Hardwood11
It is going to be a good fall!
In 2000-2010, think about what we didn’t have … cell cams, Redneck Blinds, less range in weapons. This stuff all adds up. It’s not just how many does you shoot, but I do think it can be a factor .
Tell me why we should shoot more does
- Thread starter Droptine1844
- Start date
-
- Tags
- None
hillrunner
PMA Member
I agree, there are several factors that have gone in the favor of hunters to make us more deadly in the last 20 years. Not the least of which is the efficient spread of knowledge. I remember when monthly magazines were my greatest tool for learning and every buck I saw was a stranger to me.
We can't unlearn what we know, all we can do is keep looking forward and promote regulations that conserve the resource.
Droptine1844
Member
I believe I have heard Winke say he wouldn’t shoot as many does again. Do to how susceptible it made his farm to being wiped out completely by EHD like it it did in 2012
northcedar
Well-Known Member
Did winke shoot a buck in '23? Didn't he say a year or 2 ago that he was only going to give it another year or so on that new farm before moving on to greener pastures?
NextBuk
Webmaster
My 2 cents on the original question... "managing does" should be done when the buck to doe ratio is out of whack or deer numbers are doing good. If you're seeing too many does for every buck you see (assuming you're a decent hunter), then shooting does keeps that sex ratio closer. A closer ratio of bucks to does increases competition between bucks for those does, so you generally see more obvious rut behavior (more seeking, more rubs, more scrapes, etc).
This can be quite subjective...and also prone to error. A guy with a standing corn or bean field in late season might think he has to shoot a ton of does because of the numbers he sees when the deer don't actually live there the entire season.
My personal observations of quality in Iowa is that it's not as good as it used to be. I think there are farms where does should be shot and farms where they shouldn't. When you have predominantly private land making up Iowa, it's on the landowners to "figure it out"... and hopefully make appropriate decisions. I hunted a farm in 2008-9 where the local shot 50-75 does per year and it didn't make a dent (well, it kept the numbers approximately the same, I mean...so it was necessary). I hunted a different farm in 2021 where the last thing I'd have done is shoot a doe.
My father's generation (I'm 48) had a "never shoot a doe" mentality. I've seen that hurt the herd in Michigan because sex ratios have become way out of whack in certain areas (mainly the part of the UP I grew up in). When doe numbers get way too large, hunters need to be willing to shoot a LOT of them to improve the buck:doe ratio. If they aren't, things won't change. They also need to be willing to stop shooting them when numbers are way down and sex ratio is good.
Hunting pressure should also be factored in. If someone hunts dumb and deer leave his property for the safety of a neighbor's, then his perception of the "deer numbers" is going to be different than the neighbor who gets the overflow.
From a general "maintenance" standpoint, if deer numbers are good (not crazy high, and not low), I think it's a good idea to shoot 1 doe for every buck you shoot.
Have a good week guys!
This can be quite subjective...and also prone to error. A guy with a standing corn or bean field in late season might think he has to shoot a ton of does because of the numbers he sees when the deer don't actually live there the entire season.
My personal observations of quality in Iowa is that it's not as good as it used to be. I think there are farms where does should be shot and farms where they shouldn't. When you have predominantly private land making up Iowa, it's on the landowners to "figure it out"... and hopefully make appropriate decisions. I hunted a farm in 2008-9 where the local shot 50-75 does per year and it didn't make a dent (well, it kept the numbers approximately the same, I mean...so it was necessary). I hunted a different farm in 2021 where the last thing I'd have done is shoot a doe.
My father's generation (I'm 48) had a "never shoot a doe" mentality. I've seen that hurt the herd in Michigan because sex ratios have become way out of whack in certain areas (mainly the part of the UP I grew up in). When doe numbers get way too large, hunters need to be willing to shoot a LOT of them to improve the buck:doe ratio. If they aren't, things won't change. They also need to be willing to stop shooting them when numbers are way down and sex ratio is good.
Hunting pressure should also be factored in. If someone hunts dumb and deer leave his property for the safety of a neighbor's, then his perception of the "deer numbers" is going to be different than the neighbor who gets the overflow.
From a general "maintenance" standpoint, if deer numbers are good (not crazy high, and not low), I think it's a good idea to shoot 1 doe for every buck you shoot.
Have a good week guys!
sep0667
Land of the Whitetail
yes he did. I think he's taken one buck the each of the past two season. Nice bucks, but not giants I think both might be 140s. For a property that size it has surprised me he hasnt had any bigger deer on it. Well, he has the "jordan buck" (named after his daughter) that was bigger than what he killed last year, but he has been holding off on chasing that deer for his daughter. Its a bit bigger, if its around this year I'd think it should be 160's for sure. But still, a property that big I would think there'd would be a couple bigger deer on it.
He does shoot every doe that comes in range. Last year any doe that came in bow range he would shoot. It confuses me because of how few deer he seems to see, last year late season he had several episodes sitting over standing food and not seeing a single deer and you could see his frustration, yet he will shoot any doe he can. He knows a heck of a lot more than me though, but...
TheBig8
Member
The deer he killed in 2022 on his farm was a lot bigger than 140's I'm pretty sure? 160s maybe
Bassattackr
Well-Known Member
With planting that much food, and the massive improvement of great habitat through his plantings, burns, etc. I think he knows the population will explode.
He is also trying to buy a little time to let his plantings get established before a larger herd is "released" on them.. My thoughts anyway.
Bassattackr
Well-Known Member
In my experience, and on our MO farms, its pretty simple:
- More does = more bucks.
- More bucks = more good bucks.
When the population gets too high, shoot does.
The buck population will eventually follow your doe control efforts though. If not, mother nature will correct if it goes too far (deaths through fighting, EHD, etc).
So much out of our hands, tough to balance..
- More does = more bucks.
- More bucks = more good bucks.
When the population gets too high, shoot does.
The buck population will eventually follow your doe control efforts though. If not, mother nature will correct if it goes too far (deaths through fighting, EHD, etc).
So much out of our hands, tough to balance..
Last edited:
hesseu
Well-Known Member
I don't live in Iowa...So, I obviously have no dog in this fight as I don't know what current populations look like. As always, this is going to be very "regional". I.e. In some areas the quantity needs to be reduced...others, not so much. But, just playing devils advocate
1) EHD: Iowa seems to be battling this here the past 10-15 years. As an outsider, I wonder if in areas where populations are high, this is a natural outcome of not having a balanced herd / population dynamic.
2) Competition: Keep populations in check via does allows maximum nutrition to reach bucks and other does for health purposes.
As mentioned, I do think this has to be looked at on a smaller scale rather than just "Iowa in general". Each area is going to be different. Some areas backing off the does. Other areas, getting really aggressive on does.
1) EHD: Iowa seems to be battling this here the past 10-15 years. As an outsider, I wonder if in areas where populations are high, this is a natural outcome of not having a balanced herd / population dynamic.
2) Competition: Keep populations in check via does allows maximum nutrition to reach bucks and other does for health purposes.
As mentioned, I do think this has to be looked at on a smaller scale rather than just "Iowa in general". Each area is going to be different. Some areas backing off the does. Other areas, getting really aggressive on does.
sep0667
Land of the Whitetail
yes, thinking back it was bigger than 140s.
abell3
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure they were 140's type. He should have never gave up that lease he has few miles away. Two years in that lease and killed two booners. Tell you how important location is. Even less than two miles away his farm he bought is a far cry from what his lease produced. One negative in filming everything on his farm is everyone can see his farm isn't good which would make it awfully hard for him to sell for a profit and move into new farm..
Bassattackr
Well-Known Member
I was thinking he was wanting to stay at his new farm long term, or permanently since he was back closer to home?
Otherwise, I agree. That valley makes access brutal. Everything watches you come and go..
whitetail_obsession
Active Member
There will always be pockets where some does need to be taken (likely blocks where there are large landowners with ample food). I hunt a lot of public and will say there does not need to be more doe harvest here. 10 years ago I would see 6-12 deer per hunt but now I may see 3-4 on a good night.
With that said, my observations have mirrored others in that when there is a high deer population there are bigger bucks. The reasoning that makes most sense to me is when you have a higher population there are more bucks available to hunters obviously. There are also roughly similar numbers of buck tags given out each year and I believe I heard the buck harvest has been similar in recent years where population has somewhat stabilized at lower levels from all-time highs. So following this trend with higher deer/buck populations more bucks will survive the season (in the absence of EHD/disease) and this will lead to more bucks making maturity and thus producing the larger bucks people were accustomed to seeing in the early 2000s. Most hunters want to shoot a buck and if the biggest one around is 140s it will probably get shot and so with lower populations we are not seeing these deer make it another year with the same frequency we used to see. Just my hypothesis on why higher deer populations resulted in bigger buck sightings.
With that said, my observations have mirrored others in that when there is a high deer population there are bigger bucks. The reasoning that makes most sense to me is when you have a higher population there are more bucks available to hunters obviously. There are also roughly similar numbers of buck tags given out each year and I believe I heard the buck harvest has been similar in recent years where population has somewhat stabilized at lower levels from all-time highs. So following this trend with higher deer/buck populations more bucks will survive the season (in the absence of EHD/disease) and this will lead to more bucks making maturity and thus producing the larger bucks people were accustomed to seeing in the early 2000s. Most hunters want to shoot a buck and if the biggest one around is 140s it will probably get shot and so with lower populations we are not seeing these deer make it another year with the same frequency we used to see. Just my hypothesis on why higher deer populations resulted in bigger buck sightings.
Bassattackr
Well-Known Member
Spot on IMO.
Shooting or not shooting does is so farm specific it is impossible to discuss on a county basis, let alone at a state level.
I have a farm I've shot 3 does off of in 7 years. Another we shoot 30-60 per year and it's STILL over run.
I have a farm I've shot 3 does off of in 7 years. Another we shoot 30-60 per year and it's STILL over run.
NextBuk
Webmaster
I'll throw this thought out there too... with cell cams, it's harder and harder for bucks to make it to 5+, so that may be contributing to the overall reduction in top-enders. It's similar, IMO, to how Illinois used to be great... then outfitters bring in guys that kill the best 2 & 3 year olds and eventually you have fewer high-end mature bucks getting killed. Parceling off of land there has also contributed... among other things. Buffalo County is a perfect example of this decline too, but neither of these are Iowa, so I digress. Just keeping @Sligh1 motivated to Keep Iowa Great! LOL
Rous14
PMA Member
I guess I’m just not sure about this 1983. Technically what you are saying is correct imo and I don’t necessarily disagree. However what I struggle with is 1) for vast majority of hunters too many does or not enough is incredibly subjective and not based on any real data (which usually leads to I want to hear my gun go bang so yes I have too many does) and 2) so when looking at the data at a county and state level the deer harvest is down by HALF and deer vehicle accidents are down 20-45% that leads me to believe that an incredibly high % of the landscape/farms need to reduce doe harvest IF one believes as I do that to have the best and most quality bucks we should try to mirror when there was the best and most big bucks.
So to me, and maybe I’m off here, when I hear and read statements like yours it suggests that it’s very random from one farm to the next and if a guy had 10 different farms 5 might have too many and 5 not enough I just don’t think that’s the case. For the data to show what it shows in any given county the herd has to be down on a vast majority of the farms, like 70-80% of them otherwise it wouldn’t be down 25-50%. That’s a huge number! That’s why I think the county by county info tells a lot more of the story then what you’re suggesting and less random or sporadic then how you make it sound. Just my 2 cents
Last edited:
Rous14
PMA Member
No question that there are factors other than size of the herd in any particular state that has contributed to less “big” bucks. Cell cams is definitely a big one, crossguns is a huge one, etc…
However I’m convinced that the #1 reason by far is simply 20-40% less 1yr old bucks in the funnel to try and make it to 5, 6, or 7yrs old. Folks point to IL and attribute the decline to outfitters and their hunters shooting the nice 2, 3 and 4 yr olds. And I’m sure that played a small part. But those outfitters and resident hunters were still killing A LOT of B&C animals all the way up to 2011 so it wasn’t the main reason imo. EHD wiped out a huge number of deer in 2012 and the herd levels have pretty much stayed the same or gotten a touch worse over the last 12 years. That’s the #1 reason IL (and IA) is in the spot it’s in imo. There has to be a surplus of 3 and 4 yr old bucks that after the bloodbath of archery and gun seasons there are still a respectable amount of them that make it through. That means numbers/higher population.
If anything, because we are so much more efficient at targeting and killing the best bucks than we were 15 years ago, the importance of getting the herd numbers back to somewhere between where they are now and where they were then is that much more important imo.