What I, personally, think is likely is that the lead ban was initially a well-intentioned, if not altogether well-considered idea. It was dreamed up by some idealists with a core cause, saving the condor, and this was not a bad cause.

However, it caught the attention of the wrong folks, anti-hunting groups, who saw in it an opportunity to at least take a swipe at legal hunting from an unanticipated angle. Those groups supported the little idea, helped it grow, and helped to force it through.

These same organizations are going to grab a hold of this “lead in venison” threat and leverage that to push this agenda on the rest of the country, even though the science behind their argument is sketchy and hypothetical, not to mention totally misunderstood by the non-hunting public (intentionally so).

One big problem is pinning these groups (like the Peregrine Fund) down as anti-hunting, since they can trot out these hunters from their membership to challenge the accusation. It keeps the sketptics at arm’s length, because now you have to wonder if these hunters are duped by the organization, or if the organization believes its own hype.

It’s tricky road, proving those suspicions.

The problem I, and many others have regarding this ban is that it’s being imposed even though there are many calibers for which there are no non-lead alternatives. I agree, as do many, that lead ammo should eventually be phased out. But banning it while there are no choices for hunters is a dangerous precedent.