LGF, the issue has been decided for some time where waterfowl are concerned. Try finding the same "evidence" and scientific study where upland birds are concerned. Even the Minnesota Nontoxic Shot Advisory Committee admits such evidence does not exist. Then there are all those eagles that died from eating birds crippled with lead but not recovered . . . except we now have many times more eagles than we did when the lawsuit was filed, which means the current limitations on lead must be working fine--at least for eagles, and probably for waterfowl. And there simply isn't any evidence of a problem where upland birds are concerned. And that's where the lead ban proponents want to take us next.
King, with all due respect, you're in a different country. They've done things to gun ownership up your way that aren't likely to happen in the States. Can you imagine Canada with most provinces requiring that anyone who is mentally competent, not a felon, and can pass a course showing they can safely and effectively handle a handgun SHALL be issued a license to carry said handgun . . . concealed? That's the law in the vast majority of states down here, and it's a trend that's grown of late. So we're not in the same boat as you are, either when it comes to restrictions on guns or potential restrictions on hunting. While it might be good advice for Canadians just to "suck it up" and assume lead will be banned everywhere, for everything, that's not nearly as certain south of the border.
Last edited by L. Brown; 01/27/08 05:07 PM.
