1. Your first reason is about deer drives being dangerous. If you think deer drives are dangerous (and they're not something I'd ever participate in myself), you should be trying to restrict deer drives themselves, not my ability to hunt with a .30-30.
2. Your second reason is that the deer herd would be degraded because more deer would be killed. More deer are killed with compound bows than traditional bows. So what? If we need to limit the number of tags available for season / method of take, we can do that instead of relying on arbitrary caliber restrictions. My neighbors can now hunt deer in Iowa with a 50 BMG but I can't use a .30-30.
3. Your third point seems to be that Iowa is managed better than other states. Iowa does well, but so do other states. How are do you define and qualify what makes Iowa "managed well" and the other states you named (MO / WI / MN ) not managed well? Number of deer harvested? Trophy quality?
4. Your fourth point is quite a stretch if I am interpreting it the way you intend it. You're saying the .30-30 should be restricted because people will buy up more land to insulate themselves from people who hunt with .30-30s? That's an interesting theory.
5. Your fifth point seems to be a a concern about deer drives and rifle hunting in proximity to residences. Again, this is not an argument for restricting the .30-30. If you think Iowa hunters need more safety education so that they're not shooting at residences, then you should advocate for that. If you think deer drives are inherently dangerous and can never be done safely, advocate for restricting those.
You've yet to list a single compelling reason that an Iowa hunter should not be allowed to harvest a deer during shotgun season with a .30-30.
As for your series of questions, I'll happily answer them but they really don't have anything to do with the topic at hand.
1. I have no problem with rifles in turkey season within ethical caliber range, which for turkeys would be limited to rimfires.
2. If they replaced archery season in Iowa with slingshot season, you'd have the same "4 months, 7 seasons, 7+ weapons categories, 6% timber" -- but you wouldn't have your preferred method of take. But that wouldn't be a problem, right? You'd be just fine with that is what you're saying?
3. What does the access to the land have to do with .30-30s? Or any method of take? The land issue is what it is no matter what you hunt with.
4. How do you define "liberal regulations" or "hurt access"? I'd say the arbitrary, big government regulations restricting average hunters from hunting with their caliber of choice (within the ethical range) are hurtful.
I’m ok with it. Above is a respectful response with meaningful thoughts. I think that’s great even though we disagree. I know he has “his side” & “his reasons” & I’m going to say he doesn’t represent the position of most iowa hunters. Especially the hunters that are more on “serious side” ….. what I mean by that…. Folks that spend a lot of time during the year deer hunting. VS the other side of it - the guys who maybe go 1 or 2 weekends a year.
I’ll respond to above, posted below, in
BOLD…..
1. Your first reason is about deer drives being dangerous. If you think deer drives are dangerous (and they're not something I'd ever participate in myself), you should be trying to restrict deer drives themselves, not my ability to hunt with a .30-30.
We cannot regulate how people walk on farms or properties. It would be close to impossible to regulate deer drives. It’s vastly easier to regulate weapons…. Especially weapons with lethal ranges well over a mile.
2. Your second reason is that the deer herd would be degraded because more deer would be killed. More deer are killed with compound bows than traditional bows. So what? If we need to limit the number of tags available for season / method of take, we can do that instead of relying on arbitrary caliber restrictions. My neighbors can now hunt deer in Iowa with a 50 BMG but I can't use a .30-30.
We can thank IFC for bringing the .50 BMG to Iowa’s deer season!!!! Shouldn’t have happened. Slimy politics 101 is how that went down.
3. Your third point seems to be that Iowa is managed better than other states. Iowa does well, but so do other states. How are do you define and qualify what makes Iowa "managed well" and the other states you named (MO / WI / MN ) not managed well? Number of deer harvested? Trophy quality?
VERY SIMPLE: we have a balanced age structure across the state. Fair amount of bucks are able to reach maturity. Buck to doe ratios are pretty healthy. We are below carrying capacity in most the state. Here’s the KEY…. Yes, we destroy our neighbors for “quality” in every sense of the word. Why it’s a 5 year wait to draw a NR tag by me. We are bombarded with our neighbors wanting to hunt here and it does NOT go the other way around. We have the widely accepted - best overall managed whitetail state in the country. DUE TO REGULATIONS!
4. Your fourth point is quite a stretch if I am interpreting it the way you intend it. You're saying the .30-30 should be restricted because people will buy up more land to insulate themselves from people who hunt with .30-30s? That's an interesting theory.
YES. U put Highpowers all over- there’s countless guys that will buy up land to insulate from all the “unintended consequences”!! Absolutely. A lot of the land here is bought up by NR’s who had their own states ruined by bad regulations. My area is well over 50% NR ownership. Add more seasons, more weapons & liberal regulations….. folks will buy more up to insulate from the insanity. Access will continue to worsen (it’s already a problem). Enough folks know what liberal regs do to other states. Iowa is one of the last great states. There’s threats to iowa yearly By special interests (like IFC) but, as of today, it still remains far better than other states in the Midwest. & I’ve hunted most of them. Go hunt MN, MO, WI, PA, MN- would be eye opening
5. Your fifth point seems to be a a concern about deer drives and rifle hunting in proximity to residences. Again, this is not an argument for restricting the .30-30. If you think Iowa hunters need more safety education so that they're not shooting at residences, then you should advocate for that. If you think deer drives are inherently dangerous and can never be done safely, advocate for restricting those.
With this situation of more people, smaller parcels & deer drives (that we cannot regulate) - why would we add bullets with lethal range 5-10 times that of a shotgun? It’s madness. You keep saying “.30-.30” …. You pick one of the weakest guns in that category. How about the rest of the rounds??? .300 win mag. .270, .338 lapua, 7mm, .300 RUM, 30-06, etc….. we are talking about rounds that have a lethal range of over a mile. Shotgun rounds are in the dirt in 200 yards most the time. No comparison between them. Rifles with 1 mile plus lethal range, running deer, small parcels of land & a relatively populated state - there’s a very good reason we had limited firearms to shorter ranges.
You've yet to list a single compelling reason that an Iowa hunter should not be allowed to harvest a deer during shotgun season with a .30-30.
I think above covers that. Management, safety, dwindling access, too many opportunities as it is to kill deer, majority of hunters NOT a wanting this (shouldn’t be IFC, lobbyists or their paid for politicians that decide this!! Should be iowa hunters & residents!!). The only reason the high power is being debated here is IFC’s special interest motives & lobbying.
As for your series of questions, I'll happily answer them but they really don't have anything to do with the topic at hand.
1. I have no problem with rifles in turkey season within ethical caliber range, which for turkeys would be limited to rimfires.
why not high powers?!?! .223 for example…. Be an excellent Turkey round!
2. If they replaced archery season in Iowa with slingshot season, you'd have the same "4 months, 7 seasons, 7+ weapons categories, 6% timber" -- but you wouldn't have your preferred method of take. But that wouldn't be a problem, right? You'd be just fine with that is what you're saying?
I will be against the sling shot season. When IFC or the sling shot lobby tries to push it- we will voice against.
3. What does the access to the land have to do with .30-30s? Or any method of take? The land issue is what it is no matter what you hunt with.
Above.
4. How do you define "liberal regulations" or "hurt access"? I'd say the arbitrary, big government regulations restricting average hunters from hunting with their caliber of choice (within the ethical range) are hurtful.
We have 4 months, 7 seasons, 7+ weapon choices & only 6% timber. That’s a liberal set of regulations as it sits. Adding more to it is insanity. No merit. All special interest driven. 
.
