With that mentality we might as well just go back to traditional bows and flintlocks. "If you can't get one with either of those, go to the grocery store and buy a vegan burger you sissy" I still have not heard one logical explanation on how rifles will ruin our deer hunting. All I've heard is personal emotions/thoughts/beliefs.
I personally probably wouldn't hunt with a rifle, and have seriously thought about giving up gun hunting and only hunting the archery season, but I also absolutely cannot see the issue with someone else wanting to use a rifle.
I stand by one of my previous comments, this only is an issue to people that believe certain deer are "their deer".
"Our deer hunting".... so everyone would & should have a say at how "our resource is managed". Maybe we agree on ONE THING HERE? "Their deer", yep, it's a resource "we all own" and should have a say in how its regulated, right? We have XYZ regulations in place as of say, "2 weeks ago" or when this next round of changes are put in place. when someone says "if it ain't broken, don't fix it".... that's obviously saying, the regulations, as they sit today, do not change them, quit messing with things, leave it alone. It's NOT saying "we must go to Traditional bows & Flintlocks", so sorry, doesn't work & not what anyone said.
"I still have not heard one logical explanation on how rifles will ruin our deer hunting"
"RUIN" - let's define that.... Is anyone saying it would eradicate all deer? NO. Do a vast array of damages? YES.......
1) Hunters shooting at deer at 300-600 yards does not allow for good identification of deer. For those looking to make ANY kind of management minded decision as to sex, age, whether a buck dropped its antlers, WHATEVER, that position & ability of any type of identification is now dwindled drastically. Like many deer hunts in Iowa, add the fact that the deer are running many times, long range shots are further very hard to closely evaluate exactly what you're shooting at.
2) The cases for going from rifles to shotguns in a variety of states was derived from: higher instances of hunter death & injury & high population of people & buildings. how many folks on here have had slugs wizz past them. I for one have had this multiple times & happened across the fence and relatively close distance. Now, instead of a slug going a few hundred yards, the rifles being shot, often times in GROUPS of guys at RUNNING DEER go 1000 yards +. That's a danger to hunters, houses, livestock, etc. It's just a factual added risk & danger.
3) Effectiveness of killing..... If we lower our deer population, you may think that's a good thing. It's my view & many others hunters, there's many areas that don't need a reduction in deer #'s. By absolute logic & fact, you give a HIGH POWER RIFLE out VS shotguns, more deer will be killed. It's obvious common sense. When I can't kill a deer at 350 yards with my shotgun but it's a chip shot with my .300 mag, obviously far more "OPPORTUNITY" to kill will exist, more deer will be shot. Which, I get it, you think is a good thing. I disagree. Our #'s have decreased steadily vs their peak a decade ago. Enough hunters voiced up that they had "few deer to hunt" that a Shed Buck Season was miraculously removed a few years ago. We have fewer deer, it's somewhat stable but drastically down and for those who want "meat for the freezer" (like you), there's now FEWER pieces of meat running around the woods for you to feed your family with. Put rifles out, fewer yet and apparently, more folks who will go hungry as that's how they put meat on the table.
4) Age structure decimated. Go look at MO line, go talk to ANYONE that lives by it, knows the hunting & deer, go look at what a 2 mile difference makes. Age structure and OPPORTUNITY to shoot deer period is greatly enhanced on the Northern side of that line. Go to the south of it, where again, apparently it's paradise and lots of "OPPORTUNITY" and you'll find the OPPORTUNITY isn't there. HUH?!?!?! "LACK OF OPPORTUNITY IN THE LAND OF OPPORTUNITY" (MO) - how is that possible?!?!?! How could that be the reverse affect happens?!?!?!?! Honestly, as crazy as this sounds, the anology this is kinda like: Opportunity for all!!!... COMMUNISM!!!! Gives everybody the opportunity and chance for anything..... Problem is, the reality, you can't even buy a loaf of bread in most these places & there is not opportunity.
Iowa, with LIMITS that protect our resources has DIRECTLY PRODUCED OPPORTUNITY FOR EVERYONE. It's at a tipping point where we are pushing past that tolerance where now by "increasing opportunity" the REALITY IS: folks will have less opportunity. Like the FACT we've all seen 1st hand over the last 10 years - LESS ACCESS, LOWER POPULATIONS, MORE PRESSURE, MORE FOLKS BUYING LAND TO PROTECT.... All due to more folks wanting to exploit our fragile resource. 6% timber across Iowa, sorry, it's not some unlimited fountain of wildlife & shooting to support the world with, it's FRAGILE.
