Giant Deer of Iowa are rapidly becoming a past memory

[newfarmer]

The argument that other States went to one buck and it made a difference so Iowa should is flawed. Let’s use Indiana because that State often gets brought up as an example. Well Indiana has 35,868 square miles of land versus Iowa at 55,857. Indiana’s deer population is around 700,000. Iowa’s is 350,000. So Indiana is ~ 35% smaller with twice as many deer as Iowa. Indiana’s deer harvest in 2024-2025 was 126,183. Iowa’s deer harvest in 2024-2025 was 101,278. I’m sure buck quality did improve for Indiana when they went to one buck. But they have 700,000 deer. Let’s get our population up even with Indiana at 700,000 and see if anyone is complaining before we take away opportunities from our resident deer hunters. As far as Kansas and Ohio, they both have deer populations between 650,000-700,000. Again, both States have twice as many deer as Iowa.

I consider myself a trophy hunter/manager and don’t support going to one buck. My reasons are buck harvest doesn’t affect population trends. I do believe going to one buck will result in more does being harvested which will affect the population trend. It also doesn’t allow the trophy hunter/manager to cull bucks. Resulting in high grading the herd and negative long term consequences.

Most importantly I don’t want to see resident hunters have opportunities taken away solely because of my lust for antlers or anybody else’s. People pushing for one buck try to frame it as wanting a balanced age structure. That is a false narrative, let’s call it what it is…antler lust. Our buck age structure is fine. If you’re not seeing as many 5, 6 and 7 year old bucks sporting 170”+ as you want. It doesn’t mean Iowa’s deer herd age structure is not balanced. It means you and your neighbors are high grading the herd. Going to one buck won’t stop the high grading. It will intensify it. Quit shooting the good genetics bucks and cull the poor bucks. Everyone should take a step back and set their trophy agenda to the side and ask yourself what is best for all resident deer hunters, the kids and our sport. I don’t think taking away a residents opportunity to hunt for a buck with bow and a gun if they chose is in the sports best interest. Iowa has all the right regulations already in place. We just need to get our population back up to get us closer to where we were in the mid 2000’s.

We need to remember. Not everyone cares about big antlers. We also need to remember that not one hunter (trophy or meat hunter) in the State of Iowa was complaining about our deer herd back in the mid 2000’s when our deer population was 750,000.

Let’s focus on what will actually make a difference versus dividing us. We need every single one of us to be on the same page. That page is getting the population back up. That is the message we need to be pushing. That is a message all of Iowa’s deer hunters can and will get behind. That is the message that will actually improve everyone’s hunting. Both meat hunters and trophy hunters. That is the message ISC should be pushing. Not pushing for a one buck State.

If you choose to shoot one buck, two bucks, no bucks, cull bucks or trophy bucks. It all comes down to you. You can’t control what the neighbor shoots and no regulations will either.
I will say it again…
Managing for top end bucks starts and ends with you. That is really the only thing you can control…yourself.

Heard Lakosky recently say he supports 3 tags so we don’t have such extreme high grading

 

[IowaBowHunter1983]

The argument that other States went to one buck and it made a difference so Iowa should is flawed. Let’s use Indiana because that State often gets brought up as an example. Well Indiana has 35,868 square miles of land versus Iowa at 55,857. Indiana’s deer population is around 700,000. Iowa’s is 350,000. So Indiana is ~ 35% smaller with twice as many deer as Iowa. Indiana’s deer harvest in 2024-2025 was 126,183. Iowa’s deer harvest in 2024-2025 was 101,278. I’m sure buck quality did improve for Indiana when they went to one buck. But they have 700,000 deer. Let’s get our population up even with Indiana at 700,000 and see if anyone is complaining before we take away opportunities from our resident deer hunters. As far as Kansas and Ohio, they both have deer populations between 650,000-700,000. Again, both States have twice as many deer as Iowa.

That's a strawman argument.

These are majorly flawed numbers. The vast majority of Iowa has ZERO habitat. NONE. Indiana has 2x the amount of timber acres as Iowa (5M vs 2.5M). Coincidently they have twice as many deer. Funny how that works......

 

[IowaBowHunter1983]

Heard Lakosky recently say he supports 3 tags

Of course!

I actually think they are good people, but if you had to produce content AND had thousands and thousands of private acres how would you argue?

One buck certainly would not be in the benefit of EVERYONE, but I do think more folks would see an overall benefit.

 

[booneriverbucks]

Those that own land and especially those that are in the business of selling land and habitat improvement should absolutely support becoming a one buck state. Business will absolutely BOOM!!! Non residents are eagerly awaiting the time us dumb iowa residents finally realease our grip on our deer heard. Why do those dopes get to shoot several bucks a year while we are sitting on the sidelines?? Iowa will become the playground of the “celebrity hunter” and elites even more than it is now if we give up resident’s privileges. What do we really care more about?? Our quest for a record book deer or preserving hunting for future generations?? Why do so many look for the easy button these days??? Is the sky really falling here?

 

[iowaqdm]

Did anyone ever come up with the number of people that fill 2 or three antlered tags in any given year?

I recently had a great conversation with Jase Elliott the Iowa DNR Deer Biologist. He is really a great guy to have managing the States deer herd. We are truly lucky to have him. He really has a grasp on the issues and is an advocate for our deer resources. He said a total of 160,000 Deer licenses were sold last year. A total of 2000 hunters filled an archery and a gun tag with a buck. If you add in how many killed two bucks with a regular tag (archery or gun) and a landowner tag the total is 3200. The number of people who filled an archery, gun and landowner tag with a buck totaled 201. So only 3200 people filled two buck tags and only 201 people harvested three bucks State wide. He said it is not a factor in buck quality. He indicated that going to one buck versus our current tag system would do nothing for buck quality but would definitely affect hunters opportunities to be afield. He said he was not in favor of becoming a one buck State. He feels it is important for people to be afield and have the opportunity to hunt for a buck with bow and a gun. He felt confident that our current license structure is the correct one and that they are working to get deer numbers up in areas hit with EHD by reducing doe tags. To also back up the two buck State argument he mentioned that he recently met with the guys managing the 20,000 acre Amana Colonies property and that they have decided to go from one buck, back to two bucks because of high grading. They felt the States structure with two bucks promoted better quality and allowed for management bucks to be taken.

If we went to a one buck State you would only be adding 3400 bucks back onto the landscape. So if you went to a one buck State vs our current license structure you would only be adding one buck back per 16.43 square miles. Or one buck per 10,500 acres. You should also know that almost 50% of the annual bucks harvested are 1 1/2 year olds. So what you would likely be adding back is one 1 1/2 year old buck to a 10,500 acre block by going to a one buck State. Pushing for a one buck State is a complete waste of time in my personal opinion. It will push our resource in the wrong direction and take opportunities to be afield away from our resident hunters. We have much bigger battles to fight like crossbows, nonresident tag allotments, outfitter tags, etc.


If you would like to hear Jase Elliott and get an idea of who he is I would recommend you check out HUNTR podcast #269.

 

[tall@wide]

I think banning cell cams would really help age structure. They would need to do it in the future because a lot of hunters have $1000s invested in cell cams. Make it take effect like January 2028 or similar. Then hunters can digest it, and know it’s coming. They should still be allowed on driveways and around buildings for security and the DNR can make a decision on that if necessary.

 

[MN Slick]

The argument that other States went to one buck and it made a difference so Iowa should is flawed. Let’s use Indiana because that State often gets brought up as an example. Well Indiana has 35,868 square miles of land versus Iowa at 55,857. Indiana’s deer population is around 700,000. Iowa’s is 350,000. So Indiana is ~ 35% smaller with twice as many deer as Iowa. Indiana’s deer harvest in 2024-2025 was 126,183. Iowa’s deer harvest in 2024-2025 was 101,278. I’m sure buck quality did improve for Indiana when they went to one buck. But they have 700,000 deer. Let’s get our population up even with Indiana at 700,000 and see if anyone is complaining before we take away opportunities from our resident deer hunters. As far as Kansas and Ohio, they both have deer populations between 650,000-700,000. Again, both States have twice as many deer as Iowa.

I consider myself a trophy hunter/manager and don’t support going to one buck. My reasons are buck harvest doesn’t affect population trends. I do believe going to one buck will result in more does being harvested which will affect the population trend. It also doesn’t allow the trophy hunter/manager to cull bucks. Resulting in high grading the herd and negative long term consequences.

Most importantly I don’t want to see resident hunters have opportunities taken away solely because of my lust for antlers or anybody else’s. People pushing for one buck try to frame it as wanting a balanced age structure. That is a false narrative, let’s call it what it is…antler lust. Our buck age structure is fine. If you’re not seeing as many 5, 6 and 7 year old bucks sporting 170”+ as you want. It doesn’t mean Iowa’s deer herd age structure is not balanced. It means you and your neighbors are high grading the herd. Going to one buck won’t stop the high grading. It will intensify it. Quit shooting the good genetics bucks and cull the poor bucks. Everyone should take a step back and set their trophy agenda to the side and ask yourself what is best for all resident deer hunters, the kids and our sport. I don’t think taking away a residents opportunity to hunt for a buck with bow and a gun if they chose is in the sports best interest. Iowa has all the right regulations already in place. We just need to get our population back up to get us closer to where we were in the mid 2000’s.

We need to remember. Not everyone cares about big antlers. We also need to remember that not one hunter (trophy or meat hunter) in the State of Iowa was complaining about our deer herd back in the mid 2000’s when our deer population was 750,000.

Let’s focus on what will actually make a difference versus dividing us. We need every single one of us to be on the same page. That page is getting the population back up. That is the message we need to be pushing. That is a message all of Iowa’s deer hunters can and will get behind. That is the message that will actually improve everyone’s hunting. Both meat hunters and trophy hunters. That is the message ISC should be pushing. Not pushing for a one buck State.

If you choose to shoot one buck, two bucks, no bucks, cull bucks or trophy bucks. It all comes down to you. You can’t control what the neighbor shoots and no regulations will either.
I will say it again…
Managing for top end bucks starts and ends with you. That is really the only thing you can control…yourself.

Iowaqdm for president!!!! The heck with the Orange Man.

 

[MN Slick]

I recently had a great conversation with Jase Elliott the Iowa DNR Deer Biologist. He is really a great guy to have managing the States deer herd. We are truly lucky to have him. He really has a grasp on the issues and is an advocate for our deer resources. He said a total of 160,000 Deer licenses were sold last year. A total of 2000 hunters filled an archery and a gun tag with a buck. If you add in how many killed two bucks with a regular tag (archery or gun) and a landowner tag the total is 3200. The number of people who filled an archery, gun and landowner tag with a buck totaled 201. So only 3200 people filled two buck tags and only 201 people harvested three bucks State wide. He said it is not a factor in buck quality. He indicated that going to one buck versus our current tag system would do nothing for buck quality but would definitely affect hunters opportunities to be afield. He said he was not in favor of becoming a one buck State. He feels it is important for people to be afield and have the opportunity to hunt for a buck with bow and a gun. He felt confident that our current license structure is the correct one and that they are working to get deer numbers up in areas hit with EHD by reducing doe tags. To also back up the two buck State argument he mentioned that he recently met with the guys managing the 20,000 acre Amana Colonies property and that they have decided to go from one buck, back to two bucks because of high grading. They felt the States structure with two bucks promoted better quality and allowed for management bucks to be taken.

If we went to a one buck State you would only be adding 3400 bucks back onto the landscape. So if you went to a one buck State vs our current license structure you would only be adding one buck back per 16.43 square miles. Or one buck per 10,500 acres. You should also know that almost 50% of the annual bucks harvested are 1 1/2 year olds. So what you would likely be adding back is one 1 1/2 year old buck to a 10,500 acre block by going to a one buck State. Pushing for a one buck State is a complete waste of time in my personal opinion. It will push our resource in the wrong direction and take opportunities to be afield away from our resident hunters. We have much bigger battles to fight like crossbows, nonresident tag allotments, outfitter tags, etc.


If you would like to hear Jase Elliott and get an idea of who he is I would recommend you check out HUNTR podcast #269.

I recall a podcast where a hunter that hunts the Amana Colonies said it had been high graded since going to one buck. It will be interesting to see how 2 bucks pans out.

 

[Windlooker]

Of course!

I actually think they are good people, but if you had to produce content AND had thousands and thousands of private acres how would you argue?

One buck certainly would not be in the benefit of EVERYONE, but I do think more folks would see an overall benefit.

Have a buddy you had an encounter with them not to long ago in relation to the leasing, eventual purchase, and flip of a property. He’d argue the “good” part all day. If he’s giving me all the facts I’d agree with him.
Reply Report •••

 

[Wind Gypsy]

I've never even hunted IA but I dont think this issue is IA specific. @MN Slick nailed it on page 1 - high grading. If a buck has good genetic potential, his odds of making it to peak antler potential is much smaller than it used to be near everywhere because they are easier to kill. Magnitudes better technology and hunter knowledge make it that way.

I think getting something changed once it’s legal is almost impossible…I’m all for banning cell cams but you imagine what 90% of hunters in Iowa would say if they proposed that. They couldn’t even get it done on public land last year much less trying it on private land. Limiting buck tags would help a lot. One statewide and one landowner tag would be much better than what we have now. I think limiting the technology on muzzle loaders would help some too. No scopes or limit it to a 4x scope?

4x scope is not a real limitation. Anyone who spends some time shooting will not be significantly limited at 300+ yards with 4x magnification. 1x optic or iron sights is a real limitation. You see this happening in some places out west where muzzleloaders have become too effective. New mexico used to allow scoped muzzleloaders and removed them from legal weapons as they were too effective. Utah and Idaho have certain tags that are removing optics from rifles as well.

 

[JNRBRONC]

High grading? Guess I need a definition. I gather in general terms that it is shooting the largest rack buck, those with true trophy potential before they reach it. So it is done before they have maxed out their antlers? Maybe a 3, 4 or 5 year old? Where I get hung up here is that I've never seen a buck sit out of the rut no matter what age he is. Even spikes try to participate. So if you kill the large racked up and comers, I think it is an easy bet that they have passed on their genes in previous breeding seasons, so the genetics are still out there. Yeah, give them a couple more years and their genes might be more predominant in an area, maybe.

Regarding "cull or bully bucks", isn't that what the gun seasons and neighbors are for?

 

[Wind Gypsy]

High grading? Guess I need a definition. I gather in general terms that it is shooting the largest rack buck, those with true trophy potential before they reach it. So it is done before they have maxed out their antlers? Maybe a 3, 4 or 5 year old? Where I get hung up here is that I've never seen a buck sit out of the rut no matter what age he is. Even spikes try to participate. So if you kill the large racked up and comers, I think it is an easy bet that they have passed on their genes in previous breeding seasons, so the genetics are still out there. Yeah, give them a couple more years and their genes might be more predominant in an area, maybe.

Regarding "cull or bully bucks", isn't that what the gun seasons and neighbors are for?

When a truly high potential buck throws a nice rack as a 2 or 3 YO it gets killed because people are more aware of it's existence. People are pumped to shoot a 150"+ 3 YO and the stubby tined 4+ YO 8 pts keep getting passed and continue breeding does until they die of natural causes. Run that cycle for generations and you continuously have the lowest genetic potential bucks breeding for the most years, the highest genetic potential bucks breeding the fewest and it only further perpetuates itself. If anything that is the best argument to keep IA from becoming a 1 deer state IMO - allows the intense property managers to kill the old low genetic potential bucks without burning their 1 tag on them.

I'd love to shoot some older poor genetic bucks at home in MN but i only get 1 tag so they keep on breeding does and competing with young higher potential bucks year after year.

 

[JNRBRONC]

When a truly high potential buck throws a nice rack as a 2 or 3 YO it gets killed because people are more aware of it's existence. People are pumped to shoot a 150"+ 3 YO and the stubby tined 4+ YO 8 pts keep getting passed and continue breeding does until they die of natural causes. Run that cycle for generations and you continuously have the lowest genetic potential bucks breeding for the most years, the highest genetic potential bucks breeding the fewest and it only further perpetuates itself. If anything that is the best argument to keep IA from becoming a 1 deer state IMO - allows the intense property managers to kill the old low genetic potential bucks without burning their 1 tag on them.

I'd love to shoot some older poor genetic bucks at home in MN but i only get 1 tag so they keep on breeding does and competing with young higher potential bucks year after year.

I kind of follow along with that, but it takes two to tango. The doe also has an impact on trophy potential of the offspring.

I've heard many wildlife biologists claim that you can't control genetics in the herd.

 

[Thinkin Rut]

I kind of follow along with that, but it takes two to tango. The doe also has an impact on trophy potential of the offspring.

I've heard many wildlife biologists claim that you can't control genetics in the herd.

Agreed. I seriously doubt you can kill your way to better genetics. You can remove an aggressive buck and you can kill a buck with lesser traits that is a heavy browsing corn eating empty space, both a positive for the surviving deer, but you can't control the genetics. JMO

 

[Daver]

I recall a podcast where a hunter that hunts the Amana Colonies said it had been high graded since going to one buck. It will be interesting to see how 2 bucks pans out.

Not from a podcast, but from a friend of mine that grew up hunting that area...he would say the same thing today. Total FWIW. I really don't have any fresh, actual facts myself, I haven't been on that ground for decades now. I will say this though...that region SHOULD be producing multiple giants per year, it's that good.

I don't know if it is and we never hear about them OR if it isn't because of whatever factor, whether that be because of high grading, poaching or whatever.

 

[AU91]

I think banning cell cams would really help age structure. They would need to do it in the future because a lot of hunters have $1000s invested in cell cams. Make it take effect like January 2028 or similar. Then hunters can digest it, and know it’s coming. They should still be allowed on driveways and around buildings for security and the DNR can make a decision on that if necessary.

Agree that getting rid of cell cams is needed. Saw a post on Facebook today from Driven TV with Pat and Nichole Reeve and they were telling their 10’s of thousands of followers that they made a mistake by not requesting an “on demand” photo when they were getting close to their stand but only did it 15 minutes before and subsequently spooked their target buck. It was appalling to read that and think about how hunting has come to that point for some people. How on earth is that a satisfying way to harvest an animal?

Or as someone mentioned above limiting cell cams to a once weekly photo dump would be huge. It would give some integrity back to the sport and give the deer a fighting chance to survive and make it to the next age class

 

[Iowa]

Do you think there’s any argument that cameras can help reduce high grading? For example I got pictures of a buck that score wise I would absolutely shoot no questions asked, studying pictures of him over the course of a couple weeks i decided I want to pass him because I think he’s 4.5. If I were to have that same deer show up post rut without pictures to recognize him by I would probably shoot him just thinking he was run down.
In my area I would say the guys that take the time to run a bunch of cameras and spend $5,000 on a muzzleloader are usually the guys that want to pass deer more than the guy that buys a tag the night before and just shoots the first decent buck that runs by.
Just trying to look at it from both sides… maybe there’s a healthy middle ground to some of this.
Guys buying ground, paying for someone to set it up , bulletproof access, shooting the best deer In the neighborhood isn’t great… but what was going on in that neighborhood before they showed up? And how many bucks that would have been mowed down at 2.5 and 3.5 are using that farm as a sanctuary that will disperse at some point and make the whole neighborhood better.

 

[AU91]

Do you think there’s any argument that cameras can help reduce high grading? For example I got pictures of a buck that score wise I would absolutely shoot no questions asked, studying pictures of him over the course of a couple weeks i decided I want to pass him because I think he’s 4.5. If I were to have that same deer show up post rut without pictures to recognize him by I would probably shoot him just thinking he was run down.
In my area I would say the guys that take the time to run a bunch of cameras and spend $5,000 on a muzzleloader are usually the guys that want to pass deer more than the guy that buys a tag the night before and just shoots the first decent buck that runs by.
Just trying to look at it from both sides… maybe there’s a healthy middle ground to some of this.
Guys buying ground, paying for someone to set it up , bulletproof access, shooting the best deer In the neighborhood isn’t great… but what was going on in that neighborhood before they showed up? And how many bucks that would have been mowed down at 2.5 and 3.5 are using that farm as a sanctuary that will disperse at some point and make the whole neighborhood better.

I agree that trail cameras themselves are good for herd management since the only true way to know a deers age is by tracking from year to year. IMO cell cams are the problem. The dumbest deer in the woods is a 3 year old rutted up buck on November 7th and cell cams offering real time data about that deers location is going to contribute to high grading those genetically gifted young bucks

 

[Buckscrape]

You don't need two or three tags to kill a bully buck. You only need one. Better genetic bucks live to breed. If you have two bully bucks, you kill the second one next year ... or find a friend.

 

[Bucksnbears]

I remember YEARS AGO, it was fun watching Dan Fitzgerald shooting does.