Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
Wed Mar 20, 2013, 04:59 PM Mar 2013

Zeroing In on Lead in Hunters’ Bullets

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/zeroing-in-on-lead-in-hunters-bullets/

Citing risks to birds and to human health, roughly 100 environmental groups formally asked the federal Environmental Protection Agency this week to ban or at least impose limits on lead in the manufacturing of bullets and shotgun pellets for hunting or recreation.

The use of such ammo by hunters puts about 3,000 tons of lead into the environment annually and causes the death of 20 million birds each year from lead poisoning, said Jeff Miller, a conservation advocate at one of the groups, the Center for Biological Diversity. Consumption of meat from animals that are shot with lead bullets also contributes unacceptable levels of the metal into people’s diets, Mr. Miller said in a phone interview.

...

One of the species most at risk from lead is the endangered California condor, a scavenger that may ingest lead while eating the remains of animals shot with lead bullets, federal and state wildlife and park officials say. The lead pellets within shotgun shells also closely resemble “grit,” pebbles consumed by many species of birds that are necessary for digestion.

Widespread accidental ingestion of these pellets by waterfowl led to a 1991 federal ban on the use of lead in ammunition used to hunt water birds.

“The use of lead bullets and shot causes the unintended poisoning of all kinds of birds,” Mr. Miller said. “Since there are good alternatives that are coming down in price, there’s no reason not to switch to nontoxic gear.”

...

But Mr. Prieto and the other petitioners point out that lead has been removed from many products because of health concerns. “We’ve taken lead out of gasoline, plumbing and toys,” he said. “There’s no reason to keep using it in ammunition.”
52 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Zeroing In on Lead in Hunters’ Bullets (Original Post) CreekDog Mar 2013 OP
I agree, how many youtube videos do you see of some random knucklehead Arctic Dave Mar 2013 #1
gun lovers are really causing a lot of problems everywhere it seems samsingh Mar 2013 #2
Any suggestion on what to use for non-shotguns, that isn't copper-jacketed lead? AtheistCrusader Mar 2013 #3
This message was self-deleted by its author Paul E Ester Mar 2013 #52
I posted on this on the other thread, and will answer more here and there: freshwest Mar 2013 #4
Hunting waterfowl with lead shot is already illegal. N/T bobclark86 Mar 2013 #18
really? what US laws apply in Canada? CreekDog Mar 2013 #32
Title says Washington... bobclark86 Mar 2013 #34
It says British Columbia too. CreekDog Mar 2013 #35
Anyone know what the ballistic differences are ManiacJoe Mar 2013 #5
Lead shotgun shot shedevil69taz Mar 2013 #7
are you saying that's the only use of lead shot? CreekDog Mar 2013 #8
nope shedevil69taz Mar 2013 #14
can you cite the regulation that bans it as you say, so that everyone can look at the regulation? CreekDog Mar 2013 #15
you cant fire up google? shedevil69taz Mar 2013 #16
wait, you're talking about a regulation and you don't know what it's called or how to find it? CreekDog Mar 2013 #17
no I haven't read it word for word shedevil69taz Mar 2013 #20
you can't quote the regulation, but you trust a right wing source that is against the minimum wage? CreekDog Mar 2013 #21
holy crap shedevil69taz Mar 2013 #22
an improvement from the right wing link you just posted a moment ago CreekDog Mar 2013 #23
I was just about to post that one for you. n/t Wait Wut Mar 2013 #25
what is the title and author/agency of the regulation you're referring to? CreekDog Mar 2013 #19
The law is federal, so from Congress. AtheistCrusader Mar 2013 #26
You make good points, though a regulation is from a gov't agency, not congress CreekDog Mar 2013 #27
I think you are right. AtheistCrusader Mar 2013 #28
You did it! HA! You found the reg. CreekDog Mar 2013 #29
That was WAY too hard to discover. AtheistCrusader Mar 2013 #30
yeah for such a big rule it's damned hard to find CreekDog Mar 2013 #31
Not true. AtheistCrusader Mar 2013 #24
thank you for coming back to post here that there's no need to do anything else about lead shot CreekDog Mar 2013 #33
How much of the 3000 tons is recovered? Remmah2 Mar 2013 #6
apparently not enough is recovered or there wouldn't be the pollution problems would there? CreekDog Mar 2013 #9
Cigarettes, used condums, plastic, oil, balloons, fishing line, empty beer cans. Remmah2 Mar 2013 #10
^^^^ ellisonz Mar 2013 #11
thank you. your work is really critical here. CreekDog Mar 2013 #13
right, so since litter on the beaches is illegal, sounds like you're saying this should also be CreekDog Mar 2013 #12
none of these things are legal to littler the environment with CreekDog Mar 2013 #51
I didn't realize that lead from hunting was such a problem. premium Mar 2013 #36
there are plenty of solutions, just more opposition to actually doing the solutions CreekDog Mar 2013 #37
one has to wonder markeybrown Mar 2013 #38
Birds dying from poisoning or from toxic chemicals is a good thing then? CreekDog Mar 2013 #39
I never said such a thing markeybrown Mar 2013 #40
since when has "nature adapted" to 20 million less birds? CreekDog Mar 2013 #41
A significant portion of ammunition is designed for self-defense rather than hunting Peter cotton Mar 2013 #42
If it has polluted the environment and has the potential to pollute again, it needs to be regulated CreekDog Mar 2013 #43
Sure such bullets have polluted the environment....but so has the lead in #2 pencils. Peter cotton Mar 2013 #45
hey, #2 pencils aren't lead, they are graphite, stop posting BS to downplay environmental problems CreekDog Mar 2013 #48
OMG: you aren't helping your cause with this. #2 pencils (or any pencils) have never contained lead hlthe2b Mar 2013 #49
the thing to know about NRA and pro-gun propaganda is they'll use a lie if it works for them CreekDog Mar 2013 #50
by the way, you need to leave the group if you are going to post here to discourage gun control CreekDog Mar 2013 #44
How are my posts in this group discouraging gun control? Peter cotton Mar 2013 #46
telling us that an article about lead pollution from bullets is not something to control CreekDog Mar 2013 #47
 

Arctic Dave

(13,812 posts)
1. I agree, how many youtube videos do you see of some random knucklehead
Wed Mar 20, 2013, 05:22 PM
Mar 2013

shooting hundreds of rounds of ammunition into the ground or water?

Basically they are creating small waste sites all over the country.

samsingh

(17,622 posts)
2. gun lovers are really causing a lot of problems everywhere it seems
Wed Mar 20, 2013, 05:57 PM
Mar 2013

including this shit they leave in their wakes

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
3. Any suggestion on what to use for non-shotguns, that isn't copper-jacketed lead?
Wed Mar 20, 2013, 07:10 PM
Mar 2013

Efforts to switch to copper-only were derailed at one point as being suspected of being capable of penetrating Law Enforcement bullet-resistant vests. There's an exemption for some copper pistol rounds now. (talons)

What is the 'good alternative' that doesn't run afoul of other laws, like penetration laws intended to protect police?

Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #3)

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
4. I posted on this on the other thread, and will answer more here and there:
Wed Mar 20, 2013, 08:10 PM
Mar 2013
SWANS DYING OF LEAD POISONING IN WASHINGTON STATE AND BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1262516#post74

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
35. It says British Columbia too.
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 10:16 AM
Mar 2013

tell me what the ban includes or doesn't include.

and which countries described in the article that it includes and doesn't include.

ManiacJoe

(10,136 posts)
5. Anyone know what the ballistic differences are
Wed Mar 20, 2013, 09:24 PM
Mar 2013

between lead and steel shot? Or what the other reasons are why the industry has not switched away from lead shot?

shedevil69taz

(512 posts)
14. nope
Thu Mar 21, 2013, 01:28 PM
Mar 2013

simply wanted to inform that the BIGGEST use of shot across the country already bans the use of lead.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
15. can you cite the regulation that bans it as you say, so that everyone can look at the regulation?
Thu Mar 21, 2013, 01:32 PM
Mar 2013

thanks.

shedevil69taz

(512 posts)
16. you cant fire up google?
Thu Mar 21, 2013, 01:39 PM
Mar 2013

that's all I am going to do I don't know the regulation off the top of my head.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
17. wait, you're talking about a regulation and you don't know what it's called or how to find it?
Thu Mar 21, 2013, 01:41 PM
Mar 2013

yet you know what's included in it and what it excludes?

have you read it?

shedevil69taz

(512 posts)
20. no I haven't read it word for word
Thu Mar 21, 2013, 01:52 PM
Mar 2013

It was enacted in 1991 by the US fish and wildlife services while googling "regulation banning lead shot" all of the first four articles referenced the 1991 ban.

Including this one:

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba768 that mentions the very first thing....took me all of three seconds

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
21. you can't quote the regulation, but you trust a right wing source that is against the minimum wage?
Thu Mar 21, 2013, 02:09 PM
Mar 2013

and you haven't read the regulation you are going on about?

what kind of game are you playing with me?

shedevil69taz

(512 posts)
22. holy crap
Thu Mar 21, 2013, 02:28 PM
Mar 2013

how bout an article from the website of the Fish and Wildlife services itself?

http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/DisplayNews.cfm?NewsID=4DAA500C-3E21-4564-87AA714E9E301C9E

"Efforts to phase out lead shot began in the 1970s, but a nationwide ban on lead shot for all waterfowl hunting was not implemented until 1991"

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
23. an improvement from the right wing link you just posted a moment ago
Thu Mar 21, 2013, 02:43 PM
Mar 2013

but still you can't quote the regulation you keep referring to. you don't even know what's in it.

as other posters have pointed out, there are loopholes in a regulation that is already fairly limited in scope to begin with.

and nevermind that this pollution problem is not limited to the effects from waterfowl hunting. there is use in so many other ways.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
19. what is the title and author/agency of the regulation you're referring to?
Thu Mar 21, 2013, 01:47 PM
Mar 2013

surely you can at least answer that.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
26. The law is federal, so from Congress.
Thu Mar 21, 2013, 03:15 PM
Mar 2013

I looked, I cannot find the 'effing thing anywhere, only references to it, most of which are broken links. Might have to read the congressional register for the period of 91-92 to actually find the stinking thing. It has to be somewhere in Title 50, Part 20, buried in there somewhere.

That said, your suspicion was correct, it bans a lot less than that poster suggested. It bans it's use for WATERFOWL only, or upland birds where waterfowl are also present. It does not ban it for all birds, and there are a lot of uses besides that introduce it to the environment.

Eliminating it for all purposes, even target loads, seems a sensible step.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
27. You make good points, though a regulation is from a gov't agency, not congress
Thu Mar 21, 2013, 03:18 PM
Mar 2013

from congress, it is a law.

congress makes laws, the government creates regulations to implement those laws.

but your points are very well taken, i would just recommend the Federal Register for a regulation.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
28. I think you are right.
Thu Mar 21, 2013, 03:22 PM
Mar 2013

It is apparently a regulation, not a law. http://www.fws.gov/le/waterfowl-hunting-and-baiting.html

"Overview of Other Regulations"...
"Illegal hunting methods. You cannot hunt waterfowl:"...
"•While possessing any shot other than approved nontoxic shot."

I think my searches mostly failed because I was searching for 'lead', looking for an exclusionary law, but that's not how it is written. It is inclusive and lists the types of ammo that are allowed, rather than specifying those that are banned.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
29. You did it! HA! You found the reg.
Thu Mar 21, 2013, 03:26 PM
Mar 2013

and i failed to find it for the reason you pointed out --it bans lead shot, but that's not the way it's written.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
30. That was WAY too hard to discover.
Thu Mar 21, 2013, 03:32 PM
Mar 2013

I wonder why the US Fish and Wildlife service website is such a cesspool of broken links. For those of us that use firearms, we pay an 11% excise tax on all sport related ammo that is supposed to go to that department for things like wildlife and habitat conservation, and such. You'd think they could divert a few bucks to one or two people to update the website...

How can anyone suggest meaningful new laws or regs when they can't readily discover what the heck is on the books now?
I would have had the answer in about 30 seconds if the first link I had hit actually resolved to anything. Instead it goes nowhere.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
24. Not true.
Thu Mar 21, 2013, 02:51 PM
Mar 2013

It is banned nationwide for waterfowl.
It is also banned for upland bird hunting on any national wildlife refuge where waterfowl are present.

So, by itself, no, it is not the 'biggest' use of shot across the country. It is still used and legal for use at the federal level for upland birds off NWF lands. (Some states are banning it for certain regions as well, including upland bird hunting.)

This leaves:

1. Some states allow it for upland bird hunting on various lands.
2. Trap, skeet, etc.
3. Target practice in forest lands, etc.

So if one is to be concerned about lead entering the environment in this concentrated pellet form, and left as contamination, the issue is still quite large.

Steel shot performance is slightly inferior to lead, but pretty close with a properly choked shotgun, and there are other options like Tungsten as well. You might just have to go one to one and a half shot size larger with steel to accomplish the same job, energy-wise. Just choose your shot size based on desired pellet weight, and ignore the actual shot size entirely to accomplish the same job, and in doing so, you'll get the same range, same energy, and deeper penetration, at the cost of a few less pellets in flight (as they will be larger, less room for pellets per load)


Cost wise, they are pretty darn close.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
33. thank you for coming back to post here that there's no need to do anything else about lead shot
Thu Mar 21, 2013, 05:27 PM
Mar 2013

i'm not sure what we would do without hearing this message again.

i mean, two posters yesterday were blocked for saying it, so it was looking bleak that someone was available to post this message of "it's already banned for hunting waterfowl, so...".

but as luck would have it, there are three posters here, including yourself, saying just that.

because heaven forbid, we might actually talk about lead pollution from shot, without being told that there's already a rule covering it, so don't do anything else.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
9. apparently not enough is recovered or there wouldn't be the pollution problems would there?
Thu Mar 21, 2013, 01:00 PM
Mar 2013


Remington.
 

Remmah2

(3,291 posts)
10. Cigarettes, used condums, plastic, oil, balloons, fishing line, empty beer cans.
Thu Mar 21, 2013, 01:08 PM
Mar 2013

I see more of that crap in the woods than I do lead or the effects of lead.

Remmah = ass ends backwards sledge "hammer" engineer (my nickname at work); jokes on you.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
12. right, so since litter on the beaches is illegal, sounds like you're saying this should also be
Thu Mar 21, 2013, 01:23 PM
Mar 2013

thanks for the support

now let's stop playing games.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
51. none of these things are legal to littler the environment with
Sun Mar 31, 2013, 04:01 PM
Mar 2013

yet you believe lead shot should be.

how anti environmental.

 

premium

(3,731 posts)
36. I didn't realize that lead from hunting was such a problem.
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 11:43 AM
Mar 2013

I don't hunt, target shoot, sport shoot so I really don't keep up to date on this problem.

You'd think that the industry could come up with something other than lead that isn't harmful to the environment.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
37. there are plenty of solutions, just more opposition to actually doing the solutions
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 04:21 PM
Mar 2013

which is typical, sadly.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
39. Birds dying from poisoning or from toxic chemicals is a good thing then?
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 05:09 PM
Mar 2013

4 posts? How many are you hoping to amass?

 

markeybrown

(8 posts)
40. I never said such a thing
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 05:33 PM
Mar 2013

It was an honest question. Example: if there is X amount more of predatory birds each year would their food supply- rodents, fish, small animals- balance out now that nature has adapted to 20m less birds living each year.
I read the artical and thats what I started pondering. Thats all.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
41. since when has "nature adapted" to 20 million less birds?
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 05:43 PM
Mar 2013

sure sounds like a justification for further poisoning.

that's like saying extinction is an adaptation.

i think you're being an apologist on this subject.

 

Peter cotton

(380 posts)
42. A significant portion of ammunition is designed for self-defense rather than hunting
Sat Mar 30, 2013, 06:11 PM
Mar 2013

or target shooting.

Such ammunition would be likely be outside the purview of this sort of proposed regulation.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
43. If it has polluted the environment and has the potential to pollute again, it needs to be regulated
Sun Mar 31, 2013, 01:49 AM
Mar 2013

that it is used or designed to be used in other ways really has no bearing on whether or not it should be regulated.

if it has polluted or will pollute, it needs to be regulated, end of story.

but thanks for playing. bye now.

 

Peter cotton

(380 posts)
45. Sure such bullets have polluted the environment....but so has the lead in #2 pencils.
Sun Mar 31, 2013, 10:23 AM
Mar 2013

The question at hand is whether such bullets have polluted the environment to such a degree as to require additional regulation.

Self-defense ammunition is typically fired at indoor ranges, in contrast to hunting (and to a lesser degree) target ammunition which is typically fired outdoors.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
48. hey, #2 pencils aren't lead, they are graphite, stop posting BS to downplay environmental problems
Sun Mar 31, 2013, 02:59 PM
Mar 2013

not falling for it.

stop lying.

on the other hand, by lying to us, you admit that you can't win this argument by telling the truth.

check-mate.

i'm reporting you to the hosts now. hopefully you'll be blocked like the others who have posted as you did to this group.

hlthe2b

(102,758 posts)
49. OMG: you aren't helping your cause with this. #2 pencils (or any pencils) have never contained lead
Sun Mar 31, 2013, 03:33 PM
Mar 2013

NEVER...

I'm surprised someone would not know this, but it is graphite. Even Wiki gets it right:

The black core of pencils is still referred to as lead, even though it never contained the element lead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pencil


CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
50. the thing to know about NRA and pro-gun propaganda is they'll use a lie if it works for them
Sun Mar 31, 2013, 03:35 PM
Mar 2013

they'll either try to get their supporters to believe and propagate the lie.

or have it spread by people who know it's a lie.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
44. by the way, you need to leave the group if you are going to post here to discourage gun control
Sun Mar 31, 2013, 02:05 AM
Mar 2013

which you are doing.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
47. telling us that an article about lead pollution from bullets is not something to control
Sun Mar 31, 2013, 02:52 PM
Mar 2013

and posts elsewhere discouraging it mean that you aren't posting in this group in good faith.

this group is for advocacy of gun control, not concern trolling documented problems, in this instance, pollution from lead shot.

and don't throw around that "significant" term. that's playing with words.

you were attempting to say that a "significant" use of lead shot is for self defense --but you know, and we all know that 5% of use can be significant, 50% of use can be significant --as a word saying one thing is significant doesn't even mean the remainder of the uses aren't significant themselves.

stop playing games.

and stop posting the same crap that got the other low count posters blocked from this group --the exact same message!

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control Reform Activism»Zeroing In on Lead in Hun...