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.
Last edited by L. Brown; 07/24/08 09:38 AM.
