Well that's really two different questions... Personally I have seen may instances where populations number doesn't accurately reflect population quality. For example, a few of my farms are perfect examples. 3 farms in particular I am thinking of are all in the same county. The farm where I live has a deer density of probably 20-25 per square mile, but, based on 3 years of history there I doubt I ever shoot a doe on that farm. I literally have just as many if not more pictures and sightings of bucks than I do does every year. The buck doe ratio is quite possibly a 1:1. The neighbors to south and west of me also shoot a lot of does during gun season. I would actually like to see the population higher. The habitat can certainly support it. There is food everywhere. I would like to see the population up around 40 per square mile. In that area I would like to see fewer deer harvested overall. 15 miles from that farm i have another one that has a density of probably 60-70 per square mile. There is a tremendous amount of food and cover in the area, and there are deer everywhere. Lots of mature bucks too, BUT the buck doe ratio is probably 10:1, or worse. The habitat can handle the deer density, so i wouldn't say the population is too high. i don't find a lot of dead deer in Winter and the browse doesn't get depleted due to all the corn, beans, and alfalfa in the area. But there are way way too many does. This is the farm where I take people to shoot does. We took 13 last year and didn't shoot any bucks. Still not enough but I'm not going to go kill deer that won't be used. Another farm another 10 miles away has a completely different DNA. Deer density is only maybe 15 per square mile, most likely due to this area being mostly large blocks of timber and not much in the way of food other than browse. The quality on this farm is phenomenal though. A high percentage of the bucks are mature. Age structure is great. The population is about right where it needs to be IMO. Much more and the habitat probably wouldn't be able to support it. Buck/doe ratio looks to be about 2-3:1, so pretty good really. I try to shoot does and bucks on a 1:1 or 2:1 ratio here because the population needs to stay about steady with where it is. The point is, The makeup of each individual property is different. What is best for one piece won't work on another in many cases. That is what management is to me...Identifying the best case scenario for each farm and working towards that. The rifle bill that was being considered had nothing to do with overpopulation of deer. The DNR didn't sponsor the bill. It was introduced by lawmaker who does not hunt or know anything about wildlife (by his own admission), but his family does own a large gun store. It was a gun bill, not a conservation bill. The bill had no regard for wildlife or hunters, or what was best for them. It was about money. Iowa doesn't have a deer population problem. The current DNR system actually works pretty well, where antlerless tag quotas are raised or lowered in each county yearly based on biologist population surveys. This system has worked very well for many years. The tag numbers are lower in counties with less available habitat, and higher in counties with the most habitat. That's about the most accurate way i can think of for a DNR to manage a population effectively.
On to more fun stuff...a few weeks back I talked about how I mowed off a couple hayfields and frost seeded clover into the existing field. I went back to check on them and holy cow! What a difference! This is in 3 weeks. I didn’t till anything. Just mowed existing grass off super short, drug it with a harrow, frost seeded clover, and fertilized. These two plots are gonna be AWESOME Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thank you for not trying to deflect and providing a good answer. As I stated earlier most legislation is linked to money. So if the DNR is doing a good job at managing population effectively why would a gun season change that? Wouldn’t they adjust the number of tags accordingly? Living in Illinois I’ve seen the results of not managing the number of tags available. They went from 10,000 NR tags to 25,000 NR tags and now Illinois is basically otc because they always have leftover NR tags. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well because from a management perspective, not all deer are equal. Rifles level the playing field much more when it comes to harvesting older animals. This is why pure population numbers are IMO not an accurate gauge of the quality of a deer herd. Take Michigan I referenced in a previous post. GREAT habitat (better than Iowa), and Lots of deer (More than Iowa). But ask a hunter from Michigan and they will tell you it sucks if killing a mature buck if that's what you want to do. Why? population is tremendous. But Michigan has no age structure. The vast majority of bucks are 1-2 years old. This is directly related to the allowance of Rifles IMO. The same story exists in states like PA, VA, WV, NC, etc. Lots and lots of deer does not mean a quality herd if there is not an equal distribution of age classes. Iowa is the model of quality deer management. The age structure here is better than anywhere else I am aware of. That's because a high percentage of bucks survive their 2nd, 3rd, even 4th winters. If rifles were allowed, you are correct that most likely not that many more deer would be killed because tag numbers wouldn't change...BUT of the deer that were harvested, a much higher percentage would be mature bucks, therefore lowering the age class in the state over time, and "quality" would suffer. Iowa would become Missouri, with a lot of primo genetic young deer, but not many old ones. That would make it much more difficult for the average hunter to have a chance at a mature one. Only folks who have large contiguous blocks of land that can control harvest would be able to do it with regularity. Hunters on Small properties wouldn't have nearly as much of a chance because when mature buck numbers drop, it encourages the "if I don't shoot it my neighbor will" crowd, which compounds the problem even more.
You lost ALL credibility when you said Iowa does not have a deer population problem. I drove around two sections the other evening and saw no fewer than 200 deer. Ask the insurance companies if we have a deer problem. Ask the guys trying to grow corn, beans and alfalfa if we have a deer problem. Ask the body shops if they are making a good living off deer collisions. For you to say that there is no deer population problem in Iowa is like Obama claiming to have had no scandals. I have dozens of clients that farm and not a single one of them has seen the population any worse than it is right now. They are begging for the rifle seasons. If you think they wont get charged up over the issue, just watch and hold on. Deer were eating bark off trees this winter and we had winter mortality for the first time in about a decade. We absolutely have a deer problem and it will grow exponentially in a few weeks when the fawns start hitting the ground. You throw out some very specific numbers on deer populations on your properties. I call BS. I have owned and "managed" deer properties for 15 years and can tell you that without multiple survey methods, there is no great way to determine such specific numbers. It's a guess at best. I have been lifelong friends with guys that do the state's annual surveys by spotlight and flying. They agree that even that becomes a guesstimate based on what food sources are at any given time and the weather. That's why harvest reporting was introduced. And years like this even made that statistic somewhat obscure due to horrible weather conditions during first gun season which kept many hunters at home or at least made it impossible to get to a lot of good habitat.
I’m very familiar with Va. The gun seasons coincide with the rut. In Va you can use a gun for 2.5 months. Not exactly a good example of why not to allow rifles for a week in December. So to say allowing guns for a week will destroy the age structure is a stretch in my opinion. I think it’s a lot more complicated than that. For example at one time you could buy unlimited tags in Va. I understand that you only want to shoot mature deer but i have a hard time denying people an opportunity to hunt just because they don’t hunt like I do. For the record I only bowhunt. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Boonerville didn't you find a few dead deer this winter with no explanation of death? Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
This bill would not add one new hunter to the state. Iowa already has 6 seasons (4 gun seasons) and a 102 day long season. I don’t buy the argument that certain people in Iowa aren’t hunting because they can’t use a caliber of their liking. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fake News! Stop distracting from the fact that he only has 15 deer per square mile and rifle hunters will kill all of his mature bucks.
I didn’t exactly make the argument that it would add more hunters. I’m refuting your argument that a rifle season would destroy the age structure. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes I did. They were almost all bucks. That was on my home farm. My theory is that it was related to the bucks being over stressed from the rut due to expending more energy because of having fewer does and much more competition for what does are there. Therefore they went into winter into poor shape. Then our winter was much much more harsh than any in recent history. Just a theory, but there has to be some credence to it. On my farm with the highest deer numbers I didn’t find a single dead deer during shed season. Bucks aren’t stressed there. Plenty of does to go around for everyone. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A two year old buck, a yearling buck, and a doe does not fit the mold of deer that would die due to rut stress. Not even close.
I understand the stress factor of the rut and rough winter. With dead bucks on a 1:1 ratio farm with plenty of food to go around. How would a higher population help? Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
It's just a theory...I don't claim to know everything like some of my stalkers do. But I do think a higher percentage of does would be better on that particular farm. Bucks would cover fewer miles during the rut looking for does and expend less energy.
I understand your theory. I feel some would argue that if there is the food to support more deer nothing should have starved this winter. Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I'm not really sure how to respond to that other than data doesn't lie. Look at every state that has sub par whitetail hunting, and even harder at those that have a lot of deer but fail to produce a lot of big bucks (Every state on the east coast and most of the SE). The one constant that ALL of them have in common regardless of season length or bag limit, is rifles. They are opportunity states. Iowa does not need to be an opportunity state. There are enough of those already. Thankfully I am not the only one who feels that way. Every senator I spoke to said they had received hundreds of emails and phone calls in opposition to the HPR bill, for the same reasons I have stated, so I know I am not alone. Further, I would propose to anyone living in Iowa who thinks rifles are a good idea to go live and hunt on the east coast for 5 years and then come back and tell me how you feel about it.
i think this past winter was an anomaly. Virtually all of the "big name celebrities" in iowa that own thousands of the best managed ground with as much food as a deer would ever want...still found dead deer. This winter was absolutely brutal.
No comparison again. The East coast has how many hunters per square mile compared to Iowa? You can't climb a tree out there without seeing several other hunters. Same said for Michigan and most rifle states. Iowa has extremely low hunter pressure. Also, many of those states have rifle seasons during the rut. Iowa's gun season if after the rut is over. If rifles are the demise of mature buck states, why is Kansas at the top of the list for trophy bucks these days. The guys in the know are buying ground there at half the price of Iowa and they are killing tremendous bucks. How is that possible in a state that allows rifles? I think you are paranoid that someone is going to get an opportunity to limit your opportunities on mature bucks. Might I suggest you just start killing them.
You can't lump all states together. Genetics and what they get in the way of minerals drastically differs. Wi went to state wide rifles. I don't feel that is a problem. Management is more of a factor. Does that mean I should move from wi because we will fall victim to no quality deer hunting? Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Not trying to change your opinion. I just don't see rifles wrecking Iowa. Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Obviously situations differ from state to state. But that was basically my point. No matter what other mitigating factors exist...rifles is the one constant. How long ago did WI go to state wide rifle? Most of the bigger deer have traditionally come from the shotgun only counties...it will be interesting to see how that dynamic changes over time.
