“In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a brave and scarce man, hated and scorned. When the cause succeeds, however, the timid join him… for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.” -Mark Twain

In light of all this recent notoriety, thanks to the CNN article, I was thinking I should re-state my position on lead ammo.  I know, I did this before, but who wants to go back to the archives and read old stuff?  But before I did it, I decided to go back through the archives myself… a listing of posts, articles, and commentary that goes back to the earliest days of this blog.

One of the first things I saw was that my position has been evolving as things have come along.  That wasn’t a surprise, as I know that any time I learn more about a topic, my understanding and opinion will morph.  But what did surprise me was that the change wasn’t as big as it may have been.  Probably the biggest difference is that I do think that recent studies and research have opened some interesting… even troubling… possibilities. 

But let’s begin with the basics… my manifesto, if you would.  

  1. I do not support a lead ammunition ban, nor have I ever supported such a ban. The CA ban, in particular, is unreasonable and unfair to thousands of hunters whose weapons have been rendered useless, albeit temporarily, due to the lack of lead-free ammo alternatives.
  2. I also believe that lead-free ammunition is not the only option, and that there are more ways to address specific concerns. There are lead-safe alternatives, such as bonded bullets, that leave minimal lead residue in game meat. Research has also shown that muzzleloader bullets and shotgun slugs do not spread residue through the meat in the same way that high-velocity rifle bullets do, and should be considered reasonably safe choices for meat hunters as well as for use in condor zones.
  3. I believe the switch to non-lead ammunition should be an educated, voluntary decision of each hunter. It should be based on an understanding of the impacts of lead on the ecosystem and to human health, and an informed choice to take a specific course of action.
  4. I believe that the general risks to human health are nominal, although I would really like to see some definitive research. As of yet, nothing I have seen can be interpreted to make an obvious case one way or another. I don’t think most people are at any risk, but I am concerned at some level for the developing fetus and nursing infants. The evidence I’ve seen so far is enough to convince me that, if my wife were pregnant or nursing, I would take extra precautions with the meat I provide… either by using non-lead or “lead-safe” ammo, or by feeding her only whole cuts from areas of the animal that are unlikely to be contaminated. That’s no great sacrifice, and worth every bit of effort in the name of the baby’s safety.
  5. I believe that it is plausible that lead, from ammunition, is entering the food chain and does create health issues for certain species… particularly scavenging birds. I think it is entirely realistic that condors have been impacted by lead from hunter-killed animal carcasses, although I also believe that the extent of that impact has been over-emphasized. I think the only reason lead ammunition is significant now, is because losing only a few birds out of such a small population can be nearly catastrophic. I agree with the American Ornithologists Union that the only way the condors will survive is with an ongoing program of feeding and medication, essentially turning the Southwest into a big aviary. They will never be a truly viable, wild population again, with or without lead ammunition in the environment. In short, banning lead ammo to save the condor is ineffective and puts an excessive burden on the sport hunters.
  6. I believe that as a sport hunter and a citizen of this earth, I have a responsibility to mitigate my impacts on the ecosystem at some level. I recognize and accept that hunting is recreation, and in the bigger scheme is not a necessity. Therefore, if there is a possibility that my choice of ammunition is harming creatures besides those I’m specifically targeting, then I should take some reasonable measures to avoid that harm.
  7. I believe that the tactics of denial and discrediting information sources are a failure and are counterproductive to achieving any kind of positive and constructive resolution. Any argument based on these tactics is immediately suspect, because we are, ourselves, a self-interested community. It is only through fact and data that we can reasonably counter the arguments against our sport. The fact is, the research right now is still inconclusive. That does not make the case for either side of the debate.
  8. I believe that the hunting and shooting industry and community should join forces to produce reliable, objective research to conclusively determine the health and environmental risks of lead ammunition. Until such conclusive evidence exists, the propaganda and fear-mongering on both sides of the debate should be muted. Should such research ever be conducted, and the results show that there is, in fact, a risk to the environment or human health, then the community and the industry should take constructive and appropriate steps to mitigate the risk… steps which may, or may not include replacing lead ammunition with lead-free alternatives.
  9. I also believe that the hunting and shooting industry and community should take advantage of opportunities to demonstrate a real concern for the environment, and should live up to our claims of conservationism and stewardship. We should be aware of the value and impact of public opinion and be aware that our sport is constantly being judged by the people who have the power to put it to an end. The general public’s acceptance of sport hunting has hovered around the 70% mark for several years, in large part due to the perception that hunters are good for the environment. If there is truly an anti-gun/anti-hunting agenda behind the lead ammo issue, then part of that agenda includes changing that perception. If the antis can show that hunters don’t really care about the environment (through comments such as, “I don’t care about the damned condor,” or “so what if a few vultures die”), then they can whittle away at that public support for our sport. If we want to continue telling the public that lead ammo isn’t a threat to the ecosystem, then we’d damned well better start collecting and presenting data to prove it. Failure to disprove an allegation in the public eye is tantamount to admitting its truth.
  10. I believe that, in the long run, lead ammunition will be banned across the United States.  This is not my choice, but my recognition that the organizations behind the movement will continue to work towards this goal until they achieve success.  Hunters have the options of absolute resistance, in which case the end result will likely be similar to what happened in CA (unfair and largely untenable), or we have the option of working proactively now to challenge untruths and identify and resolve real issues behind lead ammunition.  Or, of course, we can whine to one another, deny that there’s a problem, and hope it just disappears. 

I think that all of this is generally consistent with what I’ve been saying all along. 

A key point is that, while there may or may not be an anti-hunting driver behind the lead ban proponents, that’s really irrelevant.  The wheels are in motion, and what is going to matter from here on out is what we, as a community and an industry, are going to do about it.  Simply standing there screaming, “well this is just an anti-hunting plot,” isn’t going to get us a single step closer to resolving the issue.  Nobody outside of the hunting community is going to buy that. 

We need to deal in facts.  We need to work with the data that is available, and if that’s not sufficient, we need to do the work required to get more data.  And when the facts ARE all in, we need to take heed and take action.  That will be the time to either say, “See, there is no problem!” 

Or, it will be the time to accept responsibility for finding a solution to the problem… even if it means making changes that we don’t like.

Related Posts