Heartland Outdoors magazine is published every month.
Subscription Terms

Or call (309) 315-2981 or e-mail: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

deer illinois cover


May 2021
25 26 27 28 29 30 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31 1 2 3 4 5
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
April 2020
February 2020
January 2020
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019

Recent entries


KC's Corner

Legislation Update

Sat, February 04, 2017

Here’s a few more bills to keep an eye on.  Looks like about 2,500 bills introduced this week, with most being regular shell bills that will probably get used somewhere down the road to sneak something through.

But there were a couple of bills that might be of interest to IL hunters.


Sponsored by Senator Neil Anderson
Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Wildlife Code. Provides that it shall be unlawful for any person to trap or to hunt with gun, dog, dog and gun, or bow and arrow, gray fox, red fox, raccoon, weasel, mink, muskrat, badger, bobcat, and opossum except during the open season which will be set annually by the Director to start between 12:01 a.m., November 1 and 12:00 midnight on November 10, and close no earlier than 12:00 midnight on February 15 but not later than 12:00 midnight on March 31, with start and close dates both inclusive (rather than between 12:01 a.m., November 1 to 12:00 midnight February 15, both inclusive). Deletes a provision providing that the season limit for river otter shall not exceed 5 river otters per person per season. Provides that any person who violates the provisions of the Section, including administrative rules, shall be guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.


Sponsored by Representatives Jerry Costello, II - Brandon W. Phelps - Sue Scherer
Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Wildlife Code. Provides that any person may use a crossbow to take any animal during the appropriate archery season. Effective immediately.

Not surprising to see Rep’s Phelps and Costello running more crossbow bills.  Is this the year it finally passes?


Sponsored by Rep. Terri Bryant
Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Wildlife Code. Provides that a person shall not establish or use a blind or pit for the taking of wild ducks within 100 yards of the boundary of property on which the blind or pit is located without consent from the landowner of the adjacent property. Provides that the provision only applies to property located in Alexander County, Union County, Williamson County, or Jackson County. Effective immediately.


Can someone explain what the first bill means and how is it different from the current law? Why is there need for for this change?

Posted by Eagle Phil on February 05

Near as I can tell, it looks like it could change the start date of the season for furbearers. Instead of being set in stone as a Nov. 1 opener, the Director could set the start date any time between Nov 1 and Nov 10. Maybe to ensure a weekend opener? Then it removes the season limit on otters.

Posted by Kevin C on February 05

I’m from the old school on crossbows. I am NOT against crossbows as the law is set up now. It helps the older hunters to keep hunting and hunters with med problems. The crossbow does give the hunter a advantage. Think about what the real reason for the change. More options for hunters, sell more permits (money) or keep the herd in decline. JUST MY OPINION.

Posted by deer1 on February 05

WILDLIFE-DEER BLIND OR PIT BILL -  I’m surprised a similar bill has not been proposed for deer stands.

Posted by BIGPOND on February 06

Kevin C,

Do you have any background information on HB1788?

Any known blogs?

Any chance it passes?

Who do I call and gripe too?

Posted by Gobble Gobble on February 06

I’m kind of surprised that a Deer Stand equivalent to 1788 doesn’t exist already!  I kind of wish it did actually. 
They should just open Archery up to crowbows.  It probably IS an advantage - but then, so is in-line muzzle loader hunting compared to cap n ball or shotgun slugs.

Posted by RiverRat on February 06

Ok, just got done reading the full text of senate bill SB709, and I have to say the way it is written is bad, and that reason is it does away with the running season for Hounds men. It will limit the hounds men to running during the kill season only.  This will certainly cause a problem with those that are affiliated with the coyote, and coon hunting groups, and clubs, as it should. Those groups holding night hunts, and field trials will be left out, not good. Will make it real hard to train pups if only limited to the kill season. 

If this is a attempt by the trapping community to just change the bag limits upon otter, then I suggest another approach, because language like this will only drive a wedge between the groups, and there is no reason for that. This bill needs amended ASAP.

I find it very funny at times how in the legislative process that language comes out of LRB, and how big of a problem they have getting the language submitted correctly. Most of the bills I have had any dealings with seem to always need some adjustment due to LRB inability to correctly submit the language that was submitted. Is it an oversight upon their part, or a deliberate attempt to change language to meet certain peoples agenda ?? I would say oversight, but it seems to be a continued problem, so one has to think at some point that there might be some true intent.

I’m not saying that is what happen with SB709 this time, but I would not be surprised one little bit. I hope this is the case, because I just don’t think the true intent of those seeking to change the limits upon otter would seek to limit other sportsmen within our state, at least I hope not.


Posted by Ringtailtrapper on February 06

A couple of years ago they tried to pass a bill for deer hunting like 1788.  I hunt on leased property in Pike County. When I told our landlord about this proposed law, his response was “I pay property taxes from fence line to fence line.  My hunters will hunt anywhere on my property that they want to.  I don’t need permission from neighbors to hunt my land.”  The problem with this type of law, is while 50 yards might seem to be reasonable, once this type of law is established, what’s to keep anti-hunters from pushing a 100 yard, 200 yard, 400 yard, or whatever rule which could shut out some people from hunting their own land. There are already rules for hunting within certain yardages of occupied houses without permission, that is enough. When I was looking at buying hunting land several years ago, many of the timber areas for sale were narrow strips of timber between fields, some only 200 or so yards wide.  This type of law, even only 50 yards, basically shuts down hunting on these tracts unless you get permission. If the neighbors don’t like hunting or are just jerks, people could lose the ability to hunt their own land.

Posted by bigalhunter on February 06

Sen. Bill SB641 introduced by Senator Linda Holmes is a very bad bill, in regards to its approach dealing with feral cat. It would legalize a procedure called TNR, or better know as Trap, Neuter, and release. I take acceptation to catching and making feral cat heathier, then releasing them back so they may continue to wreck havoc upon our wildlife populations. Yes there are many portion of the bill that have nothing to do with TNR, but overall this is something that they(Humane groups) have tried in the passed.

I bet Pheasants forever, QU, and the Illinois Audubon society would be dead set against this, as I know they have in the past. I also hope all conservation minded outdoorsmen/women would have something to say about this as well. Not a good idea to give some the ability to take an invasive species out of an ecosystem, and return it healthier than before. I say healthier, because you know they will immunize them against disease, thus giving them a better chance at survival, and a healthier return to praying upon our native wildlife species. So wrong on so many levels , and a slap in the face to those that preach and practice scientific wildlife management.


Posted by Ringtailtrapper on February 06

HB1788 will have trouble with landowner rights issues, and I would oppose this as well. We as trappers in the past have been a big target of legislation just like this, with set back distances for traps. I have no desire to tell a property owner how to manage their own lands, and language like this would open the door wide open for a whole list of other things, what would be next ?? Give and inch they take five miles, just give them the chance and see if I’m wrong. I know they may try to sell this as a safety issue, but they try the same thing with trapping, and many other activities, and not all of them are outdoors in nature. Bad legislation people.

Posted by Ringtailtrapper on February 06

crossbow should be allowed for entire archery season for disabilities and for older folks unable to use a reg bow. Since Illinois doesn’t care about anything but money the other capable folks should only be able to hunt crossbow during firearm season. Locked and loaded is same as point and shoot to me.
Archery should be shortened and firearm should be one weekend until Illinois herd gets back in certain Counties.

Posted by Buck-Man on February 09

I can see the reasoning behind 1788.  If I had property managed for waterfowl, I’d be tired of morons putting pits in on my line too.

Posted by bw on February 10

The State pretty much does the same thing in Woodford County with their river blind locations, but boy put one close to state line and their out there with their GPS.

Posted by BIGPOND on February 10

Not sure everyone is thinking about the treestand comments and what that would mean.  You really want to be told by the state that you can’t put a treestand within 100 yards of your property line/fence on property you own?  Seriously?  What about properties or parts of properties that are only 150 yards wide and a half mile long?  These properties do exist.  That owner wouldn’t be able to hunt one square inch of his/her property.  My personal property is only about 330 yards wide and a half mile long.  All I’d be able to hunt is the center unless I get permission from my neighbor to hunt my own land.  This would be an absolutely horrible idea.

Posted by Treehugger on February 10

Treehugger, you nailed it for sure. look I bet Farm Bureau will have something to say in regards to property rights, plus what may sound like a good idea for some is not for many more. The anti hunting/trapping community love these kind of regulations, and just water at the mouth when they see other sportsmen/women trying to impose them upon their own.

I ask everyone is the risk worth the reward ?? If you agree to this approach with dealing with duck blinds, or deer blinds near property lines, then are you willing to be regulated when it comes many other activities ?? What if you have a ground hog problem within lets say 100 yards of a property line, and you have been restricted from any hunting/ trapping, then what approach as a property owner will you take to resolve the problem legally ?? You better start asking hard question people, or you may find yourselves regulated to the point of beyond repair. Think people, just think.


Posted by Ringtailtrapper on February 11

Actually, I don’t see wording in the proposed bill saying anything at all about where you can put treestands.

Re read the bill.  It specifically addresses blinds and pits used for hunting ducks.  And it’s only for FOUR counties.

What cracks me up the most, is that there are a few on here who think those of us who complain about the deer herd are just being ridiculous.  They apparently have plenty of deer where they hunt, so they think noting needs to change.  And they are quick to contradict anything we say that portrays our deer herd in a negative light.

BUT….they are real quick to get their panties in a bunch and want phone numbers to call as soon as they find out they may have to move their pit off the property line.

Posted by bw on February 14

BW, try life as a trapper, and then realize almost everyone has no interest in the issues that effect you directly. Trappers are truly the original 1% group, but I have yet to ever meet a trapper the was one dimensional with their outdoor pursuits. Most every trapper either hunts, fishes, or enjoys the outdoors in many different ways, so I guess we fit into other groups as well.

1788 infringes upon property rights, and the trial lawyers will have no part of this. I have no desire to tell someone else how to manage their property, and I don’t want someone else telling me how to manage mine thank you. Legislation like this just opens the door for way more than any of us want, that I promise people. Yes nobody likes Morons, but why give the anti hunting groups a foot into regulating all of us down the road in a manner I’m gong to guarantee your not going to like down the road. Just live with the Moron, they will take care of themselves with time.


Posted by Ringtailtrapper on February 14

Log In :: Register as a new member