doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Lead Shot Ban in Montana

Well, there it is, after all the smoke and mirrors: lead isn't a danger to upland species (other than doves), there are no biological reasons to ban it on WMA's in MT, but the issue is "consistency" with federal restrictions.

I always have nontox with me, in case I hunt an area where it's required. But I don't have any problem swapping back and forth, and continuing to use lead where nontox is not required.

Same story in the Livingston Enterprise this evening, I was pleased to see...
but you guys can go on debating with ben anyway...

Perhaps we just need to follow the money.

How appropriate for the vintage top end gun merchants and their hangers-on to wrap up the same string they started. This has been the elephant in the room during this whole discussion, and readers should listen for more of it.

How many tens-of-thousands of dollars of vintage shotguns do you Daryl, and Steven, buy, sell, repair, or create a year? How many of us have a Purdey 20 as our go-to game gun? Or write books to market to the men who do?

Clearly the greatest profits are to be made by people who fight to keep lead cheap, abundant and readily usable across all landscapes, public and private, to enhance the market, demand, and perception of the trade in luxury arms these men profit from. A trade greatly enhanced by maintaining the illusion that the realities of the modern world shall not intrude on the sporting gent. Can you see the pipes puffing?

Hughes is also a great craftman, while Daryl is just an avid collector and disposer of all those fine guns which no longer interest him. Both men serve a purpose, and are rewarded well for it. But mostly what they've got is more old double guns to sell. And I don't.

And where we really depart ways is to declare that a single biologist by sharing existing science is therefore vying for some unnamed mysterious grant monies... and this (ahah!) is the hidden profit motive really fueling the lead vs. non-toxic shot debate.... Now that just doesn't pass the straight face test.

I ain't the one with a Purdey in the corner, or living on acreage along the Gallatin or Bitterroot rivers in a fine log home. Or traveling to Vegas for gun shows, and who knows what else. I'm not a retired physician or beneficiary of my wife's family money daily pimping English side-by-sides to the unwashed. I'm living in a duplex with a muddy bird dog in the side yard reloading on a Duo-matic.

Vintage gun merchants is where we need to follow the money to, because this is where the profits are in this debate. This is where all the purple faces and stupid accusations come from. I'm sure the top end of the gun market has been a bit slow the last few years. And I genuinely sympathize until you start telling ridiculous and very personal lies about me. In this regard, you "gentlemen" should be ashamed of yourselves, because you are probably better than this.

Readers just need to tune their ear to this reality as they look at which information has really been of substance in this discussion, and distinguish it from that which contributed largely false personal accusations, name calling, and little else.

Time for the Commission to deliberate.

You know Ben, there are a whole lot of guys out there that fall into your income bracket and living situation, hunting with dad's or granddad's old Model 12, Parker, Fox, Browning Superposed, or A-5. And they really resent it when people try to use junk science to tell them "Sure, you can keep shooting that old gun. All you have to do is spend $2-3 per shell, and you can shoot it just as much as you want. Or, you can buy a Mossberg 500 and shoot the cheaper steel stuff."

You're way off base to make this about rich guys who want to keep shooting their London bests, Ben. Fox made 36,000 graded guns, in all gauges, compared to 153,000 Sterlingworths. Which means you're over 4 times as likely to run into someone who owns one of Fox's entry-level doubles as you are a guy who owns a fancier Fox. AND IT'S PRECISELY THOSE GUYS WITH THE STERLINGWORTHS, AND THE MODEL 12'S, THAT WILL HAVE TO THINK TWICE BEFORE THEY PAY 10X MORE PER SHELL, IF THEY WANT TO KEEP USING THOSE GUNS.

Not many people hunt for food any more. Sure, we eat what we shoot, but we'd be way ahead to buy a chicken at the local supermarket. It's about recreation. It's about tradition. It's about passing down your dad's or granddad's gun to your son or daughter. And I think a whole lot of people would rather hand down that gun to be used afield, just like dad or granddad did, rather than as a wall-hanger.

Could be the biologists have figured out the difference between research focused on urban pigeons eating lead paint chips and the nonexistent research about the threat posed by spent lead shot to wild upland bird populations. Could be they also realize that hunting in this country is an everyman's sport, unlike in many other parts of the world. And especially given today's economy, if you put everyman in the position of either having to buy a new shotgun through which he can shoot steel--a shotgun that lacks the memories and the "soul" of the one that's been in his family for 2 or 3 generations--or spending $3 a pop for shells, everyman might just decide it's time for him to give up hunting. And given the fact that fish and game departments rely on money from the licenses that everymen buy, and on the federal $ they get back based on how many licenses their state sells (under the Pittman-Robertson Act)--that money in turn based on a hidden tax on firearms and ammunition, which means if people aren't buying guns and shells, that pool of money also decreases--might just be that those DNR people recognize that this is not a good time to reduce the number of hunters. In addition to the economic impact, fewer hunters also means a greater threat to the sport (and to the DNR's) from anti-hunters.

Summary: There are a whole lot of reasons to take a really hard look before expanding requirements for nontoxic shot, especially when the "best science" does not support a threat from lead shot to the game populations in question.

I'm no arbiter. I'll say this: My father was a good man who spent years in close company of men, three years in Stalag Luft III, one of the key organizers of The Great Escape. We were close, shared a craft, collaborated on nearly everything; I nursed him the last year of his life. Sixty years ago he told me: "Report, write. Never impute motives. It's a dangerous thing."

ahhhhhhh class warfare that's what's needed for the debate.money fuels junk science that is all there is to it.after your last rant(grouse guy ) you are no longer credible. MC

Ben Deeble, after his fiasco of a year or more ago, has never been credible, to me. After reading all these comments I think one thing (maybe) we can all agree on emerges: If the science, real science, actually proves the case one way or another, we will live with it. Like Larry, I hunt areas, Nebraska , where non tox is required, and Put one of my Purdeys back in the truck to hunt there, using a CZ with steel. My purdey 20. or was it the 16, got scratched the other day when I threw it in the back of the pickup, where it must have banged against one of the Hollands...Come on Ben, enter the real world...

[quote=MT_DD_FAN] And a quote by the head spokesman at MT fish & game from that story:


Aw hell, now I do feel silly! Had I only known that there wasn't an actual need other than to be "consistent" I would have been cheer-leading right along with Komrade Deeble.

The following sent to me by a friend on the importance of being consistent:

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”

from R.W. Emerson


Rob Harris

Ben Deeble, again you can never answer the questions. What about the South Dakota question ? Now it's about rich guys like SDH and myself. Maybe I need to be rich to keep my 11 year old car running. Sadly, can this be your best points ?

It may be about money,though. Is it about study grants you hope for ? It's not about lead shot, because , as you say, you scatter it by the pounds in your chosen places. I again admonish all of you to look at how your dollars are spent when you are asked to contribute to he National Wildlife Federation an it's Montana branch.

Oh, I cannot for he life of me see what your "muddy dog" has to do with all of this. You need to send more time caring for the poor critter.

Sir,

I thought I had made my last post on this thread. Bad enough you list studies about earthworms and fluoroscopes from the 50's.

So, all vintage gun sellers are dealing in Purdey's. Well that must be a very small business indeed. There was just a show in Nevada with hundreds of sellers and thousands of attendees. So perhaps this niche is not as limited as you assume.

Vintage guns is the reason this forum exists, in case you every wondered what all those other threads are about. There are several thousand members here and hundreds of regulars.

I am not a dealer. My "collection" would never interest the majority of gun owners. I get several emails a month asking about vintage guns. The guns in question are often family heirlooms. Guns that sold for $5 to $20 from catalogs and hardware stores. Many want to be able to shoot these. Perhaps a few rounds of sporting clays or an occasional bird hunt. For some it is the only shotgun that they have ever owned. Mostly they want to use it out of respect for their grandfathers and fathers. They want to understand and feel the joy that their family members felt. For some, it will be as close as they ever come to being with them for a day in the field.

So, before we run out and write legislation that makes the use of these guns so prohibitive monetarily, would it not make sense to talk it out? Perhaps allowing a loop hole for guns that are 100 years old? I do not see that happening unfortunately.

Pete