Bald eagle in crosshairs of US fight over lead bullets (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

dcnovice -> Bald eagle in crosshairs of US fight over lead bullets (4/7/2012 10:54:49 PM)

quote:

Environmental groups say 20 million birds die worldwide each year from eating bits of lead in animal carcasses, because many US hunters use lead ammunition which leaves 3,000 tons of toxic fragments in gut piles and unclaimed kills.

The dangers of lead have been well known for decades, and steps have been taken to prevent human consumption by removing it from paint, gasoline, pipes, children's jewelry and more.

A ban on hunters' use of lead shot for killing waterfowl was passed in the United States in the early 1990s because birds were being poisoned by ingesting the pieces that fell into waterways and ponds.

But the question of whether to do the same for hunters on land has thrust the eagle, the national symbol of America, into a fresh political battle over gun rights and environmental protection.

On one side is the powerful US gun lobby, which disputes science on lead poisoning and insists that any measures to regulate lead ammunition would spell a ban on hunting in all its forms, infringe on gun rights and raise costs.

On the other is a dogged but weary wildlife protection movement that is pressing the Environmental Protection Agency to take steps to regulate the use of lead ammunition in order to protect birds and humans against lead poisoning.

Story at Yahoo News


I know little about guns or hunting, so I'm curious to hear from those who do:

-- Is this a Second Amendment issue?

-- Anyone know how the ban on using lead to hunt waterfowl has played out? The article, maddeningly, doesn't say.

-- How hard would it be to switch to non-lead ammunition?

-- Other thoughts?



subrob1967 -> RE: Bald eagle in crosshairs of US fight over lead bullets (4/7/2012 11:09:16 PM)

This is just another attempt at gun control by nutty environmentalists.

quote:

The EPA turned down a similar request for a ban on lead bullets in 2010, saying it did not have the authority to regulate ammunition. However, environmental advocates say the EPA does have the right to regulate components of ammunition.


This says it all... They failed at controlling guns, so they go after ammunition.



SoftBonds -> RE: Bald eagle in crosshairs of US fight over lead bullets (4/7/2012 11:36:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

This is just another attempt at gun control by nutty environmentalists.

quote:

The EPA turned down a similar request for a ban on lead bullets in 2010, saying it did not have the authority to regulate ammunition. However, environmental advocates say the EPA does have the right to regulate components of ammunition.


This says it all... They failed at controlling guns, so they go after ammunition.


Hey Subrob, just for giggles, try answering one of the op's questions, specifically, "How hard would it be to switch to non-lead ammunition?"
Now I'm pretty sure we are not talking about replacing it with DU, since that is even more poisonous (still trying to figure out if it caused "gulf war syndrome"). The reason lead is used is that the high mass per volume allows it to contain more momentum at a given speed, since the speed of a bullet determines (along with size/shape) the wind resistance which determines range, while the momentum determines damage.
That said, both copper and nickel are not that far off lead's density. Silver is even better, but expensive I'm sure.
Food for thought?



subrob1967 -> RE: Bald eagle in crosshairs of US fight over lead bullets (4/8/2012 12:05:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

This is just another attempt at gun control by nutty environmentalists.

quote:

The EPA turned down a similar request for a ban on lead bullets in 2010, saying it did not have the authority to regulate ammunition. However, environmental advocates say the EPA does have the right to regulate components of ammunition.


This says it all... They failed at controlling guns, so they go after ammunition.


Hey Subrob, just for giggles, try answering one of the op's questions, specifically, "How hard would it be to switch to non-lead ammunition?"
Now I'm pretty sure we are not talking about replacing it with DU, since that is even more poisonous (still trying to figure out if it caused "gulf war syndrome"). The reason lead is used is that the high mass per volume allows it to contain more momentum at a given speed, since the speed of a bullet determines (along with size/shape) the wind resistance which determines range, while the momentum determines damage.
That said, both copper and nickel are not that far off lead's density. Silver is even better, but expensive I'm sure.
Food for thought?


It would raise the cost of ammunition to prohibitive levels, especially since 90% of lead based ammunition kills paper targets.



Kirata -> RE: Bald eagle in crosshairs of US fight over lead bullets (4/8/2012 12:07:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

-- Other thoughts?

The story mentions the Peregrine Fund, a conservation group devoted to the preservation of wild populations of birds of prey. The focus of its concern isn't the environment per se. But if the other (un-named and so-called) "environmental" groups were really concerned about lead contamination, they wouldn't just be going after ammunition.

Lead is widely used as a heat stabilizer in PVC wire and cable coatings, for example. It is also regularly handled by mechanics at tire stores placing balancing weights, which are frequently lost, on auto rims. And more than 2,000 tons of lead are used each year in the production of sinkers for fishermen, many of which are lost, and which are lethal to waterbirds. One study of breeding loons found that the most common cause of death was lead toxicity from ingested fishing sinkers.

Environmentalists are aware of the widespread use of lead and the dangers it poses. So when some group makes bullets the focus, either their main concern is clearly and directly contingent -- as in the case of the Peregine Fund -- or else they think that donning an 'Earth Hero' cape and tights will divert attention from their real motivation.

K.



Edwynn -> RE: Bald eagle in crosshairs of US fight over lead bullets (4/8/2012 3:59:43 AM)

quote:

It would raise the cost of ammunition to prohibitive levels, especially since 90% of lead based ammunition kills paper targets.



This is not a proposal for banning all lead ammunition, just for ammunition used in hunting; as you point out, a small percentage of all ammo used. This rule has been in effect in Scandinavian countries for a few years, perhaps one of the CM members from that area might chime in.


quote:

This is just another attempt at gun control by nutty environmentalists.


So far, the requirement for catalytic converters has not resulted in the banning of all vehicles.


The Peregrine group is addressing this issue and not tire balance lead or fishing line sinkers because neither are in their purview. I do think the latter issue should be addressed by whatever appropriate group.


One thing I do not understand is that while thousands of companies that are dealing with lead restrictions with little or no complaint in making millions of useful products do not feel themselves to be singled out, some (thankfully not all) of the gun owners perceive this much less consequential and relatively minor imposition as in some way an attack targeted towards them.

Gradual phasing out of lead in various products and processes has been ongoing for over twenty years already, and will continue. The issue in the OP (lead bullets in hunting) falls far short of what is going on elsewhere.






bighappygoth39 -> RE: Bald eagle in crosshairs of US fight over lead bullets (4/8/2012 5:48:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

This is just another attempt at gun control by nutty environmentalists.

You'd be quite happy to have air and water pollution levels returned to what they were in the early '70s before the "nutty environmentalists" at the EPA started having their way, then?



kalikshama -> RE: Bald eagle in crosshairs of US fight over lead bullets (4/8/2012 6:08:12 AM)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuyahoga_River

The Cuyahoga River at one time was one of the most polluted rivers in the United States. The reach from Akron to Cleveland was devoid of fish. A Kent State University symposium, convened one year before the infamous 1969 fire, described one section of the river:

From 1,000 feet below Lower Harvard Bridge to Newburgh and South Shore Railroad Bridge, the channel becomes wider and deeper and the level is controlled by Lake Erie. Downstream of the railroad bridge to the harbor, the depth is held constant by dredging, and the width is maintained by piling along both banks. The surface is covered with the brown oily film observed upstream as far as the Southerly Plant effluent. In addition, large quantities of black heavy oil floating in slicks, sometimes several inches thick, are observed frequently. Debris and trash are commonly caught up in these slicks forming an unsightly floating mess. Anaerobic action is common as the dissolved oxygen is seldom above a fraction of a part per million. The discharge of cooling water increases the temperature by 10 °F (5.56 °C) to 15 °F (8.33 °C). The velocity is negligible, and sludge accumulates on the bottom. Animal life does not exist. Only the algae Oscillatoria grows along the piers above the water line.

The color changes from gray-brown to rusty brown as the river proceeds downstream. Transparency is less than 0.5 feet in this reach. This entire reach is grossly polluted.[11]

There have reportedly been at least thirteen fires on the Cuyahoga River, the first occurring in 1868.[12] The largest river fire in 1952 caused over $1 million in damage to boats and a riverfront office building.[13] Fires erupted on the river several more times before June 22, 1969, when a river fire captured the attention of Time magazine, which described the Cuyahoga as the river that "oozes rather than flows" and in which a person "does not drown but decays."[14]
A view of the river from the Ohio and Erie Canal Tow-Path Trail

The 1969 Cuyahoga River fire helped spur an avalanche of water pollution control activities resulting in the Clean Water Act, Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and the creation of the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). As a result, large point sources of pollution on the Cuyahoga have received significant attention from the OEPA in recent decades. These events are referred to in Randy Newman's 1972 song "Burn On", R.E.M.'s 1986 song "Cuyahoga", and Adam Again's 1992 song "River on Fire". Great Lakes Brewing Company of Cleveland, Ohio have named their Burning River Pale Ale after the event. During the Gulf Oil Spill of May 2010, New York Times economist and Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman referred to the Cuyahoga fire as the start of “environmentalism”.[15]

[image]http://blog.cleveland.com/science_impact/2009/06/large_Richard-Ellers-Cuyahoga-River-goop.jpg[/image]

Former reporter Richard Ellers says he didn't appreciate the thickness of the pollution on Cuyahoga River until he dipped his hand into it. The photo was taken in the 1960s.

[image]http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/images/11-3-52.jpg[/image]



servantforuse -> RE: Bald eagle in crosshairs of US fight over lead bullets (4/8/2012 7:26:21 AM)

Hunters are against this because steel shot is not as effective as lead shot. Geese, ducks and other birds end up being wounded and not on the dinner table.



Edwynn -> RE: Bald eagle in crosshairs of US fight over lead bullets (4/8/2012 7:37:06 AM)


Oh yes, we forgot. Silly us. The concern of minor inconvenience for a few hunters (a small portion of all gun owners and microscopic portion of the population) should overrule considerations for the nation's natural habitat and all the rest of society. What were we thinking.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Bald eagle in crosshairs of US fight over lead bullets (4/8/2012 7:44:07 AM)

Bullshit. My Love is an experienced and accomplished waterfowl hunter. The decreased density of the steel shot was compensated for by improving ballistics. And keeping lead out of the environment improves hunting for obvious reasons. So what hunters are you talking about?
quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Hunters are against this because steel shot is not as effective as lead shot. Geese, ducks and other birds end up being wounded and not on the dinner table.




DomKen -> RE: Bald eagle in crosshairs of US fight over lead bullets (4/8/2012 7:54:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

This is just another attempt at gun control by nutty environmentalists.

quote:

The EPA turned down a similar request for a ban on lead bullets in 2010, saying it did not have the authority to regulate ammunition. However, environmental advocates say the EPA does have the right to regulate components of ammunition.


This says it all... They failed at controlling guns, so they go after ammunition.

Bullshit.

Going to steel shot had no effect on duck hunters and going to non lead bullets in rifles would have no effect on game hunters.



truckinslave -> RE: Bald eagle in crosshairs of US fight over lead bullets (4/8/2012 7:59:02 AM)

quote:

Anyone know how the ban on using lead to hunt waterfowl has played out? The article, maddeningly, doesn't say.


AFAIK the main problem has been that lead-free shot for waterfowl has a shorter effective range than lead shot.

That, expense, and performance would presumably be the main problems with lead-free hunting ammunition, too.

One of the reasons lead is used is that it is soft. That characteristic is what makes it so useful in bullets meant to expand upon contact with the game. The expansion creates a bigger wound channel, which means more and faster blood less; that translates into a more humane kill. It also transfers more energy into the body, resulting in more "knock-down" and less "run-off". Finally, expanding rounds suffer less from over-penetration; which means that the bullet is going much more slowly when and if it passes all the way through the game- thus the bullet is less likely to hit and injure or kill someone some distance away through the foliage.

I do not know of a substitute that is as soft, as heavy, and as cheap as lead. (The expense factor should include not just the cost of raw material but the expense of working it. Lead, for example, can be melted on your stovetop, poured into bullet molds, and used immediately).

All that being said, the average deer hunter in WV probably fires less than 20 rounds per year through a high-powered rifle.

All that having been siad..... "US hunters use lead ammunition which leaves 3,000 tons of toxic fragments in gut piles and unclaimed kills".
Really? Let's see... At 1/2 ounce per round, 32 carcasses would contain 1 pound of "toxic fragments" if the bullets both fragmented completely and stayed inside the carcass. Unlikely, imo, but let's continue. 32 carcasses per pound, 64,000 carcasses per ton, 192,000,000 "gut piles and unclaimed kills"

And if that seems as unlikely to you as it does to me, please further consider the fact that bullets:

1. Are carefully designed and manufactured not to fragment (toxically or otherwise) and,
2. Usually go through the game.... especially deer, which is the subject of the vast majority of big-game hunting in America.

I'd agree that this "science" needs some work.....



SilverBoat -> RE: Bald eagle in crosshairs of US fight over lead bullets (4/8/2012 9:05:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds
Hey Subrob, just for giggles, try answering one of the op's questions, specifically, "How hard would it be to switch to non-lead ammunition?"
Now I'm pretty sure we are not talking about replacing it with DU, since that is even more poisonous (still trying to figure out if it caused "gulf war syndrome"). The reason lead is used is that the high mass per volume allows it to contain more momentum at a given speed, since the speed of a bullet determines (along with size/shape) the wind resistance which determines range, while the momentum determines damage.
That said, both copper and nickel are not that far off lead's density. Silver is even better, but expensive I'm sure.
Food for thought?


In rough numbers, lead alloys are about 30% denser than steel alloys, nickel and copper alloys are about 15% denser. There are heavier metals, such tungsten, silver, gold, etc, and long list of rarer elements, but they're all much more expensive per unit volume or unit mass. Market prices vary with supply, demand, speculation, and so forth, but lead runs about 5x steel cost, copper about 15x, nickel about 50x, and everything else is higher than that.

Charted out as an engineering optimization of  historical-cost vs ballistic-performance, spending 5x on lead to get 1.3x impact might make sense for a critical application. In really critical applications, like shooting enemy tanks, using tungsten or uranium gets about 3x impact at roughly 60x or more times the cost.

Sure, there are some non-linear factors to consider in the ballistics, and some details of coatings, jackets, etc involved in wear of the barrels, but seriously, is shooting at animals (or targets) who don't shoot back so life and death critical to human beings that it justifies the costs?  (And with regard to costs, the brass casings often cost more than the slugs, so recycle and reload!)

Anyway, it would cost less (slightly) to use iron-based bullets.

...






SoftBonds -> RE: Bald eagle in crosshairs of US fight over lead bullets (4/8/2012 9:34:32 AM)

Thanks silverboat, that was kinda the perception I was drawing from my anaylsis based on my old chemistry books (rather than practical knowledge).
I did note that Copper costs about 3 times what lead does, and steel is much cheaper than both. Given the concerns about making the bullet from a soft, easily worked metal, and the low requirement in number of rounds, I would think a bullet that has 3 times the raw materials cost (which would probably cost only 20% more given the other costs involved), would be reasonable. Of course, maybe the hunters out there are almost going broke paying the high prices of ammo right now. Lets see, a round of rifle ammo (hunters generally use rifles to hunt game) costs from 12 cents to... wow 17.60 per round for a .500 nitro round. Not sure the latter price is for a lead round though...
Looks to me like most rounds (despite the 12 cents figure) were on the close order of a few bucks. So granted, a 20% increase in cost of ammo would be something like 40 cents per shot.
I remember hearing about an old adage, "one shot, one deer, two shots, maybe one deer, three shots, no deer," so figure the average hunter gets into position on an animal 4 times a day until they succeed (yes, I know that is high), and that they fail the first three times, meaning 10 shots fired (or 11, but 10 makes the math easier...). At our estimated cost increase for a copper bullet, it would cost about $4 a day for the more expensive ammo. Which would, I grant, have slightly lower range, but should have comparable stopping power, and we know that copper is not toxic (you actually need a small amount in your own diet), which means both the hunter and any scavenger birds don't have a problem, all for the cost of a bag of beef jerky or so. I don't see that as a huge financial burden.
Now if the cost of bullets was actually three times higher, I would agree it wouldn't be fair, but that would require that labor, machinery, transport, inventory costs, etc. tripled too, and there is no reason for that.

Now, lets talk about firing ranges, where the costs are much higher. The issue you quickly run into is that you want to fire the round on the range that you will be firing in the field. So at this point a hunter would have a good point. However, I don't know how many rounds the average hunter uses at the range to get familiar with his weapon. I know how many rounds the military uses, but for obvious reasons that's a pretty high number. Fort Ord, out here is Cali, isn't used by the army, but they can't give it to the state because of all the lead from the firing ranges...
So really, assuming that ammo costs increase 20% for copper ammo, what is the cost per hunter? Heck, we could look at the number of hunters, and depending on the total costs of the change, maybe the eco-groups could cover half or something?
I've seen wild Eagles, Bald and otherwise, and they are pretty cool birds (for scavengers). So I guess I have a bird in this fight (if you will pardon the bad pun). I donno, I do think the hunters should have a say too, but I think there is a compromise out there somewhere.



subrob1967 -> RE: Bald eagle in crosshairs of US fight over lead bullets (4/8/2012 12:46:56 PM)

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/16/if-lead-bullets-are-banned-there-will-be-real-health-hazards/

quote:

Lead poisoning from bullets? Sounds scary, but the push by the Center for Biological Diversity in a petition to the EPA is nothing new. The claim has been brought up many times, and even the EPA during anti-gun Clinton administration dismissed the fears about traditional, lead ammunition.

The lead in ammunition has never been shown to produce any health hazards, but a ban would produce a real health hazard, making it much more difficult for people to use guns to defend themselves.

During the Clinton administration, when the risks of lead ammunition were seriously debated, the EPA found no cause for concern. Research by William Marcus, Senior Science Advisor in the EPA's Office of Science and Technology, in a letter dated December 25, 1999, stated his findings: the claim that "lead based ammunition is hazardous is in error." Lead on the soil surface "does not break down. . . . [it] does not pose an environmental or human hazard. . . . In water lead acts much the same as in soil . . . ." The hazards don't exist for indoor shooting ranges any more than they do for outdoor ranges.

Eating food shot with lead ammunition isn't a problem. A 2008 study by the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, which conducted blood tests on 736 hunters, found that lead ammunition produced very small changes in lead exposure, with concentrations well below CDC benchmark levels of concern, and posed no discernible risk to human health.





Moonhead -> RE: Bald eagle in crosshairs of US fight over lead bullets (4/8/2012 12:49:21 PM)

Okay then. How many lead bullets have you eaten?



Hillwilliam -> RE: Bald eagle in crosshairs of US fight over lead bullets (4/8/2012 1:03:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Okay then. How many lead bullets have you eaten?

I've eaten a HELL of a lot of game that was harvested with lead or lead core bullets.



SoftBonds -> RE: Bald eagle in crosshairs of US fight over lead bullets (4/8/2012 1:22:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/16/if-lead-bullets-are-banned-there-will-be-real-health-hazards/

quote:

Lead poisoning from bullets? Sounds scary, but the push by the Center for Biological Diversity in a petition to the EPA is nothing new. The claim has been brought up many times, and even the EPA during anti-gun Clinton administration dismissed the fears about traditional, lead ammunition.

The lead in ammunition has never been shown to produce any health hazards, but a ban would produce a real health hazard, making it much more difficult for people to use guns to defend themselves.

During the Clinton administration, when the risks of lead ammunition were seriously debated, the EPA found no cause for concern. Research by William Marcus, Senior Science Advisor in the EPA's Office of Science and Technology, in a letter dated December 25, 1999, stated his findings: the claim that "lead based ammunition is hazardous is in error." Lead on the soil surface "does not break down. . . . [it] does not pose an environmental or human hazard. . . . In water lead acts much the same as in soil . . . ." The hazards don't exist for indoor shooting ranges any more than they do for outdoor ranges.

Eating food shot with lead ammunition isn't a problem. A 2008 study by the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, which conducted blood tests on 736 hunters, found that lead ammunition produced very small changes in lead exposure, with concentrations well below CDC benchmark levels of concern, and posed no discernible risk to human health.






OK, I'm confused...
You are saying that a push to replace lead bullets with steel or copper bullets would stop you from using guns? Didn't we just talk about how the cost change of using copper wouldn't be that bad? Didn't someone point out that steel bullets are actually cheaper, though someone else pointed out they were less effective for game hunting?
Or are you completely ignoring all our points and just shouting your point from the rooftops trying to drown us out? If so, why? No one here has been saying "stop hunting," we are saying "Could you kindly change bullets?"
Refusing to even listen to that is going to just make folks think they can't work with you, which just leads folks who are against one tiny part of bullets to look for ways to go around you. One way to do so is to work with the folks who support gun control.
So are you trying to get the folks concerned about lead to help the folks who want gun control go after guns, or are you willing to acknowledge you seem to be creating a straw-man, and that isn't going to help your actual cause?



Moonhead -> RE: Bald eagle in crosshairs of US fight over lead bullets (4/8/2012 1:26:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Okay then. How many lead bullets have you eaten?

I've eaten a HELL of a lot of game that was harvested with lead or lead core bullets.

Same here. Whenever you eat wild duck or pheasant, you will probably find shot in it.



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.1100006