As a follow up to the thread below, I did some digging. It seems there is a real push for this. I found several 'lead ban' sights and they all speak of misinformation and the use of false implications for swaying the opinion of hunters on this topic. Specifically noting that 2/3 of all dove hunters are against a ban so selling it on it's merits alone is too much of a battle. They all seem somewhat organized and are in the process of gathering the needed political pull to make a real thrust at this goal. The thread below was getting off topic a bit so I wanted to re-direct. Remember...the lead shot ban on ducks had nothing to do with ducks. They sold the idea on the back of the bald eagle. They then moved to selling steel shot for everything by calling out hunters as 'unethical' or not 'supporting the environment or resource' if they didn't march in step with every lead ban. Acting all "holier than thou" because you support steel for everything...but I choose to shoot lead on my private land hunts serves NONE OF US. It creates conflict, debate, and divides us. You guys calling out others for not supporting a full ban on lead are just as much part of the problem. There are sources calling out power line collisions as nearly equal to hunting as far as dove mortality. I don't know if that is really all true, but I do know that 70 percent of the dove population will die each year no matter what. About 70-80% of this mortality has nothing to do with shotguns...natural causes folks. Only about 15-20 percent is from hunting. Nest failures have the biggest affect on the dove populations. They talk about the frequency of dove nesting but only 1 in 4 nests fledges any young. Doves build pizz-poor nests that are easily affected by spring storms. Every thing I've read points to this as the largest factor affecting the annual nesting failures. Lastly ask yourself "why" are they going after doves in this new 'all-steel' fight/agenda? Why not pheasants and partridge where I live in Iowa? The answer is pretty simply. You gotta fight to impose your anti-hunting agenda state by state. That makes the one state under siege feel singled out and more apt to put up a fight. Plus...it's time consuming to fight one state at a time and you will never will in all of them. BUT...you target a migratory species and you can cut deep into nearly all states with one swing of a political sword. More bang for the buck and everyone is subject to the same pain. When pain is shared, people are less likely to fight back. After all...we're all in the same boat then...right? This has nothing to do with doves. It's all about using a migratory species to limit land access, further restrict hunting, and to discourage hunting as a whole on a national basis. Nothing else.