It appears that the author of the article is recommending that shooter just behave like good little sheep, and line up for the shearing.
It has been noted that the article predicts drops in prices for the inferior non-lead shotshells, which has not happened, and is unlikely to happen. We just don't see prices of things falling when demand goes up. I don't know why anyone with a brain would think it will be any different with expensive non-lead shotshells.
Unfortunately, the demand in this case is being forced down the throats of shooters who do not want the product, but will soon have no choice. Read the very last paragraph. So much for being voluntary.
As you read the article, a few things jump out. When New Zealand hunters had the choice, they chose 16 and 20 gauge guns with lead shot over the 12 gauge guns that were mandated to use inferior steel shot. That little loophole was soon slammed shut. The anti-lead folks certainly couldn't allow actual proof of their false data to remain in the fields.
We also still have the comments from anti-lead folk about how great steel shot kills. Yet those New Zealand hunters found that lead is better at longer ranges, and the shooter in Belgium found that he had to restrict his shots to around 25 yards to ensure clean kills. German shooters also experienced reduced range and more cripples. Dogs became more of a necessity to recover game which flew a long way after being hit.
So how is this possible when we are told that steel kills just as good or better than lead?
The most hopeful part was about hunters in Norway. They apparently fought back, and part of their 2005 blanket lead shot ban was reversed, so now only waterfowl shooters are stuck with it, and their older vintage guns are still useful for now.
The most effective way to lose to the anti-lead ammunition freaks is to be a sheep, and be afraid to fight back. So join the NRA, remain involved, tell your legislators that you will not support them if they support lead ammo bans, and... don't be a sheep.
