Post by: KFhunter on June 20, 2014, 10:00:14 AM
Quote
The U.S. Department of Interior is currently reviewing a plan presented by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to ban traditional lead ammunition on all public lands. The traditional ammo ban would effectively ban hunters from using one-fifth of the total land area in the U.S.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/08/CA-Republican-Ban-On-Hunting-Disguised-As-Statewide-Ban-On-Lead-Ammo (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/08/CA-Republican-Ban-On-Hunting-Disguised-As-Statewide-Ban-On-Lead-Ammo)
Quote
California Assemblyman and gubernatorial candidate Tim Donnelly (R-33rd Dist.) says the proposed ban on lead ammunition awaiting Governor Jerry Brown's (D) signature is a de facto ban on hunting.
Donnelly was referring to AB711, which would ban lead ammo throughout California under the guise of protecting the state's Condor population.
"This is a ban on hunting that is disguised as a lead ammo ban," Donnelly told Breitbart News on October 8. "It would force people to go non-lead bullets, but non-lead bullets are considered to be armor piercing, and if they can be fired through a handgun they are illegal to own. It is a breach of federal law to own arming piecing ammunition for handguns."
"This will effectively end ammunition options for hunters, ending hunting in CA as well," he explained. "And this makes no sense because hunters help us manage the wildlife population. And through licenses and other fees they actually pay the state to let them do the management."
discuss
Post by: bigtex on June 20, 2014, 10:12:05 AM
Any of you today can petition USFWS or NMFS to list ANYTHING under the protection of the ESA. By law the agency must review it, even if they know from the get go there will be no way the species will fall under ESA protection.
A lot of websites run with the whole "agency is reviewing" headline. Well agencies are reviewing hundreds of proposals everyday.
Post by: washelkhunter on June 20, 2014, 10:19:16 AM
Post by: KFhunter on June 20, 2014, 10:21:01 AM
I gave this one a bit more credit because of California, so there is some trend there. For proposals, some of them need strong public input to kill it.
I'm looking at one such beast right now with the snowmobiling on forest service lands in WA, probably see a post on that here shortly :chuckle:
Post by: jackelope on June 20, 2014, 10:22:18 AM
All copper bullet:
http://www.barnesbullets.com/products/components/rifle/tsx-bullet/ (http://www.barnesbullets.com/products/components/rifle/tsx-bullet/)
Armor piercing? I think not, but then again, I'm far from an expert. That's the 1st thing that jumps out at me as BS.
:dunno:
I don't necessarily have an issue with non-lead ammo, but let's at least be realistic.
Post by: bigtex on June 20, 2014, 10:24:23 AM
Post by: Bob33 on June 20, 2014, 10:26:21 AM
This is an issue hunters should be supporting and taking the lead on.I think that's the point. :chuckle:
Post by: huntnphool on June 20, 2014, 10:34:17 AM
This is an issue hunters should be supporting and taking the lead on.:chuckle: yeah, because their one 150gr bullet they shoot every year while hunting actually has the potential to do so much damage to wildlife........oh brother!
Post by: washelkhunter on June 20, 2014, 10:45:26 AM
This is an issue hunters should be supporting and taking the lead on.:chuckle: yeah, because their one 150gr bullet they shoot every year while hunting actually has the potential to do so much damage to wildlife........oh brother!
Its not a big game issue its a small game one. Think about all the guys shooting prairie dogs and ground squirrels. All those carcasses are left to be scavenged and rot. A lot of lead fragments are being taken up by scavengers and birds. It starts to be a compounded problem.
Post by: bigtex on June 20, 2014, 10:46:23 AM
:yeah:Its not a big game issue its a small game one. Think about all the guys shooting prairie dogs and ground squirrels. All those carcasses are left to be scavenged and rot. A lot of lead fragments are being taken up by scavengers and birds. It starts to be a compounded problem.This is an issue hunters should be supporting and taking the lead on.:chuckle: yeah, because their one 150gr bullet they shoot every year while hunting actually has the potential to do so much damage to wildlife........oh brother!
Small game and birds.
Post by: huntnphool on June 20, 2014, 10:52:22 AM
:yeah:Its not a big game issue its a small game one. Think about all the guys shooting prairie dogs and ground squirrels. All those carcasses are left to be scavenged and rot. A lot of lead fragments are being taken up by scavengers and birds. It starts to be a compounded problem.This is an issue hunters should be supporting and taking the lead on.:chuckle: yeah, because their one 150gr bullet they shoot every year while hunting actually has the potential to do so much damage to wildlife........oh brother!
Small game and birds.
I thought lead bird shot was already banned.
Post by: bigtex on June 20, 2014, 11:02:58 AM
Not entirely. It's illegal to use lead for waterfowl statewide. It's also illegal to use lead for upland bird hunting on WDFW pheasant release sites. Other than that you can use lead for all other birds.I thought lead bird shot was already banned.:yeah:Its not a big game issue its a small game one. Think about all the guys shooting prairie dogs and ground squirrels. All those carcasses are left to be scavenged and rot. A lot of lead fragments are being taken up by scavengers and birds. It starts to be a compounded problem.This is an issue hunters should be supporting and taking the lead on.:chuckle: yeah, because their one 150gr bullet they shoot every year while hunting actually has the potential to do so much damage to wildlife........oh brother!
Small game and birds.
Post by: huntnphool on June 20, 2014, 11:11:52 AM
I can see changing it for bird shot, but big game is a complete joke, varmint too.Not entirely. It's illegal to use lead for waterfowl statewide. It's also illegal to use lead for upland bird hunting on WDFW pheasant release sites. Other than that you can use lead for all other birds.I thought lead bird shot was already banned.:yeah:Its not a big game issue its a small game one. Think about all the guys shooting prairie dogs and ground squirrels. All those carcasses are left to be scavenged and rot. A lot of lead fragments are being taken up by scavengers and birds. It starts to be a compounded problem.This is an issue hunters should be supporting and taking the lead on.:chuckle: yeah, because their one 150gr bullet they shoot every year while hunting actually has the potential to do so much damage to wildlife........oh brother!
Small game and birds.
If this truly is a environmental/wildlife emergency, and I don't buy that for a second, then make it caliber restricted, like .22 caliber and smaller, since that's what 99% of prairie dogs and squirrels are hunted with.
Post by: Bob33 on June 20, 2014, 11:14:51 AM
Not entirely. It's illegal to use lead for waterfowl statewide. It's also illegal to use lead for upland bird hunting on WDFW pheasant release sites. Other than that you can use lead for all other birds.It can't be used on nearly all Wildlife Areas and National refuges.
Post by: bigtex on June 20, 2014, 11:16:48 AM
I know BobNot entirely. It's illegal to use lead for waterfowl statewide. It's also illegal to use lead for upland bird hunting on WDFW pheasant release sites. Other than that you can use lead for all other birds.It can't be used on nearly all Wildlife Areas and National refuges.
Post by: csaaphill on June 20, 2014, 09:46:06 PM
I Say No to the hell NO! >:(
We think this ok next will be something else, can't believe people truly think this ok?
It's coming from HSUS For dang sakes the biggest anti hunting group out there!
Nothing like divide and conquer huh?
:bash:
Post by: sled on June 20, 2014, 10:23:48 PM
I Was Shot In The Knee With A Pellet Gun When I Was9 I carried That Pellet for Eleven Years. Nothing Wrong With Me..... Wait A Minute.. IM Am As Messed Up As They Come! :chuckle::yeah:Its not a big game issue its a small game one. Think about all the guys shooting prairie dogs and ground squirrels. All those carcasses are left to be scavenged and rot. A lot of lead fragments are being taken up by scavengers and birds. It starts to be a compounded problem.This is an issue hunters should be supporting and taking the lead on.:chuckle: yeah, because their one 150gr bullet they shoot every year while hunting actually has the potential to do so much damage to wildlife........oh brother!
Small game and birds.
I thought lead bird shot was already banned.
Post by: huntnphool on June 20, 2014, 10:26:18 PM
:chuckle:I Was Shot In The Knee With A Pellet Gun When I Was9 I carried That Pellet for Eleven Years. Nothing Wrong With Me..... Wait A Minute.. IM Am As Messed Up As They Come! :chuckle::yeah:Its not a big game issue its a small game one. Think about all the guys shooting prairie dogs and ground squirrels. All those carcasses are left to be scavenged and rot. A lot of lead fragments are being taken up by scavengers and birds. It starts to be a compounded problem.This is an issue hunters should be supporting and taking the lead on.:chuckle: yeah, because their one 150gr bullet they shoot every year while hunting actually has the potential to do so much damage to wildlife........oh brother!
Small game and birds.
I thought lead bird shot was already banned.
Post by: sled on June 20, 2014, 10:35:00 PM
Also Don't Have Much Hair Left. Must Be from Paint Chips, Or Maybe A 5 Year Old Daughter... :chuckle: :dunno:I Was Shot In The Knee With A Pellet Gun When I Was9 I carried That Pellet for Eleven Years. Nothing Wrong With Me..... Wait A Minute.. IM Am As Messed Up As They Come! :chuckle::yeah:Its not a big game issue its a small game one. Think about all the guys shooting prairie dogs and ground squirrels. All those carcasses are left to be scavenged and rot. A lot of lead fragments are being taken up by scavengers and birds. It starts to be a compounded problem.This is an issue hunters should be supporting and taking the lead on.:chuckle: yeah, because their one 150gr bullet they shoot every year while hunting actually has the potential to do so much damage to wildlife........oh brother!
Small game and birds.
I thought lead bird shot was already banned.
Post by: sakoshooter on June 20, 2014, 11:54:28 PM
Can't really say I've been affected or maybe I'm all screwed up like Sled, LOL.
I wouldn't support banning lead bullets for the reasons the Humane Society is using.
Post by: Bean Counter on June 21, 2014, 01:46:40 AM
I have a rather large supply of lead hunting ammo. I will have to consider risking a ticket before just throwing it all out.
Post by: Bigshooter on June 21, 2014, 06:27:17 AM
:bdid:
I Say No to the hell NO! >:(
We think this ok next will be something else, can't believe people truly think this ok?
It's coming from HSUS For dang sakes the biggest anti hunting group out there!
Nothing like divide and conquer huh?
:bash:
:yeah:
Give an inch now and they will come back and try and take a mile later.
Post by: HawkCreek on June 22, 2014, 03:00:34 PM
Post by: huntrights on June 23, 2014, 02:29:03 PM
ACTION ALERT: “Hunting on Public Lands at Risk”
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,155513.0.html
http://www.nssfblog.com/hunting-on-public-lands-at-risk/
Make those phone calls.
Post by: washelkhunter on June 23, 2014, 02:37:44 PM
Post by: huntnphool on June 23, 2014, 03:27:10 PM
Lead is highly toxic and detrimental to the wildlife we are supposed to be championing. If banning lead bullets will help the wildlife of the land then we should be supporting that.Lmao, this is the kind of nanny, do gooder, BS mentality and comments that cracks me up. All of you wildlife "champions" pick the next heart string subject you can BS the general head in the sand public with, in your wildly exaggerated scenario's, just to further your real agenda's.
There are so many other "toxic" issues you can be addressing that have far more realistic scenarios and impact, than a bird somehow ingesting poison from the lead bullet that passed through my buck 5 years ago. :chuckle:
How about addressing the amount of oil or coolant leaking out of the vehicles on the roads as a example? Its far more realistic to suggest toxins from that are harming wildlife than a 150 grain bullet in the dirt somewhere..........lmao! :chuckle:
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 23, 2014, 03:33:06 PM
Post by: Bob33 on June 23, 2014, 03:37:37 PM
Here's an interesting read, however: http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/california_condor_lead.shtml (http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/california_condor_lead.shtml)
Post by: huntnphool on June 23, 2014, 03:46:04 PM
It makes sense for waterfowl because the pellets are concentrated in the ponds. This would have no positive effects in the woods where there may be no more than a few bullets per sq mile. Ridiculous.Agreed, I do not have a issue banning lead shot.
Post by: snowpack on June 23, 2014, 03:47:23 PM
Post by: grundy53 on June 23, 2014, 03:55:39 PM
Lead is highly toxic and detrimental to the wildlife we are supposed to be championing. If banning lead bullets will help the wildlife of the land then we should be supporting that.Lead isn't man made. It is found in nature... so it's probably fine to leave it back in nature.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: timberfaller on June 23, 2014, 04:23:44 PM
I think some on here have fallen for BOTH!! :chuckle:
And before any of you spout off, look up the very beginning of the(HOAX) lead vs steel issue. Some on here were probably not even born yet.
Hint; You'll find the FED'S were against going to steel!! A "forced" retirement is what made the change in "agenda"
Good luck on your search.
Even though it won't change anything, stupid people insist on doing stupid things especially if it involves a Federal agency!
Post by: huntrights on June 23, 2014, 08:27:47 PM
Lead is highly toxic and detrimental to the wildlife we are supposed to be championing. If banning lead bullets will help the wildlife of the land then we should be supporting that.
The Truth Behind The Assault On Traditional Ammunition
http://www.huntfortruth.org/
Post by: Bob33 on June 23, 2014, 08:40:53 PM
They're just a wit bit biased.Lead is highly toxic and detrimental to the wildlife we are supposed to be championing. If banning lead bullets will help the wildlife of the land then we should be supporting that.
The Truth Behind The Assault On Traditional Ammunition
http://www.huntfortruth.org/
http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/08/08/nra-pulled-its-science-denying-website-that-cla/195299 (http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/08/08/nra-pulled-its-science-denying-website-that-cla/195299)
Post by: Fishnfowler on June 23, 2014, 10:46:47 PM
I'm convinced that concentrating lead shot in pheasant release sites and dove fields is a bad thing for the environment. I am far from convinced that banning me from the chukar hills will make a lick of difference in lead poisonings. Having my fellow hunters throw me under the bus is a bit of let down. When they come for you I'll be gone. Thanks for nothing.
Post by: huntrights on June 24, 2014, 11:25:09 AM
They're just a wit bit biased.Lead is highly toxic and detrimental to the wildlife we are supposed to be championing. If banning lead bullets will help the wildlife of the land then we should be supporting that.
The Truth Behind The Assault On Traditional Ammunition
http://www.huntfortruth.org/
http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/08/08/nra-pulled-its-science-denying-website-that-cla/195299 (http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/08/08/nra-pulled-its-science-denying-website-that-cla/195299)
"Biased" is a key term in the discussion. However, it also important to dig a little deeper.
Let's look at the source. Also note the date of the article in the link (8-8-13). Read their article closely and note how they came to their conclusion. Then let's look at who Media Matters is. :twocents: Based on looking at Media Matters sole purpose and their history, they appear to be a very liberal, left-wing-biased organization that should not be given much credibility; just another propaganda machine. Thanks for bringing Media Matters to our attention. Of course, we all need to decide for ourselves.
Media Matters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America
"Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a politically progressive media watchdog group that says it is "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media"."
Media Matters, the watchdog group that loves to hate Fox News
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/02/AR2010120205779.html
Media Matters Facts
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/pages/static/media_matters_facts
This is a good read about Media Matters:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=7150
About the Hunt for Truth website:
The website is up and running. It is not uncommon for links to change on a website which might explain why the Hunt for Truth link on the NRA-ILA website did not work for Media Matters on the one day they checked (8-8-13).
Hunt for Truth - The Truth Behind The Assault On Traditional Ammunition
http://www.huntfortruth.org/
The NRA provides links to Hunt for Truth in their articles:
Big Condor Trouble Brewing for Hunters in Oregon: Join the Hunt for the Truth About Lead Ammunition and Hunting
http://www.nraila.org/hunting/articles/2014/4/big-condor-trouble-brewing-for-hunters-in-oregon-join-the-hunt-for-the-truth-about-lead-ammunition-and-hunting.aspx?s=hunt+for+truth&st=&ps=
Posted on April 4, 2014
:twocents: The information on the Hunt for Truth website appears to rely on science versus what we typically see with anti-hunting propaganda. It also appears we can add Media Matters to the list of propaganda propagators.
Is there bias in Hunt for Truth?
:twocents:
The NRA has stood by our sides and fought for our rights. Media Matters works to discredit conservative views. Who should we believe?
Post by: fireweed on June 24, 2014, 12:34:56 PM
Post by: Bob33 on June 24, 2014, 01:00:46 PM
Is there bias in Hunt for Truth?I'm an NRA life member, but my answer in this case is "neither". There is far more information on this topic and I prefer to study it comprehensively without relying on any one source, particularly when they have a vested interest in the outcome.
:twocents:
The NRA has stood by our sides and fought for our rights. Media Matters works to discredit conservative views. Who should we believe?
Post by: washelkhunter on June 24, 2014, 01:08:05 PM
Post by: Bob33 on June 24, 2014, 01:11:50 PM
I suspect there are more than a few hunters who have shot game at distances in excess of 150 yards with Barnes or Nosler eTip projectiles that would disagree.
“For shot, steel and other harder metals offer inferior terminal performance because the projectile passes straight through the game without deformation, thus wounding and crippling the game instead of killing it on impact.”
There are lead free shot materials (bismuth, tungsten) whose terminal performance is at least equal to, if not superior to lead.
“Hunt for Truth is researching the potential for lead poisoning in various waterfowl.”
Really? There’s not much to say about that comment.
Post by: huntrights on June 24, 2014, 09:41:46 PM
There is a lot of information and propaganda out there, and most of us are not qualified research scientists capable of determining which studies are based on sound and unbiased science and which studies are fuzzy, manipulated, and biased science to serve specific agendas.
However, there are two simple questions people can ask themselves.
1) Who are the primary organizations pushing for the ban on traditional ammunition?
a. Answer: Two of the primary organizations are:
i. Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
ii. Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)
2) Who are the primary organizations fighting against the ban on traditional ammunition:
a. Answer: Some of the primary organizations are:
i. National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF)
ii. Safari Club International (SCI)
iii. U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA)
iv. National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)
Are all of these organizations biased in their organizational missions? Answer: Absolutely.
Here are a couple more questions:
• Has the Humane Society of the United States or the Center for Biological Diversity done anything in support of hunting, hunters, gun ownership, or the shooting sports?
o Answer: Available information on these two organizations indicates that they fall into the category of organizations generally referred to as “antis”. No need to say more.
• Has NSSF, SCI, USSA, and NRA-ILA done anything in support of hunting, hunters, gun ownership, or the shooting sports?
o Answer: A resounding YES! They are our allies. They fight for rights to hunt, fish, own firearms, and participate in shooting sports.
Ultimately we must all decide who we will place our trust in since most of us do not have the time, resources, or expertise to do the detailed research ourselves. At some point we must rely on the research, supporting science, and arguments presented by one side or the other. Since this is a hunting forum, it is likely that HSUS and CBD will lose.
It would be interesting to do a poll asking who believes the research, supporting science, and arguments presented by HSUS and CBD versus the research, supporting science, and arguments presented by NSSF, SCI, USSA, and the NRA-ILA. My vote goes with the NSSF, SCI, USSA, and the NRA-ILA, but that’s just my :twocents:.
Post by: huntnphool on June 24, 2014, 10:12:24 PM
There is a lot of information and propaganda out there, and most of us are not qualified research scientists capable of determining which studies are based on sound and unbiased science and which studies are fuzzy, manipulated, and biased science to serve specific agendas.
However, there are two simple questions people can ask themselves.
1) Who are the primary organizations pushing for the ban on traditional ammunition?
a. Answer: Two of the primary organizations are:
i. Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
ii. Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)
2) Who are the primary organizations fighting against the ban on traditional ammunition:
a. Answer: Some of the primary organizations are:
i. National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF)
ii. Safari Club International (SCI)
iii. U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA)
iv. National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)
Are all of these organizations biased in their organizational missions? Answer: Absolutely.
Here are a couple more questions:
• Has the Humane Society of the United States or the Center for Biological Diversity done anything in support of hunting, hunters, gun ownership, or the shooting sports?
o Answer: Available information on these two organizations indicates that they fall into the category of organizations generally referred to as “antis”. No need to say more.
• Has NSSF, SCI, USSA, and NRA-ILA done anything in support of hunting, hunters, gun ownership, or the shooting sports?
o Answer: A resounding YES! They are our allies. They fight for rights to hunt, fish, own firearms, and participate in shooting sports.
Ultimately we must all decide who we will place our trust in since most of us do not have the time, resources, or expertise to do the detailed research ourselves. At some point we must rely on the research, supporting science, and arguments presented by one side or the other. Since this is a hunting forum, it is likely that HSUS and CBD will lose.
It would be interesting to do a poll asking who believes the research, supporting science, and arguments presented by HSUS and CBD versus the research, supporting science, and arguments presented by NSSF, SCI, USSA, and the NRA-ILA. My vote goes with the NSSF, SCI, USSA, and the NRA-ILA, but that’s just my :twocents:.
All of their research and arguments mean nothing to me, if they dont address other issues contributing to the health of their targetted wildlife examples. :twocents:
Post by: woodswalker on June 25, 2014, 09:03:30 AM
Are all non-lead bullets considered "Armor piercing"?
All copper bullet:
http://www.barnesbullets.com/products/components/rifle/tsx-bullet/ (http://www.barnesbullets.com/products/components/rifle/tsx-bullet/)
Armor piercing? I think not, but then again, I'm far from an expert. That's the 1st thing that jumps out at me as BS.
:dunno:
I don't necessarily have an issue with non-lead ammo, but let's at least be realistic.
The devil is in the DETAILS...the "armor-piercing ammo" legislation usually goes after construction. With words like "Monolithic" and "non-lead construction". When you couple that with a ban on "bullets containing or substancially constructed of Lead or Lead Alloys" that pretty well wipes out the handgun bullet market.
Another for instance is the Barnes Banded Solid.... Barnes’ Banded Solids™ stop dangerous game right now! In life-threatening situations, you can depend on Banded Solids to put the largest animal down. Machined from homogenous copper/zinc alloy, these indestructible bullets won’t disintegrate or deflect on heavy bone.
In smaller calibers these bullets have been deemed "Armor Piercing" by TPTB due to the Monolithic nature., so its a slippery slope at best.
From Barnes:
In October 2011, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) classified
twelve individual Barnes Banded Solid projectiles as armor piercing ammunition. Following
these classifications, Barnes submitted individual “exemption request” petitions to ATF. If the
petitions are approved, the projectiles will be removed from the statutory definition of armor
piercing ammunition, and therefore Barnes will have clearance to continue manufacturing and
selling these projectiles.
As of today’s date, ATF has not ruled on any of the petitions requesting the removal of the
Banded Solid projectiles from the statutory definition of armor piercing ammunition.
Accordingly, the following eleven Banded Solid projectiles (currently listed in the 2012 Barnes
Catalog) are subject to exemption requests that are pending with ATF. Please note that Barnes is
not pursuing an exemption for the .223 caliber Banded Solid projectile at this time. The .223
caliber Banded Solids are not listed in the 2012 Barnes catalog or on the Barnes website:
25 Cal 243 Cal 264 Cal 270 Cal
284 Cal 308 Cal 338 Cal 375 Cal
410 Cal 458 Cal (45-70) 458 SOCOM
While we await determination from ATF on these calibers, and in compliance with the original
classification by ATF, the projectiles listed above will not be available for purchase from Barnes.
However, if and when the exemption requests are approved, the projectiles at issue will become
available for purchase at that time.
Post by: huntnphool on June 25, 2014, 10:47:57 AM
Are all non-lead bullets considered "Armor piercing"?
All copper bullet:
http://www.barnesbullets.com/products/components/rifle/tsx-bullet/ (http://www.barnesbullets.com/products/components/rifle/tsx-bullet/)
Armor piercing? I think not, but then again, I'm far from an expert. That's the 1st thing that jumps out at me as BS.
:dunno:
I don't necessarily have an issue with non-lead ammo, but let's at least be realistic.
The devil is in the DETAILS...the "armor-piercing ammo" legislation usually goes after construction. With words like "Monolithic" and "non-lead construction". When you couple that with a ban on "bullets containing or substancially constructed of Lead or Lead Alloys" that pretty well wipes out the handgun bullet market.
Another for instance is the Barnes Banded Solid.... Barnes’ Banded Solids™ stop dangerous game right now! In life-threatening situations, you can depend on Banded Solids to put the largest animal down. Machined from homogenous copper/zinc alloy, these indestructible bullets won’t disintegrate or deflect on heavy bone.
In smaller calibers these bullets have been deemed "Armor Piercing" by TPTB due to the Monolithic nature., so its a slippery slope at best.
Yep, currently the bullets I am loading for my FiveseveN handgun are level 3 armor piercing, .223 caliber.
Post by: timberfaller on June 25, 2014, 11:20:01 AM
For you who don't have a problem "banning" lead shot, understand this, back in the beginning NOT ONE bird out of the 50 states(not 57!) could be found to have died from lead poisoning from lead shot! NO ducks, NO Bald Eagles :bash: but FACTS didn't stop their "agenda"
The above mentioned groups have, as do the liberals, A AGENDA!! Educate your self and get in the fight! and quit poking holes in the boat!!!
If anything should be "banned" its steel shot and stupidity!! :chuckle:
Post by: Wacenturion on June 25, 2014, 11:23:46 AM
It makes sense for waterfowl because the pellets are concentrated in the ponds. This would have no positive effects in the woods where there may be no more than a few bullets per sq mile. Ridiculous.
Not neccessary so. Back in my younger days with WDFW as a biologist in Region 2, I took lots of samples looking for lead shot deposits from areas in Grant, Adams and Franklin counties prior to the eventual change over a few years later to non toxic shot.
Many or those areas, including the Pothholes Reservoir showed no retention of lead available to waterfowl as it was mostly sandy bottoms and the lead was not there due to sinking lower than say in a hardpan bottom pond where it would remain on the top of the bottom surface.
Post by: jasnt on June 25, 2014, 02:16:52 PM
:bdid:+1 ill never support a lead ban!!!!!!!!
I Say No to the hell NO! >:(
We think this ok next will be something else, can't believe people truly think this ok?
It's coming from HSUS For dang sakes the biggest anti hunting group out there!
Nothing like divide and conquer huh?
:bash:
Post by: csaaphill on June 29, 2014, 04:01:46 PM
Bullshat! >:(damn strait. 8)
I have a rather large supply of lead hunting ammo. I will have to consider risking a ticket before just throwing it all out.
Not against the environment either, but If anyone can't see how this will eventually give the anti hunters an edge to ban all hunting you sadly mistaken.
All my shotgun shells are of lead, and all my Rifle ammo is too so hell ya wont be throwing it out anytime soon!
Guess give me a ticket and good luck forcing me to appear! OR to pay!
Post by: csaaphill on June 29, 2014, 04:08:55 PM
Kind of funny how those with personal and true experience with these issue always get overlooked. always the agenda rules not what's true!It makes sense for waterfowl because the pellets are concentrated in the ponds. This would have no positive effects in the woods where there may be no more than a few bullets per sq mile. Ridiculous.
Not neccessary so. Back in my younger days with WDFW as a biologist in Region 2, I took lots of samples looking for lead shot deposits from areas in Grant, Adams and Franklin counties prior to the eventual change over a few years later to non toxic shot.
Many or those areas, including the Pothholes Reservoir showed no retention of lead available to waterfowl as it was mostly sandy bottoms and the lead was not there due to sinking lower than say in a hardpan bottom pond where it would remain on the top of the bottom surface.
Can't recall specifics, and or issues, But I have talked to people who have knowledge of certain things such as this, but they got overlooked when decision time came around. SO ya biased opinions and agendas have a lot of weight on how things get done!