The Hog Blog

I’ve been digging around to see what else is going on with the lead ban throughout the rest of the country.  As many of you know, this thing isn’t limited just to California, and it’s still getting legs in a lot of places.

Of course, in lieu of the condor as a rallying flag, human and environmental health are the big drivers behind a bunch of these new initiatives.  Several environmental organizations are taking or solidifying their stances, generally against lead ammunition, and they are publicizing these positions to their membership… which is creating a pretty widespread groundswell of support for lead bans.

One such organization is The Wildlife Society (TWS), who just updated their own position statement in their July meeting.  Here’s the core of the statement:

 The policy of The Wildlife Society in regard to lead in ammunition and fishing tackle is to:

1. Recognize that lead has been known for centuries to be a broad-spectrum toxicant to humans and wildlife.
2. Advocate the replacement of lead-based ammunition and fishing tackle with nontoxic products, while recognizing that complete replacement may not be possible in specific circumstances.
3. Recognize that the removal of lead for hunting, fishing, and shooting will require collaboration among affected stakeholders (including wildlife professionals, ammunition and tackle manufacturers, sportsmen, policymakers, and the public). It may require a phased-in approach, and will require explicit and targeted educational strategies at both the national and international levels, thereby acknowledging and supporting the crucial role that hunters and anglers play in wildlife management and conservation.
4. Encourage studies on reducing barriers to the development of nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle, additional research that generates toxicological and environmental chemistry data, monitoring and modeling of exposure effects, and studies predicting consequences of exposure and long-term population-level effects. The need for additional information, however, should not delay the educational efforts and the phasing-in of nontoxic ammunition and tackle where practicable.
5. Support educational efforts to promote greater public awareness and understanding of the consequences of lead exposure to wildlife populations, and emphasize the potential gains for wildlife and environmental quality from use of nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle.

You can read the rest of their position statement here.  The upshot is that TWS would like to see a ban on lead ammo, but at least they recognize (or give lip service to) the idea that a full, and immediate ban is not practicable.  Unfortunately, every environmental organization is not so “even-handed” toward sportsmen. 

I reported a while back on the initial (and abortive) movement by the National Park Service to phase out lead ammo and fishing tackle on all National Parks.  When that initiative was challenged by hunting and fishing industry groups, it was quickly shelved, but the NPS turned then to removing lead ammo internally by phasing out its use in culling and management operations by Park Service employees.  It’s entirely likely that the general prohibition will be approached again in the reasonable future, but for now, the Park Service and some other federal organizations are working toward voluntary measures. 

This article from the Jackson Hole Daily shows how hunters on Grand Teton National Park and the National Elk Refuge are being asked to voluntarily switch to lead-free ammo during their hunts this year.   Here’s a snippet of the article:

Hunters participating in elk and bison hunts in Grand Teton National Park and on the National Elk Refuge will be asked to voluntarily switch to non-lead bullets this fall, according to officials from both agencies.

The announcement comes after several studies, including one study conducted in Jackson Hole, have shown that scavengers such as condors, eagles and ravens have higher blood-lead levels during hunting season than during the rest of the year. Scientists think that the scavengers are eating bullet fragments in carcasses left behind by hunters.

Personally, I kind of like this approach.  It’s voluntary and offers the hunters the opportunity to educate themselves and make decisions based on their own understanding of the risks, both to the environment and to their own health.  I think it’s crucial for hunters to start getting involved in making their own decisions about lead ammunition, and to be enabled to make the right choices based on the evolving scientific evidence.

Now, follow me into the rabbit hole if you dare… 

If the facts continue to emerge and demonstrate that lead ammo is a threat to the ecosystem, then many hunters’ opinions about switching are going to change.  For that matter, they’re changing now… more and more hunters are embracing non-lead ammo.  Even moreso, if there is further evidence or possibility that there is a risk to the hunters’ or their families’ health, the motivation to change will become even more urgent. 

At the same time, as lead free options become more readily available and affordable, resistance to switching will wane.  Cost and availability are the two key sticking points that come out in almost every conversation I’ve had about the lead ammo ban… and they’re both very real and solid points, despite the way they’re so often pooh-poohed by lead ban advocates.   

As I have said all along, I believe that hunters will choose a good path, although the line they walk may waver between convenience and conservation.  Each choice a hunter makes strikes some sort of balance between what’s best for him (or her) and what’s best for the “greater good”, and to be totally honest, most of the time the scale will tip toward the individual.  We are, after all, only human. 

But then, isn’t that the standard to which we hold any member of society? 

Then why us?

I wonder constantly why it is that hunters find ourselves at the focus of this kind of thing so often, when there are so many bigger and worse threats to the environment out there.  Depending on how you do the math, there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 million hunters in this country.  That number has been in fairly constant decline over the last few decades.  Compare that to over 300,000,000 people in the U.S.  That number is growing exponentially.  Honestly, how much of an impact, positive or negative, do hunters really represent?

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that lead really is killing “by-catch”… condors, vultures, coyotes, eagles, whatever.  How much is dying and how widespread is irrelevant… hunters are inadvertently killing other animals by using lead ammo.  (You don’t have to agree… this is for the sake of argument, remember?)

Starting from that premise, what do we do?  What can we do?  And if we do nothing, what does that really mean? 

It’s pretty obvious that we’re not putting most of these scavenger species in danger of extinction.  (The condor is a special case, and this exception simply doesn’t prove the rule.)  There sure as hell is no shortage of vultures or coyotes.  Is it right or wrong then, that we simply accept these deaths as the cost of pursuing our recreation? 

Tough questions, huh?  This is what the antis and environmentalists are asking though… and they’re asking it on a public stage. 

But why are they asking us, then, to change our behavior to lessen this tiny impact?  Why not go after something bigger?  Golf courses?  Road building?  Recreational travel?  Trophy homes in pristine wilderness?

It’s enough to bring out the paranoid conspiracist in any of us.

Except of course, if we step back and look, the environmentalists are going after all of these things too.  We aren’t really being singled out, no matter how it may seem.  There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophies, Horatio.  Open your horizons and see the big picture. 

So it comes back to this.  What do we think our role is?  Do we “owe” it to the environment, or to the wildlife, or even to other humans to do everything possible to minimize our unintended impacts? 

I have two takes on it, myself.  One is actually the simplest, most pragmatic.  Wildlife conservation is nothing more than self-preservation.  If we destroy our environment, we destroy ourselves.  This is the same as any other species.  We need to make sure that our impact isn’t causing real harm, reducing populations or further offsetting the balance of predator/prey/scavenger.  Beyond that, we have no further “responsibility”.    

On the other hand, I’ve also got a more sentimental view… more “human”, I suppose.  We do have the power and understanding to make changes for the sake of other species, and not merely for ourselves.  This gives us a sense of responsibility, and this is maybe where the idea of “ethics” really comes from.  Ideals like making a humane kill come from our tendency to anthropomorphize… we see ourselves in nature, and there’s an emotional need to treat nature as we’d like to be treated. 

Sure, of course I don’t live under the fantasy that I can just walk out and hug a grizzly bear.  I expect his embrace would be somewhat more enduring than my own.  But it does give me the sense that if I don’t have to kill the bear, then maybe I shouldn’t… and the sense that maybe he deserves that consideration even if he wouldn’t offer me the same. 

I don’t think I’m especially unique here.  I think this is the intellectual conflict many of us live with, both hunter and non-hunter.  It’s as much a part of the conservation movement as it is a part of the environmentalist agenda.  We’re constantly seeking the line between what we must do, what we should do, and what we want to do.  We’re weighing the costs against the rewards of every action, and doing what we can to justify each decision. 

Which comes back to the decision whether or not to use lead ammunition.  As we evaluate the risks, we can only use the information available to us.  With the information still incomplete on the true hazards of lead bullets, each individual should be able to make decisions for himself (or herself, of course).  Voluntary measures and education will go much further to helping hunters make the right choices than mandates based on emotion and rhetoric ever can. 

With this in mind, I support the approach taken by the National Elk Refuge, as well as voluntary programs in other places, like Arizona (and probably Utah).  Despite the NRA/NSSF (one and the same, these days) protests that these voluntary measures are “unnecessary”, I think it’s the best way to go.  For right or wrong, the lead ammo genie is out of the bottle and we’re not going to be stuffing him back in.

Related Articles:

• De Hog Shootinest Gent’man Strikes Again, Lead Ban Chronicles, and More…
• Pennsylvania DCNR To Switch To Lead-Free Ammo
• Lead Ban Chronicles – Senators Speak Out Against Lead Ammo Ban
• Lead Ban Chronicles – Texas Parks and Wildlife Looking at Lead Shot and Doves
• Lead Ban Chronicles – CA Lead Ammo Ban Updates from Fish and Game Commission
• Lead Ban Chronicles – Not just sportsmen after all?
• Lead Ban Chronicles – USSA Calls on Sportsmen to Resist NPS Lead Ban
• Lead Ban Chronicles – Montana Update and CA Under Fire Again
• Lead Ban Chronicles – Three More Condors Reported Dead From Lead
• Lead Ban Chronicles – More On Montana