Lead ammo email from MN Gun Owners PAC

[TooFewGuns]

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

[Ghost]

Well facts usually don't work with anti's so who knows.

[TooFewGuns]

This is fear mongering from our side.

[Ghost]

This is fear mongering from our side.

Well although we aren't California, I'd rather this not get any traction here.

[bstrawse]

This is fear mongering from our side.

No, it's not. We do not want this here.

I've asked Rob and one of our experts to comment here and explain further.

Thanks,
Bryan
(MNGOPAC Executive Director)

[photogpat]

Who's fear mongering?

There is no evidence that shot from shotguns is actually poisoning anything, particularly at any scale that would affect wildlife populations. The DNR even admits that.

This is the camel's nose under the tent - first lead shot, then lead bullets. Don't count on economics of scale to save anything - steel shot for waterfowl has been required for >20yrs...lead is STILL cheaper by a long shot.

All based on pseudo-science.

[farmerj]

Let's see how that lead shot works for you on federal WPA land in mn.

[RobD]

Let's get a few things straight...

1. Non-Science
While lead in birds is an issue, there's little evidence to support that ammunition is a source of it. Most of the science out there starts with the premise that ammunition is a primary source of lead.

“[T]here are other sources of lead in the environment that condors may be accessing, including five individual condors apparently ingesting chips of lead-based paint in a fire tower,”

2. Expense
Sure, hunting CAN BE an expensive hobby, but ammunition is a key continuing cost. A box of steel 410 for my son's shotgun costs 1/5th the cost of the gun itself.
The NSSF surveyed California hunters after AB 711 passed and found that nearly 40 percent said they will either have to stop or severely reduce their hunting due to the much higher costs of non-lead ammunition.
Keep in mind that not any steel / non-tox will do. It has to be "certified" by the ATF.

Your premise that cost will go down depends on the market. hazmatpat can probably give some better insight, but unless there's a substantial demand for non-tox from all aspects of the market (Government/Police, target ammo, military, etc) there won't be a major production shift.

3. It won't stop.
Just like California's lead ban zone has now expanded to the whole state, the same thing will happen here, and probably worse.

4. Hunters need to get off the bench
While the Fudds, as we lovingly call them, don't get worked up over self defense, and are not likely to take on a scientific battle, they can relate to the costs of ammo, and that as ammo prices increase, people shoot less. We need to engage politically apathetic hunters to understand the risks of unchecked bureaucratic rule making, and how it will affect them. This was a good opportunity.

5. The text
Here is the "fear mongering" draw your own conclusions.

This past weekend, my son and I enjoyed his first pheasant hunt in Watertown, MN with his brand new .410 break-action shotgun.

I had a bit of sticker shock when I saw the price of shells for his gun.

I'm afraid that price could get much, MUCH higher.

The Minnesota Department of National Resources (MN DNR) has opened up a comment period for proposed rules that would prohibit the use of lead ammunition in Minnesota's 1.3 million acres of Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) - and even statewide for certain species of small game.

This prohibition would make hunting two to four times more expensive, without having any measurable benefit on the environment.

You can view the proposed rules at this link.

In 2008, California introduced a lead ammunition ban in an attempt to reduce lead exposure to the California Condor. Despite 99% compliance with the law, the issue of lead levels in wildlife went unchanged. Researchers have since identified that the chief contributing factor was industrial lead usage, rather than lead shot by hunters.

While the Condor's lead levels remained stagnant, the price of hunting ammunition in California skyrocketed.

Don't let that happen here. Your voice is needed NOW!

Take a few minutes and do the following this TODAY:
E-Mail the MN DNR: Send an e-mail to Jason Abraham at jason.abraham@dnr.state.mn.us and let him know that you're a gun owner, that you oppose any restriction on your right to make the best choice for affordable and high-performing ammunition, and that Minnesota should not taken on proposals that make hunting less accessible.
If you're able, please consider chipping in $10 or $20, or more, to the Minnesota Gun Owners PAC so that we can continue to quell the tide of anti-hunting regulation and legislation in Saint Paul.

We'll continue to monitor this issue in the months ahead and will keep you up to date on the latest developments with the Minnesota DNR.

Thanks for your support.

[photogpat]

Let's see how that lead shot works for you on federal WPA land in mn.

I'm well aware of the laws.

What makes you think I agree with that either?

[farmerj]

I can remember in the late 70's that law going into effect. My grandpa came home so pissed off duck hunting. He died when I was 13.

[bnelson06]

It's another way for the left to eat a piece of the elephant. Start making ammo too expensive and people start dropping out. And if that happens what will I do with all this lead waiting to be cast?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[crbutler]

We really don't need more lead shot or ammo bans.

Personally, I have gone out on game farm birds in the past with a mix of steel, lead, hevishot and bismuth shells in my pocket to see if I could tell the difference. I could readily. The steel were high performance hand loads using the highest velocity loads I could make...some BP manual waterfowl #4 loads in 3.5" shells going over 1500 FPS. They dropped the pheasants but every one was still alive and some made the dog chase them down.

Lead were some 7.5 shot trap loads...killed everything. DOA.

Hevishot killed, but tended to mangle the birds at upland distances.

Bismuth #6 worked just like the lead.

Price? The duck loads cost me about $1/shell to reload, buying the hull.

The lead shell was about $6/box

The hevishot would cost me $3 a shell if I had to buy the components now ($250/7# of shot!)

The bismuth is about $2.75/shell.

Don't tell me the prices are "Going to come down!" It hasn't in 15 years, anyhow. Admittedly, my high end hevishot loads will outperform the old lead goose loads that you could buy at the local gas station, and if you compare the high end premium lead loads the price is about $1/shell, but you don't need a premium lead shell for pheasant...most of the time anyhow.

The science is bibblebabble that has many assumptions in it, and even the DNR admits there is no evidence of actual problems. We need to stop this crap, but given what you see in the paper, I think the fix is in.

As others have said, it will be the camels nose under the tent flap. Actually, it will be the front half of the camel since they already have his nose in with the waterfowl rules.

[TooFewGuns]

Once again, I am not in favor of a ban or any legislation. I already pay for Black Rain, and I get the performance that I pay for in a non-toxic. I do not believe in using emotion to make a point, as I prefer logic. There are plenty of low information voters, and many oppose gun rights. Let's stick to the facts, as they work better in this fight.

[photogpat]

Once again, I am not in favor of a ban or any legislation. I already pay for Black Rain, and I get the performance that I pay for in a non-toxic. I do not believe in using emotion to make a point, as I prefer logic. There are plenty of low information voters, and many oppose gun rights. Let's stick to the facts, as they work better in this fight.

So you admit it's more expensive - one of the points made in the letter and by Rob above.

That would be a fact, right?

[TooFewGuns]

The current price is higher, yes. That was never in question. Using emotion to push the agenda is my only issue, talking about doing it for the kids or making it a class issue. I do not dispute the price, or lack of scientific evidence on the left. There are plenty of emotional environmentalists on the left, it doesn't make them right. Keeping it to the science and numbers is makes our side look rational and theirs look like nuts.