@churchcc12
metallic lead in ammunition (bullets and primers) has no significant impact on human health. It's a fact proven by several scientific studies and research papers.
----------------
In the United States, wildlife experts do not manage wildlife based on single mortality incidents or emotions. Our country’s wildlife management practices are based on the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which is widely recognized as the best in the world. For more than a century, wildlife in the United States has been successfully managed through this model and has led to an incredible restoration of multiple species.
---------------
anyone can go out to any body of water in my state that doesn't have special regulations and shoot moorhens, rails, snipe, dove, and even skeet over water with lead shot. They could even stand on shore or sit in a boat and shoot case after case of shells containing lead shot over the water, and it would all be perfectly legal. They just can't shoot ducks, coots, or geese with lead from the exact same spot. Conversely, if they wanted to intercept ducks flying low over a high hill between a roosting area and a feeding area, and ten miles from the nearest body of water, they would be required to use non-toxic shot. The same is true for shooting geese over cultivated fields or pastures where they feed. That is an inconsistency that has stood for over a quarter of a century. Over time the regulatory agencies started seeing the contradictions in their logic which offered two alternatives. One was to relax restrictions, the other was to increase restrictions for shooting that did not involve waterfowl. Since no bureaucracy has ever shown an ability to reduce restrictions the second option was chosen.
--------------------
“This is a policy that really isn’t designed to help wildlife conservation, but is designed to punish hunters,” Oliva said, “is designed to actually disinterest and put obstacles in the way of people being able to access the outdoors.”
Oliva also questioned the science linking hunting to lead ingestion by birds of prey, though there is wide agreement in the scientific community that feeding on gut piles — the entrails from hunters’ big game carcasses — is a leading cause of lead poisoning for birds.
“We think [the bill] is scientifically unsound and is counterproductive to wildlife restoration, wildlife management and conservation in America,” Oliva said.
‐---------------
The crux of anti-hunting activists’ argument against traditional ammunition rests on the misplaced assertion that the use of lead ammunition for hunting leads to elevated lead exposure and poisoning in scavenging animals, such as the California condor, that allegedly ingest fragments of spent ammunition in gut-piles or carcasses left in the field by hunters. The scientific studies relied on by the anti-lead proponents are in fact not scientifically sound. In other words, the proponents use “faulty science” to support their anti-lead ammunition agenda. HuntForTruth.org has procured and analyzed over one hundred thousand documents from governmental agencies, universities and researchers and have found systemic flaws, which include faulty methodology and sampling protocols and the selective use of data (i.e. "cherry picking" data for publication).
------------
Now, you have your "facts". I have mine.
The above is from various links I've already posted.
This is the same argument we have been getting since the "lead ban" began.
You can weep and wail and wring your hands until you turn blue in the face.
Won't change the argument.
Won't change the lead ban.
But be assured, (and you won't be) there is more to the "lead ban" than just banning lead shot.
www.jstor.org
!
