What is next after the lead sinker? You tell me. I don't see this issue as part of some conspiracy. Why does everything have to be some sort of dem conspiracy?

What was next after taking lead out of gasoline? What was next after changing to nontoxic shot for waterfowl? What was next after banning lead based paint? What was next after regulating the amount of lead in children's toys? Is the systematic banning of a toxic substance out of our everyday lives this incrementalism LMIT talks about so often? If so what is so bad about it?

I see it as a singular issue. Lead is toxic. It is extremely toxic and a very small amount can be fatal. It affects pretty much all life, from bacteria to humans. It accumulates in tissues and is damaging to your central nervous system, heart, kidneys. It is damaging to developing children and in your reproductive function. There are mountains of research proving this to be true.

If we don't HAVE to use it, why should we be? Right now we don't have suitable replacements available for us to keep doing things the way we always have. When those suitable replacements do come around and the price becomes affordable, why wouldn't you switch and/or support a ban?

Why must you be so resistant change?

If I didn't know any better, it looks like you are complaining that legislation to protect waterfowl was really protect eagles and that was a bad thing...

EDIT: Seriously! Read this out loud to yourself:

While the blunt of the regulation was aimed at allegedly protecting waterfowl, the real "reason" behind the scenes was for protecting eagles.

Ok.. my last post in this thread...

Here is something for thought.(I was just listening to the speech on TV.)

Why is it ok for us to have assault rifles and whatever to defend ourselves, yet its not ok for other countries to do the same?

Seems a wee bit two faced to me.

Good post!



Equally so, good question Dietz and one I do not have the answer for

Because we think we are superior to every other country. And we spend trillions to make sure this doesn't happen.

There you have it! When we have it, I'll be right on top of it! Right now, I really don't like my 1/8th oz. jigs to be the size of a football and cost five bucks each.



I'm all for change. For the right reasons. If they want lead banned, come out and say it causes death and turns people into libs within 30 seconds of exposer. Don't go about it by telling me that it kills a miniscule amount of Loons over a large geographical area and use that as your argument. If they're telling me to save the loons, and the way to do this is to use Tungsten or Bismuth weights and sinkers, somebody has got an agenda, and it isn't entirely saving Loons. Then outlaw powered watercraft. They pollute, and are inherently dangerous.

Come out and say it's a deadly, toxic, natural element that kills. Don't try to say we really should be doing it for the Loons.

Once again, lead has never been linked to the deaths of upland animals.

No, but the chance is there that a Magpie, foraging for grit will find that 7 1/2 poisonous pill and die a horrible agonizing death

No again. My point is how legislation gets skewed and how the public can get pulled into something where they are supporting something that isn't exactly true. A few select groups who complained got the ball rolling and turned it into a campaign to change the law...a law that some say was unnecessary due to the studies that were done that didn't show any massive affect of lead on waterfowl and had been known about for decades with no questions asked. What happens with things like this is the majority has to now abide by a law which is for a supposed reason pushed on us by a small minority, when it's really for something completely different and possibly unnecessary if the public was aware of the truth.

It appears you read much further into those comments than which they were supposed to covey. Looking back I can take some of the blame for not typing exactly what I was meaning to say, in that clowns was in reference to clowns piling in a clown car, i.e. everyone on board. I wasn't calling anyone in this thread a "clown", and have a hard time linking that to what you said, if that's indeed what you are inferring.

Why must we have a knee-jerk reaction to every little thing that happens in society today?

A handful of birds die from lead poisoning over numerous years and we need a ban. A handful of whooping cranes die from hitting power lines over a half a century period and that puts a halt to a wind farm development. I mean come on. We can't save everything.

One person dies on a merry-go-round and they yank all the MGR's out of city parks? Stuff happens. You'll never stop accidents unless we all walk around wrapped in bubble-wrap, and I don't think whooping cranes fly real well with bubble wrap on either.

LMIT - I don't even know where to begin arguing with you.

You are impossible to reason with. I can't believe that I am actually arguing with some about whether or not we should be throwing toxic metals all over the fields and lakes.

If you want to talk about a knee jerk reaction, go check out the mirror. Anything that involves any sort of change or any deviation, however slight, from your conserv ideals you are against.

You are against banning what is basically dumping toxic heavy metals onto our land and water because the research (that you want to believe) shows that "a handful" of birds died as result and the push is to save the loons. Well the birds are the animals that suffer most directly and the toxic effects of lead are well known and indisputable. You or I don't eat sinkers off the ground or lead shot, or at least I don't. You can argue about how no upland animal, blah, blah, blah but you need to reread the research. Even if you were correct you absolutely cannot argue that lead in the environment is good. What do you want? What do you expect?

Johnny, it's not likely you'll change LMITOUT's mind. He's a dedicated conservative with staunch beliefs, just as your beliefs are strong, and nor is it likely he'll change your mind.

IMO, it's the people who don't already have a strong opinion formed on a specific topic that can benefit from the varying positions, because there's some education that goes with that. Arguing with people whose minds already are made up on these boards helps those who are still uncertain, but isn't going to change entrenched minds.

The debate can be a lot of fun, though.

It ain't worth the time.

I came to post about firearms and we're talkin LEAD Polution??
Well heres one! We're tryin to clean our waters,Right? Then why are most if not all sewage treatment plants,Taking the sludge thats filtered out of sewage,(and creating cleaner waters),That foul concentrated goop is then land appiled as fertlizer! Only to freely flow in the next rain into our lakes & water ways!
Some advanced countrys dry it and burn it as a source of energy production! But we as the most advanced (supposedly)Put it right back where we are trying to prevent it! and in greatly concentrated form!