Natman,
My comment addressed the camo, because full camo is not required by law to wear it to hunt turkey. Therefore, it is not a reason to consider.
Even though camo isn't required by law, many hunters will be wearing it while turkey hunting, which makes them hard to see.
What I should have said is I disagree with the assumption that shotguns somehow make it safer to engage in the activity. I am not trying to denigrate your position, but I feel strongly that there is no merit in your argument. I know what I say is not going to change your mind, and what you say won't change my mind, but I must continue. I have always had the choice to choose a rifle or shotgun for turkey and I don't want that to change.
So, I disagree with the statement that shotguns are safer than a rifle to hunt turkey. For example, shotguns are required in some counties in Virginia for deer hunting where the terrain is very flat. The concern is the bullet may travel too great a distance. Some of those counties allow use of a rifle for deer hunting if you are in a tree stand of a certain height. I will agree the effective killing range of a rifle is greater than that of a shotgun, but it does not make it safer to use when hunting. A rifleman needs to be concerned with his backstop since many bullets pass through a prey animal i.e. squirrel, rabbit, deer even if a lethal hit is made. My questions to you is, "Can you account for every pellet which leaves the muzzle of your shotgun on their way to their intended target?" Misuse of either can injure or kill someone.
The deadly range of a shotgun is measured in yards. The deadly range of a high powered rifle is measured in miles. You need to account for your backstop in either case, but it's a LOT easier with a shotgun.
I work for the Commonwealth of Virginia and I have a job where I do enforce regulations although not for VGIF. The one thing I have learned is such a law is usually in place for some other reason. Like another poster said previously the National Wild Turkey Federation has a foothold in some of these decisions in other locales and I agree that special interest groups like the NWTF sway politicians. I doubt it's really for safety although that may be what they publicly say. My guess is there is a monetary benefit to it in regards to equipment, access, memberships, limiting certain groups, etc.
You're going to have to explain just how shotgun only hunting benefits someone enough to have them influence the regulations. The big shotgun manufacturers who might conceivably benefit (Winchester, Remington, Mossberg) also make rifles, so there's no benefit for them.
I hope you don't feel like I am personally attacking you because I am not intending to do so.
No personal attacks perceived on my end. Just a good old fashioned friendly disagreement as far as I'm concerned.
