Iowa DNR Biologist Conversation

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?

When you don't gun hunt during the peak ruts, a by-product is the big bucks aren't killed as easily, contributing to a better age structure. IMO.
 
Iowa has zero gun hunting seasons during November ! This is huge, it makes a big difference. They offer plenty of seasons overall to kill deer, but not during the rut !

Genetics does help, it’s not uncommon to see a 150 inch 3 yr old .
 
When you don't gun hunt during the peak ruts, a by-product is the big bucks aren't killed as easily, contributing to a better age structure. IMO.
And Iowa doesn’t seem to be willing to open up crossbows in archery season to further contribute to better age structure. Good on ‘em for that.
 
People are trying. But good folks like skip sligh are leading the charge to preserve archery and quality hunting.
The organization leading a similar charge in NY held the line for decades. Unfortunately, the lobbyists won this year … to cheers from a number of hunters (“the weapon other hunters choose has no impact on how you hunt”) who don’t realize that the slope just got even more slippery.
 
The organization leading a similar charge in NY held the line for decades. Unfortunately, the lobbyists won this year … to cheers from a number of hunters (“the weapon other hunters choose has no impact on how you hunt”) who don’t realize that the slope just got even more slippery.
That’s sad and such a bs line. If the weapon doesn’t matter just make it any weapons from opening day to closing day. And until deer can recognize property lines, what my number hunts absolutely effects me
 
That’s sad and such a bs line. If the weapon doesn’t matter just make it any weapons from opening day to closing day. And until deer can recognize property lines, what my number hunts absolutely effects me
Yes, I guess the weapon does matter. If the goal was to kill 100,000 deer in Iowa, and the only weapon allowed was a crossbow - they would most likely not reach their goal. But theoretically, if the goal is 100,000 dead deer, and 100,000 deer were killed in the allotted time frame - what does it matter what they were killed with - from a biological standpoint?
 
Iowa has zero gun hunting seasons during November ! This is huge, it makes a big difference. They offer plenty of seasons overall to kill deer, but not during the rut !

Genetics does help, it’s not uncommon to see a 150 inch 3 yr old .
I agree. If they opened gun season during rut - they would probably have to cut their gun season in half - because of more buck movement during rut - especially more mature buck movement. A biologist I talked to down here estimated if our season was moved out of the rut, we would kill half as many bucks. If that happened, we probably would not reach harvest goal - but we would have a lot more bucks in the herd👍
 
Iowa has zero gun hunting seasons during November ! This is huge, it makes a big difference. They offer plenty of seasons overall to kill deer, but not during the rut !

Genetics does help, it’s not uncommon to see a 150 inch 3 yr old .
That last sentence is exactly what I am getting at. If it was not uncommon for a 3 yr old to score 150, we would have numbers of 150’s - and bigger - to choose from. Our season structure, outside the cwd zone, what with five or six week rifle seasons, rifle season during the rut, baiting, 5 month crossbows, dog running, 2 buck - limit still allows for numbers of mature deer. Our problem is not mature deer. It is antlers.

Of all things that Iowa’s season structure is supposed to be - I would not care about any of it if we had the same nutrition and genetics😎
 
Our season structure, outside the cwd zone, what with five or six week rifle seasons, rifle season during the rut, baiting, 5 month crossbows, dog running, 2 buck - limit still allows for numbers of mature deer. Our problem is not mature deer. It is antlers.
That type of pressure must cause quite a bit of stress on the herd, no? I gotta imagine that has an impact, too. We have a similar situation in NY now, minus the (legal) dog running. The pressure is unreal.

Nutrition is certainly a driving factor and you won't have 200"+ bucks where 200"+ genetics aren't present; but expression of those genetics starts with good nutrition.
 
Yeah I’m not buying the genetic “excuse”. Iowa has nutrition plus age. It’s not rocket science. Any Midwest state could be Iowa with the same season structure and nonresident restrictions. It’s not like they are blessed with some random strain of alpha genes within the state borders. Like you said, they are allowed to express what they have.
 
Yeah I’m not buying the genetic “excuse”. Iowa has nutrition plus age. It’s not rocket science. Any Midwest state could be Iowa with the same season structure and nonresident restrictions. It’s not like they are blessed with some random strain of alpha genes within the state borders. Like you said, they are allowed to express what they have.
Yes. Research has shown that what were thought to be genetically inferior deer could equal or even surpass what were thought to be genetically superior deer given a couple of generations of living on an optimum diet.
 
That type of pressure must cause quite a bit of stress on the herd, no? I gotta imagine that has an impact, too. We have a similar situation in NY now, minus the (legal) dog running. The pressure is unreal.

Nutrition is certainly a driving factor and you won't have 200"+ bucks where 200"+ genetics aren't present; but expression of those genetics starts with good nutrition.

That type of pressure must cause quite a bit of stress on the herd, no? I gotta imagine that has an impact, too. We have a similar situation in NY now, minus the (legal) dog running. The pressure is unreal.

Nutrition is certainly a driving factor and you won't have 200"+ bucks where 200"+ genetics aren't present; but expression of those genetics starts with good nutrition.
New York has almost twice as many deer hunters as Arkansas

In our state - the mississipi alluvial delta - the bean, corn, and rice area - produces far and away the biggest bucks. It is not even close. No, not as good as Iowa or illinois - but it is so plainly obvious a blind man could see it. 150 miles away, our deer are living on a few acorns, saw briars, fescue, and ragweed - and it takes an exceptional buck to break 150 and 200 lbs. Not in the Delta where they live on corn and beans and walk on fertile soil. It is literally like the deer over there are a different species. Same regs as elsewhere in the state - but no dogs and straight wall only.
 
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?

MO has more habitat and deer that is the same quality as IA.

With the same regulations, it would tower over IA with the volume of deer and habitat in the state.

I've witnessed numerous high end 2-3 year old bucks get popped with a rifle in MO over the years. I'm 2 miles from the IA border, and the only difference is more of those same 2-3 year olds survive across the border.
 
Take this buck for instance:

Fair degree of certainty it’s him from 2-3, same exact location and angle. What’s his chances of surviving multiple MO rifle seasons with unlimited OTC tags for non-residents in MO? He’d be included in a long list of big 3 year olds that didn’t make it to 4 in my area.

0cac094143641837ae082eea8125cac4.jpeg

a2ec6a7c090305a51c8468194ebfc597.jpeg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
"Nonresident deer hunters account for approximately 6% of all deer hunting permits purchased in
Missouri. Revenue generated from nonresident hunters accounts for 53% of revenue associated
with deer permits."



"While the percentage of nonresident hunters remains low, there is substantial geographic
variability in harvest distribution attributed to nonresident hunters. Northern Missouri, and some
areas of southern Missouri, experience a higher proportion of the harvest attributed to
nonresident hunters compared to other areas of the state"

1758028970679.png
 
Last edited:
MO has more habitat and deer that is the same quality as IA.

With the same regulations, it would tower over IA with the volume of deer and habitat in the state.

I've witnessed numerous high end 2-3 year old bucks get popped with a rifle in MO over the years. I'm 2 miles from the IA border, and the only difference is more of those same 2-3 year olds survive across the border.
I’ve hunted in Missouri for just 5 years so I’m no expert… but I see the difference. Missouri has the most upside of any state I’ve hunted. The genetics are excellent, the food, cover, lack of harsh winters! They just need to move the gun season back 14-21 days !
 
"Nonresident deer hunters account for approximately 6% of all deer hunting permits purchased in
Missouri. Revenue generated from nonresident hunters accounts for 53% of revenue associated
with deer permits."



"While the percentage of nonresident hunters remains low, there is substantial geographic
variability in harvest distribution attributed to nonresident hunters. Northern Missouri, and some
areas of southern Missouri, experience a higher proportion of the harvest attributed to
nonresident hunters compared to other areas of the state"

View attachment 82867


Every farm around me is leased or owned by someone not living in MO....including my farm now that I live in KS.

That 6% just isn't spread out evenly across the state, because let's face it, most people aren't driving hours there to simply put meat in the freezer.
 
Back
Top