Finally, some sanity from the EPA:
EPA Denies Anti-Hunting Group’s Latest Petition to Ban Traditional Ammunition
http://www.typicalshooter.com/epa-de...nal-ammunition
Finally, some sanity from the EPA:
EPA Denies Anti-Hunting Group’s Latest Petition to Ban Traditional Ammunition
http://www.typicalshooter.com/epa-de...nal-ammunition
good news
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.
No offense, everyone is entitled to an opinion ... but I think it's nonsense.Originally Posted by CBronson
Thanks for the response. What part of my statement did you think was nonsense? Looking for a logical debate if you're willing.
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.
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.
The lead in the environment argument is a lot like the global warming BS IMO. Selective "science" to push an agenda, nothing more.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote