Tell me why we should shoot more does

[Daver]

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 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

It has way more to do with the cover and habitat than it does the county. I might have too many deer in prime habitat and just a section or two over it is mostly bare, ag ground with very few deer on it. FWIW, even after getting whacked hard by EHD last year, I am already back to not being able to grow certain food plots this year, because there are so many mouths.

How far away did these deer come from? I really don't know, but it was skimpy last Sept-Dec...but then, a few months later and you can't even tell that they were down. Our farm is in prime deer habitat and for those that are...I think you have to battle it every year.

Yet, I see far fewer deer nowadays when traveling to and from my farm. So those bid % declines are evident...in general. But specifically...on our place...there are still way plenty.

 

[NextBuk]

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.

Right, EHD big reason too... absolutely... it takes a long time to come back from that, and coupled with those other elements, even harder... "come back" being very subjective too. Buffalo County has not had the EHD issues, and they're the best examples of smaller parcels and younger bucks killed in an over-outfitted area leading to overall decline in quality of bucks. (Illinois was a more broad example)

I do think it can be very random from one farm to the next. And I'm generally one to trust direct observation over data. Meaning, if I've got a pile of deer on a farm, I'm going to shoot some even if the data says there aren't "enough" around. 10 different neighbors will likely have 10 different management practices, so I pay more attention to close proximity info and less to the "data"....but when their "data" suggests I can't get enough doe tags or that they're giving away too many, then it's probably worth communicating your local experiences better.

 

[Rous14]

It has way more to do with the cover and habitat than it does the county. I might have too many deer in prime habitat and just a section or two over it is mostly bare, ag ground with very few deer on it. FWIW, even after getting whacked hard by EHD last year, I am already back to not being able to grow certain food plots this year, because there are so many mouths.

How far away did these deer come from? I really don't know, but it was skimpy last Sept-Dec...but then, a few months later and you can't even tell that they were down. Our farm is in prime deer habitat and for those that are...I think you have to battle it every year.

Yet, I see far fewer deer nowadays when traveling to and from my farm. So those bid % declines are evident...in general. But specifically...on our place...there are still way plenty.

Sure but in general in rural farm country IL or IA the habitat hasn’t had any major significant changes over the last 10-15 years so it’s relative right? #hat you’re saying, while true, has always been the case (or at least in the last 10-15 years). So if the dva’s and harvest numbers are down whatever %, in most cases a significant %, then I can’t reconcile how that can be the case while there’s still a lot of farms that have great numbers. Doesn’t make mathematical sense.

It’s why I rely on harvest figures, deer vehicle accidents, etc…..because otherwise it’s just so subjective. It’s why I also can’t help but wonder ifsome of these farms that you and 1983 and others talk about, heck my farm has great #’s, Is it possible these farms had 5-10% more deer on them in 2007? Like I mentioned earlier in this thread, maybe both are true and that would also help explain the disconnect between observation/subjective opinion and the actual hard data? Not sure.

 

[hesseu]

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

BINGO: Cell cams = #1 destroyer of top end bucks. Those 150" 3 year olds no longer make it. For every "positive" a cell cam provides, their is a negative that has a much more dramatic effect IMO.

Cell cams are the cheapest, most effective tool to come out in the past 25 years for consistent antler harvest.

 

[Rous14]

Right, EHD big reason too... absolutely... it takes a long time to come back from that, and coupled with those other elements, even harder... "come back" being very subjective too. Buffalo County has not had the EHD issues, and they're the best examples of smaller parcels and younger bucks killed in an over-outfitted area leading to overall decline in quality of bucks. (Illinois was a more broad example)

I do think it can be very random from one farm to the next. And I'm generally one to trust direct observation over data. Meaning, if I've got a pile of deer on a farm, I'm going to shoot some even if the data says there aren't "enough" around. 10 different neighbors will likely have 10 different management practices, so I pay more attention to close proximity info and less to the "data"....but when their "data" suggests I can't get enough doe tags or that they're giving away too many, then it's probably worth communicating your local experiences better.

It’s not black and white I hear ya. I just try to take as much subjectivity out of it because we all have such a wide range of viewpoints on what a “pile of deer” is. So harvest data doesn’t lie imo. Deer vehicle accidents don’t lie (unless we are all taking bikes to work now) and are pretty straight forward and IL does a nice job of that at a county level so I can look at every year for the last 20 and compare. Someway somehow according to many hunters there is still a bunch of deer and bunch of farms over run with deer while at same time the harvest is half or way down, the dva’s are way way down, the # of BC bucks is way down, etc….its close to impossible in my eyes for both things to be true haha.

 

[Bucksnbears]

Winters here in nw Mn can dictate 【 year to year】 deer numbers more then hunter harvest.
Winter of 22/ 23 were brutal on deer!!.
Blizzards, EHD of the north.

 

[IowaBowHunter1983]

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

I'm not suggesting that half the farms have too few and half have too many. I'm simply stating it is a case-by-case basis. (WAY more farm fit into the category of not at capacity)

I have the privilege of being on these farms all the time. Hundreds of days a year. So, I do think I have a pretty good feel for where things are at. When we hunt the farm that needs does shot constantly we at times have 4 people sitting on 4 different food sources. Each person will see 20-50 does and 6-15 bucks on average (I'm making these numbers up but it's in that neighborhood. Shooting the does is nearly unnoticeable. If we could make it happen I'd probably target 75+ a year.

 

[Rous14]

I'm not suggesting that half the farms have too few and half have too many. I'm simply stating it is a case-by-case basis. (WAY more farm fit into the category of not at capacity)

I have the privilege of being on these farms all the time. Hundreds of days a year. So, I do think I have a pretty good feel for where things are at. When we hunt the farm that needs does shot constantly we at times have 4 people sitting on 4 different food sources. Each person will see 20-50 does and 6-15 bucks on average (I'm making these numbers up but it's in that neighborhood. Shooting the does is nearly unnoticeable. If we could make it happen I'd probably target 75+ a year.

Fair enough. We’re probably just splitting hairs. All good. Just saying that it’s true it’s case by case technically but that if a county’s harvest and dva figures are down significantly than I think it’s probably ok to paint w a broad brush that most hunters need to reduce doe harvest and suggest that there’s an 80 or 90% chance Mike, Fred, or Joes farm has fewer deer on it than it did in 2007.
I believe you when you talk about farms that have a ridiculous # of does but at same time mathematically those types of farms have to be outliers and exceptions to the rule. And as I’ve said I wonder if those rare farms may have had a few more deer in 2007 too. In other words it’s very feasible that a hunter like you, me or Daver are saying based on our observation, food plots being destroyed, etc…that a farm has too many does while at same time that farm also had 5-10% more deer on it in 2007ish. Both could certainly be true.

Related side note: Ive always been skeptical of the whole “social stress” idea. Have always thought that it may exist but that it doesn’t really result in any noticeable difference in the herd or rack size. But makes me wonder when you talk about these farms with crazy high numbers, and if we’re all agreeing that those farms are more of an exception….why don’t the deer on those farms disperse out? They wouldn’t have to go far to be in an area with far fewer deer. Just one more reason I’m not a huge believer in it I guess.

 

[MN Slick]

I’m with Rous14 and firmly in the camp of more bucks = more chances that the “right” bucks get to older age class. Only 3 out of 10 bucks have the genetics to get Uge, and 99% of guys will kill them at 3 years old. I’d have killed them, and did, 10 years ago. Everyone is at a different point in their journey, and I suspect not more than 5 percent of us ever get to the point of passing 150” bucks because they are young. Now we have cell cams, crossbows, EHD, and more hunting pressure. Plus, one that I think is overlooked : more guys being selective, but not selective enough, if that makes sense. Guys that used to shoot the first decent buck are now passing those and shooting bigger ones, which are often the high potential bucks a year or 2 too soon. Can’t blame them…been there done that but the result is fewer of the right ones getting old enough.

 

[JNRBRONC]

Related side note: Ive always been skeptical of the whole “social stress” idea. Have always thought that it may exist but that it doesn’t really result in any noticeable difference in the herd or rack size. But makes me wonder when you talk about these farms with crazy high numbers, and if we’re all agreeing that those farms are more of an exception….why don’t the deer on those farms disperse out? They wouldn’t have to go far to be in an area with far fewer deer. Just one more reason I’m not a huge believer in it I guess.

I think this is at the heart of the issue: when deer spill off of one property and onto another where that property owner complains. They complain to local officials and politicians about “too many deer” and blanket policies are adopted because they can’t force the person who has let the local herd get out of hand to do anything about it. Just spitballing here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rous14]

I’m with Rous14 and firmly in the camp of more bucks = more chances that the “right” bucks get to older age class. Only 3 out of 10 bucks have the genetics to get Uge, and 99% of guys will kill them at 3 years old. I’d have killed them, and did, 10 years ago. Everyone is at a different point in their journey, and I suspect not more than 5 percent of us ever get to the point of passing 150” bucks because they are young. Now we have cell cams, crossbows, EHD, and more hunting pressure. Plus, one that I think is overlooked : more guys being selective, but not selective enough, if that makes sense. Guys that used to shoot the first decent buck are now passing those and shooting bigger ones, which are often the high potential bucks a year or 2 too soon. Can’t blame them…been there done that but the result is fewer of the right ones getting old enough.

Yea my main discussion via YouTube message back n forth with Winke is that we had 2000-2011 with really high deer #’s and now we’ve had 2012-2024 with significantly less deer. So 10 plus year “experiments” to glean from and compare. I don’t see how the results are even debatable (for the guys that want as many big bucks walking around as possible). This whole theory of less deer and your bucks wont have social stress and they’ll have all the nutrition to themselves, blah blah blah sounds great (and also sounds like something the auto insurance co’s would push but I digress) if there isnt a hunter w a cell cam and a crossbow in every tree. But that’s not reality. Reality is that after all the hunters, that are more efficient now than ever, get done satisfying their individual goal of killing 1, 2 or 3 bucks that there has to be a reasonable number of 3, 4, and 5 yr olds left that slip through the cracks. That’s what we had in the 2000’s. Driving around Pike county IL in November was unbelievable. Multiple awesome bucks in any given field chasing a hot doe around. And there were outfitters everywhere. But there was also 45% more deer than there is today. That’s where it starts imo.

 

[Pops]

Our neighborhood touches base during the year and discuss the availability of food. We all see a good many deer, and lots of deer some days.
We usually shoot a few does. We watch our food supply, especially going into January through March.

 

[CottonwoodCanyon]

BINGO: Cell cams = #1 destroyer of top end bucks. Those 150" 3 year olds no longer make it. For every "positive" a cell cam provides, their is a negative that has a much more dramatic effect IMO.

Cell cams are the cheapest, most effective tool to come out in the past 25 years for consistent antler harvest.

Agreed. For a buck to have the 180+ genetic potential, they are going to be very impressive 3 year olds and with cell cams those bucks are all the more likely to get targeted. The bucks get high graded at a young age.

 

[Daver]

I’m with Rous14 and firmly in the camp of more bucks = more chances that the “right” bucks get to older age class. Only 3 out of 10 bucks have the genetics to get Uge, and 99% of guys will kill them at 3 years old. I’d have killed them, and did, 10 years ago. Everyone is at a different point in their journey, and I suspect not more than 5 percent of us ever get to the point of passing 150” bucks because they are young. Now we have cell cams, crossbows, EHD, and more hunting pressure. Plus, one that I think is overlooked : more guys being selective, but not selective enough, if that makes sense. Guys that used to shoot the first decent buck are now passing those and shooting bigger ones, which are often the high potential bucks a year or 2 too soon. Can’t blame them…been there done that but the result is fewer of the right ones getting old enough.

I agree with everything you wrote ^^ and would add this factor too...land segmentation. As parcel sizes shrink, there are often more "good" hunters on fewer acres, particularly in good areas. Armed with trail cams, cell cams, and as someone else said above...far more skill and understanding of what it takes to hunt an older deer, food plots, TSI, better weapons, longer seasons, etc, etc...many modern hunters can take whatever buck they set their mind to these days.

With the very widespread proliferation of all of things mentioned above, now consider that an "80" might be hosting 1-3, perhaps more, much more sophisticated hunters each year...each willing to take a buck or two. It is HARD for a high potential 3 or 4 year old to escape all of that "advanced" pressure and therefore many don't. High grading is right (Cottonwood).

 

[Hardwood11]

EHD killed more deer in one season last fall, then 5-6 years worth of hunting on 600+ acres (factoring in my Iowa farm, and my neighbor.. who is also on this site)….

It’s a huge factor right now, hunting pressure or doe harvest is minor compared to the impact of EHD in my area.

 

[hillrunner]

I keep seeing cross bows brought up here. Please tell me I didn't miss a regulation change.

 

[Rous14]

I keep seeing cross bows brought up here. Please tell me I didn't miss a regulation change.

Don’t think so. The xgun references are to other states like IL

 

[MN Slick]

I agree with everything you wrote ^^ and would add this factor too...land segmentation. As parcel sizes shrink, there are often more "good" hunters on fewer acres, particularly in good areas. Armed with trail cams, cell cams, and as someone else said above...far more skill and understanding of what it takes to hunt an older deer, food plots, TSI, better weapons, longer seasons, etc, etc...many modern hunters can take whatever buck they set their mind to these days.

With the very widespread proliferation of all of things mentioned above, now consider that an "80" might be hosting 1-3, perhaps more, much more sophisticated hunters each year...each willing to take a buck or two. It is HARD for a high potential 3 or 4 year old to escape all of that "advanced" pressure and therefore many don't. High grading is right (Cottonwood).

Excellent point on segmentation, take a look at Buffalo County on Onx. That is the future.

 

[Pops]

I keep seeing cross bows brought up here. Please tell me I didn't miss a regulation change.

I live in a state that allow cross bows to be used by anyone during archery season. Unless I missed something, a person can hunt depending on the season, with a cross bow and/or rifle. The rut is during gun season.

I believe Iowa should keep the toothpaste in the tube.

 

[newfarmer]

I'm not suggesting that half the farms have too few and half have too many. I'm simply stating it is a case-by-case basis. (WAY more farm fit into the category of not at capacity)

I have the privilege of being on these farms all the time. Hundreds of days a year. So, I do think I have a pretty good feel for where things are at. When we hunt the farm that needs does shot constantly we at times have 4 people sitting on 4 different food sources. Each person will see 20-50 does and 6-15 bucks on average (I'm making these numbers up but it's in that neighborhood. Shooting the does is nearly unnoticeable. If we could make it happen I'd probably target 75+ a year.

I think it’s fairly safe to say though- those farms with large numbers are also producing large deer correct? I mean your “area” I feel has higher deer population than my “area” currently and you guys are producing studs and we get maybe 1 or 2 170+ deer county wide right now the numbers are low. Heck- I know 2 guys last year down near you that each shot 170+.
I use the area very broadly just due to- each farm is different. But generally- your county is going to be vastly higher than population than mine. I know in the winter, I have every deer for 3 miles here. I know I don’t have a lot of deer myself. Maybe I’m just rambling at this point