1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Update on Lead Chemical Action Plan

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by acdodd, Oct 30, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. acdodd

    acdodd Member

    Mar 24, 2005
    I received this email today regarding the states chemical action plan.
    They said ammunition is the second largest use of lead.
    I'm not sure I believe that.
    Does anyone know?

    I have a bad feeling this is just another way to go after guns.
    No ammo then guns are useless


    I finally found the answer and YES ammunition and shot is the 2nd most common use.
    I still don't trust this.

    Dear Interested Parties,

    The public comment period for the Draft Lead Chemical Action Plan (CAP) closed on October 6, 2008. We are carefully reading all the comments we received. We are responding to the comments and preparing the final Lead CAP.

    I would like to restate that we are not recommending any ban on any lead ammunition. Our priority is finding children with elevated blood lead levels and preventing children’s exposure to lead based paint. Our position on this will not change in the final version . We plan to work with appropriate stakeholders over the next year or so to develop solutions to the threat posed by old lead paint.

    The NRA has recently requested that we remove all references to lead ammunition from the Lead CAP. Ammunition is the second largest use of lead in the US and we cannot ignore it in the Lead CAP. A chemical action plan is supposed to be a comprehensive look at all the uses. The Lead CAP would not be complete if we ignored the second largest use of lead. There was discussion in the CAP development process about how lead ammunition might impact wildlife populations, and to strike that discussion from the public record would be misleading.

    The CAP process has worked as it should. The full range of lead uses in Washington was explored, a wide range of options was put on the table for discussion, the public was engaged in that discussion, and final decisions are being made based on that discussion, with a focus on the most pressing threats of lead exposure.


    Holly Davies, PhD

    Chemical Action Plan Developer

    SWFAP/ Industrial

    WA Department of Ecology

    PO Box 47600

    Olympia, WA 98504-7600

    Phone: 360.407.7398

    Fax: 360.407.6102

    BBQJOE Member

    Mar 13, 2007
    I would imagine car batteries come first. What about fishing weights?
  3. MikePGS

    MikePGS Member

    Aug 4, 2006
    Metro Detroit, Michigan
    Yeah car batteries are almost definitely number one. Or I would guess a lot of it is also exported, since some countries seem to still use it for paint and ceramics and what not.
  4. crushbup

    crushbup Member

    Mar 11, 2008
    I agree with the person in the letter. It would be wrong for them to immediately throw out any results regarding lead in ammunition because it would be dishonest. I do hope, however that they are not planning on banning the ammo, just looking at which method they should use how often to clean up a range.
  5. Explorer1

    Explorer1 Member

    Oct 28, 2007
    The Washington Lead CAP has some SERIOUS flaws in it, this lady has the job of defending what she wrote.

    No shooters were on the advisory committee and NO shooting industry members were contacted for data.

    There were ONLY 2 public meetings held on this CAP and they got very little advance notice to the public. I got informed one day prior to the meeting in Spokane; there were 8 public folks in attendence at the Spokane meeting - only 2 supported the CAP as written.

    The CAP assumes that 95% of firearm revenue was for ammo, claiming no hard data is available. The FACTs are READILY available in the shooting industry and the REAL number is 34%!!! Is a reason they did not ask the experts? Only they know for sure!

    This action was started a few years back by a previous Governor who was an admitted PETA member, does anyone smell a potential for a rat?

    The performance measures for the CAP are to track lead use, using a new nearly $1M dollar budget and 3 new full time employees. When the goals are not met, they admit they will go to the legislature to ask for regulations. It may not be ban today but they ARE setting the stage for a ban.

    The whole CAP is written on shady science, using lots of assumptions and old data. It is NOT a valid scientific report IMHO. P.S. I do technical reports for the nuclear and hazardous waste industries for a living, have been for 3 decades.

    The claim is made the average shooter will only incur a cost increase of $19-56 a year for the use on non-lead ammo. Ever priced enough non-lead shotgun ammo for 100 rounds of trap?

    IMHO this CAP is very seriously flawed and is VERY anti-gun. We can argue if that was the intent, but that IS the result.

    Had the State cared about shooters, they would have got one on the advisory council and used valid industry data.
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page