Indeed, the horse is LONG dead when it comes to shooting lead at waterfowl. Or, for that matter, anywhere waterfowl are likely to congregate. No use fighting a war that we lost long ago.
I disagree it is a dead horse. There are holes in the logic of the danger of lead and the volume of lead. While I agree the reintroduction of lead for general and unrestricted use on waterfowl is not going to happen there are holes that can be reasonably exploited.
Already most if not all see that use in the uplands where concentrations do not occur are not at issue.
Current law prohibits it for waterfowl everywhere even though there are many situations where the accumulation of lead and ingestion by waterfowl is not an issue.
Current law allows use of lead on non waterfowl species where upland and waterfowl species overlap and science has not shown that to be the major issue it appeared to show waterfowling with lead was.
From these points I show that some lead (very limited) is not a major waterfowl issue and I posit that the limited authorization of use of lead for waterfowl harvest is possible without creating the significant damage to waterfowl.
The issue of what enforceable restricted use of lead on waterfowl could be made is actually out there. Rather than diver this thread I will start another.
