doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Solution to nontox for vintage sxs

As far as the UK goes, England is completely non-toxic for waterfowl. Scotland just recently went with a lead ban if you're shooting over water, but it's still legal if you're shooting over dry land. Northern Ireland is still all lead, but some sort of ban is coming in the next few years so I hear. I don't know about Wales for certain, but I believe it's the same as England.

Just heard from a friend in Alaska that the government has made the entire North Slope all non-toxic shot for all game. The total ban is coming gentlemen.......


Destry

Destry,
Thanks for that, you have just saved me the trouble of going off on another rant.
Do wildfowl know if they are being shot at over land or water? I don't think so.
Is it not time that we got off our butts and did away with all this nonsense.Here we are lamely lying down and letting the Greenies dictate to us when,where and how to use our historic guns.Is it not time we asked our Governments for help in preserving our history and heritage?
Why should men who wear skirts be given more privileges than me?My ancestors learned how to smelt iron and built the World's first Ironbridge.I demand immunity from this stupid restriction on the use of lead.I'll bet if I was an illegal immigrant I'd probably get a grant.
Talking of which legal immigrants to the UK from the Eastern block are now shooting Swans (illegal) and poaching Carp from our Pools.Both are considered fair game in Eastern Europe, taken to Court they walk free.Screw them all, I'm off to the hills to live the life of a recluse 'away from the madding crowd'

Am finding this a bit amusing in that it's the gentrified Brit, Salopian, who is 'rattling his sabre' here, while us independent-thinking sons of former frontiersman seem to be lining up like neutered sheep in preparation for a total lead ban...

As a wildlife biologist of thirty-two years, since retired, I'd urge all of us who love shooting our vintage guns (and at clays in particular - where a non-tox is most impractical) to not go 'belly-up' quite so readily as we appear to be doing. You can do this by choosing to speak out. Whether in public meetings or in letters to those policy-makers at the helm of this new debacle......insist upon all the references for the 'good science' that supposedly predicates the need for a complete ban of lead. Literally flood them with requests for proof, and then 'google' up what you are not being provided with.

Don't accept, as one of the posters recently related, some state-paid biologist (MN, I believe) standing before his audience vaguely telling them that the studies were conducted in some neighboring state - but he couldn't remember exactly which one.....Duh! Or 'that their DNR director is really committed to a non-tox program, and we need to resign ouselves to it'. Bollocks!

What we need is good, verifable data that withstands scrutiny, and if they actually can provide that - in quantity - then we need to appropriately reconsider our position. Short of that, a bit of revolutionary impulse may once again be in order, I would think. For now, and until more conclusive information is at hand, I'm with Salopian on this.

Remember that the bureaucrats pushing their various agendas count on our timidity before an audience in such matters, our fear of asking the wrong questions, and especially, our inherent complacency.

Just some thoughts,

Rob Harris

The NRA needs to get off their ass.

Yeah, that too....and I say that still being a devoted, lifelong supporter of them.

Further, I think a number of shotgunners have been a bit 'elitist' in thinking that they'd come for these old, harmless SxSs of ours last AFTER they had mopped up the supposed short-list of "assault rifles", "sniper rifles", and handguns.

Bears some pondering, don't it?.....

Robert

Robert,
This reminded me of a writer named Vance. Several years ago wrote an article in a shooting magazine and indicated a very elitist view similar to what you have stated. I have always thought he was just one person but as the years have passed I have seen some voice the same thoughts. The hope is that those that have such a view will realize that we all stand together or divided we fall. As for the NRA our trap club has a sign on the board that reads "if your a trap shooter and don't belong to the NRA you are a FREELOADER...."It is unfortunate but there are more than a few freeloaders lurking about. Thought and action Robert as we each do our part. See you at the shoot in May.
Best,
Ron

Robert, good post! Here's what the report of the MN Nontoxic Shot Advisory Committee says:

First, they start with a set of seven principles as the focus of their report. Two of them are:
"Lead is toxic to both humans and wildlife and simply is not required for life."
"It is inevitable that lead shot will have to be restricted for all shotgun hunting at some future time."

Sort of sets the tone for the entire report, doesn't it?

In the report, the committee admits that there is no evidence of harmful effects of lead on upland game, other than doves:

"Conclusive proof regarding the effects of lead shot on other (than doves) upland game populations is lacking, but the topic has received little study to date."

The ban on lead for waterfowl came about for two reasons. First, there were studies of waterfowl that had ingested lead shot. Second, there was a lawsuit focusing on bald eagles eating crippled game birds, thus ingesting lead shot and dying. What's interesting to note here is what has happened to eagles in the interim. There's been a virtual population explosion . . . which shows that as far as eagles go, either there wasn't a significant problem in the first place, or the current restrictions are sufficient to solve the eagle issue.

So . . . we don't have any good science to go on where upland birds (other than doves) are concerned, and we no longer have a problem with eagles. But we're going to push for further lead shot bans anyhow.

Makes sense to me.

I'm a life long NRA member....who needs the NRA if we can't use lead shot for our shotguns ?

People choose how they want to live in a democracy. We're behind the eight-ball because, rightly or wrongly, justified or otherwise, somehow or another, a majority has chosen a lead-ban in our legislatures.

Talking about how we feel about the ban doesn't help. On the evidence, paying into organizations to do our thinking for us, on this issue, produces few if any results. As an activist--- a succesful one---I don't have answers or know how to change it.

I said on joining the board we would see an end to hunting as we know it in our time. No-lead has a gnat's eyelash of influence on that end, compared to all those other restrictive and confiscatory laws that represent the majority will.

No defeatist, I've worked---on the barricades, meetings with legislators provincial and federal. time and money---but accept political reality. For peace of mind, I've adjusted my thinking to no-tox for my lifetime and the sacrifices to pay for it.

I am amused at this notion that the lead shot ban is a devious plot of antihunters. Birds pick up lead off the bottom, it sits in their gut chelating (binding) digestive enzymes, and they quietly starve, green goo running out their butts, no matter how much they eat. This is not the fantasy of boffins or grad students or bunny huggers - it was millions of dead waterfowl.

In reference to Salopian's and Lowell's comments, I never quite understand the antipathy toward scientists whenever they come up with findings that make people uncomfortable, like say, global warming. Sorry folks, sometimes we need to recognize that old practices are destructive and need to be changed. Blaming the messenger is pretty childish.

The NRA seem quite happy to see one of the world's most magnificent birds, the condor, go extinct because they are too cheap or just too bloody minded to use nonlead in condor country. They, and those who whine about nontox in the marsh, come off looking like selfish children who are happy to poison wildlife if it means saving a few bucks in ammo. Pretty pathetic.

However, I am no fan of steel. I just came back from a duck hunt where I saw more cripples sailed to steel than birds killed. Pretty disgusting. As I don't even own a gun that can handle steel, I can feel self righteous.

And thank you King, for your refusal to harvest. I, too, prefer killing birds to harvesting them.