Tom C.,
As a recently retired wildlife biologist of 32 years, and with over half of that working in wetland ecology, I applaud you for your synopsis of factual information re: lead poisoning. You've got it right, and 'No' argument there. At least there shouldn't be.
As for your opinion section though, I must genuinely ask what the harm is of using lead shot, on say, a managed (i.e. mined & recycled) clay shooting grounds when it can be demonstrated that the soil is not part of a jurisdictional wetland, nor is it strongly acidic or alkaline?
I ask this because some of us who shoot nothing but vintage guns at the rate of a hundred rounds a week (as I do), would be very hard put to support a shell bill of roughly $480.00 a month in order to maintain our hobby, wouldn't we? And 'why', I ask you, should we be compelled to do this via a future nation-wide ban when it is a 'no harm, no foul' situation for many, many such shooting grounds across the country?
I think I know the reason, and that is because it is much simpler for the 'bureaucratic mind' to punish everyone equally than to come up with a management plan that addresses the 10%? of the problems when and where they occur. Which is precisely how the non-tox mandate was handled two decades ago when it was openly conceded that not all wetlands were 'problem areas' in regard to lead pellet ingestion by waterfowl.
I'll leave the upland hunting scenario for someone else, and close by saying that not nearly all of us are as willing as you to forfeit our right to shoot these vintage guns......and probably won't be until it can be objectively proven that lead is a menace on every square meter of U.S. soil.
Rob Harris
Last edited by Robt. Harris; 01/29/08 06:58 PM.
