Ben,

I do appreciate getting to see your resolution. And I appreciate even more your opting to enter into a dicussion with other members of this board, as it may prove insightful for all of us.

Judging here from the 25 skeptical replies received so far, as I write this, I'm going to ask if you'd provide us with the names of the various 'rod & gun' clubs here in Montana that are part and parcel of the Montana Wildlife Federation - and that are in favor of your resolution as currently written.

Your long-standing biologist's position with the National Wildlife Federation and my 35 years as a field biologist here in Montana have us both very aware as to how these things can metasticize....especially when it is a politically charged issue as is this one. If your plan is to "immunize upland hunters from attacks by anti-hunting groups", as you say, then it will be very critical as to whom may be contracted to conduct those studies. If it is some bureaucracy similar to the Center for Disease Control, as lastdollar reported, then we may very well end up with a different outcome than you presently anticipate.

Along with the names of those gun clubs, I'd appreciate seeing BSUBA's analysis of the price comparability between lead shot loads and the various non-tox's currently available. To my knowledge, the only thing remotely close to lead shell prices is that of 'steel' shot with its limitations for older guns. A breakdown of this would be beneficial to the discussion, I think.

Do understand that I am NOT opposed in principle to local in-depth, 'objective' studies that would withstand professional scrutiny, but how many times have we seen departmental decisions made that were based on spotty, circumstantial evidence gathered from abroad? Isn't this exactly what recently happened in Minnesota, until one of their state politicians pulled the plug (at least temporarily?) until the science was actually 'in'?

And re: such hasty decisions, although hindsight has occasionally shown them to be wrong, how often do our bureaucrats admit their error and reverse course once the state or federal statutes have been set?

I'm not the 'enemy' here, Ben, but just a guy that's demanding that this not be an agenda-driven process - at least if you expect us to give any credence to your resolution. Presently, for me at least, it reads as though the intention is to climb on-board with this mounting new-world ambition to ban what is ordinarily an inert substance. Further, the families that consume considerable amounts of game harvested with lead appear to be none the worse for wear, thank you, and are not the ones appealing for government protection. For those unsympathetic to this line of thinking, think of it as 'genetic selection'among a group that you probably think needs culling anyway!

The other premise of your resolution that I object to is that just because other federal, state, and tribal lands in Montana....along with other sovereign states, and foreign countries such as "Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, and Canada" have banned the use of lead that it would perhaps be prudent that the rest of us do likewise. This train of thinking prior to any local collection of substantiable data has us marching lock-step with the rest of these new-age thinkers, and should scare the crap out of anyone with a little common sense.

In closing, I suggest that we get the science right first - if you expect to win over the shooting community. But then again, we didn't worry about those same 'hearts and minds' when implementing the waterfowl-lead shot ban' over two decades ago .....and we lost a huge percentage of license-buying, revenue producing waterfowlers that we still haven't really recovered from. It would be nice to think we could handle it differently this time.

But hey, maybe that's the point after all, BSUBA excepted of course.



Respectfully,


Rob