Post by: huntrights on August 21, 2011, 08:24:34 PM
Email: (commission@dfw.wa.gov) ; Web site: (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/regulations/seasonsetting/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/regulations/seasonsetting/))
The alert came to my attention via an email from the Capital City Rifle & Pistol Club. You can validate the content yourself at the NRA-ILA web site (http://www.nraila.org/Hunting/Read/HuntingIssues.aspx?ID=7031&type=L (http://www.nraila.org/Hunting/Read/HuntingIssues.aspx?ID=7031&type=L))
NRA-ILA Alert:
“WASHINGTON HUNTERS: LET YOUR VOICES BE HEARD!!!
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has imposed a ban on the use of traditional ammunition for all upland bird hunting on all WDFW pheasant release sites across the state. This restriction was adopted by the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission two years ago but its implementation was delayed until this hunting season. The Commission adopted the restriction during the course of its 2010-2012 hunting season-setting process.
With this in mind, it is critical that hunters and sportsmen participate in the 2012-2014 season-setting process, which is just getting underway. The WDFW will be hosting a series of public meetings next week to take comments from the public as the first step in the process. You can bet that the anti-hunting extremists will be represented at these meetings so the importance of hunters and sportsmen participating cannot be overstated! Please see the meeting dates and locations provided below.
The current traditional ammunition restrictions pertain to quail, dove, pheasant and any upland bird hunted on the pheasant release sites. No scientific studies have been cited showing population-level impacts on any species. The WDFW seems to be acting on emotion and politics, citing the “potential” for problems associated with traditional ammunition as the basis for these far-reaching restrictions.
The NRA believes that the current push to ban the use of traditional ammunition in Washington is part of a new strategy being used by anti-hunting and anti-gun activists all over the country to attack our hunting traditions and firearm freedoms. Traditional ammunition bans have a significant chilling effect on hunting by pricing hunters out of the market while hunters’ ranks are already in decline. The opposition’s “next logical step” will be to propose a complete traditional ammunition ban throughout Washington. This is the pattern in other states so don’t think “it won’t happen here!”
It is likely too late to do anything about the existing restriction on traditional ammunition for this season. Hunters and sportsmen now have the opportunity to demand that the restriction be withdrawn for the next three years and vocally oppose any further unsubstantiated restrictions on hunting. The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies has adopted a traditional ammunition resolution stating that "state agencies should focus regulation efforts where population-level impacts to wildlife are substantiated." (AFWA - 2010 Lead Ammunition and Fishing Tackle Resolution) (emphasis added). With no population-level impacts cited, it is time to tell the WDFW that emotion and politics have no place in wildlife management.
With that in mind, it is important for you to attend the WDFW meeting in your part of the state. The following meetings will run from 7:00-9:00 p.m.:
- August 22 - Federal Way Community Center (Alder & Birch rooms), 876 South 333rd St, Federal Way
- August 23 - Edison Place Event Center (Edison Room), 201 North Rock St, Centralia
- August 24 - The Lincoln Center (Monroe Ballroom), 1316 North Lincoln St, Spokane
- August 25 - Clarion Hotel & Conference Center (Selah Wapato rooms), 1507 North First St, Yakima
In addition to attending one of the above meetings, please comment on the issues at the WDFW’s hunting website. Your voice matters! Comments must be submitted by Tuesday, September 20.
Posted: 8/19/2011 5:37:03 PM
Copyright 2011, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683”
Post by: Wenatcheejay on August 29, 2011, 10:57:41 PM
They were very nice I would recommend more people coming to these meeting and letting them know we care.
Post by: Swannytheswan on August 29, 2011, 11:16:44 PM
Post by: FC on August 29, 2011, 11:30:51 PM
Post by: huntrights on August 30, 2011, 09:51:58 PM
Yes, I added fishing in this communication; there have been attempts to outlaw the use of lead weights for fishing also. Go to this link to read more: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=451&issue=021 (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=451&issue=021)
Here is an excerpt, "LAST AUGUST, THE Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental organization based in California, filed a petition with the Environmental Protection Agency asking for a ban on all lead ammunition and lead in fishing tackle."
Post by: Wenatcheejay on August 31, 2011, 07:07:28 AM
Post by: Shoffy on August 31, 2011, 07:41:38 AM
Post by: PaulM on September 05, 2011, 08:10:00 PM
Post by: Kola16 on September 05, 2011, 08:23:07 PM
Post by: Atroxus on September 05, 2011, 11:19:56 PM
Post by: fethrduster on September 06, 2011, 08:16:04 AM
Post by: woodswalker on September 06, 2011, 08:38:42 AM
Quote
Personally I think that ppl need to stop wasting energy on banning this or that ammo/weapon/gadget and just make stiffer penalties for people who misuse them.
Atroxus, the folks pushing this dont CARE about the perp doing something stupid and misusing the ammo/gadget/weapon...they want them BANNED and will use any ruse to do so whether by legislative fiat, pricing most folks out of the market or making items nigh to impossible to purchase/own/hold.
Post by: PaulM on September 15, 2011, 06:22:24 AM
Post by: shotgun-2 on September 25, 2011, 02:09:47 PM
I shoot a classic Beretta SxS in 16 ga. that cannot handle steel shot, after searching the web for an alternative shot, all I could locate was a Classic Double Load that is priced at $75 for a ten round box! B.S., who can afford to shoot that, not me, thats for sure. The state just made a fine old shotgun worthless.
Yes, I do own other guns, but they just took away my favorite shotgun from me.
I believe my days of upland hunting and maybe all bird hunting, in Washington State are over.
:sry: :bdid: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: PaulM on September 26, 2011, 08:57:37 PM
Post by: Fisherdave10 on September 27, 2011, 06:38:14 PM
Post by: huntrights on February 13, 2012, 07:24:54 PM
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2012/02/washington-lead-shot-ban-on-pheasant-release-sites.aspx
"Washington: Lead Shot Ban on Pheasant Release Sites
Posted on February 13, 2012
Submit comments to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife!
Last September, we informed you about the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Commission’s (WDFW) overly broad ban on the use of traditional ammunition (lead ammunition) for all upland game hunting on all of the state’s pheasant release sites. We also asked you to take part in the 2012-2014 hunting season-setting process by submitting public comment to the WDFW and Commission to request that they repeal this unfounded lead ammunition ban.
The NRA would like to thank all of you who participated in the first phase of the hunting season-setting process. Unfortunately, the WDFW has ignored the NRA’s and your requests to repeal the ban. The proposed rules for the 2012-2014 season can be found here; they range from new sections pertaining to night hunting and landowner hunting permits, to amending the code pertaining to archery requirements and the use of decoys - but the repeal of the lead ammunition ban is not among them!
Citizens have until Tuesday, February 21, to submit public comment regarding these proposed rules. Please contact the WDFW and the Commission and respectfully express your disappointment that the WDFW ignored your requests to repeal the expanded lead ammunition ban (for all upland game on all pheasant release sites) and ask that they incorporate a repeal of this ban into their final recommendations. Written comments may be e-mailed to wildthing@dfw.wa.gov or mailed to: WDFW Rules Coordinator; 600 Capitol Way North; Olympia, Washington 98501.
Thank you for your continued efforts and please check www.NRAILA.org for more updates on this important issue."
Post by: dreamunelk on February 13, 2012, 07:43:14 PM
Post by: AWS on February 14, 2012, 08:49:48 AM
I load ITX and Nice Shot at $35-$40 per box of 25 for my older/vintage shotguns and hit the hardware stores and gunshops on my travels. Picked up two 2 boxes of 20ga 3" #2 bismuth(50 rounds) for $60 in SD that should cover my goose needs for my Browning Superpose for a long time.
I sold off a couple of my older SXS Ithaca/SKB shot guns and picked up a nice english stocked 6# 20ga with choke tubes for high volume shooting where steel costs will be adventages.
Even my predator hunting is being done with nontoxics, I started using VG bullets when they started coming out and have swithched to the NBT Lead Frees in in my 6mm's, they are very accurate and effective on coyotes. I will be starting to experiment with them in the 22-204 and 22-250 this year.
I'm not about to quit hunting just because of ammunition requirement chnages, I'm going to wotk with it.
Times are changing
Post by: Wenatcheejay on February 14, 2012, 01:52:59 PM
There has been a ban in place on most WDFW sites for years. Also we as sportsman should pay attention to the science on this one. Best to realize that lead shot in some areas is bad news and gear up for an intelligent fight when the antis go after lead bullets!
There is a Bill proposed that would require WDFW to actually use science when making policy. That science also must show measurable benefit to justify restriction. There is zero evidence to justify a ban on upland bird hunting. A USDFW representative said that this is a step to ban all traditional ammunition last year and he agreed there is no science but it makes people feel good. It is an easy argument to say that lead is bad for you so we should outlaw it. THE EPA REJECTED THIS ARGUMENT! Science is not necessary we have the nonpartisan Center for Biological Diversity to protect us (cough), I mean sue us. The next step will be a ban for all upland bird hunting including private reserves, then big game, then shooting ranges. Like always, when it is finally something a person does care about they will want someone else to do something.
The NRA has laid out what to do, if people who read this will not take the time to protect their heritage we will get what we deserve. This is another unnecessary expense upon firearms. To argue that there are effective alternatives is not the point. It is unnecessary expense. I for one quit small game (bird) hunting last year. This year I will not buy a license. It is that simple. One can argue, "great more for me." I say, "Good Luck Have Fun." But don't ask for support as they put more and more bans on shooting areas, there will be fewer and fewer groups to support you.
Post by: Goshawk on February 22, 2012, 08:08:22 PM
Dead eagles and other birds of prey from lead shot does our freedom to hunt more harm than we want...
Post by: carver52 on February 22, 2012, 08:37:23 PM
Now, having said that, I too hate to see another effort to cripple our shooting sports more than it is already. It is very frustrating to have to defend our sports from those who only hear the mass media dribble.
Post by: wraithen on February 22, 2012, 08:40:50 PM
Post by: Mr56Jeep on February 22, 2012, 08:46:40 PM
What about all those guns that can't fire steel?
I'm always looking for an excuse to buy a new gun?
Post by: wraithen on February 22, 2012, 08:52:59 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on February 22, 2012, 09:56:27 PM
I have given my input on the last round, what is amazing is even the USDFW personel (2011) agreed but said emotional input is more important in Washington. (It is true.) That is not good for us but I guess if we learn to feel emotions instead of thinking it will be OK.
We deserve everything we get. :bash:
Post by: Bean Counter on February 22, 2012, 10:49:13 PM
Big game is next and the shooting ranges. At some point most will care but it will be to late. People care about their species, sport, method, and location. I've learned that to expect the hunting world to ban together, it's a bit like a prayer.
I have given my input on the last round, what is amazing is even the USDFW personel (2011) agreed but said emotional input is more important in Washington. (It is true.) That is not good for us but I guess if we learn to feel emotions instead of thinking it will be OK.
We deserve everything we get. :bash:
+1 :yeah:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on February 23, 2012, 07:08:24 AM
The people of Washington have shown overwhelmingly that they they support a ban on Traditional Ammunition. They support it for Waterfowl as well as all Upland Game. They understand the need to protect Raptors. This brings us to the issue of Big Game Hunters who use Traditional Ammunition. Far to often wounded animals are left with toxic lead in their bodies. Even if an animal is killed the gut sac will have lead left in it. Predators that eat this will increase their chances of lead exposure. People who consume game meat are at risk of lead poisoning. Because of all this there will now be a ban on all Traditional Ammunition for Big and Small Game.
The hunting community through apathy and silence will support it.
Next:
Discharged lead from firearms has been shown to be toxic. The Traditional Ammunition has been banned on all Public Land to protect Natural Ecosystems. To protect the public from coming in direct contact as well as second hand lead exposure there is a ban on all Traditional Ammunition in Washington. This is for your safety and the safety of the Public.
Post by: boneaddict on February 23, 2012, 07:14:02 AM
You are EXACTLY right. Intelligently I could see it with waterfowl. Less intelligently so for upland. (like there is a shortage of raptors) and extremely less intelligently so for big game.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on February 23, 2012, 07:20:07 AM
God forbid one of them wolves eat a lead bullet. I mean eat it in the traditional sense......
You are EXACTLY right. Intelligently I could see it with waterfowl. Less intelligently so for upland. (like there is a shortage of raptors) and extremely less intelligently so for big game.
Soon the crime of using a lead bullet will be worse than the poaching fine.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on February 23, 2012, 07:42:49 AM
What about all those guns that can't fire steel?
You are right. I did not even think about it from this angle. I have a nice O/U that I would never but steel down the barrel of. It is my favorite upland gun. It's useless for it now a trapgun, but that never crossed my mind. I don't even know why I care? I decided to give up Birdhunting and Small Game do to economics. So why should I even bother to care?
I have been writing WDFW and going to meetings for a year over this. Nobody supports me on it so why do I care about something I don't do? I need to focus on what and where I hunt.
I don't Birdhunt, own hounds, (I don't use hounds), hunt cougar, hunt the NE, I don't night hunt, I don't hunt wolf infested locations, Why belong to Ducks Unlimited, why did I buy banquet tickets? The lead ban proposal for fishing would not have effected me. I don't understand how hunting harms waterfowl but lead fishing doesn't? I asked and was told that the ban on hunting is supported but fishing is opposed. So, it's political and not scientific?
Post by: KNOPHISH on February 23, 2012, 08:00:31 AM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on February 23, 2012, 08:45:26 AM
It is why we will loose.
Post by: wraithen on February 23, 2012, 08:54:54 AM
Post by: lonedave on February 23, 2012, 08:47:21 PM
Post by: Goshawk on February 23, 2012, 08:52:53 PM
The "End of the World argument" for what would happen if lead is banned for all hunting has one fatal flaw.
Very effective substitutes for lead already exist and are in use, often, the first choice of the hunters themselves, especially in the big game realm with bullets like Barns X and Vortex series.
Also, using the "policies are driven by emotions only" argument while ignoring in the field science makes hunters sound like a lead only cult. Studies documenting waterfowl deaths from lead ingestion goes as far back as 1908. http://www.jstor.org/pss/3781942
Arguing to keep in practice something that harms non target and or non game species just makes us look like we don't care about the resource. The problem is real, and so is the solution.
Post by: Special T on February 23, 2012, 09:12:53 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on February 23, 2012, 09:19:58 PM
The "End of the World argument" for what would happen if lead is banned for all hunting has one fatal flaw.
Very effective substitutes for lead already exist and are in use, often, the first choice of the hunters themselves, especially in the big game realm with bullets like Barns X and Vortex series.
Also, using the "policies are driven by emotions only" argument while ignoring in the field science makes hunters sound like a lead only cult. Studies documenting waterfowl deaths from lead ingestion goes as far back as 1908. http://www.jstor.org/pss/3781942
Arguing to keep in practice something that harms non target and or non game species just makes us look like we don't care about the resource. The problem is real, and so is the solution.
Nobody argues waterfowl. That is not what this is about. You make an argument that has nothing to do with this what so ever. My words come from the USDFW & WDFW. They say Washington Hunters want a lead ban and requested it for ALL hunting via a poll. It's not "end of the world" they were very polite about it. They said the ban will be in stages and people will support it. I didn't believe them. It seems it is true from what I see on this board. For me it's over as far as debate. It seems 99% of this board supports the ban or doesn't care. I'll not seek support to oppose it here again. IMO, it will end with anglers, but by that time nobody will oppose it then either.
I am blown away how little people care :o but on many things perhaps I am the one who is wrong.
Post by: huntrights on February 23, 2012, 09:46:07 PM
Update from the NRA-ILA
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2012/02/washington-lead-shot-ban-on-pheasant-release-sites.aspx
"Washington: Lead Shot Ban on Pheasant Release Sites
Posted on February 13, 2012
Submit comments to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife!
Last September, we informed you about the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Commission’s (WDFW) overly broad ban on the use of traditional ammunition (lead ammunition) for all upland game hunting on all of the state’s pheasant release sites. We also asked you to take part in the 2012-2014 hunting season-setting process by submitting public comment to the WDFW and Commission to request that they repeal this unfounded lead ammunition ban.
The NRA would like to thank all of you who participated in the first phase of the hunting season-setting process. Unfortunately, the WDFW has ignored the NRA’s and your requests to repeal the ban. The proposed rules for the 2012-2014 season can be found here; they range from new sections pertaining to night hunting and landowner hunting permits, to amending the code pertaining to archery requirements and the use of decoys - but the repeal of the lead ammunition ban is not among them!
Citizens have until Tuesday, February 21, to submit public comment regarding these proposed rules. Please contact the WDFW and the Commission and respectfully express your disappointment that the WDFW ignored your requests to repeal the expanded lead ammunition ban (for all upland game on all pheasant release sites) and ask that they incorporate a repeal of this ban into their final recommendations. Written comments may be e-mailed to wildthing@dfw.wa.gov or mailed to: WDFW Rules Coordinator; 600 Capitol Way North; Olympia, Washington 98501.
Thank you for your continued efforts and please check www.NRAILA.org for more updates on this important issue."
Post by: fethrduster on February 26, 2012, 07:59:30 AM
I am a Washington hunter and I DO NOT want a ban on traditional lead based ammunition. Polls are a good way to try to validate underlying agendas by manipulating statistics. If there was a poll, nobody asked me. I hope several of you wrote the WDFW asking for repeal of the ban of traditional lead-based ammunition use at the pheasant drop sites. Valid science has to drive these decisions; not propaganda, misguided perceptions, and emotion. Where are the valid scientific studies to back up the ban? I would like to see the impartial scientific studies showing population-level impacts on any species at the pheasant drop sites that have been performed and prompted this action in the first place.
After reading the toxology reports from four different studies posted on the WDFW site here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/nontoxic_shot/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/nontoxic_shot/), I can see where the reasoning comes from. I keep reading from us hunters here and elsewhere that there isn't any science to back this up, but apparently there is. For instance, one study said that one #6 lead pellet was found to induce mortality in pen raised chukars, and that approx. 58,000 lead pellets were found in soils near springs in a heavily hunted chukar area in Utah. If we are at all objective about this, that is a bit sobering, and it is easy to see where this is headed. For me, the main issue is cost. So, instead of buying a $250 gun each year, now we're looking at having to buy pricey ammo instead. Hopefully notox prices will come down. I won't shoot steel. I loathe it.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on February 26, 2012, 09:06:54 AM
I am a Washington hunter and I DO NOT want a ban on traditional lead based ammunition. Polls are a good way to try to validate underlying agendas by manipulating statistics. If there was a poll, nobody asked me. I hope several of you wrote the WDFW asking for repeal of the ban of traditional lead-based ammunition use at the pheasant drop sites. Valid science has to drive these decisions; not propaganda, misguided perceptions, and emotion. Where are the valid scientific studies to back up the ban? I would like to see the impartial scientific studies showing population-level impacts on any species at the pheasant drop sites that have been performed and prompted this action in the first place.
After reading the toxology reports from four different studies posted on the WDFW site here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/nontoxic_shot/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/nontoxic_shot/), I can see where the reasoning comes from. I keep reading from us hunters here and elsewhere that there isn't any science to back this up, but apparently there is. For instance, one study said that one #6 lead pellet was found to induce mortality in pen raised chukars, and that approx. 58,000 lead pellets were found in soils near springs in a heavily hunted chukar area in Utah. If we are at all objective about this, that is a bit sobering, and it is easy to see where this is headed. For me, the main issue is cost. So, instead of buying a $250 gun each year, now we're looking at having to buy pricey ammo instead. Hopefully notox prices will come down. I won't shoot steel. I loathe it.
The frequency of lead-pellet ingestion by captive chukars increased significantly when given a greater density of lead pellets with food and when fed a diet with seeds and grit pebbles that were similar visually to lead pellets. I estimated a density of 1,712,134 pellets/Ha in soils at an area used for target shooting.
I like this part of one study best. If force fed lead in captivity the there is an increase of lead. I'd bet that is true.
Bottom line is this is done. This is the kind of science used. This shows it is harmful to the enviornment. It shows that birds like all other animals and fish can be harmed. It shows that soon we need to expand "Get The Lead Out" to save the children. It should not be opposed by anyone who cares about their children or the enviornment. It should be applied to target shooting, hunting, & fishing as it is only logical.
BTW, notice how "target shooting" is mentioned...... (This is from WDFW)
I know, I know, I should not point out the potential not keep moving the goal lines here. I mean it is not like wolves where certian groups with say an "agenda" said that the program is only for one area and limited scope, and then moved the goal lines saying they never said they were going to stay within that said scope of area. No, this is a totally different kind of thing. It's not like where cherry picked data could be used to say "sue" the Governement to legistlate an agenda. Besides, the majority of true conservationists support it or don't care. The polls are in the debate is over. It is time to implement the agenda.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 26, 2012, 09:35:22 AM
I am blown away how little people care :o but on many things perhaps I am the one who is wrong.
Me too.
They have put out online surveys for years that can be completed by anyone-antis included. And if any of us think that they are not on top of it doing all they can to make things tougher on the sportsmen all they need to do is read the comment sections. THEN DFW tells us That HUNTERS want it! A certain moderator falls for that.
Post by: fethrduster on February 26, 2012, 05:01:16 PM
I am a Washington hunter and I DO NOT want a ban on traditional lead based ammunition. Polls are a good way to try to validate underlying agendas by manipulating statistics. If there was a poll, nobody asked me. I hope several of you wrote the WDFW asking for repeal of the ban of traditional lead-based ammunition use at the pheasant drop sites. Valid science has to drive these decisions; not propaganda, misguided perceptions, and emotion. Where are the valid scientific studies to back up the ban? I would like to see the impartial scientific studies showing population-level impacts on any species at the pheasant drop sites that have been performed and prompted this action in the first place.
After reading the toxology reports from four different studies posted on the WDFW site here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/nontoxic_shot/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/nontoxic_shot/), I can see where the reasoning comes from. I keep reading from us hunters here and elsewhere that there isn't any science to back this up, but apparently there is. For instance, one study said that one #6 lead pellet was found to induce mortality in pen raised chukars, and that approx. 58,000 lead pellets were found in soils near springs in a heavily hunted chukar area in Utah. If we are at all objective about this, that is a bit sobering, and it is easy to see where this is headed. For me, the main issue is cost. So, instead of buying a $250 gun each year, now we're looking at having to buy pricey ammo instead. Hopefully notox prices will come down. I won't shoot steel. I loathe it.
The frequency of lead-pellet ingestion by captive chukars increased significantly when given a greater density of lead pellets with food and when fed a diet with seeds and grit pebbles that were similar visually to lead pellets. I estimated a density of 1,712,134 pellets/Ha in soils at an area used for target shooting.
I like this part of one study best. If force fed lead in captivity the there is an increase of lead. I'd bet that is true.
Bottom line is this is done. This is the kind of science used. This shows it is harmful to the enviornment. It shows that birds like all other animals and fish can be harmed. It shows that soon we need to expand "Get The Lead Out" to save the children. It should not be opposed by anyone who cares about their children or the enviornment. It should be applied to target shooting, hunting, & fishing as it is only logical.
BTW, notice how "target shooting" is mentioned...... (This is from WDFW)
I know, I know, I should not point out the potential not keep moving the goal lines here. I mean it is not like wolves where certian groups with say an "agenda" said that the program is only for one area and limited scope, and then moved the goal lines saying they never said they were going to stay within that said scope of area. No, this is a totally different kind of thing. It's not like where cherry picked data could be used to say "sue" the Governement to legistlate an agenda. Besides, the majority of true conservationists support it or don't care. The polls are in the debate is over. It is time to implement the agenda.
If it is [arguably] true that one #6 pellet can cause mortality in a chukar (and presumably other smallish birds), is that not cause for concern? If this is all junk science however, then I agree that is equally cause for concern. Sadly, one can slant a [supposedly scientific] study to suit any end. I do agree that it may already be too late regardless. The only hope I have is that they have yet to ban lead statewide. Perhaps that, at least, will stand. We'll see.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on February 26, 2012, 08:42:24 PM
:) It's all good.
Post by: wraithen on February 26, 2012, 09:15:10 PM
Post by: Special T on February 27, 2012, 10:57:25 PM
If you can't get the results you want just find a way to force it.... Just like when the "News" had to strap a road flair to the gas tank to get it to explode on impact....
Post by: Wenatcheejay on February 28, 2012, 08:12:39 AM
http://www.outdoorlife.com/articles/hunting/whitetail-deer/accessories-gear/2008/12/update-lead-your-meat
Here is my take, (again.) All of this has nothing to do with making us safe. It is all part of the same cancerous agenda that is against hunting & fishing. It is completely no different and no less important than the wolf issue. Ignore this and you might as well pucker up to wolfies. Increase cost, lower opportunity, strip funding for Game and transfer it to eco-agendas, it is all tied together. This also has an impact on food banks for no reason other than to once again make hunters look bad. If you eat game meat it is dangerous, deadly, don't do it, don't ALLOW it. There is no reason to hunt if you are not going to eat it, that is sports hunting which is evil. Control is a powerful tool. Tell us to cover up what we do, never display a trophy, never put up a picture, this is something that should be hidden, never in public, it's dangerous, it harms the ecosystem, it kills people.
No, there is no real scientific proof but it is not needed. :o If we do not begin to aggressively reject this propaganda at all sides we will loose this battle. I think it is very important to show fake science here because it sets the stage to show fake science used in far more important issues. To me, if it is important enough that the NRA supports it that is enough for me to bloviate about it. It is important enough to let my fellow hunters know I support them, I write letters to support them and their sports. I do it in hopes they will do the same for me. This should be a brotherhood, (hunting and fishing.) Somehow, I feel we have lost that.
It doesn't take anymore time to send an email or letter than it does to post on this forum. There are people who take the time to show which representatives to send them to.
Thank all of you who take the time to do this. :tup:
There are groups, NRA, Big Game Forever, RMEF, and others who will send you agenda drives where all you have to do is say you agree as a registered voter. It matters, even if you don't agree with me on this one issue as hunters we need to start deciding on where we will stand an be very firm there.
Post by: predatorpro on February 28, 2012, 12:15:14 PM
Post by: huntrights on March 19, 2012, 10:33:55 AM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=94628.0
Post by: Wacenturion on March 20, 2012, 08:33:19 AM
That is the real issue. To have credible science to base decisions on, the researcher has to be totally unbiased. That creature doesn't exist for the most part. Everyone, including those doing research have opinions on issues, and those opinions influence outcomes.
Post by: huntinguy on April 29, 2012, 09:29:07 PM
what people are not asking is- where is the lead coming from? It is assumed hunters... but...
It sickens me when I see hunters not sticking together.
we need to learn... but we won't
"First They Came for the Jews"
By Pastor Niemoller
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
By Pastor Niemoller
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Post by: Shoffy on April 30, 2012, 07:22:41 AM
Every Chukar I have ever shot has died from lead poisoning. Specifically high velocity lead poisoning. :guns::yeah: hahaha me too!
Maybe they can use that in there next study.
Post by: Special T on April 30, 2012, 10:03:20 AM
"Sadly, one can slant a [supposedly scientific] study to suit any end."
That is the real issue. To have credible science to base decisions on, the researcher has to be totally unbiased. That creature doesn't exist for the most part. Everyone, including those doing research have opinions on issues, and those opinions influence outcomes.
Ask anyone who has worked for a Marketing Firm this question. Is there a large portion of your customers that are trying to prove a point? Thier answer will be YES! The $$$ to do a survey or science is NOT funded from altrueistic donors. There is an adjenda everytime $$$ is spent. Some of it is more honest than others.
The only way to get an honest answer is to pay $$$ in advance to someone who has no dog in the fight... People don't tend to shell out those kinds of amounts first and ask for answers later. :twocents:
Post by: Stilly bay on April 30, 2012, 03:26:23 PM
opposition because another part of our hunting heritage is being closed off is one thing... arguing that shooting tons of poisonous lead into an environment that is normally lead free is completely harmless, is just ignorant in this day and age.
everyone has their own agenda, but opposing the lead ban is just going to make hunters look bad in the end. what it looks like on paper is that we are introducing lead into the soil and leaving it in crippled game birds that will in turn poison endangered birds of prey. this is a fight we are just not going to win, and as a hunter and conservationist I don't know that we should win it.
steel shot has never been cheaper or more effective. there are nontoxic alternatives that are safe for us to use in all our older guns. Steel target loads are cheaper than most lead, steel game loads are cheaper than many lead game loads, steel shot is no longer the enemy come to piss on your picnic. times are changing. if we embrace nontoxic shot as many states already have, we can stand tall that besides the occasional shell casing, we are not polluting the environment with a metal that is known to be poisonous. in the end we might earn the respect of more people who are indifferent to hunting. its the year 2012, we are damned lucky we still can hunt and have places to do it from this point forward if we don't go green, we might as well just go home.
how many businesses get high praise for doing what is right for the environment? how many get flamed for not? this will come into play with hunters, and I can't believe haven't been nailed to the cross for it already.
at face value this argument seems to be a matter of the dreaded "antis" trying to make us (hunters) do something, there fore we will resist it just on principle no matter where it stacks up in reality. I see our opposition in this entire affair as a terrific way to shoot ourselves in the foot in the eyes of the vast public, and a good way to loose the support of people who don't hunt but aren't against it, which -in case you research waiving people don't know- is a bigger threat than the shenanigans of the anti's.
Post by: Special T on April 30, 2012, 03:42:41 PM
Post by: TWG2A on April 30, 2012, 04:20:30 PM
Here in Montana, our legislature convenes every two years for 90 days. During the 2011 session, we proposed legislation which would have protected Montanans from this problem.
Montana SB 371
Here's some reading on the issue.
http://www.ammoland.com/2010/10/26/loss-of-smokeless-powder-the-greatest-threat-to-keep-bear-arms/#axzz1tZAGkPUt (http://www.ammoland.com/2010/10/26/loss-of-smokeless-powder-the-greatest-threat-to-keep-bear-arms/#axzz1tZAGkPUt)
SB 371 Rerouted
http://montanahuntingtoday.com/blog/index.php/2011/04/08/sb-371-rerouted/ (http://montanahuntingtoday.com/blog/index.php/2011/04/08/sb-371-rerouted/)
The bill died in Committee.. We'll be back next year.
Post by: huntinguy on May 01, 2012, 07:28:26 PM
Studies of shooting ranges have shown little if any leaching of lead to the surrounding areas.
a body will encase "any" foreign body that enters it... and it will fester (heavens knows I have had enough stainless, supposedly not reactive, chunks in my body that have festered and came out. I have seen wounds from broadheads that have been terrible, and they are steel.
I understand the toxicity of lead. I used to work in a place that required everyone to be tested twice a year. But, the question is - does it cause harm to animals that may consume another animal that has been shot. Let’s do some math here... just how many wild animals get away with a pellet in them? how many animals die of natural causes? Does it even sound reasonable that hunters cause much swing in the balance of naturally occurring contamination? maybe in some flyways and in some release sights. There I could say yes or maybe... but in the open field?
Also, toxicity from lead is not a permanent situation, it does leave the body.
This is little more than another way to restrict if not outright prohibit hunting.
I have seen little data to change my mind. I am waiting………