Lead Shot Ban Survey

[nine-tiner]

So how many of you recieved the survey from the university of minnesota on your position of a lead shot ban in the "AG" zone of the state? I have been a steel shot user since the ban on lead for waterfowl.

[grousehunter]

Does that mean you would have to shoot trap with steel shot also? How far does the AG zone go north? I wouldnt mind if they made it law you had to use steel shot for pheasants and that was the extent of the law, but steel would get to expensive for trap shooting and for grouse it really would not work out well at all, wouldnt want to use steel number 4's in the woods grouse hunting.

sorry i know this was more of a did you get the survery question. I did not get the survery, but would like one. Is there any way to be a part of the survey without being mailed it? I also just figured people may be more informed then me. I have not read much about the ban possibility.

[Eric Wettschreck]

I have not received a survey. Like you, I only shoot steel. It's way less confusing for me this way.

[rockman]

Sounds similar to the deer hunting regulations survey the U sent me a couple of years back. They are probably doing it for the MN DNR,like they did for the deer survey.My understanding is names were randomingly chosen from lists of licensed deer hunters, so I will assume pheasant stamp holders will get surveys from a random pick of names,also.

[nine-tiner]

As far as the boundary went it was close to the same it is for ATV's, approximately HWY 95 from Taylors Falls to St. Cloud and then roughly I-94, except I believe it went more straight north from Fergus Falls. I didn't see anything mentioned outside of hunting activities. The way I read into it there is concern about the WMA's in the area. (WPA's already require steel) So grouse hunters in the north are fine. There was a "statement" at the beginning of the survey and then questions asking if the statement was truthfull, factual, and effective. I did respond that I didn't think the link between lead shot and the recent "lead paint" on toys scare was necessary. Give the facts, not the "drama".

[BobT]

What's the AG zone got to do with anything? If the desire to ban lead shot is for the purpose of protecting waterfowl, then why only in the AG zone? There are plenty of waterfowl in wooded areas as well.

Bob

[nine-tiner]

BobT, no arguments from me on that, I was just giving the zone they were 'inquiring' about. Maybe they feel the hunting pressure is greater in that portion of the state. ??? Hard to say when the questions are coming from the UofM and not directly from the DNR.

[paintbrush]

I got one from them and have filled it out and have sent it back in stating that I'm opposed to a lead shot ban on hunting upland game in the so called farm land zone until there is "scientific" proof that lead shot scattered about on the ground is posioning our pheasants or other birds.

[metrojoe]

I got one of those surveys a couple weeks ago. I filled it out but have yet to drop it in the mail. I strictly use steel for pheasants already so it wouldn't effect me one way or another, but I still prefer to use lead for grouse hunting.

[CodyDawg]

I got one and filled it out saying I would not support a ban on lead shot. I, too, asked for the science beyond the action. I hate steel shot, so I hope it doesnt happen for a longggg time.

[BobT]

I wasn't questioning what you were saying. I was questioning why the U would only be interested in the AG area and not the entire state.

As far as I'm concerned, lead or steel I'm just as poor a shot so it doesn't really matter much. Because I hunt areas that allow lead as well as areas that don't, I prefer to use steel so I know I have appropriate shot no matter where I'm hunting.

Bob

[Saw557]

It never ceases to amaze me people are just willing to roll over and let the DNR do what they want. Until it's proven that lead is affecting upland game I think the ban on lead is a bunch of &^**$#^# You can make all the excuse you want but steel sucks any way you look it. Once they ban lead in the ag zone you can bet your sweet arse a state wide ban won't be too far behind. Rather than poll a small number of hunters send it to EVERYONE. It really irks me the way the DNR is "looking" out for our own good.....Cut the walleye limits on Millacs because of a "mysterious" drop in the walleye come on it doesn't take a genius to figure out where the fish went...just look in the nearest net.and then give the tribe more give me a break. Now they want to put a "Season" on ATV's why don't they just outlaw everything and be done with it then we can get rid of the DNR

[BobT]

The survey wasn't from the DNR it was from the UofM.

We hire the DNR to watch our resources for us so we can have a future doing what we enjoy. If we left it up to ourselves....well history has proven what that does. Quite frankly, I think the DNR does a rather good job for the most part. I may disagree with some of the things they do or have done but overall, it has been good.

Consider the deer population. Before the DNR we all but wiped them out of existence. How about turkeys and doves? We now have seasons on both of these when turkeys for example were basically nonexistent in MN not too long ago. Most of the walleyes we enjoy catching in many of our lakes are there only through the stocking efforts of the DNR.

Lakes like Osakis for example were once walleye factories but because of our lack of self control we all but destroyed it with overharvest and poor management of the surrounding drainage. The DNR is now trying to figure out the best course of action to restore the lake to at least some of its former glory and it's an uphill battle. Lakeshore owners resist the efforts to stop dumping sewage and local farmers except for the feellot enforcement would be resisting as long as possible too. It's easy to talk smart when it doesn't cost us directly but when it starts coming out of our own pocket we tend to throw realism out the window.

I believe it is safe to say that left up to us sportsmen and women alone, good management of our resources would never happen.

I applaud the efforts of our DNR.

Bob

[CodyDawg]

The U of M was hired by the DNR to do the survey. The reason they dont survey everyone is simply cost. They can survey a percentage of the population and get the same results as the entire population...plus or minus a few percentage points.

All in all the DNR does a pretty good job. Are they perfect? Nope, they are human like the rest of us.

[BobT]

I wasn't aware they hired the U. Either way, as you indicated, sampling a portion of the population usually provides relatively adequate information plus or minus a few points.

Bob

[nine-tiner]

Nice post BobT. We are our own worst enemy. Populations of just about everything we hunt/fish have gone up because of the positive work of the DNR. They usually do what most sportsman support (even if it is after a period of adjustment), and what benefits the majority sportsman.

[Saw557]

O.K fine you can say what you want about the DNR but you still haven't addressed the Lead shot upland game issue the report shows no proof there is a link between lead and upland game. Alot of people are just willing to take it at face value because lead is bad but before you jump on the ban lead band wagon you better take a long hard look at the outcome......and be willing to live with forever because once its gone it ain't coming back. I find it rather ironic the DNR is worried about the declining number of sporstman yet they want to over regulate everything and make it that much harder to get new people interested in the outdoors. So the fewer Sportsman there are the less money the DNR has to work with so they raise the fees for the few sportsman left to support the ever growing buearecy....ever see the DNR in an old pick up or a small boat nope its all new equipment that we payed for I am fed up with it. Yes there is a fine line to follow but I think it's gotten out of hand

[nine-tiner]

hey all I asked was if others had received the survey. I personally don't think giving up lead shot is that big of a deal.

[metrojoe]

It was quite clear to me that the concern is with waterfowl. Since many of us hunt near and around ponds and sloughs there is a very good chance that we are leaving lead in those areas. I can see the potential for waterfowl to come in contact with this lead.

[candiru]

One of the columnists in Outdoor News had a piece in a couple of weeks ago how an eagle picked up and flew off with a Hun that he had dropped that sailed for a little ways. There is probably more of a concern with what might be eating our cripples/unrecovered birds that may be carrying lead. I have personally found an eagle that was sick. The wildlife guy came and got it. It turned out to be lead poisoning.

[WAG416]

 Originally Posted By: Saw557

I find it rather ironic the DNR is worried about the declining number of sporstman yet they want to over regulate everything and make it that much harder to get new people interested in the outdoors.

Sooooo, having to hunt with only steel shot is going to make people not want to hunt? I would feel for anyone who quits hunting, or who doesn't want to teach there kids how to hunt, because of laws like these.

One may disagree with the cost of certain license's, fee's, etc....maybe the reason for having a certain license, thats a whole other topic. But when it comes to the well being of our resources, I'm glad someone is taking a look into it.

"Naw, don't reckon i'll be huntin' this year, too many laws that I gotta watch out fer."

[Pyrex]

One big thing we need to remember is how crazy people have gotten about the environment. The anti-hunters would have a field day with this story if we all say lead is not bad. I myself don't think its that big of a deal, I have hunted with lead for years, until the last few years its just easier to keep steel rather than switching all the time from private to state land. I think we should "take one for the team", because if this report comes out we are all throwing lead into the air its gonna be one more complaint for PETA or other cults against hunters. You know...anything to make us look bad.

[anyfishwilldo]

I filled it out in opposition of steel shot. I do not duck hunt, and don't hunt pheasants on public land, so I have no reason to buy steel shot, nor do I want a reason to have to buy steel shot. If it was something they would do, it wouldn't keep me from hunting though. I would just have to start reloading steel instead.

[Capt. Don*]

I see many responses from people stating that they have been shooting steel and find it to work for them, therefore a ban on lead is ok because it has no impact on them personally. I think we need to look at this ban as more than "how will this affect me" to "how will this impact all shooting sports". If this ban goes through in any form, even in just ag zones or whatever, we need to realize that it won't stop there. In time various groups will continue to chip away at using lead anywhere anytime, target shooting included, and we will have given them the reasons they need to justify it, ie. if lead was bad for this area, what makes it good for this area and so on. I personally do not shoot steel and don't want to be forced to. I don't shoot number 2 shot lead at pheasants because I eat all of them and don't like holes that big or shot up food. So if big shot steel will kill them I see that as no reason to start shooting steel. I shoot number 6 lead all season long and have no problems killing and have something to work with when its time to cook. If I could shoot number 6 steel with the same results I still find that as no reason to support or not care about a ban on lead. If people choose to shoot steel for whatever reason that is fine, but some people choose to shoot lead for other reasons. It is nice to be able to have choices in the way we do things, do we really want to let them continue to eliminate our choices?

[lawdog]

I personally didn't recieve a survey but i would have no objection to going to steel for pheasants as long as they give me a year or two to use up the lead shot i have. I don't really need 8 boxes of unshootable shells collecting dust in my cabinet for the next 20 years at $8-9 a box!