loneranger
Well-Known Member
If harvest numbers ae down,,will only say to the powers that be,,that they will have to put more effort into,"KIlling those darn DEER next season"!
kellyprymek
PMA Member
Hunting was great this year I did not see as many deer but the quality of deer we are seeing are better. And since by all the post I read I can tell there is not one deer biologist in the group, I think the Idnr are doing a fine job managing the population, to date. And the have backed off of the doe tags they sell from year to year.
Cooter
Active Member
kellyprymek said:
I'm no deer biologist and the IDNR has one and they wanted to drop the antlerless tags in most counties but Braindead vetoed it. But if you were more in touch with the whitetail world you would have known this.
I can count and read deer sign and I think deer numbers are getting too low in a lot of areas in Iowa. But a biologist would know a lot more than us hunters.
Mobile Cooter using IW
dedgeez
death from above
FALSE.......
They tried last year, but as Cooter stated, they were unsuccessful due to Branstad feeling the need to keep the tag #'s high to generate more revenue for the state (in theory).
You are correct that the IDNR does a good job of managing our herd (when they are allowed to), but their voice was silenced last year and when the people that are hired to manage our resource aren't allowed to do their job we are in trouble. Biologists or not, there are a lot of guys on here that are very in tune with what goes on in our government and with our deer herd. Join the IBA, and Iowawhitetailsforever and I think you will find out that we're not as dumb as you make us out to be! It will also help you to be not so misinformed when you make accusations. :way:
ironwood
Active Member
In defense of kellyprymek, I believe in years prior to last year the biologist where aloud to reduce the doe harvest in areas as they saw the need. Last years politics with that process sure leaves a bad taste in your mouth. It looks like the harvest could end up close to last years when all is said and done.
I would like to see the totals on tag sales. success rates. I am sure those numbers get posted somewhere. Those would be very telling stats.
I would like to see the totals on tag sales. success rates. I am sure those numbers get posted somewhere. Those would be very telling stats.
singlecoyote
Proud member of the IBA
Lots of good info on the DNR's site. This is an excerpt from the "Trends in Iowa Wildlife Populations and Harvest 2010" - Whitetail Chapter prepared by Tom Litchfield
Outlook for 2011
After 8 years of increased doe
harvest, hunters are seeing reduced deer
numbers in most areas of the state. Nearly
two thirds of Iowa’s counties appear to be
at the department’s goal. The goal is a
stable population at a level comparable to
the mid-to-late 1990s. A population at this
level should sustain an estimated annual
harvest of 100,000 to 120,000 deer.
Thirty-three counties, primarily in
north central and northwestern Iowa, are
currently at the department’s goal.
Antlerless quotas for these counties were
reduced prior to the 2010 season and
current harvest levels should keep numbers
stable. Current data indicate that 20
additional counties in the east central part of
the state may go below goal if doe harvests
are not reduced beginning this fall.
Although recommendations were made to
reduce the antlerless quotas in these 20
counties this fall, the changes were not
adopted for the 2011 season. Because of
this, hunters will need to be judicious in
their use of antlerless licenses in these 20
counties or deer numbers may go below the
department’s goal. Deer numbers are still
above the department’s goal in some areas
in central and southwestern Iowa. The
2011 antlerless quotas will help reduce deer
numbers in these areas to the department’s
goals.
As deer numbers decline hunters
will need to become more cautious in the
number of does they harvest. Hunters can
drive deer numbers lower than desired in
local areas even in those counties where
deer numbers remain above the goal.
Conversely, there are areas in some
counties that are at goal where deer
numbers are still overabundant. Hunters
need to work with landowners to find a
desirable level of harvest.
harvest, hunters are seeing reduced deer
numbers in most areas of the state. Nearly
two thirds of Iowa’s counties appear to be
at the department’s goal. The goal is a
stable population at a level comparable to
the mid-to-late 1990s. A population at this
level should sustain an estimated annual
harvest of 100,000 to 120,000 deer.
Thirty-three counties, primarily in
north central and northwestern Iowa, are
currently at the department’s goal.
Antlerless quotas for these counties were
reduced prior to the 2010 season and
current harvest levels should keep numbers
stable. Current data indicate that 20
additional counties in the east central part of
the state may go below goal if doe harvests
are not reduced beginning this fall.
Although recommendations were made to
reduce the antlerless quotas in these 20
counties this fall, the changes were not
adopted for the 2011 season. Because of
this, hunters will need to be judicious in
their use of antlerless licenses in these 20
counties or deer numbers may go below the
department’s goal. Deer numbers are still
above the department’s goal in some areas
in central and southwestern Iowa. The
2011 antlerless quotas will help reduce deer
numbers in these areas to the department’s
goals.
As deer numbers decline hunters
will need to become more cautious in the
number of does they harvest. Hunters can
drive deer numbers lower than desired in
local areas even in those counties where
deer numbers remain above the goal.
Conversely, there are areas in some
counties that are at goal where deer
numbers are still overabundant. Hunters
need to work with landowners to find a
desirable level of harvest.
sep0667
Land of the Whitetail
Ironwood, you can find all that information on the IDNR's website. Go to the IDNR site, then hover over "hunting" tab, then hover over the "deer hunting" tab, then click "Population & Harvest Trends." Here the DNR puts out their annual reports. The reports are not just for deer, they have a section on nearly every animal in the state. The deer start at the beginning. Singlecoyote posted just a small piece of their report for the deer. If you scroll down you can find some of the percentages and success rates on page 33 of it (at least on my computer). There's all kinds of graphs and charts and numbers to look at. They it all broken down by counties and seasons, etc. I see a lot of questions regarding the type of information that is in these reports on this site and this is where you can really find a lot of it. I know a lot of times people here want to see the results of their findings from the various surveys the DNR conducts (roadkill, spotlight, arieal) and that can all be found here and it is all broken down into numbers etc. It's a great resource with a TON of information :way:! I really think that there should be a link to this information under the Whitetail Conference. So many times in discussion on here why could use the information that is in these reports and we could have it right there for quick reference.
SquirrelBoy
New Member
I especially like this paragraph for all those haters out there that think hunters cause deer to run into roads!
Last edited:
kellyprymek
PMA Member
Oh yes the amazing cooter speaks again with out knowing facts and says I am not in touch with the whitetail world. Doe tag numbers have been dropped since raising them. 8 years ago but it is nice that you know what is going on this year!! I have my self been managing 3 different farms for whitetail for the last five years. You make your self sound like a weekend hunter. When you talk, so when you have nothing educated to say I would just keep your comments to yourself. I never said I agree with politics in the dnr but that will never change and if you think this is the first time this has happened you are very wrong. By the way we are still on target to hit the harvest number to keep the deer numbers where we need them. I am very sorry you did not see your 20 plus deer a day this year. We shot some of the biggest deer in the country in Iowa. in the last 5 years the number of trophy/record deer has greatly increased. You can thank the Idnr for that because when the doe to buck ratio is that far out of whack you do not get that. Over population of deer cause decreased body size in the deer. Do your homework and look at most of the east coast. We have people shooting deer the size of golden retrievers out there because they do not have a dnr program such as ours. I love guys who bitch constantly about how there season sucked and it's because the dnr did this or the politicians did this. Yet those people who bitch do nothing about the problem. I had a great year mainly because I manage my own farms I set the doe to buck ratio to what I need it to be. If you do not like what is going on fix the problem yourself. Complaining on every post someone rights is doing very little for you. If the land you hunt is doing that poor then you need to correct the problem, which is very legal to do without breaking laws. Heck if you want to see more deer just go shoot some coyotes you can do that year around. But that would be proactive and you do not seem like a proactive person to me.
sureshot
The Hunt Never Ends....
Haha
Just curious, does the body size that you speak of on the east coast have anything to do with the environment in which the deer live? Also, how can those who do not own land manage when others hunt the land as well?
kellyprymek
PMA Member
There are many ways to manage land besides shooting deer. As stated above do some yote hunting plant some trees, food plots, put in a water source, talk to the land owner many times they will be willing to help out if you are willing to put in some hard work also. Controlled burns. Make new habitat and create new food sources. Now if you hunt public land your hands are tied. I understand that as well. I am speaking from a private land perspective. But I do hunt alot of public ground also I found that helping out some of the park rangers with everyday chores around different parks leads me to some pretty good hunting spots remember this guys know and see where all the wildlife live and come and go from some of the best private land I hunt I got by the local co recommended me to the land owner. A little hard work goes along way.
Cooter
Active Member
kellyprymek said:
You think I'm amazing geeze that's sweet .......
Where was I bitching?
I also did my part by not shooting any does or little bucks. But like SS said I'm not the only one hunting my areas.
I have been having a good season just didn't have one walk in front of me that I wanted to pull the trigger on yet.
Are you from the east coast?
Mobile Cooter using IW
loneranger
Well-Known Member
Yes,,you cannot,"Manage", a deer herd if your deer herd roams for miles over other's acreages.
kellyprymek
PMA Member
No I am not from the east coast but I do have family and friends that live on the east coast. I have done some hunting out that way but would never travel there to hunt whitetail. Black bear yes whitetail no.
kellyprymek
PMA Member
Yes the body size is related to the environment the deer live in. Which has created over population of deer in those areas which is directly related to inbreeding of the deer and decreases body size and herd health.
Just a couple of questions for you. First of all how in the world can any one claim to "manage THEIR deer herd" with out a high fence around THEIR property? You can certainly manage the land and create habitat and the dreaded food plots but, like Lone Ranger says, you can't possibly manage a free flowing deer herd which may move constantly over several hundred acres and across different county lines. You can't establish any kind of ideal buck to doe ratio because you don't know what deer will be on your land tomorrow or next week, you just delude yourself into thinking that you know. Do any of us actually know or understand what an ideal buck to doe ratio even is, or do we just accept what the TV experts tell us about 1 to 1 being the best? If that were really the case then all the cattle farmers have been doing a horrible job for years and we should start seeing 1 bull for every cow in the pasture.
Referencing you comments about over population leading to inbreeding and small body weight, I don't see the correlation. It would seem to me if there are more girls to choose from you would not be so quick to hook up with your sister or cousin, or at least that is how it is in my county. Also you do understand that selective inbreeding is how every dog, cow, horse, and every other domestic animal developed different breeds with chosen charistics to enhance their value to us? So if you have a world record buck in the herd and it should breed with it's mother which contributed half of his genetic profile, that would produce a smaller bodied deer with inferior horns and mutant traits, so we should shoot the mother and the sisters before he has the chance to breed with them? Where do these ideas come from?
For those of you who feel that this drastic herd reduction is really a good thing and will give us bigger and much better bucks and better overall quality of deer, how do you think that this is possible? If you read that one little bit about the first deer hunt in 1953, which I found amusing that with a population of only 10,000 deer people were complaining way back then about crop damage and auto accidents, think about this. If your logic were correct then since virtually all of those 4000 deer killed that year were bucks, why weren't they all monsters if fewer deer means bigger better quality bucks? Iowa did not gain it's questionable reputation as a big buck state with a deer herd in decline or even while it was static during the 70s and 80, but only as herd size was increasing steadily or rapidly. The main reason you are seeing bigger bucks right now is the over emphasis for several years on killing does, thus giving some of these smaller bucks the chance to grow and mature. With fewer deer available these bucks might stand out a little more because you are not seeing as many does now. With fewer does to produce fawns and a higher birth rate of females because of the declining population, there will actually be fewer bucks in the future years, not to mention the fact that we are now killing many of these better bucks. Couple that with high hunter numbers and realization that we are killing too many does, hunters will now start killing higher numbers of these younger bucks just to fill their licenses. The trophy hunters of course won't do this, but you must realize that no matter what it seems on here, 85% or more of Iowa deer hunters don't give a hoot about holding out for a trophy instead of filling their freezers. While we might be seeing better bucks now, with out recruitment we can't see them in the future!!
Referencing you comments about over population leading to inbreeding and small body weight, I don't see the correlation. It would seem to me if there are more girls to choose from you would not be so quick to hook up with your sister or cousin, or at least that is how it is in my county. Also you do understand that selective inbreeding is how every dog, cow, horse, and every other domestic animal developed different breeds with chosen charistics to enhance their value to us? So if you have a world record buck in the herd and it should breed with it's mother which contributed half of his genetic profile, that would produce a smaller bodied deer with inferior horns and mutant traits, so we should shoot the mother and the sisters before he has the chance to breed with them? Where do these ideas come from?
For those of you who feel that this drastic herd reduction is really a good thing and will give us bigger and much better bucks and better overall quality of deer, how do you think that this is possible? If you read that one little bit about the first deer hunt in 1953, which I found amusing that with a population of only 10,000 deer people were complaining way back then about crop damage and auto accidents, think about this. If your logic were correct then since virtually all of those 4000 deer killed that year were bucks, why weren't they all monsters if fewer deer means bigger better quality bucks? Iowa did not gain it's questionable reputation as a big buck state with a deer herd in decline or even while it was static during the 70s and 80, but only as herd size was increasing steadily or rapidly. The main reason you are seeing bigger bucks right now is the over emphasis for several years on killing does, thus giving some of these smaller bucks the chance to grow and mature. With fewer deer available these bucks might stand out a little more because you are not seeing as many does now. With fewer does to produce fawns and a higher birth rate of females because of the declining population, there will actually be fewer bucks in the future years, not to mention the fact that we are now killing many of these better bucks. Couple that with high hunter numbers and realization that we are killing too many does, hunters will now start killing higher numbers of these younger bucks just to fill their licenses. The trophy hunters of course won't do this, but you must realize that no matter what it seems on here, 85% or more of Iowa deer hunters don't give a hoot about holding out for a trophy instead of filling their freezers. While we might be seeing better bucks now, with out recruitment we can't see them in the future!!
loneranger
Well-Known Member
Bowmaker is right on the$Money$!