Funny thing about non-toxic shot....

[Special T]

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

You have a bunch of this wrong Stilly. The state does not Aprove our rights, they are our RIGHTS unless we choose to give them up.  The quickest way to lose "rights" is to seek aproval... It is my right to do ANYTHING that is not currently illegal.  That is where your statement is Bass ackwards. 

[WAcoyotehunter]

I don't like shooting steel at upland birds, but I have to think that the increased lead is bad for the enviroment.  It's clearly posionous- why spread it all over the fields and woods?  It's not socialism or any other nonsense- it's taking care of the resource that we have a responsibilty to manage.

I have seen a lead poisoned mallard- it was the saddest damn thing I can imagine and that one bird made me a believer in nontoxic shot. 

Again, it's not an anti hunting argument---if you make it that you should stick to killing tame birds at a farm.  We have a resonsibilty to properly manage our resource and that means managing the users.  Buy some chickens and club them if you're only interested in killing birds.

[Special T]

There are not the kind of densities for that kind of statement when talking about upland birds... ITS ALREADY ILLEGAL in several public hunting areas in this state. Why would you want to do this on land that most people don't want to travel? OR private land? If i'm willing to take the risk on my own land then why should you make a stink? 

[WAcoyotehunter]

Because the shot is not likely to be confined to your land or water.  We don't often dump posions on our land, even if it's only one ounce at a time- I just think it's better safe than sorry.

[Curly]

I just can't imagine that lead shot out into the vast sagebrush areas where people are upland hunting would be ingested by many or any birds or animals.  It's not like waterfowl hunting where shots are taken from a blind out into an area where it becomes very concentrated.

If there are studies showing it to be a problem, I'd like to see the study. 

I'd sure rather have non-toxic shot be voluntary.  Maybe you guys that are already using steel for upland can shame the rest of us into using it..........especially if you have some good evidence that shows it is worth it and can be almost as effective as lead.

I can understand lead being required on some of the state wildlife areas where they release birds and there is a high concentration of hunters (there would be a better chance for lead concentration to be high there), but to require it everywhere statewide just doesn't right (unless there are some valid studies showing how bad a little lead can be).

[Wenatcheejay]

It's sad, I support the voluntary non toxic. That is what was originally suggested at the State level. Education on quality substitutions. But, it was decided that it needs to be involuntary.

It also shows the lack of support from waterfowlers. I guess if a ban is good enough for them it's good enough for everyone. There is no difference between an upland Plataea, private land, game, or shooting ranges and wetlands. "Get the lead out." It is everyone's ecosystem and the State needs to control it.

Even the debate from the other side, so hostile. Just like global warming, my side is right, the evidence is in, no science is needed, everyone agrees I am right; And if anyone says otherwise I don't want to hear it. If you don't agree you should not hunt.

It is the method here that concerns me so much. It sets the stage for other bans, & no shooting zones based on ideology and the whims of politicians. But, I can only hope I am wrong & ignorant and it is true conservationists who use science based on population management who are behind this and what is to come and not eco-fads.

[rtspring]

I hunted with both in my life. Never really seen any difference other than cost. They say you can shoot farther with lead? But I dont take 80 yard pokes with a damn shotgun....

FACT- All lead will be banned one day. GEt used to it now so it don't hurt to bad later... It is what it is....


RTSPRING

[Shoffy]

My question has always been how many years have we been using lead on pheasants, chuckar, ect? Has there been a huge enviromental impact in the last 100 years?? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that there hasn't been a clear study shown that it does, right?? Everybody here knows that 100% lead is toxic, but at what levels does it become dangerous?? And to what animals/plants? The gentleman that saw the "lead poisoned mallard" earlier in this post, with all respect, how did you know it was lead poisoning? How did it get the lead? Fishing weights?? That was one duck out of how many millions that are heathy?
Where is the line drawn then?? Non Toxic .22 rimfire on all fields and woods for plinking and small game hunting?

[Stilly bay]

the sad fact of the matter is; for many of you against this ban on lead, it has nothing to do with environment or a perception of rights. if lead shot cost $15.00 a box and steel only cost $7.00, steel shot is what you would be shooting and you wouldn't even bat an eye at lead being taken away.  some would probably say " good riddance, its was only slightly better than steel from what I am told, AND its poisonous" I realize the above is all hyperbole, but for a moment switch it around and look at it. where would you be standing?

the whole uproar is only about the price difference between shells, and its kinda disgusting especially when
the difference between steel and lead means nothing to honest duck hunters that shoot their birds over the decoys, many even prefer steel for its blistering speed.

the difference between lead and steel means little to responsible upland bird hunters that take shots at birds within range.

and it means little to those who buy quality game loads and not the cheap stuff at walmart, that we all know is mediocre at best. the price difference between middle of the road lead and steel isn't that big of a difference. steel target loads are even cheaper than winchester AA and from my experience they break clays just as well even though the shot is "made of steel and too small to be effective"
the main downside to steel is in the sub gauges, like 28gauges where you would have to step up to a more effective non toxic alternative. but how many people griping here in this thread shoot a 28 gauge besides me? and if you are you already know shells cost a fortune.

it also means little to those who spend the time and money patterning their guns, trying out different loads, and breaking clays so they know exactly what they are working with- AKA responsible hunters.

and to keep beating a dead horse... lead is poisonous, why would you want to introduce it to an environment free of lead, even if its only in trace amounts? especially when the alternative is about as easy and painless a solution as you can ask for?
 just like many of the environmental mistakes we have made over the years- its a hell of a lot easier to dump it in than take it back out.

responsible environmentally educated  hunters are already using steel in the uplands, and judging just by this thread there are many to whom an honor system of choosing steel over lead would not apply.

[Dhoey07]

Speed is only half of the equation 

[wraithen]

Even if lead were more expensive, banning it altogether would still be angering people. I ask again, if lead is bad for upland game, then how is it still ok to use it in lakes and rivers and oceans? There's a huge difference between being unpopular and being banned. You can preach all day about what your definition of a "true hunter" is but the fact remains there are still thousands that won't fit your definition and still enjoy the sport. If using lead shot were as horrible as it's image is getting, none of us would be alive right now. We would've gotten cancer from the first trigger pull. Ranges would be barren wastelands, and any place lead sits unmined in the earth would look like something from the hills have eyes. Lead is not good to ingest into the body. It leeching into the body from shooting sports is a non issue. If it were the EPA would have shut it down decades ago. Lead paint never hurt anyone that didn't ingest it. We're trying to get our rights preserved, not trying to lose them here.

Does steel work acceptably in the shot world? Pretty much. Should we allow people to make lead somehow criminal to use? Absolutely not. It will not stop there. It won't stop until hunting and fishing turn into something like country club sports. Where you have to pay a ridiculous price to participate. We want more people enjoying what we enjoy, not less.

[Shoffy]

 
Everyone has added great replys and arguments to this thread.

Now this may be a stupid question, but doesn't lead come from the earth anyway? Does it become poisonous after other metal compounds are mixed? I totally get that it is only in certain areas and must be dug out of the earth

[Stilly bay]

You can preach all day about what your definition of a "true hunter" is but the fact remains there are still thousands that won't fit your definition and still enjoy the sport. less.

a "true hunter" to quote you mis-quoting me- by my definition is someone who spends the money and time patterning their guns to determine what loads work and pattern best and practice with that. just like a responsible deer hunter would take the time to sight in his rifle and become proficient at hitting targets at various ranges BEFORE coming out the field and trying to kill an animal. thousands of people who enjoy the sport DON'T do this, but it sure as hell isn't right.

if more people took the time to pattern steel, and try various loads AND GOD FORBID PRACTICE WITH IT they would find it isn't the handicap it was made out to be. further more it will pattern a hell of a lot better than lead at normal ranges because steel doesn't deform like lead does so you have a denser pattern... which is what kills birds.

Even if lead were more expensive, banning it altogether would still be angering people. I ask again, if lead is bad for upland game, then how is it still ok to use it in lakes and rivers and oceans?

many states are pushing for lead free fishing tackle already. MT one of the most conservative red states out there has banned lead fishing tackle years ago.  if lead wasn't a concern why would some states go to the trouble of banning lead tire weights like they already have in europe?

[pianoman9701]

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.

Lead is great. Patterns well and is more deadly than steel. There!

[Curly]

Lead is great. Patterns well and is more deadly than steel. There!

 

Hey, maybe they should just make it so anyone born in 1970 or earlier can continue to use lead like we used to be able to do even for waterfowl when we started hunting.