Iowa DNR Biologist Conversation

[cbw]

Great interview with Jace Elliott. Super impressed with his grasp of the issues that hunters care about.

They cover a ton:
- EHD - and how they responded after getting hit hard last year.
- the positive effect on the resource of keeping crossbows/crossguns out of archery
- harvest limits — 1 vs 3 buck states
- gun hunting the rut
- doe harvest
- differences in other states.
- decreasing habitat
- nonresident access

Two statistics:
1. while Iowa has a very low overall hunter to total land ratio, it has the highest ratio of hunters to deer habitat land in the country.
2. Only 5% of Iowa hunters want crossbows in archery season in Iowa.

 

[swat1018]

Yea, they've got it right. Wish MO would follow.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

Yeah I wish every state would poll their hunters on things like crossbows and see how many actually want them vs how much the lobby pays them.

 

[SwampCat]

Here is the thing I dont really understand. Annual harvest is 100,000 to 120,000 out of a population of 400,000 to 450,000. Iowa hunters are harvesting 20/25% of the deer population annually. Exactly the same percentage as AR. Same as most states. Most state’s DNR’s harvest goals are 20/25%. Iowa is not leaving more deer in the woods, percentage wise, than any other state.

If the goal is a 25% harvest, like Iowa - is it worse, biologically speaking, if firearms hunters take 60% of the harvest, compound hunters take 20% of the harvest, and crossbow hunters take 20% - or is it worse if firearms hunters take 70% of the harvest and compound hunters take 30% of the harvest and no crossbow hunting - but the harvest is still 25% of the deer population - either way - same number of dead deer?

my opinion is - and it basically means nothing - I have never deer hunted Iowa - their regulations are not set with the intention of growing big bucks - they are set with the intention of killing approx 20-25% of the overall deer population at approximately a 1:1 harvest ratio of bucks to does. The fact they only allow the use of shotguns or muzzle loaders, shorter modern gun seasons, no baiting, no dog hunting, no firearm rut hunting - is to keep the harvest in the 20-25% of the total population range. They have a minimal amount of deer cover and must have restrictive harvest regulations to prevent overharvest.

Western half of Iowa


The reason AR allows three to six week rifle seasons, during rut, two buck limits, baiting, 5 months crossbow, straight walled cart during primitive weapons season, and dog running - is to keep the harvest in the 20-25% of the total population range. The reason AR can be less restrictive, and harvest the same percentage of overall population, is cover is everywhere outside the delta.

Western half of Arkansas



The average 5.5 yr old buck in my area scores 115” according to g&f biological data. 4.5 yr old bucks average 112.5”. On my 400 acres, I have what I believe to be 7 mature 4.5-6.5 yr old bucks. There is not one that will break 150”. One will barely break 100”. Average probably about 125”. If my property was in Iowa, with seven mature bucks from 4.5 to 6.5 year old - what would I expect to have in antler quality?

 

[Hoytvectrix]

Yeah I wish every state would poll their hunters on things like crossbows and see how many actually want them vs how much the lobby pays them.

Missouri asks hunters most years about season timings. Survey respondents overwhelmingly favor an early firearm season during the rut (although it is changing). People who visit habitat or hunting forums are a small portion of the total number of people who are deer hunters. Right now the average hunter is probably less informed about what other states are doing. As a conservation service do you just change the dates against the preference of most and risk lower participation in the hunting seasons and by extension get less revenue for your own program? Minnesota has the same issue. Pennsylvania did a similar effort a few years ago when doing APRs. People came around and I think most would agree the hunting has been better since before they started the initiative (despite some of the known issues with antler point restrictions). People are naturally incredibly resistant to change.

I wonder if Iowa wasn't somewhat lucky and now likes to act like they proactively made the positive changes that make the state so great for whitetail hunting. They have done a pretty good job about resisting more recent negative changes to their hunting regulations. And certainly they are a great model to follow.

I think state conservation agencies should get out in front and promote what other states have done to have positive impacts on hunting quality. They could use states like Indiana as an example.

 

[hillrunner]

I wonder if Iowa wasn't somewhat lucky and now likes to act like they proactively made the positive changes that make the state so great for whitetail hunting. They have done a pretty good job about resisting more recent negative changes to their hunting regulations. And certainly they are a great model to follow.

Iowa's late gun season was set in order to allow farmers who would be in the field in November a chance to participate. I don't think I've ever heard the claim that it was to protect quality hunting. It's a lucky situation. Thankfully, there were people in this state who realized what we had and why we had it long before most of us had a clue. When I was a kid, people would leave Iowa to go on deer hunting trips to Minnesota or South Dakota and hunt with a rifle. The IBA was set up before Iowa had a spotlight on it and is probably the sole reason we have been able to hold our ground. If Iowa took on the regulations of its neighbors, we would be garbage in no time. We do not have enough acres of cover to sustain quality with that level of lethal ability. They snuck in straight wall rifles during shotgun season a few years ago, this has had a negative effect. Every single thing that makes hunters more effective or makes hunting easier has an effect. Cell cams, On x, high quality blinds, better equipment in general are all chipping away at it. We have a fragile situation in Iowa and there's plenty of companies out there who would like to exploit it for their benefit and to our detriment.

The real interesting thought experiment is to wonder how amazing states like Missouri, Minnesota, or Illinois would be if their regulation more closely resembled Iowa. Those states all have huge advantages over Iowa in the percentage of good deer habitat. I would love to see those states take the spotlight off Iowa. I see no advantage to our herd or our residents to have the eyes of the deer hunting world on us so intently.

 

[Turkey Creek]

Here is the thing I dont really understand. Annual harvest is 100,000 to 120,000 out of a population of 400,000 to 450,000. Iowa hunters are harvesting 20/25% of the deer population annually. Exactly the same percentage as AR. Same as most states. Most state’s DNR’s harvest goals are 20/25%. Iowa is not leaving more deer in the woods, percentage wise, than any other state.

If the goal is a 25% harvest, like Iowa - is it worse, biologically speaking, if firearms hunters take 60% of the harvest, compound hunters take 20% of the harvest, and crossbow hunters take 20% - or is it worse if firearms hunters take 70% of the harvest and compound hunters take 30% of the harvest and no crossbow hunting - but the harvest is still 25% of the deer population - either way - same number of dead deer?

my opinion is - and it basically means nothing - I have never deer hunted Iowa - their regulations are not set with the intention of growing big bucks - they are set with the intention of killing approx 20-25% of the overall deer population at approximately a 1:1 harvest ratio of bucks to does. The fact they only allow the use of shotguns or muzzle loaders, shorter modern gun seasons, no baiting, no dog hunting, no firearm rut hunting - is to keep the harvest in the 20-25% of the total population range. They have a minimal amount of deer cover and must have restrictive harvest regulations to prevent overharvest.

Western half of Iowa
View attachment 82827

The reason AR allows three to six week rifle seasons, during rut, two buck limits, baiting, 5 months crossbow, straight walled cart during primitive weapons season, and dog running - is to keep the harvest in the 20-25% of the total population range. The reason AR can be less restrictive, and harvest the same percentage of overall population, is cover is everywhere outside the delta.

Western half of Arkansas

View attachment 82828

The average 5.5 yr old buck in my area scores 115” according to g&f biological data. 4.5 yr old bucks average 112.5”. On my 400 acres, I have what I believe to be 7 mature 4.5-6.5 yr old bucks. There is not one that will break 150”. One will barely break 100”. Average probably about 125”. If my property was in Iowa, with seven mature bucks from 4.5 to 6.5 year old - what would I expect to have in antler quality?

Without the data in front of me I would guess the average antler size for an Iowa buck in the 4.5-6.5 age range would be 150" or better. What you gain in cover in Arkansas you lose in nutritional advantage. Cover gives the chance for a buck to survive to be 4.5-6.5 years old, but without quality nutrition it is never going to reach 150".

Hunting the rut in states with limited escape cover increases the number of deer that get killed in a short period of time with rifles. Season length and timing is very dependent on the overall deer population level you wish to maintain and the quality of the bucks (antler size) you would like to achieve. So in terms of which weapon a deer is killed by makes no real difference, when the weapon seasons fall in relation to the rut has far more impact on the herd numbers.

 

[SwampCat]

Without the data in front of me I would guess the average antler size for an Iowa buck in the 4.5-6.5 age range would be 150" or better. What you gain in cover in Arkansas you lose in nutritional advantage. Cover gives the chance for a buck to survive to be 4.5-6.5 years old, but without quality nutrition it is never going to reach 150".

Hunting the rut in states with limited escape cover increases the number of deer that get killed in a short period of time with rifles. Season length and timing is very dependent on the overall deer population level you wish to maintain and the quality of the bucks (antler size) you would like to achieve. So in terms of which weapon a deer is killed by makes no real difference, when the weapon seasons fall in relation to the rut has far more impact on the herd numbers.

I agree 100%. That is why I believe it isnt so much the regulations of Iowa that are intended to grow big bucks - the regulations in Iowa are intended to keep the hunters from wiping the herd off the face of the earth. I read all the time where “I wish our state had the same regs as Iowa”. If AR had the same deer hunting regs as Iowa, we couldnt walk to the mailbox without getting run over by a herd of deer.

Iowa’ regulation are intended to allow hunters to harvest deer in a manner to not over harvest or under harvest. So are the regulations in AR. The difference in the buck’ antlers is due to primarily to the nutritional differences - not the great regulations of Iowa.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

Wouldn’t limits be the thing that impacts numbers? If limits are limits than why worry about the means of take?
In my opinion they are regulating the means because they know it would have a devastating effect on its age structure. So I believe Iowa dnr is doing some things to protect their age class of bucks. Another massive one is how they regulate nonresidents. Nonresident lessees and day hunters can be a wart on the ass of buck population.

 

[escpen]

Yeah I wish every state would poll their hunters on things like crossbows and see how many actually want them vs how much the lobby pays them.

To the HUNTR guys' point, many hunters think they want crossbows ... they don't have a full grasp of the long-term consequences, though. Limited access to hunting ground is the major long-term consequence resulting in hunting becoming more and more a rich man's sport. Too many people live for the current moment and don't think about the future. And yes, I'm a bit sour about my home state (NY) recently passing full inclusion of crossbows in the archery season.

 

[hillrunner]

Iowa’ regulation are intended to allow hunters to harvest deer in a manner to not over harvest or under harvest. So are the regulations in AR. The difference in the buck’ antlers is due to primarily to the nutritional differences - not the great regulations of Iowa.

Ar isn't really relevant to this discussion. It's apples and Oranges. Missouri certainly is though. If Iowa's regulations aren't the difference maker, why the drastic change in deer quality when crossing the border to Missouri?

 

[SwampCat]

Wouldn’t limits be the thing that impacts numbers? If limits are limits than why worry about the means of take?
In my opinion they are regulating the means because they know it would have a devastating effect on its age structure. So I believe Iowa dnr is doing some things to protect their age class of bucks. Another massive one is how they regulate nonresidents. Nonresident lessees and day hunters can be a wart on the ass of buck population.

They are regulating the means to achieve harvest goals. There are many ways to do it. If their goal is 100,000 to 120,000 dead deer - they can get there many ways. They could could ban bow hunters, who kill around 20,000 deer annually, and increase firearms season by a week or two and probably make up the difference. They could legalize crossbow hunting during the archery season - which might add another 20,000 dead deer (a wild guess) - and cut out one of the muzzle loader seasons and still stay at the harvest goals. Lots of ways they can arrive at their harvest goals.

I am NOT advocating for a crossbow season there - but if they allowed crossbows during regular archery season, about 3 months in Iowa - they might have to cut firearms season by five days to make up the difference in harvest. Three more months of hunting with a crossbow is a lot of hunt days afield opportunity at the expense of giving up five days of hunting opportunity with a firearm. Again, these are made up numbers - for the point of showing that by allowing crossbow hunting at the expense of firearms hunting - allows hunters a lot more time afield if they choose to use it.

In AR, the firearms hunters harvest in the first weekend of season roughly the same number of deer the archery hunters - compound and crossbow - harvest in five months of season. Bac

 

[BenA]

If Iowa's regulations aren't the difference maker, why the drastic change in deer quality when crossing the border to Missouri?

I do agree with this. Weapons regulations make a huge difference on what is being killed. November firearm in MO is making the most difference there.

 

[SwampCat]

Ar isn't really relevant to this discussion. It's apples and Oranges. Missouri certainly is though. If Iowa's regulations aren't the difference maker, why the drastic change in deer quality when crossing the border to Missouri?

That I cant say. Maybe be something to it. I know guys who go to north MO from my home state and kill some huge bucks. My wife’s 10 yr old niece from Louisiana went last year to north MO and killed her first buck - scored mid 160’s. I have never seen a mid 160 deer in AR in 45 years. I have hunted north MO - I owned land there until 15 years ago - and to me - the deer were much larger.

But, I dont live there and hunt there anymore. I believe you since you are familiar with that area. Missouri hunters harvest about 20% of the deer population - similar to IA and AR. I would say if there is any reason due to regulations, it is potentially because MO has a rifle season during the rut - potentially harvesting a greater percentage of older class bucks

I probably did not make myself clear when discussing IA regulations. I am saying their regulations are formulated more to achieve their harvest goal of 25% than to produce trophy bucks. If IA had a firearms season during the middle of rut, like MO and AR do, they likely would exceed their harvest goal of 25%. If AR had a Dec firearms season only, we would have many more older deer in the population - but we would likely not reach the harvest goals.

I have six or seven mature bucks on my 400 acres. If they were averaging 150” or larger, there wouldnt be land for sale in my area and lease prices wouldnt be $10 per acre.

 

[escpen]

I probably did not make myself clear when discussing IA regulations. I am saying their regulations are formulated more to achieve their harvest goal of 25% than to produce trophy bucks. If IA had a firearms season during the middle of rut, like MO and AR do, they likely would exceed their harvest goal of 25%. If AR had a Dec firearms season only, we would have many more older deer in the population - but we would likely not reach the harvest goals.

I don't think it's just a numbers game - I think they also consider buck susceptibility to harvest. The podcast did a good job of explaining the sense of "urgency" that is induced by the season structure which seems to help keep population / doe numbers in check while also allowing bucks to make it to an older age class. Yes, they need to meet their harvest goals but they seem to do so in a manner that allows young bucks to live.