Lead Ban Chronicles - A Voice of Reason?

Home > Lead Ban Chronicles – A Voice of Reason?

So I’m scanning through my RSS feeds today and managed to catch this column by Green Bay Press Gazette outdoors writer, Pat Durkin.

I enjoyed the even tone of his piece, and liked the way he dispensed with the “lead-in-venison” scare. Then I continued to read, and saw that this guy isn’t just pooh-poohing the entire lead issue. Quite the opposite, he’s taking it seriously, and suggesting that all hunters do the same… particularly as pertains to the impact of lead ammo on scavengers such as eagles, buzzards, and crows.

Given our historic commitment to scientific wildlife management, hunters shouldn’t defensively dismiss such programs [AZ's program to provide free, non-lead ammo to hunters in the condor zones]. Whether we think lead poisoning of avian scavengers is overblown — or minimized — we could sponsor more research ourselves. We could even expand the research into mammalian scavengers from weasels to wolves.

It seems reasonable to determine lead poisoning’s extent before playing victim or savior. We might not like the results of research aided by the Peregrine Fund or Audubon Society, but those studies — and others by state wildlife agencies — provide a starting line.

He goes on to explain that there is growing evidence that indicates lead ammunition residue is a threat, using recent research on eagles in Wisconsin as an example.

In Wisconsin, for example, lead poisoning is cited as the cause of death for 15 percent of bald eagles examined by the Department of Natural Resources since 1994. Even though lead shot was banned for waterfowl hunting in 1987, lead poisoning in eagles hasn’t declined.

Perhaps more damning is lead poisoning in Wisconsin’s eagles consistently increases from October through December, which coincides with our hunting seasons. The most logical source is gut piles from deer, and the remains of birds and other small game.

So maybe lead is a threat, and maybe not. Durkin says we should investigate further. Do you agree or not? What do you think about his column?

Arthur

Posted July 31, 2008 at 4:03 AM

I did like the even tone of the article, and I do think that we need to be pro-active and look into the things, that we as hunters, can do to help promote and protect wildlife, but I am so torn on this issue.

I do realize that lead poisoning is happening to these animals, but there are just so many different sources that this lead could be coming from, and I think that hunters are getting a bad rap because of it.

Lead has been used for many, many, years, and I just can’t understand why, all of a sudden now, it is becoming such an issue, and that hunters are ALL to blame.

I did like the even tone though, and the fact that he was weighing both sides of the issue.

Josh

Posted July 31, 2008 at 7:26 AM

It was a solid article, with an idea we should all get behind. In the meantime, how about practicing the precautionary principle? Maybe this applies more to people who are feeding small children with the game they get, because if there is ANY chance I may be actively hurting my child with the food I am providing, I stop. Also, consider the litigation to come out should there be a definitive conclusion that lead is a harm, and then it appears that ammo. manufacturers were dragging their feet. Consider cigarettes.

At the very least, pressure ammunition manufacturers to offer more and more reasonably priced alternatives. I still think that as long as they think they have a fingernail-hold on lead, they will go kicking and screaming into non-lead options, and it’s hunters (as consumers) who will feel the pinch.

Phillip Loughlin

Posted July 31, 2008 at 8:26 AM

Absolutely, Josh! This is basically what I’ve been saying for a while. Maybe there’s no risk, maybe there is… doesn’t it deserve some consideration, in light of the potential risks?

I don’t think I’d stop serving or eating wild game harvested with lead ammo (I’ve been using non-lead or “lead-safe” rifle ammo for about a year now), but I am paying attention as folks start to do some real research into the issue.

What would be a great service, both from a practical and a public relations perspective, would be for the hunting community, organizations (like RMEF, MDF, NSSF, NRA, etc.) and ammo manufacturers to pitch in on funding some of the research… and to do so publicly and loudly.

Arthur, there’s no need to be “torn” on the issue. Let’s get behind fact-finding. Once the truth is out there, we can act on it appropiately. That is what what will show that hunters ARE concerned about the environmnent and the wildlife in it. Let’s prove, once and for all, the correlation between lead ammunition and lead toxicity in wildlife populations. If it is hunters, we can take appropriate action. If not, then our name is cleared. It’s a winning proposition all around.

What we need to avoid are PR meltdowns like the lead-in-venison scare and the appearance that we’re (hunters) simply in denial of the possibility that our ammunition is at fault. If there’s a problem, let’s find it and fix it. If not, let’s prove it and move on.

Posted August 1, 2008 at 6:27 AM

I’m with ya. Let’s consider an organization with real clout and respect. My suggestion is the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

Lead Ban Chronicles – A Voice of Reason?

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Phillip Loughlin

Blogroll

Fish and Game Contacts

General

Outdoor Industry and Media

Outdoor News

Outfitters I've Used

Web Forums

Archives
Categories