Iowa DNR Biologist Conversation

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.
Yeah, those maps definitely show where the non-residents are concentrating on. They're going north and probably because of the reputation of north MO bucks. I know I was looking there when deciding where to buy between MO and KY.
 
Can a state manage for age structure while allowing crossbows, non-residents, guns, etc? Meaning, can you manage for age structure while managing population densities regardless of weapon or residency? I think you can, but you'd make some people unhappy.
 
I’d say no because you are depending on restraint. People have proven to have very little of that. So you have to legislate for a lack of a better term, failure in buck harvest. Even if half your neighbors are good, the other can ruin an age class with zero problem.

I’m talking about bucks that have are close to or reaching potential. 5 plus. If you are looking for 120” 3 years olds, sure you could achieve that im sure
 
Can a state manage for age structure while allowing crossbows, non-residents, guns, etc? Meaning, can you manage for age structure while managing population densities regardless of weapon or residency? I think you can, but you'd make some people unhappy.
I think you are right on age structure but it likely depends on timing of seasons, when specific weapons are allowed, how many non-resident tags are allotted, etc. Undoubtedly there will always be unhappy people.
 
Can a state manage for age structure while allowing crossbows, non-residents, guns, etc? Meaning, can you manage for age structure while managing population densities regardless of weapon or residency? I think you can, but you'd make some people unhappy.
Population is managed by doe harvest so stands to reason they could.

If they wanted fewer deer they would allot more doe tags and fewer buck tags to increase age structure.

My state of MO could start with only one buck tag for all seasons....there'd be some hard decisions made on the bucks shot before rifle season even started then.
 
Can a state manage for age structure while allowing crossbows, non-residents, guns, etc? Meaning, can you manage for age structure while managing population densities regardless of weapon or residency? I think you can, but you'd make some people unhappy.
I would say definitely. That is what our state does. Now, there are some caveats. I am speaking outside of the CWD zones. Our state has a 3 pt on one side APR - which has been a big difference in my area. The eastern and southern sections of the state probably more-so because of larger acreages under one management. Not uncommon to have 3000/4000 acres in one lease. Relatively speaking - a lot of mature bucks. Usually five or six on my 400 acres, which I consider to be quite a few 4.5 or older deer. Six weeks firearm, five months archery including crossbow, baiting is a way of life, dog running, firearm season right over rut, two buck state with rifle, crossbow, etc. I would say overall, a willingness to pass bucks.

We dont have a big non resident presence due to what is considered trophy quality. A few texas and LA hunters. To be fair - I would attribute the higher age structure as much to the hunters - as the APR. crossbow harvest fairly insignificant at 5% of total.

I think that is probably true in most states. I would imagine even in Iowa or Ohio - if the hunters and their families were killing the first legal buck that walks by, their hunting grounds are not going to be noted for quality deer. I think a state can offer a little assistance to improve age structure - but they cant take it all the way or make it work state wide. The hunters have to take it the rest of the way.

My son in law hunts louisiana - notorious for being brown its down. Seasons are long - maybe eight or ten weeks, multiple buck limits, baiting - nothing in the regs promotes age management. But a lot of the lease holders have instituted their own controls. Their buck quality is improving
 
I would say definitely. That is what our state does. Now, there are some caveats. I am speaking outside of the CWD zones. Our state has a 3 pt on one side APR - which has been a big difference in my area. The eastern and southern sections of the state probably more-so because of larger acreages under one management. Not uncommon to have 3000/4000 acres in one lease. Relatively speaking - a lot of mature bucks. Usually five or six on my 400 acres, which I consider to be quite a few 4.5 or older deer. Six weeks firearm, five months archery including crossbow, baiting is a way of life, dog running, firearm season right over rut, two buck state with rifle, crossbow, etc. I would say overall, a willingness to pass bucks.

We dont have a big non resident presence due to what is considered trophy quality. A few texas and LA hunters. To be fair - I would attribute the higher age structure as much to the hunters - as the APR. crossbow harvest fairly insignificant at 5% of total.

I think that is probably true in most states. I would imagine even in Iowa or Ohio - if the hunters and their families were killing the first legal buck that walks by, their hunting grounds are not going to be noted for quality deer. I think a state can offer a little assistance to improve age structure - but they cant take it all the way or make it work state wide. The hunters have to take it the rest of the way.

My son in law hunts louisiana - notorious for being brown its down. Seasons are long - maybe eight or ten weeks, multiple buck limits, baiting - nothing in the regs promotes age management. But a lot of the lease holders have instituted their own controls. Their buck quality is improving
You and your in son in law are benefiting from scale and self governance. Those big tracts are successful DESPITE the regs not because of them. They have size and rules that insulate them from the states and from individuals decisions.
Unfortunately we don’t have that in the Midwest. 200 acres is a big tract for a private landowner. States regs are ultra important in that environment
 
Last edited:
Population is managed by doe harvest so stands to reason they could.

If they wanted fewer deer they would allot more doe tags and fewer buck tags to increase age structure.

My state of MO could start with only one buck tag for all seasons....there'd be some hard decisions made on the bucks shot before rifle season even started then.
I think you're right on with the tags, and something could be done with that. State game and fish departments have a tremendous resource available to them now with the maturing and advancement of drones. If researched, refined, and standardized, sample population and sex structure estimates could be done in a timely and accurate fashion across multiple sample areas, across counties or regions. Tags could be allotted based on those. There definitely is more to be fleshed out, but I believe area specific harvest quotas could be done regardless of weapon choice or where you reside.
 
You and your in son in law are benefiting from scale and self governance. Those big tracts are successful DESPITE the regs not because of them. They have size and rules that insult them from the states and from individuals decisions.
Unfortunately we don’t have that in the Midwest. 200 acres is a big tract for a private landowner. States regs are ultra important in that environment
After thinking about it, I am not sure a state can regulate a much older buck age structure. Most state dnr’s are answering to too many entities to manage deer for a singular purpose. States are trying to hold deer populations in check to pacify insurance companies, farmers, suburbanites, disease management, etc.

For example, in Iowa, an estimated 167,000 hunters harvested approx 50,000 bucks. I am sure a number of them didnt hunt at all. Some probably didnt hunt very much. Are that many folks hunting and not seeing a buck - or are most passing a buck(s). In my experience, typically the smaller the acreage controlled, the less selective the hunter. Probably like many states, the better quality deer areas are usually those where hunters are more protective of their deer - and probably have higher deer densities than normal areas.

I think for states alone to be responsible for maintaining a mature age structure - they would have to have regulations in place that would be very restrictive on buck harvest - and that would eventually skew the buck doe ratio, and probably increase the deer density. States out west may be more successful because hunters out there have previously practiced limited license quotas. It would be a hard sell in the eastern half of the country - and especially the south - to have to participate in a drawing to deer hunt - especially on land you own or lease.

I think states can provide a starting point towards quality deer management - but the hunters have to be willing to carry it all the way. I know ten guys who leased 800 acres near me last year and they killed one buck but passed a dozen. I had nine hunters on my place last year, and we killed two bucks. All of them passed bucks. I think it would be very difficult for states in our area to assume a management program supporting a mature buck age class. As said above, it would probably not be very popular.
 
After thinking about it, I am not sure a state can regulate a much older buck age structure. Most state dnr’s are answering to too many entities to manage deer for a singular purpose. States are trying to hold deer populations in check to pacify insurance companies, farmers, suburbanites, disease management, etc.

For example, in Iowa, an estimated 167,000 hunters harvested approx 50,000 bucks. I am sure a number of them didnt hunt at all. Some probably didnt hunt very much. Are that many folks hunting and not seeing a buck - or are most passing a buck(s). In my experience, typically the smaller the acreage controlled, the less selective the hunter. Probably like many states, the better quality deer areas are usually those where hunters are more protective of their deer - and probably have higher deer densities than normal areas.

I think for states alone to be responsible for maintaining a mature age structure - they would have to have regulations in place that would be very restrictive on buck harvest - and that would eventually skew the buck doe ratio, and probably increase the deer density. States out west may be more successful because hunters out there have previously practiced limited license quotas. It would be a hard sell in the eastern half of the country - and especially the south - to have to participate in a drawing to deer hunt - especially on land you own or lease.

I think states can provide a starting point towards quality deer management - but the hunters have to be willing to carry it all the way. I know ten guys who leased 800 acres near me last year and they killed one buck but passed a dozen. I had nine hunters on my place last year, and we killed two bucks. All of them passed bucks. I think it would be very difficult for states in our area to assume a management program supporting a mature buck age class. As said above, it would probably not be very popular.
Agreed and that was my point early. I think the only way the state could do it is by making things like limiting what firearms could be used and when and eliminating bait and crossbows, cell cams, etc. you have to up the difficulty level to where legal hunters are unsuccessful to a degree and by virtue the age class creeps up.
 
Do you think a state could have its buck harvest be comprised of 40-50% yearlings, and still have a good age structure or be considered a "destination state"?
 
Population is managed by doe harvest so stands to reason they could.

If they wanted fewer deer they would allot more doe tags and fewer buck tags to increase age structure.

My state of MO could start with only one buck tag for all seasons....there'd be some hard decisions made on the bucks shot before rifle season even started then.
If you went to one buck state, & allowed a fair amount of doe tags, it would be a game changer !

If every state in the Midwest went …
(1) buck limit
December 1 gun season (or later)
All seasons are over by Dec 31
Fair amount of doe tags
Oct 1 archery season opener …

I guarantee this would be huge for Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin etc…
 
"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

Yea, but it's easy to blame that 6% for everything...lol.
 
Yea, but it's easy to blame that 6% for everything...lol.
I’m a nonresident landowner. I don’t think the landowners are necessarily bad for other states. I think it’s the nonresidents with little skin in the game. So clients of outfitters and leaseholders and permission on farmer Johnson’s place. They don’t have enough invested or likely won’t even be there next year to worry about the future age structure. It’s an instant gratification scenario
 
If you went to one buck state, & allowed a fair amount of doe tags, it would be a game changer !

If every state in the Midwest went …
(1) buck limit
December 1 gun season (or later)
All seasons are over by Dec 31
Fair amount of doe tags
Oct 1 archery season opener …

I guarantee this would be huge for Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin etc…
Wisconsin did just fine being a 2 buck state and Iowa does more than fine being a 2/3 buck state due to their late(r) gun seasons. Where WI f'd up is allowing crossguns during archery. Despite that and 2 bucks it's still a better destination state than MN because of the later gun season, even with all the similarities between the states (habitat, ag, population density, etc).
 
Back
Top