NYS Proposed lead ammo ban

[GobbleNut]

Explain to me what critters are finding the lead pellets from my shotgun in the foothills after I fire at a turkey or quail, and what the odds are of any animal finding and eating enough to die?

Links to a few studies below.  I'm not a wildlife biologist so not sure how much lead an eagle or condor needs to eat before "eating enough to die", or how much the problem is deer bullets vs. shotgun pellets (though the North Dakota study suggests that for humans both bullets & pellets contribute).  Regardless, IMO the general public increasingly isn't going to tolerate hunters' lead making its way into eagles, condors (and sometimes humans) when nontoxic alternatives exist:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wild-game-deer-venison-condors-meat-lead-ammunition-ban/

https://www.science.org/content/article/nearly-half-bald-eagles-have-lead-poisoning

https://news.ucsc.edu/2012/06/condors-and-lead.html

Here is a little blurb from the first article:
"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tested 736 people, mostly adults, in six North Dakota cities and found that those who ate wild game had 50 percent more lead in their blood than those who did not eat it. The lead exposure was highest among people who consumed not only venison, but also birds and other game, according to the study published last month in the journal Environmental Research."

I am very pro-hunting and have been hunting for over 40 years, but my view is that hunting is a privilege.  We hunters have a social contract with the ~96% of Americans who don't hunt.  If enough of them become anti-hunting we will lose our privilege or have it severely curtailed.

Someone here gets it.  Regardless of how we hunters view this issue, the decision-making process does not lie in the hands of the 3-5% of the population that hunts.  Roughly 80% of the citizenry of this country support hunting,...when done in a manner that they find acceptable and with a consciousness towards those factors that are detrimental to the ecosystem. 

The lead issue is not something that is new.  Decades ago, lead in paint was banned because it was recognized that it was dangerous to human/animal health if ingested.  We could logically have asked ourselves how many people are eating lead paint such that it is a real problem?  For 99.99% of the population, it would never be an issue, but for that .001%,...mostly considered to be children that might accidently chew on something with lead paint in it,...it was a real, valid concern.

The lead concern with ammunition is no different. True, 99.99% of the time, it might not be an issue for wildlife or humans.  The question, though, is there an alternative for using lead in ammunition that would totally eliminate any concerns about lead poisoning?  The answer to that is "yes, there is",...other metals, whether they be more costly to those who use them, or not.

This is not some sort of political issue either.  Across society, we humans try to progress towards making our lives safer.  When a safety/health hazard is recognized, we tend to try to resolve it.  The issue of lead poisoning is just one of a myriad of issues that fit that puzzle.  Hunters should recognize this and not try to turn it into something it is not.

Finally, yes, there are those anti-gun/anti-hunting folks that strive to make this an issue to make the general public turn against us.  We do not do ourselves any favors by bowing-up and denying that lead is a problem.  It is.  We should recognize that, and seek alternatives that are safer for humans, animals, and the environment in general. 

...Again, that is the view from here...   

[the Ward]

Your view is hunting is a privilege? "social contract"? Those are some mighty fine buzzwords that tell me everything i need to know. How about guns? You think those are a privilege too? "environmentalists" are not conservationist, not by a long shot. Wildlife is not dying due to lead shot ingestion. People are not getting raised lead levels from eating deer shot with lead bullets. It is all manipulated data, and laughable.

[the Ward]

We should just cover ourselves in bubble-wrap and sit on the couch, that's safe. And if we are really good
maybe they will up our chocolate ration by a gram. Oh well, i'm out of this discussion, no good can come from it now.

[mikejd]

Maine just had this same BS on the table. Lucky for Mainers they where smart enough to know its all bs and shut it down.

[mikejd]

If you just read this bill you know thwy don't really have conservation in mind. If they did this would not be limited to state land and NYS water sheds. This only makes up a small portion of the state so are they really concerned about wildlife at all or is it just a feel good bill that they love so much.

[mikejd]

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/A5728



For you guys who want to vote against it.

[JohnSouth22]

Explain to me what critters are finding the lead pellets from my shotgun in the foothills after I fire at a turkey or quail, and what the odds are of any animal finding and eating enough to die?

Links to a few studies below.  I'm not a wildlife biologist so not sure how much lead an eagle or condor needs to eat before "eating enough to die", or how much the problem is deer bullets vs. shotgun pellets (though the North Dakota study suggests that for humans both bullets & pellets contribute).  Regardless, IMO the general public increasingly isn't going to tolerate hunters' lead making its way into eagles, condors (and sometimes humans) when nontoxic alternatives exist:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wild-game-deer-venison-condors-meat-lead-ammunition-ban/

https://www.science.org/content/article/nearly-half-bald-eagles-have-lead-poisoning

https://news.ucsc.edu/2012/06/condors-and-lead.html

Here is a little blurb from the first article:
"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tested 736 people, mostly adults, in six North Dakota cities and found that those who ate wild game had 50 percent more lead in their blood than those who did not eat it. The lead exposure was highest among people who consumed not only venison, but also birds and other game, according to the study published last month in the journal Environmental Research."

I am very pro-hunting and have been hunting for over 40 years, but my view is that hunting is a privilege.  We hunters have a social contract with the ~96% of Americans who don't hunt.  If enough of them become anti-hunting we will lose our privilege or have it severely curtailed.

Someone here gets it.  Regardless of how we hunters view this issue, the decision-making process does not lie in the hands of the 3-5% of the population that hunts.  Roughly 80% of the citizenry of this country support hunting,...when done in a manner that they find acceptable and with a consciousness towards those factors that are detrimental to the ecosystem. 

The lead issue is not something that is new.  Decades ago, lead in paint was banned because it was recognized that it was dangerous to human/animal health if ingested.  We could logically have asked ourselves how many people are eating lead paint such that it is a real problem?  For 99.99% of the population, it would never be an issue, but for that .001%,...mostly considered to be children that might accidently chew on something with lead paint in it,...it was a real, valid concern.

The lead concern with ammunition is no different. True, 99.99% of the time, it might not be an issue for wildlife or humans.  The question, though, is there an alternative for using lead in ammunition that would totally eliminate any concerns about lead poisoning?  The answer to that is "yes, there is",...other metals, whether they be more costly to those who use them, or not.

This is not some sort of political issue either.  Across society, we humans try to progress towards making our lives safer.  When a safety/health hazard is recognized, we tend to try to resolve it.  The issue of lead poisoning is just one of a myriad of issues that fit that puzzle.  Hunters should recognize this and not try to turn it into something it is not.

Finally, yes, there are those anti-gun/anti-hunting folks that strive to make this an issue to make the general public turn against us.  We do not do ourselves any favors by bowing-up and denying that lead is a problem.  It is.  We should recognize that, and seek alternatives that are safer for humans, animals, and the environment in general. 

...Again, that is the view from here...   

couldn't agree more. this is also why as much as increasing hunting pressure sucks, the more people in the woods with guns in their hands the better off not only hunting rights, but also America in general will be

[Marc]

Someone here gets it.  Regardless of how we hunters view this issue, the decision-making process does not lie in the hands of the 3-5% of the population that hunts.  Roughly 80% of the citizenry of this country support hunting,...when done in a manner that they find acceptable and with a consciousness towards those factors that are detrimental to the ecosystem. 

The lead issue is not something that is new.  Decades ago, lead in paint was banned because it was recognized that it was dangerous to human/animal health if ingested.  We could logically have asked ourselves how many people are eating lead paint such that it is a real problem?  For 99.99% of the population, it would never be an issue, but for that .001%,...mostly considered to be children that might accidently chew on something with lead paint in it,...it was a real, valid concern.

The lead concern with ammunition is no different. True, 99.99% of the time, it might not be an issue for wildlife or humans.  The question, though, is there an alternative for using lead in ammunition that would totally eliminate any concerns about lead poisoning?  The answer to that is "yes, there is",...other metals, whether they be more costly to those who use them, or not.

This is not some sort of political issue either.  Across society, we humans try to progress towards making our lives safer.  When a safety/health hazard is recognized, we tend to try to resolve it.  The issue of lead poisoning is just one of a myriad of issues that fit that puzzle.  Hunters should recognize this and not try to turn it into something it is not.

Finally, yes, there are those anti-gun/anti-hunting folks that strive to make this an issue to make the general public turn against us.  We do not do ourselves any favors by bowing-up and denying that lead is a problem.  It is.  We should recognize that, and seek alternatives that are safer for humans, animals, and the environment in general. 

...Again, that is the view from here...   

A few things...

As California was going to all non-toxic for hunting I read quite a few articles on the detriments of lead shot...  The research methods were suspect at best, and I have yet to read any research that shows causation...  And it appeared that many authors purposely confused correlation with causation.

I managed to track down and actually speak to two different authors...  One was willing to speak openly, and admitted the flaws in the research done (a paper about hawks having increased blood/lead levels after hunting season, failing to mention that these hawks were migratory).  He was not anti-hunting, but admittedly not pro-hunting either.  He was pleasant and informative...

Second author (different research) told me, he did not care how it was done, he wanted hunting ended....

In reading multiple studies done on the detriments of lead (after it was banned for duck hunting), I have yet to read a study that followed the accepted scientific method for publication.  Biased studies with suspect methods of research, that more often than not show potential correlation with no proof at all of causation.

And after the studies showing condors with high lead/blood levels, all lead hunting was banned in their area...  And the lead/blood levels went up after the ban...  Which to my understanding, to some degree lead to the statewide ban of lead for hunting here.  (The original lead ban incorperated a much, much larger area than the actual condor area)

Also remember, that due to the velocity, rifle bullets are more likely to cause lead issues with humans...  The velocity of the bullet causes some degree of lead shrapnel/fragmentation in the meat...  If eating an area of meat next to the bullet wound, you are likely to get some particulate lead...

Shotgun pellets are fired at far slower velocities and do not fragment upon impact...  You actually have to eat the lead pellet (which does not fragment) to cause lead poisoning.

Also consider the increased cost of non-toxic ammuntion, and the frequently decreased availability of such ammunition.  The cost is not an issue for turkey hunting where sevaral rounds are being fired yearly, but in high volume shooting such as dove or duck hunting, that cost starts to hit home...  And shooting copper bullets from a .22 is no longer affordable family fun.

Lots of things to consider...  Health of the environment, health of wildlife, health of society eating game.

We also have to remember that hunting is the single largest contributor to conservation, and that loosing hunters and hunting will have a negative impact on wildlife management and habitat as a whole.

Also, making the cost of hunting so high that the average person cannot afford it, or the ammunition so difficult to acquire that hunters do not have access to it.

Hunters and the hunting community should be the stewards of the sport.  So, if lead is causing issues for safety for game or people, I would not oppose regulation.  But the studies NEED to be done by less biased organizations and under more stringent scientific methods.

I would love to see hunting organizations funding research into lead as well...  Organizations such as NTF, Quail Forever, DU, CWE, RMEF, etc...

I am NOT saying that we should not have more lead regulations...  I am saying that those regulations should be based on actual science, and not a media controlled anti-hunting pseudo-research narratives, that will vastly reduce hunter numbers.

[PNWturkey]

Your view is hunting is a privilege? "social contract"? Those are some mighty fine buzzwords that tell me everything i need to know. How about guns? You think those are a privilege too?

The 2nd Amendment at the federal level protects infringement upon our "right to keep and bear arms."

However, hunting for turkey/deer is controlled at the state and local level and is definitely a privilege IMO, and can change at the whim of the majority of voters/legislators in any given state (especially since 96% of them don't hunt).  Hence, a social contract - our fellow citizens of our state give us the right to hunt and can also take away our right to hunt...

That's why it's important for us hunters that hunting continues to be viewed positively by the majority of non-hunters...