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

You all know this is a bad idea. An awful idea.

In Kalifornia, STEEL SHOT WAS REQUIRED AT THE STATE SHOOT (FITASC). Many people had problems with it (worked OK for me...but 4 out of 6 guns on our squad had problems: some that would part-your-hair)

You will curse the day you went down this road.

The people that are supporting this do not speak for "the average hunter/target shooter".

I had an interesting talk today with a fellow from the State of Kansas Dept of Wildlife. Way too much to cover here, BUT! He told me that the midwest states, and the western states have comissioned studies using people from the Center for Disease Control, CDC, to study the problem of the effect of lead shot on the Public Health. These are apparently 2 seperate studies. I assume that this will be the "Scientific" basis for further action. He indicated that concern (by whom?) has been voiced in the public health sector about eating big game animals shot with lead bullets. He said he thought that was a stretch, but it is being looked at. He referenced a study done by the State of Iowa, Dept of Natl Rescources which thought was pretty definitive. I havnt had time to look at it yet. SO! there seems to be a lot of work going on by a lot of States. His last comment was "These ARE the good old days, enjoy them while you can"....

Post deleted by Jagermeister

Hello Rob:

Thanks for giving this resolution a higher profile.

For those of you that aren't aware, the MWF is a federation of small traditional rod and gun clubs spread across Montana who voted in favor of this resolution. They found it reasonable. I'll include the full text below so you can see what you think.

I see this as fundamentally an effort to immunize upland hunters against attacks by anti-hunting groups who might use lack of consideration of potential environmental impacts as one means for interrupting hunting seasons. Only if a "hard look" is taken at lead impacts in the environment, can one argue that impacts are minimal or mitigated.

Adopted Resolution

Whereas lead shot pellets are a traditional, common, and legal projectile for use in upland bird hunting in Montana; and

Whereas lead shot was banned in 1991 for all hunting of waterfowl nationwide, due to secondary poisoning of scavenging birds such as eagles and due to incidental poisoning of waterfowl ingesting spent pellets in wetlands;

Whereas lead pellets are often a preferred particle size for consumption by some birds as “grit,” and studies show that incidental poisoning of birds continues to occur in both wetland and upland environments due to both historical and current lead shot use;

Whereas lead shot is already prohibited from use on Montana’s waterfowl production areas, most federal wildlife refuges, and some state, private, and tribal lands;

Whereas upland birds, particularly pheasants are often hunted in Montana in wetlands and in shrinking locales offering liberal public access;

Whereas all modern shotguns are now engineered for the use of shotshells using steel shot, and other non-toxic ammunition alternatives are also available for vintage shotguns;

Whereas the efficacy and cost of most non-toxic shotshells for hunting is now comparable to the quality and cost of lead shotshells;

Whereas responsible hunters should always strive to minimize deleterious impacts to non-target species and habitats;

Whereas the use of non-toxic shotshells may be appreciated by some private landowners, and may protect the health of families eating large quantities of wild game;

Whereas the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and Canada have already banned lead shot completely, and several U.S. states have enacted partial bans or are contemplating bans;

Now therefore, be it resolved that the MWF request the MDFWP to study the economic, social, environmental, and harvest impact of prohibiting the use of lead shot for all bird hunting in Montana.

GG, the intent may be good, but the resolution is flawed. First, what's the definition of a "modern shotgun"? Browning will flat out tell you not to shoot steel in a Superposed, and they were manufactured into the 1970's. The information that accompanies my Parker Reproduction 12ga, made in the 1980's, says that steel shot should not be used in full choke barrels. Second, while the cost of steel now approaches the cost of lead hunting loads, that is most certainly not true of any of the other nontoxic loads--which would have to be used in all "vintage" guns, not to mention some "modern" ones (like the Superposed). Third, as I mentioned previously, if secondary lead poisoning of eagles used to be a problem, that problem has quite obviously been solved. No need to do any more studies to tell us that we have a lot more eagles now than we did 15 years ago.

The road to hell is sometimes paved with good intentions.

The people driving these non-tox laws have very different intentions then you, Larry, and they are not good. The science may be flawed, but their zeal toward non-consumptive use of the outdoors, in their own tiny little hearts and minds, isn't.
Best,
Ted

Ben,

I do appreciate getting to see your resolution. And I appreciate even more your opting to enter into a dicussion with other members of this board, as it may prove insightful for all of us.

Judging here from the 25 skeptical replies received so far, as I write this, I'm going to ask if you'd provide us with the names of the various 'rod & gun' clubs here in Montana that are part and parcel of the Montana Wildlife Federation - and that are in favor of your resolution as currently written.

Your long-standing biologist's position with the National Wildlife Federation and my 35 years as a field biologist here in Montana have us both very aware as to how these things can metasticize....especially when it is a politically charged issue as is this one. If your plan is to "immunize upland hunters from attacks by anti-hunting groups", as you say, then it will be very critical as to whom may be contracted to conduct those studies. If it is some bureaucracy similar to the Center for Disease Control, as lastdollar reported, then we may very well end up with a different outcome than you presently anticipate.

Along with the names of those gun clubs, I'd appreciate seeing BSUBA's analysis of the price comparability between lead shot loads and the various non-tox's currently available. To my knowledge, the only thing remotely close to lead shell prices is that of 'steel' shot with its limitations for older guns. A breakdown of this would be beneficial to the discussion, I think.

Do understand that I am NOT opposed in principle to local in-depth, 'objective' studies that would withstand professional scrutiny, but how many times have we seen departmental decisions made that were based on spotty, circumstantial evidence gathered from abroad? Isn't this exactly what recently happened in Minnesota, until one of their state politicians pulled the plug (at least temporarily?) until the science was actually 'in'?

And re: such hasty decisions, although hindsight has occasionally shown them to be wrong, how often do our bureaucrats admit their error and reverse course once the state or federal statutes have been set?

I'm not the 'enemy' here, Ben, but just a guy that's demanding that this not be an agenda-driven process - at least if you expect us to give any credence to your resolution. Presently, for me at least, it reads as though the intention is to climb on-board with this mounting new-world ambition to ban what is ordinarily an inert substance. Further, the families that consume considerable amounts of game harvested with lead appear to be none the worse for wear, thank you, and are not the ones appealing for government protection. For those unsympathetic to this line of thinking, think of it as 'genetic selection'among a group that you probably think needs culling anyway!

The other premise of your resolution that I object to is that just because other federal, state, and tribal lands in Montana....along with other sovereign states, and foreign countries such as "Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, and Canada" have banned the use of lead that it would perhaps be prudent that the rest of us do likewise. This train of thinking prior to any local collection of substantiable data has us marching lock-step with the rest of these new-age thinkers, and should scare the crap out of anyone with a little common sense.

In closing, I suggest that we get the science right first - if you expect to win over the shooting community. But then again, we didn't worry about those same 'hearts and minds' when implementing the waterfowl-lead shot ban' over two decades ago .....and we lost a huge percentage of license-buying, revenue producing waterfowlers that we still haven't really recovered from. It would be nice to think we could handle it differently this time.

But hey, maybe that's the point after all, BSUBA excepted of course.



Respectfully,


Rob

Excellent points, Rob! I'd add that if we want to follow in the footsteps of the foreign countries listed in the resolution, we'd not only be far more restrictive in our use of lead shot, but also in our laws concerning firearms ownership.

Hello Larry:

Generalities, particularly about wildlife, are often misleading. And the conventional wisdom that generic "eagles" are doing great in the US today just isn't supported by the past decade of data at least for the our "common" eagle, the Golden. I'm not saying lead is responsible... we don't know that. But the statement of conventional wisdom you provide above about the rosy population status of eagles is just not categorically correct.

Here is the data:

CURRENT STATUS AND CONCERNS
Recent analyses. Long-term trends from raptor migration counts and
CBCs
indicate that populations of the Golden Eagle have declined in much of
the western
United States since the mid-1980s. Statistically significant long-term declines in
raptor migration
counts of eagles were recorded from 1983 to 2005 at the Goshute
Mountains, Nevada (-
2.4% per year, P <0.01), from 1985 to 2005 at the Manzano Mountains,
New Mexico (-
1.9 % per year, P <0.05), and from 1991 to 2005 at Lipan Point, Arizona
(-10.0% per
year, P <0.01). Marginally significant (0.05 < P ≤ 0.10) declines were
also recorded at
Mt. Lorette, Alberta from 1993 to 2005 (-2.2% per year, P = 0.08) and
in the Bridger
Mountains, Montana from 1992 to 2005 (-2.3% per year, P = 0.10). In
contrast, a nonsignificant
increase was recorded from 1987 to 2004 at the Wellsville Mountains,
Utah
(0.6% per year).
More recently, from 1995 to 2005 the magnitude of significant rates of
decline
increased markedly in the Goshute Mountains (-8.6% per year, P <0.01)
and Manzano
Mountains (-5.3% per year, P <0.01), a marginally significant decline
occurred in the
Wellsville Mountains (-6.0% per year, P = 0.10), a non-significant 3.8%
per year decline
occurred at Bonney Butte, Oregon (P = 0.16), and no trend occurred at
Boise Ridge,
Idaho (0.1% per year). In addition, a non-significant increase of 4.5%
per year was
detected at Chelan Ridge, Washington (1998-2005) (Fig. 1).
An analysis of CBC data (National Audubon Society 2002) for the western
United
States and Canada (Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada,
New Mexico,
Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming, Alberta, British Columbia, Northwest
Territories,
Yukon Territory) indicated that winter populations of Golden Eagles
declined nonsignificantly
(0.4% per year) from 1983 to 2005, and significantly (-3.4% per year,
P
<0.01) from 1995 to 2005.

Although it was given legal protection in the United States in 1962
with passage
of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Golden Eagle suffers
low levels of
mortality from direct persecution, electrocution, collisions with
human-made structures,
and poisoning stemming from consumption of contaminated carcasses.
Habitat changes
including urbanization, agricultural development, wildfires, mining and
energy
development, and reforestation may reduce the availability of suitable
nesting and
foraging habitat. Human activities account for approximately 70% of all
direct mortality
of Golden Eagles continent-wide, with accidental trauma (27%),
electrocution (25%),
gunshot (15%), and poisoning (6%) causing most of these deaths (Franson
et al. 1995).

That's the facts as we know them at the present.

With all the $#@& that we pump into the enviroment all the forrest fires and every thing else I'm suppose to believe that some lead bb's laying around are killing off the eagles. Don't think so. Think about it. Sounds like the cock and bull as usual political bull crap made up story. Oh ya, the two bald eagles at my cottage flew away. So put two more on the MIA list, hope they did not run into any continent-wide accidental trauma or just wanted to end it all and threw back a bottle of #7's.

You wonder how this stupid crap gets passed.