Rattler

If that means Return On Investment, look at where lead ammo has been banned. The ROI has turned out to be ZERO.

Rob, he has posted evidence of raptors, including Bald Eagles, that have died from lead poisoning in NY State. They use tracking tags to trace their movements. However, the only ones they can show have eaten deer carcasses and remains were frequenting the dumpsters used by deer processors. The question that cannot be answered is, how many die each year from eating gut piles in the woods? They are extrapolating info when they give estimates, or guesstimates, about raptor mortality from lead ammo. That means certain conclusions are assumptions based on numeric calculation, rather than conclusive information. Perhaps making deer processors use dumpsters and keep them covered, would solve most of the problem. This is why I say we don't know the extent of the problem caused by gut piles in the woods, whether it is an extreme solution to ban lead ammo, and how much positive impact a ban on lead ammo will have.

When anti-hunting organizations see a lead ammo ban as a friend, it's not logical to think a lead ammo ban is not anti-hunting.

Please see my prior post as to why it is often considered to be an anti-hunting, anti-gun issue.

I know, but how would you expect the lead ammo issue to be addressed without one? The more lead ammo is criticized, the more likely a ban will become reality. The issues involved must be thoroughly proven before a ban is allowed to happen, otherwise we will be implementing a "solution" that may cause more disadvantages than advantages.

Curmudgeon, another issue that comes up with a lead ammo ban is the cost increase required for enforcement. We know the ammo is more expensive, especially when you want bullets that are of better quality than run of the mill copper ones that don't perform as well. If we also have to add higher license and permit fees to the mix, due to increased enforcement, a ban costs hunters more than is being revealed. I cringe when I see government officials making claims about some hunters not complying with the ban rules, when they have no evidence whatsoever to back it up. I've seen too many cases where the government enforces heavy handed regulations, that do not produce the expected results. Their solution to that problem is heavier handed regulation, claiming the original regs just weren't prohibitive enough. (Gun control laws are a perfect example) If lead ammo is banned and the situation doesn't improve, I suspect hunters will be forced to suffer greater government interference, to the point many will quit hunting. This is the reason many people see the lead ammo issue as anti-hunting with the goal of reducing how many hunters there are in America. If the number can be reduced far enough, hunting will be easily regulated out of existence in the future.

Not needed, wanted.

Curmudgeon, I read your posted paper. The science listed shows many examples of lead issues, but fails to show the proof of it's extensive affect. I don't deny anything the paper says actually happens. I question the extent that it happens. Perhaps the fact that the lead ammo ban in the California Condor region showed no positive effect, is enough to start asking why it didn't. It seems to point to some other factors causing the problem since lead ammo has been taken out of the equation and the problem persists. History has shown government regulation of anything, once implemented, is near impossible to reverse. Until I'm sure the lead ammo crusade is absolutely correct about it's claims, and is also a problem to the extent claimed, and a real positive outcome will result, I will not support any ammo ban, on any lands. The disadvantages we know for sure will come with implementation, could outweigh any predicted positive results that may not materialize. It is also worrisome that the disadvantages can be shown to be real, whereas the expected positive results are only assumed. Yet, many think a lead ammo ban should happen anyway. If any individual hunter chooses to freely use only non-lead ammo, and even promote it to others, I have no issues. I just do not believe we are at the point where it should be banned because of the "science".

Scott Powell: "Unbeknownst to most Americans, Barack Obama is the first ex-president in 228 years of U.S. history to structure and lead a political organization, a shadow government, for the explicit purpose of sabotaging his successor — duly elected President Donald Trump. The primary vehicle of this campaign is Organizing for Action (OFA), legally founded in January 2013 by First Lady Michelle Obama and her husband's 2012 campaign manager, Jim Messina, with input from David Axelrod. The modus operandi of OFA comes right out of Obama's support and sympathy for Marxism and his background as a left-wing community organizer. It's a combination of agitation and propaganda — much like old-style Soviet agitprop and Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. ... Agitprop is synonymous with community organizing in that both focus on stirring up public grievance over an issue for the purpose of mobilizing that constituency to join like-minded people to protest and demonstrate, which provides made-for-TV drama scenes portraying 'extemporaneous' mass protests that in turn get transmitted to millions through the media. This feedback loop is a key driver of fake news. ... Obama is no fool and he understands ... that the U.S. is nearer collapse than at any previous time. And every Marxist knows that socialist transformation first requires collapse of the old order."

"As we've noted previously, if Donald Trump wants to become Hitler as the Left claims, he's doing a poor job of it. Why? He's doing little so far besides rolling back Barack Obama's executive power grabs. The latest example is Obama's final day parting shot, in which he banned lead ammunition on federal lands. Trump's newly sworn-in Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke wasted no time reversing that order. "It's time to put ammunition back where it belongs; in the hands of hunters," Zinke said. The previous administration based its actions on "science" — naturally. "Exposure to lead ammunition and fishing tackle has resulted in harmful effects to fish and wildlife species," claimed former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service director Dan Ashe. And the Humane Society complained, "There's just no excuse not to make the transition, except for knee-jerk opposition from a segment of society that simply thinks it's acceptable collateral damage for upwards of 15 million animals from more than 130 species to die of lead poisoning every year." As the Leftmedia likes to say about anything Trump says, these claims were made without evidence. That's right, the science behind the ban is dubious at best, despite the caterwauling of rabidly anti-gun leftists. Big picture, Obama is simply one of those anti-gun leftists who would in one breath offer lip service to our "traditions" of hunting and sport shooting and in the next talk about why steps were needed to restrict the gun rights of law-abiding Americans. Ironically, Obama's words and deeds made him the gun salesman of the decade. Liberty lovers can rest easier knowing that Trump's administration is so quickly taking a better approach." Mark Alexander

I realize that, but this discussion has become about lead ammo overall.

Too bad for the ignorant consumer. The free market works best when it is free to work as it should. America became the economic powerhouse that it was when the free market was free to work. Only after the government injected itself into the economy did it start to falter. Big government creates problems and then tries to install solutions to the problems it created, that are even more anti-freedom than the problems it originally created. You seem to look at the economy only in present day mode. Study the history of the American free market economy and you will learn how government infringement of it's freedom created most of the problems it has today. That's all I'm saying.

That's not exactly what I'm saying. If they need protection, it should come from somewhere other than government regulation, which also effects those who do not need protection.

I cannot understand why anyone would want to hunt with a big bore air rifle when a center fire rifle is legal. Having said that, I'm all for freedom of choice since it functions the same as a rifle. Crossbows are different than bows though. I'm still not sure allowing them during regular archery seasons is a positive advancement for bow hunting. I tend to believe they are not.

When you take into consideration the last 100 years of hunting with jacketed lead bullets, there should be enough data showing an obvious correlation which can be verified, regarding massive numbers of hunters dying from lead poisoning, or at least suffering from it's effects. I have yet to see such statistical data published. Yes lead is bad if you are going to intentionally misuse it and poison yourself. So are many other things we use every day, which we would never agree to substitute with other items that were more expensive and less effective. Only the politics surrounding these items prevents some special interest group from pushing an agenda there. I believe there are disadvantages to using lead ammo. I do not deny what those effects on humans and collateral wildlife can be. I question the severity of the problem and whether a total ban on lead ammo, which is an extreme solution that targets only hunters, is needed, or is even the right solution for that matter. That is the subject that is still open to debate. That subject is also not settled science either.

Then you should also know about "buyer beware" and how the free market is controlled by consumers, not the government. The buyer should decide who it wants to do business with, not ask the Big Brother government to step in and regulate every business, every time one does something a consumer finds objectionable. Over regulation of private industry never makes business more efficient and raises costs to the consumer considerably. Competition is the only thing that works to effectively control or eliminate any business from the market. The government should stay out of any area of the market that isn't directly related to bonafide life or death situations.

First, let me ask what do you know about a Free Market economy?

Not really. I'm not asking for a reply to that point. Just pointing out how everything is political in this land these days.

Some people are opposed to the Free Market. Those that are opposed to it, usually don't believe in freedom itself.

I hear a lot of these same remarks from people that I know for a fact have used, and still abuse, all sorts of drugs. I just don't understand why they feel lead ammo is harmful but drug usage is not. We are moving towards legalizing all sorts of drugs in this country too. It's all political if you ask me.

Saying something like, "There's no debate that lead ammo is bad", is also a blanket statement. This issue has been debated many times and is still open to debate.

As soon as it became a past time, and not a survival tool, it became a sport.

Yes, they were called that at one time. It's interesting when you consider these were not "spectator" sports either.

The definition of "sport" may have changed over time, but there was a time when a gambler was considered a "sporting man". Perhaps the word was meant to include all recreational activities at one time. Merriam-Webster first defines "sport" like this: Definition of sport intransitive verb 1a : to amuse oneself : frolic <lambs sporting in the meadow>b : to engage in a sport

The way I see it (this is just my view of the world) if it doesn't involve a firearm or bow, or involve pursuit of fish or game, it isn't a sport. That's why I have no interest in spectator "sports".