mike rossi

Those kids said it was legal to shoot beaver there and that they actually are not native to La. but I never verified either claim. I did ask them what right they had to shoot a buzzard in a trap (elsewhere you are to bring protected nontarget catches which are injured to a wildlife rehabilitater) and to steal someone's trap. Dont think they ever replied. Also: I thought it was only legal to shoot muskrats on Lake Champlain, not on the SL River. Are you sure about that?

Doc uses alot of metephors and tack in story format. That language style is supposed to let you excell in job interviews, making friends, influencing others, selling stuff, and getting elected... I think he also has a lot of patience. I do too, I just rather reserve it for hunting and dog training...

I guess if you think Doc's intent with this post is actually to get an answer to his question: "Can anybody explain the thrill of dumping ammo as quick as possible"? - the videos have no connection at all.

Doc Would you give the guys in the videos I posted permission to shoot or hunt on your property? I wouldnt. What about the guys out there you are talking about, would you give them permission?

Non hunters wont think they are hunters and that is beaver hunting and thats what happens out there? I got news for you, more people think of hunting as that than what it actually is...

Here are some examples, there are many more... BTW: if the law deems it "indiscriminate shooting" it may be a violoation in some jurisdictions.

Did you try what I said?

The typical non-hunter percieves that as hunting. Target litter is also associated with hunting. We are a minority and we need freinds, not enemies...

The Northeast Hunter Education Manual lists and explains four reasons for hunting laws. Protect people Protect wildlife Ensure a fair chase Ensure a fair distribution of game A lot of the so-called "B.S." laws arise from number three and four. Not B.S. in my view.

Bury them in a bucket of mud, the blacker the better, for a few days or a week.

Guess the budget act can affect federal conservation funds of all kinds.... Just got this... Also: Fact sheet: http://www.fishwildlife.org/files/Budget_Sequestration_Fact_Sheet_AFWA.pdf If Congress doesn’t pass a budget plan that addresses the deficit as specified by The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) automatic cuts, known as sequestration, will come into effect at the beginning of next year. Sequestration will cut many federal spending programs between 7.6and 9.2 percent. The Wildlife Restoration, Sportfish Restoration and Boating Safety Trust Funds (hereafter Trust Funds) will have 7.6 percent of their funds sequestered, or withheld from distribution, a reduction of $31 million, $34 million, and $9 million, respectively. These funds, raised through excise taxes on hunting, fishing, and boating equipment and fuel do not go into the general treasury. While the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) collects these taxes from manufacturers, they are required by law to distribute them to the states for specific purposes described in those laws. It is the states, not the federal government, who spend Trust fund money. The Trust Funds are important sources of funding for state programs in fisheries and wildlife restoration and management; hunter, angler and boater access; and hunter and boater safety education. They are the cornerstone of the user-pay, public benefit system of fish and wildlife conservation. In order to qualify for grants from the Trust Funds, states must guarantee that all hunting and fishing license fees are spent exclusively on fish and wildlife management and restoration. The BCA was designed to reduce the federal budget deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years by setting automatic spending caps on federal spending. The law amends the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act of 1985 , but did not amend the exemption for “payments to trust funds from excise taxes or other receipts properly creditable to such trust funds.” That exemption still stands, however, payments from such trust funds do not appear to be exempt. Therefore if sequestration occurs, FWS will continue to collect the full amount of excise taxes, but will be required to withhold 7.6 percent of the funds from distribution to the states unless Congress amends the BCA to also exempt appropriations from the Trust Funds. This could result in some states losing up to $1 million dollars in 2013 for fish and wildlife restoration and management, and hunting, angling, boating and recreational shooting activities. According to the laws that govern the Trust Funds, such as the Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937, states are required to provide 25 percent matching funds to access the 75 percent from the Trust Funds. States without the ability to rollover their matching funds from the FY2013 to FY2014 budgets may have difficulty raising their matching funds when the sequestered funds are released. According to the Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937, money in the Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund that has not been used after 2 years reverts back to the FWS to carry out the provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. The Trust Funds have distributed over $14 billion to the states since their inception with the (Pittman-Robertson) Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, the Federal Aid in Sportfish Restoration Act of 1950, and its (Wallop-Breaux) Boating Trust Fund Amendment of 1984. The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) says, “Sequestering the spending authority of these inviolable Trust Funds to states is a breach of faith [original emphasis] and violates the intent of the “user pays-public benefits” system of fish and wildlife conservation and access in the United States.” Sources: AFWA, Arizona Game & Fish Department Oct 31,2012

Maybe, but at this point I am either confused , they are all liars, they dont know what they are doing, they DO know what they aer doing, or all of the above. I read Shumer's email again and noticed he was refering to the Sportmans heritage act, not the sportsmans act - that may have been my mistake, or him being cute. I got an email from Fred Neff just know with Schumer criticizing the rebublicans for killing the bill. According to the email I got, which was a copy of what appeared to be a news article (LOL) The republicans construed the budget act to apply to spending the migratory bird conservation fund, (which is derived from duck stamp sales) - I do not believe that the budget act applies there because it is a dedicated fund which projects & programs are run without need for general funds (though I am sure once in a while some GF money is used). I am glad the bill was stopped in its tracks, however it was stopped for the wrong reason. At some point the bill will be reintroduced, but in the meantime lets all start getting honest with ourselves about the lead issue and speak out to national hunting organizations and congress about crafting new legistlation in a more responsible manner. Also in the meantime, those of you who hunt small game with shotguns may be very happily surprised if you experiment with the moderate or even low priced steel ammo,

Somebody (I thought it was you) said that the additional duck stamp money was to be used to "pay for the bill" when we were discussing the fact the rebublicans rejected the bill on the grounds it violated the budget act. I am for an increase on the stamp, but not to expand the scope of the duck stamp act. There are like three different stories on what seem to be official senate websites about this. I just got a reply from Schumer and it sounded like he voted against the bill - but thats not what I read elsewhere. I think we need to let the smoke clear. Seems the aides just route letters - an anti pile and a hunter pile? Since I opposed the letter on the lead provision I got the anti form letter reply. Something about him agreeing with something I never said and that he thinks its unsafe for non hunters bla, bla bla. Keep in mind, he is known to be antigun, but on his website he has a hunting link which is pro hunting... Maybe I will post his reply, gotta think about that though...

Toward the wetland conservation efforts outlined in the duck stamp act? I dont read that in the sportsmans act. The duck stamp is thriving just ok, all the diverse objectives of the sportsmans act dont enhance it - they can only take from it. At best this is a poorly thought out scheme to court sportsman, at worst it was a ploy to leach off of a sucessful program.

Wait a second, let me finish. Congress has been asked a few times, and rejected the requests, to increase the price - which would require changing this part: The Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (P.L. 99-645; Stat. ) enacted November 10, 1986 authorized an incremental increase in the price of the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp to $10 in the years 1987 and 1988, $12.50 in 1989 and 1990, and $15 in each hunting year, thereafter. Probably only because it is poorly written - does that mean in 2012 the stamp would cost $330? Offcourse not, but you know how lawyers are with "interpretations". Get the language clear in the first place - like the Second Amemdment...

What the purpose of the stamp is and how the price is authorized to be adjusted is in the law, here it is: Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718-718j, 48 Stat. 452), as amended -- The "Duck Stamp Act," as this March 16, 1934, authority is commonly called, requires each waterfowl hunter 16 years of age or older to possess a valid Federal hunting stamp. Receipts from the sale of the stamp are deposited in a special Treasury account known as the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and are not subject to appropriations. Funds appropriated under the Wetlands Loan Act (16 U.S.C. 715k-3 - 715k-5; 75 Stat. 813), as amended, are merged with duck stamp receipts and provided to the Secretary for the acquisition of migratory bird refuges under provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715 et seq.; 45 Stat. 1222), as amended, and since August 1, 1958, (P.L. 85-585; 72 Stat. 486) for acquisition of "Waterfowl Production Areas." The original price of the stamp was set at $1, and the price was increased to $2 by an August 12, 1949, amendment (63 Stat. 599) and to $3 by P.L. 85-585, approved August 1, 1958 (72 Stat. 486). Public Law 92-214, December 22, 1971, (85 Stat. 777) raised the price to "a sum not less than $3 and not more than $5 as determined by the Secretary of the Interior" based on land values and needs of the migratory bird resource. Public Law 95-552 (92 Stat. 2071), signed October 30, 1978, authorized an increase to $7.50 if all sums appropriated to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund in the proceeding fiscal year and those monies deposited from the sale of stamps in the preceding fiscal year have been obligated. The Postal Service prints, issues and sells the stamp and is reimbursed for its expenses from money in the fund. Public Law 94-215, approved February 17, 1976, (90 Stat. 189) amended the Act to allow, among other things, the sale of stamps at places other than post offices and authorized consignments to "retail dealers." The 1976 amendment also changed the name of the stamp from "Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp" to "Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp." A contest is held each year by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to select the design of the stamp. Public Law 97-307 (96 Stat. 1450), approved October 14, 1982, amended the Act to credit contest entrance fee revenues to the account which pays for administering the contest, rather than to the General Fund. Public Law 98-341 (98 Stat. 311), approved July 3, 1984, designated the week of July 1-8, 1984, as National Duck Stamp Week and commemorated 1984, the 50th year of the program, as the Golden Anniversary Year of the Duck Stamp. Public Law 98-369, signed July 8, 1984, amended the 1934 Act to authorize reproductions of the duck stamps and require that all resulting proceeds be deposited into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. It required that color reproductions be less than three-fourths or at least one and one-half times the linear size of the actual stamp. Public Law 99-625 (100 Stat. 3502), November 7, 1986, and P.L. 99-645, Title II, 202 (100 Stat. 3586), November 10, 1986, amended the Duck Stamp Act to ensure that Gramm-Rudman deficit reduction requirements do not result in the price of the stamp being rolled back to $5 The Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (P.L. 99-645; Stat. ) enacted November 10, 1986 authorized an incremental increase in the price of the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp to $10 in the years 1987 and 1988, $12.50 in 1989 and 1990, and $15 in each hunting year, thereafter. Public Law 100-653 (102 Stat. 3827), enacted November 14, 1988, authorized the Service to recoup from sales of duck stamp reproductions the marketing and promotional costs of the duck stamp licensing program. Public Law 105-269 (111 Stat.2381), enacted October 19, 1998, authorized the Service to expend up to $1,000,000 of Duck Stamp sale receipts to promote additional stamp sales, subject to approval of the marketing plan by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission.

OK, well the plot thickens here quite a bit. The use of duck stamp funds are very specific and could not legally be applied to this bill. Even if you increase the fee and apply the "extra money" - the act of congress which authorizes duck stamps written in the 1930s would have to be ammended - LOL! And such an ammendment would change the purpose of the duck stamp! Do you know how succesful the duck stamp act has been? We should screw that up? A federal ban from the EPA would occur much quicker than grinding it throught the legislature of each individual state. This is an issue that has been well studied and the consensus is that lead shot and tackle are serious impacts - as you can see by watching just one video. Despite undisputable evidence, lobbying at the state level has blocked sound policy in most states, although some states have managed to enact greater restrictions than the federal waterfowl regs. The lawyers and the organizations who solicit our donations would love to keep this going as long as possible...

I am not familair with the budget act and really dont want to be. However the republicans killed this bill because they say it violated the budget act. Although the bill was sponsored by a Montana democrat, there were many republican cosponsors. Only one republican voted for it and only one democrat voted against it. That democrat was Barbara Boxer from California who tried to ammend the part of the bill pertaining to the regulation of lead ammo and fishing tackle. I guess it pleases some sportsmen that opposition to lead had nothing to do with stopping this bill. That is faulty thinking and as a group sportsmen need to "walk our talk" about being conservationists and using science to guide our decisions.

Thanks for the correction.

Yeah, especially in post number 10 because this legislation was sponsored and backed by the dems. I still like my analogy about the regulatory authority of the EPA though...

Sounds like its still "on the calender" but postponed - but I am not sure- I dont speak the same language as politicians.... I (think) what I am reading is the republicans are blocking this for budget reasons, and one democrat, Barbara Boxer from California, opposes it because of the lead provision. Boxer's ammendment concerns the impact of lead ammo on people; which I told her office was not well documented; but that its impact on wildlife was well documented and wildlife impact was a better angle... The response I got was: Thank you, but you are not a California constituent, contact your senator in New York.... If you follow politicians (or try to) it becomes no wonder why things are so messed up!

I am not familair with this study, but I would like to comment on your statement "I think they were doing it to oppose the regulation to go to steel". Research is to be conducted without a political agenda and the researchers are to be objective and honest and that is policed by what is known as the peer-review process, which is described below. In a nutshell studies are conducted as follows: Researchers make predictions or hypotheseses. Then they make "alternate predictions/hypotheses'. Then they set up experiments try to DISPROVE their own predictions, not the other way around as commonly believed. After splitting all the hairs with all the variables they submit a report to a panel of other scientists who then (again) try to find deficiencies with the report. After this, what is called "peer-review" process, the study is published in a science journal. Luckily for society, researchers are weird. They are interested at getting to the truth and are not motivated by money. They often have more education than your doctor but make less money than your garbage collecter. Sure some of them are bought, but there is a system of checks and balances in science, including wildlife/fisheries science, which ensures faulty science will not be published in journals. Not all biologists are researchers, however both are scientists. It is overdue for hunters to put that into perspective and stop unconditionally believing old tales or old tale tellers - even when its the NRA... It will bite us twice as we continue to claim we are conservationists and that we make science-based decisions while we do just the opposite.

If the Toxic Substance Control Act (the same act gives regulatory authority to the EPA over lead in paint and in gasoline -- is that likewise erroneous, should we choose what paint & gas should contain as well)? is wrong because it tells us what ammo to use; then reconcile the basis for the law former Vice President (Dick Cheney) ,who was also the CEO of Haliburtin, crafted, an exemption to the clean water act, which gave his company carte-blanche to drill baby drill which was signed by the former President (Bush) just as fast as Cheney could write it? To prevent the EPA from regulating lead is the same thing as preventing them from regulating hydrofracking chemicals - it is pandering to a special interest group - this time instead of haliburton, the nra... This whole sportsmens heritage act may be little more than a backdoor softening measure for unregulated public land drilling in the near future... There is a lot more going on here that has nothing to do with hunters gaining anything, its for someone elses gain. Does the NRA have stock in energy companies as a lot of republican polititians do? Republicans only stand up for gun rights to have us in their pocket for what they want.

There are about 500 studies showing lead to be a clear impact. Additionally the diagnosis of lead poisoning in dying or dead birds is straight foward. This video is not showing an isolated incident either, there are many documented cases. A few examples are 500 birds died from lead poisoning in a North Carolina refuge and 1,500 died of lead poisoning at Rice Lake in Illinios. Mass die offs of birds do not enhance hunting or the public image of hunting and we should not support this bill because of the lead stipulation.

Yes for doves as well. Single projectiles like slugs and bullets dont concern me as much; but they do concern some people. For doves I use winchester Xpert loaded in one ounce of 7 shot. It retails for about $5.50 a box of 25. I remember the first two boxes of steel I bought in the early 1980s for $25 EACH - big money back then. Screw in chokes were reserved for the richer and few hunters had them, they were not standard with the gun as today. Nobody (including the ammo manufacturers) really knew what they were doing with the new ammo and guns not designed for it.... I know a couple of old hunters who although they still hunt deer every year to this day and are politiclly connected in the world of hunting, have not used their old shotguns for well over 20 years, nor have they hunted small game for that long, with the exception of spring turkey with modern black guns... They still got boxes of steel ammo from the 1980s laying around in their gun rooms... On the same note, sometimes I go into the few remaining old fashioned bait & tackle / hunting supplies stores and in them I find some older hunters/owners with lots of connections & and even more opinions and they often have two or three boxes of those same shells I bought in 1980 something collecting dust and mold on their sales shelves.... Most of you on here are smarter than the average bear, so enough said...