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

Deer Numbers Poll

My county had issued 100 antlerless tags for the year and promptly sold ALL of them. I did not get one at the time. I now wish to buy one but cannot.

The DNR gave 20 depradation tags apiece to 3 adjacent landowners who have historically done everything they can think of to attract deer. (foodplots, etc). Bait???????????? 60 total for three situations. They seem to be filling the tags.

Seems unfair to me.
 
There will always be variences. I feel the DNR program is a good one for the most part, yet it will never be completely effective because of access issues. Areas with good hunting access will get reduced while limited access areas will remain with high herd numbers.

IMO the limited access places are now causing other areas to suffer under this program.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: captain</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> consider the audience</div></div>

Thats seems pretty disrespectful to all the members of this site that are willing to respond.
Thanks. </div></div>

Not meant to be disrespectful (and I'm a member of this site, too), just a statement on human nature.

Say I have three properties that I control and I am willing to let you hunt. All three have good trophy potential. One is thick with deer, you will be covered in them all day. Another property has solid numbers and the third property you might see a deer or two during the day. Answer honestly, which place would you choose to hunt?

The poll "shows" that it is a rare hunter who thinks the deer herd is too high.

Same thing can be said about fishing. What if I had two stocked ponds and the river is across the road. One pond was stocked first and the fish are large, the action fast. The other pond isn't so good, but it's bound to be better than fishing the river. Where you gonna fish? The majority of people are going to fish where they have the best chance at catching something: basic human nature.

It is difficult to formulate the wording of polls, pick the appropriate sample group and then the results of polls can be difficult to interpret. Tough job, Blake, thanks for putting in the effort.
 
I chose just right. Interestingly though, our herd has been HUGE for many years now. This is the first year it's down to what is probably considered about right by the other side. Oddly, much of the reduction occurred this past year alone. I'm estimating a 50% reduction from last year. It's weird.
 
I think the DNR has to add some flexiblility in the tag quota equation. Shed hunting this past spring I found a bunch, I mean a BUNCH of dead deer. Some I assume are unrecovered from hunting but I'm certain there was a large winter kill last year. Most of the dead I found were young deer not yet hearty enough to make it through all the ice. I know others on here saw the same thing last spring. Shouldn't those dead enter into the equation some how?
 
I didn't get to hunt last year but numbers are down from two years ago. However they are now about right, they were high in the past.
Muscatine county.
 
I have said for the last 3 years that the population is down in my area of Davis county. Sunday morning I sat for a while and then had to get down to head off a couple of guy who thought they were going to push through part of my timber. Then I walked down to a big creek bottom to let that whole group know that I was there and they couldn't be. I saw three deer that they pushed way ahead of them and 1 coyote. That was all. Sunday evening I set up on the edge of an alfalfa field and next to public ground that had about 1/2 of a 15 acre corn field picked with the rest still standing, all of which is adjacent to a very thick bedding area with lots of cedar trees for shelter. I never saw a thing from 3:30 to 5:20. I heard very little gun fire and talked to a couple of groups who only killed 2 or 3 deer instead of the 12 or 15 of other years. Deer numbers way down.

For those of you who say your deer population is still to high or way to high, I would ask what are you basing that on. The fact that you see a lot of deer or that there are a lot of road killed deer or what others have told you. What is too many deer and what to you is too few. With the declining success ratios and much lower harvest numbers for the entire state I just don't know what is too many or not enough. I vote not enough and getting smaller each season.
 
To low where i hunt. Tags should have nothing to do with CROP DAMAGE!!!! BOOOOO HOOOOOO!!!! If they wouldnt doze all the freaking timber they may have something else to eat. MY THOUGHTS. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/sick.gif
 
I really do feel sorry for the deer biologist of Iowa. He has his work cut out for him....

As many of you have stated, the deer numbers seem too low in your areas. Also, a few have stated that deer numbers tend to be ok, or too high.

I think the main reason for such a variance across the state is due to what gets hunted, and what doesn't.

That's the problem with the current system. The doe tags are sold for a county wide basis, however, there are places in that county in which nobody can hunt for various reasons. These are the areas where deer numbers tend to be high.

Then, like most of us on this site, we don't own property, and most likely hunt the same properties in which others hunt. This is where the doe tags are being utilized, and these are the areas where we are seeing deer numbers lower than they were in previous years.

Here is an example where i'm from in Marion County. I drive a stretch of highway 92 15 miles into town. I know this area very well as I have grown up here my entire life. There are two areas along the way where I see roadkill deer every single year (you know, the ones that insurance companies complain about). When you look at the property owners along the highway where the high amount of collisions occur, you see that no permission to hunting is allowed.

One of the owners is from out of state, and allows nobody to hunt, and the other is a gentlemen who is a trophy hunter and wants the property for himself (can't blame him there).

I think it would be very interesting, although, most likely not feasible, for our insurance companies to require we tell them approimatley where the collision occured, compile everyones collision data from the year, and then look at if hunting is allowed next to these areas.

I would be willing to bet that the areas where high amounts of collisions occur, nobody is allowed to hunt, or a select few at that.

The harvesting of does makes sense on paper, but in reality, espescially in Iowa (99% private), its going to lead to a highly varied population across the state.

This is going to be a huge problem in upcoming years I think. DNR revenue from hunters is already on the decline, and as more hunters become frustrated due to the lack of sightings, more will quit all together.

Don't believe for one second that we as hunters don't have a voice in this matter. WE fund our DNR. Our thoughts and opinions will be heard, just voice them.

Do I have the answer, no, and I don't know if there is one. It's a very complex issue, with no real answers.
 
There has been a decline in my area of SE, Iowa,not sure why. I first moved out here in 2004. First couiple of yrs bow hunting, end of Oct thru mid Nov, saw 3 or 4 two yr old bucks on my narrow 40 acre passage between larger acreages. Four or five yearling bucks, six seven different does. I know does not sound like alot compared to some on here. This year,same time frame I saw 2 two yr old bucks,,4 yearlings, in around twenty sits.maybe not alot of hrs put in, but I have seena decline. Can't say why??
 
A definite decline in my area. I wouldn't say the numbers are too low but I would say it's time to moderate the stance on deer numbers.
 
sureshot, this is the exact situation in my area also. Big private no hunting land next to I-380 out in Toddville. Then the Wikiup Hill Preserve down by the Nuke Plant. Both havens to deer that can't be harvested.
 
Another contributing factor may be that not everyone is calling in their kill. It is a little painful to sit through that boring phone call but well worth it. If they think a bunch of tags are left unfilled in an area where they had a high deer density would they just consider it a low success ratio and continue to issue more antlerless tags? I don't know. But the reporting system is there to help prove numbers and I think we all should be reporting. I know a few people who don't report and I can't talk them into doing it.

The big leases are a real problem in Van Buren County. I know one place in particular that is a 1500 acre lease. There are never any shotgun groups allowed to run any of it and the doe numbers are mind boggling. This ground is hunted by out of staters that are there for a buck. Mostly bow hunters and muzzleloader hunters. If you drive 5 miles down the road you could sit on the edge of a cornfield in the evening and maybe see three deer. I don't know how to fix the problem but maybe there should be some kind of rules in place for large trophy leases. I think these buck-hunted tracts are scewing the numbers. Maybe an earn-a-buck program for non-residents would help like at the munitions plant.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lila's Dad</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Another contributing factor may be that not everyone is calling in their kill.
</div></div>

I think you could be right. Certainly could explain why it seems to be hitting us all at once just a small number of years after this system was put in place. Does anybody know if they still do aerial counts or are they basing next year's tag allotment off the reporting system alone? You'd think flyovers would tell a different story if what we're seeing is correct.
 
I'm not sure how they do their counts. One buddy at work thought they did it from planes. Does anybody have more info on where the DNR gets their baseline data to help them make these decisions? I'm sure it is probably a variety of sources.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lila's Dad</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I'm not sure how they do their counts. One buddy at work thought they did it from planes. Does anybody have more info on where the DNR gets their baseline data to help them make these decisions? I'm sure it is probably a variety of sources. </div></div>


The DNR has two methods to count and estimate the heard but the numbers are still "soft" because there isn't a 100% reliable way to count deer. The first method is aerial surveys done after all the seasons are closed and they try to do them with the snow on the ground. The second method is roadside spotlight surveys. DNR COs drive a prescribed path after all seasons are closed. I don't know how often they drive these routes but I know it is several times. As a matter of note the routes changed in 2007 to be more reflective of an entire county. These routes started in the 60's to primarily count coons, deer were just add ons. The route followed major waterways where coons traveled, along with deer. The routes ran mainly northwest to southeast, now they run west to east or east to west, how ever you wanna say it. In 2007 the routes were 1,951 miles long and 9,241 deer were seen, up 16% from 2006. In 2008 the routes expanded to 4,472 miles and 11,225 deer were seen.

Not every state does deer counts. They go strictly by deer/vehicle collisions and harvest reports. Iowa is in the minority. Even the state deer biologist says there isn't a 100% acurate way to put a number on the deer in Iowa. Next time I see him I'll ask him what the over under is on the estimate. He is a nice guy with hunters and biology in his heart.

I guess I didn't answer any questions on how the quota is set, but biology isn't the only factor.

The 'Bonker
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom