These latest figures are up to November 16. Three straight seasons with declining numbers. I'm curious, is it attributable to less bowhunters, less deer, land access or a combination. I don't see it as less bowhunters, seems like there are more in my county. It will be interesting to check the firearm numbers this season.

You can blame most of this decline on the DNR...they are concerned with rising deer populations but yet don't make it any easier to access even public land.
On most public land you are not allowed to hang and leave a stand up, you must either use a climber or hunt off the ground. That really affects the older bowhunters. Even I get sick of having to carry a climber in and out every time I want to hunt.

Illinois is becoming the next Indiana faster and faster in reguards as to how our DNR runs things, and that's not good for the future outlook.

Land access at the top. All you gotta do is look at the high profile counties with high outfitter ratio's and you'll see very low antlerless harvest figures, and yet they are the counties that have the highest deer densities. Paying hunters do not want to shoot does as a general rule.

Next year, when I'm in Illinois...I'll happily shoot a doe. After a buck of course!

I heard the numbers of hunters using outfitters was down. I think there are still NR archery tags left over too.

The state sold around 30,000 less firearm permits this year. Down to less than 350,000 from 378,000 soldlast year.
That's a significant figure.

We need more access for sure.

I've also heard of folks not seeing many as many fawns this year. We might need to kill more coyotes.

The yote pop. is absolutely out of hand in Illinois.

I'm going to do my part this winter and hack away![:@]

I wish the number of hunters was down, but with this new brilliant[8D] check-in system a LOT of deer wont ever be counted. Did I mention that A LOT of deer wont be checked in?[8D]

You may be correct on this, but after a few seasons I believe its working almost as well. At least those who use a processor must check them in. Those who process their own and don't check deer in, probably never did before the telecheck.

I agree with land access being the top villain. I notice that in my area at least, landowners are not nearly as receptive to bowhunting as in the past or having anybody on their land. Times sure have changed a lot in the past 10 years.

I don't think the phone check in system is giving false numbers. If anything I think more are probably checked in by this being easier. I don't know about anyone else, but I have seen less deer these last 2 or 3 seasons. I also agree with Coug, in our county its almost impossible to pull down new ground to hunt. If your not good friends with the land owner your probably not going to get permission. Long gone are the days of knocking on doors all weekend and getting new ground to hunt.

I'm new to IL, having only hunted here for three years, and coming from the UP of Michigan, its like Mecca here for me. Even though i'm a releative newcomer to the state, I've felt the land access problems full force. I have yet to hunt the same piece two years in a row, having been on different ground for three straight years now.

In terms of harvests being down, hard to say what is the culprit. At least we have a check-in system, not just a free-for-all like i'm used to, since MI has NO registration of any kind. I think we may see some kind of reform in the coming years from the DNR in regards to an incentive program for farmers to host hunters, almost like a CRP program, only for people. There is no question outfitters are to blame for Western IL's problems, with doe numbers and greatly plummeting buck harvests. Just in one little area I am familiar with, Comlara Park, it is nothing to go and see 100 deer in one field, and access is limited to a very restrictive draw, doe only, and you get 1 week to hunt it. So, continue to bitch about the deer numbers DNR, but then allow it too keep perpetuating itself too. With so many parks closing, there will be areas with deer thicker than ticks on a bears ass.