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.
This may almost be a fantasy, but then again.
Is there a possibility of some limited authorization for some vintage guns?
If so what limitations could reasonably be made and gotten implemented which provided some freedom to use vintage guns without creating too great and acceptable use of lead?
I believe we need to go on the offensive and stop spending our energy on defense only and make the anti's start defending instead of simply subverting
Much of current law excludes the use of lead shot where waterfowl and upland overlap. ALL Federal Waterfowl Production Areas (often quite good pheasant hunting, here in the Midwest) are nontox only. Here in Iowa, where our lead shot restrictions are not as comprehensive as they are in South Dakota, all public areas in several entire counties (where most public lands are wetlands) are nontox only. And just about all public wetlands everywhere else in the state are also nontox only, even for pheasants.
I don't think we'll ever get lead back again for waterfowl. For one thing, the enforcement people like the rules as they are because they're relatively easy to enforce. If you're hunting waterfowl, it's strictly nontox. If you're hunting on areas that are nontox only, then no lead. As for vintage guns, there are nontoxic options (like bismuth). More expensive than lead or steel, and I suppose individuals could show that's a burden if they do a LOT of waterfowl hunting with a vintage gun. But since those options do exist, I doubt there will be a lead loophole for vintage guns. Again, difficult to enforce. What's a vintage gun? And since Browning says no steel in any of their Belgian-made classics (Superposed, A-5) and a whole lot of those aren't really "vintage" . . . it quickly becomes very complicated.
I'm more than happy to put the antis on the defensive when it comes to hunting upland birds other than around wetlands. And we're doing a good job of winning there . . . as long as the new head of USF&WS reverses the ban on lead shot put in place by Obama's director.
