I don't really have a voice "in the industry", although I do have a different platform than most, as a regular columnist for a hunting magazine. My editor had no problem with the two part feature I did on the whole lead vs nontox issue several years back. Other than what's going on in California, not much has happened since then. There's been significant push back against further restrictions on lead shot in several states where the % of hunters/shooters is great enough that the politicians are likely to listen. CA's main problem, in addition to the fact that they're cursed with the condors, is that their numbers aren't significant enough to give them a strong pro-gun, pro-hunting lobby.
Because Congress has taken away the EPA's authority to regulate lead in ammunition, most of what can happen now will occur at the state level. And fortunately for Minnesotans, according to somewhat dated statistics I have, they sell about twice as many hunting licenses as does CA--with only 1/7 the population. Which means that the politicians down in St. Paul are far more likely to listen if the hunting/gun lobby starts making noise.
And the last thing I'm doing is saying we should accept "no" when we ask for sound scientific evidence. If the DNR can't come up with the evidence, that's the point at which we start bombarding the politicians with phone calls, letters and emails telling them that the hunters and shooters of MN are getting the shaft--and are not happy about it. Making the best case we can that shooting lead shot in the uplands isn't causing any significant threat to either wildlife or humans--which is a pretty good argument to keep it around.
