Debate, Brent? I am not debating anything here. Re-read my post and you will (or perhaps you will not) see that I am stating my opinions. For the many years I have participated in this bulletin board, I don't recall ever seeing the notice that it was a scientific forum. It has science, opinions, politics, and other topics, so your advice to me to debate science and not politics, well, I will just leave my feelings on your advice without comment. I do want to thank you for the instruction on migratory vs. non-migratory birds and state vs. federal wildlife law enforcement. Gosh, after hunting for 50 years that little tid bit of information sure came as a surprise!!! By the way, aren't doves categorized as "migratory" birds and thus controlled by federal wildlife laws. Before you go to any great length to answer that one Brent, let me just say that I really already know the answer to the question. Incidentally, your rhetoric on migratory, non, and state/fed, etc. failed to address the question I posed. As has been stated earlier, the issue over non-toxic versus lead originated with and centered on "wetlands" didn't it - not the governing body to enforce the wildlife laws. Therefore, I ask it again. If I can shoot an upland bird with lead legally in a given location, why can I not shoot waterfowl flying over or walking around the area legally with the same lead shot. Does a dead bird know what did him in? Let me re-state my question in a different fashion rather than have you again educate me on the different law enforcement bodies. Does it make any sense for the situation I describe above to exist? I was already provided an answer from the game warden to whom I posed the same question. He said he agreed with my reasoning, but "that's just the way the law reads." That I understand. I am only offering my opinion on what I believe to be a ridiculous difference in wording of laws and regulations. And I still think the ammunition manufacturers are "preying" upon sportsmen who are victimized by this ruling. Well, everyone except the "writers" who get to shoot all the free high-priced ammunition they want to as long as they will praise its virtues in sporting publications. (Oh! I am also aware that upland birds hunted on federal lands require non-toxic shot. Just a little tid bit I have picked up in my years of involvement with hunting and the shooting sports) Thanks Brent.
