|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,576
Posts546,570
Members14,424
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
If a specific post was interesting or useful to you, we recommend that you Like that post. It tells the post author, and others, that you found the information valuable. Clicking Like is another way to let others know that you enjoy it without leaving a comment.
Log in to join the conversation and Like this content.
|
|
|
Jimmy W (Mar 30th 2024) |
Total Likes: 1 |
|
Re: Lead ban in Minnesota?
#644696
Mar 24th a 02:01 PM
|
by BrentD, Prof |
BrentD, Prof |
There's always common ground. I doubt we have any anti-hunters here. That's a good point from which to start. Some may have decided that they're not going to shoot lead at all anymore. Others--and I'm one of the others--don't see any problem using lead other than where the law says we have to use nontox. I think we should always question the REQUIREMENT to use nontox when there isn't solid biological evidence. But I'm not going to harass people who CHOOSE to use nontox as long as they don't step over the line and support a total ban on lead. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. That has always been my policy.
|
|
|
|
|