Ban Lead Ammunition?

[JohnRich 4]

News, from the National Shooting Sports Foundation:

EPA Considering Ban on Traditional Ammunition

All Gun Owners, Hunters and Shooters:

With the fall hunting season fast approaching, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Lisa Jackson, who was responsible for banning bear hunting in New Jersey, is now considering a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) – a leading anti-hunting organization – to ban all traditional ammunition under the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976, a law in which Congress expressly exempted ammunition. If the EPA approves the petition, the result will be a total ban on all ammunition containing lead-core components, including hunting and target-shooting rounds. The EPA must decide to accept or reject this petition by November 1, 2010, the day before the midterm elections.

Today, the EPA has opened to public comment the CBD petition. The comment period ends on October 31, 2010.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) — the trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industry — urges you to submit comment to the EPA opposing any ban on traditional ammunition. Remember, your right to choose the ammunition you hunt and shoot with is at stake.

The EPA has published the petition and relevant supplemental information as Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0681. If you would like to read the original petition and see the contents of this docket folder, please click here. In order to go directly to the ‘submit a comment’ page for this docket number, please click here.

NSSF urges you to stress the following in your opposition:

* There is no scientific evidence that the use of traditional ammunition is having an adverse impact on wildlife populations.

* Wildlife management is the proper jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 50 state wildlife agencies.

* A 2008 study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on blood lead levels of North Dakota hunters confirmed that consuming game harvested with traditional ammunition does not pose a human health risk.

* A ban on traditional ammunition would have a negative impact on wildlife conservation. The federal excise tax that manufacturers pay on the sale of the ammunition (11 percent) is a primary source of wildlife conservation funding. The bald eagle’s recovery, considered to be a great conservation success story, was made possible and funded by hunters using traditional ammunition – the very ammunition organizations like the CBD are now demonizing.

* Recent statistics from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service show that from 1981 to 2006 the number of breeding pairs of bald eagles in the United States increased 724 percent. And much like the bald eagle, raptor populations throughout the United States are soaring.

Source: http://www.nssfblog.com/epa-considering-ban-on-traditional-ammunition-take-action-now/

[quade 4]

Never gonna happen. It's not even a matter of should or shouldn't.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[skyrider 0]

One special interest group trying to twist the rules!

[skydveraz 0]

Ban the EPA instead.

Arizona only has two seasons, Hot and HOTTER!

[quade 4]

Quote

One special interest group trying to twist the rules!

I do like this line;

Quote

* There is no scientific evidence that the use of traditional ammunition is having an adverse impact on wildlife populations.

Except, ya know, for all the holes that let the blood out.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Lead is being phased out of our lives due to the health considerations. Leaded gas went away a long time ago. Now solder used in electronics may be tin based instead of lead. Lead bullets may become less commonly used (ex, not at ranges where concentration may build) just as incandescent lights now are. Gun controllers have frequently used the specter of lead poisoning to shut down ranges. Legit or not, it will continue to happen.

The example given of the eagles isn't very compelling. It was the tax revenue that lead to the improvement, not the use of lead ammo.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

I do like this line;

Quote

* There is no scientific evidence that the use of traditional ammunition is having an adverse impact on wildlife populations.

Except, ya know, for all the holes that let the blood out.

Hunting actually keeps the herds healthy, when you look at the big picture. And the taxes paid by hunters and shooters support conservation, in dollar amounts larger than all the other conservation organizations combined. If you banned hunting, conservation activities would plummet, and the size of herds would skyrocket, leading to unhealthy animals and less land available for them.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Lead bullets may become less commonly used (ex, not at ranges where concentration may build)

It's concentrated there, but test wells can be dug, and periodically sampled, to prove that it's not leaching down into the water level. And the lead can also be harvested from the berms and recycled. All of this is done on a range my gun club has on Army Corps of Engineers land.

[winsor 236]

I say depleted uranium is the way to go.

[billvon 3,120]

>Hunting actually keeps the herds healthy, when you look at the big picture.

If hunters shot the older, diseased animals that would be true. It usually isn't.

>leading to unhealthy animals and less land available for them.

Well, they did manage for a few million years without us, so I'm not too worried that wild animals would be decimated by the lack of hunters.

However, if hunting is limited to a sustainable level there's nothing wrong with it; game is a renewable resource when managed well.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Well, they did manage for a few million years without us, so I'm not too worried that wild animals would be decimated by the lack of hunters.

Come on Bill, you're smarter than that. John said it keeps them healthy, not that hunting keeps them around. Besides, you'll be the first one to agree things are different now than they were millions of years ago. Regardless, you know that animal populations are always changing, not in some mythical perfect natural harmony. Too many prey animals lead to increased predator numbers and lack of food, and possibly lead to disease. All that makes the herd shrink. Etc etc. Hunters working with a plan put together by wildlife agencies can limit the peak and valley effect and their money, from taxes and contributions, pays to protect wild land and run conservation programs.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Quote

One special interest group trying to twist the rules!

I do like this line;

Quote

* There is no scientific evidence that the use of traditional ammunition is having an adverse impact on wildlife populations.

Except, ya know, for all the holes that let the blood out.

My sentiment as well...

Overall, it would be nice to see us making a move toward DMG x 4 Laser ammunition, perhaps this is the first step.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Coreece 190]

Quote

I say depleted uranium is the way to go.

It bugs me when I agree with you...are you sure you and Jakee aren't one in the same?

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Never gonna happen. It's not even a matter of should or shouldn't.

Tungsten shot is already available (mostly for hunting waterfowl).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Well, they did manage for a few million years without us, so I'm not too worried that wild animals would be decimated by the lack of hunters.

However, if hunting is limited to a sustainable level there's nothing wrong with it; game is a renewable resource when managed well.

For those few million years there were natural predators which kept the herd sizes in check, so that there weren't too many of them for the food available. But nowadays, those natural predators are gone, and hunters serve the purpose of keeping the herd sizes in check. And yes, it is kept at sustainable levels. State game managers know what the herd size is, what the condition of the herd is, and what harvest levels need to be achieved to keep them healthy. From that, the rules for the hunting season are formulated each year, specifying how many bucks and does can be taken by each hunter, and how long the season will last.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

>Hunting actually keeps the herds healthy, when you look at the big picture.

If hunters shot the older, diseased animals that would be true. It usually isn't.

hunters that are taught properly don't shoot the young animals. The diseased animals are usually culled by the wildlife management folks paid by the state.

I'm curious what experience or reading you have to support your position. Wildlife conservation is something I have spent some time on and would be interested in reading what you have that made you make the above statement.

--
Rob

[billvon 3,120]

>John said it keeps them healthy, not that hunting keeps them around.

No, it doesn't. It keeps their numbers down. That's not the same as keeping them healthy. Indeed, by killing the healthiest specimens of a species, the species will evolve to have a higher percentage of sickly individuals. These will survive (due to not being shot and killed by hunters) and thus reproduce more readily.

This effect is already seen in fisheries, where entire species are evolving to be smaller (and thus be below catch size limits.)

>Regardless, you know that animal populations are always changing, not
>in some mythical perfect natural harmony.

Absolutely. In nature, the old, sick, diseased and crippled are killed off via natural selection; the more healthy ones tend to survive. (Not by being perfect and robust, but by succumbing to disease, predation and famine slightly less than the weaker members of the species.)

If you are going to go out and kill the sickest animals you can find you're going to come closer to evolutionary forces. If you do the opposite you will have the opposite effect.

>Hunters working with a plan put together by wildlife agencies can limit the
> peak and valley effect . . .

Right. Hunting interferes with that cycle. In wild environments, the out of phase sine waves that denote prey and predator populations has been one of the strongest, most persistent cycles there is.

>and their money, from taxes and contributions, pays to protect wild land
>and run conservation programs.

I think it is odd that so many people think we need to do something to land to protect it. All we need to do is leave it alone. Time and time again, we've tried to "manage" wildlife. Kill off the wolves in Yellowstone to protect the herbivores. Introduce rabbits as animals for sport hunting. Introduce kudzu, the "a miracle vine they should use to help mankind" to the US to provide shade and natural, healthy forage for animals.

Those didn't work out so well. We (and the planet) would have been much better off just leaving it alone.

Again, there's nothing wrong with hunting, provided it is controlled. Wild animals are a renewable resource, and they have much less of an effect on the environment as a whole than factory farms do.

But justifying it by saying it "keeps animals healthy" makes about as much sense as claiming that salmonella keeps humanity healthy by keeping our numbers down.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Tungsten shot is already available (mostly for hunting waterfowl).

$$$

Unleaded ammo does exist. There is iron, tungsten, 100% copper, steel, and others. They're out there and very expensive relative to traditional ammo. I'm sure the price would eventually come down if everyone had to use them (after the initial monstrous spike) but it would never be as low as lead for a number of reasons. None of these metals are truly nontoxic, just less toxic. However, seeing as lead from ammo over the last hundred and fifty years hasn't had any significant negative impact, this whole issue is silly and would be funny if it wasn't going to cost a lot of money and force a lot of folks to shoot less. Also, the only unleaded ammo I've been satisfied with was frangible rounds used in small distance shooting, but even those have drawbacks, specifically loading and jamming issues when part of the bullet shears off while contacting the feed ramp.

(not that I want to give them ideas but)
If the eco-freaks really wanted to address health and toxicity issues, they would be more concerned with the heavy metals and other nasties in the primer.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>John said it keeps them healthy, not that hunting keeps them around.

No, it doesn't. It keeps their numbers down. That's not the same as keeping them healthy.

Yes, it is. Overpopulation leads to too much competition for food, and unhealthy herds. By keeping the numbers down, you ensure that the herd has plenty to keep everyone healthy.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

$$$ Unleaded ammo does exist. There is iron, tungsten, 100% copper, steel, and others...
seeing as lead from ammo over the last hundred and fifty years hasn't had any significant negative impact, this whole issue is silly...

Not to mention that bullets made out of other substances would completely change the ballistic performance due to different mass. And all the known ballistic properties would have to be thrown out, and we'd start all over again from scratch. Lighter metals wouldn't retain velocity as well at longer distances. Rifle sight elevation settings would change and have to be figured out.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

$$$ Unleaded ammo does exist. There is iron, tungsten, 100% copper, steel, and others...
seeing as lead from ammo over the last hundred and fifty years hasn't had any significant negative impact, this whole issue is silly...

Not to mention that bullets made out of other substances would completely change the ballistic performance due to different mass. And all the known ballistic properties would have to be thrown out, and we'd start all over again from scratch. Lighter metals wouldn't retain velocity as well at longer distances. Rifle sight elevation settings would change and have to be figured out.

We could always go to depleted uranium... that is nice and heavy

[rhaig 0]

yes, you and winsor are of the same mind here (see post 9).

DU would have the opposite problem though. It's much more dense than lead. (19.1g/cm^3 vs 11.3g/cm^3)


Banning lead ammo is a solution looking for a problem.

--
Rob

[Amazon 7]

Quote

yes, you and winsor are of the same mind here (see post 9).

DU would have the opposite problem though. It's much more dense than lead. (19.1g/cm^3 vs 11.3g/cm^3)


Banning lead ammo is a solution looking for a problem.

Stands to reason though... that it would have some interesting new ballistics to explore here in the civilian world.

I don't want the military to always get to have all the fun

[LongWayToFall 0]

Uh, not quite. If I am not mistaken, some of the longest range rounds available right now, like the .416 barret are 100% copper. Round of this size are a poor comparison to standard hunting rounds though.
You don't have to look any further than good old California, if you want to see lead free ammo. In the middle of the state, we have what is called the "condor region" where lead ammo is banned, because California condors are eating animals that have been shot, and getting lead poisoning. Ammo is about 4-5x more expensive, and shoots like shit. I haven't killed anything with it yet, but I am concerned with the amount of energy they are providing.
What about a proper jacket for the projectile? You can still use lead, just make sure it doesn't get exposed.
Eh, whatever, 100% lead free projectiles seem to be good at taking down condors as well.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Never gonna happen. It's not even a matter of should or shouldn't.

But it should! It should all be copper coated ceramic.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun