Many of us who both bird and hunt deer have used copper bullets for years. There is real resistance among some hunters because they see this as a "government mandate" and they just bristle at that idea and therefore resist copper bullets out of pure stubbornness. There are still hunters who complain about having to use non-toxic shot for waterfowl.
Generally the price of copper bullets is much higher than lead bullets, especially in popular calibers. I wish there was some economic advantage, either through taxing lead bullets or discounts on deer licenses when copper bullets are used or simply discounts on ammunition, maybe subsidized by the state or a wildlife conservation group. A box of copper bullets has come down quite a bit since I bought my first box. I paid over $50 for 20 rounds. Cabela's has them on sale right now for $27 for my .30-06, which is a comparable price. However, other calibers can run as high as $55. You can find basic lead bullets for under $15. Even outlawing bullets that fragment would go a long way to help. Several popular rounds of ammunition, such as Winchester's Ballistic Silvertips, are designed to fragment and therefore make it almost impossible for a hunter to remove all of the bullet parts from the field-dressed gut pile. These are the bullets I used years ago because they're very deadly. I stopped using those when I became aware of lead toxicity and in the years before copper bullets, I would try to find the lead-core bullets and remove them from the gut piles knowing how deadly toxic they are to animals. But even if we could get everyone using copper bullets, most hunters use lead shot for pheasants and other upland birds. It seems to me that the least we can expect is hunters hunting on government-owned land - Wildlife Managements Areas, etc. - could be expected to use non-toxic bullets and shot. After all, this is our land - the royal we "ours" - and clearly most of the population of Minnesota would be in favor of reducing the collateral damage to non-game wildlife caused by lead bullets and shot. Jeremy Powers Fridley -----Original Message----- From: Minnesota Birds [mailto:MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU] On Behalf Of Gordon Andersson Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2015 3:11 PM To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Subject: [mou-net] FW: DNR proposal to prohibit lead shot on Wildlife Mgt Areas-- message from Carrol Henderson re. effects on MN birds Judy Here is the info I fwded to MOU from Carrol Henderson. I added more info at the bottom which includes the Parts and the Subparts of the MN Rule references. If you open the DNR link and look for "Request for Comments", you see that comments should be sent to Jason Abraham. His email address is provided. (I took the 'dnr.' out of his email address (below) to conform to current email addresses for state staff. But, I tried the address Carrol had provided and Jason did receive my msg, so either address will still work.) There is an effort to add all Scientific and Natural Areas (SNAs) to this proposal for the ban on lead ammunition. People may consider adding that comment as well. Secondly, many concerned with bird conservation in MN also request that the proposed ban apply to all WMA's (forest zone as well as farm zone.) GAndersson Conservation Comte From: Gordon Andersson [mailto:gpanders...@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 5:47 PM To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Subject: DNR proposal to prohibit lead shot on Wildlife Mgt Areas-- message from Carrol Henderson re. effects on MN birds Hello! For the past 39 years that I have been in charge of the Minnesota DNR Nongame Wildlife Program, I have worked to reduce/eliminate the use of lead as a component of shotgun shells for waterfowl and upland hunting, for use in fishing tackle, and more recently for use of lead in deer hunting ammunition. Lead in ammunition and fishing tackle continues to contribute to the unnecesary loss of waterfowl, loons, trumpeter swans, bald eagles, golden eagles, hawks, vultures, doves, and other wildlife. Lead has long been acknowledged by society as a neurotoxin that can impair mental development in children and it has been banned for use in paint, gasoline, and in children's toys. Unfortunately, a few organizations have refused to acknowledge any problems with lead and have generated considerable misinformation to defend its use and deny any threats to either humans or wildlife caused by use of lead in ammunition and fishing jigs and sinkers. The Minnesota DNR has made a bold step forward in proposing to ban lead shot in shotgun shells on over a half million acres of state-owned Wildlife Management Areas in the agricultural zone of Minnesota. Lead shot is already banned for hunting waterfowl on these areas and also on federal Waterfowl Production Areas. Lead shot spread across our public wildlife areas does not degrade on these areas and will continue to pose a toxic threat to Minnesota wildlife for many decades to come--especially for ground-feeding birds like doves, pheasants, and partridge and songbirds seeking grit on these areas. Also, lead shot fired at pheasants over wetlands on these areas can fall into the wetlands and subsequently poison waterfowl including ducks, geese, and swans. Not-toxic steel, bismuth, and tungsten-based shotgun shells are readily available to upland birds. The performance of nontoxic ammunition on game birds is quite comparable to that of lead.The cost of a box of lead shotgun shells for hunting pheasants is very comparable to the price of non-toxic shells. A box of 25 shotgun shells may cost from $7.50 to about $11.50, so the cost of ammunition is a minor cost of an upland game bird hunting trip, but some people claim that a switch to nontoxic shells places an undue burden on hunters. The NRA already has alerted its members of the proposed lead shot ban on Minnesota's Wildlife Management Areas and is having its members send in robo-mail to the DNR to oppose the change. These lands are not owned by hunters; they are owned by the people of Minnesota. We should not be continuing to contaminate our public lands with lead when nontoxic alternatives are available. The DNR is allowing 60 days for public comment on this proposal which was published on October 13. As a hunter, birdwatcher, and conservationist who cares about all wildlife, I would like to ask you to please consider commenting on this proposal, in your own words, to Jason Abraham at the address listed below. Comments and requests for a public hearing may be emailed to jason.abra...@state.mn.us <mailto:jason.abra...@state.mn.us> . Requests may also be made by telephone at (651)-259-5197 <tel:%28651%29-259-5197> . Valid requests must include the name and address of the person requesting the hearing as well as reference Subpart 14, p. 2 and Subpart 8, p. 8 of the proposed rule. Thank you. Carrol ------------------------------ For further info, here is a link to the draft proposal. Click on "Proposed Rules (early draft)" under Rulemaking Documents to see what is proposed. The language re. lead-free shot in this "omnibus" revision is very brief. It is in two places: Part 6230.0200, "Special Provisions for Wildlife Mgt Areas", subpart 14 (on page 2) and Part 6240.0200, "General Restrictions for Taking and Possession of Migratory Game Birds", subpart 8 (page 8). As you know, new language is underlined and deleted language is crossed-out. The ban on lead shot would take effect in Sept 2018. <http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/input/rules/wildlife/index.html> http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/input/rules/wildlife/index.html The official end of the comment period is December 11 ("at least" 60 days from publication in the State Register). Bird conservation is a mission of MOU. ----------------------- GAndersson StPaul ---- Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html ---- Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
