Date: 3/3/17 7:25 pm From: Herschel Raney <herschel.raney...> Subject: Lead
People seem to be getting lost in the politics here. This is a bird group. And lead poisoning is a proven risk to many birds. Swans, Ducks, Geese.Hawks and Eagles. This was not just a Senator, but the new Secretary of the Interior. So it is an in-your-face-act to just reverse the lead laws for use specifically in NWRs. NWRs are a precious and separate resource from all the other lands that we are preserving or destroying. It is a statement.
I just went on Gunbroker. I am a registered user of Gunbroker. I have purchased ammo there. I have purchased guns there. I own guns. I have shot ducks, geese, quail, turkeys, Ruffed Grouse in my lifetime. And once I understood the risks I would only ever use steel shot in aquatic hunting zones. It just makes ecologic sense. No political motives involved. Unless your problem is that you just don’t like anyone telling you that you have to do something. But the cost difference? About 15 to 20 cents per shotgun shell.
So for the privilege of hunting on a NWR I would have to pay about that much per shell to avoid adding my lead load to the water sources. It is not about anything else.
No one needs to discuss Trump or the Interior Secretary or conservatism. If you appreciate birdlife and you are a hunter. It does not make sense to not choose ammo other than lead. For duck hunting especially, the costs to go and do it anyway are impressive: boats, dogs, guns, waders, camo, decoys. If you fired your gun twenty times on a fine duck hunt. Then the extra cost is 4 dollars to not use lead.
People pay that much for a coffee before the hunt. I don’t hate this horseman from Montana. I don’t know him. But his reversal does not make ecologic or economic sense. Whatever side of the political discussion I am on.