doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Tungsten shot news

Personnally I think the use of non steel shot safe guns will be very limited if there is a total lead ban. Even if the alternatives are $2 a shell vs. $3 trap and skeet would become to costly for most to participate. An average Sunday ATA trap shoot is a 300 target program, state shoots 700 target. At $3 a shell will you be shooting 3 or 3 rounds of recreational skeet each weekend much less a competitive program? It seems some of you are thinking in the context of your own upland or waterfowl hunting where generally fewer shells are expended. My favorite past time of crow shooting has me burning through 600 rounds a year on average. Ammo going from $5 a box of reloads to $75 of "green" ammo will make that hobby cost prohibitive. Sadly for large volume shooting sports if lead is banned steel remains the only affordable alternative which means bye bye classic double hello 870.

The anti's are following what Ronald Reagan did. Reagan outspent the Soviets on defense to essentially bankrupt their government. That, along with other factors (food and goods shortages and outside decadentcies such as blue jeans, rock and roll), caused the Soviet Union to break up.

While some may truely believe the upland birds suffer from a few lead pellets, most of the anti's will simply use this issue to price us out of shooting.

A few dollars invested now in the NRA and other organizations supporting our sports and gun rights would be money well spent. Contribute to our friends now or pay for non-toxic shot later!

Ted and Mark have nailed it. Folks may be willing to pay $3/shell for hunting loads, assuming they don't hunt a whole bunch. However, if they can't practice because of a lead ban--nice of Ben to tell us that he "thinks" lead will still be permitted for target shooting, but where's the guarantee of that??--hunters are going to end up crippling far more game than would ever die as a result of lead ingestion. It's a back door attempt by the antis to get at guns/hunting/shooting. And unfortunately, there are a lot of guys like Ben--assuming he really IS a hunter and shooter--who are playing the role of willing dupes and going right along with the program. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The lead ban road is one where we do not want to join the antis on the construction crew.

So far as I can tell, no one has posted any scientific evidence that hunting upland birds with lead shot is dangerous, either to people or to upland birds. Assumptions and studies that do NOT relate specifically to upland birds have been posted. That does not count in a SCIENTIFIC discussion, only in a POLITICAL one.

Lead shot is not lead paint and quail are not dabbling ducks that dredge up feed and maybe some lead shot from pond bottoms. Lead based bullets or fragments thereof in large game the remains of which are eaten by condors doesn't count either.

I'm throwing the BS flag at this entire topic.

Quailnut

There's no winning without assessments of reality right from scratch. I've been involved in some of the biggest environmental issues in Canada. The science can't be separated from the political, for starters. And politics always wins. Previous messages concerning paying lobbyists to do the job for us is whistling in the wind. It may be part of the struggle but not the first line of offence.

Yep..... Birds of a feather.....

Grouse Deeble,

It always amazes me the depths some liberals go to promote their beliefs while reality has them so shallow that even the bottom of a mud puddle is a vague, confusing bit of non- understanding!

I for one am sick of your "pot calling the kettle black!" Talk about third grade! Your attacks against Mr. Harris have even aspect of integrity and maturity sadly lacking. You lie like a rug, you cheat in your words, and you steal as in degradation of Mr. Harris's livelihood! You proudly hold your head high as you do this; all the time many of us see you wallowing around in the slime on the henhouse floor! Grow up!!

It is sad how degradation has comsumed us as a society. If you pulled this crap 150 years ago against someone like Andy Jackson where do you think you would end up? You would end up with two choices for your actions!.... I KNOW which choice you would take....

But speaking of shallow....... thankfully many on this board are not...

So you shoot yourself in your own foot Grouse Deeble!

You see, you advertise you character to all here on a large signboard. Then the deeper thinkers see you list "reads" for the promotion of your agenda.... Follow along now...... "Why would we believe your recommended reading?" These jerks are from the same lie, cheat, and steal mold you evolved (your word) from! You are a shining beacon of the untruth of your recommendations by your own endorsement!!!!! So I say rave on!

Your clever little bit on the dinosaur and bird speak on your behalf as well. Too bad Darwin couldn't speak to you now..... "Now for the rest of the story"

As you like to read, I would ask you to read just one sentence.... A few words dead on to define your actions here... You'll find them in the Holy Bible.....

Romans 1:22

Maybe politics trumps science based game management in Canada, but US wildlife management is SUPPOSED to be science based. Its sadly true that tree huggers have screwed up ruffed grouse and woodcock management in the northern US. But, GENERALLY speaking, science wins. One of our top jobs as US and Canadian hunters is see that it stays that way.

Any interest group's attempts to bases US wildlife mamagement discisions on POLITICS must be fought right from the get-go with all the science at our disposal.

Like, say Ben grouse guy's and his groups' blatant attempt to impose BS based decisions WRT to lead shot and upland game.



Quailnut

More interesting reading, Jim Carmichel, Outdoor Life....

http://www.outdoorlife.com/node/45215

An illustration of how politics and ignorance gets in the way of science is the public perception of clearcutting. My bet is the majority of members here have succumbed to factoids about clearcutting---in exactly the same way our opponents repeating nonsense about us often and long enough have made it "truth."

Landowners here introduced ecology-based forest sustainability and certification to the world's highest international standards, with biological diversity and wildlife at its heart, but sportsmen with all the science supporting it say no. We're winning for Nature in restoration forestry but, using hockey parlance, we've had to cross-check and elbow in the corners to get there.

That's what gunners do if they sincerely want to win. It's discouraging to work with the shooting fraternity on one hand to resist government intrusions and with the other try to pound into its head that improving habitat, making legislation to protect waterways, restoring forests to indigenous species before we invaded from the old countries, is responsible stewardship.

If you keep reading, OL calls Madonna a "great outdoorsman".

Please stop. You are making less and less sense.


Best,
Ted