Free: Contests & Raffles.
What about all those guns that can't fire steel?
The "End of the World argument" for what would happen if lead is banned for all hunting has one fatal flaw.Very effective substitutes for lead already exist and are in use, often, the first choice of the hunters themselves, especially in the big game realm with bullets like Barns X and Vortex series.Also, using the "policies are driven by emotions only" argument while ignoring in the field science makes hunters sound like a lead only cult. Studies documenting waterfowl deaths from lead ingestion goes as far back as 1908. http://www.jstor.org/pss/3781942 Arguing to keep in practice something that harms non target and or non game species just makes us look like we don't care about the resource. The problem is real, and so is the solution.
Update from the NRA-ILAhttp://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2012/02/washington-lead-shot-ban-on-pheasant-release-sites.aspx"Washington: Lead Shot Ban on Pheasant Release SitesPosted on February 13, 2012Submit comments to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife! Last September, we informed you about the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Commission’s (WDFW) overly broad ban on the use of traditional ammunition (lead ammunition) for all upland game hunting on all of the state’s pheasant release sites. We also asked you to take part in the 2012-2014 hunting season-setting process by submitting public comment to the WDFW and Commission to request that they repeal this unfounded lead ammunition ban. The NRA would like to thank all of you who participated in the first phase of the hunting season-setting process. Unfortunately, the WDFW has ignored the NRA’s and your requests to repeal the ban. The proposed rules for the 2012-2014 season can be found here; they range from new sections pertaining to night hunting and landowner hunting permits, to amending the code pertaining to archery requirements and the use of decoys - but the repeal of the lead ammunition ban is not among them! Citizens have until Tuesday, February 21, to submit public comment regarding these proposed rules. Please contact the WDFW and the Commission and respectfully express your disappointment that the WDFW ignored your requests to repeal the expanded lead ammunition ban (for all upland game on all pheasant release sites) and ask that they incorporate a repeal of this ban into their final recommendations. Written comments may be e-mailed to wildthing@dfw.wa.gov or mailed to: WDFW Rules Coordinator; 600 Capitol Way North; Olympia, Washington 98501. Thank you for your continued efforts and please check www.NRAILA.org for more updates on this important issue."
I am a Washington hunter and I DO NOT want a ban on traditional lead based ammunition. Polls are a good way to try to validate underlying agendas by manipulating statistics. If there was a poll, nobody asked me. I hope several of you wrote the WDFW asking for repeal of the ban of traditional lead-based ammunition use at the pheasant drop sites. Valid science has to drive these decisions; not propaganda, misguided perceptions, and emotion. Where are the valid scientific studies to back up the ban? I would like to see the impartial scientific studies showing population-level impacts on any species at the pheasant drop sites that have been performed and prompted this action in the first place.
Quote from: jshunt on February 23, 2012, 09:46:07 PMI am a Washington hunter and I DO NOT want a ban on traditional lead based ammunition. Polls are a good way to try to validate underlying agendas by manipulating statistics. If there was a poll, nobody asked me. I hope several of you wrote the WDFW asking for repeal of the ban of traditional lead-based ammunition use at the pheasant drop sites. Valid science has to drive these decisions; not propaganda, misguided perceptions, and emotion. Where are the valid scientific studies to back up the ban? I would like to see the impartial scientific studies showing population-level impacts on any species at the pheasant drop sites that have been performed and prompted this action in the first place.After reading the toxology reports from four different studies posted on the WDFW site here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/nontoxic_shot/, I can see where the reasoning comes from. I keep reading from us hunters here and elsewhere that there isn't any science to back this up, but apparently there is. For instance, one study said that one #6 lead pellet was found to induce mortality in pen raised chukars, and that approx. 58,000 lead pellets were found in soils near springs in a heavily hunted chukar area in Utah. If we are at all objective about this, that is a bit sobering, and it is easy to see where this is headed. For me, the main issue is cost. So, instead of buying a $250 gun each year, now we're looking at having to buy pricey ammo instead. Hopefully notox prices will come down. I won't shoot steel. I loathe it.
Quote from: Goshawk on February 23, 2012, 08:52:53 PMI am blown away how little people care but on many things perhaps I am the one who is wrong. Me too. They have put out online surveys for years that can be completed by anyone-antis included. And if any of us think that they are not on top of it doing all they can to make things tougher on the sportsmen all they need to do is read the comment sections. THEN DFW tells us That HUNTERS want it! A certain moderator falls for that.
I am blown away how little people care but on many things perhaps I am the one who is wrong.
Quote from: fethrduster on February 26, 2012, 07:59:30 AMQuote from: jshunt on February 23, 2012, 09:46:07 PMI am a Washington hunter and I DO NOT want a ban on traditional lead based ammunition. Polls are a good way to try to validate underlying agendas by manipulating statistics. If there was a poll, nobody asked me. I hope several of you wrote the WDFW asking for repeal of the ban of traditional lead-based ammunition use at the pheasant drop sites. Valid science has to drive these decisions; not propaganda, misguided perceptions, and emotion. Where are the valid scientific studies to back up the ban? I would like to see the impartial scientific studies showing population-level impacts on any species at the pheasant drop sites that have been performed and prompted this action in the first place.After reading the toxology reports from four different studies posted on the WDFW site here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/nontoxic_shot/, I can see where the reasoning comes from. I keep reading from us hunters here and elsewhere that there isn't any science to back this up, but apparently there is. For instance, one study said that one #6 lead pellet was found to induce mortality in pen raised chukars, and that approx. 58,000 lead pellets were found in soils near springs in a heavily hunted chukar area in Utah. If we are at all objective about this, that is a bit sobering, and it is easy to see where this is headed. For me, the main issue is cost. So, instead of buying a $250 gun each year, now we're looking at having to buy pricey ammo instead. Hopefully notox prices will come down. I won't shoot steel. I loathe it.The frequency of lead-pellet ingestion by captive chukars increased significantly when given a greater density of lead pellets with food and when fed a diet with seeds and grit pebbles that were similar visually to lead pellets. I estimated a density of 1,712,134 pellets/Ha in soils at an area used for target shooting.I like this part of one study best. If force fed lead in captivity the there is an increase of lead. I'd bet that is true.Bottom line is this is done. This is the kind of science used. This shows it is harmful to the enviornment. It shows that birds like all other animals and fish can be harmed. It shows that soon we need to expand "Get The Lead Out" to save the children. It should not be opposed by anyone who cares about their children or the enviornment. It should be applied to target shooting, hunting, & fishing as it is only logical. BTW, notice how "target shooting" is mentioned...... (This is from WDFW)I know, I know, I should not point out the potential not keep moving the goal lines here. I mean it is not like wolves where certian groups with say an "agenda" said that the program is only for one area and limited scope, and then moved the goal lines saying they never said they were going to stay within that said scope of area. No, this is a totally different kind of thing. It's not like where cherry picked data could be used to say "sue" the Governement to legistlate an agenda. Besides, the majority of true conservationists support it or don't care. The polls are in the debate is over. It is time to implement the agenda.
