TooFewGuns wrote:Rob Doar wrote of his fears that banning lead ammo could cause ammo prices to become much, much higher. To me, this comes off as being a bit dramatic and contrary to the basics of economics. While the prices are currently higher for non-toxic shotgun shells, the increase in demand for them would cause shifts in production and increases from the companies that currently make them. Hunting is already an expensive hobby. You swallowed the elephant, why choke on the tail? I am never in favor of any bans, but isn't there a better way to go about this opposition than this tactic?
*Title edited to reflect the correct entity
There are a number of assumptions that are incorrect here.
The first and most important is that replacement materials for lead shot are "non-toxic". Studies show that copper, tungsten, bismuth, even steel with small quantities of hexavalent chromium in them are toxic as defined by one Federal or State Agency somewhere.
Copper and tungsten in ammunition were found to be quite problematic from a toxicity standpoint in an Army Corps of Engineers study- ERDC TR-07-5 , "...Fate and Transport of Tungsten at Camp Edwards Small Arms Ranges...", back in August of 2007. The study can be found at:
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/tr07-5.pdfAdditional military studies show tungsten to be carcinogenic under certain exposure levels in mice, with new studies ongoing.
What will complicate matters for the waterfowl crowd is that the Obama Administration, no friend to hunters and shooters, redefined the regulations for approving waterfowl shot back in December of 2013. 50CFR20.134 is now slated to measure of a wider range of toxicities for the approval of waterfowl shot, and shot and centerfire/rimfire projectiles in such states as California that have moved towards a statewide lead projectile ban. The US Fish & Wildlife Service noted in the new rule posting that some projectile materials could lose their approval as waterfowl "nontoxic" shot given the stricter testing for additional toxicity now incorporated into the Federal Register.
In essence, the lead ban is not so much a wildlife management issue as it is a gun ban issue by use of environmental regulation and the politicized concepts of conservation biology.
Data are information related to these attempts by environmentalists to push for a total ammunition ban nationwide can be found at:
http://www.huntfortruth.org/Specific articles on how the environmentalists are using any means necessary to push through a thoroughly politicized "agenda science" include:
http://www.huntfortruth.org/5-year-lead ... a-condors/http://www.huntfortruth.org/ab-711-beco ... al-report/http://www.huntfortruth.org/wm-study-sh ... rea-dumps/http://www.huntfortruth.org/the-definin ... rial-lead/http://www.huntfortruth.org/lead-ammo-b ... -politics/Respectfully,
Anthony Canales
Los Angeles, California