Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

Deer Population Peak

I don't remember the numbers exactly, but the world's population (humans) took from the beginning of time until 20?? to reach 6 billion. It was said that it would only take a short amount of years for the population to double.

I think the deer populations were the same. After behing deciminated in the early 1900's it took time and better management to get the populations to what they were in the 2000's. More deer = more offspring so the population snow balled in the 2000's. Then the liberal doe tags to reduce the population were effective resulting in what we see today. Although I'd hate to see it go a whole lot lower, I don't know that our deer numbers are all too low right now. We are just used to seeing what we did a few years ago (a level that only made hunters happy, not many others).

A hunter from the early 1980's would be in a dream world to be able to hunt what we have for a current population.:way:
 
Bowman makes a good point. I have noticed the quality this year of the bigger deer taken has been impressive. Perhaps less competition from other deer and less stress is the reason, or perhaps its just coincidence?
 
I just wonder if the DNRs estimates on everything our more accurate than now and then. My ole man talks about seeing tons more deer in the 80s versus any other time frame he has hunted. Maybe he just had good spots back then I dont know.

My grandpa who is now 70 something said he saw his first deer in Iowa when he was 18. He also says they have been a problem ever since. ;)
 
I remember back around 2000 when counties went buck only (Cherokee for example) This was during a shotgun season and I don't remember the exact rules but I remember having to pass does because it was buck only. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure this was the rule for some counties.
 
i know one year there was a rule that you had to shoot antlered deer ( 6 inches or bigger) the fisrt 3 days of gun 1 and then tuesday you could shoot does.
 
The very simplest of answers to the original question is the deer population peaked in the mid 2000s because that is when we started killing record numbers of deer and more importantly record numbers of does.:thrwrck: When our antler-less deer harvest became almost 70 percent of the total harvest and that total harvest became the highest on record ( no matter how the harvest was reported or calculated) it was still the highest up to that date. Every single doe killed in 2004 meant there were 11 or 12 deer less available in 2007 not counting the additional deer killed in 2005 and 2006.

Now I have a very valid question for all who think that the deer population is ok now or still to high in "some areas". WHAT IS OUR CURRENT DEER POPULATION? No where have I been able to find a valid number, even knowing that it would be an estimate only, because of the less that ideal methods of counting the deer population. I did find several references to a population similar to that of the mid 1990s or around 170,000 total deer. Some say that is the population goal after hunting seasons, and some others say this is the goal for pre-season numbers. I don't know which is accurate, but I have not been able to find even that number put forth as the actual current population. Our deer harvest has fallen from aproximatley 211,000 deer in 2005 to about 170,000 in 2006 to 150,000 in 2007 clear down to 127,000 in 2010. It now looks like the harvest numbers for 2011 will be under 120,000 for the entire year. To me that represents a decline of 43 percent over 6 hunting seasons. At one point I read that the DNR believed that the harvest represented about 50 to 60percent of the total deer population, so that would mean that our population for this year could be as low as 240,000 deer State wide. I understand that it doesn't work out this way but that only works out to about 2500 deer per county, even though my county has a antler-less quota of 3600 tags.:confused::confused:

I have made the same request for several years on this same board for some one to please just tell us how many deer we believe we really have so that we, the hunters, can make our own informed decision as to what we should be harvesting.:way:
 
A hunter from the early 1980's would be in a dream world to be able to hunt what we have for a current population.:way:

Correction- a bowhunter from the early 80's was hunting in the DREAM WORLD. He could hunt any 'fenceline' he desired, could get permission to hunt about any deer in the county with a hand shake and a Christmas card, and was not bombarded with hyped up commercialization in his peaceful sport. Deer numbers were just fine back then.
 
I think Iowaqdm has it figured out. I'm with him on this one.


Exactly, Taking a doe is like tagging 3 deer at least (not counting what her doe fawns would have). While taking a buck is only taggin one deer any way you look at it.

If the doe harvests increased from 15% to 30-50%, thats going to cause a HUGE drop in the # of available deer in the coming years.
 
Correction- a bowhunter from the early 80's was hunting in the DREAM WORLD. He could hunt any 'fenceline' he desired, could get permission to hunt about any deer in the county with a hand shake and a Christmas card, and was not bombarded with hyped up commercialization in his peaceful sport. Deer numbers were just fine back then.

Amen!!! I remember bowhunting in the 1980's and don't recall sitting one time in the stand and not seeing deer. I have had at least a dozen hunts in the last two years where I sat for 3-4 hours and never laid eyes on a single deer. The number of quality bucks also has significantly decrease over the last 5 years as well. I believe the population decrease and the late antlerless season (shooting shed bucks) is the cause but that is another thread topic. Anyone who says we have more deer now than back in the 1980's is believing the FB hype or must be hunting next to or on large tracts of unaccessable land. There are a few counties/areas where there are too many deer but the majority of Iowa's herd is headed for trouble.
 
I will agree that habitat is very important but not 90% important. There are still thousands of acres of CRP and hedge filled fence lines. Great pheasant habitat. I firmly believe that the growing number of birds of prey in the area as well as a very strong coyote and cat population is the main reason for lack of pheasants. They love them eggs. Trapping and coyote calling is becoming a popular sport again in my area and I feel that by more predator hunting it strengthens our chances of a pheasant come back. On topic I agree with the logic of taking one doe equals about three. I am happy with the numbers on my farms and will not by the extra doe tags or land owner tags that I can get. One tag a person. Time to maintain. Hopefully Brandstad will put the cabosh on the extra seasons. Be heard fellow members. No influence if there are no voices.
 
Having hunted during the 80s 90s and the present I remember not being able to get a doe tag at all.And the reason the population took a few years after doe tags were given out to peak was pretty simple, there was a mindset common throughout much of the state that shooting does was wrong.You have to remember that most of these guys up untill then had never been allowed to shoot does and it was actually frowned upon at one point.Many continued to only shoot bucks for years, some of the old boys still wont shoot a doe.Shooting does really didnt become popular in much of the state untill several years after the either sex and bonus tags became available.
 
Because there just weren't that many deer back then!!! There wasn't even a deer season till the 1950's or so because there were so few deer in Iowa, or in most parts of the country for that matter. In Iowa you couldn't even get a doe tag for first shotgun season in the middle 90s. The population was growing so quickly by then though that doe tags became available for second season and then even more increasing where need be. Yes, we are on a decline over the past few years, but I still don't think the hunting is all that bad compared to 15 years ago. Look at the population trend over the last 30 years (instead o 5) and you'll see it really just isn't as bad as many folks are making it out to be. Probalby just getting to where it needs to be. I am sure there will be peaks and valleys in the population, but I don't think it is dooms-day like some are predicting!
I think the DNR is doing a great job at creating opportunites for us to be successful in our outings. Turkey populations are another fine example.

Maybe someone already responded but I started deer hunting in 1982 and you could get a doe tag in the 80's but it was by lottery for first season. Not sure about second. Back then we had about 10 guys in our group and usually 2-4 drew either sex tags so I'd guess the draw rate somewhere between 20-40%. It was always the big question when we got together before the season who and how many antlerless tags were drawn.
 
I started deer hunting (gun and bow) in 87 and I remember Thanksgiving being the day the family would get together and figure out how many any sex tags we drew. It was exciting back then to be able to shoot a doe because in my area the bucks had been pounded from large party hunting groups and mostly buck only tags. It just wasn't feasible that 8 guys would all get a shot at a buck. We needed the meat so an any sex tag was a blessing. Bow season was the best ever because like said before I could get permission anywhere. I could hunt for two weeks and never even see another bowhunter on the road. This was in Van Buren county mind you. In the mid 90's I had access to over 2000 acres in that county and nobody else bow hunted any of it! Now I'm down to 300 and 75% of it is crop fields! From 2005 to 2009 the population in my area took a huge hit. The DNR was (and still is) offering up 5400 doe tags for the county and the group hunters were buying them up. The groups got even bigger. One year I counted 34 guys in a "church group". They were pushing everything and just slaughtering the herd banging pots and pans and two by fours, yelling and hollering. Thankfully in 2009 a few changes in neighboring bowhunters made a huge difference. These new neighbors were serious bowhunters like myself. The big groups no longer had permission to run through everything. (Trust me they still had plenty of ground to hunt because after all, they were from the church.) And in the last two years the population within that square mile has increased, finally. I used to see 10 to 15 deer per sit, easily. When the big groups and doe tags came I was lucky to see 2. Last year I was doing a bit better, seeing 3-5 per sit. This year 8-10 was common. We have not killed a doe in the area for two years and the difference is very noticeable. One positive thing that came from the doe slaughter is our buck to doe ratio. The rut this year was really really good. By the time I killed my buck mid November I has seen roughly the same number of bucks as I did does this season.
One thing I want to point out is no matter what formula the DNR comes up with for the "right number of doe tags" in a given county there will always be large population differences from one timber to the next in Van Buren. There are very large tracts of leased or privately owned ground that have huge food plots, great cover, but few hunters and nobody that cares to shoot a doe because they are trophy hunters. Then there is the next section over that may have great cover as well but it gets hammered for two weeks straight from gun hunters with an unlimited supply of doe tags. If they keep issuing the same number of doe tags the future doesn't look good for the average Joe that has to share his hunting ground with others that don't have the same mind set and will shoot anything that moves. Even if their aerial survey tells them the county has too many deer, they will never get to their desired levels with these large tracts that are more or less sanctuarys that are untouchable. They will just deplete the rest of the county to nothing. I got lucky because the neighbors and I are willing to actually manage the area best we can to bring our numbers back up.

I know I got slightly off topic in regards to the original question here but reading all these posts made me think about the past and how things have changed over the years. :) Plus I'm on 3rd shift and bored out of my freakin mind!!!:way:
 
Sounds like my area in Wapello Co. Not many huge preserves though. a few neighbors that are bow, mature buck hunters, but a lot of kill anything people around too. Average 1 deer a sit. When started bow hunting in 2005, saw 3 sometimes 4 deer each time out.
 
I just wonder if the DNRs estimates on everything our more accurate than now and then. My ole man talks about seeing tons more deer in the 80s versus any other time frame he has hunted. Maybe he just had good spots back then I dont know.

My grandpa who is now 70 something said he saw his first deer in Iowa when he was 18. He also says they have been a problem ever since. ;)
Your dad hunted the Ammunition Plant back then might be the reason he remembers more deer. :D I used to keep records of every deer sighting back then and would have maybe 100 to 130 deer SIHGTINGS in a season and I hunted every day of the season ( bow and muzz) and some of those being the same deer day after day. This year has been about in line with those years but I only hunted about 2/3 as many days. We are still having better deer hunting then back then and lets not talk about before the 80's I was happy to see a deer or 2 in a day or every fews days. I hunted some of those spots for more than 15 years with no habitat change. If some of the guys complaining about only seeing 10 or 20 deer in a week or day were hunting back then they would probably have quit hunting by now and I would have more places to hunt yet. :D I know around here there are a lot less big groups of party hunters since the supposed peak mostly because the guys are too old anymore and the younger guys are not party hunting as much now and are hunting solo.
 
. The number of quality bucks also has significantly decrease over the last 5 years as well.
This I have to agree with, back in the 80's and early 90's I would have shot any buck over 130 inches, now I just don't see them or the occasional 160's to 170's I saw back then. It won't get better and I'm going out on a limb and say that hunter numbers and (hype) will decrease in the next 10 years significantly because I think deer hunting has hit it's peak also at least it's my hope.
 
I started deer hunting (gun and bow) in 87 and I remember Thanksgiving being the day the family would get together and figure out how many any sex tags we drew. It was exciting back then to be able to shoot a doe because in my area the bucks had been pounded from large party hunting groups and mostly buck only tags. It just wasn't feasible that 8 guys would all get a shot at a buck. We needed the meat so an any sex tag was a blessing. Bow season was the best ever because like said before I could get permission anywhere. I could hunt for two weeks and never even see another bowhunter on the road. This was in Van Buren county mind you. In the mid 90's I had access to over 2000 acres in that county and nobody else bow hunted any of it! Now I'm down to 300 and 75% of it is crop fields! From 2005 to 2009 the population in my area took a huge hit. The DNR was (and still is) offering up 5400 doe tags for the county and the group hunters were buying them up. The groups got even bigger. One year I counted 34 guys in a "church group". They were pushing everything and just slaughtering the herd banging pots and pans and two by fours, yelling and hollering. Thankfully in 2009 a few changes in neighboring bowhunters made a huge difference. These new neighbors were serious bowhunters like myself. The big groups no longer had permission to run through everything. (Trust me they still had plenty of ground to hunt because after all, they were from the church.) And in the last two years the population within that square mile has increased, finally. I used to see 10 to 15 deer per sit, easily. When the big groups and doe tags came I was lucky to see 2. Last year I was doing a bit better, seeing 3-5 per sit. This year 8-10 was common. We have not killed a doe in the area for two years and the difference is very noticeable. One positive thing that came from the doe slaughter is our buck to doe ratio. The rut this year was really really good. By the time I killed my buck mid November I has seen roughly the same number of bucks as I did does this season.
One thing I want to point out is no matter what formula the DNR comes up with for the "right number of doe tags" in a given county there will always be large population differences from one timber to the next in Van Buren. There are very large tracts of leased or privately owned ground that have huge food plots, great cover, but few hunters and nobody that cares to shoot a doe because they are trophy hunters. Then there is the next section over that may have great cover as well but it gets hammered for two weeks straight from gun hunters with an unlimited supply of doe tags. If they keep issuing the same number of doe tags the future doesn't look good for the average Joe that has to share his hunting ground with others that don't have the same mind set and will shoot anything that moves. Even if their aerial survey tells them the county has too many deer, they will never get to their desired levels with these large tracts that are more or less sanctuarys that are untouchable. They will just deplete the rest of the county to nothing. I got lucky because the neighbors and I are willing to actually manage the area best we can to bring our numbers back up.

I know I got slightly off topic in regards to the original question here but reading all these posts made me think about the past and how things have changed over the years. :) Plus I'm on 3rd shift and bored out of my freakin mind!!!:way:


I think Deernut brings up some very good points here. Although I think a mistake was made by not lowering the antlerless tag numbers for this season, something that politicians deserve the blame for, not the DNR professionals IMO. There is such a radically diverse preference or "ethic" present right now in many areas of the state as to how many deer are too many that I don't see how the DNR could ever successfully make everyone happy.

Sometimes this disparity is the matter of one side of the fence v. the other. (Side A - a farmer who will say, "Kill 'em all, they're eating !" and Side B - a dedicated deer hunter that wants a strong, "managed" population. Well, get ready for a conflict.)

To a lesser degree than Deernut, but certainly to an extent, I too have seen the "feast or famine" phenomenon where one side of the road has very few deer and the next timber over has a good population still, or even an over abundance. This is largely due to the very different land management/practices and goals between properties.

To those that would disparage the DNR, I would urge you to consider that they really have a no win situation here. There is no way for a state agency to manage a deer population so precisely as to make everybody happy.

I also think now that the deer hunting is harder, that some will fall away from the sport too.
 
Top Bottom