DannyBoy
Well-Known Member
I honestly would not be opposed to having a 1 buck limit if things got a little worse. I only ever shoot one a year anyways but, I think the only guys it would really affect are the hardcore bowhunters that also get an anysex gun tag of some sort.
At the same time, I think it would be counterproductive towards the deer population as a whole. For example, I would have then hunted late muzzleloader with a doe tag, and would have shot a mature doe. So I would have saved one buck and killed a doe (which accounts for 2-4 deer, counting # of fetus'). I think if a bow anysex tag, left unfilled, would have to transfer into gun season of choice.
Landowners should still get a tag for their farm, though. I dunno, just a couple thoughts...
At the same time, I think it would be counterproductive towards the deer population as a whole. For example, I would have then hunted late muzzleloader with a doe tag, and would have shot a mature doe. So I would have saved one buck and killed a doe (which accounts for 2-4 deer, counting # of fetus'). I think if a bow anysex tag, left unfilled, would have to transfer into gun season of choice.
Landowners should still get a tag for their farm, though. I dunno, just a couple thoughts...
See- I don't know ONE landowner that shoots 3 bucks off of his/her land in a season- not one. I know it happens, pretty rare. I'd say those that did 1) are only ones hunmting their land 2) if hunting with others- have a massive amount of land and can support 3 bucks being killed or 3) have crappy hunting next year if they shoot too many on their land. Its for sure the exception rather than the rule. I've taken ONE buck off my farm per year for 8 years now- b like me having 1 buck tag a year. My bros shoot some but all r 5.5 or older- always will have a new crop of 5.5's every year. We also have NEVER killed a button buck or shed buck in 20 years- not one.
I know more guys who DON'T own land that shoot 2 bucks vs guys who own land shooting 2. I have lots of picky land owner buddies who are fine not shooting a deer. Probably because they have extra desire to shoot what they think is the "right" buck- non-land-owner is often not quite as descriminite in my opinion.
dedgeez
death from above
variable is: Iowa landowners can get 3 tags, Joe Schmo can buy 2 legally.
BUT: There is truly no limit to how many bucks can be shot in Iowa, as long as you are "party hunting".
to my knowledge this is the way it has been in Iowa for a long time and things were fine! It didn't drastically change until recently, and the grumbling and groaning has been getting noticeably louder the last 2 years, so you tell me if there is a direct correlation?
BUT: There is truly no limit to how many bucks can be shot in Iowa, as long as you are "party hunting".
to my knowledge this is the way it has been in Iowa for a long time and things were fine! It didn't drastically change until recently, and the grumbling and groaning has been getting noticeably louder the last 2 years, so you tell me if there is a direct correlation?
Last edited:
Daver
PMA Member
Just a comment about the landowners that can shoot 3 bucks per year...while that is the law as things currently are, I have been a landowner for about 10 years now and the most bucks that I have shot in a year is 1, and several years none at all.
I know quite a few landowners and I can only think of a few cases where someone even shot 2 in a year, 1 and 0 would be the most common outcome that I can recall for a wide variety of people that I know. In other words, my sense is that the 3 buck option is not leading to fewer deer sightings in subsequent years, at least in my opinion.
I can think of a couple of situations that I know of though where someone shot 1 or 2 antlered bucks, legally and all, in the regular seasons but then also managed to get anywhere from 1 to 5 or so shed bucks in the late season. (I do know a few people that have shot dozens of deer per year, or more, in the late antlerless seasons and have not always succeeded in "deselecting" the shed bucks.) So it is entirely conceivable to me that a given hunter could be taking 3, 4 or even more bucks out of the woods each year depending upon their late season hunting practices.
I know quite a few landowners and I can only think of a few cases where someone even shot 2 in a year, 1 and 0 would be the most common outcome that I can recall for a wide variety of people that I know. In other words, my sense is that the 3 buck option is not leading to fewer deer sightings in subsequent years, at least in my opinion.
I can think of a couple of situations that I know of though where someone shot 1 or 2 antlered bucks, legally and all, in the regular seasons but then also managed to get anywhere from 1 to 5 or so shed bucks in the late season. (I do know a few people that have shot dozens of deer per year, or more, in the late antlerless seasons and have not always succeeded in "deselecting" the shed bucks.) So it is entirely conceivable to me that a given hunter could be taking 3, 4 or even more bucks out of the woods each year depending upon their late season hunting practices.
On the way home tonight I had an obvious clarity on one problem WITH DNR CALCULATING DEER ESTIMATES... I see some areas with huge deer #'s, I mean tons, then I'll go past 10 different areas and see 2-3 deer only. So, I realize the obvious, there's major pockets of really high density and major areas that are really depleted. Maybe you hunt near a big 1000 acre chunk with no hunting, minimal hunting, state park OR next to city- tons of deer. Now, then you go to other areas where everyone and their brother owns a 40, 80 or 160 acre parcel and it gets the typical regular/high pressure of multiple groups that all want a bunch of does- after a while- few deer there.
Now, so say some areas have a 100 deer per square mile, they are all over, it over-flows into other nearby blocks and the whole area is very high density (because of that giant land owner, city limits, houses, park, area where no hunting is allowed, etc, etc. THEN- you go over to the areas that are being hit on every 20, 40 or 130 acre piece and multiple groups drive & kill large amount of does, so you have 20 deer per square mile there.
For ease of discussion, let's say the areas with really high areas are 50% of a county and the areas with really lower #'s are 50% of county in this hypothetical example- I realize the lower deer # areas are probably more the majority BUT just bare with me. So, the DNR would say there's an average of 60 deer per sq mile, even though some areas have 20 per sq mile and others have 100 (I actually do know of many examples like this!!! Just 5 miles apart). Now, if it were 30 or 40% of areas had those 100 deer per sq. mile it would skew the results to around 50 AVERAGE for county and so on...
SO, the DNR says, on average, county XYZ has 40, 50 or 60 deer per square mile AVERAGE- that's way too high- we want at 30-35, we need way more doe tags. So, they issue more doe tags and the guys that hunt the average areas (with higher pressure and better access) have even more tags to fill, goes on across the whole county- more tags, more deer killed WHILE the giant tracts (rich landowner with 2000 acres for example) does absolutely nothing different than the previous year. The disparity and difference between the 2 areas grows even worse, pockets of high #'s and areas that are far too shot up and low deer #'s.
What you think?????????
Now, so say some areas have a 100 deer per square mile, they are all over, it over-flows into other nearby blocks and the whole area is very high density (because of that giant land owner, city limits, houses, park, area where no hunting is allowed, etc, etc. THEN- you go over to the areas that are being hit on every 20, 40 or 130 acre piece and multiple groups drive & kill large amount of does, so you have 20 deer per square mile there.
For ease of discussion, let's say the areas with really high areas are 50% of a county and the areas with really lower #'s are 50% of county in this hypothetical example- I realize the lower deer # areas are probably more the majority BUT just bare with me. So, the DNR would say there's an average of 60 deer per sq mile, even though some areas have 20 per sq mile and others have 100 (I actually do know of many examples like this!!! Just 5 miles apart). Now, if it were 30 or 40% of areas had those 100 deer per sq. mile it would skew the results to around 50 AVERAGE for county and so on...
SO, the DNR says, on average, county XYZ has 40, 50 or 60 deer per square mile AVERAGE- that's way too high- we want at 30-35, we need way more doe tags. So, they issue more doe tags and the guys that hunt the average areas (with higher pressure and better access) have even more tags to fill, goes on across the whole county- more tags, more deer killed WHILE the giant tracts (rich landowner with 2000 acres for example) does absolutely nothing different than the previous year. The disparity and difference between the 2 areas grows even worse, pockets of high #'s and areas that are far too shot up and low deer #'s.
What you think?????????
Last edited:
That is the biggest hitch in the management plan. The limited access areas where people aren't keeping deer numbers reasonable are going to kill us! Those areas are why you boys in the Southern counties probably will have this late antlerless season, rifles and dead shedders forever!
dbltree
Super Moderator
A neighbor just called to say he saw 2 big deer and 4 small ones in the field...shot the 2 big ones for does only to find they were both shed bucks. To make matters worse he noticed that both had been shot with what appeared to be a .22 through the hind leg areas and had large pus sacs.
Nothin' good about that report but poachers and shed bucks getting killed in late antlerless seem to be just a fact of life in my neck of the woods...
Nothin' good about that report but poachers and shed bucks getting killed in late antlerless seem to be just a fact of life in my neck of the woods...
DannyBoy
Well-Known Member
As far as the "hotspots" or "limited access areas" goes...
I think thus far the "macro"management has worked out fairly well, this being the antlerless quotas by county. But, I think a large enough amount of hunting land in our state is owned by hunters, both resident and non, that we are reaching a breaking point where macromanagement is no longer effective, and some kind of micromanagement will be needed or we are at risk of deteriorating the hunting land that average joe's like me are allowed to frequent. Don't look to me for answers on how to micromanage, it's just a thought.
I think thus far the "macro"management has worked out fairly well, this being the antlerless quotas by county. But, I think a large enough amount of hunting land in our state is owned by hunters, both resident and non, that we are reaching a breaking point where macromanagement is no longer effective, and some kind of micromanagement will be needed or we are at risk of deteriorating the hunting land that average joe's like me are allowed to frequent. Don't look to me for answers on how to micromanage, it's just a thought.
earthscratcher
New Member
Dannyboy,now where talking.the average joe ground + state ground is now seeing the big effects of this late season.the guy who restricts access,bigger tracts,are the so called hotspots. we could give the road hunters 50bmgs and they still will not be able to help with these locations.
this late shed buck season is working pretty well across the board and it is going to stick around thanks to farm bureau and insurance comp.
now for the so called hotspots what to do here???
if you talk to any deer guru bio guy- Litchfield,grant woods,kroll,they would say on a micromanagement plan, that the does should be taken out early like sept,but instead we try to do it in late jan.it is just a little late in the season,but it works with the masses.
this late shed buck season is working pretty well across the board and it is going to stick around thanks to farm bureau and insurance comp.
now for the so called hotspots what to do here???
if you talk to any deer guru bio guy- Litchfield,grant woods,kroll,they would say on a micromanagement plan, that the does should be taken out early like sept,but instead we try to do it in late jan.it is just a little late in the season,but it works with the masses.
cedar creek
Banned
I'm also a landowner for almost 15 yrs. I've never taken more than 1 buck off my land in any given year. I know many farmers who also rarely take more than one buck. Many prefer to shoot does; as they taste better! I know this thread is about shooting shed bucks, but i'm also concerned about the number of does being killed. We all know in northern Iowa the deer yard up from cold and deep snow. My problem is the sightings of yarded deer are down significantly from the past year or two. Deer usually winter in the same places each year. It may vary within a field or two, but nothing changes drastically from one year to the next. I'm not being unrealistic about my sightings; for i've been hunting this same area of the county for 40 yrs. This year the deer are not there. The deer might be in the timbers foraging instead, but i'm not seeing that on my land.
It's all far game here BECAUSE it all has to do with why this season exists. I'm not opposed to even talking about how many button bucks are killed to demonstrate that folks are doing a very poor job on average of identifying deer during a regular season (close range included). The button buck harvest & identification work nicely into this discussion *Estimate that of 4 antlerless deer- 1 is button buck out of 4 anterless: 2 does, 1 doe fawn, 1 button buck- 25%- this is even saying one doe has no fawns. Of IA's overall antlerless harvest- 20% are button bucks.
SO- doe harvest is FAIR, some areas are at goal now OR well below. The whole ramification of this season is fair to talk about and I totally hear where you are coming from!! I hear lots of folks in many areas saying we've done what we set out to do and then some.
Of course, this thread will always be dedicated to this new prestigious contest & we'll have some updates coming! :way:
earthscratcher
New Member
just made another visit to a different meat locker out of the 12 deer brought in, 5 shed bucks,so the shed buck season is working.
now if we could just handle these so called hot spots any ideas??????
now if we could just handle these so called hot spots any ideas??????
Guys, you all need to stop in and question your meat lockers. Look at what is laying there, ask them how many shed bucks they are getting. I've been to 3 lockers that are very high volume and take HUSH deer. I am serious, like earthscratcher, therre's ALWAYS a good chunk of shed bucks. For every 12 deer, it's very common to have 3 be shed bucks for example. I've seen ABOUT 25 antlerless at a major locker, 6 being button bucks and 4 being shed bucks, there's something majorly wrong with that.
You find the guy in the locker who is "into deer biology or management" and start asking him or her questions- I will guarantee he'll say this is a big problem and DNR has to do away with this season. He'll also tell you about population trends AND the age class of bucks that's come in for the last 10 years. Just because this is the way things are currently, and for the last 4-ish years, doesn't mean it has to stay and is ok- it's not and it's hurting our hunting.
HOT SPOTS- hmmm, any good or bad DNR program/initiative I can't see changing the hot spots & big land owners much there. If DNR makes a BAD choice, these guys can look the other way and do what they want anyways.... "Shoot all the antlerless deer on my land with large groups of guys with rifles during late January- NO THANKS". It's the average guy in average neighborhoods that get hurt by the bad management decisions. We do have LOTS of good management, I'll NEVER EVER EVER overlook that, thankfully we ARE doing far more RIGHT, especially compared to other states. Government always needs to be kept in check and questioned, it's right, healthy and helps to stop potential chaotic problems.
You find the guy in the locker who is "into deer biology or management" and start asking him or her questions- I will guarantee he'll say this is a big problem and DNR has to do away with this season. He'll also tell you about population trends AND the age class of bucks that's come in for the last 10 years. Just because this is the way things are currently, and for the last 4-ish years, doesn't mean it has to stay and is ok- it's not and it's hurting our hunting.
HOT SPOTS- hmmm, any good or bad DNR program/initiative I can't see changing the hot spots & big land owners much there. If DNR makes a BAD choice, these guys can look the other way and do what they want anyways.... "Shoot all the antlerless deer on my land with large groups of guys with rifles during late January- NO THANKS". It's the average guy in average neighborhoods that get hurt by the bad management decisions. We do have LOTS of good management, I'll NEVER EVER EVER overlook that, thankfully we ARE doing far more RIGHT, especially compared to other states. Government always needs to be kept in check and questioned, it's right, healthy and helps to stop potential chaotic problems.
earthscratcher
New Member
since i have entitlement issues,and wish i owned 3000 acres i will give you some hotspot, deer dispersment methods
1.buy grenade launcher shooting into block,deer should come out to road to shoot.
2.line up amish on upwind side, deer will leave block!!!!!!
any more ideas please post
1.buy grenade launcher shooting into block,deer should come out to road to shoot.
2.line up amish on upwind side, deer will leave block!!!!!!
any more ideas please post
earthscratcher
New Member
BLASTER,the three biggest sheds i checked out last year were found by feb 1st and i know for a fact that two of them made it thru and were bigger then the year before.the one that shed the earliest by jan will probably be the biggest dnr confiscated poached buck this year,he was not weak just a little worn down!!!
Daver
PMA Member
risto2351
Well-Known Member
JJ,
We can agree to disagree. I am not saying your wrong just stating what I am seeing.
I will bet you a fiver though that they will still have the season next year in your area.
Before I go any further I can take the season or leave it. I know what I am going to shoot before I step foot out the door. I Love to hunt.
I do shudder each time a shed buck is shot but to me it is not the end of the world. Will I target buttons or sheddies heck no.
As far as the number and where I hunt. I hunt other areas and not just one place. It seems like everytime I do hunt somewhere where people say there are no deer I see 3 or 4 groups of deer. Then the next day I do not see any. I have only seen one large group of deer the rest have been family groups.
In your statement of seeing 30 or 40 deer those days IMO are over except areas where people can not shoot does.
The question I keep asking is how do we take care of those pockets with the resources that are budgeted to the problem so we can end these seasons?
By everyone sitting here trying to end a season that is going to happen this year regardless or find out what we need to do to make sure it will not happen next year?
I think everyone here is fighting for the same cause. Question is how do we stop it?