Legislation would allow lead shot

[cpekow]

A measure in the Senate would strip the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate lead content in ammunition. See http://www.examiner.com/article/bill-wo ... regulation

[The Duck Hammer]

Hopefully that passes but we'll see. The EPA should be taken down a few pegs on the power scale to stop some of their bullshit anyway.

[Rick]

If they allow lead for waterfowl again, there will be a hell of a scramble for new excuses. (And having been around for the lead poisoning days, I think it a very bad idea.)

[SpinnerMan]

If they allow lead for waterfowl again, there will be a hell of a scramble for new excuses. (And having been around for the lead poisoning days, I think it a very bad idea.)

That's not done by the EPA. I don't know, but I'm sure that is not what they are talking about.

As is, Obama could effectively issue an executive order banning lead in rifle ammo, turkey loads, etc. Of course, he would do it via the bureaucrats promulgating regulations in the name of the environment or some other excuse to advance his agenda.

This is the problem when you have people in power that are tasked with faithfully executing the law as intended, but they have no respect for the law. They do not see the law as constraining their behavior, and but as a tool to be used to push for the social change that they desire. The law constrains the lower classes of people like you and me and not those like Obama that need to control us for our own good.

They don't ask, what is the law, what was intended, how do we enforce that effectively given the limited resources we have?

They ask, what do we want, what can we do to make that happen, how far can we go today, how do we make sure we can go further tomorrow?

These people cannot be trusted because you never know when out of nowhere they will make a power grab. Look at the massive power grab when it comes to the internet. Obamacare, they couldn't even risk wasting time to read the thing, let alone actually proof read it, debate it, etc. Grab the power and let the bureaucrats do whatever they want and if they don't like it, they simply ignore the law, issue waiver to the law, etc. Obama is not even enforcing Obamacare because it doesn't serve his agenda.

Would they ban lead or do something like this?

Who the hell knows? You are all Chicagoans now It's a crazy upside down world.

[The Duck Hammer]

If they allow lead for waterfowl again, there will be a hell of a scramble for new excuses. (And having been around for the lead poisoning days, I think it a very bad idea.)

I think this is more along the line of sinkers. I've heard the EPA has wanted to do away with em for years. As for ammunition some dumbfuck hippy group or dems will get that banned to save the scavengers or to destroy ammo supply respectively. The waterfowl thing will never be overturned.

[DeadEye_Dan]

If they allow lead for waterfowl again, there will be a hell of a scramble for new excuses. (And having been around for the lead poisoning days, I think it a very bad idea.)

That's not done by the EPA. I don't know, but I'm sure that is not what they are talking about.

As is, Obama could effectively issue an executive order banning lead in rifle ammo, turkey loads, etc. Of course, he would do it via the bureaucrats promulgating regulations in the name of the environment or some other excuse to advance his agenda.

This is the problem when you have people in power that are tasked with faithfully executing the law as intended, but they have no respect for the law. They do not see the law as constraining their behavior, and but as a tool to be used to push for the social change that they desire. The law constrains the lower classes of people like you and me and not those like Obama that need to control us for our own good.

They don't ask, what is the law, what was intended, how do we enforce that effectively given the limited resources we have?

They ask, what do we want, what can we do to make that happen, how far can we go today, how do we make sure we can go further tomorrow?

These people cannot be trusted because you never know when out of nowhere they will make a power grab. Look at the massive power grab when it comes to the internet. Obamacare, they couldn't even risk wasting time to read the thing, let alone actually proof read it, debate it, etc. Grab the power and let the bureaucrats do whatever they want and if they don't like it, they simply ignore the law, issue waiver to the law, etc. Obama is not even enforcing Obamacare because it doesn't serve his agenda.

Would they ban lead or do something like this?

Who the hell knows? You are all Chicagoans now It's a crazy upside down world.

Nailed it

[Bad17]

If they allow lead for waterfowl again, there will be a hell of a scramble for new excuses. (And having been around for the lead poisoning days, I think it a very bad idea.)

That's not done by the EPA. I don't know, but I'm sure that is not what they are talking about.

As is, Obama could effectively issue an executive order banning lead in rifle ammo, turkey loads, etc. Of course, he would do it via the bureaucrats promulgating regulations in the name of the environment or some other excuse to advance his agenda.

This is the problem when you have people in power that are tasked with faithfully executing the law as intended, but they have no respect for the law. They do not see the law as constraining their behavior, and but as a tool to be used to push for the social change that they desire. The law constrains the lower classes of people like you and me and not those like Obama that need to control us for our own good.

They don't ask, what is the law, what was intended, how do we enforce that effectively given the limited resources we have?

They ask, what do we want, what can we do to make that happen, how far can we go today, how do we make sure we can go further tomorrow?

These people cannot be trusted because you never know when out of nowhere they will make a power grab. Look at the massive power grab when it comes to the internet. Obamacare, they couldn't even risk wasting time to read the thing, let alone actually proof read it, debate it, etc. Grab the power and let the bureaucrats do whatever they want and if they don't like it, they simply ignore the law, issue waiver to the law, etc. Obama is not even enforcing Obamacare because it doesn't serve his agenda.

Would they ban lead or do something like this?

Who the hell knows? You are all Chicagoans now It's a crazy upside down world.

Nailed it

Exactly

[Woody]

If they allow lead for waterfowl again, there will be a hell of a scramble for new excuses. (And having been around for the lead poisoning days, I think it a very bad idea.)

I was not alive for it, but I've read studies that suggest it only effected a very very very small portion of the population. And even that population was only effected because of large hunting clubs like Byers.

[Rick]

If they allow lead for waterfowl again, there will be a hell of a scramble for new excuses. (And having been around for the lead poisoning days, I think it a very bad idea.)

I was not alive for it, but I've read studies that suggest it only effected a very very very small portion of the population. And even that population was only effected because of large hunting clubs like Byers.

Your idea of "very, very, very small" may differ with others. Here's an educated guess based on available studies as calculated by Sanderson and Bellrose in A Review of the Problem of Lead Poisoning in Waterfowl (http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/pbpoison/):

As an approximation, however, and until better data are available, we can calculate the estimated mortality from lead poisoning of an assumed population of 50,000 male mallards on a given wintering or migration area in the following manner:

50,000 male mallards × 6.80 percent that have one or more lead pellets in their gizzards (Bellrose 1959) = 3,400 × 58.5 percent = 1,989 male mallards that will die of lead poisoning on the area.

And I'd not leave popular public hunting areas out of the greatest source mix. When they studied dead and dying birds found on Catahoula Lake, lead poisoning was the culprit in something like five to seven times as many cases as being crippled or unrecovered by hunters.

[Woody]

If they allow lead for waterfowl again, there will be a hell of a scramble for new excuses. (And having been around for the lead poisoning days, I think it a very bad idea.)

I was not alive for it, but I've read studies that suggest it only effected a very very very small portion of the population. And even that population was only effected because of large hunting clubs like Byers.

Your idea of "very, very, very small" may differ with others. Here's an educated guess based on available studies as calculated by Sanderson and Bellrose in A Review of the Problem of Lead Poisoning in Waterfowl (http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/pbpoison/):

As an approximation, however, and until better data are available, we can calculate the estimated mortality from lead poisoning of an assumed population of 50,000 male mallards on a given wintering or migration area in the following manner:

50,000 male mallards × 6.80 percent that have one or more lead pellets in their gizzards (Bellrose 1959) = 3,400 × 58.5 percent = 1,989 male mallards that will die of lead poisoning on the area.

And I'd not leave popular public hunting areas out of the greatest source mix. When they studied dead and dying birds found on Catahoula Lake, lead poisoning was the culprit in something like five to seven times as many cases as being crippled or unrecovered by hunters.

Not my idea, just what I read...
Maybe I will search for the study I read. I don't feel like doing it right now, but maybe tomorrow.

[Rick]

I was writing during the controversy, followed it closely and doubt you'll find a more complete single source of information on related studies than the one I linked, so you might find what you're looking for in it.

[Tomkat]

I remember the lead days of duck hunting.

I like the steel shot for one reason: it makes people actually work ducks into the spread. We already have too many skybusters.

[Rick]

I thought it interesting that in the study that showed the most significant increase in crippling with steel, that crippling was at ranges under 35 meters, while at ranges over that, where lead's ballistic superiority should have shown, steel did slightly better than lead, albeit not statistically significantly so. Which suggests to me that an awful lot of guys are sky-busting beyond the 35 meter mark.

Another study result that tickled me was done on #4 buckshot shooters, where thirty-some "pass-shooters" were observed for two days to determine crippling rates. I've long forgotten how many birds were crippled or killed outright (but believe it led to #4 buck being outlawed in some, if not all, places). What's stuck with me was that the hunters were asked to call their shots, and no one hit the bird they were shooting at.

Unfortunately, steel didn't do much, if anything, to curb sky-busting, and guys still buy the biggest and/or farthest reaching shot they can and bang away at impossible, let alone improbable, ranges. Have to, they'll tell you, because the birds fly so high. Wonder why the birds do that?

[Goldfish]

Good lord, what day of it today boys?

Shesh

[SpinnerMan]

What's stuck with me was that the hunters were asked to call their shots, and no one hit the bird they were shooting at.

My first DIY goose. A flock came over. I shot at a goose. The one behind it folded. I told my buddy good shot. He said no he was aiming at one far to the right Who's the bad ass hunter?

[Rick]

Good lord, what day of it today boys?

Shesh

The day after this thread was started.

[Olly]

Wait. Lead shot is illegal?

[Rick]

Not for eagles taken under the Obama Supporter Act.

[The Duck Hammer]

Wait. Lead shot is illegal?

Only if you get caught and are after the elusive waterfowl.

[Goldfish]

Good lord, what day of it today boys?

Shesh

The day after this thread was started.

When I looked at it, it appeared to be stated at about midnight, April 1st