Lead Ban Chronicles – A Question To You All

Well, I’ve said it before, but might as well lay it out here too: I think that term is a big mistake, because the non-hunter will view that about like any of us would view “traditional paint,” “traditional gasoline” or “traditional water pipes.” It’s a lame attempt to make it appear that our traditions are being victimized, and absolutely no non-hunter will be swayed by it.

Though I’ve decided to hunt only with non-lead, there are plenty of reasons that we shouldn’t pass laws requiring that of all hunters. Our time would be better spent enumerating those reasons than playing the victim with a goofy re-branding campaign for lead ammo.

Affectionately,
The Choir

I haven’t seen the NRA use the term in the context that the NSSF does; any cites?

Regardless, the NSSF is probably trying to capture the language used in the debate to avoid the problems we’ve all had since Josh Sugarmann purposefully obfuscated the difference between common semi-automatic rifles and fully-automatic machine guns via the term “assault weapon.” Lots of folks are still confused and think that “assault weapons” are fully-automatic, when in fact machine guns extremely rare and highly regulated. Control the language and you control the debate.

Can’t say as I agree with any of the posts so far.

This term softening is an everyday tactic that is used in almost all facets. The Obama Administration is big in using kindler gentler terms for terrorists and their tactics. Normally I would say it is a crock, call something what it is.

A short story on living in the San Francisco Bay area for decades. We were blessed with getting our drinking water from the Hetch-Hetchy water system that collects the rain that is it’s source in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. I have gloated about this pure drinking water to many friends who live in the east and south bay.

Recently, scientists have found that the Crystal Springs lake has crazy high levels of Mercury, probably from air pollution that travels in the atmosphere from China.

My point here is, call it like it is. It is lead and it has potential to contaminate and harm animals and people. We need to find non toxic alternatives, just like we need to find cleaner
burning and more fuel efficient vehicles. If we want the future generations to enjoy the outdoors and what it has to offer, we shouldn’t be poisoning it.

Since lead has been the projectile of choice used in firearms for a couple of centuries now, I have no problem with the NSSF or the NRA calling it “traditional ammunition”. We all know what the subject matter is about, lead in our traditional ammunition. I think its a waste of time getting your shorts tied up in a knot worry about nomenclature when we should be spending out efforts either fighting for or against the proposed changes (depending upon your views on the subject).

Just another way of being PC. I have my doubts about the lead ban in general. But if you want to call it traditional ammo, which it could be considered seeing as its been use forever, it still a debatable regulation. What you call it is not a big deal in my books.

Here in NH, anglers had very little problem with a change over to non-lead sinkers (>1 oz.) when the data showed a direct correlation with lead poisoned loons.

The evidence/data is more important than the terms either side uses.

As for the term “traditional ammunition” I think it’s accurate for the same reasons previously mentioned.

Lead, copper coated lead with an exposed base or nose and fully copper coated lead core is what has been used for an awfully long time – hence it can legitimately be called traditional. Do I think the term is being used by NSSF/NRA to capture some emotion from it’s supporters? Yes. But I don’t think it will really matter in the real debate, nor will it cause them to lose people on the fence.

As I said, what counts is the science around whether the use of these types of bullets are causing an avoidable level of indirect mortality in wildlife equal to, or greater than the cost of the change to be made.

After all, most of our human activities cause avoidable wildlife mortality. Deciding those which we can/will change is based on economic impact, quality of life, and so on.

Honestly, Phillip, I think using the phrase “traditional ammunition” is just a smokescreen. I view it the same way that I would view PETA calling fish “sea kittens”, or someone referring to my 15 shot .40 cal. as an “assault weapon”.

It’s a play on words – plain and simple – and it doesn’t address the issue at hand whatsoever.

Dear Phillip,
I understand your position, though I hope you pursue all others using “euphemisms” with the same zeal as you are with this particular ammunition issue.

The effluent issue begs a re-definition of the term “wetlands”, for example. What ever happened to such old terms as “fever swamp” or “bog”, in lieu of “wetlands”?

In Condor-land, “microtrash” means the ingested detritus condors pick up on a very frequent basis. Yet Dr. Mee found in his study that the average size of the pieces of broken glass, metal fragments, wireforms, and other “chunks o’ stuff” were around 2 cm (hardly micro). Why not just say trash, metal junk, or broken glass, where and when applicable?

In one way you are asking a particular side of the current debate to “fight with one hand tied behind it’s back”. It’s already clear that various environmentalists, anti-hunting, and anti-gun organizations are more than willing to use whatever euphemism it takes to win. If pro-hunting and pro-gun organizations are not allowed to shape the language to their best use, without losing accuracy of course, then it’s the equivalent of forcing one side to fight under the rules of the Marquis of Queensbury, while the other side gets to use “Cage rules” and using a packed glove.

That’s hardly sporting, and it’s simply not going to happen. Like in the film “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid”, there are no rules in a knife fight in this situation. I don’t expect the environmentalists (radical or otherwise) to follow some “gentleman’s code”, because so far they have not. Same goes for certain agencies, and certain members of those agencies.

It is not pretty, but that seems to be the way things roll these days. Everything else appears to be illusion.

Respectfully ,

Anthony Canales

Well, Anthony, as I see it, that pretty much sums up your biggest problem in this debate: You don’t recognize that perceptions matter.

As the number of hunters declines, our rights are on very shaky ground. Any negative perceptions of hunters – including the perception that we think people are stupid enough to be fooled by the word “traditional” – contribute to lawmakers’ inclination to marginalize us, and voters’ inclination to believe the HSUS when it sponsors initiatives to curb yet another facet of hunting.

All you see, Anthony, is the science in this debate. I don’t disagree that the science in this debate is vitally important. But this debate is playing out in a larger arena, and what we do and say in this debate will either be used against us or inure to our benefit in the future. Your lack of awareness or concern for that fact is perilous.

Dear Norcal Cazadora and Phillip,

Sorry for the delay, I have been out and about doing research…

To Norcal Cazadora-
I believe that the science issue is the core of the debate. Like with anthropogenic causes of global warming, where improbable data from poorly sited, maintained, or operated measurement systems is now under a cloud, the science proclaimed to be definitively showing the culprit to be lead ammunition in hunting is actually called into question by similar critical analytical methods.

Once the science is shown to be flawed, the public at large realizes that the credibility of those who manipulated the data first is lacking. At that point, public opinion shifts away from giving that first sent of proponents any legitimacy.

In other words, if the case regarding isotopic compositional analysis was so “slam dunk”, as the proponents claim, why did they delete contradictory data in the first place? If the total case was overwhelming, why do state agencies, and perhaps even Federal ones in the future, have to be sued to release their raw data? What have they got to hide? To me, the answer is obvious- the data is not as definitive as they claim, and evidence exists that it is not definitive at all. If it was so complete, and “settled”, they would release the raw data and let the chips fly where they may.

To Phillip,
As I have said before, I am perfectly happy to call lead ammunition as it is, not by the “traditional” moniker. That call was not up to me. If it were up to me, and not the actual manufacturer or manufacturer’s rep of the ammunition brands, I would stick with the term “lead ammunition” as it is.

But that’s also why disputing the “nontoxicity” of ammunition projectiles made of tungsten, copper, bismuth, and yes, even steel is also a matter of precision. All of these projectile materials will run afoul of one regulation or another, until nothing is ultimately left to shoot with. That, I believe, is something we can both agree upon potentially here as the ultimate threat.

Thus the reason to respond in your column is that you are active in the debate among hunters and shooters. I likewise post to CA Audubon’s “Audublog”, but there the debate is no- where as “rich” in content and thought.

Perhaps I thus respond because you post your arguments so thoroughly, in a way that invites spirited discussion. That’s rare these days.

Obviously that means we will still disagree. But I would like to think that I respect your arguments and the way they are proposed. And I hope that I post some of our arguments to likewise get some kind respect, at least towards the ultimate results that so far has been had from them.

Our goal is, of course, to defeat the threats to hunting and shooting based upon what is considered to be bad science. For that, given the way the Media propagates stereotypes towards hunting and shooting these days, that requires a single-minded focus rather than a concessionary one. Sorry about that, but that’s the way things seem to be.

Respectfully,

Anthony Canales

People please wake up and understand that everything that these people and the EPA do is a lie.Look what they have done with lead abatement from homes and how that is going to affect people and that is a huge lie because if it were true every person in the world should have lead poisoning and they do not.Show me these millions of birds that are dying because they should be laying everywhere.The real goal of this ban is for expensive regulation and a reason to charge people a great deal of money for ammo. And also keep in mind that every shooting range will become a toxic clean up site if these nuts get there way.Who do you think is going to pay for this and be put out of business because that is the goal.