I've thought about putting together a 35 Whelen bolt action instead of toting a 45-70, but I honestly can't say that I've killed a deer at over 100 yards (or had an opportunity I would take) in a long time so it seems like a waste of money. At this point, it's sort of pointless to even have firearm restrictions, given how far guys can shoot muzzleloaders and other weapons that are currently in use. I see the comments concerned about guys shooting deer at 500+ yards with long range rifles (people are already doing this with muzzleloaders) and I don't think people realize how rare that would be/how difficult that is in the first place even with modern tech.
Now that necked cartridges are lawful (min .35 - max .5) what will everyone be hunting with this year?
I've thought about putting together a 35 Whelen bolt action instead of toting a 45-70, but I honestly can't say that I've killed a deer at over 100 yards (or had an opportunity I would take) in a long time so it seems like a waste of money. At this point, it's sort of pointless to even have firearm restrictions, given how far guys can shoot muzzleloaders and other weapons that are currently in use. I see the comments concerned about guys shooting deer at 500+ yards with long range rifles (people are already doing this with muzzleloaders) and I don't think people realize how rare that would be/how difficult that is in the first place even with modern tech.
I missed this somehow.
no one is banning The 30/30 as stated.
Your second point:
30-30 & … any others like: .300 win mag, 7mm, .243, .270, .30-06, etc etc etc.
1) gun drives. Incredibly more distance & danger. I was almost killed with a slug on a deer drive 7-8 years ago & posted about it here. We have many members with shotgun bullet holes in house. Group of Guys shooting at running deer with Iowa terrain- major safety & fatal impacts to hunters.
2) degrade deer herd….. further shots = more deer killed more easily. Simple.
3) be more like MO, WI, MN & states with rifles. States that see their hunters leave to come to iowa to hunt Where no one leaves here to go there. *which isn’t good to simplify it- those states are not managed well like iowa.
4) more ground locked up. Only 6% timber. You liberalize the regs- more ground locked up. Harder to find land. Hurts little guy. Access is hard as it is. This will make way harder. You don’t think we have more access issues and don’t see guys buying up land to insulate from a lot of crazy stuff going on or to manage it more conservatively….. do you see this fact/reality or not? It’s there.
5) growing amount of houses or buildings in country. More people in many areas. Coupled with medium to large groups of hunters pushing deer within rifle distance of each other…. At running deer. On the fly & lethal range of hunters & buildings at long distances.
I could go on. You asked for it…. You got it. There’s FIVE just to start for you.
.
JNRBRONC
Well-Known Member
I could ramble a bunch on this topic.
As a landowner, I could see using a HP rifle on my property (though I have no desire).
Public hunting? Last experience back in the ‘80’s was scary and I won’t be back. I couldn’t deal with slugs striking branches over my head and I’m definitely not accepting HP rifle fire.
My hunting goals are to take close (under 100 yard with gun, 20 yard with bow) shots. I’ve hunted less with guns lately. Not the challenge I seek. From an elevated shooting platform, I could probably cover all my place with a HP rifle. Not my cup of tea, as that is more about shooting than hunting at that point, IMO.
For me, it’s all about being in the right place at the right time for the slam dunk. I don’t need a necked HP rifle to make it happen. YMMV.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As a landowner, I could see using a HP rifle on my property (though I have no desire).
Public hunting? Last experience back in the ‘80’s was scary and I won’t be back. I couldn’t deal with slugs striking branches over my head and I’m definitely not accepting HP rifle fire.
My hunting goals are to take close (under 100 yard with gun, 20 yard with bow) shots. I’ve hunted less with guns lately. Not the challenge I seek. From an elevated shooting platform, I could probably cover all my place with a HP rifle. Not my cup of tea, as that is more about shooting than hunting at that point, IMO.
For me, it’s all about being in the right place at the right time for the slam dunk. I don’t need a necked HP rifle to make it happen. YMMV.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Arec
Member
No problem. The recent change to the law was relatively clear, though there was some question to the DNR’s initial interpretation.
Someone else asked the same thing earlier in the thread. I am an NRA life member and have been for years, but I stopped giving them any money a while back when they put partisan politics over protecting gun rights. I am also a member of the GOA and the IFC (I learned about the IFC on this forum!). Aside from membership in those organizations I have no affiliations with, or ties to, any gun group or lobbying efforts, or the administration of said groups.
I am a serious, private land hunter. I don't participate in deer drives. My favorite hunting style is spot and stalk but the land I've got access to lends itself to stand hunting with my bows and box hunting with my rifles.
I hope that helps.
Appreciate the openness & where u stand & why you stand for what you do. We disagree but I appreciate your point of view & appreciate how you make your points.
Probably goes without saying, if you read my last 2 responses, where I sit for my position. Lands down here are still widely gun drives. As in many parts of the state. Land in countless counties im working in, farming, hunting, owning- are being locked up for access & folks are insulating from bad regulations. We have a major problem as it is. Rifles will exacerbate all of this. Above makes my points known.
& just so it’s clear & “fair” …. To clarify, I have no lobbying interests. I have no $ to be gained. Or hidden motivations for anything. being 100% transparent…. Rifles or bad regulations would not impact me very much. My passion comes from:
-caring about our state & its resource
-wanting opportunities for new hunters to have access to good land
-wanting a safe hunting environment
-wanting to protect our great & fragile state so it doesn’t turn into what our neighbors are.
That’s my motivation & agenda in a nutshell.
thanks for posting & debating the other side of this with decency & respect. Even while we all are passionate about the side we take on these issues.
Arec
Member
I think we all want the same thing, we just have different opinions on how to protect and improve our deer herd while not infringing our freedoms and choices.
It’s my strong belief that the appropriate way to manage the number and quality of deer in the herd is to restrict which deer, and how many of them, may be harvested annually—not restrict which tools the hunter chooses to harvest those deer with (within ethical boundaries).
It’s my strong belief that the appropriate way to manage the number and quality of deer in the herd is to restrict which deer, and how many of them, may be harvested annually—not restrict which tools the hunter chooses to harvest those deer with (within ethical boundaries).
Last edited:
Missouri is more “progressive” on which weapons are allowed and when. It’s a rifle free for all. Of the thousands of iowa hunters I have met & know over the years- I really don’t know any (very few if any) that wants to see iowa mimic missouri. On the other hand, the amount of folks in MO that wish their regulations, weapons & season mirrored Iowa…. Staggering high #.
I see zero infringement of rights by saying “you can’t use guns during bow season”. “You can use shotguns, short walls & muzzleloaders during Iowa’s Deer Season - not regular rifles”. “You can use regular rifles during coyote season”. “You can own & shoot any rifle caliber you want”. This isn’t about rights. It’s not. It’s management of the resource.
it would be equally valid if I wanted to use rifles to Turkey hunt. Or a .223 AR to shoot bass out of lakes & ponds. Why can’t I do this??? Because it causes too many issues, isn’t good for the resource & we don’t need to make every issue in favor of the hunter vs the resource. The deer have plenty going against them in iowa: 4 months of hunting, 7 hunting seasons, 7+ weapon choices. 6% timber & access dwindling. I don’t look at it as a “right” to shoot deer with my .300 win mag in November or December. Nothing to do with each other. There’s probably 1000 different guns you can go buy to hunt deer in iowa. There is still no valid logical reason that it will “create more opportunities” or “further our freedoms” for any of us to specifically use high powers on deer in iowa. No merit. If so- would u support high power for Turkey season??
Arec
Member
That's nonsense. Proper herd management comes down to which deer may be lawfully harvested and how many. Everything else is simply window dressing. This isn't rocket science. A lot of folks get very upset when things change (even when the change is unquestionably for the better) -- simply because "that's how it's always been done."
Times, they are a changin'.
Should trappers be able to use “leg traps” on deer? Why not?
should Turkey hunters be able to use .223’s for Turkey hunting?
Should fisherman be able to use rifles on bass? Or bow & arrow?
Yes or no? Why not if so?
second - do u think iowa has limited habitat and hunting & do you think access to good land is becoming easier or harder?
last…. 4 months of season, 7 seasons, 7+ weapon choices. Do you think the “opportunities” for your choice of weapons & hunting in iowa is limited by current structure as it sits????
Arec
Member
I don’t think your series of hypotheticals really hit the mark.
Trying to control the quality and quantity of the deer population by regulating the method of take is simply inefficient and old fashioned.
Is a deer killed by bow, muzzle loader, shotgun, or slingshot any less dead than a deer killed by a .30-30? No, of course not.
What do you do if a couple hundred thousand new hunters (using any legal method of take) decide to participate over the next few years? Just say “oh well” as the herd goes into rapid decline?
Obviously the answer is to do what I’ve been saying: you regulate which deer are legal to harvest, from where, when, and how many.
The simple fact is many hunters want to hunt with rifles and the legislature recognized that. We can all fight back and forth over trying to go back to the way it used to be, or try to take meaningful conservation steps that take us forward.
Arec
Member
I think that fight, however misguided, has been lost.
Why not restrict archery season to traditional bows only? No compound bows. Or go further and restrict all hunting to slingshot only. I bet we would see a lot more giant old bucks!
I don’t get why you guys continue to respond to this guy? He believes he is right and he is simply getting a kick out of pushing your buttons, that’s the only this is the only thing and the only reason he posts on this forum. Nothing you say will change his mind and nothing he says will change yours. Just agree to disagree, ignore him and move on and have a great fall. Remember, trolls starve to death when they aren’t fed.
REGULATIONS ARE NOT OLD FASHIONED!!! (From your above post). It’s the exact thing that keeps this state great. Balanced & full of better opportunities vs any neighboring states. & for the record - based on FACTS & HISTORY…. “No regulations” is “old fashioned”. How it was…. & resulted with deer & countless other animals being totally wiped out of countless states!!!
IFC leaders are on the record with statements like this “let’s get guns in the rut. The poor trophy hunters will be so upset to see the quality go down hill. Poor bow hunters, blah blah blah”.
There’s zero doubt the IFC only cares about guns. Not hunting, hunters or the resource. They absolutely don’t care if iowa is the best or worst managed state in the country. They could care less if there’s no access to good quality land. The IFC has no business lobbying into hunting regulations. It’s clear they only care about more guns, gun sales or anything to advance firearms.
QUESTIONS/DETAILS….
nope- I wasn’t off the mark on my comments…..
1) Explain to my why you are against using rifles during Turkey season???? Or are you for that too???? Fair question.
2) We have designated weapons in there seasons by design. Your “management” to get to quotas or kills…. “Doesn’t matter what weapon” …. You do realize there’s countless weapons already available to achieve these goals right? Is the season not long enough? THIS GUY - ME - is not buying “we don’t have enough weapon choices” & most others likely feel the same when the FACTS are laid out: 4 months, 7+ weapon categories, 7 deer seasons & 6% timber.
ironically you have not answered whether you feel our quality land is extremely hard to get access to…. 3) Do you feel access is getting BETTER OR WORSE??
Since it’s all about “KILLING” & doesn’t matter “WHAT WEAPON” - how do you respond to the problem….. “it’s hard to kill things when you can’t find quality places to hunt across the state”????? It’s very hard to kill a deer with no where to go. & if your answer is “well everyone hunt public” “& give them all rifles!!” Sorry- we know exactly how this ends.
4) if there was evidence or clear argument that more liberal regulations & more rifles actually HURT ACCESS & hurt our ability to manage the resource - would that change your line of thinking????
Last edited:
Arec
Member
I am not sure where to begin. What’s your number one argument against being able to use a .30-30 to deer hunt in Iowa?
Arec
Member
So someone who disagrees is a troll? Hmm. I have had great discussions with folks on this site and despite those differing opinions I still respect that they feel the way they do, even if I think their conclusions are based on emotion and not logic.
JNRBRONC
Well-Known Member
I'll let Sligh speak for himself, but IMO, we are on "the slippery slope"/"death by a thousand cuts" path.
Straight walls allowed (I'm not a fan of the 450 Bushmaster in the AR platform being legal during shotgun), then necked from .35 to .50, all begs the question on what's next, right?
I get that technology changes. I've listened to Buckskinners lamenting that today's in-lines shouldn't be used in the season they fought to be established. It their eyes, you need a flash pan, flint and frizzen. I bought into smokeless ML due to the pain of cleaning up from black powder and the old blackpowder substitutes. Thank goodness for Blackhorn 209 for my non-smokeless.
Some bow hunters comment that their equipment doesn't have "training wheels". I owned a recurve for a couple of years, never really took to it. So I like my training wheels. Do I want to see crossbows allowed during archery season? NO!
So one could say that a person only gets X number of licenses, what do I care which weapon others use? But also, where does it stop? Technology will constantly bring new products to market, but should it all be fit into a season somewhere? Maybe we roll back to one license per hunter per year? I remember mailing in my application to the DNR and praying that I would get an anysex tag so that I would have a better chance of putting venison in the freezer. I think a regressive license move would face huge hunter backlash. In my view, if we keep allowing more and more weapons and seasons, we are going to have to protect the resource by changes in license availability.
Arec
Member
You make some great points but I think they're in support of my position. People fight against change and then once they get the change they want, they fight to stop future change. The traditionalists and their recurve bows or flintlocks are a great example. Their arguments are no different than what folks are saying right here in this very thread when they argue against someone wanting to use their Grandpa's .30-30.
I can lawfully harvest an Iowa deer with a 50 BMG but I can't with heirloom .30-30s or .243s. It's just an arbitrary restriction and will be (hopefully) short lived.
You really have a problem with limiting license availability? If we're trying for roughly 100,000 harvests annually and need to limit the tags available in some seasons / locations to do so, so be it. That's simply a better knob for the DNR to tune than trying to arbitrarily restrict method of take. It's more direct and more efficient.
If we have too many harvested during 'shotgun' season, simply reduce the number of tags available during shotgun season. I'd start by reducing the tags available to non-residents, but that's just me.