Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Ouellette
Pete,
Your logic is sound but your wrath toward me is not justified. I responded from my point of view because that is what this threat was about, despite the title, waterfowling and upland hunting with lead. From an economic basis the cost of non-toxic ammo for most is small compared to all other hunting costs. Gas to go hunting ususally costs me more than the ammo.
Had you ask me what I think of the lead ban for any species my response would have been very close to that of Kensel. I had typed something similar but lost it...  Kensel's response was definately on target!
The present situation is that one can break the law and risk a fine and their gun, follow the law like a good citizen, or be politically active to change the law. Since you must be the latter please send me a copy of the correspondences you have sent to Congress so that I may quickly do the same.
Mark |
There was no wrath. I simply pointed out that what you expressed is a common point of view taken by many who don't shoot enough shells to be adversely affected. You truly believe the law is reversible? I think that is at best wishful thinking and that a broader requirement for non-tox for everything is on the horizon. I truly believe we have as much chance reversing it as we would to have laws relaxed for the use of DDT. Being green and saving the planet is a majority of public opinion and a very popular political stance if you want to be elected. If you care to shovel it against an incoming tide I am sure you are capable without my help. Lead in the environment has been considered a toxin to be eliminated for 40 years, taken out of gasoline, paint, solder, shotguns. It was pretty obvious to me lead as firearm projectile days were numbered when our armed forces began moving to non toxic ammunition for small arms.
FWIW I was successful in stopping a proposal from going forward by the L/E division of my state's wildlife agency that if implemented would have technically made it a violation for hunting over bait if you were in a cut cornfield or standing under an oak tree. Sounds ridiculous but true, the reason, there was ONE guy they couldn't catch poaching bears over bait, the solution create a law so broad it would make the L/E job easier. Their answer about the corn field oak tree problem, "no L/E officer would do that, there is officer discretion". Had I not pointed out the law would affect those hunting cut cornfields an sitting by an oak tree it had a good chance of becoming law.