EPA denies bid to ban lead ammunition

[Scott M]

by Mark Couch, ESPN Outdoors

Since the United States Environmental Protection Agency denied a petition that was filed on Aug. 3 from the Center for Biological Diversity to ban lead-based ammunition for hunting purposes, reaction has been controversial.

"It's clearly an area where they (the EPA) doesn't have any jurisdiction," said National Shooting Sports Foundation president Stephen L. Sanetti. "It usually takes months for this process to be completed, but they gave their decision in less than a week. This is a victory."

The EPA was considering the CBD's petition that would have revoked the Toxic Substance Act of 1976 and have resulted in a total ban on all ammunition containing lead.

The original document submitted to the EPA in early August named the American Bird Conservancy, Center for Biological Diversity, Association of Avian Veterinarians, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, and the hunters' group Project Gutpile as pushing for the ban.

The EPA began a review of the petition and had 90 days to make its final decision. However, due to the start of fall hunting seasons around the country, the EPA made it a top priority and denied the petition Monday, allowing for the continued use of traditional ammunition in most places.

Sanetti said that the Center for Biological Diversity "was feeling its oats" because lead ammunition had been banned in California's condor ran. In 2008, California adopted the Ridley-Tree Condor Preservation Act which required the use of non-lead centerfire rifle and pistol ammunition when taking big game and coyote with specific areas. The act was also intended to protect wildlife species from the threat of lead poisoning.

"They did that on shaky evidence at best," Sanetti said. "And they felt like they could get the EPA to follow suit. They were trying to deny exactly what allows hunting and shooting to continue."

The EPA does not have the authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to ban lead ammunition, according to Dale Kerner, Press Officer for the EPA. In fact, there is a federally funded excise tax, the Pittman-Robertson Conservation Fund, that comes from the purchase of hunting and shooting ammunition that funds the protection of wildlife services.

"Our petition relies upon the Act, it does not try to revoke it," said Jeff Miller, a conservation advocate from California with ties to the Center for Biological Diversity. "There have been quite a number of scientific studies that have shown elevated blood levels in humans who eat game shot with lead as discussed on Page 42 of the petition on human health.

"For the record, the federal excise tax would continue if non-lead bullets were mandated -- bullets made of copper and tungsten and other materials would be taxed instead of lead bullets. The tax and conservation funding would not end because of a switch to non-toxic materials."

"There is no concrete evidence that it is harmful," Sanetti said of lead ammo. "It's an easy target, if you pardon the pun, but through well-funded efforts, they will likely bring lawsuits and go through other agencies, which is not beyond the realm of possibility.

"I think it's a wasteful use of taxpayers money. The battle is not over by any means. We will take a stand to help fight them, but from a legal standpoint, they do not have a leg to stand on."

A study was conducted by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention in North Dakota in response to a 2008 National Parks Service program that encouraged hunters to voluntarily switch to alternative ammunition. It found that blood levels of hunters that consumed harvested game with traditional ammunition did not pose a health risk and were scientifically unfounded.

And to date, there has never been a single instance of an elevated level of lead in a human who has consumed harvested game from lead ammunition.

A 2009 press release from Grand Teton National Park and National Elk Refuge stated that officials encouraged hunters to voluntarily switch to alternative ammunition during elk and bison season, however the NSSF received a report from the manager of the refuge that there was "no population impacts on ravens and eagles connected with the use of traditional ammunition."

"While we're not opposed to voluntary measures, we maintain there is no need for them," Sanetti said. "The firearms industry supports science-based decisions about wildlife management. Under current regulations, there is no scientific evidence showing that the health of wildlife populations and humans is at risk from the use of traditional ammunition."

Miller said his group is in favor of protected endangered species from lead poisoning.

"Our petition was to regulate the toxic components in traditional ammunition, but the EPA said that it does not have the authority," Miller said. "We disagree with the denial."

Miller indicated that the CBD will "not go out on a limb politically" to receive "backlash" from groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA).

"Getting lead out of ammunition is coming," he said. "We've gotten lead out of gas, paint and other substances, so it's just a matter of time. We are concerned about human exposure to lead and there are a lot of hunters and anglers who apparently agree with us since they have switched to non-lead ammunition and fishing tackle, either out of health concerns or to avoid lead poisoning of non-target species.

"It's long overdue and we will continue to campaign against the use of lead. Obviously, we do not disagree with the Act. We petitioned the EPA to act under its authority. We disagree with their interpretation that they do not have the authority under the Act to regulate lead in ammunition. If you read the Act and the language of the exemption for ammunition, they clearly do have the authority to regulate toxic components of ammunition."

Most of the hunters in the California condor range use copper-based ammunition, according to Miller.

"We encourage that, but we're looking at the human health risk of eating game shot from traditional ammunition," he said. "It's a real concern."

Although the ban was denied on traditional ammunition due to the TSCA containing specific exemptions for lead ammunition, Kerner added the EPA will continue to review another section of the petition, which has not been withdrawn by the CBD, on the use of lead weights in fishing tackle and make a decision later this fall.

The American Sportfishing Association has sent out a release asking anglers to fight the proposed ban.

[Scott M]

You know, I did a copy and paste of an ESPN Outdoors article earlier this year that was riddled with bad journalism and based on the comments on this article, it may have happened again...whether you agree or disagree with a lead ban I'd hope both sides would be fairly represented in an informational piece. Although it appears the author and webmaster went back and made some changes. In fairness to Mr. Miller, see comments below.

Quotes from a user at ESPN: "Our petition to the EPA would not have "revoked the Toxic Substance Act" (sic) - the petition was filed under the Toxic Substances Control Act to regulate lead in ammunition and fishing tackle as toxic substances. Our petition relies upon the Act, it does not try to revoke it.

The California condor was not established as an endangered species under the Ridley-Tree Condor Preservation Act in 2008, as claimed in the article. It was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act in 1967. The Ridley-Tree Condor Preservation Act made it illegal to use lead ammunition for most hunting activities in the range of the condor in California, to end widespread lead poisoning of condors.

I am quoted as saying "We disagree with the Toxic Substances Control Act." I did not say this. Obviously we do not disagree with the Act, we petitioned EPA to act under its authority. We disagree with their interpretation that they do not have the authority under the Act to regulate lead in ammunition - if you read the Act and the language of the exemption for ammunition they clearly do have the authority to regulate toxic components of ammunition.

For the record, the federal excise tax would continue if non-lead bullets were mandated - bullets made of copper and tungsten and other materials would be taxed instead of lead bullets. The tax and conservation funding would not end because of a switch to non-toxic materials.

There are so many inaccuracies and errors in this article about the regulatory process and wildlife protection laws, subjects which are ostensibly the focus of the article, that it is clear the author did not read the petition to the EPA.

This reads like a National Shooting Sports Foundation press release - maybe you should have just posted their press release verbatim rather than pretending to write an objective article.

If you would like to read the petition for yourself it is posted at http://www.biologic aldiversity.org/camp aigns/get_the_lead_o ut/index.html

I am horribly misquoted in this article - my quote about hunters and anglers was "a lot of hunters and anglers have switched to non-lead ammunition and fishing tackle, either out of health concerns or to avoid lead poisoning of non-target species."

The article unequivocally claims "there has never been a single instance of an elevated level of lead in a human who has consumed harvested game from lead ammunition." This is patently false. There have been quite a number of scientific studies that have shown elevated blood lead levels in humans who eat game shot with lead - these are discussed in the petition.

View these videos of lead poisoned bald eagles and you will understand what this issue is about - a national disgrace that we continue to allow wildlife, including our national symbol, to be poisoned needlessly"

[goblueM]

yet another example of a meaningless petition submitted to an agency, that the media grabs onto and hypes.

Of course they were "considering it". THey have thousands of petitions submitted...they have to read through them to find out what the folks are petitioning for. I could submit a petition to the EPA right now to ban gasoline automobiles. Doesn't mean the EPA would seriously consider it

on top of that, i've read some horrible "journalism" from ESPN outdoors lately (i'm assuming you're referencing the OMG OBAMA IS BANNING FISHIN!!!!" article they wrote a while back