BAN OF TRADITIONAL AMMUNITION - WASHINGTON HUNTERS: LET YOUR VOICES BE HEARD!!!

[Special T]

With all the lead shot from killing ducks and Pheasant over the years, they still cannot prove that anyone has gotten lead poisoning from hunting! Do you think that no one has ever ingested a lead pellet before?  I gotta laugh about the lead pellets mixed with feed.

If you can't get the results you want just find a way to force it.... Just like when the "News" had to strap a road flair to the gas tank to get it to explode on impact....

[Wenatcheejay]

I think this is a pretty balanced essay.

http://www.outdoorlife.com/articles/hunting/whitetail-deer/accessories-gear/2008/12/update-lead-your-meat

Here is my take, (again.) All of this has nothing to do with making us safe. It is all part of the same cancerous agenda that is against hunting & fishing. It is completely no different and no less important than the wolf issue. Ignore this and you might as well pucker up to wolfies.  Increase cost, lower opportunity, strip funding for Game and transfer it to eco-agendas, it is all tied together. This also has an impact on food banks for no reason other than to once again make hunters look bad. If you eat game meat it is dangerous, deadly, don't do it, don't ALLOW it. There is no reason to hunt if you are not going to eat it, that is sports hunting which is evil. Control is a powerful tool. Tell us to cover up what we do, never display a trophy, never put up a picture, this is something that should be hidden, never in public, it's dangerous, it harms the ecosystem, it kills people.

No, there is no real scientific proof but it is not needed.    If we do not begin to aggressively reject this propaganda at all sides we will loose this battle. I think it is very important to show fake science here because it sets the stage to show fake science used in far more important issues. To me, if it is important enough that the NRA supports it that is enough for me to bloviate about it. It is important enough to let my fellow hunters know I support them, I write letters to support them and their sports. I do it in hopes they will do the same for me. This should be a brotherhood, (hunting and fishing.) Somehow, I feel we have lost that.

It doesn't take anymore time to send an email or letter than it does to post on this forum. There are people who take the time to show which representatives to send them to.

Thank all of you who take the time to do this.   

There are groups, NRA, Big Game Forever, RMEF, and others who will send you agenda drives where all you have to do is say you agree as a registered voter. It matters, even if you don't agree with me on this one issue as hunters we need to start deciding on where we will stand an be very firm there.

[predatorpro]

isn't it our sacred right to use lead? we have used it for many years and its part of our culture and history....

[huntrights]

Check out the latest news.

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=94628.0

[Wacenturion]

"Sadly, one can slant a [supposedly scientific] study to suit any end."


That is the real issue.  To have credible science to base decisions on, the researcher has to be totally unbiased.  That creature doesn't exist for the most part.  Everyone, including those doing research have opinions on issues, and those opinions influence outcomes.

[huntinguy]

"California has pushed for these additional lead bans even though data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) shows that the state's existing lead ban has not reduced blood-lead levels in condors. Despite reports of nearly 100 percent compliance from hunters in the first year of the lead ban, a California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) report utilizing the USFWS data showed that improvement in condor blood-lead levels was almost negligible between the first six months of 2008 (pre-lead ban) and the second half of 2008 (post-ban). During the January through June 2008 time frame, 59 percent of the condors tested had blood-lead levels above what is considered a normal or acceptable background level. In the second half of the year from July through December, 45 percent of condors had blood-lead levels above normal. (Source: "Lead Ban Not Really Helping Condors," Jim Matthews, San Bernardino Sun, July 30, 2009) "

what people are not asking is- where is the lead coming from? It is assumed hunters... but...

It sickens me when I see hunters not sticking together.

we need to learn... but we won't

"First They Came for the Jews"
By Pastor Niemoller

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

[Shoffy]

Every Chukar I have ever shot has died from lead poisoning. Specifically high velocity lead poisoning. 
Maybe they can use that in there next study.

hahaha me too!

[Special T]

"Sadly, one can slant a [supposedly scientific] study to suit any end."


That is the real issue.  To have credible science to base decisions on, the researcher has to be totally unbiased.  That creature doesn't exist for the most part.  Everyone, including those doing research have opinions on issues, and those opinions influence outcomes.

Ask anyone who has worked for a Marketing Firm this question. Is there a large portion of your customers that are trying to prove a point? Thier answer will be YES! The $$$ to do a survey or science is NOT funded from altrueistic donors. There is an adjenda everytime $$$ is spent. Some of it is more honest than others.

The only way to get an honest answer is to pay $$$ in advance to someone who has no dog in the fight... People don't tend to shell out those kinds of amounts first and ask for answers later. 

[Stilly bay]

opposition because another part of our hunting heritage is being closed off is one thing... arguing that shooting tons of poisonous lead into an environment that is normally lead free is completely harmless, is just ignorant in this day and age.

everyone has their own agenda, but opposing the lead ban is just going to make hunters look bad in the end. what it looks like on paper is that we are introducing lead into the soil and leaving it in crippled game birds that will in turn poison endangered birds of prey. this is a fight we are just not going to win, and as a hunter and conservationist I don't know that we should win it.

steel shot has never been cheaper or more effective. there are nontoxic alternatives that are safe for us to use in all our older guns. Steel target loads are cheaper than most lead, steel game loads are cheaper than many lead game loads, steel shot is no longer the enemy come to piss on your picnic. times are changing. if we embrace nontoxic shot as many states already have, we can stand tall that besides the occasional shell casing, we are not polluting the environment with a metal that is known to be poisonous.  in the end we might earn the respect of more people who are indifferent to hunting.  its the year 2012, we are damned lucky we still can hunt and have places to do it from this point forward if we don't go green, we might as well just go home.

how many businesses get high praise for doing what is right for the environment? how many get flamed for not? this will come into play with hunters, and I can't believe haven't been nailed to the cross for it already.
at face value this argument seems to be a matter of the dreaded "antis" trying to make us (hunters) do something, there fore we will resist it just on principle no matter where it stacks up in reality.  I see our opposition in this entire affair as a terrific way to shoot ourselves in the foot in the eyes of the vast public, and a good way to loose the support of people who don't hunt but aren't against it, which -in case you research waiving people don't know- is a bigger threat than the shenanigans of the anti's.

[Special T]

I think there is a BIG difference between Bird shot and rifle bullets.  It can be argued that in areas of high concentration(like many public waterfowl areas) that Lead can be a problem. Fortunatly there are already laws aginst using lead in most areas with hight concentrations of hunters. EVEN FOR PHESANT! There are some areas in E wa that require steel shot. 90% of the logical things have been done to prevent lead posioning, the rest is just acting on fear. 

[TWG2A]

They (the EPA) no longer needs to pursue banning lead to keep us from using firearms. The obama regime can simply go after the smokeless powder used to manufacture ammunition.

Here in Montana, our legislature convenes every two years for 90 days.  During the 2011 session, we proposed legislation which would have protected Montanans from this problem.

Montana SB 371

Here's some reading on the issue.

http://www.ammoland.com/2010/10/26/loss-of-smokeless-powder-the-greatest-threat-to-keep-bear-arms/#axzz1tZAGkPUt

SB 371 Rerouted
http://montanahuntingtoday.com/blog/index.php/2011/04/08/sb-371-rerouted/

The bill died in Committee..   We'll be back next year.

[huntinguy]

the argument is not just about "toxicity in the environment" there is much more to it than that.

Studies of shooting ranges have shown little if any leaching of lead to the surrounding areas.

a body will encase "any" foreign body that enters it... and it will fester (heavens knows I have had enough stainless, supposedly not reactive, chunks in my body that have festered and came out.  I have seen wounds from broadheads that have been terrible, and they are steel.

I understand the toxicity of lead. I used to work in a place that required everyone to be tested twice a year. But, the question is - does it cause harm to animals that may consume another animal that has been shot. Let’s do some math here... just how many wild animals get away with a pellet in them? how many animals die of natural causes? Does it even sound reasonable that hunters cause much swing in the balance of naturally occurring contamination? maybe in some flyways and in some release sights. There I could say yes or maybe... but in the open field?

Also, toxicity from lead is not a permanent situation, it does leave the body.

This is little more than another way to restrict if not outright prohibit hunting.

I have seen little data to change my mind. I am waiting………