In general, what you describe is exactly the solution I’ve been talking about for a long time. A phased approach is the realistic way to go about what a lot of folks, including myself, think is inevitable anyway.

The biggest challenge is going to be making the case to sportsmen who are largely suspicious and critical of plans like this one. The other challenge is going to be to make an affordable lead alternative that provides for all shooters… not just those who shoot the three or four most common calibers.

Sportsmen, environmentalists, and lawmakers definitely need to be talking WITH each other, not AT each other.

A good deal of scientific studies, especially ones done by USGS, suggest that lead used in recreational hunting and fishing is the cause of the death of a number of birds, some of which are critically endangered like the California condor. This damage is often irreparable and should be avoided if possible. In this case it is possible.

I appreciate you posting this and opening up a rational dialogue on the topic. There has to be some sort of middle ground here and I hope policy makers, ammunition and tackle manufacturers, and outdoorsmen can find it. It’s up to all of us to solve this problem.

Point is, these could be interesting times for hunters and fishermen in CA. If we ever needed to be a real presence at meetings, now is that time.

I know one thing: While it is important to rally the troops, rallying them with misinformation and hysteria will backfire on us, particularly when hunters are already really freaked out about the lead ban. It ultimately makes us look stupid, which can’t possibly help.

Great, comprehensive coverage. Certainly an issue for everyone to keep an eye on.

Albert