Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Round Two: Group Again Pushes for Federal Lead Ammo Ban, Restrictions

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

Field Notes
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

March 16, 2012

Round Two: Group Again Pushes for Federal Lead Ammo Ban, Restrictions

By Chad Love

For cryin' out loud, here we go again. After being defeated last year, serial lawsuit-filing anti-hunting organization the Center for Biological Diversity is back at it on lead ammo. If at first you don’t succeed...

From this story in the New York Times:

Citing risks to birds and to human health, roughly 100 environmental groups formally asked the federal Environmental Protection Agency this week to ban or at least impose limits on lead in the manufacturing of bullets and shotgun pellets for hunting or recreation. The use of such ammo by hunters puts about 3,000 pounds of lead into the environment annually and causes the death of 20 million birds each year from lead poisoning, said Jeff Miller, a conservation advocate at one of the groups, the Center for Biological Diversity.

Consumption of meat from animals that are shot with lead bullets also contributes unacceptable levels of the metal into people’s diets, Mr. Miller said in a phone interview. The ban sought by environmental groups would not apply to ammunition used by law enforcement and the military. In addition to bullets and pellets used in hunting and recreational activity like range shooting, the petition seeks to limit the use of the metal in fishing tackle and weights. A similar request was denied by the E.P.A. in August 2010. But Mr. Miller said that the new petition includes a larger consortium of groups, including some made up of hunters, and cites recent research demonstrating that the toxic levels of lead in bullets and shot cause significant poisoning of birds nationwide.

And once again, the NSSF is taking the lead on opposing the proposed ban.

But Lawrence Keane, senior vice president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry, countered that a ban on lead would cause ammunition prices to skyrocket. Currently 95 percent of the ammunition used for recreation and hunting in the United States contains lead, he said, and there is no ready alternative at a similar price. Besides, he said, lead is useful for ballistic properties like its malleability. A bill that directly opposes the petition is already working its way through the House of Representatives.

Known as the Hunting, Fishing, and Recreational Shooting Protection Act, it would specify that the Toxic Substances Control Act’s exemption on regulating ammunition also prevents the E.P.A. from regulating the components of bullets and pellets. It was recently approved by the House Committee on Natural Resources but has not yet come to a vote on the House floor. Mr. Keane said his group would not oppose regulation of ammunition components if a need for change were “conclusively demonstrated by science.” However, he maintains that any such rules should be issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service or state wildlife regulators, not by the E.P.A. “This is not the E.P.A.’s sandbox,” he said.

Twenty million birds a year from lead poisoning? Is there a peer-reviewed source for that number, or did they just grab it out of the air? Thoughts? Reaction?

 

Comments (19)

Top Rated
All Comments
from bowman77 wrote 2 years 4 weeks ago

The only birds dying of lead poisoning that I am aware of are the ones that are meeting my lead shot head on in the field.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 4 weeks ago

Just another push from the left trying to eliminate hunters. Sportsman had better figure out, and figure out soon who is on their side, and who is not....and not sure is this administration.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from bruisedsausage wrote 2 years 4 weeks ago

I think the "20 million" birds they are claiming is just a random figure they made up. Yes its shocking, but if you throw enough poo at the wall eventually some of it will stick.

Being that it's an election year I have a hard time believing the "administration" will push for this. It will alienate many voters, which is the last thing "they" want.

Maybe the biggest difference these special interests groups could make, is if they subsidized lead free ammo, making it cost the same as leaded.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hexfly wrote 2 years 4 weeks ago

While I do think this is just another attempt at restricting hunting, I have to believe that the article is incorrect in saying "hunters puts about 3,000 pounds of lead into the environment annually". I am sure it is much more than this. Go on any dove hunt and see how many boxes of shot are fired in a day. Lots of lead flying!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from bruisedsausage wrote 2 years 4 weeks ago

Hexfly,

you are right, the article is incorrect in saying "hunters put about 3000 pounds of lead into the environment".

Lead comes from the "environment", so how can you introduce something into something from which it came? It's a play on words.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from nehunter92 wrote 2 years 4 weeks ago

I would also like to know where that "20 million" a year comes from. Would that have even the slightest basis in reality? Or is that just another "fact" from the random number department? Most likley they just took the yearly number of bird deaths (which probably includes numbers killed by hunting directly) and assumed that they all died of lead poisoning. Kind of like how the brady campaign classifies anyone under 25 as a "child."

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Louzianajones wrote 2 years 4 weeks ago

Every bird I ever killed died of lead poisoning. I ate them all and suffered no ill effects. Same goes for every deer, rabbit and squirrel as well.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 4 weeks ago

nehunter...When liberals do a survey at tax payer expense, they have an agenda from the getgo. The results are determined before the survey is even taken. Very few liberal agendas come without the destructive, "unintended consequences". The waterfowl that die a wounded death every year as a result of steel shot is surveyed to be enormous. They never mention that fact.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from nehunter92 wrote 2 years 4 weeks ago

Sayfu...I get that they probably tweaked their survey in order to get their desired result, few surveys by any political group are not. My question is what kind of magic trick did it take to generate (and I use that word because I beleive that's exactly what they did)that number? I beleive my earlier assesment of taking the raw number of bird deaths is incorrect, as some quick research suggests that annual bird mortality is about 10 billion. That brings up another point though. Even if that "figure" is correct, that means that lead poisoning accounts for roughly 1/500th of annual bird deaths in the us. The "human health risks" are pretty much a blatant lie, seeing as how they were not even able to manufacture any kind of figure.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from rock rat wrote 2 years 4 weeks ago

I read a long article by Ted Williams that longtime fishing writer about how we should switch from lead especially in fishing tackle that was pretty convincing. I'd say where it's easy to do, sure.

That said, The Center for Biologic Diversity is one of the most severe anti hunting groups I've ever heard of next to PETA and the Humane Society. The Center for Biologic Diversity CBD is led by Kieren Sucking a total nut. I've no idea where these weird groups come from but there are a few.

When my state division of wildlife suggested switching to unleaded so I got those copper controlled expansion for big game. We eat heart and liver. But for birds? My DOW said nothing at all about that.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from bounty1 wrote 2 years 4 weeks ago

I'm willing ta bet the 'leaders' of these organizations are themselves, or know someone very close to them who are bigshots in the steel industries.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 4 weeks ago

Fishing is also a joke. Tides, river currents bury what very little percentage lead is on the bottom very quickly. States buy into it, because it creates work for state workers year, after year, after year doing further studies on the effects. And how a liberal that owns guns, can be an advocate for gun ownership, and a hunting advocate is beyond me. All talk..get your picture, and a publicity stunt in the news having gone hunting, and then back to work to eliminate gun ownership.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Walt Smith wrote 2 years 4 weeks ago

20 million! Heck I haven't been bird hunting for years!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ol Krusty wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

I just hope that bullet manufactures can see the writing on the wall and start thinking of new, inexpensive, ways to make bullets because this is an issue that will not go away until the EPA gets their way. These guys always get their way.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

Bruisedsausage, I'd like to see some one use your argument with oil! There would be heads exploding!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from L.Brown wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

Check out www.huntingwithnonlead.org for current information on non-lead ammunition. We could use some reasonable discussion on the use of lead ammunition. There is plenty of research linking lead ammunition and elevated lead levels in wildlife. At some point, we are going to need to discuss how this impacts wildlife and fits with hunters views of conservation and ethics.

The NSSF correctly wants to leave the right to regulate in the hands of states and the FWS but then advocates the Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Protection Act which would punish any state with loss of funding from the Pittman-Robertson Act if any regulation of lead ammunition is attempted. This goes directly against their statement that methods and implements for the taking of game is best managed by the wildlife biologists in the state fish and game agencies and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from L.Brown wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

Sorry, it is actually HR 1445 The Outdoor Sports Protection Act, that would take funding away from states.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from LeVan Goodey wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

I am not a biologist or a chemist and I admit that one can read anything, but I have read that the form of lead that is used in shot and bullets is not the form that can be ingested by animals or people. Anyone know one way or another?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from CCMJS wrote 2 years 1 week ago

If you think it's crazy now just wait till Obama gets reelected. He'll bring us the Ammo Czar, the Hunting Czar and the Fishing Czar. It would only be to help us.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from Sayfu wrote 2 years 4 weeks ago

Just another push from the left trying to eliminate hunters. Sportsman had better figure out, and figure out soon who is on their side, and who is not....and not sure is this administration.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from bruisedsausage wrote 2 years 4 weeks ago

Hexfly,

you are right, the article is incorrect in saying "hunters put about 3000 pounds of lead into the environment".

Lead comes from the "environment", so how can you introduce something into something from which it came? It's a play on words.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from bruisedsausage wrote 2 years 4 weeks ago

I think the "20 million" birds they are claiming is just a random figure they made up. Yes its shocking, but if you throw enough poo at the wall eventually some of it will stick.

Being that it's an election year I have a hard time believing the "administration" will push for this. It will alienate many voters, which is the last thing "they" want.

Maybe the biggest difference these special interests groups could make, is if they subsidized lead free ammo, making it cost the same as leaded.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from bowman77 wrote 2 years 4 weeks ago

The only birds dying of lead poisoning that I am aware of are the ones that are meeting my lead shot head on in the field.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from nehunter92 wrote 2 years 4 weeks ago

I would also like to know where that "20 million" a year comes from. Would that have even the slightest basis in reality? Or is that just another "fact" from the random number department? Most likley they just took the yearly number of bird deaths (which probably includes numbers killed by hunting directly) and assumed that they all died of lead poisoning. Kind of like how the brady campaign classifies anyone under 25 as a "child."

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hexfly wrote 2 years 4 weeks ago

While I do think this is just another attempt at restricting hunting, I have to believe that the article is incorrect in saying "hunters puts about 3,000 pounds of lead into the environment annually". I am sure it is much more than this. Go on any dove hunt and see how many boxes of shot are fired in a day. Lots of lead flying!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from rock rat wrote 2 years 4 weeks ago

I read a long article by Ted Williams that longtime fishing writer about how we should switch from lead especially in fishing tackle that was pretty convincing. I'd say where it's easy to do, sure.

That said, The Center for Biologic Diversity is one of the most severe anti hunting groups I've ever heard of next to PETA and the Humane Society. The Center for Biologic Diversity CBD is led by Kieren Sucking a total nut. I've no idea where these weird groups come from but there are a few.

When my state division of wildlife suggested switching to unleaded so I got those copper controlled expansion for big game. We eat heart and liver. But for birds? My DOW said nothing at all about that.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from L.Brown wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

Check out www.huntingwithnonlead.org for current information on non-lead ammunition. We could use some reasonable discussion on the use of lead ammunition. There is plenty of research linking lead ammunition and elevated lead levels in wildlife. At some point, we are going to need to discuss how this impacts wildlife and fits with hunters views of conservation and ethics.

The NSSF correctly wants to leave the right to regulate in the hands of states and the FWS but then advocates the Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Protection Act which would punish any state with loss of funding from the Pittman-Robertson Act if any regulation of lead ammunition is attempted. This goes directly against their statement that methods and implements for the taking of game is best managed by the wildlife biologists in the state fish and game agencies and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from L.Brown wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

Sorry, it is actually HR 1445 The Outdoor Sports Protection Act, that would take funding away from states.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from CCMJS wrote 2 years 1 week ago

If you think it's crazy now just wait till Obama gets reelected. He'll bring us the Ammo Czar, the Hunting Czar and the Fishing Czar. It would only be to help us.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Louzianajones wrote 2 years 4 weeks ago

Every bird I ever killed died of lead poisoning. I ate them all and suffered no ill effects. Same goes for every deer, rabbit and squirrel as well.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 4 weeks ago

nehunter...When liberals do a survey at tax payer expense, they have an agenda from the getgo. The results are determined before the survey is even taken. Very few liberal agendas come without the destructive, "unintended consequences". The waterfowl that die a wounded death every year as a result of steel shot is surveyed to be enormous. They never mention that fact.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from nehunter92 wrote 2 years 4 weeks ago

Sayfu...I get that they probably tweaked their survey in order to get their desired result, few surveys by any political group are not. My question is what kind of magic trick did it take to generate (and I use that word because I beleive that's exactly what they did)that number? I beleive my earlier assesment of taking the raw number of bird deaths is incorrect, as some quick research suggests that annual bird mortality is about 10 billion. That brings up another point though. Even if that "figure" is correct, that means that lead poisoning accounts for roughly 1/500th of annual bird deaths in the us. The "human health risks" are pretty much a blatant lie, seeing as how they were not even able to manufacture any kind of figure.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from bounty1 wrote 2 years 4 weeks ago

I'm willing ta bet the 'leaders' of these organizations are themselves, or know someone very close to them who are bigshots in the steel industries.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Walt Smith wrote 2 years 4 weeks ago

20 million! Heck I haven't been bird hunting for years!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ol Krusty wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

I just hope that bullet manufactures can see the writing on the wall and start thinking of new, inexpensive, ways to make bullets because this is an issue that will not go away until the EPA gets their way. These guys always get their way.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

Bruisedsausage, I'd like to see some one use your argument with oil! There would be heads exploding!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from LeVan Goodey wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

I am not a biologist or a chemist and I admit that one can read anything, but I have read that the form of lead that is used in shot and bullets is not the form that can be ingested by animals or people. Anyone know one way or another?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 4 weeks ago

Fishing is also a joke. Tides, river currents bury what very little percentage lead is on the bottom very quickly. States buy into it, because it creates work for state workers year, after year, after year doing further studies on the effects. And how a liberal that owns guns, can be an advocate for gun ownership, and a hunting advocate is beyond me. All talk..get your picture, and a publicity stunt in the news having gone hunting, and then back to work to eliminate gun ownership.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment