Lead Shot Ban?

[almostthere!]

Cat,

It would be great to post an image of that X-Ray on this site for the people who thinks lead bullets pose no harm.

I too shoot X-Bullets and will never go back.

[catman71]

almostthere, you make a good argument. I read this in an article my sister sent me on the subject that supports your points written by scientists far smarter than you or I (well me for sure anyway)

"the precautionary principal needs to be applied, which says: "When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically."

[Dotch]

After reading this publication in its entireity including the discussion of Precautionary Principle, it also supports those of us who are asking that the science, data and risk assessment be allowed to play a role in our decision making process. Included is the last section:

"7.5 POLICY APPROACHES TO LEAD

Risk assessment or the precautionary principle?

Two different approaches can be taken to develop policy options for the

regulation of a potentially hazardous substance such as lead, where knowledge of

the full effects is incomplete. Lead (and other metals) present a special case in

that they are sparingly soluble in most products and in most chemical and

mineral forms in the environment, but at the same time are persistent in many

environmental media.

Risk assessment

Environmental risk assessment involves a search for a “best route” between

social benefit and environmental risk, and providing a “tool” in decision making

and in the process of risk management. It is a balancing or trade-off process in

which various combinations of risks are compared and evaluated against

particular social or economic gains. It does not necessarily imply a no-risk

policy, or a minimum one. However, risks should be as fully understood as

possible if they are to be effectively managed (SCOPE 15, 1980).

Making a risk assessment involves identifying:

a hazard (in this case lead),

a target population which can potentially be affected,

an exposure pathway by which it reaches the target population, and

Figure 7.1 Blood lead trends reported in literature

Switzerland

Denmark

Sweden

UK

USA

Germany

Austria

Belgium

Canada

Italy

Spain

Finland

New Zealand

Korea

China

Denmark (2)

25

20

1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996

15

10

5

0

141

LEAD EXPOSURE TO HUMANS AND OTHER ORGANISMS

the effect which it has on the population at a given dose, and whether there is

a “safe” dose which gives no detrimental effects.

Just because a substance is hazardous, it does not necessarily pose a risk to

human health, an ecosystem, or any other “target” population. There must be a

route, or pathway, by which a population is exposed to the hazard. For example, a

contaminated industrial area which is occasionally visited by adults will pose a

much smaller risk than a garden with similar contamination (i.e. a similar hazard),

but which is used as a play area for children. Similarly, the risk of using a material

which is hazardous, such as lead, depends on there being some way that humans, or

other living organisms, are exposed to that material, either during the preparation

and manufacturing processes, the use of the article, or its final disposal.

The technique of risk assessment can model both the severity of the hazard to

the population, and the probability of the population being exposed to the hazard.

The final outcome, i.e. the predicted risk, depends upon the combination of all of

these factors. Answers are complex and are given in terms of probabilities,

because within a population there are always individual differences in

susceptibility and exposure from different sources. However:

There is no single universal approach used in all situations, and calculations

using alternative risk assessment methodologies can yield different end

results. A diversity in methodologies should be encouraged, so that all

possible risk outcomes can be considered and the potential for error is

minimised (Hallenbeck, 1993, Quantitative Risk Assessment for

Environmental and Occupational Health).

The calculations assume that all possible exposure routes have been

considered, (which may not always be the case, particularly in the long term).

Even though much study has been done on the behavior of lead in the

environment, and its effects, particularly on human health, knowledge is not

complete. (This is also true for other substances; in fact, lead has been more

widely researched than some alternatives.) Thus, some parameters used in the

computations are not known, and must be estimated - and these estimates

(often termed default assumptions) can be inaccurate.

Calculations should take into account the natural background levels in soils,

which vary considerably between locations, and where possible the forms of

the lead present which will influence its solubility and bioavailability.

Though the technique is being developed to improve predictions, as yet risk

assessment is not an exact science.

Precautionary Principle

The Precautionary Principle is defined as an approach to risk management that is

applied in circumstances of scientific uncertainty, reflecting the need to take

action in the face of a potentially serious risk, without awaiting the full results of

scientific research. This is a political approach, exercised in order to protect

citizens or the environment from a threat. When scientific data are incomplete

and there is a significant danger to human, animal or plant life, decision-makers

are justified in taking action. Such action could involve refusing to license or

allow a potentially hazardous activity (for example, an industrial process) or

substance (such as lead), unless it can be demonstrated that any risks involved

would be acceptably small. The Precautionary Principle is enshrined in

international law, including European Community legislation and the Rio

Declaration of 1992.

Recent guidance on the implementation of the Precautionary Principle, states

clearly that:

implementation of an approach based on the Precautionary Principle should

begin with an objective risk assessment, identifying the degree of uncertainty

at all stages,

all the stakeholders involved should be involved in the decision to study the

various management options that may be envisaged once the results of risk

assessment are available, and the procedure should be as transparent as

possible,

measures based on the Precautionary Principle must be proportionate to the

risk which is to be limited or eliminated,

measures based on the Precautionary Principle must include an overall cost

benefit assessment (advantages /disadvantages) with a view to reducing the

risk to a level which is acceptable to all stakeholders,

measures based on the Precautionary Principle must be able to establish

responsibility as to who must furnish the scientific proof needed for a full risk

assessment, and

measures based on the Precautionary Principle must always be of a

provisional nature, pending the results of scientific research performed to

furnish the missing data and perform a more objective risk assessment.

(Source: European Commission DG XXIV Consumer Policy and Consumer

Health, “Guidelines on the Application of the Precautionary Principle” (draft),

17th October 1998).

Summary

The two above approaches are not contradictory, but should be used together

when making policy decisions. The Precautionary Principle is justified when

knowledge is incomplete and there is significant potential for harm. Policies

based on this Principle should take account of all available information and be

reviewed as more detailed knowledge emerges. All risk assessments must

include an account of their uncertainties and limitations in order to be useful."

[kc0myy]

I am going to hit on a few points that I have read so far. Rosters: I shoot trap alot I have around a 19.5 avg. I am sure where I shoot trap there is a lot of lead. But behind is there is all woods. Roosters don't go into woods very offtent. (At least I don't think I have been hunting rooster for about 2 weeks now) Also lead has a harder hit power than steel does. So if you don't have a dog that will bring your birds back you want to make sure you fold that bird so it does not run on you. Decoys for ducking hunting: If we were use lead shot for duck hunting and have 50 guys go out there and shoot all day long. You will put more lead into the water will losing one wieght with your decoys than you would with 50 guys out there. We got rid of lead for waterfowl. I think thats enought. I don't want to see lead band for upland birds. Also if you could show me were is lead is out in the open I will stop using lead.

[Muthagoose]

Statistics and reason are here. Some points being made are sound yet common sense leaves the discussion.

Most people that prosess will cut away bloodshot are if not, sounds like sloppy work being done.

I have gone in for blood tests after working years on fed and state rehab programs,Yet to have a single problem considering all the lead encapsulation work I have done. This was after years of reloading of rifle,shotgun and pistol rounds..

I have looked in the craws of a lot of birds to see what they have been into for feed and yet to find a single pellet in the field or at my work bench. Not to say it cant happen but Id bet the ODDS are you wont find one either

Ya know think about the hazzardous material in drywall,the benzine fumes when you fill your tank,propane grill,the preservatives in your food. Your more likely to have health problems from them LONG before a lead shot issue takes affect in yours of your offsprings life..

As a contractor to the state were informed at the State weatherazation conferrences "unless you eat paint chips leathel or health risk absortion is highly unlikely".

Do you know if your home is lead free? Unless you have a new home its probably not.. Its on your roof down to your main waste line seals. Most of your older towns,schools still have lead water lines. I think your going to be affected long before the lead shot killed pheasant takes affect.

How many of your have silver fillings on your mouth?? Know whats in there?

Somthing thats as bad if not worse than lead yet we drink eat and breath with it in our mouths.

Isnt Easter coming up in a couple months?

[Esoxmn]

I think eventually it is going to happen, The ammo companys need to come out with some cheaper non toxic shot.

[Stiff]

Personally I think lead is just a far superior load compared to steel. Some pretty basic physics will tell you that it holds its energy down range much better than steel can simply because it's a more dense material. This was really impressed upon me back in the days when lead was still legal in Canada but no longer legal in the US (for waterfowl).

I was really frustrated to see birds hit with 3" steel only to have them fly across the slough before falling. Then we would head up to Canada and shoot 2 3/4" of lead and have the birds fall right in the decoys. During that time it was very clear to me which was the superior ammunition.

Steel is inferior to lead when it comes to killing effectively. The other dense non-toxics are just too expensive to be seriously considered for everyday use (trap, skeet, etc)

I researched the subject for a paper back when I was in college. I'll be the first to admit that it was a long time ago and the data may be different today, but I remember being really surprised at the lack of supporting data that was available when lead was first banned for waterfowl. It basically boiled down to a few guys in power who said, "This seems to make common sense to us - therefore it should be a law". There was remarkably little data that I could find that honestly supported the idea that lead in the field is a real problem. On the other hand, most of the well balanced studies on heavily hunted marshes indicated that there was no measurable impact of waterfowl picking up lead through feeding.

I think it is pretty sad that we have all come to accept it as a "good decision" made for us by the law makers when there was so little scientific data that actually went into the decision.

All that said - I still think is the way we are headed. I think ammunition will cost you more, the ammunition manufacturers with profit slightly more... their costs will go up, but you will cover the cost for them....

In my opinion the ones that will receive the biggest disservice through this whole thing are also the forgotten - the ones we fail to consider, when in reality they are the ones that really deserve the most consideration... The Game Birds we all hunt and strive to harvest in most humane and effective way.

Just my 2 cents.

~T

[almostthere!]

Quote:

---

Personally I think lead is just a far superior load compared to steel. Some pretty basic physics will tell you that it holds its energy down range much better than steel can simply because it's a more dense material. This was really impressed upon me back in the days when lead was still legal in Canada but no longer legal in the US (for waterfowl).

I was really frustrated to see birds hit with 3" steel only to have them fly across the slough before falling. Then we would head up to Canada and shoot 2 3/4" of lead and have the birds fall right in the decoys. During that time it was very clear to me which was the superior ammunition.

---

When talking about the power of shots, the use of the inches of the shells will only misguide the talker even further from the truth. What the talker should talk about are shot sizes and powder charges.

Yes, it is true that the down-range of steel shots will be of lower energy, compared to their lead counterparts. Infact, to get the energy equivalent of any lead shots, one must buy steel shots of 2 size bigger. (example: 4 shot steel = 6 shot lead, in down-range energy) However, if a guy can not hit roosters with #4 steel or #2 steel, it is time to hit the trap range.

Quote:

---

Steel is inferior to lead when it comes to killing effectively.

---

If you are speaking of energy transfer, then yes. If you are speaking of general killing, than NO. A well hit bird is a dead bird, no matter whether the shot is lead or steel.

Quote:

---

I think it is pretty sad that we have all come to accept it as a "good decision" made for us by the law makers when there was so little scientific data that actually went into the decision.

---

Agree, for most instances.

[CodyDawg]

"A well hit bird is a dead bird, no matter whether the shot is lead or steel."

I dont agree with this statement. On the surface it seems to make sense, but in reality it is not. Many, many times, I have pasted a rooster with steel only to see the dog go on a merry chase after the cripple. With lead, that is pretty rare. Now that is anecdotal evidence as it is my experience only. But I shoot a lot of birds per year. In most years, I have shot a much higher percentage of birds with steel shot than this year and have the same results. So I am pretty confident that well shot birds using steel are not nearly as dead as well shot birds with lead. My records show a wounding rate way higher than that of lead over almost 500 birds. so although that is my experience only, i do have a passion for rooster shooting and do way more than my wife likes.

Oh, and i agree with Dotch wholeheartedly.