Evaluation of General Sources: Source 1

My two sources will be on the controversy of using lead in both hunting and fishing.

1)  My first source is from Field & Stream, which is a site that deals with hunting, fishing, survival, and guns. In the article that I picked it discusses how California is planning on banning the use of lead in this upcoming 2015 hunting season. Then it goes on to discuss the negative effects that this decision can cause, so clearly this article is for the use of lead in hunting and fishing.
               -URL: Fieldandstream.com
 I feel like this domain can be both credible and not, since .com can be used by individuals it really depends. I feel like this site can be credible but I also feel like it might be a little biased since it is a pro-hunting site. I believe that it would be more credible coming from an .edu or .gov site.
                -Author: Kristen A. Schmitt
Though I can verify who the author is, when I looked to see if she had more information about herself and credentials, I was not able to find anything. So although she does back her work by adding her name, I still don't know how qualified or reliable she is in this subject matter.
               -Last Updated: April 8, 2015
The only links on the page are ones that lead to articles that are from the site as well. Other links lead to the actual Game and Fish announcement that bans the lean ammo and the other link is to a report of a survey done by the National Shooting Sports Foundation(NSSF) in which it summarizes the results that deal with California hunters and this ban; both links are functional.
               -Purpose:
The purpose of this article was to discuss the ban that California has put on the use of lead ammunition in the 2015 hunting season. It was created in order to inform the readers on some of the negative effects, such as increased ammo prices and decline in hunter numbers, that can occur due to this ban. I feel like it is promoting the idea that this new regulation is doing more bad than good because it only discusses the negative effects and does not mention at all what this ban is trying to accomplish or what good it could cause for the environment and wildlife.
              -Graphics:
There are no graphics on this article.
              -Position on Subject:
Since it is a hunting website, and after reading the article I do believe that this article is biased and one sided. If all viewers were to believe what was being written on this site then the hunters would profit the most since it would probably cause more people to back them up on ending this ban. Although I can verify some of the information, because of the lack of any positive impacts that this ban could have, this leads me to believe that this source is biased.
             -Links:
This article doesn't have links that lead to additional reading on this subject, nor does it site any sources. The only links it had was to the ban created by Game and Fish and the results of the survey from the NSSF.