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

Brent, my argument has come under the broad heading of science.
Science can serve up most anything depending on activist agendas.
Science on demand.
State wildlife biologists are not immune to this!

Lowell,
I guess you are correct. Science said/says the world is round because that was more convenient for the explorers. Science said/says microbes cause disease, which can occasionally be cured, because doctors need to make a living. Science said/says electricity can power things because it makes big bucks for power companies. Its all politically motivated. Screw science. There really ain't no such thing as a scientific fact. We can believe whatever we want. Those guys in the white coats are just a pesky nuisance. No sense in changing anything because those meddlesome activists think that they "proved" some "cause and effect" with their agenda motivated "experiments." Jake

The mantra of the junk science is now we "estimated" The 1988 report, I can see why you would not want to go there Brent. They had the affront to talk about the reduction of lead in waterfowl blood levels due to the elimination of lead in gasoline.

That by the way was from the link you provided, thank you Brent.

How did you shoot today?

Just curious, but have the "scientist" done any studies of the effects of lead on migrating waterfowl & doves in Central & South America?? How have the so called negative effects of lead damaged these birds? They (the fowl) appear to be reproducing in record numbers and hunting with lead has been going on there for a long long time. Most of these fields, marshes and lakes that these birds are shot at see thousands upon thousands of more "lead" than probably any field in north America, due to the volume of shooting of course. Just food for thought.

Dustin

We are not talking BS metaphysics here, we are talking about folks that are suppose to use the "Scientific Method".

I find this to be much like junk law. You know where in decisions are reached in a court of law based on a previous bad decision?

Bad science, that now, has a record as being passable due to the test of time.

Has Brent given us the data from tests he has personally run?

Where was the other people doing these test from say DU?

In the same areas from birds from the same flyways.

Brent, you don't have to worry about the future of waterfowl hunting in America. It's nearly dead. At 3.50 per shell plus the costs of stamps, gear. It is just about dead.

That by the way is what every state in the Union, that has waterfowl has been reporting for years, a continual decline.

Of course we can fly south and shoot without limits and use lead.

It has become a sport for the rich. Are we proud yet?

Thats why we get second opinions Jakearoo!
...and things like the 9th Circuit Court demand it.

I'm sure that there are some, who'd like to see a whole host of things nixed by the men in white coats with butterfly nets.

Get up the scratch and fly to South America and shoot all the ducks you want with all the lead shells you can afford...Geo

With the advent of new, exotic shot materials like Bismuth, Hevi-Shot, etc. it is not an issue of whether non-toxics should be used. The issue here gentlemen is the COST of said exotics. Should we not be asking our congressmen and women for SUBSIDY to pursue our sport of waterfowling?!?! Aren't we already paying an additional tax on our ammunition to assist in the conservation effort? How much more should we have to pay to "save the environment"? Should we not receive help from our government to keep our sport alive? Or must we burden ourselves with the cost alone?

I know it probably won't happen, but you never know....I'm not used to asking the gov't anything. But when you ask for money, and they don't provide it, then you can point the finger back at them saying, "We tried, and you did not help." And I say finger pointing, becuase the lead vs. non-tox is really just a bunch of finger pointing. I don't want any wild animal to suffer any lead (or any other man-made) poisoning. However, when I can field hunt a turkey with lead #4 but cannot raise the muzzle of said gun in that same field against a goose or duck without changing shells to a non-tox load shows there is a bit of hypocrisy in the current regulations.

But first things first, no unfunded mandates for non-toxic shot. The "party line" should be subsidize or shut-up to the gov't. My infation-adjusted $0.02.

Mike Doerner

I've the scratch ol'Geo., but it doesn't go for anything south of our border si!
Wait till notox hits the southern dove shooters(its a southern thing anyway)!
Talk about expensive, what's the average on shells spent for birds shot?
...and what about the 28g. plantation quail hunter's new cost?