What is your take on the ever increasing non toxic shot requirments?

onpoint

onpoint

Active member
Myself, it's a sad deal. I have numerous fixed choke guns and would love to use them as many of our fathers and grand fathers did. South Dakota really ticks me off with their non toxic on all public lands. IMO, just a little over board. We can still use lead for upland on all WMA's, county and state land in Minnesota unless marked and I have never seen a single parcel marked as no lead shot.

Today's Prem. non toxic is WAY too expensive for my income.

What will happen to all our fixed choke guns if the current trend continues?
 
Read the research on lead in general. Then read the research on lead in venison. I understand that lead in birds is different, but that research will come. This is an enviromental issue, a human health issue and, for hunters, a public relations issue.

The sooner we ban lead the better. I stopped using it three years ago. I use only non-toxic shot. It is expensive, but let's be honest about the overall costs of hunting. A mediocre steak and two beers in a small town would buy 10 2$ shells and that is all most decent hunters need to shoot their limit. I hunted 5 days this year and shot 18 shells and shot 7 birds; a great shot would have had 10 birds, a full limit. $36 dollars is not the issue if you are a mildly competent shot.

If cost is an issue, buy steel shells.

I don't want my pregnant daughter eating a pheasant with lead shot. I don't want to eat a pheasant with lead shot. I don't want other wildlife eating the spent shot. We know the old research on ducks and other birds ingesting lead. Surely that is happening on dry land as well.

The cost argument is a loser for any discussion of this issue with non-hunters. And, I think it makes hunters look silly given the millions we spend on guns and equipment, much of it ineffective or poorly used.

Hunters need to have a principled and consistent enviromental ethic to stand our ground in the public arena, and to attract new hunters. What would Aldo Leopold say today on this issue.

The sooner we lose lead shot, the better. And, guess what? The expensive non-toxic shells perform better than lead. Further, basic economics tells us that the price will fall; perhaps not dramatically, but it will tend to be flat or fall.

I understand there is another side to the argument, but those views no matter how strongly held will not hold up well over time.

The fact that Federal and other ammo makers are surely paying millions to lobby on this issue is regrettable. They should focus on R and D spending and make a better shell.

I don't fish and won't start the discussion on lead sinkers etc; but that too is an issue that will arise.
 
Ben123 said:
Read the research on lead in general. Then read the research on lead in venison. I understand that lead in birds is different, but that research will come. This is an enviromental issue, a human health issue and, for hunters, a public relations issue.

The sooner we ban lead the better. I stopped using it three years ago. I use only non-toxic shot. It is expensive, but let's be honest about the overall costs of hunting. A mediocre steak and two beers in a small town would buy 10 2$ shells and that is all most decent hunters need to shoot their limit. I hunted 5 days this year and shot 18 shells and shot 7 birds; a great shot would have had 10 birds, a full limit. $36 dollars is not the issue if you are a mildly competent shot.

If cost is an issue, buy steel shells.

I don't want my pregnant daughter eating a pheasant with lead shot. I don't want to eat a pheasant with lead shot. I don't want other wildlife eating the spent shot. We know the old research on ducks and other birds ingesting lead. Surely that is happening on dry land as well.

The cost argument is a loser for any discussion of this issue with non-hunters. And, I think it makes hunters look silly given the millions we spend on guns and equipment, much of it ineffective or poorly used.

Hunters need to have a principled and consistent enviromental ethic to stand our ground in the public arena, and to attract new hunters. What would Aldo Leopold say today on this issue.

The sooner we lose lead shot, the better. And, guess what? The expensive non-toxic shells perform better than lead. Further, basic economics tells us that the price will fall; perhaps not dramatically, but it will tend to be flat or fall.

I understand there is another side to the argument, but those views no matter how strongly held will not hold up well over time.

The fact that Federal and other ammo makers are surely paying millions to lobby on this issue is regrettable. They should focus on R and D spending and make a better shell.

I don't fish and won't start the discussion on lead sinkers etc; but that too is an issue that will arise.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree. The lead thing has got WAY out of hand after some doctor in North Dakota started this onslaught a couple of deer season's ago. 100s of 1000s of pounds of "DONATED" venison was sent to landfills. Our ancestors have eaten game shot with lead for 100's of years and lived a full and happy life. A friend of mines father use to carry the lead BB's of a Daisey gun of yester year in his front lip. He had a IQ of a genus and was a very successful engineer. Fact is, more waterfowl have been wounded from steel shot than died from injesting lead shot. That's a real step forward..NOT!

Pushing the the exotic shots will only push many from the sport should it gain any support. The cost is way out of line for many and family obligations will out way recreation. That is what the anti's would like to see. It is another way to stop hunting in it's tracks. High dollar collector guns could become worthless over night.
 
Last edited:
onpoint,
Thanks for stepping up there buddy, I agree with you 110%. My one great grandmother lived to be 98 yrs young and would have lived longer if he had not fallen out of bed and broke her hip, my other great gandma was 101 years young. My grandparents lived to be in their 90s and they all growing up and until they were no longer able to care for themselves always ate some ( lots really) wild meat shot with lead bullets. I have a friend who is 90 and he is the same, he told me he never ate much anything other than wild meat growing up because they could not afford it. He was born in 1919 and is still around. All shot with lead shot. With my luck I will bite in to a piece of meat shot with steel shot, break a tooth and die from infection.
:)
 
Here's a quote from a study of lead vs steel -

Shooter and shotshell effectiveness were tested during the 1979 waterfowl season at the Schell-Osage Wildlife Management Area (WMA), Missouri. Hunters who participated in the study bagged 1,967 ducks with 10,587 shots. No significant differences in bagging, crippling, or missing rates were measured among 4 Winchester 12 gauge loads: #4 buffered and unbuffered lead and #4 and #2 steel. Shooter effectiveness declined as distance increased. Crippling rates were not influenced by distance. Hunters reported good shotshell performance for all shells but indicated negative attitudes toward steel shot.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3781729

Earlier research showed significant numbers of waterfowl died from ingesting lead pellets while feeding. Thus the ban on lead in waterfowl areas.

While lead poisoning is serious in humans (from sources such as leaded gasoline and paint pigments), I'm not aware of any study which links lead-shot game to human lead poisoning. Here's is a X-ray of an Alaskan woman whose appendix was full of lead shot from ducks. She did not have systemic lead poisoning.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cBkbdLQJPmM/R7W-yOFZIGI/AAAAAAAAAQM/uM6WCksPxG8/s320/xray350.499.jpg


There's plenty of opinion and myth about steel vs lead.

Most folks agree that steel does not damage modern guns or older guns which are less than full choke. Certainly hundreds millions of steel loads have been fired through millions of guns by now.

Some experienced hunters claim that steel does not kill as well as lead. Others think it's just fine.

Steel does cost a bit more, but I recently bought some on sale at Wal*Mart for less than $8/box.

Tungsten and Hevi-shot cost more, but no doubt they kill at least as well as lead, maybe better.
 
Last edited:
Floyd, it was a women in charge that made all this controversy from North Dakota at the time.

Here is more on this matter
http://www.jesseshunting.com/articles/hunting/category2/241.html

Story continued, “It should come as no surprise that America’s leading opponent of hunting, fishing and trapping has mischaracterized the findings of the CDC report. It will resort to any means necessary to deny the rights of sportsmen.”North Dakota Lead in Venison Research Results Released


The CDC standards suggest that blood/lead levels of 10 micrograms per deciliter are at the danger level for toxicity. Still, it's not unusual for normal individuals to have some lead in their bodies. According to a pamphlet released by the North Dakota Department of Health, entitled Lead and Venison Update:

The amount of lead in the human body is most often measured as micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood. One microgram of lead per deciliter of blood (μg/dl) is equal to 10 parts per billion. A lead level of zero is preferred for health reasons, according to Dr. Stephen Pickard, an epidemiologist with the North Dakota Department of Health,but it is not unusual to see lead levels of up to 2.0 in people across the United States.


The study results, released earlier this month, showed that people who eat venison killed with lead ammunition do show a generally higher blood/lead level than people who did not eat any. The study also showed that people who had eaten venison recently had a higher concentration of lead in their blood than those who had not eaten it in a while. However, none of the study participants showed dangerously high lead levels. The results ranged from no detectable lead to 9.82 micrograms per deciliter. (An average level was not published in any of the recent news releases.)

Based on these findings, the State of North Dakota issued a series of advisories and recommendations:



“If there was any doubt about the urgent need to rid our country of lead ammunition, here is proof positive,” said Andrew Page, senior director of the Wildlife Abuse Campaign for The HSUS. “Extremist hunters have long contaminated watersheds and habitat, dooming animals to slow and painful deaths. Now that hunters know their actions are directly putting themselves and other people at risk, there are no more excuses to use the ammo that just keeps on killing.”


The US Sportsmen's Alliance (USSA) has taken a strong stance in opposition to the HSUS call for a ban, stating:

USSA Senior Vice President Rick Story states, “HSUS should stop hyperventilating and actually read the report since it makes clear that the average level of lead in the people tested is actually lower than the level of the average American. That fact completely undermines its call for banning traditional ammo.

North Dakota Lead in Venison Research Results Released

Phillip Loughlin -JHO ProStaff Editor - SF Bay Area, CA
November 20, 2008
After the discovery last fall of significant amounts of lead residue in hunter-killed venison, a North Dakota dermatologist raised the alarm that lead ammunition may present a health risk to people who eat that venison. The fallout from his announcement resulted in the removal of donated venison from the shelves of foodbanks throughout the mid-west, and kicked off a firestorm of controversy in the hunting community.

In response to the situation, the North Dakota Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) began a research project to test the possibility. Blood samples were collected from 738 study participants and tested for lead levels. The studies were then weighted to account for the presence of other environmental sources of lead (air pollution, paint, etc.).

The CDC standards suggest that blood/lead levels of 10 micrograms per deciliter are at the danger level for toxicity. Still, it's not unusual for normal individuals to have some lead in their bodies. According to a pamphlet released by the North Dakota Department of Health, entitled Lead and Venison Update:

The amount of lead in the human body is most often measured as micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood. One microgram of lead per deciliter of blood (μg/dl) is equal to 10 parts per billion. A lead level of zero is preferred for health reasons, according to Dr. Stephen Pickard, an epidemiologist with the North Dakota Department of Health,but it is not unusual to see lead levels of up to 2.0 in people across the United States.


The study results, released earlier this month, showed that people who eat venison killed with lead ammunition do show a generally higher blood/lead level than people who did not eat any. The study also showed that people who had eaten venison recently had a higher concentration of lead in their blood than those who had not eaten it in a while. However, none of the study participants showed dangerously high lead levels. The results ranged from no detectable lead to 9.82 micrograms per deciliter. (An average level was not published in any of the recent news releases.)
http://www.jesseshunting.com/articles/hunting/category2/241.html


In the wake of the findings, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), immediately renewed their call for a nationwide lead ammunition ban. In a November 10 press release, the organization's spokesperson stated their position.

“If there was any doubt about the urgent need to rid our country of lead ammunition, here is proof positive,” said Andrew Page, senior director of the Wildlife Abuse Campaign for The HSUS. “Extremist hunters have long contaminated watersheds and habitat, dooming animals to slow and painful deaths. Now that hunters know their actions are directly putting themselves and other people at risk, there are no more excuses to use the ammo that just keeps on killing.”


The US Sportsmen's Alliance (USSA) has taken a strong stance in opposition to the HSUS call for a ban, stating:

USSA Senior Vice President Rick Story states, “HSUS should stop hyperventilating and actually read the report since it makes clear that the average level of lead in the people tested is actually lower than the level of the average American. That fact completely undermines its call for banning traditional ammo.

Story continued, “It should come as no surprise that America’s leading opponent of hunting, fishing and trapping has mischaracterized the findings of the CDC report. It will resort to any means necessary to deny the rights of sportsmen.”


Meanwhile, other pro-hunting organizations and hunters dispute the seriousness of the situation, repeating the fact that there has never been a known case of lead poisoning related to the use of lead ammunition. While many hunters feel the entire situation is being over-blown, others are taking notice and switching to non-lead ammunition.

Story continued, “It should come as no surprise that America’s leading opponent of hunting, fishing and trapping has mischaracterized the findings of the CDC report. It will resort to any means necessary to deny the rights of sportsmen.”


Meanwhile, other pro-hunting organizations and hunters dispute the seriousness of the situation, repeating the fact that there has never been a known case of lead poisoning related to the use of lead ammunition. While many hunters feel the entire situation is being over-blown, others are taking notice and switching to non-lead ammunition.




.
 
Firearms Industry Applauds Senators' Initiative in Fight to Preserve Use of Traditional Ammunition in National Parks

NEWTOWN, Conn., Sept. 25 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A letter signed by numerous United States senators to Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar raising important questions about actions by the National Park Service (NPS) to ban the use of traditional ammunition in parks that allow hunting has drawn praise from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industry.

In the letter to Secretary Salazar, 13 senators detailed their concerns about the impact a ban on traditional ammunition would have on hunters, the economy and wildlife populations.

"At this time, the motives behind NPS actions addressing lead issues are very unclear. Especially in these difficult economic times, this action will discourage people from hunting and fishing and decrease revenue into the Pittman-Robertson fund that funds state conservation efforts," read the letter.

The NPS continues to pursue a ban on traditional ammunition that it announced earlier in the year would apply to park personnel involved with culling sick and wounded animals, and indicated it would consider widening the ban to all hunters. The firearms industry, sportsmen's groups and multiple conservation organizations criticized the ban in a press release, calling it "arbitrary, over-reactive and not based on science."

"The move by members of the United States Senate to step in and raise concerns about the NPS making any unilateral actions concerning traditional ammunition is welcomed by conservation and sportsmen's groups throughout the country and the entire firearms industry," said NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane. "This process needs to be as transparent as possible, and Congress' involvement will help to ensure that this is the case."

The NSSF has clearly stated in communications to the NPS that any decision made about federal lands with regard to ammunition products be based on thorough scientific study of wildlife population impacts. Currently, no scientific evidence indicates that wildlife populations are being negatively impacted by hunters utilizing traditional ammunition.

While no scientific evidence supports further restricting the use of traditional ammunition containing lead components, the firearms industry believes that establishing voluntary measures is a more prudent step than banning traditional ammunition, a drastic policy decision unsupported by science. NPS has raised concerns that lead bullet fragments found in game meat could cause lead poisoning in humans, a charge not borne out in scientific studies, including a recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report.

In concluding their letter to Secretary Salazar, the senators were very clear as to what they wanted to see: "We request that NPS cease all actions to prohibit the use of lead products on NPS lands by private citizens and NPS personnel."

Signatories on the letter include:

Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY)

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

Sen. James E. Risch(R-ID)

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY)

Sen. Roger F. Wicker (R-MS)

Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC)

Sen. Michael B. Enzi (R-WY)

Sen. Robert F. Bennett(R-UT)

Sen. John Thune (R-SD)

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC)

Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE)

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)


About NSSF

The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the trade association for the firearms industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of approximately 5,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen's organizations and publishers. For more information, log on to www.nssf.org.




SOURCE National Shooting Sports Foundation

Website: http://www.nssf.org
 
Everyone has printed interesting information.

But, hunters should see we are being used by the firearms industry on this issue. Further, while I concede the strong opposition, no one has really refuted the basic points that lead is very toxic. Do we really want our children and grandchildren to eat birds with lead in the meat given the information that has already been developed about lead levels? More studies and information will not help the arguments of those who want to keep using lead. And, the levels of lead that experts deem acceptable in our bodies will surely decline.

Why don't we as hunters get ahead of this issue and take a stand that is good for the enviroment good for our health and removes an issue for those opposed to hunting?
 
I'm going to keep using lead as long as its legal and I think the more non-tox shot is pushed more hunters will be pushed away from hunting. Alot of hunters aren't really into it near as much as I and a little extra cost of high density loads, or wounded birds with steel can be enough to cause them to just go to the clay range. If lead was outlawed tommorow I'd probably complain a little but it wouldn't be that big of deal. Good quality steel like kent fasteel is about the same price as fiocchi golden pheasant lead loads that I usually shoot and 2's or 3's in steel work fine for pheasants if done right but alot of hunters won't do it right expecting it to perform like lead and they will stop hunting cause of it. Use quality nickel or copper plated pellets if you got it in your mind that lead leakes all throught a bird as soon as the pellets go through it.
 
I think we will see lead banned within a few years. The argument that will cause the ban on lead is the illness and death to the raptors that feed on wounded game birds. Wasn't this the deciding factor on banning lead for waterfowl? I believe it was. The "anti's" don't care much about a few dead ducks it was the illness in raptors that doomed lead shot for waterfowl.
Far more Waterfowl will die of wounds then ingesting lead.
I think it's good to fight the lead ban. Dang! I know a lot of old folks that have eaten tons of game taken with lead, just like most of you.
The argument on human danger from lead killed game is not a good one. They will have to use the raptor argument.
 
Gee onpoint I'm glad you showed such class saying "Chick Doctor"..... I think that was fairly irrelevant to your point.... please stay on point.
 
Edited by onpoint
 
Last edited:
it's not a matter of a spade being called a spade it just wasn't a necessary point to make. In fact it detracts from his credibility when making a point. There is no reason to degrade someone while making a point. Like I said... not very classy but who cares about that... right?
 
edited by onpoint
 
Last edited:
It's not a matter of it upsetting me. I was just pointing out that it wasn't necessary. You have valid points and I certainly respect your opinion but I just didn't think you needed to include that. I apologize for taking the discussion off topic.
 
I tell ya what. I'll edit it, no need to set a bad example

Merry Christmas and Happy New year

onpoint
 
I have to say that to an extent I agree with mandatory use of non-toxic shot for waterfowl but I don't really hunt waterfowl, doesn't taste good to me. However, there are plenty of situations where upland and waterfowl habitat overlap which I creates an obvious conflict of interest. Personally, I would hate to use steel for Pheasants but I have never shot any of the other non-toxic varieties. I just don't think that there is much relevancy to using non-toxic shot for pheasant or other upland animals, the likelyhood of lead poisoning seems to be overwhelmingly differed by other more injurious means, like habitat loss or bad agricultural practice.
As far as eating lead in small game and big- game, WHAT A BUNCH OF CRAP! I mean seriously, you'd have a to be a real idiot to ingest a single bullet from a deer or elk, it's pretty obvious where it went! I'm sure I've probably put down a few #6 in my day but it comes out in a day and you're non the worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top