Lead Ban Chronicles – HogBlog in the news!
A couple of weeks ago, I got a call from a fella who said he was a reporter for CNN. He wanted to ask me a bit about the lead ammo issue, “green” bullets, and other related topics. Of course, I jumped at the opportunity to talk to someone in the mainstream media about this issue, and hopefully interject my own take on this into the national conversation.
We spent quite a while on the phone, and I probably gave the writer, John Sutter, a lot more than he really needed (or wanted) to hear… but hey, as any regular HogBlog reader has probably noticed, I’m pretty passionate about this thing.
The interview came and went, and I spent a day or two recounting what we’d discussed. As with anytime I’ve done a newspaper or television interview, I’m always worried that I missed a key point, or worse, that I’ll come off as a serious drinker of the Kool-Aid®. Did anything I said come across as supportive of a lead ammo ban (I don’t support a ban)? Did I make it sound like I was totally buying into the anti-lead hype, or was it clear that my choice was based on a personal ethic (it’s a personal choice… I don’t see a lot of hard evidence to support a lead ban)?
Anyway, after a few days, I’d pretty much forgotten about the interview.
This morning, when I logged onto my computer, my email suddenly lit up! At the top of the list was an email congratulating me on getting myself and my blog into the national news! It took me a moment to realize what was going on, so I linked over to CNN to see the “Green Ammo” article right there in print!
After I got over the heady rush of seeing my name in print on the CNN website, I read through the article objectively. I have to give credit to Mr. Sutter for keeping the piece fairly balanced, especially since this is a topic that really can teeter toward either side pretty easily. If there was a bias, it was probably due to my own position that we (hunters) need to take a proactive role in this debate, and that we shouldn’t simply discount the potential risks of lead ammunition. I suggested that switching was a good choice, but should remain a voluntary choice… and I think Mr. Sutter captured that very well.
Sure, I was a little disappointed that Sutter didn’t capture my concerns about the availability of non-lead bullets for most non-standard calibers. He gets that, but he uses the NRA/NSSF quote to make the point… which, in my opinion, damages the credibility of that point simply because of the source.
The current lack of availability, and to some extent the high cost, are two main reasons that bans like we have here in CA are bad policy. Yes, that situation is changing… slowly… but that doesn’t help the countless hunters who are stuck with the choice of learning to handload or buying a new gun. A ban on lead ammunition, in some cases, does amount to a ban on some guns… even if it is a temporary ban, it’s a bad thing. This should be grounds for a fight, but it doesn’t seem to be getting much traction.
As far as the cost argument, while I can’t discount it completely, its validity suffers in the light of the sales of other “premium” ammunition already on the market. Hunters and shooters are already buying up premium bullets as fast as the manufacturers can come up with them, and the price of these is comparable in many cases to the cost of non-lead. The point is, if we’re going to stand up as a united front (and this is REALLY what we need to do), we need solid arguments… not stuff that can be dismissed so easily by our detractors.
Anyway, I’m sure I’ll hear from a lot more hunters and shooters out there who think I’m sleeping with the enemy here, and that’s fine. At least people are talking about this, and if we can get the discussion up to the right level, maybe we can interject a little common sense and constructive thinking into it. What folks think about me on a personal level is pretty irrelevant… as long as we can find a way to work toward the preservation of our hunting and shooting sports.
I found your blog from the CNN article, I’m sure that you are getting alot of traffic today. I wanted to say that you did a very good job explaining your reasoning on not using lead bullets. I personally have a few rifles that are set up only for lead free bullets.
I have also added you to my google reader, I used to live in CA and enjoyed hunting hogs there.
March 4th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Phillip-
I’d have to agree with your approach to the issue. Information just needs to be more easily accessible and folks should be pursuing this information to better understand it. I also agree that its a good responsible choice to switch, when you have the opportunity to make that decision. Who cares if some folks “think” you’re “sleeping with the enemy”, as you’ve put it. It seems to me that you’re simply an avid hunter routed in protecting the tradition by protecting the resource. Maybe using non-lead is just another way to do that. I don’t know…but it seems plausible.
March 4th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Great job of bringing some middle ground reason to this debate that too many times goes to the extreme side one way or the other.
March 4th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Phillip,
You are now officially a celebrity. That is amazing. I can’t even fathom what it would feel like to have my name, and blog featured in a CNN article. I’d prefer it to be on Foxnews, but I’d settle for CNN. That’s another story, though.
I think this particular journalist did an amazing job. He only reported facts, and didn’t really seem partial to either side at all. I commend him for that. That kind of pure journalism is hard to find anymore.
I just wanted to say congrats, and that I enjoyed the article. That is too cool.
March 4th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Has any one read any of the research on this.
March 4th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Thanks all, it is kinda cool… as if my ego needed stroking.
Sigboy, thanks for adding me to your reader. Hope I can keep it occupied with good stuff.
Jake, you’re right… it’s a choice, and one that made sense to me. Right now, most hunters have the option of deciding for themselves. I’d just suggest making an informed decision based on the available information… not just the propaganda from either side of the debate. It’s not the only way, but I (obviously) think it’s good way to go…
Bob, which research? I’ve been following and reading research on the lead ammo issue for about six years so far… and it’s still ongoing.
March 4th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Big time, man! Congratulations!
As for your points, wonderful and thoughtful. And, though we do not agree on which is the cart and which the horse (switching to non-lead vs. availability of options), I would settle for your approach over many others.
You deserve the credit and the story.
March 4th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Thanks for representing responsible shooters/hunters in such a professional matter. I agree with you completely that the NRA frequently gives us a bad rep.
I’m interested to ask you; how do you think this legislation will affect people (such as myself) that reload their own ammo?
Peace,
Pete Zaria.
March 4th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Dear Phillip,
This article is great, thanks for sharing! I am working on a Green Shoot Out event with Holland & Holland in October at The Greenbrier Sporting Club in West Virginia and your article has inspired us to only use Green bullets. Thanks for being a responsible shooter and sharing the wealth of knowledge!
Cheers, Mimi
March 4th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
I’ve already said how I feel about this story, but I figured I should come congratulate you in your own house.
I’m also really pleased to see the reaction here. It’s important to inject reasonable voices into this debate. Playing hardball may work in other states, but not in California – certainly not for our side of the debate. To sound like a gun extremist here is to be dismissed immediately.
March 4th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
I have almost a knee jerk negative reaction anytime I read about something being “green,” but you represented your point of view very well. My biggest fear is that the green bullet issue is more about providing the anti-gunners with a giant political hammer than anything else.
March 4th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
I’m glad to see that it is your voice, balanced perspective and reasonable opinions representing us!
We still use some lead but have been switching over, slowly but surely. It really does matter for the environment.
March 4th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Thanks again to everyone for your comments. Good stuff all around, and glad to read so many positive thoughts.
A couple of direct replies:
Pete, handloaders will defintely have the better end of the deal, as there are far more non-lead options for handloaders than there are in available factory loads. Handloading also lets you customize your loads and maximize accuracy.
Herb, this issue will totally become a hammer for the anti-gunners if hunters let them. That’s exactly what happened in CA, because hunters denied that there was a problem instead of stepping up to fight for a better solution. Right now, there’s still time for hunters in the rest of the country to make a positive change, and work for effective solutions. If we look like we’re part of the problem, then that’s the angle they’ll use against us.
March 4th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
I doubt that you have ever hunted anything larger than the mouse that was invading your prize cheese. I feel that you are just like the ol’ boy that claimed to be a life member of the NRA during the Obama campaign that said he was going to vote Obama because he supports gun rights and its time for a change. HAH! how stupid do you people think we are. This has been another front for the gun grabbers for years. Step up and admit what side you are on, I do not believe it is on the second amendment.
March 4th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Deej, your post would be funny except for the pure stupidity of everything you just wrote. It’s this kind of reaction from so-called “hunters” that make it so easy for the antis to move their real agenda ahead.
But hey, believe what you like, that’s the wonderful thing about the Internet. The truth is what it is, though, and your failure to deal with the facts will only make it harder for you to recognize the fruits of your own ignorance when they come back to bite you.
March 4th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Yeah right, the anti’s years ago made threats to get the EPA involved with so called “lead bullet poisoning”. But its just like you said. YOUR own ignorance will come back to bite you. You call me stupid, so tell me what you think the “truth” is. Tell me what facts I am refusing to deal with. The CDC cannot find evidence of enough lead poisoning to be of concern. I refuse to give even one inch of ground, because you of all people should know that they will not stop until every letter of the second amendment is gone, so go ahead and sign on to the lead bullet ban and before long you too will be looking into a glass case at your firearms that have been rendered permanently inoperable, or hanging your head and handing over your firearms just like the people in Australia, and when that happens we will see who has to have the bigger bandage for the bite. And no I am not stupid, I see and live in the real world, and I fear that we will not have the right to hunt or posses firearms by the end of this administration. And no I am not a so-called “hunter”, I am a real hunter, have been for almost fifty years, I believe in only taking what you need or eat, one shot, one ethical kill, not for antlers, horns or bragging rights. Is it right to switch to green bullets. I have no problem with it, if it is for a reason other than another step toward gun control, and no matter how you cut it you can not deny that it is coming.
March 4th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Deej, the “with us or against us” mentality is a big part of what’s got us where we are today. What makes it even worse is the fact that you want to take me to task even though you’ve obviously never read anything I’ve had to say on this topic before… because if you had you’d know that I do NOT support a lead ammo ban. I was even directly quoted at that in the CNN article.
If you’ve bothered to read some of what I’ve said on this topic over time, you’d know that I agree that the CDC evidence shows that risks to adult humans are nominal, but I believe more research is justified to understand the potential impacts on developing infants. The research very clearly showed that blood-lead levels DID increase following the consumption of lead-shot venison. It may not be significant for fully developed humans, but does it pose a risk to the unborn? Is it worth just blowing it off? Not to me. This doesn’t mean I support a lead ban. It only means I support common sense. If there is a risk to unborn children, the answer may be as simple as not feeding lead-killed game to pregnant or nursing men. Or, if you have the option, switch to non-lead ammo.
I switched early primarily because I saw the writing on the wall, that a lead ammo ban is coming eventually. I also figured it couldn’t hurt, and would probably help lessen my personal impact in the field. I don’t tell everyone else that they have to take the same path as I did, but I do think it’s a good choice. I’d like to keep it that way… as a choice, not a mandate.
If you choose to take an all-or-nothing stance on this or any issue, you’re welcome to do so. But remember, if you don’t get it all, then you get nothing. That’s how it works. And I can guarantee, in the modern climate we’re living in, the odds of hunters/shooters winning it all are damned slim. People who think as you do are the main obstacles we’ll face in trying to secure a future for the hunting and shooting sports.
I’ve given this reply more energy than your posts deserved, especially since everything I’ve said here, I’ve said before. But as my policy I don’t censor dissenters. Everybody gets their shot.
March 4th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Here here!
Well said Phillip,
We had all (as sports-persons) better learn to take a common sense approach to such issues and stick together, rather that allow ourselves to be divided by the antis and our stubbornness being used against us.
Especially upon such issues as “lead”!!!!
We took it out of paint! We took it out of gas! and we can most certainly take it out of our ammunition if there is even the slightest indication that it may be harmful to our unborn children!
March 4th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
I live in Virginia and believe it is safe to say that the first game taken here by a lead projectile was around 1607. In the four hundred years since then we have taken hundreds of thousands, if not millions of animals with lead bullets, for our tables. On top of that, our state was the scene of many battles, both large and small, of the Civil War. There were so many rounds fired that even today a genuine “Minnie Ball” can be had for a dollar or two. If lead bullets posed such a hazzard, one would think that the problem would have surfaced here a couple hundred years ago.
If I am not mistaken, lead bullets became an issue when biologists found lead in dead Condors. I have not heard of a problem associated with lead elsewhere in the country. I have no problem with using “green” ammo in Condor country, but I do have a problem with a blanket condemnation of lead ammo in general. It seems to me that anti-gun and anti-hunting people are trying to use this as just another way to ban guns.
I do think the article was as ballanced as one can expect from the media, (especially CNN), and am encouraged by the studies that indicate this alleged problem does not exist.
I am a life member of the NRA and encourage any gun owner out there that is not a member to join. The NRA has been called too extreme by some and not extreme enough by others.
The truth is the NRA has done more to preserve our 2nd. Amendment rights than any other orginization. Without them fighting the zealots all these years, this argument would be academic. We have the biggest collection of anti-gun and anti-hunting zealots in our history running the country now. It’s time to support all the orginizations that fight to preserve our rights.
March 5th, 2009 at 5:19 am
Hello!
I was unable to comment at the CNN article to post something I found a while back. I read your blog and decided to take the time to pass it on to you-
this completely fascinates me, shot made of seasonings, really. Take a look at their website, is not a joke. Invented by two guys that were tired of picking shot out of their game.
Take care and be safe!
http://www.seasonshot.com
“Season Shot is made of tightly packed seasoning bound by a fully biodegradable food product. The seasoning is actually injected into the bird on impact seasoning the meat from the inside out. When the bird is cooked the seasoning pellets melt into the meat spreading the flavor to the entire bird. Forget worrying about shot breaking your teeth and start wondering about which flavor shot to use!”
March 5th, 2009 at 6:11 am
Forgot to add, I have no affiliation with Seasonshot whatsoever, am not a hunter but I like to cook and eat game. I like the idea of what they are doing and would love to try game that has been seasoned with it to see how good it is.
March 5th, 2009 at 6:17 am
D, thanks for popping in!
The SeasonShot guys have been around for a while now, but while the site seems real, I don’t think this is something you’ll ever see on the market. An intriguing idea, but a joke nonetheless.
Steve, a couple quick points besides thanking you for your post. First, we’re in general agreement about lead ammo as a human health risk. There are some good questions being raised, and all I’m saying is that it makes sense to listen and get the answers.
As far as the NRA, I’m a life member as well. I totally support the overarching mission, but I do retain the right to criticise their methods. The organization has marginalized itself in the public eye, and even with gun owners and shooters. I’ve a list of grievances as long as my arm with the organization, but at this time, there’s no one else doing as much as they do to protect our right to bear arms. For that reason, I continue to support them. As members, it is our responsibility to speak up to the organization and tell them what we think. Otherwise, they don’t represent us at all, do they?
March 5th, 2009 at 6:41 am
Have you actually read the CDC report? Did you see the part that said the differences in the lead levels of the participants are within the statistical error of the test?
Did you see the part that said the CDC didn’t make any recommendation based on the tests?
Every living Condor is tagged and monitored. How many of them have been found to have died from Plumbism caused by lead ingested from game shot with lead bullets????…None!
How do you explain the elevated lead levels in other species that don’t eat flesh or carrion?
All these conslusions are based on speculation and misrepresentation of “facts”. Rather than jumping on the “green” movement, we should be demanding evidence from unbiased sources that are not agenda driven.
Please do us a favor and stop this campaign, you’re hurting us.
March 5th, 2009 at 6:56 am
Jerry, I have read the CDC report. I read the reports on the First Nation Cree way back in the 80s too. Did you? I know what they said, and I agree that there’s no conclusive evidence. However, lack of a conclusion doesn’t indicate that’s the end of the discussion. And trust me, it won’t end. If sportsmen choose to bury their heads in the sand and let other interests continue the discussion, then we’re going to be left out of any “solution”… right or wrong. We can’t stay on defense forever. We will lose.
I am not a scientist, nor do I have the means to implement my own research program. What I am doing, is calling for folks to stop knee-jerking and start doing some real research to follow up on some of these allegations and to prove it for once and for all.
As far as the “green bandwagon”… please drop the Limbaughisms. It’s ignorant and counterproductive. Hunters have, for almost a century, declared themselves to be the leaders in conservation. We claim to do more for the environment than any other organization, and in many ways that’s true.
With that in mind, I’d say we ARE the “green bandwagon”. I’d also say that being willing to investigate our impact on the ecosystem, both flora and fauna, is very much in keeping with our claims to be “stewards of the environment”. Even more importantly, we need to be willing to take action based on those results… even if we don’t like what they show us.
There IS evidence of lead turning up in scavengers, and it IS deadly to birds. The unanswered question is where it’s coming from. Until that question is anwered, then there are plenty of folks who will point their fingers at hunters. It’s not ME saying that, it’s just a fact. What I am saying is, instead of spending millions of dollars on a PR campaign to discredit the current research, it would be far more valuable and socially redeeming to spend that money on research to disprove the argument… or to prove it is the problem, and to come up with an appropriate solution. I don’t know how many more ways I can say this. If we don’t do it for ourselves, someone else will do it for us… and that someone else will NOT have hunters’ best interests in mind.
I’m on no campaign, Jerry, unless it’s a campaign to break through the bullshit “us or them” mentality that’s so prevalent throughout this country. I’m sick of people who think that anyone who holds a different idea is somehow the enemy. I’m not sure when this society became so frickin’ polarized, but it’s idiotic and self-destructive. This conflict in our own, hunting community, is a perfect example of the larger problem.
Everything I’ve had to say on the lead ammo issue is included in the pages of this blog. If you want to read it, and have the ability to comprehend it, then decide for yourself what “campaign” I’m on.
March 5th, 2009 at 7:59 am
I read the article on lead ammo on the Cnn website, and came over here to post a comment.
I have been hunting and eating wild game since I was old enough to walk. I remember picking lead shot out of the doves and duck at the dinner table. I also remember finding Lead buckshot in venison at the dinner table also. I and all the members of my family are still doing fine.
I can’t help but think that this is some kind of ploy by the enviormentalists to raise another alarm over a non issue that is similar to global warming. They will legislate our ability to hunt and own firearms out of existience by mere increments. Instead of going along to get along we should fight all encroachments on our legal God given rights.
If you make ammunition to expensive people will not be able to afford to practice with their rifles. They won’t be able to shoot well to make a good kill. The majority of all copper bullets are very cost prohibitive. I also believe that Lead kills better on thin skinned medium sized game.
Respectfully,
Steve
March 5th, 2009 at 10:09 am
I see you have another Steve here. Just so as there is no confusion I will refer to myself as steveb. I did post the above comments in the previous post. I am originally from South Carolina and I will also like to say that I will openly oppose any restrictions on firearms and ammunition in my State and across our nation. It appears to me by its stringent gun laws that California is already on the road to abolishing its freedoms by one compromise at a time.
March 5th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Phillip, saw the CNN article… great work. Not a hunter myself but very supportive of both hunting and the environment and glad to see someone take up this cause.
Regarding the complaints that that you’re “sleeping with the enemy” or that this must be some kind of conspiracy to strip hunters of their weapons… come on, guys! Don’t be against it just because people you don’t like are for it!
Yes, OK, green ammo is more expensive. For now. But there’s a long history of American ingenuity driving down the price of better alternatives (e.g., using citrus-based circuit board wash instead of CFC-based cleaners). And of course there’s always resistance at first. So kudos again to Phillip for blazing the path!
March 5th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Steve (not Steveb…get to you in a minute):
Lead-free ammo is a bit more expensive, and that is a real issue. We’re seeing and hearing a lot of that in CA right now. But that argument has to be tempered with the fact that sales of “Premium” ammo have been huge across the country, and much of that premium stuff is priced about the same as non-lead. Cheapens the argument a little bit, even though I know there are plenty of guys out there who struggle to afford a couple boxes of Core-Lokts every season.
By the way, I’ve had very good results on small, thin-skinned game with both the Barnes bullets and the Nosler ETips (my current preference for deer-sized animals is the ETip). They are both very accurate and quite deadly.
What’s an even bigger issue is the availability… if you don’t shoot .30 caliber, 7mm (270, 7mag, etc.), or 6mm (.243, etc), it’s pretty tough to find a factory-loaded round. Handloaders have more options with the Barnes bullets, but are still limited on other options (Nosler, Hornady, etc). Some people would just say, “take up reloading”, but that’s simply not a realistic opion for many hunters.
These are two of the best arguments against a lead ammo ban, although there are a lot of folks who’d like to trivialize them. Usually, these are people who don’t really know anything about hunting or guns, and don’t understand the complications that go into providing for the wide spectrum of calibers and chamberings that are in the field. They don’t know any better, so it’s up to us to help educate them… with facts, not rhetoric.
Steveb, please DO resist a lead ammo ban. Do it openly and loudly, and enlist as much help as you can. The biggest problem that we are facing is that hunters are NOT stepping up and taking an active role in the defense of our sport. (This is the main reason we got stuck with the ban in CA.) We’re not a politically powerful community, despite the NRA, and we have to take responsibility for our own future. That means getting active on an individual level. Don’t wait for someone else to do it for you.
Blimfark, in the interest of full disclosure, be aware that I don’t really see myself taking up a cause here… unless that cause is to interject common sense into the discourse.
I think that what I’ve done by switching to lead-free ammo was the right thing, but that decision was tempered by several factors… not the least of which was the simple fact that I am in a position to do so. My rifles perform well with lead-free ammo. I can afford it. And I reload my own cartridges, so availability is not an issue. I made my choice based on a personal ethic, and a belief that it was a small thing I could do to minimize my footprint on the ecosystem. If it turns out that lead ammo is not a threat, then I’ve really lost nothing. And if it turns out otherwise, I’m ahead in the game. I am no idealistic altruist.
I’m still extremely angry about the CA lead ammo ban, and if a real, grassroots effort were organized to overturn it, I’d be in the forefront.
That doesn’t mean I don’t care about the condors or the environment. I care a lot. It just means I want to see common-sense solutions, supported by science… not baby-with-the-bathwater approaches like all-out nans on lead bullets.
March 5th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Thanks for the reply Philip and thanks for taking the time to put all the information out there.
I do respect your choice on the type of ammunition you use.
I am indeed concerned over the possibility of a nationwide lead ban and the catastrophy that would be caused to the hunting and shooting sports. I am also concerned that by voluntarily switching to green ammo we will inadvertently throw all of us lead shooters under the bus much like the other shooting disciplines that got thrown under during the AWB that expired in some states awhile back.
Best wishes,
steveb
March 5th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Steveb, eternal vigilance, right? Stay on your toes and stay involved.
As to the risks caused by switching,I simply can’t see it. The same company (Winchester and Nosler) makes my Etips that made the Accubonds I shot before. Barnes has been in business for over 20 years, and over that time has drawn in a large base of shooters… not because they are “green”, but because they are great bullets.
March 5th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Phillip,
Since I responded on your “Manifesto Page” thought I’d copy my thought to this open “Blog”
Interesting perspective…but akin to the current religion of “Man Induced Global Warming” that has the average individual wondering if any scientific study can be believed…it is based in good intentions rather than emphirical evidence and common sense.
Since I am both affluent enough and educated in environment matters…it really doesn’t effect me. I will either pay the additional amount for the alloy ammo and end up wounding more game (due to the differences in ballastics) or hunt out of state (or country).
Since this ban on lead ammo started with the idea of protecting the California Condor…hopefully a suggestion I made years ago about recognizing the symbiotic relationship between the Condor and the Grizzley Bear will be followed up. The vision of some my fellow Californians running into a full grown Grizzley while out on their Sierra Club hike brings a the same warm glow to my heart as does when I read about one of them running into a protected Mountain Lion or Great White.
If “we” are truly worried about our “impacts” on the environment…then we will start paying attention to the root of the problem (Octomoms and over population) and stop bothering one another over symptoms (everything else).
All my best…
March 5th, 2009 at 3:10 pm