Top Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Where do you stand now?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by FirstBubba View Post

    It is notable that after the initial lead ban in California, there was NO appreciable decline in the "suspected" deaths by lead poisoning of the California Condor.

    '06, I suspect you are WAY more correct than most hunters want to admit, in the numbers of waterfowl that suffer and languish unrecovered annually, due to the inefficiency of steel shot.
    Alas, no studies!
    Wonder why?
    If you are referring to crippling rates for waterfowl, there are dozens of researches. Been going on since year one. Outdoorlife ran an article last month. Current consensus is between 21%-22% annually.
    Last edited by dewman; 10-13-2021, 01:34 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      As for lead ingested side, this is the research most often quoted/used. Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2569.PNG
Views:	32
Size:	262.7 KB
ID:	782780 If you are asking which side of the condor issue I'm on, officially it's the I don't give a sh** if they come or go.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by dewman View Post
        As for lead ingested side, this is the research most often quoted/used. Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2569.PNG
Views:	32
Size:	262.7 KB
ID:	782780 If you are asking which side of the condor issue I'm on, officially it's the I don't give a sh** if they come or go.
        Well sir, I'll give you a "LOL!", but I do care if the condor goes extinct. Magnificent bird!

        ....other than that, I'm not overly concerned either....other than the "shuck and jive" the antihunters are hoisting on the hunting community.
        It just "boggles" the mind just how many, so called, educated people are buying into the myth.

        Like I told pighunter, the lead ban is merely an inconvenience to me. Not a problem.

        Comment


        • #34
          pighunter, a couple of pretty good articles on the other side of the fence.

          https://www.all4shooters.com/en/shoo...ous-lead-ammo/

          http://www.thesnipehunter.com/page19.html

          A couple of points I've noticed.

          1) a LOT of the "lead ban" articles are filled with "scientific" jargon*. (decagrams/liter, etc, etc....)
          2)the lead ban papers never seem to differentiate between metallic lead and "chemical" lead
          3) the anti lead ban articles appeal more to the "logical" points. (if A+B=C then why are they telling us C-B=G)

          * - is this an attempt to "seem" scientific? A "flim-flam" so to speak!
          (If you can't stun them with brilliance, baffle them with bulls#ยกt!)

          Comment


          • #35
            FB: Going back to the op for a sec, it doesn't seem to me that lead free or not, is going to be put to a people's vote. It's going to come via state houses or government (or governor if election year) mandate. Like steel for ducks. So I urge anyone and everyone to at least try some in at least one weapon just to gain practical knowledge, always a good thing. I'm buying an extra doe only tag ($7) to try my pistol with Winchester xp copper impacts just to see. I'll donate the meat and gain some first hand knowledge. It's 6.5 Creedmoor so I'm hoping to get a few pals to try it as well.
            Stay safe, aim small(er)๐ŸฆŒ+๐Ÿ‘€+โšก๏ธOr๐Ÿน=๐Ÿ”

            Comment


            • #36
              dewman wrote:
              "... FB: Going back to the op for a sec, it doesn't seem to me that lead free or not, is going to be put to a people's vote. It's going to come via state houses or government (or governor if election year)
              mandate. ..."

              You're exactly right dewman, that's why I stated that nothing I can do here or anywhere else will remove any ban.
              ...or stop one from being put in place by some liberal ne'er-do-well.

              About all sportsmen/women can hope for is that a phone call/email/mail barrage to an elected official might turn the tide on a "ban".
              BUT....the (d)'s (liberals?) have become adept at muddying the waters until the acceptance of a ban is more acceptable than the unacceptable liberal alternative.
              Last edited by FirstBubba; 10-14-2021, 01:17 PM.

              Comment

              Welcome!

              Collapse

              Welcome to Field and Streams's Answers section. Here you will find hunting, fishing, and survival tips from the editors of Field and Stream, as well as recommendations from readers like yourself.

              If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ for information on posting and navigating the forums.

              And don't forget to check out the latest reviews on guns and outdoor gear on fieldandstream.com.

              Right Rail 1

              Collapse

              Top Active Users

              Collapse

              There are no top active users.

              Right Rail 2

              Collapse

              Latest Topics

              Collapse

              Right Rail 3

              Collapse

              Footer Ad

              Collapse
              Working...
              X