Discussion in 'Activism' started by Buckeye Dan, Aug 9, 2010.
But let's not forget the sole purpose of the lead ban is to curtail hunting/fishing ! Check out its "endorsers" !
FWIW there's no credible scientific evidence/studies indicating lead from field shooting has any significant effects upon scavenger species. Not to say it isn't possible, but no controlled studies have revealed a link. IOW, the "evidence" is predominantly subjective, not scientific. IMHO if "environmental lead" from shooting were a factor in wildlife mortality we wouldn't be seeing so much game at shooting ranges where lead concentrations far exceed field levels.
Now while changing from lead to another material may only imperil a fisherman's dentistry, or some bottom-feeding fish, in the shooting world its entirely different ! But since the objective of the "objectors" is elimination of hunting/fishing/shooting, why should they be concerned about interior ballistics ? And that's "where its at" for most metallic substitutions in cartridge arms !
The "mere" change of bullet materials requires extensive redesign/retesting of bullet shapes, configuration, powder and primers for any given combination. IOW decades of patiently gathered experience and data with lead or gilded bullets ensuring user safety would be trashed by legislative whim !
Consider the humble/ubiquitous .2RF. It uses a "heeled" bullet where the "heel" expands to seal the bore from powder gases. The shape/compostion of these bullets is of critical importance in safe/accurate performance in a wide variety of rifles and handguns (as any serious .22RF shooter knows). What "safe" alloy/base metal is a viable/economic substitute ? Do we know the "downstream" consequences of introducing these substitutes into the environment ?
We have literally thousands of years' experience with lead. What do we know about the "substitutes" ? >MW
) I can tell you that any children I have will be around guns, cars, motorcycles, shop work, etc from a young age, because those are things I enjoy. I will supervise them appropriately, part of which is instilling proper safety behavior. It is called life. Grow up. Don't lick the exhaust, suck on ammo, drink cleaning chemicals, etc.
I see big problems with how powerful the EPA has gotten. This is not a gun issue, it is even bigger. The issue is how much power should government and it's agencies have.
I wonder where these groups get their funding from? I wonder if any companies that we might know donate to them.....
If that were the *sole* purpose, they wouldn't be trying to ban the 99.99% of lead-core ammo that is used for purposes other than hunting, IMO. Unless they are just too ignorant to realize that most gun owners aren't hunters and most ammunition is expended in other pursuits.
IMO these groups may be mostly talking about hunting, but the mostly-nonhunting scope of their attempted ban is certainly...convenient.
Watch, learn, dial, mail, email your position on this matter to the powers that be.
In some states you can't use lead sinkers in fresh water already. Some types work better than others but a lot of the non-lead ones are really bulky and some of them are really expensive too. The bismuth ones in say a 4oz or so size pyramid sinker cost about 4 times as much as lead or so..sometimes more than that. The tungsten ones are even more money. Then there's the issue of different ones rusting, etc. For fresh water using smaller tackle it's not as big of a deal though I wouldn't think. I'm a salt water guy myself though.
The short summary is that low levels of lead exposure from eating game meat can occur, it is influenced by whether the bullet highly fragments or retains most of it's mass, how much of the meat is discarded around the wound channel, AND that the blood lead levels were elevated for game meat users, but too low for the CDC to make a recommendation on human health effects. http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/3E74BD4A-49D1-4116-B9AC-83CC6D27C67C/0/LeadExposureRecommendations.pdf
Waterfowl would scoop up gravel and lead shot that would stay in their gizzards to toxify the bird. I don't think lead bullet fragments from dead game collect in the hawks, buzzards, crows, ravens, etc. that feed on dead game animals.
What we think and what they think won't be the issue if there is data from valid studies showing that there is a real problem or that it's just a theory without data to back it up. EPA will weigh the economic impact against the environmental impact and based on that evaluation will make a ruling. Regardless of what they rule, there will be a lawsuit filed either pushing EPA to ban lead-based ammunition or by the NSSF and possibly some states as well as the NRA to not ban lead-based ammunition. Regardless, I think the minimum that we'll see is more study of wildlife to determine if lead exposure is occurring and if it's harmful.
But I can tell you first hand that the EPA can and will create and enforce laws on a whim to appease "environmentalist" .
My first hand experience with the EPA's BS laws, a while back I had a garage I used to occasionally paint cars(I had a regular job auto painting, and used the commercial zoned garage to do a few after work).
I had "homemade" a paint booth in the garage that mimicked a "real" commercial paint booth(clean filtered air intake on one end, and wet filter material on the exhaust end to catch any over spray from exiting building and getting on things outside).
Well a body shop a few doors down didn't like my painting(made theirs look bad) so they sicked the EPA on me for not having an "approved/commercial" paint booth like they had.
They (the EPA)showed up in their white suits and clipboards(yea, 3 of them) to shut me down.
They informed me right away that I would have to cease painting cars there because I was violating the law regarding capturing VOC's (Volatal Organic Compounds) because I didn't have an "approved" paint booth.
Well I'm not a scientist, but I immediately told them to go pound sand and to come back with someone higher up the EPA foodchain because "approved/commercial" paint booths do not capture any VOC's because VOC's are a GAS !
There might be a way to separate one gas("VOC's") from another gas ("the air"), but I know paint booths don't do it !
I expected them to return in force, and just strong arm me(without any rightful reason) into shutting me down, but behold, they never returned !!!
The moral of the story is that the EPA unfortunately, CAN and WILL pass laws without real scientific evidence and attempt to enforce them on behalf of left wing tree huggers with an agenda.
"What if the EPA mandated that cars could no longer utilize internal combustion engines?" is a better analogy.
EPA isn't trying to do anything. The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), the American Bird Conservancy are the ones petitioning the EPA to regulate hunting ammunition containing lead under TSCA. I've spent 18 years working in this field and we need to get this straight in our heads and not distract ourselves with red herrings and knee-jerk anti-government diatribes.
A group is going to petition EPA to ban all lead ammunition under the TSCA regulations. There's a specific process EPA has to go through to do this. It isn't arbitrary and it is formally laid out in the federal regulations. The time to stop this is at the beginning of the process so that the petition is rejected. The way to do this is contact your congresscritters to get it rejected. Explain that there petitioners do not have sound science behind their claims and that there are endless government range studies and government federal facilities wildlife studies that show no statistically significant direct lead exposure due to ingesting or even being shot, but not killed, at these ranges. Point out that the vast majority of lead is not used in hunting and that the economic impact would go far beyond the hunting use and would negatively impact law enforcement, military and sport shooters far outstripping any imaginary harm to wildlife.
Do NOT attack the EPA. Ask your congresscritters to investigate the petition to ban all lead based ammunition being submitted to the EPA and ask that they point out to the Administrator the problems outlined.
The number of people that shoot in this country are a small minority. The people who consumed alcohol were in the majority. The demand won't be the same and the pressure to repeal wouldn't either.
We need to treat this seriously and we need to do so now so that we don't have to fight it during the comment period after the wording of the TSCA regulation has been changed.
apply to ammunition only used for hunting purposes, not that for target shooting. We don't use premium Federal soft-point hunting ammunition for target practice; we use regular lead FMJs. While I disagree with these group's reasoning, which is based on inconclusive studies, I don't think that it needs to be as damning as most assume that it would be. If we're already paying, say, a buck a round for hunting ammo, will the price really spike using copper, as California recently proposed or began doing?
Separate names with a comma.