I been seriously wondering if a guy wouldnt be better buying a wide open farm in a big section of tillable and making crazy good cover in the middle of it. 10 years and have an island.
Giant Deer of Iowa are rapidly becoming a past memory
- Thread starter thecreedeer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- None
Would need to lease or buy the tillable around it or in 10 years you’ll have a food plot on every side of it.
Bucksnbears
Well-Known Member
Anytime I see fence that's not for containing livestock in a video, it's a fast click OFF!
Anyone that owns land can do that. A sickening practice.
Anyone that owns land can do that. A sickening practice.
Daver
PMA Member
That's basically the Higgins model. On at least big side of his property if you turn and look the other way from his ground...you can't see another tree for miles.
Also, I doubt it would take 10 years to create an "island" of cover that would atrract deer for miles...provided it is then managed to ensure low stress/no human intrusion. A good chunk of his deer holding habitat is switchgrass with enhanced structure in it in the form of miscanthus.
You could duplicate that in a year or two.
Daver
PMA Member
This is unfortunately also true.
Skip,
I really enjoy your passion. I think we are both obsessed with managing the land and the deer that call our farms home. Believe me, I understand 100% where everyone is at and the struggle with trying to produce top end bucks. I can relate to fence sitters, neighbors shooting young studs, EHD, poachers and trespassers. I assure you that I have experienced them all.
Let’s run through some numbers because I need numbers to guide my decisions making process. I try to leave emotions out and personal agendas out of my reasoning. If I do have personal experience or an agenda I try to disclose them.
Iowa’s best hunting was when we had ~750,000 deer.
Iowa’s current deer population ~350,000. (400,000 less)
Indiana’s best deer hunting ~700,000 deer. (Indiana’s population has remained basically 700,000 for the last decade, however their population was rising at the time when one buck was implemented and it went from 550,000 to 700,000 over the first few years so that would have added at least 75,000 bucks to the landscape annually over their baseline of when they had a 2 buck limit. That added basically 2 additional bucks per square mile annually to their baseline. Which definitely helped contribute to their increase trophy production)
Indiana has 35,868 square miles of land. 700,000/35,868 =19.5 deer per square
Iowa has 55,857 square miles of land.
350,000/55,857square miles = 6.25 deer per square mile.
Indiana’s deer harvest in 2024-2025 was 126,183. Iowa’s deer harvest in 2024-2025 was 101,278.
Iowa DNR sold 160,000 licenses in 2024-2025. If we figure 80,000 hunters with two buck tags less the 4% killed two (1/25 hunters) and .25% killed 3 (1/400 hunters). I would say we are basically a one buck State already with regulations that allow guys who manage the ability to cull.
Indiana is ~ 35% smaller with twice as many deer as Iowa. Which equates to three times more deer per square mile at our current population. Even if we doubled our population to equal Indiana’s population we would still have 35% less deer per square mile. Why does that make a difference in trophy potential? Because that means each landowner in Indiana would control 35% more deer than the Iowa landowner. In other words, in order to get Iowa to the same playing field with the same number of deer per square mile we would have to increase Iowa’s deer population to 1,089,211. That would then make it so we could compare Iowa to Indiana or as some like to say…apples to apples. Then and only then could we compare our regulations with 2 buck limit to their 1 buck limit. Only then could we see who is better at producing record book entries. I say…let’s do it. I would love to see Iowa with 1,089,211 deer. Anyone want to bet on who would produce more record book bucks if our deer per square mile were the same??? Anyone who wants to say certain areas in Iowa won’t support that many deer because it is primarily ag with just a few river drainages, well you better look at Indiana because you can say basically the same thing about everything north of Indianapolis because the north half of Indiana is primarily ag with a few river drainages and the southern half being where the majority of the timber and habitat is located. So I will just call it a wash. I don’t like trying to compare different States to Iowa or Iowa to different States because each has their own unique attributes. But that is what everyone wants to do because the grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence, even when you’re already in the best pasture. So…I will play along.
If Iowa increased our population to 700,000 to equal Indiana’s that adds 350,000 deer. If 250,000 were does and 100,000 were bucks. That would add 2500 does and 1000 bucks to our current base level in each county. Then each year the additional 250,000 does would add an additional 125,000 does and 125,000 bucks to the landscape above the new base levels. That adds an additional 1,250 does and 1,250 bucks to each county every year. That adds 2 does and 2 bucks per square mile to the new base level.
Going to a one buck State adds 3,700 bucks (actually 3,400 but we can use 3,700) back Statewide. That adds back one buck per 15 square miles. Even if we used Skip’s hypothetical numbers of 3x the 3,700 = 11,100. That still only adds back 1 buck per 5 square miles. That means our new base level would increase from 6.25 deer per square mile currently to around 6.5 deer per square mile Statewide. One buck doesn’t solve any of our issues but it will definitely create some as it intensifies the high grading.
Everyone should ask themselves …What will produce more top end bucks and keep Iowa’s age structure balanced? Adding 111 (using Skip’s hypothetical number/actually 35 if we use the DNR’s number) bucks back to each county annually going to a one buck State or increase the population and add 1,000 bucks to each county’s current buck count plus an additional 1,250 bucks on top of that new base level each and every year.
So our new base level before season would be around 15 deer per square mile Statewide. Should fall between 9-10 does and 5-6 bucks per square mile before hunting season. That would allow for some increased doe and buck harvest plus give us an additional 15,000-20,000 deer cushion for potential EHD outbreaks and still let our deer population level stay around 700,000.
So 6.5 deer per square mile going to a one buck State (4 does/2 bucks) per square mile or increase the population and have 10 does/5 bucks per square mile.
Everyone should ask themselves…Which model will intensify high grading? Which will allow for more bucks on the landscape? Which will ultimately allow for more bucks to get to upper age class and potentially produce a top end buck?
The one commonality between all three of the groups Skip outlined is that increasing the population will help all three groups. Regardless if you have access to a few acres, a lot of acres, hunt public, or own a piece. Having more deer on the land scape is the only thing that will help everyone. It means more deer on average parcels, good parcels, public parcels and private managed parcels.
That is why I have said it is a numbers game and the only way out of our current situation is to increase our doe population. Going to a one buck State is “pissing on a brush fire” and will only intensify the high grading.
As far as the guys “owning the table”. I have said it many times.
Managing for top end bucks starts and ends with you. That is really the only thing you can control…yourself. That goes for guys that own 5 acres or 5,000 acres. Even guys hunting with permission, leasing and hunting public. You can only control your trigger finger. You will never be able to control your neighbors trigger finger.
Think about it this way if your goal is producing and hunting top end bucks. If 1/10 bucks have the genetic potential to break 180” (be top end) and with our current population 6.25 deer per square mile (4 does/2 bucks). That means on average one buck has the potential to break 180” for every 5 square miles. That is why we aren’t seeing the top end bucks like we used to. Because a neighbor high grades him at three years old and 165”. That won’t change going to a one buck State. So we can stay at 6.5 deer per square mile going to a one buck State and you can hold out the hope of pulling in the “one” buck in the 5 square miles around you and try to hold him on your farm (meanwhile not being able to cull bullies/inferior genetics because we are one buck State). Or we can leave our regulations alone and work to increase the population to where we have 15 deer per square mile (10 does/5 bucks). Now you will have one buck in every other square mile that has the potential to break 180”. Which plan do you think will improve your odds to harvesting 180” plus bucks? Especially, if you manage, plant food plots, leave sanctuary, and cull bullies. I think my odds of getting the “one” buck in a two square mile area to find and stay on my farm is 10x more likely than pulling the “one” buck from a 5 square mile area and holding him. Especially, if I can cull bullies. If you’re trying to manage and understand how to do it, it is really a no brainer. I will take more deer with me being able to cull any day vs hoping the 25 neighbors in the 5 square miles around me will pass the one stud that has the potential to reach 180”. I’d much rather deal with the 6 neighbors in the 2 square miles area around me and do everything I can to hold that buck on my farm. In other words I’d rather “me do me” and roll the dice. You will win some and loose some but I definitely like my odds with the more deer on the landscape.
I know that our number of top end bucks will improve significantly if we increase the population. How can I be so sure? Because the numbers don’t lie. I try not to rely on any hypothetical numbers and I like the math to prove what my gut is telling me. My gut and the numbers both tell me that the only way out of our current situation is to significantly increase the number of does and bucks on the landscape if improved hunting and trophy potential is the end goal. The faster we bring the population back up the better for top end potential. Because it will decrease the high grading potential as it climbs vs a slow gradual increase where the best genetics continue to get taken out.
Everyone needs to realize that the DNR is not going to make regulations for you, me or anyone else with the goal of producing 200” bucks. I personally know very few hunters who are in favor of having buck tags taken away. The people that think they might be willing to give one up only feel that way because they are in panic mode and don’t know what else to do. They are just hoping it will put a 180” buck in front of them, which it won’t. I know I am not in favor of it because it will intensify the high grading and limits our ability to manage/cull. I know the DNR is definitely opposed to going to a one buck State.
Every deer hunter I know thinks our population is too low and is in favor of increasing the total deer population. That also includes the DNR because they are lowering extra doe tag quotas and are working to increase numbers in most areas.
What should we do? We need to support getting the deer population up significantly and as fast as possible. We need to try to get all of Iowa’s deer hunters on the same page. We also need to thank the DNR /Jase Elliott for their/his support and willingness to work with us to get our deer population higher. The DNR needs our undivided support in regard to increasing our doe population numbers. Because there will be resistance in Des Moines. We need a united front with the hunters and the DNR standing together when it comes to FB or any of the legislators that try to stop it. Let’s work to get extra doe tag allotments cut in all counties that still have them. Then do your part! Manage your trigger finger! Encourage other hunters to stop shooting does! We can do this if we all get on the same page!
For the sake of keeping this under 16 pages, single spaced. I apologize for not going into some of the reasons I believe other States around us struggle and have some issues Skip pointed out.
I wanted to first focus on Iowa for those following this thread with goal of improving Iowa for all of Iowa’s resident hunters.
Skip, we have fought many battles in Des Moines back in the day with the IBA. How many emails have we sent and phone calls have we made? We definitely agree on tons of these issues no doubt. Shed buck seasons, party hunting, smokeless muzzleloader and pistols in late muzzleloader, crossbows, NR tags, outfitter tags, etc. However, going to a one buck State I just don’t agree with you. It won’t make a measurable difference. More importantly it will limit guys trying to do their part with managing cull bucks on smaller properties where they can’t just bring in a bunch of guys without blowing up their property and pushing deer off onto neighbors. The numbers don’t lie. It is not like every other guy is shooting two bucks or three. It is 1/25 hunters killed 2 last year and 1/400 hunters killed 3 last year. That will not move the needle for trophy potential or balancing the herd. The high grading that will result will be more detrimental to the herd long term than the 35 bucks taken per county under the current regulations. We have a perfect case study of what will happen from right here in Iowa…the Amana colonies. Let’s focus on what we know will work. That is driving our population way up. We can always slowly trim it back down once we get it up.
Good luck to everyone hunting Late Muzzleloader season! Hope a top end buck gives you an opportunity and you make it count!
Happy New Year to everyone!
Last edited:
northcedar
Well-Known Member
What would be the ideal distance away from some kind of timber or creek etc do you guys think it should be? 1 mile? Further?
Hardwood11
It is going to be a good fall!
I think the fixer upper farm surrounded by tillable is a great idea and been discussed on different forums!
In my opinion it would take 5-7 years to be a real attractive property for wildlife. I would say 10 yrs would be more ideal .
In my opinion it would take 5-7 years to be a real attractive property for wildlife. I would say 10 yrs would be more ideal .
I wish some of the internet hunting celebrities that talk nonstop about 1:1 buck to doe ratios and flipping the ratio, bucks not reaching trophy potential because of too many does would consider that even if that is true in their small percentage of the landscape, that it does not apply in areas that have 3-6 deer per square mile.
A lot of guys are shooting does where they shouldn’t because someone on YouTube told them they are the reason they don’t have big deer.
Muddyrem
Well-Known Member
The risk Is that some guys would have to go find a new hobby to obsess over, or they’d have to spend time with their wife and kids more. Or maybe go to Church on Sundays. Or heck, the worst of all, actually let someone else hunt the 1000s of acres they have leases up / own; to help manage their “cull”
bucks………….
Matthewfox_45
Well-Known Member
It really bothers me that people would put up fences or do other property line manipulations just because their neighbors have different harvest goals. As long as they’re doing things legally we need to remember it’s a DEER! Attitudes like this are why I’m starting to care less about deer hunting.
Right.. it this hypothetical im saying you buy the wide open ground and create the cover in the middle leaving a large buffer of perimeter.
Daver
PMA Member
Just an FYI...even with the "isolation" factor that Don Higgins enjoys those deer do still come and go, if not every day, then seasonally, with frequency. He often gets pics of known deer several miles from his farm.
So, I don't think even with say a hypothetical 2 mile wide buffer that these wild animals would always stay put on a couple hundred acres. But, the bigger the buffer, the better if course.
I 100% disagree. There is no harvest data, no numbers and honestly I can’t think of a logical explanation that supports 1 buck based on numbers in Iowa. We aren’t killing multiple bucks now so essentially we are one buck already. Right? This problem we have is 100% numbers. Before everyone gets all over me because of absolutes (saying 100%) are there extra bucks here and there getting killed by cell cams, straight walls, etc. YES! Statistically significant, maybe, but that is only because our population is the lowest it has been for a long time. When we chase special interests or vendettas we are just increasing regs with no science. Tell me this, why has Indiana been able to increase their top end deer while allowing centerfire rifles and cell cams? Because one buck or because pop increased and pop is double Iowa’s allowing enough bucks to get through to outlast the tags and hunters. If you could show that going to one buck is actually going to change the harvest data enough to put statistically more bucks on the landscape I might buy in but we aren’t killing multiple bucks now so essentially one buck already. And IF your one buck experiment doesn’t work we are further down the line of a train wreck. Why do I put it that way, because that one buck rule COULD explode an already dire issue of access. It has been said here that one buck would fix access, not when going to one buck still doesn’t create the new 200” people think it should, because one buck doesn’t move the needle enough so they keep leasing and buying. Why would increasing population NOT improve the quality of bucks in Iowa? Is there an argument against increasing the herd?
Last edited:
Daver
PMA Member
IMO, I really don't care if it goes to 1 buck. I personally have shot ZERO bucks in at least the last 3 years, FWIW. One buck would be an INCREASE for me and several neighbors, some of whom have also voluntarily restricted themselves. Granted, others are still shooting bucks, but no one I know has shot more than 1 per year.
So, in effect, we are operating at a "one buck" pace AND the buck numbers keeps getting worse in our area each year despite the self regulation. My main point is that "one buck" does NOT address other factors...factors that ARE continuing the decline.
Other changes are not only necessary, they would actually have an impact.
The two big risks are. High grading. Not being able to cull.
I haven’t said keep limits the same. I have repeatedly said to significantly lower doe quotas in all counties that still have them. Then try to educate other hunters to stop shooting does to help get the population back up.
Do you think our deer population is too low?
Let me ask you this question?
Why do we not change our rooster pheasant limits when the population of pheasants fluctuates up and down? I mean why not decrease it from three to one because then there will be more roosters right??? The reason is because the males do not dictate the population curve? The number of females does. Therefore, decreasing the rooster limit to one has zero bearing on whether the following year there will be more pheasants.
The exact same is true for the deer population. One big difference with the deer is we as managers are trying to take out poor genetic bucks/bullies to allow the better genetic bucks to breed. Trying to offset the constant high grading pressure that is being done by neighbors.
As a manager, I would say it’s actually more insane to give up your ability to cull with the thought process that saving 35 bucks per county will improve your hunting. Think about it, you’re saving 35 bucks which are spread over 579 square miles. That means you are adding back 1 buck for every 16.5 square miles going to a one buck State. How is that going to help your hunting? Do you really think that one buck is likely to make it to 5.5 and now magically show up under your tree stand as a 180”. Not likely. He will be killed as a 3.5 150” or 4.5 165”. Now if we go to one buck and he one of the 9/10 bucks with poor genetics then there is the chance that he will make it to 5.5 and show up under your stand, but he will score 130”.
Do you think anyone will burn their one buck tag on a cull if we go to a one buck State? No way! The result…more 130” 8 points.
Being a two buck State did not cause our problem. Going to a one buck will not fix it. It will hurt it. It will cause increased high grading. Going to one buck will not add enough bucks back to the landscape to offset the high grading or improve the number of top end bucks. It just won’t . The only thing that will do that is increasing the doe population.
Last edited:
iowavf
Well-Known Member
Be interesting if any data has been collected from Cass, Page, Harrison, Monona, Pott, Fremont, or Montgomery counties since they eliminated the doe only tags and changed 1st season shotgun to buck only? Betting these counties lost more deer habitat than they've gained? This is the second year for these changes. Sure seemed like around my area, the number of people hunting seemed less after these changes. Don't know if they went elsewhere to hunt, or just stopped hunting?
People just stopped hunting.
One risk I can see going to one buck is that most people I talk to say “one buck tag, any season til you’re done”
Well that’s my biggest hang up with it and that’s why I think it gets thrown around a lot.
If this is what you want OF COURSE you want to trade your statewide bow tag in to hunt 2 gun seasons, 2 muzzleloader seasons, and bow season.
In a state where 85,000 guys don’t fill their gun or muzzleloader tags I’m not surprised one bit that there’s plenty of people on board with using that unfilled tag for 4 more seasons.
For me personally one buck tag should mean bow + one other season the same as it is now with 2.
If my statewide tag would have been floating this year I would have hunted 3 weekends of gun season when the weather was better instead of late muzzleloader when it was warmer.
Biggest killer of mature deer other than the rut is weather, and fully floating tags allow you to hunt every cold front for 100 days.
So in my opinion that is the risk , try to go from 45,000 bucks shot to 41,500 and end up with 60,000 bucks shot because 85,000 guys got an extra 3 seasons.