PDA

View Full Version : Threat on lead ammo - NSSF email


CUTTERS DADDY
02-12-2009, 12:20 PM
Received this email from NSSF earlier today:


To: ALL MEDIA
For immediate release

February 12, 2009
For more information contact:

Ted Novin
tnovin@nssf.org
Office: 203-426-1320
Cell: 202-253-1860


Threat to Hunting in California Stands to
Further Cripple Golden State Economy

NEWTOWN, Conn. -- Following calls from anti-hunting groups to expand California's ban on traditional ammunition statewide, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) -- the trade association for the firearms, ammunition and hunting industry -- urged hunters to contact the Fish and Game Commission, the Department of Fish and Game, the governor and their state legislators to demand science-based wildlife management and not allow anti-hunting interest groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity to destroy the American heritage of hunting -- a critical wildlife management tool.

Proponents of a statewide ban on traditional ammunition argue it is necessary in order to safeguard animals and the health of hunters. However, many of the species that proponents of the ban claim to be "at risk" have flourishing populations; this demonstrates successful wildlife management practices that are based on managing species populations, not individual animals. Furthermore, a recent CDC study failed to show any evidence that consuming game harvested with traditional ammunition posed any human health risk to hunters.

"Banning traditional ammunition is poor public policy that is not supported by sound science and is being driven by an anti-hunting agenda," said NSSF President Stephen L. Sanetti. "Advocates of this ban have a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic science underlying wildlife management. Their lack of understanding on the subject and disdain for America's hunting heritage will hurt the entire state as significant tax revenue derived from hunters is lost."

A 2006 study by the Responsive Management Company to determine the awareness level and opinions of California hunters concerning a potential ban on lead ammunition concluded that such a ban would negatively impact hunter numbers in California and the state's economy.

According to survey results, 75 percent of hunters in the state use traditional ammunition for such reasons as finding non-lead ammunition too costly, not as effective or not as available as lead ammunition. Only 16 percent of hunters support the ban on traditional ammunition compared to an overwhelming two-thirds of hunters, and 77 percent of big-game hunters, who oppose the ban.

Hunters in the study were very clear when asked what their reaction to a lead ammunition ban would be: They would hunt less, cease hunting altogether or hunt outside California, a move that would certainly hurt state money derived from federal excise taxes. These are taxes that hunters pay when purchasing hunting and shooting equipment and are later returned to California for conservation and education programs, including species protection, habitat improvement and hunter access and safety. Last year California received more than $7.4 million from these taxes, monies that will disappear as hunters leave the state.

Significant losses to businesses, many of them independent retail stores and bed and breakfasts associated with hunting in California, are also to be expected.

Data derived from John Dunham and Associates shows that hunting plays a pivotal role in California's economy. Hunting supports more than 21,000 jobs statewide -- jobs that pay California residents more than $818 million annually -- and benefits the state economy to the tune of more than $2.8 billion a year.

"It is imperative that sportsmen and hunters contact the governor and their state representatives to help ensure that this ill-considered ban is not expanded throughout the state," said NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane. "A statewide ban would only serve to hurt hunters, conservation efforts and the economy, while doing nothing to impact animal populations as lead is already safely and easily managed."

Jonathan Doe
02-12-2009, 12:53 PM
I thought the California ban is for condor population. I don't know if there are any scientific study done to see if lead containing bullet is actually harming the condors. Maybe they are just using condors as excuse because they are endangered.

chris
02-12-2009, 1:03 PM
this state care nothing for that stupid bird only to take away ammo because guns are a much harder thing to ban than ammo. no ammo no need for a firearm problem solved in Krapamentos eyes. screw the DFG of this state for proposing this crap.

CUTTERS DADDY
02-12-2009, 1:05 PM
It is CURRENTLY for the condor range but per the article, anti-hunting groups are trying to expand its effect. This could potentially put ALL LEAD AMMO in jeopardy (read:anti-gun groups).

Jonathan Doe
02-12-2009, 1:39 PM
I wanted to see if there is an actual scientific study on the lead containing ammo affecting people and their health other than being shot. I wonder the group proposing the no lead ammo has any solid ground other than speculation? I worked at the range as an instructor for 4 1/2 years teaching and being exposed to lead day in and day out. Still shoot a lot at indoor range. The mandatory blood test that I go through every year shows that I have a normal level of lead or heavy metal in my system. So, what gives for people not shooting everyday?

AngelDecoys
03-14-2009, 10:05 AM
I think the state lead ban is coming whether we like it or not.

Thus far, most of the arguments I've read against a state-wide lead ammo ban run parallel to the types of arguments made when lead shot was banned. Oh, steel isn't as effective on ducks, they don't penetrate as well, no manufacturers' will make steel shot shells, etc etc etc.

Its been years since that bill passed. And it seems like hunters are doing just fine (in spite of those concerns).

I'm just curious so looking for input. Other than lead bullets in rimfire, wouldn't people just use steel core bullets for centerfire? I'd imagine some ranges might have to rethink allowing steel core, and there's perhaps a few other things I have no idea about.

What am I missing here? Is it any bill that changes things must be resisted? Is this just general paranoia? Or does lead effect the ballistic coefficients better for target shooting?

Again, not trying to stir the pot, just curious.

Jonathan Doe
03-14-2009, 11:03 AM
I don't miss extinct aminals. I won't miss condors. I don't see them at all anyways. It will be nice to see them flying around, but what if they are gone? Does anyone care?

Snapping Twig
03-14-2009, 12:19 PM
Strictly back door gun control.

Fight it!

Facts, even the studies showing no, none, zero effects from lead ammo use stops these evil people from their agenda.

Fight them!

Too bad we can't use subversion of the Constitution to jail them, it would be nice.

dustoff31
03-14-2009, 12:31 PM
I think the state lead ban is coming whether we like it or not.

Thus far, most of the arguments I've read against a state-wide lead ammo ban run parallel to the types of arguments made when lead shot was banned. Oh, steel isn't as effective on ducks, they don't penetrate as well, no manufacturers' will make steel shot shells, etc etc etc.

Its been years since that bill passed. And it seems like hunters are doing just fine (in spite of those concerns).

I'm just curious so looking for input. Other than lead bullets in rimfire, wouldn't people just use steel core bullets for centerfire? I'd imagine some ranges might have to rethink allowing steel core, and there's perhaps a few other things I have no idea about.

What am I missing here? Is it any bill that changes things must be resisted? Is this just general paranoia? Or does lead effect the ballistic coefficients better for target shooting?

Again, not trying to stir the pot, just curious.

But isn't this the general thought process used by hunters and cowboy action shooters in regard to the AWB and pistol roster? "Well, it's gonna happen anyway, and if people can't get one of those they can always get something else."

As far as practical matters in regard to target shooting. It will greatly increase costs for many people. Whether they buy lead bullets or cast their own, it's immensely less expensive.

AngelDecoys
03-14-2009, 12:45 PM
But isn't this the general thought process used by hunters and cowboy action shooters in regard to the AWB and pistol roster?

On the surface I tend to agree. Sigh. I'm just saying there's plenty of bird hunters out there doing just fine and there's no longer any lead being dumped into rivers. Steel shells were expensive at first too but they came down in price. Might take a few years until there is a variety, but manufacturers for alternative bullets would step up since there's a demand for it.

The back door gun control argument isn't really working for me. It was used with the above example. I consider all hunters to be 'stewards' of the environment. I'm just having trouble as to how this is any different.

BTW - Thanks for the impact on reloaders, or bullet casters (I hadn't considered those). I'd be against it just for that reason alone. Just trying to clarify the reasons for myself.