Zeroing In on Lead in Hunters’ Bullets

[CreekDog]

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/zeroing-in-on-lead-in-hunters-bullets/

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 tons 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.

...

One of the species most at risk from lead is the endangered California condor, a scavenger that may ingest lead while eating the remains of animals shot with lead bullets, federal and state wildlife and park officials say. The lead pellets within shotgun shells also closely resemble “grit,” pebbles consumed by many species of birds that are necessary for digestion.

Widespread accidental ingestion of these pellets by waterfowl led to a 1991 federal ban on the use of lead in ammunition used to hunt water birds.

“The use of lead bullets and shot causes the unintended poisoning of all kinds of birds,” Mr. Miller said. “Since there are good alternatives that are coming down in price, there’s no reason not to switch to nontoxic gear.”

...

But Mr. Prieto and the other petitioners point out that lead has been removed from many products because of health concerns. “We’ve taken lead out of gasoline, plumbing and toys,” he said. “There’s no reason to keep using it in ammunition.”

[Arctic Dave]

1. I agree, how many youtube videos do you see of some random knucklehead

shooting hundreds of rounds of ammunition into the ground or water?

Basically they are creating small waste sites all over the country.

[samsingh]

2. gun lovers are really causing a lot of problems everywhere it seems

including this shit they leave in their wakes

[AtheistCrusader]

3. Any suggestion on what to use for non-shotguns, that isn't copper-jacketed lead?

Efforts to switch to copper-only were derailed at one point as being suspected of being capable of penetrating Law Enforcement bullet-resistant vests. There's an exemption for some copper pistol rounds now. (talons)

What is the 'good alternative' that doesn't run afoul of other laws, like penetration laws intended to protect police?

[freshwest]

4. I posted on this on the other thread, and will answer more here and there:

SWANS DYING OF LEAD POISONING IN WASHINGTON STATE AND BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1262516#post74

[bobclark86]

18. Hunting waterfowl with lead shot is already illegal. N/T

[CreekDog]

32. really? what US laws apply in Canada?

inquiring minds want to know.

[bobclark86]

34. Title says Washington...

Federal law, baby.

Smartass.

[CreekDog]

35. It says British Columbia too.

tell me what the ban includes or doesn't include.

and which countries described in the article that it includes and doesn't include.

[ManiacJoe]

5. Anyone know what the ballistic differences are

between lead and steel shot? Or what the other reasons are why the industry has not switched away from lead shot?

[shedevil69taz]

7. Lead shotgun shot

Is already illegal in all states to use to hunt waterfowl.

[CreekDog]

8. are you saying that's the only use of lead shot?

you seem to want to make it sound like that.

[shedevil69taz]

14. nope

simply wanted to inform that the BIGGEST use of shot across the country already bans the use of lead.

[CreekDog]

15. can you cite the regulation that bans it as you say, so that everyone can look at the regulation?

thanks.

[shedevil69taz]

16. you cant fire up google?

that's all I am going to do I don't know the regulation off the top of my head.

[CreekDog]

17. wait, you're talking about a regulation and you don't know what it's called or how to find it?

yet you know what's included in it and what it excludes?

have you read it?

[shedevil69taz]

20. no I haven't read it word for word

It was enacted in 1991 by the US fish and wildlife services while googling "regulation banning lead shot" all of the first four articles referenced the 1991 ban.

Including this one:

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba768 that mentions the very first thing....took me all of three seconds

[CreekDog]

21. you can't quote the regulation, but you trust a right wing source that is against the minimum wage?

and you haven't read the regulation you are going on about?

what kind of game are you playing with me?

[shedevil69taz]

22. holy crap

how bout an article from the website of the Fish and Wildlife services itself?

http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/DisplayNews.cfm?NewsID=4DAA500C-3E21-4564-87AA714E9E301C9E

"Efforts to phase out lead shot began in the 1970s, but a nationwide ban on lead shot for all waterfowl hunting was not implemented until 1991"

[CreekDog]

23. an improvement from the right wing link you just posted a moment ago

but still you can't quote the regulation you keep referring to. you don't even know what's in it.

as other posters have pointed out, there are loopholes in a regulation that is already fairly limited in scope to begin with.

and nevermind that this pollution problem is not limited to the effects from waterfowl hunting. there is use in so many other ways.

[Wait Wut]

25. I was just about to post that one for you. n/t

[CreekDog]

19. what is the title and author/agency of the regulation you're referring to?

surely you can at least answer that.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. The law is federal, so from Congress.

I looked, I cannot find the 'effing thing anywhere, only references to it, most of which are broken links. Might have to read the congressional register for the period of 91-92 to actually find the stinking thing. It has to be somewhere in Title 50, Part 20, buried in there somewhere.

That said, your suspicion was correct, it bans a lot less than that poster suggested. It bans it's use for WATERFOWL only, or upland birds where waterfowl are also present. It does not ban it for all birds, and there are a lot of uses besides that introduce it to the environment.

Eliminating it for all purposes, even target loads, seems a sensible step.

[CreekDog]

27. You make good points, though a regulation is from a gov't agency, not congress

from congress, it is a law.

congress makes laws, the government creates regulations to implement those laws.

but your points are very well taken, i would just recommend the Federal Register for a regulation.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. I think you are right.

It is apparently a regulation, not a law. http://www.fws.gov/le/waterfowl-hunting-and-baiting.html

"Overview of Other Regulations"...
"Illegal hunting methods. You cannot hunt waterfowl:"...
"•While possessing any shot other than approved nontoxic shot."

I think my searches mostly failed because I was searching for 'lead', looking for an exclusionary law, but that's not how it is written. It is inclusive and lists the types of ammo that are allowed, rather than specifying those that are banned.

[CreekDog]

29. You did it! HA! You found the reg.

and i failed to find it for the reason you pointed out --it bans lead shot, but that's not the way it's written.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. That was WAY too hard to discover.

I wonder why the US Fish and Wildlife service website is such a cesspool of broken links. For those of us that use firearms, we pay an 11% excise tax on all sport related ammo that is supposed to go to that department for things like wildlife and habitat conservation, and such. You'd think they could divert a few bucks to one or two people to update the website...

How can anyone suggest meaningful new laws or regs when they can't readily discover what the heck is on the books now?
I would have had the answer in about 30 seconds if the first link I had hit actually resolved to anything. Instead it goes nowhere.

[CreekDog]

31. yeah for such a big rule it's damned hard to find

hmmm.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Not true.

It is banned nationwide for waterfowl.
It is also banned for upland bird hunting on any national wildlife refuge where waterfowl are present.

So, by itself, no, it is not the 'biggest' use of shot across the country. It is still used and legal for use at the federal level for upland birds off NWF lands. (Some states are banning it for certain regions as well, including upland bird hunting.)

This leaves:

1. Some states allow it for upland bird hunting on various lands.
2. Trap, skeet, etc.
3. Target practice in forest lands, etc.

So if one is to be concerned about lead entering the environment in this concentrated pellet form, and left as contamination, the issue is still quite large.

Steel shot performance is slightly inferior to lead, but pretty close with a properly choked shotgun, and there are other options like Tungsten as well. You might just have to go one to one and a half shot size larger with steel to accomplish the same job, energy-wise. Just choose your shot size based on desired pellet weight, and ignore the actual shot size entirely to accomplish the same job, and in doing so, you'll get the same range, same energy, and deeper penetration, at the cost of a few less pellets in flight (as they will be larger, less room for pellets per load)


Cost wise, they are pretty darn close.

[CreekDog]

33. thank you for coming back to post here that there's no need to do anything else about lead shot

i'm not sure what we would do without hearing this message again.

i mean, two posters yesterday were blocked for saying it, so it was looking bleak that someone was available to post this message of "it's already banned for hunting waterfowl, so...".

but as luck would have it, there are three posters here, including yourself, saying just that.

because heaven forbid, we might actually talk about lead pollution from shot, without being told that there's already a rule covering it, so don't do anything else.

[Remmah2]

6. How much of the 3000 tons is recovered?

Big money in recovering lead from ranges.

[CreekDog]

9. apparently not enough is recovered or there wouldn't be the pollution problems would there?

Remington.

[Remmah2]

10. Cigarettes, used condums, plastic, oil, balloons, fishing line, empty beer cans.

I see more of that crap in the woods than I do lead or the effects of lead.

Remmah = ass ends backwards sledge "hammer" engineer (my nickname at work); jokes on you.

[ellisonz]

11. ^^^^

Blocked

[CreekDog]

13. thank you. your work is really critical here.

[CreekDog]

12. right, so since litter on the beaches is illegal, sounds like you're saying this should also be

thanks for the support

now let's stop playing games.

[CreekDog]

51. none of these things are legal to littler the environment with

yet you believe lead shot should be.

how anti environmental.

[premium]

36. I didn't realize that lead from hunting was such a problem.

I don't hunt, target shoot, sport shoot so I really don't keep up to date on this problem.

You'd think that the industry could come up with something other than lead that isn't harmful to the environment.

[CreekDog]

37. there are plenty of solutions, just more opposition to actually doing the solutions

which is typical, sadly.

[markeybrown]

38. one has to wonder

what the effects would be of 20,000,000 'more' birds per year flying around would be.

[CreekDog]

39. Birds dying from poisoning or from toxic chemicals is a good thing then?

4 posts? How many are you hoping to amass?

[markeybrown]

40. I never said such a thing

It was an honest question. Example: if there is X amount more of predatory birds each year would their food supply- rodents, fish, small animals- balance out now that nature has adapted to 20m less birds living each year.
I read the artical and thats what I started pondering. Thats all.

[CreekDog]

41. since when has "nature adapted" to 20 million less birds?

sure sounds like a justification for further poisoning.

that's like saying extinction is an adaptation.

i think you're being an apologist on this subject.

[Peter cotton]

42. A significant portion of ammunition is designed for self-defense rather than hunting

or target shooting.

Such ammunition would be likely be outside the purview of this sort of proposed regulation.

[CreekDog]

43. If it has polluted the environment and has the potential to pollute again, it needs to be regulated

that it is used or designed to be used in other ways really has no bearing on whether or not it should be regulated.

if it has polluted or will pollute, it needs to be regulated, end of story.

but thanks for playing. bye now.

[Peter cotton]

45. Sure such bullets have polluted the environment....but so has the lead in #2 pencils.

The question at hand is whether such bullets have polluted the environment to such a degree as to require additional regulation.

Self-defense ammunition is typically fired at indoor ranges, in contrast to hunting (and to a lesser degree) target ammunition which is typically fired outdoors.

[CreekDog]

48. hey, #2 pencils aren't lead, they are graphite, stop posting BS to downplay environmental problems

not falling for it.

stop lying.

on the other hand, by lying to us, you admit that you can't win this argument by telling the truth.

check-mate.

i'm reporting you to the hosts now. hopefully you'll be blocked like the others who have posted as you did to this group.

[hlthe2b]

49. OMG: you aren't helping your cause with this. #2 pencils (or any pencils) have never contained lead

NEVER...

I'm surprised someone would not know this, but it is graphite. Even Wiki gets it right:

The black core of pencils is still referred to as lead, even though it never contained the element lead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pencil

[CreekDog]

50. the thing to know about NRA and pro-gun propaganda is they'll use a lie if it works for them

they'll either try to get their supporters to believe and propagate the lie.

or have it spread by people who know it's a lie.

[CreekDog]

44. by the way, you need to leave the group if you are going to post here to discourage gun control

which you are doing.

[Peter cotton]

46. How are my posts in this group discouraging gun control?

[CreekDog]

47. telling us that an article about lead pollution from bullets is not something to control

and posts elsewhere discouraging it mean that you aren't posting in this group in good faith.

this group is for advocacy of gun control, not concern trolling documented problems, in this instance, pollution from lead shot.

and don't throw around that "significant" term. that's playing with words.

you were attempting to say that a "significant" use of lead shot is for self defense --but you know, and we all know that 5% of use can be significant, 50% of use can be significant --as a word saying one thing is significant doesn't even mean the remainder of the uses aren't significant themselves.

stop playing games.

and stop posting the same crap that got the other low count posters blocked from this group --the exact same message!