Another opinion here fellas.
I was an avid waterfowler back in the late '60s through the '80s and when the lead ban was put in place. I hated it like everyone else but I saw the need for it first hand.
At the time the majority of the snow goose population migrated down the Missouri River corridor along with Canadas, whitefronts, and huge numbers of ducks. There were many natural wetlands and shallow backwaters off of the river and in the river valley that had been popular hunting areas for many years. How many thousands of rounds had been fired over these areas over many years? There were and are many outfitters in the area that would flood man made lakes that drew ducks and geese like magnets. Its not only in my area but places all over our country that have areas that attract waterfowl and historically have been heavily hunted. I never saw effected birds from lead during the fall migration because they are generally driven off of these areas by hunters at that time. Having a keen interest in waterfowl, I would visit these areas during the spring migration to watch the birds. This is when it was quite apparent that the birds were being poisoned by lead ingested when they were unmolested on these areas and able to feed in the shallow water.
At the time eagles were on the endangered species list. Eagles often follow the waterfowl migrations and feed on dead or sick birds. These birds were being brought in to raptor recovery centers with lead poisoning and not from being shot. If you have ever witnessed an animal with lead poisoning it is not a pretty sight. How many other species were being affected?
Did the government go to far with the ban? Yes! I would be the first to agree. Someone hunting over grain fields and firing a few shells during a season is causing next to no harm. There are many cases where a total ban was not necessary but I do believe that there is a case for non-toxic shot.
As I said, I was not happy about the ban either. Please bare with me here as I mention the unmentionables. My old 10ga double that was a great goose slayer with #2 lead shot and my Belgian Browning Auto 5 could not fire steel shot. I had to replace a gun to continue waterfowling. Early steel shot shells sucked.As steel lacks the weight of lead we dropped down 2 shot sizes to try to get equal energy to lead. Velocity was the only way to make up for what steel lacked in weight and the early shells did not have it.
Steel shot shells have improved greatly over the years. Speeds are now commonly in the 1450 fps and up range. On manufacturer has steel moving at over 1700 fps. A load of BBs at these speeds is a very effective load at reasonable ranges.You will always have the guy who wants to shoot large Canada geese at 80 yards and cuss the steel because he wounds birds.
Although I have never tried it I would not shoot steel through my muzzleloaders. Lack of velocity is the reason that I doubt steels effectiveness with black powder. I would definately pay the bucks for a heavier non-toxic shot.
Believe me guys, I worry as much about future lead bans as anyone. I shoot only round balls through my muzzle loaders and wonder what the future brings.
I do believe however that there is a place for non-toxic shot concerning waterfowl as I have seen the effects.
Take care,
Ed
