It seems like it’s been a while since I last posted about the lead ammo ban. I think the last significant post was back at the beginning of October, when I wrote about the failure of the Center for Biological Diversity to get traction in their suits against the EPA and the BLM.  For those who haven’t been keeping up, the suit against the EPA was to force the agency to ban all lead bullet components, despite the fact that the EPA is specifically prohibited from doing so.  The suit against the BLM was intended to force the BLM to institute lead ammo bans in lands they manage in Arizona.

So have things calmed down in regards to lead ammunition? Did the CBD run off, tucking its collective tail between its legs?

Hardly.  The campaign against lead ammo is definitely ongoing, although right now it is primarily a propaganda effort.  It’s a subtle program of misinformation, largely designed to turn the opinions of those who are ignorant about guns and hunting through myth and misinformation.  The results are turning up in the editorial pages of newspapers across the country, like this one from Cleveland.  (I posted a rebuttal to this in the comments, by the way, and after appearing that evening it disappeared by morning.  Technical glitch?  I’m not sure.)

The campaign centers on a few key points, all of which seem logical to readers who don’t know any better.   First of all, there’s the repeated myth that lead-free ammo is widely available.  The truth is that SOME lead free ammo is available, particularly shotshells.  Even for common calibers, supply is still very limited (as evidenced by a quick look at store shelves and online back-orders).  The truth is that lead-free options are very limited, particularly for hunters who don’t shoot the top three calibers (6mm, 7mm, .30).

Because most people don’t understand the difference between shot and bullets, they’re also easily misled because of the apparent availability of lead-free shotshells.  To their reasoning, if you can make steel shot, you can make steel bullets.  Right?  And technically, you could.  But because these bullets would be armor-piercing, they’d be prohibited by federal law.  Even if they were legal, though, they’d be awful for hunting and result in many wounded and lost animals due the total lack of expansion.

Because lead has certain unique properties, and because gun making technology has evolved around the use of lead bullets for centuries, the idea that it’s a simple switch to other metals is badly flawed.  The explanations get pretty technical, and I won’t try to make them here.  If you’re really interested, ask in the comments and I can try to direct you to some of the relevant information.

Another perpetuated myth is in the implication that lead bullets and shot are wiping out non-target birds and animals.  I can’t argue that some raptors and scavenger birds aren’t dying from ingesting lead, but the simple truth is that these deaths are statistically insignificant.  The populations are doing just fine.  That sounds cold-hearted to some people, but if we’re talking about laws to ban behaviors we need to focus on cold fact, not emotion.

Of course I don’t want to be the one whose bullet fragments poisoned an eagle, but the truth is that I’m not hurting the eagle population if that happens.  The bigger truth is that I, as an educated hunter, can weigh the facts against my personal ethics, and then make the decision to switch to lead-free (if there’s a lead-free option for my hunting gun) or not.

And finally, there’s the ongoing suggestion that eating game killed with lead ammo is harmful to humans.  While I would never judge anyone for erring on the side of caution, the evidence to the contrary is pretty compelling.  There’s just no indication that lead ammo in game presents any serious toxicity danger.  With some basic precautions, that nominal risk can be reduced even further.  But if you seriously feel like the risk is more than you want to accept, then make the choice to switch to lead-free ammo.

Catch the recurrent theme here?

The switch to lead-free ammo should be an individual, educated decision and based on the facts that are available.  The alternatives are not “widely available”, but some options are available if you’re willing to do what it takes to switch.  In many cases, it’s going to cost a lot more than what you were shooting.  For some hunters, it will involve replacing your hunting rifle or handgun.  But if you believe it’s the right thing to do and you can afford it, then the cost should be a minor consideration.

But for a lot of hunters the benefits of switching do not justify the costs.  Based on what we know right now about the impacts of lead ammo on wildlife and the environment, I don’t think that’s a bad thing.  I mean, think about it.  How many unnecessary things do we do in our daily lives that have negative impacts on the environment?  How many modern conveniences do we use every day that take a deadly toll on wildlife?  Not just hunters, but all of us…

I’m not saying, “it’s OK because everyone else does it.”  It’s just that there needs to be some perspective here.    I’d really love to see some of that perspective showing up on these editorial pages in response to the faulty claims and ignorant arguments.  At the very least, I’d like to see more calls for individual choice and action, like this one from the Minneapolis Star Tribune.  Hunters, if this issue is important to you (and it should be), you’ve got to speak up and challenge the misinformation with facts.  It doesn’t require a lot of effort or time.

It really is up to you.

Related Posts