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

Deer Population Peak

sep0667

sep0667

Land of the Whitetail
With the herd steadily trending downhill in the state I have been thinking about the numbers quite a bit. The herd reached its peak in population on the statewide level in the early to mid 2000's. I've recently started wondering and thinking about why did it reach it's peak at that time. Why did it not reach its peak in 1995? Why not 1980? I can't really think of any real good reasons as to why it peaked in the 2000's. Was it because of several mild winters mixed in with some some falls where the harvest was late? I don't know. What are some of your thoughts?
 
Because there just weren't that many deer back then!!! There wasn't even a deer season till the 1950's or so because there were so few deer in Iowa, or in most parts of the country for that matter. In Iowa you couldn't even get a doe tag for first shotgun season in the middle 90s. The population was growing so quickly by then though that doe tags became available for second season and then even more increasing where need be. Yes, we are on a decline over the past few years, but I still don't think the hunting is all that bad compared to 15 years ago. Look at the population trend over the last 30 years (instead o 5) and you'll see it really just isn't as bad as many folks are making it out to be. Probalby just getting to where it needs to be. I am sure there will be peaks and valleys in the population, but I don't think it is dooms-day like some are predicting!
I think the DNR is doing a great job at creating opportunites for us to be successful in our outings. Turkey populations are another fine example.
 
I don't really recall doe tags being available before 2000. I don't have that great a memory though. All I remember is you could get two any sex tags. If you took away all the doe tags and hush locker, in 3-5 years we would be at record levels again I am sure.
 
I'm not real sure on above and I'd like to hear more too. I always wondered why there were few deer in the 50's or whatever- like hardly any. You'd think within just a few years back then the population could explode. There were crops then and woods- hardly any deer and hardly anyone killing them. Why weren't they crazy high then? There's a few farms you hold off on killing deer for a few years and you'll be over-run. Even if there were half as many all those years ago, I could see that BUT there wasn't squat. Boggling.
 
http://www.iowadnr.gov/Hunting/DeerHunting/PopulationHarvestTrends.aspx

Take some time to scan through these reports. They are large documents with lots and lots of info, but there is some very interesting info. I started with the 2001 report and read the whitetail section. It gives a really good synopsis of the history of whitetail deer and their populations in Iowa.

One immediate trend I noticed that I want to point out and am interested to hear everyones take on it: Since 2005 the total number of tags issued (table 1.4 in 2010 report) has steadily risen, while the total harvest (table 1.2 in 2010 report) has steadily declined. It seems to me that if the population plummet (as some folks are calling it) was directly related to overharvesting, shouldn't the total harvest numbers been steadily rising alont with the number of tags issued?

Also, the recent annual harvest numbers are on par with the late 90's and early 2000's, when the population was supposedly peaking.

Another interesting fact I came across was that if there were no deer season at all, the deer population would increase 20 to 40% annually, and populations of 100 deer/square mile would be quite common.

Anyway, take some time and read through some of these reports and check out the statistics yourself. At least then you can make an educated opinon, instead of blending in with the obviously uneducated opinions that are commonly voiced on here.
 
Iowa_Buckeye said:
Because there just weren't that many deer back then!!! There wasn't even a deer season till the 1950's or so because there were so few deer in Iowa, or in most parts of the country for that matter.
Click to expand...
Exactly! I'm wondering why there wasn't a lot back then like there was in the 2000's, what made them peak then?

I think the DNR is doing a great job at creating opportunites for us to be successful in our outings. Turkey populations are another fine example
Click to expand...
I agree, our DNR does a great job. Are you not aware though that the quotas for this year were heavily reduced and in some counties were dropped completely, and that the November antlerless was proposed to not have taken place this year? Branstad over ruled them. The DNR then even wrote on their site to the hunters to be selective what they harvest.

But, lets not get off track on this thread. I want to know what some others thoughts are on why the population peaked in the 2000's and not say 1965? 1940? 1990? or any other random year.
 
Last edited:
Okay. I read the report from the links. I've actually been looking at those a lot lately, but just not that part. I've been looking at the graphs and licenses sold and harvest reports. I've actually posted a couple links to that very report in a couple other threads, I've just never read that first part:eek: my bad. Sounds like basically they were just over harvested.
 
sep0667 said:
Exactly! I'm wondering why there wasn't a lot back then like there was in the 2000's, what made them peak then?


I agree, our DNR does a great job. Are you not aware though that the quotas for this year were heavily reduced and in some counties were dropped completely, and that the November antlerless was proposed to not have taken place this year? Branstad over ruled them. The DNR then even wrote on their site to the hunters to be selective what they harvest.

But, lets not get off track on this thread. I want to know what some others thoughts are on why the population peaked in the 2000's and not say 1965? 1940? 1990? or any other random year.
Click to expand...

The deer population in Iowa was all but eliminated at the turn of the last century due to unregulated harvests of the animal. It took that long for them to repopulate.

To the best of my knowledge, the quotas for this year are exactly the same as last year for ALL counties. It was proposed by the DNR to lower them but our Governor would did not allow it.
 
sep0667 said:
But, lets not get off track on this thread. I want to know what some others thoughts are on why the population peaked in the 2000's and not say 1965? 1940? 1990? or any other random year.
Click to expand...

I wondered this too while I was looking at the numbers. It seems that the harvest totals steadily rose in correlation with the rise in population. So what in the mid 2000's made the population start trending downward? In looking at the numbers I am pretty confident that hunting pressure alone could not have caused this.

I also thought it was interesting that deer were quite abundant in the mid to late 1800 when many of the areas of Iowa were settled, and that hunting pressure at that time was the direct cause of them nearly being eradicated in this state.

Good thread, good topic. Next could be pheasants! (Hunting is not to blame for their decline either in my opinion!)
 
Take a look at IOWA GEOGRAPHIC MAP SERVER . I don't know what the total state population was but in the rural areas it was much higher in the 40's, 50's and 60's then it is now. In many cases there was a farm on almost every 80 acres. I would have to say unregulated hunting and a dearth of cover.....check out the aerial photos for the 30's; cover was nonexistent, but by the 50's you are able to see a fair amount of secondary succession especially in the draws and wet areas.
 
The population started trending down in the mid 2000s because that is when the DNR upped the number of doe tags available in order to trend the population downward. There was a time not too long ago when there was not even doe tags available. I guess I just don't understand the mystery here, but maybe if I wasn't hunting back in the 90s, I may assume there have always been a doe tag alloment per county available. No offense meant to anyone who was not deer hunting back then and is not aware of the prior regulations.
 
Iowa_Buckeye said:
The population started trending down in the mid 2000s because that is when the DNR upped the number of doe tags available in order to trend the population downward. There was a time not too long ago when there was not even doe tags available. I guess I just don't understand the mystery here, but maybe if I wasn't hunting back in the 90s, I may assume there have always been a doe tag alloment per county available. No offense meant to anyone who was not deer hunting back then and is not aware of the prior regulations.
Click to expand...

No offense taken. I'm wasn't wondering about the regs nor am I wondering about the doe tags. I was just wondering why the population peaked when it did and why not a 30 years earlier for example. After reading that portion or the report it seems to be unregulated hunting. Mystery solved:way:
 
Iowa_Buckeye said:
The population started trending down in the mid 2000s because that is when the DNR upped the number of doe tags available in order to trend the population downward. There was a time not too long ago when there was not even doe tags available. I guess I just don't understand the mystery here, but maybe if I wasn't hunting back in the 90s, I may assume there have always been a doe tag alloment per county available. No offense meant to anyone who was not deer hunting back then and is not aware of the prior regulations.
Click to expand...

How do you explain the overall harvest having steadily declined since the mid 2000's? For some reason I seem to think that if there were more and more doe tags available and the population was high, then the harvest totals should have been increasing in correlation with the number of tags issued. That does not seem to be the case when looking at the statistics.

Also, looking at table 1.10 in the 2010 report it shows the aerial population surveys (post harvest) being relatively stable, even though the number of available tags has increased.

So back to the OP's question, when the harvests were heavily targeted on bucks, (pre 2000's), why didn't the population spike as rapidly as it did in the early 2000's? I do think there is some merit to the point that the percentage of the population living in rural areas was higher decades ago.
 
Last edited:
Iowa_Buckeye said:
The population started trending down in the mid 2000s because that is when the DNR upped the number of doe tags available in order to trend the population downward. There was a time not too long ago when there was not even doe tags available. I guess I just don't understand the mystery here, but maybe if I wasn't hunting back in the 90s, I may assume there have always been a doe tag alloment per county available. No offense meant to anyone who was not deer hunting back then and is not aware of the prior regulations.
Click to expand...


Exactly. It's not rocket science guys. The population would have peaked at what ever year you wanted to pick 1985, 1990, 1993, 1997, 2001, 2005 if that was the year when the DNR decided to slaughter all the does. Grain prices have been low since the late 1970's and didn't start rising dramatically until the mid 2000's which only increased the pressure on the DNR from Farm Bureau to dramatically decrease the deer herd. I can remember herds of 200 deer in 1 square mile sections of NW Iowa during the shotgun season back in the late 1980's. Those same sections today you would be lucky to find 5. Decline in CRP habitat and increased doe harvest are the main factors. Now with the majority of CRP contracts expiring in the next couple years. Record crop prices leading the clearing of brush and pasture ground to make way for more row crop. Then add the DNR and FB not taking the pressure off of the deer herd were headed for some lean hunting years. I was talking to my CO and he thinks we are going to have to go to buck only harvest for a few years just to let the herd recover in NW Iowa. Not good for the Trophy hunting that caused the high demand for deer hunting tags in Iowa. Just think of all the shotgun hunters switching back to shooting fork horns instead of does to fill their tags. For those of us who have been deer hunting for 25+ years that sounds familiar. The peak population and decline is no mystery for those of us who have been around more than just a few seasons. As Iowa_Buckeye said "No offense meant to anyone who was not deer hunting back then and is not aware of the prior regulations."
 
jw_wildfire said:
How do you explain the overall harvest having steadily declined since the mid 2000's? For some reason I seem to think that if there were more and more doe tags available and the population was high, then the harvest totals should have been increasing in correlation with the number of tags issued. That does not seem to be the case when looking at the statistics.

Also, looking at table 1.10 in the 2010 report it shows the aerial population surveys (post harvest) being relatively stable, even though the number of available tags has increased.

So back to the OP's question, when the harvests were heavily targeted on bucks, (pre 2000's), why didn't the population spike as rapidly as it did in the early 2000's? I do think there is some merit to the point that the percentage of the population living in rural areas was higher decades ago.
Click to expand...

Can't just look at total harvest numbers alone. Have to look at % of does killed. For every doe shot the population decreases by three the next year and for every buck it decreases by one. The spike occured because doe harvest was minimal from 1960's through the 1970's. From 1980 through 1990 I would bet around 15-20% of the deer harvested were does, From 1990 through 2000 around 33% and that percentage has been increasing from 2000 to over 50% doe harvest now. If buck harvest numbers remains constant and you increase doe harvest from 33% to 55% and at the same time increase the total harvest numbers by 10-15% with the entire increase being extra does being harvested during the antlerless season the population can only go in one direction and that is down. Pre 2005 there wasn't a harvest reporting system just a survey that was not a reliable harvest indicator. So you can't use early 2000 harvest data to indicate a decline because it was not accurate.
 
Last edited:
Deer pop. exploded when it did because of a major shift in land use. I've lived up here in NE Iowa all my life. When I was a kid, every farm had a family on it. Every woodlot and slough either had hogs or cows running it. We started seeing deer when farm building sites started to be abandoned and absentee landowners started renting out the crop ground while woodlots and pastures were abandoned as soon as fences deteriorated. Just like pheasants, it's 90% about habitat. I believe soybeans also had an effect as acres and acres of high protein feed made fawn raising a piece of cake. You might say it was a perfect storm for deer pop. to explode. Dozers and doe harvest are sending numbers the other way.
 
I guess i will throw in my two cents (for what it's worth). The peak of poulation was at a time with some favorable winters and before the land boom and clearcutting habitat began at the staggering rate we see today, but i think one point that hasn't been discussed is predators. During the peak of the deer population, coyotes were very scarce mainly due to mainge and being hunted thin. Now that coyote poulation has recovered substantially (my own personal observation) in the areas that I hunt. We under estimate the power in numbers of these coyotes. Wether it is in the spring/summer taking down fawns or post rut taking down run-down bucks, they have definately had a factor. There always has been a decent crowd of hunters that predator hunt, but that number has dropped due to low pelt prices and pelts that aren't worth a dime due to coloration or mainge. Fur buyers are very selective in what they want. My opinion... go buy and e-caller and shoot some dogs and leave does alone if you're worried about your local population. Also there is nothing wrong with eating tag soup if the right buck doesn't present itself. Personally I still have some does to kill in my area, but that probably isn't true in most areas. October 1st this year i sat in a tree stand and had 19 does and one buck come past. You can bet that there are plenty of deer in my particular area and i will still be chasing coyotes because if they aren't kept in check they can single handedly hurt the deer population. (this is just my opinion so don't personally attack me for my thoughts if you disagree that's great, but this is my personal observation from time on stand and year round trail camera and personal scouting.)
 
Finally someone has figured it out , TURKEYRIVER is spot on !!!! It’s all about habitat and land use. Wildlife management really isn’t all that complicated, if you want to have lots of critter (deer, turkey, pheasants, waterfowl) you must start with habitat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom