If the environmental evidence isn't there (and i've been LEAD to believe its sketchy at best), then it must be more politically motivated than environmentally, although obviously if you have an inherent dislike for something, the skimpiest of evidence can be used to motivate you and you can still claim that you're doing it for another reason other than your own prejudices.Dougan wrote:No it is environmentally motivated...it's just that it's not hard to convince some members of Government against shooters.Blackstuff wrote:Oh i've no doubt this is more politically than environmentally motivated
Dougan wrote:As far as I'm aware environmentalists aren't looking to spoil shooting sports (you'd be amazed how many 'environmentalists' shoot), but are genuinely trying to protect the type of habitats that quite frankly need protecting....


Yes i would, all of the 'environmentalists' i've ever encountered have a Disney education of the natural world and would rather stab you in the face than listen to any reasoned opposing opinion to theirs
The trouble is, this isn't just about wild-fowling (i think wild-fouling is something bears do in the woodsDougan wrote: ...I'm not against wild-fouling, but I don't see why they shouldn't have to use non-toxic shot...many of the best shooting areas are vulnerable environments...also, while I do sympathise about the cost of ammo wild-foulers and hunters don't need (unless they're greedy or a crap shot) to use as much ammo as a sports shooter.

On that at least we can agreeDougan wrote: The best thing for everyone, shooters and environmentalists, would be to get the price of a decent alternative shot down to a reasonable price...
