Giant Deer of Iowa are rapidly becoming a past memory

[NextBuk]

Yet ANYTHING big or small ever discussed that gives ANY - even TINY - issue to the deer is shot down by groups of hunters.

Ya'll should read and re-read what Skip said there...

I agree, it's ONLY gotten easier to kill bucks these past 20-30 years... nothing has been done to benefit the resource except cases like Indiana's move to the one buck rule. I'll personally testify to knowing examples of it's tremendous benefit on trophy quality by moving to one buck. Same percentage of bucks (approximately) could be shot but awesome if they are of an older age class, IMO.

At some point, something's gotta give. If you want the resource to improve, steps need to be taken to make it a little LESS easy to kill them.

I think the decline is due to the myriad of reasons it's easier to kill bigger bucks these days. Like Skip said, box blinds, cell cams, drones, long range muzzleloaders, straight wall firearms, better bows, crossguns (at least not in Iowa though), etc etc all make it easy for the average Joe to go out and whack that beautiful 150" 3yr old 10 pt that's been hanging out... killing the top end bucks in the younger age classes is what eventually deteriorates the quality of bucks.

 

[iowavf]

IMO, way too many scenarios being thrown around just because people assume they know what's happening, mainly because they don't agree with the method of hunting. Iowa won't be what it was ten years ago, at least not statewide. Sure they'll be areas the population will increase, but Iowa loses way more habitat each day versus what they gain in a month, year.

 

[Sligh1]

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

All this makes sense & agree. I do think there’s more of a shift across country for age vs score. I’m not saying it’s prevailing or the majority but for sure more dudes know about it, care about it & make decisions on it vs 10-20 years ago. Which I applaud!!
Im sure there’s some decent data from state on age class shot. I’ll admit- most state data on deer is “Eah” bit iffy & sometimes questionable.

1 thing I would point to for age …. When B&C bucks explode the way they did in IN…. That is simply the result of better AGE or more deer making it to 5,6, 7+ when a lot of those deer finally get to B&C caliber (yes, a few 3 & 4 get there but for B&C it’s that ripe fully mature age class most the time).

& spot on…. Respectful debate is so rare in today’s world. So glad we can do it here. “Make your case!!! Back it up. Voice your opinion” & we do it without being dbags. Love it. Any issue … I might have my opinions but 2 things…. 1) I will always be willing to change them with persuasion & listening to POV of others 2) I will always have respect for those that have differing views than myself…. Anywhere that’s a censored echo chamber of only one mindset or a cult of ideas on any worldly issue is tiring, lazy, boring & advances nothing.

 

[jkratz5]

Take what I say from the perspective of 1 guy but I have had the opportunity to hunt 3 of the best whitetail states for 10+ years in each state (Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana).

Hands down the state where the DNR has had the most positive impact on the deer herd is Indiana. Several reasons I say that but the biggest factor in my opinion is the 1 buck rule. I believe this has changed the hunting strategy for a minimum of 30% of all hunters in the state and probably 60-70% for archery hunters. There are just so many more guys that are willing to hold out for a trophy deer and not shoot the first buck they see. You obviously still have the guys that shoot the first deer they see and hunt for a limited amount of time but the guys who hunt on a regular basis seem to be much more selective in what they harvest and are not afraid to eat a tag. In the time I have been here I have been fortunate enough to gain access to 4 tracts that are between 80-400 acres in quality hunting areas. When I first started hunting I would say across the tracts I would have 1-2 shooter/target bucks total - now 20 years later I have 1-2 on each farm with the largest track generally having 3-4. When I say shooter I am talking a 4yr+ deer that will score 150”+ and not including the cull bucks. Some of those deer get put on the don’t shoot list because of potential but I cannot remember the last time I didn’t have a quality deer to hunt on every farm!

Even despite the introduction of any/all rifles during a 16 day gun season in the middles of the rut a handful of years back, the herd quality has persisted (the DNR hasn’t gotten it all right)

We have been thru similar cycles of EHD and compared to other areas I have hunted we also recovered from that quicker, at least in the buck age class. 2012 we got hit pretty hard and it shows in the data of bucks harvested and I can remember a couple farms where we use to see 20+ deer a sit being tough to lay eyes on a deer. However within 3yrs the herd was up and the mature bucks were starting to be prominent again.

IN hasn’t gotten it all right, I would love to go back to shotguns only during gun and love to move the gun season. The herd has been managed well though, with the allowable doe harvests reduced by 70% statewide, one buck rule and season ending first weekend in Jan I think we will continue to have a strong age class

Switch gears to IL - go to 1 buck rule - huge impact. We currently shoot 150k deer with 46-50% being antlered. Lots of guys shooting 2 bucks a year (guilty myself several years in the last 30). Implement the 1 buck rule and see similar antlered buck harvest drops as Indiana 8-10%, then we have 7000 more bucks walking around year over year (70k more bucks in 10 years, that is a ton). And Just from a shear number standpoint I think you have to expect more deer getting older. Illinois has the timber and deer areas across the state to hold the extra bucks so I don’t see that being an issue either. As far as access, I don’t think it would impact access much - maybe help a little as more guys may be willing to allow access for cull bucks.

IL has 1 huge issue - outfitters - get rid of the limitless tags and outfitters that jumped on that - exponential improvement. add a 1 buck rule on top of that - no one could compete with that state.

 

[iowaqdm]

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...

No. There were only 3400 people who killed second bucks Statewide, 201 people killed three.

 

[Sligh1]

No. There were only 3400 people who killed second bucks Statewide, 201 people killed three.

I’d take an educated guess that # is doubled when you factor in tag sharing, easily.

Here’s one question for those that think population FIXES ALL …. & make no mistake - I do think it fixes a lot. I am concerned it doesn’t fix all for 2 reasons:
1) countless other states that have high populations but the bucks are picked off with all the weapons, regs & new technology. A lot of great states have really plummeted for a lot of the same reasons we have seen.
2) in iowa- in 10 years we have gotten so much more lethal. Won’t be broken record but the huge list: cell cams, straight wall rifles, smokeless scoped ML’s, sealed blinds, etc.

So my ? Is this ….. if we DO turn population around BUT we don’t repair our balanced age structure or the easy targeting of bucks continues to get worse & continues to hurts our herd… is there any regulation change you would accept? ANY?

I will end, to throw in the towel & do nothing if our population has obstacles rebounding or our age class & biological balance is degraded- accepting a degraded system laying down will NEVER be acceptable!! I’ll fight for our resource: population increase or anything for the betterment of our resource, future & other hunters til my dying day. & in reality- doesn’t impact me. We have a special place & its infinitely worth fighting to keep it special. If not for us - for our kids, future, resource & other hunters.

 

[newfarmer]

I’d take an educated guess that # is doubled when you factor in tag sharing, easily.

Here’s one question for those that think population FIXES ALL …. & make no mistake - I do think it fixes a lot. I am concerned it doesn’t fix all for 2 reasons:
1) countless other states that have high populations but the bucks are picked off with all the weapons, regs & new technology. A lot of great states have really plummeted for a lot of the same reasons we have seen.
2) in iowa- in 10 years we have gotten so much more lethal. Won’t be broken record but the huge list: cell cams, straight wall rifles, smokeless scoped ML’s, sealed blinds, etc.

So my ? Is this ….. if we DO turn population around BUT we don’t repair our balanced age structure or the easy targeting of bucks continues to get worse & continues to hurts our herd… is there any regulation change you would accept? ANY?

I will end, to throw in the towel & do nothing if our population has obstacles rebounding or our age class & biological balance is degraded- accepting a degraded system laying down will NEVER be acceptable!! I’ll fight for our resource: population increase or anything for the betterment of our resource, future & other hunters til my dying day. & in reality- doesn’t impact me. We have a special place & its infinitely worth fighting to keep it special. If not for us - for our kids, future, resource & other hunters.

My opinion- and not a good one- but the following is what I see needs to happen

Raise population while waiting to see how the NR closed loop hole changes numbers (if any)
Limit doe tags drastically- heck even only put a few in a draw per county (I assume that would be hard though)

Turn youth tag into non floating tag (I have 2 that will be starting soon)

I want to see cell cams dump at midnight only (but the use for security I get too- hard pill to split I think)

never get xbows

Somehow scale guns back- even if it’s limited to like a 3 shot magazine like waterfowl and then dial a maximum scope for muzzy to make it more “traditional black powder”

I’d love to see LOT either changed to be percentage of cover vs acres- or just eliminate the LOT completely

I’m fine with 1 buck- but you’d have to eliminate party hunting. I think group hunting can’t even happen as you would have no way to really monitor that. (The group hunt here late muzzy in 20-30 guy groups)

I’d love to see season end Dec 31- but I say that as I’m in the very far north side of the state and the past 5 years I’d say 70% of our bucks have been shed already.

Getting a LOT I do enjoy the floating tag- but let’s be real- it’s almost cheating (it is). I can go anytime I want all season without needing anything else.

I think there is a majority of us here that DO see benefits but can’t grasp it because the population is so low right now. We are all reeling from EHD and the CWD kill areas that got hammered. When you can hunt a week in Allamakee and see 5 deer- versus a few years ago we’d see 5 a day at least- that’s hard to say one buck when it screams more deer.

I also think- the price of beef is going to drive people to shoot more deer right now as the last conversation I had is the beef market isn’t looking at diving anytime soon.

 

[Bucksnbears]

Trying to sit on the side lines as I'm from MN. But how can #'s be increased state wide when there is so little habitat? Deer don't eat dirt?
You fellas should check out what's been happening in ND the past 5 or so years.

Many years it was known as a " sleeper" state. Lots of good quality deer.
Now, many MANY guys have quite hunting. Habitat has shrunk so bad, deer can't reproduce.

 

[Sligh1]

Take what I say from the perspective of 1 guy but I have had the opportunity to hunt 3 of the best whitetail states for 10+ years in each state (Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana).

Hands down the state where the DNR has had the most positive impact on the deer herd is Indiana. Several reasons I say that but the biggest factor in my opinion is the 1 buck rule. I believe this has changed the hunting strategy for a minimum of 30% of all hunters in the state and probably 60-70% for archery hunters. There are just so many more guys that are willing to hold out for a trophy deer and not shoot the first buck they see. You obviously still have the guys that shoot the first deer they see and hunt for a limited amount of time but the guys who hunt on a regular basis seem to be much more selective in what they harvest and are not afraid to eat a tag. In the time I have been here I have been fortunate enough to gain access to 4 tracts that are between 80-400 acres in quality hunting areas. When I first started hunting I would say across the tracts I would have 1-2 shooter/target bucks total - now 20 years later I have 1-2 on each farm with the largest track generally having 3-4. When I say shooter I am talking a 4yr+ deer that will score 150”+ and not including the cull bucks. Some of those deer get put on the don’t shoot list because of potential but I cannot remember the last time I didn’t have a quality deer to hunt on every farm!

Even despite the introduction of any/all rifles during a 16 day gun season in the middles of the rut a handful of years back, the herd quality has persisted (the DNR hasn’t gotten it all right)

We have been thru similar cycles of EHD and compared to other areas I have hunted we also recovered from that quicker, at least in the buck age class. 2012 we got hit pretty hard and it shows in the data of bucks harvested and I can remember a couple farms where we use to see 20+ deer a sit being tough to lay eyes on a deer. However within 3yrs the herd was up and the mature bucks were starting to be prominent again.

IN hasn’t gotten it all right, I would love to go back to shotguns only during gun and love to move the gun season. The herd has been managed well though, with the allowable doe harvests reduced by 70% statewide, one buck rule and season ending first weekend in Jan I think we will continue to have a strong age class

Switch gears to IL - go to 1 buck rule - huge impact. We currently shoot 150k deer with 46-50% being antlered. Lots of guys shooting 2 bucks a year (guilty myself several years in the last 30). Implement the 1 buck rule and see similar antlered buck harvest drops as Indiana 8-10%, then we have 7000 more bucks walking around year over year (70k more bucks in 10 years, that is a ton). And Just from a shear number standpoint I think you have to expect more deer getting older. Illinois has the timber and deer areas across the state to hold the extra bucks so I don’t see that being an issue either. As far as access, I don’t think it would impact access much - maybe help a little as more guys may be willing to allow access for cull bucks.

IL has 1 huge issue - outfitters - get rid of the limitless tags and outfitters that jumped on that - exponential improvement. add a 1 buck rule on top of that - no one could compete with that state.

Guys that don’t think 1 buck changed IN or see merits. Any thoughts or does this make you think a bit?

 

[Iowa]

Trying to sit on the side lines as I'm from MN. But how can #'s be increased state wide when there is so little habitat? Deer don't eat dirt?
You fellas should check out what's been happening in ND the past 5 or so years.

Many years it was known as a " sleeper" state. Lots of good quality deer.
Now, many MANY guys have quite hunting. Habitat has shrunk so bad, deer can't reproduce.

You guys had some really bad winters a couple years back too didn’t you?

 

[booneriverbucks]

Guys that don’t think 1 buck changed IN or see merits. Any thoughts or does this make you think a bit?

3 elbow surgeries in 3 weeks and I’ve finally discovered several apps that allow talk to text on forums and apps.. lots of merit for one buck here! How big of gun do you suggest I get to use in November? Ravin is also begging me to buy the latest and greatest crossbow! I even have Christmas money to burn! Which one should I get?? Why do we continuously fight to make bowhunting easier?? Does our 80+ day season with 24/7 surveillance not make it easy enough?? Have bowhunters not taken over deer hunting enough alreay? 1 buck is awesome!! Mini sanctuaries everywhere with everbody so obsessed with their neighbors shooting their deer they don’t even bother to go out with the peasants during gun season anymore. It’s a win for everyone! Just got to wait things out. Soon everyone will be so scared to screw up their chances at the one six year old they got pics of two months ago the woods will be dead. Nobody will actually hunt. It will be great!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wi transplant]

Some won't like this idea but what about 2 tags max even landowners 1 floating and closed to non-residents for a yr or 2? What pct. Of non residence harvest at least 1 buck or more ? They have a super high buck vs doe harvest ratio and would save how many bucks a yr??

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

 

[booneriverbucks]

Some won't like this idea but what about 2 tags max even landowners 1 floating and closed to non-residents for a yr or 2? What pct. Of non residence harvest at least 1 buck or more ? They have a super high buck vs doe harvest ratio and would save how many bucks a yr??

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

2 bucks per hunter regardless of tags issued is an excellent place to start!!

 

[Bucksnbears]

You guys had some really bad winters a couple years back too didn’t you?

Yes. Winter of 22/ 23 Horrible!. Deer died by starvation by the 1000s.
Even during the mild winters of 23/24 24/25 and so far this winter, our population has exploded! However, it's not a widespread thing. There are 1000s of square miles of ZERO habitat. Much like northern Iowa.
You have a rare piece of good habitat, you'll have deer.
Right now, I'd estimate there are roughly 400 deer within a 5 square mile area around me ( prime riverbottom ) . the Only thing that keeps our population up is land that grows SugarBeets. Deer will migrate MILES to winter near them as long as there is undisturbed thermal cover close by.

My point for chiming in is, we must realize that there can be VAST areas that just cannot support a deer population and it just keeps getting worse.

A doe that drops her fawn in a grassy fence line out in the middle of nowhere is gonna be very lucky to see it live. ( coyotes).

I've been very vocal here with hunters to start killing does. Mostly falls on deaf ears. Once someone with a good property sees a good buck, does are safe.
95% of our deer are born n raised on less then 5% of land mass.
Sorry for the ramble.

 

[booneriverbucks]

Yes. Winter of 22/ 23 Horrible!. Deer died by starvation by the 1000s.
Even during the mild winters of 23/24 24/25 and so far this winter, our population has exploded! However, it's not a widespread thing. There are 1000s of square miles of ZERO habitat. Much like northern Iowa.
You have a rare piece of good habitat, you'll have deer.
Right now, I'd estimate there are roughly 400 deer within a 5 square mile area around me ( prime riverbottom ) . the Only thing that keeps our population up is land that grows SugarBeets. Deer will migrate MILES to winter near them as long as there is undisturbed thermal cover close by.

My point for chiming in is, we must realize that there can be VAST areas that just cannot support a deer population and it just keeps getting worse.

A doe that drops her fawn in a grassy fence line out in the middle of nowhere is gonna be very lucky to see it live. ( coyotes).

I've been very vocal here with hunters to start killing does. Mostly falls on deaf ears. Once someone with a good property sees a good buck, does are safe.
95% of our deer are born n raised on less then 5% of land mass.
Sorry for the ramble.

I understand what you are saying.. much of Iowa would benefit from no does harvested tho… and much needs major habitat improvement before we even begin to discuss deer numbers. You are not wrong at all! It’s just not really the problem here tho. We need major habitat improvement along with limited doe harvest in much of the state first.. definitely agree tho.. too many deer hurts habitat potential if the the habitat management is not there

 

[jkratz5]

Yes. Winter of 22/ 23 Horrible!. Deer died by starvation by the 1000s.
Even during the mild winters of 23/24 24/25 and so far this winter, our population has exploded! However, it's not a widespread thing. There are 1000s of square miles of ZERO habitat. Much like northern Iowa.
You have a rare piece of good habitat, you'll have deer.
Right now, I'd estimate there are roughly 400 deer within a 5 square mile area around me ( prime riverbottom ) . the Only thing that keeps our population up is land that grows SugarBeets. Deer will migrate MILES to winter near them as long as there is undisturbed thermal cover close by.

My point for chiming in is, we must realize that there can be VAST areas that just cannot support a deer population and it just keeps getting worse.

A doe that drops her fawn in a grassy fence line out in the middle of nowhere is gonna be very lucky to see it live. ( coyotes).

I've been very vocal here with hunters to start killing does. Mostly falls on deaf ears. Once someone with a good property sees a good buck, does are safe.
95% of our deer are born n raised on less then 5% of land mass.
Sorry for the ramble.

I agree you gotta have the habitat and it has been destroyed in masses nation wide. But where there is habitat I think populations are in bad shape in Iowa from what I have heard from good friends. If the herd is decimated something has to be done to bring it back. I would be fighting for changes, even if temporary, to get the population back up and stable.

I am thankful I have properties in quality deer habitat areas, but have definitely seen some incredible changes in quality deer in 20yrs of 1 buck rule and Actively managing the doe herd with darn near annual changes in tag/harvest allotment

 

[Bucksnbears]

BRB, unfortunately that's not gonna happen.
Just no way someone is gonna spend the kind of $ that prime farmland goes for only to let it go for wildlife/ habitat.
When I was a kid growing up (late 70s) there were shelterbelts, old farmstead, grassy waterways, ect everywhere. It's all gone. Miles n miles n miles of flat black dirt. Just a sad reality of these times. Those that own or have acsess to good ground are golden. Those that don't will fade away.

 

[booneriverbucks]

BRB, unfortunately that's not gonna happen.
Just no way someone is gonna spend the kind of $ that prime farmland goes for only to let it go for wildlife/ habitat.
When I was a kid growing up (late 70s) there were shelterbelts, old farmstead, grassy waterways, ect everywhere. It's all gone. Miles n miles n miles of flat black dirt. Just a sad reality of these times. Those that own or have acsess to good ground are golden. Those that don't will fade away.

Yep! I don’t disagree!! Unfortunately i don’t think a deer hunting reg will help! It’s a people problem.. I’ve never figured people out

 

[booneriverbucks]

I agree you gotta have the habitat and it has been destroyed in masses nation wide. But where there is habitat I think populations are in bad shape in Iowa from what I have heard from good friends. If the herd is decimated something has to be done to bring it back. I would be fighting for changes, even if temporary, to get the population back up and stable.

I am thankful I have properties in quality deer habitat areas, but have definitely seen some incredible changes in quality deer in 20yrs of 1 buck rule and Actively managing the doe herd with darn near annual changes in tag/harvest allotment

I actually don’t disagree with one buck in areas that are extremely down deer wise… my issue is what are trophy bowhunters giving up? I am totally a trophy bowhunter too!! I feel we lose face when all we do is propose reg changes that affect every other class of hunter other than us. Bowhunters are historically quick to point fingers yet propose very little meaningful regulation that actually affects the hunting we enjoy.. What can we come up with? We have helped cause this issue too. We need to be part of the solution and quit blaming everyone else for our problems.

 

[iowaqdm]

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

Muskrat24 implied similar in his analysis of the Indiana numbers.

Here is what I got from these numbers.

Average number of bucks harvested per year from 1987-2001 was 45,999.8, Let’s round to 46,000.
Average number of bucks harvested per year from 2002-2023 was 50,917, Let’s round to 51,000.

So average buck harvest increased by 5,000 bucks since 2002. So more bucks were shot on average per year after one buck was implemented not less. That shoots down the idea that guys are more selective and will shoot less bucks.

We know Indiana’s deer population increased by at least 150,000 deer shortly after one buck was implemented. So we also know that they had at least an additional 100,000 bucks added to their landscape every year after 2002 versus before 2002. That added basically 3 more bucks per square mile every year.

Indiana has also gone from 330,000 deer hunters to 275,000 over the same period. So there are 55,000 less guys hunting on Indiana’s 35,000 square miles. So 1.5 less hunters per square mile. Iowa’s deer hunter numbers have remained extremely consistent while other States like Indiana have trended downward.

Let’s look at the replacement potential for bucks. I am going to use 3 does per buck.
Iowa-350,000 deer after season. (262,500 does/87,500 bucks)
Indiana-575,000 deer after season. (431,250 does/143,750 bucks)

Indiana adds more bucks (431,250) to their landscape (35,000 square miles- which is 35% smaller than Iowa) every year than our total deer population (bucks and does ~ 350,000) after season on our landscape (55,000 square miles).

So in summary: Indiana added at least 150,000 deer to their population (3 bucks per square mile), lost 55,000 hunters (decreased hunting pressure by 1.5 hunters per square mile). Saw increased buck harvest by 5,000 on average annually, but added at least an additional 100,000 bucks annually since one buck implementation in 2002 (strictly due to the population increase) all while QDM was really gaining traction and more and more guys were trying to manage for trophy bucks over the last 20-25 years across Indiana.

My personal conclusion: I have a hard time attributing the increase in trophy potential in Indiana to the implementation of the one buck limit. The numbers or the argument don’t add up.

I will say it again. Buck harvest doesn’t affect the population trend. More does on the landscape means more bucks. Adding back 3400 bucks to Iowa’s 55,000 square miles by going to a one buck State is “pissing on a brush fire”. It won’t help you shoot a top end buck. Sorry to tell you guys that, but it just won’t. Hate to be the one to burst your bubble or shatter your dreams.

You guys are way over thinking this situation. Compare the one buck limit vs increasing our doe population. One buck adds 34 bucks back to each county in Iowa every year, increasing the doe population by 100,000 would add 1000 bucks to each county in Iowa every year. Increase the doe population by 150,000, that adds 1500 bucks back while one buck still only adds back 34 bucks. One buck is basically a fixed number and thus very limited potential to improve our situation, I’d argue basically zero chance for improved top end trophy production. The other produces exponential growth only limited by how high the doe population climbs. The top end buck production (trophy potential) really lies within that exponential growth of the doe population. That will result in exponentially more bucks on the Iowa landscape. That is what will ultimately improve your odds of connecting on a top end buck. The best part of increasing the population is it will improve everyone’s hunting from the trophy hunter to the meat hunter.