doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Lead shot increasingly under fire

Sort of ridiculous statement given that lead waterfowling has been the lay of the land for what? Two decades at least.

And how many people have given up waterfowling becase of it? And how many in the next generation never started because the people who would have sarted them on it, quit because of steel and/or increased cost?

Two of my friends - manic duck hunters on Barnegat Bay in the past gave it up because of the combination of steel (they'd have had to have replaced their shotguns), cost (of steel, gas, licenses, etc.) and limits (one black duck per day, and b/c 90 percent of the black ducks winter there, it seems all you see are black ducks). Another friend, a local gun store owner here in Maine, says it's been years since he went duck hunting - because of steel, cost and "all that for one duck" limits.

These guys all have kids, who've surely never gone duck hunting because their dads don't.

I don't, because my duck hunting would be incidental to upland hunting and I don't want to have to ditch the lead shells (and hope I could find them later) to shoot a duck legally. In the days of "Duck and Pheasant Loads" (I picked up a box of them at a gun show last year - nostalgia in a box), you could go down to the swampy part of the cornfield, maybe get lucky and bring home a nice mixed bag. Now, if you were to be stopped with a mallard and a pheasant in your gamebag, you'd better only have steel or no-tox, even if you'd have legally shot the phez with lead.

None that I know of.

And what it has done for waterfowl in general and a few other species (e.g., bald eagles) is flatly undeniable.

"None that I know of.

And what it has done for waterfowl in general and a few other species (e.g., bald eagles) is flatly undeniable."

This idea doesn't account for the wounding losses. I guess denying this fact and that the inconvience of steel could influence the occasional duck hunter to leave the sport and long term decrease our recruitment numbers really is lost on you.

Oh my. Actually that premise is completely deniable, or at least not nearly as relevant as you appear to think it is. The banning of DDT and laws passed in the 60's and 70's protecting bald eagles and their nesting areas were exponentially more impactful than anything having to do with a lead shot ban. And what else has the lead shot ban lead to...to use your term, an "undeniable" increase in the amount of wounded/lost game. Fewer hunters in the field which results in a loss of license income which is vital for protecting critical habitat, which probably has a far greater impact on the future of game populations than any theoretical population loss due to digesting lead shot.

The most disturbing thing about the whole lead shot issue is how many sportsmen are willing to stand by and let more environmental activists dictate the future of the sport, with false claims and pseudoscience. A total ban on lead shot would be the death of hunting in America. No young kids would ever be able to afford shells to hunt, let alone burn through a few boxes to practice with which is just as important as hunting. Hunting is increasingly expensive every year as it is, and has to compete with everything else that kids have today. You guys need to open your eyes and see what these lead shot bans really are trying to accomplish. If we have this many in our own ranks that are seemingly willing to go along with this, I'm afraid it is already too late.

I figured you would say that but you have not kept up on the literature. You might as well debate the world is flat.

I'll continue to endorse the lead ban on waterfowl and I do not find it the slightest bit difficult even though I shoot only old doubles, mostly damascus.

For the most part, every corner of every waterhole is filled with hunters in the Midwest. We seem to be coping.

Sadly hunters only shoot their own credibility in the foot continuing to argue against lead in waterfowling. That will haunt them when they legitimately try to keep lead for upland hunting.

And I guess that is the exact thing I thought you would say. Here is a link to the USFWS report on the increase in population of the bald eagle. http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/population/index.html

Notice how they determine that the dramatic turnaround in population was is directly related to the banning of DDT and the placing of the eagle on the endangered species list. And notice of the rate of population growth is unchanged after the all important lead shot ban was put into place in 1991. But what does the USFWS know, they are only arguing that the earth is flat. You better send them some of what you have been reading so they can change the results they have been compiling for the past 40 years.



What an arrogant and selfish response. Of course you don't have a problem using non-tox shot for hunting. I, like yourself have been blessed to be able to afford nice, antique damascus barreled guns. Paying for expensive shot is not a problem for me. It is though, for a 16 year old farm boy how wants to shoot a couple boxes at doves, or go out after some pheasants, or God forbid fire a few boxes to practice. Why would he spend $30-$50 on a few boxes of shells when he can just as easily buy the latest PS3 game for the same price.



That's because there are fewer and fewer waterholes every year to be filled up by those hunters. To use your term again, it is undeniable that the number of hunters is declining. We lost 10% between 1996 and 2006, and I'm sure that number is much higher today http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/03/national/main3228893.shtml
and I guarantee those hunters in your Midwestern waterholes are getting grayer and longer in the tooth every year.



I don't think I ever argued against the lead ban for waterfowl. I am merely pointing out your false claims as to how impactful it was (and your many other false responses). It did have the most impact to waterfowl specifically. That is important to point out, because it's effect is mostly limited to waterfowl and waterfowl only. The negative aspects of the lead ban (i.e. wounded game, expense, loss of hunters) are limited to waterfowl hunting only. If you can't afford to shoot ducks you have other options. By calling for a useless ban of lead shot for everything from squirrels to deer to pheasants and even target shooting, you would damage the future of hunting beyond repair. But as long as you can afford the shot that is all that matters I guess. Try again Brent, you can do better than this.

YOu are predictable and you march in the usual lockstep of the internet expert. Sadly, you don't understand anything of the science - a small portion of which i have posted on this website multiple times.

You can continue your rants, but your credibility is zilch. Read the science. I have.

And I'm out on the water so I know what is going out there too

And I think we just found out everything we need to know about you. Are you actually claiming that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's research data is false, and their 40 years of population monitoring is bogus? The most credible organization to ever study this issue has false information in their website for everyone to see? That cannot be! Please post your irrefutable evidence that shoots their studies out of the water so we can all see for ourselves how right you are.

Hopefully your next post will have more substance other than personal attacks, because I think it's someone else's credibility that is quickly approaching freezing.

Just read the literature. Or look through my old posts on the topics of lead and waterfowl where you will find links to the literature.

Then you can come back and continue your personal attacks.