Giant Deer of Iowa are rapidly becoming a past memory

[Sligh1]

Winke's Southern Iowa farm was going down hill before cell cams became as prevalent as they are now, fwiw.

Agree 100%. EHD & him letting a whole lotta things go and get out of hand by far were bigger issues. I went through every drop of his farm with him & lots of projects & things to keep up on that needed done. He was just burnt out & let things go. He got a fresh start now in NE iowa so be interesting to see if he turns that place around.
His old S iowa farm has gotten way better since he’s sold it. Sometimes some new blood & new motivation are needed on a farm. They turned it around big time.

 

[booneriverbucks]

^^^ Perfect example of how things can eventually turn around without major regulatory changes.

 

[abell3]

It's simple. If we get rid of cells cams we would reduce the number of hunters. ( It becomes harder to hunt and know what's out there). We reduce the number of bucks getting killed off instant picture messages which would equal more 3,4 and 5 year olds walking.

A lot of comments and views in this section which is great! I think we all agree Iowa's deer quality has gotten worse. If we all agree surely we can make progress and start somewhere. I vote getting rid of cell cams and make killing a mature buck a little bit harder again. My 2 cents...

 

[seven twenty]

Now - again- am I advocating for 1 buck? Not now and not necessarily. Maybe we do say “2 buck limit for any person” so at least there’s a mental obstacle on locking up all this land or thinking “heck, I’ll shoot that buck because I also have 2 more buck tags”. There’s far more to a max Buck limit than just the # of bucks killed - it’s far far deeper than that and far more important things come from that limitation. Let’s hypothetically say it’s “2 bucks max” (or even 1 buck). For this let’s say “2 bucks”…. Who and why does any single hunter need to shoot more than 2 bucks & _____ (unlimited) does per year”? No one needs that. Zero. & by saying that - yes, say u live in a spot with few deer….. this means if u wanted- you could drive 1-2 hours to a zone or county that has plenty of doe tags available if you wanted.
So- 2 bucks & say I traveled to shoot 3 does….. & had 4 months to do it….. BOTTOM LINE ?: HOW ISN’T THAT ENOUGH FOR ANY HUNTER????????

I agree, nobody needs more than 2 bucks. If we were to lobby for a 2 buck limit, what tag would you like to see or suggest be eliminated? There were only 215 +/- hunters that used 3 tags on bucks last year. That is less than 1/2% of the total bucks harvested. Is eliminating a tag really going to affect much? Maybe make it a 2 deer limit and address two fronts, bucks & population at the same time.

Going after the LO tag isn’t going to go over well. You saw that when the ISC tried to get the acreage limit through earlier this year. A 2 buck limit across the board with LO’s still getting their discounted tag would probably get little resistance. I honestly don’t know a good solution when going after tags.

Population is the first thing that needs addressed and while the DNR is trying, they need to cut back on doe tags in more areas. Even then, with the way they are in “pockets” due to lack of habitat, locked up ground, etc…, it’s going to take more. Updating their survey procedures would help with identifying those areas I’d think. You can’t just drive down the same roads every year and expect it to be accurate. Too much change in environment isn’t taken into account.

As for how many deer a family needs, who are we to judge. With the economy and beef prices, I’m sure an extra 100lbs of burger in the freezer could help quite a few. For the ones that can’t hunt their own, the Hush program also helps a lot of people.

I think we need to decide whether the bigger issue is a lack of deer or a lack of wall hangars. It seems like a lot of the frustration is fewer “wall hangars”. Addressing the lack of deer itself will solve that. My first tags were “buck” only, maybe more areas need to go back to that. It obviously got us to a great point at one time.

 

[booneriverbucks]

You’d hope it wouldn’t be too hard to make a reg that says no hunter may harvest more than two antlered deer per season regardless of tags issued.. For those that doubt it’s effectiveness we have to realize that all regulations only limit the honest hunters willing to follow them. It would be no different.

 

[booneriverbucks]

Also could make LOT tags count as a hunters 2nd anysex tag and it can be used during any season on their property but they can designate a gun season where it is valid statewide like every one elses gun tag.

 

[Sligh1]

I agree, nobody needs more than 2 bucks. If we were to lobby for a 2 buck limit, what tag would you like to see or suggest be eliminated? There were only 215 +/- hunters that used 3 tags on bucks last year. That is less than 1/2% of the total bucks harvested. Is eliminating a tag really going to affect much? Maybe make it a 2 deer limit and address two fronts, bucks & population at the same time.

Going after the LO tag isn’t going to go over well. You saw that when the ISC tried to get the acreage limit through earlier this year. A 2 buck limit across the board with LO’s still getting their discounted tag would probably get little resistance. I honestly don’t know a good solution when going after tags.

Population is the first thing that needs addressed and while the DNR is trying, they need to cut back on doe tags in more areas. Even then, with the way they are in “pockets” due to lack of habitat, locked up ground, etc…, it’s going to take more. Updating their survey procedures would help with identifying those areas I’d think. You can’t just drive down the same roads every year and expect it to be accurate. Too much change in environment isn’t taken into account.

As for how many deer a family needs, who are we to judge. With the economy and beef prices, I’m sure an extra 100lbs of burger in the freezer could help quite a few. For the ones that can’t hunt their own, the Hush program also helps a lot of people.

I think we need to decide whether the bigger issue is a lack of deer or a lack of wall hangars. It seems like a lot of the frustration is fewer “wall hangars”. Addressing the lack of deer itself will solve that. My first tags were “buck” only, maybe more areas need to go back to that. It obviously got us to a great point at one time.

Agree. The best way is to put an across the board rule in place & keep everything else exactly the same. “No more than 2 bucks per person shot in the state of lowa”.
Please all- read my previous post on the last page. It’s NOT “well this is how many buck tags get filled”. It absolutely translates into far more getting passed on that would have been shot. Creating a cycle or snowball of more & better age class deer that otherwise would have been shot. It keeps dudes from tying as much land up, etc. Explained in post a page or earlier.

Here’s my fundamental problem with the “GENERAL PUBLIC” …. Once you give any person or group something - as stupid or foolish as it SOMETIMES is…. It becomes so hard to remove anything foolish or dial things back when or if we head in wrong direction. I don’t care if it’s ANY government spending - to letting illegals get super comfy with no issues to perpetual food stamps for the dude that just doesn’t wanna work. Or …. Any weapon, technology, TAG or dialing back of TOO LIBERAL REGULATIONS. Point: if we almost all agree things are heading in wrong direction- some kinda change is needed right??? & yes- maybe it is just: “see if population can grow”. Easy enough & fair enough. BUT- u go any other direction on any issue “I object!!! You can’t do that to me. Here’s why it won’t help!!” ANYTHING!!!!!
I will admit something here that really bothered me last year….. the Legislator, Law Enforcement & DNR had countless problems with the “I have 2 acres so I get a 3rd buck tag”. the complaints, abuses & various issues on top and: THAT’S NOT WHY THE TAG WAS CREATED!!!! It was meant for farmers & it TRULY was meant as an “any sex tag” more for population & crop damage issues. We all know it became a TROPHY TOOL. & the amount of guys with a “5 acre yard” buying it & hunting other areas & abuses/issues CO’s needed help on- substantial. The list is too long to go over. So- they proposed the law. ISC said “we’d support you and see if we get some compromise”. Finally came back to like “ok, let’s bump it to 10 acres minimum & work some new registration of land verification language in there”…. Etc etc. A handful of guys lost their minds. Why??? Because SOME are not willing to give up ANYTHING they are “entitled to”- even shooting a 3rd buck if they owned less than 10 acres.
**& if no one is filling the tags- why is it that big of deal to remove the 3rd tag?
Law & legislator wanted it >40 acres & had to be producing a crop, etc. “Oh no, you can’t do that”. Drove it down to 10 acres. “Well now u favor the wealthy guy over me!!!” (Because I need to shoot 3 bucks in my 3 acres & u can’t take that away). I’d gladly remove the 3rd buck tag completely!!!!! But laws are passed by COMPROMISE!!! Why it got dropped down to 10 acres + tweaks in law. Getting it closer to what LO tag was meant to be for when written. NOPE! SOME dudes had a complete melt down. Because: they viewed the change only about THEM! & not the resource, not the issues CO’s have to deal with, not because it could help the state as a whole. It’s gonna have to come down to this: is the discussion only or mainly about ME or is it about: the resource, future, PROBLEMS we all know we have, other hunters, etc. I don’t mean to pick on that change & I know some on here opposed it. I mean this more as an example of how changing ANYTHING causes a group to raise heck….
whatever the law, reg or issue at hand ….. some dudes are gonna have a tantrum. But- if the vast majority of people & the resource are being hurt or degraded…. Some choices by adults in the room will need be made- whatever it is in general.

 

[Muskrat24]

Agree. The best way is to put an across the board rule in place & keep everything else exactly the same. “No more than 2 bucks per person shot in the state of lowa”.
Please all- read my previous post on the last page. It’s NOT “well this is how many buck tags get filled”. It absolutely translates into far more getting passed on that would have been shot. Creating a cycle or snowball of more & better age class deer that otherwise would have been shot. It keeps dudes from tying as much land up, etc. Explained in post a page or earlier.

Here’s my fundamental problem with the “GENERAL PUBLIC” …. Once you give any person or group something - as stupid or foolish as it SOMETIMES is…. It becomes so hard to remove anything foolish or dial things back when or if we head in wrong direction. I don’t care if it’s ANY government spending - to letting illegals get super comfy with no issues to perpetual food stamps for the dude that just doesn’t wanna work. Or …. Any weapon, technology, TAG or dialing back of TOO LIBERAL REGULATIONS. Point: if we almost all agree things are heading in wrong direction- some kinda change is needed right??? & yes- maybe it is just: “see if population can grow”. Easy enough & fair enough. BUT- u go any other direction on any issue “I object!!! You can’t do that to me. Here’s why it won’t help!!” ANYTHING!!!!!
I will admit something here that really bothered me last year….. the Legislator, Law Enforcement & DNR had countless problems with the “I have 2 acres so I get a 3rd buck tag”. the complaints, abuses & various issues on top and: THAT’S NOT WHY THE TAG WAS CREATED!!!! It was meant for farmers & it TRULY was meant as an “any sex tag” more for population & crop damage issues. We all know it became a TROPHY TOOL. & the amount of guys with a “5 acre yard” buying it & hunting other areas & abuses/issues CO’s needed help on- substantial. The list is too long to go over. So- they proposed the law. ISC said “we’d support you and see if we get some compromise”. Finally came back to like “ok, let’s bump it to 10 acres minimum & work some new registration of land verification language in there”…. Etc etc. A handful of guys lost their minds. Why??? Because SOME are not willing to give up ANYTHING they are “entitled to”- even shooting a 3rd buck if they owned less than 10 acres.
**& if no one is filling the tags- why is it that big of deal to remove the 3rd tag?
Law & legislator wanted it >40 acres & had to be producing a crop, etc. “Oh no, you can’t do that”. Drove it down to 10 acres. “Well now u favor the wealthy guy over me!!!” (Because I need to shoot 3 bucks in my 3 acres & u can’t take that away). I’d gladly remove the 3rd buck tag completely!!!!! But laws are passed by COMPROMISE!!! Why it got dropped down to 10 acres + tweaks in law. Getting it closer to what LO tag was meant to be for when written. NOPE! SOME dudes had a complete melt down. Because: they viewed the change only about THEM! & not the resource, not the issues CO’s have to deal with, not because it could help the state as a whole. It’s gonna have to come down to this: is the discussion only or mainly about ME or is it about: the resource, future, PROBLEMS we all know we have, other hunters, etc. I don’t mean to pick on that change & I know some on here opposed it. I mean this more as an example of how changing ANYTHING causes a group to raise heck….
whatever the law, reg or issue at hand ….. some dudes are gonna have a tantrum. But- if the vast majority of people & the resource are being hurt or degraded…. Some choices by adults in the room will need be made- whatever it is in general.

Skip, explain to me how reducing the number of any sex tags has anything to do with the amount of acres someone is willing to tie up. NR are tying up ground with one tag every 4,5,6 even 7 years now. At how many acres of ownership or lease does a person stop buying ground or leasing per any sex tag? Limited correlation and if that change has an impact on trophy quality increasing the minimal impact will be far offset. I know to never speak in absolutes but increasing population will fix all of these problems on this thread. Rob stated that DNR is planning to keep herd where it is, you mentioned DNR is trying to increase population, based on actions DNR is marginally interested in increasing herd size, decimated areas yes (lowered/eliminated antlerless tags). Southern/SC Iowa doesn’t appear any interest in increasing the herd. I get it that the DNR response to this is that deer numbers can rebound quickly, EHD and whatever else is going on has kept a lid on herd expansion. If the population does not increase where we are is where we are going to be for trophy quality. The average Joe will not see a difference in quality of hunting when a few extra bucks make it another year older by eliminating cell cams or an extra buck tag. Open to rebuttal on this but I’m not following. I get the fact that people were taking advantage of the <10 ac land ownership. SMALL percentage are killing three anyway so COs are chasing their tales and should be after the poachers in your area. 213 bucks harvested on third licenses. Maybe they tagged their first or second buck with LOT but ONLY 213 shot the third buck and some of those were likely legit on larger acreage. So the same number of bucks could have been shot with statewide tags maybe not two in archery or two in gun but two any sex licenses without a LOT. The suggested changes will not have a noticeable impact to quality IMO, increase the herd and the math works, more bucks on landscape and more get through hunting seasons. DNR has control over this so are they managing the resource and hunter satisfaction or caving to farmers, FB and insurance companies?

 

[booneriverbucks]

THAT’S NOT WHY THE TAG WAS CREATED!!!! It was meant for farmers & it TRULY was meant as an “any sex tag” more for population & crop damage issues. We all know it became a TROPHY TOOL.

This is exactly why the bill was bad!! Absolutely no additional requirements to be considered a “farmer”. Just a straight up acreage limit. There were plenty of guys talking about the deer habitat they own,the taxes they pay, how much land it takes to justify their third buck tag etc. When in reality nobody “needs” a third buck tag. Hardly anyone, even on here, would admit it was created for FARMERS, as in people who make the MAJORITY of their income from farming. When there is no additional agricultural requirements along with the bill it does just become a “Trophy Tag” for recreational property owners who own enough. If everyone was limited to two bucks a year it would stop the complaining on this subject at least.

 

[newfarmer]

This is exactly why the bill was bad!! Absolutely no additional requirements to be considered a “farmer”. Just a straight up acreage limit. There were plenty of guys talking about the deer habitat they own,the taxes they pay, how much land it takes to justify their third buck tag etc. When in reality nobody “needs” a third buck tag. Hardly anyone, even on here would admit it was created for FARMERS, as in people who make the MAJORITY of their income from farming. When there is no additional agricultural requirements along with the bill it does just become a “Trophy Tag” for recreational property owners who own enough. If everyone was limited to two bucks a year it would stop the complaining on this subject at least.

Ive said it for a long time (even though I own several small pieces) its either get rid of the LOT all together, especially since they still do depredation- or leave them alone at this point. All youre going to do is divide people if you put an acreage amount- and then those people are going to push for crossbows then. I have 17 acres, do specialty crops, could get depredation tags- I absolutely wouldnt. Heck, Ive never shot 3 bucks ever (even during shotgun party hunting).. I havent even been in the stand this year so theres that too...but either way, either eliminate them or leave them alone. Acreage limits is a hard pill- There are plenty of people making money on smaller pieces than a person thinks. I have one piece that is 7 acres of a specialty crop that makes a substantial amount of money- enough that if I didnt have 2 daughters I pry wouldnt even have to have a day job..

 

[booneriverbucks]

I have one piece that is 7 acres of a specialty crop that makes a substantial amount of money- enough that if I didnt have 2 daughters I pry wouldnt even have to have a day job..

Very cool!! I’d ask what it was but that’d contribute to it being not quite as much of a specialty anymore and would ruin the market! Lol.

 

[Muskrat24]

Very cool!! I’d ask what it was but that’d contribute to it being not quite as much of a specialty anymore and would ruin the market! Lol.

Could be one of those specialty crops that he can’t admit to… LOL JK

 

[booneriverbucks]

Could be one of those specialty crops that he can’t admit to… LOL JK

I have a neighbor who spent a little time in prison for crops like that.. still has one heck of a fenced in garden but i’m a little scared to see what he’s actually growing in there now. Good point to bring up! All crops grown for LOT tag qualification must be sold per bushel and not per kilo/ounce or whatever other measurement is used for “certain” CASH crops

 

[Sligh1]

I do like how 3 above posts make your point. Using logic, your POV & likely what a lot of others might think. I ALWAYS appreciate this!!!! We disagree but u guys can come at it with logic & hunters have respectful debate. I also appreciate hearing POV from logical folks because we know any POV (good or bad) is going to be filtered through the lunatics, social media idiots & any person that’s been deer hunting more than 3 times being a full fledged expert on any topic. . But thank you - seriously.

I’m just gonna say this part to be clear: this impacts me 0. I have nothing to gain or lose here & the reason I fight for this is for others & the resource. Period. Costs me $ to do all this & probably gets me in some debates & tough issues I could avoid if I said nothing.


QUESTION ABOVE: “ how is this going to improve quality & access? Especially when 213 bucks are shot on 3rd tag?”

Part of this is not data but since we all around this non stop for decades we understand how some things work …. MULTIPLE TAGS… guys are extremely quick to pick off a buck as they have more in their back pocket. The difference from Iowa to KS on willingness to pull a trigger is wildly different. I probably hear this a hundred times year “got a buck down, at least the pressure is off now. Now I’ll try to hunt for _______”. The amount of guys I know that tie up 5-20x the amount of land they need is growing. If they were limited to 1 buck tag (or 2) there would be: more older bucks, less need to tie up all this land. Less desire to tie up all this land since tagged out far faster. Far pickier hunters. It’s not just saving “213 deer” OR the thousands that are probably killed on 2nd buck tag …. I would strongly argue THOUSANDS more bucks statewide would be passed as guys got far pickier on what they shoot. I personally believe the amount shooting 3 bucks is way more than that. 2 bucks as well - tons. I personally believe, without data or proof- party tagging, not calling tags in, urban bucks or guys just shutting their mouths- way more than that getting shot. I can think of a large handful of guys I know that use all 3 tags on bomber 3-4 year olds. It’s not a lot but they for sure exist. Totally legally. If you spend time in IN, OH, KS…. That one element of “I ain’t shooting that buck, I wanna hold out for better, older, bigger” is huge. A lot of those guys will go “I passed up a 3 year old bomber waiting. Didn’t end up filling a tag this year on a buck.” That # is in the thousands - no doubt in my mind.
I will ask this ? In reverse….. if few are filling 3 tags- why is it that big of deal if you couldn’t do it????

Right now I probably have heard from or know hundreds to maybe thousands of folks that won’t be filling 1 tag this year. 0 bucks. While we debate 3+. If I had to guess…. 50% of that is: ehd, low population or no where good to go (very limited). I’d say the other 50% are “dude, every last good young buck is getting whacked (the ones that are left after the ehd or low population: “still gotta fill my tag!” & “compared to previous years - there is zero I want to hunt”. There’s countless thousands of guys disheartened at the condition of our resource & how bad things have got. “This is not going in right direction”. I said 50/50 and a lot of this intertwines but u get my point.

The actual extra buck tag is also mainly about dnr & law enforcement & legislator desires. They are getting hundreds of cases state wide on abuse, misuse & even complaints from hunters that they wanted it fixed. Long discussion & why this was something I supported but didn’t start or propose. But- the only midwestern state (maybe exceptions but rare if so) we can shoot 3 to _____? & that can’t even be a topic of adjustment. While other states literally have 1 buck & most of those hunters wouldn’t want it brought back to 2. Nor should they as it’s best thing those states have done & literally saves them from themselves.

Last- I can make an argument AGAINST any changes or for adding any madness we know has ruined other states. Or contend that any issue will divide us….. “Cell cams help guys age deer. Pass young bucks. Don’t hunt parcels if bucks not on camera when they likely are. Stop trespassing”. “Crossbows make hunters more accurate”. “Rifles all fall allow for areas with crop damage to quickly & efficiently control deer numbers”. “Government should have no say on what happens on my private land, how I hunt, when I hunt or by what method”. On & on. There’s divide on any issue. Any. Conservative regs are the ONLY proven thing to work.

A degraded resource heading in the wrong direction will divide us the most. A quality resource across the landscape will unite us the most. Iowa is hurting. Yes- I repeat a billion times- a lot is population & ehd but a lot is compounding it too. Most of public “we’re going in wrong direction” & that fact right there divides more people than any reg u can talk about. We are really hurting due to: “death by a thousand cuts” - complex layer of things. One remedy is repairing some of those cuts. If we don’t - all the bigger issues: access, age class, having a quality experience & iowa being “one of the last great places” will dwindle. & im willing to look at any issue or topic or have any debate so this trend we are on improves.

 

[booneriverbucks]

^^You have the platform to do it! Baby steps! Divide as few people as possible. Two bucks per person max is a great place to start and doesn’t single out one group vs. the other and does not erode multiple tradtions many care about in this state nearly as much. It’s irrelevant whether we agree with them on deer management or not. Their opinions and votes still count. It is undeniable historically,factually,statistically whatever that one buck leads to or starts from the libereralization of regs. The guys that like bow season should keep it that way. The guys that like their gun season should continue to enjoy it how they always have without major changes.. crossbow season for all is the gift we get if we get too greedy.

 

[iowaqdm]

One point that cannot be missed when talking about states that have gone to 1 buck. Or say we went from 3 to 2 or just “in no terms can any hunter tag more than 2 bucks per season in iowa” (urban, LO, party hunting, etc)…. It is NOT about how many bucks are taken on extra tags or even a precise indicator of how many bucks will get saved.
Let me explain…..
I mentioned this a bit before but I’ll go over a bit better …. Indiana for example had this debate 20 years ago. Access issues, ratios getting out of whack & age class was getting clobbered. So- some fought for 1 buck. The folks against it said SAME things. “But only 10-20% of hunters even shoot 2 bucks. So it won’t save that many!!!” They changed it. It’s NOT the 10-20% of the bucks that got saved that made the HUGE difference!!!!! …., it was 1) guys got super picky & passed far more young bucks. 2) those 10-20% didn’t get shot (yes, an element but not the main issue). 3) guys who were shooting a “buck just so they got one (& the 2nd one I’ll be picky on)” didn’t shoot that first buck “just to get one”. They started thinking “oh, maybe I don’t shoot that 1-2 year old since “THAT’S IT!!!!”…… 4) which lead to many guys actually not shooting a buck but tagging a doe instead (like- ok, I’ll pass the 1 or 2 year old waiting for bigger & ill shoot a doe for freezer). It decreased the amount of young bucks shot immensely & increased the balance of age class drastically. 5) far less land got tied up. Leasing slowed (not stopped but slowed). Guys didn’t need to tie up “5 farms” as they only could shoot one buck. 6) their buck to doe ratio improved (was a problem - young bucks & piles of does). 6) in like 5 years they went from something like 18th in B&C (their herd & system was a mess) to #4 in B&C with a whole lot of issues enhanced. 7) self regulation on wide scale NEVER works. NEVER in history. Small scale & few folks here or there- sure. Large scale there’s no time in HISTORY it has worked. Tight CONSERVATIVE regulations are the only thing proven to work.
The same result in KS & OH with 1 buck. It saves those states. It makes them great.
I totally get the cull buck issue!!!!!! Totally understand!!!!!!! BUT….. it can be solved. We solve it on our KS farm (while we live in iowa). We have 5x as many guys we trust (dads bringing their sons out or locals we trust with no where to go) that will shoot cull/bullies or mature bucks vs the amount that needs shot. It absolutely is a NET winner in OH, KY & KS. Cull, mature bucks & bullies is the only downside I can see and there’s plenty of solutions with a 4 month long season IMO. Last on cull bucks: most iowa guys aren’t shooting them anyways!!! Even with 2+ tags “don’t wanna put my tag on that”. It’s not about the tags- it’s about the desire & ambition to get it done.

Now - again- am I advocating for 1 buck? Not now and not necessarily. Maybe we do say “2 buck limit for any person” so at least there’s a mental obstacle on locking up all this land or thinking “heck, I’ll shoot that buck because I also have 2 more buck tags”. There’s far more to a max Buck limit than just the # of bucks killed - it’s far far deeper than that and far more important things come from that limitation. Let’s hypothetically say it’s “2 bucks max” (or even 1 buck). For this let’s say “2 bucks”…. Who and why does any single hunter need to shoot more than 2 bucks & _____ (unlimited) does per year”? No one needs that. Zero. & by saying that - yes, say u live in a spot with few deer….. this means if u wanted- you could drive 1-2 hours to a zone or county that has plenty of doe tags available if you wanted.
So- 2 bucks & say I traveled to shoot 3 does….. & had 4 months to do it…..BOTTOM LINE ?: HOW ISN’T THAT ENOUGH FOR ANY HUNTER????????

Skip,
It is less than 5% who shot 2 bucks last year, 1 out of 20 hunters. And only 201 people last year shot 3. So that is around 0.25% killed three or 1 out of every 400 hunters. The guys that are going to be super picky already are. Which is why the herd is being high graded. The others kill 1 1/2 old bucks (50% of our buck harvest). I highly doubt those guys are going to all of a sudden get picky going to one buck. They are meat hunters not horn hunters. Besides, the last thing you should want are the guys that are currently targeting 1 1/2 year olds to start high grading as well. You think it is hard to get a ten pointer to 5, 6 now just wait. Going to one buck would just prevent guys from taking culls with their second tag or LO tag which there are more and more cull bucks every year due to the high grading. It will do nothing to improve age structure or trophy bucks. It will intensify high grading just like the Amana Colonies experienced.

Also the message you are pushing with “who and why does any single hunter need to kill more than two bucks when there are (unlimited) doe opportunities”. Obviously, with only .25% killing three bucks that is as close to zero as you can get. That is 200/80,000 hunters. So it is really a non-issue. I guess what is your goal??? To just be able to say the ISC got legislation passed to stop anyone from taking three bucks? For what? A pat on the back? To save 200 bucks Statewide? That won’t change the Iowa deer hunting experience for anyone. Let’s work on things that will make a difference for everyone.

But more importantly I take issue with the message you’re implying with (unlimited) doe opportunities. Just drive two hours away to a county with tags and kill 3. That is the exact opposite of what you or anyone else should be encouraging. The population is currently down Statewide. If the population is down in your area by all means quit shooting does there. But don’t just jump in a truck and drive two hours away to kill (unlimited) does in a county just because there are tags. Guys in that county are hopefully making sacrifices by not shooting does to help improve their population/hunt quality. Those guys you’re encouraging to drive in and wack does just because there are tags available are just making that county’s problem even worse and hurting the local guys attempts to improve what they have.

Just because a county has extra doe tags allocated doesn’t mean they have a surplus of does. In any county there are pockets of management or controlled hunting that will have good populations. However, if those guys who drive two hours to hunt “x county” weren’t invited by someone like yourself to come hunt on private property that have higher populations. They just end up on private that the landowner that lets everyone hunt because he wants all deer gone. Or just as bad end up going to our State Forest land or public ground that is already hurting from a population standpoint. Ultimately, they just drive the population even lower on those properties and the area in general. Those are the properties that the average local guys hunt. Think about the average guy hunting for himself or trying to get his or someone else’s kid on a deer. Or a guy from two hours away with no deer that has to drive that far to increase his chance at a good buck. Or maybe it’s the NR that waited five years to draw a tag for Iowa so they can have a chance at an Iowa giant. Those guys want to hunt property that will give them a decent opportunity. Encouraging guys to roll into another area two hours away (that more than likely they don’t know the population status of or if the area got hit hard with EHD) just because there are tags available to pound (unlimited) does thus driving the population even lower doesn’t help anyone. That includes the neighboring property owners.

I would bet that with the exception of the highly managed neighborhoods with abundant populations, the message should be don’t shoot any does for at least the next two years Statewide. Now if your farm and local area has abundant deer then don’t feel guilty shooting one. Because there are definitely pockets or neighborhoods that have abundant deer numbers. Or for a kid’s or someone’s first deer…no problem! Go ahead and take one. Otherwise, everyone else should try to hold off shooting does.

Years ago during the shed buck season I know of several groups that would drive “down” from 2-3 hours away and kill 25 to 75 does in a 3 day weekend and did that year after year just because they could. Then dropped them off at a HUSH locker, with zero regard for the herd or other hunters in the area. Now everyone stands around and wonders why our deer herd is in the shape it is in and where did all the deer and quality bucks we had go? The answer is obvious, and it is not due to cell cams.

When you have the herd population driven down to the tipping point where high grading actually affects the top end quality and then add in several bouts of EHD that take out upper age class bucks. That in itself intensifies the high grading pressure on the remaining top end genetic bucks in the population. When you are at that tipping point, the only way out is to increase the population significantly and as fast as you can. The longer you drag it out the more the high grading will negatively affect the herd’s overall genetics.

I believe the message should be…
We need to collectively quit shooting does so we can get our population up. Don’t drive two hours away to a place you have no clue about how their population is doing and wack‘em and stack’em just because there are tags available. That kind of reckless abandon is why we are in the situation we are now. Everyone needs to take a step back. Assess your areas population and take the appropriate steps to get the population up to an appropriate level for your area and then try to keep it there.

Remember you can only control your actions but talk with everyone you know that hunts in your area and Iowa in general and encourage them to stop shooting does for a couple years. Take it upon yourself to pass the does, pass the young good genetic bucks, shoot Big Louie when he comes by and then take a cull buck or two off the landscape.

Skip’s question “BOTTOM LINE ?: HOW ISN’T THAT ENOUGH FOR ANY HUNTER????????”

In my opinion…I’d rather someone kill three bucks and pass the three does with us in our current situation. Those three does mean way more to the future quality of our deer herd than those three bucks do. The bucks are a short term play, the does are the long term play. Everyone gets focused on the short game of how can I be the first to get that one 160”+ I am hunting, when what they should be focused on is the long game of how do I get the population up to the point that I have multiple 160”+ deer to hunt each year.

Skip, I know you have guys chirping in this ear and then that ear about we need this changed, this stopped, this done and that done. I know you probably feel like you’re in a tough spot with ISC because you feel like you have to show something happening to produce some change to hang your hat on. When in reality we all need the ISC to stand guard like the IBA has and prevent crossbows in regular archery and keep NR tag allotments in check. The only change we absolutely need is to get the population up significantly and do everything we can to keep it there. We need to get the population up over 500,000 post season. That alone will add 75,000 more bucks and 75,000 more does to the landscape annually. If we could get the population even closer to 600,000 look out! We need to not worry about the 200 third bucks being killed and focus ISC efforts on getting our population up to at least 500,000 post season. That additional 150,000 deer equates to adding less than 3 deer per square mile. I know most areas of southern Iowa could easily add 10 additional deer per square mile without affecting habitat or causing too noticeable crop damage. Regardless of what part of the State the deer are added. Deer are great at adapting. They will find cover and food even if they have to bounce around during different times of the year.

The Indiana example keeps getting brought up but I feel like that is a terrible example. Indiana has had a population that has ranged from approximately 650,000-800,000 deer over the last 15 years. The State of Indiana is 1/3 smaller than Iowa. They kill approximately 120,000-125,000 deer compared to Iowa’s 100,000-110,000. They have 200,000 more bucks and 200,000 more does being added to the landscape every year than Iowa has and have basically the same number of deer harvested.

I will concede that their trophy production has gone up over the last 20 years since implementing one buck. But I would debate that it is not because of it. I would bet it would have increased anyway over the last 20 years due to increase management.

While you may be able to factually claim that their B&C or P&Y entries have gone up since implementing one buck, you can’t say factually it happened because of it. I guarantee that the number of guys implementing food plots, low pressure hunting tactics and controlled access has increased ten fold over the same 20 year time frame in Indiana. Just like it has in every Midwest State. So I would recommend considering that before jumping to conclusions about the impact of the one buck policy.

One question for to you to think about…

Where would Iowa be ranked if our population had stayed up at 700,000 since 2008 and what would our quality be like?

My answer to that question would be…If our deer population would have stayed between 650,000-750,000 since 2008 we wouldn’t even be having this discussion right now and as far as record books entries Iowa would be top three in both books every year, year in and year out despite our lack of habitat.

Here is one last question for everyone to think about.

What does Kansas, Ohio, and Indiana have going for them right now that Iowa doesn’t?

Hint: It is not a regulation. Because Iowa has the best regulations and season structure hands down.

All three have deer populations estimates for 2024 around or over 700,000.

Kansas-700,000
Ohio-800,000
Indiana-700,000

It is a numbers game! You want trophy bucks. You have to add so many bucks annually to the landscape that you can’t help but offset the high grading. Otherwise, you won’t be able to stop the continuous decline in top end quality bucks.

 

[iowaqdm]

As I have previously mentioned. If ISC wants to make some changes to regulations. Let’s get rid of party hunting. That will save literally thousands of bucks annually. Plus, addresses Skip’s point of guys shooting numerous bucks. Easy argument…we make kids fill their own youth tags, even during gun 1&2. Why shouldn’t adults be held to the same standard. Plus it stops guys filling tags for their wives, sister and grandma.

Late Muzzleloader season is for bows, crossbows and muzzleloaders only. No smokeless muzzleloaders, no pistols unless they are muzzleloader pistols.

Regular pistols and straight wall pistols are only allowed in gun 1&2.

I would like to see antlerless quotas dropped to no more than 500 in any county for the next two years. Landowners still get their doe tags and LO anysex tag so FB can’t complain too much about the antlerless quotas being decreased. Mainly because farmers will also have the depredation program still available for guys with excessive crop damage.

 

[Sligh1]

Skip,
It is less than 5% who shot 2 bucks last year, 1 out of 20 hunters. And only 201 people last year shot 3. So that is around 0.25% killed three or 1 out of every 400 hunters. The guys that are going to be super picky already are. Which is why the herd is being high graded. The others kill 1 1/2 old bucks (50% of our buck harvest). I highly doubt those guys are going to all of a sudden get picky going to one buck. They are meat hunters not horn hunters. Besides, the last thing you should want are the guys that are currently targeting 1 1/2 year olds to start high grading as well. You think it is hard to get a ten pointer to 5, 6 now just wait. Going to one buck would just prevent guys from taking culls with their second tag or LO tag which there are more and more cull bucks every year due to the high grading. It will do nothing to improve age structure or trophy bucks. It will intensify high grading just like the Amana Colonies experienced.

Also the message you are pushing with “who and why does any single hunter need to kill more than two bucks when there are (unlimited) doe opportunities”. Obviously, with only .25% killing three bucks that is as close to zero as you can get. That is 200/80,000 hunters. So it is really a non-issue. I guess what is your goal??? To just be able to say the ISC got legislation passed to stop anyone from taking three bucks? For what? A pat on the back? To save 200 bucks Statewide? That won’t change the Iowa deer hunting experience for anyone. Let’s work on things that will make a difference for everyone.

But more importantly I take issue with the message you’re implying with (unlimited) doe opportunities. Just drive two hours away to a county with tags and kill 3. That is the exact opposite of what you or anyone else should be encouraging. The population is currently down Statewide. If the population is down in your area by all means quit shooting does there. But don’t just jump in a truck and drive two hours away to kill (unlimited) does in a county just because there are tags. Guys in that county are hopefully making sacrifices by not shooting does to help improve their population/hunt quality. Those guys you’re encouraging to drive in and wack does just because there are tags available are just making that county’s problem even worse and hurting the local guys attempts to improve what they have.

Just because a county has extra doe tags allocated doesn’t mean they have a surplus of does. In any county there are pockets of management or controlled hunting that will have good populations. However, if those guys who drive two hours to hunt “x county” weren’t invited by someone like yourself to come hunt on private property that have higher populations. They just end up on private that the landowner that lets everyone hunt because he wants all deer gone. Or just as bad end up going to our State Forest land or public ground that is already hurting from a population standpoint. Ultimately, they just drive the population even lower on those properties and the area in general. Those are the properties that the average local guys hunt. Think about the average guy hunting for himself or trying to get his or someone else’s kid on a deer. Or a guy from two hours away with no deer that has to drive that far to increase his chance at a good buck. Or maybe it’s the NR that waited five years to draw a tag for Iowa so they can have a chance at an Iowa giant. Those guys want to hunt property that will give them a decent opportunity. Encouraging guys to roll into another area two hours away (that more than likely they don’t know the population status of or if the area got hit hard with EHD) just because there are tags available to pound (unlimited) does thus driving the population even lower doesn’t help anyone. That includes the neighboring property owners.

I would bet that with the exception of the highly managed neighborhoods with abundant populations, the message should be don’t shoot any does for at least the next two years Statewide. Now if your farm and local area has abundant deer then don’t feel guilty shooting one. Because there are definitely pockets or neighborhoods that have abundant deer numbers. Or for a kid’s or someone’s first deer…no problem! Go ahead and take one. Otherwise, everyone else should try to hold off shooting does.

Years ago during the shed buck season I know of several groups that would drive “down” from 2-3 hours away and kill 25 to 75 does in a 3 day weekend and did that year after year just because they could. Then dropped them off at a HUSH locker, with zero regard for the herd or other hunters in the area. Now everyone stands around and wonders why our deer herd is in the shape it is in and where did all the deer and quality bucks we had go? The answer is obvious, and it is not due to cell cams.

When you have the herd population driven down to the tipping point where high grading actually affects the top end quality and then add in several bouts of EHD that take out upper age class bucks. That in itself intensifies the high grading pressure on the remaining top end genetic bucks in the population. When you are at that tipping point, the only way out is to increase the population significantly and as fast as you can. The longer you drag it out the more the high grading will negatively affect the herd’s overall genetics.

I believe the message should be…
We need to collectively quit shooting does so we can get our population up. Don’t drive two hours away to a place you have no clue about how their population is doing and wack‘em and stack’em just because there are tags available. That kind of reckless abandon is why we are in the situation we are now. Everyone needs to take a step back. Assess your areas population and take the appropriate steps to get the population up to an appropriate level for your area and then try to keep it there.

Remember you can only control your actions but talk with everyone you know that hunts in your area and Iowa in general and encourage them to stop shooting does for a couple years. Take it upon yourself to pass the does, pass the young good genetic bucks, shoot Big Louie when he comes by and then take a cull buck or two off the landscape.

Skip’s question “BOTTOM LINE ?: HOW ISN’T THAT ENOUGH FOR ANY HUNTER????????”

In my opinion…I’d rather someone kill three bucks and pass the three does with us in our current situation. Those three does mean way more to the future quality of our deer herd than those three bucks do. The bucks are a short term play, the does are the long term play. Everyone gets focused on the short game of how can I be the first to get that one 160”+ I am hunting, when what they should be focused on is the long game of how do I get the population up to the point that I have multiple 160”+ deer to hunt each year.

Skip, I know you have guys chirping in this ear and then that ear about we need this changed, this stopped, this done and that done. I know you probably feel like you’re in a tough spot with ISC because you feel like you have to show something happening to produce some change to hang your hat on. When in reality we all need the ISC to stand guard like the IBA has and prevent crossbows in regular archery and keep NR tag allotments in check. The only change we absolutely need is to get the population up significantly and do everything we can to keep it there. We need to get the population up over 500,000 post season. That alone will add 75,000 more bucks and 75,000 more does to the landscape annually. If we could get the population even closer to 600,000 look out! We need to not worry about the 200 third bucks being killed and focus ISC efforts on getting our population up to at least 500,000 post season. That additional 150,000 deer equates to adding less than 3 deer per square mile. I know most areas of southern Iowa could easily add 10 additional deer per square mile without affecting habitat or causing too noticeable crop damage. Regardless of what part of the State the deer are added. Deer are great at adapting. They will find cover and food even if they have to bounce around during different times of the year.

The Indiana example keeps getting brought up but I feel like that is a terrible example. Indiana has had a population that has ranged from approximately 650,000-800,000 deer over the last 15 years. The State of Indiana is 1/3 smaller than Iowa. They kill approximately 120,000-125,000 deer compared to Iowa’s 100,000-110,000. They have 200,000 more bucks and 200,000 more does being added to the landscape every year than Iowa has and have basically the same number of deer harvested.

I will concede that their trophy production has gone up over the last 20 years since implementing one buck. But I would debate that it is not because of it. I would bet it would have increased anyway over the last 20 years due to increase management.

While you may be able to factually claim that their B&C or P&Y entries have gone up since implementing one buck, you can’t say factually it happened because of it. I guarantee that the number of guys implementing food plots, low pressure hunting tactics and controlled access has increased ten fold over the same 20 year time frame in Indiana. Just like it has in every Midwest State. So I would recommend considering that before jumping to conclusions about the impact of the one buck policy.

One question for to you to think about…

Where would Iowa be ranked if our population had stayed up at 700,000 since 2008 and what would our quality be like?

My answer to that question would be…If our deer population would have stayed between 650,000-750,000 since 2008 we wouldn’t even be having this discussion right now and as far as record books entries Iowa would be top three in both books every year, year in and year out despite our lack of habitat.

Here is one last question for everyone to think about.

What does Kansas, Ohio, and Indiana have going for them right now that Iowa doesn’t?

Hint: It is not a regulation. Because Iowa has the best regulations and season structure hands down.

All three have deer populations estimates for 2024 around or over 700,000.

Kansas-700,000
Ohio-800,000
Indiana-700,000

It is a numbers game! You want trophy bucks. You have to add so many bucks annually to the landscape that you can’t help but offset the high grading. Otherwise, you won’t be able to stop the continuous decline in top end quality bucks.

Good post!!! I’ll do a quick burst just to agree or clarify or contrast the only areas we disagree.
1) ISC doesn’t need a win or something like that. Absolutely zero to do with it. Just like I don’t need a win or need a buck to post “so I’m a success”. Absolutely a non issue. On that ONE issue - the CO’s, DNR, legislators & how are state is managed needed the win. I still believe the law needs some tweaking, clarity, removing abusers & to its original intent but again- it wasn’t written or derived by the ISC or anyone trying to score points. It was derived by said group to fix existing problems. These types of legislative changes have as close to 0 political gains vs any type of bill out there.
2) 100% agree our main fight is population & that fight is occurring whether folks realize it or not. We are doing good things.
3) I am not advocating for dudes to drive 2 hours to shoot does. Not wanting or encouraging…. I was expressing that for the guys that make an argument of necessity - in that- it can be done. “But dude, I hunt to feed my family!” “I am a meat hunter”. “I need to fill my freezer”. To some extent is that overplayed? Of course. Just like “we need the SNAP program for every one on it or they all would starve” - as we know- probably 75% of them are obese & each junk or just “don’t wanna work” or put any effort into other means of eating. NO- I’m not advocating for that. I’m saying “who with a straight face can say that’s not enough?” & yes- with enough care & research & effort- a hungry fella could find those few pockets with ample deer. Encourage? NO. Possible “in that case”? Of course. All I’m saying. I could ask that question 20 ways. A better way could be this…. If we have some truly bad issues & herd in degraded or detrimental state…. “WHY DOES ANYONE NEED MORE THAN: 1 buck. 6 pheasants. 1 Turkey. 100 fish. 25 rabbits. 20 squirrels.” ?!?!?! If I wanted to have some fun : “PLUS your SNAP benefits. Infinite racoon meat, fresh roadkill (Legit!!!! Get a tag on fresh hit deer!) & turning a sliver of grass area into a garden. Picking up 200 lbs of apples. On & on.” U get my over done point.
& if no one is filling these buck tags- why is it that big of deal to limit it to say “2 bucks max for anyone”?
The arguments from SOME IN GENERAL PUBLIC on other side are over board IMO: 3+ bucks, gazillion does to tag if u go to county with any quota, 4 months of season, 5+ weapons, 7 deer seasons. 50 million new technologies, etc & yet “we can’t dial ANY of this back!!!!! Absolutely not!!!!!!” It’s absurd IMO & especially when things are hurting badly. That’s all I’m saying.

 

[booneriverbucks]

^ I’m

As I have previously mentioned. If ISC wants to make some changes to regulations. Let’s get rid of party hunting. That will save literally thousands of bucks annually. Plus, addresses Skip’s point of guys shooting numerous bucks. Easy argument…we make kids fill their own youth tags, even during gun 1&2. Why shouldn’t adults be held to the same standard. Plus it stops guys filling tags for their wives, sister and grandma.

Late Muzzleloader season is for bows, crossbows and muzzleloaders only. No smokeless muzzleloaders, no pistols unless they are muzzleloader pistols.

Regular pistols and straight wall pistols are only allowed in gun 1&2.

I would like to see antlerless quotas dropped to no more than 500 in any county for the next two years. Landowners still get their doe tags and LO anysex tag so FB can’t complain too much about the antlerless quotas being decreased. Mainly because farmers will also have the depredation program still available for guys with excessive crop damage.

I honestly don’t think many guys that party hunt are totally against not being able to shoot multiple bucks.. The problem is that guys who do deer drives in areas with no doe tags available are being asked to be happy to quit deer hunting or “just carry a stick around” once their buck tag is filled. This makes the groups fall apart and makes traditions fall apart. It doesn’t matter if anyone thinks doing deer drives aided by party hunting is dumb or not. If they could also have a doe tag and continue deer hunting with their group like they have their entire lives many would probably be for the elimination of party hunting. Whether we agree with them or not they could easily say “let’s just limit bow hunters” and there would be a lot more deer around too! Just like in the “glory days”. Statistically over half of Iowans still say one of the two shotgun seasons are their preferred season. Half of these hunters participate in deer drives which would be severely handicapped without party hunting.. unless doe tags were also made available. Deer management is not that complicated. Regulations are limits on people. Management of people is complicated. That’s why nobody hardly ever agrees on everything.

 

[newfarmer]

I honestly don’t think many guys that party hunt are totally against not being able to shoot multiple bucks.. The problem is that guys who do deer drives in areas with no doe tags available are being asked to be happy to quit deer hunting or “just carry a stick around” once their buck tag is filled. This makes the groups fall apart and makes traditions fall apart. It doesn’t matter if anyone thinks doing deer drives aided by party hunting is dumb or not. If they could also have a doe tag and continue deer hunting with their group like they have their entire lives many would probably be for the elimination of party hunting. Whether we agree with them or not they could easily say “let’s just limit bow hunters” and there would be a lot more deer around too! Just like in the “glory days”. Statistically over half of Iowans still say one of the two shotgun seasons are their preferred season. Half of these hunters participate in deer drives which would be severely handicapped without party hunting.. unless doe tags were also made available. Deer management is not that complicated. Regulations are limits on people. Management of people is complicated. That’s why nobody hardly ever agrees on everything.

The Late muzzy guys up here that group hunt continue to push and hunt because they "might shoot a coyote"...