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!
We usually start or even focus solely on the things we disagree with (human nature on any issue). Let me start…. I agree with 90% of this!!! I love this thinking. I love this analysis. If 25% of hunters thought through things with logic, data & analysis - we would have all hunting Issues solved.
1) I totally agree, population is our #1. Absolutely!!! We need to be fighting for the Shed buck season to be removed & then push & support the DNR to lower quotas in more counties.
2) forested acres - basically habitat deer live in per state…. We’ll throw 3 states in there…. APPROXIMATELY…. INDIANA: 5,000,000 acres. MISSOURI: 14,000,000. IOWA: 2,800,000.
3) KEY DATA…. BUCKS SHOT BY STATE…. INDIANA: 50,000. IOWA: 45,000. MISSOURI: 145,000
4) Deer populations: IOWA: (go with above): 350,000. INDIANA: 700,000. MISSOURI: 1,400,000
5) deer hunters per state. MISSOURI: 445,000. INDIANA: 300,000. IOWA: 225,000
6) INDIANA is 1 buck max. MO is 2 bucks max. IA is 3 bucks max.
ONE KEY TAKE AWAY…. Indiana has about 30% more hunters than iowa, double the deer population BUT!!!!!…… they shoot about the exact same # of bucks per year as iowa. 50,000 vs 45,000. THAT RIGHT THERE IS: ONE BUCK LIMIT. Period. MO shoots 3x as many bucks as IN & yet their deer population is only 2x more than IN…. That’s due to 2 bucks vs 1 buck.
Iowa has the second highest hunter density per huntable acre, just behind Wisconsin. We are shooting more bucks per hunter, deer population & huntable acre than IN. By a lot!!!!
Google this “amount of bucks harvested by year in Indiana”. Read the links that pop up & read about what one buck did to that state. & make no mistake…. They said the same thing we say here “only 10% shoot 2 bucks!!” They changed it, some dudes had a tantrum for a few months & they shut right up after the state exploded & folks realized it didn’t do any harm but did a great deal of help.
I still revert to this…. We can show in IN, KY, KS & OH- 1 buck saves the age class. We can also show that in 2 buck states…. High grading is still obscene: see ILLINOIS, MISSOURI, MICHIGAN, WISCONSIN, etc….. a 2 or 3 year old good genetic buck is going to die. Rarely makes it. A lot of that is also timing of gun season or really- the lack of good bucks around period. I still believe to my core a lot of high grading goes on in iowa & the majority are not shooting lessor scoring old bucks.
I’m not sitting here fighting to change us to 1 buck. I’m not. I’d rather see our population improve. But if we keep getting worse- it will need to be a discussion. & the perplexing part…. If no one is filling 2 or 3 buck tags - why is it that big of deal to make it one buck? Again, it doesn’t just save 10% of the deer…. It saves probably closer to 30% as so many more get passed. Data even supports that.
!!!! When Indiana has: twice the deer, way more habitat, 30% more hunters than iowa. PLUS: crossbows & rifles….. yet…. They shoot about the same amount of bucks as iowa…. THAT right there essentially proves what 1 buck does. !!!!
Let’s get the population up. Agree. If things improve & our trajectory down is reversed, fantastic. If our trajectory of the issues we face gets worse, all I’m saying, the logic & discussion cannot be taken off the table. I’m willing to concede: if population fixes all this, done! If we continue to decline as a state, get worse & don’t improve, we have a lot more discussions to have.
****side tangent…. Sure wish we did better job educating public on button bucks & shed bucks….
As of TODAY…. We shot 7,200 button Bucks & 1,200 shed bucks. By end of season…. Probably be close to 10,000. That # will never be 0 but come on people!!!! 10,000 additional bucks shot where our antlered harvest is 45,000….. that’s close to 25% of our antlered harvest - dudes shooting button bucks & shed bucks…. That’s crazy. Occasionally for a kid or new hunter…. Fine. But indiscriminate killing by the masses…. We can do better.
