doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Lead ban in Minnesota?

I always heard that Duluth was a nice place to live, but I wouldn't want to visit there. 😄


Ol' Lefty

Only if you like good food, good beer, decent art, music, and scenery coupled with a pretty good climate (for the Midwest). It ain't all plums and roses, but it's not bad.

Good to see you made it through the storms last night, Jimmy.

I sailed the Trans-Superior race in '70, surface water temp off the Keewenaw was 38 deg. on the 26th of July. N.E. wind blowing like hell, surfing down swells in a 45' Whidby, flying a storm spinnaker. In Duluth, there was free beer, and took a fun night tour of the town with some nice locals.

20 years later, we were at a lodge in Northern Wisconsin in August with the temp in the 90's, so we went to Bayfield for 'cooler near the lake'. Waded in the lake up to the knees and my calves cramped up from the cold.

Pretty country, nice people, but not on the edge of a 'skinny dipping' lake! Check Northern Wisconsin for shallower lakes!

Other than in a state like California, with a total ban on lead, it's unlikely that current nontox requirements will price anyone out of the game. For one thing, steel isn't as expensive in comparison to lead as it used to be. And most places you can still shoot lead at targets, which is where the real volume shooting takes. The problem for most people is that shooting in general --no matter what you shoot or where you shoot--has become more expensive. Both for factory shells and for reloading components. New ones will have a problem once they're off the school trap shooting teams and no longer getting ammunition either for free or at significantly reduced prices. Without support from the clubs and/or from hunting/conservation groups like PF/QF and RGS/AWS it will be a definite challenge for them even if they're able to shoot lead.

I get it Larry, everything is more expensive, but are all things becoming more expensive at a similar rate. I do not believe so, and you know I'm referring to the subject matter. Anecdotes? I made a recent purchase from a deep blue state business, and in summary it was a relatively slower, and far more expensive process to get the item to my FFL. Would you suppose there are less costs and hoops to jump through for non firearm related things?

I gladly used quite a bit of steel shot on waterfowl last fall, but it was not with any type of gun that would be considered a classic or antique. Does that matter? What about using sub gauges on game as appropriate? I accept your comment as opposition to mine, but is it really a win for our kids, when we hold our noses and stand with the Jimmies of today, who are so dismissive of things that they don't value?

You may recall, though I am not the biggest fan, I believe it will probably be black polymer semi-autos that will convince many of those trap team kids to stay interested, while they have to juggle that expense with the greater difficulties and challenges of today's life. I know that can be a long and slow path back nice guns and wing shooting, but I wouldn't count on good ole boy shooting clubs for a universal welcome, and it's insanity to assume a connection between conservation organizations and shooting sports. My favorite picture of my grand sons are of ear to ear smiles, holding shot up cans, prouder than any of the particiption trophy pictures, I've seen of them from soccer.

But hey, I'm starting to see the hen's teeth large primers, and a thousand box of smalls for a smidge under sixty bucks. In the vein of being a catch all summary, is there hypocrisy in you and the prof saying we can deposit copious amounts of lead into the environment for target shooting, but not for on the decline hunting? Or, are we to pretend that California political policy, doesn't foreshadow? Aren't we fortunate that the congressional branch has prescribed senate representation?

Craig, you put the emphasis on the new ones in your post above. That's probably a good place to keep it. Those newbies are going to be shooting places where their trap clubs shoot. And yes, in my part of the world, they get plenty of financial support. And where I used to live in Iowa, our county PF chapter supported every school club in the county. And come banquet time, we typically gave away 20+ youth shotguns. I think most of the conservation groups know how important it is to bring more people not only into target shooting, but also into hunting. They are our future.

Clubs and ranges are far less likely to be restricted to nontox like you are for waterfowl hunting . . . or for that matter, if you also chase pheasants on public wetlands. And yes, why can't you drop as much lead as you want on the ground if it's not wetland type habitat so that waterfowl might be exposed to it? And you don't go through the volume of shells hunting waterfowl or pheasants that you do shooting targets. So the extra bucks for a couple boxes of shells is likely something they can handle. Or maybe even a hunting mentor will provide for them.

Our problems, at least currently, are at the state level (like CA now and perhaps MN in the not too distant future.) Here in Wisconsin, the DNR holds public meetings in the spring all across the state. They present new laws they're considering. Just a few years ago, one of those laws was to go all nontox on all DNR areas. Didn't make much sense to me other than on those areas already restricted to nontox: basically wetlands and fields where doves are shot. Areas of very heavy shotfall. I don't worry much at all about dropping lead where I hunt grouse and woodcock. Those areas aren't that heavily hunted, and it's not likely that grouse or woodcock will digest what little lead is scattered around. The vote went against that proposed law by a significant majority.


And if old boy shooting clubs don't welcome (and probably even support) young shooters, they have their heads square up their asses. They all do where I shoot here in WI, as they did where I shot in Iowa. Maybe we're more hunter/shooter friendly than some other states. If so, that's a good reason to live here.

I can appreciate your Wisconsin comments, if you don't recall, I lived there for a number of years, still have family there and still visit fairly regularly. My previous comments are not your comments or experiences, they are what I know, first hand. Did quite a bit of fishing and hunting there, but now have no interest anymore, nor do I feel the urge to visit those great central Wisconsin ranges and shoots as I would in the past.

It's an odd scenario that you paint. Parents sign permission forms for their minor children to participate in firearm related extracurricular activities, but it is the responsibility of hobbyist strangers to nurture shooting sports? I'm reading that you believe we've already lost the parents? Do you realize how many tens of thousands of dollars, countless parents will pour into club soccer or volleyball, or HS football? I hope Wisconsin parent show to the trap shoots?

I know we've gone over the hypocrisies of justifying when and where we should be allowed to used lead shot, and when we should be forced to use notox shot. I've never ever claimed to oppose the science, but I believe I've consistently opposed political agendas and hypocritical cheerleading. It serves no purpose to rant about heads uparses vs welcoming supporters of youth shooting sports, are either in realty the old guard, lock step, union democrat voter?

Do you suppose Jimmy, since you quoted him, takes a moment to distinguish between dove and woodcock habitat, what determines heavy or low shot fallout, previously vs newly under consideration notox hunting zones? Do you think the fellow that can't tie his show, that Jimmy says he's voting for, will turn over policy making to representatives of US citizens, or zealots?

We shouldn't speak of liklihoods. We all know countless shooting ranges have been closed down, or are under heavy pressure, regulatory and financial, to shut down. It is not their discretion to decide if they use lead shot, or voluntarily shoot notox. Of course, there's an on and on. I understand your points.

I'm delighted to not see the world through such a bitter lense as you do Craig.

Larry does his best to get kids involved and be a good steward of the Land and this is your response? SMH. Just bizarre.

Larry,
The law, as it is being painted by the left here in Minnesota, would force ranges to switch to non toxic, and force citizens to turn in their lead shot.
At this point, it is not a debate about shot material, to me.

Best,
Ted

After reading this 3 or 4 times, I still can't figure out about half of what you are talking about.

But that said, if you want to ensure hunting and shooting sports in the future, you (and many others here) would be well served by trying to recruit people with at least slightly more liberal politics to hunting and shooting. Is it any surprise that, after finding themselves very unwelcome in any and all of these activities, many of them are happy to pull the trigger on anything that means less lead in the air? I am surprised we have as much shooting and hunting opportunities as we do right now. The attitudes shouted loud and long by you and others here are not making any new friends outside of the very insular and rapidly shrinking tribe of extant shooters.

Now, fix up your grammar and spelling before Ted and Standish get after you...