Lead Ban Chronicles – Steel Shot For Dove Discussion

Ain’t no big thing making the switch. I really should try something cheaper, but I stocked up on discontinued hevi-steel 6s and have been really happy with them. When they’re gone, I suppose I’ll buy something more normal.

Holly,

Well, it would be a fairly huge thing for me to switch as I don’t have any guns that can shoot steel shot without damaging the barrels. And I am definitely not alone in that scenario.

As the lead ban increases in scope, you’ll see fewer young hunters because it’s just not going to be worth the money to upgrade grampa’s old shotgun for junior to learn on. And it’s hard to justify using non-steel, non-toxic shells that might work in my old(er) guns, as they are simply too expensive for me too shoot much less for my son to practice (and miss, and miss, and miss) with at this time.

You know, in general, if you raise the price of something, you’ll sell fewer units of that thing. So, in particular, If you raise the price of hunting, you’ll get fewer hunters. We all know the long term effects of fewer hunters are not good.

Now, money issues aside, there is another effect of lead bans that impact the potential hunting population in ways that those already hooked on the sport might not consider. Folks who support the banning of lead shot are helping to stigmatize hunting as being bad for the environment even though there is very little science behind the idea (of which I am aware). I haven’t seen any credible studies that support the necessity for banning lead in hunting. It seems to be a manufactured issue that has the insidious effect of labeling hunters. Lead bans help to drive home to non-hunters the image of hunters as a group of folks who damage the environment, which is yet another way to stigmatize our community. You yourself have blogged about the effects of such a similarly widespread stereotype in your post about “meat hunting” versus “sport hunting”.

Every stigmatization raises the barrier to entry, thus reducing the number of young hunters (after all, who wants to join the club of folks who hate the environment).

Phillip,
As we finally get to the underlying data on the claims that certain scavengers are adversely impacted by lead shot and lead fragments, I believe that the claims will be debunked.

If it were lead ammunition as claimed by the “enviros”, the mandatory ban under AB 821 would have had an impact.

It clearly has not.

Tony

Tony, I think the target is moving when it comes to proving the impact of lead on scavengers. Based on current public perceptions, it’s going to require that you:
A.) Prove that lead bullet fragments and shot do not poison ANY scavenger birds
B.) Prove incontrovertibly that lead bullet fragments and shot do not pose a health threat to humans

Demonstrating that the condor people manipulated data or presented partial findings is all good and well, but the anti-lead contingent has gained a lot of ground already. In the public eye, this is way beyond the condors and bald eagles. Even proving misprision among the researchers, that’s not going to answer the questions the public is asking now.

As far as the ineffectiveness of AB821, as a Devil’s advocate, I’d suggest that it’s been ineffective because of poachers, and because lead ammo is still legally in use for upland and small game hunting, as well as target shooters and plinkers. The truth is that there’s still a lot of lead ammo in the “Condor Zone.”

Josh,

First paragraph, dead on.

Second paragraph..

I believe that’s partially true, but not completely. I don’t believe that any company in the ammunition industry is prepared or likely to manufacture lead-free ammo offerings for every caliber in their current catalogs… much less for the crazy array of stuff that’s already semi-obsolete. In the event of a widespread lead ammo ban, a lot of hunters will simply be SOL. That’s one of the main reasons I oppose the idea, besides the fact that I just don’t believe the science justifies it.

There’s also legitimate concern about how long it will take to provide valid, economical, lead-free options for even the most common chamberings. If you speak to the manufacturers, there’s no question that there’s a crapload of pressure from the market to provide lead-free ammo. The majority of states now have areas where lead ammo use is restricted or prohibited, and those areas are growing. Hunters are starting to pay closer attention to the issue (and unfortunately are buying into some bad info), and they’re voluntarily switching… and when they switch, they want something that will perform as well as whatever lead load they were using. That’s no mean feat, because there’s no such thing as a one-size-fits-all cartridge. It’s going to mean more bullet sizes and shapes, which becomes a larger challenge given the ballistic properties of non-lead bullet materials.

But…

Winchester’s PowerCore is set to retail at about the same price as the standard, white-box Winchester ammo… so steps are being taken. I don’t think they’re intentionally relegating lead-free to a “niche” item at all. The truth, at least as I see it, is that the lead-free ammo is selling for the same price as the “premium” loads because it IS a premium load… from the bullet design to the powder charge. If Winchester is successful with the PowerCore ammo (my experience with some of the prototype ammo hasn’t been good so far), that will probably indicate the start of a new trend of “economy” loads. But it’s not going to happen overnight.

I think I’ve been pretty consistent in saying that I believe an ongoing shift away from lead bullets is probably a good thing and probably going to happen regardless of challenges to the science or the justifications. I do think that most of the obstacles to creating lead-free options will be overcome as time goes by and demand increases. I also think it’s less likely that lead-free bullet prices will go down so much as that lead bullet prices will continue to rise.

Tony,

The first thing is that you don’t have to prove anything to me. While I’m sure there’s more that I can learn, I think I’m a pretty well educated layman on this issue. The bottom line is that I am on the same side of this thing as you are. But I’m not the one setting “standards”.

Everyone is waiting for this evidence, Tony, but the argument is going on without you. The Center For Biological Diversity and others aren’t waiting for facts, and they’re happily spreading misinformation around the country… and finding many willing ears to absorb it. I’m not sure how well steeped you are in the concepts of information theory, and I’m no expert myself, but I can tell you that “Truth” becomes pretty much irrelevant if an untruth is well propagated. All it needs is the trappings of truth, and the anti-lead argument has that in spades.

But this is where you and I have differed before, Tony.

The American public isn’t particularly interested in deep science, and as long as there’s a plausible correlation between lead ammo and the deaths of even a few scavenger birds… especially if those birds include notable raptors like the bald eagle… that’s all the evidence they need to make up their minds. And I’ll be dead honest about it… right now, from what I’ve read and been told, the evidence is pretty danged compelling to suggest that bullet fragments are killing some birds. I don’t think it’s a significant problem, and I certainly don’t think it justifies prohibitions on ammo, but I do think it’s worthy of awareness.

As far as the health risk to humans, all that needs is a suggestion, and that’s exactly what the lead ban proponents have offered. If it were just about facts, the CDC research in North Dakota would have silenced that argument. But, for whatever reason, it’s pretty obvious that the general public isn’t getting the message. They are, as a group, motivated by emotion over facts. That’s a key principle in the advertising and PR industries.

All of this means that, as long as state and federal wildlife management and legislation are politically driven, the will of the public carries as much weight as any scientific evidence. Over time, it is that public will that is going to drive legislation, regardless of the science.

And this actually leads me to amend my previous contention… not only are you going to have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that lead bullet fragments and shot do not kill ANY scavenger species, you’re going to have to mount a powerful and credible public relations campaign to get that message out to the public.

No, the CBD is definitely not invincible, as we saw when the EPA slammed the door in their face. The resultant lawsuit is doomed to failure as well. Nevertheless,they’ve built up a real strong head of steam witht he public on this one, and honestly, I don’t think enough is being done to counter it in the public eye.

While I think it is critical to educate hunters and gun-owners about the facts of the issue, it is equally critical to get that message outside of our own community. I’m just not seeing that happen.