One of the things I keep hearing from opponents of the lead ammunition ban is that this is really just a thinly-veiled attack on gun owners and hunters. The argument is that the “antis” are using this approach to make ammo hard to get and too expensive, accelerating the departure of hunters from the sport (our numbers are already in general decline across the country).
I can’t completely write this off as paranoid hysteria, by the way. While I’ve come to understand that many of the folks behind the lead ban are well-intentioned and have no hidden agenda, it’s also plain to see that many of the organizations and individuals who have jumped on this bandwagon are blatantly using the issue to advance anti-hunting programs, chief among them the Humane Society of the US (HSUS). It’s become pretty tricky for those of us in the crosshairs to separate the real issues from the propaganda.
As partial evidence to the argument against the ban, many hunters point out that condors are known to scavenge things like lead tire weights, and this lead is as dangerous as any bullet fragment. “Why then,” they argue, “the focus on banning lead bullets, when roadside scrap is just as deadly and far more available? Shouldn’t there be a movement to ban lead tire weights?”
Well, rest easy friends. There has actually been a long-standing effort to ban lead tire weights, but the EPA has refused to pass a rule due to a lack of hard evidence. However, the effort has resurged, according to this article in the San Francisco Chronicle.
The federal government should ban the use of lead weights, those fingertip-size chunks of metal that balance the tires of cars and trucks, says a petition filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last week.
While the federal government has banned lead in paint, gasoline and plumbing, among other products, the EPA has ignored an estimated 3.5 million pounds of lead weights that drop off tire rims and onto U.S. roads every year, according to a coalition of environmental groups that filed the petition.
Once the lead weights hit the road, they can be picked up by children or eaten by wildlife. They are run over by other vehicles and broken down into dust, which can be inhaled or end up in runoff that taints water and wetlands, the groups say.
Surprisingly enough, there’s no specific mention of the condor in the article, but since this is a call for a nationwide ban, I suppose the condor doesn’t carry the burden as well.
Anyway, what’s my point in posting this?
I don’t expect this to be a groundbreaking revelation to some of us, but I do think it helps to have a little perspective. The movement to remove lead from our environment goes way beyond hunting and fishing. It’s not driven solely by those who want to take our pastimes away. There’s no secret that lead is a dangerous element, and under the proper conditions can be deadly to humans and wildlife alike.
It is not unreasonable to insist that regulations take into consideration the level of risk posed by lead, whether it’s tire weights or bullet fragments. But what is beyond reason is to continue to argue against this thing based on the allegation that “it’s nothing but a backdoor plot to take away our guns.”
The fact is that there IS a real and true effort to remove all lead from our environment. For right or wrong, it is a movement driven by the concern for human and environmental health, and has nothing whatsoever to do with banning guns or hunting. That anti-hunting/anti-gun organizations are leveraging this movement to their own ends certainly complicates the playing field, but that cannot be the sole basis of our resistance.
Instead, consider the data from this article. Three and a half million pounds of lead tire weights on the nation’s roadsides every year makes the amount of lead bullets and shot used by hunters seem a pretty paltry drop in the bucket. Yet, the EPA ruled in 2005 that there is not enough hard (scientific) evidence to ban lead tire weights. The outcome of this newest challenge may prove interesting, but important as well. It should be used as a guide for the approach toward lead ammunition.
I’m not saying to stop pushing back against the lead ammo ban. But the resistance needs to be based in logic and fact. We need to both demand and provide scientific support for the positions, and work toward a valid and equitable resolution. The reality is that lead will be, and should be, removed from most uses in the foreseeable future. Our challenge is not to stop the unstoppable, but to make the transition sensible and smooth.
Jean
Mon
anthony canales
I do see your point, Phillip, but it is hard to sift through the propaganda at times. And I do realize that lead is a definite threat – not only to us, but to the environment as well – but I hate to see the hunters being the first and foremost to be singled out.
And since we seem to be the first targets, it just makes it that much easier for organizations – like the HSUS – to jump on the bandwagon as well, and push their selfishly motivated and corrupt agenda inside a “we’re doing right for the environment” shell.
I’m an open-minded guy, and I try to look at both sides of the issue before developing an opinion. But in this case it’s hard, as a hunter and fisherman, not to feel like we’ve been singled out in some way. Especially since, as you said, the amount of lead from our activities is minimal as compared to the amount of lead that is being generated from other industries. Yet, those issues and organizations are being ignored.
The whole issue is captivating to say the least, though, and I’m going to be keeping tabs on it as time progresses.
I do find it interesting that other areas of lead concern are now being addressed, and if that is the case, then my opinion may change.