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

So I am wondering......

deeraddict

PMA Member
After reading some of the threads about the lack of deer in peoples areas and in the state in general, ( some very good threads and posts I must say) I was wondering how many of you that are strongly against any more does being shot feel about new hunters that buy and fill a doe tag or two just to get the experience, and what about guys who buy and fill a doe tag or two because they are meat hunters first, and trophy hunters second? I for one fit into the first category at one time, ( and probably still do to an extent, LOL) and fit the second category now. I have a young family that likes deer meat as table fair, and it is in a way a payoff to the time and money I spend to hunt, to harvest an animal or two, to put in the freezer. Now granted, if I am only seeing a limited amount of deer I would obviously cut back. I was actually feeling that way after the 08 season, but with some preseason scouting this year, and figuring out that I have to hunt different locations in the area I hunt, I saw more deer this year, bucks and does, than I have seen in the last 3 years.
So to summarize my real question is, "How many of you that are strongly against any more does being shot feel about newer hunters that buy and fill a doe tag or two just to get the experience, and what about guys who buy and fill a doe tag or two because they are meat hunters first, and trophy hunters second?"
 
I think it's about moderation. The fear is the DNR will continue their extreme stance on deer numbers after they have achieved what they originally set out to do. There will always be a doe to harvest unless the DNR goes too far.
 
It's the people that shoot 20 deer per year out of an area just to say they did, regardless of how many deer should be taken, and then donate them all to hush or use them to bait coyotes that are the problem.

All anyone is asking for is a little bit of management.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Disclaimer: In posting my question I in know way was trying to upset or make for a heated debate. Just trying to get another angle on some good discussion so far.
 
I think every hunter in our great state has the right to shoot any deer he or she sees fit as long as it is legal. I also beleive we have adequate shotgun, bow, muzzleloader, and youth seasons for which to do it. I'm sure there was a need for the special doe seasons when the deer were plentiful, but i think we are all seeing that trend coming to an end.
 
There is nothing wrong with people shooting does especially first time hunters and meat hunters. Everyone likes to shoot deer whether its a first time hunter or veteran hunter so they should be able to do that.

I think the biggest battle is people are going to have to try to micro-manage their own particular areas. If you aren't seeing the number of deer you would like to see, don't shoot piles and piles of does just because you can. I know a lot of folks that still pound the does when just the day before they will tell you they haven't seen the deer like they used to.

I am not sure what the actual DNR goal is as far deer numbers, but I think if they are seeing a decreasing population trend they should start to lower doe tags per county. I haven't been watching that very closely so maybe they have over the years.
 
A person should not feel bad for shooting does, some need to be shot to maintain a healthy herd balance. Taking a doe or two every year and making good use of them should not cause anyone heartburn. What I think may have happened though is that we collectively swung the pendulum too far and have now harvested a few too many does over the past 2-3 years, in SOME AREAS that is. I hope they keep offering some extra doe tags in high deer density areas and that hunters use them wisely. So I think the real issue is how to arrive at the correct definition of "some" and then "where" exactly.

I would hope that we don't swing the pendulum too far back the other way in an effort to "correct" the lower deer numbers.

Taking the call for herd reduction quite seriously, I have friends who have shot upwards of 50 does apiece per year in the past couple of years. (Just so you know, all of these deer went to people that wanted the meat and came off of farms that the farmers wanted "every deer shot", etc. So there is no need to flame me on that aspect. :)) Another theme is that these deer were mostly shot during the late rifle season as they left or returned to a sanctuary type of property(s). The landowners where the deer were actually shot were quite pleased with my friends and in some cases the landowners where the deer were "staying" weren't as thrilled with their success. ;) One landowner, with about 200 acres of brush/timber but little food beyond naturally occurring mast, felt as though someone had shot all of "his" deer. He didn't seem to me to take into account though that his neighbors were providing 95% of food for "his" deer.

Being quite familiar with some landowners literally on "both sides of this fence", I think the answer will be hard to come by. The landowner that bought the timber ground to have his own nice hunting area wants more deer and does not appreciate my friend's prowess with their rifles. The landowner trying to make a living by raising crops on their land sees every deer as a revenue stealer and would like them all dead.

Bonker used the term "cultural carrying capacity" in another thread and that is really what this all boils down too. I don't think there is going to be one answer that everyone is happy about.

I am also curious now that it seems like for the most part we have reduced the deer herd pretty well with many thousand "extra" deer tags how the IDNR responds to what will likely be lower revenue from tag sales.
 
"Taking the call for herd reduction quite seriously, I have friends who have shot upwards of 50 does apiece per year in the past couple of years. (Just so you know, all of these deer went to people that wanted the meat and came off of farms that the farmers wanted "every deer shot", etc. So there is no need to flame me on that aspect. :)) Another theme is that these deer were mostly shot during the late rifle season as they left or returned to a sanctuary type of property(s). The landowners where the deer were actually shot were quite pleased with my friends and in some cases the landowners where the deer were "staying" weren't as thrilled with their success. ;) One landowner, with about 200 acres of brush/timber but little food beyond naturally occurring mast, felt as though someone had shot all of "his" deer. He didn't seem to me to take into account though that his neighbors were providing 95% of food for "his" deer. "


Daver I know that you have some ground in Davis county and assume that is where you are talking about. Maybe I am on the wrong side of the fence, but just because a farmer wants every deer shot dead doesn't mean it is a good thing to do, does it? I also wonder why does have been dropped to such a lowly state that they are almost vermin to some people. I understand that all those deer went to people who wanted them but my personal belief is that it is wrong to shoot 50 deer a year for any reason. We become out raged at shooting a few shed bucks during the later seasons. Even if it were legal we would want to lynch anyone who talked about shooting 50 bucks of any kind in a year. A bird hunter would never set out to shoot 50 hen pheasants. So why have female deer been so down graded that this is ok. I really am not trying to flame you but I truly can't understand a mind set that says it is ok to shoot 50 does in a single year.

To answer the original question I don't see how shooting a doe or two would give a new hunter any more knowledge or experience than shooting a buck or two, especially gun hunting. I have said all along that I am a deer hunter and not a trophy hunter or a buck or a doe hunter. I enjoy hunting deer and find that does aren't any easier to hunt or dumber than bucks. I have nothing against shooting a doe but I do have a problem with people targeting them solely and killing them because they think they are doing something noble. I go back to earlier statements, for those couple of does the new hunters kills just to get experience he has eliminated 14 or 16 deer from the population that he will never see two years from now and who knows what his son might not see 20 years from now.
 
" I go back to earlier statements, for those couple of does the new hunters kills just to get experience he has eliminated 14 or 16 deer from the population that he will never see two years from now and who knows what his son might not see 20 years from now.


Great post Bowmaker. I see what you are saying, and I truly wrote it that way as when I started out bow hunting, I went 3 years without filling a tag and drawing my bow 3 times, all on bucks that I wounded.:( some oldtimers that had been at it a while advised me to take a shot at one of them does I had been passing every year as practice for that big boy that may come by. I guess the thought was/is that there is less pressure and less likely chance to get doe fever vs. buck fever. I followeed their advice and it did seem to help. (although I did and still do get just as wound up after shooting a doe as I do a buck.) I also used the same thought this year taking my son on youth hunts, telling him that if it is brown it is down. I do also agree with you that the thought of the does being looked at as varmits is wrong. Having many family memebers that are farmers I hear this kill em all and keep killing them often. As someone else stated I think it really is about moderation and what makes sense for an area, or the CCC like bonker posted.
 
Bowmaker - no offense taken and I really do not want to start an argument with you, I respect your posts and points of view, but I think you may not have understood what I wrote exactly. I personally have not shot 50+ does, those were two friends of mine. A couple of them were shot off of my farm because I let them hunt there a couple of times, but almost all of the rest of them came from several different farms quite a few miles away from me in southern Davis County. In fact, I went down there with them once for 2 days and where I was hunting I had to let the deer jump the fence to get out of Missouri and into Iowa, literally. :D While they have certainly reduced deer numbers in that general area I can also say that they for sure did not shoot them all either. A night time drive when the fields are covered with snow like they are now through that area will reveal that there are still an awful lot of deer there.

On my farm in NE Davis County I try to gauge things based on what I think we have living in the area and also in cooperation with several neighboring landowners. Between myself, my boys and friends, etc, we normally shoot around 10-12 deer per year at my place. This year though, we geared it down somewhat after not seeing so many deer as usual and shot 6, 1 buck and 5 does, and we may shoot one more, we'll see. I know at least 2 or 3 of my neighbors had similar observations throughout the fall and then purposely shot fewer deer this year than we all thought we would when we had our neighborhood deer coop meeting in August.

Counter point though...my immediate neighbor is not a hunter and according to him he has hit somewhere around 8 deer with his car over the years and would just as soon that they all be killed.

What I was trying to get across in my earlier post is that it can be real tough to have everyone agree on what the right number of deer should be. Literally, neighbors just across the fence from one another can have diametrically opposing points of view as to how many deer is the right number. My friends were enjoying deer hunting, supplying needy families with well received meat and making several landowners very happy. All while frustrating other nearby landowners who want "more deer".

FWIW, both of the friends that I reference are both hunters and farmers, so they see nothing wrong with hunting up a storm and reducing the "corn eaters" for their fellow farmers, who are very happy with them. In a couple of cases the area farmers are for the most part "feeding" the deer that spend most of their time, when they are not feeding that is, on neighboring ground. I know one landowner wants fewer deer eating his crops and the neighboring landowner wants more deer on his hunting farm. Which one is right?
 
Bowmaker -


Counter point though...my immediate neighbor is not a hunter and according to him he has hit somewhere around 8 deer with his car over the years and would just as soon that they all be killed.

What I was trying to get across in my earlier post is that it can be real tough to have everyone agree on what the right number of deer should be. Literally, neighbors just across the fence from one another can have diametrically opposing points of view as to how many deer is the right number. My friends were enjoying deer hunting, supplying needy families with well received meat and making several landowners very happy. All while frustrating other nearby landowners who want "more deer".

FWIW, both of the friends that I reference are both hunters and farmers, so they see nothing wrong with hunting up a storm and reducing the "corn eaters" for their fellow farmers, who are very happy with them. In a couple of cases the area farmers are for the most part "feeding" the deer that spend most of their time, when they are not feeding that is, on neighboring ground. I know one landowner wants fewer deer eating his crops and the neighboring landowner wants more deer on his hunting farm. Which one is right?

Excellent point Dave I agree 100%. :way:



"I understand that all those deer went to people who wanted them but my personal belief is that it is wrong to shoot 50 deer a year for any reason".

Bowmaker,
I respect your opinion but some areas that are being hunted are still seeing double/triple the deer after the 50 are harvested.
There has to be a balance and I am sure the IDNR will be pulling in the
reigns in some areas due to the lack of deer but will keep it lenient in others.

As far as the post have fun and enjoy your time in the woods. If you are seeing adequate numbers of does enjoy the hunt and harvest a few does whether it be for the meat or as a trophy.
Good luck and enjoy.
 
Last edited:
Daver, I understood your post and I didn't mean to infer that you had shot that many deer or even that your friends had done anything illegal or even terribly bad, except to have bought into the DNR mantra of kill more does. I certainly do not have the answer to your question about how many deer is the right number, but you are certainly correct, it is very complicated. I do however believe that the opinions of the deer hunters, who are the main financial supporters of the IDNR, are being pushed aside for the wants of different special interest groups such as Farm Bureau and the auto insurance industry, neither of which contribute to the IDNR to help maintain our outdoor heritage.

It is interesting that you spoke of the neighbor who had hit 8 deer over the years. If you questioned him I would bet that he did not hit any of those deer next to his or your farm, so how would killing more does on his farm help, but more likely near a metro area or on a highway where he wasn't looking for or expecting to see deer. On the IDNR site it shows that in 1994 there were 10,438 deer hit by cars and 663 accidents per billion miles driven. In 2008 that number went to 10,961 deer hit but only 602 per billion miles driven. The 2008 numbers are lower than they have been for 14 years but I haven't seen my insurance rates go down to the levels of 1994. I wonder why that is? Does this mean that we have found the magic number of deer , because the IDNR wants levels down to about the same as the mid 1990's, or does the insurance numbers really have nothing to do with the deer population? I personally have lived on this farm since 1994 and drive to work in Fairfield 5 and sometimes six days a week, a 65 mile round trip, at dawn and dusk spring and fall and winter and I will admit that I have hit 1 deer during those 300,000 miles. That doesn't account for all the other pleasure driving and what my wife drives, and I would bet that most people are in the same boat, especially those who live in rural areas. How many deer have you ever seen hit by cars on gravel roads out in the county?

I just looked up some more numbers, I like numbers because they don't have anything to do with opinions. Iowa has 56,276 square miles and if we reach the stated goal of even 175,000 deer that only represents 3.1 deer per square mile. Now I understand that some of that area is taken up by cities and lakes and other thing that don't make good habitat for deer, even thought the urban deer population is still growing. Now if we harvest just 2 deer per square mile that only means a harvest of 112,552 deer, but it also means that the white tail deer is now on the endangered species list with only 62,448 deer or 1.1 per square mile left in the State. We have to start thinking in whole numbers and not about a small area where we see 30 or 40 deer in a field. We can't have our deer herd "managed" on the basis of some of the very limited higher population areas. If we have 400,000 hunters trying to harvest even 1 deer apiece and the total harvest is around 140,000 deer then there are too few deer. It has always seemed so silly and counter productive to continue to make more antler less tags available in the southern counties when they haven't even came close to selling out for years and the harvest keeps dropping. As of today there are still 1518 doe tags available out of the 3600 originally available in Davis county and the surrounding counties are much the same.

In 1994 we harvested 87,231 deer and they ate corn and beans then and in 2000 we harvested 126,535 and deer ate corn then and in 2008 we harvested 142,194 and deer ate corn then also. My point is that deer have always eaten corn and other crops but it wasn't until after 2000 that it became enough of a problem to create all the extra seasons, and extra doe tags, and all the other changes we have seen. But now that the harvest has dropped to nearly the 2000 level we should be cutting back on all those extra population control measures or soon we won't have a population that even half of our current hunter numbers can hunt successfully.:rolleyes:

One last point, as of today the total harvest number is only 115,823 deer for almost 400,000 licenses issued. What does that mean to you?:(
 
Top Bottom