Post by: Shoffy on May 05, 2012, 10:38:38 PM
Just sayin' it.....
Post by: Wenatcheejay on May 05, 2012, 11:02:22 PM
Reasons
It is more expensive making people be better shots.
If you can't afford it then don't hunt.
There could be a condor or a duck in the mountains somewhere.
Chucker force fed lead pellets in captivity have higher lead concentrations in their blood.
Just because there is no empirical evidence doesn't mean they should not create scientific-like decisions based on emotion.
Not using non-toxic upsets the people who want to end hunting.
It is also worth mentioning we do not have a "game" department. We have a Wildlife and Fish department. I only mention it because I'd really like to see that change.
I have a hard time not supporting a ban on lead products for fishing. I mean if it is bad for ducks and it's bad for upland, and it's bad for Game it must be bad for water.... Isn't it? I'm just thinking of the fish :puke:
Post by: Stilly bay on May 06, 2012, 10:05:23 AM
I never hear people rant about how great it is on here. That must mean that nobody wants it, yet fish and game insist half of the upland hunters in WA are for all for using it.
Just sayin' it.....
funny thing about lead shot is you rarely hear people rant about how great it is... they just rant about how they don't want it taken away.
lead is not better than steel, steel is not better than lead. lead shot load and steel shot loads are two completely different things each with their own virtues and negatives, get over it.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on May 06, 2012, 11:38:54 AM
Not the question posed. The question posed is 50% of hunters want lead banned? But, there is not a survey.
This is just stated. Like of like your agressive post.
And there is opposition to the lead ban; NRA, Shooting groups in the UK, Montana Shooting Sports Association, Washington Dept. of Ecology did not support the ban but instead education, I could go on but the EPA is backing off of shot & bullets. It is going forward with fishing tackle bans.
However, the Center for Biological Diversity is all for the ban of all lead ammunition, and they are experts at lawsuits.
Anglers should have opposed this shot ban but didn't. They are next, they won the last round but it is not over.
Muzzleloaders should be concerned over the anti lead fad. :twocents:
And FYI when it comes to hunting and hunting rights that are being undermind on all fronts I will never "get over it."
The folks who think that the ultraminority of anti hunters will win over the non hunting majority over this issue are fooling themselves.
Post by: Curly on May 06, 2012, 12:06:28 PM
And, what evidence is there that lead shot dispersed over the uplands during bird hunting has any negative effects to birds or animals or the environment?
Post by: Dhoey07 on May 06, 2012, 12:28:36 PM
Post by: Stilly bay on May 06, 2012, 12:32:48 PM
And FYI when it comes to hunting and hunting rights that are being undermind on all fronts I will never "get over it."
where in the constitution does it say we have the RIGHT to use lead shot and bullets? none of our rights are being threatened on this issue.
while opposers to this will say that no one can prove lead shot from upland bird hunting leads to the poisoning of non target species, there is really no way that you can prove it does not.
at the end of the day we all know that lead is poisonous and steel is not. sprinkling it around on the ground cannot be a benefit to the environment.
what is being taken from us is the personal responsibility to choose between non toxic and toxic by banning the latter. now that we are wiser in the ways of the environment and the pollution of many choices between toxic and non toxic are being made for us. for just one example: lead based paint? where did it go and why isn't your baby's nursery coated in it?
as to the OP, my first response did sound aggressive and for that I apologize. I too would like to see the study where they determined half of the upland hunters were in favor of nontoxic shot... which IMO is in many ways superior to lead.
unfortunately those companies fighting to keep lead alive have a lot of $ to loose if they don't succeed
Post by: flatbkman on May 06, 2012, 12:43:19 PM
Yes it could have been my shooting, but I am convinced that the birds I took there flew further (after being hit) than those I have taken with lead shot. It's a good thing that my hunting partner has a good bird dog, otherwise I do believe I would have lost some of them.
Post by: wraithen on May 06, 2012, 12:51:03 PM
Post by: Stilly bay on May 06, 2012, 01:11:40 PM
license fees and gas prices have never been higher. steel shot and lead shot prices have balanced themselves out in the last few years since steel was mandatory for waterfowl -which sets the precedence for banning lead in the uplands BTW. if lead was gone and all that was left were steel and nontoxics you would see prices come down pretty quick, which is why ammo companies back the NRA and others against this.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 06, 2012, 01:24:46 PM
if lead was gone and all that was left were steel and nontoxics you would see prices come down pretty quick, which is why ammo companies back the NRA and others against this.I think they would just expand the definition of 'toxic' to find another material. For example, the laws in WA are set to phase out certain types of brakes/pads because of toxic metals in them. When you brake, it removes a layer of material that distributes metal, especially copper on to the roads, then washes into the watershed, then into the streams. The enviros claim that copper in streams is what is killing off salmon and are trying to ban copper now. Nickel is another metal they are concerned about.
Post by: wraithen on May 06, 2012, 01:38:47 PM
Hunting an animal that has not been farm raised and fed and drugged to whatever degree is where the living off the land comes in. Many people see that meat as a healthy alternative they can get for themselves to augment their food supply. It costs me 180 in licenses for the year. The salmon alone pays for the fishing license. The hunting license is paid for by itself and then some if I am successful. How is this not a great opportunity for myself and my family? If hunting and fishing were the sport you seem to argue they are, I believe I would never think about shooting anything more than paper. My mother in law has a large high fence area in PA. I could hunt all kinds of things from pigs and watusi to a selection of exotics for nothing more than the total cost of the animal if I chose. This isn't what I'm about. It isn't what most of us are about. There's far too many people here that talk about the hunt itself and the taste of an animal they harvested themselves to be in it purely from the sport standpoint. I'm sorry sir, but for now there is no agreeing with you on this. I'm proud to not associate myself with the mid-west and the east coast. I'm saddened by the mentalities of theirs that sometimes creeps in.
Post by: Stilly bay on May 06, 2012, 02:04:38 PM
wraithen
living completely off the land and supplementing your families diet off the land are two completely different things in my book. I think we misunderstood each other on semantics.
I would hope most of us on this hunting forum supplement our families meals with our kills. but to say you feed your family breakfast lunch and dinner with only what you kill and catch, living entirely off the land with no job or no government help is a rarity these days, how does one afford the licenses and gas ect. if you can afford to do so then more power to you, for you are one of the minorities I set aside in my earlier statement.
sport or necessity, hunting and fishing and the cost involved to do both are becoming a luxury that many deserving citizens just cannot afford anymore.
Post by: Alpine Mojo on May 06, 2012, 04:56:47 PM
Have you ever force fed lead shot pellets to chuckar, you know, for research purposes? :hello:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on May 06, 2012, 06:44:13 PM
Do The People have a Constitutional Right to lead ammunition?
Well, again that is not the question. The question is does the WDFW have the power to go against the EPA, Department of Ecology and others and do what makes them feel good? Even if it is later proved to benifit chucker that is irrelevant today. Do The People have a right to revoke that power or even to question it?
Do they have the right to take away freedom of choice from The People because it makes them feel good?
I have never been good at shutting up and being a good little socialist. :sry:
Post by: Shoffy on May 06, 2012, 08:01:54 PM
We all need to step it up and get this non toxic political agenda out of our state leaders heads. WE DON'T WANT IT
There's my rant and rave on how good lead is ;)
Post by: bobcat on May 06, 2012, 08:06:25 PM
(I don't even know if they make steel shot that small?)
Post by: Wenatcheejay on May 06, 2012, 08:45:17 PM
The problem is the ideology that every or any animal needs to be protected from "potential harm" not the management of a population. It's bad science.
Post by: KFhunter on May 06, 2012, 09:13:11 PM
Post by: Curly on May 06, 2012, 09:24:08 PM
irritates the *censored* outta me some fellow hunters would be pushing for this crap :dunno:
:yeah:
If it makes someone feel better to use non-tox for upland, they should just use it and not worry about what everyone else is doing.
If there were studies showing it was really a problem, I guarantee we would not be allowed to use lead for upland. :twocents:
Post by: Stilly bay on May 06, 2012, 09:25:00 PM
constitutional rights...
Do The People have a Constitutional Right to lead ammunition?
Well, again that is not the question. The question is does the WDFW have the power to go against the EPA, Department of Ecology and others and do what makes them feel good? Even if it is later proved to benifit chucker that is irrelevant today. Do The People have a right to revoke that power or even to question it?
Do they have the right to take away freedom of choice from The People because it makes them feel good?
I have never been good at shutting up and being a good little socialist. :sry:
do you even know what socialism means?
Stilly bay,
Have you ever force fed lead shot pellets to chuckar, you know, for research purposes? :hello:
no, but I once clipped all the feathers off a chukars left wing -leaving on those on the right- to see if it was a more effective flyer... it didn't work out so well.
Steel shot sucks for upland. Plain and simple. No two ways about it. I cannot speak for using exotic non toxic types, other than they are so expensive, because I've never used them. I'm sure they are great, I just couldn't afford to shoot em! It's just plain fact: Lead travels farther, hits harder, kills better and cost less.
plain and simple, incorrect.
irritates the *censored* outta me some fellow hunters would be pushing for this crap :dunno:
the pleasure has been all mine. this is an argument I never intended to even dream of winning. bottom line is steel aint that bad, and all in all its pretty damn good when you do your homework, lead is poison and this will be a losing fight since lead shot was successfully banned for waterfowl years ago, and in times since ultra right wing conservative MT has banned lead, its only a matter of time before Wa folds.
I wish things would stay the same as much as anyone else, but I will be damned if I fear change to the point of ignorance.
Post by: KFhunter on May 06, 2012, 09:50:29 PM
Post by: Stilly bay on May 06, 2012, 10:07:17 PM
how about we just cut to the chase and ban all killing of wild animals for any reason?
that sounds like completely reasonable line of thinking to me. :tup: well played.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on May 06, 2012, 10:15:19 PM
how about we just cut to the chase and ban all killing of wild animals for any reason?
Well, managing for the potential harm of an individual animal as opposed to management of populations sets the stage for it.
Here is a newspaper article that combines the highlights of this thread.
http://www.twincities.com/national/ci_20498999/environmentalists-take-aim-at-toxic-lead-ammunition
Post by: KFhunter on May 06, 2012, 11:13:00 PM
regulate, regulate, regulate until there is nothing left or you've drove your enemy (hunters) to quit the sport.
Keep capitulating Stilly - see where you are a few years down the road, but you'd rather be snarky.
Post by: Shoffy on May 07, 2012, 07:39:59 AM
Well I would normally use 8's in lead for quail, so if you go two sizes bigger it would be #6 in steel.
(I don't even know if they make steel shot that small?)
I use a 7-1/2 of quail, but I wasn't sure if they made a #5 in steel. OK.... so I embellished a little :)
Post by: Wenatcheejay on May 07, 2012, 08:38:29 AM
I was commenting on how "change" came to be. In this sense I used a word to express:
"Government in a Communist-state is the agent of change rather than any market or desire on the part of consumers. Change by government can be swift or slow, depending on change in ideology or even whim."
Here is a great comparison link:
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Capitalism_vs_Socialism
Here is the cost of non toxics
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/668610/hevi-shot-hevi-metal-pheasant-ammunition-12-gauge-2-3-4-1-1-8-oz-4-hevi-metal-non-toxic-shot-box-of-25
Lead
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/593840/remington-game-load-ammunition-12-gauge-2-3-4-1-oz-6-shot-box-of-25
And with this kind of increase in price to ask for empirical evidence that all populations are harmed is unreasonable? I don't think so.
I also oppose the ban for the next user group on the hit list. Because as it has been stated the upland State land ban is just a feather in the cap.
Post by: JLS on May 07, 2012, 08:41:04 AM
Post by: BurleyDog on May 07, 2012, 08:51:50 AM
When I waterfowl hunt I usually take a break and walk around for upland birds, because of this I only buy steel shot.
I have no problem with the performance of my steel shot. I rarely "wing" a bird and account 100% of my misses to poor shooting.
I hate that this issue still plagues the sporting community.
Post by: Curly on May 07, 2012, 09:19:17 AM
You can buy steel shot in size 6 at your local Wally World. I used it for chukars this year and had no issues with it.
Wouldn't you have to be very close to shoot the chukars with size 6 steel? That is like using #8 lead. I wouldn't think you'd be good past 25 yards. :dunno:
Post by: Special T on May 07, 2012, 09:19:33 AM
And FYI when it comes to hunting and hunting rights that are being undermind on all fronts I will never "get over it."
where in the constitution does it say we have the RIGHT to use lead shot and bullets? none of our rights are being threatened on this issue.
while opposers to this will say that no one can prove lead shot from upland bird hunting leads to the poisoning of non target species, there is really no way that you can prove it does not.
at the end of the day we all know that lead is poisonous and steel is not. sprinkling it around on the ground cannot be a benefit to the environment.
what is being taken from us is the personal responsibility to choose between non toxic and toxic by banning the latter. now that we are wiser in the ways of the environment and the pollution of many choices between toxic and non toxic are being made for us. for just one example: lead based paint? where did it go and why isn't your baby's nursery coated in it?
as to the OP, my first response did sound aggressive and for that I apologize. I too would like to see the study where they determined half of the upland hunters were in favor of nontoxic shot... which IMO is in many ways superior to lead.
unfortunately those companies fighting to keep lead alive have a lot of $ to loose if they don't succeed
You have a bunch of this wrong Stilly. The state does not Aprove our rights, they are our RIGHTS unless we choose to give them up. The quickest way to lose "rights" is to seek aproval... It is my right to do ANYTHING that is not currently illegal. That is where your statement is Bass ackwards. :twocents:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 07, 2012, 09:49:15 AM
I have seen a lead poisoned mallard- it was the saddest damn thing I can imagine and that one bird made me a believer in nontoxic shot.
Again, it's not an anti hunting argument---if you make it that you should stick to killing tame birds at a farm. We have a resonsibilty to properly manage our resource and that means managing the users. Buy some chickens and club them if you're only interested in killing birds.
Post by: Special T on May 07, 2012, 09:58:00 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 07, 2012, 10:17:01 AM
Post by: Curly on May 07, 2012, 10:18:33 AM
If there are studies showing it to be a problem, I'd like to see the study.
I'd sure rather have non-toxic shot be voluntary. Maybe you guys that are already using steel for upland can shame the rest of us into using it..........especially if you have some good evidence that shows it is worth it and can be almost as effective as lead.
I can understand lead being required on some of the state wildlife areas where they release birds and there is a high concentration of hunters (there would be a better chance for lead concentration to be high there), but to require it everywhere statewide just doesn't right (unless there are some valid studies showing how bad a little lead can be).
Post by: Wenatcheejay on May 07, 2012, 11:04:21 AM
It also shows the lack of support from waterfowlers. I guess if a ban is good enough for them it's good enough for everyone. There is no difference between an upland Plataea, private land, game, or shooting ranges and wetlands. "Get the lead out." It is everyone's ecosystem and the State needs to control it.
Even the debate from the other side, so hostile. Just like global warming, my side is right, the evidence is in, no science is needed, everyone agrees I am right; And if anyone says otherwise I don't want to hear it. If you don't agree you should not hunt.
It is the method here that concerns me so much. It sets the stage for other bans, & no shooting zones based on ideology and the whims of politicians. But, I can only hope I am wrong & ignorant and it is true conservationists who use science based on population management who are behind this and what is to come and not eco-fads.
Post by: rtspring on May 07, 2012, 11:20:28 AM
FACT- All lead will be banned one day. GEt used to it now so it don't hurt to bad later... It is what it is....
RTSPRING
Post by: Shoffy on May 07, 2012, 12:23:31 PM
Where is the line drawn then?? Non Toxic .22 rimfire on all fields and woods for plinking and small game hunting?
Post by: Stilly bay on May 07, 2012, 12:47:40 PM
the whole uproar is only about the price difference between shells, and its kinda disgusting especially when
the difference between steel and lead means nothing to honest duck hunters that shoot their birds over the decoys, many even prefer steel for its blistering speed.
the difference between lead and steel means little to responsible upland bird hunters that take shots at birds within range.
and it means little to those who buy quality game loads and not the cheap stuff at walmart, that we all know is mediocre at best. the price difference between middle of the road lead and steel isn't that big of a difference. steel target loads are even cheaper than winchester AA and from my experience they break clays just as well even though the shot is "made of steel and too small to be effective"
the main downside to steel is in the sub gauges, like 28gauges where you would have to step up to a more effective non toxic alternative. but how many people griping here in this thread shoot a 28 gauge besides me? and if you are you already know shells cost a fortune.
it also means little to those who spend the time and money patterning their guns, trying out different loads, and breaking clays so they know exactly what they are working with- AKA responsible hunters.
and to keep beating a dead horse... lead is poisonous, why would you want to introduce it to an environment free of lead, even if its only in trace amounts? especially when the alternative is about as easy and painless a solution as you can ask for?
just like many of the environmental mistakes we have made over the years- its a hell of a lot easier to dump it in than take it back out.
responsible environmentally educated hunters are already using steel in the uplands, and judging just by this thread there are many to whom an honor system of choosing steel over lead would not apply.
Post by: Dhoey07 on May 07, 2012, 01:32:34 PM
Post by: wraithen on May 07, 2012, 01:38:02 PM
Does steel work acceptably in the shot world? Pretty much. Should we allow people to make lead somehow criminal to use? Absolutely not. It will not stop there. It won't stop until hunting and fishing turn into something like country club sports. Where you have to pay a ridiculous price to participate. We want more people enjoying what we enjoy, not less.
Post by: Shoffy on May 07, 2012, 01:58:20 PM
Everyone has added great replys and arguments to this thread.
Now this may be a stupid question, but doesn't lead come from the earth anyway? Does it become poisonous after other metal compounds are mixed? I totally get that it is only in certain areas and must be dug out of the earth
Post by: Stilly bay on May 07, 2012, 02:58:40 PM
You can preach all day about what your definition of a "true hunter" is but the fact remains there are still thousands that won't fit your definition and still enjoy the sport. less.
a "true hunter" to quote you mis-quoting me- by my definition is someone who spends the money and time patterning their guns to determine what loads work and pattern best and practice with that. just like a responsible deer hunter would take the time to sight in his rifle and become proficient at hitting targets at various ranges BEFORE coming out the field and trying to kill an animal. thousands of people who enjoy the sport DON'T do this, but it sure as hell isn't right.
if more people took the time to pattern steel, and try various loads AND GOD FORBID PRACTICE WITH IT they would find it isn't the handicap it was made out to be. further more it will pattern a hell of a lot better than lead at normal ranges because steel doesn't deform like lead does so you have a denser pattern... which is what kills birds.
Even if lead were more expensive, banning it altogether would still be angering people. I ask again, if lead is bad for upland game, then how is it still ok to use it in lakes and rivers and oceans?
many states are pushing for lead free fishing tackle already. MT one of the most conservative red states out there has banned lead fishing tackle years ago. if lead wasn't a concern why would some states go to the trouble of banning lead tire weights like they already have in europe?
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 07, 2012, 03:03:28 PM
I never hear people rant about how great it is on here. That must mean that nobody wants it, yet fish and game insist half of the upland hunters in WA are for all for using it.
Just sayin' it.....
funny thing about lead shot is you rarely hear people rant about how great it is... they just rant about how they don't want it taken away.
lead is not better than steel, steel is not better than lead. lead shot load and steel shot loads are two completely different things each with their own virtues and negatives, get over it.
Lead is great. Patterns well and is more deadly than steel. There!
Post by: Curly on May 07, 2012, 03:06:42 PM
Lead is great. Patterns well and is more deadly than steel. There!
:yeah:
Hey, maybe they should just make it so anyone born in 1970 or earlier can continue to use lead like we used to be able to do even for waterfowl when we started hunting. :) 8) :dunno:
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 07, 2012, 03:08:29 PM
while opposers to this will say that no one can prove lead shot from upland bird hunting leads to the poisoning of non target species, there is really no way that you can prove it does not.
That's like saying cell phones might be causing brain damage. They should be banned because you can't prove that they aren't. That's a really stupid argument to ban something.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 07, 2012, 03:10:10 PM
Post by: Stilly bay on May 07, 2012, 03:11:44 PM
while opposers to this will say that no one can prove lead shot from upland bird hunting leads to the poisoning of non target species, there is really no way that you can prove it does not.
That's like saying cell phones might be causing brain damage. They should be banned because you can't prove that they aren't. That's a really stupid argument to ban something.
except that you are forgetting that we know lead is poisonous, cell phones not so much. your simile is lop sided.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 07, 2012, 03:16:16 PM
Post by: Stilly bay on May 07, 2012, 03:29:39 PM
So, do you think that bullets should be steel, as well?
I can't answer that question as my personal experience is limited in that field. but I was under the impression that there were better metals than lead out there for making bullets. I would also think this is an area where size matters as far as the danger of ingestion goes, but I don't know.
And what about the number of birds that are crippled but not killed because of steel shot? Do they get consideration?your statement insinuates that steel shot is a consistent crippler of game birds. I have to go back to my previous statements and say that uneducated hunters that take irresponsible shots with steel are responsible for cripples, not the shot. on the other hand what about all the birds that have been crippled by lead shot? of which I have seen plenty.
Post by: KopperBuck on May 07, 2012, 03:43:04 PM
many states are pushing for lead free fishing tackle already. MT one of the most conservative red states out there has banned lead fishing tackle years ago. if lead wasn't a concern why would some states go to the trouble of banning lead tire weights like they already have in europe?
Ok, first off, I call bullchit. MT does not restrict lead, they discourage, but there is no general ban. Nice try.
I'll play your game though, just for fun. Conservatism or not - MT does not rely on lead in their fisheries like most other states do. Would be much easier to justify. Oh, and by the way - their Gov is a Dem. Shhhh!!!!
Actually, I prefer the tungsten when I fish. MUCH better peformance, but MUCH higher cost. Consequently I primarily stick to tungsten only when I'm flipping and pitching. I lose less baits. I'll tell you right off I'll quit walleye fishing if they go to a lead ban.
I see both sides of the argument, and I wish I could say that I bird hunt enough to know the difference in performance myself. I just go with the flow b/c I don't hunt birds as much. Are we throwing poison out there, sure. Do I feel good about it? Not really, but I hate that again we're getting additional restrictions imposed on us. By non-hunting groups. I think if we made it more affordable and higher peforming many would self impose these restrictions, but the scales aren't tipping that direction yet.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 07, 2012, 03:49:55 PM
So, do you think that bullets should be steel, as well?
I can't answer that question as my personal experience is limited in that field. but I was under the impression that there were better metals than lead out there for making bullets. I would also think this is an area where size matters as far as the danger of ingestion goes, but I don't know.And what about the number of birds that are crippled but not killed because of steel shot? Do they get consideration?your statement insinuates that steel shot is a consistent crippler of game birds. I have to go back to my previous statements and say that uneducated hunters that take irresponsible shots with steel are responsible for cripples, not the shot. on the other hand what about all the birds that have been crippled by lead shot? of which I have seen plenty.
You sound like you know little about hunting. It's a fool who argues with an imbicile. I'm out.
Post by: Stilly bay on May 07, 2012, 03:55:47 PM
So, do you think that bullets should be steel, as well?
I can't answer that question as my personal experience is limited in that field. but I was under the impression that there were better metals than lead out there for making bullets. I would also think this is an area where size matters as far as the danger of ingestion goes, but I don't know.And what about the number of birds that are crippled but not killed because of steel shot? Do they get consideration?your statement insinuates that steel shot is a consistent crippler of game birds. I have to go back to my previous statements and say that uneducated hunters that take irresponsible shots with steel are responsible for cripples, not the shot. on the other hand what about all the birds that have been crippled by lead shot? of which I have seen plenty.
You sound like you know little about hunting. It's a fool who argues with an imbicile. I'm out.
just when I was thinking the same thing about you, what a hoot. bff?
I deserve a bullchit on that one. my bad.
Ok, first off, I call bullchit. MT does not restrict lead, they discourage, but there is no general ban. Nice try.
Post by: Stilly bay on May 07, 2012, 04:12:35 PM
The argument that steel shot compares to lead shot ballistics (works as well) is simply not true.correct they both behave differently. one can argue that you have slightly less energy with steel, but you have more pellets hitting the target because of a better pattern. with lead you have more energy but less pellets hitting the target - among a great many other things. its a give and take really, but they are not the same.
If lead was causing problems with upland birds then there would be an epidemic in South Dakota. More lead shot shells have been fired in SD in the last decade at upland birds than any other state, yet they consistently are one of if not the top upland bird states in the country.
bird numbers have been declining rapidly over the last 30 years in SD like everywhere else. many blame habitat loss and farming practices. can you entirely rule out lead as not being part of the problem?
Post by: Fishnfowler on May 07, 2012, 04:43:09 PM
There are plenty of real-world examples of locations that don't have issues with lead toxicity despite generations of concentrated gunning, English estates are the standout. Banning lead shot in the chukar hills is just plain unneccessary.
Post by: Shoffy on May 07, 2012, 04:56:21 PM
In the uplands of the West, there isn't enough density of concentration to cause an impact. having a lead pellet gradually oxidize into the earth isn't the same threat as having them eaten as grit by waterfowl.:yeah:
There are plenty of real-world examples of locations that don't have issues with lead toxicity despite generations of concentrated gunning, English estates are the standout. Banning lead shot in the chukar hills is just plain unneccessary.
Couldn't have been said better
Post by: Stilly bay on May 07, 2012, 06:23:35 PM
My contention with the lead ban is a personal one. I hunt with vintage SxS that have been passed down through generations and can't shoot steel. I buy nice shot for waterfowl, but only shoot a fraction of the shells at waterfowl that I do at upland. Now I have three kids, each of which has a Grandfather's or GreatGrandfather's shotgun. Selling these guns off just isn't going to happen, relegating them to the back of the safe isn't either. Buying expensive non-tox for everyone reaches the realm of the improbable.
I agree, this is one of the many reasons why I am not in favor of the ban on lead. it would be unfortunate for so many guns to gather rust or for so many people to have to purchase new guns just to accommodate steel shot. I imagine we would lose a great number of hunters and license fees to a change like that. unfortunately this reason is an economical one rather than environmental.
if the ban went through, I would imagine an affordable alternative would come about quickly (since necessity is the mother of invention and all), there is just too much money for ammunition manufacturers to lose over this if they kept soft non-tox at the prices they are now. kind of like how steel shot prices have dropped over the last 20 years, partly because many hunters just didn't want to spend $15-20 a box, when the memory of good old lead for $4.00 a box was still fresh in everyone's mind... and that was back when $12-20 bucks was real money.
Post by: AWS on May 07, 2012, 07:41:58 PM
South Dakota has a ban on lead on all public lands and after a $1000 dollars for gas, food, lodging and licenses $70 for 50 rounds of non toxics for my old double isn't a big deal.
The reason you don't here anyone bragging about how good Non Toxcs are is we're busy hunting, not whining about a needed change.
One thing to think about most of the better pheasant and quail hunting is near water, ditches, creeks and marshes. Even the better chukar areas have snow in the winter and a spring run off.
Post by: Alpine Mojo on May 07, 2012, 09:50:40 PM
I have to go back to my previous statements and say that uneducated hunters that take irresponsible shots with steel are responsible for cripples, not the shot.
So lead shot is a crutch for uneducated and irresponsible hunters... I had no idea.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on May 07, 2012, 10:40:57 PM
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0807025.pdf
"The CAP does not include any recommendations to ban or regulate
lead in any type of ammunition beyond current law. This includes
all shotgun, rifle and handgun loads.
Arizona launched a voluntary, collaborative, education-and-outreach partnership
with hunting and shooting groups to reduce the use of lead ammunition in condor areas. By
2008, 60 percent of Arizona hunters were using non-lead bullets and an additional 20 percent of
hunters continuing to use lead bullets were removing lead-contaminated gut piles. Ecology
supports a similar approach in Washington State.
Ecology favors a cooperative approach to
work with hunters, shooters, retailers and others in the sporting community to promote the use
of non-toxic alternatives to lead ammunition."
Here is how an outreach could have taken place letting a free market work. Instead many are in favor of empowering an anti-hunting agenda using a lack of science and passing regulation. Be careful, what they may do next may be distasteful. This method is not just about this issue, it is about the process.
With that, I'm out.
Post by: Bigshooter on May 07, 2012, 10:59:53 PM
Someone please ban this nitwit.
Post by: Stilly bay on May 08, 2012, 12:33:41 AM
Stilly bay, do you perfer to hug alder, maple, fir or hemlock? Or is there another tree that you perfer to hug more than the ones i've listed?
Someone please ban this nitwit.
So lead shot is a crutch for uneducated and irresponsible hunters... I had no idea.
is that the best you got?
points in this thread have been misconstrued to the brink of hilarity.
my argument from the beginning has been that steel is not as bad as its made out to be, and it is indeed very effective. but everyone chooses to read that as me saying that lead should be banned. two completely different things.
I also went so far as to say that I was against a supposed lead ban, but still people just read what they want and saw me as the harbinger of end of lead.
I did state the fact that lead is poisonous (we all know this to be true) and it is not a good idea to spread this in the environment. I never said that lead should be banned because of this, or that I support the potential lead ban what so ever. I did ask repeatedly why people thought it would be acceptable to shoot lead into areas where it was once not. granted I was lured farther into the political than I normally like to go. but my message has stayed the same throughout. again I guess people read into it what ever they wanted.
if your going to bash me at least bring something to the table that is relevant. snide comments, name calling or taking me out of context and subversion are great signs that you really don't know what your talking about or don't have a leg to stand on, and for that I thank you. it warmed the cockles of my heart when piano man threw in the towel with his brittle statement about arguing with an imbecile.
so back to the beginning: if anyone can give me a real non anecdotal reason as to why steel shot is NOT an effective means to kill upland birds I am all ears. I don't giv a chit if lead is better than steel or if steel sucks, just tell me you can't successfully kill birds with steel shot at reasonable distances, and back it up with some real data. I am all for learning new things.
and to a much lesser degree I would also be willing to hear why it is acceptable to shoot poisonous lead into the dirt when we could be shooting a non toxic alternative instead without much sacrifice to ourselves?
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 08, 2012, 07:01:03 AM
Lead is good for killing birds, no doubt about it. I don't know if I would support a ban on shot or not, probably not on private lands. I know when I go quail hunting it's pretty easy to go through a box of shells...that's 1.5 lbs of lead. I wouldn't dump 1.5 lbs of oil on my property... :twocents: Just a thought- not trying to change any opinions here.
Post by: dontgetcrabs on May 08, 2012, 07:15:21 AM
I did state the fact that lead is poisonous (we all know this to be true) and it is not a good idea to spread this in the environment.
Why? Didn't it come from the environment?
Post by: Shoffy on May 08, 2012, 07:23:11 AM
That was my question earlier. Didn't lead come from the ground anyway??I did state the fact that lead is poisonous (we all know this to be true) and it is not a good idea to spread this in the environment.
Why? Didn't it come from the environment?
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 08, 2012, 07:28:33 AM
Lead mined from the earth and lead spread across the surface of the earth are different things.
Post by: singleshot12 on May 08, 2012, 07:28:55 AM
I miss lead too but once I learned how to shoot steel(which took awhile) I still kill just as many birds with the same amount of shells as with lead. It's also a feeling of (doing your part) knowing you're not responsible for spreading a known toxic substance around in the environment.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 08, 2012, 07:29:50 AM
Stilly- you'll find pretty quick that if you disagree or use too open of a mind you'll be called a tree hugger here.
Lead is good for killing birds, no doubt about it. I don't know if I would support a ban on shot or not, probably not on private lands. I know when I go quail hunting it's pretty easy to go through a box of shells...that's 1.5 lbs of lead. I wouldn't dump 1.5 lbs of oil on my property... :twocents: Just a thought- not trying to change any opinions here.
First of all, Stilly has shown his colors. He's not hunter by any stretch of imagination. I question if he ever even goes into the woods or has any backcountry skills whatsoever. Secondly, If you go through a box of shells every time you go bird hunting, you need to hit the trap club on their shooting night each week. Lastly, there's a huge difference between shooting over water and shooting over land. Lead shot in ponds means that the bottom feeders will be sucking it up in an area where concentrated shooting has occurred. We've seen the problems that it causes for the swans and I'm glad it was stopped. But, hunting on land is different. You're not shooting in a confined area from a fixed position and the animals are feeding on grasses, worms, carrion, etc. A dead bird may or may not have one or two pellets in it. This is in no way comparable to the concentration in water. I'm not sure where your oil comment even applies. It was a bizarre comparison.
The proponents of a lead ammunition ban are going after your gun rights, not a perceived danger to wildlife. It's just like the gray wolf. They don't care about the animals. They care about stopping our activities. They know that lead is cheap and that it's effective. They know that steel won't mushroom and they don't care that it's less humane for killing than lead shot. They want your gun rights, plain and simple. They believe that the 2nd Amendment is BS and should be removed from our beloved Constitution. Banning lead would be a great way to limit the number of folks who could afford to buy ammunition.
Post by: Blackjaw on May 08, 2012, 07:30:31 AM
Post by: boneaddict on May 08, 2012, 07:31:59 AM
I've been cleaning up at the LT the last couple weeks and I wondered how much lead has been put into the earth there. Interesting enough, it is surrounded by signs that say non-toxic shot zone.
Post by: JLS on May 08, 2012, 09:03:15 AM
Regardless of any chest thumping bravado, I would sincerely hope that every hunter on here is an environmentalist of some sort, no matter how uncool it may seem to admit it.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 08, 2012, 09:15:30 AM
Interesting how some in their never ending wisdom and omniscience can proclaim whether or not someone is a "real" hunter based on their opinions.
Regardless of any chest thumping bravado, I would sincerely hope that every hunter on here is an environmentalist of some sort, no matter how uncool it may seem to admit it.
Thank you for recognizing wisdom when you see it. I certainly do. :chuckle: :chuckle: We have a few "members" who are not hunters. One of them is a pro-wolf guy who masquerades as a hunter and has proven himself not to be. He jacks every wolf thread with misinformation and ignorance about wildlife. As well, Stilly has made several comments that show a complete lack of knowledge about ballistics. If he is a hunter, he knows very little about his firearms at all.
As far as being an environmentalist, I work several days of the year improving habitat, I practice no trace camping, and I've always left the woods better than I found them. This is in direct opposition to a majority of anti-hunters who almost never participate in habitat restoration, usually never leave their computers - never mind get familiar with wildlife and the woods, and who don't support groups who practice conservation, only groups who protest and legate against guns and hunting. I practice conservation. I don't know what you do, JLS, but I do know that groups like the Defenders of Wildlife, PETA, and the HSUS, who oppose hunting and who back initiatives like non-lead ammunition initiatives, don't help animals at all. They only oppose hunting and the people who do the real work in the woods, the hunters.
Post by: JLS on May 08, 2012, 09:41:38 AM
Here's my beef. Someone offers a differing opinion, and he's labeled a tree hugger and is asked to be banned. You show me one time in this thread that Stilly was disrespectful? If you folks don't want to argue then don't.
I think it's more than a little disingenious though, to question if someone qualifies as a "legitimate hunter", whatever that may be, because they don't agree with someone. I think a lot of folks on here are complete hacks, but you don't find me calling them tree-huggers, rednecks, whatever.
The simple fact of this thread is that steel shot kills upland birds just fine. I've used it, been there done that got the shirt.
A *censored*ty shot is a *censored*ty shot, regardless of whether you're using steel or lead.
Yes, I am an environmentalist. I do plenty for hunting and fishing, and what I do I'll keep to myself. I could care less what PETA, DOW, and HSUS do. But I would hope that all of us care at least a little bit about what we are doing to the environment and try to find ways to lessen that impact. If using steel is one of them so be it.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on May 08, 2012, 09:46:50 AM
Interesting how some in their never ending wisdom and omniscience can proclaim whether or not someone is a "real" hunter based on their opinions.
Regardless of any chest thumping bravado, I would sincerely hope that every hunter on here is an environmentalist of some sort, no matter how uncool it may seem to admit it.
Thank you for recognizing wisdom when you see it. I certainly do. :chuckle: :chuckle: We have a few "members" who are not hunters. One of them is a pro-wolf guy who masquerades as a hunter and has proven himself not to be. He jacks every wolf thread with misinformation and ignorance about wildlife. As well, Stilly has made several comments that show a complete lack of knowledge about ballistics. If he is a hunter, he knows very little about his firearms at all.
As far as being an environmentalist, I work several days of the year improving habitat, I practice no trace camping, and I've always left the woods better than I found them. This is in direct opposition to a majority of anti-hunters who almost never participate in habitat restoration, usually never leave their computers - never mind get familiar with wildlife and the woods, and who don't support groups who practice conservation, only groups who protest and legate against guns and hunting. I practice conservation. I don't know what you do, JLS, but I do know that groups like the Defenders of Wildlife, PETA, and the HSUS, who oppose hunting and who back initiatives like non-lead ammunition initiatives, don't help animals at all. They only oppose hunting and the people who do the real work in the woods, the hunters.
(((YES))) Conservation - the careful utilization of a natural resource in order to prevent depletion.
Envornmentalism - any person who advocates or works to protect the air, water, animals, plants, and other natural resources from pollution or its effects.
Protect the air, water, animals, plants, resources from whom? Hunters, humans, loggers, miners, fishermen? Loaded word exploited by Global Warming dunderheads. PETA, HSUS, DFW, all are "envornmentalists." I don't support them in any way.
I support The North American Model. I don't see it lacking. I believe the only reason liberals have become so concerned is they want the funds that have been used for decades to manage these resources.
Look at some of my posts. Things like for Big Game, remove your bullet or the entire gut sack voluntary. If you choose, use non toxic. I wanted to be in line with WA Dept of Ecology. (Stupidly, I'd consider them an expert.) For that it is recommened to drink motor oil :tup: yep true "envornmentalism" there, one less human.
Post by: bobcat on May 08, 2012, 09:51:13 AM
I would call them animal rights groups.
Their agenda has nothing to do with clean air and water.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 08, 2012, 10:01:16 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 08, 2012, 10:05:25 AM
Post by: JLS on May 08, 2012, 10:15:48 AM
I'm not trying to change your mind. I am a staunch advocate for bear baiting, spring bear hunting, hound hunting, and night hunting for coyotes. However, I'm not a staunch advocate for the use of lead shot for bird hunting. I also believe that not using it will have a positive environmental benefit without a great impact on hunter success.
Post by: Shoffy on May 08, 2012, 10:26:52 AM
Yep- go eat some. Lots of things come from the environment that are bad. BTW- I have a few gallons of motor oil that i need rid of, do you mind if I come spread it around your yard?
Lead mined from the earth and lead spread across the surface of the earth are different things.
What does pouring motor oil in my yard have anything to do with lead shot landing on desert sage bush ground?? That's not even in the same ballpark of what we are talking about here. You can't even compare the toxicity of oil to lead. That like comparing smoking tobacco with drinking alcohol. One damages your lungs the other your liver. How can you compare that?? I simply said lead is a natural substance from the earth. Just like oil is. If you said let me shoot a box of 12ga #7-1/2 lead shot in your back yard, I'd say sure.
The point I think the couple guys are trying to make here is if lead is outlawed, need not to worry because you can use steel or expensive alternative shot. My problem with that still is the cost. It's just one more thing to turn hunting so expensive it's only something rich people can do. Pheasant hunting has already turned into something of that nature.
One guy said "After $1000 to go hunt roosters in SD, $100 a box of shells isn't that bad".
Hey man, Can I go along with you this fall?? I'll only shoot steel :) :chuckle:
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 08, 2012, 10:30:31 AM
I don't buy it until science is involved. And then, the science needs to be unbiased.
And, I understand using non-toxic shot for upland birds in small release areas, but in the forests? No way.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on May 08, 2012, 10:46:06 AM
PETA and the HSUS are definitely not environmentalists.
I would call them animal rights groups.
Their agenda has nothing to do with clean air and water.
bobcat for what it is worth I agree. But the term "environmentalist" is used by everyone. So I tried to show how words matter.
http://blog.peta.org.uk/tag/environment/ (I can provide dozens of examples)
http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/environment/
http://www.humanesociety.org/news/news/2009/08/river_of_waste_081109.html
You did state "their agenda" which I believe you are right. But the words they use "environmentalism" is why I made my comment. Everyone uses it but few work without an agenda. I perfer conservation and I defined what I meant.
Post by: Special T on May 08, 2012, 11:03:52 AM
Piano,
Here's my beef. Someone offers a differing opinion, and he's labeled a tree hugger and is asked to be banned. You show me one time in this thread that Stilly was disrespectful? If you folks don't want to argue then don't.
I think it's more than a little disingenious though, to question if someone qualifies as a "legitimate hunter", whatever that may be, because they don't agree with someone. I think a lot of folks on here are complete hacks, but you don't find me calling them tree-huggers, rednecks, whatever.
The simple fact of this thread is that steel shot kills upland birds just fine. I've used it, been there done that got the shirt.
A *censored*ty shot is a *censored*ty shot, regardless of whether you're using steel or lead.
Yes, I am an environmentalist. I do plenty for hunting and fishing, and what I do I'll keep to myself. I could care less what PETA, DOW, and HSUS do. But I would hope that all of us care at least a little bit about what we are doing to the environment and try to find ways to lessen that impact. If using steel is one of them so be it.
Anytime you post something that is contradiction to the the rest of people you will be critizised... If you don't like it then i can only recomend 2 things. 1 don't post or 2 have some good facts to back your argument. If you don't realize its harder to "sell" someone an idea that they currently disagree with then your not being realistic...
Most people here don't care what you "feel" unless you have some good facts and reasoning to back it up. :twocents:
Post by: Curly on May 08, 2012, 11:45:59 AM
I've seen no evidence that using lead for other than waterfowl has any negative impact. Show me one verifiable study that contradicts me and I'll consider changing my view. But, just thinking that it might isn't good enough for me. Why should I have to change to ammo that's twice as expensive and half as effective when there's no evidence that would help anything?
I don't buy it until science is involved. And then, the science needs to be unbiased.
And, I understand using non-toxic shot for upland birds in small release areas, but in the forests? No way.
:yeah: That is exactly my view as well.
Post by: wraithen on May 08, 2012, 11:54:20 AM
Stilly, I get where you're coming from. The reason I took to your words so quickly is I'm getting tired of people buying into the compromise on issues trend. Just because someone makes it an issue does not mean they get any bit of what they want. The ban of lead for all shot appears to be starting. After shot, will they go after bullets or fishing tackle first? I'm not sure I could afford to fish much if they went after fishing and I don't want to lose that just because someone wants to feel good about compromise or because maybe lead fishing tackle could somehow be affecting catfish that get force fed it for ten years.
If they go after bullets life will change. There is absolutely nothing like lead in regards to ballistics. It is a metal hard enough (especially when jacketed,) to survive the trip through the barrel and atmosphere and yet soft enough to deform and give a superb amount of it's energy to it's target. Yes they have all copper bullets that work marginally but not anywhere nearly as well as lead. The same is true if lead is in the shape if little balls too which is why it is a truly better ballistic material than steel. Steel passes right through when lead would transfer much more energy into the target. With this in mind it is possible to have a good killing shot with lead that turns into a slow death or a maiming with steel. This is a valid argument. These projectiles do a lot of damage, but more trauma is generated if the round gives more energy to the target. Thus, lead kills better. Every time. If this were not true then man would have used something better than lead a long time ago to kill each other. Guns are always designed to kill, the anti's want them to stop being used for that purpose. They need to lose.
Post by: JLS on May 08, 2012, 11:59:00 AM
I never said someone should expect others to blindly accept their argument without facts. I did say it is ridiculous to label them and ask for them to be banned because they offered a viewpoint contrary to the masses.
My personal experiences show me that the wounding loss argument is rather overblown, but that is anecdotal data, not empirical.
Wraithen,
Copper bullets work just fine.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 08, 2012, 12:15:04 PM
Special T,
I never said someone should expect others to blindly accept their argument without facts. I did say it is ridiculous to label them and ask for them to be banned because they offered a viewpoint contrary to the masses.
My personal experiences show me that the wounding loss argument is rather overblown, but that is anecdotal data, not empirical.
Wraithen,
Copper bullets work just fine.
They may work just fine (I'm not sure what you mean by just fine, though), but they're nowhere near as good as lead for producing energy on impact, comparing same calibers. In addition, the cost of copper is through the roof compared to lead. And, there's an added expense because much more heat is required to melt copper than lead, thus requiring different machinery or technique.
As far as wounding is concerned, the shot patterning of lead is far more concentrated than steel. Steel bounces off each other and the pattern spreads immediately on leaving the muzzle, much more than lead. Lead doesn't bounce as much and it flattens against other lead pellets, allowing the pattern to remain tight for a far greater distance. This definitely affects the kill/wound or cripple ratio when shooting from the same distance. Again, why should i limit my killing power for something that'll have no negative environmental impact? I shouldn't.
Post by: JLS on May 08, 2012, 12:41:20 PM
The energy on impact argument is ridiculous though, when you consider that a bullet puts a hole in vital organs. I have shot a pile of Barnes X bullets that have resulted in one shot kills, including elk with a .243.
Post by: Special T on May 08, 2012, 12:43:34 PM
“You raise your voice when you should reinforce your argument.”
― Samuel Johnson
I try not to name call, but when some one says something i don't like about me, I try to address them with facts. Let them look stupid, no need to join the fray. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 08, 2012, 12:46:13 PM
Don't. I never said you should. I stated my anecdotal experiences to support my stance, and I can certainly agree to disagree. :dunno:
The energy on impact argument is ridiculous though, when you consider that a bullet puts a hole in vital organs. I have shot a pile of Barnes X bullets that have resulted in one shot kills, including elk with a .243.
Yes, and people have killed moose with a .22. That doesn't mean you should. You should inflict a maximum amount of damage to ensure a quick, humane kill. Only lead expands 2-3 times its size on impact. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. You can choose to ignore that fact, but that doesn't make it go away. Copper is a poor substitute for lead of the same caliber. To argue differently is to ignore ballistics.
Post by: AWS on May 08, 2012, 12:46:25 PM
Because I know what lead can do to people and game I choose to hunt with non toxics, and because of that I support the lead ban.
There is no gun in my cabinet that is so sacred that I would stop hunting because I couldn't shoot lead in it. The past couple of years I've been trading off some of my stuff that will lose alot of value when lead is banned and it will happen. I'm also learning about non toxics and am finding that in some of my old timers that 7/8 oz loads kill just as well a 1 1/4 oz loads and I can stretch a pound of Non Toxic(Nice Shot and ITX) a lot farther to keep the costs down. I buy upland #5 steel(kent) by the case for quail and use #7 steel target loads(winchester) on doves.
Lately I've been working with Lead Free bullets for coyote hunting and they are working very good in my 6mm, this summer I will be working with them in 224. The prices on them are almost the same as lead bullets. I have found a good load for my 250 Sav with 75gr X bullets I picked up when Barnes closed them out for the TSX. They should last me the rest of my life. Big game bullets are are insignificant cost you only need one or two a season. Target shooting on a range I use lead and can't see the need for nontaoxics there as all that can be reclaimed(mined)
Post by: JLS on May 08, 2012, 12:52:44 PM
JLS, maybe I should say it more harsh/plainly... Maybe you should have thicker skin.. I disagree with many arguments on here, but i am more receptive to people's arguments when they are not derailed by a little name calling...
“You raise your voice when you should reinforce your argument.”
― Samuel Johnson
I try not to name call, but when some one says something i don't like about me, I try to address them with facts. Let them look stupid, no need to join the fray. :twocents:
Have thicker skin about what? I'm not offended, and I won't lose one wink of sleep tonight.
Post by: Special T on May 08, 2012, 12:54:28 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 08, 2012, 12:55:26 PM
Post by: JLS on May 08, 2012, 12:57:25 PM
I am not ignoring ballistics. I have more than one Barnes X slug that is mushroomed out to 2x the original bullet diameter with over 95% weight retention. In my book that is "fine".
I have shot a lot of animals with Barnes bullets, as has a good friend who kills way more stuff than I ever will. I have never, nor has he, seen an animal NOT die from a Barnes bullet that would have died from a Partition or whatever else.
I'm not a benchrest shooter, and will never profess to be. There may be bullets that are more accurate, how much I don't know and don't need to find out. Any bullet that produces one shot kills under a wide variety of distances, angles, and conditions is good enough for me.
Post by: JLS on May 08, 2012, 12:59:50 PM
ohh.. i must have read more into your statement about being called a bunny hugger... My mistake.
I don't think anyone called me one, and could care less if they did because it couldn't be further from the truth. I chaps me to see the standard response though for someone to question someone's authenticity or qualifications as a hunter, or call them a tree hugger if they don't conform to the opinion of the masses. Stilly got called a tree hugger, and I was pointing out how asinine that is to do based on him arguing a different side of the fence.
Post by: Curly on May 08, 2012, 01:00:15 PM
But the subject is about shot............ :twocents:
Post by: Stilly bay on May 08, 2012, 03:48:03 PM
Pianoboy, of all things you have bloviated on this morning, I have disagreed with many. but none more so than the accusation that I am not a hunter. where the hell do you get off with that line of thought? just because my hunting and fire arms knowledge is centered around wing shooting, makes me less qualified to express my opinions on the matter? how dare you? or is it because I didn't run my mouth on a subject I was unfamiliar with, leaving you the upper hand?
I might be a lot of things, but what I am first and fore most is a hunter and an ethical one. I take high offense to your slander that I am otherwise! what are you, to take such an unbalanced route in an argument?
further more I am a responsible hunter who knows the game he is pursuing, knows the weapon he is firing, and knows the ammunition he is shooting for its strengths and its weaknesses. I make it a point to do so before I hunt because I want my kills to be as clean as possible out of respect for the animal, the sport, and other sportsmen. would it be responsible for anyone to do any less before they went to the woods?
to say I know nothing of steel shot is erroneous, aside from target shooting, I have shot steel exclusively for the last 15 years. I have field tested and wrote reviews for non toxics as they became available... I have patterned hundreds of different loads, and chokes and shot sizes. furthermre I am pretty sure I have shot more clays with steel shot than many the members participating in this thread. as boring as this is, I will point back on my original statement
"lead is not better than steel, steel is not better than lead. lead shot loads and steel shot loads are two completely different things each with their own virtues and negatives, get over it" and that steel is perfectly capable of killing birds at acceptable ranges, just like lead is more than capable of crippling birds at long ranges. you cannot compare boats to cars. you cannot compare apples to oranges, and you cannot compare bullets to pellets they are completely different.
if you want to continue to slander my personal abilities and knowledge as a responsible hunter please do so over PM and maybe we can compare notes as to who has donated more in personal time and money for this sport AND conservation. we can even do it face to face if you like.
hell if you want we can meet up for a steel shot only sporting clays match to determine who has the biggest shells, the loser leaves this site and the winner can be happy he wasted a whole bunch on time on something trivial.
either way choose your words a little more carefully because your statements have been very weak as well as lopsided and make you look a fool.
Post by: Special T on May 08, 2012, 04:52:03 PM
Post by: Stilly bay on May 08, 2012, 05:21:48 PM
I must say that i think the main reason why hunters seem to fail at getting much done is because we seem to focus more on the things we disagree with than the things that 90% of us could get behind. :bash: This is one of those topics that get people heated but don't ammount to a pile of :crap:
this I can agree with one hundred percent, even if it only took 7 pages for me to get there.
Post by: fethrduster on May 08, 2012, 05:42:17 PM
Post by: AWS on May 08, 2012, 05:43:37 PM
And reading some of the coments on copper bullets and steel and lead patterning kind of leaves a person wonderring.
Post by: fethrduster on May 08, 2012, 05:53:11 PM
I must say that i think the main reason why hunters seem to fail at getting much done is because we seem to focus more on the things we disagree with than the things that 90% of us could get behind. :bash: This is one of those topics that get people heated but don't ammount to a pile of :crap:
this I can agree with one hundred percent, even if it only took 7 pages for me to get there.
Good on you. Intolerance and disrespect for another's opinions does indeed get very tiresome.
Post by: Fishnfowler on May 08, 2012, 06:45:10 PM
Rich Guy, that'a a joke, but I have my priorities. I hunt, My life is hunting or preparing for the next season. I live on my SS and what I saved and invested for 30yrs of Truck driving and warehouse work. I don't smoke go to restraunts, stay in motels, go on cruises, hire quides, go to movies, or waste my money on anything but bird and coyote hunting with an occasional deer hunt with my family.
Because I know what lead can do to people and game I choose to hunt with non toxics, and because of that I support the lead ban.
There is no gun in my cabinet that is so sacred that I would stop hunting because I couldn't shoot lead in it. The past couple of years I've been trading off some of my stuff that will lose alot of value when lead is banned and it will happen.
My problem with this is that you claim to know what "lead can do," so you support a ban. Just because lead can cause poisoning, doesn't mean that it does when scattered over the shrub steppe. Your fear and incorrect rationalization do not equate to truth. Additionally, just because you are comfortable divesting yourself of old firearms, does not justify forcing me to shelve mine out of paranoia. I've got guns that have been in my family for over a hundred years, if this state outlaws lead in all the uplands, I'll quietly move myself to another state.
Post by: AWS on May 08, 2012, 08:21:40 PM
There are good reasons we abandoned lead water pipes, lead in plumbing solder, paint and lead in gasoline, it harms people and the environment. We have been able to find effective replacements. How long do we wait, till there are massive die offs because the insignificant lead finally built up to a problem like it did for waterfowl, or maybe we'll find out that a major aquafer is contaminated and we have to pay double or triple for our drinking water. As far as moving good luck this problem isn't just in WA other states have banned Lead shot on public lands and and it is growing.
Learning to live with non toxics is not that painful, I said I was getting rid of guns that that would lose value when lead ban is in place, not getting rid of heirlooms. For the old guys I load soft non toxics and they still go out in the field allot and have upgraded to steel safe guns for high volume shooting. For me $35 a box for soft non toxics that are loaded for my guns and is effective in the field isn't unreasonable, it isn't that much more than premium lead field loads or or premium steel.
Post by: fethrduster on May 09, 2012, 08:43:42 AM
My warehouse years were with an abatement company, we removed lead, asbestos, mold and bio hazards, I went to the classes and handled the stuff on a daily basis. I'm old enough to remember when Tobacco was harmless and Asbestos was a miracle material, and use and installed them, I still worry everytime I go in for a chest xray and hope they don't find a spot.
There are good reasons we abandoned lead water pipes, lead in plumbing solder, paint and lead in gasoline, it harms people and the environment. We have been able to find effective replacements. How long do we wait, till there are massive die offs because the insignificant lead finally built up to a problem like it did for waterfowl, or maybe we'll find out that a major aquafer is contaminated and we have to pay double or triple for our drinking water. As far as moving good luck this problem isn't just in WA other states have banned Lead shot on public lands and and it is growing.
Learning to live with non toxics is not that painful, I said I was getting rid of guns that that would lose value when lead ban is in place, not getting rid of heirlooms. For the old guys I load soft non toxics and they still go out in the field allot and have upgraded to steel safe guns for high volume shooting. For me $35 a box for soft non toxics that are loaded for my guns and is effective in the field isn't unreasonable, it isn't that much more than premium lead field loads or or premium steel.
Where are you finding soft non toxics for $35/box? I've seen them at that price for a box of 10, but the cheapest I've seen for a box of 25 is $70.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 09, 2012, 08:53:55 AM
My warehouse years were with an abatement company, we removed lead, asbestos, mold and bio hazards, I went to the classes and handled the stuff on a daily basis. I'm old enough to remember when Tobacco was harmless and Asbestos was a miracle material, and use and installed them, I still worry everytime I go in for a chest xray and hope they don't find a spot.
There are good reasons we abandoned lead water pipes, lead in plumbing solder, paint and lead in gasoline, it harms people and the environment. We have been able to find effective replacements. How long do we wait, till there are massive die offs because the insignificant lead finally built up to a problem like it did for waterfowl, or maybe we'll find out that a major aquafer is contaminated and we have to pay double or triple for our drinking water. As far as moving good luck this problem isn't just in WA other states have banned Lead shot on public lands and and it is growing.
Learning to live with non toxics is not that painful, I said I was getting rid of guns that that would lose value when lead ban is in place, not getting rid of heirlooms. For the old guys I load soft non toxics and they still go out in the field allot and have upgraded to steel safe guns for high volume shooting. For me $35 a box for soft non toxics that are loaded for my guns and is effective in the field isn't unreasonable, it isn't that much more than premium lead field loads or or premium steel.
I don't know where you're buying your shells, but the price is at least double over lead.
In addition, as I've stated before, I understand using non-toxic in concentrated areas like release sites and waterfowl hunting, but for birds out on the range and in the woods where there's no such concentration, there's no scientific evidence to say that we're hurting the wildlife or the environment, and I seriously doubt there's any impact at all. I'm not willing to sign on to something because there "might" be a problem. The smoke from muzzleloaders or a hunter's burning cigarette might give birds lung cancer. But I'm not willing to outlaw MLs and regulate second-hand smoke in the woods because of "might". I believe the concentration of second hand smoke or ML smoke in the woods is comparable to the random concentration of lead shot.
This is nothing like the concentration of asbestos or lead or mercury in an industrial environment. If I'd been working in those places, I'd be getting checked, too. But to compare that to open range or forest hunting with lead shot? There's no similarity at all between the two. Keep getting your lungs checked, but don't make up rules for hazards where they don't exist.
Post by: AWS on May 09, 2012, 09:46:56 AM
Post by: Stilly bay on May 09, 2012, 01:43:13 PM
I load my own. That way I can load low pressure for my damascus, 2 1/2", and old timers, that way I always have the shells handy.
what are non-toxics are you reloading?
Post by: AWS on May 09, 2012, 04:01:43 PM
For modern guns I use Dead Coyote on coyotes in firearms restricted areas where I can't use the combo rig.
Post by: Stilly bay on May 09, 2012, 04:04:55 PM
Post by: Curly on May 09, 2012, 04:30:18 PM
Post by: Special T on May 09, 2012, 04:36:05 PM
Post by: bobcat on May 09, 2012, 07:06:09 PM
Post by: Special T on May 09, 2012, 07:08:14 PM
Post by: fethrduster on May 10, 2012, 01:28:38 PM
Post by: Bigshooter on June 04, 2012, 11:04:32 PM
Post by: Special T on June 05, 2012, 03:22:01 PM
Post by: fethrduster on June 06, 2012, 07:10:46 AM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi81.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj231%2Fmarklart%2FP1050449.jpg&hash=8deebed62e5f152e46a66efca5a0febc0739b833)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi81.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj231%2Fmarklart%2FP1040999.jpg&hash=e04e9c7fb8c8618e4734bf0d13650dba682596cb)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi81.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj231%2Fmarklart%2Fmallard2.jpg&hash=c0bd3c53cc24b4b27d16dbfd743c4cbf500f68e1)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi81.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj231%2Fmarklart%2Fmallard3.jpg&hash=91007dcd1c252b930071ae5b14c93c927aff0358)
Post by: Shoffy on June 06, 2012, 07:28:26 AM
Post by: Dhoey07 on June 06, 2012, 07:39:07 AM
Post by: Curly on June 06, 2012, 08:09:19 AM
Post by: h2ofowlr on June 06, 2012, 08:27:06 AM
I never hear people rant about how great it is on here. That must mean that nobody wants it, yet fish and game insist half of the upland hunters in WA are for all for using it.
Just sayin' it.....
Many of the people haven't had the opportunity to use lead in the field or just smaller shot sizes on upland birds. Most of those shots are at close range over pointer or flushers, so they may not truly appreciate the differences that exist. Your pheasant, chucker and quail are fairly thin skinned, vs. your larger ducks and geese. I shot lead in my youthful days and it was extremely effective at dropping birds. I saw a study at one time and the biggest concern was possible impact the surrounding waterways, swan kill and predator kill. Their are still swans dying from lead ingestion as they root around to the deeper areas. A smaller percentage of ducks were dying from it as it sinks deeper into the muck as the bottom settles.
I also saw some estimate, but unfortunately don't have the exact numbers of the % of estimated waterfowl and other avian that die due to lead poisoning vs. what the estimated % cripple loss that would be due to steel. You have to use speed in steel to kill as it looses velocity quickly. Lead doesn't have to travel as fast as it carries. It deforms on impact which causes greater channel wound. Like the Black Cloud loads, the Hevi-Shot which are like snowmen, Square shot. They are trying to create these channel wound's which lead was very effective at. Unfortunately I used to pay about $3-$6 per box and now can pay from $30 for 25 rounds or $20 for 10 rounds of Hevi-Metal. It sucks as we had some of the most effective loads available, but the bio's didn't like the casualties and everyone is taught that lead causes birth defects in Californian’s. Lead was definitely the king of waterfowl loads.
It doesn’t make you a better shot shooting expensive stuff. That all comes with practice. Unfortunately most people practice with lead and then go shoot steel. Then their leads are all off. I practice a lot, know my effective kill zones, so I can still shoot the less expensive stuff and outperform those shooting the expensive stuff.
Post by: fethrduster on June 06, 2012, 08:46:54 AM
Post by: fethrduster on June 06, 2012, 08:49:33 AM
Cool pics but 3 bucks a round :yike: That's a spendy duck limit :o
Indeed. I can only afford a box or two a year. If I hunted ducks more often, I'd have to use steel, kicking and screaming... :bash:
Post by: AWS on June 06, 2012, 10:38:02 AM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi6.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy222%2FBrowndaug%2F870002.jpg&hash=025251ddf31aec2aef6ef02053609bd3bae7afcc)
If I'm hunting fresh water where I don't have to worry about damage to my gun from the enviroment I'm hunting with an old Husky hammer gun, it is just so much more fun.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi6.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy222%2FBrowndaug%2FHusqvarna51001.jpg&hash=3ce893df5c11fade2f23f332cbb54c73ca651603)
I don't even want to think about hunting upland with anything but a lightweight classic gun. My Darne is the gun of choice there. But I did pick up a little 20ga Bobwhite for a backup.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi6.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy222%2FBrowndaug%2FshotgunsSKBDarne016.jpg&hash=e5dbb6dbec977697f2cf07c042dc318228f99d4b)
I only use soft nontoxic in the old timers, if they made steel loads that would work through them without damaging the barrels I'd use it.
As for ITX and Nice Shot raising pressure, yes that is true if you just substitute them for lead. I don't, I use load date specificly designed for low pressure loads in my old guns.
Post by: Stilly bay on June 06, 2012, 01:02:50 PM
You want proof that lead is way better than steel? If steel is sooooooooooo good and equal to lead, then why in the hell do we have companies making nontoxic shot that almost weighs as much as lead? If steel is soooooooooo good and equal to lead would we really need, heavi shot? Bismuth? Or any of the nontoxics that are being made today to mimic lead for 3 or 4 times the cost of steel? The only thing steel is good for is feeding coyotes with cripples.
Yeah I know, right? :hello:
never once in this thread did I -or anyone- say steel was better than lead. and I never even said they were equal. I said they were different. you remember sesame street? "one of these things is not like the other"?
:dunno: I just want to know why all you lead heads think you cannot effectively kill birds with steel when millions of people have been crunching birds with steel shot for decades? show me some empirical data and leave your anecdotes at home.
:yeah:
Unfortunately I used to pay about $3-$6 per box and now can pay from $30 for 25 rounds or $20 for 10 rounds of Hevi-Metal.
. Lead was definitely the king of waterfowl loads.
It doesn’t make you a better shot shooting expensive stuff. That all comes with practice. Unfortunately most people practice with lead and then go shoot steel. Then their leads are all off. I practice a lot, know my effective kill zones, so I can still shoot the less expensive stuff and outperform those shooting the expensive stuff.
and this is why I believe steel shat has received such a bad wrap from the sporting community. people say price is and obstacle so they practice with lead (if they practice at all) wich is considerably slower than many steel loads. consequently if your practice rounds don't match your field rounds your going to throw away even more money. then more birds only get the fringe of a pattern and wind up crippled or missed entirely.
I agree whole heartedly lead WAS the king of waterfowl load, and obviously its absence has left a void in many a duck hunters heart...
the price of todays steel shot duck loads versus yesterdays lead shot duck load IMO is pretty flimsy argument.
granted the price of a box seems high, but so does the price of gas and everything else. back in 1980 you could get 20 acres of land on camano island for 30K....
today you would be hard pressed to find a box of good quality lead shot meant for tackling large birds for less than a mediocre box of steel. I know they are out there but take a look around, many quality lead game loads are no bargain. of course walmart sells lead for $6 a box but those are trap loads, are you really going to hunt waterfowl with trap loads?
granted some non toxics are outrageously expensive, but what you are paying for is a heavier than lead high performance round that would outperform lead in many other ways. if all prices were completely equal you gotta ask your self... would you be shooting lead or the stuff that is advertised to kill much farther and more deaderer?
One of the things I hate most about steel is that you have to shoot a heavy howitzer capable of handling those high velocity magnum loads. Speed kills but it isn't fun to shoot. Not to mention the wound channels of #2 or #3 steel can be horrific as it blows huge holes in the meat of any duck you happen to get with it. Not the best table fare either as compared with smaller, heavier pellets.
actually -respectfully- for upland birds at reasonable ranges (over pointers or well trained flushers) , and ducks over decoys the need for a Howitzer, ultra fast loads, and huge shot size isn't necessary. you would really be surprised at what a 2 3/4" twenty gauge can do with #4 or 5 shot traveling at a puny 1300 fps (granted 1300 fps is kinda fast compared to many lead loads) some studies have shown that large pellets -#2- are less effective for pheasants than smaller shot because they will wad up in the feathers before impact. I have killed plenty of wild pheasants with 20gauge steel 3/4 oz #71/2 shot and they all came down dead. I have also killed my share of ducks with steel #4 or even #6- if they were over the decoys they were dead... but it was hell picking all the tiny pellets out. :twocents:
....of course there is really no place for steel shot in the vintage gun community, you guys are going to really take a hit if lead goes away forever. which sucks since there is nothing cooler than a 100 year old gun in the field dropping birds. :bash:
Post by: fethrduster on June 06, 2012, 03:46:34 PM
Post by: Stilly bay on June 06, 2012, 05:03:36 PM
Stilly, I recently picked up a plastic stocked Stevens 311 16ga sxs for saltwater/high volume duck duty over decoys and backup/dog training gun. It was made in the 60's, but t's choked ic/m, so I'm not worried about hurting the barrels using steel. I only paid $129 for it at Cabelas anyway. Federal makes a #4 and #2 steel load in 16ga that should be ok for ducks. I reload for 16 also, so I can probably work up a good steel duck load if the need arises. As for steel in the uplands, I never have used it, and as long as I can afford good no tox for the few upland situations that require no tox so far (pheasants on release sites) in my nice vintage iupland guns, I never will. I really do hate the stuff, but it does have its place, reluctantly so. :chuckle:
I have been dying to get my hands on a modern 16 gauge, mainly to see what it can do with steel. from a ballistic/load/superior pattern standpoint I think a 16 would be the perfect gauge for steel in the uplands or over the decoys - if you just have to use steel that is.
from my understanding 16 gauge is as about a square a load as you can get, with its shorter shot string its gotta hit like a ton of bricks. while steel Three inch 20 gauge and 3 1/2" 12 gauge rounds have much longer strings which IMO inherently lead toward lighter moving patterns and more cripples than a stubby 2 3/4" lead 12 gauge load. :dunno:
Post by: fethrduster on June 07, 2012, 07:18:20 AM
Stilly, I recently picked up a plastic stocked Stevens 311 16ga sxs for saltwater/high volume duck duty over decoys and backup/dog training gun. It was made in the 60's, but t's choked ic/m, so I'm not worried about hurting the barrels using steel. I only paid $129 for it at Cabelas anyway. Federal makes a #4 and #2 steel load in 16ga that should be ok for ducks. I reload for 16 also, so I can probably work up a good steel duck load if the need arises. As for steel in the uplands, I never have used it, and as long as I can afford good no tox for the few upland situations that require no tox so far (pheasants on release sites) in my nice vintage iupland guns, I never will. I really do hate the stuff, but it does have its place, reluctantly so. :chuckle:
I have been dying to get my hands on a modern 16 gauge, mainly to see what it can do with steel. from a ballistic/load/superior pattern standpoint I think a 16 would be the perfect gauge for steel in the uplands or over the decoys - if you just have to use steel that is.
from my understanding 16 gauge is as about a square a load as you can get, with its shorter shot string its gotta hit like a ton of bricks. while steel Three inch 20 gauge and 3 1/2" 12 gauge rounds have much longer strings which IMO inherently lead toward lighter moving patterns and more cripples than a stubby 2 3/4" lead 12 gauge load. :dunno:
Yes, 16's are very versatile. It's called the queen of the uplands for a reason. A 1 oz. load in a svelte 16 is as close to shotgunning perfection as it gets in my opinion. There's not much that flies that can't be killed with that load. Load them up or down from 3/4 to 1 1/4oz, there's not much they're not good at except heavy waterfowling/long range pass shooting, and their smaller frames feel great between the hands and are much less cumbersome. I have three 16's and a 12. Don't see much need for anything else. Personally I think 3.5" 12's are an abomination. I had one once and sold it after I fired off a few of those howitzer rounds. What a waste. Good marketing though. Suckered me in when I was younger and dumber. :P
Post by: Dave Workman on June 17, 2012, 05:08:30 AM
Actually, (unfortunately) there is a following of pro non toxic on the board. They are quite insistant that despite the EPA not wanting to regulate upland bird they are all for it in Washington.
Reasons
If you can't afford it then don't hunt.
This is perhaps the one reaction that defines how elitist these butt plugs are.
funny thing about lead shot is you rarely hear people rant about how great it is... they just rant about how they don't want it taken away.
This suggests some rather selective reading, IMHO. I've read, and even WRITTEN, about the attributes of lead shot for shooting birds in motion.
Quote
lead is not better than steel, steel is not better than lead. lead shot load and steel shot loads are two completely different things each with their own virtues and negatives, get over it.
Lead and bismuth are nearly identical in terms of performance. Bismuth is pricey.
Steel tries to duplicate performance with duplex loads and other gimmickry.
Many people will never like steel and prefer lead. Get over it.
Post by: Special T on June 17, 2012, 07:54:53 AM
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-alloys-densities-d_50.html
I think that the different kinds of steel shot like flight stopper and such are better advances with steel shot and will gain a following. There is no substitute for lead especially for price and performance. :twocents:
Post by: snowshoes22 on July 08, 2012, 08:32:39 PM
Post by: fethrduster on July 09, 2012, 07:54:05 AM
I love lead and copper plated lead even better. :tup:
RST sells a 1200fps 1oz. 2.5" copper plated lead round in 12,16,and 20ga that is deadly. About $15/box. RST's are fantastic rounds for hunting and targets, and perform great in any gun, from vintage to modern. I highly recommend them. See www.rstshells.com (http://www.rstshells.com).
Post by: CP on July 09, 2012, 08:23:19 AM
12g – Remington 2 ¾” hulls
7/8 oz shot – Win 209 primer – WAA12L – 18.0g Clays – 1250fps
1oz shot – Win 209 primer – WAA12SL – 18.4g Clays – 1235fps
1 1/8oz – CCI 209M primer – WAA12 – 24.5g Herco – 1250fps
1 ¼ oz – CCI 209M primer – SP 12 – 24.5g Herco – 1250fps
1 3/8 oz – CCI 209M primer – RP 12 – 35.5g Blue Dot – 1310fps