A recreational property listing is a sales pitch, and trophy potential is its preferred claim. When land is described as being in a county known for big bucks or an area with proven genetics, that reputation is built into the price of each acre. Some of those claims are accurate. This paper shows that buyers can test them instead of relying on trust. Twenty years of county harvest records, combined with an independent assessment of trophy tiers, let you examine the pitch before accepting it. Across the counties examined here, documented trophy history does not move in step with recent harvest.
KEY FINDINGS
- Present quality and reputation tell different stories. Will County, Illinois has one of the state's strongest big-buck reputations built on record listings. Even so, its recent harvest averages roughly 1,000 deer annually, and its statewide position on the complete FDR Index is around #68. Those numbers alone cannot establish the current herd size or show whether this increasingly urban Chicago collar county still offers a strong place to hunt.
- Even a famous hunting destination falls near the middle when herd and habitat count. Pike County, Illinois is widely known and has real strength as a hunting county, but it places #26 on the index used here. Its total harvest has dropped about 48% from the peak in 2005. Harvest records do not show how many deer hunters see or the herd's age makeup.
- Improvement draws little attention in some counties. In west-central Missouri, Henry, Vernon, and Barry have reputations for big bucks. Each county's recent harvest has risen by approximately 17% since 2015. That gain by itself does not establish an expanding herd.
- Marion County reports less harvest than it did in 2006. Few Iowa counties get mentioned more often for big bucks than Marion. Its harvest remains roughly 18% lower than in 2006, the opening year of Iowa's comparable reported series, while its recent baseline remains respectable.
ITHE CLAIM AND THE CHECK
Testing a land advertisement's claims against the available evidence
The purpose of a land listing is to sell the property, and hunting reputation helps market recreational ground. The pitch might describe a county as trophy country or call an area “proven to produce big bucks,” then mention neighbors who have “killed enormous deer.” Those statements may be accurate. They remain unchecked by an audit, though, and come from someone who benefits from the sale. This paper does not estimate property value or offer another judgment about price. Its contribution is an independent layer of data: county harvest history and a trophy measure relative to other counties in that state, assembled from public agency records. A buyer can compare that evidence with the listing's claims. Instead of asking whether the broker is believable, the buyer can ask whether the county's recorded results back up the pitch. The data can answer that question.
IIREPUTATION IS NOT DENSITY
Low harvest can coexist with a leading trophy reputation
Illinois makes the comparison especially clear. A listing in Will County, at the southwest edge of the Chicago metro area, could accurately point to strong standing in trophy records, supported by decades of documented giant bucks. Two independent checks reveal details the sales pitch would leave out. The full index used here weighs herd and habitat together with the trophy signal and puts Will at about #68 statewide, below the leading counties. Its recent yearly harvest averages about 1,000 deer, compared with roughly 4,120 in Pike. Will belongs to Chicago's collar counties. Total harvest also depends on how much land is huntable and accessible, something these records do not measure. The county's trophy record is legitimate, but it reflects past production rather than today's harvest. Looking at harvest and index data gives buyers two numbers that reputation alone would conceal: strong standing in trophy records can differ from recent harvest, and neither harvest totals nor index rank is a direct measure of herd size.
Our guideline for reviewing land advertisements: put more weight on recent harvest than on the property's past production.
IIITREND IS THE TELL
A harvest trend says more than a season's total
Use several years of harvest totals to track the direction instead of judging by a single season. Two counties may have nearly equal totals this year even as one rises and the other falls from a previous high. A single year's total cannot show that difference. Reported harvest in Missouri's Henry, Vernon, and Barry counties has increased by roughly 17% in each county since 2015 (2025 compared with 2015). Each county is within about 12% of its high over multiple years. Iowa's counties with longstanding hunting reputations show the opposite pattern: Marion maintains a solid recent baseline, yet its harvest is about 18% below the 2006 total. That is part of a statewide drop of about a third in Iowa's comparable reported series from 2006 to 2024. Neither pattern rules a county out; each matters to the decision. Paying a premium for a county with an upward trend buys a different situation from paying the same premium for a county still riding a high reached two decades ago. The trend over time is the only thing that separates those situations.
Swipe table to see every column
| County | State | Big-buck reputation | Recent 3-yr avg harvest | Harvest trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pike | IL | Iconic · FDR Index #26 | ≈ 4,120 | Down ~48% from 2005 peak |
| Will | IL | Heavy listings · FDR Index ~#68 | ≈ 1,001 | Urbanizing collar; thin huntable herd |
| Marion | IA | Most-cited (single-source proxy) | ≈ 1,847 | ~18% below 2006 |
| Warren | IA | Cited (single-source proxy) | ≈ 2,379 | Down ~4% since 2006; ~28% off 2011 peak |
| Henry | MO | Cited (single-source proxy) | ≈ 3,449 | Up ~17% since 2015 |
| Vernon | MO | Cited (single-source proxy) | ≈ 3,170 | Up ~17% since 2015 |
IVWHAT THE DATA DOES NOT DO
Where an independent assessment stops
This layer assigns scores to deer records rather than real estate. It gives no property valuation and knows nothing about a parcel's cover, water, neighbors, or access. It also cannot take the place of walking the land or checking the title. County harvest combines deer taken on public and private ground, and state tag allocations help shape the total. A smaller harvest may result from fewer permits rather than fewer deer. Trophy tier ranks counties within a state through one program and is not comparable between states. Buyers can use the layer to weigh a county's reputation against its reported harvest history and trophy tier within that state. These records do not establish deer population trends or how huntable the ground is today. They inform due diligence without determining whether to buy. That is a much better basis than accepting the listing's claims on trust.
VUSING IT AT THE TABLE
Putting the county check to work before buying
The process takes just a few steps. Get the records for the county where the property lies before the listing wins you over. Compare recent harvest with past years. Is it increasing, staying level, or declining from a past high? If recent harvest is low, does the county's trophy tier still back the listing's claim about its reputation? Weigh those answers against the price. A county with rising harvest and strong recent totals presents a different picture from one still riding a past high. Whether that supports a higher price is for a professional appraiser to assess. These checks do not tell you how much the parcel is worth; you need a visit to the property and a professional appraisal for that. They show whether the seller's story matches the county's own record. Use county records to test the seller's claims.
NOTES AND SOURCES
- The county harvest figures reproduce state agency records brought together in FDR's corpus covering 12 states. This paper uses Illinois (IDNR), Iowa (Iowa DNR), and Missouri (MDC). Recent 3-year averages draw from the three most recently reported seasons. Each peak comparison uses the county's highest harvest in its available series: IL 2005 to 2024, IA 2006 to 2024, and MO 2015 to 2025. Iowa's series opens in 2006 because Iowa DNR identifies estimates from 2005 and earlier as unsuitable for comparison with later years.
- Trophy tier gives a county's FDR ranking within its state, using data from one major whitetail record program. The resulting measure is a rank rather than a count of record-book listings. Its numeric value is not shown here, and it cannot be compared across states.
- Limits: county harvest totals include public and private ground, and state permit allocations affect them. A smaller total can mean fewer tags were issued rather than fewer deer were present. County aggregates give no description of an individual parcel. The Missouri series starts in 2015, and Ohio/Indiana/Michigan are omitted here. This paper addresses IL, IA, and MO only.
- This paper helps readers make decisions without offering investment or real estate advice. It evaluates deer data rather than property and includes no estimates of property value or recommendations for or against a purchase.
Fully Drawn Research is an independent data analysis desk, not affiliated with any state wildlife agency, transportation agency, mapping provider or outfitter. Fully Drawn Research is an independent data analysis desk, not affiliated with any state wildlife agency, land broker, or real-estate firm. Harvest data are state agency public records analyzed independently by FDR; figures are current to the latest reported season (IL 2024, IA 2024, MO 2025). Trophy tier is a proprietary within-state derived output whose construction and weighting are not disclosed; it is not a record-book measurement and is not comparable across states. Nothing here is a property valuation, a purchase recommendation, or investment advice; land-buying decisions should rely on independent professional diligence.
Keep reading
FDR Scout puts research like this on the map of the ground you hunt. Open Scout →