Lead Ammunition
Background and History
It has been said that the “war on lead bullets” started about a decade ago, when research on the effects of lead ammunition really started to take shape. Others say the battle between pro and anti lead factions began in the 1970’s when lead sinkers and shotgun pellets were implicated in the accidental deaths of swans (Bittel, 2017). Since then, 30 states “have implemented additional lead ammunition restrictions” (Armeno, 2016) past what had been implemented by the federal government.
The reason behind states taking action is that for the most part, the federal government has not done enough. In 1991, the federal government required non-toxic shot nationwide for waterfowl hunting, which came after a realization that approximately 2 million ducks were killed from lead poisoning in that year alone (Armeno, 2016). California felt as if this action was not enough, and in 2008, California banned the use of lead ammunition in candor hunting. Soon after California’s 2008 decision, the issue was put back into the nation’s limelight when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, on the final day of Obama’s presidential term, issued a “decree that would phase out the use of lead ammunition on federal lands” (Peeples, 2017).
However, political polarization and lobbying interest have not made this process easy across the globe. In Norway, after “a decade of lobbying by shooting interests” the Norwegian Parliament revoked a “total ban on lead shot for hunting outside wetlands”. Although research on lead bullets and their effects continue to grow, even causing “30 national and international experts signed a scientist consensus in support of eliminating the introduction of lead ammunition into the environment” (Armeno, 2016) in 2013, the issue seems to go unsolved.
In shooting ranges the issue is even worse. Many thought that President George W. Bush and the EPA’s decision to “[uphold] a Clinton administrative rule requiring any business releasing 100 pounds of lead or more a year to report said pollution to the government” (Blackstone, 2012) would help regulate shooting ranges, which continue to dig the biggest lead pollutant in the United States. However, this failed after it was revealed that shooting ranges did not fall under the businesses required to submit lead pollution reports. Furthermore, requirements set forth by the Clean Air and Water Act do not apply to shooting ranges, which grants them “immunity from the geographical restrictions requiring other industries to obtain a permit to discharge lead near bodies of water” (Blackstone, 2012). A 2001 report by the Environmental Working Group estimated about 1,800 shooting ranges nationwide. Of the estimated 1,800, only 201 were inspected by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in 2014, which helped establish an astounding 86 percent failure rate of lead-related tests. The Environmental Working Group further estimated that over “nine millions pounds of lead are released into the environment every year” by shooting ranges.
As the popularity of guns have only risen since 2001, one can only imagine the detrimental impact that lead ammunition is having on our environment today.
Current State
The current state of lead ammunition restriction is dismal. Although the decision of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was a great start, it did not last long. Due to the push back by firearms and shooting sports industries and interest groups such as the NRA, the decision was overturned by Ryan Zinke, the Trump’s head of the Interior repealed the decision. This was supported by gun enthusiasts and lobbying groups who opposed bans based on the expense of using alternative, non-lead ammunition. Furthermore, the alternative bullets simply do not do a satisfactory job, according to “traditional” hunters. For the federal government, regulation on lead ammunition has taken a backseat to more popular issues, which has created a lack of stable legislation on the issue.
However, some states continue to regulate the use of lead bullets, even without the support of the federal government. Leading the pack is California, whose progressiveness goes unequaled. After it’s 2008 decision on candor, California declared its goal to completely ban the use of lead hunting ammunition by July 2019 (The Humane Society of the United States, 2017). States with more political tension, are working much slower than California on this issue.
Wisconsin, in addition to set federal regulations, requires non-toxic shot for snipe, turkey, rails and moorhen plus doves on “all Department of Natural Resources managed lands” (Wisconsin DNR, 2017). Wisconsin’s DNR website even goes as far as to “recommend using non-toxic shot when dove hunting on private land and when hunting woodcock” (Wisconsin DNR, 2017), along with recommendations to “consider” using non-lead ammunition for hunting deer. Trent Leaf, a conservation biologist for the Wisconsin DNR, stated that the biggest problem with lead bullets is its effects on scavengers, specifically eagles, because when “[prey] are eaten by an eagle or other scavengers/predators and the toxins from the lead build up in their bodies over time” which in turns creates many health problems and a shorter life span. Regardless of research, no regulations have been recently put in place to protect scavengers like the eagle in Wisconsin.
The steps toward nationwide acknowledgement and action towards lead ammunition regulation continues to be small, foiled by current lawmakers and the lobbying of gun enthusiast groups.
Key Players
The key players involved in the broad issue of lead ammunition are easily categorized into three categories: lobbyist groups, government agencies, and “everyday” Americans. These three groups create an interesting dynamic which makes it nearly impossible to get any regulation passed. Even the government agencies within the federal government cannot agree, which often created party and departmental obstacles that are hard to overcome. For example, while the National Park Service “have made serious commitments to eliminate lead ammunition because of environmental and animal welfare concerns” the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act fails to recognize the necessity of regulations on lead pollution by shooting ranges, which are not recognized as “discarding” lead. Regardless of studies done by different government agencies, including one done by the U.S. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention which shows that “people who regularly consumer wild game tend to have higher levels of lead in their blood”, political loopholes like these make it easy for lead ammunition to continue its degradation of the environment.
The gridlock within the federal government makes it hard for any momentus steps to be taken, which is only further complicated by the continual involvement of lobbying groups on key policy decisions. Interest groups such as the NSSF, which is the gun industry’s largest trade group, and the NRA, continuing lobby against any regulations on lead bullets. So, while the EPA continues to warn on the effects of lead bullets on the environment, “2nd amendment enthusiasts and the American military apparatus continue to thwart any real progress” (Blackstone, 2012). The issue continues to complicate in the hands of American hunters who disregard scientific research on the effects of lead ammunition. A White Bear Lake based non-profit proved this disregard when the group released a statement stating “there is lack of scientific evidence demonstrating that lead is having a negative impact”. The statement continued with a declaration of the rights of “pheasant hunters [to] retain their freedom of choice in ammunition” (Orrick, 2017). Armed with a complete disbelief of scientific research and the words of the Constitution, groups such as the White Bear Lake non-profit have a huge role in the regulation of lead ammunition.
Although the power and moneys of groups such as the NRA continue to rise, organizations such as the AFWA’s Lead, Fish, and Wildlife Health Work Group support for regulation prolongs. Gregory Sheehan, who chairs the group, stated that the recent “waterfowl lead ban is an example of how this sort of decision should be made” citing the “unequivocal research that showed that waterfowl populations were suffering at the time from that lead”. Though these groups lack the foundation that is often found in larger, pro-gun lobbying groups, their voices still have effect on the legislative process regarding lead ammunition.
Furthermore, taxpayers play a key role in the popularity of lead bullet restrictions, as decisions regarding this issue, and specifically shooting ranges, would be costly. Shortly after a shooting range closed in Florida, taxpayers were informed that it would cost nearly $20,000,000 to clean up the location. Both the taxpayers and the NRA resisted the decision, which eventually passed (Yablon, 2016). So, while this case did mark a step forward for action regarding pollution by lead gullets, it also served to dwindle support on the issue.
Call to Action
While most Americans would argue that the power would exclusively lie on Capitol Hill, this is simply not true. In fact, lawmakers are increasingly becoming pawns of interest groups and organizations with the money to puppet members of the federal government. With $76,000 worth of NRA funding up his ass, it came with no surprise that Ryan Zinke overturned the Obama administration ban on lead bullets on federal land. With the support of President Trump, who’s campaign pockets were filled with approximately $30,000,000 from the NRA, gun enthusiast, including the NRA were thrilled (Fisher, 2018). In a statement about the official signing of Secretarial Order 3347, Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, stated that the action’s of the Obama administration was “not a decision based on sound scientific evidence -- it was a last second attack on traditional ammunition and our hunting heritage”, however, Zinke’s action were praised. With gratitude for Zinke, Cox stated “on behalf of the five million members of the NRA and tens of millions of American sportsmen, we thank Secretary Zinke for eliminating this arbitrary attack on our hunting heritage,” as “traditional ammunition does not pose a significant population-level risk for wildlife” (NRA, 2017). By simply looking at the over 500 worldwide scientific studies published since 1898 documenting the 134 species of wildlife negatively impacted by lead ammunition, Cox’s statement would be proved entirely false, but when a person becomes abundantly richer by simply signing a piece of paper, it’s easy to understand how falsehoods could be overlooked.
A similar situation happened in Norway, when in February of 2015, after a decade of lobbying by shooting interests, the Norwegian Parliament repealed the total ban placed on lead shot used for hunting outside wetlands. With complete dismissal of scientific evidence on the environmental impact of lead ammunition, the bill based with flying colors. Not soon after the Norwegian Association for Hunter and Anglers described the repeal as a “victory”, while the Association of European Manufacturers of Sporting Ammunition described the decision as a “great success” (Armeno, 2016). Regardless of scientific evidence, policymakers continually take action in the wrong direction, while simultaneously accepting millions from lobbying groups. Although it is hard to record the influence organizations have on policymakers, the intangible data cannot be overlooked.
Why is Lead an Issue?
When lead is ingested or inhaled due to the consumption of lead bullet fragments, our bodies mistake the lead for calcium and other beneficial metals. When this mistake is made, our nerve cells and other vital tissues absorb the lead instead of these other beneficial metals. In which, according to Eisler, “Results in humans and wildlife include neural degeneration, modification of kidney structure and bone, inhibition of blood formation and nerve transmission, and numerous other harmful manifestations.” (Eisler, 1988) However, other effects of lead consumption includes depression, lethargy, vomiting, diarrhea, nonregenerative anemia, blindness, anorexia, and seizures.
This has been especially seen in wildlife due to lead ammunition being disposed within the environment. In which, according to the Peregrine fund, during the 2006 hunting season, 90 percent of 57 condors showed evidence of lead exposure, and four died due to it. The way these ground grazers are consuming this lead ammunition is because they eat up carcasses that have been shot with the lead bullet, and have exploded into a million pieces within its victim. Therefore, as the lead is shot, the power scrapes off lead as it leaves the barrel of the gun. The lead is then absorbed into trees found near shooting ranges, which are responsible for “some 60,000 metric tons of lead are expended by shooting” (Virginia Tech, 2004), were filled with large amounts of lead. This is because “[lead] does not wash away in surface or groundwater”, and in turn has harsh effects on the environment around shooting ranges. Overall, lead ammunition has created many problems for environments and ecosystems across the United States, but continues to remain unregulated.
Solutions
Bibliography
Background and History
It has been said that the “war on lead bullets” started about a decade ago, when research on the effects of lead ammunition really started to take shape. Others say the battle between pro and anti lead factions began in the 1970’s when lead sinkers and shotgun pellets were implicated in the accidental deaths of swans (Bittel, 2017). Since then, 30 states “have implemented additional lead ammunition restrictions” (Armeno, 2016) past what had been implemented by the federal government.
The reason behind states taking action is that for the most part, the federal government has not done enough. In 1991, the federal government required non-toxic shot nationwide for waterfowl hunting, which came after a realization that approximately 2 million ducks were killed from lead poisoning in that year alone (Armeno, 2016). California felt as if this action was not enough, and in 2008, California banned the use of lead ammunition in candor hunting. Soon after California’s 2008 decision, the issue was put back into the nation’s limelight when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, on the final day of Obama’s presidential term, issued a “decree that would phase out the use of lead ammunition on federal lands” (Peeples, 2017).
However, political polarization and lobbying interest have not made this process easy across the globe. In Norway, after “a decade of lobbying by shooting interests” the Norwegian Parliament revoked a “total ban on lead shot for hunting outside wetlands”. Although research on lead bullets and their effects continue to grow, even causing “30 national and international experts signed a scientist consensus in support of eliminating the introduction of lead ammunition into the environment” (Armeno, 2016) in 2013, the issue seems to go unsolved.
In shooting ranges the issue is even worse. Many thought that President George W. Bush and the EPA’s decision to “[uphold] a Clinton administrative rule requiring any business releasing 100 pounds of lead or more a year to report said pollution to the government” (Blackstone, 2012) would help regulate shooting ranges, which continue to dig the biggest lead pollutant in the United States. However, this failed after it was revealed that shooting ranges did not fall under the businesses required to submit lead pollution reports. Furthermore, requirements set forth by the Clean Air and Water Act do not apply to shooting ranges, which grants them “immunity from the geographical restrictions requiring other industries to obtain a permit to discharge lead near bodies of water” (Blackstone, 2012). A 2001 report by the Environmental Working Group estimated about 1,800 shooting ranges nationwide. Of the estimated 1,800, only 201 were inspected by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in 2014, which helped establish an astounding 86 percent failure rate of lead-related tests. The Environmental Working Group further estimated that over “nine millions pounds of lead are released into the environment every year” by shooting ranges.
As the popularity of guns have only risen since 2001, one can only imagine the detrimental impact that lead ammunition is having on our environment today.
Current State
The current state of lead ammunition restriction is dismal. Although the decision of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was a great start, it did not last long. Due to the push back by firearms and shooting sports industries and interest groups such as the NRA, the decision was overturned by Ryan Zinke, the Trump’s head of the Interior repealed the decision. This was supported by gun enthusiasts and lobbying groups who opposed bans based on the expense of using alternative, non-lead ammunition. Furthermore, the alternative bullets simply do not do a satisfactory job, according to “traditional” hunters. For the federal government, regulation on lead ammunition has taken a backseat to more popular issues, which has created a lack of stable legislation on the issue.
However, some states continue to regulate the use of lead bullets, even without the support of the federal government. Leading the pack is California, whose progressiveness goes unequaled. After it’s 2008 decision on candor, California declared its goal to completely ban the use of lead hunting ammunition by July 2019 (The Humane Society of the United States, 2017). States with more political tension, are working much slower than California on this issue.
Wisconsin, in addition to set federal regulations, requires non-toxic shot for snipe, turkey, rails and moorhen plus doves on “all Department of Natural Resources managed lands” (Wisconsin DNR, 2017). Wisconsin’s DNR website even goes as far as to “recommend using non-toxic shot when dove hunting on private land and when hunting woodcock” (Wisconsin DNR, 2017), along with recommendations to “consider” using non-lead ammunition for hunting deer. Trent Leaf, a conservation biologist for the Wisconsin DNR, stated that the biggest problem with lead bullets is its effects on scavengers, specifically eagles, because when “[prey] are eaten by an eagle or other scavengers/predators and the toxins from the lead build up in their bodies over time” which in turns creates many health problems and a shorter life span. Regardless of research, no regulations have been recently put in place to protect scavengers like the eagle in Wisconsin.
The steps toward nationwide acknowledgement and action towards lead ammunition regulation continues to be small, foiled by current lawmakers and the lobbying of gun enthusiast groups.
Key Players
The key players involved in the broad issue of lead ammunition are easily categorized into three categories: lobbyist groups, government agencies, and “everyday” Americans. These three groups create an interesting dynamic which makes it nearly impossible to get any regulation passed. Even the government agencies within the federal government cannot agree, which often created party and departmental obstacles that are hard to overcome. For example, while the National Park Service “have made serious commitments to eliminate lead ammunition because of environmental and animal welfare concerns” the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act fails to recognize the necessity of regulations on lead pollution by shooting ranges, which are not recognized as “discarding” lead. Regardless of studies done by different government agencies, including one done by the U.S. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention which shows that “people who regularly consumer wild game tend to have higher levels of lead in their blood”, political loopholes like these make it easy for lead ammunition to continue its degradation of the environment.
The gridlock within the federal government makes it hard for any momentus steps to be taken, which is only further complicated by the continual involvement of lobbying groups on key policy decisions. Interest groups such as the NSSF, which is the gun industry’s largest trade group, and the NRA, continuing lobby against any regulations on lead bullets. So, while the EPA continues to warn on the effects of lead bullets on the environment, “2nd amendment enthusiasts and the American military apparatus continue to thwart any real progress” (Blackstone, 2012). The issue continues to complicate in the hands of American hunters who disregard scientific research on the effects of lead ammunition. A White Bear Lake based non-profit proved this disregard when the group released a statement stating “there is lack of scientific evidence demonstrating that lead is having a negative impact”. The statement continued with a declaration of the rights of “pheasant hunters [to] retain their freedom of choice in ammunition” (Orrick, 2017). Armed with a complete disbelief of scientific research and the words of the Constitution, groups such as the White Bear Lake non-profit have a huge role in the regulation of lead ammunition.
Although the power and moneys of groups such as the NRA continue to rise, organizations such as the AFWA’s Lead, Fish, and Wildlife Health Work Group support for regulation prolongs. Gregory Sheehan, who chairs the group, stated that the recent “waterfowl lead ban is an example of how this sort of decision should be made” citing the “unequivocal research that showed that waterfowl populations were suffering at the time from that lead”. Though these groups lack the foundation that is often found in larger, pro-gun lobbying groups, their voices still have effect on the legislative process regarding lead ammunition.
Furthermore, taxpayers play a key role in the popularity of lead bullet restrictions, as decisions regarding this issue, and specifically shooting ranges, would be costly. Shortly after a shooting range closed in Florida, taxpayers were informed that it would cost nearly $20,000,000 to clean up the location. Both the taxpayers and the NRA resisted the decision, which eventually passed (Yablon, 2016). So, while this case did mark a step forward for action regarding pollution by lead gullets, it also served to dwindle support on the issue.
Call to Action
While most Americans would argue that the power would exclusively lie on Capitol Hill, this is simply not true. In fact, lawmakers are increasingly becoming pawns of interest groups and organizations with the money to puppet members of the federal government. With $76,000 worth of NRA funding up his ass, it came with no surprise that Ryan Zinke overturned the Obama administration ban on lead bullets on federal land. With the support of President Trump, who’s campaign pockets were filled with approximately $30,000,000 from the NRA, gun enthusiast, including the NRA were thrilled (Fisher, 2018). In a statement about the official signing of Secretarial Order 3347, Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, stated that the action’s of the Obama administration was “not a decision based on sound scientific evidence -- it was a last second attack on traditional ammunition and our hunting heritage”, however, Zinke’s action were praised. With gratitude for Zinke, Cox stated “on behalf of the five million members of the NRA and tens of millions of American sportsmen, we thank Secretary Zinke for eliminating this arbitrary attack on our hunting heritage,” as “traditional ammunition does not pose a significant population-level risk for wildlife” (NRA, 2017). By simply looking at the over 500 worldwide scientific studies published since 1898 documenting the 134 species of wildlife negatively impacted by lead ammunition, Cox’s statement would be proved entirely false, but when a person becomes abundantly richer by simply signing a piece of paper, it’s easy to understand how falsehoods could be overlooked.
A similar situation happened in Norway, when in February of 2015, after a decade of lobbying by shooting interests, the Norwegian Parliament repealed the total ban placed on lead shot used for hunting outside wetlands. With complete dismissal of scientific evidence on the environmental impact of lead ammunition, the bill based with flying colors. Not soon after the Norwegian Association for Hunter and Anglers described the repeal as a “victory”, while the Association of European Manufacturers of Sporting Ammunition described the decision as a “great success” (Armeno, 2016). Regardless of scientific evidence, policymakers continually take action in the wrong direction, while simultaneously accepting millions from lobbying groups. Although it is hard to record the influence organizations have on policymakers, the intangible data cannot be overlooked.
Why is Lead an Issue?
When lead is ingested or inhaled due to the consumption of lead bullet fragments, our bodies mistake the lead for calcium and other beneficial metals. When this mistake is made, our nerve cells and other vital tissues absorb the lead instead of these other beneficial metals. In which, according to Eisler, “Results in humans and wildlife include neural degeneration, modification of kidney structure and bone, inhibition of blood formation and nerve transmission, and numerous other harmful manifestations.” (Eisler, 1988) However, other effects of lead consumption includes depression, lethargy, vomiting, diarrhea, nonregenerative anemia, blindness, anorexia, and seizures.
This has been especially seen in wildlife due to lead ammunition being disposed within the environment. In which, according to the Peregrine fund, during the 2006 hunting season, 90 percent of 57 condors showed evidence of lead exposure, and four died due to it. The way these ground grazers are consuming this lead ammunition is because they eat up carcasses that have been shot with the lead bullet, and have exploded into a million pieces within its victim. Therefore, as the lead is shot, the power scrapes off lead as it leaves the barrel of the gun. The lead is then absorbed into trees found near shooting ranges, which are responsible for “some 60,000 metric tons of lead are expended by shooting” (Virginia Tech, 2004), were filled with large amounts of lead. This is because “[lead] does not wash away in surface or groundwater”, and in turn has harsh effects on the environment around shooting ranges. Overall, lead ammunition has created many problems for environments and ecosystems across the United States, but continues to remain unregulated.
Solutions
- Consider alternative non-lead ammunition such as copper or other kinds of bonded bullets. These bullets hold the weight better and do not leave trials of pellets after impact.
- Practice sharpshooting and hunting skills to become closer in range with the animal. The shots should be made cleaner with more lethal shots away from major muscle areas. This can be done by aiming for the neck, the head, or other vitals behind the shoulder. Don't shoot at running deer.
- Avoid the intake of internal organs, as they can contain extra lead due to heart-lung shots.
- Do not consume venison with excessive shot damage. Always cut a generous distance away from the wound channel and discard any meat that is bruised, discolored or contains hair, dirt, bone fragments or grass. This is due to contamination.
Bibliography
- http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/lead.html
- https://www.npr.org/2017/02/20/514290612/lead-ammunition-poisons-wildlife-but-too-expensive-to-change-hunters-say
- https://www.nps.gov/pinn/learn/nature/leadinfo.htm
- http://www.peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-lead/2008PbConf_Justification.htm
- http://www.wisconsinbirds.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/leadpoisoning-1.pdf
- https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2017/0303/Lead-shot-OK-d-for-federal-lands-what-does-that-mean-for-conservation
- http://www.leadfreehunting.com/conservation/
- https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/hunter-asks-why-are-lead-bullets-still-thing
- https://www.twincities.com/2016/02/21/minnesotas-lead-ammo-ban-plan-ignites-fiery-debates-among-hunters/
- https://undark.org/article/lead-ammunition-bullets-hunting-copper/
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5161761/
- http://www.businessinsider.com/lead-free-bullets-find-little-buyers-2012-8
- http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/campaigns/wildlife_abuse/toxic-lead-ammunition-poisoning-wildlife.html?credit=web_id65489599?referrer=https://www.google.com/
- https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/environmental-effects-of-guns/478803/
- https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/gun-lobbying-spending-in-america-congress/
- https://dnr.wi.gov/
- https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170302/the-nra-applauds-secretary-zinkes-protection-of-traditional-ammunition
- https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041104005801.htm