Rattler

Do you believe the US Dept of Labor is capable of determining what a "safe" level of exposure would be? https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=10030

I don't follow you Mike. The link clearly shows government agency standards called "Permissible Exposure Levels". If a government agency has decided certain levels of exposure to lead are "permissible" that must mean safe, correct? There is also a legal standard for removing an over exposed worker from the area until his blood levels come back down to acceptable levels. That regenerative, is it not? If you can't trust the government, then we are all in trouble.

Also: I was once told it is impossible for a man to reproduce without a little lead in his pencil.

Key Points CDC lowered the recommended blood lead action level for lead exposure in children to10 µg/dL in 1991. States may have their own levels of concern for adults and children. Most states have reporting systems for lead poisoning. OSHA has set required standards for the amount of lead allowed in workroom air at 50 µg/m3 averaged over an 8-hour workday. EPA has set a standard for lead in the ambient air of 0.15 µg/m3 averaged over a calendar quarter. EPA has established 400 ppm for lead in bare soils in play areas and 1200 ppm for non-play areas for federally funded projects. This may be used as a guidance level elsewhere. EPA's action level for lead in water delivered to users of public drinking water systems is 15 µg/L. Its goal for lead is zero. FDA has set various action levels regarding lead in food items. Use of lead-soldered food cans is now banned. Today, paint intended for residential use is limited to 0.06% lead content.

Take special note of the section titled "Work Place Air" http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem.asp?csem=7&po=8 This is just one source. I have not the time to post more, though I wish I did and would like to.

Safe levels of lead exposure would be those your body can tolerate and overcome with regeneration. Those levels do exist, so there are known levels of exposure that are safe.

Harm wildlife?? I hope it kills them! if it doesn't, I won't buy that crap ammo again!

Probably because it was gang violence. Gang violence is kept out of the news because it impairs the gun ban agenda.

Smokers didn't care about the issue, so it was forced on them, but only after special interest groups petitioned to have the changes forced.

Interestingly, cigs prior to the war on smoking were .50 cents a pack. In NYC today they're almost $10 a pack. Perhaps the plan is to make copper ammo look more affordable by raising the cost of lead ammo with taxes. As an aside, the smoking changes were forced upon people by the government when people didn't seem to care about the issues.

Steel shot became required for waterfowl even though it can be very harmful! I once bit into a #4 steel pellet and cracked my tooth. The pain was excruciating. I had to get a cap put there. I tried to sue the government for my expenses but no lawyer wanted to take the case.

I have used non lead, and would use it more, if not for the cost. Then there's the fact I spent years developing a really accurate hunting load for my rifle that I would really resist switching from. I also feel the greater terminal performance becomes an unnecessary expense that's not needed for whitetail hunting. As far as greater demand making copper bullets less expensive, I don't think spreading the production costs out over more quantity will do much to lower prices, especially when the cost of copper keeps rising. Bullet makers will be happy to sell whatever the market asks for, but they are in it to make money, not for charity. Besides, currently there are few bullet makers producing all copper projectiles and their production capacity is limited. Until more manufacturers got into, supply would be pinched, causing higher prices until supply caught up to demand.

Good video that shows how deer and other animals like them see us. Only about 4 mins long. http://sportingclassicsdaily.com/watch-this-is-why-you-spook-deer/

Sounds like it is very possible to shoot deer with a lead bullet and not have lead in the meat then. Unless only deer shot with copper monolitics can be donated. Some lead bullets, like the "Fail Safe" retain 100% of their weight when recovered. I can't believe they would contaminate venison when used for hunting.

Good point.

The issues raised above are real concerns. The anti lead ammo community is pushing non-lead very hard. They're playing on the fear of poisoning children and raptors, but refuse to address any of the concerns many people have, like those outlined above. Also, not everyone is convinced of the cause and effect relationship the scientific community claims to be fact, because there are some scientists on the other side of the issue too. It has been stated the threat of lead ammo to humans and raptors is overblown. Not a lie, but much less of a threat than some claim it to be. If you expect to be successful when asking to change a monumental tradition, you'd better be willing to take on all concerns without being belligerent, sactimonious, self righteous or condescending. I would no sooner listen to the author in the original post, than I would to anyone else, who chooses to ridicule and mock hunters because they won't swallow their adopted position without question. You may very well be correct, but you will never make the sale. People tend to buy from people they like.

This is why people are wary of this type of proposal. Considering these issues, it isn't wrong to want more research to be done first. "Passage of AB 711 was as slime-filled and as politically greasy as any anti-hunting or anti-fishing legislation we’ve ever seen in California, a state with a history of corrupt and dishonest fish and game law-making that is emotion-based and lacking science. There was no real science to prove that banning lead in all hunting ammunition would save more birds, particularly condors. In fact, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the sponsor of the SHOT Show, has filed a conflict of interest complaint against California Fish and Game Commission president Michael Sutton. NSSF contends that Sutton’s professional affiliation with Audubon California as its executive director, is a direct conflict. Audubon California co-sponsored Assembly Bill 711, the anti-lead bill. Sutton squirmed out of the same charges during the Marine Life Protection Act that closed off large sections of the California coastal waters to fishing. He was working for the Packard Foundation then as a honcho with the Monterrey Bay Aquarium. He was an unregistered lobbyist then, just as he is now for Audubon. He’s no less fishy as the state’s top bird man."

There is a counter point to this issue too. “When my father (Randy Brooks) went to all-copper, it had nothing to do with the environment,” Jessica Brooks-Stevens, daughter of X Bullet inventor Randy Brooks, said Monday at the 36th Annual SHOT Show in Las Vegas. “His reasons were so far from that it’s not even funny. It was more about performance. It only happened to work for the condor issue in California. “We don’t support the legislation. We think this type of legislation is bad for hunting, bad for the base. People shoot lead-core ammunition because it’s cheaper to shoot. I know some hunters in California who have put their guns up over this. That’s not good for our sport. Bans like this hurt the future of the sport for everyone.” Brooks-Stevens said Barnes copper bullets will cost hunters 50 to 75 percent more to purchase." http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2014/jan/14/california-lead-ban-copper-/

Hi, I just signed up. I hunt deer, bear, small game and turkey. I use a rifle, shotgun, bow and muzzle loader. Most of my hunting is in the Catskill region. Glad to be here.