Will you continue to Support CCA?

[Duck Butter]

I sure didn't want to get into this but this is wrong on so many levels, its like "W" has gotten into your brain or something

[QUOTE=MathGeek;615330]Correct me if I am in need of a history lesson, but didn't DU push the banning of lead shot back in the 1980s?

Didn't this have the effect of driving up the price of duck hunting and effectively restricting access to the more affluent? Duck hunting is surely much more of a rich man's sport in 2013 than when my dad introduced me to duck hunting in 1978.

There are many many factors behind why leases are skyrocketing. One of them is because they can get it. If I was a farmer I would flood every bit of my land and lease it to the highest bidder, because people will pay it just to have a spot to sit. Duck hunting has become the 'cool thing' to do and a case of shells is the least expense for a duck hunter

Don't get me wrong, the science showed a genuine need to reduce the use of lead shot in areas where it was being ingested by waterfowl.

Then why did you say this "didn't DU push the banning of lead shot back in the 1980s?" Aren't you adamately FOR science driven regulations, I mean the entire tripletail thread would show that you are. Seems to me that lead was killing ducks indirectly and a conservation organization for ducks stepped in and showed the science that lead does in fact kill ducks (and it does still to this day, there are studies on Catahoula Lake going on yearly that will show this)

But the global ban for waterfowl hunting (global ban) that was put in place was overreaching and is serving as a template for current efforts to expand lead bans to include upland game and rifle ammunition as well. RKBA advocates recognize current efforts to bad lead ammunition as aimed at 2nd amendment rights by driving up prices and restricting access. The 1991 waterfowl ban was the camel's nose in the tent.
You are really reaching here. Lead is bad for ducks, period, don't try and put the rest on Ducks Unlimited, they did it for the ducks (DUCKS unlimited). This sounds like that Nazi and Jew thing you posted on the tripletail thread

Why is DU silent on the current issue of banning lead for upland game and rifle ammunition? (Feel free to correct me if my assertion of DU's silence is incorrect.)

Remember that its DUCKS Unlimited, not upland game unlimited or pheasants forever or rifle ammunition unlimited. Their mission is for wetlands and waterfowl. No dog in that fight for them. And why do you want them to be, you just said they were 'overreaching' in the paragraph just above, which is it? Are the overreaching? or are they not doing enough? Can't have it both ways

Also, wasn't DU a player in a lot of the wetland preservation regulations in the 1980s and 1990s that amounted to a major governmental intrusion on private property rights requiring private landowners to jump through hoops to develop their own property?

Oh you mean when we FINALLY found out the real importance of wetlands and people had to actually apply for permits (what you call 'jump through hoops', I call permits, thank goodness this came about). Before this came around, a person could just do anything they wanted to with a wetland - develop it, dam it up, drain it, etc. This affects other people downstream. If you had property downstream of someone who altered their waterway, you could have been flooded downstream

The parallel between DU and CCA is this: supporting restrictive regulations that restrict access beyond the needs supported by sound science sets bad precedents that will be copied and exploited to further restrict hunting and fishing rights in the future.

That is your opinion and everyone is entitled to them, and you do not have to support anything they do

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Oh you mean when we FINALLY found out the real importance of wetlands and people had to actually apply for permits (what you call 'jump through hoops', I call permits, thank goodness this came about). Before this came around, a person could just do anything they wanted to with a wetland - develop it, dam it up, drain it, etc. This affects other people downstream. If you had property downstream of someone who altered their waterway, you could have been flooded downstream

Actually, a person had to OWN the wetland to do anything with it. After DU, they needed the federal government's permission to do what they wanted with their OWN property.

One can pass laws that reasonably restrict uses of land that might adversely impact neighbors without requiring landowners to obtain federal permission for just about any development or improvement. And how the congressional authority to "regulate interstate commerce" got twisted into the authority to require landowners in a given state to get permission from the federal government to develop their own property is beyond me. The regulation of private land to minimize negative impact on neighboring properties should have remained a state issue rather than a federal power grab.


Regarding lead shot, the science showed that ducks ingesting the lead shot in certain types of habitat was killing the ducks. Reasonable, science based regulation would have banned the use of lead shot for hunting in those kinds of habitat. Banning use of lead shot in midwestern corn fields was an overreach that did not have scientific support.

Criminalizing previously enjoyed liberties should be narrowly tailored to meet the scientific requirements that demonstrate the need without overreaching infringements that restrict liberties in ways that are not demonstrated with the scientific data.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Actually, a person had to OWN the wetland to do anything with it. After DU, they needed the federal government's permission to do what they wanted with their OWN property.

Because it is affecting people downstream! Its bigger than that little parcel of land, it affects all of us. I don't want someone upstream to be able to build a building and run the sewer directly into the stream on HIS property because it will affect all of us. Should he be able to get a 55 gallon drum of used diesel and pour it in HIS creek? No thank god.

One can pass laws that reasonably restrict uses of land that might adversely impact neighbors without requiring landowners to obtain federal permission for just about any development or improvement.

Then run for Congress or Senate and get this done, this is bigger than Ducks Unlimited or CCA

And how the congressional authority to "regulate interstate commerce" got twisted into the authority to require landowners in a given state to get permission from the federal government to develop their own property is beyond me.

Ask your Senator or Congressperson, this is definitely not an issue with DU or CCA

The regulation of private land to minimize negative impact on neighboring properties should have remained a state issue rather than a federal power grab.

Obviously Ducks Unlimited AND CCA were a HUGE part of this

Regarding lead shot, the science showed that ducks ingesting the lead shot in certain types of habitat was killing the ducks. Reasonable, science based regulation would have banned the use of lead shot for hunting in those kinds of habitat.

Banning use of lead shot in corn fields was an overreach that did not have scientific support.

Because no one floods corn fields and hunts waterfowl over them except the entire midwest and waterfowl will readily dry feed in a dry corn field, so there is that also

You can have study after study after study, but common sense takes over after a while. You have got to know that lead is an extremely toxic element, and it has been proven hundreds of times that birds die from lead ingestion.

Criminalizing previously enjoyed liberties should be narrowly tailored to meet the scientific requirements that demonstrate the need without overreaching infringements that restrict liberties in ways that are not demonstrated with the scientific data.

You should put that as your mission statement on your non-profit organization you are starting

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

You have got to know that lead is an extremely toxic element, and it has been proven hundreds of times that birds die from lead ingestion.

Right. Birds die from hunting and fish die from fishing. In the case of any specific component of a proposed regulation, the issue isn't whether or not individual birds or fish die, the issue is whether the effects are significantly detrimental at the population level.

The question is not, "Is there a non-zero possibility of a loon ingesting a lead sinker in New York"? but rather,

"Will enough loons find and ingest lead fishing sinkers in a given fishing area to make a significant negative impact that jeopardizes the very survival of the entire population of loons as a species?"

The question is not, "Is there a finite chance that a condor or eagle will feed on this deer carcass, ingest lead, and suffer ill health effects"? but rather,

"Will enough condors or eagles find and ingest lead from hunting bullets in a given hunting area to make a significant negative impact on the overall population"?

Another relevant question is whether the increase in crippling losses from mandated ammo changes will be greater than the gains in the populations we are hoping to protect.

Without doubt, the proposed tripletail regulations will SAVE FISH at the individual level. But the key question is whether the regulations have been shown to be scientifically necessary to preserve the health of the entire population in Louisiana waters. Is the harvest sustainable?

If losses to eagles and condors from lead rifle bullets is sustainable in a given area, then they should remain legal in that area.

If the losses to looms from lead sinkers is sustainable in a given area, then they should remain legal in that area.

If the losses of ducks to lead shot is sustainable ...

[Goooh]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Right. Birds die from hunting and fish die from fishing. In the case of any specific component of a proposed regulation, the issue isn't whether or not individual birds or fish die, the issue is whether the effects are significantly detrimental at the population level.

The question is not, "Is there a non-zero possibility of a loon ingesting a lead sinker in New York"? but rather,

"Will enough loons find and ingest lead fishing sinkers in a given fishing area to make a significant negative impact that jeopardizes the very survival of the entire population of loons as a species?"

The question is not, "Is there a finite chance that a condor or eagle will feed on this deer carcass, ingest lead, and suffer ill health effects"? but rather,

"Will enough condors or eagles find and ingest lead from hunting bullets in a given hunting area to make a significant negative impact on the overall population"?

Another relevant question is whether the increase in crippling losses from mandated ammo changes will be greater than the gains in the populations we are hoping to protect.

Without doubt, the proposed tripletail regulations will SAVE FISH at the individual level. But the key question is whether the regulations have been shown to be scientifically necessary to preserve the health of the entire population in Louisiana waters. Is the harvest sustainable?

If losses to eagles and condors from lead rifle bullets is sustainable in a given area, then they should remain legal in that area.

If the losses to looms from lead sinkers is sustainable in a given area, then they should remain legal in that area.

If the losses of ducks to lead shot is sustainable ...

Very nice way of painting the picture to differentiate between emotion based legislation and scientific data based legislation.

Well done sir.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Right. Birds die from hunting and fish die from fishing. In the case of any specific component of a proposed regulation, the issue isn't whether or not individual birds or fish die, the issue is whether the effects are significantly detrimental at the population level.

Yes, but lead shot being ingested is not the same as hunting mortality. Its indirect mortality and lead never leaves the ecosystem. It gets rolled around and around and may oxidize a little, but that lead that was shot back in the 1950s is still there and still toxic and has the same basic chemical properties as it did when it was made. You can contact the state waterfowl biologist and ask him about lead in Catahoula Lake. I spoke withe the technician at a symposium just last Thursday about this. He is the one checking the gizzards of the ducks. That is the hunting example, and as far as fishing and 'fish die from fishing' very true, but if something is indirectly killing gamefish you better believe people will get up in arms. If there was something causing a large speckled trout kill on Big Lake, you and "W' would form a coalition to find out what was killing them and would do whatever it took to ban whatever it was

The question is not, "Is there a non-zero possibility of a loon ingesting a lead sinker in New York"? but rather,"Will enough loons find and ingest lead fishing sinkers in a given fishing area to make a significant negative impact that jeopardizes the very survival of the entire population of loons as a species?"

That may be the question that YOU think is asked but in reality its not.
This is getting into Migratory Birds Treaty Act, loons fall under that provision, and if birds (non-game birds, migratory game birds) can be proven to be dying from lead ingestion (these studies can easily be found as well) then you can bet the government is going to come down. You are going to have to take that up with your Senator but Migratory Bird Treaty Act goes back a good ways

The question is not, "Is there a finite chance that a condor or eagle will feed on this deer carcass, ingest lead, and suffer ill health effects"? but rather,"Will enough condors or eagles find and ingest lead from hunting bullets in a given hunting area to make a significant negative impact on the overall population"?

Again, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, but with condors you are getting into the Endangered Species Act. Even ONE condor dying is hurting the population. Bald eagles, back to the MBTA.
One other thing that is important here is that lead goes up the food chain as well, it keeps on killing all the way up the chain.

Another relevant question is whether the increase in crippling losses from mandated ammo changes will be greater than the gains in the populations we are hoping to protect.

That can be found as well, the improvements in steel shot have been great, and this was so 1980s too


Without doubt, the proposed tripletail regulations will SAVE FISH at the individual level. But the key question is whether the regulations have been shown to be scientifically necessary to preserve the health of the entire population in Louisiana waters. Is the harvest sustainable?

This here is the whole basis of populatin biology/ecology. Is the harvest sustainable? As I said earlier, there is no way to count every single fish/rat/duck. You have to rely on methods such as the mark-recapture method to estimate the population. Well, it has already been stated that tripletail are 2.5x more likely to be caught than other game fish, and that is what threw a red flag. These things are not uncommon, LDWF can shut down a deer season if they 'think' the population is stressed or may take a big hit from something like a flood or hurricane, etc. Do you think they went out and counted all the deer prior to that decision? Its impossible to do that, but some things are common sense and this phrase is going to further your anger but its sometimes best to 'err on the side of caution'.

If losses to eagles and condors from lead rifle bullets is sustainable in a given area, then they should remain legal in that area.

Tripletail and eagles and condors are not even apples to oranges, we are talking game fish vs a migratory (non-game bird) which has specific regulations regarding its population status.


If the losses to looms from lead sinkers is sustainable in a given area, then they should remain legal in that area.
If the losses of ducks to lead shot is sustainable

It has nothing to do with sustainability. It would take millions of ducks to die from lead ingestion to actually get into the sustainability issue. Hunters kill millions of ducks yearly (directly with aid of shotguns) and yet that is not the biggest factor to ducks' 'sustainability'. How many ducks getting killed by ingestion of lead is too many? 5? 100? 10,000? If I can do my part by shooting steel so that I can keep a duck from dying from lead poisoning, so be it. I want to eat that duck, I don't want him to die and nothing get to eat it

...

I wasn't around when lead shot was legal for waterfowl, and I have done just fine with steel shot.

Now we have run the entire gamut, we have covered tripletail, Nazis, Jews, condors, and eagles, and no one has changed their mind. Its been a good discussion

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

I wasn't around when lead shot was legal for waterfowl, and I have done just fine with steel shot.

Now we have run the entire gamut, we have covered tripletail, Nazis, Jews, condors, and eagles, and no one has changed their mind. Its been a good discussion

Now we just need to fit in rule 34 somehow and we will have covered the entire purpose of the internets

And i do think some minds have been changed... It's gone from a straight reactionary pose of don't support CCA anymore, to a group effort to make some changes. That's a heck of lot right there DB.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Yes, but lead shot being ingested is not the same as hunting mortality. Its indirect mortality and lead never leaves the ecosystem.

OK. There is an indirect non-hunting mortality to migratory waterfowl from wind mills and airplanes. Should we ban them because of the Migratory Birds Treaty Act? Or should we ask for good data providing reasonable estimates so that we can weigh the trade-offs before demanding a ban because birds are dying and there is a Migratory Birds Treaty Act?

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

but if something is indirectly killing gamefish you better believe people will get up in arms. If there was something causing a large speckled trout kill on Big Lake, you and "W' would form a coalition to find out what was killing them and would do whatever it took to ban whatever it was

Has the explosive removal of oil platforms been banned yet? That causes mass die-offs at one time. I do not think explosive well removal should be banned, but I think the fish kill should be quantified and the companies removing the well should be forced to make some remediation and that the red snapper kill should count against the commercial quota. If there is not room in the commercial quota to kill the red snapper with the blast, then an alternate removal approach should be required. Is this unreasonable?

Also, there is a lot of scientific evidence that nutrient loading in the Gulf of Mexico causes seasonal hypoxia that occasionally results in fish kills. Some are calling for severe restrictions on nitrogen fertilizers. My colleagues and I (in our published papers) are suggesting that the benefits and risks of nutrient loading be considered as a whole to weigh the trade offs rather than implement federal restrictions on fertilizer use that may actually reduce fishery production in the Gulf of Mexico.

Lots of things kill speckled trout. W and I both think that a lot more trout need to be killed annually in Big Lake. Our preferred method would be raising the limit back to 25, but we both think that the population needs to be kept under better control to produce bigger fish. If you can think of a selective way to kill a bunch of dink trout without killing their food supply, please float some ideas ...

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

That may be the question that YOU think is asked but in reality its not.
This is getting into Migratory Birds Treaty Act, loons fall under that provision, and if birds (non-game birds, migratory game birds) can be proven to be dying from lead ingestion (these studies can easily be found as well) then you can bet the government is going to come down. You are going to have to take that up with your Senator but Migratory Bird Treaty Act goes back a good ways

So when do the bans on windmills and airplanes go into effect?

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Again, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, but with condors you are getting into the Endangered Species Act. Even ONE condor dying is hurting the population. Bald eagles, back to the MBTA.
One other thing that is important here is that lead goes up the food chain as well, it keeps on killing all the way up the chain.

Referencing the MBTA is arguing what the law currently is to support what the law should be. It is an example of the circular fallacy. I do not believe the law should demand criminalizing activities that may inadvertently contribute to the untimely demise of numbers of individual specimens but does not have a significant impact on the entire population.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

This here is the whole basis of populatin biology/ecology. Is the harvest sustainable? As I said earlier, there is no way to count every single fish/rat/duck. You have to rely on methods such as the mark-recapture method to estimate the population. Well, it has already been stated that tripletail are 2.5x more likely to be caught than other game fish, and that is what threw a red flag.

This was an unpublished, unreviewed study from another state. Neither the data nor the methods are available, nor is it known what other game fish are used for comparison. The statement was presented as hearsay at a meeting and cannot even be attributed to a specific scientist, just a vague connection with a Mississippi study. Is this what fish and game laws should be based on in Louisiana?

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

These things are not uncommon, LDWF can shut down a deer season if they 'think' the population is stressed or may take a big hit from something like a flood or hurricane, etc. Do you think they went out and counted all the deer prior to that decision? Its impossible to do that, but some things are common sense and this phrase is going to further your anger but its sometimes best to 'err on the side of caution'.

Is the proposal a temporary or emergency measure while more data is gathered? No the tripletail proposal is for a permanent change to the harvest regulations. No real science needed. Just hearsay and pseudoscience.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

It has nothing to do with sustainability. It would take millions of ducks to die from lead ingestion to actually get into the sustainability issue. Hunters kill millions of ducks yearly (directly with aid of shotguns) and yet that is not the biggest factor to ducks' 'sustainability'. How many ducks getting killed by ingestion of lead is too many? 5? 100? 10,000? If I can do my part by shooting steel so that I can keep a duck from dying from lead poisoning, so be it. I want to eat that duck, I don't want him to die and nothing get to eat it

Ok, then you are welcome not to use lead shot or lead bullets or lead sinkers. Free country.

If sustainability is admittedly not the issue, then the issue should be considered in a cost-benefit or risk-reward. Sound scientific data should inform the cost-benefit or risk-reward, and there should be criminal penalties for parties misrepresenting scientific findings to influence public policy.

And a lot of the federal laws regarding lead shot shells have nothing to do with ducks ingesting lead. Why is possession of lead ammunition banned while hunting ducks? If I was hunting coyote and deer, I could possess lead slugs and buckshot. But if I was goose hunting (or wanted to take advantage of a target of opportunity), I had to be sure there were no lead ammo in my pockets or on the tractor. How much sense does this make for a farmer hunting in his own corn field in the midwest?

[Duck Butter]

[QUOTE=MathGeek;615535]OK. There is an indirect non-hunting mortality to migratory waterfowl from wind mills and airplanes. Should we ban them because of the Migratory Birds Treaty Act? Or should we ask for good data providing reasonable estimates so that we can weigh the trade-offs before demanding a ban because birds are dying and there is a Migratory Birds Treaty Act?

You have to weigh the good vs the bad. Human NEEDS will always trump wildlife needs (especially with this POTUS)

Has the explosive removal of oil platforms been banned yet? That causes mass die-offs at one time.

The oil companies are doing what is required by law, it is coming out of their pockets to have rigs removed. I already stated that this is a big time liability issue and a legal nightmare. First off, the Rigs to Reefs fund was raided by our very own. Oil companies actually donated money to this fund and the fund was very large. Then you have lobbying groups like the shrimpers who are against leaving idle iron behind (and I can see their point) because it tears their nets. After that, you get to the liability issue - what if someone runs into this structure and dies, or if this structure rusts and falls down (it will eventually fall down) someone is getting paid, so who is going to pay? The state, since it is their rig now? or the oil company since it was their rig at one point? Its a slippery slope. Well, you can put lights on these structures but that costs a ton of money (money that was in the Rigs to Reef Fund but Bobby J funded other things with that money) but then you have to change the lights and lights have to be ran by some sort of electrical source (there aren't power lines out there, and generators run outta fuel, so someone has to refuel em and maintain them, see where this is going)

I do not think explosive well removal should be banned, but I think the fish kill should be quantified and the companies removing the well should be forced to make some remediation and that the red snapper kill should count against the commercial quota.

The oil companies are actually willingly donating their rigs to the Rigs to Reefs program, I don't think they should have to make any remediation. They shouldn't have to pay for what the gov't is forcing them to do. They are simply following instructions.

If there is not room in the commercial quota to kill the red snapper with the blast, then an alternate removal approach should be required. Is this unreasonable?

Not unreasonable, if you can come up with a better way, then the oil companies would probably shake your hand

Also, there is a lot of scientific evidence that nutrient loading in the Gulf of Mexico causes seasonal hypoxia that occasionally results in fish kills. Some are calling for severe restrictions on nitrogen fertilizers. My colleagues and I (in our published papers) are suggesting that the benefits and risks of nutrient loading be considered as a whole to weigh the trade offs rather than implement federal restrictions on fertilizer use that may actually reduce fishery production in the Gulf of Mexico.

There are other programs that are available right now for this very thing, but as of now they are all voluntary but cost-share programs are there. The NRCS promotes buffers along ditches. As of now, most farmers will farm 'ditch to ditch' and there is nothing to slow the flow of chemical runoffs. With just a 10' strip of native grasses to pick up the runoff, erosion is slowed down tremendously and the amounts of nitrogenous 'waste' coming downstream is lowered (not to mention the wildlife benefits of having small buffers of native grasses - quail!). I hate to say this but our use of chemicals is outrageous, and farmers especially. They are exempt from many of the tests to become certified for pesticide applications. We are creating 'superbugs' that are pesticide resistant by all the pesticides we use, and nevermind thats enough for that subject

Lots of things kill speckled trout. W and I both think that a lot more trout need to be killed annually in Big Lake. Our preferred method would be raising the limit back to 25, but we both think that the population needs to be kept under better control to produce bigger fish. If you can think of a selective way to kill a bunch of dink trout without killing their food supply, please float some ideas ...


Whatever W thinks, I will think the exact opposite


So when do the bans on windmills and airplanes go into effect?


Referencing the MBTA is arguing what the law currently is to support what the law should be. It is an example of the circular fallacy. I do not believe the law should demand criminalizing activities that may inadvertently contribute to the untimely demise of numbers of individual specimens but does not have a significant impact on the entire population.

This is a long standing law, just like the ban on lead shot, waaaaaay long time ago. Too late to jump on this train


This was an unpublished, unreviewed study from another state. Neither the data nor the methods are available, nor is it known what other game fish are used for comparison. The statement was presented as hearsay at a meeting and cannot even be attributed to a specific scientist, just a vague connection with a Mississippi study. Is this what fish and game laws should be based on in Louisiana?

How do you know it was unpublished? I honestly have not seen the study in reference and do not know if it was published or if it came out of someone's butt, but to answer the question, NO - fish and game laws should be based upon science (in mine and your opinion as well,) but we should also 'err on the side of caution' when science isn't readily available, this is where common sense comes into play. There ARE tripletail studies out there for other states and like I said there is no such thing as a Louisiana tripletail, they are all the same species and all the same population.

Is the proposal a temporary or emergency measure while more data is gathered? No the tripletail proposal is for a permanent change to the harvest regulations. No real science needed. Just hearsay and pseudoscience.


Ok, then you are welcome not to use lead shot or lead bullets or lead sinkers. Free country.

I am also 'free' to shoot ducks with lead if I please, but its not going to work out well
I don't like seeing an animal die that I can not eat, and animals dying from poisoning is not very cool


If sustainability is admittedly not the issue, then the issue should be considered in a cost-benefit or risk-reward. Sound scientific data should inform the cost-benefit or risk-reward, and there should be criminal penalties for parties misrepresenting scientific findings to influence public policy.

Another mission statement right there, but I agree

And a lot of the federal laws regarding lead shot shells have nothing to do with ducks ingesting lead.

There may be 'a lot' that have nothing to do with ducks ingesting lead but the main reasoning is just that

Why is possession of lead ammunition banned while hunting ducks?

I really do not know. I also do not know what the reasoning is that a person can only have 2 limits of ducks in their freezer but if I did some digging I could probably find out.

If I was hunting coyote and deer, I could possess lead slugs and buckshot. But if I was goose hunting (or wanted to take advantage of a target of opportunity), I had to be sure there were no lead ammo in my pockets or on the tractor. How much sense does this make for a farmer hunting in his own corn field in the midwest?

I haven't a clue but this is something that has been in effect for decades. There are many other laws I think need to be re-evaluated as well and are much more important - welfare is one, Obamacare is another

["W"]

[quote=Duck Butter;615390]I sure didn't want to get into this but this is wrong on so many levels, its like "W" has gotten into your brain or something

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Correct me if I am in need of a history lesson, but didn't DU push the banning of lead shot back in the 1980s?

Didn't this have the effect of driving up the price of duck hunting and effectively restricting access to the more affluent? Duck hunting is surely much more of a rich man's sport in 2013 than when my dad introduced me to duck hunting in 1978.

There are many many factors behind why leases are skyrocketing. One of them is because they can get it. If I was a farmer I would flood every bit of my land and lease it to the highest bidder, because people will pay it just to have a spot to sit. Duck hunting has become the 'cool thing' to do and a case of shells is the least expense for a duck hunter

Don't get me wrong, the science showed a genuine need to reduce the use of lead shot in areas where it was being ingested by waterfowl.

Then why did you say this "didn't DU push the banning of lead shot back in the 1980s?" Aren't you adamately FOR science driven regulations, I mean the entire tripletail thread would show that you are. Seems to me that lead was killing ducks indirectly and a conservation organization for ducks stepped in and showed the science that lead does in fact kill ducks (and it does still to this day, there are studies on Catahoula Lake going on yearly that will show this)

But the global ban for waterfowl hunting (global ban) that was put in place was overreaching and is serving as a template for current efforts to expand lead bans to include upland game and rifle ammunition as well. RKBA advocates recognize current efforts to bad lead ammunition as aimed at 2nd amendment rights by driving up prices and restricting access. The 1991 waterfowl ban was the camel's nose in the tent.
You are really reaching here. Lead is bad for ducks, period, don't try and put the rest on Ducks Unlimited, they did it for the ducks (DUCKS unlimited). This sounds like that Nazi and Jew thing you posted on the tripletail thread

Why is DU silent on the current issue of banning lead for upland game and rifle ammunition? (Feel free to correct me if my assertion of DU's silence is incorrect.)

Remember that its DUCKS Unlimited, not upland game unlimited or pheasants forever or rifle ammunition unlimited. Their mission is for wetlands and waterfowl. No dog in that fight for them. And why do you want them to be, you just said they were 'overreaching' in the paragraph just above, which is it? Are the overreaching? or are they not doing enough? Can't have it both ways

Also, wasn't DU a player in a lot of the wetland preservation regulations in the 1980s and 1990s that amounted to a major governmental intrusion on private property rights requiring private landowners to jump through hoops to develop their own property?

Oh you mean when we FINALLY found out the real importance of wetlands and people had to actually apply for permits (what you call 'jump through hoops', I call permits, thank goodness this came about). Before this came around, a person could just do anything they wanted to with a wetland - develop it, dam it up, drain it, etc. This affects other people downstream. If you had property downstream of someone who altered their waterway, you could have been flooded downstream

The parallel between DU and CCA is this: supporting restrictive regulations that restrict access beyond the needs supported by sound science sets bad precedents that will be copied and exploited to further restrict hunting and fishing rights in the future.

That is your opinion and everyone is entitled to them, and you do not have to support anything they do

[Duck Butter]

[quote="W";615426]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

I sure didn't want to get into this but this is wrong on so many levels, its like "W" has gotten into your brain or something

Its called a civil discussion W, you lost out about page 3 in both threads when you started posting gifs and pics

Tell me what part of what I said does not make perfect sense