Post by: Dave Workman on January 27, 2009, 09:30:27 AM
SB 5095 - 2009-10
Protecting the California condor and other vulnerable wildlife from the threat of lead poisoning.
Go here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5095
and click on the link to the "Original Bill"
Summary: This is a proposal to ban the use of lead shot for upland game and birds, "to protect vulnerable wildlife, including the California condor..."
Post by: robodad on January 27, 2009, 09:42:20 AM
Post by: boneaddict on January 27, 2009, 09:47:28 AM
Post by: Dave Workman on January 27, 2009, 10:13:18 AM
A lead shot ban would be the "first step" according to critics of the legislation, toward banning ALL lead ammunition. Period.
Post by: Curly on January 27, 2009, 10:22:38 AM
Now that I am allowed to use bullets in my ML that are not all lead, I won't have a problem meeting the no lead requirement.
That said, I'm still not FOR the proposed ban. I'm going to do my part to voluntarily shoot non-toxic loads (after I shoot up my current supply), but I don't think it should be law. Also, it is also the next step toward banning lead from use in fishing gear...........that I will not be voluntarily going to non-toxic; it gets way too expensive to eliminate lead from my fishing gear.
Post by: robodad on January 27, 2009, 10:28:47 AM
I don't think you guys are getting this.
A lead shot ban would be the "first step" according to critics of the legislation, toward banning ALL lead ammunition. Period.
Isn't that what this article is about, banning all lead in all shot, bullets or otherwise ??
Seems they are proposing the ban not necessarily on the bird shot that kills the birds but also the bullets that kill the deer cause the condors and other species are eating the fragments of bullets left behind. I don't see this bill as being specific to one type of shot or another but for all lead to be banned.
Post by: bowhuntin on January 27, 2009, 10:29:27 AM
Post by: ICEMAN on January 27, 2009, 10:54:43 AM
What is next? Hunting is bad for animals too. So is driving a truck into the backcountry and kicking up dust. Hiking thru an area that game animals may be in, can disrupt their life and place unnecessary stress on them. Take those berries out of your bucket, a bear or bird may need them. That shed antler in your hand....DROP IT! Mice need antler sheds left on the forest floor for the rich calcium they contain. You bowhunters better watch out, you fling an arrow at something and miss....that arrow is razor sharp and poses a serious risk to all species. How many studies about spent/lost arrows are planned? Carbon fiber is a hazard big time.
How many birds get killed on power transmission lines each year? How many birds die after hitting your sliding glass door each year. Ever hit a pheasant at 60 miles per hour?
I havent seen any university studies on how we can reduce the impact that hikers have on game species. Havent seen that one yet.
I have eaten hundreds of birds and game animals which were taken with lead ammunition. Hundreds. I have probably injested lead more than once. Maybe that is why this type of legislation pisses me off, maybe my brain is so wacked that I cannot understand how banning lead rifle bullets, or lead turkey shot is going to benefit any animal. My desire to resist change and my continual lack of trust for those pushing this type of legislation aside, I can recognize that if you feed an animal lead tainted food, that this is not adviseable, I just do not see the need for the legislation. If we spent all the money studying this issue, all the cash proposing and considering legislation like this on habitat restoration and improvement.....
I watch this constant march to remove my hunting heritage slowly. Bit by bit. Change by small change. All in the name of safety and animal protection.
Ban the lead, might as well ban hunting.
Post by: boneaddict on January 27, 2009, 10:57:38 AM
Post by: woodywsu on January 27, 2009, 11:12:23 AM
Post by: robodad on January 27, 2009, 11:16:31 AM
I'm confused !! :-\
Post by: bowhuntin on January 27, 2009, 11:18:57 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 27, 2009, 11:26:23 AM
Post by: dbllunger on January 27, 2009, 11:45:41 AM
Post by: Curly on January 27, 2009, 11:57:30 AM
:dunno: Why does my ML have to use ALL LEAD projectiles, :dunno:
If the proposed ML equipment changes go into effect, you won't be restricted to lead only.
I remember back in the '80's when some areas we were required to use steel shot for waterfowl and some we were still allowed to use lead. Then after a while all waterfowl hunting was required to use steel. This has been coming for a long time. The enviros won't be happy until all lead ammo is banned.........you won't even be able to shoot clays with lead. >:(
Post by: Dave Workman on January 27, 2009, 02:52:33 PM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on January 27, 2009, 03:13:57 PM
It seemed odd to me how they were getting this lead exposure. They explained that the gut piles we leave behind are eaten by condor or other animals. Because lead expands and fragments into tiny pieces, it stays with the gut pile even if you take the deer meat. If the deer isn't recovered, the chance for lead poisoning is even greater. This same issue occurs in upland game throughout the region.
I don't see anything wrong with being good stewards of the wildlife and making changes that are scientifically proven to help certain species. The comment that our raptor population is doing fine ignores the issue. We don't need to wait until species are endangered to act in the best interest for them. There are good non-lead alternatives that make lead not necessary. Some cost a bit more but so did unleaded gasoline... Yet we made the change. You can still hunt those animals with a Barnes or other non-lead bullet.
Now, the question becomes how does lead affect our WA wildlife? I'm not sure how many studies have been done on WA wildlife and the impacts of lead. If science shows that our raptors and other species aren't as sensitive to lead as the condor, then we could consider keeping lead. From what I have seen though, lead does affect our wildlife. Do we want to put our head in the sand and ignore it or show that we can evolve with complex issues instead of being rigid and claiming that everything is an attack against our gun rights?
Post by: ICEMAN on January 27, 2009, 04:22:29 PM
Secondly, If something is scientifically proven to benefit a tiny bit of anything', environmentalists seldom care to consider the financial costs. Personally I have well over a thousand dollars invested in lead ammunition. Multiply this times all the guys in this state and you have millions upon millions of dollars of ammunition which may become obsolete. And for what....so the guys in washington state dont put california condors at risk? Doesnt make sense. I think that the fiscal side of this equation has as much merit as does the environmental side.
Post by: RailRob on January 27, 2009, 04:27:28 PM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on January 27, 2009, 04:35:41 PM
Have you ever swallowed lead shot, or lead fragments in wild game?...
Secondly, If something is scientifically proven to benefit a tiny bit of anything', environmentalists seldom care to consider the financial costs. Personally I have well over a thousand dollars invested in lead ammunition. Multiply this times all the guys in this state and you have millions upon millions of dollars of ammunition which may become obsolete. And for what....so the guys in washington state dont put California condors at risk? Doesn't make sense. I think that the fiscal side of this equation has as much merit as does the environmental side.
No way man. Humans and most species aren't that sensitive to lead poisoning. Certain species like condors are. I've chewed on lead bullets and never had any problems. But I'm not a condor. (save the lawyer jokes... :chuckle:)
The scientific data in the condor study is really a good scientific study. It is very complete and definitive. If there is only a tiny bit of difference, then let's not do it. In the condor example, it's not a tiny bit of difference. Lead wiped out the whole species. The only reason they are even around is from the lead ban down in that area. There is a direct correlation. The Fair Chase article is very educational about the subject. This is a hunting magazine...
They would adopt lead legislation slowly to allow people like you and me to get rid of our lead bullets. The fact is that many birds in our area continue to have high lead levels despite the lead ban for waterfowl. I think further studies need to be done to see how they are getting this lead. I think an outright lead ban right now would be putting the cart before the horse. However, I'm going to remain open minded about it and see what the research tells us.
Post by: ICEMAN on January 27, 2009, 04:40:17 PM
It will take me 30 years to exhaust my lead ammo.......? :dunno:
Post by: RailRob on January 27, 2009, 04:41:13 PM
Post by: rosscrazyelk on January 27, 2009, 08:45:06 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 28, 2009, 06:42:51 AM
Post by: Curly on January 28, 2009, 09:05:03 AM
Post by: shorthair-on-point on January 28, 2009, 03:23:07 PM
If lead is such a big problem why aren't they talking about the facts? Where are the numbers of animals that succumb to lead poisoning in WA state every year? What and how many bodies of water have dangerous levels of lead from hunters and fisherman?
Post by: 12Gauge on January 30, 2009, 07:00:09 AM
How would they enforce this law anyways. Will the game warden take one of your shells and cut it open?
Yes they will. I have had GW's cut my shells because the magnet did not work, I told them it was Bismuth, they think all are criminals, well at least that guy did.
Post by: bobcat on January 30, 2009, 10:02:26 AM
Post by: 12Gauge on January 30, 2009, 10:43:01 AM
Did they reimburse you for the cost of that shell when they destroyed it and it wasn't lead? I'm guessing not. :bash:
That will be the day
Post by: sisu on January 30, 2009, 04:00:57 PM
It should be the day. Each non-toxic non-steel shot shell is expensive. Every warden fed or state should carry a reimbursement statement that you can submit at the seasons end.Did they reimburse you for the cost of that shell when they destroyed it and it wasn't lead? I'm guessing not. :bash:
That will be the day
Post by: bobcat on January 30, 2009, 04:10:16 PM
Post by: sisu on January 30, 2009, 04:38:00 PM
Here is a li nk on the amalgam scam: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mercury.html
The lead ban on water fowl I agreed with but to go farther and ban upland if it's not near big bodies of water fowl usage makes no sense at all, but we are not the policy makers and movers. A lot of this new policy is just being done to say I, Mr or Ms. so and so did this. See example below.
Like one big shot fed told me in Alaska. He was the youngest person ever to be put in charge of federal commercial fishing water and HE was going to make policy that people WOULD remember. We were sitting on top of a 300 foot water falls that I'd just climbed. He had come up a different route and was using our belay station. He wasn't clipped in when he said that and for a moment I thought of how quick his poilcy could end.
Post by: ICEMAN on January 30, 2009, 04:51:00 PM
Actually they should replace any shells they destroy right then and there. That would really piss me off to have a game warden cutting open my shotgun shells. :bash: >:(
I would be pissed too, especially with commercially loaded shells. A quick little terry stop near the waterway to check your tag is all I want. Don't start Fing with me. I follow the rules and am not really happy to be treated at this extra level of scrutiny. I consider some of what WDFW Enforcement does as harassment. I consider it, the courts obviously do not.
Post by: bowhuntin on January 30, 2009, 05:32:06 PM
Does anyone know the name of the study they are basing this regulation change on? Was the study actually done in Washington?
Post by: runamuk on February 01, 2009, 08:10:14 AM
I would feel the same way if a game warden cut open my shells. That is BS.
Does anyone know the name of the study they are basing this regulation change on? Was the study actually done in Washington?
Pretty difficult to study condors in WA we don't have any ;) A ton of the research on condors has been done in Boise Idaho at the raptor center where they raise and flight train condors for release programs. Along with supposedly rehabbing injured raptors (wasn't the case when we had a Kestrel in need, thanks to a falconer we got her some help).
I am still wondering why lead in shot and bullets is more impacting than road runoff :dunno: seems to me there is a hell of a lot more lead produced by the millions of cars driving 24/7 :dunno:
I do get the direct ingestion issue from gutpiles but have always wondered do bullets really blow apart into millions of tiny bits? If so why do bullets in those CSI type shows always remain whole? Have any of the hunters here ever recovered a bullet when cleaning an animal....I end up helping my son pick steel out of birds when packaging.....so many unanswered questions and I gotta go to work :chuckle:
Post by: Curly on February 01, 2009, 08:43:30 AM
As far as bullets blowing apart into a milion tiny bits..........yes it happens. Especially with cheaper bullets. The first buck I shot was with a factory Rem Core-lokt 150 gr and it only hit one rib going in but apparently blew up at impact on the rib. There were lead particles all over the inside of that buck. It was like a bomb went off. Nothing left of the heart or lungs.
A good judge of bullet performance is how much weight it retains. Well, it used to be that a "good" weight retention number was anything over 60%. Well, where does the other 40% of lead go?
I think that these days there are a lot of bullets that will retain much better than 60% because a lot of bullets now are bonded.
Post by: sisu on February 01, 2009, 05:49:50 PM
Maybe if we all switch to bismuth the antis will find that the lead just stays there and does not move because it's a basic element that appears naturally in nature. Wow, a revolution for their tiny little PETA, ALF, & ELF minds.
Bismuth Symbol: Bi Lead Symbol: Pb
Bismuth Atomic Number: 83 Lead Atomic Number: 82
Bismuth Atomic Weight: 208.980 Lead Atomic Weight: 207.19
Post by: runamuk on February 01, 2009, 06:15:09 PM
I do find the info on bullets interesting, I didn't realize they would blow apart like that....
And the people I know who are at the highest risk for lead exposure causing problems are stained glass artists....they come into alot of direct contact with alot of lead and lead poisoning is not uncommon after 20 or 30 years of daily exposure.
Post by: FrankDown on February 06, 2009, 06:43:13 PM
In California there are areas that you cannot use lead shot. Some places you could. Idont think it would make much of a difference other than convenience, and money. I shoot better with lead, but because Ive been shooting it more than other stuff.
Post by: bowhuntin on February 06, 2009, 06:59:29 PM
I would feel the same way if a game warden cut open my shells. That is BS.
Does anyone know the name of the study they are basing this regulation change on? Was the study actually done in Washington?
Pretty difficult to study condors in WA we don't have any ;) A ton of the research on condors has been done in Boise Idaho at the raptor center where they raise and flight train condors for release programs. Along with supposedly rehabbing injured raptors (wasn't the case when we had a Kestrel in need, thanks to a falconer we got her some help).
I am still wondering why lead in shot and bullets is more impacting than road runoff :dunno: seems to me there is a hell of a lot more lead produced by the millions of cars driving 24/7 :dunno:
I do get the direct ingestion issue from gutpiles but have always wondered do bullets really blow apart into millions of tiny bits? If so why do bullets in those CSI type shows always remain whole? Have any of the hunters here ever recovered a bullet when cleaning an animal....I end up helping my son pick steel out of birds when packaging.....so many unanswered questions and I gotta go to work :chuckle:
If the study was of the condors in california how does that study influence us if we don't even have this species. Dumb policy decision if you ask me. We have no way of knowing if small traces of lead from shot or bullets even has an indirect effect on any species in our state because no studies have been done. If there was a problem I think we would being seeing a lot of dead birds or other species from this being that people have been hunting with modern firearms for over 100 years.
Post by: bobcat on February 06, 2009, 07:04:24 PM
Post by: Ironhead on February 06, 2009, 09:07:15 PM
Post by: bowhuntin on February 06, 2009, 09:20:13 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 06, 2009, 09:24:52 PM
Quote
Sunday, November 9, noon
Dedication of California Condor Bronze Sculpture
Port of Ilwaco Covered Pavilion
A life-sized replica of a California Condor, sculpted by nationally-known artist Bart Kenworthy, has been erected as a tribute to the Lewis & Clark Expedition which found a “vulture of the large kind’ on November 18, 1805. The bird, with its 9-foot wing span, was among specimens sent to President Thomas Jefferson. Commissioned by Pacific County Friends of Lewis & Clark, the Condor is posed on the ribs of a whale and both are attached to a basalt rock weighing 40,000 pounds.
Post by: Jerbear on February 07, 2009, 09:40:28 PM
Come on back to Klickitat County. You know our gammies are a kind and plesant bunch. Well you met one, and now aren't you a kinder better person because of it? :IBCOOL:
Post by: ICEMAN on February 08, 2009, 06:23:14 AM
Post by: bearslayer on February 09, 2009, 09:14:07 PM
Post by: Curly on February 09, 2009, 10:13:43 PM
Post by: Roper on February 11, 2009, 07:34:59 PM
Think about this (if you can). No one shoots lead in waterfowl areas anymore. Lead shot is dispersed in upland hunting for quail, grouse, pheasant, chukar, huns, etc. When was the last time you saw a condor while you were hunting in Washington? What harm does that 3/4 to 1 1/4 ounce load do when it is shot into the air/forest? I challenge anyone to go find one of your pellets. Once on the ground it gets a white-ish coating (oxidation) that just about stops any further erosion. That's why intact Revolutionary War lead balls are still found in battle fields.
So their "science" is a bunch of bull! They just want to do away with shotshells, without them all you have is very expensive non-tox. Soon your shotgun is just about useless...get the point yet...?
You all need to read this...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041104005801.htm
Post by: Curly on February 11, 2009, 08:05:56 PM
I don't understand who you're directing this at:
Quote
I can't believe you "sportsmen" don't get this one.:dunno:
Post by: Roper on February 16, 2009, 06:45:44 PM
That's a good article Roper. Thanks for posting the link.
I don't understand who you're directing this at:QuoteI can't believe you "sportsmen" don't get this one.:dunno:
Curly, it's in response to anyone that doesn't think this is just another attempt to take our guns and the sporting lifestyle. You'd be surprised how many think this is just fine. The greater issue is that those in power are lying to us. I'm not some paranoid backwoods conspiracy nut. I'm one who has seen what has happened in Britain, Austrailia, and Canada. Ask anyone in those countries if they're any "safer" now that only the outlaws have guns.
Post by: popeshawnpaul on February 16, 2009, 06:58:23 PM
Post by: Roper on February 17, 2009, 09:47:13 PM
(1) A person is guilty of unlawful hunting in the second degree if
the person possesses shot, either in shotgun shells or as loose shot
for muzzle-loading, other than nontoxic shot when hunting game animals,
game birds, or waterfowl in those areas as determined by rule of the
commission in which waterfowl, California condors, or other endangered,
threatened, or sensitive species could be harmed by lead shot.
This paragraph allows just about any species to be reason to ban lead. And if there's a species dying off at a rapid rate, where's all the dead bodies? You'd think we'd be seeing them all over. I'd like someone to show me one instance, and not some California condor from 10 years ago.
(2) The commission shall by rule determine the areas in which a
person may not possess shot, either in shotgun shells or as loose shot
for muzzle-loading, other than nontoxic shot when hunting game animals,
game birds, or waterfowl.
This sounds like free reign to determine just about any area, if not the whole state.
I'm not sure I like the idea of more "commissions" ruling with an open check book.
You don't think this is vague for that very reason? If not, why is this so vague? What value is to be gained from such a bill, so thin on details.
Are you an upland hunter? Or just a "bullet" hunter? Do you have anything to lose here? And southern states with condors have nothing to do with hunting in Washington. What are the condors gonna do? fly up here for the weekend and have a lead eating party? I don't get it...
Roper
Post by: bobcat on February 17, 2009, 10:06:53 PM
Also, you ask about "dead bodies" of birds that have died of lead poisoning. I doubt if these are actually going to be seen lying around everywhere, if indeed they are dying of lead poisoning. Wouldn't you think some type of scavenger would be eating them as soon as they hit the ground dead? Or they could be taken by some type of raptor after just becoming sick and/or weak from the lead poisoning. They aren't necessarily just going to drop out of the sky and be lying everywhere where they are going to be visible.
Post by: ICEMAN on February 17, 2009, 10:08:41 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 17, 2009, 10:10:50 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on February 17, 2009, 10:16:20 PM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on February 17, 2009, 10:19:27 PM
To answer your other question, I am an upland hunter. I hunt with lead bullets too. My dog is an english setter and she is the brother of "Hank" from TV. I take her out every year and bird hunt. I prefer grouse but hunt all species. The lead ban would affect me but I would just buy a non-toxic shot. I really don't see the big deal. We would have to have some faith that they will apply any ban in an area based on science with good reasoning behind any decision. Given the track record of the WDFW, I'm not confident. However, managing wildlife is kind of like politics and nobody is going to be happy all the time...
And Ice...I know I've swallowed a few sinkers but I don't lay eggs...
Post by: popeshawnpaul on February 17, 2009, 10:24:13 PM
The question is how it affects our ducks, eagles, etc. We still show species in WA with dangerous lead levels despite the waterfowl ban.
Post by: bobcat on February 17, 2009, 10:43:43 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on February 18, 2009, 06:12:23 AM
I really don't trust any wildlife official anymore. I don't.
*When they sit idly by and watch as poaching (both tribal and non-tribal) is decimating certain herds in this state....
*As they mismanage game herds to the point of huge starvation die offs...
*As they rise to the occasion to side with non-hunters on various occasions, opting to eliminate hunting as a form of legitimate game management... knee jerk reactions....crappy legislation suggestion and support...
I have lost faith in these folks.
I am supposed to trust that they will do what is right?
As far as I am concerned, you could save more wildlife by trashing two thirds of the employees of wildlife who spend their time trying to "figure" things out, "reinvent the wheel"........ and quadruple (###) the enforcement officers who actually "do" something. Enforce the laws we already have.
Lead may be killing a few animals in this state, but I would suggest that poaching takes far more. I am really tired of having to adjust everything that I do, as those who screw the laws laugh and continue breaking laws.
(And, I appreciate all your viewpoints...am not considering any of this a personal "fight", just a good open discussion from all... we need to keep issues like these open, in my opinion...)
(*** Rasbo, quadruple means; Four times as much in size....times 4..... X4....your ring finger...)
Post by: Roper on February 18, 2009, 02:41:52 PM
My comment about "where's all the dead bodies?" means where are the remains that these scientists base their comments on? "Where's the beef?" to recall and old commercial question. The smoking gun... whatever you wish to call it. And from Washington, not California...
I hope you're all right and Washington doesn't kill a sporting lifestyle for some birds that left here long ago. Maybe in this time of economic woes we don't need more negative impact. Bought any non-tox lately? $$$$$
Lastly, I'm not holding my breath when daily it's shown that most politicians are little more than egotistical liars that will do or say anything to get elected or re-elected.
Happy hunting...
Post by: trotterlg on March 19, 2009, 09:35:08 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on March 20, 2009, 04:22:20 AM
The way to fix this is to make it apply to ALL ammo, even for law enforcement personnel, think that would pass the Governor or even get to her? Larry
Law enforecement can use their cell phone while driving, use their laptop computer while driving, drive over the posted limit....I am not sure they would ban lead for law enforcement....
Oh....wait....if it costs more....they would do that.....(almost forgot we were talking about the government)..... Sorry. :bash:
Post by: Mauser on March 24, 2009, 06:26:06 PM
Post by: AWS on March 25, 2009, 06:41:47 PM
This past year I started working up loads for my coyote guns with all copper or lead free bullets and see no problems with them either but will continue to use lead for them till the ban is set.
Times change.
AWS
Post by: ICEMAN on March 25, 2009, 07:36:53 PM
Post by: AWS on March 25, 2009, 09:26:46 PM
AWS
Post by: ICEMAN on March 26, 2009, 06:47:34 AM
Post by: Mauser on March 26, 2009, 07:41:34 AM
I seriously doubt the "proof" as presented. There are too many other factors that effect the Condor and any other species. DDT, habitat, now lead; what's next and will we expected to believe the next study too. It seems we have another spotted owl.
Post by: AWS on March 26, 2009, 07:59:32 AM
I used to smoke, doctors and athletes used say there was nothing wrong with it. I now have to carry an inhaler with me and long calling series on a duck or predator call end with a coughing spell.
I worked in the insulation field for the past 15 years and a lot of the oldtimers were dieing of lung cancer from asbestos. I used to use it a lot when I was a young carpenter, I worry about that.
Shotshells are the cheapest part of upland hunting. I saw a lot of hunters that didn't think anything about road hunting on $4.00/gallon gas but get pissed at the thought of paying more for a box of shells.
I'm not a Eco-freak but we've screwed up enough time in the past that a simple thing like changing to steel shot or leadfree bullets might make a difference, it was an easy decision for me.
AWS
Post by: Mauser on March 26, 2009, 08:27:43 PM
My point was that the "research" that everyone is quoting has not been presented and it has not been backed by repeat studies from other sources. That is the solid scientific approach to make sure you have not overlooked the real problem. I am not green enough to let special interest groups ram their "studies" down my hunting throat just because. They need to show the evidence to prove their claim and then let others also prove it.
I have read - but cannot prove- that there are a couple of Condors with lead issues. Yet, no one has proven that it came directly from bullets. There are huge amounts of lead in old garbage dumps, in lakes from fishing weights andalong roads from wheel weights. Yet, hunting is the focus. Everyone that hunts should at least be suspect of that kind of science.
Post by: sisu on March 27, 2009, 04:42:34 AM
...
In addition many screw-in chokes are not recommended for steel...
Here is a company that makes steel ready chokes
http://www.choketube.com/
Ans I know of another. If you Google different site I believe you'll find other companies that make steel ready chokes. I had several older shotguns changed over to this and am happy with the results.
Post by: Mauser on March 29, 2009, 07:01:14 AM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on April 06, 2009, 07:51:34 PM
Post by: Mauser on April 15, 2009, 02:25:02 PM
State's new 3-year hunting plan includes
new non-toxic shot rules, muzzleloader hunts
OLYMPIA – The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted statewide hunting seasons and regulations that include new restrictions on toxic shot and more hunting opportunities for muzzleloaders over the next three years.
The new seasons, approved during a public meeting here April 3-4, establish hunting rules for deer, elk, moose, bighorn sheep, mountain goat, black bear, cougar and small game in 2009-11.
The commission, which sets policy for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), adopted the new three-year hunting plan after nearly eight months of public comment and review. As part of that process, WDFW wildlife managers conducted public meetings around the state and contacted more than 50,000 licensed hunters by e-mail to solicit their ideas on various management options under consideration.
“Within the framework of state conservation goals, we try to accommodate the public as much as we can in designing state hunting seasons,” said Dave Brittell, assistant director of the WDFW wildlife program. “These seasons reflect the ideas of thousands of Washingtonians, both hunters and non-hunters alike.”
Under one new policy approved by the commission, WDFW will phase in an expansion of state restrictions on the use of lead shot, which are toxic to birds and other wildlife that ingest it. Noting that toxic shot has been banned in hunting waterfowl since 1991, Brittell said WDFW has been expanding that prohibition to other hunts around the state.
New this year, hunters will be required to use non-toxic shot when hunting upland game birds or mourning doves in three units of the Sunnyside-Snake River Wildlife Area, where ingestion of lead shot by wildlife is of particular concern. In 2011, the non-toxic shot requirement will be expanded to all established WDFW pheasant-release sites.
Post by: cascademountainhunter on April 15, 2009, 03:00:22 PM
I don't think you guys are getting this.:+1:
A lead shot ban would be the "first step" according to critics of the legislation, toward banning ALL lead ammunition. Period.
Post by: Alchase on April 17, 2009, 01:10:22 PM
WDFW has been expanding that prohibition to other hunts around the state.
About says it all right there.
Post by: sisu on April 23, 2009, 03:49:23 PM
I started reloading steel this past year just for this reason. I like to hunt upland in areas where jump shooting water fowl is available so I pack only steel shot shells. I like to reload same as I like to tie my own flies. Nothing more fun than taking game with things you've made. So instead of complaining, because we can't turn back the tide of our current government, we need to arm ourselves with the proper gear.
It's just a matter of time till we won't be allowed to us lead sinkers either... :yike:
Post by: Mauser on April 24, 2009, 07:36:32 AM
The science behind thes moves is intended to support those original concepts. In fact, the DOE is using unconfirmed out of state work at face value. They did not do any testing of their own. When I pressed for copies of the data I was ignored.
Again, I am not surprised, just put out by the process and the extra costs to hunters. Let me give you some examples. I shoot a 28 ga. shotgun. There is no steel shot available anywhere near me for this shotgun. In fact a steel load in that shell may be ineffective. The only Bismuth load I have ever seen locally was $58. for a box of 10 shells. As far as I know it is still on the shelf. We know that steel is less dense than lead and so does not do the job as well. That is exactly why makers are loading bismuth, heavy shot and others. They cost a lot more. In addition, steel will destroy the barrel on your grandfathers shotgun. It will become a wallhanger. I have personally ruined the barrels on a very nice double because I believed the hype that steel would not harm older shotguns.
The end game will be a total ban on lead, both shotshells and hunting bullets. The costs will be only to hunters. The agencies involved will have pretended to use the democratic process. I am not "surprised."
Post by: AWS on April 24, 2009, 07:23:21 PM
AWS
Post by: Pat/Rick on May 07, 2009, 12:14:13 AM
Post by: dbllunger on May 09, 2009, 02:17:52 PM
Post by: Pat/Rick on May 24, 2009, 10:31:34 PM