Giant Deer of Iowa are rapidly becoming a past memory

[tall@wide]

Don’t forget Iowa has over a month of basically rifle season. With the straight wall cartridge and long range muzzle loaders it’s like using a standard rifle for a month. In the not to distant past, it was shotguns with about a 100 yard range and muzzle loaders with about the same. Huge technological advancement impacting things with longer range and much better accuracy.

 

[150 Class]

Muskrat24 implied similar in his analysis of the Indiana numbers.

Here is what I got from these numbers.

Average number of bucks harvested per year from 1987-2001 was 45,999.8, Let’s round to 46,000.
Average number of bucks harvested per year from 2002-2023 was 50,917, Let’s round to 51,000.

So average buck harvest increased by 5,000 bucks since 2002. So more bucks were shot on average per year after one buck was implemented not less. That shoots down the idea that guys are more selective and will shoot less bucks.

We know Indiana’s deer population increased by at least 150,000 deer shortly after one buck was implemented. So we also know that they had at least an additional 100,000 bucks added to their landscape every year after 2002 versus before 2002. That added basically 3 more bucks per square mile every year.

Indiana has also gone from 330,000 deer hunters to 275,000 over the same period. So there are 55,000 less guys hunting on Indiana’s 35,000 square miles. So 1.5 less hunters per square mile. Iowa’s deer hunter numbers have remained extremely consistent while other States like Indiana have trended downward.

Let’s look at the replacement potential for bucks. I am going to use 3 does per buck.
Iowa-350,000 deer after season. (262,500 does/87,500 bucks)
Indiana-575,000 deer after season. (431,250 does/143,750 bucks)

Indiana adds more bucks (431,250) to their landscape (35,000 square miles- which is 35% smaller than Iowa) every year which is more than our total deer population (bucks and does ~ 350,000) after season on our landscape (55,000 square miles).

So in summary: Indiana added at least 150,000 deer to their population (3 bucks per square mile), lost 55,000 hunters (decreased hunting pressure by 1.5 hunters per square mile). Saw increased buck harvest by 5,000 on average annually, but added at least an additional 100,000 bucks annually since one buck implementation in 2002 (strictly due to the population increase) all while QDM was really gaining traction and more and more guys were trying to manage for trophy bucks over the last 20-25 years across Indiana.

My personal conclusion: I have a hard time attributing the increase in trophy potential in Indiana to the implementation of the one buck limit. The numbers or the argument don’t add up.

I will say it again. Buck harvest doesn’t affect the population trend. More does on the landscape means more bucks. Adding back 3400 bucks to Iowa’s 55,000 square miles by going to a one buck State is “pissing on a brush fire”. It won’t help you shoot a top end buck. Sorry to tell you guys that, but it just won’t. Hate to be the one to burst your bubble or shatter your dreams.

You guys are way over thinking this situation. Compare the one buck limit vs increasing our doe population. One buck adds 34 bucks back to each county in Iowa every year, increasing the doe population by 100,000 would add 1000 bucks to each county in Iowa every year. Increase the doe population by 150,000, that adds 1500 bucks back while one buck still only adds back 34 bucks. One buck is basically a fixed number and thus very limited potential to improve our situation, I’d argue basically zero chance for improved top end trophy production. The other produces exponential growth only limited by how high the doe population climbs. The top end buck production (trophy potential) really lies within that exponential growth of the doe population. That will result in exponentially more bucks on the Iowa landscape. That is what will ultimately improve your odds of connecting on a top end buck. The best part of increasing the population is it will improve everyone’s hunting from the trophy hunter to the meat hunter.

I was working on another response to the Indiana argument and could not have said it better! I know both sides will continue to see what they see in the numbers.

 

[150 Class]

Don’t forget Iowa has over a month of basically rifle season. With the straight wall cartridge and long range muzzle loaders it’s like using a standard rifle for a month. In the not to distant past, it was shotguns with about a 100 yard range and muzzle loaders with about the same. Huge technological advancement impacting things with longer range and much better accuracy.

Don’t forget Indiana is a rifle state.

 

[tall@wide]

Don’t forget Indiana is a rifle state.

Isn’t this the first year for rifles and crossbows during archery in Indiana? I’m not sure when they starting allowing rifles.

 

[DMarley83]

Muskrat24 implied similar in his analysis of the Indiana numbers.

Here is what I got from these numbers.

Average number of bucks harvested per year from 1987-2001 was 45,999.8, Let’s round to 46,000.
Average number of bucks harvested per year from 2002-2023 was 50,917, Let’s round to 51,000.

So average buck harvest increased by 5,000 bucks since 2002. So more bucks were shot on average per year after one buck was implemented not less. That shoots down the idea that guys are more selective and will shoot less bucks.

We know Indiana’s deer population increased by at least 150,000 deer shortly after one buck was implemented. So we also know that they had at least an additional 100,000 bucks added to their landscape every year after 2002 versus before 2002. That added basically 3 more bucks per square mile every year.

Indiana has also gone from 330,000 deer hunters to 275,000 over the same period. So there are 55,000 less guys hunting on Indiana’s 35,000 square miles. So 1.5 less hunters per square mile. Iowa’s deer hunter numbers have remained extremely consistent while other States like Indiana have trended downward.

Let’s look at the replacement potential for bucks. I am going to use 3 does per buck.
Iowa-350,000 deer after season. (262,500 does/87,500 bucks)
Indiana-575,000 deer after season. (431,250 does/143,750 bucks)

Indiana adds more bucks (431,250) to their landscape (35,000 square miles- which is 35% smaller than Iowa) every year which is more than our total deer population (bucks and does ~ 350,000) after season on our landscape (55,000 square miles).

So in summary: Indiana added at least 150,000 deer to their population (3 bucks per square mile), lost 55,000 hunters (decreased hunting pressure by 1.5 hunters per square mile). Saw increased buck harvest by 5,000 on average annually, but added at least an additional 100,000 bucks annually since one buck implementation in 2002 (strictly due to the population increase) all while QDM was really gaining traction and more and more guys were trying to manage for trophy bucks over the last 20-25 years across Indiana.

My personal conclusion: I have a hard time attributing the increase in trophy potential in Indiana to the implementation of the one buck limit. The numbers or the argument don’t add up.

I will say it again. Buck harvest doesn’t affect the population trend. More does on the landscape means more bucks. Adding back 3400 bucks to Iowa’s 55,000 square miles by going to a one buck State is “pissing on a brush fire”. It won’t help you shoot a top end buck. Sorry to tell you guys that, but it just won’t. Hate to be the one to burst your bubble or shatter your dreams.

You guys are way over thinking this situation. Compare the one buck limit vs increasing our doe population. One buck adds 34 bucks back to each county in Iowa every year, increasing the doe population by 100,000 would add 1000 bucks to each county in Iowa every year. Increase the doe population by 150,000, that adds 1500 bucks back while one buck still only adds back 34 bucks. One buck is basically a fixed number and thus very limited potential to improve our situation, I’d argue basically zero chance for improved top end trophy production. The other produces exponential growth only limited by how high the doe population climbs. The top end buck production (trophy potential) really lies within that exponential growth of the doe population. That will result in exponentially more bucks on the Iowa landscape. That is what will ultimately improve your odds of connecting on a top end buck. The best part of increasing the population is it will improve everyone’s hunting from the trophy hunter to the meat hunter.

Im not for or against 1 buck. (SELISHLY I DO ENJOY hunting multiple targets each year) however after reading your post thought id give some feedback.

1st - "1 buck doest boost the population " but I think it may indirectly. Personally when im in pursuit of a target buck I rarely shoot any does.... There is prob some Merritt in numbers there.

I also understand how your rule of averages get you to 34 buck per county but frankly is WAY OFF!!!!! in most hunting counties. Just Between the guys I know personally we could get over 34 bucks in 1 county. Right or wrong I believe there would be much greater local impact in certain areas.

Then finally you are correct about top end production potential does lie with the does, that is the 1st step. Raise population get up buck #s. The 2nd part of that formula is get them to 5+ years in adge. (Prob needs some legislation tweeks....)

To repeat i dont disagree with anything you are suggesting just think it's going to take more to have a significant impact.

 

[150 Class]

Isn’t this the first year for rifles and crossbows during archery in Indiana? I’m not sure when they starting allowing rifles.

It was earlier. Private property vs public had different rules, now same rules are for private and public.

 

[150 Class]

Iowa numbers (you can make your own assessments). No good numbers before 2006.

Antlered deer:
2006 58k 39%
2007 52k 36%
2008 50k 34%
2009 47k 34%
2010 47k 37%
2011 45k 37%
2012 47k 40%
2013 39k 39%
2014 45k 44%
2015 47k 44%
2016 45k 45%
2017 48k 45%
2018 46k 42%
2019 43k 43%
2020 49k 44%
2021 45k 41%
2022 47k 42%
2023 45k 43%
2024 43k 42%
2025 42k 44% (seasons still open, numbers will change)

 

[150 Class]

Isn’t this the first year for rifles and crossbows during archery in Indiana? I’m not sure when they starting allowing rifles.

I think you might be correct on the crossguns.

 

[Thinkin Rut]

This has become a 31 page pissing match.

Look at it as a bridge to shed season.

 

[Sligh1]

This has become a 31 page pissing match.

33! & that post is funny.

On a serious note- I don’t think is a group that is “just trying to win some stupid argument”. Very much the opposite. I do believe this is 33 pages because guys of all positions are thinking things like this…..
things have gone in the wrong direction. What I am seeing with my own eyes when I hunt is very concerning. We have a long list of problems. Iowa is still great and we for sure do it better than other states but we do have some issues with regs, technologies, ease of killing, qty’s of killing, response to disease, etc, etc. “I’M CONCERNED” would probably be the main sentiment of every person on this 33 page thread. Whatever your POV on how it gets better. Which is great. This is good. Why we are so much better than other states or even other groups…. You have to acknowledge a problem before u can fix it. Many states won’t even do that!!!!!!! Then, the only way to fix it is to have healthy, respectful debate & discussion with an open mind & slowly work at possible solutions. Quickly implement the most agreed upon. So, once again, applaud all on here. I will be the first to say, I don’t know it all. I am open minded & my mind can be changed. Thank goodness there’s so many dudes that care that will take the time to fight for the resource & future. & that’s why we CONTINUE to win the battles for the resource & why those that want to exploit it have lost in the last few years.

 

[Daver]

33! & that post is funny.

On a serious note- I don’t think is a group that is “just trying to win some stupid argument”. Very much the opposite. I do believe this is 33 pages because guys of all positions are thinking things like this…..
things have gone in the wrong direction. What I am seeing with my own eyes when I hunt is very concerning. We have a long list of problems. Iowa is still great and we for sure do it better than other states but we do have some issues with regs, technologies, ease of killing, qty’s of killing, response to disease, etc, etc. “I’M CONCERNED” would probably be the main sentiment of every person on this 33 page thread. Whatever your POV on how it gets better. Which is great. This is good. Why we are so much better than other states or even other groups…. You have to acknowledge a problem before u can fix it. Many states won’t even do that!!!!!!! Then, the only way to fix it is to have healthy, respectful debate & discussion with an open mind & slowly work at possible solutions. Quickly implement the most agreed upon. So, once again, applaud all on here. I will be the first to say, I don’t know it all. I am open minded & my mind can be changed. Thank goodness there’s so many dudes that care that will take the time to fight for the resource & future. & that’s why we CONTINUE to win the battles for the resource & why those that want to exploit it have lost in the last few years.

Well said. ^^ I think it is fallacious to label this thread as a "pissing match". A healthy, respectful conversation, or even a debate, is a good thing IMO. If there has been disrespect or blatantly argumentative replies...I have missed them. The reality is that "our problem" is complex AND not simply the same problem everywhere in the state. There are common threads, yes, but it would be great if there was one, or very few, simple things that could be done, quickly, to reverse the trends that so many of us are seeing...and very concerned about.

But in reality, there are many "moving parts" and differences from one area to another that make this so complex to solve, IMO. FWIW, I have successfully operated and managed businesses for pretty much 40 years now and one of the real keys to ongoing success is to create a culture that allows for contrary points of view, freedom to express them AND then OWN them too...and doing so while maintaining decorum and respect. I see this conversation in that manner.

That Skip allows, and even facilitates, active discussions like this is huge to me. I can think of several websites that really would have been a pissing match about 3-5 posts in...yet, here we are 33 pages in and I don't think anyone has crossed that line...IMO. My $0.02. Thank you Skip...and everyone else too, for "talking" like grownups.

 

[NextBuk]

So in summary: Indiana added at least 150,000 deer to their population (3 bucks per square mile), lost 55,000 hunters (decreased hunting pressure by 1.5 hunters per square mile). Saw increased buck harvest by 5,000 on average annually, but added at least an additional 100,000 bucks annually since one buck implementation in 2002 (strictly due to the population increase) all while QDM was really gaining traction and more and more guys were trying to manage for trophy bucks over the last 20-25 years across Indiana.

My personal conclusion: I have a hard time attributing the increase in trophy potential in Indiana to the implementation of the one buck limit. The numbers or the argument don’t add up.

I will say it again. Buck harvest doesn’t affect the population trend. More does on the landscape means more bucks. Adding back 3400 bucks to Iowa’s 55,000 square miles by going to a one buck State is “pissing on a brush fire”. It won’t help you shoot a top end buck. Sorry to tell you guys that, but it just won’t. Hate to be the one to burst your bubble or shatter your dreams.

One buck limits aren't meant to kill fewer bucks, generally. They are promoted by us trophy hunters because they improve the age structure of bucks in the herd. Guys that still want to get a buck quickly and move on still can. Guys that want to be selective still can. It's the guys that would quickly kill a young one then hunt for an older one that are most affected and what lead to more bucks making it to another year (a good thing in my opinion). Forcing the decision whether to end your season or not is what improves age quality. There are of course lots of other factors in play that affect the overall number of deer harvested. For example, if a one buck limit isn't getting enough deer killed, the DNR can extend seasons. I'd argue that the technology enhancements have essentially extended seasons. It's easier to run cameras through the end of season and go hunting in December or January because a good one "just showed up", whereas no cameras in the field might otherwise have kept those hunters at home. So just because buck harvest numbers haven't changed much doesn't mean the one buck limit doesn't have a positive affect (on age structure). I know taxidermists in Indiana that will tell you the average score of the bucks they mount for their customers has improved DRAMATICALLY since the one buck rule went into effect. That alone (and the B&C numbers) is enough evidence for me to be convinced it's a good move.

 

[Butch973]

Well said. ^^ I think it is fallacious to label this thread as a "pissing match". A healthy, respectful conversation, or even a debate, is a good thing IMO. If there has been disrespect or blatantly argumentative replies...I have missed them. The reality is that "our problem" is complex AND not simply the same problem everywhere in the state. There are common threads, yes, but it would be great if there was one, or very few, simple things that could be done, quickly, to reverse the trends that so many of us are seeing...and very concerned about.

But in reality, there are many "moving parts" and differences from one area to another that make this so complex to solve, IMO. FWIW, I have successfully operated and managed businesses for pretty much 40 years now and one of the real keys to ongoing success is to create a culture that allows for contrary points of view, freedom to express them AND then OWN them too...and doing so while maintaining decorum and respect. I see this conversation in that manner.

That Skip allows, and even facilitates, active discussions like this is huge to me. I can think of several websites that really would have been a pissing match about 3-5 posts in...yet, here we are 33 pages in and I don't think anyone has crossed that line...IMO. My $0.02. Thank you Skip...and everyone else too, for "talking" like grownups.

Ha I was more talking about when the charts came out and it turned into some chest thumping. Overall it’s been a great discussion and eye opening for sure on how guys/gals all over the state are experiencing the exact same thing as far as quantity and quality! If that’s not an argument for statewide changes I don’t know what is. Let’s hope something gets proposed to address it that holds some water and gets passed this session!

 

[jkratz5]

I think if you asked every hunter in the state of Indiana if hunting overall and herd quality overall has improved since 2003 it would be darn near 100% yes. During that time the DNR has done a great job implementing allotted tags for does (which has really been over last 10 years) and implemented 1 buck.

2011 - crossbows allowed
2016 - rifles restricted
2020 - rifles all calibers

The last 3 have certainly led to an increase in buck harvest - no doubt in my mind - and gets me worried for how long can we maintain.

However the first 2 things happened and the mature buck population skyrocketed - maybe it is coincidence but from someone being in it for the last 20yrs I wouldn’t go back and would recommend other states try it!!

 

[IsThisHeaven?]

Well said. ^^ I think it is fallacious to label this thread as a "pissing match". A healthy, respectful conversation, or even a debate, is a good thing IMO. If there has been disrespect or blatantly argumentative replies...I have missed them. The reality is that "our problem" is complex AND not simply the same problem everywhere in the state. There are common threads, yes, but it would be great if there was one, or very few, simple things that could be done, quickly, to reverse the trends that so many of us are seeing...and very concerned about.

But in reality, there are many "moving parts" and differences from one area to another that make this so complex to solve, IMO. FWIW, I have successfully operated and managed businesses for pretty much 40 years now and one of the real keys to ongoing success is to create a culture that allows for contrary points of view, freedom to express them AND then OWN them too...and doing so while maintaining decorum and respect. I see this conversation in that manner.

That Skip allows, and even facilitates, active discussions like this is huge to me. I can think of several websites that really would have been a pissing match about 3-5 posts in...yet, here we are 33 pages in and I don't think anyone has crossed that line...IMO. My $0.02. Thank you Skip...and everyone else too, for "talking" like grownups.

I agree. I come here to learn and this thread is why I check this site. The knowledge (research and anecdotal) you guys have, and your willingness to share it as part of a good faith debate, is invaluable.

FWIW I think the two opinions this has boiled down to each have merit, but less so than proponents of each believe. One buck would have a noticeable impact in good neighborhoods in the traditionally best parts of the state, but would have a negligible effect on the other 2/3’s of the state. Population increase would have noticeably positive impacts across the state, for both meat hunters and mature deer hunters (less so than one buck).

 

[jkratz5]

No doubt record book buck harvest is down since the 1990's. However, I can guarantee you that Iowa has significantly more record book bucks that are not being included in this data sheet. I'm guessing only around 50% of booners are entered in Iowa vs 95% in Wisconsin and surrounding states. Nobody wants to draw additional attention to your farm.
Ask Skip how many he registered between 2020-2023 shot off his farms. My guess is zero along with his neighbors.

I agree 100% - I was thinking the thread was structured around Giant Deer and how to get more mature whitetails into the herd.

I do agree good points on both sides you mentioned for herd health

 

[Daver]

I saw a post on Facebook today from Don Higgins where he expressed some skepticism about the "rush" to "one buck" policies as a solution. (Paraphrased) But I thought it was interesting in light of this thread/conversation.

I am curious, for the "Indiana did it and look at them now" crowd...in what way(s) did the implementation of the one buck policy there CAUSE the buck age structure in the state to improve? It seems clear that there is an observable Correlation, but is it not also true that the "body count", or population, also increased quite a bit during the improvement time span?

In other words, do we know it was the one buck policy behind the improvement OR were there other factors that were more causal that also happened in the same window? Many here, and I would be one of them, feel as though A LOT, maybe not all, but a lot, of our problem would be solved via just an increased population. (Yes, I am also skeptical here that deer hunters will ever again get back to the glory days because of other, competing, interests in just how many deer can be tolerated, etc. BUT...it seems very clear that more deer = more bucks = more bucks living an extra year or three, etc.)

Is it possible that the Indiana example is more of a case of there being a couple hundred thousand more deer alive in the state now v. yesteryear?

BTW...I totally agree with whomever said that B&C trophy registries may not be that reliable these days. I know MANY people who have shot more than a few bucks that would qualify and have never registered even one of them. Back in the day...a really big buck was something to celebrate openly about...nowadays...guys don't want anyone to know about them in many, many cases. Shoot, just look at the harvest photos here over time. I remember when actual posters were made showing all of the IW bucks in a given year. Now...just a tiny fraction are popularized from what I see.

People have learned that once others know about someone, or some place, that consistently lays down big bucks that they then are likely to get "attention" that makes it harder to then get the next Mr. Big. Sad, but true.

 

[scottonbuck]

I saw a post on Facebook today from Don Higgins where he expressed some skepticism about the "rush" to "one buck" policies as a solution. (Paraphrased) But I thought it was interesting in light of this thread/conversation.

I am curious, for the "Indiana did it and look at them now" crowd...in what way(s) did the implementation of the one buck policy there CAUSE the buck age structure in the state to improve? It seems clear that there is an observable Correlation, but is it not also true that the "body count", or population, also increased quite a bit during the improvement time span?

In other words, do we know it was the one buck policy behind the improvement OR were there other factors that were more causal that also happened in the same window? Many here, and I would be one of them, feel as though A LOT, maybe not all, but a lot, of our problem would be solved via just an increased population. (Yes, I am also skeptical here that deer hunters will ever again get back to the glory days because of other, competing, interests in just how many deer can be tolerated, etc. BUT...it seems very clear that more deer = more bucks = more bucks living an extra year or three, etc.)

Is it possible that the Indiana example is more of a case of there being a couple hundred thousand more deer alive in the state now v. yesteryear?

BTW...I totally agree with whomever said that B&C trophy registries may not be that reliable these days. I know MANY people who have shot more than a few bucks that would qualify and have never registered even one of them. Back in the day...a really big buck was something to celebrate openly about...nowadays...guys don't want anyone to know about them in many, many cases. Shoot, just look at the harvest photos here over time. I remember when actual posters were made showing all of the IW bucks in a given year. Now...just a tiny fraction are popularized from what I see.

People have learned that once others know about someone, or some place, that consistently lays down big bucks that they then are likely to get "attention" that makes it harder to then get the next Mr. Big. Sad, but true.

Dave you hit the nail on the head with sharing/entering book bucks, its amazing how fast someone can look up a person and next thing you know they are leasing all around you trying to buy or lease the suspected ground you hunt. I am one of those that used to share a lot of pics but dont share a thing anymore. I am one of many.

 

[Muskrat24]

I saw a post on Facebook today from Don Higgins where he expressed some skepticism about the "rush" to "one buck" policies as a solution. (Paraphrased) But I thought it was interesting in light of this thread/conversation.

I am curious, for the "Indiana did it and look at them now" crowd...in what way(s) did the implementation of the one buck policy there CAUSE the buck age structure in the state to improve? It seems clear that there is an observable Correlation, but is it not also true that the "body count", or population, also increased quite a bit during the improvement time span?

In other words, do we know it was the one buck policy behind the improvement OR were there other factors that were more causal that also happened in the same window? Many here, and I would be one of them, feel as though A LOT, maybe not all, but a lot, of our problem would be solved via just an increased population. (Yes, I am also skeptical here that deer hunters will ever again get back to the glory days because of other, competing, interests in just how many deer can be tolerated, etc. BUT...it seems very clear that more deer = more bucks = more bucks living an extra year or three, etc.)

Is it possible that the Indiana example is more of a case of there being a couple hundred thousand more deer alive in the state now v. yesteryear?

BTW...I totally agree with whomever said that B&C trophy registries may not be that reliable these days. I know MANY people who have shot more than a few bucks that would qualify and have never registered even one of them. Back in the day...a really big buck was something to celebrate openly about...nowadays...guys don't want anyone to know about them in many, many cases. Shoot, just look at the harvest photos here over time. I remember when actual posters were made showing all of the IW bucks in a given year. Now...just a tiny fraction are popularized from what I see.

People have learned that once others know about someone, or some place, that consistently lays down big bucks that they then are likely to get "attention" that makes it harder to then get the next Mr. Big. Sad, but true.

I question that myself about Indiana and the one buck change. There are a few other things that happened in the similar time frame, more food plotting, more desire to shoot big bucks, cell cams, more weapons, along with an increasing population. Similar factors to a lot of states that are doing better than Iowa with the major opposite for Iowa being significantly declining population.
On the pics and entering bucks in record books it has changed. The main reason I watched IW back in the day was to see all the big deer that were being harvested. There were a few years in the 2008-2011 timeframe where this site had harvest photos of multiple 200s each year. I could be wrong but hardly a harvest photo posted let alone any 200s both because they aren’t as prevalent and people aren’t sharing for fear of someone tracking you down and leasing/ buying which is a LEGIT concern.

 

[Daver]

Dave you hit the nail on the head with sharing/entering book bucks, its amazing how fast someone can look up a person and next thing you know they are leasing all around you trying to buy or lease the suspected ground you hunt. I am one of those that used to share a lot of pics but dont share a thing anymore. I am one of many.

Yep...I have had people admit to me that they "tracked" me electronically and proceeded to share thoughts/questions/opinions about my farm. What? Well now the hunting sucks enough that I don't care , but it is a little spooky.