non-toxic shot and parkers

[Duckman]

Around here they have an electonic device that they stick a shell in and get a reading on whether it's nontoxic or not. No cutting open. The wardens all know me and never check me but interestingly, a couple of years ago I gave the warden a Nice shot load I had made up and it failed the test. He didn't take me to task on it but it showed that the machine wasn't ready for some of the new nontoxics. It wasn't a magnetic issue either. I don't know if they have modified it yet to accept Nice shot.

[MarketHunter]

I had that same problem in Canada a couple years ago when I was testing the new NiceShot 10 gauge loads for RST. Warden stuck one in the machine and it came up lead, he could see the printing on the shell obviously, and didn't give me any trouble about it though. Sometimes technology takes a minute to catch up.

DLH

[Steve Hodges]

Yes, technology does take a bit to catch up, but by Code of Federal Regulations - Title 50: Wildlife and Fisheries section #6 "Field detection device. Before approval of any shot for use in migratory game bird hunting, a noninvasive field testing device must be available for enforcement officers to determine the shot material in a given shell in the field." This obviously precludes the need for a fish and wildlife officer from cutting a shell open to determine if the shot in it is indeed non-toxic and therefore legal for migratory bird hunting. Personally, I feel the advise to disregard these federal regulations is ill advised, and could result in a confiscation of your firearm, loss of hunting privileges and a substantial fine. But further, and perhaps more importantly, such advise flies in the face of “doing what is right”. As members of this fine organization we should both publicly and privately represent the best in shooting and hunting ethics. We owe this to future generations. I’ll now dismount my high horse.

[Dean Romig]

Well said Steve. And good advice too.

For those of you who might not know Steve yet, he is a 30 plus year NH Law Enforcement veteran... and a damn nice guy too.

[J.B. Books]

FWIW, the reason you don't encounter a "shell checker" in the field too often is a combination of their cost, lack of 100% reliability and more importantly the most accurate machines use fairly powerful rare earth magnets that present a health hazard through exposure to them. If you want to have some fun with the warden tell him you know what it is and how it works and let him know you'd like to step back about ten paces before he turns it on.

On more serious note although I agree with Steve it has hard to ignore the trampling of freedom by that law for making it an offense to simply have lead shot on one's person when waterfowl hunting. This presumption of guilt prevents one from carrying a couple of lead slugs (they are not shot but many agencies will ticket a duck hunter for having them) when deer and waterfowl seasons overlap. Similiarly when crow hunting there are many times during the early goose season to shoot a goose. Geese usually give plenty of warning of their approach, enough time to switch to a heavy load of big non tox shot but if you shoot at the goose you have all the lead crow loads on your person which breaks the law. IMO the law is flawed, it should be what shell was used to take a bird not what you have in your pocket. It assumes one is a criminal before you pull the trigger and that is wrong. The same approach used elsewhere would make one a drunk driver for having a six pack in your truck or woman guilty of prostitution because she has the plumbing.

[ch]

I'll play by the rules so far..... I agree with Steve. But I will follow Pete's advice if I ever have the chance. Never talked to a game warden in my life. They got a lot of ground to cover around here. best ch FWIW??? Pete

[Big Friend Ten (BFT)]

Steve’s comments are sound. For years many duck hunters would shoot lead and chance not getting caught. If they did their logic was that the cost of good non-toxic for a few years of shooting would be much more than a fine for getting caught with lead shot. It looks like the Fed’s finally figured that out and are now confiscating the tools of the crime.

Maybe one of our attorneys could comment of this. I understand that game law allows a warden to enter one’s premises without a warrant should he (she) have probably cause. That gives our game wardens the broadest powers of any law enforcement personnel. Well, maybe the Patriot act allows some 3-letter agencies more but hopefully we don’t have to worry about those issues…

Mark

[OH Osthaus]

Originally Posted by Mark Ouellette

Maybe one of our attorneys could comment of this. I understand that game law allows a warden to enter one’s premises without a warrant should he (she) have probably cause.
Mark

i am no lawyer, but probable cause - referrenced in the 4th amendment - is the basis for all searches ad arrests, I doubt that differers for game wardens. To enter without a warrent requires a high level of belief that a crime is being commited at that moment or someone is in immediate danger.

Game wardens are for the most part over worked, unfortunately to the point of little effectiveness. my three interactions with both state and fed have been in reporting violations - three times, not once did they react - even though the violation was still occurring near by. I have never been check for license or loads and I have been at this for awhile.

I will admit the assumption of guilt is annoying, if I carry buckshot to protect my dogs against coyotes, I am illegally deer hunting.

Non Tox is the law (and for waterfowl I think it does make sense)- if I expected to find ducks on a grouse hunt - then its non tox for grouse. If I only have lead, the ducks are safe.

so avoiding confiscation of your gear is not too diificult, assuming honest enforcement.

if I were to complain - it would be the cost of non tox shells, i sometimes wonder if it can always be justified, sorta like gas - got have it - gonna pay for it.

[Big Friend Ten (BFT)]

Rick,

Long ago I gave up the autoloaders for waterfowl. If I have but 2 shots with up to $3 in each tube, I make those two shots count!

When hunting with my autoloader friends they would fill their limits sooner than did I. At week's end when comparing the number of ducks taken and number of shots fired my kill ratio was almost twice as high. That was with me not being as good a wingshot as those auto shooters.

I look at it this way. I work long and hard and make $xx per hour. If I need to shoot 7 or 8 times for 5 ducks even at $3 per shot it is still a great buy compared to other pleasures. Heck, the gas to drive to the hunting area probably cost me as much as the day's non-toxic ammo. So, if the ammo costs too much maybe one should stop taking risky shots. Isn't that what decoys are for, to lure the game into range...

Mark

[J.B. Books]

Originally Posted by Mark Ouellette

Rick,

Long ago I gave up the autoloaders for waterfowl. If I have but 2 shots with up to $3 in each tube, I make those two shots count!

When hunting with my autoloader friends they would fill their limits sooner than did I. At week's end when comparing the number of ducks taken and number of shots fired my kill ratio was almost twice as high. That was with me not being as good a wingshot as those auto shooters.

I look at it this way. I work long and hard and make $xx per hour. If I need to shoot 7 or 8 times for 5 ducks even at $3 per shot it is still a great buy compared to other pleasures. Heck, the gas to drive to the hunting area probably cost me as much as the day's non-toxic ammo. So, if the ammo costs too much maybe one should stop taking risky shots. Isn't that what decoys are for, to lure the game into range...

Mark

Yes Mark and what will we do when lead is outlawed for all hunting? I use 1600 - 2000 shells year through a double to hunt crows. I guess when that happens I will trade in a Parker for a Rem 1100 and shoot the cheapest steel shot available. Non-Tox is completely impractical from an economic stand point for any high volume shooting whether game or clay. We tend to look at things and pass judgment through the narrow prism of how something affects us personnally rather than the overall impact on the shooting sports.