Interesting read. https://www.realtree.com/deer-hunting/articles/the-new-golden-triangle-for-record-whitetails Thoughts?
Point is that big bucks are being taken in states where historically those states were not known as big buck hot spots
I would agree that those states are producing more and bigger deer but how many people actually enter their deer in the books? I’ve never shot a Boone and Crockett but I know if I did I wouldn’t bother. So the data is misleading to me is all I’m saying.
Many people now a days don't enter there deer, so you will never know what the true stats are. I never entered my deer, and probably wont. I know of 3 200" plus deer shot in MD in 2016 and don't think any of them were entered. All it does is create extra hunting pressure when word gets out about these size deer. Sent from my SM-G900V using Bowhunting.com Forums mobile app
I think you can find big bucks just about any where. There are two problems, 1) finding them and 2) getting permission to hunt them. Yes some states and provinces have better genetics and food sources that will produce a 200" deer at 4.5 but I do think that you can find a great deer just about any where.
Just glad they didn't nail the one true up and coming Booner hot spot.. Oklahoma. We have grown a deer population by leaps and bounds since 2008.
Ive heard states like Kentucky, Oklahoma, Indiana have really been improving and dumping resources into management. Illinois on the other hand has been doing quite the opposite. Not that I’m surprised
Before I say “Please take this down... nothing to see here” let me point out that KY is a one buck state. Most of the other states near the top of the list are not. How many more such deer might have been killed in KY if the guys that were good enough to tag one buck were back out in the field with another buck tag in their pocket? Multiple times in the last decade I’ve been tagged out and still had giants walking on the farms I was hunting. Would I have killed any of those bucks? Probably not.... but how many other guys have been in the same boat? Some of us would have killed some big deer if we had a tag left. It would be interesting to know in those other states how many guys killed the book deer as their 2nd or 3rd buck of the year. To me that also needs to be known to make a fair comparison. Also I completely agree on the fact that a lot of big deer don’t get recorded but I would also have to assume that the percentage unreported should be expected to be the roughly same everywhere. Don’t think for a second that guys in KY aren’t trying to keep things on the down low. But seriously though... this article is a joke and totally Fake News. Deer hunting is horrible in KY. There are only 4 or 5 deer in the whole state and half of the bucks are spikes.
Greaaaaat! Another article about Kentucky.... That sucks. Here's 3 reasons why. A. Lease prices are out of control here, B. WMA's are overcrowded, C. Now the locals (guys we've known out whole lives) are becoming a-holes (cutting tires on WMAs etc...) I understand the lure of antlers but I hate the publicity around it.
Part 1: Shut up! Lies! FAKE NEWS Part 2: Let's see...Red State, Red State, Red State...Illinois. N'uff said.
So the numbers say that in the last 10 yrs KY is almost twice as good as Illinois. Not sayin.... just sayin.
Some may not think this affects the results, but all three of the “new golden triangle” states allow rifle hunting. If rifles were allowed in many states they currently are not, you would see a considerable difference in entry quantities. Sent from my iPhone using Bowhunting.com Forums
Let me follow that up by saying, if they want to write a thousand articles about states other than Illinois, please go ahead! Outfitters are out of control, shooting 130-140” two and a half, and three and a half year olds. Might be an unpopular opinion, but Illinois should go to a one buck state, and lower gun hunting dates for a few years. Sent from my iPhone using Bowhunting.com Forums
I don't know about the others; but Indiana only "kind of" allows rifle hunting. They have gone back and forth for a few years...I'm pretty sure they just went back to fairly restrictive modern "rifle" rounds. Like .45o Bushmaster-type cartridge length/type max. No more .30-06/.270 allowed; correct? Even a .35 Remmy is considered "too powerful" if I'm not mistaken.
You are correct about them going back and forth. They have amended several times I believe, but regardless, they still allow rifle hunting other than muzzleloaders. In my opinion, that is still significantly easier than muzzleloader and reloading after each shot. Sent from my iPhone using Bowhunting.com Forums
true, but a modern slug gun/"short range" rifle cartridge like those allowed in Indiana, southern MI etc are about the same or even less in range effectiveness as a modern muzzleloader.... ~250 yards, give or take. My .450 Bushie is not as accurate as my .50 CVA at 250 yards. And my 20" 12ga 870 and 500 3"mag sluggers are almost as accurate as either the .450 or CVA at 200 yards. Do I have the same follow-up shot capability with the CVA? No, but rarely need it when I'm shooting 2-3" groups at 200 yards. There is very little difference in the accuracy and effectiveness of a good modern slug gun using premium rounds vs. a "short range" rifle cartridge like those allowed in Indiana. And compared to a .44 mag; a 12 ga slug in the right gun is a much more effective and accurate round over 150 yards.
