Well put together ammunition infomercial by Curmudgeon

[stoneam2006]

It seems like that could/ should be a battle to fight...not a lead ban but more of a lead information process. Ik personally I would change if the weapon shoots accurately with them.

Thanks for the info I will be looking for upcoming seasons

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[ATbuckhunter]

It seems like that could/ should be a battle to fight...not a lead ban but more of a lead information process. Ik personally I would change if the weapon shoots accurately with them.

Thanks for the info I will be looking for upcoming seasons

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

I agree as well! A ban would do more harm than it could do good, which is why no one here has advocated one. 

[EspressoBuzz]

I agree as well! A ban would do more harm than it could do good, which is why no one here has advocated one. 

 

or....Maybe no one here has advocated a ban because they know they would be attacked mercilessly by people who believe they know better or don't believe at all.

[ATbuckhunter]

or....Maybe no one here has advocated a ban because they know they would be attacked mercilessly by people who believe they know better or don't believe at all.

Its possible someone might, but I still think the majority of people who switched to lead free wouldn't support a lead ban. Personally I wouldn't because I feel its unfair to force people to use ammo that's 2 bucks a round if you don't reload yourself. If someone wants to eat meat that might be laced with lead, then that's their right. 

[Curmudgeon]

or....Maybe no one here has advocated a ban because they know they would be attacked mercilessly by people who believe they know better or don't believe at all.

 

Actually, a ban would cause a serious backlash. Non-lead allies in CA fought that ban. They felt they could do what was necessary for the condors by working cooperatively with hunters. They were making great progress. I believe a lawsuit forced the ban and caused battle lines to form.

 

If you read what is going on in the other thread, the technical arguments have become meaningless. The people who don't want us talking about this issue are really just concerned about a ban or regulations. If that wasn't casting a big shadow over the conversation, it might progress a little easier. 

 

[Rattler]

That's my main concern.  You claim it's just education, but don't seem to realize you are also educating those who wish to attack hunting and firearms ownership.  You shouldn't be surprised when people who love firearms and hunting resist your educating anti's, especially when the only solution offered seems to be a ban on lead ammo.

 

[ATbuckhunter]

That's my main concern.  You claim it's just education, but don't seem to realize you are also educating those who wish to attack hunting and firearms ownership.  You shouldn't be surprised when people who love firearms and hunting resist your educating anti's, especially when the only solution offered seems to be a ban on lead ammo.

But does that mean we can't be educated about our decisions? I understand what you are saying as I have also thought the same as well, but were hindering our level of understanding because someone who doesn't like guns might (and probably will) use it against us. This info is already out there and the Anti's are good at getting it...which they probably already have it, so the only people losing out on not knowing is us hunters. We should at least know the facts so we can formulate an appropriate rebuttal in case this comes up in the future. 

[mike rossi]

That's my main concern.  You claim it's just education, but don't seem to realize you are also educating those who wish to attack hunting and firearms ownership.  You shouldn't be surprised when people who love firearms and hunting resist your educating anti's, especially when the only solution offered seems to be a ban on lead ammo.

 

I got news for you - you are not telling them anything they have not known for a long time. It is the hunters who are in the dark. This has been said over and over and in different ways. And it transgresses into other matters as well. This week I posted around 5 things going on right now, and in NY. Almost zero engagement on these posts from members of this forum. Absolute zero meaningful engagement from members of this forum. 

 

And, dont think we are not working on the bird watchers too - I wrote and distributed a long post to them this week not to conflate this with anti hunting, to let hunters speak to hunters, and that a legislative route is not likely to pass and is likely to cause an unintended reaction - unintended by everyone except the Humane Society of the United States - New York State and sadly some of the national pro-hunting organizations which also profit from a conflict. 

 

Now Yes, Andy Mason of the NY State Ornithological Association is already grandstanding on this video and sent out an e mail blast that they should push for a lead ban on WMU - he meant WMAs, shows how much he knows. But that is Andy Mason just being Andy Mason. I guy who doesnt work and leaches a good living off of poor people as a landlord and owner of rental property. Another arse with too much money and too little brain. 

 

And, part of Audubon NY's legislative agenda is indeed a lead ban. Just go to their website. 

 

But, that does not mean a lead bill will ever be introduced, much less passed into law. And it certainly does not mean every hunter who is opposed to lead ammo is seeking or endorsing a ban. The fact is, believe it or not, hunters have been lied to about lead ammo for a long time their is a need to provide facts to hunters so they can make an informed choice.

 

A good analogy is tobacco use: Cigarettes are unhealthy. But they are not banned - smoking is a "choice".  However, that does not mean the public should not be informed about the risks and impacts.