The train's already left the station on the lead ban for waterfowl. Early arguments were that steel performed poorly, and that it was more expensive than lead. The cost argument is no longer valid. And while lead remains ballistically superior to steel, current steel loads are significantly better than those that were available 25 years ago.
Another currently active topic points out that different species exhibit different tolerance for lead. And when it comes to vultures and coyotes . . . no one cares. Unless, all of a sudden, we start finding a lot of dead vultures or a lot of dead coyotes with no obvious cause, no one is going to get concerned. And, if they've ingested lead, it's quite possible that they're simply more tolerant of it than are eagles and waterfowl.
Most attempts to ban lead for upland birds, outside of California, have been unsuccessful. Where upland birds are concerned, the "good science" to support such action simply does not exist. The advisory committee to the Minnesota DNR stated as much in their report. And it's not likely to ever exist, given the difference between waterfowl hunting and upland hunting. Shot fall is so dispersed in nearly all upland hunting settings that it's highly unlikely upland birds will ingest lead shot. Tall Timbers, which does research on quail and mortality factors, examined something like 300 birds--in an area where far more birds are shot than would occur in typical upland hunting--and found lead pellets in only two gizzards.
What we're facing from the antis is: "Lead is poison and therefore should be banned." That message is being sold, constantly. And the question we have to ask is: "Where is that "poison", spread by hunters, impacting the population of X species?"
Not much point in fighting battles lost long ago. Waste of energy.
Larry, I highlighted three portion of your post I'd like to respond to.
We KNOW that the antis will not stop, ever. Not in Cali and not in the rest of the country. We also know that it is only a matter of time before they win in Cali and eventually win across the rest of the United States IF WE CONTINUE TO BEHAVE IN THE FUTURE AS WE HAVE IN THE PAST.
A defensive position, which has been the position, will ultimately fail as those on offense will continue to chip away. It's not a battle, it's a siege. Some may think this a stretch but as Trump has just demonstrated, if we want to turn the tide, we need to go on the offensive. Start up the battle and take back the lost positions. If some of us are correct, and we have 4-8 years of a federal government reducing it's footprint, being more responsive to the people than vocal special interest groups, then now is fertile ground to bring that engine back into the station.
