There were lots of studies proving waterfowl ingestion and dissemination that culminated with the non-toxic shot rules for waterfowl. Has to do with their feeding habits and several other factors. I'm not a link poster so one can either look them up or just call me a liar. I don't care.

Non-toxic shot for doves will be coming soon enough for the same reasons.

The CA bullet law came about because of concern about condor ingestion/mortality.

Otherwise, it's not really a huge issue in other areas of hunting. So banning lead hunting bullets is not science supported and would just be knee-jerk overkill.

From underground lead mines. Just like the uranium used to make nuclear bombs. And the mercury that wreaked havoc on waters/fish.

The point is not that lead has the same effects as nuclear bombs and mercury. The point is that taking a material out of the ground and using it in a different way can sometimes have negative effects. So your glib "point" is really not a "point" at all.

chital --------- might I assume you are from Calif?? What city?? I lived in Monterey for a year.

The studies only proved that some waterfowl would ingest lead pellets due to their bottom feeding nature. It didn't prove that that lead was hazardous. The lead used in paints and gasoline (Tetraethyllead (CH3CH2)PB) which can be absorbed into the system was not the same type of lead (PB) that is used in ammunition. PB lead used in ammunition does not oxidize and there are no lead salts to migrate into the enviroment. This is where the deception took place and they just called it lead and went from there creating the big lead scare. They knew the difference but to tell the truth wouldn't support the anti hunting agenda.



Yet they never proved that ingested lead was the culprit. The lead I suspect they were finding in their systems was Tetraethyllead which considering the Condors roosting area's and their proximity to large towns would not be surprising since they breathed the air. Yes they did find particles of lead in the digestive systems but failed to say that in that form it's inert and caused no damage as it passed through. Again that didn't fit the anti hunting agenda. It's claimed that they even skewered the tests by bring in dead animals that had been shot (And possibly re-shot many times just to get the desired x-ray proof) into their roosting and feeding area's.

If the motive is to prove lead harms the environment then by God they'll come up with a study to prove it, truth be damned!

Wow! Equating lead in bullets and shotshells to nuclear bombs? You get an A for creative writing, but I sense there may be a line without a dial tone mixed in that conduit.........

Did you not read my post? I clearly said I was not equating them, but explaining a concept. If you think he has a point that unmined lead in its natural state is no different than lead removed from the ground and put to use by humans, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

As to the first point, the reason lead shot was banned was not due to environmental effects, but effects on waterfowl. Studies beginning in 1959 showed it, and by the time the nationwide ban went into effect in 1992 not even the hunter conservation groups squawked about it. Lead-caused mortality rates between 2-6% or so depending on the area were shown by multiple studies. It was not an "anti-hunting agenda" issue. It was a conservation issue. It didn't impact hunting, except to broaden hunting due to the increased seasons, areas to hunt, and bag limits that came with more waterfowl. One can certainly argue the condor issue, but CA being CA - the ban went in. I was simply explaining the reason for it. I didn't say I agreed with it.

I explained that banning lead bullets would clearly be overkill, because there is not even an arguable scientific basis to support it. Lead sinkers in the nation's waters would be about 100,000x more of a threat to the environment, and they have not even been shown to be one.

I am always amazed by both: 1)what is not read in my posts that is there and 2)what is read into my posts that is not there.

I disagree that hunters put tons of lead into the environment.

I agree that:
1)Lead is toxic

2)Hunters relocate or redistribute tons of lead around the US

Only a politician or a lawyer could post this:"Just like the uranium used to make nuclear bombs."
followed by this:"I clearly said I was not equating them" and make the argument against themselves with such conviction.

Well, all I can do is point again to the highlighted portion above where I said I was NOT equating the elements, but drawing drawing an anology for a different purpose.

Equating the elements means to argue the effects are the same. I stated flat out they were not. Yet that is what you accuse me of in your use of the word.

The analogy was to make the point that to argue equating the concept of "in the environment" being the same whether they are in their natural underground state or mined and put to use by man is a silly comparison. Which it is.

Lawyer or not, that is about as simply as I know to explain it.

I accepted the ban in duck hunting as it seemed logical that the feeding habits of ducks with the potential concentration of lead shot could harm certain species. As to eliminating lead for dove hunting or in the national forests I would rather suggest that the proponents do something of value like stop passing human waste as this would be a real benefit to the environment and the result would make the advocates full the same item their proposal is worth!!!

it would take a concentration of huge amount, maybe a shooting range?

P.O.S.legislation. Another "The sky is falling" environmentalist whacko [censored] story. Probably planted by the Russians....

Just tell me what we have NOT contaminated our environment with?
Yet, waterfowl populations continue to rise. *Even with loss of habitat.

*** The Kesterson Wildlife Refuge was "destroyed" by Se (selenium), NOT lead. No thanks to the government.
As was the San Joaquin River, Los Banos, and other surrounding areas.
Do you buy your fruits and vegetables from the San Joaquin Valley of Kalifornia? Good Luck!


At one time the San Joaquin Valley was a "Marsh", over two hundred miles long, and
forty to sixty miles wide. The Valley extends from the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta in the north to Bakersfield in the south, and is bounded to the west by the
Coast Ranges and to the east by the towering mountains of the Sierra Nevada.

Today most farmers drill wells more than 200 feet deep to reach water.

We MUST ban this awful substance which is being flung carelessly about in our environment! Never mind the fact that it comes from---

(get ready for it)

the environment.

Good lord. Do people not think at all anymore??

Do we not pull lead FROM the environment...i mean there are bigger fish to fry.

When lead floats call me. FYI there is lead in all layers of soil naturally.

I sometimes think politicians are as dumb as can be. what's next????? Global warming is caused by gun shots???

Of Course it is....all that poking holes in the atmosphere...doncha know??? :-)