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

Giant Deer of Iowa are rapidly becoming a past memory

150 Class said:
You also need to include the fact that the deer population estimates there have doubled from 1995 to today. I can take the stance that your B&C numbers coincide with population change and proves that the deer numbers is the reason for the increase
Click to expand...
I'm trying but struggling to find good annual data for Indiana deer population. I don't disagree with your growth estimate i just like data to lead me as much as possible. So let's go with your estimate of population being double post the one buck rule change. With double the population, booner harvest should have doubled. 200 to 400. But it went to 675. So even if we only credit the rule chage to the difference over 400, that means booner harvest was up by 275, or 69%, more than it would have been with just double the population.

If someone can find the annual population data for Indiana please post it or a link. I'd love to dive into the numbers deeper. Thanks.

I agree higher population is good for us hunters and would like it. I just do not see being able to convince the dnr to do so. But I do see where we could convince them to go to.one buck...and some others things discussed on this thread.
 
We are very fortunate in Iowa that the majority of landowners either farm and allow hunting or the land is owned by first generation property owners that bought the land for hunting. When you get further east there is WAY more large tracts of land completely off limits to hunting. This is not good for hunters in general but definitely does contribute to an increase in trophy quality for those lucky enough to have a spot to go.
 
2-bucks said:
I'm trying but struggling to find good annual data for Indiana deer population. I don't disagree with your growth estimate i just like data to lead me as much as possible. So let's go with your estimate of population being double post the one buck rule change. With double the population, booner harvest should have doubled. 200 to 400. But it went to 675. So even if we only credit the rule chage to the difference over 400, that means booner harvest was up by 275, or 69%, more than it would have been with just double the population.

If someone can find the annual population data for Indiana please post it or a link. I'd love to dive into the numbers deeper. Thanks.

I agree higher population is good for us hunters and would like it. I just do not see being able to convince the dnr to do so. But I do see where we could convince them to go to.one buck...and some others things discussed on this thread.
Click to expand...
Valid questions. Estimates have the current population about 120x what it was in the 1950s. 2x what it was in 1995. Your B&C data starts in 1980, not 1995, where populations were considerably lower than 1995. Exact numbers are hard to find but it is not refutable that the population differences are significant. You need all of the years or average numbers per year before and after the one buck change,

Looking at B&C numbers with the one buck change, there is no step change to support it making a difference. However, B&C numbers line up very closely to the population change over all of those same years. The numbers prove population change has direct effect and they do not prove one buck is a significant change, if any.
 
150 Class said:
Valid questions. Estimates have the current population about 120x what it was in the 1950s. 2x what it was in 1995. Your B&C data starts in 1980, not 1995, where populations were considerably lower than 1995. Exact numbers are hard to find but it is not refutable that the population differences are significant. You need all of the years or average numbers per year before and after the one buck change,

Looking at B&C numbers with the one buck change, there is no step change to support it making a difference. However, B&C numbers line up very closely to the population change over all of those same years. The numbers prove population change has direct effect and they do not prove one buck is a significant change, if any.
Click to expand...
Here is the rest of the article.

https://www.boone-crockett.org/indiana-s-big-whitetail-buck-revival.

I give...don't try 1 buck. Put your efforts into convincing DNR, legislatures, and Farm Bureau to increase population.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20251121_161117_Chrome.jpg
    Screenshot_20251121_161117_Chrome.jpg
    139 KB · Views: 16
2-bucks said:
Here is the rest of the article.

https://www.boone-crockett.org/indiana-s-big-whitetail-buck-revival.

I give...don't try 1 buck. Put your efforts into convincing DNR, legislatures, and Farm Bureau to increase population.
Click to expand...
…Are you saying you are not buying into the elitist hunting industry propaganda that allows hunters with money to burn to travel around to all the best trophy states to shoot their “one buck” regardless of residency status while citizens of each of those states continue to lose access..? Not too mention all the “newcomers” to archery hunting? CROSSBOWS.. WHO are we really giving up our second buck tag for??? Doesn’t matter what the original intent is. Money has a way around regs..
 
booneriverbucks said:
We are very fortunate in Iowa that the majority of landowners either farm and allow hunting or the land is owned by first generation property owners that bought the land for hunting. When you get further east there is WAY more large tracts of land completely off limits to hunting. This is not good for hunters in general but definitely does contribute to an increase in trophy quality for those lucky enough to have a spot to go.
Click to expand...
Thats not the case down in southern Iowa. Permission hunting is vanishing.
 
I understand the 1 buck might be a sensitive topic & population increase is our goal. There’s 0 doubt in my mind - 1 buck- would help: age class, access to land, B&C caliber deer, hunting quality, etc, etc. I am not saying we go for it right now. The time we go for a change in buck limit is IF things continue on a drastic downward trajectory. Along with massive access problems compounding.
1 buck helps the average dude with access, no doubt about it.
I am a cull/management buck lunatic …. When we have a buck on the farm that gets “put on that list” …. He’s not going to make it …. 99% of of the time. Youth season to buddies to tagging one myself. Even dudes that have no where to go or bucks to chase- thrilled to shoot them. Do same thing in ks - they all go & get shot. Again- pry 5-10x the amount of people wanting to shoot that we have bucks. With 4 months of season & 7 seasons- they get shot or not shot based on making the decision & prioritizing it. I do see farms in iowa where the dudes with 3 tags aren’t even shooting the low scoring Deer. Drives me insane.
 
I have absolutely no doubt permission is vanishing!!! Obviously we cannot promote the hunting of trophy deer for the last few decades and expect permission properties to be easily accessible. There was a time when everyone was well aware that the opportunity to harvest a “trophy deer” was a once in a lifetime experience for most people.

Hunters in the past fell for all the tricks in world in search of upping their odds. Anybody nearing the age of 40 or older can remember using red fox pee as a cover scent or maybe throwing their “carbon activated clothing” in the dryer for a quick refesh. We fell for it all!! Eventually everyone figured out that was absolutely meaningless if you were not hunting an area that consistently held trophy deer.

The current “land management” trend is absolutely no different!! Obviously good land managers and realtors can help BIG with helping people achieve their goals! It is absolutely no guarantee tho. What some of you guys can do to improve a property is extremely impressive and worth every penny but still no guarantee.. If a few of you lived closer I would hire you guys in a heartbeat! I also truely appreciate all the information you share here!

What we have going on now is widespread buyers remorse. In the past, people were out a few bucks for what was more than likely some fake fox piss and today they are literally out hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. This is where all the emotion comes from.. on top of that there is the instant gratification crowd that watches a few youtube videos and automatically blames the “age class” and all the other hunters in the area instead of their current lack of experience or unfortunately the balance of their checkbook. Giant trophy deer were always rare and special! Yes, some guys used to have it good and now have increased pressure around them.. so what! We don’t need to change the rules of the game to get a few more wins for ourselves! Get better! Deal with reality!! The utopia where giants are easily harvestable for everyone who buys a license will NEVER exist. That is a GOOD thing! To compare hunting in Iowa to states like Michigan is rediculous! We need to be a leader in regs! Not a follower! We had it figured out long before anyone else. Even if it wasn’t really planned. We have to cut all the crap tech out or at least put the brakes on it, get back to really hunting, not just monitoring bucks 24/7 til we deem them worthy of killing and enjoy it! If not, crossbows for all,outfitters everywhere, and %25 of hunters being non residents will be our gift for being greedy.
 
Last edited:
Gotta maximize the profits!! I’ve said some things that were wrong before.. obviously.. This is definitely not the realtors fault. Every single one of us tries to make the most we can make on everything we do. Realtors are just providing a service.. and some are darn good at it. This is a hunter problem. Not a realtor problem. Only obsessed hunters settle for properties like that. They need to seek reality. Not chopped up pieces of promise.
 
Last edited:
I would dissagree with you here. I dont see a landowner coming up with this idea.


I also dont see a hunter buying any of these pieces more of an agg / pasture piece.

Just crazy to me to think a county would go along with this. I imagine the survey is not going to be cheap and I would not want to build the fence. (Perhaps that is what it already follows... idk)
 
In Iowa, most hunters would not.. If you go east it is absolutely rediculous what people will pay just to have a spot to go.. It’s not totally the fault of hunters that this happens as there are plenty of farmers/landowners that know what we will pay and take full advantage of it.. It really is not the realtors fault tho.. unless they are actively promoting the chopping up of land… and endorsing legislation to “fix” hunting problems they directly helped create.. in that case it is a realtor problem.. and a hunting industry problem in general.. Funny how the same people that create the problem always have a way for you to spend more money or give up something to “solve” the problem they created. Anybody else getting sick of that???

Bottom line is it is still our fault as hunters for falling for these chopped up hunting parcels as the key to succes.. It will not stop as long as we continue to pay just as others paid for bottled up fox pee in the past.
 
Last edited:
  • Deleted by tall@wide
  • Reason: Wrong thread
Show…
booneriverbucks said:
…Are you saying you are not buying into the elitist hunting industry propaganda that allows hunters with money to burn to travel around to all the best trophy states to shoot their “one buck” regardless of residency status while citizens of each of those states continue to lose access..? Not too mention all the “newcomers” to archery hunting? CROSSBOWS.. WHO are we really giving up our second buck tag for??? Doesn’t matter what the original intent is. Money has a way around regs..
Click to expand...
Yes! I think it is time for an article that shares other data and “facts” that tell the Indiana crew that the one buck thing being good is a myth and only looks good because it fails to look at other contributing factors. If we write that article we’ll surely get a bandwagon following us.
 
2-bucks said:
Here is the rest of the article.

https://www.boone-crockett.org/indiana-s-big-whitetail-buck-revival.

I give...don't try 1 buck. Put your efforts into convincing DNR, legislatures, and Farm Bureau to increase population.
Click to expand...
Again, your article’s B&C trends line up with population changes. Numbers of B&C reported quadrupled in the start of your trend before the one buck started, and the trend’s data fails to start earlier like the other B&C data shared, so it is probably much more than 4x.

Give up? One buck is arguably proposed to be good for the “few” but has zero biological good for the resource or for the majority of people who own the resource (all of us, the state, including non hunters or the majority who are not obsessed with trophies). I will take the defense on this one if it ever comes to it. More deer? Definitely good for the trophy hunters and not bad for the resource. It is good for the selfish “me”. I can support this bandwagon, but I have doubts the state is ready for this one.
 
All this said what’s the next step? Proposed legislation through the IBA, ISC, the legislators we know?? And if so on what topics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom