Help get lead legal for waterfowl

[arcticap]

I do not agree with your junk science theory at all. What I do find interesting is that if a person is hunting upland game near a body of water, there isn't any law that I'm aware of that makes it a crime if some of the lead shot enters the water. Since it seems that the non toxic shot law only applies to migratory bird hunting, in a way, your position that the state gov'ts (anyway) SHOULD NOT have a zero tolerance for lead is already accepted both in legal theory & practice.
I think that currently there may also be efforts to ban or at least discourage lead fishing sinkers in favor of stainless steel ones. :hmm:

 

[gmww]

Where I hunt, if the property is run by the fish and wildlife you will only have non-toxic if waterfowl is around or by water. Even if your hunting strictly upland birds.

 

[arcticap]

Thanks for letting me know gmww, I should have realized that some states probably mandate non toxic upland hunting ammo (everywhere or just in some locations?).
I recall a lesson long ago where the instructor taught how laws often single out and regulate relatively small individual polluters of the air & water while relatively ignoring many larger industrial/corporate/military polluters. I think we all know some examples. Just think of all the tons of pollution that is emitted daily by industry that goes unregulated or unabated, especially mercury from coal emissions, pesticides, mining related, (even) plutonium (Georgia) & cattle growth hormones (urine!) etc.... Yet, it's the individual who often gets the most scrutiny and the target of enforcement laws. Not that it's a bad thing to target individuals, but it doesn't seem like there is uniform enforcement throughout society. :shake:

 

[gmww]

It's usually posted in the hunting pamphlet. Sometimes its not and you need to read whats posted on the board at the designated parking area. I alway carry non-toxic in case I run into one of these hunting areas. I'll leave the lead behind in the vehicle They don't kid around when it comes to enforcement. It's just rumor for now but I'm hearing from fellow hunters that non-toxic may eventually be madated everywhere. It's just a rumor but I thinks it will eventually get to that. eace:

 

[roundball]

It's usually posted in the hunting pamphlet. Sometimes its not and you need to read whats posted on the board at the designated parking area. I alway carry non-toxic in case I run into one of these hunting areas. I'll leave the lead behind in the vehicle They don't kid around when it comes to enforcement. It's just rumor for now but I'm hearing from fellow hunters that non-toxic may eventually be madated everywhere. It's just a rumor but I thinks it will eventually get to that. eace:

Reminds me of the times I've wondered about all the Trap and Skeet ranges in the country...imagine the tons and tons and tons of lead shot that's accumulated for decades at all these ranges...water run off would surely have to be carrying something into the acquifer.
Modern water systems / water treatment plants test for various things including lead, but folks who use well water surely could be at risk.

 

[arcticap]

I've heard that the slag that's left over from casting lead is more toxic than the lead itself.

 

[gmww]

Really? I've always thought it was just crud from my cast iron pot like rust and stuff. It must the the "Stuff" that's toxic. :haha:

 

[jim gray]

The fact remains that these firearms were intended to be used in a certain manner, and hard shot can and will damage the barrels.

So will blackpowder if you don't take the proper common sense precautions.

I for one have a hard time accepting your facts when you started the thread by expressing your willingness to use misleading if not untrue information to support your case.

Have a nice day.

 

[asabai]

Many of you may think I am crazy, but I even use steel for squirrels. If I shoot out the barrels of my 10 gauge so be it. Lead is extremely toxic to birds because they keep the shot in there crops to aid in digestion. With some types of bottoms in marshes and lakes lead sinks into the much fairly quickly in other it stays where waterfowl can get at it. It only takes a few pellets to kill a bird. Out west California Condor reintroduction is being hampered by bullets the birds ingest from gutpiles and lost animals. It has killed several birds and made many others sick. I think by voluntarily promoting the use of nontoxic shot and bullets it will give the antihunters less ammunition to throw at us, and would be better for wildlife of all kinds. :yakyak:

Once while roaming the woods I found a shotgun shell with a slug still inside. There were a bunch of teeth marks on it from a mouse. What the #%@! :youcrazy:

Rusty Nipple

 

[oomcurt]

Just adding my usual two cents here. Fwiw...I don't buy into all this environmental bs one bit. Now, I grant you, I was hunting before a lot of you may have been born. I have seen a lot of what was supposedly expert or informed decisions enacted on..and later disproved...be that in the health fields or in game and fish management. Seems dang strange to me that for years and years folks lived quite well until some dolt of a scientist decided this or that was "unsafe". Bah! Humbug!

 

[jim gray]

Seems dang strange to me that for years and years folks lived quite well until some dolt of a scientist decided this or that was "unsafe".

:shocked2:

My thoughts exactly. The scientific types blow everything out of proportion. It was the same thing with tobacco, asbestos, and radon. There was no problem with any of that stuff until they went and spent a lot of time, money, and effort on doing research and once they invested money they couldn't come back and say that they didn't find anything. Next thing you know they'll be banning the use of mustard gas for hunting.


:shake:

 

[chickenlittle]

The scientific types blow everything out of proportion.

As a scientific type, I'd generally say it is the people who don't understand the science (or do and don't care) that blow things out of proportion.

The problem is people who have an agenda (even a well-intentioned agenda) and are willing to play loosely with the facts (the same flexibility stated by the person starting this thread). Unfortunately the public and the politicians are rarely able to understand the problem well enough to know what is the best action. Heck, many issues aren't even understood by the scientists working in a particular field. Of course, it was understood, they'd be working on something else.

I personally have spent the last 6 years trying to build reliable electronics with lead-free solder. Most engineers and scientists I deal with agree this is a huge waste of time and money and that it will not make the environment safer. But lead must go by July for most products to meet European legislation. It's ok for cellphones but I have no interest in lead-free planes, cars, or pacemakers. Some of those are technically exempt but soon won't be able to buy key components with lead-tin solder.

 

[asabai]

I agree with chicken little. :thumbsup: Science is not well understood and taken for granted by many. Many people who are complaining about scientific types are only doing so to protect there own way of thinking. They ignore that science give us thousands of medicines heats our homes efficiently, made the gun powder that burns in our guns and even refines lead, steel, and heavyshot. That's not to say that years of experiences should be brushed off by scientists. Scientists need to learn from those around them who experience the natural world on a different level to understand the whole picture and to ask the right questions. I hope that the lead lovers will take some time to look at all the evidence and come to unbiased conclusions.

Rusty Nipple

 

[Old Charlie]

Lets take a look at , asbestos. Is it bad for you? probably. But it is mostly just a way for the lawyers to shake down the manufactures. I would be willing to bet that 99% of the people getting money for asbestos if given an honest test do not have it. It like many if not most all class action law suits are nothing more than a scam! So how much harm is really done by some of the things the environmental nuts come up with? My guess is very little.
Old Charlie

 

[strongarm]

Where did you get all that BS? Most of your information is erronious at best. Infact in as 1998 issue of Shotgun Stuff magazine, it was reported that the toxic lead issue was taken way out of context and rammed down our throat as sportsman.

For example, lead does not leach more than 3 inches into the soil. So what happens is that in a few years natural decay covers the shot and no longer available to the animals.

Does lead affect wild animals, yes, but so does a lot of other polluntants. Has anyone proved that lead from shot kills wildlife- NO - What they have found is dead animals that were poisoned by lead compounds and since the animals consumed lead shot they jumped the gun and said it was the lead shot. Actually only lead compounds that the body can absorb are poisonous to anyone, you, me or King Kong.

 

[Vic Price]

To each, their own I reckon ! I can't hardly believe anybody would waste their time on a ridiculous endeavor such as this, but........go for it ! :shake:


Vic

 

[stevelyn]

I have always believed (and still do) that the lead shot ban was a fraud which had a two prong objective.

One was to ban hunting altogether by using the incremental approach starting with waterfowl hunting.

The other was a backdoor approach at banning ammo since the antis couldn't manage an outright ban on firerms or hunting.
You can bet that this is one issue that is going to continually come up from time to time.