Finally, a small victory for hunters.

[rickOshay]

Finally, some sanity from the EPA:

EPA Denies Anti-Hunting Group’s Latest Petition to Ban Traditional Ammunition

http://www.typicalshooter.com/epa-denies...ammunition

[txgunner00]

good news

[CBronson]

Still on the fence about this one. I don't think taxation is any way of solving an issue, but I am concerned with the amount of concentrated lead that has been redistributed into our dwindling ecosystems. I know that making the change to copper bullets would at least double the cost of shooting and would be detrimental to the sport we love, but to what expense are we willing to subject our habitat for the sake of a cheaper afternoon shooting? I don't think that shooting ranges should be considered for this, though some study should be put into the watershed around these areas and see where the rain is taking the lead from the soil.

My main concern is whether or not it is harmful to shoot freely in forest land, distributing pounds of lead into the topsoil. My Dad always talks about how lead was everywhere when he was a kid and how he survived, but the truth is that lead is a proven neurotoxin, and its widespread use led to millions of cases developmental disorders. Maybe it isn't an issue yet, but these deposits only build up over time. The problem is what do we do if this stuff starts leaching into our drinking water? Or into the plants that feed the wildlife? This would especially effect those of you on well systems. The world seems like a big place and it might seem preposterous that just shooting could cause any damage, but multiply your actions by the millions of others out there doing the same thing and expand that over the history of outdoor shooting in our country and the results add up fast.

As a shooter I would hate to see a any more limitations put on our sport, but intuition leads me to be cautious about this issue. I think it is far too easy to be defensive of our pass-time and second amendment rights and ignore the implications trying to be brought to our attention by the other side. I don't know much about the Center for Biological Diversity, but I have seen pro-shooting groups (ahem NRA...) make us look ignorant by jumping to the defense without showing the slightest bit of introspective. Maybe the "anti-gunners" would be less opposed to our life style if we became more well known for our concern for the environment rather than shootin' and killin'. Just sayin.

I know this is a controversial perspective, so take it with a grain of salt. Thought it would be interesting to see how you all felt about this.

[Schwag173]

I know this is a controversial perspective, so take it with a grain of salt. Thought it would be interesting to see how you all felt about this.

No offense, everyone is entitled to an opinion ... but I think it's nonsense.

[CBronson]

No offense, everyone is entitled to an opinion ... but I think it's nonsense.

Thanks for the response. What part of my statement did you think was nonsense? Looking for a logical debate if you're willing.

[rickOshay]

I like an open debate. I think that there is definitely an issue with added lead to the environment in areas it normally would not occur. Remember, the lead came from the ground in the first place. Having concentrated areas (shooting ranges) would be putting lead at concentrations higher than normally found. Hunters redistributing lead may be a problem in some areas (i.e. CA and the condor habitats).

I've not seen any scientific data proposed by either side. Please send me a link if you have one.

That is why I think the issue here is an attempt to place barriers to shooting sports by those who don't like guns. Not fear for the environment or the Condor.

[Schwag173]

I have no interest in "debate." The above post by rickOshay does a nice job of telling the backstory on why these political issues come up. The anti-hunting and anti-gun activists will continue to dream up ways of intellectualizing and justifying their political beliefs in the effort to impose those political beliefs upon everyone else. No thank you.

[txgunner00]

The lead in the environment argument is a lot like the global warming BS IMO. Selective "science" to push an agenda, nothing more.

[vanguard138]

I know Vets to include WWII, Korea, and Vietnam (my little skirmish) that have lead of one type or another in them that can not be removed and none have "lead poisoning".

[Variable]

I know Vets to include WWII, Korea, and Vietnam (my little skirmish) that have lead of one type or another in them that can not be removed and none have "lead poisoning".

Good point Sir, and it's just one of many reasons why I'm skeptical of environmental lead claims. I haven't seen any convincing evidence that the mere presence of lead automatically means that it will leach into water as a form of bioavailable heavy metal toxin. I'd need to see more credible evidence to be swayed.

Science has been abused (and some times outright fabricated) for the purpose of social engineering. Junk data in will net junk results out. Kinda like cherry picking tree rings to get the result your grant hoped to achieve.... It makes it hard to believe anything they say these days.

[LRRPF52]

Lead contamination is a proven straw man argument, with the end goal only to disarm a population via a back-door method. In Finland and the UK, extensive analyses of water sheds, lake districts, and forested areas have been conducted, on hunting and shooting land primarily geared towards water fowl hunting. A seemingly unending barrage of lead shot was fired into the pristine ecosystems for years. The results:

Not even a measurable impact.

Environmentalist movements are heavily directed by communists, with the sole goal of manipulating "useful idiots" to do their bidding in getting free people disarmed in preparation for the revolution.

You will never find a more dedicated group of conservationists than among hunters, trappers, fishers, and outdoor enthusiasts who finance true wildlife management programs with their "sin" and usage taxes, as well as the majority of their interaction with the environment.

You want to see extreme damage to the environment? Just take notice of useful idiot environmentalist whackos who have set SUV dealerships in fire, gone monkey-wrenching on forest service or logging operations by driving spikes into trees to destroy chainsaw blades, or the loons who release minks from farms so they can ransack the countryside of every living creature, to include ducks, geese, grouse, cats, etc.

There needs to be a new year-round open hunting season for environmentalist whackos. You ever notice how they and animal rights actvists never throw fake blood on motorcycle gangs, but they are pretty dang brave when it comes to attacking women wearing fur coats. I'd love to see them try that crap in Russia, where fur coats are a dime a dozen, and quite necessary for people who want to buck the -40 cold.

[rickOshay]

You guys do know I was being facetious about the condor - right?

I've never seen the data about how they determined the birds died of lead poisoning from bullets.

[CBronson]

Lead has to be ingested and converted to its ionic form to enter the blood stream. This can also be done by acid rain. Here's an interesting primary research article that I found on the subject. The link will only give you the abstract to the journal. When I have more time I will see if I can get the full version through my school's account.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...350800060X

[CBronson]

The lead in the environment argument is a lot like the global warming BS IMO. Selective "science" to push an agenda, nothing more.

Sorry, I would say more but only have a minute. Here is a link about the ice caps. Again, primary objective research article.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...811100097X

[CBronson]

Lead contamination is a proven straw man argument, with the end goal only to disarm a population via a back-door method. In Finland and the UK, extensive analyses of water sheds, lake districts, and forested areas have been conducted, on hunting and shooting land primarily geared towards water fowl hunting. A seemingly unending barrage of lead shot was fired into the pristine ecosystems for years. The results:

Not even a measurable impact.

Environmentalist movements are heavily directed by communists, with the sole goal of manipulating "useful idiots" to do their bidding in getting free people disarmed in preparation for the revolution.

You will never find a more dedicated group of conservationists than among hunters, trappers, fishers, and outdoor enthusiasts who finance true wildlife management programs with their "sin" and usage taxes, as well as the majority of their interaction with the environment.

You want to see extreme damage to the environment? Just take notice of useful idiot environmentalist whackos who have set SUV dealerships in fire, gone monkey-wrenching on forest service or logging operations by driving spikes into trees to destroy chainsaw blades, or the loons who release minks from farms so they can ransack the countryside of every living creature, to include ducks, geese, grouse, cats, etc.

There needs to be a new year-round open hunting season for environmentalist whackos. You ever notice how they and animal rights actvists never throw fake blood on motorcycle gangs, but they are pretty dang brave when it comes to attacking women wearing fur coats. I'd love to see them try that crap in Russia, where fur coats are a dime a dozen, and quite necessary for people who want to buck the -40 cold.

Maybe a reason for the concern:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...0711000358

[LRRPF52]

QUOTE][/QUOTE]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...0711000358

Abstract

Lead poisoning is not a new threat for wild birds, but it is now playing an important role in shaping raptor populations. Studies have been focused mainly on Europe, North-America, and Japan, but little is known about the situation in South-America. Lead is a serious threat for wildlife, especially for long-lived species. Nevertheless, no information is available for wild Andean condor (Vultur gryphus) populations. This species, which lives throughout the Andes Mountains, is endangered mainly in the north though it is having problems throughout its distribution. We evaluated lead exposure in the Andean condor by a non-destructive method using feathers. We determined lead concentration from 152 feathers, collected in 15 communal roosts distributed throughout almost all condor’s range in Patagonia (ca. 1500 km north–south). We also looked for the origin of this lead through the analysis of lead isotope composition of feathers and ammunition. We present here the first reference data on lead concentration for a raptor population from Argentina. Lead concentrations were generally low, however, some individuals had concentrations several times above the overall mean (up to 21 μg/g). Our results suggest that lead might come from a mix of two types of ammunition sources, one used for big game and another for hare hunting. Andean condors are at the top of the food chain, thus all the other medium-to-large sized scavengers and predators from this area can be also exposed to this threat. We highlight the need to change hunting policies in Argentina, and in other South-American countries, including the banning of lead ammunitions to protect carnivores consuming hunted animals.

Translation: If we were REAL scientists, and not environmentalits nutbag moonbat activist useful idiots, we wouldn't use 152 measley feathers as a weak implication to a scientific baseline study, from an undisclosed number of birds (did the 152 feathers come from one lead-infatuated condor, 3, 10...?). Notice the non-specific citing of "some individuals". Was it 2 condors? 3? These "scientists" don't specify.

152 feathers gathered from a 1500km span of habitat...wow. That is really falling short of even a rudimentary sampling of the region. Maybe good enough for a public junior high science fair, but not meeting any resemblance of science in the adult world.

To admit that their results suggest that lead MIGHT come from a mix of two types of ammunition sources, the single bit of transparency jumps out to those formally trained in critical thinking skills, as well as those who can simply read and apply logic. Either way, this paper has so many holes in it, that it doesn't even pass the most cursory sweep of inspection at a glance, and further observation reveals a chain of amateur claims of non-specificity, that it's shameful to even associate it with any type of hard science.

But the authors are relying on an unsuspecting audience to assume that their claims of scientific study should hold weight by the mere mentioning of Biological Conservation, and their results should be accepted at face value.

The true goal, as I stated before, is clear for all to see in the final sentence of the abstract: banning of lead ammunition, even after a sorry excuse of a study such as this, based on 152 feathers from an undisclosed number of condors taken from a 1500km stretch of South American territory.

Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If the study included 152,000 feathers gathered from thousands of birds across the region, with isolation of the variables for lead sources, clearly pinpointing ammunition, that would be one thing. Since these populations are so small, they are perfect for lazy environmentalist whackos who couldn't cut it in the real world, so they went into biological sciences studying under some commie professor (who obviously lets work like this example slide as an acceptable academic paper), and rewards the little hippies with passing or even exemplary grades, as long as they toe the party line.

You often find that these "researchers" fabricate their data, like what was done with the bone dust "found" at a Neanderthal grave. After mitochondrial DNA analysis confirmed that the Neanderthal remains aren't related to Cro Magnon species, it sent the whacko academia into a frenzy, shattering pre-conceived ideas about the progression of pre-homo sapien races, assumed to be our ancestors.

At first, they questioned the reliability of mitochondrial DNA science, then fortuitously, some bone dust was found at the scene, and the previous assumptions were placed back in good standing. Hoorah for "science", and the meatheads who adhere to their academic religion of intolerance of actual facts that bring their silly presets into question. It's no different than dealing with the clergy of the Dark Ages, who would call anyone a heretic for actually thinking and doing research, then publishing that research without permission from the ecclesiastical hegemons, who were only concerned with their power over the serfs and monarchs alike.

[CBronson]

QUOTE]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...0711000358


You're right. I'm sure the communists dressed up like scientists were probably paid by the "environmentalists" to run this study for the sole purpose of taking away your ammo. Nope, no holes in that theory. Sound like it will hold up to all your apparently absolute critical thinking skills. Pfff, science. You're right, those damn commies and their fabrications.

Seriously though, the point of the article, which was the first one I saw that seemed relevant, was to share a report stating that lead in the environment might actually be an issue for the welfare of endangered species. There are many more out there. This is a sensitive issue, but one worth at least considering. If we really are "the most effective conservationalists" out there, then we would not be so hasty to spit and rant about political agendas because the scientific community has raised a concern on the implications of depositing lead in the topsoil.

By all means, disagree eith me. That's what makes discussions interesting. But the topic is what real scientific evidence suggests, not what paranoid political theories you have dreamed up. I don't mean to offend, but that was a rant if I ever heard one. Let's see some primary research articles, not something written in a gun mag, that disputes the negative effects of lead ingestion on wild life, or perhaps something that proves that lead placed in the soil will stay put and can't leach into food or water supplies. The ball is in your court, but it will take more than your opinion to persuade me or any of the people you claim are out to disarm you.

[rickOshay]

I read the article and there were 4 samples of the 152 collected that showed lead concentrations above 10 ug/g. Although it would be hard to translate lead concentrations in feathers to blood concentrations, the acceptable limit of lead in the blood of children in the US is 10ug/dl.

So I am not sure that this reference is all that alarming.

However, thank you CBronson for the link because I did ask for data. There is a long list of references in that paper for other work in the area of lead poisoning in raptors.

I am still unsure how they distinguish between lead ingested (which clears in 13 days) from lead in the atmosphere.

I don't think there is any fabrication going on, I just think it is hard to draw precise correlations between lead ingestion and condor mortality. Certainly not enough to ban ammunition.

[rickOshay]

But the topic is what real scientific evidence suggests, not what paranoid political theories you have dreamed up

I think environmentalists with weak links in their data are able to influence politicians who want to achieve a certain goal.

[mongoosesnipe]

I know Vets to include WWII, Korea, and Vietnam (my little skirmish) that have lead of one type or another in them that can not be removed and none have "lead poisoning".

when lead or other foreign debris are introduced into the body by one form or another your body will usually seal off the foreign material in fat and scar tissue to isolate it from the rest of your body and so long as said object does not introduce an infection into the body it can be inside you for a basically unlimited amount of time with no ill effects so long as it is left undisturbed...

I am honestly ok with nontoxic bullets for hunting now that the legislation has started there are many more non toxic bullets on the market than there used to be and the price has come down significantly mind you the bullets need not be solid copper to fit into the bill of non toxic and honestly how many bullets does one typically shoot at animals in a given year outside of varmint serous varmint hunters most people only fire a few rounds at game and when you compare guiding metal bullets to premium bonded core bullets the price difference is minimal .09 per bullet comparing hornady non toxic to bonded core and there a few varmint offering which are non toxic and only cost a few cents more per bullet even using barnes as the example 50 bullets for 6.5 cost 34 bucks and i know i probably wont shoot at big game more than 50 times in the next 10 years and to be perfectly honest i use barnes for my hunting loads any way so as to not risk introducing lead in to the diets of my family and friends as well as my own

on the topic of using non toxic at ranges i feel it is mostly bs as ranges are built with retrieving the lead in mind and are mined for lead every few years so that lead is not staying in the environment that in addition to the fact that lead oxidizes very quickly and does not react further once oxidized basically if people or animals are not eating the bullets your shooting the need not be non toxic