Giant Deer of Iowa are rapidly becoming a past memory

[iowaqdm]

Good post here. I like the numbers that you shared. However, your buck harvest numbers are only the ones reported. How many bucks get wounded and killed from same hunter. More than you think. Again, we have no idea what the actual # of bucks getting shot. But to just blanket statement say "well the only bucks getting killed are the ones being reported" is fantasy land. We have no way of knowing the actual # so it's hard to say. I see you point and I think we agree. But can we agree the number of bucks getting killed each year is quite a bit more than the 45K. My opinion is using those numbers as absolutes is a mistake. It's the only numbers you have to go off of so I get what you're saying. I'm just asking lets use a little common sense as well.

I agree 100% that there are other factors for sure. But we can’t legislate or make rules by
just guessing or assuming things. You can try to make some estimates. Sure there are bucks and does shot and lost each year. Are there are a lot of deer hit by cars that are not reported, absolutely. All we can do is work with known numbers and make some estimates. Not sure how you would factor in those other numbers into any changes because no way to really put a number on them. Even our deer population estimates are just that, estimates. Are there really 450,000 deer before season or is there actually 400,000. How do we truly know??? If you’re off by one deer per square mile you change the number by 55,857, So we have to look at the estimates for now versus when our hunting was best. That difference is 300,000 deer. We all know there are a lot fewer deer on the landscape now versus mid 2000’s. All we can do is look at the same numbers the DNR has to go off of a try to move the population upwards.

 

[Muddyrem]

Especially trying to convince myself that deer only habitat 8% of the state and only wooded habitat hold any deer. That leaves you with a deer density of more than 100/square mile, and deer harvest of about 23-24/square mile. Note: healthy populations are in the 5-20 range. We cannot use only wooded acres since when we do, there are way too many for their habitat.

So you’re saying we should compare every square acre of Iowa vs what deer actually live in? I never said it was merely timber; but it’s a heck of a lot closer to 8% than 100%

 

[Stoney]

We have to significantly increase our doe population to get out of this mess. That is the only answer. The rest is a waste of time.

What would this look like, specifically?

 

[Dennis]

Now that we are talking about raising population and deer density, how do we actually fix some of the problems in "high density" counties. I live and hunt in one of the highest density counties on the map.

We have areas where deer are protected by landowners and those deer numbers in that specific section are very high. No matter how many tags are issued, the numbers in those sections will not be lowered.

Because of those sections pushing up the densities for the county, a lot of antlerless tags are issued. Those tags then get purchased and filled in sections where access is easy. Think farmers that hate deer and public land. Those areas then have very, very ,very low deer densities.

It is a self fulfilling prophecy. The tags are issued to lower the densities in the high density problem areas, but there is no access for hunters to those areas. The tags get purchased and filled in the easy access high hunter low deer density areas. You end up with a county that has a checkerboard of deer density with very high and very low pockets based on hunter access.

From a hunting perspective, we just limit antlerless tags until populations go up. Farmers are not happy with the old higher populations. I feel like there is a density where we can have a good hunt and farmers are pretty happy. We had it in my area for about 3 years and held it there. Something happened in the last year that caused the deer numbers to drop significantly on a percentage basis, but not much on a numbers basis. Now deer seem like an endangered species in our area. The number where both farmers and hunters are happy is pretty fragile, it seems.

 

[iowaqdm]

What would this look like, specifically?

From a previous post.

Regardless of the county, we need reduced extra antlerless tag quotas, limited anysex tags in counties with really low doe populations, maybe buck only during both gun seasons and implementing no party hunting in those areas for the next few years. I would base all regulation changes with the sole intention of bumping the doe population up significantly.

 

[Dennis]

Another question, if we get the population up, how do we slow the high grading and keep habitat from being destroyed so bucks can reach old age?

How do we know the buck harvest won't just increase proportionally to the population?

With less antlerless tags, aren't guys that NEED the meet likely to shoot more yearling bucks to fill the freezer?

 

[iowaqdm]

Now that we are talking about raising population and deer density, how do we actually fix some of the problems in "high density" counties. I live and hunt in one of the highest density counties on the map.

We have areas where deer are protected by landowners and those deer numbers in that specific section are very high. No matter how many tags are issued, the numbers in those sections will not be lowered.

Because of those sections pushing up the densities for the county, a lot of antlerless tags are issued. Those tags then get purchased and filled in sections where access is easy. Think farmers that hate deer and public land. Those areas then have very, very ,very low deer densities.

It is a self fulfilling prophecy. The tags are issued to lower the densities in the high density problem areas, but there is no access for hunters to those areas. The tags get purchased and filled in the easy access high hunter low deer density areas. You end up with a county that has a checkerboard of deer density with very high and very low pockets based on hunter access.

From a hunting perspective, we just limit antlerless tags until populations go up. Farmers are not happy with the old higher populations. I feel like there is a density where we can have a good hunt and farmers are pretty happy. We had it in my area for about 3 years and held it there. Something happened in the last year that caused the deer numbers to drop significantly on a percentage basis, but not much on a numbers basis. Now deer seem like an endangered species in our area. The number where both farmers and hunters are happy is pretty fragile, it seems.

You are absolutely correct with the checker board analogy. You have to remove the extra doe tags allocations for the county otherwise the areas with access will continue to be beat down. Areas with high populations still have the ability for landowners to decrease the population on their farm through
depredation tags. Can guys who want every deer dead get depredation tags, yes. But it will definitely help increase the population in those areas with beat down populations when there are no extra doe tags allocated for the county.

 

[thughart]

I’ve drawn Iowa 10 times since 2008. The sightings of really top end bucks has dwindled since the first year I hunted the state. Overall deer numbers have fallen drastically in that time too. In all those years I’ve maybe seen one or two bucks that would make or break 180, I’ve certainly never taken one that size in Iowa. I’ve hunted Davis, Van Buren, Henry, and I bought a farm 3 years ago in Jefferson county. I haven’t gotten any trail cam pix of nor have I laid eyes on really large mature bucks on the farm I own. I’d say I’ve had a hand full of 5 yr old + in the 160s to 170s at the most. The top genetic young bucks I’ve gotten pix from have either succumbed to EHD or the neighbors who push and drive deer relentlessly to the north. They shot 46 times on one push on day one this season and 31 times on the same push the next day. That’s a lot of indiscriminate shooting and who knows just how many animals are harvested and recovered and how many were wounded and lost. By days 3 and on I always see wounded deer. A one buck limit and the elimination of party hunting would definitely benefit my farm and our neighborhood as it would sideline many of the hunters from killing multiple bucks. To deny this is to deny logic. I’m not one of those guys who thinks he owns a deer. I’m also not a jealous hunter. But it grinds on my nerves to listen to volley after volley of shots ring out as ATVs and S/Ss run down and retrieve the crippled animals. Party hunting and pushing deer in very limited cover with the use of ATVs is legal I guess but is not really fair chase and as long as it’s practiced in an area the mature animals will be a rare commodity. I’ve taken 7 bucks from Iowa since 2008. I failed to have an opportunity on a buck that I was excited to shoot on the last 3 trips out of 10. I have certainly not negatively impacted the state.
I also get many pix of coyotes and bobcats which I’m sure impact the fawning recruitment. That is a problem that needs addressed so I allow the guys who chase them with hounds to freely operate on my place when the hounds cross onto me after deer season ends. They have reasonable success killing a few coyotes.
I know there’s a whole list of issues impacting the number of mature bucks available compared to 15 years ago. I still think limiting doe harvest, going to a one buck limit, and eliminating party hunting and tagging a buck with the tag of another hunter would be a huge positive step. Maybe I I’m wrong. One thing’s for sure, I’ve become exhausted with this thread so I will bow out now…….


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Bucksnbears]

I would sure love to see 750,000 deer back on Iowa’s landscape just like in the early 2000’s. That was some fun hunting.

Iowa CAN NOT SUPPORT those #s!!.

Deer can't eat DIRT!.

Also, shooting deer for " meat" is a thing of the past. Vast majority, (youth included) are after antlers.
Sad but true.

.

 

[150 Class]

So you’re saying we should compare every square acre of Iowa vs what deer actually live in? I never said it was merely timber; but it’s a heck of a lot closer to 8% than 100%

I did not say to use the whole state, but still being considerably off by makes the 8% point lose credibility just like 100%. Frivolous points beating dead horses.

 

[Muddyrem]

I did not say to use the whole state, but still being considerably off by makes the 8% point lose credibility just like 100%. Frivolous points beating dead horses.

Less than 8% of Iowa is considered timber. We lose habitat every single day; southwest Iowa can show you some stats on that. We’ve lost thousands of acres of CRP with more set to come out and most likely not be re enrolled.

I bet you’re a ball to hang out with…………..

I’m also tapping out on this post. Comments like this continue to prove there’s no compromising or pleasing some of you. You guys will continue to muddy the water in the name of “not getting your way”

 

[iowaqdm]

Another question, if we get the population up, how do we slow the high grading and keep habitat from being destroyed so bucks can reach old age?

How do we know the buck harvest won't just increase proportionally to the population?

With less antlerless tags, aren't guys that NEED the meet likely to shoot more yearling bucks to fill the freezer?

Great questions. All you can do to slow high grading is to let better genetic bucks live and cull mature low scoring bucks. The only way to increase the number of top end bucks is to increase the total number of bucks on the landscape.

Grain prices will dictate habitat loss. Lower prices = more CRP if rates are decent. Higher grain prices means more ground coming out of CRP and brushy ditches getting pushed out. We can’t control that other than on our own ground and to lobby legislators to raise CRP rental rates to help promote conservation practices.

A proportional increase in buck harvest is fine. If 25% of the harvest is bucks and we increase our doe population by 100,000 does. Then that means 100,000 more bucks added annually. Even if 25% of the increase in bucks were harvested that still leaves an additional 75,000 bucks. Increased the doe population by 200,000 that means 200,000 addition bucks annually. Even if we harvested the same percentage that would be 50,000 bucks. That still leaves an additional 150,000 bucks on the landscape. That increase in does is exactly what we need to happen if we want to increase top end potential.

Increased yearling buck harvest vs harvesting does is fine because we need the doe numbers up for the reasons mentioned above. More does means more bucks added every year.

 

[Thinkin Rut]

I agree 100% that there are other factors for sure.

Give me your thoughts on this iowaqdm...in a nutshell, the does are producing enough bucks to replace the bucks that are being shot with either 2 or 3 tags. Approximately 3600 extra bucks killed. In a sense, we are trading 3600 button bucks for the 3600 that were killed the previous season. If most of those tags were used for management purposes that would be all good but I'm guessing not. Some don't know what a management buck looks like and some just want to kill the biggest bucks they have. You have some groups of shot gunners that will shoot anything, new hunters working their way up and youth hunters, all have tendencies of being serial high graders. Could the additional high grading created by the additional 3600 filled tags trump the management benefits of 2 or 3 tags vs the one buck rule when talking higher end bucks?

 

[DMarley83]

FWIW, I have also considered buying additional ground "elsewhere"...but 2 things have, so far, stopped me from doing that.

1. If the new piece is far enough away to escape the "EHD zone" that we find ourselves in now...how do I know that EHD won't hit there in the future too? Our current area, for reasons that I really don't know, did NOT experience any appreciable EHD kill in the previous years, as so many other areas did.

2. Getting tractors, equipment, etc, to another place located some distance aways would be tedious, etc. I was trying to stay close enough to be able to drive a tractor to a new place, etc. Also...overnight stays...we have a cabin to stay in on our main place and I don't want to not have that available OR set up another place to stay, etc.

Otherwise, I agree with you.

I know better than anyone what a pain it is to have multiple locations but it is worth it. One farm gets hit hopefully the others do not!

PIA yes. Kinda a insurance policy. Only answer I know of. Trailer up and go!!!

 

[Muskrat24]

All the "guru's" started touting "MRI" (Most recent information) when cell cam's came out. The fact is, bucks became extremely patternable because this "MRI". Prior to this, cams had to be placed in areas where if you wanted "MRI" you wouldn't disturb or blow the area out if you wanted to check frequently. Or, you just let it sit for a month or so and go back and check and use that information for next year...or see what you missed Now, you have no need to check because it is sent right to you. Heck, we've even got live camera's now...and today, this one is $40

Amazon.com: SEHMUA 4G LTE Cellular Trail Cameras 3rd Gen with Live Streaming, Game Camera Built-in SIM Card with Motion Activated 0.2s Trigger Time Solar Trail Camera IP66 Waterproof : Sports & Outdoors

Buy SEHMUA 4G LTE Cellular Trail Cameras 3rd Gen with Live Streaming, Game Camera Built-in SIM Card with Motion Activated 0.2s Trigger Time Solar Trail Camera IP66 Waterproof: Game & Trail Cameras - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases

www.amazon.com

Legitimate questions that I have been scratching my head on the cell cam argument. Are Iowa bucks really that stupid or are the states that are doing better than Iowa not using cell cams? Easier maybe, EASY hardly. Upping your odds, yes, guaranteed success, no way.
What happened to the bandwagon last year that mature bucks avoided cell cams?? I didn’t jump on that train but a lot even on this site did. Now big mature deer just sit in front of them for hunters to came shoot them.
100% agree that cell cams are a tech tool that some people use to be somewhere they wouldn’t have been without the MRI but far from a slam dunk.

 

[Muskrat24]

So would I, but the DNR has said multiple times they DO NOT want the herd at those numbers. How do you suggest we change the mind of the DNR and/or legislature? And don't say "hunter education" as the vast majority will fill tags of they are available.

I agree on two fronts here, IMO DNR has the herd right where they want it. Only ones mad are the true trophy hunters. IF Iowa is going to stay around this 450k number and we want more mature deer then yes we will have to regulate to make some improvements but we will NEVER get back even close to the good ole days at 450K. The OP asked how Iowa could get back to those levels of big buck glory and population is that answer. But if the population is not going to increase then it is a lost cause other than a few moral victories on regulation that MIGHT make a noticeable difference randomly and with no consistency.
Second, for those arguing the one buck argument, your last sentence sums that up well. “…. the vast majority will fill tags if available.” So many are approaching this as if everyone is a trophy hunter passing on all but the biggest bucks. Those of us doing that now are shooting 0 bucks and the ones shooting 1.5 yo or something else are going to fill their tags with something. One buck may move the needle unnoticeably in some areas but it would save 3600 bucks and the vast majority are gonna fill tags as our harvest data has shown. And the vast majority are filling one any sex tag with a buck already.

 

[IowaBowHunter1983]

Grain has been low for 3+ years and there are dozers ripping out habitat all over the place. I drive a ton and see a ton of farms. Look around.

The government has messed up CRP IMO. Many landowners are turned off. I deal with this weekly getting MCM calls. I was in a meeting just last week with NRCS and a landowner. Afterwards the landowner said hes tired of dealing with and is going back to row crop when his CRP expires.

If you are beating the drum of "the ONLY thing we can do is increase doe populations" you are litterally saying the 20 other things people have discussed would have ZERO impact. And to that I say that's simply not true. Its an untruth.

 

[JBAGS]

Grain has been low for 3+ years and there are dozers ripping out habitat all over the place. I drive a ton and see a ton of farms. Look around.

The government has messed up CRP IMO. Many landowners are turned off. I deal with this weekly getting MCM calls. I was in a meeting just last week with NRCS and a landowner. Afterwards the landowner said hes tired of dealing with and is going back to row crop when his CRP expires.

If you are beating the drum of "the ONLY thing we can do is increase doe populations" you are litterally saying the 20 other things people have discussed would have ZERO impact. And to that I say that's simply not true. Its an untruth.

CRP definitely needs some tweaks. It has to be parallelled with grain prices or landowners will be turned off. If there is no incentive to do it, most landowners just won't.
Also, as it's been said before, they need to come up with a formula for what ground is approved.
Less than X% slope and X CSR, not approved as that would be suitable for crops. Then everything else above and certain % slope and below a certain CSR would be eligible. I think they also need to rework the crop years. There is plenty of ground that isn't fit for crops but they make you plant it for 4 out of 6 years to make it eligible for enrollment. There are cases where maybe this makes sense but HEL with poor CSR, it's a disaster to try and get it into compliance. None of this would be hard to do but like everything govt, it's run extremely poorly. Just look at trying to get an up to date farm bill....

 

[IowaBowHunter1983]

CRP definitely needs some tweaks. It has to be parallelled with grain prices or landowners will be turned off. If there is no incentive to do it, most landowners just won't.
Also, as it's been said before, they need to come up with a formula for what ground is approved.
Less than X% slope and X CSR, not approved as that would be suitable for crops. Then everything else above and certain % slope and below a certain CSR would be eligible. I think they also need to rework the crop years. There is plenty of ground that isn't fit for crops but they make you plant it for 4 out of 6 years to make it eligible for enrollment. There are cases where maybe this makes sense but HEL with poor CSR, it's a disaster to try and get it into compliance. None of this would be hard to do but like everything govt, it's run extremely poorly. Just look at trying to get an up to date farm bill....

They need to get the damn food stamps, etc out of the farm bill and make the farm bill just that.... a FARM bill. Food stamps can have its own bill. That would be things go much more smoothly IMO.

 

[Thinkin Rut]

The government has messed up CRP IMO. Many landowners are turned off.

In more ways than just the lower payment and cost share?