kansas

I have posted this before, but I have outfitter experience Texas, Kansas, and Illinois among others. All your regular outfitters are going to be $3-4k, although most in Texas will have a trophy fee over 140, Kansas and Illinois no trophy fee even if a 200.

Stay in Texas if you want a 100% opportunity at a 120-140.

Go to Illinois if you want a better chance at a 180+.

Go to Kansas if you want better chance at a 140-180 than Illinois, but still your typical 5-day opportunity will be 50%.

Texas simply has the best opportunities and numbers for nice 120-140 racked deer. There are also some high opportunities for 160-200 deer like at King Ranch but that will take $20k.

Kansas and Illinois are $3-4k, but the Illinois outfitters run high numbers and typical is lower 20-35% opportunity. I truly believe you have better opportunity at a 180+ in Illinois/Iowa. Kansas doesn't produce as many of those HUGE deer, but it has less pressure and hunters in camp for very nice 140-180 deer.

I would consider some sleeper states like Oklahoma, Missouri, or especially Kentucky.

Thanks Rob to me when I say big deer I mean anything over 160. Have killed 4 in Texas all mid 120's. Like I mentioned earlier this hunt is as much about the chance to experience something I have never seen as it is a harvest. All I hear about these areas is "big bodied" I want to see that. Hunting Kansas or Illinois I assume is nothing like Texas..... .I want to know first hand.

pfffft on illinois. Obama is from Illinois... they helped vote him in again. It will be a cold day in hell before I intentionally spend money ina blue state!

and yes, I am that narrow minded and shallow!

I know the outfitters didn't vote him in.

I agree with you, however 180" deer are much more rare, in any state, than most people believe. I am actually looking at the latest addition of Pope and Young right now;

In the typical category, only 152 deer out of 45,925 deer are over 180". That is 0.003%
33 are from Illinois, 22 from Kansas, 4 are from Texas(Don't forget, high fence deer don't count as record book deer. And I have nothing against high fences at all). I would expect the Boone and Crocket numbers to reflect the same ratios as the Pope and Young

Chances to shoot a really big deer are good pretty much anywhere in the Midwest. Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan also have about as many entries as Kansas and Illinois.

I've hunted Illinois for about 8 years and I've only seen a hand full of bucks that would break 165-170, obviously fewer in the 180-195 range and only one that was bigger than 195. And that was this year at 2 in the a.m. And I almost threw up, I couldn't talk and I hunted the next 5 days harder than I've ever hunted before.

My point is, I just don't think most people truly realize how big a 180" deer actually is. In the Midwest states, the hunting regulations are much different than in Texas. In Illinois there is no center fire rifle season. Bow season starts the first weekend in October and runs through about the middle to the end of January. The weekend before Thanksgiving, they have a 3 day shotgun/muzzle loader season, two weekends after Thanksgiving they have a 4 day shotgun/muzzle loader season and the weekend after that they have a muzzle loader only season. So a total of less than 14 days of gun hunting all year. So if you want to hunt, you better grab a bow. They manage their herd by restricting the methods and weapons of taking the animals, and its working. On the same note, they don't have the large numbers that we have.

Gonna try KS for the first time this year..have a friend that grows soybeans..unhunted for years..should be good..

hit it start of season, muzzleloader unless a bow only hunter.

Here are the B&C numbers last 3 years by state.

Typical 170+

1. Wisconsin typical whitetail deer 172
2. Kentucky typical whitetail deer 103
3. Ohio typical whitetail deer 90
4. Indiana typical whitetail deer 82
5. Illinois typical whitetail deer 70
6. Missouri typical whitetail deer 58
7. Minnesota typical whitetail deer 57
8. Texas typical whitetail deer 47
9. Iowa typical whitetail deer 46
10. Kansas typical whitetail deer 45

Non-Typical 195+

1. Wisconsin non-typical whitetail deer 69
2. Illinois non-typical whitetail deer 67
3. Iowa non-typical whitetail deer 67
4. Ohio non-typical whitetail deer 61
5. Kansas non-typical whitetail deer 51
6. Missouri non-typical whitetail deer 48
7. Indiana non-typical whitetail deer 47
8. Kentucky non-typical whitetail deer 32
9. Alberta non-typical whitetail deer 25
10. Texas non-typical whitetail deer 25

Kansas rifle season is after the rut. Muzzle loader starts mid September when they are still in bachelor groups and occasionally in velvet.you will usually see more good bucks in Ks than IL on any given hunt. The rut in KS (second week in Nov) can be unbelievable.

Rob

Don't mean to be negative, but this information is worthless. I know of over 25 deer 180+ that are not in the record books. And, they were taken legally. It is in your best interest to not claim such awards and put additional pressure from more "dream catchers" in your "back yard".

If you want a 180" deer, you must let 160" deer walk. Do get a 160, you need to let a 140" walk, etc. You can grow 180" deer from Oklahoma north (and west in many cases) with more ease than most think.

It can be hard to find bucks during muzzleloader during legal shooting hours. Especially during the warm years recently. I have hunted the ML season hard the last 3 years and the big boys seem to come out just after legal time. It is just too warm during the beginning of Sept and food is plentiful. They seem to eat all night. With this said, I have had opportunities at 150/160 class bucks each year. Every year I keep thinking the one last year will be ready......

Kyle. Consider this. The only part of Illinois that is blue is Chicago. And unfortunately the population of that city is greater than the rest of the state. Boycotting the people who offer hunting opportunities in down-state Illinois., is like condemning the entire state of Texas because Austin and inner-city. Houston are largely liberal.

Disclosure: my wife is a farmers daughter from central Illinois

I agree many don't book their deer, but you would be hard to argue the % not booked changes much state to state. The ratios would be similar. Another factor is number of hunters, I think Wisconsin has the most by far and then Illinois, Kansas might actually appear to have a good opportunity based on less hunters than Wisconsin or Illinois. How many hunt Kentucky, that could make that state off the charts like I said, a sleeper.

I also don't agree about Oklahoma North for 180+ deer. Just look at Hagerman 200+ deer archery only low pressure, East Texas 200+ secure logging deer, or King Ranch 180+ hundreds of thousands managed acres. We have the genes down South, they just have to get old.

The information isn't worthless, but is a small part of the overall picture.

Rob, I didn't say you can't grow 180" deer in Texas. It is just easier the further north you go. It is proven that the further north you go (colder) the deer are bigger bodied. It is further proven that bigger bodied deer can grow bigger horns easier.

Now for the record books. It kind of comes in waves. One area will start getting hot with people actually submitting their deer for the books. This in turn gets more hunters to go there. Wisconsin seems to be the "hot spot" right now. Last decade it was Illinois. With all the TV shows getting attention, these guys actually submit their deer to gain a following.

Regardless of these stats, you can grow big deer in most of the states. If you let the 160" deer walk, you have a chance at a 180" the next year.

I see that in your first year on your new place, you took a nice 150 class buck. If you would have let it pass, next year you might have gotten that 180" buck. Not saying what you did is wrong, just posting facts. Does this make your place not capable of producing a 180 class buck, no. But, I would agrue that if you continue to take these mid range deer, you will have a hard time doing it. Conversely, if you let them walk every year, you could have a "honey hole" that produces 180 class deer every other year.

Getting big bucks on your own is all about scouting and managing.

So, to answer the OP. Get on a place that has everything that deer need (food, water and shelter). Put a management plan in place and you could put yourself in a place to harvest big bucks year afer year. Kansas or Illinois, it does not matter.

I am not getting a lease or land going with an outfitter. So management is up to them. Sounds like can't go wrong with either place.

I haven't been to KS yet but I will be going back to IL this year last week of October hunting with WITO (western Illinois trophy outfitters). In 2 weeks of hunting with them last year I saw 6-8 bucks OVER 160 and half of those being 170-190" bucks, 3 in one mornings hunt. Things just didn't pan out for me..I either didn't have the buck in range or not a clear shot. That's hunting though.

I'm not sure how relvant that is looking at small bodied Texas deer all those 160-200 on the low fence side and then those 300 inch high fencers that can barely hold their racks up. Look at the HUGE bodies of New York deer and little tiny racks.

As long as they are managing their places to only take mature deer, you shouldn't go wrong with either!

Rob, if laws would let some of those northern states high fence and run operations like they do in Texas.......I don't know what the scoring limit would be. They got some very nice breeding operations in Oklahoma that have very impressive deer. Again, none should make it to the records books because they don't qualify.

But they already do in Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, etc. Those deer are larger bodied 300+ to as high as 400 lbs live weights because that is the only way they can survive those tough winters up there. The opposite is here in South Texas those large bodies can't take the heat with the largest bucks getting to 250 live weight with most around 200-210 lbs live weight. The Alvarez buck killed in the '97-'98 season killed on the King Ranch was a prime example of great genetics and small body. He grossed 246 and netted 239 3/8" and had a dressed weight of somewhere around 110 lbs give or take a little. I have heard as small as 105 lbs and high as 120 lbs. He is very small bodied in the pics.

Know-it-all Pittstate proved wrong, I love it.

Rob, where was I proved wrong? I don't know how to find it(and of course it is impossible to find), but I bet Texas has more acres under high fence than the rest of the other 49 states combined.

It is very easy to grow large antlered through select breeding and genetics. The just of what I was trying to say is that if you use the same genetics to grow deer in a warm climate Vs a cold climate, the cold climate deer would be bigger bodied and could take on more antler mass.

BTW Rob, how many 190 class low fence, free range, self scouted, on your OWN land Whitetail bucks have you killed? When I am trying to learn something, I look for people that are successful in the area I am wanting to learn. I don't post on here to increase my post count, prove someone wrong or try to one-up somebody. I give my opinion, if and only if, I have experience in what they are asking. Several times people have said things other than what I have said. I never called them out or called them names. It is a forum to learn from. It seems to me with all the fights you get into on this forum that you have a different agenda. Please do not try to drag me into that crap, I will not join in.

Another point I was trying to make is that a lot of people think you need to go to a certain ranch to get a nice 180" deer. You do not. All you need to do is let that 147" or 153" buck live another year, maybe two.

Now, not all places are created equal. Your chances of a mature 5.5 yr old buck from the middle of Texas Vs in Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Indiana, etc. getting to 180" are not the same. Not even close (I am talking free range, low fence, not gene therapy!).