Date: 3/4/17 8:17 am
From: Janine Perlman <jpandjf...>
Subject: Re: Lead
In my opinion, virtually all issues pertaining to wildlife and the
environment are tragedies of the common.

What, indeed, _are_ we to do about the relative few who would dirty our
air, pollute our water, and destroy habitat, in Arkansas and elsewhere,
at great cost to the many (including the birds of Arkansas)? To say
it's not political is to avoid speaking of the elephant in the room.

We can as individuals make small contributions to change---by donating
to organizations, writing/calling/visiting with our elected officials,
using less and renewable energy, eating plant-based diets, and more.
People of conscience should assuredly do all those things. But the only
way to effect real change---change that makes a clear difference---is to
elect officials who will enact laws that*, *yes, *regulate* activities
that affect us all.

Conservatives used to be conservationists. Some still are. Conservative
vs. liberal may not be useful labels, and they're inflammatory these
days. But political activism is very useful; and electing people who
represent our real interests is our only real hope.

It's hard to imagine anyone making the argument that our current state
and federal administrations prioritize the protecting/improving the
environment, for wildlife or humans.

Janine Perlman

On 3/4/2017 9:32 AM, Than Boves wrote:
> Too bad there isn't a constitutional amendment that states that wildlife and the environment (and humans) have the right to bear no lead (and an ideological lobbying group that supports this amendment with religious fervor).
> --------------------------------------------
> Than J. Boves
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Biological Sciences
> Arkansas State University, Jonesboro, AR
> Website:
> ________________________________
> From: The Birds of Arkansas Discussion List <ARBIRD-L...> on behalf of bill . <billwx...>
> Sent: Saturday, March 4, 2017 12:39 AM
> To: <ARBIRD-L...>
> Subject: Re: Lead
> As usual your points are spot on! It disturbs me that this law was changed and the direction environmental protection seems to be going at the federal level. That said, whatever the laws on the books, there will always be some who will break them. There are others who will try to do the right thing whether the law requires it or not. I'd like to believe there are more of the latter. I'd also like to think most waterfowl hunters are aware of lead poisoning and would, at the very least, like their sport to remain viable. For those not aware of the dangers, maybe a little one-on-one education of hunting friends and neighbors would go farther than arguing politics.
> peace
> -bill
> enid garfield ok
> ________________________________
> From: The Birds of Arkansas Discussion List <ARBIRD-L...> on behalf of Herschel Raney <herschel.raney...>
> Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 9:12 PM
> To: <ARBIRD-L...>
> Subject: [ARBIRD-L] 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.
> Herschel Raney
> Conway AR

Join us on Facebook!