EPA denies bid to ban lead in hunting ammunition

[Palehorseman]

Aug 27, 5:29 PM EDT
EPA denies bid to ban lead in hunting ammunition

By FREDERIC J. FROMMER
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Environmental Protection Agency has denied a petition by five environmental groups to ban lead in hunting ammunition.

The agency said Friday that it did not have the authority to enact the ban under the Toxic Substances Control Act, as the groups had requested.

But the EPA says it's still reviewing another part of the petition, to ban lead fishing sinkers.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-08-27-17-29-53

 

[Rail Driver]

Finally, someone in charge of something with at least a little sense... I don't see anything wrong with banning lead fishing sinkers as long as there's an affordable alternative (which there is... I use steel jigs and have no need of a lead weight... costs similar to standard jigs and eliminates having to buy sinkers )

 

[bushmaster1313]

Excellent!

Makes me want to go out and buy a Model 21 or any other vintage trap gun!

 

[hso]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/27/epa-rejects-calls-ban-lead-ammo-fishing-tackle/

The Environmental Protection Agency has denied a petition filed by environmental activists seeking to ban lead in ammunition and fishing tackle, saying such regulation is beyond the agency's authority.

The agency's decision, announced Friday shortly after FoxNews.com published its report on the issue, sided with hunters and fishermen who had argued that the such regulations weren't allowed under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.

"EPA is taking action on many fronts to address major sources of lead in our society, such as eliminating childhood exposures to lead," the agency said in a written statement. "However, EPA was not and is not considering taking action on whether the lead content in hunting ammunition poses an undue threat to wildlife."

Petition rejected 3 days after submittal! That was quick.

 

[Animal Mother]

Thank God the administration backed down from that one. You do wonder why they allowed the petition to proceed to the point where they accepted public comments, instead of denying it immediately. It looks to me like it was a trial balloon that got shot down.

Can you just imagine what would have happened to ammo prices and ammo hoarders if the EPA had banned lead ammo...

 

[fireside44]

Petition rejected 3 days after submittal! That was quick.

I got shot down a couple weeks ago when I said it would never happen in the black powder section. Banning lead entirely ain't only impossible to enforce but it's political suicide for any fool who backs it.

More or less another scare tactic. I suppose the NRA made a few bucks on the deal though....lol

 

[JohnBiltz]

Have you seen the polls. Its going to be brutal enough without bringing guns into it. I expect some phone calls got made explaining why they did not need this issue coming up in November to rally behind.

 

[Dnaltrop]

think I'll go pick up some 250 grain cowboy rounds and disperse them into my usual berm.

Woo!

 

[HappyHunting]

Good deal, I had some concerns that the green movement would hurt us

 

[Owen Sparks]

What about non-hunting ammunition like cheap cast lead practice bullets for handguns? I shoot thousands of those.

 

[MisterMike]

I predict a lawsuit, seeking to compel the EPA to fully consider the petition.

 

[Cactus Jack Arizona]

A while back the anti-gun folks wanted the ammo manufacturers to create ammunition that expired after roughly three years. This would be in hopes of keeping people from stockpiling ammo. I wonder if this isn't a plan to start the process.

 

[TexasBill]

Another victory for gun fans under the Obama Administration. He's not only the best salesman we've got; he's the best friend we've got. We've made more headway since Obama was sworn in than we did in the eight years preceding.

I am pretty sure the President and his advisors have already figured out their preferences on gun control are non-starters and certainly nothing on which they want to waste whatever political clout they have left.

 

[Big_E]

This whole lead is hazardous to water supplies and whatnot is completely bogus. Why are lead pipes still used? Hmm, well after lead is exposed to water for some time it forms (lead oxide I think is the proper term, I am unsure though, still searching my brain for the word) which allows water to pass through without being tainted.

President Monroe had a lead ball in his arm throughout his life from the American Revolution and it didn't poison him. My grandpa still has a lead bullet in his hand from a reloading accident, guess what, he is still living fine to this day. Hunters eat animals taken with lead shot/bullets and are fine. My mom is a California Condor lover and thinks that from eating animals that had lead in them the condors died, that is all lies formed by the Green movement.

The problem is that now scientific instruments are so advanced now that they can detect the most minuscule traces of lead that when the public sees that they freak out. Tiny amounts of lead and even radiation are harmless. I wish I knew more about the reason why steel shot is required for waterfowl, but I am sure its just political and not science based.

Anywho, I am glad the EPA has rejected this petition. Of course, I wouldn't drink water from a fresh lead pipe or from a pond that had dozens of hunter unloading shot into it, but you aren't supposed to shoot sitting ducks. Just remember, lead forms a crust when exposed to water so it is fine.

 

[rbernie]

I don't see anything wrong with banning lead fishing sinkers as long as there's an affordable alternative (which there is...

Why ban something for which there is no scientific evidence that it poses a hazard?

Do we support banning things just because? I would hope not..

 

[LibShooter]

Quote:
I don't see anything wrong with banning lead fishing sinkers as long as there's an affordable alternative (which there is...

Why ban something for which there is no scientific evidence that it poses a hazard?

There is evidence that lead sinkers and shot pose a threat to waterfowl.

Mitigating the Impacts of Lead Pollution
The preponderance of evidence presented in the 1980s that lead shot and fishing weights were having a deleterious effect on swans (Table 1) and other waterfowl led to the introduction of widespread bans on their use.

Some streams in Britain have been fished using lead weights for centuries. A lot of lead ended up in a lot of swans with observable results. If we're doing something that causes damage we should stop, especially when there is a safer alternative.

 

[merlinfire]

We can't simply ignore the evidence available, if we do so we're no better than those we disagree with that do the same things.

On the same token though, I am very glad that this was abandoned. I don't have a lot of ammo, and another panic on ammo like last year would really have ruined my fun this Fall.

 

[Nicky Santoro]

A lot of lead ended up in a lot of swans with observable results.

According to who and at which political trough do they feed?

 

[LibShooter]

A lot of lead ended up in a lot of swans with observable results.

According to who and at which political trough do they feed?

The danger to birds eating little lead balls is pretty well documened by various sources. A few minutes of Googling turned up these from The University of Vermont, The US Geological Survey, New Hampshire Fish & Game, The Univerity of Northern British Columbia (I think) and Ducks Unlimited.

I can't vouch for all these organizations. They may be involved in an international conspiracy against lead shot and tackle, but I doubt it.

The truth is, ingesting lead hurts ducks and geese and their cousins. It's also true that lead-free tackle is readily available and effective. So why not stop using lead sinkers?

Back when we were getting married, word was out that rice thrown at weddings was killing birds. I don't know if it was a serious problem, probably not. But I do know there was a cheap and safe alternative. Now nearly everybody throws bird seed at weddings.

If our society can survive the end of rice at weddings we can survive an invasion of steel sinkers.

 

[MinnMooney]

from Fireside44 (post 6):

More or less another scare tactic. I suppose the NRA made a few bucks on the deal though....lol

You couldn't be more incorrect! Groups are trying constantly to take away any and all rights that have anything to do with firearms. No lead has been a major fighting point of lots of groups because it is thought to make it much harder for people to hunt with non-lead projectiles. This, of course, is mostly a falasy because there are so many mfg'rs already producing non-lead hunting ammo. It will make it more expensive for plinking, competition & hunting, however.

Where do you come off calling it a "scare tactic"?

Please explain your outlandish statement that "the NRA made a few bucks on the deal...". Please give us NRA members some of you insight and share your knowledge. Or.................. are you just too cheap to be an NRA member so you try to bash them to justify your non-member status??

Sorry for the rude comments but the NRA is one of the few blockades to the anti's taking our rights away from us. Unfounded and wild accuisations do nothing to help our cause except to create disunity amunst shooters.

 

[fireside44]

Where do you come off calling it a "scare tactic"?

Because it's another idle threat that amounts to nothing. It's like the HR45 stuff. It has no supporters, it's just idle talk from some obscure group with little or no ability to make it happen.

So they blow up the computer with stories for two weeks and then the EPA says "not within our power". Reminds me of the supposed "knife ban" a year or so ago. Far fetched far flung ideas and bans are nothing more than scare tactics.

Please explain your outlandish statement that "the NRA made a few bucks on the deal...". Please give us NRA members some of you insight and share your knowledge. Or.................. are you just too cheap to be an NRA member so you try to bash them to justify your non-member status??

Yes, I am too cheap to support an organization whose rise to prominence among gun owners runs concurrent with major loss of firearms rights. People ask me sometimes "what would we have if we didn't have the NRA?". "Gun rights" is my answer.

Sorry for the rude comments but the NRA is one of the few blockades to the anti's taking our rights away from us.

No offense taken, it's just a discussion. But as long as they have you jumping at every scare tactic they will be in business. It's the mark of snake oil salesmen round the globe.

As I had said originally in the BP section, a full on lead ban is unenforceable and will never happen, especially with crap the way it is now. So yes, in the end, it boiled down to a hopeless cause blown way out of proportion and essentially a scare tactic.

 

[merlinfire]

Sinkers lead or steel makes little/no difference with me, as long as it doesn't overly inconvenience fisherman, no big deal. No lead in bullets, that would be a big safety issue I'd say. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you were making bullets out of harder metals, wouldn't the change of ricochet increase dramatically?

 

[shareitall]

The news item is interesting, but it'd be even more interesting to learn just why the petition was dropped. Anyone have any news on that?

 

[rbernie]

Go look at the study table in your linked article:

http://conservation-issues.co.uk/Articles Pages/Wildfowl Literature Table.htm

There is no study that suggests that the US has any issues with discarded lead sinkers, and the UK studies are in most cases several decades old.

Ingestion of discarded lead shot is a known issue in the US (hence the mandate to use non-lead shot alternatives when waterfowl hunting). However, there is very little evidence that lead sinkers are an actual threat in the US, and certainly not in any areas not commonly used by waterfowl.

Sinkers lead or steel makes little/no difference with me, as long as it doesn't overly inconvenience fisherman, no big deal.

It is a HUGE deal any time anyone tries to use pseudo-science to effect a change that causes an economic or behavioral impact. It happens all too often, and we ought to be very skeptical of anyone claiming environmental harm in the absence of multiple accepted and peer-reviewed studies addressing the specific geographic areas in which the legislation and/or regulation is being proposed.

I'll use the North Dakota 'lead bullets for hunting' pseudo-study as an example of the kind of junk science that is used to advance a social agenda, at our expense.

 

[LibShooter]

There is no study that suggests that the US has any issues with discarded lead sinkers, and the UK studies are in most cases several decades old.

Yes, The English phased out lead sinkers years ago, so the studies are old. I don't think facts have an expiration date. And they have been using lead sinkers for a few hundred years longer than we have in North America, so there has been more time to fill the stream beds with little lead balls.

Ingestion of discarded lead shot is a known issue in the US (hence the mandate to use non-lead shot alternatives when waterfowl hunting). However, there is very little evidence that lead sinkers are an actual threat in the US, and certainly not in any areas not commonly used by waterfowl.

This article from the University of Vermont says there's a problem in New England:

22% of 202 Common Loons found dead in New England had ingested lead objects, principally sinkers and jigs. ...(Twiss, 1998).

Little lead balls kill birds. Whether they are shot from a gun or clamped on a fishing line doesn't matter to a loon's gizzard. Granted, a lot more shot comes from a shotgun than a fishing pole... but the contribution from anglers is significant.