Traditional ammo ban on federal lands

[grundy53]

Lead is highly toxic and detrimental to the wildlife we are supposed to be championing. If banning lead bullets will help the wildlife of the land then we should be supporting that.

Lead isn't man made. It is found in nature... so it's probably fine to leave it back in nature.

sent from my typewriter

[timberfaller]

  what a read!   the lead issue can be summed up with one statement.  IT is no different then the whole global warming/climate change HOAX! Same ideology and brainwashing by whacked out scientist 

I think some on here have fallen for BOTH!!

And before any of you spout off,  look up the very beginning of the(HOAX) lead vs steel issue.   Some on here were probably not even born yet.

Hint;  You'll find the FED'S were against going to steel!!  A "forced" retirement is what made the change in "agenda"

Good luck on your search.

Even though it won't change anything,  stupid people insist on doing stupid things especially if it involves a Federal agency!

[huntrights]

Lead is highly toxic and detrimental to the wildlife we are supposed to be championing. If banning lead bullets will help the wildlife of the land then we should be supporting that.

The Truth Behind The Assault On Traditional Ammunition
http://www.huntfortruth.org/

[Bob33]

Lead is highly toxic and detrimental to the wildlife we are supposed to be championing. If banning lead bullets will help the wildlife of the land then we should be supporting that.

The Truth Behind The Assault On Traditional Ammunition
http://www.huntfortruth.org/

They're just a wit bit biased.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/08/08/nra-pulled-its-science-denying-website-that-cla/195299

[Fishnfowler]

I'll chime in.  Perhaps I'm an anachronism, but my sport is hunting upland game with vintage SxS shotguns.  I've been doing it for 40 years and don't think I'll change soon.  My hunting is generally pretty far from ponds and the beaten path. I'm predominately a chukar hunter, but do chase the other game birds.  Banning lead shot will effectively force me to shoot bismuth and tungsten at what is quickly approaching 2 bucks a shell.  My three children also all shoot quality SxS shotguns.  Buying ammo for all of us would become prohibitive.  Selling all my guns so I could shoot steel just isn't going to happen.  When this state goes all steel, you can kiss my a$$ goodbye. I'll take my money, family, license purchases, and votes to another state. 

I'm convinced that concentrating lead shot in pheasant release sites and dove fields is a bad thing for the environment.  I am far from convinced that banning me from the chukar hills will make a lick of difference in lead poisonings.  Having my fellow hunters throw me under the bus is a bit of let down.  When they come for you I'll be gone.  Thanks for nothing.

[huntrights]

Lead is highly toxic and detrimental to the wildlife we are supposed to be championing. If banning lead bullets will help the wildlife of the land then we should be supporting that.

The Truth Behind The Assault On Traditional Ammunition
http://www.huntfortruth.org/

They're just a wit bit biased.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/08/08/nra-pulled-its-science-denying-website-that-cla/195299

"Biased" is a key term in the discussion. However, it also important to dig a little deeper.
Let's look at the source.  Also note the date of the article in the link (8-8-13).  Read their article closely and note how they came to their conclusion.  Then let's look at who Media Matters is.    Based on looking at Media Matters sole purpose and their history, they appear to be a very liberal, left-wing-biased organization that should not be given much credibility; just another propaganda machine.  Thanks for bringing Media Matters to our attention.  Of course, we all need to decide for ourselves.

Media Matters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America
"Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a politically progressive media watchdog group that says it is "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media"."


Media Matters, the watchdog group that loves to hate Fox News
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/02/AR2010120205779.html


Media Matters Facts
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/pages/static/media_matters_facts


This is a good read about Media Matters:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=7150



About the Hunt for Truth website:

The website is up and running.  It is not uncommon for links to change on a website which might explain why the Hunt for Truth link on the NRA-ILA website did not work for Media Matters on the one day they checked (8-8-13). 

Hunt for Truth - The Truth Behind The Assault On Traditional Ammunition
http://www.huntfortruth.org/


The NRA provides links to Hunt for Truth in their articles:

Big Condor Trouble Brewing for Hunters in Oregon: Join the Hunt for the Truth About Lead Ammunition and Hunting
http://www.nraila.org/hunting/articles/2014/4/big-condor-trouble-brewing-for-hunters-in-oregon-join-the-hunt-for-the-truth-about-lead-ammunition-and-hunting.aspx?s=hunt+for+truth&st=&ps=

Posted on April 4, 2014


  The information on the Hunt for Truth website appears to rely on science versus what we typically see with anti-hunting propaganda.  It also appears we can add Media Matters to the list of propaganda propagators. 

Is there bias in Hunt for Truth?   

The NRA has stood by our sides and fought for our rights.  Media Matters works to discredit conservative views. Who should we believe?

[fireweed]

The WDFW 2015-2021 game management plan has a "statement" on lead that everyone better check out and comment on before July 18.

[Bob33]

Is there bias in Hunt for Truth?   

The NRA has stood by our sides and fought for our rights.  Media Matters works to discredit conservative views. Who should we believe?

I'm an NRA life member, but my answer in this case is "neither". There is far more information on this topic and I prefer to study it comprehensively without relying on any one source, particularly when they have a vested interest in the outcome.

[washelkhunter]

Media matters is funded by the scourge known as george soros, obamas and the demonrats master puppeteer and financier.

[Bob33]

“Most non-lead alternatives offer inferior ballistic performance compared to lead. Because most alternative metals are less dense than lead, they lose energy and velocity in flight faster than lead and retain less down-range energy. For rifle ammunition, alternative metals are able to offer similar performance to lead at close range, but the generally lighter density of non-lead alternatives undermines their ballistic performance above 100-150 yards and makes lead a far superior ammunition for long range targets. Unfortunately, rifles and pistols have rifling that is designed to gyroscopically stabilize lead projectiles and not alternative metal ammunition.”

I suspect there are more than a few hunters who have shot game at distances in excess of 150 yards with Barnes or Nosler eTip projectiles that would disagree.

“For shot, steel and other harder metals offer inferior terminal performance because the projectile passes straight through the game without deformation, thus wounding and crippling the game instead of killing it on impact.”

There are lead free shot materials (bismuth, tungsten) whose terminal performance is at least equal to, if not superior to lead.

“Hunt for Truth is researching the potential for lead poisoning in various waterfowl.”

Really? There’s not much to say about that comment.

[huntrights]

There is a lot of information and propaganda out there, and most of us are not qualified research scientists capable of determining which studies are based on sound and unbiased science and which studies are fuzzy, manipulated, and biased science to serve specific agendas.

However, there are two simple questions people can ask themselves. 

1)   Who are the primary organizations pushing for the ban on traditional ammunition?
             a.   Answer: Two of the primary organizations are:
                       i.   Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
                      ii.   Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)

2)   Who are the primary organizations fighting against the ban on traditional ammunition:
             a.   Answer: Some of the primary organizations are:
                       i.   National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF)
                      ii.   Safari Club International (SCI)
                     iii.   U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA)
                     iv.   National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

Are all of these organizations biased in their organizational missions?  Answer: Absolutely.

Here are a couple more questions:

•   Has the Humane Society of the United States or the Center for Biological Diversity done anything in support of hunting, hunters, gun ownership, or the shooting sports?

o   Answer:  Available information on these two organizations indicates that they fall into the category of organizations generally referred to as “antis”.  No need to say more.


•   Has NSSF, SCI, USSA, and NRA-ILA done anything in support of hunting, hunters, gun ownership, or the shooting sports?

o   Answer: A resounding YES!  They are our allies.  They fight for rights to hunt, fish, own firearms, and participate in shooting sports.


Ultimately we must all decide who we will place our trust in since most of us do not have the time, resources, or expertise to do the detailed research ourselves.  At some point we must rely on the research, supporting science, and arguments presented by one side or the other.  Since this is a hunting forum, it is likely that HSUS and CBD will lose.

It would be interesting to do a poll asking who believes the research, supporting science, and arguments presented by HSUS and CBD versus the research, supporting science, and arguments presented by NSSF, SCI, USSA, and the NRA-ILA.  My vote goes with the NSSF, SCI, USSA, and the NRA-ILA, but that’s just my  .

[huntnphool]

There is a lot of information and propaganda out there, and most of us are not qualified research scientists capable of determining which studies are based on sound and unbiased science and which studies are fuzzy, manipulated, and biased science to serve specific agendas.

However, there are two simple questions people can ask themselves. 

1)   Who are the primary organizations pushing for the ban on traditional ammunition?
             a.   Answer: Two of the primary organizations are:
                       i.   Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
                      ii.   Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)

2)   Who are the primary organizations fighting against the ban on traditional ammunition:
             a.   Answer: Some of the primary organizations are:
                       i.   National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF)
                      ii.   Safari Club International (SCI)
                     iii.   U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA)
                     iv.   National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

Are all of these organizations biased in their organizational missions?  Answer: Absolutely.

Here are a couple more questions:

•   Has the Humane Society of the United States or the Center for Biological Diversity done anything in support of hunting, hunters, gun ownership, or the shooting sports?

o   Answer:  Available information on these two organizations indicates that they fall into the category of organizations generally referred to as “antis”.  No need to say more.


•   Has NSSF, SCI, USSA, and NRA-ILA done anything in support of hunting, hunters, gun ownership, or the shooting sports?

o   Answer: A resounding YES!  They are our allies.  They fight for rights to hunt, fish, own firearms, and participate in shooting sports.


Ultimately we must all decide who we will place our trust in since most of us do not have the time, resources, or expertise to do the detailed research ourselves.  At some point we must rely on the research, supporting science, and arguments presented by one side or the other.  Since this is a hunting forum, it is likely that HSUS and CBD will lose.

It would be interesting to do a poll asking who believes the research, supporting science, and arguments presented by HSUS and CBD versus the research, supporting science, and arguments presented by NSSF, SCI, USSA, and the NRA-ILA.  My vote goes with the NSSF, SCI, USSA, and the NRA-ILA, but that’s just my  .

 All of their research and arguments mean nothing to me, if they dont address other issues contributing to the health of their targetted wildlife examples.

[woodswalker]

Are all non-lead bullets considered "Armor piercing"?

All copper bullet:
http://www.barnesbullets.com/products/components/rifle/tsx-bullet/

Armor piercing? I think not, but then again, I'm far from an expert. That's the 1st thing that jumps out at me as BS.
 

I don't necessarily have an issue with non-lead ammo, but let's at least be realistic.

The devil is in the DETAILS...the "armor-piercing ammo" legislation usually goes after construction.  With words like "Monolithic" and "non-lead construction".  When you couple that with a ban on "bullets containing or substancially constructed of Lead or Lead Alloys" that pretty well wipes out the handgun bullet market. 

Another for instance is the Barnes Banded Solid.... Barnes’ Banded Solids™ stop dangerous game right now! In life-threatening situations, you can depend on Banded Solids to put the largest animal down. Machined from homogenous copper/zinc alloy, these indestructible bullets won’t disintegrate or deflect on heavy bone.

In smaller calibers these bullets have been deemed "Armor Piercing" by TPTB due to the Monolithic nature., so its a slippery slope at best.

From Barnes:
In October 2011, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) classified
twelve individual Barnes Banded Solid projectiles as armor piercing ammunition. Following
these classifications, Barnes submitted individual “exemption request” petitions to ATF. If the
petitions are approved, the projectiles will be removed from the statutory definition of armor
piercing ammunition, and therefore Barnes will have clearance to continue manufacturing and
selling these projectiles.
As of today’s date, ATF has not ruled on any of the petitions requesting the removal of the
Banded Solid projectiles from the statutory definition of armor piercing ammunition.
Accordingly, the following eleven Banded Solid projectiles (currently listed in the 2012 Barnes
Catalog) are subject to exemption requests that are pending with ATF. Please note that Barnes is
not pursuing an exemption for the .223 caliber Banded Solid projectile at this time. The .223
caliber Banded Solids are not listed in the 2012 Barnes catalog or on the Barnes website:
25 Cal 243 Cal 264 Cal 270 Cal
284 Cal 308 Cal 338 Cal 375 Cal
410 Cal 458 Cal (45-70) 458 SOCOM
While we await determination from ATF on these calibers, and in compliance with the original
classification by ATF, the projectiles listed above will not be available for purchase from Barnes.
However, if and when the exemption requests are approved, the projectiles at issue will become
available for purchase at that time.

[huntnphool]

Are all non-lead bullets considered "Armor piercing"?

All copper bullet:
http://www.barnesbullets.com/products/components/rifle/tsx-bullet/

Armor piercing? I think not, but then again, I'm far from an expert. That's the 1st thing that jumps out at me as BS.
 

I don't necessarily have an issue with non-lead ammo, but let's at least be realistic.

The devil is in the DETAILS...the "armor-piercing ammo" legislation usually goes after construction.  With words like "Monolithic" and "non-lead construction".  When you couple that with a ban on "bullets containing or substancially constructed of Lead or Lead Alloys" that pretty well wipes out the handgun bullet market. 

Another for instance is the Barnes Banded Solid.... Barnes’ Banded Solids™ stop dangerous game right now! In life-threatening situations, you can depend on Banded Solids to put the largest animal down. Machined from homogenous copper/zinc alloy, these indestructible bullets won’t disintegrate or deflect on heavy bone.

In smaller calibers these bullets have been deemed "Armor Piercing" by TPTB due to the Monolithic nature., so its a slippery slope at best.

 Yep, currently the bullets I am loading for my FiveseveN handgun are level 3 armor piercing, .223 caliber.

[timberfaller]

Don't forget, those two groups are using "wacko" science and their "green" lawyers to bend the ears of the un-informed!(politicians)

For you who don't have a problem "banning" lead shot, understand this,  back in the beginning NOT ONE bird out of the 50 states(not 57!) could be found to have died from lead poisoning from lead shot!  NO ducks, NO Bald Eagles but FACTS didn't stop their "agenda"

The above mentioned groups have, as do the liberals, A AGENDA!!   Educate your self and get in the fight!  and quit poking holes in the boat!!!

If anything should be "banned" its steel shot and stupidity!!