I posted before reading the whole thread. When I did read the rest I figured you'd have a response...and I understand some of your points. But I do think there is often a radical approach to environmental law that ends up consting the consumer/user, often times unnecessarily.
As a person who grew up poor I know that if laws were in place that some would like to put into place concerning lead bullets and shot (or fishing sinkers also) I would not have been able to participate in the activities that became my passion [at least not legally], and quite frankly, worked with family to get me through some low times and added motivation for me to do more than just make a living.
Now I can do all of those things comfortably regardless of the regulations ... but I work with kids who are just like I was. I encourage them to hunt and fish, I take them hunting and fishing ... all the while talking about doing it legally. Many of them are brought up thinking it's ok to poach. My hope is to instill in them the same passion for the outdoors that has been a very positive influence on my life. I work with Oklahoma legislators to keep the costs down in any way we can, from licensing to providing free hunting/fishing days, to guiding the poorer kids on fishing derbys or tournaments, guiding on youth hunts, etc.
When we see bald eagles and red tail hawks or others elegant birds of prey I explain the reduction in the use of lead shot and how that has helped those birds make a comeback. But I fail to see how banning lead bullets, shot one at a time in the field, or lead shot for small game hunting (I'm an avid small game hunter and have used 24 410 shells on rabbits and less than 50 copper coated 22 bullets on squirrels this year) would have a significant impact on the environment.
So you see I am not "all in" on the banning of all lead for hunting and fishing. Weighing the cost and the environmental impact, at least from what I've researched and read, I'm not convinced such a ban is needed.
