I think the requirement to use non-tox is misplaced. Originally intended to eliminate lead poisoning in areas subject to high volume shooting of lead, (a very small percentage of waterfowl shooting) it required higher cost, less effective shot. A better long term requirement would have been to allow continued use of lead, but to place a tax on "Waterfowl" shot equal to the increased cost of steel shot. The increased revenue would be used to buy and improve waterfowl habitat. (can you say Ducks Unlimited)? Would be a win for everyone, including those of us who like to shoot old guns. Unfortunately, it's too simple and effective solution, so it has no chance of ever being implemented
__________________
"Striving to become the man my dog thinks I am"
|