non-toxic shot and parkers

[OH Osthaus]

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

autoloader??? they shoot ducks with pistols

I agree the cost doesn't stop me, but that doesn't mean its justified, with luck and or hard work, I can pretty much do what I like. although I do know it does affect some people.

Heck on the days I do drive to the office (its a 150 mile round trip in a 4Runner) I haven't had to sell a Parker or even a Fox or a bamboo rod for a tankfull - yet

[Kensal Rise]

JB:
Your wisdom is showing again. Good.

The issue I have with steel/non-tox shot is that it is totally UNNECESSARY. The law that requires it is based on junk science. Many studies have proven this. So... to appease enviro-idiots who were occupying college admin buildings when I was hunting ducks with lead, we have a law. Based on nothing but imagined ills. And oh yes... more ducks and waterfowl than ever before -- and not one of which has ever been found to have ingested non-tox shot and kept it in their systems long enough to die of any related poisoning!

I'll wager you could pour a handful of lead No. 4 down a Canada goose and it would be in the grass inside of 20 minutes.

Sadly, the "hippies" are now running the government, and we get to ruin a good Parker with unnecessary "technology" or get arrested by one of their minions. Some Brave New World.

Best, Kensal

[J. A. EARLY]

What does gripe me is that I shoot lead at doves over the same field that I can't use lead for geese. But I guess the lead for doves will come to an end all too soon with the idiots in charge of the regulations.

But from all of this, has been developed the heavier than lead shot, which when shooting at geese and turkeys delivers results that could never be achieved with lead. But a box (5 shells) of the Hevi-shot Turkey blend is now $35 up from what was $25 last year! That is beyond belief.

I guess I'm going back to loading it myself for modern guns and back to lead only in doubles for turkey hunting. At $7 a shot for what was $2.50 two years ago I hope they price themselves out of the market.

[J.B. Books]

If you don't shoot a lot of shells per year in the field and therefore you are not concerned with a negative economic impact from a broader non-tox mandate, consider what a lead ban may do to the resale value of your classic american doubles. I suspect all but the most collectable specimins will lose value in the market and the overall interest in classic doubles will wane due to their limited usefulness in a non-tox shot world. 20+ years later after lead was banned for waterfowling, no replacement has been found that meets all three criteria of economical, effective and safe for old doubles.

[MarketHunter]

This lead ban is coming boys, maybe it won't happen next season but it's coming. And yes, I think it will hurt the market for old guns. When I was a kid in Southern Illinois a Browning A5 Magnum or a 3 inch Model 12 Winchester was like a piece of gold. Now you could hardly give one to most waterfowlers because they're afraid to shoot steel out of them.


Destry

[J.B. Books]

Originally Posted by Destry L. Hoffard

This lead ban is coming boys, maybe it won't happen next season but it's coming. And yes, I think it will hurt the market for old guns. When I was a kid in Southern Illinois a Browning A5 Magnum or a 3 inch Model 12 Winchester was like a piece of gold. Now you could hardly give one to most waterfowlers because they're afraid to shoot steel out of them.


Destry

I would expect Trojans, V, P, and G's would suffer the same fate, and of course if their value is signifcantly affected then I guess you might as well run the steel shot through them and not worry about it.

[Big Friend Ten (BFT)]

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

[J.B. Books]

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.

[Big Friend Ten (BFT)]

Pete,

Good work on the Oak Tree Bait Issue!

If you want to concede to the greenies on the lead shot issue then why complain about it and correct me for making a simple economic assessment? My assessment was correct. For most the price of non-toxic for hunting is a small part of hunting costs. If lead would be banned for target shooting then we’d all be in trouble.

I do not think that the law concerning no lead for waterfowl is reversible but it is the place to dig in our political feet and stand our ground. Since you were so quick to educate me on the shortsightedness of what you perceive my views are, I asked you to share with us your political correspondence so that we, or at least me, could learn from your actions and send similar correspondence to our/my representatives. Politicians keep that of the numbers of letters, email, and phone call their offices receive that are for or against an issue. Letters get the most points, then emails, followed by calls.

To paraphrase a Bruce Willis movie line, We are either part of the solution or part of the problem. Complaining to others feels good but accomplishes little. Organizing and complaining to politicians might make a difference. It seems to work for the NRA!

Mark

[J.B. Books]

Mark, I rather doubt there are more than 100 high volume crow hunters in the country and Scott K. and I are probably in very small group of those using vintage doubles to do it. I don't there would be much political sympathy for our particular sport. What is the next high volume game shooting, Dove?

Where the feds messed up on waterfowl with regards to non-tox might be avoided if an exception was made say for guns that can be purchased with a C&R license (easily ID's as an antique). The argument would be the owners of vintage doubles will suffer a significant monetary loss if a total lead ban is enacted and we should either be exempt or compensated for it.