Lead Ban Chronicles – Not just sportsmen after all?
One of the things I keep hearing from opponents of the lead ammunition ban is that this is really just a thinly-veiled attack on gun owners and hunters. The argument is that the “antis” are using this approach to make ammo hard to get and too expensive, accelerating the departure of hunters from the sport (our numbers are already in general decline across the country).
I can’t completely write this off as paranoid hysteria, by the way. While I’ve come to understand that many of the folks behind the lead ban are well-intentioned and have no hidden agenda, it’s also plain to see that many of the organizations and individuals who have jumped on this bandwagon are blatantly using the issue to advance anti-hunting programs, chief among them the Humane Society of the US (HSUS). It’s become pretty tricky for those of us in the crosshairs to separate the real issues from the propaganda.
As partial evidence to the argument against the ban, many hunters point out that condors are known to scavenge things like lead tire weights, and this lead is as dangerous as any bullet fragment. “Why then,” they argue, “the focus on banning lead bullets, when roadside scrap is just as deadly and far more available? Shouldn’t there be a movement to ban lead tire weights?”
Well, rest easy friends. There has actually been a long-standing effort to ban lead tire weights, but the EPA has refused to pass a rule due to a lack of hard evidence. However, the effort has resurged, according to this article in the San Francisco Chronicle.
The federal government should ban the use of lead weights, those fingertip-size chunks of metal that balance the tires of cars and trucks, says a petition filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last week.
While the federal government has banned lead in paint, gasoline and plumbing, among other products, the EPA has ignored an estimated 3.5 million pounds of lead weights that drop off tire rims and onto U.S. roads every year, according to a coalition of environmental groups that filed the petition.
Once the lead weights hit the road, they can be picked up by children or eaten by wildlife. They are run over by other vehicles and broken down into dust, which can be inhaled or end up in runoff that taints water and wetlands, the groups say.
Surprisingly enough, there’s no specific mention of the condor in the article, but since this is a call for a nationwide ban, I suppose the condor doesn’t carry the burden as well.
Anyway, what’s my point in posting this?
I don’t expect this to be a groundbreaking revelation to some of us, but I do think it helps to have a little perspective. The movement to remove lead from our environment goes way beyond hunting and fishing. It’s not driven solely by those who want to take our pastimes away. There’s no secret that lead is a dangerous element, and under the proper conditions can be deadly to humans and wildlife alike.
It is not unreasonable to insist that regulations take into consideration the level of risk posed by lead, whether it’s tire weights or bullet fragments. But what is beyond reason is to continue to argue against this thing based on the allegation that “it’s nothing but a backdoor plot to take away our guns.”
The fact is that there IS a real and true effort to remove all lead from our environment. For right or wrong, it is a movement driven by the concern for human and environmental health, and has nothing whatsoever to do with banning guns or hunting. That anti-hunting/anti-gun organizations are leveraging this movement to their own ends certainly complicates the playing field, but that cannot be the sole basis of our resistance.
Instead, consider the data from this article. Three and a half million pounds of lead tire weights on the nation’s roadsides every year makes the amount of lead bullets and shot used by hunters seem a pretty paltry drop in the bucket. Yet, the EPA ruled in 2005 that there is not enough hard (scientific) evidence to ban lead tire weights. The outcome of this newest challenge may prove interesting, but important as well. It should be used as a guide for the approach toward lead ammunition.
I’m not saying to stop pushing back against the lead ammo ban. But the resistance needs to be based in logic and fact. We need to both demand and provide scientific support for the positions, and work toward a valid and equitable resolution. The reality is that lead will be, and should be, removed from most uses in the foreseeable future. Our challenge is not to stop the unstoppable, but to make the transition sensible and smooth.
I do see your point, Phillip, but it is hard to sift through the propaganda at times. And I do realize that lead is a definite threat – not only to us, but to the environment as well – but I hate to see the hunters being the first and foremost to be singled out.
And since we seem to be the first targets, it just makes it that much easier for organizations – like the HSUS – to jump on the bandwagon as well, and push their selfishly motivated and corrupt agenda inside a “we’re doing right for the environment” shell.
I’m an open-minded guy, and I try to look at both sides of the issue before developing an opinion. But in this case it’s hard, as a hunter and fisherman, not to feel like we’ve been singled out in some way. Especially since, as you said, the amount of lead from our activities is minimal as compared to the amount of lead that is being generated from other industries. Yet, those issues and organizations are being ignored.
The whole issue is captivating to say the least, though, and I’m going to be keeping tabs on it as time progresses.
I do find it interesting that other areas of lead concern are now being addressed, and if that is the case, then my opinion may change.
June 1st, 2009 at 11:34 am
Oh, Phillip, you’re a brave man! And I agree with your assessment completely.
And I’ll add another thing here: I don’t think renaming lead “traditional ammunition” is going to help anymore than it would’ve helped to say “traditional gasoline” or “traditional paint.”
There, I said it.
June 1st, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Arthur, it IS hard not to feel singled out because we ARE. But sometimes I think we single ourselves out.
Don’t get me wrong. There are very definitely folks out there whose goals are nothing short of the total abolition of hunting and fishing, and there are folks who honestly believe the world will be a better place when only the government has guns. And some of those folks have definitely hitched their wagons to the lead ban issue in hopes of using whatever leverage they can get.
BUT…
There’s nothing to be served by arguing that point. It’s a given, a “d’uh” statement, as an old editor used to call it. Sorta like saying it was a “hot, August afternoon” when the very fact of it being an afternoon in August implies that it was hot. Now if it were a cold, August afternoon, then maybe the adjective is newsworthy. Everybody knows the antis are anti.
Other sources of lead have also been under general attack, but since they didn’t seem to directly impact any specific community (e.g. hunters, fishermen, hikers, etc.) there wasn’t a lot of uproar. Lead from tire weights, batteries, and some wire insulation has been the target of various environmental organizations for a long time, right along with lead gasoline additives and paint. Nobody really paid attention to this, which is why I posted this article. This is not new.
It’s not just lead ammo or fishing tackle (hell, many hunters I’ve talked to don’t even know lead fishing tackle is also under attack). There is a large body of environmental and human health organizations who believe that we must ban any man-made sources of lead that can be eaten by wildlife or humans, or absorbed into ground water or vaporized for inhalation.
It comes back to something I’ve harped on before… that Environmentalist does not mean Anti-Hunter. There are an awful lot of folks out there who are focused on trying to create a sustainable way of life, and to reduce the negative impacts of human population on the overall ecosystem. Sometimes they may go a little over the top, or they may lobby for something that conflicts with hunting interests, like limits on OHV use and lead-free ammunition. But it doesn’t always mean they’re against hunting.
And Holly, I totally agree. This whole trend toward re-branding things puzzles me, and really makes me worry about how easily the general public’s opinion can be manipulated. I would find it kind of funny, except the strength of this kind of marketing is frightening. Are people really that blind? Someone obviously thinks so, because a lot of money and effort are being spent to promote the old as the new, or the new as the “traditional”.
June 1st, 2009 at 3:49 pm
‘3.5 million pounds of lead weights that drop off tire rims and onto U.S. roads every year’
Wow I had no idea it would be that much!
Good idea to get rid, I had to do a Lead Toxicity Awareness module a few months ago, not to that harmful (in occasional small doses) to old farts who’ve done all the brain development we’re going to do, but for kids. Shudder. I took all the lead piping out of the house where my kids live.
SBW
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:57 am
I hate to always refer back to the American Pit Bull Terrier Phillip but, this also applies to the attempts to sugar coat and re-brand an image.
When all of the media hype was bent upon the complete vilification of the dog a few years back, a group of individuals (backed by a high profile rescue organization) pushed for a legal name change from A.P.B.T. to “St. Benedict’s Terrier” paying homage to the actual saint who was a frontiersman in animal welfare and in particular, canines.
It was immediately seen as a losing venture because the public still knew that it was a bull dog no matter what the legal name change would say.
The A.K.C. however, changed the American Pit Bull Terrier name to “American Staffordshire Terrier” and nearly 70 years after this has happened, some people do not see the difference between the two breeds, but most people still see them as the A.P.B.T. with a new name.
The voting public will see through this thinly veiled attempt at calling “lead” by another name!
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:13 am
Lead is a very effective high pressure lubricant in machining operations. That’s what the tetra-ethyl lead stuff in gasoline did for us. I may be wrong, but I think some avaition gasoline still has lead in it. They say it helps keep older/classic aircraft from falling out of the sky.
Lead in plastics gives it uv resistance and greater longevity. As they take the lead out of plastics, they remove the uv resistance, so stuff goes in the trash sooner.
Lead in solder keeps the tin from crystallizing, (forming “whiskers”) and turning your $2000 tv into trash within two years of purchase. The military still insists that their circuit boards have lead in the solder for “reliability issues”.
I know it goes against human and bureaucratic nature to do so, but I wish we could dispense with the hysteria. Personally, I think we could dispense with the entire hysteria industry.
Thank you for giving me the space to rant.
Jean
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:47 am
I might be one of those alluded to by Phil. I’m a hunter and occasional fisherman but I’m for a phased ban of lead bullets and lead sinkers. I read a few discussions on the subject and concluded that there is indeed no scientific basis yet of lead contamination directly attributable to lead bullets. And the reason is not because there is actually none, but because of the rigor of one-to-one cause-and-effect comparison against control required to proclaim “scientific evidence”. I believe that currently, this scientific evidence is not apparent because there are still a lot of other lead contaminants all over us that it is almost near impossible to pinpoint lead bullets as THE culprit.
That said, the best approach in my view is engagement, dialogue and compromise that will advance the cause and objectives of both parties.
It is not too difficult. In one party, I met a vegan PETA-type and had to watch my back when she found out I’m a hunter. I had to patiently explain to her that hunting is a natural instinct from my hunter-gatherer past (I avoid that tired Hitlerian “helping-nature-cull-the-diseased-and-the-weak” argument). With apologies to the dog, I used the cat as an illustration and analogy that even if well fed, will find it in it’s nature to hunt. What’s the usefulness, when asked? May answer, come the time that the cat is abandoned by the owner, the cat had retained the hunting skills set to survive. I know I was successful, the night concluded with no beer or hot coffee accidentally spilled on my lap.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Jean, your point is a good one… and you’re generally welcome to rant here any time you feel the need.
The challenge with any substance in common use is to weigh the benefits against the dangers. Lead in gasoline was pretty clearly proven to contaminate the air we breathe, and as you can see in the MSDS, that’s probably the most dangerous method of ingestion… for humans and wildlife. The danger outweighed the benefit, and an alternative was derived.
On the other hand, one of the most common and inherently dangerous uses of lead in ammunition is NOT the bullet, but the primer. It’s used to stabilize the charge, and without it, primers would become very unreliable and potentially dangerous. Every time you fire a modern cartridge, vaporized lead fills the air around the gun. At an outdoor range, it dissipates quickly, but at an indoor range that vapor can become a real health threat without adequate ventilation. The industry and range operators are well aware of this, but at this time there’s not a widely available alternative to lead. They’ll keep using it.
The trick with lead bullets is that there obviously ARE alternative materials, but the science doesn’t currently PROVE that lead bullets are a valid risk. As Mon points out, that evidence will likely be a long time coming, if ever, because proving a causal relationship in an uncontrolled environment takes a lot of research. Initial efforts have established some plausible scenarios and have made a pretty good case, but it’s not open-and-shut.
So at this point, it’s a standing question whether the benefits of lead bullets (performance, availability, economy) outweigh the dangers. I think it’s pretty obvious that this is the primary reason for the strong outcry against the lead ban. Coupled with the distrust many hunters have of environmentalists, it’s gonna be a hard obstacle to overcome.
June 6th, 2009 at 8:27 am
[...] Lead Ban Chronicles – Not just sportsmen after all? [...]
June 6th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
When the public comment opens up in Woodland on June 24-25, and when a number of scientific documents and communications are introduced into the public record, perhaps then the public will start getting a hint at what has really being going on behind the scenes with some of the “so-called partners” to the condor recovery team.
Given that it’s a $40 million program funded by taxpayers, there is going to be some “splainin’” to do.
Respectfully,
Anthony Canales
June 12th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Anthony, the problem is, the public really couldn’t care less about Fish and Game Commission meetings.
Introducing these documents isn’t going to make any difference, unless you can get some kind of objective coverage in the mainstream… and even then, it better be some pretty damning evidence or you’ll get buried under the lastest American Idol results.
Exposing the demons in the condor program is not going to turn the lead ban juggernaut around. PROVING that lead is not killing them is the only hope, and that’s a very faint one. The best thing to do now is work forward to try and control the spread beyond the condor zone.
June 14th, 2009 at 1:17 pm