Obama bans lead-based ammo on federal lands

[Five Seasons]

20 hours ago, EspressoBuzz said:

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

after reading the last 2 replies to this post before you, I'm bowing out. Clearly any efforts to educate here will be lost. Sad really...

[philoshop]

The Obama EO was not done to protect wildlife. It was done to appease anti-gun people. A ban on National lands would lead to State lands which would lead to private lands which would lead to the simple fact that I could be arrested for owning my ammunition. Make all the arguments you want about conservation, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with what Obama put in place.

[Curmudgeon]

Philo -

I've heard this before. To say it was done for "anti-gun reasons" is just reactionary. When I first engaged in discussions on lead ammo on this forum, I was actually accused of being an anti-hunter. I find it to be so much nonsense, but unlike Belo I will keep arguing. It helps that it is a rainy day.

I am hunter/conservationist who thinks most scavenger poisonings are absolutely unnecessary. I have personally dealt with lead-poisoned eagles. It appears you deny that wildlife and health concerns are sincere because those concerns - if accepted - open up some threatening possibilities.

While the antis will use any tool in the box, the effort to remove lead from the environment and the food chain has engaged many hunters. I have pushed for an educational approach, resisting the efforts of allies who want a ban. Still many hunters still don't understand the issue. That's why I responded as I did initially, explaining that yes, non-lead bullets are available for those who choose to use them. I think it was the second post but I don't want to go back a page to check.

I find it really unfortunate that NRA and NSSF continue to deny clear science because acknowledging it "might lead to a ban". It undermines their credibility.

[Five Seasons]

2 hours ago, philoshop said:

The Obama EO was not done to protect wildlife. It was done to appease anti-gun people. A ban on National lands would lead to State lands which would lead to private lands which would lead to the simple fact that I could be arrested for owning my ammunition. Make all the arguments you want about conservation, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with what Obama put in place.

old teddy is rolling in his grave

[Rattler]

Curmudgeon, I read your posted paper.  The science listed shows many examples of lead issues, but fails to show the proof of it's extensive affect.  I don't deny anything the paper says actually happens.  I question the extent that it happens.

Perhaps the fact that the lead ammo ban in the California Condor region showed no positive effect, is enough to start asking why it didn't.  It seems to point to some other factors causing the problem since lead ammo has been taken out of the equation and the problem persists.

History has shown government regulation of anything, once implemented, is near impossible to reverse.  Until I'm sure the lead ammo crusade is absolutely correct about it's claims, and is also a problem to the extent claimed, and a real positive outcome will result, I will not support any ammo ban, on any lands.  The disadvantages we know for sure will come with implementation, could outweigh any predicted positive results that may not materialize.

It is also worrisome that the disadvantages can be shown to be real, whereas the expected positive results are only assumed.  Yet, many think a lead ammo ban should happen anyway.

If any individual hunter chooses to freely use only non-lead ammo, and even promote it to others, I have no issues.  I just do not believe we are at the point where it should be banned because of the "science".

 

[airedale]

50 minutes ago, Belo said:

old teddy is rolling in his grave

I own and have read four books authored by Sportsman Teddy Roosevelt on hunting one of his favorite things to do.

African Game Trails, Hunting Trips Of A Ranchman, The Wilderness Hunter, Hunting Trips On The Prairie And In The Mountains.

My come away from reading those books on what President Roosevelt's response to any kind of a traditional ammo ban period, he sure as hell would have been "Rolling In His Grave"

As for it's quick repeal,  a big fist pump and a loud "BULLY"!!

Edited March 7, 2017 by airedale

[EspressoBuzz]

Were those who wanted to ban lead fishing gear anti fishing? It is worth mentioning that only lead hunting ammo has been banned from federal lands, if you carry a pistol for protection on federal land the restriction on lead would not have affected you.

[Curmudgeon]

20 hours ago, Rattler said:

Curmudgeon, I read your posted paper.  The science listed shows many examples of lead issues, but fails to show the proof of it's extensive affect.  I don't deny anything the paper says actually happens.  I question the extent that it happens.

Perhaps the fact that the lead ammo ban in the California Condor region showed no positive effect, is enough to start asking why it didn't.  It seems to point to some other factors causing the problem since lead ammo has been taken out of the equation and the problem persists.

 

Rattler -

I'm pleased you read the paper.

Lead ammo has not actually "been taken out of the (condor) equation". It has been reduced. It is noteworthy that the ban in CA has reduced lead levels in both Turkey Vultures and Golden Eagles. The condor situation on its face seems confounding. The excerpts below from https://arstechnica.com/science/2012/06/endangered-california-condors-still-face-lead-poisoning-threat/ is helpful in understanding the situation.

"The researchers are currently evaluating the ineffectiveness of the ban so far, including a look at whether hunters are fully complying with the new rule. Myra Finkelstein, a University of California-Santa Cruz researcher involved in the project, told Ars that “even if only a few people are still using lead ammunition, there will be enough contaminated carcasses to cause lead poisoning in a significant number of condors.  We found that over the course of ten years, if just one half of one percent of carcasses have lead in them, the probability that each free-flying condor will encounter a contaminated carcass is 85 to 98 percent, and one exposure event could kill a condor.”

"But how can we be sure the lead in those condors came from ammunition in carcasses and not some natural source? To see, the researchers measured the lead-207/lead-206 isotopic signature in 132 blood samples. Of those samples, 79 percent were consistent with lead ammunition and 27 percent were within the range of “background” ratios in captive birds (there’s some overlap). Several birds had isotopic signatures similar to lead-based paint, and had been observed roosting in an old fire tower with peeling lead paint."

[chas0218]

If lead is so bad then why is almost every faucet used in a facility or home still made with lead? I understand that you shouldn't be ingesting the stuff but there is no getting completely rid of it from our diets/life. Should we be more aware of it? Yes, but give me a break where are you going to draw the line?

I understand from a environmental stand point lead hurts and sometimes kills animals but most of you saying it should be banned are the same people saying we should get a choice of what deer we should be able to take and antler restrictions are the devil. You preach you want freedom of choice then say take away my freedom of choice.

[Rattler]

Curmudgeon, another issue that comes up with a lead ammo ban is the cost increase required for enforcement.  We know the ammo is more expensive, especially when you want bullets that are of better quality than run of the mill copper ones that don't perform as well.  If we also have to add higher license and permit fees to the mix, due to increased enforcement, a ban costs hunters more than is being revealed.

I cringe when I see government officials making claims about some hunters not complying with the ban rules, when they have no evidence whatsoever to back it up.  I've seen too many cases where the government enforces heavy handed regulations, that do not produce the expected results.  Their solution to that problem is heavier handed regulation, claiming the original regs just weren't prohibitive enough.  (Gun control laws are a perfect example)

If lead ammo is banned and the situation doesn't improve, I suspect hunters will be forced to suffer greater government interference, to the point many will quit hunting.  This is the reason many people see the lead ammo issue as anti-hunting with the goal of reducing how many hunters there are in America.  If the number can be reduced far enough, hunting will be easily regulated out of existence in the future.

 

[Curmudgeon]

I am not advocating the FWS ban or any other. 

There are 2 debates, 1- how significant is the Pb threat? 2 - what should be done about it? 

There is less disagreement here than you might think. My primary complaint is denial by those who perceive this as some sort of anti-gun, anti-hunting issue. For most of us, it is neither. 

 

[Curmudgeon]

That response was to Chas. Rattles just showed up.

[Rattler]

15 minutes ago, Curmudgeon said:

I am not advocating the FWS ban or any other. 

I know, but how would you expect the lead ammo issue to be addressed without one?  

The more lead ammo is criticized, the more likely a ban will become reality.  The issues involved must be thoroughly proven before a ban is allowed to happen, otherwise we will be implementing a "solution" that may cause more disadvantages than advantages.

[Rattler]

Please see my prior post as to why it is often considered to be an anti-hunting, anti-gun issue.

[airedale]

Now, NSSF has obtained the HSUS playbook to ban hunting with traditional ammunition across the country. AB711 was the first key step in HSUS’s campaign to effectively ban all hunting 

 through pursuing a ban on traditional ammunition.  The playbook says, “We have intentionally chosen to concentrate first on banning the use of all lead ammunition for hunting in California and pursuing a ban on federal lands owned by the Department of Interior in order to build momentum for the campaign and to spur change within the various ammunition manufacturers and state wildlife agencies.”

 

In its playbook, HSUS also reveals a tactic that should alarm every hunter who has viewed state and federal fish and game agencies as supportive of hunting.  Despite the fact that hunter license fees and excise taxes provide the vast majority of funding for these agencies, HSUS brags about infiltrating these agencies and expresses confidence in shaping their policies when it comes to use of traditional ammunition:

The HSUS has close working relationships with state wildlife agencies all across the country.  Our wildlife department staff and state directors regularly attend state wildlife agency meetings where they have presented to top level agency officials and developed close working relationships with wildlife law enforcement officers in the majority of states.  Our state directors attend department and commission meetings and have developed long-lasting relationships.  We are regularly contacted to participate in stakeholder meetings and asked about The HSUS position on pending proposals.  In fact, many of our staff serves on state wildlife agency appointed boards and commissions.  These existing relationships will go a long way in our campaign to end the use of lead ammunition.

We will be filing a petition to ban the use of lead ammunition for hunting purposes on federal lands owned by the Department of Interior (DOI)—which comprises about one-fifth of the total land area of the United States. 

 

 We are in a better position than other groups to spearhead this effort given our strong federal congressional and agency relationships, as well as our years of experience working through these types of reforms. We are currently in discussions with the DOI on furthering this goal, and we have great confidence—given our mainstream approach and our knack for strategy—that we will be able to achieve all or part of this goal.

 

The group claims they are “ushering in a new era of humane management” that will only work to outlaw lead ammunition, not ban hunting. However, in an interview posted this month 

 an HSUS spokeswoman revealed their true agenda:  “We are the Humane Society of the United States, so we do not support hunting.”

 

HSUS can’t camouflage its true motive for its Lead-Free campaign.  They see it as a means to ultimately bring an end to the hunting tradition. NSSF will remain vigilant in the states and in Washington, DC to expose HSUS as the anti-hunting, radical animal rights organization it is and to fight against traditional ammunition bans and protect America’s hunting tradition.   And hunters should remain vigilant to any indication that the fish and game agencies that are funded by hunter dollars have begun taking their orders from the same group that wants to put them out of business entirely.

[Rattler]

When anti-hunting organizations see a lead ammo ban as a friend, it's not logical to think a lead ammo ban is not anti-hunting.

[Two Track]

Unless you are a re-loader, for some calibers or gauges there are no choices - hence it becomes an anti-hunter legislation.  Example: there no choices in stores for  410 or 16 gauge shotgun or .300 savage rounds.  It is take it or leave it. 

Unless you have the money to spend, who wants to buy another gun, get use to its characteristics, accuracy, and also pay more for pricier non-lead ammo just to spend 10-15 days a year hunting.

No-lead for hunting on federal lands is stupid for another reason.. If you fire a lead projectile in self-defense on federal lands, does not it still end up some where on federal lands and can be devoured by an animal?

If they truly wanted to reduce the lead issue affecting animals/birds, and humans, the smart thing would be to have a law require stop manufacturing lead ammo by ____ year.  Otherwise it is an anti-hunting law because affects only hunters, and less to the financially well-off hunters that can afford the pricey alternatives to lead.

Doesn't apply to target shooting ranges - also makes it anti-hunting legislation.

There are people who love to shoot targets, but would never hunt an animal/bird.  How dare they affect those the city target shooters that keep them in office. That also makes it seem to be anti-hunting policy.

But then again this is just my two cents.

[DirtTime]

With all the BS with terrorists, North Korea testing missiles and getting aggressive, people leaking data from the CIA, the flat out disregard for the law from the left and the extreme liberals enticing and advocating violence, and this is your battle? This, is EXACTLY what's wrong with the USA! Too many people choosing the wrong fight!

It makes me sick to be honest!

[Curmudgeon]

Rob,

I have a bunch of other comments to respond to here when I find the time. I just want you to know you got me to smile this morning.

Things are nuts and people need a distraction. Some even watch sports and go to the theater.  

Thanks

 

Edited March 9, 2017 by Curmudgeon
Typo

[airedale]

Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation

Lead Ammunition and Fishing Tackle Bans

Summary

The use of lead ammunition and lead tackle in hunting and angling is a contentious issue, with the primary concern being the potential effects on wildlife. However, to this date there has been no documented evidence that sportsmen’s use of lead has had significant deleterious impacts on wildlife at the population level in the United States, despite the ongoing use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle since Europeans arrived in North America. Bans on such lead products can cause a decrease in crucial conservation revenue for state fish and wildlife agencies and decreased hunting and angling participation. Therefore, these bans should only be considered at such a time when a state’s respective fish and wildlife management agency finds irrefutable scientific evidence that lead is having a detrimental population-level impact on a particular species.

Introduction

Recently, legislators, sportsmen, and the outdoor industry have seen an increasing number of bills directed at reducing or eliminating lead ammunition and fishing tackle. These efforts are generally not based on sound science, but rather on the emotional assumption that isolated incidents of animals ingesting harmful levels of lead translates to impacts on entire populations. However, to date, there has been no documented evidence that sportsmen’s use of lead has had significant deleterious impacts on wildlife populations in the United States.

It is important to ensure that changes to or prohibitions on the use of lead-based ammunition and fishing tackle are based on sound science and not on unfounded and emotion-driven assumptions. If lead ammunition or fishing tackle is banned, manufacturers will be required to retool, which is a costly and time consuming process, leading to an increase in consumer prices. Additionally, many alternative metals do not perform as well as lead and can be prohibitively expensive for many hunters and anglers. These financial impacts have the potential to create a barrier in participation, which would lead to less sportsmen and women being able to enjoy these time-honored traditions. Should a loss of hunters and anglers occur, state fish and wildlife agencies would also see a reduction in revenue, considering that the majority of this revenue is generated by the American System of Conservation Funding through the sale of sporting licenses and excise taxes collected on sporting goods. A sharp decline in the number of hunters and anglers visiting these states each year could also lead to devastating local economic impacts in many states. This decline will be a significant one, considering in some states over $1 billion dollars per year is generated from hunting and angling alone.

History

In 1991, due to waterfowl population health concerns, the Federal government officially banned the use of lead shot in waterfowl hunting. This mandate was handed down out of concern for waterfowl ingesting spent lead shot in small, confined wetlands. Yet, there is still no peer-reviewed scientific evidence that lead was causing population-level impacts to America’s migrating waterfowl. In 2013, California became the first state in the nation to pass legislation banning the use of lead ammunition for all hunting purposes.

Likewise, the use of lead sinkers in fishing has also become a contentious issue. Although precise estimates are not currently available for the amount of lead that sinkers add into the environment each year, it is estimated that about 4,300 tons of lead sinkers are sold each year in the U.S. Approximately 80% of the fishing weights and tackle sold are lead sinkers weighing a ½ ounce or less.

In 2000, New Hampshire became the first state to implement a ban on lead tackle. The primary concern surrounding the use of lead sinkers is the potential effects on waterfowl, like the loon, that ingest whole pebbles (or small lead sinkers) to aid in the digestion of their food. Although there have been documented individual loon deaths linked directly to lead fishing sinkers, there has been no documented evidence that lead fishing sinkers, of any size, have a detrimental impact on local or regional loon populations. In fact, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, loon populations are either stable or are increasing across the nation.

In July 2015, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC), despite protests from California’s angling community and a lack of scientific evidence suggesting that fishing tackle is a source of these threats, has declared fishing tackle to be one of the top seven most significant threats to Californians and their environment in its priority plan. This could create onerous regulations on fishing gear leading to bans on commonly used tackle or drive up the cost of purchasing it exponentially. This in turn would likely reduce angler participation in California and would ironically have a negative impact on revenue directed to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to support their mission of protecting and enhancing the state’s fish and wildlife resources. 

 

Points of Interest

• Any ban on the use of lead ammunition and/or tackle will likely have a significant negative economic impact on your state’s fish and wildlife agency, as well as its economy.
• Wildlife management focuses on populations, not individuals. Isolated incidents concerning individuals within wildlife populations do not warrant bans on lead ammunition and/or tackle.
• The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted a study of hunters and others that have consumed game, allegedly containing lead shot fragments, to determine whether they have an elevated level of lead in their blood that can be attributed to the ammunition used to harvest the game. Indications of the CDC study released by the North Dakota Department of Health (DOH), which is participating in the study, show none of those tested had unsafe blood lead levels. The readings were far below the level considered elevated for a child (10 micrograms per deciliter); let alone the level for an adult (25 micrograms per deciliter).
• On August 3, 2010 and March 13, 2012 a petition was submitted to the EPA to ban the production and sale of lead based ammunition and fishing tackle which argued that lead bullets and fishing tackle should be regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Both petitions were denied.
• On February 21, 2013 a bill titled CA AB 711, was signed into law in California which requires the use of non-lead ammunition for the taking of all wildlife with any firearm by the year 2017.
  • California began implementation of the lead ban in 2015 (Timeline of implementation found here).
  • California introduced Assembly Bill 395 in early 2015, seeking the repeal of the lead ammunition ban in northern and central northern regions of CA, but failed in February of 2016. .
• Fish and wildlife agencies in Utah and Arizona have adopted voluntary programs which provide hunters with incentives to utilize non-lead ammunition or carry entrails from harvested animals out of the field in areas where California condors have been reintroduced.
• New York and Vermont have banned the sale of lead fishing weights weighing one half ounce or less.
• Massachusetts’s Fisheries and Wildlife Board, Maine’s Senate Bill 268 (2013), and New Hampshire’s Bill SB 89 (2013), have all banned the use and sale of jigs and sinkers weighing one ounce or less.
• Alternative metals (such as tungsten, steel etc.) for small split shots (1/2 ounce or less) are available, but are considerably more expensive and do not offer the same level of performance as lead. In 2015, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) proposed regulations to the DNR Commission that would ban the use of lead shot for upland game on certain Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) in the state.
• In March of 2016, Minnesota introduced two sets of companion bills attempting to prohibit future regulation of lead shot in the pursuit of wildlife.(H 3209/S3387 & H 2844 /S 2558)

Moving Forward

 

In an effort to prevent the far reaching implications lead ammunition and tackle bans would have on conservation funding, legislators should explore and support preemptive legislative and/or regulatory mechanisms to ensure changes in the use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle are prohibited unless valid scientific justification is presented. Furthermore, such language should clearly specify that if it is scientifically determined that lead-based ammunition or fishing tackle is having a negative population level impact on a species, either locally or regionally, only reasonable regulations to that area or for that specific species will be implemented. 

Contact

For more information regarding this issue, please contact:
Zach Widner (971) 303-1043; [email protected]

 

[philoshop]

I'll probably die of old age before I run out of lead-based ammunition, mainly because I enjoy reloading almost as much as I enjoy hunting. It's not hard for me to avoid Federal lands.

My concern with these kinds of Federal regulations is that they encourage the anti-hunting/anti-gun people, and the anti-gun States, to pursue their agenda(s). Politicians have twisted this around and see it as a free pass to eventually undermine the protections of the 2nd amendment simply because "the Federal government did it first". It's the camel's nose in the tent. What many don't seem to understand is the degree to which the ideas of 'conservation' and 'wildlife support' have been completely co-opted for what I and others consider the nefarious purpose of pushing a Marxist/Socialist agenda within the U.S.

[DirtTime]

17 hours ago, Curmudgeon said:

Rob,

I have a bunch of other comments to respond to here when I find the time. I just want you to know you got me to smile this morning.

Things are nuts and people need a distraction. Some even watch sports and go to the theater.  

Thanks

 

No idea what that means. I will say this, the American people have enough "distractions"! We don't need distractions! We can't allow distractions! We need to focus on some very serious issues involving our nations security! I guess you don't care about that. The far left never does. It's all about "Me and my CAUSE" over whats best for the country and hunting community.

You say you have knowledge and facts of things revolving around lead shot or bullets killing raptors due to eating the carcasses of dead fish and animals. Yet most of these facts are based in the western parts of the USA not NY. You have some actual facts based in a NY environment? Have you ever pulled a lead bullet or lead shot out of one of the birds you licensed to autopsy?

I am not trying to be a jerk, But we have dumps near water sources, so lead will be bleeding into the water. So, a deer drinks the water from a lead contaminated source, dies, an eagle eats from the carcass and it's the fault of hunters who use lead ammo? C'mon! Grow up! 

[Rattler]

Rob, he has posted evidence of raptors, including Bald Eagles, that have died from lead poisoning in NY State.  They use tracking tags to trace their movements.  However, the only ones they can show have eaten deer carcasses and remains were frequenting the dumpsters used by deer processors.  The question that cannot be answered is, how many die each year from eating gut piles in the woods?  They are extrapolating info when they give estimates, or guesstimates, about raptor mortality from lead ammo.  That means certain conclusions are assumptions based on numeric calculation, rather than conclusive information.

Perhaps making deer processors use dumpsters and keep them covered, would solve most of the problem.

This is why I say we don't know the extent of the problem caused by gut piles in the woods, whether it is an extreme solution to ban lead ammo, and how much positive impact a ban on lead ammo will have.

[Curmudgeon]

I'm never going to get caught up here. Sorry guys. I have an impending deadline for an article on this topic for Northern Woodlands. It will appear in the fall/September issue if any of you are subscribers.

That, and an avian impact assessment for a new, large wind project in western Broome County are sucking up all my spare time at the moment.

Rob - Thanks for calling me "far left". That's precious. I'm going to share it.

[DirtTime]

8 hours ago, Curmudgeon said:

I'm never going to get caught up here. Sorry guys. I have an impending deadline for an article on this topic for Northern Woodlands. It will appear in the fall/September issue if any of you are subscribers.

That, and an avian impact assessment for a new, large wind project in western Broome County are sucking up all my spare time at the moment.

Rob - Thanks for calling me "far left". That's precious. I'm going to share it.

I do not give you permission to share my comment.

 

Do you have factual proof and pics that lead ammo from hunters is the sole reason birds of prey and scavenger birds are dying from lead poisoning?

Do you personally have pics where the birds were cut open and lead fragments were found in the digestive system? Chunks of lead don't just go away.

Then there is the lead poisoning by default from eating gut piles, and drinking water with lead in it. Is the water tested from where the birds feed and drink from? Funny how most surveys don't mention testing the nearby water sources.

If lead ammo is such an epidemic, then why are Eagle ( lets face it, that's what this is about really Eagles ) numbers increasing where for many years seeing an eagle was a rarity.