You know Ben, there are a whole lot of guys out there that fall into your income bracket and living situation, hunting with dad's or granddad's old Model 12, Parker, Fox, Browning Superposed, or A-5. And they really resent it when people try to use junk science to tell them "Sure, you can keep shooting that old gun. All you have to do is spend $2-3 per shell, and you can shoot it just as much as you want. Or, you can buy a Mossberg 500 and shoot the cheaper steel stuff."
You're way off base to make this about rich guys who want to keep shooting their London bests, Ben. Fox made 36,000 graded guns, in all gauges, compared to 153,000 Sterlingworths. Which means you're over 4 times as likely to run into someone who owns one of Fox's entry-level doubles as you are a guy who owns a fancier Fox. AND IT'S PRECISELY THOSE GUYS WITH THE STERLINGWORTHS, AND THE MODEL 12'S, THAT WILL HAVE TO THINK TWICE BEFORE THEY PAY 10X MORE PER SHELL, IF THEY WANT TO KEEP USING THOSE GUNS.
Not many people hunt for food any more. Sure, we eat what we shoot, but we'd be way ahead to buy a chicken at the local supermarket. It's about recreation. It's about tradition. It's about passing down your dad's or granddad's gun to your son or daughter. And I think a whole lot of people would rather hand down that gun to be used afield, just like dad or granddad did, rather than as a wall-hanger.
Could be the biologists have figured out the difference between research focused on urban pigeons eating lead paint chips and the nonexistent research about the threat posed by spent lead shot to wild upland bird populations. Could be they also realize that hunting in this country is an everyman's sport, unlike in many other parts of the world. And especially given today's economy, if you put everyman in the position of either having to buy a new shotgun through which he can shoot steel--a shotgun that lacks the memories and the "soul" of the one that's been in his family for 2 or 3 generations--or spending $3 a pop for shells, everyman might just decide it's time for him to give up hunting. And given the fact that fish and game departments rely on money from the licenses that everymen buy, and on the federal $ they get back based on how many licenses their state sells (under the Pittman-Robertson Act)--that money in turn based on a hidden tax on firearms and ammunition, which means if people aren't buying guns and shells, that pool of money also decreases--might just be that those DNR people recognize that this is not a good time to reduce the number of hunters. In addition to the economic impact, fewer hunters also means a greater threat to the sport (and to the DNR's) from anti-hunters.
Summary: There are a whole lot of reasons to take a really hard look before expanding requirements for nontoxic shot, especially when the "best science" does not support a threat from lead shot to the game populations in question.
