16ga.com ~ View topic

Haven't been out on the forum for awhile. Is it true what I heard that there is going to be a ban on lead shot nationwide? A poll was supposed to have been taken and 85% of the shooters and hunters have no opinion one way or the other? I quess if most of you don't care, why should I. I quess my LC Smith will look good as a wallhanger.

I see this also Old Hunter , We should be writing letters in MASS TO OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS .

WE NEED TO GET OUR DANDER UP ABOUT THIS INFRINGMENT TO OUR RIGHTS.

Now how many of you out there are willing to get off your duffs and write one letter make copies of that letter and send out to all of your elected officals ????????????????????????????????????

Folks it is another ploy to take the right to bear arms away , I FOR ONE AM JUMPING UP AND DOWN UPSET ABOUT THIS !!!!!!!!!!!!

We are on the edge of several major break throughs concerning the 16ga that everyone has been looking for .

NOW DONT MESS IT UP , WRITE A LETTER OF PROTEST AND MAIL THEM OUT .

Regards Charles

Guest

Don't you think we might be yelping before we have been bitten?

I have only heard of two instance where large scale bans on lead for upland hunting have even been discussed. The first was where Minnesota Department of Natural Resources was trying to ban lead shot from farmland hunting areas. This was pretty ill conceived with no research or any sort of evidence that lead was causing any harm to the environment and has been effectively been squashed. The second involves the state of California which is attempting to ban the use of lead bullets from hunting areas frequented by Condors. I don't know how sound their science is but no matter that most of us don't feel the Condor has any socially redeeming values a species lost is gone forever. Just ask the Passenger Pigeon and Heath Hen.

I don't doubt that California condors have died from lead poisoning but not from ingested bullets. Old mine tailings and the resulting residual pollution is common to California and many other Midwest and Western states. The problem is that old mine tailing dumps keep right on leaching toxins into the environment for centuries after the mines close down. Disolved lead from old tailings is a major part of the problem. Nobody has ever tried to make the mining industry sufficiently clean up after itself either. So the food chain in these once commonly mined marginal areas the big carrion eaters live in get loaded up from bottom to top with poison. They are at the top of that chain and accumulate some stiff doses from the many carcasses they eat over a fairly long life time. Condors normally live a long time if they are not killed by accident, pollution, or illegal hunting. I'd hate to guess how bad the lead levels in their bodies get over the years. This is true for a number of the raptors common to these areas including eagles, vultures, and hawks.

It's easier for the do-nothing mealey mouthed bureaucrats and politicos to point a finger at another endangered species, the American sportsman and gun owner rather than take on a well funded industry that can fight back with some serious financial influence and power. La La land politics. What a joke. It's the old point of least resistance deflect the blame BS as usual. So what else is new?

Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 190 Location: Washington State

I've talked with the Washington Fish and Wildlife folks at least three separate times and no one has hinted that there is any action in Washington at this time. That doesn't mean the issue hasn't been raised, just no bill in the house at this time. As soon as one appears I'll be rallying the troops...it's total B.S.

Rally the troops BEFORE THE BILL HITS THE FLOOR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regards Charles

Joined: 17 Mar 2007 Posts: 208

I don't post much, but I have to agree with Charles on this...

A letter BEFORE action is taken, is a lot better than one written AFTER action is taken. Think about it: a legislator gets a letter from YOU or, better yet, [i]several[/i] letters from US. Some lobbyist then comes to him and proposes a lead ban. The politician (or his underling) thinks, "you know what? I've already heard from constituents who are against this action. There're bigger/easier fish to fry for me. Why do I want to take action on this lead ban idea when I already know there are people who will vote against me if I do? I think I'll pass on this one..."

We're seeing evidence of this type of thinking, right now, on the part of the candidates for the Democratic nominees. Clinton and Obama fall over themselves, in ridiculous fashion, to portray themselves as PRO GUN. Believe it: both of these people, given their druthers, would love to drive a bulldozer over ALL of your guns. Obama did his level best to ban them all as a legislator in Chicago. But they won't touch the issue now, because of what happened to Gore in Tennessee.

Our letters will do some good, in my opinion. Charles, I'm new at this "letters to the legislator" game. How can I get started, take action, and do it? In other words, can you point me to a good website to find the relevant pressure points? I would guess the NRA website would be a good place to start. I'll start there.... Thanks, Charles, for the impetus on this to get me going. 8mmFan

The NRA website could be a good starting point. Also check your state fish & wildlife department and legislature for any thing that is or could be in the works.

Guest

Sounds like you ole boys prescribe to the "Ready fir aim" approach.

Didn't anyone teach you anything about identifying your target before you shoot?

Member Joined: 16 Dec 2007 Posts: 592 Location: Minnesota

Article from MN OutdoorNews this past week...

St. Paul - The Senate author of a proposal to require small-game hunters to use nontoxic shot on public land in the state's agricultural region has put the brakes on the plan.

Saying it needs more study, Satveer Chaudhary, DFL-Fridley, amended the proposal out of a larger omnibus bill last week. DNR officials pushed the lead shot ban, which would have gone into effect in 2011.

Dave Schad, DNR Division of Fish and Wildlife director, said he was disappointed.

“We're not leading the charge here,” Schad said. “There are 23 other states that already have developed nontoxic shot regulations on state-managed land above and beyond what's required for waterfowl hunting.”
Chaudhary, though, believes the proposal needs to be fleshed out further.

He supports the ban on toxic shot for waterfowl and managed dove fields, but said additional study is needed to see how lead affects upland game like grouse, pheasants, and rabbits.

“The DNR's proposal has not considered these impacts, let alone impacts on the land itself, the economic impact, disposal of unused shells, whether tungsten and bismuth aren't equally harmful, and the time needed for hunters to get new guns,” Chaudhary said.

The agency's proposal was the result of a 2006 report completed by the Nontoxic Shot Advisory Committee; the participants included representatives from the manufacturing and retail industries, hunters, environment groups, and technical experts from other state and federal agencies.

The group came up with five regulation options, including the proposal the DNR eventually brought forward.

“That was a very broad-based group, and that was one of the things they reached consensus on,” Schad said. “They all agreed that at some point we need to phase out the use of lead.”

One of Chaudhary's concerns was how a lead ban would affect jobs related directly or indirectly to outdoor industries. He singled out Federal Cartridge in Anoka, which employs about 1,000 people. More than a quarter of those jobs are directly related to producing and distributing lead shot.

In a statement after the ban was dropped from the bill, Federal Cartridge said: “Federal Cartridge has a long and successful history of participating with state and federal wildlife agencies to address scientifically based and validated data associated with the responsible use of ammunition. We believe that the amendment requiring the DNR to do more research is a responsible approach at this time.”

The National Rifle Association opposed the ban. An NRA-Institute for Legislative Action document from April 8 reads, in part: “Lead alternatives are extremely expensive and have reduced capabilities, which would only increase wounding rates of game animals. There has been no science-based evidence that lead shot has been a problem in Minnesota.”

The DNR will develop and present the necessary report to the Legislature next year, but the lead ban could be implemented without action from lawmakers through the administrative rule-making process, which can be a lengthy one, but includes public input.

DNR officials say the lead shot ban will simplify regulations (nontoxic shot is required for waterfowl hunting, as well as for small-game hunting on federal waterfowl production areas) and reduce deposition of lead in or near wetlands on heavily hunted public lands.

A lot of shot from hunters who aren't hunting waterfowl is ending up in wetlands, Schad said.

“We really do believe this was a very logical and very measured approach to taking the next step in the regulation of lead,” he said.

Member Joined: 15 Jul 2007 Posts: 230 Location: SW Idaho

Same thing happened is CA: no legislative action, rulemaking with a promise to "not impact sport hunting" then a widespread ban on any lead use because of an unconfirmed sighting of a species that may or may not be impacted by lead from hunting.

The same folks that got the ban in CA are squawking in Boise "Lead is bad for raptors, we know someone that knows a person that thought they once saw a bird die from what they thought might be lead from a gun and they are banning lead in CA so to be safe we need to ban lead".

What is scary is that the media and folks are buying that BS

It isn't ready, fire, aim. It is what we call "pre-emptive fire" in the USMC.

We need to act now.

Member Joined: 02 Oct 2007 Posts: 1975

They allready have had the meetings on the lead ban in Minnesota. I have been in contact with the DNR and the governors office. The DNR informed me they are ready to go ahead with the ban. The governor is not interested in taking any action at all. Both my senator and representative informed me they were against the ban. It is now up to the DNR. It does not have to go through the legislature. I am preparing another letter to send the the governor and will send a copy to the DNR. Send as many letters and emails to both the Governors office and to the DNR.

Member Joined: 15 Jul 2007 Posts: 230 Location: SW Idaho

The Peregrine Fund is at it again. They pushed and got the ban in California, now they are pushing it elsewhere.

If you donate to them, I recommend that you stop, unless you like buying and using steel shot.

http://www.ktvb.com/news/agriculture/ktvba-may1108-lead_bullets.ef821eb2.html

Member Joined: 15 Jul 2007 Posts: 230 Location: SW Idaho

Some more of their dubious claims:

http://www.ktvb.com/news/agriculture/ktvba-may1308-lead_raptor_study.f87c7ff7.html

Some of you may be familiar with the Califonia condor issue, but the question about lead poisoning is actually reasonable.

The issue of lead for upland game doesn't hasn't been proven as far as I know.

While this may be redundant about the condor, please bear with me as I explain the reasoning.

The condor is known to eat the remains of our larger kills that are field dressed. The lead is readily eaten. At the condors place in the food chain they sit in unique postion of eating the animals we shoot, and the lead bullets left in the entrails.

In a few number of years we will see a jump in the number these birds or the relationship will be proven wrong. The evidence for the condor is strong enough, that it is compelling.

If it isn't proven true, we will make them shift back to lead.

Personally, I can't make a link with upland game. I dress those animals at home, and what isn't kept goes in the trash, not another animals stomach.

There may or may not be a lead link with the condor. If that link is true, we need to think about what we do with the animals we shoot, and what we do with their remains.

In California, hunters fought this shift from copper bullets. While hunters claim to be conservators, the perception was that hunters were more interested in keeping thing the same. We looked like we were sticking our head in the sand.

The condor and lead issue wasn't an attempt to restrict the use of guns. Sadly, if the lead-condor relation is proven true, you can bet others will try to use that to restrict lead shot where there is no link.

To only use the perspective of infringement of our rights, will not hold water in the presence of compelling science.

Science doesn't link lead with upland game, and we need to make that clear to people.