The road to hell is sometimes paved with good intentions.
Larry, there is also that top friction coat consisting of deceit.
For the sake of consistency and to establish credibility for anyone attempting to advance this restriction, will you allow yourself to stand scrutiny? Can we establish the level of your sincerity and commitment to a pristine environment? It's only fair that you reciprocate what you are demanding of others. If so, your answers to the questions below will be "yes".
Will you give up parts of your life that can be proven to have a measurable environmental impact by groups claiming to have the same concerns as you, if done by their standards and via scientific studies they have either done or taken a "hard look" at?
Can you provide factual information that you have already fought to have lead banned for all shooting including all clay target sports, thereby making a far more substantial difference in the amount of lead distributed into the environment through the use of shotshells? Going after a big threat that has a genuine impact would establish your credibility and prove to many people (myself included) that your supposed objective is honest and forthright. If the answer is no then the claimed goal should be seen by all as fraudulent or shortsighted. If you really did want to have the most meaningful impact you would kill the greatest threats before moving on to smaller ones, but that assumes a truthful and honorable objective. I don't make assumptions.
Have you personally given up lead for all shooting? If so, when? We have to be on the honor system on this one but based on the other answers I believe we can determine whether your word is meaningful.
Pandering to anti-hunters/environmentalists has never furthered the rights of hunters, it has only diminished them. Hunters and fishermen have given over and over, willingly or otherwise. It has been done in the name of proving how much we care, yet daily we have to fight anti-hunters and environmental extremists at the polls, in the media, and in the courtroom. We also fight fellow hunters that call themselves rational conservationists that are playing to both sides. We have been told again and again by people that claim to be speaking in our best interest that doing so would buy us immunity, yet it has bought us nothing but additional overt and covert attempts to strip or marginalize our rights as hunters. If there was immunity to be bought we'd already own it instead of constantly going down this road to finality.
Folks, Louisiana recently went through a similar non-tox fight for use on woodcock, and fight is what it is. Those pushing this type of action are neither my friend nor that of the vast majority of hunters, no matter how cool, calm, and passive they attempt to portray themselves. Not only was the measure defeated in Louisiana because hunters fought back, but designated areas within the state that had previously been non-tox only had restrictions removed, thereby showing that you can win if you don't roll over. I don't live in Louisiana but I got involved and I sent emails. I will also send them to Montana and encourage everyone I know to do the same. Scientists do not agree on the impact of lead. If they did the three states that have the largest snipe harvests in the country wouldn't still allow them to be harvested with lead. That tent hasn't folded because the people there are numerous, as active as their opposition, and they refuse sit idly by and let it happen. Why? Because there is no credible scientific proof that there is a threat. Don't let this proposal in Montana become precedent. If it does it will become contagious and you could be next.
Skip
