Giant Deer of Iowa are rapidly becoming a past memory

[Thinkin Rut]

This has been hashed over a million times. I believe that a higher population is the cleanest option. I also believe the population is abnormally low because of EHD. A temporary doe reduction would probably do it. 2 or 3 years. Couple that with 1 buck and we'd be off to the races but not required. If EHD is sticky, it might take longer. They really should be able to enforce the cell cams and drones within the season as the law sits as electronics. They might need mentioned in the REGs specifically. We should turn up the heat on this just as we did with the non resident party hunting on doe tags. No change required...just needs enforced. Maybe we could get George Soros to buy us a few thousand protesters to get this done!

 

[Thinkin Rut]

This year I shot a 140" 10 point I had no history with except for trail cams pictures this year from the 400 acre cattle pasture.

It seems like everything around here gets shot the instant it hits 140".

Um, ya.

The other thing that hurts, but doesn't bother me. Kids hunting are killing some stud bucks before maturity. My 10 year old has killed a 150" deer with a gun. It was and is her biggest deer, but I'm pretty sure it was 4.5 when she killed it. This year her first bow kill was a 128" 2 year old that already had several abnormal points. She was trying to get it done on ANY deer with a bow. It just happened to be that one that came by at 6 yards and presented a shot. I would imagine that deer would have been a giant, but I wouldn't trade that hunt to kill a 200" deer, ever.

The other 9 bowhunters call you the bad neighbor...guarantee it!

At the time, my hunting partner and I had no idea how to age deer on the hoof. We were deciding purely on score. I'm sure we killed some 3 and 4 year old studs that were in the 150s and 160s. I know information on aging deer is a lot more prevalent now, but wonder how many people are actually basing their goals on that and following through vs antler size.

Not a science but talk is cheap. I'm not picking on you Dennis, you're just a victim of my third big cup of coffee!
Welcome to the site!

 

[Daver]

These 10 bowhunters have the ability to take 20-30 bucks throughout the seasons if they wish to. If they are land owners, they have a minimum of 10 bucks they can kill with a bow while waiting for one of the 6 mature bucks to walk by. If 4 of the 10 bowhunters kill the 6 mature bucks, that leaves a minimum of 6 bucks on the bubble that are at risk of being killed or 12 if they are land owners...then there are the gun seasons. In this scenario, 1 buck could save 10 to 20 bucks. Holy shit...help me with the math I'm afraid that a buck of a lifetime is alive and well in the state of Iowa.

How many DID the 10 hunters actually take? Your reply is purely hypothetical and not refective of reality.

My point is that that the "supply" of older bucks does not equal the "demand" now and further restricting the demand will not appreciably increase the supply.

Again...coming from someone who has been harvesting ZERO bucks, while the supply continues to erode is that the one buck limit will have minimal positive impact. The real problems are other things.

 

[Stoney]

Before the population exploded we had buck only tags. And then we had lottery doe tags. Then we had any sex tags. Then we had bonus doe tags and special seasons added. And here we are. We know how to get the population up if that is the best path. There are other simple steps that we could take like eliminating cross tagging.
We should move to a one buck tag state.

 

[seven twenty]

These 10 bowhunters have the ability to take 20-30 bucks throughout the seasons if they wish to. If they are land owners, they have a minimum of 10 bucks they can kill with a bow while waiting for one of the 6 mature bucks to walk by. If 4 of the 10 bowhunters kill the 6 mature bucks, that leaves a minimum of 6 bucks on the bubble that are at risk of being killed or 12 if they are land owners...then there are the gun seasons. In this scenario, 1 buck could save 10 to 20 bucks. Holy shit...help me with the math I'm afraid that a buck of a lifetime is alive and well in the state of Iowa.

Saving every buck in the state won’t help a thing if there aren’t any does. It’s not math, it’s science.

We have an active thread where one landowner got two beautiful bucks off his "small" acreage. Do the math and tell me again how 1 buck limit can't make a difference. I'm not calling that landowner out or judging him.They are beautiful bucks. Just illustrating how saying a 1 buck limit wouldn't help seems off to me. Regarding small acreage, I don't know if small to him is 30 acres or 300 acres. But anything under a certain acre size isn't feasible to take two Booners a year off it and not see a decrease in buck quality in the near future. The acreage size will vary some based on habitat.

Iowa made it to one of, if not the best deer hunting states in the country by not limiting antlered tags but limiting antlerless. We went from basically a “buck’ only state, to almost limitless antlerless tags in some areas. The downhill slide is a combination of over harvest and recent epidemics. The fact we made it as good as it was without a 1 buck limit should be enough evidence for everyone.
As for the small parcel debates, it’s already been shown that the harvest #’s weren’t as prevalent as it was made out to be. 213 people took 3 bucks last year. I agree, it’s abused in the sense that some shouldn’t qualify for the 3rd tag, but we need more enforcement, not regulation. The majority of the LOT are being used for meat, not antlers anyway.
I had a sit down with the local CO yesterday and they are at least trying to enforce what they can. They are looking into the small parcel stuff and checking for abuse. They are also reporting the same issues we are seeing, drastic population issues. We should be pushing for 1 officer per county, not 1 buck.

 

[seven twenty]

Before the population exploded we had buck only tags. And then we had lottery doe tags. Then we had any sex tags. Then we had bonus doe tags and special seasons added. And here we are. We know how to get the population up if that is the best path. There are other simple steps that we could take like eliminating cross tagging.

I agree with everything there except the “cross tagging”. It was a major part of the system that “worked” to make us great. It may not have been a contributor but it wasn’t hurting anything either.

 

[Dennis]

I am not an expert on Minnesota deer numbers at all, but I remember many, many moons ago now, (about 40 moons ago ) driving up through Minnesota to go fishing in Canada and seeing TONS and TONS of deer, everywhere, including in the great white north region. I don't have historical numbers to share, but there were apparently MANY more deer in MN than in IA...at that time anyway. I don't know if there are any old timers here that can add to that, but the thought that there are so few deer there now is startling...and quite possibly a harbinger for us.

Yes, I do know that they have a different set of problems there than we do here, notably the presence of very large predators, but whatever policies have been employed over the years there appears to have led to what, a 90% drop in population? Yikes!!

In my area in Iowa, it seems like sightings have dropped 80-90% in the last 5 years and over 90% since 2011 when I drove through the area where I now live to get to work.

 

[Thinkin Rut]

How many DID the 10 hunters actually take? Your reply is purely hypothetical and not refective of reality.

I think if all hunters were self regulated, you would be correct and we wouldn't be on the 39th page of a thread about the lack of trophy bucks in iowa. The majority of hunters are not self regulated. When the population was higher, we had a lot of wiggle room. We could kill a 3 year old AND a six year old and pound our chest that we filled both of our buck tags and we also got 3 does to boot that we hushed. Now we have to choose one or the other. Back off does or take one for meat. Landowners have an even greater impact and even more choices. Unfortunately, the majority of hunters don't have that self control...or not enough to balance the loss of population. Like I said, a higher population is my prefered choice with second being the one buck rule for EVERYBODY. I personally think we're premature on one buck. I'd let EHD play itself out. But if we cannot get the population higher, we'll need to have regulation. One buck.

The real problems are other things.

I'm afraid the other things are going to be hard to reverse and we need to look forward on what we can change and not let what we can't change suck up our time and efforts. Maybe after a full push on population and/or one buck. Cell cams and drones should be pushed to be enforced under electronic devices yesterday. All of the other nasty things that hasn't been pushed through or changed need to be monitored and rallied against.

 

[Thinkin Rut]

Saving every buck in the state won’t help a thing if there aren’t any does. It’s not math, it’s science.

Agreed...goes hand in hand. A push for population should be first and bucks will follow. Daver asked how one buck would help the cause and I did the math. In the event that the population stays down, either by lack of concern by law makers or a continuation of heavy EHD losses, the reality is you'll need to go to one buck...if for nothing else but for the buck to doe ratio. This is nothing but 39+ pages of Christmas wishes, I'll take what I can get!

 

[DMarley83]

How many DID the 10 hunters actually take? Your reply is purely hypothetical and not refective of reality.

My point is that that the "supply" of older bucks does not equal the "demand" now and further restricting the demand will not appreciably increase the supply.

Again...coming from someone who has been harvesting ZERO bucks, while the supply continues to erode is that the one buck limit will have minimal positive impact. The real problems are other things.

I've had farms all over the state and it sounds like to me without knowing anything about your situation other than what you've stated is that you more have a hunting pressure problem than anything else.

I'm not saying it's you, nor am I saying anything negative about any of your neighbors. However to have such hi\nNumbers , as you have in the past with very few mature deer , there is really only one answer.

I'm not sure how else you would describe heavy surplus of deer and no shooters....
( In your previous years)

I'm still not 4 1 however it would absolutely make a difference on the prevalence of mature deer. I think you would see it in you area in particularly.

 

[iowaqdm]

Agreed...goes hand in hand. A push for population should be first and bucks will follow. Daver asked how one buck would help the cause and I did the math. In the event that the population stays down, either by lack of concern by law makers or a continuation of heavy EHD losses, the reality is you'll need to go to one buck...if for nothing else but for the buck to doe ratio. This is nothing but 39+ pages of Christmas wishes, I'll take what I can get!

Going to one buck won’t help the buck to doe ratio. I did the math, adding back the second and third bucks will increase the current preseason deer population per square mile from 8.06 to 8.12. So you will increase the number of bucks by .06 bucks per square mile or 1 buck added to the landscape for every 16.56 square miles. That poor buck will be very tired and run down trying to cover that much landscape breeding does. Absolutely, zero measurable effect on the buck to doe ratio going to a one buck limit.

 

[Daver]

Before the population exploded we had buck only tags. And then we had lottery doe tags. Then we had any sex tags. Then we had bonus doe tags and special seasons added. And here we are. We know how to get the population up if that is the best path. There are other simple steps that we could take like eliminating cross tagging.
We should move to a one buck tag state.

How many years were we allowed multiple bucks? 25? Maybe longer? For roughly 2/3, or more, of those years we had very good, even great, hunting.

Moving to a 1 buck state will not, all by itself, solve the problem. It didn't cause it and it can't solve it.

 

[Daver]

I've had farms all over the state and it sounds like to me without knowing anything about your situation other than what you've stated is that you more have a hunting pressure problem than anything else.

I'm not saying it's you, nor am I saying anything negative about any of your neighbors. However to have such hi\nNumbers , as you have in the past with very few mature deer , there is really only one answer.

I'm not sure how else you would describe heavy surplus of deer and no shooters....
( In your previous years)

I'm still not 4 1 however it would absolutely make a difference on the prevalence of mature deer. I think you would see it in you area in particularly.

I appreciate the tone, thank you. To clarify...we had big overall numbers AND good older buck hunting for years, decades even.

Then EHD brought us to our knees in 2023, AND some have then maintained buck harvest numbers, even in the absence of 5+ year olds BUT no one that I know of has even shot 2, let alone 3, but they are greatly aided by things like cell cams and so forth. Others have not shot a buck in at least 3 years in the neighborhood.

Hi po 3 and 4 year olds are now being shot annually v. older bucks, because they are so scarce now and some guys can't not shoot a buck every year.

My contention is that even if there is a 1 buck limit that pretty much the same # of bucks are going to be shot in that type of scenario as they are now. I think others, certainly not all, are describing similar conditions, FWIW.

There are so few older bucks nowadays AND people are so effective in getting them AND several are not willing to hold off of younger bucks for a couple of years that something else needs to be done to let the population build back up.

 

[iowaqdm]

I've had farms all over the state and it sounds like to me without knowing anything about your situation other than what you've stated is that you more have a hunting pressure problem than anything else.

I'm not saying it's you, nor am I saying anything negative about any of your neighbors. However to have such hi\nNumbers , as you have in the past with very few mature deer , there is really only one answer.

I'm not sure how else you would describe heavy surplus of deer and no shooters....
( In your previous years)

I'm still not 4 1 however it would absolutely make a difference on the prevalence of mature deer. I think you would see it in you area in particularly.

I am glad to hear you’re not in favor of one buck. The only increase in mature deer will be cull bucks (if your goal is to harvest 130” five year old eight points then by all means push for a one buck limit). If we do go to a one buck limit, everyone else managing for top end bucks will see continued decline in their ability to produce top end bucks as more and more older poor genetic bucks do the majority of breeding on the landscape and the better genetic bucks continue to be pushed off your ground by…. five year old 130” 8 points and then high graded by neighbors. Daver is 100% correct and like 99% of landowners I know who manage for top end bucks. Most are very self regulating on what deer they are killing. Many years not killing any. They are not stacking up young bucks with good genetics. Those bucks are being killed on neighbors ground who just give permission, lease hunting rights out, or on ground operated by outfitters. Even with three buck tags available for guys managing, most years it is hard to keep up with the number of bucks that should be culled.

 

[Stoney]

How many years were we allowed multiple bucks? 25? Maybe longer? For roughly 2/3, or more, of those years we had very good, even great, hunting.

Moving to a 1 buck state will not, all by itself, solve the problem. It didn't cause it and it can't solve it.

I completely agree and recently I have experienced the same scenario as you with regard to mature bucks.

 

[DMarley83]

Not saying it would solve it. I think one would be naive to think it wouldn't help....

If I get one tag i bet I would punch it once every three years.

Waiting for that one amazing one with one tag.

The way it stands now i'm guessing I kill 1.5 to 2 bucks per year on average. Have taken 3 a few times but not very often....

Does that solve your problem?No , not necessarily. Does it hurt your problem and make it worse?Definitely , not.

Does it help most likely....

And like I said before , I am not for 1 buck , necessarily.

I appreciate the tone, thank you. To clarify...we had big overall numbers AND good older buck hunting for years, decades even.

Then EHD brought us to our knees in 2023, AND some have then maintained buck harvest numbers, even in the absence of 5+ year olds BUT no one that I know of has even shot 2, let alone 3, but they are greatly aided by things like cell cams and so forth. Others have not shot a buck in at least 3 years in the neighborhood.

Hi po 3 and 4 year olds are now being shot annually v. older bucks, because they are so scarce now and some guys can't not shoot a buck every year.

My contention is that even if there is a 1 buck limit that pretty much the same # of bucks are going to be shot in that type of scenario as they are now. I think others, certainly not all, are describing similar conditions, FWIW.

There are so few older bucks nowadays AND people are so effective in getting them AND several are not willing to hold off of younger bucks for a couple of years that something else needs to be done to let the population build back up.

We first got hit with a haymaker in2013 and it was as bad as you decribed and then again in 2017, hard again in 2019, and then again in 23. It's devastating but some how every year a few make it or move back in.

The only way to help avoid it at this point is having different areas to hunt. Not all your eggs in one basket if u will.

I remember reading a post where you said you were looking g at a piece nearby, although convenient leaves you exposed to an outbreak. Perhaps look for a piece a different direction from your house?

I do truly think a 1 buck scenario will have a much greater impact than you think because it really makes you stop and think before punching a tag. "Do I really want to be done for the year"

Im guessing if I have 1 tag availbe I probably tag out once every 3 years. Not because of no opportunity but because ya it's a 5,6 whatever but I've seen a giant, or I want to see what shows up late season, or im not ready to be done for the year and then time simply runs out...

Ill bet there is a lot more impact than you would realize.

I do agree with simply enforcing the data transmission law to solve drone/cell cam debate. That seems simple and doable.

Also adjust doe tags is simple also.

Those alone prob dont solve the prob either.

 

[Dennis]

Um, ya.

The other 9 bowhunters call you the bad neighbor...guarantee it!

Not a science but talk is cheap. I'm not picking on you Dennis, you're just a victim of my third big cup of coffee!
Welcome to the site!

The deer I shot was at least 5 years old. I found his shed from last year after killing him. It was almost exactly the same. He did not get any bigger/smaller. Pretty sure he was 6. A 3 year old is easy to tell and 4 is not really hard at all until late season. Generally, passing 4's will cause you to accidentally pass a 5 and not the other way around. I pass deer if I think they might be 4. So does my 14 year old, by her choice. My youngest doesn't care and shoots whatever she wants. I probably am the bad neighbor because my kids set their own goals, and they kill a lot of deer.

All 9 of the other bowhunters are not bad neighbors. There are a few, but definitely not all 9. It only takes 1 and there are a lot of Amish around killing everything as well as a couple gun groups.

Also, there are trespassers and road poachers.

The guys that shot the 170" 4 year old were losing access to the property. They have been around for longer than me, and there was incredible hunting here when I moved here. I would probably have killed the deer if I was going to lose access.

The fence sitting thing is hard to get away from with guys that have 40-80 acre properties. Most of the property is close to the fence or close to the road.

I would guess the problems are the new gun group that kills deer and doesn't find them and shows up with 20 tags to fill.

I was not so much complaining as trying to paint a picture of what it looks like for most of us. A lot of guys trying to hunt a few mature deer, most of those not even high scoring. Before there were so many deer psychopaths like me around, and before trail cams, it was easier to look for a big deer and then get permission to hunt. It took a lot more effort to find them though. I was not very good at killing deer back then, but I could get permission on more ground than I could hunt in a year, easily. Also, there were a lot more big deer that the average guy could get access to. Probably because there were just so many deer in general.

Everyone is fighting something a little different. Habitat, pressure, high grading, ehd, it's just a lot different than the glory days 15-25 years ago. A lot has changed. Heck, there is just better, easier to consume, how-to info available. When you start discussing GIANT deer, they are still around, but people are a lot better at killing them. Once they are gone, people tend to target the biggest thing that is left. I get it. We are to the point where there isn't much left.

Part of the problem is people have different goals. If everyone wanted to kill giants, we would all be passing deer until they were 7. Then, in my neighborhood, we would be hunting 6 or 7 - 7 year old bucks instead of the same number of 4 and 5 year olds. I would enjoy it, but a lot of people, especially my kids, just want to shoot a deer. I don't think we should be asking kids to pass deer based on age without it being their choice.

In the old days, a lot of deer were not on the radar. They only had to get through 2 gun deer drives per year. That is not the case in today's world. There are far less bucks on the landscape and far less survive due to tech and more effective tactics.

By the way, one 12 oz energy drink, and you're off to the races with the caffeine. I know it's not as manly, but it tastes a lot better than the burnt water;-)

 

[iowaqdm]

Not saying it would solve it. I think one would be naive to think it wouldn't help....

If I get one tag i bet I would punch it once every three years.

Waiting for that one amazing one with one tag.

The way it stands now i'm guessing I kill 1.5 to 2 bucks per year on average. Have taken 3 a few times but not very often....

Does that solve your problem?No , not necessarily. Does it hurt your problem and make it worse?Definitely , not.

Does it help most likely....

And like I said before , I am not for 1 buck , necessarily.

We first got hit with a haymaker in2013 and it was as bad as you decribed and then again in 2017, hard again in 2019, and then again in 23. It's devastating but some how every year a few make it or move back in.

The only way to help avoid it at this point is having different areas to hunt. Not all your eggs in one basket if u will.

I remember reading a post where you said you were looking g at a piece nearby, although convenient leaves you exposed to an outbreak. Perhaps look for a piece a different direction from your house?

I do truly think a 1 buck scenario will have a much greater impact than you think because it really makes you stop and think before punching a tag. "Do I really want to be done for the year"

Im guessing if I have 1 tag availbe I probably tag out once every 3 years. Not because of no opportunity but because ya it's a 5,6 whatever but I've seen a giant, or I want to see what shows up late season, or im not ready to be done for the year and then time simply runs out...

Ill bet there is a lot more impact than you would realize.

I do agree with simply enforcing the data transmission law to solve drone/cell cam debate. That seems simple and doable.

Also adjust doe tags is simple also.

Those alone prob dont solve the prob either.

This is the exact reason / attitude that causes high grading of the herd like they had in the Amana Colonies. The exact reason a one buck limit is a terrible idea for Iowa and for guys trying to manage for top end bucks. You should always be culling mature bucks with inferior genetics from your farm. If you’re not, you’re part of the problem. I don’t care if you’re holding out for 180” bucks and you only kill one every ten years. You’re hurting the herd way more than you’re helping it. You may think you’re managing, but you’re not. All you’re doing is high grading and promoting 130” genetics by passing those bucks year after year. That is where the guys promoting one buck limit are dead wrong. This post just proves the point I have been saying for 39 pages. Nobody will not waste their only buck tag on a cull buck. NOBODY!!!!

 

[Dennis]

Not saying it would solve it. I think one would be naive to think it wouldn't help....

If I get one tag i bet I would punch it once every three years.

Waiting for that one amazing one with one tag.

The way it stands now i'm guessing I kill 1.5 to 2 bucks per year on average. Have taken 3 a few times but not very often....

Does that solve your problem?No , not necessarily. Does it hurt your problem and make it worse?Definitely , not.

Does it help most likely....

And like I said before , I am not for 1 buck , necessarily.

We first got hit with a haymaker in2013 and it was as bad as you decribed and then again in 2017, hard again in 2019, and then again in 23. It's devastating but some how every year a few make it or move back in.

The only way to help avoid it at this point is having different areas to hunt. Not all your eggs in one basket if u will.

I remember reading a post where you said you were looking g at a piece nearby, although convenient leaves you exposed to an outbreak. Perhaps look for a piece a different direction from your house?

I do truly think a 1 buck scenario will have a much greater impact than you think because it really makes you stop and think before punching a tag. "Do I really want to be done for the year"

Im guessing if I have 1 tag availbe I probably tag out once every 3 years. Not because of no opportunity but because ya it's a 5,6 whatever but I've seen a giant, or I want to see what shows up late season, or im not ready to be done for the year and then time simply runs out...

Ill bet there is a lot more impact than you would realize.

I do agree with simply enforcing the data transmission law to solve drone/cell cam debate. That seems simple and doable.

Also adjust doe tags is simple also.

Those alone prob dont solve the prob either.

1 buck and I would probably not shoot a buck often just to be out there. It would have to be a giant around or after Thanksgiving to get me to punch a tag. That said, that's not getting rid of cull bucks either.

 

[IowaBowHunter1983]

This is the exact reason / attitude that causes high grading of the herd like they had in the Amana Colonies. The exact reason a one buck limit is a terrible idea for Iowa and for guys trying to manage for top end bucks. You should always be culling mature bucks with inferior genetics from your farm. If you’re not, you’re part of the problem. I don’t care if you’re holding out for 180” bucks and you only kill one every ten years. You’re hurting the herd way more than you’re helping it. You may think you’re managing, but you’re not. All you’re doing is high grading and promoting 130” genetics by passing those bucks year after year. That is where the guys promoting one buck limit are dead wrong. This post just proves the point I have been saying for 39 pages. Guys will not waste their only buck tag on a cull buck. NOBODY!!!!

So take some kids to kill them. Or adults who just want meat. Such an easy solution.

Getting people to kill cull bucks is NEVER a problem if you try. Its actually never been easier to find people. People losing access, cost of protein, etc.