Lead shot ban on WMA’s

[JJ]

If you aren’t aware, the MN DNR is taking comments on banning the use of all lead shot on certain public lands in Minnesota. Below is a message from MNGOPAC on the matter:

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 [email protected] 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.
Rob Doar
Political Director

P.S. The Minnesota DNR is proposing new lead ammunition prohibitions that could increase the cost of hunting by two to four times. Please e-mail Jason Abraham at [email protected] and tell him that you are opposed to the proposed new regulation.

Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus

[WANNABEINOTC]

Poppycock!

Email sent.

I had to double take the release date.
They have on there making waterfowl possession limit three times the daily limit and opening day shooting hours to start 1/2 hour before sunrise instead of 9.m.

[JJ]

WANNABEINOTC wrote:
Poppycock!

Email sent.

I had to double take the release date.
They have on there making waterfowl possession limit three times the daily limit and opening day shooting hours to start 1/2 hour before sunrise instead of 9.m.

Yeah I saw those as well, lol. Not the best press release, and that’s before we even strap on our critical thinking hats on some of the actual proposals.

Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus

[MarkBruzek]

What a bunch of government BS. Tag this onto a package with a dozen or so more rules/law changes to sway the actual outcome. What a JOKE!

Pro Staff for myself...

[PB]

I’ve been buying only steel shot for years. I don’t see the point in using lead for anything other than practice shooting.

[JJ]

PB wrote:
I’ve been buying only steel shot for years. I don’t see the point in using lead for anything other than practice shooting.

And that is the marketplace at work, you have a choice. Instead of having bans being considered on shaky science.

Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus

[bottlebass]

I only carry steel shot when I go hunting too. We will stop by a lot of WPA’s so its just easier to only have steel shot. Doesn’t really bother me and I’m not sure why its such a big deal for some people. Shoot cheap lead for practice and shoot steel when hunting.

I’m assuming someone will bite my head off for asking this but why do you really feel the need to shoot lead? I have not had a problem with steel stopping birds.

[JJ]

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.

2013 Dept. of Interior California Condor Report wrote:

“[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.

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 average hunters 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 is a good opportunity.

Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus

[JJ]

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.

2013 Dept. of Interior California Condor Report wrote:

“[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

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.

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. This is just one of many “camel’s nose under the tent” issues. Anti-gunners know they cannot win on a grand scale, but they have had success by slowly chipping away. When they decide to ban all lead projectiles on state lands, small issues like this will be looked back at as great oversights.

4. Hunters need to get off the bench
Hunters generally 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.

Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus

[bottlebass]

To your point about expense. Cheap steel shot isn’t that much more expensive than lead shot. The nicer steel shot is but its not a prohibitive cost compared to the other costs to go hunting.

I don’t see the need to add extra lead into our water and soil when there is an easy readily available alternative. One could argue that steel shot also contains contaminants that are bad for the environment… But lead is banned in other products for a reason.

[JJ]

bottlebass wrote:
To your point about expense. Cheap steel shot isn’t that much more expensive than lead shot. The nicer steel shot is but its not a prohibitive cost compared to the other costs to go hunting.

I don’t see the need to add extra lead into our water and soil when there is an easy readily available alternative. One could argue that steel shot also contains contaminants that are bad for the environment… But lead is banned in other products for a reason.

This isn’t just about lead shot. The logical next step is to ban all lead projectiles (just like California). In the “farmland zone” the vast majority of deer hunters are still using smoothbore barrels and lead rifle slugs. there are no copper alternatives, unless hunter progress to a rifled slug barrel with copper sabots. There is a significant cost there.

Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus

[bottlebass]

JJ wrote:

This isn’t just about lead shot. The logical next step is to ban all lead projectiles (just like California). In the “farmland zone” the vast majority of deer hunters are still using smoothbore barrels and lead rifle slugs. there are no copper alternatives, unless hunter progress to a rifled slug barrel with copper sabots. There is a significant cost there.

I can understand your point there. That I would be against I guess. But I still don’t have a problem with using steel shot on WMAs here in MN.

[JJ]

I don’t have a problem with people using steel shot on WMA’s either, but i would prefer to let it be their choice.

What we do have, is plenty of evidence that these bans have been instituted in the past as gun control actions:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/2/lead-ammunition-ban-passed-after-feds-withheld-key/?page=all

[T]he email thread shows that they withheld that [information] from the public; they withheld it from the legislature purposely,” Mr. Keane said. “And why? Because the results show that despite the existing law and regulations that ban the use of traditional ammunition by hunters, it was not having an impact on condor blood-lead levels in California.”

Mr. Keane added, “Which suggests, as we have said all along, that condors in California are accessing lead from other sources, not ammunition.”

..snip…

The Fish and Wildlife Service report released in October 2013 concluded that California condors continue to be exposed to lead despite California’s ban on lead ammunition in the “condor zone,” and offered explanations that included alternative sources to hunters’ bullets.

“[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 (since remediated),” said the report.

The update also cited a 2012 peer-reviewed scientific paper that found nine condors “had lead detected in their blood that did not match the isotopic signature of ammunition, background levels, or paint, indicating an unidentified source of lead in the environment.”

Lets also consider some actual peer reviewed science:

http://media.wix.com/ugd//e4faa6_49034f4544988fbcdc066574c430f3b4.pdf

lead metal, even in finely divided form, cannot, if ingested, be directly absorbed into the body

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.277/abstract

We investigated whether large carnivores in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem were exposed to lead, and if so, if ammunition ingested from gut piles was an apparent source of exposure. Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos, n = 82) exhibited higher blood lead levels (median = 4.4 µg/dL, range 1.1–18.6 µg/dL) than black bears (Ursus americanus, n = 35, median = 1.6, range 0.5–6.9 µg/dL), but blood lead levels did not increase during the autumn hunting season when potentially lead-tainted gut piles are available. Wolves (Canis lupus, n = 21) and cougars (Puma concolor, n =  showed lead concentrations near or below the minimum level of detection in both blood and tissue samples. Unlike findings in previous studies on avian scavengers, we did not find lead ammunition fragments to be a widespread source of lead exposure in large carnivores. Grizzly bears do, however, exhibit blood lead levels that are higher than what is considered safe in humans, but the source of this exposure remains unknown

Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus

[JJ]

And by all means, you should be allowed to choose for yourself what you would like to use.

Myself, i prefer to look at the science that is pointing out that the lead shot bans have little to no effect:

http://media.wix.com/ugd//e4faa6_49034f4544988fbcdc066574c430f3b4.pdf (Metallic lead fragments from ammunition are not bioavailable, as researchers calculated that only 0.05% of any metallic lead is converted to a bioavailable form of lead in the intestinal tract, well below any level of concern.)

http://www.jwildlifedis.org/doi/pdf/10.7589/0090-3558-42.4.772 (Andean condors were continually fed lead shot for over 40 days before finally succumbing to lead toxicosis, demonstrating the low solubility of metallic lead in the condor’s digestive system.)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.277/abstract (Researchers attempting to find a link between lead ammunition and lead poisoning of wildlife actually found no correlation between hunting season and lead poisoning of carnivores that fed on carcasses and gut piles of game taken by hunters using lead ammunition.)

http://www.huntfortruth.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Case-For-Lead-2013-Norway.pdf (A presentation showing that the evidence presented to decision makers to further restrict lead ammunition use does not pass academic scrutiny and is manipulated to suit a political agenda.)

Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus

[bottlebass]

I’m not arguing that the lead shot is contaminating our birds and other game animals. I would however argue that it does further pollute our fresh water. The only fresh water we have to drink. And the fresh water that the fish I like to eat swim in.

[Author]

Posts