Iowa DNR Biologist Conversation

Dont forget - DNR still has a harvest goal to meet. Usually, increasing buck age structure requires reducing harvest - not something most agencies agee with - especially in the days of cwd. And older bucks are the worst in the eyes of cwd managers

It is easy to come up with a plan that promotes buck age. It is much more difficult to come up with a plan that does that and allows statewide harvest to remain static. Remember, states like Iowa have already reduced the deer population by 1/3 - and the resulting harvest followed suit. Typically, requested changes are not looked at in favor by dnr if those changes result in a corresponding increase in deer population. It is difficult to regulate an
increase in average buck age without increasing deer population or skewing buck doe ratios.

I went through this twelve years ago with our dnr - unsuccessfully I might add. That is when the light finally went off in my head - time to stop blaming gun hunters, crossbow hunters, baiting - everything I could think of - I wanted everyone else to change to suit me. I finally figured out “me”’was the problem. Since then, I have strived to make my place the best I can, reduce our harvest so the neighbors can take what they need - and stop whining. No, we dont kill booners every year. Never have got a pic of one - but we do better than most.

I carried a deer into the local taxidermist a couple years ago - I think a 148”. There were a couple other folks in there dropping off deer heads. The taxidermist told those other folks - before she ever saw the deer I brought - she said “come here and look at this deer - free range - and this man brings them in as consistent as anyone around”. Made me feel good. It isnt about bringing in the biggest deer in the world - it is about consistently producing deer bigger than the rest of the neighborhood - in spite of the adversity. I do what I can do and dont worry about what others are doing.😎
 
Dont forget - DNR still has a harvest goal to meet. Usually, increasing buck age structure requires reducing harvest
But, populations are controlled through doe harvests. Reducing overall buck harvest numbers is going to do nothing but raise the age structure. You could decrease populations by killing just does and leaving all the bucks alive if you wanted to. Not saying that should be an option, just that bucks don't affect population level increases or decreases.
 
All of these regulations people want to get bigger bucks are, at their foundation, a regulation to get more bucks livingon to the next year. Why not just limit the number of bucks taken, so there are more bucks living on? Sell buck tags according to what the area can sustain being taken. Use drones to sample areas. I think we can make it simple and people can hunt with what they want.

And, the non-resident thing is just a way to blame. How many people actually live and work less than an hour of where they hunt? Those are the residents, not the people who live in the same state, but visit on weekends. Locals who live and work there are the residents. If I own land in an area, I should be able to use it just like any of my neighbors.
 
All of these regulations people want to get bigger bucks are, at their foundation, a regulation to get more bucks livingon to the next year. Why not just limit the number of bucks taken, so there are more bucks living on? Sell buck tags according to what the area can sustain being taken. Use drones to sample areas. I think we can make it simple and people can hunt with what they want.

And, the non-resident thing is just a way to blame. How many people actually live and work less than an hour of where they hunt? Those are the residents, not the people who live in the same state, but visit on weekends. Locals who live and work there are the residents. If I own land in an area, I should be able to use it just like any of my neighbors.
North Dakota & South Dakota limit buck tags . It seems to work, because they put out nice mature bucks despite the lack of cover in most of the state !
 
All of these regulations people want to get bigger bucks are, at their foundation, a regulation to get more bucks livingon to the next year. Why not just limit the number of bucks taken, so there are more bucks living on? Sell buck tags according to what the area can sustain being taken. Use drones to sample areas. I think we can make it simple and people can hunt with what they want.
That doesn't work. DNR (or whatever they're called in each state) are responsible for maintaining hunter numbers for license sales revenue. Limiting buck tags for residents (more of a western style draw) would be detrimental to license sales and likely increase herd numbers.

Hunters are inherently bad at aging deer on the hoof, so the only way to keep license sales and increase age is to regulate seasons that don't allow hunters to be as successful.
 
I’d rather make wrong decisions than have drones buzzing around doing surveys.
 
North Dakota & South Dakota limit buck tags . It seems to work, because they put out nice mature bucks despite the lack of cover in most of the state !
Different circumstances IMO but you're correct. They limit rifle tags much to the chagrin of residents but archery tags for residents and NR alike are plentiful. The tracts are bigger and the rifle hunting style out there is predominantly based on the pickup truck driving section roads. Not exactly apples to apples with other Midwest states.
 
We're still talking about limiting buck harvests with regulations. Cut crossbows, cut baiting, cut rifles in the rut. Those are all ways to cut the number of bucks taken. Just get to the point and cut the number taken and stop with the hunter pitted against hunter.
 
We're still talking about limiting buck harvests with regulations. Cut crossbows, cut baiting, cut rifles in the rut. Those are all ways to cut the number of bucks taken. Just get to the point and cut the number taken and stop with the hunter pitted against hunter.
That's a losing proposition IMO because the second the license sales decrease due to tag scarcity, DNR managers are getting fired.

It isn't hunter against hunter to state that gun seasons can be later without detriment to the heard or license sales. It isn't hunter against hunter for crossbows to have their own *special* season without detriment to the herd or license sales.
Hell, you may ultimately get rifle and crossbow hunters to become happier at the age structure available for harvest from these potentially positive changes.

The podcast from the OP stated, explicitly, that other agencies are TIRED of their hunters asking why can't they be more like Iowa, this is the way.
 
That's a losing proposition IMO because the second the license sales decrease due to tag scarcity, DNR managers are getting fired.

It isn't hunter against hunter to state that gun seasons can be later without detriment to the heard or license sales. It isn't hunter against hunter for crossbows to have their own *special* season without detriment to the herd or license sales.
Hell, you may ultimately get rifle and crossbow hunters to become happier at the age structure available for harvest from these potentially positive changes.

The podcast from the OP stated, explicitly, that other agencies are TIRED of their hunters asking why can't they be more like Iowa, this is the way.
Iowa's buck harvest is made up of 40-50% yearlings. Other states couldn't do that with the number of hunters they have and have bucks left. Iowa gets away with it because of the limiting of bucks through regulations.
 
Iowa's buck harvest is made up of 40-50% yearlings. Other states couldn't do that with the number of hunters they have and have bucks left. Iowa gets away with it because of the limiting of bucks through regulations.
Another tidbit from the podcast, Iowa is second in highest percentage of yearling buck harvest behind WI. The reason they get away with it and other states could too is because the buck harvest is LOWER because the season is later. Statistically their hunters are having less success harvesting a buck than other states due to the later season.
Some of that could be related to NR license availability and limited habitat, but it really makes perfect sense when listening to their DNR manager explain it.
 
Another tidbit from the podcast, Iowa is second in highest percentage of yearling buck harvest behind WI. The reason they get away with it and other states could too is because the buck harvest is LOWER because the season is later. Statistically their hunters are having less success harvesting a buck than other states due to the later season.
Some of that could be related to NR license availability and limited habitat, but it really makes perfect sense when listening to their DNR manager explain it.
The reason Iowa’s buck harvest is low is because their deer population is low. Iowa deer population is in the low 400,000’s and buck harvest is in the mid 40,000’s for a buck harvest of 10% or slightly more of overall population.

Missouri’s deer population is supposedly 1,400,000 with a buck harvest of about 150,000 or slightly over 10% of total population.

AR buck harvest usually runs 10/12% of overall population of close to 1,000,000 deer.

IL buck harvest about 12% if population - but they have been very aggressive harvesting deer due to cwd management.

Yes, IA is killing fewer bucks, but they have a low deer population compared to most mid west states.
 
Iowa's buck harvest is made up of 40-50% yearlings. Other states couldn't do that with the number of hunters they have and have bucks left. Iowa gets away with it because of the limiting of bucks through regulations.
I'm not following, why does the percentage of yearlings make any difference to the total number of bucks left?
Iowa is actually pretty liberal on the number of bucks we can kill, I could take 3 a year. I never have but I could. I could kill even more if I wanted to party Hunt.
It's the restrictions on means of take that allows bucks to get older. Short gun seasons, vertical bow only all of November.
 
Why is it that such a large percentage of Iowa bucks taken are yearlings. I dont know anyone here who kills yearlings except maybe kids or first time hunters. Are hunters not having other opportunities? Have the older bucks mostly gone back into hiding. Does all of Iowa have decent numbers of mature bucks available, or is there select areas with most of the mature bucks. Half the bucks taken being yearling bucks seems like a very high percentage
 
As a Missouri landowner and resident, I am trying to reflect on this thread carefully. My thoughts are impacted by the following:
1) My son and his family live in the Kansas City metroplex, but on the Kansas side. Hunting on our farm is an important tradition, and each year his family purchases four "out of state tags"
2) CWD is changing the age structure conversation, like it or not (I'll concede, no one likes it). I like APRs, but those are out the door in much of the state. Going to one buck is great for an older age structure, but it bad for CWD management.
3) My view on crossbows changed when I had shoulder surgery. Back then, that required a doctor's slip, today it does not. For my son and granddaughter, crossbows were their entry into archery hunting, and now both use a compound.

We are seeing improvements in age structure due to our landowner coop, despite the terrible neighbors and poachers that seem to always exist--the smart bucks that evade us tend to evade them. While our coop is only five years old, this is the year folks started noticing the difference increased doe harvest and passing young bucks has made. We are not saying "Pass all 3.5 and 4.5 year olds" but rather "pass those young bucks" that will let more bucks get to maturity.

Missouri's deer hunting traditions are somewhat sacred. While some sacred cows need to be turned into hamburger, is this the right one?
Eliminating the rut hunt could negatively impact the number of hunters out there each year--something we don't want or need in this state.

Finally, I am seeing Iowa class bucks on camera or out of range annually. The states with a high number of Pope & Young-recognized whitetails are Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, and Missouri. Missouri continues to be a strong producer of trophy bucks, with numbers trending upward, while Kansas and Illinois are trending down.
 
Another tidbit from the podcast, Iowa is second in highest percentage of yearling buck harvest behind WI. The reason they get away with it and other states could too is because the buck harvest is LOWER because the season is later. Statistically their hunters are having less success harvesting a buck than other states due to the later season.
Some of that could be related to NR license availability and limited habitat, but it really makes perfect sense when listening to their DNR manager explain it.
Exactly. That is one of the restrictions that limits the number of bucks taken each year. There's a million ways to limit the buck harvest. Iowa has found a combination that works for them.
 
I'm not following, why does the percentage of yearlings make any difference to the total number of bucks left?
Iowa is actually pretty liberal on the number of bucks we can kill, I could take 3 a year. I never have but I could. I could kill even more if I wanted to party Hunt.
It's the restrictions on means of take that allows bucks to get older. Short gun seasons, vertical bow only all of November.
Because, if you can have a sustained harvest of bucks every year, and that harvest total is made up of 50% yearlings, to have an advanced age structure like Iowa does, means you're not killing anywhere close to a significant amount of your standing crop of bucks each year. Sorry for the long, run on sentence.
 
The reason Iowa’s buck harvest is low is because their deer population is low. Iowa deer population is in the low 400,000’s and buck harvest is in the mid 40,000’s for a buck harvest of 10% or slightly more of overall population.

Missouri’s deer population is supposedly 1,400,000 with a buck harvest of about 150,000 or slightly over 10% of total population.

AR buck harvest usually runs 10/12% of overall population of close to 1,000,000 deer.

IL buck harvest about 12% if population - but they have been very aggressive harvesting deer due to cwd management.

Yes, IA is killing fewer bucks, but they have a low deer population compared to most mid west states.
I wasn't talking about gross harvest numbers, those numbers aren't relative state to state in a discussion like this, IMO.
 
Exactly. That is one of the restrictions that limits the number of bucks taken each year. There's a million ways to limit the buck harvest. Iowa has found a combination that works for them.
For sure. I just wish other states would do something to actually improve the age structure instead of the continual "race to the bottom" of these liberal, all inclusive regulations.
Two years ago MN became a crossbow for all state. Next year during the gun season, areas in the southern portion(predominantly the best trophy hunting area) of the state that uses to be shotgun only are now going to rifle. The gun season opens as early as Nov 4!!! Imagine sitting on stand with a rifle for 9 days during the entire peak rut!! How much easier can it get??!?
 
For sure. I just wish other states would do something to actually improve the age structure instead of the continual "race to the bottom" of these liberal, all inclusive regulations.
Two years ago MN became a crossbow for all state. Next year during the gun season, areas in the southern portion(predominantly the best trophy hunting area) of the state that uses to be shotgun only are now going to rifle. The gun season opens as early as Nov 4!!! Imagine sitting on stand with a rifle for 9 days during the entire peak rut!! How much easier can it get??!?
Add bait…now you have ky. 21 day gun season in the rut. Modern rifles. Crossbows all archery season with bait. Season opens first Saturday in September where every yahoo from the southeast wants to come kill a velvet buck and 99% of the bucks are whacked over a bait pile. So for all the bad Minnesota has coming, ky says hold my beer.
 
Back
Top