Lead-Free rules coming to Idaho?

[wowzers]

The Nez Perce tribe has been pushing this for a while and this survey was based on one of their previous surveys.

 

[Jesse Jaymes]

What is the down side of non lead ammo?

What is the huge opposition?

 

[North of 60]

A general observation regarding data published by academics and some nonprofits that may apply here:

A fair amount of my work in the job i had before retiring involved consulting for academics wanting to publish based on state-level data, wrangling independent evaluations by universities, and advising on policy at the state level, and some at the national level.

What i observed and battled was academics are commonly biased from whatever premise they are starting from, and they look for (and manipulate) data to support the outcome they want to see happen with policy, or to get published. Decision makers use that information.

It is frightening to me how much influence academics have on policy in this country.

 

[HunterGatherer]

What is the down side of non lead ammo?

What is the huge opposition?

It’s probably better if you just search this site or use an AI to give you the pros and cons. Otherwise, it will completely derail this thread

 

[packgoatguy]

What is the down side of non lead ammo?

What is the huge opposition?

There is no downside to have the option to use lead-free bullets... and if you want to use them, more power to you.

It's when the state forces me to use them by banning all alternatives that I take issue with.

As for the benefits of ammo that contains lead... (like lead covered in a copper jacket... think hornady eldx, eldm, berger eol, vld, Sierra TMK) I would have to mostly defer to smarter folks than I for those details (like @Formidilosus).

But for me, it comes down to having bullets that create larger wound channels at lower impact velocities with smaller calibers... when compared to the alternative lead-free options. Likewise, the highest BC bullets available for hunters contain lead... which means additional drop and wind drift for the lead-free alternatives (all else being equal). In the end, I'm able to do more with less (less recoil mostly) to achieve the same results, and that helps me and my kids be better shooters to begin with.

I'll add that there has been plenty of debate on this in other threads if you are interested (I believe its discussed at length in the "223 for Bear, Elk, Deer" thread and threads considering the efficacy of 6mm and 6.5mm bullet offerings.

 

[HunterGatherer]

There is no downside to have the option to use lead-free bullets... and if you want to use them, more power to you.

It's when the state forces me to use them by banning all alternatives that I take issue with.

I agree with this. I’m a solid copper shooter and the way I hunt, there is no downside. I actually see more downsides to lead. I would like to see non-lead bullet use become more common BUT I think trying to promote its use by mandating it and outlawing lead actually causes way more resistance to people using it. People, myself included, do not like to be told what to do. As soon as you try to tell someone they may not be able to shoot lead, the pushback is enormous.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

Up until this year your bullet had to be solid lead for muzzleloader hunting in Idaho.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rclouse79]

After going from copper back to lead and finding a load that shoots light out, I would just keep another magazine of copper bullets in my pocket and pay the fine if I got caught.

 

[Jesse Jaymes]

It’s probably better if you just search this site or use an AI to give you the pros and cons. Otherwise, it will completely derail this thread

Semi respectfully....it's not meant to derail. Rough guess is 75% or more of the replies to this thread are folks/hunters crying about a potential mandate. Some have cried foul on the cost of bullets/ammo. Others are making claims to maybe lethality of game birds with non toxic?

I posed the serious question of other than being a cry baby....environmentally....what is the down side?

I am a 40+ year custom handloader. I've shot schitt tons of Barnes TSX. And shit ton of cast lead handgun ammo.

Just because it may seem non traditional, or mandated, or costly...what are the environmental downsides to a lead ban?

 

[mt terry d]

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.

My point was that lead isn't the real issue/problem with out "game management".
That's just another diversion, a distraction.
Gets us all quibbling about minutiae when it's the system, the structure of the MTFWP ( and probably every state F&G) that's the problem/scam.

You probably have a few people within the system that know decisions are made from the top down
and that their first priority is to keep their jobs/expand & grow the system, not to properly manage the resource, but if they speak up they are penalized if not forced out. Dissent is verboten. Forest Service same.
It's government . It's how it works.

 

[packgoatguy]

Semi respectfully....it's not meant to derail. Rough guess is 75% or more of the replies to this thread are folks/hunters crying about a potential mandate. Some have cried foul on the cost of bullets/ammo. Others are making claims to maybe lethality of game birds with non toxic?

I posed the serious question of other than being a cry baby....environmentally....what is the down side?

I am a 40+ year custom handloader. I've shot schitt tons of Barnes TSX. And shit ton of cast lead handgun ammo.

Just because it may seem non traditional, or mandated, or costly...what are the environmental downsides to a lead ban?

I don't know that there is an "environmental" downside to a lead ban. The question to be asked though, is the "environmental" benefit enough to justify the other consequences? I think it would be a similar argument for global warming issues...burning less fossil fuels is good for the environment... but has severe economic and societal consequences if it were banned outright. If the government came out tomorrow with a law that outlawed all motorized travel except electric cars... I don't think anyone would be arguing about an "environmental downside" but they WOULD be screaming about the fact that the $80k truck in their driveway is now worthless and illegal to drive...

 

[Jesse Jaymes]

Ok....but what is the real financial impact. I make my own ammo. Barnes bullets are $50-$70 for 50. Bergers are no cheaper.

Factory lead free are very obtainable. I see almost 0 financial impact to the hunter.

 

[packgoatguy]

Ok....but what is the real financial impact. I make my own ammo. Barnes bullets are $50-$70 for 50. Bergers are no cheaper.

Factory lead free are very obtainable. I see almost 0 financial impact to the hunter.

Who says it has to be a financial impact to the hunter? See post #45 for my response to this question previously.

However... there is a real financial impact that has been noted in previous posts... many of us own thousands of dollars worth of projectiles containing lead, along with factory ammo containing lead. If there were a law banning the use of these projectiles and ammo, our investment would have been wasted, and we would have to re-invest in lead-free projectiles. For someone shooting a half box of ammo a year... maybe not a big deal... for someone shooting 500-1000 rounds a year, it's a bigger deal. For those shooting a few thousand rounds a year... its a really big deal.

 

[Brap01]

If this issue goes before the IDFG Commission, will it actually matter that most Idahoans oppose it? They didn't seem to have a very high regard for the majority opinion of Idaho hunters at their meeting last month...

What happened at that meeting that showed IDFG doesn't care about public opinion?

 

[HunterGatherer]

Who says it has to be a financial impact to the hunter? See post #45 for my response to this question previously.

However... there is a real financial impact that has been noted in previous posts... many of us own thousands of dollars worth of projectiles containing lead, along with factory ammo containing lead. If there were a law banning the use of these projectiles and ammo, our investment would have been wasted, and we would have to re-invest in lead-free projectiles. For someone shooting a half box of ammo a year... maybe not a big deal... for someone shooting 500-1000 rounds a year, it's a bigger deal. For those shooting a few thousand rounds a year... its a really big deal.

Again, I’m not advocating a lead ban but If they moved forward with this , it would be a transition over time. People would have plenty of time to shoot up all their lead before the ban actually took effect. If they decided today to ban lead it would probably be 5 years before it took effect…

 

[amassi]

Well here’s the slope you guys are skiing down, push back on this nonsense with all your might shoot what you want and let others do likewise.
• 1986: California condor population drops to just 22 individuals, prompting intensive recovery efforts; lead exposure later identified as a major threat.
• 2007: California enacts AB 821, banning lead ammunition for big game hunting in the California condor recovery zone (southern California range) to address condor mortality. (Incredibly small area 2.8% of the state)
• 2008: The California Fish and Game Commission implements the condor zone ban on lead ammunition, including for non-waterfowl species like upland game birds.
• 2013 (October 11): Governor Jerry Brown signs AB 711 into law, mandating a statewide phase-in of non-lead ammunition requirements for all hunting of wildlife (mammals, birds, and nongame species) with any firearm, fully effective by July 1, 2019. This expands protections beyond the condor zone.
• July 1, 2015: Interim phase requires non-lead ammunition on all state wildlife areas and ecological reserves.
• July 1, 2019: Full statewide ban takes effect, making California the first U.S. state to prohibit lead ammunition for all hunting purposes.
•Legislative Attempts: In 2020, AB 3071 proposed banning lead ammo at all shooting ranges to reduce environmental and health risks, but the bill did not pass.

Btw condors are pets, they can’t sustain themselves without extensive human intervention. They were 100% a red herring to impose restrictions. I have ZERO doubt this will end in a lead ban with all shooting in CA. As per everything it’s all about control. It took 6 years to move the goal post from condor protection to statewide lead ban for hunting


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Robobiss]

UM is going to have to start making blue polymer tips that suspiciously color match a popular name brand manufacturer of monolithic projectiles.

So that you can replace your factory green/red ones with something that better matches your eyes.

 

[packgoatguy]

Again, I’m not advocating a lead ban but If they moved forward with this , it would be a transition over time. People would have plenty of time to shoot up all their lead before the ban actually took effect. If they decided today to ban lead it would probably be 5 years before it took effect…

You would thing that... and that is what we were told last spring when IDFG started exploring the idea of banning technology tools and setting up the HAT Working Group. It was supposed to be a lengthy process. But within a few months, they had already initiated the rule making stage, and a couple weeks ago the commission approved it. There was no explanation for the urgency, no necessity, and the proposed rules were full of typos... but in less than a span of 1 year, it went from the initial survey (the first anyone had ever even heard about it) to full rule implementation. The pre-HAT survey went out early December 2024... and this pre-lead ban survey went out early December 2025. I smell a pattern...

 

[4cMuley]

 

[North of 60]

You would thing that... and that is what we were told last spring when IDFG started exploring the idea of banning technology tools and setting up the HAT Working Group. It was supposed to be a lengthy process. But within a few months, they had already initiated the rule making stage, and a couple weeks ago the commission approved it. There was no explanation for the urgency, no necessity, and the proposed rules were full of typos... but in less than a span of 1 year, it went from the initial survey (the first anyone had ever even heard about it) to full rule implementation. The pre-HAT survey went out early December 2024... and this pre-lead ban survey went out early December 2025. I smell a pattern...

From what i've seen the changes at a state level not requiring federal approval (usually strings on federal money) are commonly at the pace and discretion of the Governor and appointed Secretarys/Commissioners/Directors of the various departments within state government. If the higher ups aren't afraid of political repercussions, they will do what they can for their particular agendas.

And unfortunately incremental change is often undertaken to reduce political repercussions.