• GUESTS

    If You  want access  to member only forums on FM, You will need to Sign-in or  Sign-Up now .

    This box will disappear once you are signed in as a member.

  • WE CREATE LONG TERM, MEANINGFUL RELATIONSHIPS IN HERE ... PLEASE JOIN US.

    You know what we all love...

    RECEIVE THE GIFTS MEMBERS SHARE WITH YOU HERE...THEN...CREATE SOMETHING TO ENCHANT OTHERS THAT YOU WANT TO SHARE
    When you enchant people, you fill them with delight and yourself in return. Have Fun!!!

Sign in to follow this  
mnhunter2

Lead shot banned!!!!

Recommended Posts

mnhunter2

I was wondering how many hunters are aware that the mn dnr has on its to do list to work towards the total ban on any lead shot used for hunting small game in the great state of MN, any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
raymondk

I used to be against it but this year i have be using 2 shot steel and i have been having real good luck with it .And hardly any bb s to pick out i started hunting alot of federal land where I had to use it and at this point it is all i use. the cost isn,t really that much different the only problem will be with the older guns. The only problem that I have is to find 2 steel in 2 3/4 shot .there is plenty of 3 inch around but I think that it is overkill on roosters 2 shot seems to take out there wings and I have had a couple of headshots but I have a pointer and most of my shots are close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sparcebag

If their gonna ban it than they should first ban the sale of it!Let hunters have a year or two to expend all their lead shot! Or have a trade in!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BobT

I've actually started using steel almost exclusively because for me to switch back and forth does seem to affect my ability to hit the target. Although, it might have less to do with the shot and more to do with my ability but with that said, I can't afford to throw other variables into the mix.

On a related note I have a quick question. On second thought, maybe I better just start another thread.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CodyDawg

I hate steel shot and I keep track of all the roosters I shoot and the wounding rate is way higher for steel.

Let me ask you this, if I offered you $100,000 if you could find a piece of lead shot on my land, would you even bother looking?

How about this, the MPCA has residential lead limits for concentrations in soils. Has any study been done to see how the concentrations in the field compare to this? Save the money on the study, I can tell you they dont. So what proponents of the lead ban are saying is that it is ok to have more lead in the soil your kids play in than in a field somewhere. From a science perspective, it makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gonefishin11

I use 2 Shot almost exclusively now as well and havn't really noticed a difference between the number I shoot with it or the 5 shot lead. I am indifferent to a ban.

Raymondk, I see 2 3/4" 2 shot all over. They had a bunch at Gander in EP earlier this year. I found it first before I found the 3"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MNUser

I don't really care either way. The only thing that bums me out is I like to use the full choke later in the year and most say do not shot steel from a full choke. I like to put the mod choke on the top barrel and the full on the bottom as the year goes on. I guess I would just go mod in both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
grab the net

I can go either way. I would like to see them ease into it and give people a chance to use up all their lead first. I still like lead for late season roosters, copper plated Federal premiums, # 4 for my 16 ga O/U. Have shot plenty of birds with steel deuces over the years when hunting WPA's. Even bought a couple of boxes of #4 steel, puts down a bird clean out to about 35 yards for me. I still maintain that roosters are easy to bring down, but tough to kill. I think steel would result in a few more cripples when you try a shot maybe beyond your normal limits. Steel will just take a little more discipline in shot selection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saw557

Go ahead and roll over let them take away lead shot and the next thing will be lead bullets and how about the guys who shot several thousand rounds of skeet or trap maybe we should just let thwm take our guns and be done with it. I would like to see someone find a lead pellet in the field I would be willing to eat everyone you can find. I see alot of replies on how guys really like #2 steel well figure how many pellets of #2 steel are in a load compared to the number of #5 or 6 shot lead and then you'll figure out why you are either missing or crippling birds do the math.By going to steel shot you are pretty much making smaller gauges like the 16 and 20 ineffective of course you could alway buy other non-toxic shot for $25 a box....not. Sorry for the rant but I really think this whole thing is being blown way out of proportion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ScoutII

So do you think that MN would ban the sale of lead shot or ban the production of lead shot for use in shotgun shells?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fishroger

What evidence do you have to support your claims? Have plenty of contacts in DNR and no one has said anything. Or are you just trying to get a rise out of people? Personally dont think theres that much difference. Have had good luck with steel. Wouldn't be the end of the world if they did banned lead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Matt Breuer

When pheasant hunting, I don't really care. I only get out 5-10 times per year to chase roosters anyway.... For sharptails it's going to suck, as they're a bit more jumpy than roosters, and the shots are farther out. For ruffies it's going to really blow. What am I going to do, shoot a ruffie flying through the aspen stand with #4 steel? Ha! I'm not even going to start thinking about woodcock and dove hunting with steel......

I think the opinions on this are going to vary by where people live. Ruffie, hun, timberdoodle, and sharpie hunters aren't going to like it I'm sure, while rooster hunters aren't going to mind as much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mnhunter2

If you want the report go to the DNR home site and search for the NSAC, Notoxic Shot Advisory Committee, and read it. I dought that they really want much publicity on this intill they have to. The whole idea is not based on any proven studies that it will improve our wildlife populations, instead of trying to make hunting more restricted they should be working on getting dedicated funding passed in MN. I would think that the options for the 20ga and small guns are very limited, performance is reduced and are often used by our young hunters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fishroger

Its a interesting report. But it doesnt mean there banning lead shot. There is quite a cross section of experts on their committee, including industry and wildlife. I think they will have to ban lead in the future. Other states are way ahead of Minnesota on the lead shot issue. As far as the smaller gauge shot guns, my hunting buddy uses a 20 gauge with steel and he routinely out shoots all of us. As it states in the report hunter skill is a point they considered. I think its just a matter of time before they restrict lead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BLACKJACK

I'm personally in favor of a lead shot ban. All it takes is one or two lead pellets to kill a bird. All you have to do is watch out the window by your bird feeder, the birds are constantly hopping along the ground picking up seeds and grit/small rocks, they do that all day long out in the fields too. Maybe you and I couldn't find a lead pellet but guaranteed birds will. Next time you shoot a pheasant, cut open the gizzard, its full of small pebbles. All birds require grit to grind their food up.

As far as performance, I've shot a LOT of pheasants with two steel. It knocks them down just fine. Maybe lead would give you a little more distance but there comes a time when maybe we shouldn't be taking those long, long shots, you end up with wounded birds. Who likes to see that rooster flying off with one leg dangling?

I also find it more convenient to shoot all steel, no swapping in and out when you're going from private to public land.

As far as cost goes, its a supply and demand thing, if lead is banned, more steel will be used and the cost will go down. And face it, if you go thru two boxes of shells hunting MN pheasants you've had a darn good year!! Is the extra $2-4 going to hurt that much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First Ice-Mike

Quote:

As far as cost goes, its a supply and demand thing, if lead is banned, more steel will be used and the cost will go down.


ummmmm................I don't think you thought that statement through. If lead is banned steel shot will go up and bird hunting will take one more step towards being a rich man's sport.

I'm against a total ban on lead - I think the current laws are just fine.

FI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fishroger

Have you checked lead prices recently? If your a reloader its a shock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ferny

I think the majority of lead shot used say 7.5 and 8 is sold to skeet/trap guys. Those guys on leagues shoot quite a few boxes per year even cases. I usually buy a couple cases and make it out several times a year with the family.

I would think they would be the ones getting up in arms about it.

From what I'm reading for the average hunter it wouldn't make much of a difference in price or effectiveness.

Let's face it we live in MN the state where nothing is allowed. They (MNDNR) are already working on banning lead fishing jigs so it's logical lead shot is next. Subsidies/grants for non-lead manufacturing, exchange programs...etc. They are pouring our money into ads and programs to ban lead. It's just a matter of time before jigs and lead shot are banned.

Even though there has not been a documented loon death in MN (that I heard of anyway) they still use it in they're advertising.

I would like to see scientific proof of upland or tweety bird lead deaths before banning anything instead of just banning it because of an agenda. I think it's a rare case where any birds are ingesting lead shot from hunting in the field and dying because of it. Maybe from a trap/skeet range where there would be a large accumulation of lead shot...then maybe.

As far as prices lowering? I don't see why they would lower prices when they have the consumer cornered. All ammo is getting to the outrageous stage pricing wise with the global demands on metals.

Enlighten me if you know otherwise.

Ferny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BobT

I don't disagree with you CodyDawg. I'm still not convinced the lead issues is really an issue at all. Even consider an area frequented by duck hunters. Give a guy a penny for every lead bead he can find without the use of detection devices and my guess is he'd get mighty hungry. It doesn't just sit on the surface of the bottom muck and even if it did it would still be waaaaay outnumbered by the grains of sand.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott M

Quote:

So do you think that MN would ban the sale of lead shot or ban the production of lead shot for use in shotgun shells?


Nope. Lead fishing and hunting equip. will die a slow death, not as quickly as everyone is talking about here.

Think about it: Federal Cartridge in Anoka, Water Gremlin in White Bear Lake....While I agree a user ban is coming, it won't be overnight or anything.

I say 4-10 years away from a user ban. To some that's really fast, to others that's years away. But that's just in a user ban, not a production or sale ban.

My .02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saw557

I've read all the posts and I don't think everyone understands the whole point....look to califorina they are trying to ban lead in bullets beacause of the condor Minnesota uses the loon as a poster child until there is real proof that birds/animals are dying from "second hand" lead the whole idea of a ban is knee jerk reaction. As far as the number of "tweety" birds dying from lead ingestion I am pretty sure fluff your house cat accounts for many times the number of songbird deaths then lead does. And for lead being $2-4 a box more if thats all it was maybe I could swallow it but try buying steel shot for 16 or 20 ga. you will pay alot more then $4 a box more for it let alone the decrease in performance. Just for @#!% and giggles take a look at a chart that shows the number of pellets in a load and compare # 6 laead to everyones favortie #2 steel you will be amazed at the differnece now figure out how many cripples you lose because steel doesn't have the down range punch lead does and I would bet you loose more birds from steel cripples then from lead poisning. Like the old saying give an inch and they will take a mile show me the proof. As far as target shooters go I shot over ten cases of shells and thats no where near as much as some guys shoot now if that all had to be steel it would be the death of clay shooting. Yeah the price of lead is high but the price of steel is higher. And if you think banning lead would bring the price of steel down just think about gas and the laws of supply and demand....they got you by the balls.... just roll over and say uncle cus they will slip it to you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BLACKJACK

Quote:

As far as target shooters go I shot over ten cases of shells and thats no where near as much as some guys shoot now if that all had to be steel it would be the death of clay shooting.


Over reacting a bit are we?

As others have said the real culprit behind high shell prices is the increased world demand of steel and lead. I could see where trap shooters would be concerned but I think competion between shell manufacturers will keep the prices in line, if for example Federal tries to gouge on steel shells, Remington, Winchester, etc. end up selling more shells because of their lower prices - forcing Federal to lower their prices. I also think that once they can start producing 10 million cases of 8 shot steel vrs 10 thousand cases of 8 shot steel their cost per box will go down and that will be passed onto the consumer because of competition between manufacturers.

When I look the cost of shells vrs the cost all my other hunting expenses - guns, vehicles, gas, food, lodging, dog food, dog vet expenses, land leases, etc, etc, etc, - the cost of shells is pretty small. I bought 10 boxes of 3 inch two shot steel in Sept for $90, I've shot a few ducks, taken two trips to South Dakota, and shot a few roosters here in MN, and I still have a few boxes left. I've had a lot of fun with that $90 but its a drop in the bucket compared with all my other hunting expenses. Nowadays I can't even fill my truck with gas for that $90!!!!

What I'm trying to say is that using higher shot cost to justify not banning lead is bogus, shot costs are a very small portion of hunting expenses, and the small extra cost per box - if there is an increase in cost - won't affect most hunters. Raise your hand if you shot more than 10 boxes of shells this year hunting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BLACKJACK

I answered the cost issue in my previous post now I'd like to address the reason why issue.

Most people against it keep saying 'but lets see the studies'. They did enough studies on waterfowl to determine that it only took a couple of pellets to kill a duck. They've studied and x-rayed sick and dying condors and found out that its lead bullets from carcasses that are killing them. Lead in paint was banned. Face it, lead is a poison if ingested.

I grew up on a farm watching chickens and ducks, all day long they're scratching in the dirt, looking for food - and grit. In fact they'll die without grit to ingest and help grind up their food. Lock up a chicken with food and water and no grit and they'll eventually die. All birds need grit to survive. Wild birds also need grit to survive. Next time you shoot a pheasant, looks in its crop. Besides corn and other seeds, you'll see little pebbles. These pass into their gizzard which works to grind up their food.

When you're out hunting, do you see birds hopping along the ground or thru the trees? Yes, you see them all over. Are their any places where you don't see any birds? No, whether its upland or wet or forest, some birds inhabit that environment. When you shoot that shotgun with lead pellets, those pellets are going to be lying on top of the ground where some bird can come along and ingest it along their seeds and other grit. If one or two lead pellets can kill a duck, what do you think it will do to a small bird? What do you suppose happens to that dead chickadee? Something else comes along and eats it, maybe that lead shot doesn't kill it but it will make it sick.

Guys keep saying 'go find a lead pellet'. You and I would have a hard time finding one but from my experience watching both domestic and wild birds, they WILL find them because thats what they do all day long, hunt and peck along the ground.

Face it lead is a poison, if you love to see nature and appreciate seeing all live critters, why wouldn't you support a ban on lead shot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BobT

I must admit, you present a good argument. What is difficult to understand is why only waterfowl have been the issue and not all birds. In other words, why didn't they just ban lead at the onset? As you stated, birds need the grit and they spend a lot of their time getting it. That's why they are on the roads. You'd think they too would be ingesting lead pellets and such.

Bob

Edit: there is a little difference to be considered too. A lead pellet that drops onto a road or other land surface remains on the surface for a much longer time than one that drops onto the muck bottom of a wetland. Between wave action and the soft bottom I would expect the lead pellet to all but disappear rather quickly whereas the one on the shoulder of a road may stay accessible for years or until the next super hard rain or road work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uplander

Nothing kills cleaner than copper plated lead!!! Just my opinion, I guess I'll use it til they tell me I can't..not going to loose sleep over the government's grand plan. If it's for the greater good I guess I'll have to comply.. frown.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

Announcements



  • Your Responses - Share & Have Fun :)

    • Getanet
      Well, spent Thursday and Friday on Kab for my first time ever. It's a beautiful lake, the weather on the other hand could have been better for camping. It poured both nights, and during the day it seemed like it was either windy, rainy, or both. Unfortunately we didn't have much luck and didn't boat a walleye. We fished around Bittersweet Island and that general part of the lake, and fished at varying times, depths and presentations. About the only thing we didn't try was fishing around sunrise. Talked to a grizzled vet of the lake at the landing on Saturday. He said sometimes the strange weather patterns turn the fish off up there. I'm going to go with that excuse - we had a great time but was certainly disheartening after hearing how great the fishing was on Opener to have such poor luck.   Will definitely be up there again though. Beautiful area.
    • ducksnbucks
      Thanks guys for the info. Had a great time with the girls yesterday afternoon. We caught bluegills up to 9", crappies to 11", saw a lot of nice bass, and as we wanted, caught some nice cats. All fish were between 19 and 24", extremely fat fish and lots of fun to catch. The girls were thrilled at the action and all fish were released to be caught another day. Bluegills were not creating beds yet but the crappies were starting to. Thanks again and have a good one!
    • LoonASea
      With your boat on the trailer,,, with the bow slightly raised (like you're on plane) make sure your motor is as close to 90 degrees to the ground ,,, Most pulling is caused by one side of the prop cutting more water then the other side ,,, Good place to start any way 
    • CJH
      Anybody have any water temps on the Chain?  I'll be up in Alex this weekend to get the boats in and just wondering where its at. Thanks!
    • Wheres_Walter
      We fished Frazer bay Friday and Saturday afternoon-sundown.  Early evening we did best in 30-35 FOW on lindys and chartruese jigs with chubs.  The last 90 min before dark we had more success at 7-12 FOW.  Nothing big but we caught a lot of 10-14" fish, more than enough to fill a skillet for our group of 5, plus put a few in the freezer.  All around great weekend, look forward to hitting it again this weekend.
    • Borch
      Good to have you back fishandfowl!  Gotta love it when a plan comes together.
    • osok
      As stated above most likely the Trim tab under the cavitation plate. Might have came loose, or corroded away if it's a sacrificial Zinc type. Agree with Leech, did you make any changes to your boat recently?  
    • Rick
      The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has determined that a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) is required for the Fargo-Moorhead Diversion Authority’s revised flood risk management project.  The DNR will prepare the SEIS to analyze modifications in the revised project proposal. The DNR invites comments on the scope of the SEIS through June 11. The scope will determine what will be evaluated in the SEIS. Broadly speaking, the SEIS describes the proposed project, identifies environmental impacts and considers mitigation and alternatives that may lessen those impacts. The supplemental review, which is not an entirely new EIS, will focus on those aspects of the revised project that were not evaluated in the original environmental impact statement (EIS). The DNR will conduct the SEIS work concurrently with its review of the Diversion Authority’s permit application for its revised project. The proposed Fargo-Moorhead flood risk management project is a dam and diversion channel system designed to divert flood waters around Fargo, North Dakota; Moorhead, Minnesota; and surrounding metropolitan areas. The DNR denied the Diversion Authority’s previous permit application in October 2016 because it included insufficient mitigation; it did not meet state and local plans, rules and statutes; and there are alternatives that can provide needed protection. Since then, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum and Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton created a joint task force to develop engineering options to address concerns about the project’s impacts. The project applicant considered the task force’s work in developing the current project proposal. DNR Commissioner Tom Landwehr said substantial changes to the original proposal require additional analysis. He said the DNR’s determination that an SEIS is needed is entirely separate from the agency’s ultimate decision about permitability. The SEIS will help ensure that the potential impacts of the project, as revised, are thoroughly assessed and disclosed, he said. “I want to emphasize that Minnesota continues to support enhanced flood risk management for the developed portion of the Fargo-Moorhead area that can meet Minnesota state standards,” Landwehr said. As required by state law, the DNR will not decide on the permit application until the SEIS is deemed adequate. The SEIS adequacy determination is not a project approval, but is rather a decision about whether the supplemental review was completed properly. The DNR is expected to complete the SEIS and adequacy determination in fall 2018. A permit decision is expected soon thereafter. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is preparing a federal supplemental environmental assessment for the proposed project, which is similar to the state SEIS in scope and purpose. The DNR will accept comments on the scope of the SEIS during a 20-day period beginning May 22 and ending June 11 at 4:30 p.m. A copy of the SEIS is available for public review at: DNR Library, 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155. DNR northwest region office, 2220 Bemidji Ave., Bemidji, MN 56601. Minneapolis Central Library, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401, Government Documents, 2nd Floor. Moorhead Public Library, 118 5th St. S, Moorhead, MN 56560. Fergus Falls Public Library, 205 E. Hampden, Fergus Falls, MN 56537. Fargo Public Library Downtown, 102 3rd St. North, Fargo, ND 58102. Written comments on the scope of the SEIS must be received by Monday, June 11 at 4:30 p.m. Comments may be mailed to:  Jill Townley, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25, St. Paul, MN 55155-4025. Comments may be emailed to: environmentalrev.dnr@state.mn.us with “Fargo-Moorhead SEIS” in the subject line. If using the email address, include your name and mailing address so that you can be added to the mailing list. Comments may be faxed to 651-297-1500. The SEIS preparation notice, and additional details about the proposed project and the DNR’s review process are available on the Fargo-Moorhead project page. ###   Frequently Asked Questions What is this project about? The proposed Fargo-Moorhead (FM) flood risk management project is designed to divert flood waters around Fargo, North Dakota; Moorhead, Minnesota and surrounding metropolitan areas. It would control flows through the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area by placing high hazard dams on the Red and Wild Rice rivers. The dams, along with two tieback embankments, would then stage water in an upstream staging area. Water would drain from the upstream staging area into a 30-mile diversion channel around the metropolitan area that would outlet north of the metropolitan area. What is the history of the DNR’s involvement with the project? The DNR prepared a state environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Diversion Authority’s proposed project. That EIS process concluded in June 2016 with the DNR’s EIS adequacy determination. On Feb. 18, 2016, prior to completion of state environmental review, the DNR received an application for a Dam Safety and Public Waters Work permit for the FM project, listing the Flood Diversion Board of Authority (the Diversion Authority) as the applicant. Based on the October 2016 Findings of Fact for the Dam Safety and Public Water Work Permit Application, the DNR denied the permit application for the proposed FM project. In early 2017, the Diversion Authority informally coordinated with DNR staff regarding the permit denial by engaging in work sessions aimed at addressing the DNR’s concerns and discussing potential options moving forward. Later in 2017, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum and Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton created a joint task force to discuss flood control options and make recommendations. The task force created a technical advisory group that included engineers and staff from the Diversion Authority and the DNR. The technical group presented the task force with engineering options to address concerns about project impacts. What is the revised project design? On March 16, 2018, after considering the recommendations of the task force and technical advisory group, and engaging in additional discussions with the DNR, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Richland-Wilkin Joint Powers Authority, the Diversion Authority submitted a permit application for a revised FM project, known as “Plan B.” The “Plan B” project changes the alignments of the southern embankment alignment, the eastern tieback and the western tieback. This plan also allows more flows through town. These component changes result in a new inundation and staging area, and also result in modifications to, and elimination of, some project structures, such as the Comstock ring levee. Plan B also results in reduced impacts to Minnesota acres, cemeteries and organic farms. What will happen next? The DNR has determined that these project design changes are “substantial and may affect the potential significant adverse environmental effects of the project” and has ordered preparation of a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). The SEIS is designed to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed project that were not assessed in the original EIS. During the SEIS process, the DNR will also be reviewing the Diversion Authority’s Plan B permit application. However, the DNR cannot make any decision on the application until the SEIS process is complete. The DNR currently anticipates completing the SEIS in October 2018, and making its permit decision shortly thereafter. Additional information about the SEIS and permit application are available on the Fargo-Moorhead project page. Discuss below - to view set the hook here.
    • DRAGFOOT
      We did well Thursday, Friday and Saturday out front of Pine just out of the gap in 19ft. Got on the lake just fine Saturday....was actually better than the previous two days as far as rough water is concerned I thought.
    • ANYFISH2
      Welcome back Fishandfowl! Congratulations on your bird. It seems like it has been a tough year for many. Hope you can stick around and share your adventures with us some more.