Giant Deer of Iowa are rapidly becoming a past memory

[Daver]

I am trying to understand why some folks would be so against eliminating a buck tag. I think the three things mentioned have been:

1. Would promote high grading
2. Inability to shoot cull bucks
3. data indicates the vast majority arnt shooting multiple bucks anyway

Here are my questions:
1. Re High Grading: Folks talked alot above about trigger control. Why would that be any different with a tag eliminated? If anything, the responses out of one buck states has been people have held off more cuz once they squeeze, they are out of the game. The mentality changes with multiple tags. Somone might shoot one they may not with a single tag knowing they can still hunt "for the big one"

2. Re Cull bucks: Of all the reasons i've seen posted I give this one the most credence (although I think a VERY small percentage of people actual are targeting cull bucks like they should). That being said, why don't you take kids, friends, church members, whatever to do this? It is not at all difficult to line up more people than you have bucks you want shot. I can promise you that much.

3. If we are going to argue that hardly anyone is shooting multiple bucks then I would logistically ask then why do you need multiple tags? This one makes my head spin a bit when you actually think about the argument being made.....

Or...#4. In the main, I really don't care if they do go to "one buck", I just don't see it as the solution to the problem that several people do. I have a very mild preference to leave it as is to continue to allow for #2...but not so much that I really care if it goes away.

I have been analyzing things all my life and just about the first thing to do, IMO, when something goes whack is to ask, "What changed?". In the case of big bucks being in much shorter supply nowadays...the max number of buck tags to any given hunter just isn't it. AIINEC. Might it help the cause in some form? It might, maybe, but it for sure isn't what "got us here" and I don't see it getting us back to where we all would like to be....at least, all by itself. So, I do see a potential problem that doing only this will not lead to much actual improvement, but it will take a few more years of the needle not moving before we make other changes...changes that will likely lead to a much faster rebound. Again, IMO.

So, my "opposition" is only as it relates to changing something that really doesn't matter all that much and simultaneously NOT making other changes that would actually produce desirable results...and more quickly Many have, in one form or another, advocated for increasing the overall population...and I agree, but...due to FB lobbying, farmers themselves, public perception/opinion and insurance companies having such a strong influence on tag availability, I am not sure how much improvement we can realistically expect on this front alone. Can the population be "upped" from where it is now?? Yes, but will it ever go back to what we all enjoyed 15+ years ago??? Not a chance, IMO. So, what else can we/should we be looking at?

I think most of us would agree that the deer are "missing" primarily due to EHD and/or tag proliferation beyond what is sustainable. For some, both of these "whammies" have shown up and "overlapped" one another. Yikes. In other words, I say we "major on the majors and minor on the minors", and I think "one buck" is a minor.

 

[Iowa]

I am trying to understand why some folks would be so against eliminating a buck tag. I think the three things mentioned have been:

1. Would promote high grading
2. Inability to shoot cull bucks
3. data indicates the vast majority arnt shooting multiple bucks anyway

Here are my questions:
1. Re High Grading: Folks talked alot above about trigger control. Why would that be any different with a tag eliminated? If anything, the responses out of one buck states has been people have held off more cuz once they squeeze, they are out of the game. The mentality changes with multiple tags. Somone might shoot one they may not with a single tag knowing they can still hunt "for the big one"

2. Re Cull bucks: Of all the reasons i've seen posted I give this one the most credence (although I think a VERY small percentage of people actual are targeting cull bucks like they should). That being said, why don't you take kids, friends, church members, whatever to do this? It is not at all difficult to line up more people than you have bucks you want shot. I can promise you that much.

3. If we are going to argue that hardly anyone is shooting multiple bucks then I would logistically ask then why do you need multiple tags? This one makes my head spin a bit when you actually think about the argument being made.....

I am trying to understand why some folks would be so against eliminating a buck tag. I think the three things mentioned have been:

1. Would promote high grading
2. Inability to shoot cull bucks
3. data indicates the vast majority arnt shooting multiple bucks anyway

Here are my questions:
1. Re High Grading: Folks talked alot above about trigger control. Why would that be any different with a tag eliminated? If anything, the responses out of one buck states has been people have held off more cuz once they squeeze, they are out of the game. The mentality changes with multiple tags. Somone might shoot one they may not with a single tag knowing they can still hunt "for the big one"

2. Re Cull bucks: Of all the reasons i've seen posted I give this one the most credence (although I think a VERY small percentage of people actual are targeting cull bucks like they should). That being said, why don't you take kids, friends, church members, whatever to do this? It is not at all difficult to line up more people than you have bucks you want shot. I can promise you that much.

3. If we are going to argue that hardly anyone is shooting multiple bucks then I would logistically ask then why do you need multiple tags? This one makes my head spin a bit when you actually think about the argument being made.....

From a lot of what I hear not enough people are shooting the culls now anyway.

I also feel like it’s a no brainer that tag sharing would have to go away along with the extra buck tags ? I feel like I know a ton of people that would just abuse tag sharing if they couldn’t buy as many tags for themselves. ( buy their grandmother and wives tags with zero intention of them going )

 

[150 Class]

I am trying to understand why some folks would be so against eliminating a buck tag. I think the three things mentioned have been:

1. Would promote high grading
2. Inability to shoot cull bucks
3. data indicates the vast majority arnt shooting multiple bucks anyway

Here are my questions:
1. Re High Grading: Folks talked alot above about trigger control. Why would that be any different with a tag eliminated? If anything, the responses out of one buck states has been people have held off more cuz once they squeeze, they are out of the game. The mentality changes with multiple tags. Somone might shoot one they may not with a single tag knowing they can still hunt "for the big one"

2. Re Cull bucks: Of all the reasons i've seen posted I give this one the most credence (although I think a VERY small percentage of people actual are targeting cull bucks like they should). That being said, why don't you take kids, friends, church members, whatever to do this? It is not at all difficult to line up more people than you have bucks you want shot. I can promise you that much.

3. If we are going to argue that hardly anyone is shooting multiple bucks then I would logistically ask then why do you need multiple tags? This one makes my head spin a bit when you actually think about the argument being made.....

Add time in the field. I have put 2 tags on bucks 1 time in over 50 years of Iowa deer hunting. More than not, it is zero tags going on a buck. This year is shaping up to be another one of those. When I do fill my archery tag, I look forward to having another season to enjoy the sport.

Revenue. I buy both tags on 8/15 each year. If I am limited to one antlered deer, the second tag does not get purchased until I know I can use it.

 

[Iowa]

Add time in the field. I have put 2 tags on bucks 1 time in over 50 years of Iowa deer hunting. More than not, it is zero tags going on a buck. This year is shaping up to be another one of those. When I do fill my archery tag, I look forward to having another season to enjoy the sport.

Revenue. I buy both tags on 8/15 each year. If I am limited to one antlered deer, the second tag does not get purchased until I know I can use it.

I see it like this:

1: we can do one buck tag one season, you pick and that’s it, this in my opinion is the most restrictive option of them all. I feel like the buck harvest will be way lower this way and pressure will also be way lower. This would limit a lot of time in the field

2: one buck , fully floating tag like the landowner tag is now. In my opinion this would put us in worse shape than Minnesota. Time in field could be 100 days if you wanted it that way. 85,000 unsuccessful gun hunters would get 3 more gun/ muzzleloader seasons. This is not a sacrifice this is just guys that want to hunt 100 days a year.

3. Meet in the middle, right now a non landowner can buy a bow tag + one other tag. If we went to a single tag that is good for the gun/ muzzleloader season of your choice + bow season that would give everyone the same amount of time in the field they have now but they would just be done hunting if they shot a buck. ( I think option 3 is the best route, one hurdle would be how do you buy a bow tag tied to a gun tag October 1 if you aren’t ready to decide which gun season you want to go? This would require you to decide on your gun season before you bought your bow tag)


4. Then what to do about landowner tags I don’t know. Personally I see both sides of the argument whether they should exist or not.

 

[newfarmer]

I heard on a podcast today- a guy hunted Iowa every year because of the tag loophole (party hunting) and he killed his 4 biggest bucks due to that…. Do we think it was more abused than anyone knows- and maybe that it’s mostly closed now- it will help?
The population is terrible- yes- but if we are discussing it- could that actually “drastically” make a difference? Do we need to idle the talks down?
Let’s be real- we all could talk to 50 “normal” hunters- they don’t care about the age class… we gotta be careful that when it would possibly go to 1 buck, suddenly it’s going to push crossbows harder?

 

[Iowa]

Also food for thought, we talk about the 3,500 bucks or whatever get shot by someone on their second tag. Do we know how many get shot by tag sharing ? 40% of the harvest is during gun season not including landowner harvest during that time. So I’m guessing it’s a decent number ?

 

[IowaBowHunter1983]

Also food for thought, we talk about the 3,500 bucks or whatever get shot by someone on their second tag. Do we know how many get shot by tag sharing ? 40% of the harvest is during gun season not including landowner harvest during that time. So I’m guessing it’s a decent number ?

Great question. No way to track that currently.

 

[Butch973]

This has become a 31 page pissing match. I’m not really leaning either way on the one buck tag idea. I like having peace and quiet in the neighborhood mostly during muzzleloader season. I would support eliminating tag sharing and lowering doe quotas. They took away tag sharing from the NR’s so I think it should be for everyone. Whatever comes of it I hope the can doesn’t keep getting kicked down the road before it’s too late.

 

[northcedar]

I'm in IL. Only takes 1 or 2 of those guys who shoot 2 or 3 bucks yearly to wreck a neighborhood. We have a couple of those guys. And most of the bucks they get are the gifted 2 and 3 yr olds. Seems like a no-brainer to make 1-buck limits. In the name of chronic it'll never happen here.

 

[Muskrat24]

CORRECTION POST …. I for sure want to get the data right. there’s clearly varying data based on the year and the sites you look at. I did look some of this up to get 2-3 data sources for #’s.
Here’s what I found for Indiana. It puts the range between several sources at 45,000-55,000. If I’m wrong, of course I’m trying to find the most accurate data.

Iowa: 44,500 was our last data on bucks from iowa dnr I just looked up. Indiana: every source I can find puts it at 45-55k. Indianas latest data on bucks had the buck harvest at 58k (see below).
IMHO- that doesnt wreck the 1 buck Argument

Iowa: 160,000 hunters taking 44,500 bucks out of 445,000 deer.
Indiana: 300,000 hunters taking 58,000 bucks out of 700,000 deer.
Indiana has about TWICE the hunters & close to twice as many deer but only shoots 20% more bucks than we do.
IMO- that completely supports the merits of a one buck state.






View attachment 130806
View attachment 130807View attachment 130808

Skip,
The chart you shared of Indiana debunks the correlation between one buck and trophy quality increase. There should be a direct correlation between the implementation of one buck and an immediate decrease in buck harvest as people “hold out” for the big one since only one tag. Instead harvesting chart showed an insignificant change in Buck harvested that were more tied to slight annual population changes like 2012. Guess why, I’m guessing they were like Iowa in that they were essentially one Buck already. Indiana population varied ~50,000 deer in population from 2015 - 2023 680K to 730k. They have only slightly higher buck harvest than Iowa and as a percentage of total herd they are harvesting less bucks, before and after the one buck rule. Pretty easy to see a correlation between population and bigger deer. Iowa 54,042 (take out the 2/3 bucks = 50542 11.35%) bucks harvested out of 445,000 deer. Indiana 58,220 bucks harvested out of 700,000 deer 8.3%. Assume a 1:2 bucks to doe ratio and Iowa has 96,791 bucks living to next year, Indiana has 175,113 bucks living to next year. Hmmm, wonder where I can expect to see an older age class deer the next year. I really don’t care about one buck but Daver put it best. If we chase this change or that change and HOPE it makes a difference 4-5 years down the road and it doesn’t work noticeably then what. I question whether DNR cares if Iowa is a big buck state or just making the majority happy enough. Based on actions they are yes men to FB and insurance cos right now and why not because the average joes are happy. The days of old are gone unless we allow more bucks to get older and to get there we have to have more deer. Our tag sales, buck harvest you name it have been statically flat with population coming down by over 1/3. Again, Indiana has cell cams and rifles yet have increasing buck quality….

 

[Butch973]

So for all you data guys, how many more land owners are there now in Iowa since the real estate boom after Covid and all the farms getting segmented? That’s 10 more landowner tags for that 400 acre farm that got broken down into 10 parcels. I think there’s so many different contributing factors.

 

[tall@wide]

I heard on a podcast today- a guy hunted Iowa every year because of the tag loophole (party hunting) and he killed his 4 biggest bucks due to that…. Do we think it was more abused than anyone knows- and maybe that it’s mostly closed now- it will help?
The population is terrible- yes- but if we are discussing it- could that actually “drastically” make a difference? Do we need to idle the talks down?
Let’s be real- we all could talk to 50 “normal” hunters- they don’t care about the age class… we gotta be careful that when it would possibly go to 1 buck, suddenly it’s going to push crossbows harder?

I think a lot of bucks were getting shot by nonresident party hunting..They were mostly hunting their own farm or another managed farm. Shooting a 3-4 year old buck late season (gun) over a corn or bean plot is about as easy as it gets. Unfortunately, I think that is when a lot of damage is done to age structure. Maybe that loophole being closed will help more than we even think.

 

[Sligh1]

I think a lot of bucks were getting shot by nonresident party hunting..They were mostly hunting their own farm or another managed farm. Shooting a 3-4 year old buck late season (gun) over a corn or bean plot is about as easy as it gets. Unfortunately, I think that is when a lot of damage is done to age structure. Maybe that loophole being closed will help more than we even think.

When we say “xyz hunters shoot 2 or 3 bucks” …. The gun hunting tag sharing doesn’t tell us how many of those bucks would be someone’s 2nd or 3rd buck. They are never counted as a 2nd buck harvested as it’s called it under the tag holders name. Like anything - that alone isn’t a massive deal but it’s for sure a substantial #. There’s our troubles in iowa…. We have like 10-15 issues that have changed that all by themselves are not a huge deal. Added together - there’s no doubt it’s hurt us….
EHD is the one that did hurt the worst & we didn’t do to ourselves
Guns & ML’s being 75 yard guns to 300 yards in 20 years
Cell cams. Larger deer quotas. Late shed buck season. Sealed box blinds. Segmentation of land. Loss of habitat. On & on. We have had so many issues thrown at us …. Deer haven’t had a lot of wins in the last decade or 2. I personally like to see them get some more relief or a few things swung in their favor.

 

[sure shot]

From Skips post: 3) KEY DATA…. BUCKS SHOT BY STATE…. INDIANA: 50,000. IOWA: 45,000. MISSOURI: 145,000
I know the number accuracy has been discussed already (I see 43,000 antlered, 8,100 button, and 1,100 sheds), but here's my question. How many were shot from party hunting? Are we getting rid of party hunting if we go to a 1 buck state, or is party hunting still allowed, where you can shoot more than 1 buck and put someone else's tag on it? 16,982 antlered deer were harvested with shotguns last season. 11,680 were harvested with archery. I'd argue getting rid of party hunting would be a big first step and going to a 1 buck state while still allowing party hunting will greatly limit the impact of the 1 buck rule. Going to 1 buck state and getting rid of party hunting is going to be very difficult to get buy in to implement.

 

[Iowa]

I wish the antlerless quotas were prorated like say there’s 1,000 antlerless tags in a county. And say over 10 years average 25% are sold for bow and 10% for early muzzleloader. Those tags go on sale October 1 if the county hasn’t had a certain # of documented EHD cases.
The remaining seasons 65% of the antlerless tags go on sale December 1 if there hasn’t been a certain # of documented EHD cases. And at any point along the way if there’s enough ehd cases documented the antlerless tag sales stop for that county.

Otherwise if they’re all sold by September 15 it’s too late to pull the ripcord when people start finding EHD in their fields in October.

I’m obviously throwing fake numbers and maybe the dates would need adjusting but that would be a huge improvement over “hey it’s February and we’d like to know what you thought of last years deer season and hear about the 500 dead deer you found so we can reduce the quota by 250 “

 

[sure shot]

4996 antlered deer were harvested with LOT tags last year. Is it safe to say those were all second bucks? If we get rid of those second bucks, that goes a long way...

 

[Sligh1]

Skip,
The chart you shared of Indiana debunks the correlation between one buck and trophy quality increase. There should be a direct correlation between the implementation of one buck and an immediate decrease in buck harvest as people “hold out” for the big one since only one tag. Instead harvesting chart showed an insignificant change in Buck harvested that were more tied to slight annual population changes like 2012. Guess why, I’m guessing they were like Iowa in that they were essentially one Buck already. Indiana population varied ~50,000 deer in population from 2015 - 2023 680K to 730k. They have only slightly higher buck harvest than Iowa and as a percentage of total herd they are harvesting less bucks, before and after the one buck rule. Pretty easy to see a correlation between population and bigger deer. Iowa 54,042 (take out the 2/3 bucks = 50542 11.35%) bucks harvested out of 445,000 deer. Indiana 58,220 bucks harvested out of 700,000 deer 8.3%. Assume a 1:2 bucks to doe ratio and Iowa has 96,791 bucks living to next year, Indiana has 175,113 bucks living to next year. Hmmm, wonder where I can expect to see an older age class deer the next year. I really don’t care about one buck but Daver put it best. If we chase this change or that change and HOPE it makes a difference 4-5 years down the road and it doesn’t work noticeably then what. I question whether DNR cares if Iowa is a big buck state or just making the majority happy enough. Based on actions they are yes men to FB and insurance cos right now and why not because the average joes are happy. The days of old are gone unless we allow more bucks to get older and to get there we have to have more deer. Our tag sales, buck harvest you name it have been statically flat with population coming down by over 1/3. Again, Indiana has cell cams and rifles yet have increasing buck quality….

I know folks get fired up on one buck & it’s not the battle we will have right now in our state in reality. It will be getting the population up and then be topics debated based on reality on the ground.

I will admit- the resistance towards taking anything away from the hunter in favor of the deer is a bit perplexing. & I don’t dismiss anyone (or mean any disrespect as I do believe we all have the same goals & love this sport)…. Yet ANYTHING big or small ever discussed that gives ANY - even TINY - issue to the deer is shot down by groups of hunters. I’m not talking about just 1 buck. Could be a million things. My point is this…. There’s been 20+ negative things thrown at the deer in 10-20 years. New weapons, new seasons, more technology, more tags (all stuff I said above), etc etc. Each time they are quietly adopted & accepted. If anything goes the other direction- towards the resource, less season, less tags, less technology, less killing - it’s met with resistance. I’m not singling anyone out here or anyone in particular but at some point…. If things keep trending like this (and that’s an IF) - it’s a bit disheartening that IF we truly need reform for the resource - there’s going to be opposition- no matter the issue. Even something brand new like drones…. Brand frigin new technology & IMO- they should be completely illegal for scouting & hunting in deer season. Just like KS law. Some dudes will have a fit. Any issue it’s like that.

On the Indiana data- I will admit this…. There is a case to be made to use that data to fit the POV or side of the issue you want to be on. I honestly could use that data to argue both sides if I’m calling a spade a spade.

I do want to point out 3 quick things that are a big deal in Indiana….
1) Look very carefully at the data…. 2003 was when the law changed. The populations did go up but the most important correlation or change…. Look At the trend on % of bucks shot…. Again, law changed in 2003
2001: 47% bucks shot
2002: 45%
2003: 46%
2004: 44%
2005: 42%
2006: 39%
2007: 40%
2008: 39%
2009: 40%
2010: 40%
2011: 39%
2012: 34%.
There is zero doubt bucks shot & targeted were reduced after 1 buck was implemented. & according the IN dnr it did accomplish the goal of less pressure on the bucks to improve age class & put more pressure on keeping tabs on the increasing doe population. That’s for IN. Not saying we are the same or we should do it or we could also say “let’s reduce doe quotas on top of 1 less buck tag”.

2) B&C rankings….. it took 5 years for IN to BOOM. They are now #2 in B&C bucks in the country. “From 1980–2002, Indiana hunters entered 209 Boone and Crockett whitetails into the records. From 2003–2020, after the one-buck rule was implemented, hunters there entered 683 B&C bucks.”
3) I am not in Indiana often & not across that whole state like some others on here. It’s anectodal but the large #’s of guys who do know their stuff all point to the 1 buck change. One excellent example is Jkratz on here. I’m gonna see if he’s chime in on what he’s seen in 20+ years there. If he believes 1 buck made a huge difference or how it changed the dynamics. He spends a lot of time there & many other states & has for years. Jarin- if u could just give a neutral assessment of the impacts of the change. Also- since you hunt IL…. What do you think the result would be on IL for say: access, age structure, quality of their resource. Also, do you feel like in IN, the bucks are high graded worse than a state like IL?

 

[Daver]

4996 antlered deer were harvested with LOT tags last year. Is it safe to say those were all second bucks? If we get rid of those second bucks, that goes a long way...

I don't know the answer to your question, but I do know that a good number of people will have the LO where they hunt get a LO tag...which they then may, or may not, use themselves. I have seen where the LO tag, gets applied to one of the first bucks harvested by the group so "Farmer Brown" gets a lot of meat. I think it would be very hard to draw any conclusions with the data that we have, IMO.

There is a lot of "slippy" things that go on with party hunting and LO tags.

 

[150 Class]

4996 antlered deer were harvested with LOT tags last year. Is it safe to say those were all second bucks? If we get rid of those second bucks, that goes a long way...

Not at all safe. If the first buck is taken on owned ground, the wise move is to use the LOT and keep the statewide unused.

 

[newfarmer]

I know folks get fired up on one buck & it’s not the battle we will have right now in our state in reality. It will be getting the population up and then be topics debated based on reality on the ground.

I will admit- the resistance towards taking anything away from the hunter in favor of the deer is a bit perplexing. & I don’t dismiss anyone (or mean any disrespect as I do believe we all have the same goals & love this sport)…. Yet ANYTHING big or small ever discussed that gives ANY - even TINY - issue to the deer is shot down by groups of hunters. I’m not talking about just 1 buck. Could be a million things. My point is this…. There’s been 20+ negative things thrown at the deer in 10-20 years. New weapons, new seasons, more technology, more tags (all stuff I said above), etc etc. Each time they are quietly adopted & accepted. If anything goes the other direction- towards the resource, less season, less tags, less technology, less killing - it’s met with resistance. I’m not singling anyone out here or anyone in particular but at some point…. If things keep trending like this (and that’s an IF) - it’s a bit disheartening that IF we truly need reform for the resource - there’s going to be opposition- no matter the issue. Even something brand new like drones…. Brand frigin new technology & IMO- they should be completely illegal for scouting & hunting in deer season. Just like KS law. Some dudes will have a fit. Any issue it’s like that.

On the Indiana data- I will admit this…. There is a case to be made to use that data to fit the POV or side of the issue you want to be on. I honestly could use that data to argue both sides if I’m calling a spade a spade.

I do want to point out 3 quick things that are a big deal in Indiana….
1) Look very carefully at the data…. 2003 was when the law changed. The populations did go up but the most important correlation or change…. Look At the trend on % of bucks shot…. Again, law changed in 2003
2001: 47% bucks shot
2002: 45%
2003: 46%
2004: 44%
2005: 42%
2006: 39%
2007: 40%
2008: 39%
2009: 40%
2010: 40%
2011: 39%
2012: 34%.
There is zero doubt bucks shot & targeted were reduced after 1 buck was implemented. & according the IN dnr it did accomplish the goal of less pressure on the bucks to improve age class & put more pressure on keeping tabs on the increasing doe population. That’s for IN. Not saying we are the same or we should do it or we could also say “let’s reduce doe quotas on top of 1 less buck tag”.

2) B&C rankings….. it took 5 years for IN to BOOM. They are now #2 in B&C bucks in the country. “From 1980–2002, Indiana hunters entered 209 Boone and Crockett whitetails into the records. From 2003–2020, after the one-buck rule was implemented, hunters there entered 683 B&C bucks.”
3) I am not in Indiana often & not across that whole state like some others on here. It’s anectodal but the large #’s of guys who do know their stuff all point to the 1 buck change. One excellent example is Jkratz on here. I’m gonna see if he’s chime in on what he’s seen in 20+ years there. If he believes 1 buck made a huge difference or how it changed the dynamics. He spends a lot of time there & many other states & has for years. Jarin- if u could just give a neutral assessment of the impacts of the change. Also- since you hunt IL…. What do you think the result would be on IL for say: access, age structure, quality of their resource. Also, do you feel like in IN, the bucks are high graded worse than a state like IL?



View attachment 130818

Skip- question for anyone actually- is there any data for age of hunters for this data? I agree with the post a few ago that said were how many pages and replies into a pissing match. Lots of ways to slice it- but I also love this site for the knowledge and legit debate we can have without name calling type stuff. However my question- purely a thought I had- does the shift of “trophy hunting” correlate with any sort of age group? Indiana sees less bucks now but what age guys are the “bulk” of the hunters. 10 years ago, I cared less as long as it was a bigger type deer. Today I care about age versus antler size. In 20 years I’m gonna just be happy to tag a deer I’m sure (hopefully I’m still hunting in 20 years). As I think everyone said there could be multiple reasons why things have gotten better there- and I wonder if it’s partly that too. Iowa- could we see a shift due to age of hunters? I may not have explained this as good as I want- but hoping it makes some sense