KB,
what would be reasonable restrictions? I am not against fighting but lets just say that this is not goverment intevention. This is a private matter. I say either go and shoo tor vote with your feet and your wallet at the other venue. I am not baout not opposing shot restricitons. I personally feel its flawed science, along with global warming, climate change, elvis sightings and transfats . let the consumer decide. in the market place.
why are lead bans around marshes okay but not on rivers? last I knew lead sank and birds/fowl didnt eat dirt. Yes pheasants and grouse among others will gather stones for their crops but i hardly feel the elad issue obverall is any thing other than an attempt to plactae the environmentalists. Sort of throwong a child form the sleigh being chased by the wolves.
I think you mistook my initial position for one of caving . Far form it. I just think that the shooters can decide and so can the promoters. If the Vinatgers made "Dandy garb" mandatory, I wouldnt attend. They dont so I do.
To each his own.
Brian: In this case, it is a private matter. However, in most cases it isn't. The message shooters need to send--and in this case, voting with their feet (and sending emails etc) is the best way to do it--is that they won't accept unreasonable restrictions on lead. That BASC quote I posted sums it up quite succinctly: "BASC's position is very clear: to oppose any unwarranted changes in the use of lead shot unless sound scientific evidence . . . shows such changes are needed to protect wildlife, the environment or human health." None of which seems to fit in this case.
People who tell us that more and more ranges are going nontox and we should just accept it . . . while they may be right about the first part, there's no reason to just accept it--except where such a restriction is based not on making the community at large feel good, but on sound scientific evidence. If what we want is to stop shooting lead on our ranges, the very best way to do it is to patronize nontox only ranges where such a restriction is not science-based. That way we won't even have to wait for the government to regulate lead out of existence. We'll do it to ourselves.
