Post by: Dave Workman on July 25, 2011, 04:07:36 PM
Post by: 10Key on July 25, 2011, 04:12:50 PM
Post by: Old Dog on July 25, 2011, 04:49:33 PM
Post by: chrisb on July 25, 2011, 04:54:07 PM
Starting in 2011, that is the requirement. What else do you want to know?
Been that way for a couple of years IIRC. At least on the Wetside.
Post by: 10Key on July 25, 2011, 05:53:09 PM
Post by: h2ofowlr on July 25, 2011, 05:58:14 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on July 25, 2011, 07:27:31 PM
Post by: lokidog on July 25, 2011, 08:21:01 PM
It does make it easier/legal to shoot a duck while pheasant or quail hunting if you happen to jump one though.
Post by: BurleyDog on July 25, 2011, 08:37:47 PM
Post by: lokidog on July 25, 2011, 08:39:26 PM
Post by: chrisb on July 25, 2011, 08:53:59 PM
Shooting more steel/non-toxics will make everyone a better shot with them.
They do seem to lack the knock down power of lead.
Post by: singleshot12 on July 25, 2011, 09:01:27 PM
Wild pheasants on the other hand need heavy-shot
Post by: lokidog on July 25, 2011, 09:17:54 PM
Shooting more steel/non-toxics will make everyone a better shot with them.
They do seem to lack the knock down power of lead.
So use number four steel if you usually use lead 6's. They are usually faster at close range, so shorter leads. I grew up using steel on ducks (1976 was my first year hunting), when I first moved west, I was happy to use cheaper lead shot. After crippling many ducks with lead, I changed to steel and did not lose another cripple the rest of the season. The reason being not that steel is "better" than lead but it is what I was used to shooting. The problem is that because of the increase in cost, most people do not shoot steel as often as they should to get really good with it. BTW, I am not saying I am a hugely expert shot but I knew what I could do with the steel and kept my shots within those perameters. Mostly anyways.... :chuckle:
Sorry to thread jack.
Post by: Andrew on July 25, 2011, 09:27:12 PM
Yep, on all state owned lands. On private property you may still use lead. It's very similar to what South Dakota has required for a few years now.
I don't think its all State land...I thought it was only land designated as wildlife areas. :dunno:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on July 25, 2011, 09:32:27 PM
I am with the NRA on this subject. This "Ban" is strait out of the HSUS playbook. The studies are from the Center for Biological Diversity. Their goal is to strip rights a slice at a time. $120,000,000 a year is spent on it. (At least) Granted, this is Washington State, how hunters have held on this long still amazes me, but they about have us in our "death roar." :twocents: This amounts to another gouge, a $2 per shot gouge. Good job, well played anti's. You actually have many of us believing you have our interests at heart.
Post by: 3dvapor on July 25, 2011, 10:05:22 PM
Post by: bobcat on July 25, 2011, 10:09:47 PM
Post by: Andrew on July 25, 2011, 10:19:34 PM
I think what pisses me off are the shell mfr. who are selling these rounds for 20-30 bucks for a box of 10! give me a break the metal can't be that much more expensive...they're probably the ones paying the lobbiests; not the cheap, anti-hunting morons. :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on July 25, 2011, 10:22:08 PM
Post by: JLS on July 25, 2011, 10:22:50 PM
I hunt a release sight in woodland that is private property that the guy let's the state release birds on the new law requires us to use steel on his property as well even though he's personally against it :bash: what a croc of crap what am I supposed to do on the eastside for quail and chucker how am I supposed to afford shells to even hunt. This is a bad deal for any upland bird hunter.
Take a chill pill. This is only for designated release sites. It is not all state land, WDFW land, or anything else you want to confuse it with. These designated release sites are supposed to be posted. Look online and you might find maps of them.
Post by: bobcat on July 25, 2011, 10:25:26 PM
WDFW Fact Sheet
March 25, 2011 HUNTERS: New Regulations effective January 1, 2011
To protect other wildlife species including waterfowl and raptors nontoxic shot is required for ALL upland bird hunting on ALL pheasant release sites STATEWIDE.
Many US Fish and Wildlife Service refuges also require the use of nontoxic shot. See specific refuge rules.
Violations bring a mandatory $1,000 fine and loss of small game hunting privileges for two years. PROBLEMS WITH LEAD SHOT Problems with the use of lead shot were discovered by extensive testing during the 1970s and 1980s. This resulted in a phasing out of lead shot as an allowable waterfowl load from 1986 to 1991. Waterfowl can die if they eat even very small amounts of spent lead shot. Swans are the most visible evidence of lead poisoning, due to their habit of feeding deep within wetlands that have lead pellets still remaining from past hunting seasons. Lead-poisoned ducks and other birds carrying embedded lead shot also are known to cause poisoning in other species. For example, bald eagles and other raptors can be poisoned by feeding on other wildlife carrying or containing lead shot. Identifying problem areas. Through monitoring, problems with lead shot have been discovered in some western Washington pheasant-release sites that also are waterfowl feeding areas. For example, soil sampling at Skagit Wildlife Area yielded an estimated 6.8 tons of lead. Sampling lead pellet densities in soil and waterfowl tissues is considered by wildlife and habitat biologists to be the best way to identify problem areas, but these methods are labor intensive, expensive and sometimes difficult to interpret. Not all sites present potential problems. However, the above sites were converted to nontoxic shot use based on a high potential for ingestion of lead by wildlife; for example, where waterfowl use sheet water or flooded grain fields. Hunter concerns about nontoxic shot. Hunters have voiced concerns about cost, effectiveness and shotgun barrel damage in using nontoxic shot. This is what we know about these areas of concern:
|
Post by: JLS on July 25, 2011, 10:27:44 PM
Post by: ORCA_SIX on July 26, 2011, 05:09:53 AM
Like others, I find it easier just to stick with steel due to jumping ducks and I don't have to change out my chokes or worry about having a lead shell in my vest that I might have left in it on accident.
Post by: amosmoses on July 26, 2011, 12:10:15 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on July 26, 2011, 01:21:12 PM
Steel shot shells are not that expensive anymore. You can get them for the same, or just a little more, than the cost of lead. I don't think it's that big of a deal. And I sure don't think it's a conspiracy. :rolleyes:
I did not say I am against steel shot. Heck, I had some blow up a Stoger of mine, blew the ejection port right out. You are welcome to a few boxes for great Kent Steel shot if you want it. I also don't agree with your assessment that the NRA is part of conspiracies. Here are the links.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=4332 (http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=4332)
http://www.nrahuntersrights.org/Article.aspx?id=2767 (http://www.nrahuntersrights.org/Article.aspx?id=2767)
http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2010/08/27/epa-surrenders-to-nra-on-gun-control-issue-epa-rejects-attempt-to-regulate-lead-in-bullets-after-nra-protests (http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2010/08/27/epa-surrenders-to-nra-on-gun-control-issue-epa-rejects-attempt-to-regulate-lead-in-bullets-after-nra-protests)
http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2010/08/27/nra-warns-against-new-gun-control-push--from-epa (http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2010/08/27/nra-warns-against-new-gun-control-push--from-epa)
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5294 (http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5294)
It is the last link from Montana that I mentioned the Center for Biological Diversity and the Human Society of the Untied States. Yes, they are pushing this. It would be nice as hunters if we would recognize what is going on instead of giving up a season, a species, a method at a time. But, we don't. :bash: If I speak out I am a crack pot. :tinfoil: I would think that those in WFW would agree. I thought that was the point, push back. I'd think being in line with the NRA would be logicial...
I waste my time. :rolleyes:
Post by: chukarchaser on August 02, 2011, 11:02:40 PM
Post by: fethrduster on August 09, 2011, 08:43:18 AM
Post by: surfj9009 on August 28, 2011, 07:25:09 PM
I hunt a release sight in woodland that is private property that the guy let's the state release birds on the new law requires us to use steel on his property as well even though he's personally against it :bash: what a croc of crap what am I supposed to do on the eastside for quail and chucker how am I supposed to afford shells to even hunt. This is a bad deal for any upland bird hunter.I can't believe your complaining about this. Keep in mind you get to hunt this site while others don't. You have special access that many of us would love to have. Be grateful. Maybe you could shoot less birds. I'm sure there are many of us who would like to take a few on the lands around your friends place. Unfortunatley though, your special access will undoubtedly lessen the available birds for others.
People with your mentality should be REQUIRED to pay more for ammo.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on August 28, 2011, 08:30:43 PM
I hunt a release sight in woodland that is private property that the guy let's the state release birds on the new law requires us to use steel on his property as well even though he's personally against it :bash: what a croc of crap what am I supposed to do on the eastside for quail and chucker how am I supposed to afford shells to even hunt. This is a bad deal for any upland bird hunter.I can't believe your complaining about this. Keep in mind you get to hunt this site while others don't. You have special access that many of us would love to have. Be grateful. Maybe you could shoot less birds. I'm sure there are many of us who would like to take a few on the lands around your friends place. Unfortunatley though, your special access will undoubtedly lessen the available birds for others.
People with your mentality should be REQUIRED to pay more for ammo.
I had a decent talk with the USDFW at the meeting on the 25th about this. There will be no more push for Wa going lead free for all birdshot and then rifle bullets for three years. According to them, 53% of Washington hunters & sports shooters want this State to be totally lead free for hunting and shooting purposes. Don't ask me what poll or where the stats come from but it does seem there is little to no opposition to this from sportsman associations in Wa or from H-W either. It doesn't suprise me with the incredible amount of elitist hunters/sportsman/recreationalists we have in this State that if we have the ability to force people to pay more than they have to for something they don't want we are all for it. The NRA is against it, the EPA is against it, there is no Credible Scientific Study to support it, but it makes elitist people feel good and could possibly but probably never would help the environment with this move. It only makes us pay more for less. So far the best argument I have heard is that people will shoot less. I guess that is a special kind of conservation. (I want to shoot but I can't afford to :hunt2:
Post by: SkookumJeff on August 29, 2011, 09:14:28 PM
I had a decent talk with the USDFW at the meeting on the 25th about this. According to them, 53% of Washington hunters & sports shooters want this State to be totally lead free for hunting and shooting purposes. Don't ask me what poll or where the stats come from but it does seem there is little to no opposition to this from sportsman associations in Wa or from H-W either. :hunt2:
53% of Washington hunters & sports shooters want this State to be totally lead free for hunting and shooting purposes???
I don't believe that for a second. These numbers must come from the same folks who count ballots in King county. :rolleyes:
Has anyone here at H-W done a poll on this?
Skook
Post by: Wenatcheejay on August 29, 2011, 10:55:41 PM
I had a decent talk with the USDFW at the meeting on the 25th about this. According to them, 53% of Washington hunters & sports shooters want this State to be totally lead free for hunting and shooting purposes. Don't ask me what poll or where the stats come from but it does seem there is little to no opposition to this from sportsman associations in Wa or from H-W either. :hunt2:
53% of Washington hunters & sports shooters want this State to be totally lead free for hunting and shooting purposes???
I don't believe that for a second. These numbers must come from the same folks who count ballots in King county. :rolleyes:
Has anyone here at H-W done a poll on this?
Skook
I am simply putting the facts as best I understood them. I don't believe this either. I don't argue that non toxic can be accurate. But I do argue that it is beneficial or that any majority wants it. If that were the case it would already be a public initiative. A H-W poll is a good idea but remember it is going to be an issue in a few years not just now. So, it is keeping it from being a total ban is why I bring it up. To think that they are going to stop at this slice? They aren't, a total ban is the end game. Every time they take a cut on this without proving the science it is one step closer to people believing they are powerless to stop them. :twocents: