Conference vmsnet::hunting$note:hunting

 I read an article in (I think) Petersen's Hunting which wrote about lead and
non-toxic shot. According to the article, the study which implicated lead
shot with waterfowl poisoning and mortality was described as being "flawed"
due to unscientific methodology. It went on to say that since that study (which
occurred on either the 50s or 60s), several "properly conducted" studies have
contradicted the earlier findings. However, non-toxic shot has become more
politically expedient, thus no one is in a big hurry to repeal the laws 
predicated on the findings of the flawed study.

 The article also went into the development of a new non-toxic shot that
is denser than steel; it is nearly as dense as lead. It is being developed by a 
Canadian scientist. It sounds pretty promising.

 Before I am ready to commit to an outlawing of lead shot, I would first have
to be convinced that the supporting evidence that lead is bad enough to be 
banned is primarily scientific rather than political. 

 The Doctah

 PS- I'll try to find the article to substantiate the above claims (or to
rectify them as the case may be.)

    
    Doctah,
       the new stuff is called Bismuth. It's supposed to keep it's
    energy longer than steel does so it will kill like lead. But
    it's just as costly if not more than steel.
    
                                                 Walt

Re: <<< Note 1121.0 by CARROL::LEFEBVRE "PojamaPeopleAreBoringMeToPieces" >>>

There is some evidence that the lead-shot debate had its start in the anti-gun
camp.

Note that shooters are being cought in a pincer move:

	If lead shot should be banned, then lead bullets should be banned.

	Steel bullets are already labeled "cop killer" bullets and banned.

So what does that leave us with to shoot?

Look at *all* sides of the issue before deciding.  Don't hand the anti-gunners
another win.  Whatever logic you apply to shot can be applied to bullets.

                                     Roak

    
    re .0
    
    NO.
    
    As some previous responses indicate, there's a lot more than meets the
    eye in this issue.
    
    Kevin

     Usually I consider it bad if one crippled duck gets away from
    me/my dog in a year (5-10 hunting days). This year I had several
    get away, 2 on my last hunt (being even more conservative on situation/
    range than I used to be with lead). Steel shot just does'nt cut it in
    my book. Especially when you consider that dense lead probably
    settles (digs) quickly underneath sediment past the point ducks feed.
     In most studies I've seen, they say things like " these lead-poisoned
    waterfowl were found...most are never found". Well maybe the reason 
    "most are never found" is because they're are'nt hardly any to be found.
    Seems like bad scientific method to me. Especially when a SWAG is used 
    to pass legislation. Now that they want to do it to all hunting I think 
    the previous replies might contain the truth of the real agenda. It sure
    is expensive to buy steel too, which probably discourages more hunters.
    Less hunters= easier fight to ban hunting.
    
    chuck 

    I'd be interested in any references (as Mark Levesque pointed out in
    his note) that refutes the impact of lead on the environment.  The
    Discovery show was definitely NOT anti-hunting and they cited the work
    of wildlife biologists during the show to substantiate they're claims.
    
    It seems to me that the extra cost of steel shot should not be a valid
    reason for dumping lead into the ecosystem.  Neither should the
    effectiveness of steel vs. lead be an issue.
    
    Mark.

    
    This past hunting season I spent most of my lead shot that I could
    while hunting upland game. There's a new law out that states something
    like, while waterfowl-hunting you can't have on your possession any
    lead ammo. Well, in the past I would hunt ducks until about 9, then
    switch to lead and hunt upland. With this new law I'm not suppose to
    have lead on me. BTW: while hunting partridge I found myself switching
    to steel as flocks of geese would approach....I got so sick of
    switching that I've decided to convert to 100% steel this coming year.
    
    Upland or Waterfowl, I'm not going to buy anymore lead, this way all I'll
    have on my possession will be steel.
    
    
    So, experience shows that for pass shooting with steel we need to shoot
    steel pellets that's 3 times larger to be more effective replacement,
    I'm going to use #4 steel to replace #6 lead for upland and #2 or #1
    steel to replace #4 lead.
    
    All in all this should streamline my ammo problem of having legal vs
    non-legal...and if the lead-poison allegations are correct, I feel
    better throwing steel vs lead.
    
    Rick
    
    Here's some data on steel shot sizes:
    
                APPROX.PELLETS IN 1oz.
    Number         Lead       Steel
    ------         ----       -----
      6            225        317
      4            135        192
      3            106        154
      2            87         125
      1            72         103
      BB           50          72
      BBB          --          61
       T           --          53
    
    

    
    I guess I should answer the basenotes question.  Lead lasts forever, no
    question about it.....So yes, lead should be discontinued.
    
    Rick
    

Re: <<< Note 1121.6 by CARROL::LEFEBVRE "PojamaPeopleAreBoringMeToPieces" >>>

>>                                                  Neither should the
>>    effectiveness of steel vs. lead be an issue.

It most certainly should be!  If, by switching to steel shot one duck is saved
from lead poisioning, but three more are crippled due to the ineffectiveness
of steel shot and later die, is this progress?

                                  Roak

> Neither should the effectiveness of steel vs. lead be an issue.

 And why not? The claim is that n birds per year die as a result of lead 
poisoning due to the use of lead shot. If as a result of using steel shot,
more than n birds die unrecovered, the cure may not be better than the
disease.

 I completely forgot about finding that article last night. I was trying to
create a budget. Yecch. No money left for fun things. :-(

      I don't beleive that steel is all that much more ineffective if the
    person firing the shot is taking _reasonable_ shots.  By reasonable I 
    mean shots which are with in his capability as a marksman.  We have had 
    no trouble in anchoring geese with steel. If you want to skybust, then
    your going to wound birds with lead just as well as with steel.  I
    think that the majority of complaining about steel is a result of poor
    shot selection rather then inferior loads.
    
    Jeff

    Jeff partially described where I was coming from.  The point is, you
    can always pass on a questionable shot and reduce (note I didn't say
    eliminate) the chance of a cripple.
    
    With lead, every time you pull the trigger you can potentially do harm
    to the environment.
    
    Mark.

>    <<< Note 1121.6 by CARROL::LEFEBVRE "PojamaPeopleAreBoringMeToPieces" >>>

>    I'd be interested in any references (as Mark Levesque pointed out in
>    his note) that refutes the impact of lead on the environment.  The
>    Discovery show was definitely NOT anti-hunting and they cited the work
>    of wildlife biologists during the show to substantiate they're claims.
    

This is a bit off the topic, but the Discovery channel had an anti-hunting/
anti-fur program the other day (either British or Australian), and also showed
the Handgun Control Inc.-produced "Guns: A Day in the Death of America" 
show recently.  I caught their comment number (1-301-986-0444 - ext. 81)
the other day and called in.  The person who answered told me that the premise
of the Discovery channel was to "educate and inform about nature-related 
subjects" or something like that.   They couldn't explain how the Guns special
fit in.   They often have fascinating nature-related shows, but I cannot defend
what I see to be an anti-hunting/anti-gun stance.  

I apologize for the digression; back to the topic at hand....


Steve

Re: <<< Note 1121.11 by GIAMEM::J_AMBERSON >>>

>>                                                                      I
>>    think that the majority of complaining about steel is a result of poor
>>    shot selection rather then inferior loads.

Count me out; I've never hunted with a shotgun.  But I do keep up on the
Handgun Control, Inc. propoganda which is why I responded to this note.

One anti-gun push is to force the EPA into controlling lead far more strictly. 
One restriction being *currently* looked at is that it "cannot be released into
the environment".

There goes *all* hunting bullets containing lead, folks.

And as I pointed out, anything else is a "cop killer" bullet and already banned.

                                Roak

    Will we have clays crippled by switching to steel...  nope
    
    Is it a pain in the ass to have to load both steel (clays/waterfowl) 
    and lead (upland game)...      yup
    
    Is is worth it to our environment...  I think so, my children think so,
    and i'm sure my grandchildren will think so... no doubt the ecosystem
    will too...
    
    someone mentioned that lead in bullets being the next thing outlawed... 
    could happen, doubtful...   big difference between 1 bullet and 275 +/-
    lead pellets scattered throughout the forest floor everytime someone
    pulls the trigger.
    
    It'd be something to see the amount of lead on the forest floor behind
    a skeet/trap field...
    
    Let try and make a smart decision based on common sense, not one based
    on the "if they prohibit this now then they'll prohibit that later"
    mentality, theres more at stake here than just cripples...
    
    FWIW,  Fra

Re: <<< Note 1121.15 by KNGBUD::LAFOSSE >>>

>>    someone mentioned that lead in bullets being the next thing outlawed... 
>>    could happen, doubtful...

>>    Let try and make a smart decision based on common sense, not one based
>>    on the "if they prohibit this now then they'll prohibit that later"
>>    mentality, theres more at stake here than just cripples...

All I ask is that you look for the DATA behind the ban.

I'm sorry to say that I really see a "They're not after MY guns" mentality in
your replies...  Divided we fall...

                        Roak

    Roak,
    
    Really sorry you think that my mentality is "their not after my guns"
    You obviously don't know me AT ALL...  I'm a NRA member, I write 
    letters and I make phone calls and when I have money, I make 
    contributions to help support efforts to protect my 2nd ammendment 
    rights...  But their are other things I believe are more important than 
    whether or not I should be able to shoot ducks or grouse, and clean
    water is one of them...
    
    Some decisions need to be made with more than gun rights as a basis of
    debate.  I'm not saying it should be banned, only that it should be
    used more descriminently...  are you against shooting steel at clays???
    
    I'm not making any decisions regarding it's use or not at this moment,
    but i'm not totally closing my mind when the time comes to make one
    either. 
    
    Are their not materials other than lead and steel... Barnes solid copper
    comes to mind... is this a viable alternative to lead cores?
    
    Fra

    
    
>    I'm not making any decisions regarding it's use or not at this moment,
>    but i'm not totally closing my mind when the time comes to make one
>    either. 
    
    	If I may answer for James, I don't think that's the point he was
    trying to make. 
    
    	The anti's are looking at a way to word the law so that lead
    *cannot be released into the enviroment*. If they get the law stated
    the way they want, that would effectively ban lead for rifle, handgun,
    muzzeloader, and shotgun ammunition. FMJ's have lead core's right?
    Those would be banned too. And I'll bet that even solid copper bullets
    will defeat kevlar (it's not that tough). What does that leave?
    
    	Sure they're working up alternatives to lead, but right now we have
    nothing for rifle or handgun ammo that can compete. Can you imagine how
    incredibly set back the ammuntion market would be if lead were banned
    from bullet production? I'll be alot of companies would go belly up...
    
    	No-one here (IMHO) is trying to belittle the fact that lead can
    supposedly harm the ecosystem. What's being said is that certain
    factions would use/abuse this law in order to curtail firearms use
    everywhere. It could happen. We just need to make sure it doesn't...
    
    
    
    						jim s.

    Jim,
    
    Your right... it's been a long day and I'm afraid I was getting a bit
    frustrated...  Roak, I apologize for snapping like that...
    
    I'd still like to see em go to steel for skeet and trap however... it's
    a start... "even if it saves..." ;^) did I just say that... shoot me!!
    
    Fra
    

    
    
    Fra,
    
    Before I jump on the bandwagon, harming the ecosystem and all that,
    let's have some solid proof that the ecosystem is really being damaged.
    Let's not jump to conclusions.
    
    Maybe skeet fields are toxic, but do you really know?  and if so how
    bad?
    
    Maybe the WMA's in MA are toxic, but how bad is the problem, if there
    is one at all?
    
    Maybe the backwoods of VT are toxic from those 275 pellets, but then 
    again maybe not.
    
    There's good evidence the Gov't has jumped to conclusions in the lead
    poisoning debate, and also the acid rain scare.  Until our gov't isn't
    lead by special interest groups, than we will have no fair analysis of
    these highly emotional issues.
    
    So please don't take my lead pellets away until you can prove to me
    that I am damaging the ecosystem...than I'll be the first one to jump
    on that wagon...in the end I think we're both after the same thing.
    
    My opinion take it for what it's worth... 
    
    Kevin

 The study that has resulted in the lead shot ban for waterfowling is the
1959 study conducted by Dr. Frank C. Bellrose entitled "Lead Poisoning as
a Mortality Factor in Waterfowl Populations." Currently referred to as
"The Bellrose Report," this study suggested that under certain conditions,
a significant number of waterfowl could be succumbing to plumbism (lead
poisoning.)

 In the intervening years, a number of competant scientific authorities 
have questioned the accuracy of that report. In 1987, a report entitled
"Report on Bellrose's Estimates of Waterfowl Lead Poisoning" disputed
the the 28 year old findings. Its author, Gary Lorden of the California
Institute of Technology stated "Bellrose's estimates are not justified
scientifically and are substantially incorrect due to flaws in his
field study and in his mathematical analysis." A stinging indictment of 
the study upon which our non-toxic shot only laws are based.

 In a letter to the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus Foundation, G. Ray Arnett,
a former director of the California Department of Fish and Game put it this
way:

	 "Wishful thinking will not change the immutable laws of physics.
	E=�mv� yesterday, today and tomorrow. No amount of propaganda from 
	steel shot proponents will change that! Steel is not, and will never 
	be, as good as lead for taking waterfowl. Steel is notoriously
	incapable of delivering the energy to get the most out of shotshells
	(particularly the smaller gauges) and consistently chalk up clean 
	kills. The advent of steel has been responsible for greatly increasing
	the number of waterfowl lost to crippling. These are real losses, and
	in far greater number, I hate to say, than Bellrose speculated die
	from plumbism."

 As relates to waterfowl mortality, the cure appears to be worse than the
disease.

 As previously mentioned, a new type of non-toxic shot is being developed.
Bismuth shot has been quite favorably compared to lead in the areas of
velocities, pressures, ballistics and penetration. It is expected that bismuth
shot will eventually be priced competitively with steel. Preliminary studies
as to bismuth's toxicity have shown it to be non-toxic.

 Bismuth is not legal as a nontoxic shot. It seems likely that unless
politics gets in the way, it will eventually be approved. It appears that
Canadian Wildlife Service officials are moving faster on this than the US FWS.

 The Doctah

 quotes taken from Petersen's Hunting, Jan 1992, without permission.

    
    	Interesting Doctah.  I didn't see where the "Report on the
    	Report..." claimed that lead wasn't a problem.  It just claimed
    	that the "Bellrose Report" was flawed.
    
    	I can live with steel shot until a quality study is done to
    	decide one way or the other.  I just hold off 1 more count
    	before opening up on the ducks.  I've only seen one cripple
    	not retrieved, between the 3 (me and my 2 duck hunting partners)
    	of us, in the 3 years we've been shooting steel.  This is what
    	the dogs are for.
    
    	However, I surely don't want all lead banned (ie rifle bullets).
    	At least not until a suitable replacement is available.  I just
    	don't see where rifle bullets cause anywhere near the harm (if
    	any) of shot.  I would think the quantity of lead hitting the
    	ground would be many magnitudes less for rifle bullets than shot.
    
    	I also echo some of the replies about the Discovery Channel Mark.
    	Be careful.  I've seen many "anti-hunting" themes in some of their
    	shows.
    
    	Clay

>    	Interesting Doctah.  I didn't see where the "Report on the
>    	Report..." claimed that lead wasn't a problem.  It just claimed
>    	that the "Bellrose Report" was flawed.

 The issue is not whether lead does or does not have harmful properties.
A sufficient body of knowledge has evolved to justify the consensus
that lead is indeed toxic. The issue is whether the lead in shotgun pellets
is a significant factor in causing harm to wildlife, and whether this
situation is ameliorated by switching to alternative shot materials. If we
save 100,000 ducks per year from plumbism but lose 10,000,000 to cripples,
the solution is not sound. This is not to say that steel is not a solution;
it just says that it is not a good solution.

 What was missing from the article that has an impact on how I view this
issue is what are the _other_ environmental impacts of lead shot aside from
the direct waterfowl casualties due to plumbism. I am assuming that not
every poisoned duck dies as a result of ingesting the lead. What happens
to these birds? Is it a health threat to feed wild ducks to our children?
What about the tainting of our waterways? Does lead shot contribute 
significantly to this problem?

 Another major issue I have in determining the right thing to do is what 
financial impact switching over to non-toxic shot has. At what point is
cost a primary consideration? Clearly, we would not be willing to support
a solution that incuded shot that cost on the order of gold or platinum.
It would cost a mortgage worth to buy a box of shells. On the other hand, a 
few cents per round is hardly going to break many piggy banks. A big issue
for me is how much protection are we buying for how much additional money.

 If bismuth turns out to be a non-toxic solution with essentially the same
killing properties as lead, then the issue becomes completely financial.
How much are you willing to pay for this miracle shot? I think that even lead
shot can be pretty damn expensive. Are you willing to spend a dollar per shell?
How will this affect people less well off? I find that shooting sports are
becoming increasingly a sport of the elite. It's damn expensive. This, of 
course, must be balanced against the harm that releasing lead into the 
environment causes. In the absence of scientific data to guide my decision
making, I prefer to defer my support/opposition for a changeover to non-toxic
shot. Let's at least attain a preponderance of the evidence that the lead
released into the environment by gunners is a significant hazard, and that
this hazard can be substantially reduced in an economic manner by switching
to non-toxic shot before supporting such a changeover.

 re: the basenote

 I am wary of jumping on any bandwagons as a result of seeing one side of
any story. It always seems like some substantive issues are glossed over
by those preparing a piece.

 The Doctah

 PS- I'm not accusing you of jumping on any bandwagons. I think it's good
that you raised this issue for discussion.

>								...If we
>save 100,000 ducks per year from plumbism but lose 10,000,000 to cripples,
>the solution is not sound.
    
    While I agree with your overall argument of waiting to pass judgement
    until more facts are in, I have to disagree with the above.  Numbers
    notwithstanding, the reason this bothers me is that (again, making the
    assumption that lead shot does have a negative impact on the
    environment) there is a solution to the issue of cripples.  We as
    hunters may not like it, but there is a solution.
    
    Mark.

    Seems like we have two issues here.
    
    1. Is lead shot as toxic to waterfowl as advertised?
    
     I don't know.  Alot has been written in the last five years to
    indicate that it is.  Groups other then those inhabited by "anti's"
    seem to think it is (ie DU, Fish & Wildlife, etc).  I can't think of
    a good reason why these folks would perpetuate the myth. These groups
    are in buisness because of hunters so it would make no sense for them
    to put undo preassure on hunters unless they felt it was necessary.
    Mayby I'm naive, but I tend to believe them.
    
    2. The second issue is whether or not steel causes more harm then it
      solves by creating more cripples.
    
    I don't believe this is a problem if hunters take reasonable shots. 
    Its a matter of common sense.  If your wounding alot of birds then
    you either need to practice up on your shooting or let the birds get
    closer before you let rip.
    
    Jeff

    Doctah said it pretty well... I should have you write all my replys...
    ;^)  it'll keep me outa trouble
    
    Last night when I got home I read a couple of articles on steel shot...
    alot of it was very enlightening.  And while Roak is correct by saying
    essentially that we shouldn't bite the hand that feeds us, there are
    times when each of us should decide when it is feasible to use
    alternative methods to achieve the same end result.  Rick said it all
    when he stated he'd go steel from now on... to me thats being
    environmentally aware.  I guess thats what I was trying to say in a
    round about way, but ended up jumping in with both feet.
    
    Roak, I wasn't aware that they wanted to word anything to exclude all
    lead... and apologize for skimming over your previous note.  I don't
    want to burn bridges behind me, I'm not saying "ban anything"... just
    saying that each of us in our own little way should try and be more
    consious of our environment... if we can get away with using steel,
    then use it where possible... 275 lead pellets might not be a lot, but
    we all fire more than once in our lives.  Anyone have figures on the 
    amount of lead shot (by the lb) used each year??
    
    One of the articles which I read; Guns and Ammo (Best Of) 1991, 
    entitled;  "Steel Shot: Does it really work?" pg. 26
    
    here's some of the info which might surprise some of you:
    
    - more profit margin in the manufacture of lead shot
    - steel shot is expensive because of manufacturing steps to produce
    - handloading steel shot is more complex and even dangerous (getting
    better however) as knowledge grows, and good reliable data and
    components become available.
    - barrel damage from steel shot use in older guns
    - damage usually only occurs in chokes tighter than modified, and then
    only in doubles/over-unders with thin soft barrels.
    - steel will never be as good as lead, but it's close
    - early steel ammo wasn't very good, much better now
    - steel has a horrible rep, due mostly to talk/writeups not shooting.
    - steel shot patterns better
    - maintains a tighter pattern (allowing more hits)
    - steel shot (2 sizes larger per given application) maintains more
    downrange energy than it's lead counterpart: 
    #6 lead/1-1/4oz/281 pellets/MV 1330 fps/60 yrds/1.3 ft-lbs   
    -vs-  
    #4 steel/1 1/8oz/211 pellets/MV 1365 fps/60 yds/1.4 ft-lbs
    
    - fewer pellets, but superior patterning quality allowing it to catch
    up on hits
    - direct quote "starts to make those fellows who said they crippled
    every bird they hit (at reasonable ranges) look a little silly"
    - you can go to a bigger gun or heavier load to get the same or greater
    pellet count.
    - the 2 sizes larger theory allows the same penetration.
    - cripples cause: not steel, not lead... but too much range, too little
    cartridge, or poor shooting.
    - it's not perfect, steel shots shooting qualities arn't the finest, 
    and it's politics are rotten (Roak)
    - direct quote "I do believe that we should use steel shot in areas
    where lead is harmful to wildlife, and fight like hell to prevent lead
    shot bans where there is no scientific need for them" (Roak)
    
    FWIW,  Fra
    

    
    re .24
    
    And that solution is?
    
    Ahhh let me guess, taking resonalbe shots, etc...
    
    That's great for you and me, but what about the x number of people who
    don't do that?  You've probably hunted areas with higher hunter
    concentrations than me, but our public hunting areas (in the
    Missisquoi National Wildlife Refugee) can get pretty busy, and I've
    seen LOTS of skybusters...I would guess the majority.  Now this being
    the case, how do you propose to fix this?  The switch to steel didn't
    change the behavior, they just loose a lot more ducks now.  I shake my
    head when it happens...can't believe they'd waste the bird, never mind
    the money!!!
    
    Now I've been a very active duck hunter for 15 years, not a long time,
    but long enough.  And I'll tell you just when I think I've got steel
    shot figured out, my theories go out the window.  With 1 1/2 oz. of
    lead 5's I was deadlier than heck...I use to get upset because I didn't
    shoot enough.  And I've had my good days with steel.  But from what
    I've learned:
    
     - it is NOT as deadly as lead.
    
    I've quantified that the following ways; 
     
     1. very seldom does a bird die on the first hit, they usually have to
        be dispatched on the water (oh my God!!!) or their still kicking  
        when the dog brings them back.
    
     2. Lots and lots of hit birds fly away.  Feathers everywhere, bird
        looses altitude, but makes it 200-500 yards, or even worse flys
        out of sight.  I've recovered many of these birds, thanks to my
        dog and just pure persistance.  I've even found birds that my
    	group has downed floating in the water that noone knew we had hit.
    	Think of the ramifications of that!!!  They didn't die of heart
    	attack, but as we call it "The classic steel shot cripple."  A bird
    	hit with a few pellets that doesn't show signs of being hit, but 
        flys off and dies.  
    
     3. Examining hundreds of bird carcasses over the years shows the
        difference anatomically between a bird hit with lead, and one hit
        with steel.  Lead shot generally stays in the carcass, cutting and
        transferring optimal energy for quick kills.  Steel is more like
        hitting them with arrows, less energy is transferred, as the steel
        does not deform when hitting the bird, and generally passes through
        the carcass.  Hence longer lifetimes after being hit, and more
        external bleeding of the birds.
    
     -it really sucks at close ranges
    
     1. What stinks about it is the pattern, not just in the X-Y direction
        but more on a 3 dimensional level.  There is a very limited shot
        string, from my reading of Tom Roster (who is a steel advocate),
        it's the shot string that kills, as the bird flys through it.  I
        thought the reason I had poor performance with steel on ducks (I
        used 2,3,4's..mostly 3's) was because I wasn't letting them get in
        close enough.  So I let the birds come in...I mean really come in.
    	I couldn't hit crapola.  But they were clean misses, at least they
        appeared to be.  This is another theoretical aspect of the steel
        shot debate, cleaner misses because of tighter patterns....pure
        crap, except at close ranges.
    
    2.  So I let the birds get out there, 40+ yds, and some 50 yds.  I was
        dropping them like bad habits.  No question it can kill at those
    	ranges, and for me that's where I needed to shoot at them.  But
    	this is also where the high crippling losses come into effect. 
    	A lot of people can't hit birds at that range.  So it stinks in
        close and it sticks out where there's enough of a pattern to hit
    	consistently.
    
    	I don't have the numbers with me, but would be interested to see the
    	down range energy per pellet of a comparable load, #2 steel, #4
    	lead at 40 yards.  I believe it takes 4.5 ft. lbs of energy to kill
    	a mallard sized duck.  
    
    
    I have tried to remain objective in this issue.  A few years ago I was
    on the bandwagon for steel shot.  Now I'm leaning against it again,
    with new data supporting poor field testing, high crippling losses,
    etc.  
    	
    Kevin
    
    
    
    
    
    

    
    re .26
    
    Fra,
    
    There are some outright myths in that article.  Someone's selling
    something there...
    
    Pattern steel and see if you believe that stuff.  I'm just calling the
    kettle black, as in my reply that obviously got in after yours...
    
    Kevin

    
    	Ever thought about becoming a judge Doctah? :*)
    
    	Kevin beat me to it but I've experienced the same.  I'd say
    	more than half of the birds we knock down (ie drop almost
    	immediately) have to be finished off with another shot.  I've
    	never found a steel pellet in any of the birds I've taken with
    	it either.  I guess we're lucky we hunt in a fairly wide open
    	area that allows us to see where the birds go down even if it's
    	300 yards away.  I'm sure if we hunted in more *dense* areas,
    	we would have lost more than just the one.......
    
    	Clay

 re: Mark

> there is a solution to the issue of cripples.  We as
>    hunters may not like it, but there is a solution.

 The solution of course being that of taking closer shots. What that requires
is alot of education. Meanwhile, how many ducks do we sacrifice? How long
do you think it will take to get most duck hunters to stop skyblasting,
and how many ducks must be sacrificed to get hunters used to the idea of
using inferior shot? My personal belief is that if bismuth shot works out,
steel ought to be phased out (assuming that lead poisoning is a significant 
problem, of course.)

  The Doctah

Re: <<< Note 1121.19 by KNGBUD::LAFOSSE >>>
    
>>    Your right... it's been a long day and I'm afraid I was getting a bit
>>    frustrated...  Roak, I apologize for snapping like that...

Apology not accepted because it's me, not you, that should be apologizing; sorry
about that. As an explaination, not an excuse, this is why I reaacted so
strongly to your note:

>>                     <<< Note 1121.15 by KNGBUD::LAFOSSE >>>
>>                    -< it's a step in the right direction >-

This, thought well ment, set off bells and whistles just because it's almost
*exactly* the same quote anti-gunners use when talking about gun-control.
Think back, remember all the congress-critters talking about the Brady Bill
being a "necessary first step"?  Which of course implies more and later steps.
Leading to we-all-know-where.

>>    Is is worth it to our environment...  I think so, my children think so,
>>    and i'm sure my grandchildren will think so... no doubt the ecosystem
>>    will too...

This sounded a lot like "if it saves only one duck", just like the cry "if it
only saves one life" that again the antis use to try passing restrictive gun
laws.
    
>>    someone mentioned that lead in bullets being the next thing outlawed... 
>>    could happen, doubtful...   big difference between 1 bullet and 275 +/-
>>    lead pellets scattered throughout the forest floor everytime someone
>>    pulls the trigger.

This assumes that the anti-gun/anti-hunting crowd is trustworthy.  More on this
later...

*******************************************************************************

Again, this is just to illustrate that you touched a nerve with the phrasing of
your replies, and that's why I responded so sharply; it was mostly the phrasing,
rather than the content that got me upset; I should reply to content rather than
my emotions.

Again, sorry.

                            Roak

    Where are the advid Trap and skeet shooters?
    
    I am against steel shot on trap and skeet fields
    
    because in my mind there is another solution which is cost effective.
    
    The solution for target shooting (i.e. clays ) is going
    
    out and recovering spent shot.Mining the lead.....
    
    
    Sincerely,
    RC GAth
    
    
    
    
    

About the lead shot bans not covering rifle bullets; you're right, none of the
bans address bullets.  However, we should all know by now that the anti-gun/
anti-hunting groups will twist and distort law beyond it's intent if it furthers
their goals.  Take the note that was placed in here a few days ago about the
word "emergency" missing from the law, and therefore a hunt was blocked.

It matters not that the law was there to allow an emergency hunt; the
anti-hunters were able to block a hunt merely because of an error on the order
of a clerical error.

Restrictions on lead in general are tightening; ask any commercial
bullet-caster.  The EPA is considering further controls.  HCI even suggested
some restrictions to the EPA a year or two ago (anyone remeber the details?).
If HCI is suggesting to the EPA restrictions on lead, you can bet that it isn't
for the preservation of the environment, can you?

So let me set the PR stage for you:  A few years down the road all lead shot is
banned with the agreement of the shooters in order to protect the environment.

Further EPA restrictions of releasing lead into the environment are imposed,
with no mention of bullets.  HCI probably in concert with anti-hunting groups
files suit against all the major bullet makers, since they are knowingly selling
their product to be released into the environment.  Note that HCI doesn't have
to win the suit, just make it too costly to fight (this is their exact reasoning
behind the Washington DC liability law -- file enough suits and the gunmakers
will go out of business).

And of course, one of the major claims is that "shooters already knew and
*agreed* that releasing lead into the environment is damaging, becuase they
*agreed* to ban lead shot!"

You either have to agree with the ban or do an abrupt about-face and loose
trust.  A no-win situation.

So you're right, lead shot bans do not mention bullets.  The threat for bullets
is from the EPA.  But if and (more likely) when someone "extends" (read:
stretches) the law to cover bullets, the ban on lead shot will dovetail nicely
into their case.

If there's solid, scientific data that lead shot is harmful, I'm all for a ban.
The shooters can point to the data and say "that's why we agreed to the ban".
But to agree to a ban because "it might save one duck" will play right into the
anti-hunters hands; after all, if it might save bambi, it's worth a ban, right?

I just don't think the old study was made with the correct controls and it
certainly didn't take into account the unrecovered birds wounded by steel shot!

No matter how careful people are, or how much people practice or how many "slob"
hunters we can get out of the fields there will always be wounded birds.  If,
after you take a realistic guess at the number of carful people, a realistic
guess at people who practice and a realistic guess at the number of "slob"
hunters, you can come up with a realistic guess at the number of wounded
birds (note, not the number you *wish* were wounded -- which would be zero,
but a *realistic* number) and compare that with the number of lead deaths.

If it's less, go for a ban.  If it's more, scrap it.

                               Roak

    
    
>    	If I may answer for James, 
                            ^^^^^
    
    	Oops! hehe...sorry about that Roak! Didn't mean to call you
    james....I guess your debating style just reminds me of Jim Percival.
    
    
    jim s. (slightly embarassed)

Re: <<< Note 1121.34 by LUDWIG::SADIN "does it hurt to bend like that?" >>>

>>    	Oops! hehe...sorry about that Roak! Didn't mean to call you
>>    james....I guess your debating style just reminds me of Jim Percival.

Hadn't even noticed!  Since I like Jim's debating style, I'll take that as a
complement, thanks!
                               Roak

    
    
    	Several have said or hinted that "Ban the stuff" is OK by them.
    
    	Well does this mean that you would want to see a ban on lead for
    	non-hunting use too??
    
    
    	The trap area at our club, Nashua Fish & Game, has been graded
    	to collect the lead shot into a deep pit. The water run-off then
    	perks on through the ground leaving the lead and clay behind.
    
    	Why are you opposed to this?  There is no habitat endangered with
    	this type of set up. The lead can be recovered.
    
    	What else I detect that would happen with a total lead ban, would
    	be the elimination of older and some casses classic shotguns that
    	have served their owners well. Are they to be destryoed by steel
    	shot or reduced to wall ornaments over the fireplace?
    
    	Gary

    "Lead released in the environment" remains mostly inert. The reason
    a bird might be poisoned from it is because of the grinding action
    of their gizzards. This breaks down the lead into "lead salts" which
    are absorbed into the birds bloodstream. Sickness or death results
    in the inability of the blood to absorb oxygen. Now the crippling
    vs. lead poision is a matter all together (I don't like steel and
    have had a LOT more cripples using greater caution than w/lead).
      Again lead is mostly inert and does not release its poison into
    the water (in the quantity we're discussing. Lead water pipes, paint
    and etc are of a different nature). I would'nt put it past HCI to
    join the greenies in pushing a concept past all reason, to get their
    way.
    
    chuck (who hopes he remembered the stuff on bird poisoning correctly)
        

    
    	Well I saw a little part of a show on the Discovery channel tonight
    	talking about the lead ingestion problem. Since it was the tail
    	end of the show I don't know if was the same in the base note. 
    
    	One ending comment from the narrator "with the conservation dollar
     	coming from those same people that endanger the habitat with lead
    	little chance exists for this problem to reverse it's self anytime
    	soon."
    
    	Nice huh...

    
    	And there you have it about the Discovery Channel........
    
    	They do have some good stuff on it though.
    
    	Clay

    	I can't remember if it was the 'Discover' show or not.  I came in
    the middle of it but saw 2 or 3 film strips of skeet set-ups where
    shooters were firing with a close-by river/brook as the background.
    	The narrator said at one point that game officials estimate nearly
    1/2 (40 something percent) of the water-fowlers break the law by using
    lead shot.  Is that obsurd - or do we really have that many bad-sports?
    
    Andy