Second, it is banned in areas they apply the ban to, which is giving lawmakers who subscribe to junk-science-misapplied the authority to just willy-nilly add area to the ban. Nothing in this limits their ability to spread the banned areas to the whole state.

I agree that lead shot in the water areas has plenty of research to be valid, but upland bird areas should never be included.

If they want to ban something for upland birds, ban copper clad shot as it makes a wounded bird VERY sick and turns the flesh green over time. If you harvest one of these birds it is a totally wasted harvest.

Lead shot unencumbered by copper cladding in a wounded bird is encapsulated and isolated by the healing process and doesn’t cause a problem to the bird. They can recover from the wounding. I have seen this many many times over my hunting years.

I think that this should be referenced to actual studies of actual raptors etc. that may feed off of the lead shot birds that actually reside in the Wa. State borders. Have these studies even been done? Apparently not otherwise they would be referenced instead of the Cal Condors.

Until they present the science they shouldn’t be messing with the shot.

No ‘commission’ will be able to get this passed without a legal dual. The State preemption would take force and nullify any legislation that would be passed. I guarantee it! No worries, continue to shoot lead responsibly as all sportsman have done since the colonial days.

Right. Just like smoking is “banned” . . . next to gas pumps, pointed scissors are “banned” . . . in kindergartens, and oxygen is “banned” . . . under a MIG welding nozzle. Because if anything is restricted anywhere, under any circumstances, the state has “banned” it.

(In case it’s not real clear, I’m calling “bullshit” on your ability to use ordinary terms of language the way any normally intelligent person would do.)

I’m just trying to figure out how banning lead ammo, even just in specific areas, would do ANYTHING for “ecology” and I can’t really follow the train of thought. Whoever came up with this would, likely, row a boat with a teaspoon. I mean, what’s the point?

OK – you don’t understand it, so it’s wrong.

Alternatively, you could try understanding it. (The reason, if this helps, is that lead shot pile up in wetlands and the shores of marshes where birds are hunted, and lead fragments are found in gut piles from dressed-out hunting kills; these fragments are often ingested, either by waterfowl or scavenger birds, and cause lead poisoning. It’s a serious-enough problem that it affects endangered bird species. Steel shot are mandated in many states to prevent this problem.)

I seriously doubt that the amount of lead in lead ammo that is fired in America’s hunting grounds is impressively high. The only way lead ammo can endanger a species is… if you shoot it with that ammo.

Well, you’re wrong. The problem has been extensively studied, and recognized for many decades. Many states have taken steps to eliminate lead ammo residue from sensitive habitats.

Many of the alternative materials are harder than copper jacketed, lead bullet and will penetrate police body armor. In essence, the State of Washington is mandating that hunters now use the irrationally dubbed “cop killer bullets”. What a bunch of maroons!

What could this possibly mean? Hunters using non-lead ammunition (mostly birdshot) in specified hunting zones are a danger to police officers? How? (Do your duties in law enforcement require you to habitually dress up like a duck and sit in a hunting zone?) Designating ammunition as “cop killers” is irrational but you’re afraid of it anyway? (Pick one.) Requiring non-lead ammo for (some) hunting will encourage people to shoot it at cops? (But they can already do that. The ammo has always been legal – the state is just mandating it for some kinds of hunting in certain specified zones. Do you think otherwise law-abiding hunters are going to go looking for cops to shoot just because they have some non-lead bullets?) None of this makes any sense.

ignore the biggest users of lead in ammunition in our state. What are the many thousands of policemen here gonna use? Sling shots? And how many shooters do you think are in the military that are stationed in Washinton?

How much shooting do police and the military do in hunting zones that are home to endangered species? I’m sure the military’s practice ranges are off-limits as public hunting lands, and vice versa. And I doubt the police are busting a lot of lead-loaded caps in waterfowl habitats. (Unless . . . maybe . . . they got a report of a suspicious character dressed as a duck, sitting in the marsh impersonating a law enforcement officer!)

Would you at least try to understand what you’re talking about? There is no “ban”; hunting with lead ammo is perfectly legal other than in designated areas; using lead ammo for all other purposes (target shooting, etc.) remains untouched; lead ammo is restricted only for hunting in specifically-designated areas that are home to endangered species; it has absolutely nothing to do with the military or the police; it is not going to prevent the police from using their weapons, and not going to encourage people to use weapons against the police; it’s essentially identical to policies that have been in place, in some cases for years, in other states, and have not been a problem; it’s intended to protect bird species that would otherwise ingest lead left in their environment by hunters – a problem that is long-known, and was in fact first identified by hunters themselves.

Now that you have properly explained it to us Washington residents, our proper course is clear.

We should defeat this crap, and see to it that the retards who drafted this crap never serve the public again.

I mean, what’s the point? I seriously doubt that the amount of lead in lead ammo that is fired in America’s hunting grounds is impressively high.

The only way lead ammo can endanger a species is… if you shoot it with that ammo. I mean… honestly… Why not milk mice?