With the advent of new, exotic shot materials like Bismuth, Hevi-Shot, etc. it is not an issue of whether non-toxics should be used. The issue here gentlemen is the COST of said exotics. Should we not be asking our congressmen and women for SUBSIDY to pursue our sport of waterfowling?!?! Aren't we already paying an additional tax on our ammunition to assist in the conservation effort? How much more should we have to pay to "save the environment"? Should we not receive help from our government to keep our sport alive? Or must we burden ourselves with the cost alone?

I know it probably won't happen, but you never know....I'm not used to asking the gov't anything. But when you ask for money, and they don't provide it, then you can point the finger back at them saying, "We tried, and you did not help." And I say finger pointing, becuase the lead vs. non-tox is really just a bunch of finger pointing. I don't want any wild animal to suffer any lead (or any other man-made) poisoning. However, when I can field hunt a turkey with lead #4 but cannot raise the muzzle of said gun in that same field against a goose or duck without changing shells to a non-tox load shows there is a bit of hypocrisy in the current regulations.

But first things first, no unfunded mandates for non-toxic shot. The "party line" should be subsidize or shut-up to the gov't. My infation-adjusted $0.02.

Mike Doerner

Last edited by I. Flues; 06/24/07 08:51 AM.