If switching from lead ammo to non-lead were as simple as picking a different cereal, there’d be a lot less resistance to it. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple for many hunters.

The first, and largest impediment is the fact that lead-free ammo simply isn’t that widely available. There are several options for the standard calibers, (.30-06, .270, etc.), but even for these, availability is a challenge. The manufacturers are having a difficult time meeting demand, and many stores simply don’t stock it. For the less common calibers, none of the manufacturers provides any lead-free options at all. For these hunters, the only option is to handload or to buy a new gun. That’s a little too much to ask, especially when the facts are that lead ammo really isn’t causing a problem for other wildlife.

Populations of raptors and scavengers are still on the rise and thriving. Coyotes, for example, have spread from one end of the country to the other. Bald Eagles have raced back from the brink of extinction to healthy populations. The use of lead ammo is not decimating them or driving them toward extinction by any stretch of the imagination.

Sure, unintentional take (bycatch)isn’t optimal, and we should all be taking measures to minimize it if we can. However, the basic truth is that people will only voluntarily inconvenience themselves if the trade-off provides value. For a hunter to switch to a bullet that may cost three to five times as much as the ammunition he used before, he needs to see a good reason for it. The incidental death of an occasional raven or eagle isn’t enough.

To put it in a different light, think of the switch to unleaded gasoline. People resisted it because it was significantly more expensive, but the amount of lead that was showing up in everything from drinking water to the air we breathe was a significant health hazard to every living thing. At that point, it made sense to legislate a switch and that’s what happened.

Nevertheless, we know that unleaded fuel is still causing air and water pollution, not to mention the dependence on a finite supply of oil and the associated problems there. We know that everytime we drive, we add to that pollution. Some people make voluntary efforts to reduce that impact by driving less, switching to hybrid vehicles, bicycling, or taking mass transit. But everyone can’t easily make those choices, for many valid reasons.

With lead ammo, there’s no such widespread environmental havoc. There is no evidence whatsoever that there is a health risk to humans. With the possible exception of the condor (which is already at risk), there’s no link between lead ammo and population declines in raptor or scavenger populations. And there’s no indication that lead ammunition is causing any sort of widespread environmental pollution (groundwater, air, etc.). Many hunters are voluntarily switching to lead-free ammo anyway, and others are taking steps to reduce their impact by doing things like removing carcasses from the field or burying them to keep them away from scavengers. But there are valid reasons why many hunters don’t, or can’t make those changes.

The point is, folks like you need to educate yourselves a little more on the big picture here… especially before you go to criticize anyone else for being “selfish”. There’s a bigger world out there than your comfy nook, and very few simple answers to the complex questions.

That says it all, Phillip. But this is politics, and this is an election year. Lawmakers introduce bills with that in mind far more than science or reason.

It’s frustrating. And it’s so true that the truth is there, it’s just buried under emotion, agenda, and politics.