Wisconsin Spring Hearing Results Posted
#6864741
05/06/20 11:34 AM
05/06/20 11:34 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,211
Wisconsin
Moosetrot
OP
trapper
|
OP
trapper
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,211
Wisconsin
|
|
|
|
Re: Wisconsin Spring Hearing Results Posted
[Re: Moosetrot]
#6865069
05/06/20 05:27 PM
05/06/20 05:27 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 23,884
Wisconsin
The Beav
trapper
|
trapper
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 23,884
Wisconsin
|
I can't believe anyone that hunts on public land would vote to do away with lead.
The forum Know It All according to Muskrat
|
|
|
Re: Wisconsin Spring Hearing Results Posted
[Re: The Beav]
#6865086
05/06/20 05:44 PM
05/06/20 05:44 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,773
East of the Mason-Dixon Line
DelawareRob
trapper
|
trapper
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,773
East of the Mason-Dixon Line
|
I can't believe anyone that hunts on public land would vote to do away with lead. Maybe things are different here or I just don’t understand. Does non-lead ammo not work on public land? It works here just fine, I kill stuff all the time on state land with steel shot while hunting waterfowl and doves. I will add that I don’t think they should outlaw lead ammo, it should be up to the hunter weather he or she uses non-toxic ammo.
Who is John Galt?
You don't rise to the occasion, you fall to the level of your training.
Semper Paratus
|
|
|
Re: Wisconsin Spring Hearing Results Posted
[Re: Badger23]
#6865088
05/06/20 05:45 PM
05/06/20 05:45 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,201
Three Lakes,WI 72
corky
trapper
|
trapper
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,201
Three Lakes,WI 72
|
I doubt they will but a lot of people that do hunt public don't vote and they need to start. I'm thinking it was that close because of the non hunters that are answering those questions. Bingo
|
|
|
Re: Wisconsin Spring Hearing Results Posted
[Re: tlguy]
#6865101
05/06/20 06:01 PM
05/06/20 06:01 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,773
East of the Mason-Dixon Line
DelawareRob
trapper
|
trapper
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,773
East of the Mason-Dixon Line
|
How's the availability and price on non-toxic shot vs lead shot in your area? Here there is half as much non-toxic ammo and it's twice as expensive. That's the reason many don't use non-toxic for everything.
Ever seen a box of non-toxic rifle ammo for under $45/box of 20? Most guys won't practice with their hunting rounds if they're $2.50+ a shell. I dont think I've ever seen non-toxic slugs. It is a little more expensive, $40 for 20 cartridges is what .30-06 is around here. $25 for standard rounds, $15 dollars difference. We can’t use centerfire rifles here so they usually don’t carry a lot. A few places carry non-toxic slugs, federal has one that is like $18 for 5 rounds... so $3.60 a shot... kind of like those TSS turkey loads that are all the rage with some folks. Once again, I don’t in anyway support a lead ammo ban.
Who is John Galt?
You don't rise to the occasion, you fall to the level of your training.
Semper Paratus
|
|
|
Re: Wisconsin Spring Hearing Results Posted
[Re: Moosetrot]
#6865120
05/06/20 06:19 PM
05/06/20 06:19 PM
|
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 3,191
Green Bay, Wisconsin
tlguy
trapper
|
trapper
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 3,191
Green Bay, Wisconsin
|
He statement about public land hunters was because the proposed rule would only ban lead ammo on DNR-managed land. I'm not sure what percentage of public land is DNR-managed, but it's a good chunk.
Plenty of people hunting with $15 rifle ammo on DNR-managed property that might consider a lead ammo ban the nail in the coffin that ends their hunting. But the lead ammo for deer question didnt get as much support as the broad non-toxic shot ban (important to make the distinction between shot and ammo, since lead .22lr and slugs and rifle ammo would still be allowed).
How many occasional pheasant or grouse hunters would call it quits if they were forced to pay twice as much for non-toxic ammo? Plus, how would that work for enforcement if they banned lead shot for grouse, but not small game? For waterfowl, you can't even have any lead ammo in possession. Would you not be able to carry lead 7 1/2 shot for squirrel while hunting grouse with steel 7 1/2? Nightmare.
That's why I wish DNR numbers were required and we could see how active license holders vote vs non-license holders. All these extra regulations do is drive people away from the sport. Non-hunters think they're saving the environment by banning lead ammo when all they're really doing is driving paying sportsmen away from the sport, decreasing funds available for conservation and tourism. We should start requiring a $50 bird watcher license or $50 hiker license.
|
|
|
Re: Wisconsin Spring Hearing Results Posted
[Re: tlguy]
#6865445
05/06/20 11:20 PM
05/06/20 11:20 PM
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 3,887
Mn
nightlife
trapper
|
trapper
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 3,887
Mn
|
He statement about public land hunters was because the proposed rule would only ban lead ammo on DNR-managed land. I'm not sure what percentage of public land is DNR-managed, but it's a good chunk.
Plenty of people hunting with $15 rifle ammo on DNR-managed property that might consider a lead ammo ban the nail in the coffin that ends their hunting. But the lead ammo for deer question didnt get as much support as the broad non-toxic shot ban (important to make the distinction between shot and ammo, since lead .22lr and slugs and rifle ammo would still be allowed).
How many occasional pheasant or grouse hunters would call it quits if they were forced to pay twice as much for non-toxic ammo? Plus, how would that work for enforcement if they banned lead shot for grouse, but not small game? For waterfowl, you can't even have any lead ammo in possession. Would you not be able to carry lead 7 1/2 shot for squirrel while hunting grouse with steel 7 1/2? Nightmare.
That's why I wish DNR numbers were required and we could see how active license holders vote vs non-license holders. All these extra regulations do is drive people away from the sport. Non-hunters think they're saving the environment by banning lead ammo when all they're really doing is driving paying sportsmen away from the sport, decreasing funds available for conservation and tourism. We should start requiring a $50 bird watcher license or $50 hiker license. Ever stop to think that driving people from the sport is the entire reason for such bans, don’t get me wrong the run of the mill greenie really buys into the saving the environment argument, but I remember years ago reading an article about ways to stop so called blood sports and one of the attacks was making the ammunition prohibited in cost so that the non hardcore participants would drop out along with making the rules and regulations difficult and hard to remember and convoluted for the same reason. In that way with less and less participation there are Fewer supporters fighting for the right to hunt, fish and trap, because most of those that drop out of the sports will just not take the time to keep up and back the on s that are fighting to keep it alive
�Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks.�
― Robert A. Heinlein
|
|
|
|
|
