Re: [mou-net] FW: DNR proposal to prohibit lead shot on Wildlife Mgt Areas-- message from Carrol Henderson re. effects on MN birds

[John Clouse]

I advocate that the hunters who see copper bullets as a “government mandate” be 
required to use lead in their gasoline. They will set up separate dispensing 
stations for this purpose. And of course they will be responsible for changing 
components on their engines to deal with the effects of lead. Lead poisoning in 
their children will not be covered by health insurance.
Or, we could all grow up.

John clouse



> On Dec 7, 2015, at 8:44 AM, Jeremy Powers  wrote:
> 
> 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 

Re: [mou-net] FW: DNR proposal to prohibit lead shot on Wildlife Mgt Areas-- message from Carrol Henderson re. effects on MN birds

[Jeremy Powers]

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