Wash. Dept. of Ecology moves for lead ban

Discussion in 'Cast & Blast' started by Roper, Sep 8, 2008.

  1. Roper

    Roper Idiot Savant

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,674
    Likes Received:
    1,421
    Location:
    Glenraven Ranch
    Now the Department of Ecology has stepped up to the plate to ban lead from ammunition, not just lead shot but lead for any ammunition.

    Anyone willing to guess what the cost of ammo in the future will be? If you give a damn, make sure your voice is heard, or kiss your sport and self defense good-bye.

    Alarmist? No, realist...

    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0807009.pdf
     
  2. Gary Thompson

    Gary Thompson dirty dog

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2007
    Messages:
    3,951
    Likes Received:
    161
    Location:
    East Wenatchee, WA
    I'm on it.
    Thanks Roper
     
  3. Roper

    Roper Idiot Savant

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,674
    Likes Received:
    1,421
    Location:
    Glenraven Ranch
    Here's the e-mail I sent to the 44th District Legislators:

    I have just finished reading the Department of Ecology’s Lead Chemical Action Plan (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0807009.pdf ). Starting on page 98 it addresses their opinion of the lead issue in Washington. In the plan it states “Most ammunition now comes in non-lead versions…” What they left out is that rifle and handgun ammunition does not have non-lead versions. They also left out that what non-lead choices exist are extremely expensive. Your average lead shot shell cost about 40 cents. Your average non-lead shot shell costs close to 3 dollars! Non-lead shot is just as expensive making reloading no longer and option to keep costs down. Economic impact is totally lacking from the Departments plan.
    So if you add this cost to an already stressed economy, one can easily see sport shooting of all types declining if not vanishing all together. Gun ranges will likely close, trap and rifle ranges, gun shops, and fishing stores will be impacted also. Then there is the ripple effect to manufactures and retailers of all types of equipment, clothing, boots, optics, etc.
    Let’s not forget lodges and destination lodging for hunters across the state. And last but not least the revenues from licenses and ammo sales. Jerry’s Sporting Goods just began their closing sales a few months ago; they have been in Everett for over 40 years. Sportsman Warehouse in Mt. Vernon will be impacted, as will Cabela’s in Lacey. There are numerous gun shops, Sams, Adventure Sports, and ranges like Marysville Rifle club, Kenmore Range, Granite Falls, and others.
    The revenues from these will be gone and little will replace them. So compare that impact to the state against the vague “science” noted in the plan. It speaks of “a potential source of lead exposure...” or data on condors even though we don’t have condors. Where is the data on numbers of a species declining directly related to lead? What species has been brought to the brink by lead? If ground lead is such and issue, why hasn’t lead from the Civil War leached into the ground and poisoned most of the Eastern Seaboard States? That’s because lead bullets do not dissolve into the ground and pollute ground water.
    This whole plan may be all nice and warm and fuzzy and politically correct, until the economic impact hits home. By then it will be too late and the sport shooting and hunting life will be gone from Washington.
    Please consider these issues and take what action is required to preserve our sporting heritage in this state.
     
  4. andrew

    andrew Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    Bellingham, WA.
    Ironically the number of hunters/shooters is becoming less...not more. Every state except for mabye Texas and Alaska are seeing less and less hunters do to it not being a promoted activity within families. At the Federal level they are 'finally' seeing how much money is spent by the American public on hunting and fishing (not just gear and license, but gas, hotel, etc.) and now are considering legislature that will only potentially make this typically strong market weak?!

    I'm fine with non-toxic shot for birds, but big game? What is the sense in that?
     
  5. Roper

    Roper Idiot Savant

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,674
    Likes Received:
    1,421
    Location:
    Glenraven Ranch
    It's more about making all sort of guns too expensive to shoot. When they decide to make us turn them in, few will care any more...
     
  6. nomlasder

    nomlasder Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,380
    Likes Received:
    150
    Location:
    Burien.
    Roper,

    Question for you!

    The report says there are 94 tons of shot released annually for upland bird hunting, but it alos says there is a total of 600 tons used in hunting and other uses (target practice). [pages 232 and 233]

    How many hunters are there? If there are 25000 hunters, they must shoot and average of 48 lbs per year. Does this seem correct to you?

    While I think we all agree it is good to reduce the amount of lead released into the enviroment, as a tax payer, I want the most bang to the buck. Spend the money where it will do the most good. The report says the Puget Sound region is the most contaminated and we know it is the most populated. Spend the money reducing the lead release in the most contaminated and most populated areas first. The money spent will have the most results.

    Conversley it does not make sense to spend much money in the least contaminated, least poplulated areas. In the executive summary page xi, item # 2 "Predator species that eat game wounded by hunters" How many tons of lead would be removed from the enviroment and what cost? The cost benifit ratio is too small to consider this a viable choice for further action.
     
  7. Gary Thompson

    Gary Thompson dirty dog

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2007
    Messages:
    3,951
    Likes Received:
    161
    Location:
    East Wenatchee, WA
    This lead thing as far as the sportsman go (fishing and shooting) is a drop in the bucket.
    Auto exhaust and industrial waste is the biggie.
    Lead shot picked up by water fowl and ground up while duck feed is very harmful.
    Some places back East in some bays the lead shot is inches deep.
    Upland birds don't pick lead shot to grind up their food.
    Predator species that eat wounded game has got to be the most reaching by the enviros of all.
    My guess is that coyote that eats a bullet while eating the wounded deer will shit out that bullet in a couple of hours.
    Protecting the environment from lead is important.
    But it is the same as other environment protections, like burn bans. The home owner can't have a burn barrel, but the orchardist or the forest service can burn slash. By the tons!!!!!
    I see this issue like others, go after the little guys, cause the big ($) guys are to tough.
    Just my .02
     
  8. Roper

    Roper Idiot Savant

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,674
    Likes Received:
    1,421
    Location:
    Glenraven Ranch
    Ross, at 48 pounds per hunter each one needs to shoot 768 shell if an ounce of lead per shell is the average. Most hunters are lucky to shoot a box of 25. Those that shoot a lot of shells are usually duck hunters that already use non-tox shells. I'd say the data is a bit skewed.

    The largest concentrated distribution of lead is at a trap range. These ranges periodically "mine" the lead and it's recycled as used shot or reformed to new shot.

    The sky is not falling, as far a I know...but my ever present suspition is that this is more about back door gun control.
     
  9. nomlasder

    nomlasder Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,380
    Likes Received:
    150
    Location:
    Burien.
    That's why I brought it up. But I am presuming there are only 25,000 hunters. if the number is actually 250,000 hunters then it's only 4.8 lbs per person. Which passes the smell test. I just don't the correct number of actve hunters in the state. Does anyone on the forum have that data?

    As far as a back door to gun control, IMHO, not likely or it would be the focus of the report. I think this is simply an extension of the Gregoir mandate to the state agencies to improve the enviroment. What is curious is the report does not ask for public opinion. So the only way to control this is through the legeslature and funding or funding restrictions.
     
  10. martyg

    martyg Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,150
    Likes Received:
    158
    Location:
    The world at large
    The last time that I looked at hunter numbers, which was probably '06, there were 13.1M in the country.

    There is a source on-line - maybe the NSSF or USDA Forest Service - that has that data.
     
  11. Roper

    Roper Idiot Savant

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,674
    Likes Received:
    1,421
    Location:
    Glenraven Ranch
     
  12. Roper

    Roper Idiot Savant

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,674
    Likes Received:
    1,421
    Location:
    Glenraven Ranch
     
  13. Roper

    Roper Idiot Savant

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,674
    Likes Received:
    1,421
    Location:
    Glenraven Ranch
     
  14. Roper

    Roper Idiot Savant

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,674
    Likes Received:
    1,421
    Location:
    Glenraven Ranch
    Per the Plan data:

    According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, there are approximately 764,000 Washington State residents over the age of 16 who hunt or fish, which is 15% of the population over the age of 16 (U. S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 2006). The same survey on sportspersons indicates 577,000 only fished, 74,000 only hunted, and 113,000 both fished and hunted. WDFW data on license sales shows 786,940 fishing licenses for 2005, though not all fishing requires a license.

    That would indicate 187,000 hunters, not all shotgunners though...that's hunting and target shooting. Now the figures indicate about 7 pounds per person a year.

    So boil that down and upland hunters put a very small amount of lead into the environment. So why should I have to switch to Bismuth at $35 a box of 10 shells or steel which sucks in smaller shot sizes and is too hard for vintage guns.

    It's smells like BS to me...
     
  15. Flyn'dutchman

    Flyn'dutchman Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Wenatchee, WA
    On an interesting sided note that relates, if someone is shot with a lead projectile (bullet, pellet, etc.) doctors do not remove it from the body. These people walking around with lead in them do not and I repeat, do not, develop lead poisoning. The oxides of lead when ingested allow the lead to be absorbed through the digestive system and birds who pick up the pellets while picking grit do have problems with the lead being absorbed. I wonder if anyone has really done any research into the effects of Bismuth on the environment.

    When is this proposal supposed to take affect? It will definitly be a sad day for upland hunters. I was serioulsy considering a new 28ga, but if banned from using lead, that will be on hold. There needs to be a better alternative found. Steel is inefective and bismuth and heavi-shot are way too expensive. I'm all for supporting a cleaner environment but this fix seems to be barking up the wrong tree.

    It is interesting reading the document. The first three harmful effects or lead listed have to do with hunting. Not at all with actual environmental polution by the real lead producers. They are definitely taking aim at the hunting and shooting community.