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

Harvest numbers

B

bowmaker

Member
I was just on the IDNR site to get the NR tag numbers for 2007 for the other post and decided to check the harvest by county numbers. It looks like we are in for another sizable decline again this year. The total reported harvest stands at 118,572 as of today. In looking back at the trends in wildlife it shows that last year the January antler-less season added about 9,000. So if we allow a few more for the late ML and bow season and about the same for the Jan season that will give us a final harvest of around 130,000 or a little over. In 2005 we killed 211,000 and 3 years latter we killed around 130,000. In 2005 there were 391,864 licenses issued to kill those 211,451 deer and in 2007 we issued 389,163 to kill 146,214. I can't find the number of licenses for 2008 yet, I assume, because they are still for sale, but I will guess that it will still be close to 400,000 because of all the additional doe tags made available. Many people blamed the low harvest last year on the weather and said that we still have too many deer Iowa. While this year also suffered some weather, it has been not far from many other normal hunting seasons. The only logical reason for the lower numbers to me is that lack of deer. Our harvest numbers have fallen by 40% in just 3 years even though there were nearly the same number of hunters. How far are we willing to go?

In 2007 there were about 87,300 actual does killed out of the total of 146,214. If we estimate that most of those does would have birthed twins, we can figure 2.5 times the number of does killed. That accounts for the original doe and 1.5 fawns for each. That means that our deer population was with out 218,215 deer for this year, at least partly accounting for the drop in harvest. My real question is what does this mean for the 2009 and 2010 seasons. I firmly believe that our deer population is half or less of what it was in 2005 and if that is truly the case we can expect a harvest of close to 100,00 for the 2009 season. I feel that combining the lack of deer numbers, the increasing lack of access, and now the proposed license fee hike( which I do happen to agree with) will drive many people away from deer hunting which will lead to even more price increases. One possible good result is that many NR also won't be willing to pay $500 or $600 for a license with a less than 20 percent chance to fill it, and land prices will fall back to more practical levels soon.
 
I have spoken to a couple of CO's and they agree that the biologists are way off on the total deer herd. They also stated that they are being pressured by the Farm Bureau and the insurance companies to kill as many deer as possible.

I have hunted both North and South here in Iowa. Frm what I have witnessed is the the deer numbers are 4 to 1 South of I-80. While there are some pockets of deer in area's North of I-80, ther general concensus is that the deer heard is very low to the North. The reason for the greater numbers to the South is the limited access and the lack of deer management. This is where the State needs to step in and require these people that own land and only trophy hunt to start harvesting does.

The other reason that I feel that the numbers are down is the reproting system. WHile I report every deer that I harvest, there are many that don't. That raises the question, how accurate were the harvest reports prior to the reprting system.
 
The numbers you are seeing are the result of an actual count now. Deer never had to be reported 3 years ago and the harvest numbers were estimated by the DNR.

Now we are seeing numbers of harvest declining by a big percentage. I think the main reason for the discrepency is that the DNR may have over estimated what the actual harvest numbers were prior to the new "Harvest Reporting System".

Please keep in mind that this is my personal opinion.

The Harvest Reporting System is the best regulation put in effect by the DNR in years. I like the system and it helps keep an accurate count of harvests in my opinion.
 
Bowmaker,
Maybe I missed it somewhere in one of your posts, so here are a couple of questions: What deer density would you like to see per square mile (could vary greatly due to habitat)? What buck to doe ratio? I'm just curious.
 
Nobody around here that I know of reports their deer. The first year everyone did but then from there on everyone just stopped doing so.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bukslayr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The numbers you are seeing are the result of an actual count now. Deer never had to be reported 3 years ago and the harvest numbers were estimated by the DNR.

Now we are seeing numbers of harvest declining by a big percentage. I think the main reason for the discrepency is that the DNR may have over estimated what the actual harvest numbers were prior to the new "Harvest Reporting System".

Please keep in mind that this is my personal opinion.

The Harvest Reporting System is the best regulation put in effect by the DNR in years. I like the system and it helps keep an accurate count of harvests in my opinion.

</div></div>

Good point
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Schrier bucks</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nobody around here that I know of reports their deer. The first year everyone did but then from there on everyone just stopped doing so. </div></div>

TIP might be an incentive for them to report in the future. /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
 
In NE Iowa, based on me hunting a very wide range of the area, i'd say there's 20 deer/square mile. the buck/doe ratio is very in check; theres just too many deer. A lot of fawns died last winter, so the next few years we'll see a few less, but overall, there's still a pile of deer. waaayyyyyy too many
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kbnelson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In NE Iowa, based on me hunting a very wide range of the area, i'd say there's 20 deer/square mile. the buck/doe ratio is very in check; theres just too many deer. A lot of fawns died last winter, so the next few years we'll see a few less, but overall, there's still a pile of deer. waaayyyyyy too many</div></div>

How many acres do you own in NE Iowa? How many people can hunt it? How many does do you shoot each year on your ground?

I agree some places still have a lot of deer but definitely not all of them. It's just not right for someone who hunts a big piece of property that holds alot of deer to say there's waaayyyy to many deer in NE Iowa because I don't see it.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jjohnson</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kbnelson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In NE Iowa, based on me hunting a very wide range of the area, i'd say there's 20 deer/square mile. the buck/doe ratio is very in check; theres just too many deer. A lot of fawns died last winter, so the next few years we'll see a few less, but overall, there's still a pile of deer. waaayyyyyy too many</div></div>

How many acres do you own in NE Iowa? How many people can hunt it? How many does do you shoot each year on your ground?

I agree some places still have a lot of deer but definitely not all of them. It's just not right for someone who hunts a big piece of property that holds alot of deer to say there's waaayyyy to many deer in NE Iowa because I don't see it. </div></div>

I second that one JJ.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: moosehunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jjohnson</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kbnelson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In NE Iowa, based on me hunting a very wide range of the area, i'd say there's 20 deer/square mile. the buck/doe ratio is very in check; theres just too many deer. A lot of fawns died last winter, so the next few years we'll see a few less, but overall, there's still a pile of deer. waaayyyyyy too many</div></div>

How many acres do you own in NE Iowa? How many people can hunt it? How many does do you shoot each year on your ground?

I agree some places still have a lot of deer but definitely not all of them. It's just not right for someone who hunts a big piece of property that holds alot of deer to say there's waaayyyy to many deer in NE Iowa because I don't see it. </div></div>

I second that one JJ. </div></div>

I will 3rd that one.

Our area has seen a very big decline in recent years and they are still offering 100 anterless tags for our county. I hope that goes away soon. I just dont see the numbers of deer on my hunting lands anymore.
However the nice thing is that I am seeing more bucks growing mature on my properties and I believe that is due to the neighbors and me working together to make sure no one pushes the properties and we let the younger deer walk and only shoot mature deer. Only problem with that is that I may be eating a tag this year because I havent had a shot at a good shooter this year.

Again
My Opinion.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Schrier bucks</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nobody around here that I know of reports their deer. The first year everyone did but then from there on everyone just stopped doing so. </div></div>


Bad decision...The next step will be check stations..the harvest reporting system is a valuble tool to the dnr only if the hunters choose to use it correctly. IMO its easier to pick up the phone and call as opposed to going to a check station. Think about it.
 
Agree, I can't think of any excuse NOT to report your deer. In the end it will just end up hurting the hunter with lower the number of deer reported.

Actually as I type this it really irks me just to think about that. It takes less than 2 minutes via the website, maybe a little longer on the phone.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Schrier bucks</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nobody around here that I know of reports their deer. The first year everyone did but then from there on everyone just stopped doing so. </div></div>

It boggles my mind as to WHY anyone would take the time and money to buy a license, tag their deer and then fail to report it. I think that a call to TIP would also be in order and maybe if a couple of people are fined the message will get around. Don't these people understand that if a deer is tagged but doesn't have a reporting number that is not a valid tag and they are subject to the same repercussions as hunting with out a license. There is no "excuse" and I can't really think of any valid reason not to report, because to do otherwise is to put oneself in the same league as other poachers.

JNR I don't really have any idea as to how many deer per square mile that I would like to see. That is partly because I don't have any real idea what that number is now or was in the past, because I have never found it on the IDNR site. As to the buck doe ratio, I am not a trophy or buck hunter by nature so it isn't of prime interest to me, but I have read different thing that suggests 1 buck to 2 or 3 does is about optimum. I am not a statistician but just looking at the harvest numbers leads me to believe that as we kill more and more does, we are seeing and harvesting fewer bucks. Many are still saying that they see tons of does and few bucks, so to me that means we are producing more doe fawns than bucks, so Iowa's future rep as a big buck state is likely to suffer greatly over the next few years.

I know that I keep beating this horse, but so far no one has been able to show me how I am wrong. I can't find any place that has WAYYYYYY to many deer, or any one who can tell me how we determine what or how many WAYYYY to many is. Habitat is certainly not a limiting factor in Iowa because that may have changed a little bit, maybe, over the last 3 years, but not enough to rationalize the huge drop in harvest numbers. Iowa can sustain a much larger herd and much higher harvest numbers that what we have see the last 2 years. I also don't believe that there are significant numbers hunters that fail to report kills to make any real differences in the harvest report, and if there are we should put the hammer to them for failing to report.
 
it kills me to see the DNR and farm bureau using these "declining" deer harvest numbers as actual fact, when the only "fact" is that numbers from years past are just an educated guess from the DNR. totals from the last year and this year could actually be 5-10% higher than ever.

since we are having an effect on total herd numbers, it stands to reason that harvest totals will decline along with them. all farm bureau, and uninformed, unknowing legislators can say is "kill more deer"
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kbnelson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In NE Iowa, based on me hunting a very wide range of the area, i'd say there's 20 deer/square mile. the buck/doe ratio is very in check; theres just too many deer. A lot of fawns died last winter, so the next few years we'll see a few less, but overall, there's still a pile of deer. waaayyyyyy too many </div></div>Never way to many my friend. Maybe to many people but not deer.
 
What did we all really expect? That years of shooting does wasn't going to lower the population? That's the whole purpose for all these tags.

I would suggest if you don't see good deer numbers, quit shooting does. The problem is, that is hard to do. Really hard to do. Who doesn't love shooting an old monarch doe? Who doesn't love going on a big doe hunt where there is no pressure to shoot a buck? Who doesn't love just plain shooting deer? Who loves sitting in the woods with a doe tag and a buck tag in their pocket just knowing whatever walks by, you can take? Who doesn't love taking out that lead doe that has picked you off and is now snorting? I love them all. It's hard to resist shooting them, so I can't complain about the lower numbers I guess.

If you want to see the deer numbers increase, support the tags increase and take away HUSH. The numbers will rebound fast IMO.
 
On all my bow ground I've only shot 2 does in 3 years. And I hunt over 1000 acres on 7 farms. A couple are 150-300 acres and the rest are just small little chunks that I call my rut honey holes. This year was incredible the lack of deer I seen on most of those farms. My problem is I don't own anything so when shotgun season rolls around they get pounded year after year from 1st shotgun til the end of January.

The "Way to Many Deer Theory" got pounded into peoples heads a few years ago and it stuck. Most hunters don't bowhunt so they don't see what's going on in the woods most of the year. So when shotgun seasons roll around they have at them. What people are seeing is when we have a bad winter the deer herd up big time. You'll see hundreds of deer in some fields. They think man there's to many deer. So they sit on the sileage bags and corn cribs and shoot deer after deer until season ends. Then spring comes and there's fewer deer to disperse back onto ground that hasn't seen a deer in months.

I think the tag increase will help but I fear, when less tags are purchased, this will only add more fuel to the fire and they will want to let more NR in to fill the void.

They need more accurate counts on total deer #'s and harvested deer. And when #'s are getting low they need to cut down on the doe tags. They also need to realize that most of the places with high deer #'s is on unhuntable land.

Look at Wisconsin, in the CWD zones they're still in rifle season. Shoot'em up boys bucks, does, whatever. I heard today their goal is to have 4 deer per square mile. That's insane. They have way more timber than we do. They can handle a heck of a lot more deer than that. With hunting being the tradition that it is over there and the lack of deer killed this year I can't see them standing for the massacre much longer. Most people I talk to from Wisconsin had trouble even seeing a deer this season. Many groups couldn't fill their doe tags so shooting a buck sure the heck wasn't gonna happen. And what did the DNR say about it. Ah well I think we drastically overestimated the deer population. DUH.

Sorry guys I'll get off my soapbox now. Carry on...
 
Having the state mandate what private landowners must do is simply a form of a socialist type govt. Some of you on here may appreciate that but I do not. These people sacrificed a great deal to purchase their land and they should have every right to manage it the way they see fit. If you want the state to help with the issue of higher deer densities on private ground, make tags more readily available, and when I say readily available I mean cheap. The depredation season the DNR offers in July-September is a joke and will contribute nothing to improving herd quality as I for one would not care to shoot deer in the blazing heat of summer( not only because of does with baby fawns that time of year but also worries about the processing side of the equation and doing something with the meat.) For a landowner to go out and harvest the numbers of deer that should be harvested on some of these tracts would cost a small fortune. For example if a landowner wanted to shoot 30 deer he would have to pay around $350 to do this. Alot of people will not pay this price and ultimately just go about and shoot the deer (bucks and does) with out tags leaving them lay in the field. I have not seen this happen but am sure that it happens in the more remote areas of the state.[. And please dont say how there are alway people willing to come in and shoot deer for the landowner as many private landowners have had a negative experience in more than one way with hunters coming in and doing damage to the property or saying they will harvest does only while their only intent is to hunt horns. If you worked hard for the money to buy your property you deserve the right to have an exclusive place to hunt. So dont blame the high numbers of deer on private grounds on the property owner, rather look at the DNR's licensing policy as a big hurdle in reducing these numbers. I am not going to pay big money out of my pocket to help the DNR manage "their deer herd"

quote=String Gun Shooter]I have spoken to a couple of CO's and they agree that the biologists are way off on the total deer herd. They also stated that they are being pressured by the Farm Bureau and the insurance companies to kill as many deer as possible.

I have hunted both North and South here in Iowa. Frm what I have witnessed is the the deer numbers are 4 to 1 South of I-80. While there are some pockets of deer in area's North of I-80, ther general concensus is that the deer heard is very low to the North. The reason for the greater numbers to the South is the limited access and the lack of deer management. This is where the State needs to step in and require these people that own land and only trophy hunt to start harvesting does.

The other reason that I feel that the numbers are down is the reproting system. WHile I report every deer that I harvest, there are many that don't. That raises the question, how accurate were the harvest reports prior to the reprting system.[/quote]
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Schrier bucks</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nobody around here that I know of reports their deer. The first year everyone did but then from there on everyone just stopped doing so. </div></div>

According to the CO I talked to this season, anyone that is caught not reporting a deer will get a min $183.00 fine. He told me that he had a run in with a guy that had killed 6 and did not report any of them. Told the DNR officers off and that it wasn't any of their bussiness. He got a nice big fine for that. He also told me that numbers are down, and that he had talked to numerous hunters that were against the reporting system because they felt that the DNR would just use the harvest reports to take away our antlerless quotas.... Fools. It just skews the data and makes for less deer peroid. I know I for one saw way fewer deer this year than the last few. I am currently looking for more ground to try and get on to increase my chances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom