Funny thing about non-toxic shot....

[pianoman9701]

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.

That's like saying cell phones might be causing brain damage. They should be banned because you can't prove that they aren't. That's a really stupid argument to ban something.

[pianoman9701]

I agree with the federal ban on lead for waterfowl and disagree with it for upland birds.

[Stilly bay]

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.

That's like saying cell phones might be causing brain damage. They should be banned because you can't prove that they aren't. That's a really stupid argument to ban something.

except that you are forgetting that we know lead is poisonous, cell phones not so much. your simile is lop sided.

[pianoman9701]

So, do you think that bullets should be steel, as well? And what about the number of birds that are crippled but not killed because of steel shot? Do they get consideration?

[Stilly bay]

So, do you think that bullets should be steel, as well?

I can't answer that question as my personal experience is limited in that field. but I was under the impression that there were better metals than lead out there for making bullets. I would also think this is an area where size matters as far as the danger of ingestion goes, but I don't know.

And what about the number of birds that are crippled but not killed because of steel shot? Do they get consideration?

your statement insinuates that steel shot is a consistent crippler of game birds. I have to go back to my previous statements and say that uneducated hunters that take irresponsible shots with steel are responsible for cripples, not the shot. on the other hand what about all the birds that have been crippled by lead shot? of which I have seen plenty.

[KopperBuck]

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?

Ok, first off, I call bullchit. MT does not restrict lead, they discourage, but there is no general ban. Nice try.

I'll play your game though, just for fun. Conservatism or not - MT does not rely on lead in their fisheries like most other states do. Would be much easier to justify. Oh, and by the way - their Gov is a Dem. Shhhh!!!!

Actually, I prefer the tungsten when I fish. MUCH better peformance, but MUCH higher cost. Consequently I primarily stick to tungsten only when I'm flipping and pitching. I lose less baits. I'll tell you right off I'll quit walleye fishing if they go to a lead ban.

I see both sides of the argument, and I wish I could say that I bird hunt enough to know the difference in performance myself. I just go with the flow b/c I don't hunt birds as much. Are we throwing poison out there, sure. Do I feel good about it? Not really, but I hate that again we're getting additional restrictions imposed on us. By non-hunting groups. I think if we made it more affordable and higher peforming many would self impose these restrictions, but the scales aren't tipping that direction yet.

[pianoman9701]

So, do you think that bullets should be steel, as well?

I can't answer that question as my personal experience is limited in that field. but I was under the impression that there were better metals than lead out there for making bullets. I would also think this is an area where size matters as far as the danger of ingestion goes, but I don't know.

And what about the number of birds that are crippled but not killed because of steel shot? Do they get consideration?

your statement insinuates that steel shot is a consistent crippler of game birds. I have to go back to my previous statements and say that uneducated hunters that take irresponsible shots with steel are responsible for cripples, not the shot. on the other hand what about all the birds that have been crippled by lead shot? of which I have seen plenty.

You sound like you know little about hunting. It's a fool who argues with an imbicile. I'm out.

[Stilly bay]

So, do you think that bullets should be steel, as well?

I can't answer that question as my personal experience is limited in that field. but I was under the impression that there were better metals than lead out there for making bullets. I would also think this is an area where size matters as far as the danger of ingestion goes, but I don't know.

And what about the number of birds that are crippled but not killed because of steel shot? Do they get consideration?

your statement insinuates that steel shot is a consistent crippler of game birds. I have to go back to my previous statements and say that uneducated hunters that take irresponsible shots with steel are responsible for cripples, not the shot. on the other hand what about all the birds that have been crippled by lead shot? of which I have seen plenty.

You sound like you know little about hunting. It's a fool who argues with an imbicile. I'm out.

just when I was thinking the same thing about you, what a hoot. bff?

Ok, first off, I call bullchit. MT does not restrict lead, they discourage, but there is no general ban. Nice try.
 

I deserve a bullchit on that one. my bad.

[Stilly bay]

The argument that steel shot compares to lead shot ballistics (works as well) is simply not true.

correct they both behave differently. one can argue that you have slightly less energy with steel, but you have more pellets hitting the target because of a better pattern. with lead you have more energy but less pellets hitting the target - among a great many other things. its a give and take really, but they are not the same.

If lead was causing problems with upland birds then there would be an epidemic in South Dakota. More lead shot shells have been fired in SD in the last decade at upland birds than any other state, yet they consistently are one of if not the top upland bird states in the country.

bird numbers have been declining rapidly over the last 30 years in SD like everywhere else. many blame habitat loss and farming practices. can you entirely rule out lead as not being part of the problem?

[Fishnfowler]

My contention with the lead ban is a personal one.  I hunt with vintage SxS that have been passed down through generations and can't shoot steel.  I buy nice shot for waterfowl, but only shoot a fraction of the shells at waterfowl that I do at upland.  Now I have three kids, each of which has a Grandfather's or GreatGrandfather's shotgun.  Selling these guns off just isn't going to happen, relegating them to the back of the safe isn't either.  Buying expensive non-tox for everyone reaches the realm of the improbable.  I could take it if there was valid data showing damage from lead use in the uplands, but it doesn't exist.  In the dove fields of the South, and in waterways, lead has been proven to be a problem.  In the uplands of the West, there isn't enough density of concentration to cause an impact.  having a lead pellet gradually oxidize into the earth isn't the same threat as having them eaten as grit by waterfowl. 

There are plenty of real-world examples of locations that don't have issues with lead toxicity despite generations of concentrated gunning, English estates are the standout.  Banning lead shot in the chukar hills is just plain unneccessary. 

[Shoffy]

In the uplands of the West, there isn't enough density of concentration to cause an impact.  having a lead pellet gradually oxidize into the earth isn't the same threat as having them eaten as grit by waterfowl. 

There are plenty of real-world examples of locations that don't have issues with lead toxicity despite generations of concentrated gunning, English estates are the standout.  Banning lead shot in the chukar hills is just plain unneccessary.

Couldn't have been said better

[Stilly bay]

My contention with the lead ban is a personal one.  I hunt with vintage SxS that have been passed down through generations and can't shoot steel.  I buy nice shot for waterfowl, but only shoot a fraction of the shells at waterfowl that I do at upland.  Now I have three kids, each of which has a Grandfather's or GreatGrandfather's shotgun.  Selling these guns off just isn't going to happen, relegating them to the back of the safe isn't either.  Buying expensive non-tox for everyone reaches the realm of the improbable.

I agree, this is one of the many reasons why I am not in favor of the ban on lead.  it would be unfortunate for so many guns to gather rust or for so many people to have to purchase new guns just to accommodate steel shot. I imagine we would lose a great number of hunters and license fees to a change like that. unfortunately this reason is an economical one rather than environmental.
 
 if the ban went through, I would imagine an affordable alternative would come about quickly (since necessity is the mother of invention and all), there is just too much money for ammunition manufacturers to lose over this if they kept soft non-tox at the prices they are now.  kind of like how steel shot prices have dropped over the last 20 years, partly because many hunters just didn't want to spend $15-20 a box, when the memory of good old lead for $4.00 a box was still fresh in everyone's mind... and that was back when $12-20 bucks was real money.



 

[AWS]

Actually in MT there is a lead ban on all WPA's and I hunt them a lot for pheasants and sharptail.  The steel shot works just fine there, but then we're hunting over pointers and aren't that needy to shoot at long wild flushes.   The first years I took my 20ga to shoot steel  on the  WPA's and it worked so good I use steel or non toxics everywhere.

South Dakota has a ban on lead on all public lands and after a $1000 dollars for gas, food, lodging and licenses $70 for 50 rounds of non toxics for my old double isn't a big deal.

The reason you don't here anyone bragging about how good Non Toxcs are is we're busy hunting, not whining about a needed change.

One thing to think about most of the better pheasant and quail hunting is near water, ditches, creeks and marshes.  Even the better  chukar areas have snow in the winter and a spring run off.

[Alpine Mojo]

I have to go back to my previous statements and say that uneducated hunters that take irresponsible shots with steel are responsible for cripples, not the shot.

So lead shot is a crutch for uneducated and irresponsible hunters...  I had no idea.

[Wenatcheejay]

The lastest Washington Department of Ecology CAP (That I know of 2008) If there is a more current one I'll pull it.

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0807025.pdf

"The CAP does not include any recommendations to ban or regulate
lead in any type of ammunition beyond current law. This includes
all shotgun, rifle and handgun loads.

Arizona launched a voluntary, collaborative, education-and-outreach partnership
with hunting and shooting groups to reduce the use of lead ammunition in condor areas. By
2008, 60 percent of Arizona hunters were using non-lead bullets and an additional 20 percent of
hunters continuing to use lead bullets were removing lead-contaminated gut piles. Ecology
supports a similar approach in Washington State.

Ecology favors a cooperative approach to
work with hunters, shooters, retailers and others in the sporting community to promote the use
of non-toxic alternatives to lead ammunition."

Here is how an outreach could have taken place letting a free market work. Instead many are in favor of empowering an anti-hunting agenda using a lack of science and passing regulation. Be careful, what they may do next may be distasteful. This method is not just about this issue, it is about the process.
 
With that, I'm out.