Post by tbgrindlay on Apr 3, 2007 11:22:47 GMT -5
MORE ON GOING UNLEADED FOR HUNTING: A prediction: Lead ammunition will be banned for hunting within the next decade. Not just in condor range, not just in California, but nationwide. It won't be banned for plinking or target shooting, but it won't be allowed in our hunting fields. It will be banned on solid scientific evidence that birds and animals pick up the spent lead in a variety of ways, and when it enters their diet, they can become sick and die.
I'm growing a little weary of the so-called leaders in the hunting community -- especially those in the industry -- whining about how the move to ban lead ammunition is somehow anti-hunting or anti-gun and that it's not based on good science. It's time to wake up and smell the gunpowder. This is a conservation issue plain and simple, and lead ammunition has broad-based impacts -- negative impacts -- on the environment when used for hunting. I'm not going to do an Al Gore and tell you the issue is settled, but if this were a murder trial and you could see all the evidence coming into this courtroom, even the most devout skeptic would convict lead.
South Dakota banned lead shotgun ammunition for upland game hunting on state game production areas in 1998. Canada has had a nationwide ban on lead shot since 1999. This past week, Missouri banned lead ammunition on 21 of its conservation areas after a study by the University of Missouri's Fisheries and Wildlife Department and Veterinary School showed that lead shot was so prevalent that birds picked it up when feeding. The study found that shorebirds, turkeys, mourning doves, quail, and several species of raptors, including bald eagles, were affected.
John Smith, assistant director for the state Conservation Department (the equivalent of our DFG), said "It's a widely recognized toxic substance, and it's something that can be harmful biologically if it's ingested. Even one (pellet) would probably result in incapacitation and death," he said, referring to game birds.
MORE ON GOING UNLEADED FOR HUNTING: A prediction: Lead ammunition will be banned for hunting within the next decade. Not just in condor range, not just in California, but nationwide. It won't be banned for plinking or target shooting, but it won't be allowed in our hunting fields. It will be banned on solid scientific evidence that birds and animals pick up the spent lead in a variety of ways, and when it enters their diet, they can become sick and die. Since dove numbers seem to be stable or increasing, if we banned lead shot nationwide, could we double the bag limit? Probably.
But most of the people I speak with about the lead issue here in California still get worked up, somehow believing the whole thing is a bogus, anti-hunting effort, and would somehow price lower income hunters out of the game.
Not buying in on that argument, I did some price comparisons and extrapolations this week on non-lead ammunition costs versus lead, and what costs would be for all classes of hunting:
For shotgun ammunition, lead turkey ammunitions ranges from $7 to $10 for a box of 10 rounds. Heavy-Shot and other tungsten-based loads or those made with Bismuth cost from $25 to $35 for a box of 10 -- three times as much. Steel upland loads are now $7 to $9 for a box of 25, the same price as equivalent lead ammunition. Steel waterfowl loads cost the same as equivalent lead loads today. Sure you can shoot more expensive Bismuth or tungsten ammo for upland and waterfowl -- but it's not required.
For big game hunting, Barnes Triple Shock X-Bullets, a lead-free, solid copper alternative to lead, are now available in factory loads for most standard calibers from Federal and Weatherby. Norma also now makes an all-copper bullet, Naturalis, although I can't find anyone carrying it right now. Cost for these lead-free big game loads are equivalent to premium loads featuring lead-based Nosler Partitions or other quality lead hunting bullets. It's a price wash -- and most veteran hunters will tell you the copper bullets perform better in the field.
Appropriate non-lead bullets for varmint shooting is where I've heard a lot of whining lately (especially since the Tejon Ranch announced its complete ban on lead ammunition for 2008 last week). But fret no more, Barnes has introduced a new frangible bullet featuring a copper-tin composite this year. It's called the Varmint Grenade. Since, it's lighter than lead, varmint shooters will see significant velocity increases with this new slug and explosive results. It's cost is almost identical to premium varmint bullets like Nosler Ballistic Tips or the Hornady V-Max. And Black Hills is already loading the bullet in ammo for varmint hunters. You don't even have to handload, and costs are the same.
Lastly, the lament you hear the most is about how the cost of .22 rimfire shooting will skyrocket, completely ending the American tradition of plinking and rimfire hunting for squirrels and rabbits. But will it? Using the cost of the new Varmint Grenades as a guide, I extrapolated what rimfire ammunition would cost using a version of this new bullet. Currently, .22 Long Rifle rimfire ammunition costs about six cents a shot or $6 for a box of 100. Ammo for .22 magnum rimfires is $10 for a box of 50 or about 20 cents a crack. The new bullets are about 7
1/2 cents each, so adding them into regular rimfires would more than double the price of a box of ammo to around $13.50 per 100. The .22 mag stuff would cost about $13.75 per 50, a one-third increase. I suspect the costs can be brought way down. But even at these rates, are those prices going to keep you from going out with the 10/22 to hunt cottontails?
Will any of these prices stop you from hunting? Turkey hunters shoot one or two shots a season. Big game hunters frequently don't go through a box of ammo a year, including checking the sights on their guns. And the cost of steel shotshell ammunition is now as cheap as lead ever was. We'll spend more on gasoline to get to a good place to hunt varmints than 200 to 300 rounds of rimfire ammo will cost us -- by a lot.
I can tell you that we need to take the high road, but my thinking is simple and self-serving: If by shooting non-lead shot, I can save one dove or quail a year from lead poisoning, that's one more bird and its offspring I can pursue the following season. If by shooting Barnes non-lead bullets, I can help the recovery of condors, see more golden eagles, or bag a big coyote -- all animals that could die when eating lead from my gut piles -- then I'll take the precautions. That's practical conservation.
I'm growing a little weary of the so-called leaders in the hunting community -- especially those in the industry -- whining about how the move to ban lead ammunition is somehow anti-hunting or anti-gun and that it's not based on good science. It's time to wake up and smell the gunpowder. This is a conservation issue plain and simple, and lead ammunition has broad-based impacts -- negative impacts -- on the environment when used for hunting. I'm not going to do an Al Gore and tell you the issue is settled, but if this were a murder trial and you could see all the evidence coming into this courtroom, even the most devout skeptic would convict lead.
South Dakota banned lead shotgun ammunition for upland game hunting on state game production areas in 1998. Canada has had a nationwide ban on lead shot since 1999. This past week, Missouri banned lead ammunition on 21 of its conservation areas after a study by the University of Missouri's Fisheries and Wildlife Department and Veterinary School showed that lead shot was so prevalent that birds picked it up when feeding. The study found that shorebirds, turkeys, mourning doves, quail, and several species of raptors, including bald eagles, were affected.
John Smith, assistant director for the state Conservation Department (the equivalent of our DFG), said "It's a widely recognized toxic substance, and it's something that can be harmful biologically if it's ingested. Even one (pellet) would probably result in incapacitation and death," he said, referring to game birds.
MORE ON GOING UNLEADED FOR HUNTING: A prediction: Lead ammunition will be banned for hunting within the next decade. Not just in condor range, not just in California, but nationwide. It won't be banned for plinking or target shooting, but it won't be allowed in our hunting fields. It will be banned on solid scientific evidence that birds and animals pick up the spent lead in a variety of ways, and when it enters their diet, they can become sick and die. Since dove numbers seem to be stable or increasing, if we banned lead shot nationwide, could we double the bag limit? Probably.
But most of the people I speak with about the lead issue here in California still get worked up, somehow believing the whole thing is a bogus, anti-hunting effort, and would somehow price lower income hunters out of the game.
Not buying in on that argument, I did some price comparisons and extrapolations this week on non-lead ammunition costs versus lead, and what costs would be for all classes of hunting:
For shotgun ammunition, lead turkey ammunitions ranges from $7 to $10 for a box of 10 rounds. Heavy-Shot and other tungsten-based loads or those made with Bismuth cost from $25 to $35 for a box of 10 -- three times as much. Steel upland loads are now $7 to $9 for a box of 25, the same price as equivalent lead ammunition. Steel waterfowl loads cost the same as equivalent lead loads today. Sure you can shoot more expensive Bismuth or tungsten ammo for upland and waterfowl -- but it's not required.
For big game hunting, Barnes Triple Shock X-Bullets, a lead-free, solid copper alternative to lead, are now available in factory loads for most standard calibers from Federal and Weatherby. Norma also now makes an all-copper bullet, Naturalis, although I can't find anyone carrying it right now. Cost for these lead-free big game loads are equivalent to premium loads featuring lead-based Nosler Partitions or other quality lead hunting bullets. It's a price wash -- and most veteran hunters will tell you the copper bullets perform better in the field.
Appropriate non-lead bullets for varmint shooting is where I've heard a lot of whining lately (especially since the Tejon Ranch announced its complete ban on lead ammunition for 2008 last week). But fret no more, Barnes has introduced a new frangible bullet featuring a copper-tin composite this year. It's called the Varmint Grenade. Since, it's lighter than lead, varmint shooters will see significant velocity increases with this new slug and explosive results. It's cost is almost identical to premium varmint bullets like Nosler Ballistic Tips or the Hornady V-Max. And Black Hills is already loading the bullet in ammo for varmint hunters. You don't even have to handload, and costs are the same.
Lastly, the lament you hear the most is about how the cost of .22 rimfire shooting will skyrocket, completely ending the American tradition of plinking and rimfire hunting for squirrels and rabbits. But will it? Using the cost of the new Varmint Grenades as a guide, I extrapolated what rimfire ammunition would cost using a version of this new bullet. Currently, .22 Long Rifle rimfire ammunition costs about six cents a shot or $6 for a box of 100. Ammo for .22 magnum rimfires is $10 for a box of 50 or about 20 cents a crack. The new bullets are about 7
1/2 cents each, so adding them into regular rimfires would more than double the price of a box of ammo to around $13.50 per 100. The .22 mag stuff would cost about $13.75 per 50, a one-third increase. I suspect the costs can be brought way down. But even at these rates, are those prices going to keep you from going out with the 10/22 to hunt cottontails?
Will any of these prices stop you from hunting? Turkey hunters shoot one or two shots a season. Big game hunters frequently don't go through a box of ammo a year, including checking the sights on their guns. And the cost of steel shotshell ammunition is now as cheap as lead ever was. We'll spend more on gasoline to get to a good place to hunt varmints than 200 to 300 rounds of rimfire ammo will cost us -- by a lot.
I can tell you that we need to take the high road, but my thinking is simple and self-serving: If by shooting non-lead shot, I can save one dove or quail a year from lead poisoning, that's one more bird and its offspring I can pursue the following season. If by shooting Barnes non-lead bullets, I can help the recovery of condors, see more golden eagles, or bag a big coyote -- all animals that could die when eating lead from my gut piles -- then I'll take the precautions. That's practical conservation.