Mr VJP

Waste of money. It doesn't work because it isn't fired from any type of rifle barrel. Therefore it achieves no velocity on impact. It's a pure gimmick! Watched a video on the net about it. They don't do anything to a target. A broad head is much more effective.

This year, and this year only, they are both valid for Sept 2014.

I wear a camo ball cap that has a camo net attached to it. It keeps the bugs off my face and out of my ears. It doesn't negatively affect my shooting at all. I also wear my camo spring turkey hunting gloves that are made out of a thin linen like material, to keep bugs off my hands. I tend to avoid any bug repellent when deer hunting due to the smell. Covering up all exposed skin with light weight clothing is the best way to avoid the bugs while hunting when it's warm. If you ever go spring bear hunting in Canada, you learn how to be an expert at this stuff.

It would seem it wouldn't, but there is the possibility that when most hunters switch to non-lead, the banners may feel there are fewer votes against a ban in that crowd. That may embolden the banners to push for a ban that would now demand possession of all existing lead ammo be criminalized as well as all lead used in fishing. They may want to do it because they also fear the future of non-lead ammo isn't insured without a law! Many times ban laws are passed, based on the idea, not many people in the affected community will oppose it. That's the reason NY went after semi-auto black rifles. Most NY gun owners don't care about those guns, or the owners of them. Many of those same gun owners even supported the ban. And the science proves it will have no effect on crime at all. Divide and conquer. I see it all the time with the anti-gun crowd every time they claim the NRA does not speak for all gun owners because only a small amount of gun owners are members of the NRA. I believe switching to non-lead may be the right thing to do for big game hunting, but allowing a complete ban on any lead products in the hunting fields and fishing waters would be one more nail in American Liberty's coffin. P.S. Notice the cigarette issue. Most people have quit smoking and the infringements on smoking have gotten wider. How long before the desire to ban cigarettes in America actually becomes law?

The heat doesn't bother me when I'm hunting. However, if I get a deer, the heat really affects the quality of the meat real fast.

I love the survival bracelet. Never know what you might need to be prepared for in pre-K! LOL! My granddaughter is only 10 months old, so I've still got a few years to worry about that day for her.

Not yet! Give it time though. NY State doesn't like gun owners and this is just the beginning of the harassment that's about to unfold!

BTW, the leg hold trap ban was a huge disaster for trappers in NJ, putting many out of the field. That decreased the number of fur bearers trapped and the populations of all sorts of vermin became a huge problem in many suburban areas of NJ. It was an emotional law that had no other purpose but to allow animals to suffer less when trapped. So now the un-trapped animals cause NJ residents to suffer. I hear rabies is on the rise there at an alarming rate.

Maybe they have opposition in NY, but not in California where they are most widely used. Virgil, the original question was about using non-lead for hunting, and the man did not want to see a ban, but as we go into this discussion, it becomes obvious the government will allow the debate to only go on for so long before it will drop the hammer on the discussion and apply a total tyrannical ban, with no regard for the people that will be most effected by it. That's why I think we need to have a discussion on how non-lead use can be brought into being WITHOUT forcing a ban on sportsmen.

It's interesting too, that it's the State Police doing this, not your local cops or County Sheriffs that are involved.

I'm talking about banning all of the ammo they currently own and not paying them for it when they make them turn it in. Plus the increased cost of all ammo you will ever buy in the future, including all of your target practice ammo.

Read the part of the article where it states the info came in from an anonymous tipster who did it to claim the $500 reward for being a rat. Do you really think that was the only call the tip line has gotten so far? NY has set citizen upon citizen in this state, and the anti-gun folks have been given a huge weapon to harass gun owners in NY State. I expect to see a great deal of abuse of gun owners in this state in the future, until they all become so scared, nobody will want to own anything the think might get them in trouble. You think we live in a free country now? You're free to do whatever they let you do!

The problem is, even if every NY hunter refused to use any lead in the field, a ban on lead would be at the national level and would once more make your personal property illegal, like they did with certain semi-auto firearms. People in America are getting fed up with a government that keeps making your previously legal, personal property, illegal, and threatening to put you in prison for possessing it. That's tyranny. You don't solve environmental problems by creating bigger social ones. If we allow this to happen, we open the door to a huge amount of government abuse that will lead to a total police state. Besides, Condors and raptors of all sorts are getting killed by windmills, and I see no desire by greenies to put a stop to those things. Do they really care about the birds, or only ones killed by lead? So my question is this, how do we get hunters in all of America to shun lead ammo voluntarily without making them the whipping boys and putting the burden of a huge expense on their shoulders?

They are now, and they ain't gonna stop there. http://gunssavelives.net/blog/ny-authorities-confiscate-gun-dealers-records-may-lead-to-gun-confiscations-under-safe-act/

That's the end goal Curmudgen. But how do we do that in the field, considering all of the lead that is used by sportsman for hunting and fishing, and the increased cost to bear for the alternatives, without mandating it? I wonder what percentage of outdoor people believe in it, much less would voluntarily pay the price to use non-lead alternatives 100% of the time in the field. How do we implement it without addressing the concerns about it first?

It's not so important what one thinks of the studies or the science, so much as the cost to remedy the actual problem when it is proven to be real. Who has the right to force it on the people, especially if it has a severe impact on freedom and they don't want it? I find this issue to be very much like the call for a ban on fracking in NY State. Is there really a problem with that technology? Is the ban worth the loss of economic gain and individual freedom that comes with it?

As of today, there is no concerted effort on the part of DEC or the State of NY to ban lead ammo. But since it has been done in other states, and it is gaining interest every where, it is a good idea for sportsman to be pro-active and get as much information as possible on the subject to be able to debate the issue intelligently for their own good. That's why I started this thread and that is what I hope comes out of it. I never want to see a mandated ban, but I would like to see non-lead ammo used in the future. There are currently obstacles in the way and problems if that ever happens at this point in time. My question is, can the problems and obstacles be overcome, or at least minimized, to the point where sportsman would embrace the use of non-lead ammo more than traditional lead ammo?

Good to see you found us here vlywaterman. I think you can get a lot of good info on the mindset NY hunters have regarding non-lead ammo from this thread. Any government ban on lead ammo is going to be a bad idea. Whether or not hunters will voluntarily switch to non-lead seems to be a matter of very personal choice. If not for the high cost of alternative ammo, I believe it wouldn't be hard to switch, based on the performance of most non-lead ammo. If it is more accurate and kills cleaner, that's great. But if it costs too much, that's a killer.

So, in order for all lead to be removed from the field as a threat, we have to ban bullets, lead shot, pellet gun ammo, split shot, sinkers and anything else using lead that sportsman have always used. I don't think we want the government to do that. Gaining a little security, but giving up a lot of Liberty, seems un-American.

Mike, do you believe the lead ban proponents claims are based on good science?

The solid copper bullets are designed to retain most of their original weight when shot into an animal, but they have cuts in the front of them to allow for a very good mushroom that looks like a flower petal. They perform very well on game. But they are expensive. I am assuming they also shoot as accurately, but I intend to test them and see for myself. I agree this is not proven science as far as eagles and lead is concerned, and I did tell him that. I also mentioned that lead was banned in the western states, because it was suspected of killing birds, but pointed out the greenies are promoting wind mills for power, which is PROVEN to be a bird killer, along with the high temperature solar energy arrays they also promote. I think the swap idea of 2 old ammo boxes for 1 new premium ammo box would be a good choice for some folks who have old, nothing special, possibly not so accurate, or not so well done reloads. Especially if they are looking to upgrade their ammo for their future hunting. A lot of old ammo is only worth about half of what loads like Federal Premium copper loads are worth anyway. But I told him this program would only succeed if hunters bought into the idea and it was adopted voluntarily over many years. If ammo makers started getting demand for a lot more lead free bullets, they could tool up their production for many more of these rounds and the prices would come down, due to overhead being spread over many more units. They would also have incentives to look into other non lead metals like Bismuth-Tin alloys that would be even less costly. I also see where a lot of new jobs could be created in an industry designed to reclaim the lead, copper and brass from traded in ammo. The powder could even be recycled. Even the distribution logistics for supplying the new non lead ammo while taking back the old stuff would create jobs. And a lot of old ammo could be used on ranges that are already filled with lead bullets, for training programs for groups like the Boy Scouts or maybe even Police. Getting lead ammo out of the field is a worthy goal, but any government mandated ban is going to be a problem. Looking back on the steel shot laws for waterfowl and the negative impact it had on the sport, as well as considering all of the lead from small game hunters in the field, and the point made above about split shot and weights for fishing, I think this is a problem that has to be solved by sportsman on their own, and not mandated at all by any agency of government. I believe getting a lot of the lead out of the woods and waters would be great. I also feel the copper bullets are a much better bullet for deer hunting and would love to use them exclusively, (but I'm not schooled on any of their toxicity if they have some) however, I think getting 100% of the lead out of the filed is a fantasy and the sportsman should not be the one to suffer from the brunt of a heavy handed government mandate to make that happen.

I was at a Sportsman show yesterday and there was a nice fellow there with a display about using non lead bullets for hunting. He was a guy concerned about the environment and claimed some eagles may have died from lead poisoning, even though they can't be sure it was from bullets ingested. We talked a lot about California and how their program was handled all wrong. He claimed he wasn't trying to push any lead ammo ban in NY, but thought making hunters aware of it might get us to stop using lead ammo ourselves. I pointed out the cost of copper ammo was a problem for me, as well as the fact I have enough lead ammo to last the rest of my life. I also mentioned small game hunters use only lead shot and .22 LR rounds in the woods as well. He thanked me for my input by giving me 3 Federal Premium 165 gr copper bullet .30-06 cartridges to test against my current Federal Premium 165 gr Jacketed .30-06 cartridges. I wanted to see if they would shoot the same groups as my current loads do. I'll be e-mailing him with the results and pictures too. I'm not against non lead ammo, but as I told him, I don't want to see a law that bans my current stuff, and any costs to change over to non lead stuff should not be a burden for hunters. If the state wants this change, they better be willing to pick up the expense of it. Interesting question for all hunters: If you could trade 2 boxes of your old hunting rifle ammo for 1 box of Premium copper rifle ammo at no cost to you, would you be willing to do it? This was an idea suggested to help solve the problem of all that lead ammo currently in hunter's inventory.

Non-Profit doesn't mean not raking in huge government subsidies and employing lots of unnecessary people, creating huge expenses and wasting money so as not to show a profit. Any non-profit can have billions in revenue if it can show billions in expenses. the question becomes, how do they spend the money?

I disagree. Poor excuse for not becoming a member and showing elected officials we care about gun rights. If the number of NRA members in NY were high enough years ago, there would be many more informed gun owners who might not have elected the people who rammed the Safe Act through in the first place.

NY should have had this many NRA members years ago. The number should be 3 times this amount today. http://dailysignal.com/2014/08/29/new-yorks-new-gun-control-law-working-hint-great/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social