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

Did they pull another thread?

Baby-G said:
We're not talking about the state of Indiana.. Lol We're talking about Iowa. The Whitetail World Mecca! Indiana has awful deer density except in the very southern part of the state. If you only have 20 deer in a section you likely won't have any mature deer....
Click to expand...

You didn't answer the question
 
hoosierhunter said:
Maybe I'm crazy but did anyone stop to think that the CURRENT deer levels are where they should be or even still slightly high still???? I'm hoping most guys understand that seeing 10 deer a sit is fun, but it's also too many. I think every state is fighting this same battle against the "good ole days" and the ""good ole boys" mentality. What's do you guys consider an acceptable amount of deer per section? Yeah and I already get it that is varies by section, but what's a legit average number? Is 20 ok, what about 30 or 40? What do you guys really consider acceptable? Has anyone done a census on their property to know what they have?
Click to expand...

I am completely ok with going days without seeing deer.....I think maintaining the current doe #s while increasing the number of bucks will make the rut more intense. Yes some areas need more does and some less. I couldn't agree more with your good ole boy and good ole days statement! It's amazing because landowners don't want to be considered equal with non landowners. In Ohio I don't hear any landowners complaining saying they deserve an extra tag because they've never been given one yet in Iowa the mentality is completely opposite.
 
Baby-G said:
Your right it won't make the numbers come back on doe's. The only thing that will bring doe numbers up is killing less doe's, so a doe tag reduction will do that. Buck numbers are down also. So reducing the tag allotment for them will help get the numbers up and the age structure along with it. If everyone sacrificed one buck tag for the next 3 years your hunting would be back to where it was or better...
Click to expand...

Our DNR is not interested in managing the age structure of our buck population, and I hope they never will be. This is an individual choice today and I don't want the DNR to interfere with that. Buck numbers are down because the overall population number is down. Reducing the number of bucks taken is only a temporary solution to a perceived problem. Each buck alive today is going to die, hopefully to some hunter. If they are happy with him, good for them, regardless of the age of the dear, be it a 1.5 year old spike, or a 6.5 year old B&C.

bkcrrtnps said:
Finally someone who sees the big picture!!
Click to expand...

The big picture is the doe population. That is why buck hunting was the way it was a few years ago. That is why it is the way it is today.
 
150 Class,

I'm curious why you wouldn't want to lower both doe and buck tags. And only want to lower the amount of doe tags. A healthy herd has good age structure and close to even percentages of doe and bucks. Your healthy males breed your females.

Maybe I'm missing something?

But I think most guys that don't want to sacrifice one buck tag maybe a little self serving and aren't willing to shoot one less buck.

If Iowa doesn't make changes they will end up with the same hunting as Illinois and some other states. A 200 acre picked corn field has 5 to 12 deer in it in the middle of the rut with one spike and one fork horn in it. That makes for some great hunting.... : (
 
150 Class said:
Our DNR is not interested in managing the age structure of our buck population, and I hope they never will be. This is an individual choice today and I don't want the DNR to interfere with that. Buck numbers are down because the overall population number is down. Reducing the number of bucks taken is only a temporary solution to a perceived problem. Each buck alive today is going to die, hopefully to some hunter. If they are happy with him, good for them, regardless of the age of the dear, be it a 1.5 year old spike, or a 6.5 year old B&C. The big picture is the doe population. That is why buck hunting was the way it was a few years ago. That is why it is the way it is today.
Click to expand...

The more does the less intense the rut is, I can guarantee you that more tags are sold to guys hunting for the big one than not! To think the health of the heard is based solely on doe numbers is ludicrous
 
Baby-G said:
150 Class,

I'm curious why you wouldn't want to lower both doe and buck tags. And only want to lower the amount of doe tags. A healthy herd has good age structure and close to even percentages of doe and bucks. Your healthy males breed your females.

Maybe I'm missing something?

But I think most guys that don't want to sacrifice one buck tag maybe a little self serving and aren't willing to shoot one less buck.

If Iowa doesn't make changes they will end up with the same hunting as Illinois and some other states. A 200 acre picked corn field has 5 to 12 deer in it in the middle of the rut with one spike and one fork horn in it. That makes for some great hunting.... : (
Click to expand...

If it was all about "me" I would speak a different tune. Some of you would like what I propose, some would not. I am speaking about what I think is best for our state owned resource for all who own it, not just me. QDM and trophy management should not be a state managed program. I get what you are saying and what you want, I just am not interested in the state doing it. The state is not interested in doing it. JMHO.
 
bkcrrtnps said:
The more does the less intense the rut is, I can guarantee you that more tags are sold to guys hunting for the big one than not! To think the health of the heard is based solely on doe numbers is ludicrous
Click to expand...

Another member had a debate about age structure health in another thread. Our DNR does not look at age structure as part of herd health. To think a debate about that here will get buck tag numbers changed, well, it would be ludicrous.
 
It's really hard to say what a entire state of hunters would want. But the consensus from most Iowians was they wanted to see more deer than what they saw this year.

Very very few said they needed to thin the herd more in there area.

Let's see if the DNR is able to come up with a good proposal ? I encourage everyone that cares what the future hunting in Iowa is like let's there voices be heard. It's worth it for piece of mind in the years to come .
 
hoosierhunter said:
Maybe I'm crazy but did anyone stop to think that the CURRENT deer levels are where they should be or even still slightly high still????

I'm hoping most guys understand that seeing 10 deer a sit is fun, but it's also too many. I think every state is fighting this same battle against the "good ole days" and the ""good ole boys" mentality.

What's do you guys consider an acceptable amount of deer per section? Yeah and I already get it that is varies by section, but what's a legit average number? Is 20 ok, what about 30 or 40?

What do you guys really consider acceptable?

has anyone done a census on their property to know what they have?
Click to expand...

I don't think you are crazy Hoosier. At least this time. :D

I think you are spot on. Good post to think on.
 
bkcrrtnps said:
I am completely ok with going days without seeing deer.....I think maintaining the current doe #s while increasing the number of bucks will make the rut more intense. Yes some areas need more does and some less. I couldn't agree more with your good ole boy and good ole days statement! It's amazing because landowners don't want to be considered equal with non landowners. In Ohio I don't hear any landowners complaining saying they deserve an extra tag because they've never been given one yet in Iowa the mentality is completely opposite.
Click to expand...
its not about being equal its the point that us land owners manage our herds i pass on 150 to 160 inch deer every single year while you are pumped to kill one. I have passed deer like that and managed my part for someone who doesnt own land and would shoot the deer that walked by me 5 min ago to tell me how iowa and the people should manage?Also the buck age is there what i think happened was ehd hurt alot more deer than it killed so they are sick they didnt grow cause of this.I have alot of 5 year olds that didnt grow much at all.
 
iowa whitetail said:
its not about being equal its the point that us land owners manage our herds i pass on 150 to 160 inch deer every single year while you are pumped to kill one. I have passed deer like that and managed my part for someone who doesnt own land and would shoot the deer that walked by me 5 min ago to tell me how iowa and the people should manage?Also the buck age is there what i think happened was ehd hurt alot more deer than it killed so they are sick they didnt grow cause of this.I have alot of 5 year olds that didnt grow much at all.
Click to expand...

You think I want to shoot 150-160 deer? To me it's about age not antler size! I am a landowner myself. If a deer walks by you 5 min before me than your obviously trespassing.....To get into a pissing match regarding antler size is alright with me, how many 190+ deer have you shot
 
If your a land owner than you should have man better so you would have the deer. My deer are in my profile. The hole reason i was saying i pass them was lack of age that was my point.
 
Last edited:
iowa whitetail said:
If your a land owner than you should have man better so you would have the deer. My deer are in my profile. The hole reason i was saying i pass them was lack of age that was my point.
Click to expand...

I have no lack of mature deer, I'm speaking on a statewide level not my area specifically. Iowa has a limited resource! That's why they say they have a non resident draw. If that limited resource is depleted then why allow residents to have 3 any sex tags?
 
bkcrrtnps said:
If that limited resource is depleted then why allow residents to have 3 any sex tags?
Click to expand...

Because, unless you have been living under a rock, money talks. Landowners grow the "public resource" known as deer. They pay property taxes. Thus they are a "stake holder" in the equation, their voice is heard by the legislature. Don't believe it? How has the Farm Bureau and the insurance industry had such pull? Money and a large membership base.

Obviously, from my posts in this and the deleted thread, I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Show me some numbers on how many resident landowner tags are bought and how many get filled. That's your homework assignment and I think you are about to be schooled. I bet it's a drop in the bucket.

There are much bigger threats to the deer herd out there than the resident landowner, IMO. The Iowa hunter has few friends and you are about to lose even more with your anti-landowner agenda.
 
Its not the bucks that keep the heard down, i dont get why you think that.I spend almost all my free time with hunting deer so im not just a guy that wants a tag.Its the doe seasons if you kill an exra buck on a place it doesnt mean another wont breed the does if you kill an extra doe that is at least one deer every year she is alive that will be out of the heard. If you have a heard of cows and wanted more, you would focus on more bulls for your heard first?
 
JNRBRONC said:
Because, unless you have been living under a rock, money talks. Landowners grow the "public resource" known as deer. They pay property taxes. Thus they are a "stake holder" in the equation, their voice is heard by the legislature. Don't believe it? How has the Farm Bureau and the insurance industry had such pull? Money and a large membership base. Obviously, from my posts in this and the deleted thread, I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Show me some numbers on how many resident landowner tags are bought and how many get filled. That's your homework assignment and I think you are about to be schooled. I bet it's a drop in the bucket. There are much bigger threats to the deer herd out there than the resident landowner, IMO. The Iowa hunter has few friends and you are about to lose even more with your anti-landowner agenda.
Click to expand...

Resident landowners deserve an extra tag. It should be their SECOND tag, not third like it currently is.

That's how you affect your buck population is a positive way.
 
hoosierhunter said:
Resident landowners deserve an extra tag. It should be their SECOND tag, not third like it currently is.

That's how you affect your buck population is a positive way.
Click to expand...

All about the trophy bucks, isn't it....... :rolleyes:

And jealousy that someone else might be tapping into that resource with an "unfair" advantage, even if they have put their money where their mouth is, stood up and paid for it.


The challenge: show me how many landowner tags are sold and filled. I think it will not support your stance that it is a problem with deer management.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom