Nontypical
member
Reged: 12/16/05
Posts: 338
Loc: Mid Missouri
|
|
I have a serious question for you guys.....I know I am sticking my neck out there, so feel free and I will try to them out later.
I work in the plastics industry and a new product we are offering is an oxobiodegradable additive that will make regular polyethylene plastic degrade within a couple of years.
One of the applications that I am going after is the shot shell wad cups for shotgun shells. When this additive is used the wad cups will degrade back into the environment within 2-3 years.
Would this degradable wad cup option appeal to you as a hunter?
Would you be willing to pay a little extra to keep your duck club/target range area free from the old wad cups that will last for 50-100 years?
I would like to hear your thoughts on this subject.
--------------------
Idiocracy shouldn't be a direction!
|
moduckdoc
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 2945
Loc: A porn site
|
|
Would it break down inside of the shell before it is shot? How long would the shelf life be? I would not want to give the government any ideas that might help them further control of firearms and ammunition in any way shape or form. In fact please delete this idea from your head before it is too late and the socialist, gun grabbing, green SOB's begin to legislate it into being.
--------------------
Freedom it isn't free, but it is worth every drop
|
Duckv
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 126
Loc: You see that sign says Riiib T...
|
|
Sure. Could it be added to the shell itself?
|
Phil in MO
member
Reged: 12/20/05
Posts: 481
Loc: "HomeofToto" City
|
|
When does the degradation begin? Is it UV activated or from time of manufactor? I guess I'm asking about shelf life. I wouldn't pay more than like 50 cents a box/$5 a case for that.
Dang, you guys type faster than I do.
Edited by Phil in MO (02/11/10 07:34 AM)
|
Nontypical
member
Reged: 12/16/05
Posts: 338
Loc: Mid Missouri
|
|
The additive in the wad cup is activated by light, oxygen, and heat. It would have a shelf life of 7-10 years before the degradation inside a shell case would begin.
One of the leading shotshell manufacturers in the area told me shotshells without the additive have approximately the same shelf life. If not used for several years they don't work properly.
I know that you are running for office but I fail to make the paranoid connection to the government having anything to do with this product being added to wad cups. Remember that the original plastic (Polyethylene)to make the wad cup comes from......OIL! If the government wants to control all aspects of our life, all they have to do is control access to oil and all of the products produced from it.
It ain't rocket science and they don't have to target specific products to make it happen. Just one broad paint brush swipe can bring the whole house of cards down. Pretty scary huh?
But that is just my humble opinion.
--------------------
Idiocracy shouldn't be a direction!
|
Nontypical
member
Reged: 12/16/05
Posts: 338
Loc: Mid Missouri
|
|
Duckv,
This is a brand new product and we are starting with the shotshell wad cups. If everything works correctly, adding it to the shell itself is the logical next step.
The shell itself is normally made with much tougher plastic depending upon the shell manufacturer. So it presents a different set of challenges.
--------------------
Idiocracy shouldn't be a direction!
|
sptsman
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 6194
Loc: Missouri
|
|
No, I would not pay more. I don't shoot garbage shells but I do look for the best deals I can find, on the quality of shells that I can afford to shoot. If I was going pay an additional $.50 or $1.00 per box, it would be to upgrade the quality of the shell, not for some supposed environmental reason.
I hunt in many places where they have been shooting truckloads of shells for 50+ years. I'm not sure when the plastic wads became the norm but I'm sure it was more than 25-30 years ago. With that in mind, I have yet to see a problem with excess wads cluttering up the landscape. In fact, I'm usually hard pressed to even see old wads. If they are buried in the mud or get worked into the soil, so be it.
Just thinking a lot of this environmental stuff has merit and we should be good stewards of our environment. However, some of this stuff has become ridiculous. I'm not sure which category these fall in but I'm leaning towards the silly side. Seems to be solving a problem that doesn't really exist and opens the door for a lot of regulation and new rules...
Carry on...
--------------------
"Hunts are best measured by the endurance of the memories they produce..."
|
Nontypical
member
Reged: 12/16/05
Posts: 338
Loc: Mid Missouri
|
|
Phil,
I hope I answered your questions in my response to Moduck
If you have anymore I would be happy to answer them.
These are exactly the type of responses I was looking for.
Thanks!
--------------------
Idiocracy shouldn't be a direction!
|
Nontypical
member
Reged: 12/16/05
Posts: 338
Loc: Mid Missouri
|
|
Sptsman,
I appreciate your opinion, not sure I agree with it, but it is appreciated.
The shot wad issue is a big deal at target ranges and duck clubs that shoot a lot of shells, so the issue does exist and has been a goal of shotshell manufacturers for years.
They have tried the corn/soy based plastics and it does not work well with cold temps and has other less than desirable physical properties that would be down right dangerous.
Isn't being a good steward of the environment to shoot a shells with shot wads that are buried in the mud or worked into the ground don't stay that way for decades?
The difference in the price of a box of shells would probably be $.25 cents or less.
Thanks for your response.
--------------------
Idiocracy shouldn't be a direction!
|
sptsman
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 6194
Loc: Missouri
|
|
Quote:
Nontypical said:
Isn't being a good steward of the environment to shoot a shells with shot wads that are buried in the mud or worked into the ground don't stay that way for decades?
What does it hurt? Not trying to be a smart-@$$ but would really like to know what it hurts. Is the plastic toxic? Does it harm the wildlife or the vegetation? Like I said before, I hunt many places that have been shooting tons of shells for years and can see no adverse effects...
--------------------
"Hunts are best measured by the endurance of the memories they produce..."
|
duko™
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 3442
Loc: east mo
|
|
great idea! I wouldn't mind paying the extra for it.
duko
|
Burrhead
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 3075
Loc: Just north of Bugtussle
|
|
I can see Moduckdoc's point of view on this. Some CA's have already gone non-toxic shot area wide. And it's not a great leap to see them forcing the issue of using lead free single bullets as well. Think solid copper. It never made any sense to me why they (the government) would have a problem with putting something (lead) back into the ground from which it came.
As far as gun/trap ranges that see a lot of shooting, some ranges already reclaim the shot for recycling/resale, so why couldn't the owners of those ranges simply vacuum up the wads for recycling as well?
--------------------
Somebody has to walk the point.
|
Nontypical
member
Reged: 12/16/05
Posts: 338
Loc: Mid Missouri
|
|
What does it hurt? I guess that depends on your prospective.
For target ranges that clean up and dump thousands of pounds of wad cups in landfills because no company wants to buy them and clean them for recycling, it means that they can become less of a contributer to the waste stream.
For duck clubs, it means that the build up over the years in their soil won't be an issue in the future.
The plastic by itself isn't toxic but doesn't leave the soil for decades which depending on your prospective, may or may not be a problem.
Unlike you when I duck hunted a lot, I saw a lot of wad cups and shot shells laying everywhere, on public and private ground. Although I didn't see any obvious adverse effects on wildlife those places looked like trash piles and I wondered where all that crap would end up.
I appreciate your response and you are definitely entitled to your opinion.
I am curious as to what "green" iniatives you think have merit? (comment from your first reply)
I am always looking for new ways to help the plastic producers of the world.
--------------------
Idiocracy shouldn't be a direction!
Edited by Nontypical (02/11/10 08:38 AM)
|
IIFID
Bond....Timmy Bond
Reged: 12/15/05
Posts: 8066
Loc: Nipawin, Saskatchewan
|
|
I would pay extra for them.
--------------------
Thought for the day; “It’s impossible to think outside of the box when all you do is think about getting inside of the box.”
|
Nontypical
member
Reged: 12/16/05
Posts: 338
Loc: Mid Missouri
|
|
Burrhead,
The move to non-toxic shot was in response to spring die offs that resulted from waterfowl ingesting the lead shot.
Considering that shortly after that rule was put into effect the population of waterfowl began to increase again is not a coincidence.
Lead does come out of the ground but it doesn't come out in edible size pellets and is toxic when ingested.
I personally don't think they will make the move to nontoxic single bullets but if they did and I hunted in an area that required it, I would buy a box of nontoxic single bullets.
I am curious what target ranges that you know of that recycle wad cups?
The shell manufacturer that I spoke to about that said that the process of cleaning and recycling makes the process too expensive to be profitable.
I wonder if they would still do that if they knew that this new product was available.
--------------------
Idiocracy shouldn't be a direction!
Edited by Nontypical (02/11/10 08:54 AM)
|
Nontypical
member
Reged: 12/16/05
Posts: 338
Loc: Mid Missouri
|
|
It's a close race so far. Four positive and three negative.
Thanks for the responses, keep them coming.
--------------------
Idiocracy shouldn't be a direction!
|
lying_in_wait
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 1637
Loc: Choot 'Em!
|
|
If I'm not mistaken, biodegradable shot shell components have been around for a while. Greenlight is the name that comes to mind but I think there are others. I've read somewhere about a shell made entirely of recycled materials (shot, wad and case) and the hull as well as the wad are biodegradable. One only needs to look about 40 years back in history to discover that nearly all shot shells were biodegradable back then,ie: paper hulls and fiber wads. Seems to me that if a company wanted to make a true "green" shell then a transition back back to paper would be a heck of a lot more environmentally friendly to produce than plastic. No, I would not pay more, the current offerings are already overpriced and reloading is getting more expensive as well. There is nothing wrong with wanting to address and reduce shotgun litter, but let's face it, "green" shells are really nothing more than a money making ploy so the shooter can feel good about himself for protecting the environment while paying a premium for the privilege. The reality is that the mere manufacture of the plastic to begin with, and whatever chemicals are required to make it break down harm the environment much more than the finished product does laying on the ground.
--------------------
Shawn Wheaton
Missouri Waterfowl Association
Westside Chapter Chairman
|
Burrhead
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 3075
Loc: Just north of Bugtussle
|
|
Quote:
Nontypical said:
The move to non-toxic shot was in response to spring die offs that resulted from waterfowl ingesting the lead shot.
Then why are some CA's that are not duck parks non-toxic shot only?
Quote:
Nontypical said:
I am curious what target ranges that you know of that recycle wad cups?
I don't know. That's my question. I do know that some trap ranges reclaim shot and sell it as reclaimed.
Quote:
Nontypical said:
The shell manufacturer that I spoke to about that said that the process of cleaning and recycling makes the process too expensive to be profitable.
If it is too expensive to recycle for shotshell wads, why can't those wads be recycled into something else? I can't believe that all of the plastic that is recycled in this country is spic & span clean water bottles.
--------------------
Somebody has to walk the point.
|
sptsman
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 6194
Loc: Missouri
|
|
Nontypical - I really am not trying to be contrary or rattle your cage. I am in the construction management business and deal with all of this stuff daily. I am working on two projects right now that are going for LEED certification. Quite frankly, I'm up to my neck in renewable this and sustainable that. For the most part, I'd say 75% - 90% is pure stupidity and a huge waste of money. Waterless toilets? That's a friggin' litter box. Those are for cats, not humans!! Solar panels on the roof? Have you seen the efficacy ratings on those things? You would be more cost effective burning dollar bills to generate electricity!! do you know how much paperwork and extra $$$ it costs to get a plaque on the wall of your building to show everyone how much you love the planet than everyone else? It is obscene and Al Gore is making millions on it. I could go on and on and on with the stupidity I see daily, all in the name of "green."
If a product or activity it truly damaging the environment and can be shown to be dangerous, by all means, let's work to find a better way. I am a huge proponent of environmental laws that protect us all from toxic waste dumps in or back yards, polluting our rivers, streams and watersheds, creating air pollution that clearly can damage our lungs and bodies, etc, etc., etc... Where I draw the line is unproven theory that aims to be presented as fact and then laws passed in the name of "green" or "environmentally responsible." There are many that want us living in mud hunts, eating only the berries we can pick off the bushes and limiting our freedoms and liberties, all in the name of "environmentalism." As a result of all this, I've become more than a little skeptical.
I think your wads are fine idea and I wish you well with them. I do worry about the success of this product creating additional regulations and I don't think you have to be paranoid to have that concern. We wouldn't have seen the banning of halon if it weren't for the environmental kooks screaming that it was a danger to the planet and claiming there were alternative methods for extinguishing fires. Most fire suppression experts will tell you that halon was and is the best for fire suppression. Now we know the junk science used to ban it was mostly chicken little-type screaming and we are worse off without it. I doubt shotguns wads will have the same impact on society, as a whole but let's not kid ourselves about the principles involved here. Once the kooks at the MCD or worse, the feds, see this product succeed, it is just a matter of time before it will become mandatory.
Sorry for the ramble. I'm climbing off the soapbox now... 
Cary on...
--------------------
"Hunts are best measured by the endurance of the memories they produce..."
|
Nontypical
member
Reged: 12/16/05
Posts: 338
Loc: Mid Missouri
|
|
lying_in_wait,
I agree that papershells and fiber wads would be a better green way to produce the shells. Unfortunately, in today's world that isn't going to happen. So making a better product that will biodegrade seems to be a desirable option to the shotshell producers.
You may be surprised to know that a large part of the expense of today's shotshell pricing isn't from the plastic but from the brass and steel/nontoxic materials that are also used to make them.
If you believe that "green" shells are just a money making ploy, that's fine, but I don't think a small difference in pricing is going to make or break the shell industry. If it makes someone feel better that they are helping the envirnoment to shoot them, why shouldn't they shoot them?
The way this product works the final broken down product consists of carbon dioxide, water, and biomass consisting of animal waste and plant materials from the organisms that eat the microscopic particles. The main ingredient in the additive is Palm Oil and when used in Polyethylene is FDA approved. In other words, it's not harming the environment while breaking down the plastic.
Thanks for your response.
Okay, we're tied at 4 positive and 4 negative.
--------------------
Idiocracy shouldn't be a direction!
|
duko™
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 3442
Loc: east mo
|
|
the way I see this is that its nothing more than an alternative to picking up your own garbage. Where is the problem???
Sptsman, are you essentially saying that you'd rather leave your garbage on the ground than spend 25 cents and avoid having to walk around and find 25 spent wads on the ground. If you shot 2500 rounds a year that equates to $25. I know personally you'll spend more than that on any given night at the dog prairie just to turn around and piss it out on the ground. 
I don't buy in to all this green mumbo jumbo either, but for forks sake can you not agree that it at least makes sense to pick up after yourself.
duko
|
Nontypical
member
Reged: 12/16/05
Posts: 338
Loc: Mid Missouri
|
|
Sptsman,
Your not rattling my cage, I really do appreciate the feedback both positive and negative. I agree with a lot of what you have said about some other "green" issues and the folks making money on it.
That being said here is some stats for you. Recent EPA stats show that over 31 million tons of plastic waste is introduced into the municipal solid waste stream per year. Less than 7% of this is recycled. That leaves 28 million tons that end up as litter or in a land fill. These figures probably don't even take shotshell wads into consideration.
I have a lot of work to do!
I don't think that you will have to worry about the "green" wads becoming mandatory. I think once the product is proven to work, it will become part of the normal process of shotgun shell production for all of the shotshell companies and you will just get it when you buy a box or case of shells, just as you get a non-biodegradable shot wad when you buy shells today. In other words buying shells without the "green" wads will be unusual.
Thanks for the responses and the well wishes.
--------------------
Idiocracy shouldn't be a direction!
Edited by Nontypical (02/11/10 10:22 AM)
|
lying_in_wait
member
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 1637
Loc: Choot 'Em!
|
|
Quote:
Nontypical said:
I agree that papershells and fiber wads would be a better green way to produce the shells. Unfortunately, in today's world that isn't going to happen. So making a better product that will biodegrade seems to be a desirable option to the shotshell producers.
Actually, paper shells are still in production today and are popular with competitive trap shooters. They are readily available across the pond and command a premium price here.
Quote:
If it makes someone feel better that they are helping the envirnoment to shoot them, why shouldn't they shoot them?
That's called brain washing. Al Gore would be proud.
Quote:
The way this product works the final broken down product consists of carbon dioxide, water, and biomass consisting of animal waste and plant materials from the organisms that eat the microscopic particles. The main ingredient in the additive is Palm Oil and when used in Polyethylene is FDA approved. In other words, it's not harming the environment while breaking down the plastic.
So it won't harm the environment while breaking down, fantastic. Now why don't you tell us about the environmental impacts of producing polyethylene and the chemicals needed to break it down.
--------------------
Shawn Wheaton
Missouri Waterfowl Association
Westside Chapter Chairman
|
Nontypical
member
Reged: 12/16/05
Posts: 338
Loc: Mid Missouri
|
|
Burrhead,
I don't know for sure but I would guess that some CA's that are not duck parks require it because some waterfowl and/or other wildlife could eat the toxic lead shot. This would be more of a question for the MDC.
Reclaiming shot and reclaiming shot wads for recycling are two different subjects. I would guess that the shot could be melted down and re-used with minimal or no cleaning.
The shot wads on the other hand would have to be cleaned of powder burns (actual burned plastic) and residue before they could be manufactured into anything. Which is a pretty expensive process. In other words it costs more money to recycle them than it does to throw them away.
--------------------
Idiocracy shouldn't be a direction!
|
Nontypical
member
Reged: 12/16/05
Posts: 338
Loc: Mid Missouri
|
|
LIW,
You seem to be an angry man! 
Do you use paper shells for your hunting or plastic shells?
I don't think it is brain washing to be able to feel better about not being able to find and pick up all of my trash (wads) and then not have to worry about them harming the environment. I am NOT an Al Gore fan!
As far as the environmental impact of producing polyethylene, gasoline, diesel fuel, etc. You won't get any arguments from me, but the fact is that all of those are here to stay and the majority of products that you use everyday are made from, guess what? Plastic.
As part of the MWA, I find it difficult to imagine that you would be opposed to an additive for the plastic used in shotgun shells that causes them to biodegrade with no harmful effects as opposed to the alternative of leaving the litter out there for decades.
Just working with the options that are available.
Thanks for the response.
--------------------
Idiocracy shouldn't be a direction!
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
