doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Lead Phase-out proposed for Montana uplands

I agree all their studies are crap.

Truth is if it weren't for the hunters there wouldn't be any eagles today....they need to go after the big chemical companies and stop counting dang BB's.

Grouse Guy and others, FYI Canada HAS NOT banned lead shot completely,only for migratory waterfowl, and lead shot is legal for upland hunting and target shooting across the country. The use of lead shot for waterfowl was not banned until 5 years after it was banned in the U.S.and the expansion of that ban to include Upland and target shooting, as far as I am aware, is being opposed by all sectors of the shooting community as unproven and unnecessary .

Larry, there is also that top friction coat consisting of deceit.

For the sake of consistency and to establish credibility for anyone attempting to advance this restriction, will you allow yourself to stand scrutiny? Can we establish the level of your sincerity and commitment to a pristine environment? It's only fair that you reciprocate what you are demanding of others. If so, your answers to the questions below will be "yes".

Will you give up parts of your life that can be proven to have a measurable environmental impact by groups claiming to have the same concerns as you, if done by their standards and via scientific studies they have either done or taken a "hard look" at?

Can you provide factual information that you have already fought to have lead banned for all shooting including all clay target sports, thereby making a far more substantial difference in the amount of lead distributed into the environment through the use of shotshells? Going after a big threat that has a genuine impact would establish your credibility and prove to many people (myself included) that your supposed objective is honest and forthright. If the answer is no then the claimed goal should be seen by all as fraudulent or shortsighted. If you really did want to have the most meaningful impact you would kill the greatest threats before moving on to smaller ones, but that assumes a truthful and honorable objective. I don't make assumptions.

Have you personally given up lead for all shooting? If so, when? We have to be on the honor system on this one but based on the other answers I believe we can determine whether your word is meaningful.

Pandering to anti-hunters/environmentalists has never furthered the rights of hunters, it has only diminished them. Hunters and fishermen have given over and over, willingly or otherwise. It has been done in the name of proving how much we care, yet daily we have to fight anti-hunters and environmental extremists at the polls, in the media, and in the courtroom. We also fight fellow hunters that call themselves rational conservationists that are playing to both sides. We have been told again and again by people that claim to be speaking in our best interest that doing so would buy us immunity, yet it has bought us nothing but additional overt and covert attempts to strip or marginalize our rights as hunters. If there was immunity to be bought we'd already own it instead of constantly going down this road to finality.

Folks, Louisiana recently went through a similar non-tox fight for use on woodcock, and fight is what it is. Those pushing this type of action are neither my friend nor that of the vast majority of hunters, no matter how cool, calm, and passive they attempt to portray themselves. Not only was the measure defeated in Louisiana because hunters fought back, but designated areas within the state that had previously been non-tox only had restrictions removed, thereby showing that you can win if you don't roll over. I don't live in Louisiana but I got involved and I sent emails. I will also send them to Montana and encourage everyone I know to do the same. Scientists do not agree on the impact of lead. If they did the three states that have the largest snipe harvests in the country wouldn't still allow them to be harvested with lead. That tent hasn't folded because the people there are numerous, as active as their opposition, and they refuse sit idly by and let it happen. Why? Because there is no credible scientific proof that there is a threat. Don't let this proposal in Montana become precedent. If it does it will become contagious and you could be next.

Skip

GG, I accept your data on the GOLDEN eagle. I was speaking of the BALD eagle. Used to be we seldom saw them here in Iowa. They are now all over the place! I saw several this winter, in my part of the state. Used to be you'd spot them on rare occasions, near large bodies of water. I'm not near any large bodies of water, but they're no longer at all uncommon. We're also seeing way more vultures, and it would seem that if any bird were likely to pick up secondary poisoning from lead, it would be the "flying garbage cans". Unless maybe they're immune to lead poisoning.

I note that your data refers mostly to the mountain West. Where do you suppose more lead shot is/was fired, both back in the days when it was legal on waterfowl and today? The mountain West, or the prairie pothole country (the nation's duck and pheasant factories) of the Midwest? Would you find heavier lead concentrations in the uplands in MT, which is mostly a big game state, or in SD--where they killed 2 million pheasants last year, with about 200,000 hunters pursuing them? Therefore, where should we be seeing a greater impact from secondary poisoning from lead--both on eagles and on upland birds? Seems to me we ought to be seeing more of it in the Midwest. And certainly, if we're judging by the eagle population in this part of the country, we are seeing exactly the OPPOSITE.

You also failed to address all the other inaccuracies in your resolution. Note the remarks concerning Canada and lead shot, above. I refer you to the resolution's reference to "modern" shotguns--which I guess must only mean Benellis and Mossbergs with choke tubes designed for steel. How cost effective are the nontoxic alternatives for the 28 and the .410? The former, in particular, is used quite often by hunters pursuing quail, as well as grouse and woodcock. Are they to be condemned to using $2 apiece shells when they hunt? And concerning steel, the resolution seems to convey the message that the only issue is the hardness of the pellets and possible damage to barrels. Well, if you frequent this BB, then you are also (or should be) aware of the fact that many guns made before WWII (maybe that's not modern enough?), of both US and foreign manufacture, were built to different pressure standards than today's American-made guns. Which means that even if the barrels and chokes can handle the hardness of the pellets, the gun wasn't designed for the pressure of the load itself. Which, again, means that a whole lot of shotguns, still in regular use, would either become wallhangers, or their owners would be shooting those $2 apiece nontox alternatives.

In short, while the intent of that resolution may be noble, including the inaccuracies and/or omissions cited above means that you're essentially saying "Hey, we can live with steel with absolutely no problems for hunters. And all the benefits are good." Not true. If you're going to support studies the result of which might have a fair amount of impact on hunting and hunters, you might at least strive for greater accuracy and not omit or gloss over the negatives of a complete switch to nontox.

Addendum: Just checked the Browning website. NO STEEL to be used in any Belgian-made A-5, Superposed, Liege, or other Belgian OU; Double Automatic; American-made A-5.

Larry, those "$2 apiece" non-tox shells are rapidly becoming "$4 apiece," especially when you factor in sales tax and shipping.

Grouse Guy,

I'm not the youngest poster here..... So I was wondering if you are EVER going to address this BSUBA comment:

"Recent increases in the cost of lead shot are making many non-toxic shot products comparably priced to premium lead game loads."

Several quotes are listed above from several different individuals questioning this....

My thoughts with you as a BSUBA representative are that you should! This would be good.....

To me, your mind seems made up on this subject and this is bad....

doubleornothin

I'm also wondering about the definition of a "modern shotgun" in that resolution, among other things.

Grouse Guy, Ben Deeble, is a "Bird Biologist". Clearly he has an axe to grind here, namely the banning of lead shot in the state of Montana. Its a waste of time to quibble about the wording of their resolution, or the credibility of dead eagle studies. If you guys in Montana or elsewhere want to stop this kind of thing, get on the attack. Talk to your legislators about such things as the economic impact of such a law. IE if 50 % of the Bird Hunters stopped coming to Montana, X dollars would be lost in State Revenue. Get your Local Restaurant, Bar, Sporting Goods,Gas Station, Grocery store, Motel owners to write letters to your legislators, complaining about potential loss of revenue THAT gets their attention. Get someone to do an extrapolation of revenue loss. Doesnt have to be very accurate, their studies arent. Get it to the Department of Commerce. Get one or two legislators on your side, shouldnt be hard in Montana, I bet there are a lot more hunters than enviros in Helena. Get them to INSIST that at least 3-4-5 (you pick it) accredited independent studies support any recommended legislation. Make sure that the proposer has to pay for them. The Taxpayer shouldnt have to. Get Vocal, do it now. I tried to work with Mr Deeble, after a good number of comments about my character, his last comment to me was "clearly you wear camo, I dont trust you". That cleared it up for me...

Hello All:

For years I've participated in and really grown to respect the knowledge and perspective of a lot of the participants on this BBS.

This thread though has really exposed an ugly underbelly of the doublegunshop community. From folks who started it with a mis-title(it wasn't my post), to those who have launched all kinds of unfounded accusations, to those have reported killing eagles intentionally (a real brain trust there... remember... nothing ever goes away on the internet), to those like Last Dollar who tried to cozy up via private message lying that he was really on the side of controlling lead and wanted names of all the other folks who were trying to get a closer look at the use of lead in upland hunting (quite a snake-in-the-grass, Mr. Last Dollar is), to those who think they can ask me any question and that I'll deliver all answers poste haste like a slave....

Some more respectful communication maybe would have brought some meaningful understanding. But for this mob, you'all just need to stew in your own spleen juice through the summer.

Signin off for now, spending the time instead doing something productive at my reloading table and in the training fields,

Grouse Guy