Giant Deer of Iowa are rapidly becoming a past memory

[Windlooker]

The only valid point you make above about age structure is maybe why gun seasons are in December. Conservation groups, lobbyists and public opinion in relation with NR tags, crossbows and other issues are part of the legislative process and as a result legislators have approved legislation, or not, on those topics.

 

[iowaqdm]

The only valid point you make above about age structure is maybe why gun seasons are in December. Conservation groups, lobbyists and public opinion in relation with NR tags, crossbows and other issues is part of legislative process and as a result legislators have approved legislation, or not, on those topics.

I agree 100% that they are a legislative process. I thought I actually indicated that when I talked about the IBA lobbying and fighting against any changes. My point was that it was never about age structure.
I have been contacting legislators for probably 25+ years now with regard to deer hunting legislation. Not once did I hear the argument that NR tags allocations will negatively affect age structure in the herd. It was always about NR land acquisition, leasing and decreased access for residents. I also haven’t heard the argument until just recently about crossbows affecting age structure. Although, I highly doubt there are studies backing that argument being it is an individual hunters decision. I just know when we were fighting crossbows early on it was about shifting gun hunters to the archery season like what happened in several States. We argued that because they basically look and operate like a gun that once implemented the shift of hunters from gun season to bow season will decrease access for regular bow hunters.

As far as today, I would bet decade over decade going back 30 years in any midwest State the average age of bucks harvested has continued to increase with more hunters trying to managing and ultimately being more selective.

But again it was never about age structure .

 

[tall@wide]

I agree 100% that they are a legislative process. I thought I actually indicated that when I talked about the IBA lobbying and fighting against any changes. My point was that it was never about age structure.
I have been contacting legislators for probably 25+ years now with regard to deer hunting legislation. Not once did I hear the argument that NR tags allocations will negatively affect age structure in the herd. It was always about NR land acquisition, leasing and decreased access for residents. I also haven’t heard the argument until just recently about crossbows affecting age structure. Although, I highly doubt there are studies backing that argument being it is an individual hunters decision. I just know when we were fighting crossbows early on it was about shifting gun hunters to the archery season like what happened in several States. We argued that because they basically look and operate like a gun that once implemented the shift of hunters from gun season to bow season will decrease access for regular bow hunters.

As far as today, I would bet decade over decade going back 30 years in any midwest State the average age of bucks harvested has continued to increase with more hunters trying to managing and ultimately being more selective.

But again it was never about age structure .

So you believe more NR hunters or allowing crossbows in archery season would not decrease age structure in Iowa?

 

[thecreedeer]

I believe an important part of the argument of High Grading is that we have to realize that what one hunter considers a trophy is extremely different from the next hunter. On this site we have a concentration of serious deer hunters and what they consider a good buck is not the same as the majority of deer hunters in the state. Another fact is that the benchmark that a deer hunter sets for himself in the beginning of the season most of the time changes when a 140" deer gives him that shot opportunity on that crisp November morning. The idea that most of the hunters are holding out for the 170" and not filling their tag is not real for the average hunter. The point I am making is that I don't agree with the statement that going to a ONE BUCK STATE will drastically increase the number of inferior bucks. I think looking at other states that have had success with this is our best option.

 

[hillrunner]

I believe an important part of the argument of High Grading is that we have to realize that what one hunter considers a trophy is extremely different from the next hunter. On this site we have a concentration of serious deer hunters and what they consider a good buck is not the same as the majority of deer hunters in the state. Another fact is that the benchmark that a deer hunter sets for himself in the beginning of the season most of the time changes when a 140" deer gives him that shot opportunity on that crisp November morning. The idea that most of the hunters are holding out for the 170" and not filling their tag is not real for the average hunter. The point I am making is that I don't agree with the statement that going to a ONE BUCK STATE will drastically increase the number of inferior bucks. I think looking at other states that have had success with this is our best option.

I don't really know what I think about the 1 buck state idea but I do agree with this. A high percentage of hunters are going to happily shoot that "bully buck" regardless. Unless they own land, they only have 1 bow tag anyway so it's not that different from what we have imo. Knowing you have a few days of gun season coming doesn't change the fact that bow season is over as soon as you let that arrow go. Only a few of us are actually dedicated enough to go late into the season holding out for "the one".

 

[Jbohn]

I am a NR Landowner in Illinois , I see both sides of everything I do know that most of the NR landowners are great land managers I also understand how residents feel .. Specially when some has been pushed out and have no place to hunt in the mid west.. That just stinks , I do not have a place to hunt in my home state because of the same.

I have been here since 2011 and things are a shell of what they once where actually unrecognizable. Age structure is not good at all , very few upper class aged deer.

Crossbows , wow it's hurt everywhere they have been legalized ..Deer do not have a chance , if it gets in Iowa you can forget it ..
I know NR Tags play their part as outfitted areas that are just over hunted . Just heard a guy the other day ! I hope they don't get mad but I am shooting something !!!!
Social Media !! Keeping up with Jones's - Everyone has to fill the tag . Post it on FB , Hunters should be judged on what they do not shoot..
State Regulation have a lot of issues but they do not care ..
Neighbors , Need good one's on same page .. Working together
Cell Cams are huge to help pattern .. It can be almost Cheating when they are on a pattern. I use them I just can get there to take advantage I am sure I would if I could .
The good ole days isn't coming back even though each year I trick my mind.


Thankful I have a place to hunt so we cant forget about that !!!!..

 

[iowaqdm]

So you believe more NR hunters or allowing crossbows in archery season would not decrease age structure in Iowa?

No. I don’t. If you know of any studies that show otherwise please share.

I think more NR hunters will lead to more NR land acquisition, leasing, and more outfitters. That will lead to decreased access for Iowa residents.

I think crossbows would shift a large percentage of the guys that only gun hunt to the archery season decreasing access for regular archery hunters.

I think both additional NR hunters and crossbows would lead to additional high grading of the herd.

There seems to be a real disconnect between people understanding or confusing age structure with top end “trophy” deer. The age structure is fine in Iowa other than areas devastated by EHD. Overall the population is down which means less does and less bucks. But proportionally the number of mature does to mature bucks to yearling does to yearling bucks is right in line with where it should be in most areas based on the population. Think of it this way, you can pick your previous deer numbers and do the math because every area is different. Then keep track of the bucks you see. For example, if before the population declined you had 40 deer on your farm and of those you had 16 antlered bucks of various ages (8-1 1/2, 4-2 1/2, 2-3 1/2 and 2-4 1/2+). After the population decline now you only have 20 deer and now 8 bucks of various ages, nothing has changed with regard to age structure (you just have 4- 1 1/2, 2-2 1/2, 1-3 1/2, 1-4 1/2+). The age structure is exactly the same.

The problem is everyone got used to much higher deer numbers and seeing multiple 3,4,5 five year olds bucks with good headgear. Now with lower populations and high grading guys are grasping for anything to blame for the decline in top end “trophy” bucks. It’s not cell cams or this weapon or that weapon. It is a population issue combined with high grading. When our population was up, you might have been used to having four 150”+ bucks you had pictures of and were hunting . When two of those got picked off by the neighbors you just kept looking for one of the others, no big deal. You didn’t think twice about it. Now with half the population you might only have two 150”+ bucks going into season and then when both of them get picked off you’re pissed and then start thinking…the neighbors wouldn’t have gotten them without his cell cams or his 350 legend. When in reality if you think back those same neighbors were just as successful when they had regular trail cams and used a muzzleloader. The real difference is we only have half the deer herd. Now add to the equation when the two target bucks you’re after go down you think well hopefully a new 150” that I don’t know about rolls in for does or food. Meanwhile, you pass multiple 130” 8 points while waiting. Well guess what…so do all your neighbors. After enough time, you end up with more and more 130” 8 points and only the random good one. That is high grading.

Your trophy potential has absolutely nothing to do with the 3400 additional bucks being killed Statewide by guys harvesting a second buck. It has nothing to do with cell cams or a guy using a 350 legend instead of a muzzleloader. It has to do with having 200,000 less bucks on the landscape each year because we cut our population from 750,000 to 350,000. If you want to improve hunting in general and trophy hunting then quit shooting does!!! Get the population up and start to cull 130” 8 points.

But everyone needs to be careful not to conflate age structure with “trophy” or top end deer.

 

[IowaBowHunter1983]

It has nothing to do with cell cams

No matter how many times you type this, it's still going to be incorrect.

 

[IowaBowHunter1983]

Population has been basically stable since 2013. Quality has gotten worse. It's not JUST about numbers.

 

[TheBig8]

Winke's Southern Iowa farm was going down hill before cell cams became as prevalent as they are now, fwiw.

 

[Muskrat24]

Population has been basically stable since 2013. Quality has gotten worse. It's not JUST about numbers.View attachment 130631

Do you think the population is the same as it was five years ago? In my area NO WAY!! I’ve been with the kids for MO rifle and MO youth and the last two years have been BAD. That farm you could consistently see 20 + deer on an all day sit with the kids and now lucky to see half that. I have 0 faith in the DNR population estimates. These farms are on the MO/IA border. Interesting when even farmers say we don’t see deer anymore. I commented last year about the population estimates for per square mile and there is NO WAY it is accurate. Too many nights out with a thermal to believe it. Same in Iowa, our deer numbers continue to slide trend line over the last 10 years.

 

[IowaBowHunter1983]

Do you think the population is the same as it was five years ago? In my area NO WAY!! I’ve been with the kids for MO rifle and MO youth and the last two years have been BAD. That farm you could consistently see 20 + deer on an all day sit with the kids and now lucky to see half that. I have 0 faith in the DNR population estimates. These farms are on the MO/IA border. Interesting when even farmers say we don’t see deer anymore. I commented last year about the population estimates for per square mile and there is NO WAY it is accurate. Too many nights out with a thermal to believe it. Same in Iowa, our deer numbers continue to slide trend line over the last 10 years.

Really depends on specific area. Some areas certain got wiped out by ehd.

 

[Daver]

Winke's Southern Iowa farm was going down hill before cell cams became as prevalent as they are now, fwiw.

He got hit hard by EHD at least twice AND some neighbors stepped up their hunting pressure too.

 

[iowaqdm]

Population has been basically stable since 2013. Quality has gotten worse. It's not JUST about numbers.View attachment 130631

Actually, you just proved my point. Those are harvest reports not population estimates. So in 2008 when we had 750,000 deer on the landscape it looks like just under 60,000 antlered bucks were shot. And antlered buck harvest remained basically the same clear through the 2021 season as our population has continued to declined to our current levels. So with 200,000 less bucks on the landscape we harvested the same number of antlered deer. That is why our herd is being high graded and quality has continued to decline gradually and will continue unless we increase our population significantly. It is 100% about numbers. No matter how many times you type that it isn’t, it's still going to be incorrect. And honestly to try and blame it on cell cams or this or that weapon is laughable.

If I could snap my fingers and drop 200,000 bucks and 200,000 does onto Iowa’s landscape tomorrow there would be giants all over in two years.

If you could snap your fingers and take away cell cams, straight walls, smokeless muzzleloaders and make Iowa a one buck State tomorrow and our population stayed where it is today everyone would still be crying about the continuing decline in quality bucks 10 years from now.

 

[IowaBowHunter1983]

 

[Bucksnbears]

Can Iowas landscape produce,and keep a healthy herd if #s were to double?
I know many guys complain about low deer numbers in western Mn. Our landscape is being absolutely destroyed habitat wise. Old farmstead are being torn down, shelterbelts being removed, grassy fence lines are being ripped out,
Farming RIGHT UP TO the waters edges on creeks,rivers.
Deer have no where to go other then riverbottoms that have cover.
Deer per square mile charts don't paint the full picture here. I can show many 25 square miles areas that won't have a single deer once the crops come off.
As hunters, we all like to see more deer but gotta realize that there are areas that just can't support higher #s.
Deer can't eat dirt.

 

[JNRBRONC]

Can Iowas landscape produce,and keep a healthy herd if #s were to double?
I know many guys complain about low deer numbers in western Mn. Our landscape is being absolutely destroyed habitat wise. Old farmstead are being torn down, shelterbelts being removed, grassy fence lines are being ripped out,
Farming RIGHT UP TO the waters edges on creeks,rivers.
Deer have no where to go other then riverbottoms that have cover.
Deer per square mile charts don't paint the full picture here. I can show many 25 square miles areas that won't have a single deer once the crops come off.
As hunters, we all like to see more deer but gotta realize that there are areas that just can't support higher #s.
Deer can't eat dirt.

Yarding.

Back before we thinned the herd to '70's level population, the deer would "yard" in river bottoms/timbers during the winter, then disperse out into the surrounding ag ground come spring. Spend the summer in fence rows and waterways, yard again the coming winter. Not seeing it to the same extent as when the herd was large. I counted close to 100 deer in a hay field in January back then, not saying that is where we should be. Always a happy median somewhere.

 

[iowavf]

Can Iowas landscape produce,and keep a healthy herd if #s were to double?
I know many guys complain about low deer numbers in western Mn. Our landscape is being absolutely destroyed habitat wise. Old farmstead are being torn down, shelterbelts being removed, grassy fence lines are being ripped out,
Farming RIGHT UP TO the waters edges on creeks,rivers.
Deer have no where to go other then riverbottoms that have cover.
Deer per square mile charts don't paint the full picture here. I can show many 25 square miles areas that won't have a single deer once the crops come off.
As hunters, we all like to see more deer but gotta realize that there are areas that just can't support higher #s.
Deer can't eat dirt.

I was just going to say the same thing. Iowa doesn't have the habit it did when the deer numbers were high. I drive by three different areas I use to hunt, and everyone of them are row crop now with no place for deer to live. Not a lot of small farmers anymore and the big farmers with big equipment want to farm everything they can. So the areas that do have deer, get hunted harder now versus ten years ago when we had more habitat for hunters to use.

 

[Sligh1]

Not sure where you are located, but if in Iowa. Going to one a buck State will only add one buck back per twenty hunters. If you figure 3400 additional bucks are killed and there are 80,000 hunters with two tags to equal the 160,000 tags sold. So one buck per twenty hunters or it works out to around one buck per 10 square miles if that is easier to visualize. So you have to ask yourself, is it better to add back one buck per twenty hunters (one buck per ten square miles) and take away the best management tool to cull low scoring bucks from everyone like yourself who are trying to manage? And for what??? To hopefully stop a neighbor from killing two good bucks? Remember 50% of the buck harvest annually are 1 1/2 year olds. So maybe not in your specific case but as a whole you are more than likely adding back one buck that needs at least three more years of survival to be a buck most managers desire. Meanwhile, the next three years your waiting for that 1 1/2 to grow old enough, that 130” 8 that was present because no one will shoot them in a one buck State continues breeding. What really sucks is that 1 1/2 that you saved three years ago turns out to be another cull 8 and now he gets to continue the high grading process because nobody can or will cull him.

I as a manager would prefer to be able to cull bucks I know won’t be upper end RIGHT now and let the cards fall where they may in future years. The more breeding the better genetic bucks get to do the better off the future potential for top end bucks will be. If a buck doesn’t have the genetics right now, then you know they will never will. If they have the top end genetics then they just have to survive to 4, 5, 6. That’s where a manager mindset comes in. What can I do to help get them there. Improve habitat, provide food, provide sanctuary, reduce bully 8’s. If you can do those things to keep them home then you have won half of the battle.

I think we should be recommending guys shoot cull 8 point bucks instead of does for a several years to fill freezers. We have to get the population moving upward fast.

What is more important for the herd long term and ultimately the future of Iowa deer hunting? I think the absolute most important thing is a significant increase in population and culling of low scoring bucks. That will improve and sustain trophy potential longer than anything else. If we can slow land segmentation that will help as well. So limiting or decreasing NR access will help curtail that in regards to deer hunting parcels. Obviously, preventing crossbows during regular archery is critical to preserve our trophy potential.

I will say it again. Over and over until it sinks in.

Managing for top end bucks starts and ends with you. That is really the only thing you can control…yourself.

So if you spend all your time worrying about what the neighbors will kill, your Fall will not be as enjoyable as it would be if you just worried about what you can control. Pick out a target buck be it a top end buck and maybe an old cull 8. Make your goals in September and if a new top end buck shows, great adjust your goals. If the neighbors take out your top target it wasn’t meant to be. Make your property the best it can be and try to hold as many deer as possible and enjoy the management. You will be rewarded. Just don’t expect to wrap your hands around a top end buck every year. That is unrealistic unless you have huge acreage or great neighbors.

One point that cannot be missed when talking about states that have gone to 1 buck. Or say we went from 3 to 2 or just “in no terms can any hunter tag more than 2 bucks per season in iowa” (urban, LO, party hunting, etc)…. It is NOT about how many bucks are taken on extra tags or even a precise indicator of how many bucks will get saved.
Let me explain…..
I mentioned this a bit before but I’ll go over a bit better …. Indiana for example had this debate 20 years ago. Access issues, ratios getting out of whack & age class was getting clobbered. So- some fought for 1 buck. The folks against it said SAME things. “But only 10-20% of hunters even shoot 2 bucks. So it won’t save that many!!!” They changed it. It’s NOT the 10-20% of the bucks that got saved that made the HUGE difference!!!!! …., it was 1) guys got super picky & passed far more young bucks. 2) those 10-20% didn’t get shot (yes, an element but not the main issue). 3) guys who were shooting a “buck just so they got one (& the 2nd one I’ll be picky on)” didn’t shoot that first buck “just to get one”. They started thinking “oh, maybe I don’t shoot that 1-2 year old since “THAT’S IT!!!!”…… 4) which lead to many guys actually not shooting a buck but tagging a doe instead (like- ok, I’ll pass the 1 or 2 year old waiting for bigger & ill shoot a doe for freezer). It decreased the amount of young bucks shot immensely & increased the balance of age class drastically. 5) far less land got tied up. Leasing slowed (not stopped but slowed). Guys didn’t need to tie up “5 farms” as they only could shoot one buck. 6) their buck to doe ratio improved (was a problem - young bucks & piles of does). 6) in like 5 years they went from something like 18th in B&C (their herd & system was a mess) to #4 in B&C with a whole lot of issues enhanced. 7) self regulation on wide scale NEVER works. NEVER in history. Small scale & few folks here or there- sure. Large scale there’s no time in HISTORY it has worked. Tight CONSERVATIVE regulations are the only thing proven to work.
The same result in KS & OH with 1 buck. It saves those states. It makes them great.
I totally get the cull buck issue!!!!!! Totally understand!!!!!!! BUT….. it can be solved. We solve it on our KS farm (while we live in iowa). We have 5x as many guys we trust (dads bringing their sons out or locals we trust with no where to go) that will shoot cull/bullies or mature bucks vs the amount that needs shot. It absolutely is a NET winner in OH, KY & KS. Cull, mature bucks & bullies is the only downside I can see and there’s plenty of solutions with a 4 month long season IMO. Last on cull bucks: most iowa guys aren’t shooting them anyways!!! Even with 2+ tags “don’t wanna put my tag on that”. It’s not about the tags- it’s about the desire & ambition to get it done.

Now - again- am I advocating for 1 buck? Not now and not necessarily. Maybe we do say “2 buck limit for any person” so at least there’s a mental obstacle on locking up all this land or thinking “heck, I’ll shoot that buck because I also have 2 more buck tags”. There’s far more to a max Buck limit than just the # of bucks killed - it’s far far deeper than that and far more important things come from that limitation. Let’s hypothetically say it’s “2 bucks max” (or even 1 buck). For this let’s say “2 bucks”…. Who and why does any single hunter need to shoot more than 2 bucks & _____ (unlimited) does per year”? No one needs that. Zero. & by saying that - yes, say u live in a spot with few deer….. this means if u wanted- you could drive 1-2 hours to a zone or county that has plenty of doe tags available if you wanted.
So- 2 bucks & say I traveled to shoot 3 does….. & had 4 months to do it….. BOTTOM LINE ?: HOW ISN’T THAT ENOUGH FOR ANY HUNTER????????

 

[Sligh1]

They already do legislate for age structure. That is why Iowa has been the envy of most other states.

Late gun season. To help age structure

Limit NR tags. To help age structure.

Limit crossbows. To help age structure.

Thank you!!!!! Spot on. Every dnr is tasked or constituted to manage for a quality, balanced healthy & sustainable resource!! Fish to birds to big game. Birds - say pheasants can be done with just shooting males since repopulate the same every year. Big game absolutely has limitless data, biology & science to strive for a balanced age structure. Older animals. Some states fail at this or some states may get overturned by farm bureau policy but it’s what they are tasked to do.
Same with fish & why we have slot limits or size limits.
Another job of the dnr- keep the resource at the highest quality possible while meshing with other stakeholders (farmers, drivers, etc). They are tasked with keeping tag sales up, interest in hunting high & retaining hunters or recruiting new hunters. The last group of hunters any state wants to lose is the most serious hunters!!!!… they are the best managers, spend the most $ by far & get the next generations into the sport.
Another reason for a balanced age class as it overlaps greatly with a balanced amount of does being shot. Areas without age class have the younger bucks targeted and the does not controlled- spirals out of control. Some states put band-aids on like APR’a to get older deer. I could go on & on why it’s precisely their role to manage to have a balanced herd & age class. It is in their defined duties - it’s just many times the legislator & special interests over-ride those goals & duties.