Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

Giant Deer of Iowa are rapidly becoming a past memory

We have to make it harder to kill mature whitetails. simple as that. I can keep pounding the same drum over and over again. It's too easy to kill deer nowadays. Technology has taken any deer advantage away. This sport is suppose to be hard. Killing isn't the hard part anymore. It's growing them. Seems like getting a young super star to 5 is getting harder..
 
abell3 said:
We have to make it harder to kill mature whitetails. simple as that. I can keep pounding the same drum over and over again. It's too easy to kill deer nowadays. Technology has taken any deer advantage away. This sport is suppose to be hard. Killing isn't the hard part anymore. It's growing them. Seems like getting a young super star to 5 is getting harder..
Click to expand...

You are spot on....

Listened to Higgins podcast on the way home from the farm last night and he spoke on the topic of drones and technology andI think he is right on. Starts off with drones and then goes into cell cams, etc, etc. "Make Sacrifices for the better good" This statement he makes sums it up pretty well and should be our motto for the direction we need to focus on heading. Even if you aren't fan of his I recommend listening to this portion of the podcast. Skip ahead to the 30 min mark of episode 300.

 
Last edited:
Hawk32 said:
You are spot on....

Listened to Higgins podcast on the way home from the farm last night and he spoke on the topic of drones and technology andI think he is right on. Starts off with drones and then goes into cell cams, etc, etc. "Make Sacrifices for the better good" This statement he makes sums it up pretty well and should be our motto for the direction we need to focus on heading. Even you aren't fan of his I recommend listening to this portion of the podcast. Skip ahead to the 30 min mark of episode 300.

Click to expand...
Interesting that the Illinois DNR said that it is illegal to use drones to spot deer anytime, anywhere. I'd like to see Iowa adapt that. Black and white, cut that off at the knees before it becomes an issue.
 
So if we have things that we would like changed, who are the best resources to contact? Specifically about trying to get cell cameras removed. The language about non resident shotgun hunters was 'cleaned up' last year. Does anyone know who to contact to get the use of electronic devices language cleaned up?

I reached out to the DNR and ISC about cell cameras and haven't heard back from either. I'll try IBA next.

It does no good to complain in here if our voices aren't being heard by people/groups that can actually do something about it.
 
It's a conversation worth having. As far as the ISC goes there are some conflicting interests when it comes to clearing up cell cams verbiage. I'd be interested to see how that would vote out in the next board meeting.

Love your comment Hawk. I listened to that Pod on Sunday. Agree with every point. Guys, we have to be honest with ourselves. All the tech advancements have made it easy to kill deer. We need to scale this back asap. If we want to protect our LIMITED RESOURCE we must scale back on technology. Drones are being abused every damn day. I stopped counting the number of deer that got killed off of an instant cell cam pic. It's fun and we all love using them. But we can all agree we've crossed the line when it comes to fairness to the deer.
 
deerhunter93 said:
So if we have things that we would like changed, who are the best resources to contact? Specifically about trying to get cell cameras removed. The language about non resident shotgun hunters was 'cleaned up' last year. Does anyone know who to contact to get the use of electronic devices language cleaned up?

I reached out to the DNR and ISC about cell cameras and haven't heard back from either. I'll try IBA next.

It does no good to complain in here if our voices aren't being heard by people/groups that can actually do something about it.
Click to expand...

I asked this question yesterday and was told to stop shooting does. lol. Hope you get a reasonable response.
 
As an example of how tight a grip these things have on people..... Stealth Cam started their Black Friday sale this week. I have a few of their cameras that I really like so thought I would order a couple more to replace the inevitable camera or two that gasps its last breath every year.

Only to find that the only cameras on sale are the cell cams. It's only gonna get worse fellas.... gotta yank the rug out from under this before it's too late.
 
ISC did end up responding and I appreciated the lengthy response. Here is the sparknotes version:

Agreed that it would be nice to go back 20 years

Farm Bureau is tough to battle and is tough to get people to vote against them

Self regulation might be the best way - whether that is not using cell cameras, shooting none or fewer deer for a few years, ect

Cell cameras are going to be tough to stop

It's likely easier to keep more bad legislation from happening than to reverse current regulations - specifically mentioned drones, crossbows, new calibers
 
abell3 said:
We have to make it harder to kill mature whitetails. simple as that. I can keep pounding the same drum over and over again. It's too easy to kill deer nowadays. Technology has taken any deer advantage away. This sport is suppose to be hard. Killing isn't the hard part anymore. It's growing them. Seems like getting a young super star to 5 is getting harder..
Click to expand...
Not picking on your postbut similar topic as others have posted. You know KS uses cell cams…. They also allow bait….. Guess what, Ohio uses cell cams…. They also allow baiting…. Show me the harvest numbers and success rates that correlate back to this or that topic making it easier to hunt deer in Iowa. 1983 said Iowa is easy to hunt because it has ditches and draws and not big timber like Ohio. Has no one been to central or eastern KS or northern MO. If only it was so simple to make it harder to shoot mature whitetails. Are they really that dumb. MO has rifle gun season during rut. Surely every deer in MO gets killed with cell cams and rifles during rut…. The one constant to the states that are getting better is more population and most allow crossbows and cell cams. Hmmmm. The easiest fix of all (population) and most people continue to want to change this or that topic that will have limited affect. I think most people are happy with Iowas hunting because they have opportunities at bucks they are happy to tag. Those of us (20%) that are dissatisfied are the ones chasing truly top end mature deer. Is this technology not available anywhere but Iowa. As mentioned we can see when the population decline happened that correlates closely with lower mature bucks (EHD) but someone please show me the spike in buck harvest data that aligns with straight walls and cell cams.
 
deerhunter93 said:
ISC did end up responding and I appreciated the lengthy response. Here is the sparknotes version:

Agreed that it would be nice to go back 20 years

Farm Bureau is tough to battle and is tough to get people to vote against them

Self regulation might be the best way - whether that is not using cell cameras, shooting none or fewer deer for a few years, ect

Cell cameras are going to be tough to stop

It's likely easier to keep more bad legislation from happening than to reverse current regulations - specifically mentioned drones, crossbows, new calibers
Click to expand...
I don't understand what would make cell cams tough to stop. They are already illegal to use in the aid of the hunt as the law is written.
I'm guessing the tough part has to do with those who benefit financially having too much pull.
 
hillrunner said:
I don't understand what would make cell cams tough to stop. They are already illegal to use in the aid of the hunt as the law is written.
I'm guessing the tough part has to do with those who benefit financially having too much pull.
Click to expand...
I agree. I would guess the pull that you are talking about along with the 1000s and 1000s of cell cams that are already in circulation and the 80% of satisfied hunters are using them so legislators are going to battle 80% of their constituents to appease 20%. (BTW I am skeptical of “surveys” as others have said also but it’s what legislators have to work from).
 
Muskrat24 said:
Not picking on your postbut similar topic as others have posted. You know KS uses cell cams…. They also allow bait….. Guess what, Ohio uses cell cams…. They also allow baiting…. Show me the harvest numbers and success rates that correlate back to this or that topic making it easier to hunt deer in Iowa. 1983 said Iowa is easy to hunt because it has ditches and draws and not big timber like Ohio. Has no one been to central or eastern KS or northern MO. If only it was so simple to make it harder to shoot mature whitetails. Are they really that dumb. MO has rifle gun season during rut. Surely every deer in MO gets killed with cell cams and rifles during rut…. The one constant to the states that are getting better is more population and most allow crossbows and cell cams. Hmmmm. The easiest fix of all (population) and most people continue to want to change this or that topic that will have limited affect. I think most people are happy with Iowas hunting because they have opportunities at bucks they are happy to tag. Those of us (20%) that are dissatisfied are the ones chasing truly top end mature deer. Is this technology not available anywhere but Iowa. As mentioned we can see when the population decline happened that correlates closely with lower mature bucks (EHD) but someone please show me the spike in buck harvest data that aligns with straight walls and cell cams.
Click to expand...

I don't think cell cams create a spike in buck harvest, but argue they are a big contributor to high grading. Scent tight blinds, standing grain for late season, and many more also contribute.

A significant increase in population is 100% the solution. Every other regulation can remain the same, including cell cam use, if the population is allowed to increase. If not, the slide will likely continue. It will have to be a grass roots effort. Trophy Bucks of Iowa seems to have some social media reach. Would they be a good voice for getting a jpopulation increase message out?
 
A population increase. While I agree tell that to the legislators who are coddled by the Farm Bureau and farmers. You need to cloak a pop increase under some agenda that appears to help the farmer and insurance companies. Population increase on its face plays into the hands of crossbow companies and increased NR, doe etc tags.

Every political agenda, that’s real purpose is hidden behind the curtain, uses your well being, well being of “future generations” (kids) and safety to push it. Pick one and figure out a pitch
 
Last edited:
I haven't shot a doe in several years now since we started having ehd outbreaks ,so obviously I'm not against a population increase where numbers are low.

However, I think people need to understand that most farmers who have deer already think the population is madly out of control. I have neighbors who would gladly eliminate every single one if they could. They are not rare, that's pretty much the position of most farmers who raise grain in deer country.

If we try to force a high population on them, measures will be taken to counter that. To people who are not educated in this, any added weapon or tag equals less deer in their mind. That's what we're likely to get if we try to force a high population imo. I think we need to accept a balance where hunters would like to see more and farmers would like to see less. If anyone gets exactly what they want, the other will be screaming for change.

Making it harder to target and kill bucks is the path imo. That's what has made Iowa what it is. If population was the only path, wouldn't Michigan be the envy of all Midwest hunters?
 
hillrunner said:
I haven't shot a doe in several years now since we started having ehd outbreaks ,so obviously I'm not against a population increase where numbers are low.

However, I think people need to understand that most farmers who have deer already think the population is madly out of control. I have neighbors who would gladly eliminate every single one if they could. They are not rare, that's pretty much the position of most farmers who raise grain in deer country.

If we try to force a high population on them, measures will be taken to counter that. To people who are not educated in this, any added weapon or tag equals less deer in their mind. That's what we're likely to get if we try to force a high population imo. I think we need to accept a balance where hunters would like to see more and farmers would like to see less. If anyone gets exactly what they want, the other will be screaming for change.

Making it harder to target and kill bucks is the path imo. That's what has made Iowa what it is. If population was the only path, wouldn't Michigan be the envy of all Midwest hunters?
Click to expand...
Facts! ^^ I think there is room to grow the population in areas where it is quite low now, due largely to EHD outbreaks. But anyone that thinks that the deer hunters of the state are going to get their wishes over the insurance and farm lobbies to boost the population back up to the "good ol' days" is hallucinating, IMO.

When the statewide population was at its highest, say 2005'ish to 2008'ish, there was EXTREME pressure being applied by the above named lobbies to reduce the population...or else. Do people not remember the DNR reps practically begging hunters to knock the population down...or else face draconian reg changes that would? There is no widespread public appetite for numbers so high so as to solve the problem that deer hunters perceive.

We need to be able to regulate ourselves OR be content to watch the quality continue to slide AND hope for no more EHD hits.
 
  • Deleted by booneriverbucks
  • Reason: Duplicate
Show…
I have never subscribed to the high deer population theory. It ends up in problems .. if you don’t think EHD hits areas of high deer populations, you might want up look again .

Deer collisions with vehicles, farmers losing big #s of corn & soybeans . Small plots get crushed early, can’t plant trees unless you cage or tube every one ….

There’s a happy medium !

We don’t want depredation tags again ! I heard they are an option already ?

NW Minnesota had extreme high deer populations for awhile, the DNR offered 5 tags per hunter, there were dead deer all over the highways . A high school football team bus hit a deer 4 times going to & from their Friday night games .


That publicity always leads to problems . I’d pick mid range deer numbers over high deer numbers!
 
Absolutely hilarious that tech like cell cams and in season cam use in general is being portrayed as “impossible” to ban by some yet taking away currently available hunting opportunities is widely accepted as the thing to do to fix everything.. Not a conspiracy theorist, but the arguement could be made that the most expensive, tech heavy methods are ok but how the guys who spend the least hunt is not ok.. Gee, who on earth would come up with that?

Banning camera use would have a HUGE mental effect on hunting.. We have to do something to slow down hunter’s emotional attachments to individual deer. Until we do that the whining will only get worse and the calls for liberalized regs will continue to grow louder. Everyone is just one reg/one piece of technology away from “success” in their minds.
 
Cell cameras help an individual monitor deer on his/her property. How does that effect how many "Giant Deer" you see on your property? Maybe when he jumps the fence, but you would also have your own "Giant Deer". I guess I'm in the camp that getting rid of cell cameras isn't the answer.
 
jlwdvm said:
Cell cameras help an individual monitor deer on his/her property. How does that effect how many "Giant Deer" you see on your property? Maybe when he jumps the fence, but you would also have your own "Giant Deer". I guess I'm in the camp that getting rid of cell cameras isn't the answer.
Click to expand...
Any given big buck probably spends some time on, say, 3 to 5+ different properties no matter what is done to "hold" him at "home". The second he follows a doe, etc, over the fence a neighboring hunter knows it via cell cam and is there "hunting" it sometimes within the hour. This is not theory...this is happening this way right now.

Without that up to the minute intel that hunter is likely not even in the woods there that day/hour in many cases. Real time intel on game movement is a bridge too far IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom