Originally Posted By: King Brown
Lowell, I'm as contrarian as many members here but I can't understand why price is the factor we profess it to be. The average gunner won't give up his sport because of the cost of non-tox any more than gas-price increases will affect his driving habits. We hunt for the experience, for the recreation, the camaraderie, and everyone here gets their birds with five or six shots anyway, eh?


To a certain extent, yes we can absorb the cost. But with Non-Tox prices rapidly inflating, along with fuel, at some point you either reduce the amount of hunting you do or at some point cease hunting those game requiring the more expensive component altogether. My point is that if there is no cost difference between lead and Non-Tox shot, you've eliminated the argument against Non-Tox shot's widespread adoption.

Mike Doerner

Last edited by I. Flues; 06/24/07 10:52 AM.