As a Michigan resident, it is something to think about

Discussion in 'LOCAL MICHIGAN TALK' started by sal_jr, Nov 7, 2006.

  1. sal_jr

    sal_jr New Member

    Messages:
    1,390
    State:
    Ithaca, MI
    I dont know what I think of this.... (go here)

    The Coast Guard wants to do live-bullet training in the great lakes... for the sake of training and safety of our waters- that makes sense.

    They want to cordon off areas of the lakes to do it... as a matter of safety for our boaters- that makes sense.

    They want to spend off as much as 7000 lbs of lead per year into our waters to do it.... and as a guy who cant hunt ducks with lead bullets because of the contaminant risk and laws protecting our waters from harmful metals, that makes no sense whatsoever.

    If duck hunters have to use steel shot, then why not the government? Why the double standard?

    If they encourage us to use lead free sinkers more and more per year, then why not use steel shot for training and subsequently for implementation fleet wide?

    I am not as concerned with the fact that trianing will occur. It is only right that in exchange for providing michigan or great lakes residents for that matter with safe and "pirate-free" waters, that the US Coast Guard be allowed to practice so that they dont misfire and sink a pleasure craft when in persuit of a drug runner or a criminal.... to me, doing the exercises is a necessity.

    But to become the #1 contributor of contaminants when alternatives exist and are readily available brings about the question of a double standard.

    Now I know what you're going to say- that steel is considerably less able to do what lead can do in ballistics... I understand that. I dont question the superiority of lead over steel with respect to bullets. What I do question is a government that holds the "Safety of the enviornment" over our heads when we duck hunt, goose hunt, and fish but then doesnt check ITSELF in the same manner. I am a fan of fair practice and equal opportunity.... that is all.



    What do you think of this proposal?


    Sal
     
  2. savage308

    savage308 New Member

    Messages:
    399
    State:
    Victoria, Texas
    I'd have to agree with you there brother.... Reps to ya great post....
     

  3. SkiMax

    SkiMax New Member

    Messages:
    2,012
    State:
    Rising Sun, IN
    I saw a show on the History Channel ( i think a model marvels) where they talked about steel vs. lead in ballistic. They are now combining the steel with mercury, i believe, and it actually outperforms lead. So i do not understand why they would shoot lead into the Great Lakes. The Government is spending millions on cleaning the lead out of their gun ranges and practice zones. So to go and put more in the environment-doesn't make much sense.
     
  4. bwanatony

    bwanatony New Member

    Messages:
    580
    State:
    Grand River Valley, Weste
    I heard Rep. Hoekstra talking about this on the radio.
    There is a lot of research going into alternative metals for practice rounds, and as soon as there's something that behaves like lead, they will likely make the switch. (steel doesn't substitute well for lead in a rifle, and its bad enough in shotguns...)
    He also said that they would be doing this live fire practice very early and late in the year, to minimize any potential risk with recreational boat traffic.

    We already have non-lead ammo for handguns & hunting rifles, look at the Barnes TSX, among others. The problem, I think, will be the increased cost. BUT, if we don't do live-fire training here, we have to ship people out to the east coast to do it, and that ain't free either.

    As usual, things come down to money.


    For me, personally, money spent to keep us safe on American soil is money well spent. JMHO. Load 'em up with brass bullets and open fire as far as I'm concerned.

    Edit: Lead shot wasn't banned for toxicity to the lake-bottom, but because dabbling ducks would ingest it, right? So now we cripple many ducks with steel instead of poisoning a few with lead. Sigh...


    60 degrees tomorrow, may have to dust off the boat & try to find some bait...
     
  5. sal_jr

    sal_jr New Member

    Messages:
    1,390
    State:
    Ithaca, MI
    I think we're close enough to agreement on the issue... .

    But one other thing: If they are interested in realtime live-load practice, then practicing in the coldest months in michigan changes ballistic response enough that whatever they do end up doing will be considerably different in 85 degree 80% humid august heat if theyre shooting exactly as they did in 20% humidity in 33 degree weather when they practiced.

    I still think the state and fed ought to really put the brains to the paper before just going after a thought. I agree that practice does make perfect... and it really is necessary- but without year round practice in all conditions, they will be perfect for only one season out of 4.

    That is what is bringing me back to the original argument.

    Sal
     
  6. Mark J

    Mark J New Member

    Messages:
    9,407
    State:
    Four Oaks, NC
    The problem with the duck hunting with lead is that ducks ingest the lead in the shallow waters they fly into or so they say.

    As far as lead bullets from a 50 cal in the great lakes , I dont see an enviromental concern.
    I wonder how many pounds of lead sinkers are at the bottom of the great lakes from fishermen.

    The entire coastal plain of the state of NC which is more then a 3rd of the state is military controlled airspace. There are bombing ranges on land and in the Pamlico sound which is salt water. Not only bombs are dropped, millions of rounds of lead bullets are expended also.
    The Pamlico sound is on the eastern flyway.
    At any rate, we dont have lead problem and if we did I would be just as guilty. I lost about 2 pounds of it in the ocean surf this weekend.
     
  7. sal_jr

    sal_jr New Member

    Messages:
    1,390
    State:
    Ithaca, MI

    Mark,
    Although I do agree with the necessity of military testing, you must also conceed that 1) ocean waters are saline, and therefore not redily available for human consumption. Furthermore, 2) the ocean is vastly larger than the great lakes and thus can dillute toxins a bit more readily than a closed system of inland lakes, albeit as large as the Great Lakes. Anything that happens in the furthest reches of Lake Superior or Lake michigan must flow still over niagra falls. Every drop that isnt dissipated through evaporation... which also contributes to concentrating levels of metals- which will not evaporate.

    We are blessed here in michigan to control one fifth of the WORLD'S fresh water. I'd hate to see us abuse that gift in the name of something as ironically redundant as security of our people when by the practice of "securing" our borders via weapons testing, we are actually possibly putting future generations at risk. Reality sometimes points redundancies out that are almost too obvious for the naked eye, I suppose... and in that light I still find the testing questionable without an alternative to harmful metals.

    As for fishermen....
    Well, here in this state fishermen are encouraged (although not mandated) to use alternative methods for getting their bait to the bottom. It is not widely practiced, but at least they do make the effort to protect the watershed. Also, a sinker being cast under any condition does not sluff off any slag- whereas heated lead shot out of a barrel usually has a trail of residues including powder and heavy metals following it and eventually giving in to the pull of gravity and landing... guess where- in the water. Also, a fisherman cannot or would not willingly send multiple lead projectiles into the water without any interest in retrieving it whatsoever. The likelihood of a breakoff obviously is a concern to fishermen, but we all strive to keep our rigs in one piece as a matter of practicality.

    I probably sunk a good 20 pounds in my life into various bodies of water that I have fished over my life, but never have I just discarded lead on purpose.