Lead Ban Chronicles – News Around the Country
In case anyone thinks the rest of the country has lost interest in banning lead ammo, it’s worth a trot around the national newspapers to see what’s being said. In the interest of following my own advice, that’s exactly what I did… and I have to say, all is NOT quiet on on the front. Fortunately, at least some of the coverage has been pretty fair.
For example, this piece in the Sublette Examiner (Wyoming) presents the lead issue as it stands today, then examines the arguments for and against a lead ban. The article concludes with, what I consider, a realistic outlook on the future of lead ammunition.
Whatever the regulations, sportsmen may soon look back and wonder why they ever harvested game with lead shot because from all appearances, the push to ban lead in sporting good products is well under way.
It might be just a matter of time.
A matter of time, no doubt.
It’s obvious that it’s not all a black and white issue, though. I dug up this column from the Northwest Arkansas News online. The columnist, Bryan Hendricks, dissects the issue of lead ammo, starting by questioning the threat that lead bullets may present to humans who eat game. He reasonably dismisses this one, but then focuses on lead shot.
Here’s what he has to say:
Shotgun ammo is a different story. The continued use over generations of shotgun ammo in traditional game fields has produced a large concentration of small lead pellets in relatively small areas. Lead pellets in sizes 9, 8, 7 and even 6 are about the size of seeds. Birds eat it and die. Scavengers eat the carcasses, which contaminates them with lead, too. John Schulz did some important research about lead toxicity in doves for the Missouri Department of Conservation, and his report was sobering. Also, South Dakota now prohibits the use of shotgun ammo on its public lands, and Missouri has been debating doing the same for years.
It isn’t reactionary. Consider these numbers from H&H Outfitters, which has run all-youcan-shoot dove hunts near Cordoba, Argentina, for 20 years. Their clients shoot 5.5 million rounds per year, and the average shooter fires 1,250 shots per day. They mostly use 20-gauge shotguns, which means they’re probably using seven-eighthsounce dove loads. That’s more than 4.8 million ounces of lead per year, or 300,781 pounds. Over 20 years, that’s 96.3 million ounces of lead, or 6 million pounds. Multiply those numbers by an eighth to account for the possibility of using 1-ounce dove loads, and for 12-gauge usage. And that’s just from one outfitter.
I guess I’ve been pretty focused on the big game side that I haven’t really followed up on the research regarding small shot. Looks like I’ll be cracking open some new reports and doing some more reading. This is compelling stuff.
It looks like Petersen’s publishing is taking an active notice too, as I saw in this article from Petersen’s Rifle Shooter online. The article doesn’t really spend any time discussing the pros and cons of the lead ban, which is a refreshing change, but instead simply describes most of the lead-free ammo options that are currently available. It’s a good source of info, and worth a read if you’re shopping for lead-free.
And just to peek across the “pond”, it looks like lead shot is going to be banned in Northern Ireland waterfowl marshes. In this piece from the BBC News, the Department of the Environment will be passing a new law, effective in September.
The use of lead shotgun pellets in wetland areas in Northern Ireland will be banned from September.
The move is aimed at ending the slow painful deaths experienced by birds such as ducks, geese and swans because of lead poisoning.
More to come, I’m sure, as more states weigh their options and the lead ammo controversy continues to expand.
As you have said Phillip,
This lead ban thing ain’t goin’ away so we better get used to it, I still have certain reservations about how the “anti” crowd jumped upon it, and how our rank and file just sat on their hands and did nothing but complain, without demanding more definitive,sound scientific evidence rather than the small amount of science and one sided theory which was “all” that they had.
But after all is said and done the fact of the matter is that lead is just simply proven to be a toxic element, and with so many comparable and effective alternatives to choose from, we do not need to be adding to our already polluted environment by a stubborn adherence to a set of principles.
At this point we just have to deal with it until someone comes up with solid rebuttal.
May 30th, 2009 at 7:15 am
I knew this wasn’t going away, Phillip – that is for sure. And I’m still torn on this entire issue, but I am going to follow your lead, and read a few more articles about it.
I’m sure this issue is going to change and evolve – just like anything of this nature. I just hope that, ultimately, sound science prevails over what is decided.
June 1st, 2009 at 7:02 am