EPA denies bid to ban lead in hunting ammunition

[rbernie]

That's a completely irresponsible statement and incorrect.

The quote was a response to the assumptions made in this thread - perhaps that wasn't clear. Mea culpa. And perhaps your response could use a bit of tempering.

If you have a problem with some bad studies that have been specially selected to support the preconceived agenda of some activists who want to achieve a social goal then the problem is with the people who cherry pick the literature for studies that support their position and not with science as a whole.

I believe that's what I said, some ten posts back:

The study was quoted as a rational for regulatory action in the linked article, and that is what I have accused of being pseudo-science. The original study may have been flawed or it may have been used out of content to support an agenda - it matters not to me which is true. I only quarrel with the 'case for action' linked to that study.

I promised that I would be done with this thread, and I've failed to live up to that promise. Time that I keep it.

 

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

Had something like this passed.

I suspect the firestorm caused by it would have led to the ultimate dissolution of the EPA. They're already walking on real thin ice with the whole CO2 as a toxic gas garbage.

While the SCOTUS backed the CO2 ruling---there's nothing preventing Congress from killing off the EPA either.

 

[fast200]

We really do need to move away from lead shot but we need to find an affordable alternative first.

 

[Palehorseman]

Odd, why just loons to sample? How many water fowl birds, are wounded, escape, then die from steel shot every year.

I would wager there is a greater percent of geese, ducks, mergansers, etc that get wounded, then later die from steel shot than from the older lead shot.

I also suspect the mortality rate from steel shot wounds and later expiration exceeds the deaths from ingesting lead.

 

[LibShooter]

I also suspect the mortality rate from steel shot wounds and later expiration exceeds the deaths from ingesting lead.

I'm not sure that's accurate. One steel shot shell usually kills or wounds just one bird and then only if it hits it. A lead shot shell can cause the deaths of several birds over a period of time as the individual pellets are ingested one or two at a time.

 

[scythefwd]

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

Did they, the NRA, raise in power come because of the loss of the rights or did the loss of rights come about due to the rise in power. The two very well could correlate... just like a rise in financial conservatism is happening at the same time as increased government spending. The increased financial conservatism coincides with the rise in spending, but it isn't the cause... it's the effect. Please be careful when trying to equate correlation with causation... they aren't always the same thing.

 

[22-rimfire]

Why did they study Loons? Because they ingest pebbles to help digest their food which is swallowed whole. The article said that only a fraction probably died from lead toxicosis. In essence, they didn't study this and guessed.

We're starting to have an overpopulation problem with Canadian Geese? Who wins? People or birds?

 

[LibShooter]

Why did they study Loons? Because they ingest pebbles to help digest their food which is swallowed whole. The article said that only a fraction probably died from lead toxicosis. In essence, they didn't study this and guessed.

They looked at loons in this study because they wanted to know about loons. Similar research has been done with ducks, geese and swans.

And it's important to note the original Twiss study on dead loons was not about their cause of death. It was only about how many had ingested lead objects. The University of Vermont article quoted that study AND some subsequent experiments to conclude lead kills waterfowl.

We're starting to have an overpopulation problem with Canadian Geese? Who wins? People or birds?

Canada Geese are experiencing a population boom in the US because the habitat they like is being preseverved and created. The geese like open water near open grassy areas. So do people, so we build it. If we build a nice pond in a nice park its like a sign that says "Welcome geese! Come here and have babies."

Some geese are also staying all year long instead of migrating. They are adapting to living with people. They are becoming giant pigeons with webbed feet.

But this is off topic.

 

[hirundo82]

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'm actually a bit worried about what might happen under this administration if Rahm Emanuel steps down as White House Chief of Staff after the November elections, as is rumored. He's definitely no friend of gun owners but he is, above all, pragmatic. I imagine he knows that restricting gun rights is a dead issue among voters and that there is nothing to be gained by pushing the issue. His replacement might not care about this, especially if it is obvious in a year or so that Obama's not going to be getting a second term.

Of course this might be a mostly dead issue if Republicans gain control of one or both houses of Congress in November, but there is still plenty of damage that can be done to the shooting community without going through Congress due to the regulation-making power of the federal bureaucracy (as the lead issue demonstrates).

 

[22-rimfire]

The "headway" so far is a slow process and mostly dependant on the courts, not presidents. The BO administration and the demoncratic party have simply either not allowed legislation to be introduced or the potential legislation never made it out of committee. Nothing was introduced by Republicans during the Bush Administration either. The National Parks gun issue started during the Bush Admin.

If the US EPA greatly oversteps from a practical perspective, businesses will simply stop complying with anything until they are caught. It is a tenuous relationship between business interests, believed people interests, and the interests of the EPA. The EPA claims they have science behind them. In reality, environmental requirements and enforcement should seek at middle ground allowing some gain relative to the environment versus cost which is spread out over a long period of time and there is clear cut science to back them relative to risk to human health and the environment. It is much like the progressive movement in general who seeks the slow socialization of the USA. BO has said that salvation is a collective issue not an individual issue. That clearly illustrates his progressive nature and likely his views on gun ownership. I don't think it is clear yet that outlawing lead from shotshells, single bullets, or fishing lures or sinkers would clearly represent a significant gain to the environment on a national basis whether it be in lakes and streams or soils. There will always be organizations pushing their individual causes whether it be gun legislation, improving duck or fish habitat, replacing wetlands, new septic tank or sewage requirements in rural areas, whale harvesting, etc.

 

[wvshooter]

Idea for reviving the US economy: Cut the EPA's budget by 90%