Funny thing about non-toxic shot....

[Shoffy]

I never hear people rant about how great it is on here. That must mean that nobody wants it, yet fish and game insist half of the upland hunters in WA are for all for using it.
Just sayin' it.....

[Wenatcheejay]

Actually, (unfortunately) there is a following of pro non toxic on the board. They are quite insistant that despite the EPA not wanting to regulate upland bird they are all for it in Washington.

Reasons

It is more expensive making people be better shots.
If you can't afford it then don't hunt.
There could be a condor or a duck in the mountains somewhere.
Chucker force fed lead pellets in captivity have higher lead concentrations in their blood.
Just because there is no empirical evidence doesn't mean they should not create scientific-like decisions based on emotion.
Not using non-toxic upsets the people who want to end hunting.

It is also worth mentioning we do not have a "game" department. We have a Wildlife and Fish department. I only mention it because I'd really like to see that change.

I have a hard time not supporting a ban on lead products for fishing. I mean if it is bad for ducks and it's bad for upland, and it's bad for Game it must be bad for water.... Isn't it? I'm just thinking of the fish 

[Stilly bay]

I never hear people rant about how great it is on here. That must mean that nobody wants it, yet fish and game insist half of the upland hunters in WA are for all for using it.
Just sayin' it.....

funny thing about lead shot is you rarely hear people rant about how great it is... they just rant about how they don't want it taken away.

lead is not better than steel, steel is not better than lead. lead shot load and steel shot loads are two completely different things each with their own virtues and negatives, get over it.

[Wenatcheejay]

Lead ammunition is not great? 

Not the question posed. The question posed is 50% of hunters want lead banned? But, there is not a survey.

This is just stated. Like of like your agressive post. 

And there is opposition to the lead ban; NRA, Shooting groups in the UK,  Montana Shooting Sports Association, Washington Dept. of Ecology did not support the ban but instead education, I could go on but  the EPA is backing off of shot & bullets. It is going forward with fishing tackle bans.

However, the Center for Biological Diversity is all for the ban of all lead ammunition, and they are experts at lawsuits.

Anglers should have opposed this shot ban but didn't. They are next, they won the last round but it is not over.

Muzzleloaders should be concerned over the anti lead fad. 

And FYI when it comes to hunting and hunting rights that are being undermind on all fronts I will never "get over it."

The folks who think that the ultraminority of anti hunters will win over the non hunting majority over this issue are fooling themselves.

[Curly]

It would totally suck to have to use non-tox shot for chukar hunting.  A lot of times the only shots you get are out there a ways and you'd have to use too large of steel shot to be able to consistently drop chukar, I think.  Other non-tox shot that is closer to the density of lead is very expensive.

And, what evidence is there that lead shot dispersed over the uplands during bird hunting has any negative effects to birds or animals or the environment? 

[Dhoey07]

Lead is great!!!! 

[Stilly bay]

And FYI when it comes to hunting and hunting rights that are being undermind on all fronts I will never "get over it."

where in the constitution does it say we have the RIGHT to use lead shot and bullets? none of our rights are being threatened on this issue.

while opposers to this will say that no one can prove lead shot from upland bird hunting leads to the poisoning of non target species, there is really no way that you can prove it does not.
 at the end of the day we all know that lead is poisonous and steel is not. sprinkling it around on the ground cannot be a benefit to the environment.

what is being taken from us is the personal responsibility to choose between non toxic and toxic by banning the latter.  now that we are wiser in the ways of the environment and the pollution of many choices between toxic and non toxic are being made for us. for just one example: lead based paint? where did it go and why isn't your baby's nursery coated in it?

as to the OP, my first response did sound aggressive and for that I apologize. I too would like to see the study where they determined half of the upland hunters were in favor of nontoxic shot... which IMO is in many ways superior to lead.


unfortunately those companies fighting to keep lead alive have a lot of $ to loose if they don't succeed

[flatbkman]

I have hunted in California where it is mandatory to use a non-toxic shot for upland game, and I wasn't impressed at all.
Yes it could have been my shooting, but I am convinced that the birds I took there flew further (after being hit) than those I have taken with lead shot. It's a good thing that my hunting partner has a good bird dog, otherwise I do believe I would have lost some of them.

[wraithen]

It is also not in the constitution to use lead fishing tackle. Lead is a great tool for the job no matter what price it is. The fact that it is cheap makes it the perfect fit for people trying to live more off of the land and for people who see it as just a sport or hobby. If we would ban against all attacks that are unfounded and circle our wagons it would take a lot more money and time for them to get where they are in regards to taking away these things. No where in the constitution are you given the right to hunt at all, nor fish. That does not make it appropriate to take these things away. I think some people fail to defend the constitution any earlier than the bill of rights. Those are AMENDMENTS just like all the ones that follow. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Hmmm... do we all have to pursue the same things the same way? Not banding together on this issue every time an angle is set against us is a mistake. If we allow bogus research to show that lead is bad in one area, we set a precedence to allow everyone to perpetuate that myth. Once the majority believes it it is basically a fact. After that the only argument left is the "but it costs so much!" This is easily countered with "What's the cost in comparison to the livelihood of future generations?" Every law has a few ripple effects. The anti's know this and think about it in every lawsuit. We should be forewarned of the same.

[Stilly bay]

hunting is a luxury recreational sport these days and living off the land does not compute. aside from a select few in unique situations, I would have a very hard time believing any WA state resident that said they needed to hunt and fish to feed their family and live off the land. Im sure they would benefit far more from a class in economics rather than time in the field.

 license fees and gas prices have never been higher. steel shot and lead shot prices have balanced themselves out in the last few years since steel was mandatory for waterfowl -which sets the precedence for banning lead in the uplands BTW.  if lead was gone and all that was left were steel and nontoxics you would see prices come down pretty quick, which is why ammo companies back the NRA and others against this.

[JimmyHoffa]

if lead was gone and all that was left were steel and nontoxics you would see prices come down pretty quick, which is why ammo companies back the NRA and others against this.

I think they would just expand the definition of 'toxic' to find another material.  For example, the laws in WA are set to phase out certain types of brakes/pads because of toxic metals in them.  When you brake, it removes a layer of material that distributes metal, especially copper on to the roads, then washes into the watershed, then into the streams.  The enviros claim that copper in streams is what is killing off salmon and are trying to ban copper now.  Nickel is another metal they are concerned about.

[wraithen]

If steel and non-tox come down in price why would the ammo companies care? I doubt that they are making a killing in profit ratio with non-tox.

Hunting an animal that has not been farm raised and fed and drugged to whatever degree is where the living off the land comes in. Many people see that meat as a healthy alternative they can get for themselves to augment their food supply. It costs me 180 in licenses for the year. The salmon alone pays for the fishing license. The hunting license is paid for by itself and then some if I am successful. How is this not a great opportunity for myself and my family? If hunting and fishing were the sport you seem to argue they are, I believe I would never think about shooting anything more than paper. My mother in law has a large high fence area in PA. I could hunt all kinds of things from pigs and watusi to a selection of exotics for nothing more than the total cost of the animal if I chose. This isn't what I'm about. It isn't what most of us are about. There's far too many people here that talk about the hunt itself and the taste of an animal they harvested themselves to be in it purely from the sport standpoint. I'm sorry sir, but for now there is no agreeing with you on this. I'm proud to not associate myself with the mid-west and the east coast. I'm saddened by the mentalities of theirs that sometimes creeps in.

[Stilly bay]

lead is the cheapest most readily available ammunition for manufacturers to make since they have been doing it for decades , ban lead and it would cost them dearly to rework the factories and suppliers for a non tox market.. but they would have to keep prices low so as not to lose even more customers to the change. this is why they are backing anyone against the ban. its a band aid that just needs to be ripped off. the ban of lead for duck hunting didn't end the world and brought about many amazing innovations in non toxic ammo to say the least

wraithen
living completely off the land  and supplementing your families diet off the land are two completely different things in my book. I think we misunderstood each other on semantics.

I would hope most of us on this hunting forum supplement our families meals with our kills. but to say you feed your family breakfast lunch and dinner with only what you kill and catch, living entirely off the land with no job or no government help is a rarity these days, how does one afford the licenses and gas ect. if you can afford to do so then more power to you, for you are one of the minorities I set aside in my earlier statement.

sport or necessity, hunting and fishing and the cost involved to do both are becoming a luxury that many deserving citizens just cannot afford anymore.

[Alpine Mojo]

Stilly bay,

Have you ever force fed lead shot pellets to chuckar, you know, for research purposes?   

[Wenatcheejay]

constitutional rights...

Do The People have a Constitutional Right to lead ammunition?

Well, again that is not the question. The question is does the WDFW have the power to go against the EPA, Department of Ecology and others and do what makes them feel good? Even if it is later proved to benifit chucker that is irrelevant today. Do The People have a right to revoke that power or even to question it?

Do they have the right to take away freedom of choice from The People because it makes them feel good?

I have never been good at shutting up and being a good little socialist.