NW iowa proposed regs..

[Daver]

Yikes!! That sounds pretty depressing. We too had a bad EHD year in 2023, but nothing of note since then, thankfully. I suppose I should be thankful that we "only" lost, I dunno, 30% to 50% of the deer, but just ONCE.

I don't want to ignite the whole "one buck limit" thread convo...but when the population gets taken to its knees like this, usually via EHD, then there really needs to be AGGRESSIVE scale backs on harvest...and the sooner, the better.

Even with far fewer deer walking around on the landscape in these heavily impacted areas the hunters these days are way too effective in filling their tag(s). Often strongly aided by season length (opportunity), technology that "finds" the quarry for us AND reports on its whereabouts, etc.

 

[Iowa]

Harrison county was one of the hardest hit counties in western Iowa and for example it has shot 1350 does since the outbreak in September of 2021. Start thinking about how many deer that 1350 would be, especially if any of those were immune after surviving the outbreak.

 

[bretkrutsch]

This tends to be bad for bucks ? They get hammered as a result , more small bucks shot . I saw it first hand in Minnesota.

That’s why I never think a complete stop to doe harvest is a good idea, the small bucks will be targets now.

Unfortunately I personally think there needs to be quotas on gun tags mayne even archery tags....just eliminating does is just gonna eradicate the bcks

 

[Iowa]

Unfortunately I personally think there needs to be quotas on gun tags mayne even archery tags....just eliminating does is just gonna eradicate the bcks

100%

 

[LoessHillsArcher]

Unfortunately I personally think there needs to be quotas on gun tags mayne even archery tags....just eliminating does is just gonna eradicate the bcks

Something like this definitely would help - needs to be pretty impactful. Anything that's going to be truly impactful is going to mean limiting hunters, which isn't going to be popular and is going to be painful but for the resource to rebound that would be a great thing!

 

[seven twenty]

People are forgetting or just plain don’t know/understand that “antlered only” got us to the “glory” days. Even with all of the extra antlerless tags and seasons after 2000 we were still respectable. The EHD outbreaks combined with the generous antlerless quotas made for a perfect storm so to speak. The disease impact wasn’t fully realized or understood at the time and here we are. The reduction in antlerless quotas should have happened 8-10 yrs ago.

 

[150 Class]

Unfortunately I personally think there needs to be quotas on gun tags mayne even archery tags....just eliminating does is just gonna eradicate the bcks

It’s just the opposite. Eliminating does will increase the population, including bucks. It won’t happen overnight but it will happen.

 

[Daver]

People are forgetting or just plain don’t know/understand that “antlered only” got us to the “glory” days. Even with all of the extra antlerless tags and seasons after 2000 we were still respectable. The EHD outbreaks combined with the generous antlerless quotas made for a perfect storm so to speak. The disease impact wasn’t fully realized or understood at the time and here we are. The reduction in antlerless quotas should have happened 8-10 yrs ago.

I get the point you are making, but there are other super key variables to consider too. Pre-glory days we did not have even 1% of the ability we do now to electronically capture information about and surveil our quarry. (Trail cams, cell cams, drones, etc.)

Also, weaponry is much more advanced these days v. the pre-glory days. For one example...when I first started muzzy hunting I actually started with real powder, which somewhat often failed, round balls, which were reliably accurate out to say 80-100 yards, iron sights, etc. Now we have actual scoped rifles in gun season and the muzzys are WAY beyond yesteryear in their reach and accuracy. At one time anything over 100 yards was a long shot...now...I have heard people talk about shooting way over 400 yards.

It's NOT just one thing that has got us here. This is a point I try to make over and over here that I feel like isn't well understood by all. FWIW. There are MULTIPLE variables at play and in my mind we will not get a "fix" just by changing one of them.

 

[CottonwoodCanyon]

I get the point you are making, but there are other super key variables to consider too. Pre-glory days we did not have even 1% of the ability we do now to electronically capture information about and surveil our quarry. (Trail cams, cell cams, drones, etc.)

Also, weaponry is much more advanced these days v. the pre-glory days. For one example...when I first started muzzy hunting I actually started with real powder, which somewhat often failed, round balls, which were reliably accurate out to say 80-100 yards, iron sights, etc. Now we have actual scoped rifles in gun season and the muzzys are WAY beyond yesteryear in their reach and accuracy. At one time anything over 100 yards was a long shot...now...I have heard people talk about shooting way over 400 yards.

It's NOT just one thing that has got us here. This is a point I try to make over and over here that I feel like isn't well understood by all. FWIW. There are MULTIPLE variables at play and in my mind we will not get a "fix" just by changing one of them.

Spot on. Technology, weapon advancements and options, smaller parcels, longer seasons, more hunters/hunter days...the list goes on.

 

[Muskrat24]

I get the point you are making, but there are other super key variables to consider too. Pre-glory days we did not have even 1% of the ability we do now to electronically capture information about and surveil our quarry. (Trail cams, cell cams, drones, etc.)

Also, weaponry is much more advanced these days v. the pre-glory days. For one example...when I first started muzzy hunting I actually started with real powder, which somewhat often failed, round balls, which were reliably accurate out to say 80-100 yards, iron sights, etc. Now we have actual scoped rifles in gun season and the muzzys are WAY beyond yesteryear in their reach and accuracy. At one time anything over 100 yards was a long shot...now...I have heard people talk about shooting way over 400 yards.

It's NOT just one thing that has got us here. This is a point I try to make over and over here that I feel like isn't well understood by all. FWIW. There are MULTIPLE variables at play and in my mind we will not get a "fix" just by changing one of them.

The goal of going buck only in these areas is not to increase the trophy quality it is 100% to rebuild the herd. Bucks contribute one thing to rebuilding the herd and that happens each fall. Past that 0 contribution. I get your point from a general perspective across a large portion of the state but in the buck only area they are in a WAY different spot than the people worried about not having a five year old buck to chase. In that area if they shoot a buck at 100 yards or 400 yards the buck will be replaced next year. Agreed that there are several causes to the decreased numbers statewide but that area literally has 1-2 or 0 deer per square mile in places. Regulating the harvest is something DNR can control without legislature while it would be more difficult, maybe impossible to limit methods, without changing legislation. Saying no trail cameras or no long range muzzleloaders in that area is a statewide change needed but unlikely (not legal) to be mandated in a few counties for rapid herd growth. This is a case where statewide changes would help but will take time IF ever changed but the DNR is responding to what the resource in that area needs with the tools they have. That area needs immediate response. It is on all of us to keep working on the other changes. Daver I think you commented that your area was not heavily affected by EHD until a few years ago. Now take that two more times back to back to back and you might be getting close to what EHD has done in the NW part of Iowa. Pre glory days the herd expansion was built off antlered only hunting, hunters in that area can have all the technology available and still can’t harvest does on statewide tag.

 

[Daver]

The goal of going buck only in these areas is not to increase the trophy quality it is 100% to rebuild the herd. Bucks contribute one thing to rebuilding the herd and that happens each fall. Past that 0 contribution. I get your point from a general perspective across a large portion of the state but in the buck only area they are in a WAY different spot than the people worried about not having a five year old buck to chase. In that area if they shoot a buck at 100 yards or 400 yards the buck will be replaced next year. Agreed that there are several causes to the decreased numbers statewide but that area literally has 1-2 or 0 deer per square mile in places. Regulating the harvest is something DNR can control without legislature while it would be more difficult, maybe impossible to limit methods, without changing legislation. Saying no trail cameras or no long range muzzleloaders in that area is a statewide change needed but unlikely (not legal) to be mandated in a few counties for rapid herd growth. This is a case where statewide changes would help but will take time IF ever changed but the DNR is responding to what the resource in that area needs with the tools they have. That area needs immediate response. It is on all of us to keep working on the other changes. Daver I think you commented that your area was not heavily affected by EHD until a few years ago. Now take that two more times back to back to back and you might be getting close to what EHD has done in the NW part of Iowa. Pre glory days the herd expansion was built off antlered only hunting, hunters in that area can have all the technology available and still can’t harvest does on statewide tag.

I hear you and mainly agree, but not to nitpick...there is still a difference in my mind here. I agree that a dead buck is a dead buck...but our current technology, season structure and weaponry, etc, facilitates SO MUCH MORE success than back in the day, the odds of any given buck being harvested now v. pre-glory days is way higher.

I realize that we don't need a 1:1 buck/doe ratio in order to just build numbers back up, but we need something that allows all of the does to be bred and then not wear down the bucks so bad that they die off from exhaustion, etc. I too am not really trying to address age structure in my comments...I realize that these are dire times up there.

 

[Hardwood11]

One deer tag per person (archery only) … guaranteed that will solve the problem!

 

[BDAHMS]

Having sat and participated in the most recent meeting in regard to the deer population plan put on by Jace (our state deer biologist), they certainly put both the deer population and the hunters experience into consideration when having these changes. And I personally think the state is really headed in a good direction (not population wise, but action wise) with taking both public feedback and science-based information into consideration when making changes towards our regulations. No matter the change, the loudest will usually be the ones that want it like the old times but dont want the changes to get there to affect them. And that just comes with the territory. But overall, these changes are great IMO and a solid direction to go. No doubt some hunters are going to be caught flat footed with these changes, and hopefully through multiple efforts, that information can make their way to them to inform of what's happening.

 

[booneriverbucks]

Sorry, lacking WiFi and reception the last 10 days or so. I totally support the DNR measures! Great for the deer and great for the state!!!! Just hope there isn’t blowback from those not paying attention and hope dnr doesn’t change their mind. A public notice for these changes was issued last October and a hearing was held in early November! NOBODY SHOWED UP! Crazy how we all complain (myself obviously included) and yet nobody shows up for a public hearing on MAJOR changes! Wild!! These changes are great!

 

[booneriverbucks]

my only critique is on LOT tags.. if there is no deer to kill LOT eligible people don’t need to go out of the way to shoot any either! Let them cry about their crop damage

 

[Iowa]

Agreed, but I think they’re probably trying not to step on too many toes all at once .

 

[booneriverbucks]

Yep!! Just hoping not too many cry and the DNR backtracks like when people whined about cams on public a few years ago!! Hopefully they stick to their guns and remind everyone the public was notified and nobody showed up!!! LOT eligible in area will hopefully let a few does live too!

 

[booneriverbucks]

yeah

One deer tag per person (archery only) … guaranteed that will solve the problem! View attachment 131193

until we are “overpopulated” and the cries for even more liberalized regs grow louder!

 

[booneriverbucks]

Bowhunters controlling the population is a joke…. I say this as a dude who absolutely loves bowhunting.. This is like fat people (myself included) knowing how to solve the obesity problem.

 

[Hardwood11]

Bowhunters controlling the population is a joke…. I say this as a dude who absolutely loves bowhunting.. This is like fat people (myself included) knowing how to solve the obesity problem.

I wasn’t serious .. but keep in mind NW IA is not trying to control the population, they are trying to increase the population.

“Archery only” would be a good temporary solution to that problem, but they won’t do it because gun hunter’s would go bonkers .