Illinois Outdoors at
RulesIllinois Outdoors at

Prairie State Outdoors Categories

Top Story :: Opinion :: Illinois Outdoor News :: Fishing News :: Hunting News :: Birding News :: Nature Stories :: Miscellaneous News :: Fishing :: Big Fish Fridays :: Big Fish Stories :: State Fishing Reports :: Other Fishing Reports :: Fishing Tips, Tactics & Tales :: Where to Fish :: Fishing Calendar :: Hunting :: Hunting Reports :: Hunting Tips, Tactics & Tales :: Where to Hunt :: Tales from the Timber :: Turkey Tales :: Hunting Calendar :: Big Game Stories :: Nature and Birding :: Birding Bits :: Nature Newsbits :: Critter Corner :: Birding Calendar :: Stargazing :: In the Wild :: Miscellaneous Reports and Shorts :: Links :: Hunting Links :: Birding Links :: Video ::

Big Buck Stories

1960s :: 1980s :: 1991-92 :: 1992-93 :: 1993-94 :: 1994-95 :: 1995-96 :: 1997-98 :: 1998-99 :: 1999-2000 :: 2000-01 :: 2001-02 :: 2003-04 :: 2004-05 :: 2005-06 :: 2006-07 :: 2007-08 :: 2008-09 :: 2009-10 :: 2010-11 :: 2011-12 :: 2012-13 ::


Flathead's Picture of the Week :: Big bucks :: Birdwatching :: Cougars :: Dogs :: Critters :: Fishing :: Asian carp :: Bass :: Catfish :: Crappie :: Ice :: Muskie :: Humor :: Hunting :: Deer :: Ducks :: Geese :: Turkey :: Upland game :: Misc. :: Mushrooms :: Open Blog Thursday :: Picture A Day 2010 :: Plants and trees :: Politics :: Prairie :: Scattershooting :: Tales from the Trail Cams :: Wild Things ::


Groups want ban on lead ammo, fishing tackle

August 03, 2010 at 04:12 PM

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Five environmental groups urged the Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday to ban lead in ammunition and fishing tackle, arguing that millions of animals are dying from eating lead-shot pellets or carcasses contaminated by lead.

“It’s long past time do something about this deadly - and preventable - epidemic of lead poisoning in the wild,” said Jeff Miller, conservation advocate for the Center for
Biological Diversity. The center was one of the five groups that submitted the 100-page petition to the EPA, which includes hundreds of scientific studies the groups say demonstrate the harm lead does to wildlife. The groups say an estimated 10 million to 20 million birds and other animals die each year from lead poisoning in the U.S.

The center, along with the American Bird Conservancy, the Association of Avian Veterinarians, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and a hunters group called Project Gutpile, are seeking a ban under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Facing the greatest risk of severe toxic concentrations are animals that scavenge carcasses that have been killed by hunters, according to the petition. It says species such as bald and golden eagles and endangered California condors are often killed or sickened by lead poisoning by scavenging meat with lead fragments from ammunition.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industry, called the petition an “anti-hunting attack on traditional ammunition.”

There is already a national ban on lead ammunition for shooting waterfowl. The shooting group says that goes far enough.

“There is simply no scientific evidence that the use of traditional ammunition is having an adverse impact on wildlife populations that would require restricting or banning the use of traditional ammunition beyond current limitations, such as the scientifically-based restriction on waterfowl hunting,” said the group’s president, Steve Sanetti.
The group said that point is underscored by the rising population of bald eagles.

Michael Fry, the American Bird Conservancy’s conservation advocacy director, said the bald eagles’ recovery was due in part to the ban on lead ammunition in waterfowl hunting.

“It’s wonderful they’re recovering, but that’s no excuse to continue poisoning them,” he said.

The groups concede that non-lead ammunition is more expensive, but argue that as it becomes more available, its cost will come down.

The EPA has 90 days to grant or deny the petition. The agency did not respond to requests for comment Tuesday.

Your CommentsComments :: Terms :: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

I’ll do what legitimately needs to be done for the environment as long as I know what’s being done is not politically motivated.  I suspect this is another ploy to make ammunition more expensive or less available - a well-known liberal tactic to “back door” our 2nd Amendment rights.  Show ME the studies and who financed them!

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/04 at 09:40 AM

The attempts to ban lead use in fishing tackle is a priority issue for PETA and HSUS. We just beat back a proposed ban here in Illinois a year ago that was driven by these two groups. They know that the ban will significantly raise the price of tackle. While that will not impact the veteran fisherman enough to make him give up fishing- it does have a big impact on the entry level kids. They want to kill off the source of old fishermen- the young ones.

American Bird Conservancy is a group opposed to cell towers, wind mills, coal power plants, mineing, natural gas production, oil production and any fossil fuel extraction.

The Center for Biological Diversity has been one of the major players in Cap and Tax- and still claims global warming is takeing place and that it is man made.

PEER Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility- check out their website for a really scarey crew. Of course they are an anonymous operation- willing to stand up for their actions.

Project Gutpile seems to be a one person operation in California. His website is so popular that in 2006 it had 37 posts, 2007- 31 posts, 2008- posts and the website has been post free since then. PSO can get over 100 posts in a week with the right topic!

This looks like either a headline/press grab by some small groups in an effort to find a new fund raising tool or PETA/HSUS have these groups running front man to me.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/04 at 11:18 AM

Big brother never sleeps.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/04 at 12:51 PM

Yeah - because sticking a stainless steel rod in the brain of human baby that could survive outside of the womb, on its own and using ammunition made of lead…is pretty much the same thing.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/04 at 03:46 PM

Get the lead out.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/04 at 04:37 PM

Colonel, thanks so much for educating us/me! It is appreciated!

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/04 at 04:43 PM

I understand you were referring to the tactic.  But being against (partial birth) abortion and being against fishing…is not the same and only a whacko animal rights freak would believe it is.  No you said, poor example.

Col. is right and I got another one for you…WOLVES.  Wolves are tool anti-hunters use and would like to use to reduce hunting opportunity.  Said it before and I will say it again…because it is true.  If you dont believe me, ya better wake up.  Right SPOONER?  Hows the cider?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/04 at 10:01 PM

Yes, but Murdy, I’m a one-issue voter…2nd Amendment.  Both sides may use the strategy, but only one side uses it in an attempt to take away my Constitutionally guaranteed right.  I say again, who’s funding the studies will determine their legitimacy for me.  “Man-made” global warming is a prime example of an illegitimate cause perpetrated by the left for the purpose of achieving power and control over MY life.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/05 at 09:41 AM

Again, my ONLY point is motive.  I want to see funding information for these studies.  I say chances are good that each of these studies is backed and funded by groups who would like to take my guns away from me.  They can’t get it done through the front door so there’s always the back door.  It’s been happening all over the world…not sure why you seem to think it’s far-fetched to happen here.  Yes, lead is poisonous but so are the chemicals TruGreen sprayed on my lawn this morning.  I don’t see anyone trying to put TruGreen out of business - not politically charged enough of an issue.  Yes, a weak analogy but true enough.  Doesn’t really matter though; I’ll keep spending more and more in order to enjoy my sport…but will our youth?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/05 at 01:51 PM

I am a young man in college, and why yes we all know the down sides to using lead it seems very impcartical to make a ban on lead ammunition and lead tackle from my point of view. I have been fishing and hunting for years but I can not call myself a wise old hunter/fisherman as of yet. while the arguement does make sence that the price would come down after the companies switched their focus how are the younger hunter/fishmen going to afford the price increase as of now? I have bought fewer deer tags this year due to price increases and being a college student I do not have the money to throw around on high priced ammunition. Lead is an all around better choice than to ban it. I have killed and have consumed many types of game shot with lead shot and I am still here…my grandfather is still here…if this is for the protection of the environment then I can see a gradual down grading but a total ban would be devistating to the younger/poorer hunter/fishermen of IL. I do know of ponds in central IL you can not keep you catch due to lead from trap shooting, and I can see a large argument over this…but no where can I see a total ban being good from anyone except those who are attcking the outdoorsmen/women of IL. yes, a lead ban seems small, but what is next? every stumble down a slippery slope beings with one step..could this be that step?? I do not know, but I do know from a fraternity brother who is an Australian that their gun laws and bans started on the size of gun you could own then ammunition then guns at all…we have the right to arms same as our forefathers, while lead tackle is not “arms” per say the ammunition is. The ban seems to be a step down a slippery slope with no end in sight, though I am young and can admitt I do not know it all..hearing the words of the older hunter/fisherman they can not do half of what they use to in the outdoors…I DO NOT want to sit my grandchildren on my knee one day and tell stories of what we use to be able to do. I want to show them and let them make their own memories of the outdoors…this is a backdoor stepping stone to bigger and bigger problems and I can not in my right mind I understand why and hunter/fisherman would want to support this, when larger threats are out there, threating the outdoors and our way of life. Call me young, dumb, stupid, call me what you will but there is one step and that step I pray is in the right direction and not a stumbling block down.

Posted by menardhunter72 on 08/05 at 08:02 PM

Well said, Menard.  Do well in college, be a leader, and bring this country back to the glory it has known in the past.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/05 at 09:34 PM

menardhunter I will not “Call me young, dumb, stupid” , but I will call you hope for the future. Thank you.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/05 at 10:06 PM

I really hope we can find an effective, inexpensive lead substitute.  Then we can have the NRA and all the conservation groups that hunters support, lead a campaign to ban all lead ammo. 

Then we collectively tell them up yours…go find something else to study and waste your money on. 

The condor issue is funny…those stupids birds will eat anything, anything.  You could ban all lead and they will still die from eating crap.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/05 at 10:25 PM

I will tell you of a study that I was a part of in class. I am a double major Criminal Justice and Biology…in one biology class we did a study on the comparasion of the money used and food wasted between students who hunted and non-hunters…(this all from students “honesty” mind you) 82% of the students who hunted had a higher GPA, were more active around campuse and had a daily food consumtion rate of around 15-20 dollars…those who were non-hunter had lower in all except the money and food they were closer to the 30-40 dollar range per day…now why does this study mean anything to this convorsation…well that study upset a lot of the non-hunter extreme environmentalist on campuse so they performed their own study to counter ours…they found on average that a student who hunted wasted more money in the school year than non-hunters…this “waste” was tags, permits, licsenses, ammunition and other huntig gear…they also found that the local economy went up and local businesses hired more students in this time…so their study in turn showed once again that the college aged hunter adds greatly to the economy and money flow of the local area…now isn’t kind of strange that this study has never been talked about or seen anywhere?? well I will tell you what I did with both results of the study…mailed one to the NRA, mailed one to PETA and mail 4 to IL congressmen…only one I heard back from was the IL NRA…I wonder why that is? Like I said earlier it is a dangerous slope we are nearing…we all must grab the rains and stop this before we are in a free fall.

Posted by menardhunter72 on 08/05 at 10:58 PM

so why don’t we hear of these “other” studies…the truth hurts and some people can’t handle it, so we don’t get these “other” studies to show the positives of the outdoor world…these groups against the outdoors keep that all hush hush…well I hope I can bring a little ray of light from our world into theirs

Posted by menardhunter72 on 08/05 at 11:04 PM

You are a breath of fresh air and you give me hope that there is still hope for the youth in America. I’ll bet your folks are proud!

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/06 at 08:09 AM

Here is a link to the petition (at bottom).  Everyone should have a look.  Its not a secret that lead poisoning can kill critters.  For those asking about ‘who funded work’, if you look at the literature cited in the document, you will see the science came from a range of folks, including university faculty, state wildlife agency personnel, doctors, toxicologists, NGO’s, and what looks to me as a professional is that studies were paid for by PR Funds, SWG funds, as well as some industry and special interest groups on both sides of the aisle.  For the most part, articles in the literature cited have been through the peer-review process and are not unedited thoughts or opinions, but rather scientific evaluations of specific lead related questions. TSCA lead ban petition 8-3-10.pdf


Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/06 at 11:05 AM

I do see and understand that Hunting and firearms are already highly regulated…the slippery-slope I was reffering to is just a way of saying what next? I agree with judging a subject on its merits but every new law or ban will have effects down the road good or bad and that has to be looked at before you can make the right choice. Yes, any subject can be called a slippery-slope from any point of view, from mine I see Chicago and the laws and bans they have tried to pass and the bills that have failed to pass the House of Reps and Senate in Springfield and I see that bills most outdoorsmen would love to see pass fail and now we are yet again looking at something else to limit the options and choice for IL sportsmen…I say slippery-slope as a way of asking what happens next because as history has shown there never is just one more ban or one more law. It is like a pendilium and it will keep swinging til we start to swing it the other way. I can see this ban leading to other bans, unless something is done to hault this in its tracks, and find a middle ground so that maybe just maybe we can stop the ever swing pendilium from one extrenme to another.

Posted by menardhunter72 on 08/06 at 01:58 PM

And Murdy, I totally agree we can not alienate the non-hunters…I have many relatives that do not hunt and friends that do not hunt and we need their support as much as we need all hunter/fishermen to support…you always see commericials for problems with lead and law suits being filed…if we just stand back and don’t attempt to be diplomatic and responsive we can lose their support which we need just as bad as the people who enjoy their hunting/fishing. How to do that…I am not sure, but alienating them will do more harm than good for a fact.

Posted by menardhunter72 on 08/06 at 02:07 PM

If lead is a problem, its a problem regardless of tradition.  The alternatives are one of cost and performance.  And more than a bit of stubbornness considering the enviro’s want to change everything we do. 

Obviously we’ve adapted for hunting over water.  So I don’t think its completely performance.

Cost is definitely the big hurdle.  If something cheaper were available, I bet the market would self impose the lead ban.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/07 at 09:11 AM

Sniper summed it up pretty well. I also don’t see the slippery slope argument imbedded in this. This is an attack on lead, not the sport necessarily. The science is there. The facts are there. Lead (among other substances) is being eliminated left and right from commercial products. Did Samsung/Sony complain when they eliminated lead from their TVs and other electronic products? Probably. But better technology became available and we still buy TVs. It’s no surprise and high time focus was placed on fishing/hunting gear. Cost is the biggest hurdle, but eventually even that won’t be enough to stand in the way. I just bought pack of steel worm weights the other day at $0.10 greater than the pack of traditional lead weights. We have to consider what we stand to gain/lose with each decision/stance we take a sportsmen.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/08 at 07:01 PM

I guess I can understand the steel shot point of view, but any bird dumb enough to eat a lead fishing sinker should be dead.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/10 at 10:43 AM

Ammunition manufacturers have seen this coming and have been making breakthroughs.  While the cost is up one some of these new products the performance is out of this world.  For example my father is a waterfowl hunter and I am not but I do hunt turkeys and used some of his new heavy-shot goose loads and they blow any turkey load out of the water.  You can knock down a turkey at 60 yards with ease.  Now loads like these are not cheap but the price on them has come down about 30% in the last 5 years and will continue to fall.  This ban on lead is inevitable and we need to realize that.  If we keep fighting it we are going to look very bad in the environmental community and we’re the ones who actually care about the environment the most and we need to prove that.  We know its bad so why fight it, a slow withdraw would be the best way to go because of cost on the consumer and that would give companies time to switch to alternative products.  An all out ban would be devastating to everyone not just younger people, you have to consider all the product on the shelf the equipment used to manufacture the product would have to be altered or replaced and all this would be passed on to us at astronomical prices and would take many years to recover from.  I hope they go about this correctly, although this is our federal government so don’t expect speedy action anyway.

Posted by Metallicat85 on 08/10 at 10:49 AM

Your stories certainly are entertaining, Cap, but far from realistic (at least when considering only fishing/hunting gear). Comparing private land with lead sinkers/shot (unregulated sites) to gas stations (regulated sites) is apples to oranges. Having worked for the EPA a number of years I can assure you that, as far as any regulatory action goes, it would take an awful lot of lead shot & sinkers to make any one of your “contamination scenarios” a realistic concern as far as being above any EPA regulatory standard. Cleanups are done for a reason (exceedence of regulatory criteria, risks to human health and environment, etc), and I am unaware of any that have been *required* at a site that was contaminated soley from lead shot/sinkers. Nothing is impossible, but what is more likely than your scenarios is the division between us and middle America that Murdy previously mentioned if we show great opposition to this ban. That would be more damaging than paying a few extra bucks at a shooting range ever would.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/11 at 06:40 AM

To many of you on this site are guilty of the “it can’t happen here” syndrome.  I guess serializing brass, tagging smokeless powder, and “we just want to ban handguns and assault weapons, not sporting arms” aren’t stepping stones to an all-out ban on privately owned weapons.  Call me cynical, I don’t trust one of them.  This call for a ban on lead use in sport ammo and equipment, while logical on the surface, is a stepping stone.  The groups involved hate guns, hunters, and anyone who supports free choice.  Fire away…

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/11 at 04:07 PM

Incrementalism.  I get the point.  Some we agree with, some we don’t. I get the economics argument as well, something cost more to do, less people will do it.  I don’t shoot hundreds of rounds.  So i am not affected as much as those that do.

Personally I think all intestinal tracts are toxic.

I bet salmon guts become an issue when every charter dumps them in the same spot.  Do they float or sink?  Would you want the launch be the dumping spot?  Another thought, don’t the contaminates accumulate in the belly fat in higher concentration.  If so, then dumping them back in the water seems short sighted.
As for a trap range, would you want to plant a garden on a reclaimed shooting range?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/11 at 05:25 PM

I’m not quite sure what you mean about salmon guts = to toxic waste, cap. Different contaminants accumulate in different parts of fish (if at all), so it largely depends on the species and the contaminant. But, yes, it is entirely possible for certain contaminants to accumulate in fatty areas of fish (including stomach and intestines).

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/11 at 07:46 PM

@Murdy…Stepping stones, in my usage, are just that, steps up a path which leads to an all-out gun ban.  I understand your point, that we can’t fight total war against every slight of our sport/lifestyle.  We would sound like the little boy who cried wolf.  I think the important point, though, goes back to my first post…the funding.  The groups - as identified by The Colonel - behind this current push for a total ban on lead are left-wing extremists who pump large amounts of cash into anti-gun campaigns.  I may be mistaken, but I think the decade or so old “steel only” rules for waterfowl came from groups who are on our side - Ducks Unlimited, Delta Waterfowl, USFWS, etc.  I think you’re right, a ban is going to happen, and I support that FOR THE RIGHT REASONS.  The people pushing it now are doing it for the wrong reasons, reasons they are not letting us in on.  Again, I’m extremely cynical with regards to matters such as this.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/12 at 09:36 AM

Damn, Murdy, take a pill!  I never said lead shouldn’t be replaced with a non-toxic alternative.  I even said I support that position (if done gradually so that ammo manufacturers can keep up).  *WHAT I SAID*, in a nutshell, was I question these groups motives.  They are taking a common sense argument, one which few can disagree with (in most scenarios - I find it hard to believe that enough lead sinkers are lost to make much difference), and are using it as a backdoor method for banning guns.  Using this tactic, they are,  in essence, legitimizing themselves.  That’s it.  I would much rather have groups such as DU, Pheasants Forever, or Delta Waterfowl lead this charge.  It can happen here, it is happening here, and left-wing groups such as the aforementioned need to be opposed before they successfully take away my 2nd Amendment rights.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/13 at 07:08 AM

Now that the EPA is moveing foward with this ban (The public comment period is already open)- do ‘yall still think that this is just about lead? It is about gun ownership, hunting rights and fishing rights. This ban is going to be a sneak attack on all.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/26 at 06:29 PM

lead is a poison i think i would rather pay a little more for ammo and have a safer environment

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/08 at 01:47 PM

Comment Area Pool Rules

  1. Read our Terms of Service.
  2. You must be a member. :: Register here :: Log In
  3. Keep it clean.
  4. Stay on topic.
  5. Be civil, honest and accurate.
  6. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Log In

Register as a new member

Next entry: ESPN sells BASS

Previous entry: Illinois honors wildlife landowners of year

Log Out

RSS & Atom Feeds

Prairie State Outdoors
PSO on Facebook
Promote Your Page Too

News Archives

November 2019
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Copyright © 2007-2014 GateHouse Media, Inc.
Some Rights Reserved
Original content available for non-commercial use
under a Creative Commons license, except where noted.
Creative Commons