made some changes and you will see more big giants come from that area.
Overall Wisconsin and Iowa probably have the most qualifiers running around, Wisconsin tends to register more than Iowa.
I think Wisconsin still has the top county
IL vs IA is an EASY EXPLANATION....
Iowa has 5-6% timber & I believe is a smaller state period with a much smaller deer population as well. Illinois (from my long ago recollection) has something like 20, 30 or more % timber.
Now, what's the CURRENT situation with both those states??? Big trouble, in my opinion. I absolutely believe you will ALWAYS be able to find pockets of mammoth bucks and great management but the NORM areas in both are in trouble. Illinois went down the tubes as of the last time I went there & Iowa's "average areas" are heading in that direction for a variety of reasons.
Iowa has 5-6% timber & I believe is a smaller state period with a much smaller deer population as well. Illinois (from my long ago recollection) has something like 20, 30 or more % timber.
Now, what's the CURRENT situation with both those states??? Big trouble, in my opinion. I absolutely believe you will ALWAYS be able to find pockets of mammoth bucks and great management but the NORM areas in both are in trouble. Illinois went down the tubes as of the last time I went there & Iowa's "average areas" are heading in that direction for a variety of reasons.
Daver
PMA Member
I concur with Skip on the above. Also, I am not sure what to make of any current record book listings as I probably know of 10, or more, book qualifying bucks that DON'T get entered, for every one that does. In other words, I don't think the stats in those books are all that meaningful. Many serious buck hunters do not want the notoriety and/or attention that potentially would be associated with entering a buck in a record book these days.
GOARMY
New Member
Illinois has way more timber. Yes there are more hunters and Out of staters but there are pockets where buck grow big big. Pretty much anywhere in Illinois you can kill a 140. Now the top end stuff say 200 plus can be had with a few landowners joining forces. I know of some great places in Illinois and people are still killin booners. I know of one person, be it a guy or gal that has a really good small place and does real well...I have been there and seen it with my own eyes.
Baby-G
PMA Member
Illinois up until 3 or 4 years ago was ahead of my home state of KY. Currently Illinois has dropped below to where it is very very hard to find a 3 yr old buck. KY is on the rise some, but it really is staying about where it's been the last 5 to 7 years.
Iowa (or at least the area I hunt) is still better than Illinois has been in the last 10 years. Iowa has taking a big dip in deer numbers, but oddly still has more bucks than doe's. If Iowa doesn't allow the doe population to double its gonna start seeing major buck decline do to a replenishment problem. Age structure for bucks was still excellent, but that will crash if you don't increase the doe population.....
Illinois will take 5 to 10 years to fully rebound if they make drastic changes to improve things. If they don't, you could have better hunting in any state that has whitetails.........
Iowa (or at least the area I hunt) is still better than Illinois has been in the last 10 years. Iowa has taking a big dip in deer numbers, but oddly still has more bucks than doe's. If Iowa doesn't allow the doe population to double its gonna start seeing major buck decline do to a replenishment problem. Age structure for bucks was still excellent, but that will crash if you don't increase the doe population.....
Illinois will take 5 to 10 years to fully rebound if they make drastic changes to improve things. If they don't, you could have better hunting in any state that has whitetails.........
To get a true picture of the best states, it doesn't do any good to compare overall numbers of B&C bucks per state or number of hunters, etc. You have to compare B&C bucks based on the overall harvest numbers. Look at the B&C bucks per thousand bucks harvested and you will see that some of the "Top" states aren't really that good.
Hardwood11
It is going to be a good fall!
What would be the top state based on B & C to bucks harvested?
B+c deer
I studied this issue till i was blue in the face before i made my move(5 years ago) from maryland. It wasn't till i actually moved here that things made sense. Wisconsin and illinois are tops for numbers, but that isn't the real story. As has been mentioned here already, i know of way many bucks not reported that are booners. The other states are simple, more hunters, more land equal more bucks. But i would rather hunt here any day of the week. A good management program here will produce giants with less pressure. My 2 cents
I studied this issue till i was blue in the face before i made my move(5 years ago) from maryland. It wasn't till i actually moved here that things made sense. Wisconsin and illinois are tops for numbers, but that isn't the real story. As has been mentioned here already, i know of way many bucks not reported that are booners. The other states are simple, more hunters, more land equal more bucks. But i would rather hunt here any day of the week. A good management program here will produce giants with less pressure. My 2 cents
The one just south of where you're sitting right now.
hoosierhunter
Active Member
Is be willing to bet Canada sits very high on the list if not blowing every US state out of the water.
Liv4Rut
Active Member
Canada is a country. What if you added up every b&c from every state in the US and then compared to Canada? The only way to really compare it. Such vast land and low pressure in Canada they can grow old IF they can survive the brutal winters and predators.
hoosierhunter
Active Member
Canada is a country. What if you added up every b&c from every state in the US and then compared to Canada? The only way to really compare it. Such vast land and low pressure in Canada they can grow old IF they can survive the brutal winters and predators.
If you counted the entire US we aren't even in the same universe as Canada in B&C deer per hunter or deer killed.
SaskGuy
Active Member
Using the comparison of "Canada" is no more accurate than using the comparison of "USA" as a whole. Both are roughly the same size land wise and both have areas that are better for whitetails than others are.
Like some states, there are parts of Canada that do not produce record book whitetails, in fact more areas do not than do. Sure you'll get the odd one from other areas but the majority of Canada's record book whitetails come from SK, AB, and MB, the latter having the fewest of the three. Even that could be misleading to some degree as the provinces are so big they could encompass multiple states and areas within them are more known for mule deer, or elk, or moose, or pronghorns, or bears, than they are for whitetails.
Liv is correct in saying that they true number one factor in reducing the number of record book deer up here is brutal winters. The severity of a winter is a good predictor in the number of record book animals that will be taken the next fall.
I did read somewhere that SK has the lowest number of hunters and deer taken per booner, not sure if it is true, but I do not doubt it at all.
Like some states, there are parts of Canada that do not produce record book whitetails, in fact more areas do not than do. Sure you'll get the odd one from other areas but the majority of Canada's record book whitetails come from SK, AB, and MB, the latter having the fewest of the three. Even that could be misleading to some degree as the provinces are so big they could encompass multiple states and areas within them are more known for mule deer, or elk, or moose, or pronghorns, or bears, than they are for whitetails.
Liv is correct in saying that they true number one factor in reducing the number of record book deer up here is brutal winters. The severity of a winter is a good predictor in the number of record book animals that will be taken the next fall.
I did read somewhere that SK has the lowest number of hunters and deer taken per booner, not sure if it is true, but I do not doubt it at all.
Hardwood11
It is going to be a good fall!
Big Bucks
I'm not sure how they would compare, but keep in mind part of Canada is not trophy buck country. We hunt Ontario on occasion. Huge giants in parts of Ontario, (example Rainy River region) but mostly in a relatively small region, go further north and it is moose country. That being said, most of the US is not trophy deer country either.
I'm not sure how they would compare, but keep in mind part of Canada is not trophy buck country. We hunt Ontario on occasion. Huge giants in parts of Ontario, (example Rainy River region) but mostly in a relatively small region, go further north and it is moose country. That being said, most of the US is not trophy deer country either.
Booners Only
New Member
Iowa needs to go to 1 buck per hunter, per calendar year.
Iowa habitat cannot support current hunters numbers/as past decades.
If we don't go to 1 buck per hunter, the "Booners" will continue to decrease
Iowa habitat cannot support current hunters numbers/as past decades.
If we don't go to 1 buck per hunter, the "Booners" will continue to decrease