The Hog Blog

Here’s a quickie for a Monday morning… 

It’s still a  little early, but for folks who enjoy shooting ground squirres, jack rabbits and such in the condor zone, it’s been a long, miserable search to find a lead-free, rimfire bullet for the .17hmr.  Last year, CCI released their TNT Green line, but personally, I never even saw it on a shelf or catalog.  I guess it was out there, but it slipped right by me.  From talking to several Hog Blog readers, it slipped by them too.

Well, here’s your chance to remedy that…

I have found (and purchased) the .17hmr TNT Green ammo online at RM Ammo.  They had a fair supply when I ordered, and according to their website, they still have 30 units left.  I’d never heard of RM until a friend turned me on to them, but the service was extremely fast.  It’s not super cheap, at $12.95/box, but that’s only a couple of bucks more than regular .17hmr ammo. 

If RM runs out, you can also find the TNT Green in stock at MidwayUSA.  They’re getting a little more for it, about $15.99/box or $145.99/brick (500 rds).   

As best I can tell, Cabelas and BassPro are not carrying this ammo yet, or at least it isn’t listed in their catalog.  You can check your regular ammo sources to see if they have it as well.

The lead-free, .22lr “Short Range” ammo from CCI is still not widely available.  I’d intended to take my test box out to the range this weekend, but it just wasn’t in the cards.  As soon as I get a chance to get this stuff into the field, I’ll let you know what I think about it.

The other day I posted up a short bit on Montana’s “test balloon” proposal to ban lead shot for upland and migratory birds on all state-owned wildlife management areas.  The idea went over with the MT hunting community, appropriately enough, like a lead balloon. 

Anthony Canales, who some of you may recognize from past lead ammo discussions, has been working with the NRA and others to present a solid, scientific challenge to the lead-ban proponents.  For some reason, every time he posts to this blog he gets blocked, but Canales does still send me the occasional email to let me know what’s going on.  Apparently, the NRA has been actively (pro-actively?) involved in the MT conversation as well.  I thought his latest email was worth sharing:

Dear Mr. Loughlin,

Regarding your posting on the Montana FWP’s proposal for a requirement to use “nontoxic” shot while hunting upland game on the state’s Wildlife Management Areas-

1) NRA has been running a hunter and shooter alert on the issue for the past 2 weeks, encouraging hunters and shooters to write in to the “Surveymonkey” website entry form. In the past week our state MC’s started adding their “nonresident-hunter’s 2 cents worth” to that website, plus to various state FWP officials and their FWP Commission. The link we were also sending to Governor Schweitzer was included, but it apparently got “turned off” during the campaign.

You can see the contact information at my blog posting at:

http://tinyurl.com/yf6e3ga
I personally have been a nonresident deer and upland game hunter in Montana for a number of years now, and many California activists I work with own property, or hunt, in Montana.

2) I have spoken personally with Ms. McKee of the Billings Gazette, and who I believe is also the author of the Missoula paper article. She said her source on the California origin of a lead shot ban was some gunshop sales person in Montana who attributed the ban to California, and that it was a total ban to boot.

I explained that it was a regional ban, and only applicable to centerfire and rimfire under the various regs noted under AB 821 and DFG regs. I explained to her about the failure of the birdshot ban proposal in California, and passed on some science information we used and introduced into the public record during the comment periods and F&G Commission hearings last summer.

3) While your comments on “hunters coming together and providing a united front” being the reason why AB 821 was not defeated, I believe that it lacks the context as to which position would predominate as towards a united approach.

Some folks were agreeable as to concessions to prohibit lead. Other folks were knowledgeable as to the true status of the proposed alternatives. These are issues that you and I have discussed forcefully in emails, and to a degree have apparently “agreed to disagree” on for now.

As long as there is evidence of scientific mis-statement at the best, and knowing scientific misconduct at the worst on this issue, I cannot but say to you that I strenuously must disagree with a lead ammunition ban by political concession.

Please be assured that the information we placed in the public record is not the entire record on potential scientific misconduct on this matter.

Just a note to folks who may not have been around for some of the exchanges between myself and Mr. Canales…  our primary point of contention was not over whether or not there should be a lead ban (we both oppose it), but over the approaches and strategies being pursued. 

Mr. Canales also takes a more optimistic point of view that, by continuing to apply pressure and scientific proof, the CA lead ban will be overturned.  While I certainly would love to see that happen, and I support the efforts to that end; I have very little hope that it will come to fruition. I believe that the time and effort is better spent moving forward, and stopping the ban from spreading… both in CA and out. 

Fortunately, as you can see in the email, those goals are not mutually exclusive.

From the While I Was Out files…  stuff that slipped through the cracks while I was here at the 2010 SHOT Show.

First of all, got this great photo in an email from my friend Matt, who some of you may recognize as De Hog Shootinest Gent’man.  I don’t think Matt ever stops hunting or killing hogs, but I think winter is his special time of year.  I’m a touch envious of his access to some prime hog hunting… and the fact that it’s close enough for him to roll out and hit it when the mood strikes. 

Nevertheless, he’s taken another really nice tusker as you can see here.  Congrats, Matt!  Keep at ‘em!

In other news, so to speak, Montana is the latest state to face new restrictions on lead ammunition.  I don’t know what I’d do without the Outdoor Pressroom, which is where I found the link to this article in the Missoula, MT Missoulian newspaper. 

You can read it yourself, but it looks like the MT Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks has floated a proposal to ban lead shot for upland and migratory birds on all of the state’s 72 wildlife management areas.  So far, it looks like the Department is just checking the water.

There’s nothing to suggest lead shot poses any risk to those or any other upland game bird species, Aasheim [Ron Aasheim, a spokesman for the MT DFWP] said. Montana’s tentative ban was proposed only to be “consistent” with the federal ban and other lead shot bans on certain tribal lands.

“We’ve got restrictions on using lead shot for waterfowl, and do we take the next step on the wildlife management areas?” he said.

Aasheim also stressed that the ban was very tentative and proposed more like a “trial balloon” to see where Montanans stood on the issue. There are no “biological reasons” to ban lead shot on the areas, but people simply may not like it, Aasheim said and commissioners want to know about it.

The majority of hunters interviewed in the piece are pretty strongly opposed, of course.  That was no surprise.  The thing I didn’t like to read is that the folks in MT are seeing lead ammo bans into a “California thing.”  It is NOT a geographical issue… it’s a very real topic that will continue to come up all over the country.  CA hunters and shooters missed their best opportunity to block the ban here, because they didn’t come together and form a united front.  Hunters need to pay attention and learn from the mistakes made in CA, or they’ll be repeated every time.  But that’s enough preaching for now.

One last thing, and this actually relates to the 2010 SHOT Show.  I was remiss in not reporting that Dave Petzal, of Field and Stream was the recipient of this year’s Grits Gresham Shooting Sports Communicator Award.  I’ve often referenced Petzal’s blog, the Gun Nut, and I’ve always enjoyed his writing in the magazine as well.  It’s much-deserved recognition, and I offer my congratulations to Mr. Petzal. 

Well, my flight leaves in a little while.  I need to finish packing and get out of this crazy town.  Vegas is fun… for a little while, but it’s no place to be flying solo (particularly not given my age and relationship status).  I’m looking forward to being home.

I’ve been running real short on motivation for blogging lately.  I’m not sure why, because I actually have a handful of topics and posts I’ve been wanting to work on, but I just haven’t been able to get myself to write it all up.  Oh well, this too shall pass.

In the meantime, I was scanning through my news feeds last night, and this bit in the San Francisco Examiner jumped out at me.  Now, when I first saw the source and the topic, I had a feeling I was gonna see more of the same-old-same-old anti-lead propaganda.  However, I always try to take a look… at best I get a pleasant surprise.  At worst, at least I get to know what the “other side” is on about.

Well, damned if this didn’t really fit either mold.  It wasn’t a slam on hunters and lead ammo, but neither was it particularly supportive of lead ammo.  However, it did say something I’ve been saying for a while:

So, while there is no conclusive data to indicate that humans eating venison shot with lead bullets are at any greater risk of increased lead levels in their bloodstream, it seems that we are heading down the path of reducing any and all forms of lead exposure in accordance with the CDC goals by 2010.

 It’s entirely likely that, despite a lack of evidence to support it, lead ammo is well on the way out.  I don’t know about 2010, but I do think we’re going to see it in the relatively near future.  When the issue starts to make the pages of a publication like the SF Examiner (not exactly a hotbed of hunting and shooting information), things are moving.

Just saw this from the American Sportfishing Association.  I know, it’s not hunting or ammunition, but it’s really all the same bloody thing, isn’t it? 

In the name of honest disclosure, I’ve done no research on this issue and really don’t have a position right now.  My knee-jerk response, of course, is that this is no different from the lead ammo ban and the proposed ban is little more than an over-reaction to a nominal risk… but that’s the problem with knee-jerk reactions. 

Anyway, take a look.  I can promise you, as with the lead ammo, this will not be limited to the state of Washington.  Remember, the National Park Service is working toward the same ends in all National Parks. 

Read up, learn, and act appropriately.

November 17, 2009

American Sportfishing Association Policy Alert

Washington State Anglers Face a Ban on Lead Fishing Tackle

For more information, contact Gordon Robertson, vice president and Government Affairs lead, 703.519.9691, x237 or Mike Leonard, Policy Fellow, x230.

Without evidence that lead fishing tackle is posing a threat to loon populations, a proposed ban in Washington State is completely unwarranted!

Please send a letter to the Washington State Fish and Wildlife Commission demanding that they reject a proposed rule that would ban the use of lead fishing tackle. The proposal is based on the assumptions that lead fishing tackle poses a threat to loon populations and that many alternatives to lead are widely available for approximately the same price – neither of which is true. The deadline for comment is December 1, 2009.

No evidence exists that concludes that lead fishing tackle is threatening loon populations. A study of common loons by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife found “no evidence of a declining population or a substantial change in distribution” in the state, and loon populations are stable or increasing throughout their range.  Advocates for the proposed ban are using as evidence a finding that says over the past 13 years, nine loons are found to have died from ingesting lead fishing tackle. 

Additionally, fishing tackle made from alternatives to lead can be much more expensive, in limited supply and not perform as well.

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington isthe fifteenth largest state in terms of annual sportfishing expenditures. Washington’s 736,000 anglers spent $1.04 billion in 2006, generating $210 million in state and local tax revenue. Washington’s anglers support 15,000 jobs with $513 million in salaries and wages. If Washington’s anglers stopped fishing and did not spend their money elsewhere in state, the state’s economy would shrink by $1.66 billion. In addition, non-residents comprise 13 percent of Washington’s anglers who have a significant impact on the state’s economy.

Please take action now to ensure that the Washington State Fish and Wildlife Commission rejects the proposed ban by sending your letter by December 1, 2009.

One of the blogs I read every weekday is Dave Petzal’s (and Phil Bourjailly) Gun Nut blog, on the Field and Stream site.  Not only do I love Petzal’s sense of curmudgeonly humor, he’s also got a ton of excellent information on shooting, guns, and ammo.  The comments are also usually pretty spot on.

Anyway, this latest blog entry from Petzal takes a look at Nosler’s newest lead-free offering, which is a new ballistic tip bullet for varmint hunters.  I’m not that big of a varmint shooter myself, but this is pretty good info for those of you who are into coyotes, ground squirrels, and other such stuff.  Give it a read!

Well, if I’m not back yet, I will be this weekend. 

What did you figure for the last question?  Did you check out the DFG site, or did you already know the answer?

The bullets that are not permitted for big game hunting in the CA Condor Zone are the Extreme Shock and the Ballistic Silvertip. 

“But wait,” you say!  “The Extreme Shock is a lead-free bullet!  Doesn’t that make it legal?”

Nope.  For two reasons.  First of all, if you checked the DFG list, you saw that Extreme Shock is not listed.  That means that, no matter what it’s made of, it’s not legal in CA. 

The second reason is that Extreme Shock is a frangible round.  Frangibles are not legal for big game hunting in CA, regardless of whether you’re hunting in the Condor Zone.  I’ve used these things in Texas, and they work fairly well, although I prefer something that doesn’t mush the meat so bad.  They are legal for varmints and predators, however, and would be a great choice on coyotes…especially if you’re shooting near human habitation.

Here’s the last question in our little quiz.  It’s an easy one, and I’ll answer this one when I get home.

True or False:  I pour my own muzzleloader bullets, so I’m not required to use lead-free ammo.

NO! 

(Did I scare ya, yelling and all?)

I may not use lead ammo in that .44, even if I am bowhunting. 

Think about it, a law enforcement officer isn’t going to know if you’re “secretly” planning to  drop the bow and hunt with the pistol instead.  And regardless of intent, the law is designed to keep folks from leaving lead-laced carcasses in the field.  Even if you finish a hog with the pistol, or kill one in defense, the end result is still the same. 

So, if you’re hunting big game or non-game, leave the lead at home.

So now, here’s an open book question (use the DFG website):

Which of the following are NOT approved for big game hunting in the CA Condor Zone (pick all that apply).

A.)  Nosler eTip

B.)  Extreme Shock

C.)  Barnes TSX

D.)  Hornady GMX

E.) Nosler Ballistic Silvertip

F.)  Lapua Naturalis

How’d you do on that last one?  You had the whole weekend to think it over.  Or did you go out and get all sugared up on Halloween candy and forget all about it?

OK, so that one shouldn’t have been too hard.  Answer?  The law states that you may not possess lead ammo and the firearm to shoot it while hunting big game or nongame in the CA Condor Zone.  Since I was hunting with the 30-06, then the lead shotshells are not illegal for me to possess.  I would be perfectly legal.

This comes with a caveat, however.  It is possible that a game warden does not completely understand this law, and may decide to cite me anyway.  What do I do? 

What I don’t do is get all heated up with the warden.  Remember, their job is not to be the judge, but simply to act on their best understanding of the evidence and the perceived violation.  Arguing with them only makes things worse.

Instead, I wait and take it to court.  There is where the judge will review the law and the evidence. 

So, new question.

I’m bowhunting pigs, and want to carry my .44mag as backup.  Do I have to have lead-free ammo in the .44?

Well hey, whattaya know?  Here we are again, and I’m still out here at Coon Camp Springs.  If all’s gone well, I’m relaxing around camp after my first two clients have tagged out.  If not, I’m cranking this one right down to the wire, as we’ve got one day left to hunt and that danged old moon is getting awful big!

So anyway, how’d you make out on Lead Ban Quiz #2?  It was a little trickier, and maybe I’m splitting hairs here.  The statement was false.  For hunting big game and non game in the CA Condor Zone, you must use bullets containing not more than 1% lead.  The ammo itself is still not lead free, because there are lead stabilizing components in the primer.  At this time, there is no 100% lead-free ammo for big game hunters… at least none that I’m aware of in the U.S.  True “green” ammo is being developed and tested by various agencies, and there are a small handful of options available to target shooters and law-enforcement. 

OK, enough of that.  Here’s one that isn’t quite so tricky:

If I’m down in the CA Condor Zone, hunting hogs with my 30-06, and a game warden happens to stop me and find some lead shotshells in my truck, am I in trouble?