Will you continue to Support CCA?

[Flatfishfreak]

Never have never will!!! Learned my lesson with D.U.!!!!

10% of the fishermen catch 90% of the fish

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Flatfishfreak

Never have never will!!! Learned my lesson with D.U.!!!!

I find it ironic that groups with names like "Trout Unlimited" and "Ducks Unlimited" are the some of the biggest pushers of harvest and access restrictions.

I'm still coming up the learning curve regarding CCA, but Trout Unlimited promoted an elitist agenda that actually opposed many state and federal stocking efforts in trout streams.

Dividing sportsmen and micromanaging details about how the natural resource pie is divided is bad conservation! Preserving our hunting and fishing rights for the next generation is as important as ensuring there will still be resources and habitat to hunt and fish.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I find it ironic that groups with names like "Trout Unlimited" and "Ducks Unlimited" are the some of the biggest pushers of harvest and access restrictions.

I'm still coming up the learning curve regarding CCA, but Trout Unlimited promoted an elitist agenda that actually opposed many state and federal stocking efforts in trout streams.

Dividing sportsmen and micromanaging details about how the natural resource pie is divided is bad conservation! Preserving our hunting and fishing rights for the next generation is as important as ensuring there will still be resources and habitat to hunt and fish.

You are about to give me a stroke man, this is simply not true
Restricting harvest and access? No sir! No sir! No sir! I am not going to try and defend Ducks Unlimited because its pointless (just like trying to explain tripletail limits and basic wildlife management principles).

You need to start another thread where everyone can bash all the conservation organizations

Ducks Unlimited restricting access

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Ducks Unlimited restricting access

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.

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. But the global ban for waterfowl hunting 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.

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.)

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?

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.

[cgoods17]

i dont believe that banning lead shot is the reason the price of duck hunting has gone up..

[southern151]

Originally Posted by cgoods17

i dont believe that banning lead shot is the reason the price of duck hunting has gone up..

Steel shot is certainly higher than lead shot.

[cgoods17]

it is not THE reason duck hunting has gone up..

I guess since gas prices are so high, it is the reason that vehicles are more expensive now days..

[cgoods17]

what about the fact that land/lease is becoming harder and harder to come by? i think that is more of the reason that duck hunting is more expensive than lead shot.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by cgoods17

i dont believe that banning lead shot is the reason the price of duck hunting has gone up..

Maybe not for the average joe in LA, but I remember when I wanted to get legal to hunt some resident Canada geese and also any in season ducks that flew by a few years back on land I was farming in Ohio. I already had access to the land (farming it), a resident hunting license, and a 12 gauge (squirrel, deer, doves, coyote), along with ready access to a variety of lead shot sizes and chokes. I checked the regs and needed to buy steel shot and a duck stamp. Kinda pricey. After my first attempt, I quickly realized that steel shot stinks and forked over the dough for some bismuth or hevi-shot or something that actually put a few birds in the freezer. I think my son is finally putting those steel shot shells to use on his science project this year. But yeah, the lead shot ban and the duck stamp significantly increased my cost of participation and also reduced performance.

The military's move to lead free ammunition will similarly cost taxpayer's more money and downgrade ammunition performance. Similarly, if lead free ammunition is forced upon hunters, the costs will go up and performance will go down. Ditto of lead free sinkers and tackle are forced upon anglers.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by cgoods17

it is not THE reason duck hunting has gone up..

I guess since gas prices are so high, it is the reason that vehicles are more expensive now days..

Mandated fuel economy standards and safety features to compensate for lighter vehicles (to meet the fuel economy standards) are a big part of it.

[bmac]

Originally Posted by cgoods17

i dont believe that banning lead shot is the reason the price of duck hunting has gone up..

Come on, don't those leases provide ammo? All that steel shot drove those lease prices up!

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by cgoods17

what about the fact that land/lease is becoming harder and harder to come by? i think that is more of the reason that duck hunting is more expensive than lead shot.

Yes, that is a major factor in Louisiana. Less marsh (erosion) and more people. The laws of supply and demand are at work. But for families that have owned land in LA for generations, the cost of ammo and the federal duck stamp are major factors in recurring expenses, as they are for families that own the land they hunt or hunt nearby public land in other states.

[cgoods17]

Originally Posted by bmac

Come on, don't those leases provide ammo? All that steel shot drove those lease prices up!

["W"]

Box of lead shot $7
Box of Stell shot $20

I would say out law of lead has driven the price of duck hunting a lot, my dad said they woud get boxes of lead shot for $2 a box and when Steel came out it was around $15 a box

[cgoods17]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Yes, that is a major factor in Louisiana. Less marsh (erosion) and more people. The laws of supply and demand are at work. But for families that have owned land in LA for generations, the cost of ammo and the federal duck stamp are major factors in recurring expenses, as they are for families that own the land they hunt or hunt nearby public land in other states.

There are more factors than just the banning of lead shot.

[cgoods17]

Originally Posted by "W"

Box of lead shot $7
Box of Stell shot $20

I would say out law of lead has driven the price of duck hunting a lot, my dad said they woud get boxes of lead shot for $2 a box and when Steel came out it was around $15 a box

we all know lead is cheaper than steel.. thanks for stating the obvious.

all im saying is that there are more factors that contribute to the price increase of duck hunting.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by cgoods17

we all know lead is cheaper than steel.. thanks for stating the obvious.

all im saying is that there are more factors that contribute to the price increase of duck hunting.

Sure, but let me put it this way. Suppose that it were certain that the price accessing to land for deer hunting were to increase by 1000% over the next 20 years, would that make it reasonable to ban the use of lead in deer hunting bullets even though that might also increase ammo prices by 1000% over the same time period?

Do the non-governmental factors driving up the cost of land access justify or mitigate the governmental factors driving up the cost of ammunition? Of course not.

Compared with the overall costs of fishing, banning lead in lures and sinkers will only be an incremental cost to the average angler. So are we all in agreement to ban lead in lures and sinkers?

["W"]

Kill 1,000 doves in bean field with lead... Flood next year for ducks have to shoot Steal shot

Save the polar bears

[cgoods17]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Sure, but let me put it this way. Suppose that it were certain that the price accessing to land for deer hunting were to increase by 1000% over the next 20 years, would that make it reasonable to ban the use of lead in deer hunting bullets even though that might also increase ammo prices by 1000% over the same time period?

Do the non-governmental factors driving up the cost of land access justify or mitigate the governmental factors driving up the cost of ammunition? Of course not.

Compared with the overall costs of fishing, banning lead in lures and sinkers will only be an incremental cost to the average angler. So are we all in agreement to ban lead in lures and sinkers?

I agree. All im saying is, now days there are MANY factors that contribute to the higher price people are paying to duck hunt, and it is not just because lead is banned.

[cgoods17]

Originally Posted by "W"

Kill 1,000 doves in bean field with lead... Flood next year for ducks have to shoot Steal shot

Save the polar bears

go catch a fish or something