The Future of Iowa Deer Hunting and a One Buck Limit

[thecreedeer]

I believe the future of deer hunting in Iowa is at the point where the sportsman must realize that to preserve the quality of deer hunting in our state we are going to have to make some major changes. I realize that the term “quality deer” to many hunters will take on a different meaning. What one hunter considers a trophy may not be to a hunter with higher standards and to others there may be no interest in antlers, and they only look to spend quality time outdoors. The reality is that Iowa is known for some of the largest Whitetail deer in the United States. Some Whitetail enthusiasts may have a different opinion, however when any biologist makes mention of record class deer, Iowa is always part of the conversation. The facts are that the giant deer Iowa is famous for are not as abundant as they were 30 years ago and it is becoming apparent that these deer are declining in numbers.

We as hunters are involved in conflicts with lobbyists, farming organizations, Insurance companies and fellow hunters. Given the understanding that not all deer hunters are trophy hunters and to many the time outdoors and traditional deer hunting is their choice. In looking for common ground where a significant change would promote the trophy deer of our state and give more opportunities for the hunter that never had the same chance at the higher caliber deer. I believe we need to give up part of what we have become used to for many years in a way that will increase hunting opportunities at the Trophy deer that Iowa is famous for while increasing doe harvests which is what the state of Iowa is pushing for. If we accept a one buck harvest per hunter for all combined deer seasons this would Increase our bucks age structure dramatically. With this increase in mature bucks, the animals would be more spread out in neighboring properties that historically did not hold the larger deer. The opportunities for hunters that rarely would even encounter any deer of this magnitude would now have different odds. Hunters that still wanted to hunt after a buck harvest would still have access to doe tags satisfying the plans for the states deer harvest. This would be a drastic change and one that needs to be pushed by the hunting community. I believe the State of Iowa would not introduce this because of the consensus that the hunters would fight any suggestion of change to one buck limit. I believe that there is no better state for deer hunting in the United States. Serious Hunters all over the country dream of being able to hunt the Iowa Giants but they are now fewer. I believe we can make our great whitetails better with this change.

 

[Butch973]

Land flippers and parceling off these farms has and will have a greater impact imo. Can’t blame a guy/gal for making a living but don’t turn around and complain about it. That 160 you took and broke up and resold off in 4 pieces now has a lot more pressure on it and even if a guy has a decent chunk of land instead of having one or two or three neighbors he now has nine or 10. Everyone wants to shoot one so they can long arm it and put it on Facebook to get 52 likes. Hard to keep deer alive to reach maturity like that.

 

[Brett Morris]

I'm curious how many folks you know that harvest more than 1 buck per year on average with the current regulations?

I have at least 10 close friends that are serious deer hunters. Another 20-30 I communicate with through a Snapchat group that originated from Iowa Whitetail. I don't know a single person that even remotely comes close to harvesting 2+ bucks a year. These are some of the most intensely focused deer hunters I know. Put in a ton of time on top quality farms, plant food plots, run cameras, all the "stuff".

I grew up shotgun hunting. I've never seen a group that killed more bucks than total hunters in the group. Most times it's not even close to being 1:1. Obviously those hunters could also bow hunt and go LM. But very very rarely are they killing 2 or more bucks per year IMO.

We want to solve every issue with regulations. Regulations don't magically fix habitat issues, or EHD, or a hunters inability to kill a large antlered buck. Personally I think you'd have 5x as many crusty old crap bucks running around because every single person would hold out for the "trophy" buck they dream of.

Doe management is FAR more critical to herd health & even seeing bucks reach their genetic potential and there's never been talk of limiting antlerless tags per hunter. It's because WE as hunters HAVE to accept a large portion of the responsibility of managing the resource. I struggle to believe Iowa moving to 1 buck (especially if it's a floating tag) would really fix all these "issues".

 

[Sligh1]

Great post!!!
Agree…. A lot of folks - serious to casual are saying “something has changed. Things have gotten worse. The trajectory of XYZ continues to get worse”. A lot of it is deer #’s & a chance at an older buck. A lot is access to quality land or just having good quality land with habitat & timber. Pressure for deer & competition for spots. On & on.

The lowest hanging fruit is addressing low deer #’s IMO. DNR’s study before last ehd outbreak looked at areas with habitat & then did deer density analysis in areas with that habitat. Attached.

The one premise that is slowly changing is the premise that the state is full of deer & we need to KILL KILL KILL!!! It went too far & the pendulum is starting to swing the other way. Farm bureau’s cries to kill em all are starting to be met with a lot of GENUINE outcry “we don’t have deer!!! Stop!!!!!” 2/3rd of state would easily fit into this category of massive swaths of very low deer density. I’m all over in the “high density” counties & guys are struggling in a lot of ways in those areas.
I agree the age structure & simple amount of bucks is way down state wide.

Here’s the perfect storm that when told is very simple…. We have come at the deer like an enemy doing all we can to kill them & clearly our harvest is in half vs 15 years ago. We had 2 grain price spikes that sent an army of dozers across our state clearing every tree, fence line & timbered area possible …. I can’t go 5 miles in any direction without seeing a farm that had been dozed out here or there or anywhere in last decade. We had no less than 3 big ehd outbreaks in last 15 years. We have a coyote boom in many regions. 2 shed buck seasons have been implemented & 2nd one is still here in some counties. More lethal weapons, technology & ease of killing. It’s no wonder we have “some problems”. The resource has literally been attacked on all sides for 15-20 years now.

Where we start…. Bringing population up in at least 2/3rd of state & bring it up to a “reasonable” & balanced level. Too many areas are far below that & the public is waking up to that fact.

If we take a buck tag away, one approach could be: we do it after we get the population up some & see where we sit. Next move after that if still trending wrong…. We start with dropping LO buck tags to 2 vs 3. See where we sit. After that, if bad, then we drop to 1 for statewide. This is a possible step by step that could get more on board so it would have broad support.
I’d personally would love to see us be a 1 buck state. But.. I also realize we have to think broadly & somewhat carefully & we might consider trying a few things/steps before we went to 1 buck, it likely would be around 5 years after we tried xyz first. We might avoid it if we can let our resource heal. If we don’t heal and we keep getting WORSE…. We are going to have to & those opposed to it are going to change their minds & say “ya, things are really in the crapper, I guess I’m open to trying something new”. I’m trying to set my own views aside a bit so we consider all the dynamics here & get broad support from all types of hunters. Not sure & very open minded to all sides of this, even with my own views, want to continue listening to others!!!

KEY GOOD NEWS: the direction of this ship is slowly changing & some of the storm may be behind us. I honestly think that trend of “getting worse” has some relief coming. We absolutely need to keep the gas to the floor & change the direction put in place about 15-20 years ago. Public is for sure demanding it & we are making massive progress. I’ll let others chime in before I write a book on here. Sorry for long rant & thanks for thoughts all!!!

 

[newfarmer]

I'm curious how many folks you know that harvest more than 1 buck per year on average with the current regulations?

I have at least 10 close friends that are serious deer hunters. Another 20-30 I communicate with through a Snapchat group that originated from Iowa Whitetail. I don't know a single person that even remotely comes close to harvesting 2+ bucks a year. These are some of the most intensely focused deer hunters I know. Put in a ton of time on top quality farms, plant food plots, run cameras, all the "stuff".

I grew up shotgun hunting. I've never seen a group that killed more bucks than total hunters in the group. Most times it's not even close to being 1:1. Obviously those hunters could also bow hunt and go LM. But very very rarely are they killing 2 or more bucks per year IMO.

We want to solve every issue with regulations. Regulations don't magically fix habitat issues, or EHD, or a hunters inability to kill a large antlered buck. Personally I think you'd have 5x as many crusty old crap bucks running around because every single person would hold out for the "trophy" buck they dream of.

Doe management is FAR more critical to herd health & even seeing bucks reach their genetic potential and there's never been talk of limiting antlerless tags per hunter. It's because WE as hunters HAVE to accept a large portion of the responsibility of managing the resource. I struggle to believe Iowa moving to 1 buck (especially if it's a floating tag) would really fix all these "issues".

Brett- been a long time since I was in your garage, but some of the talking we did I agree. Most guys I know dont shoot MAYBE 1 buck a year. I shot 2 this year, one being a management buck that absolutely needed to go. Last year I didnt shoot a buck. I dont believe 1 buck is the answer.
I think dropping doe tags significantly will help- because EHD has done drastic devastation in the state. Ive said in other posts, my Allamakee farm, used to get 20+ pictures a day- this fall we were lucky to get 4 pictures a day on 4 cameras! They keep pumping doe tags and there are groups that just shoot to shoot. Dont take this the wrong way, a lot of times its the guys who DONT OWN LAND that want to shoot and shoot and shoot. GET RID OF DOE TAGS for 2-3 years. You can keep depredation tags as long as they are actually monitored and justified, you can keep Landowner tags as long as they are monitored (and my opinion, name on deed is only person who gets them). Everyone keeps wanting to put acreage amounts on LOT, to me, I dont care- we NEED the habitat. Just make sure they are actually doing whats in the regs.
Habitat is so critical in Iowa, and most people dont realize that. For an example, I had the conversation with a friend who said "There are all kinds of deer in South Dakota in X area (not going to burn his spot) and there arent any trees- we dont need trees here in Iowa"- (he is a farmer) I looked at him and told him, Its all grassland! What is that- COVER.
Everyone does need to remember as well- 1 buck a year is still only 1 deer. 2 bucks a year is only 2 deer. 1 doe a year is potentially 2-3 deer the following year, 2 does a year is potentially 3-6 deer, etc.
I think there are a lot of things to tackle, clearly EHD is a major component that we are battling and puts a lot of stress on the deer. Ending deer season Dec 31, not allowing pushing/drives/group hunting outside of Gun 1 and Gun 2 would all help minimize the stress put on the deer and give them the option to rebound. Heck- start a shed season! Keep people out of the woods a little bit to let deer recover. (wouldnt work with rabbit and squirrel) but I think there are a ton of options to look at. We as hunters truly need to do whats right (most of us here understand that) but its getting the message out about it. And I cannot say enough good things about how much I hear Skip talking on just about every podcast I listen to anymore- and its truly amazing. The message is finally getting out there in the masses.

 

[booneriverbucks]

Regarding a one buck state I tend to see about three different groups that support this. Each of them have their own reasons.

I’d say about 20 percent of the supporters truly believe in it and support it because they think it will be best for everyone. I would say basically everyone on here probably falls into that category.

I’d say about 40% of the supporters are the whining internet crowd that is often new to the sport. They’ve seen countless videos on youtube of people going out and shooting mature deer on public or small private parcels and can’t figure out why it’s not them. They’ve bought the best sitka gear, the latest and greatest tree saddle, an ozonics and even the great “acorn cruncher” and everything else under the sun the hunting industry has told them they need to be successful and yet they still aren’t. This crowd wants another easy button, not too different than the guys pushing for crossbows. They don’t realize it has never been easy to consistently kill mature deer. Especially if you have limited access! If we give into this crowd on this what will we do to please them next?

To me the other 40 percent is the crowd that doesn’t realize that the land they own and the money they spent acquiring or accessing it does not or should not guarantee them success. We all know if we knew the magic number of how much land we’d have to have access to to all but guarantee success we’d do everything in our power to get there. We’ve all heard it a million times. My place would be so much better if it wasn’t for all the neighbors.. My place would be better if the area wasn’t shotgun hunted so hard. My neighbors are shooting them at 4 instead of 5 or 6. Somebody buys a 40 in the middle of a block of a thousand acres that’s been hunted by other people forever and then blames them for the deer quality in the area. Does the rest of the world really have to change because you have buyer’s remorse? On average how much land do you need to have access to before you are “entitled” to shoot a mature deer every year? It really doesn’t matter whether its a 40, an 80 or 500 acres. In your opinion how much land do you think you need access to to guarantee your success? This has been a large part of the access problem that lots of people complain about. We haven’t necessarily tried to isolate ourselves from bad regulations but we have tried to isolate ourselves from competition and want to do all we can to stack the deck in our favor to up our odds of success. There’s really nothing wrong with that. I’d say it’s human nature to do the most you can to be successful. This group of one buck supporters wants the deck stacked more in their favor even more than it already is by limiting their competition. Mature deer are shot all over this state by people with a wide range of access and landownership every year. Some guys are mad they only have a 170 to hunt while the neighbor is chasing a 200 incher that year. A one buck state doesn’t necessarily fix that. You are never going to please everyone! The complaints will never end!

 

[Hardwood11]

I’ve advocated for this in my home state (Minnesota), but it seems to fall on deaf ears . Iowa would be even better situation. Buck tags should be allocated by county .

In Iowa the crop land counties could have a one buck limit. In counties like Decatur, Monroe you could have a 2 buck limit ?

Who needs to shoot 3 bucks ? It’s rare anyway, why have it as an option .

If there’s good cover and a fair amount of bucks let hunters take 2 bucks … if you live in a county where there’s only deer in river bottoms and farm groves (one buck max).

It wouldn’t be that hard ! They already do that for doe tags.

 

[sure shot]

I'd argue one buck would help, but not by much. A far bigger impact would be to increase the overall population. More deer equals more bucks. In my 20+ years hunting, I've shot 2 bucks in a year twice. When I get one with a bow, I'm usually far more selective come shotgun hunting and don't even ever pull the trigger. I'd say most people only shoot 1 buck per year already. Yes there are exceptions. My buddy is the kind that has to get his buck. He usually shoots smaller caliber bucks with both his bow and gun, so that's where the improvement would come. Although even he probably shoots 1 buck a year more often than 2.
I'd also argue that unless you get rid of party hunting, this would have very little impact. OK, I'll shoot my 1 buck with the bow, then I'll just party hunt with my group and shoot my gun buck with one of the group's buck tags (not me personally since I don't party hunt, but how people would get around this).

 

[booneriverbucks]

I’ve advocated for this in my home state (Minnesota), but it seems to fall on deaf ears . Iowa would be even better situation. Buck tags should be allocated by county .

In Iowa the crop land counties could have a one buck limit. In counties like Decatur, Monroe you could have a 2 buck limit ?

Who needs to shoot 3 bucks ? It’s rare anyway, why have it as an option .

If there’s good cover and a fair amount of bucks let hunters take 2 bucks … if you live in a county where there’s only deer in river bottoms and farm groves (one buck max).

It wouldn’t be that hard ! They already do that for doe tags.

Individual counties are as diverse in habitat as the state in general. Can go miles and miles and see nothing but timbered river bottoms in one part of a county and can see nothing but farmland on the other side of the county. It’s a harder issue to solve than many think. There are literally areas ran over by deer and 5 miles away you’d be lucky to see a deer in years.

 

[Hardwood11]

I agree on that, but one area of nice river bottom should not justify a 3 buck limit ! Most of the county is tillable .

It’s a hard call, and difficult to get hunters on the same page.

 

[booneriverbucks]

Yep!!! Hardly anything can justify 3 bucks. I don’t really support anybody being able to kill three. I absolutely do not support landowners having a second tag that floats to all seasons while a non landowner only gets one tag tho.

 

[booneriverbucks]

I'd argue one buck would help, but not by much. A far bigger impact would be to increase the overall population. More deer equals more bucks. In my 20+ years hunting, I've shot 2 bucks in a year twice. When I get one with a bow, I'm usually far more selective come shotgun hunting and don't even ever pull the trigger. I'd say most people only shoot 1 buck per year already. Yes there are exceptions. My buddy is the kind that has to get his buck. He usually shoots smaller caliber bucks with both his bow and gun, so that's where the improvement would come. Although even he probably shoots 1 buck a year more often than 2.
I'd also argue that unless you get rid of party hunting, this would have very little impact. OK, I'll shoot my 1 buck with the bow, then I'll just party hunt with my group and shoot my gun buck with one of the group's buck tags (not me personally since I don't party hunt, but how people would get around this).

Yep. Or i’ll shoot the first “nice” buck that comes by on a public or a permission piece and then retreat to my private paradise to shoot the trophy I really want in a one buck scenario where landowners get a second tag for all seasons.

 

[iowavf]

Yep!!! Hardly anything can justify 3 bucks. I don’t really support anybody being able to kill three. I absolutely do not support landowners having a second tag that floats to all seasons while a non landowner only gets one tag tho.

So you expect the landowner's to feed the deer on their dime, create habitat so you can hunt the deer, then complain because they get an extra anysex tag, if they choose?

 

[2-bucks]

We can all speculate on how a one buck rule might help or not. The only good real world example that I know of that has made this change is Indiana. It has made a significant increase in their buck age structure. I average 1.5 bucks/year and assume my average would drop below 1.0 if this took effect, but if it made half of the improvement that Indiana saw, I'm all for it.

 

[booneriverbucks]

So you expect the landowner's to feed the deer on their dime, create habitat so you can hunt the deer, then complain because they get an extra anysex tag, if they choose?

I’m well aware we agree on lots of things!!! I was trying to show another example. There are lots of avenues to control the deer population!! We literally have almost 3 months to kill the things!!! I like to think I “worked” hard to “earn” that third buck tag but will FREELY admit i’ve been extremely fortunate in life and have only god to thank for that. We could all be a little more generous and allow others to take some of these pesky extra deer off our hands… I do not feel at all that I am owed 3 bucks a year because of all my “hard work and sacrifice”. I am just 100% landowners getting multiple buck tags while others get one.

If landowners are truely concerned about the deer eating their profits they can let everybody come in and thin them out. Complete BS to want to have it both ways. Either take the subsidy or stop the BS. We literally have many many people in this state that are trying to increase the deer kill and yet expect there to be “trophy” age deer on every piece. I don’t want to personally kill more deer but I want my neighbors and the people that hunt their ground to kill less. But only the deer that I deem fit for them to harvest.. It’s complete BS. We all know there will never in a million years be a law that restricts us to only kill 5 and 6 year old deer. This is all a bunch of garbage!! I don’t personally want me or anyone I know to have a restriction on their hunting but please please please restrict the assshole next to me from doing what he does!! Most hypocritical crap i’ve ever seen!

I should add I %100 support the status quo when it comes to our regulations than further stacking the deck towards current landowners!! Would much rather see a landowner shoot 3 once every ten years than rip the ability away of the poor dude that’s stuck hunting public from having success during gun and bow season.

 

[booneriverbucks]

We can all speculate on how a one buck rule might help or not. The only good real world example that I know of that has made this change is Indiana. It has made a significant increase in their buck age structure. I average 1.5 bucks/year and assume my average would drop below 1.0 if this took effect, but if it made half of the improvement that Indiana saw, I'm all for it.

Even the Indiana DNR has freely admitted that they can not give total credit to their one buck rule increasing the recent trophy quality. They have admitted there has been a cultural change to passing younger deer and a general lack of access that has coincided with the recent uptick in trophy quality.. plenty of complaints from hunters in indiana with the current state of deer hunting in their state.

 

[Sligh1]

Lemme try to express both sides of the 1 buck debate. Even if I agree or disagree with XYZ, I want to understand it…

Keeping 2 bucks, the merits are:
1) being able to use the second for a management buck where if a guy was limited to 1, couldn’t.
2) The ability to keep hunting after shooting first buck. Longer hunting season & more opportunities.
I probably would end there but sure am open to more input on the merits of having 2 tags.

For one buck tag (or 2 for LO’s), those merits:
1) it would tag a guy out & then open up access for other guys with less folks afield each day - relieving pressure - which is a huge benefit. It also would drive down a guys desire to lock up “lots of land”.
2) though people rightly say “most don’t shoot 2 bucks” …. The psychology behind it is perhaps the biggest thing. It absolutely makes a guy far more picky & really think before they let the arrow or trigger go. “Do I really wanna tag THIS deer?!?!?! Is there older & do I want to be done??” I absolutely think a lot more bucks get passed, more bucks would make it and age class would get better. The only downside on this is the minority of cases when it’s a bully buck that needs shot. I believe it’s far outweighed by the # of younger deer that would get passed though.
3) if shooting a second (or 3rd) buck is a priority: we are all 2 hours from another state at most. We do still have tag sharing with party hunting & last- urban hunting allows yet another buck tag. Or keep hunting for a doe.
4) the ? I ask myself…. Is a buck & a few does “good enough” for the average guy? I personally don’t see how it isn’t. Especially when you can go to other states, doe hunt or do Urban buck hunting, etc.
5) citing examples in states with more deer & more habitat…. OH, KS, IN & a few others (say MN)…. Is one enough? Being there - I know the answer…. I would say hunters widely don’t want it changed to 2. & how much it’s improved Indiana!!!…. In like less than 10 years since they changed they went from like 18th to like 4th in B&C bucks by state…. It absolutely improved IN for hunting quality, age class & biology in a short period after they changed. They widely do NOT want to go back to the 2 buck model. & I agree they pass more deer as a culture but the 1 buck change was the BIG reason.
MO & IL would both blow up into super quality states if they did 1 buck & late gun.
6) I absolutely believe one buck creates opportunities for OTHER hunters. It’s the opposite of “me me me”. The second buck I didn’t shoot, maybe someone else gets it that obviously otherwise wouldn’t, especially hunters who are struggling to just get one buck. Or maybe another hunter gets him the years following at an older age. Maybe you get him a year later.

Personally, I’m for it. I also think of the reality of “political capital & political will” to change it. Today, it might “piss a lot of folks off”. It could have a few back-fires possibly that have been mentioned. Is pissing people a valid reason for not doing “what’s right”. Probably not. But- there’s also the chance that with a higher population, the pressure for 1 buck subsides some & we keep the political capital for other issues. I do think it’s wise to step stone to 1 buck if we do it. Like I said, so more would support it. If u said “50% support it now”. But if hunting continues to get worse, it likely would be “75% that support it”…. Is it wise to wait to get that support or pre-emptively act now so the hunting doesn’t get worse? No right answer. My gut says things are going to get better. Thus, Making me think a “wait & see” approach may be best. If we were certain things were gonna get flushed down the toilet, I’d change my mind & say “let’s go for it now”. No right or wrong, just thinking through this logically & trying to understand all views. All of above is very helpful. Debate, discussion & analysis is very wise on topics like this. Something the maniacs like Farm Bureau don’t do! Good stuff guys.

 

[booneriverbucks]

Not being a dick just totally being the devil’s advocate…. What legislation do you anticipate there being that the second landowner’s tag is for management? What is actually enforceable? Is it a “management buck” or is it just a mulligan because I’m so special that I deserve two bucks because i own land and I deserve a second tag?? is it just that i’m lucky and I’m a landowner??? Does the landowner that totally rapes the land for every penny it’s worth also qualify for a landowner tag??? Even tho he’s spent his whole life eradicating deer??? Or do the guys that are obsessed with creating habitat only get the tags but the guys that feed the things are left out??Where does it end??? Maybe we should create a commi Chinese social credit score type system to decide who gets two tags and who doesnt??? I totally admit I don’t have the answers!!!! What do others think???

 

[iowavf]

I keep reading the phrase,"Trophy" on this post along with a couple other posts on this site. I'm a little confused, are hunters wanting to change, or amend regulations in Iowa so we have more trophy quality deer?

 

[Sligh1]

Not being a dick just totally being the devil’s advocate…. What legislation do you anticipate there being that the second landowner’s tag is for management? What is actually enforceable? Is it a “management buck” or is it just a mulligan because I’m so special that I deserve two bucks because i own land and I deserve a second tag?? is it just that i’m lucky and I’m a landowner??? Does the landowner that totally rapes the land for every penny it’s worth also qualify for a landowner tag??? Even tho he’s spent his whole life eradicating deer??? Or do the guys that are obsessed with creating habitat only get the tags but the guys that feed the things are left out??Where does it end??? Maybe we should create a commi Chinese social credit score type system to decide who gets two tags and who doesnt??? I totally admit I don’t have the answers!!!! What do others think???

Not sure if I understand right.
No legislation or anything will say a buck tag is for a “management deer” of course.
I love hard ?’s & “devils advocate” so please throw it out there!! Any opposing views, love it!!!!
Clarify on what u mean there a bit more.
***oh!!! This was from JNRBRONC’s post!!! Ok- i get it now!! Yep- kill all the deer. All of em, zero left. I’m for sure on that bandwagon like Many others that want to make regs for iowa.

& yes, bottom line, I’m for a Communist China style take over of our country!!! Freedom & capitalism are for the birds!!!! Cuba is my style for sure. IW FUN FACT: Che Guevara is Curtis Walker’s Grandpa! Small world. (Yes, I have adhd )