ezzy333 wrote:It doesn't. We have had it here for several years on any public hunting areas. Some states just have it for waterfowl hunting in wetlands I believe.nikegundog wrote:I read the article from the OP and did not see it mentioned that it only applied to federal employees in the aspect of their job.
Ezzy
I believe it does....as I indicated in the first post.
That article, or others on the same subject, has made all the hunting message boards lately.
There may be some reason for confusion re the wording but this decision applied to agency operations.
Every decision thos sets a precedent and gives an argument force....in that regard I hated to see the agency decision.
Steel mandated for hunting use on federal wetlands has been around for awhile and was a seperate decision....a different duck, in other words.
Having shot steel in the uplands...a little...it shows zero to scant difference in effect with the smaller, more fragile birds like woodcock and ruffed grouse.
With pheasant, there is a notable difference....tho a head shot is a head shot.
As with any cartridge decision, we owe it to the game to use that which is most likely to work in the less than perfect opportunities that a practical, real world delivers at our door.
The difference is in the toughness of the bird impacted by a less than perfect dose of salts.
Which is why I wish we had better steel loads and more cost-friendly non-tox loads.
![Idea :idea:](./images/smilies/icon_idea.gif)
Some will need them if not in their twilight years now.
Probably, hard to say, but probably non-tox is a good idea in the Big Picture.
Didn't Heston attend Northwestern and Selleck, USC?
How did they overcome?
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)