Lead-Free rules coming to Idaho?

[Macintosh]

Regardless of how anyone feels about it, there is considerable research pointing to the damaging effects of lead ammo on other wildlife. Lots of nuance on the topic that makes it less of a slam dunk in either direction, but it would be equally biased in the other direction to NOT provide this context in a poll, and illustrate the ongoing effort by many people (both inside and outside state and federal wildlife agencies) to move in that direction. Again, that is a fact that is happening now around wildlife management, regardless of what anyone thinks about it. It’s literally “this thing is happening, some people think you should do this and are working to make that happen, what do you think about it?”

So what would it look like for the question to be “unbiased”, when you are forced to acknowledge and work with both sides of the topic?

 

[Rotnguns]

If there’s no diversity of opinion - Edit, or academic independence and integrity - among the peers, then peer review is worthless.

Good comment, and points well taken. A credible peer-review process for a project like this one centers on methods and results.

That's why technical/scientific articles are divided generally:
Abstract (brief summary of methods, results, conclusions)
Introduction (purpose of study, including background and prior work)
Methods (how the study was conducted, including data acquisition and analysis)
Results (data presented here)
Conclusions (here is the "opinion" part - what do the authors infer from the results?)
References Cited

In my experience as a reviewer and an author, our focus is primarily on methods and results, along with the literature review of prior work. We tend to give largess on conclusions drawn, as long as the methods and data are sound and credible. We also tend to be critical of literature reviews that contain glaring gaps or omissions of important or seminal articles and presentations.

 

[TheTone]

He no longer works for IDFG on surveys/research

 

[Rotnguns]

Regardless of how anyone feels about it, there is considerable research pointing to the damaging effects of lead ammo on other wildlife. Lots of nuance on the topic that makes it less of a slam dunk in either direction, but it would be equally biased in the other direction to NOT provide this context in a poll, and illustrate the ongoing effort by many people (both inside and outside state and federal wildlife agencies) to move in that direction. Again, that is a fact that is happening now around wildlife management, regardless of what anyone thinks about it. It’s literally “this thing is happening, some people think you should do this and are working to make that happen, what do you think about it?”

So what would it look like for the question to be “unbiased”, when you are forced to acknowledge and work with both sides of the topic?

Good point, and that's why public-opinion surveys are frankly not worth much. We see time and again that so-called opinion polls are highly divergent, depending upon who is funding the polls, and often don't align with actual election results. That being said, I don't feel questions such as these should have been asked:

Q21. How IMPORTANT would the following be in your decision to participate in an incentive program
encouraging Idaho hunters to switch to lead-free ammunition?
a. A free supply of lead-free ammunition
c. Opportunity to test lead-free ammunition for free
d. Entry into a drawing to win hunting-related prizes;

etc.

 

[Rotnguns]

He no longer works for IDFG on surveys/research

Say, that's very interesting information indeed. Wonder what the backstory is on that?

 

[packgoatguy]

Freedom is important, but understanding what freedom actually means is more important. Just because I don't like something doesn't mean it should be permanently banned for everyone else as well.

For me, this is the key point! At what point does a higher percentage of people choosing to use lead-free projectiles (in Idaho) mean that a law should be passed to ban the remaining percentage of the population from having the choice to use lead projectiles?

 

[Mtndawger]

Looks to me like the survey is really attempting to get a read for the decision makers on how to approach getting to lead free ammunition. That is entirely different than learning hunter attitudes about whether or not lead is harmful for this use case. Regardless waterfowl hunting/hunters/ammo needs to be isolated out of it as it skews the data.

 

[packgoatguy]

Won't it be at least a little bit ironic when IDFG bans lead projectiles... considering Idaho's historical roots in mining lead LOL?

 

[HunterGatherer]

Where do I sign up for the FREE BULLETS ?!

 

[mt terry d]

Studies/surveys: Government inventing a problem and then providing the solution.

Re Wildlife "management", when does it EVER lead to more and better hunting opportunities?

How many freaking times does a person have to see this happen before he admits it's all a money and power scam?

Wake up people.

 

[Spence1875]

As bad as this would be for big game, there are a lot of lead free options at a reasonable price. Barnes, Nosler e tip, Norma eco strike,, that also perform well. Still think it is big scam.

A bigger impact is on the upland and small game bird hunters. Look at the negative performance impact steel shot is for waterfowl and how expensive the better non toxic shot is. I miss to much to afford $5 a shell for tungsten. U shoot a lot more with upland and small game bird hunting.

Also i predict it may creep into target shooting on public lands as well.

This is just antigunners/antihunters using any tool they can.

 

[HuntHarder]

Studies/surveys: Government inventing a problem and then providing the solution.

Re Wildlife "management", when does it EVER lead to more and better hunting opportunities?

How many freaking times does a person have to see this happen before he admits it's all a money and power scam?

Wake up people.

I'm curious to hear you explain the scam. How does IDFG make more money banning lead? What would be the motive's behind possibly banning lead? P.s. I shoot lead projectiles exclusively.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I'm curious to hear you explain the scam. How does IDFG make more money banning lead? What would be the motive's behind possibly banning lead? P.s. I shoot lead projectiles exclusively.

Imagine you are a lobbyist working for a bullet manufacturer. With a single regulation, you can make all lead hunting bullets unusable. Then you can leverage that into banning lead ammo on public ranges and increase environmental liability for private ranges. Now, all the millions upon millions of rounds consumers have already purchased are effectively unusable for any law-abiding person. Now you can sell all those hoarders new, more expensive bullets. And once people figure out that tiny quantities of copper are bad for fish, you repeat the process.

Of course, it also goes hand-in-glove with the anti-gun and anti-hunting agendas. Where the playbook has shifted slightly from trying to facially attack the rights, but instead making it progressively harder to legally pursue firearms-related activities. The local city ran the best gun store out of town with threats of lawsuits over illegal use of firearms by criminals. And they are constantly at work trying to leverage environmental regulations to shut down shooting ranges.

The desired end state is a situation where “common people” don’t own or use firearms.

And, eventually, you do things like abuse data on wounding rates with archery to get a groundswell of “it’s inhumane” and get that banned. Then a pharmaceutical company gets a contract to put deer on birth control to keep the numbers down in urban areas and they can increase predator numbers in rural areas. Which makes the lobbyists other clients happy.

Now you know how lobbyists work and think.

 

[BuckSmasher]

Won't it be at least a little bit ironic when IDFG bans lead projectiles... considering Idaho's historical roots in mining lead LOL?

To be honest, I don't think Idaho is going to ban lead bullets. BUT if we did it would be BECAUSE of our historical roots mining lead. Folks can't even dig a post hole in the silver valley without a permit.

The legacy of lead pollution over there is sad and frustrating.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

To be honest, I don't think Idaho is going to ban lead bullets. BUT if we did it would be BECAUSE of our historical roots mining lead. Folks can't even dig a post hole in the silver valley without a permit.

The legacy of lead pollution over there is sad and frustrating.

There are places in Spain where the lead pollution from Roman silver mining is so bad that you can’t drink the groundwater over 2000 years later. It’s a helluva mess.

 

[JF_Idaho]

I bet a large percent of the "38%" of the respondents who said they don't shoot lead shoot factory copper jacketed bullets and not cast lead and don't understand the difference.

 

[BuckSmasher]

Imagine you are a lobbyist working for a bullet manufacturer. With a single regulation, you can make all lead hunting bullets unusable. Then you can leverage that into banning lead ammo on public ranges and increase environmental liability for private ranges. Now, all the millions upon millions of rounds consumers have already purchased are effectively unusable for any law-abiding person. Now you can sell all those hoarders new, more expensive bullets. And once people figure out that tiny quantities of copper are bad for fish, you repeat the process.

Of course, it also goes hand-in-glove with the anti-gun and anti-hunting agendas. Where the playbook has shifted slightly from trying to facially attack the rights, but instead making it progressively harder to legally pursue firearms-related activities. The local city ran the best gun store out of town with threats of lawsuits over illegal use of firearms by criminals. And they are constantly at work trying to leverage environmental regulations to shut down shooting ranges.

The desired end state is a situation where “common people” don’t own or use firearms.

And, eventually, you do things like abuse data on wounding rates with archery to get a groundswell of “it’s inhumane” and get that banned. Then a pharmaceutical company gets a contract to put deer on birth control to keep the numbers down in urban areas and they can increase predator numbers in rural areas. Which makes the lobbyists other clients happy.

Now you know how lobbyists work and think.

Lots of folks underestimate the GREED of some people. That being said, I don't use lead bullets for hunting any longer. Definitely support people coming to their own conclusion on that though vs lead bans.

 

[BuckSmasher]

There are places in Spain where the lead pollution from Roman silver mining is so bad that you can’t drink the groundwater over 2000 years later. It’s a helluva mess.

Never heard of that. Amazing that it hasn't dissipated or been sequestered in that long. Living up here in the CDA area you soon learn about how the upper CDA river is the largest Federal 'Superfund' site so far.