Obama bans lead-based ammo on federal lands

[goosifer]

I saw this article, saw that it wasn't posted in the forum, and figured the regulars here would want to see it. So can one buy non-lead ammo for dear hunting? 

link

Obama Official Issues Ammunition Ban for Federal Lands on Last Day in Office

BY: Stephen Gutowski
The Washington Freedom Beacon
January 20, 2017 3:47 pm

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe, an Obama appointee, ordered a new ammunition ban for certain federal lands on Thursday–his last full day in office.

The ban, which took effect immediately, eliminates the use of lead-based ammunition on federal lands like national parks and wildlife refuges, as well as any other land administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The ban is expected to have a major impact on much of the hunting that takes place on federal lands across the United States as lead-based ammunition is widely legal and used throughout the country. . . .

[airedale]

Another good reason why we have elected President Trump who is an NRA member, pro gun and pro hunting, he will have our backs when it comes to this kind of bullshit, I expect this ban will be reversed and repealed.

Al

Edited January 24, 2017 by airedale

[goosifer]

The new Interior Secretary, Ryan Zinke, has repealed the lead ban! Link

He also rode a horse into his first day of work in DC as Interior Secretary Link That's kind of cool.

[Curmudgeon]

On 1/23/2017 at 10:48 PM, goosifer said:

I saw this article, saw that it wasn't posted in the forum, and figured the regulars here would want to see it. So can one buy non-lead ammo for dear hunting?

Yes, and some of us will use nothing but non-lead for deer hunting. There have been numerous threads on this topic on the forum over the past couple of years.

Every major manufacturer has a line of non-lead center fire ammo. The cheapest I have found for my .270 is about $28 a box (Federal Power-Shok Copper).

[Five Seasons]

I've never understood the "conservationist" hunters who are anti-global warming and put up such a fight on these types of initiatives. there's no debate that lead ammo is bad. But we view it as an NRA issue? Stop letting politics cloud your view. Do some scientific research before you spout off and then report back.

[EspressoBuzz]

If Obama did it it's bad, period!

[airedale]

18 hours ago, goosifer said:

he new Interior Secretary, Ryan Zinke, has repealed the lead ban! Link

He also rode a horse into his first day of work in DC as Interior Secretary Link That's kind of cool.

HIP HIP HOORAY!!!!!!

[Five Seasons]

2 hours ago, EspressoBuzz said:

If Obama did it it's bad, period!

I'm not a fan of his politics. But blanket statements like that (I know you're being sarcastic) from either side is what's wrong with American politics. we can't even pass the commonsense laws as a result.

[Rattler]

Saying something like, "There's no debate that lead ammo is bad", is also a blanket statement.

This issue has been debated many times and is still open to debate.

 

[Curmudgeon]

1 hour ago, Rattler said:

Saying something like, "There's no debate that lead ammo is bad", is also a blanket statement.

This issue has been debated many times and is still open to debate.

 

So Belo could have qualified it a bit but he isn't wrong. There is no doubt that lead poisons non-target wildlife. There is no doubt it gets into human food. You can debate how bad it is. You can debate how much lead in humans is acceptable. You can take the NSSF position that bald eagles are increasing as a justification for doing nothing. Most people do not want any lead in their kids food or water. They do not want to sicken and kill scavengers. I am a conservationist, and I hunt with others who feel the same. I only use lead at the range, and where I have not found an acceptable substitute. Even then, I take great care to remove any potentially tainted meat, and I bury the remains.

Most of the debate has nothing to do with the facts and everything to do with politics.

[EspressoBuzz]

3 hours ago, Belo said:

I'm not a fan of his politics. But blanket statements like that (I know you're being sarcastic) from either side is what's wrong with American politics. we can't even pass the commonsense laws as a result.

Commonsense? Everyone knows lead is bad, nearly every week a new story about how bad it is is published, and yet..."This issue has been debated many times and is still open to debate."

 

[left field]

If only we could get the lead back into paint, kid's toys and gasoline. 

[Rattler]

On 3/3/2017 at 1:42 PM, Curmudgeon said:

So Belo could have qualified it a bit but he isn't wrong. There is no doubt that lead poisons non-target wildlife. There is no doubt it gets into human food. You can debate how bad it is. You can debate how much lead in humans is acceptable. You can take the NSSF position that bald eagles are increasing as a justification for doing nothing. Most people do not want any lead in their kids food or water. They do not want to sicken and kill scavengers. I am a conservationist, and I hunt with others who feel the same. I only use lead at the range, and where I have not found an acceptable substitute. Even then, I take great care to remove any potentially tainted meat, and I bury the remains.

Most of the debate has nothing to do with the facts and everything to do with politics.

I hear a lot of these same remarks from people that I know for a fact have used, and still abuse, all sorts of drugs.  I just don't understand why they feel lead ammo is harmful but drug usage is not.  We are moving towards legalizing all sorts of drugs in this country too.  It's all political if you ask me.

 

[Curmudgeon]

5 hours ago, Rattler said:

I hear a lot of these same remarks from people that I know for a fact have used, and still abuse, all sorts of drugs.  I just don't understand why they feel lead ammo is harmful but drug usage is not.  We are moving towards legalizing all sorts of drugs in this country too.  It's all political if you ask me.

 

Wow! Red herring!

[Rattler]

Not really.  I'm not asking for a reply to that point.  Just pointing out how everything is political in this land these days.

 

[DirtTime]

39 minutes ago, Rattler said:

Not really.  I'm not asking for a reply to that point.  Just pointing out how everything is political in this land these days.

 

It is political. Just the timing of the no longer active bill should give some insight to those who think it's not. Sort of like how the Safe Act was passed in a secret room at a very odd time.

Someone always has to be against someone, and someone always has to be right. That's the American way and it will never end. There will always be crusaders and those who don't agree with their cause. 

[Five Seasons]

On ‎3‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 0:37 PM, Rattler said:

Saying something like, "There's no debate that lead ammo is bad", is also a blanket statement.

This issue has been debated many times and is still open to debate.

 

go eat some lead and tell me how you fair. I make my living in Environmental, Health and Safety. I literally spend all day on these topics and I'm paid for it. Simply handling lead without protection and good hygiene will eventually kill you. The only reason it's even a debate is because people hate change. Hunters more than anyone, I myself am a great example when it comes to crossbows.

We burry our head in the sand because we've used the same shot for 40 years and are deathly afraid of trying something new that's better for our earth and it's creatures. I have half the mind to believe some of the pushback is by men in their 50's who know it doesn't matter what they do because it wont affect them.

[Curmudgeon]

I'm in my 60s Belo and I know a little lead won't affect me. Stick a fork in me. However, non-target wildlife and small children need not be exposed to lead unnecessarily.

Rob and Rattler are completely correct when they say it is political. They see it as one sided but the science is settled.

For anyone who really wants to understand the reasons that we are still debating this issue, read the attached paper. It is titled Health and Environmental Risks from Lead-based Ammunition: Science Versus Socio-Politics.

LeadHealth and Environmental Risks from Lead-based 2016 eco health.pdf

[Five Seasons]

that was point about age Curmudgeon. Sometimes I feel that people don't care because it wont "affect them". That's not how any conservationist or outdoorsman should ever think regardless of politics.

[airedale]

It has nothing to do with age it is about the truth This lead ammo ban is back door gun control, nobody is getting sick from eating animals taken with traditional lead core ammo nor is there any wildlife die off taking place from traditional ammo. Waterfowl are already protected by use of non toxic shot.

This subject has already been debated extensively twice and beat to death. Anyone interested in the effects and use of traditional ammunition should read both previous threads in the link below from start to finish if they want the truth.

Al

 

Edited March 6, 2017 by airedale

[Rattler]

When you take into consideration the last 100 years of hunting with jacketed lead bullets, there should be enough data showing an obvious correlation which can be verified, regarding massive numbers of hunters dying from lead poisoning, or at least suffering from it's effects.  I have yet to see such statistical data published.

Yes lead is bad if you are going to intentionally misuse it and poison yourself.  So are many other things we use every day, which we would never agree to substitute with other items that were more expensive and less effective.  Only the politics surrounding these items prevents some special interest group from pushing an agenda there.

I believe there are disadvantages to using lead ammo.  I do not deny what those effects on humans and collateral wildlife can be.  I question the severity of the problem and whether a total ban on lead ammo, which is an extreme solution that targets only hunters, is needed, or is even the right solution for that matter.

That is the subject that is still open to debate.  That subject is also not settled science either.

 

Edited March 6, 2017 by Rattler

[EspressoBuzz]

Rattler, the ban on lead on federal lands is not to protect hunters from lead poisoning, it's to protect wildlife.

[Rattler]

I realize that, but this discussion has become about lead ammo overall.

 

[Rattler]

"As we've noted previously, if Donald Trump wants to become Hitler as the Left claims, he's doing a poor job of it. Why? He's doing little so far besides rolling back Barack Obama's executive power grabs. The latest example is Obama's final day parting shot, in which he banned lead ammunition on federal lands. Trump's newly sworn-in Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke wasted no time reversing that order. "It's time to put ammunition back where it belongs; in the hands of hunters," Zinke said.

The previous administration based its actions on "science" — naturally. "Exposure to lead ammunition and fishing tackle has resulted in harmful effects to fish and wildlife species," claimed former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service director Dan Ashe. And the Humane Society complained, "There's just no excuse not to make the transition, except for knee-jerk opposition from a segment of society that simply thinks it's acceptable collateral damage for upwards of 15 million animals from more than 130 species to die of lead poisoning every year."

As the Leftmedia likes to say about anything Trump says, these claims were made without evidence. That's right, the science behind the ban is dubious at best, despite the caterwauling of rabidly anti-gun leftists.

Big picture, Obama is simply one of those anti-gun leftists who would in one breath offer lip service to our "traditions" of hunting and sport shooting and in the next talk about why steps were needed to restrict the gun rights of law-abiding Americans. Ironically, Obama's words and deeds made him the gun salesman of the decade. Liberty lovers can rest easier knowing that Trump's administration is so quickly taking a better approach."

Mark Alexander

Edited March 6, 2017 by Rattler

[Curmudgeon]

If if really wasn't to know about the science, read the paper in my previous post. It is actually an examination of the science. That was the point of making it available.