fairchaser":1yy0ol2g said:
It's all relative. That's why each state has its own record books. If you are just looking for the biggest deer/rack, then you go where the giants live. But you can't compare those to deer from other areas. A 177 inch deer killed by a bow in TN is a real trophy as long as it's fair chase.
I agree 110%. That was the point of my original post. I didn't mean to make 177" seem insignificant or small, nor am I minimizing it. It's truly a monster deer of a lifetime. I used that number as a benchmark because it is the TN archery record for a typical rack. It's the record because that's as big as they are....until/unless one larger is bagged. It's not illogical to assign the same scale to TN as you would anywhere else. That means if Illinois annually takes a dozen 200"+ bow kills, then there are a boat load of 170's, possibly thousands of 150's, and countless sub 140's. That tells me I have a pretty dang fair chance at getting on a 140-160 type deer if I do my due diligence, with reasonable hope of something much bigger. Better yet, I can do it on public land, over counter, and choose my own dates within the season. Furthermore, I can scout it on foot as much as my boots allow, plus run trail cameras in spots I feel will be hot. By the time my hunt-cation comes around I have an educated guess at where to start and what animals I'll likely be hunting. Whether I succeed or not, I can try again next year and the year after.
Contrast that with PI where I have to wait a decade plus, get one day to scout, and 3 days to get it done. Both Illinois and PI are respectively about the same distance from my house here in TN. If I am going far enough where I have to pack a toothbrush, PI isn't even on my radar. If I lived near it then putting in for an eventual chance to hunt makes a little more sense. But with having to travel, it doesn't make sense when there are exponentially better and more convenient chances just by choosing a different area. Like I said, I can be swayed and convinced to start putting in for it. But I haven't seen a reasonable argument for it yet.