Thanks to Tony Treml one of my fellow bloggers from Skinny Moose Media for pinging me with this very current news article out of Rochester, Minnesota’s PostBulletin online.
You can (and should) read the whole article yourselves, but to summarize quickly it’s a column that provides an update on the recent meeting between seven midwestern states to decide what to do about lead bullet fragments and residue in hunter-killed venison (and, presumably, other game meat).
As the author states in his column:
At issue is the fact that lead bullet fragments were discovered in venison that was to be distributed by food shelves in Minnesota and North Dakota. Within days, thousands of pounds of hunter-donated venison was pulled off the shelves, including 7,000 pounds in Rochester, and a nationwide debate began about whether hunters have been poisoning themselves and their families for years by eating big-game animals that were killed by lead bullets.
Currently, the best answer to that question appears to be, “Not as far as we know.”
I’ve been following the issue of lead in venison since it came up in North Dakota a few months back and while I have to say the furor is mostly a tempest in a teacup, that doesn’t mean it’s not having a big impact. Regardless of facts or science, state and local governments are scrambling to decide how to protect the “public safety”, and anti-hunting organizations are scrambling to leverage the uproar as further propaganda against the sport… all while hunters are running in different directions, some switching immediately to non-lead ammo “just to be safe,” while others are pooh-poohing the risk as well as the reaction.
What’s the right move?
In my own opinion, I don’t believe lead ammo poses a health risk to humans… at least not the fragments and residue in game meat. I think this is something that has been blown way out of proportion by an organization with an agenda in a carefully calculated maneuver to do further damage to the public perception of hunters and our sport.
The reactions by the bureaucrats are, of course, predictable and understandable. Any threat of a health risk has to be addressed, so they react by shutting down one of the few positive public relations mechanisms available to hunters… the venison donation programs. In the case of MN, for example, the donation program is only in its first year, and is almost certainly jeopardized unless lead ammunition is removed from the field. If hunters fight a lead ban, then they appear to be unconcerned about the health of themselves, their families, or the people served by the food banks.
It’s an ugly situation, and it’s unfortunate that hunters are going to have to fight their way out from behind the eight-ball. But fight we must, and it’s not going to be pleasant.
Lead ammunition WILL be banned. The gist of the column above is not far off-base. The question is, will it be banned wholesale without regard to hunters’ concerns and needs (e.g. affordable alternatives, available options, etc.)? Or will hunters get involved deeply and actively to drive the change in a positive direction for all involved?
I’ve asked this same question several times here, because I believe this is the critical point. It doesn’t matter if the science or logic or common sense support a lead ammo ban. This issue is beyond that now. The ban is going to happen, with us or without us. I’m not trying to be pessimistic or a harbinger of doom. But the writing is pretty clearly on the wall, and it has been for several years now.
So one more question. What are you going to do? More importantly, what HAVE you done already?
Well, hell, I was going to go to the CA Fish & Game Commission meeting next week – not because the lead ban was on the agenda (it’s not), but because it was going to be held in Sacramento, and I just want to start attending when I can. But lo and behold, since the last time I checked a couple months ago, the little buggers snuck in a Sacramento meeting LAST week, and next week’s meetings are now in SoCal. If I could afford gas to SoCal, I’d have a new rifle.
Here’s what I think we need to do:
1) Be on watch for legislative and regulatory proposals as they come up. How do you do that? Become a member of hunting organizations in your state and tell them you want to be on an email list that alerts you to things like this. In California, sign up for alerts from COHA, the California Outdoor Heritage Alliance. Click here, and go to the lower lefthand corner.
2) When issues come up, do a little research on the issue, try to find out the other side’s position, and start talking: Write letters to lawmakers and policymakers; write letters to the editor; testify at hearings. Call your hunting friends and urge them to do the same.
3) If you don’t know how to get facts on a subject, email one of the many hunting bloggers who track this stuff. If you’re nervous about writing or testifying, ask a friend for feedback, and just go for it. Sincere, original comments mean more to people in charge than cut-and-paste letters and “me-too” postcards.
4) Talk, talk, talk to all the non-hunters you know about what you do and why you do it. All too often, they only hear from the antis. Don’t hide what you do – you have nothing to be ashamed of.
How’s that, Phillip?
-Holly