Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

Iowa One Buck Rule

T

thecreedeer

Member
I can't help thinking what our deer hunting would be like if we went to a one buck quota. The state could still provide increased doe tags to achieve the goals of deer harvest. I believe we have the biggest deer in the nation and this would change the age class of buck harvests. The trophy potential would be off the charts. I would have no problem holding out for the deer of choice and be fine with the possibility of not filling a tag for the year. I do realize that not all of us are Trophy hunters and that "Trophy" is subjective, but there would still hunting opportunities for antlerless deer. I am throwing this idea out there just to hear some feelings from some other deer hunters.
 
thecreedeer said:
I can't help thinking what our deer hunting would be like if we went to a one buck quota. The state could still provide increased doe tags to achieve the goals of deer harvest. I believe we have the biggest deer in the nation and this would change the age class of buck harvests. The trophy potential would be off the charts. I would have no problem holding out for the deer of choice and be fine with the possibility of not filling a tag for the year. I do realize that not all of us are Trophy hunters and that "Trophy" is subjective, but there would still hunting opportunities for antlerless deer. I am throwing this idea out there just to hear some feelings from some other deer hunters.
Click to expand...
Honestly I would support it floating or non. I love hunting but I do think its crazy how many options there are right now. God forbid we have make choices, just give everyone, everything. I bet a majority of properties would benefit greatly. No way they cut back on money intake though, could implement a shed license or up the cost for a single tag. In the end though, likely is best to just leave things alone, not like they would let us as hunters directly vote on what we want.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
I think it could help for sure, but dont ever see it happening. I'd rather have it stay how it and fight to keep it from changing negatively, than try to change it the other way. I'm assuming it would be majorly opposed by the general public and farm owners who need the extra tag for mature bully bucks or farm owners who rely on that extra tag for an extra TV episode
 
I’d be for this if it were a binary choice between continuing to liberalize the seasons or tighten them up. Almost wish we could throw this out there to fight back and throw some leverage against all the whacko regs we see every year.
The time when the 1 buck rule will be on the table.... if/when we degrade the resource & our quality goes down dramatically. It will take a disastrous path before that happens BUT - with all the short sighted special interests + polticians.... it is possible.
 
Big farms would not have an issue plenty of family and friends to take out cull bucks.It would have to be a floating tag for all seasons though until filled.
 
FWIW, I would not care much if we went to a one buck rule, but as others have said, make it per the whole deer season, not tag specific. To my recollection, I have never shot two bucks in a year and I am sure that I have never shot three. (I am a landowner.) I know I shot one and then got a second buck eligible tag and hunted on it, but I don't think that I ever then shot a second one. So, while I am pretty neutral on that, I don't think it would have as big of an impact as some others do. Just my opinion.

In my experience, where the numbers of bucks taken for any one hunter add up is when a lucky hunter is party hunting and happens to be in the right place, at the right time several times in a shotgun season. One guy can nail several bucks that way and then have them legally tagged by other members of party. So if we are really trying to "save bucks", we need to address that IMO.
 
Wouldn't really be upset if I got one floating buck tag but I'm not in a hurry to see it happen. I have never shot a buck with a gun but i would sure miss late muzzy season.

I have shot 2 bucks in one year, one time. Both with bow couple days apart during rut. One was on a City Tag.

If it was biologically beneficial, meaning for over all herd health, to go to one tag I wouldn't have a problem at all. If you want to take away some of my opportunity because you want bigger bucks or you want to give one of my tags to someone else....... Talk to the hand.

No matter what to get my support it would have to do away with party hunting and I have no interest in doing that at this time. Even though I don't party hunt. Would also want to see LO tags go but I want that anyway.
 
As of now, our statewide whitetail deer populations are healthy. There is zero reason for the OP's suggested idea to be implemented. The ONLY reason it should be considered is in cases where deer pops become unhealthy, and then only considered at the county level, not the state level.

It's pretty greedy thinking to limit other peoples buck tags in order for you to have the impression that you'll have a better chance at a B&C buck. Most hunters aren't after B&C's, but they enjoy the opportunity to harvest more than 1 buck per year, if they're fortunate enough to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OMB
Obsessed said:
As of now, our statewide whitetail deer populations are healthy. There is zero reason for the OP's suggested idea to be implemented. The ONLY reason it should be considered is in cases where deer pops become unhealthy, and then only considered at the county level, not the state level.

It's pretty greedy thinking to limit other peoples buck tags in order for you to have the impression that you'll have a better chance at a B&C buck. Most hunters aren't after B&C's, but they enjoy the opportunity to harvest more than 1 buck per year, if they're fortunate enough to do so.
Click to expand...

Very well stated!
 
Obsessed said:
As of now, our statewide whitetail deer populations are healthy. There is zero reason for the OP's suggested idea to be implemented. The ONLY reason it should be considered is in cases where deer pops become unhealthy, and then only considered at the county level, not the state level.

It's pretty greedy thinking to limit other peoples buck tags in order for you to have the impression that you'll have a better chance at a B&C buck. Most hunters aren't after B&C's, but they enjoy the opportunity to harvest more than 1 buck per year, if they're fortunate enough to do so.
Click to expand...
Are they healthy? I would venture to say very few are at a ratio a biologist would say is healthy. Bucks die naturally almost 3x that of does. Add that most hunters shoot more or equal amounts of both makes it hard to keep numbers even close. Greed is shooting 2-3 bucks a year and not taking the correct numbers of does. I know of a guy who wounded 2 bucks and killed 2 and shot 0 does. His brother and dad wounded 1 more and killed 2 more same area, no does. Granted on 2 different chunks of land. We are supposed to be stewards of the land. Shoot 9 bucks its tough to take 18 doe to balance it. I think it is about herd health.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
Above last 2 points on Both sides of debate are both very good points!!! Here’s what’s a “bummer” with regulations & making things legal.... if u legalize anything - there’s a lot of folks that will take advantage of it- good or bad..... I guarantee u if we legalized shooting rifles out truck windows for bucks.... we’d have plenty that do it. Legalize high powered rifles during October- folks would do it. Unlimited deer tags, February deer season - whatever u can dream up- if the state legalized it - it would have plenty of takers. Just because something is legal- doesn’t mean it’s right or good or sound management.
I agree- in many parts of our state - the resource is in “pretty good shape”. The main threat is changing regs. I also agree there’s plenty of neighborhoods or counties in “rough shape” for age structure, pressure, deer #’s, etc. SW iowa vs NC iowa for example would have totally different feedback on the “overall quality”. We almost need more emphasis on a county by county management plan. They do it with does ..... possible for bucks? Maybe it should be? Maybe not. There’s probably HALF the counties in Iowa that really don’t have a robust deer herd & age structure, a lot less habitat & a lot of pressure. I understand where 2 vastly different views & opinions can form. If I could wave a magic wand- I’d like to see some of the “low quality” counties try different approaches that would improve the overall herd of that county.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom