Mowing corn, to me, is 100% baiting. Very little difference to taking a spreader and driving around spraying corn all over.
Standing crops, plots, etc. all are fine but once you mow the corn, that crosses the line.
Giant Deer of Iowa are rapidly becoming a past memory
- Thread starter thecreedeer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- None
Standing crops, plots, etc. all are fine but once you mow the corn, that crosses the line.
Muddyrem
Well-Known Member
It’s wild when you watch YouTube and all you see is -Hunting Mega Giants in Iowa- -Iowa Booner- -Iowa - land of the Giants-….
Do other states not allow their residents to make YouTube videos? What am I missing here.
Also, to defend an avg Iowa resident. A lot of these guys have packed up and moved to Iowa solely to deer hunt. That to me is absolutely bananas. I love it just as much as the next guy, however I don’t love it more than watching my kids grow up with their friends, I don’t love it more than missing a sporting event, I don’t love it more than my financial stability as an adult. It’s just insane what a person today will do to kill a deer l. A deer that will just sit on the wall; and when that person dies, no one will give a hoot how many big deer said person killed.
Windlooker
Well-Known Member
Leaving standing beans or an alfalfa field isn’t crossing the line??
I don't see it the same because standing beans and alfalfa field is how it naturally grows. Same with food plots or corn that is standing.
Mowing the corn is literally busting up the cobs to the point it's spread all over the place.
hillrunner
PMA Member
We can't nor should we be able to stop someone from putting a cell cam on their own property. I see no reason, however, why we can't stop them from using it in the aid of hunting. We are already heavily regulated on how and when we can kill a deer on our own land. I don't see why this has to be any different. There are several ways this could be done.
Here are a few ideas off the top of my head:
* No hunting allowed within 250 yards of a cell cam (kind of like bait now)
*Any deer of which you receive a transmitted picture is off limits for 3 days from said picture
*All deer hunting tags are invalid for any parcel which had a cell cam operating for 1 week after the final date the cell cam was in use
None of those are perfect and I'm sure someone smarter than me could come up with better wording. I would like to see exceptions for security purposes as well but that would have to be thought out.
As far as public ground, I stay out of that debate since I no longer hunt on public but that has to diminish the enjoyment to be under constant surveillance while out in the woods.
Lots of ideas, some that would help, others that wouldn’t in the slightest.
IMO, the best and most sure way to increase the number of bucks is to limit ALL hunters to one buck per annual season. More bucks would increase the odds that more will make it to maturity. Rambling on and on about other ideas while dismissing the one buck rule is ridiculous, short sighted, and self serving. We’ve all know ya can’t have your cake and eat it too. It sure applies in this instance also. I’ve heard Skip talk about Iowa only being 7-8% wooded habitat and I believe him 100%. If a one buck limit is appropriate for Ohio and Kentucky which have way more woods and cover, it only stands to reason that Iowa’s habitat demands a one buck limit, given the current state of the herd. And the guys who bring up the “need” for extra tags to “manage” for cull bucks are full of shit.
When Iowa had more deer 20 years ago the multi buck limit was ok and no one had a problem with many of the things they’re complaining about today. But, things have obviously changed at the present and the one buck tag limit to be used “only” by the hunter whose name is on the tag would be the best step in the right direction. I do not feel any arguments against the one buck limit are legit and are almost all completely selfishly motivated. If you’re concerned about the resource as it currently exists, implement a one buck limit for 5 years. See how it impacts the situation. If it does little or has no positive results, scrap it.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
IMO, the best and most sure way to increase the number of bucks is to limit ALL hunters to one buck per annual season. More bucks would increase the odds that more will make it to maturity. Rambling on and on about other ideas while dismissing the one buck rule is ridiculous, short sighted, and self serving. We’ve all know ya can’t have your cake and eat it too. It sure applies in this instance also. I’ve heard Skip talk about Iowa only being 7-8% wooded habitat and I believe him 100%. If a one buck limit is appropriate for Ohio and Kentucky which have way more woods and cover, it only stands to reason that Iowa’s habitat demands a one buck limit, given the current state of the herd. And the guys who bring up the “need” for extra tags to “manage” for cull bucks are full of shit.
When Iowa had more deer 20 years ago the multi buck limit was ok and no one had a problem with many of the things they’re complaining about today. But, things have obviously changed at the present and the one buck tag limit to be used “only” by the hunter whose name is on the tag would be the best step in the right direction. I do not feel any arguments against the one buck limit are legit and are almost all completely selfishly motivated. If you’re concerned about the resource as it currently exists, implement a one buck limit for 5 years. See how it impacts the situation. If it does little or has no positive results, scrap it.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Rjack
Well-Known Member
I've hunted deer in Iowa for 50 years. If we could go back to only shotguns in gun season and muzzy was truly primitive (no smokeless and no scopes), I would gladly go to recurve or long bow only. I have never hunted with a recurve, but if we could make all those changes (as well as significant restrictions on cell cams), I'd be all in on banning compounds. Compounds were in use when I started (still have my Bear Whitetail II), but I'd give them up to tilt it back towards the deer.
justinkarns
Active Member
Well said. If we, as a whole community, cannot see what we have done ourselves - we will never fix it. It's either weapon de-evolution, or we go one buck. With the last 20 years, does anyone honestly believe we will have a stable population statewide in the next 20? I hate to fear the worst, but I am not certain my grandkids will hunt deer.
WE HAVE TO GET AHEAD OF THIS.
Windlooker
Well-Known Member
Ok. Let’s get ahead of it. Share a weapons de-evolution proposal that the Iowa state legislature and/or dnr would seriously entertain for future seasons if one buck doesn’t work out.
Daver
PMA Member
I just don't understand the notion that a "one buck" limit is a solution, in and of itself. In our area, now just 2'ish years past a bad EHD outbreak, granted, neither we, nor any close neighbors, have anything on camera that is 4+...and since some guys have shifted to taking 3's, there aren't a lot of them either. Not that many years ago the number of 4+ and promising 3's was 10-15'ish, now nothing.
No one that I know of has shot more than one buck in the last 3 seasons and roughly 1/2 of us have shot ZERO. A one buck limit accomplishes absolutely nothing all by itself. Incidentally, I can't think of anyone that was shooting 2 or more bucks before EHD hit.
Meanwhile, multiple bucks have been taken in the area aided by cell cams, rifles and/or long range muzzleloaders. It is completely illogical to think that enacting a rule that changes nothing, while ignoring potential changes to things that ARE contributing to higher, easier buck harvest, will improve things.
No one that I know of has shot more than one buck in the last 3 seasons and roughly 1/2 of us have shot ZERO. A one buck limit accomplishes absolutely nothing all by itself. Incidentally, I can't think of anyone that was shooting 2 or more bucks before EHD hit.
Meanwhile, multiple bucks have been taken in the area aided by cell cams, rifles and/or long range muzzleloaders. It is completely illogical to think that enacting a rule that changes nothing, while ignoring potential changes to things that ARE contributing to higher, easier buck harvest, will improve things.
justinkarns
Active Member
I believe it has to start at the core of our society. I don't know if its something a legislative action could change quickly. We can sure try, though. I believe it has to come from the community wanting to change. I'm not sure how we make a great case. It'll have to be in conjunction with non-hunters that want to preserve wildlife. We as humans always prefer the easier path, it is in our nature. I'm not saying everybody will grab a smokeless or a rifle for shotgun seasons, but a hefty majority of hunters are plenty happy to do so. If it makes you more efficient, saves time and you are more successful, heck you would be crazy not to want that. Especially for the majority that don't hold the same passion that we do, most all here are deer crazed nutz, we are the minority in the major scheme of things. Long story short, I believe its going to need to be grassroots, more and more organizations like ISC and IBA need to be popping up to accelerate the progress we've made in the last few years. On that note, HUGE thank you to Skip for being a very important and influential player on this specific topic. We need 100 of him, one to lead each county in the state and truly get this knowledge out there. Goodness knows farm bureau is in every county.
To address the de-evolution - completely simple - smokeless are gone, true shotguns only, season reduction(no jan antlerless), cell cameras banned completely, drones bye bye, crossbows ONLY for those disabled, no use in late muzz season. I know these things are not going to happen soon, or even close to the capacity I described above. These are fever dreams, but if we can tip the scales back to the deer, I believe that is our best step in any and all scenarios. No matter how small of the step, each step we give back to the deer will help. Give them the edge. If we can get some real, peer reviewed and confirmed, data behind it, I think we can start to make these steps. Most of the state are making decisions they believe to be the best. Most of the states have seen declines in the last 20 years.
Idk that any of us know the right answer right now. But we can all try! The open debate between like minded and un-like minded folks need to keep going! We are making progress, every step counts. We can't ever stop fighting for the deer.
Last edited:
Windlooker
Well-Known Member
I agree with your entire post unfortunately the only hunters who will execute this proposal are the few here and other hardcore whitetail nuts. But, we are in the extreme minority.
Human beings, the masses that make up sheeple, need direction, rules and be told what to do. Even when one knows what they’re doing is harmful, but legal, they’ll do it. Self reg will not work.
A convincing argument to change has to be structured for those who implemented and/or allow the current regs, Maybe involve the Iowa video stars, if willing, as an influential voice.
Human beings, the masses that make up sheeple, need direction, rules and be told what to do. Even when one knows what they’re doing is harmful, but legal, they’ll do it. Self reg will not work.
A convincing argument to change has to be structured for those who implemented and/or allow the current regs, Maybe involve the Iowa video stars, if willing, as an influential voice.
Last edited:
Looks like roughly : 6% of total harvest goes to late muzzleloader, 20% to gun 1, 20% to gun 2 , 20% to archery, 11% to landowner tags ,5% youth tags, 2.5% early muzzleloader.
Seems like muzzleloader dates and weaponry are pretty quick to get thrown on the chopping block and I’m not saying they shouldn’t, but it really seems like the gun seasons and the rut are the main killer of deer.
Cutting muzzleloader harvest by 10% saves 600deer
Cutting gun season harvest by 10% saves 4,000 deer
Going one buck saves 4,500 bucks
There’s plenty of common sense ways to go about this stuff.
October 1- Jan 10 Cell cameras send pictures once a week at a random time after shooting hours. Have it written right into the code for the app,
It’ll never happen but Eliminating antlerless harvest puts probably 100,000 more bucks on the landscape in 2-3 years. (40,000 does * 1.4 fawns per doe on average / 2 = 28,000 buck fawns + the 7,000 buck fawns we shoot thinking they were does+ the 1,000 shed bucks we shoot thinking they were does makes 36,000 bucks that won’t be there the following fall) that’s almost what we shoot for bucks in a season by itself.
Seems like muzzleloader dates and weaponry are pretty quick to get thrown on the chopping block and I’m not saying they shouldn’t, but it really seems like the gun seasons and the rut are the main killer of deer.
Cutting muzzleloader harvest by 10% saves 600deer
Cutting gun season harvest by 10% saves 4,000 deer
Going one buck saves 4,500 bucks
There’s plenty of common sense ways to go about this stuff.
October 1- Jan 10 Cell cameras send pictures once a week at a random time after shooting hours. Have it written right into the code for the app,
It’ll never happen but Eliminating antlerless harvest puts probably 100,000 more bucks on the landscape in 2-3 years. (40,000 does * 1.4 fawns per doe on average / 2 = 28,000 buck fawns + the 7,000 buck fawns we shoot thinking they were does+ the 1,000 shed bucks we shoot thinking they were does makes 36,000 bucks that won’t be there the following fall) that’s almost what we shoot for bucks in a season by itself.
7 counties in NW Iowa are going to be designated as a different zone, different tag
For the most part buck only , no party hunting, landowner tag counts against one of your statewide tags.
Windlooker
Well-Known Member
???? Why, and how do you know this if you don’t mind me asking.
justinkarns
Active Member
Awesome! I sure hope to see more of these types of things in the future with Jace Elliot as our leading deer man in the state. Taking on problems when and where they arise