Sanity prevailed in Wyoming when I lived there in the mid-late 80's. In that State lead was allowed when hunting over dry land or moving water, i.e., rivers, since the liklihood of waterfowl ingesting lead was nil to non-existent. Eventually, however, the argument switched from waterfowl ingestion of lead to eagle ingestion of ducks carrying lead shot in their bodies. Even Wyoming lost that battle.
I have heard some conservation minded hunters defend this decision and similarly defend the banning of lead rifle bullets.
I never have nor will I ever support such nonsense. Destry is exactly right in that many who's objective is to ban hunting altogether are happy to use lead bans as a surrogate or at least a foot in the door.
Wouldn't it be grand to know the number of eagles and other top predators, as well as waterfowl, effected by now-banned pesticides as compared to lead. Do we support the continiued use of such products by importing many of our fruits and vegetables from other countries? Not much different than the evriros working to ban timber harvest on public lands while we continue to buy the same from our northern neighbors. It's called exporting your conscience and its maddening. We have the best technology in the world but some people prefer that we not use it.
|