With 98% of iowa being private land there will have to be some differences In the management strategies of Public vs private. I would be in favor of iowa going to one buck. Continue party hunting as is but if someone want to have their only buck tag for the year filled by someone else that’s ok. There are some next level management plans that could allow cull bucks on larger farms or groups of smaller farms managed as a block. Some states allow this as under a certain beam length and 7 points or less. Another off the wall idea to keep the cull buck harvest separate is those racks would be given back to the DNR or destroyed. This Idea came from being on a few moose hunts in AK and seeing a lot of large Moose rack with all the points cut off or cut thru the paddles. Asking why they were like that I was told bulls could be harvested on Subsistence tags but the Racks had to be left in the field or the trophy value destroyed.
The Future of Iowa Deer Hunting and a One Buck Limit
- Thread starter thecreedeer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- None
booneriverbucks
PMA Member
Good points.
I actually don’t have that big of a problem with the one buck utopia that many would like to create. Not overly worried about high grading and a few of the other arguments even tho they might be valid. I’m sure it’d be awesome if we could all sit around a campfire and sing kum by ya and all share stories about how awesome the hunt for our one buck that is now bigger and was easier to get was. There is no doubt at all that it could be really great!! For everyone even!! My problem is I have serious doubts that will last. It hasn’t lasted or been obtained in every aspect of life including hunting! Eventually the resources (in this case the deer and hunting) will be funneled to the top for only a few to really enjoy. My complaint is really not about other hunters tho. Our generosity to give up one buck for the good of the herd will most definitely be taken advantage of by many of the same groups that we are currently battling to keep Iowa great. Several things have led me to believe this.
Back in 2018 non-resident zone two had their tags cut in half from 180 to 90. These extra tags along with some from other zones were transferred to northeast Iowa to “help combat” cwd up there (dumb) and take a little hunting pressure off of here (has been nice!). I spoke to quite a few non-residents who were bummed they’d have to wait longer for a tag but in general they knew their hunt would be better quality when they did finally draw. Especially if they were only hunting on public. Most weren’t too upset. Any guesses on who was the most upset?? It was resident landowners who now could not lease out their land to the non-residents who always drew tags in the past and now they were stuck with a lost income stream for the year. I asked one why can’t you just find a resident to lease it? He really had no interest in that. He freely admitted he could but residents are not nearly as likely to want to pay what his non-residents do. He also thought it was awesome that the non residents were usually only there for a week while a resident hunter would be at his place every few days.
Another great example of being sold out is something lots of us see every day.. Windmills!! Big, giant, UGLY windmills. Everywhere!! The people who put them up had absolutely no problem collecting a check while everyone else in the area was stuck looking at them and living by them. Anybody seen a decrease in their electric bill?? Have these great things really improved the lives of everyone? Have we really all benefit from these things that were put up for the good of all of us?? I’m not saying I know the answer but I know the people that get the yearly check still love them. They will without a doubt sell out your deer hunting if given a better opportunity to do it.
I’m going to try to attach an article about a poor older family in Kansas whose income was effected by their new cap on non-resident tags. This was most definitely written with the help of a farm/ranch lobbyist and not at all because the author truly felt for the poor old couple. Can you imagine the media blitz in this state in the future when greedy hunters are making poor grandma starve just because they don’t want their state overran with non-residents. %25-30 of Kansas deer hunters are non-residents. Do we really want that here?? No doubt it will be great for outfitters, crossbow salesman, people looking to lease out their land, rec ground peddlers etc… Is it really going to be good for “all of us” tho.
Might have to copy and paste the link to the story. I suggest everyone read it. These will be the stories popping up all over this state eventually. All our good will and work to try to improve things will without a doubt be turned against us.
I actually don’t have that big of a problem with the one buck utopia that many would like to create. Not overly worried about high grading and a few of the other arguments even tho they might be valid. I’m sure it’d be awesome if we could all sit around a campfire and sing kum by ya and all share stories about how awesome the hunt for our one buck that is now bigger and was easier to get was. There is no doubt at all that it could be really great!! For everyone even!! My problem is I have serious doubts that will last. It hasn’t lasted or been obtained in every aspect of life including hunting! Eventually the resources (in this case the deer and hunting) will be funneled to the top for only a few to really enjoy. My complaint is really not about other hunters tho. Our generosity to give up one buck for the good of the herd will most definitely be taken advantage of by many of the same groups that we are currently battling to keep Iowa great. Several things have led me to believe this.
Back in 2018 non-resident zone two had their tags cut in half from 180 to 90. These extra tags along with some from other zones were transferred to northeast Iowa to “help combat” cwd up there (dumb) and take a little hunting pressure off of here (has been nice!). I spoke to quite a few non-residents who were bummed they’d have to wait longer for a tag but in general they knew their hunt would be better quality when they did finally draw. Especially if they were only hunting on public. Most weren’t too upset. Any guesses on who was the most upset?? It was resident landowners who now could not lease out their land to the non-residents who always drew tags in the past and now they were stuck with a lost income stream for the year. I asked one why can’t you just find a resident to lease it? He really had no interest in that. He freely admitted he could but residents are not nearly as likely to want to pay what his non-residents do. He also thought it was awesome that the non residents were usually only there for a week while a resident hunter would be at his place every few days.
Another great example of being sold out is something lots of us see every day.. Windmills!! Big, giant, UGLY windmills. Everywhere!! The people who put them up had absolutely no problem collecting a check while everyone else in the area was stuck looking at them and living by them. Anybody seen a decrease in their electric bill?? Have these great things really improved the lives of everyone? Have we really all benefit from these things that were put up for the good of all of us?? I’m not saying I know the answer but I know the people that get the yearly check still love them. They will without a doubt sell out your deer hunting if given a better opportunity to do it.
I’m going to try to attach an article about a poor older family in Kansas whose income was effected by their new cap on non-resident tags. This was most definitely written with the help of a farm/ranch lobbyist and not at all because the author truly felt for the poor old couple. Can you imagine the media blitz in this state in the future when greedy hunters are making poor grandma starve just because they don’t want their state overran with non-residents. %25-30 of Kansas deer hunters are non-residents. Do we really want that here?? No doubt it will be great for outfitters, crossbow salesman, people looking to lease out their land, rec ground peddlers etc… Is it really going to be good for “all of us” tho.
Might have to copy and paste the link to the story. I suggest everyone read it. These will be the stories popping up all over this state eventually. All our good will and work to try to improve things will without a doubt be turned against us.
Last edited:
booneriverbucks
PMA Member
Yes, of course they leased it out and still got paid but it was for less money than their usual group would have paid. Basically granny is starving because the resident hunters asked for a cap on non-resident tags. Garbage article
Here’s another good one.
Out-of-state deer hunters are pursuing big bucks in Kansas. Should it let more of them in?
With deer hunters from other states increasingly targeting Kansas, a senator suggests letting a higher percentage of out-of-staters hunt deer here.
www.cjonline.com
Last edited:
A significant population increase would negate the necessity of any major changes to regulations. Easy say, hard do! The politicians won't help and the DNR can't at this point. Trigger restraint is the answer. The question is how do you educate the masses? Can a list of all the residents who bought licenses be purchased, then targeted with bullet point mailer based on facts. Get on social media, talk to every hunter you know and have them do the same, etc. etc.
It's a fact that hunting was better for everyone when the numbers were higher. You aren't promoting a theory that "might" work, so it's a much easier sell.
It's a fact that hunting was better for everyone when the numbers were higher. You aren't promoting a theory that "might" work, so it's a much easier sell.
booneriverbucks
PMA Member
Yes!! Personal restraint and responsibility!! And obviously a reduction of antlerless tags even available will help. Usually whenever the government has been asked to step in and place major restraints on all of us for the “good of everyone” we get backstabbed! A few benefit greatly of course. Everybody else not so much.
hillrunner
PMA Member
I'm not convinced that a higher population will magically bring us back to the good old days everyone remembers. There are plenty of states with high populations. I think it's more complicated than that. The hunter has become far more efficient at targeting bigger bucks and there are multiple factors making that the case.
booneriverbucks
PMA Member
Yep!! Pretty much every state in the southeast, and michigan, wisconsin, Pennsylvania etc.. lot and lots of deer and not nearly the quality on average we have here. Lots of Iowa has plenty of deer too. Way too much loss of habitat and over harvesting in other parts of the state. I definitely think we could and should limit some of the things that have made it easier to target them that have popped up in the last 20 years. I definitely do not think we need to cut the anysex tags available to residents in half and give the people ready to wh#re out our state the perfect opportunity to finally get more non resident tags and other bad regulations through.
Last edited:
It will be the biggest thing by far IMO. I totally understand why you think it wouldn’t work due to things like other states having crap hunting wit more deer.
Here’s why it WILL have huge impact…..
our hunter #’s are actually about flat. If up or down- not wildly significant. Our deer harvest is HALF of what it used to be. Does that mean every area is down by half? NO…. Some areas harvest is down 75%+. Some are down 20%. Whatever - it’s just an average.
Right NOW- if EHD let up… our areas that have good deer #’s would have mature bucks consistently (some already do) & would rebound naturally if we don’t have another outbreak.
Our regs with a late gun naturally allow for mature bucks pretty much anywhere you can get a reasonable deer population….
If our harvest has been cut in half, there’s AROUND half as many bucks getting shot. If we can get the worst areas back to decent #’s & let’s say our harvest becomes “it’s only down 25% of what it used to be” …. We’d clearly have 25% more bucks around to be shot. If 25% more bucks are being SHOT, it also means 25% more bucks are on landscape that survive & get to older age.
Let’s say we increase Iowas deer population from “450k” to “650k”…. First, the largest increases need to be in areas that are in the worst shape. Can do that with antlerless tag allocations. If we have “200k more deer”. That’s clearly half new bucks on birthrates but probably will translate into about 1/3rd of those being bucks on landscape. Call it, 65,000 more bucks for example. More bucks, more deer, more does able to be shot & more bucks will make it to maturity. Our regulations are what will allow those bucks to get to older age. That’s what states with high deer #’s & crap hunting have always had going against them & why they will always be junk no matter the deer population. It’s why we’ve had best hunting in country with a tiny fraction of the deer #’s & habitat they do.
Didn’t see any thing on the legislative IBA update on any “offensive” bills introduced. Hopefully all these discussions, who most seem very passionate about, lead to something proposed before the end of the session. Do these upcoming DNR meetings open to the public have any effect on tag allocations for next year or is it all based on the surveys?
hillrunner
PMA Member
I don't disagree at all, increasing numbers will help. We are doing our part by laying off does completely. EHD has been devastating.
I still don't think that simply getting the numbers back will bring things back to what once was. Way too many "advancements" have been made in that time. 20 years ago there were giants that no one knew existed. Today, I doubt there are 100 bucks across the state that haven't had their picture taken. That's just one example.
*blinds
*food plot setup that's become a science
*deadlier weapons
* onX type technology
* e bikes
*thermal technology for avoiding deer
*cell cams
*etc.
Maybe the biggest thing is our knowledge. Technology like cameras and thermal drones have unlocked so many of the whitetails secrets in the last 20 years that the mystery is all but gone. We can't put that back in the bag.
Bucks used to get big by simply avoiding hunters. Now, in most circumstances, it's up to the hunters to let them get big.
Spot on post
booneriverbucks
PMA Member
10000%%. So who wants to give up some of the real things that have led to our recent increased efficiency??!! In season cell cam use? Gone maybe? Regular cams in season too! Lots of the other stuff on your list maybe also gone? Knowledge is the tough one.. Maybe a 20 percent reduction in season lengths across the board?? Lots will disagree with doing stuff like this obviously but it does not play favoritism between different groups of hunters/seasons nearly as much as some proposals do. Who knows.
BTW- the KS stuff drives me insane!!! They want their resource to be for sale!!!!! “But we make $ outfitting & leasing our land out!!” Basically, selling the state’s resource off to the highest bidder. Exploitation at its finest. & they TRY to use all the key words “they book motels” “these big landowners get $ from selling resource out”. & all the typical nonsense.
I own land in KS & their stance will RUIN that state. It’s already a shell of what it used to be. Due to a lot of madness like that, segmentation of the land, too many NR tags issued and corn piles littered the landscape like u can’t imagine.
the problem with their argument it’s completely one sided, ignorant, loaded with unintended consequences & no regard for the massive problems that state is already facing.
1) they tried this before “land owners get tags to sell off to the highest bidders”. Residents checked in on their permission farms & got thrown on the street all over that state. It got so bad, so fast that they reversed course in a few years.
2) residents are hemorrhaging access just like here. It’s wild how many residents are packed into the walkin land because all their permission or reasonably priced leases are long gone.
3) “NR’s stay in motels”…. Ok… residents BUY HOUSES & pay rent 365!!!! Pay state income tax! Pay sales tax 365, gas tax, etc. Buy all Their gear in KS. VOTE THERE!!!!!! They VOTE there & let their elected officials sell them out to folks that don’t live there or tiny special interest group that wants to make $?!?!? Wow- I can’t believe they put up with that!!!
I can’t believe the “let’s sell out or resource & exploit it” gets any traction with how problematic things are in that state as it is. KS hunters better wake up & ORGANIZE fast or it’s gonna just get way worse.
I own land in KS & their stance will RUIN that state. It’s already a shell of what it used to be. Due to a lot of madness like that, segmentation of the land, too many NR tags issued and corn piles littered the landscape like u can’t imagine.
the problem with their argument it’s completely one sided, ignorant, loaded with unintended consequences & no regard for the massive problems that state is already facing.
1) they tried this before “land owners get tags to sell off to the highest bidders”. Residents checked in on their permission farms & got thrown on the street all over that state. It got so bad, so fast that they reversed course in a few years.
2) residents are hemorrhaging access just like here. It’s wild how many residents are packed into the walkin land because all their permission or reasonably priced leases are long gone.
3) “NR’s stay in motels”…. Ok… residents BUY HOUSES & pay rent 365!!!! Pay state income tax! Pay sales tax 365, gas tax, etc. Buy all Their gear in KS. VOTE THERE!!!!!! They VOTE there & let their elected officials sell them out to folks that don’t live there or tiny special interest group that wants to make $?!?!? Wow- I can’t believe they put up with that!!!
I can’t believe the “let’s sell out or resource & exploit it” gets any traction with how problematic things are in that state as it is. KS hunters better wake up & ORGANIZE fast or it’s gonna just get way worse.
booneriverbucks
PMA Member
You know as well as anybody about Kansas!! Even tho it might not be as good as it once was Kansas can still be absolutely phenomenal!! If you have a place to go!!! Many residents don’t anymore since they’ve been priced out. This leads to lower resident hunters and an even greater call for more non resident tags to “help control the population” or “generate” economic activity!! And to help feed starving grannies!! 
I’d g
Id be for a slingshot only season with zero technology allowed if it would make things the way it use to be.
booneriverbucks
PMA Member
Slingshots!! That’d be fun too!! I was always thinking loincloths and spears but I’d go for slingshots. Regular clothes just fine too! It gets cold! Shrinkage could be a factor! I honestly don’t even want or need the deer quality/quantity to be what it was before. Way less complaining would be good enough! At least back in the day there was a limited audience and most minor complaints never got much traction because of it. You could complain all you wanted to yourself and those you knew easily but not the whole world. Blasting everybody’s successes or their complaints all over the internet has done little to improve anything. Things were way better before every buck was named and people were generally happy to see somebody’s achievement in a magazine or the local newspaper instead of complaining on the internet about how it wasn’t them and all their perceived injustices that led to that. Instead of spreading hope/inspiration that someday it could be you holding this buck we’ve created a society of whiners and social justice warriors.
Only deer hunting could make generally right wing successful conservative men cry like liberal college sorority sisters begging for big government to step in and make things equal for all. In the words of #47 Everything woke goes to SH!t!
Last edited:
Bucksnbears
Well-Known Member
Gotta admit. Those posting on this site are a breath of fresh air.
Good thought/ discussing on nots always good for " me" but the whole picture for the future.
Good thought/ discussing on nots always good for " me" but the whole picture for the future.
T_Max
PMA Member
Lawmakers are shortsighted morons if you get to know them. There are a finite amount of deer available. If they increase the NR allocation, they HAVE to decrease the Resident allocation. They don't seem to realize the consequences of that. This, as usual, comes down to hunters being their own worst enemies though. If guys have to hunt deer in 5 states, they must realize they are displacing a hunter in each state they travel to. Is that supposed to help with hunter numbers nationwide? Come on... I'm telling you right now, if Kansas put it on the ballot whether to even allow hunting, I would vote no. I live here, pay taxes here, built my life here. I didn't do it to preserve the right of the wealthy few to travel the country to hunt their preferred game. I would also apply for every depredation tag I could get my hands on and kill every spike I could. Spiteful? Yep...
Edit: Its not appropriate to label all lawmakers shortsighted morons. That is an unfair assessment. MANY lawmakers look for the often shortsighted politically expedient solution rather than attempt to create a long-term vision for their constituents.
Last edited: