shooting hundreds of rounds of ammunition into the ground or water?

Basically they are creating small waste sites all over the country.

including this shit they leave in their wakes

Efforts to switch to copper-only were derailed at one point as being suspected of being capable of penetrating Law Enforcement bullet-resistant vests. There's an exemption for some copper pistol rounds now. (talons)

What is the 'good alternative' that doesn't run afoul of other laws, like penetration laws intended to protect police?

inquiring minds want to know.

Federal law, baby.

Smartass.

tell me what the ban includes or doesn't include.

and which countries described in the article that it includes and doesn't include.

between lead and steel shot? Or what the other reasons are why the industry has not switched away from lead shot?

Is already illegal in all states to use to hunt waterfowl.

you seem to want to make it sound like that.

simply wanted to inform that the BIGGEST use of shot across the country already bans the use of lead.

thanks.

that's all I am going to do I don't know the regulation off the top of my head.

yet you know what's included in it and what it excludes?

have you read it?

It was enacted in 1991 by the US fish and wildlife services while googling "regulation banning lead shot" all of the first four articles referenced the 1991 ban.

Including this one:

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba768 that mentions the very first thing....took me all of three seconds

and you haven't read the regulation you are going on about?

what kind of game are you playing with me?

how bout an article from the website of the Fish and Wildlife services itself?

http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/DisplayNews.cfm?NewsID=4DAA500C-3E21-4564-87AA714E9E301C9E

"Efforts to phase out lead shot began in the 1970s, but a nationwide ban on lead shot for all waterfowl hunting was not implemented until 1991"

but still you can't quote the regulation you keep referring to. you don't even know what's in it.

as other posters have pointed out, there are loopholes in a regulation that is already fairly limited in scope to begin with.

and nevermind that this pollution problem is not limited to the effects from waterfowl hunting. there is use in so many other ways.

surely you can at least answer that.

I looked, I cannot find the 'effing thing anywhere, only references to it, most of which are broken links. Might have to read the congressional register for the period of 91-92 to actually find the stinking thing. It has to be somewhere in Title 50, Part 20, buried in there somewhere.

That said, your suspicion was correct, it bans a lot less than that poster suggested. It bans it's use for WATERFOWL only, or upland birds where waterfowl are also present. It does not ban it for all birds, and there are a lot of uses besides that introduce it to the environment.

Eliminating it for all purposes, even target loads, seems a sensible step.

from congress, it is a law.

congress makes laws, the government creates regulations to implement those laws.

but your points are very well taken, i would just recommend the Federal Register for a regulation.

It is apparently a regulation, not a law. http://www.fws.gov/le/waterfowl-hunting-and-baiting.html

"Overview of Other Regulations"...
"Illegal hunting methods. You cannot hunt waterfowl:"...
"•While possessing any shot other than approved nontoxic shot."

I think my searches mostly failed because I was searching for 'lead', looking for an exclusionary law, but that's not how it is written. It is inclusive and lists the types of ammo that are allowed, rather than specifying those that are banned.

and i failed to find it for the reason you pointed out --it bans lead shot, but that's not the way it's written.

I wonder why the US Fish and Wildlife service website is such a cesspool of broken links. For those of us that use firearms, we pay an 11% excise tax on all sport related ammo that is supposed to go to that department for things like wildlife and habitat conservation, and such. You'd think they could divert a few bucks to one or two people to update the website...

How can anyone suggest meaningful new laws or regs when they can't readily discover what the heck is on the books now?
I would have had the answer in about 30 seconds if the first link I had hit actually resolved to anything. Instead it goes nowhere.

hmmm.

It is banned nationwide for waterfowl.
It is also banned for upland bird hunting on any national wildlife refuge where waterfowl are present.

So, by itself, no, it is not the 'biggest' use of shot across the country. It is still used and legal for use at the federal level for upland birds off NWF lands. (Some states are banning it for certain regions as well, including upland bird hunting.)

This leaves:

1. Some states allow it for upland bird hunting on various lands.
2. Trap, skeet, etc.
3. Target practice in forest lands, etc.

So if one is to be concerned about lead entering the environment in this concentrated pellet form, and left as contamination, the issue is still quite large.

Steel shot performance is slightly inferior to lead, but pretty close with a properly choked shotgun, and there are other options like Tungsten as well. You might just have to go one to one and a half shot size larger with steel to accomplish the same job, energy-wise. Just choose your shot size based on desired pellet weight, and ignore the actual shot size entirely to accomplish the same job, and in doing so, you'll get the same range, same energy, and deeper penetration, at the cost of a few less pellets in flight (as they will be larger, less room for pellets per load)


Cost wise, they are pretty darn close.

i'm not sure what we would do without hearing this message again.

i mean, two posters yesterday were blocked for saying it, so it was looking bleak that someone was available to post this message of "it's already banned for hunting waterfowl, so...".

but as luck would have it, there are three posters here, including yourself, saying just that.

because heaven forbid, we might actually talk about lead pollution from shot, without being told that there's already a rule covering it, so don't do anything else.

Big money in recovering lead from ranges.

I see more of that crap in the woods than I do lead or the effects of lead.

Remmah = ass ends backwards sledge "hammer" engineer (my nickname at work); jokes on you.

Blocked

thanks for the support

now let's stop playing games.

yet you believe lead shot should be.

how anti environmental.

I don't hunt, target shoot, sport shoot so I really don't keep up to date on this problem.

You'd think that the industry could come up with something other than lead that isn't harmful to the environment.

which is typical, sadly.

what the effects would be of 20,000,000 'more' birds per year flying around would be.

4 posts? How many are you hoping to amass?

It was an honest question. Example: if there is X amount more of predatory birds each year would their food supply- rodents, fish, small animals- balance out now that nature has adapted to 20m less birds living each year.
I read the artical and thats what I started pondering. Thats all.

sure sounds like a justification for further poisoning.

that's like saying extinction is an adaptation.

i think you're being an apologist on this subject.

or target shooting.

Such ammunition would be likely be outside the purview of this sort of proposed regulation.

that it is used or designed to be used in other ways really has no bearing on whether or not it should be regulated.

if it has polluted or will pollute, it needs to be regulated, end of story.

but thanks for playing. bye now.

The question at hand is whether such bullets have polluted the environment to such a degree as to require additional regulation.

Self-defense ammunition is typically fired at indoor ranges, in contrast to hunting (and to a lesser degree) target ammunition which is typically fired outdoors.

not falling for it.

stop lying.

on the other hand, by lying to us, you admit that you can't win this argument by telling the truth.

check-mate.

i'm reporting you to the hosts now. hopefully you'll be blocked like the others who have posted as you did to this group.

NEVER...

I'm surprised someone would not know this, but it is graphite. Even Wiki gets it right:

they'll either try to get their supporters to believe and propagate the lie.

or have it spread by people who know it's a lie.

which you are doing.

and posts elsewhere discouraging it mean that you aren't posting in this group in good faith.

this group is for advocacy of gun control, not concern trolling documented problems, in this instance, pollution from lead shot.

and don't throw around that "significant" term. that's playing with words.

you were attempting to say that a "significant" use of lead shot is for self defense --but you know, and we all know that 5% of use can be significant, 50% of use can be significant --as a word saying one thing is significant doesn't even mean the remainder of the uses aren't significant themselves.

stop playing games.

and stop posting the same crap that got the other low count posters blocked from this group --the exact same message!