Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: This ain't archery, but the threat is still the same...

  1. #1

    This ain't archery, but the threat is still the same...

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz1pJ8vslJt

    Hunters are up in arms over an Arizona-based conservation group latest bid to get the federal government to ban lead bullets, which the environmentalists claim contaminates the food chain.

    The Center for Biological Diversity, which claims 220,000 members, has sent a petition to the Environmental Protection Agency on behalf of nearly 100 groups in 35 states asking the agency to regulate lead right out of ammunition. It's the second time the group has attempted to get the EPA to take up the cause, and the group is currently suing the federal agency for rejecting the previous bid.

    Toxic lead, wounded deer... is there a correlation in your opinion?

    Do Something about it... Call your Senators and Representatives!!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Stockton, CA
    Posts
    368
    I can understand when they banned lead shot for waterfowl, but banning lead bullets, especially for big game hunting is ridiculous and not based in science. How many big game hunters even fire more than one shot during a hunt. This is just a liberal attempt to strip one more thing away from hunters and gun ownwers. They already have the lead bullet ban in So. California, due to the California Condor. They claim the stupid bird eats carcasses that hunters shot and they get lead poisoning. The bird has already been extinct in the wild, the only reason there are any left is beacause they breed them in captivity and release them. The only reason they are extinct (endandgered) is due to human encroachment on there habitat. (They are too stupid to avaod electric and telephone lines) Why doesnt the EPA just ban large cities or any future development for that matter. People, over the next couple of decaded, everything that outdoorsmen hold deer will probably be gone. Sorry I am so negative, but its just the way I feel.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtone1411 View Post
    I can understand when they banned lead shot for waterfowl, but banning lead bullets, especially for big game hunting is ridiculous and not based in science. How many big game hunters even fire more than one shot during a hunt. This is just a liberal attempt to strip one more thing away from hunters and gun ownwers. They already have the lead bullet ban in So. California, due to the California Condor. They claim the stupid bird eats carcasses that hunters shot and they get lead poisoning. The bird has already been extinct in the wild, the only reason there are any left is beacause they breed them in captivity and release them. The only reason they are extinct (endandgered) is due to human encroachment on there habitat. (They are too stupid to avaod electric and telephone lines) Why doesnt the EPA just ban large cities or any future development for that matter. People, over the next couple of decaded, everything that outdoorsmen hold deer will probably be gone. Sorry I am so negative, but its just the way I feel.
    No... you are definitely right... but this is going to lead to discussions on wounding and traditional archery is going to be the first target. We're all targets... and have been for a number of years now.

    Aloha...

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtone1411 View Post
    I can understand when they banned lead shot for waterfowl, but banning lead bullets, especially for big game hunting is ridiculous and not based in science. How many big game hunters even fire more than one shot during a hunt. This is just a liberal attempt to strip one more thing away from hunters and gun ownwers. They already have the lead bullet ban in So. California, due to the California Condor. They claim the stupid bird eats carcasses that hunters shot and they get lead poisoning. The bird has already been extinct in the wild, the only reason there are any left is beacause they breed them in captivity and release them. The only reason they are extinct (endandgered) is due to human encroachment on there habitat. (They are too stupid to avaod electric and telephone lines) Why doesnt the EPA just ban large cities or any future development for that matter. People, over the next couple of decaded, everything that outdoorsmen hold deer will probably be gone. Sorry I am so negative, but its just the way I feel.
    Why can you understand the banning of lead shot for waterfowl?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Stockton, CA
    Posts
    368
    Highstrung, I like to evaluate my opinions on things based on evidence. I love waterfowl hunting, and wish that I could use lead, because even though the non toxic shot is getting better, nothing patterns like lead in my opinion. Nonetheless, there is plenty of evidence that waterfowl will eat lead pellets when rooting through the mud and die of lead poisoning. The rate of this happening is much higher than the once in a great while event of some condor eating the lead contaminated body of a deer that escaped the hunter. But that is the problem with extreme liberalism, there may be scientific evidence for banning in one instance, but they will never stop at the common sense end of things. They will use that victory to infringe on everything else.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Stockton, CA
    Posts
    368
    Rattus, I get tired of the crowd that whines about wounding. I don't care what method of hunting you use, animals are going to get wounded. I would hope that an ethical hunter of any type of weapon would keep his shot to where he is confident, but we can't control everybody can we? More animals are probably wounded from automobiles than hunters, yet nobody is screaming for a ban on driving. At least outdoorsman's dollars account for most of the conservation money that is spent on preserving wildlife and it's habbitat. Most of these "tree huggers" can't really say they put their money where there mouth is. Everybody who considers themselves an outdoorsman or a sportsman is in this thing together. I respect all my brothers whether they fish with a fly rod or spinning gear. Weather they hunt with a compound or rifle. As long as they obey the law and respect the resource. That's all I have to say.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    East central Minnesota
    Posts
    8,112
    I tried to read the link, got some nasty internet action from it. It wouldn't load and from then on every site I went to wouldn't load and I kept seeing "tracking" on the bottom of the page. Had to quit everything and restart the 'puter to make things right...FYI. So I really don't know what the article said but will make a general comment.

    I'd like to see some solid research on banning lead bullets for big game hunting. Lead shot for waterfowl has been known for many years to be a problem so the non-toxic shot is a necessary evil. I guess until I see some more solid evidence, I'm with bigtone1411. Seems like the California Condor situation, even if it is valid, is pretty isolated to mandate a general ban.

    That said, it's probably just a matter of time until lead in bullets is banned. I have read of concerns about lead in meat that hunters eat, especially kids, who are most susceptible to lead poisoning. While I'm not sure of the validity of those concerns it certainly bears further research. Especially when there are good programs like "Hunters Feeding the Hungry" that might be affected. The meat around a gunshot wound is usually trimmed away but maybe there's something to it, would be good to know if there is. I think some of the all copper bullets are showing performance and accuracy standards that would make them an acceptable substitute, although at a higher cost.

    Lead in anything is being phased out for mostly good reasons. It's going to be hard to justify taking a stand against removing lead from bullets in the long run when there are acceptable substitutes. I agree it's probably on the slippery slope toward serious infringement of our hunting and shooting rights, just seems kind of inevitable. Besides, if there is validity to the claims, then I guess I would not be opposed. Like I said, if there is a concern there should be some statistics or data somewhere that shows it.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtone1411 View Post
    Rattus, I get tired of the crowd that whines about wounding. I don't care what method of hunting you use, animals are going to get wounded. I would hope that an ethical hunter of any type of weapon would keep his shot to where he is confident, but we can't control everybody can we? More animals are probably wounded from automobiles than hunters, yet nobody is screaming for a ban on driving. At least outdoorsman's dollars account for most of the conservation money that is spent on preserving wildlife and it's habbitat. Most of these "tree huggers" can't really say they put their money where there mouth is. Everybody who considers themselves an outdoorsman or a sportsman is in this thing together. I respect all my brothers whether they fish with a fly rod or spinning gear. Weather they hunt with a compound or rifle. As long as they obey the law and respect the resource. That's all I have to say.
    While I agree with you, the USFWS is working against hunters all over the country in all sorts of ways... they have falsified data on wolves, bobcats, and bears. They have funneled monies to environmentalists to fight against us... which we here in Hawaii as well as elsewhere provided reams of data... in our case over 40 pounds we mailed. And, just so you know, it is not hunters that are providing the most of the monies anymore... at least in 2011 it wasn't.. it was from target shooters and ammunition.

    We need to be vigilante and ahead of the curve with this stuff. What do you think gets into our schools regarding hunting? How well we do in presenting hunting in a promising and pro-hunting vein is going to be crucial going forward. We are no longer a rural community. Trapping, hunting and fishing are popular sport but no longer necessities, and the message is lost on an urban campus. An campuses are liberal.. and anti-gun... and by nature.. anti hunting. Archery and wounding losses are going to be high on their list. Lead is another.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Garden Grove, CA
    Posts
    227
    it's happen here in CA and it sucks, solid brass bullets are expensive, even if you reload. Oh, I didnt even know they sale venison here as a meat... besides, I wouldnt want to eat the deer here anyways, they look sickly form all of the polution ;(
    Tradtech Titan/BM Carbon 45#
    Black Widow T/D PSA X 53# 60", Mon River mongoose longbow 45# 64"
    Hummingbird Kingfisher T/D 48# 62", W&W Winex
    Montana Toelke Whip Classic LB 48# 60"

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    central Virginia
    Posts
    902
    I would hope that everyone here is a member of the NRA. Name me another organization that fights as effectively to protect our rights as they do? Not just second amendment rights but hunting rights as well. At some point, the "conservationists" might come after carbon arrows and the steel used in broadheads. That's just how they roll.
    Samick Trailblazer 68" longbow
    Hildebrand Sitka spruce shafts

  11. #11
    So ... introducing small concentrates of lead into the environment and into the food chain isn't a problem to some. So .... would you be happy to serve up a soution of 1 milligramm of lead (Pb) into 100ml water and get your children, grandchildren or pregnant wife to drink it once a month for a year ?????

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    4,050
    Quote Originally Posted by Yewselfbow View Post
    So ... introducing small concentrates of lead into the environment and into the food chain isn't a problem to some. So .... would you be happy to serve up a soution of 1 milligramm of lead (Pb) into 100ml water and get your children, grandchildren or pregnant wife to drink it once a month for a year ?????
    The answer of course is no, no one would say yes to intentionally introducing lead into their wife or children, but do you have scientific evidence that this actually happens in the real world as a result of using lead rifle bullets or is this a hypothetical?
    Because if it is a hypothetical it makes no sense whatsoever.
    Be REEZENable

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,905
    The only problem with lead is lead poisoning caused by ingestion.
    You could take a hunk of lead and swallow it and it'll pass right through.
    However...
    Waterfowl and most birds have GIZZARDS that act like a Mortar and Pistil to grind up their food. When a Duck picks up small rocks to use in their gizzard, they pick up lead shot. They effectively poison themselves because the soft lead is ground into pieces in the gizzard and absorbed into the blood stream.
    The bird issue is real.
    The new non-toxic shot like Hevi-Shot are actually better for use on waterfowl because a size #6 Hevi-Shot has the knock down of lead 4's or steel BB's.

    Bill
    `````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````` ````````````````
    Human life has become cheap in our "enlightened" society. Liberalism has taught these kids that there's no difference in killing a one-year-old in a stroller and killing a ten WEEK old baby in the womb! These killers are not human - they are demons spawned in the cesspool of Progressive ideology.

  14. #14
    My post will not have a whole lot to do with hunting, but I think its legitimate.

    IMO there is a difference between a good idea, and a LAW. There are MANY good ideas that should not be laws. For example- Seat belts are the LAW. Having a car seat for a child BEFORE you leave the hospital is the LAW. In my town, Smoking in any public restaurant is ILLEGAL. Restaurants are not allowed to have smoking. IMO if I want to open a restaurant that allows smoking, you DON'T HAVE TO EAT THERE. Texting while driving is against the law. Using lead shot to kill waterfowl is against the law... etc.

    All of the above LAWS are good ideas, but bad laws that will NEVER GO AWAY. What kind of polititian is going to run an advertisement saying he wants to make seat belts optional....

    As human beings, we have the right to make our own decisions. The direction our great country is going is slowly but very VERY surely taking away our right to make our own decisions.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,905
    "The road to hell is paved in good intentions".

    `````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````` ````````````````
    Human life has become cheap in our "enlightened" society. Liberalism has taught these kids that there's no difference in killing a one-year-old in a stroller and killing a ten WEEK old baby in the womb! These killers are not human - they are demons spawned in the cesspool of Progressive ideology.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •