In fashionable circles, including segments of the sportsman community, the debate about banning lead ammunition altogether is picking up a good head of steam.

An article recently in the Northwoods Sporting Journal by Mark McCollough addressed the lead ammunition issue. McCollough, who is a federal wildlife biologist as well as a hunter, wrote: “I am convinced that lead in the deer, moose and caribou that I harvest could harm my family, me, and wildlife so I am making a personal choice to switch to non-­lead ammunition.”

Although McCollough noted that a couple western states, spurred by California’s lead ammo ban, have also banned lead rifle ammunition, he failed to mention this: The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is pushing the lead­ban agenda. Yes, HSUS, the same folks who brought you the Maine bear referendum, is using the lead-ammo ban as another incremental tool to be used in their ultimate quest to outlaw all recreational hunting in America.

Far fetched?

I don’t think so. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Consider this: If you make ammunition expensive enough by taxing it heavily or requiring it to be manufactured from more costly metal alloys, presto! You will discourage hunters or recreational shooters from buying it or using it. This is called the tactic of incrementalism. If you boil the frog slowly enough he never knows that death is coming until it’s too late.

While McCollough’s motivations may be sincere and above board (health concerns), make no mistake that HSUS and other lead­ ban proponents have underlying motivations and hidden agendas. California banned lead ammo to save the condor.

That ban lacks the science to support it. According to Lawrence Keane, a spokesman for the National Sport Shooting Foundation,”For five years the state banned the use of lead ammunition in condor areas, yet even with 99 percent of hunters complying with the regulations, condor blood-­lead levels didn’t fall. What’s not been acknowledged is that lead exposure can come from other sources such as land­fills and industrial sites.”

McCollough’s worry is that lead fragments from his rifle bullet will contaminate his family’s wild meat. His concerns are refuted by a 2008 study of North Dakota hunters. Conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the study shows that those who eat game taken with traditional ammunition do not have higher blood lead levels than the average American. Iowa did a similar study with similar findings, according to Keane.

“Iowa has never had a case of a hunter having elevated lead levels caused by consuming harvested game,” writes Keane.

As McCollough notes, so far, at least in Maine, this is a personal choice issue whether to use traditional rifle ammo or purchase a non­-lead alternative. It should remain a personal choice, period.

Be advised that alternative ammunition can cost up to 190 percent more than traditional lead ammo. The old lead bullets are costly enough! Unless there is more convincing scientific data to come along, I will continue to buy and use traditional rifle ammunition.

The author is editor of the Northwoods Sporting Journal. He is also a Maine Guide, co-­host of a weekly radio program “Maine Outdoors” heard Sundays at 7 p.m. on The Voice of Maine News-Talk Network (WVOM­-FM 103.9, WQVM­-FM 101.3) and former information officer for the Maine Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. His e­mail address is paul@sportingjournal.com . He has two books “A Maine Deer Hunter’s Logbook” and his latest, “Backtrack.” Online information is available at www.maineoutdoorpublications.com or by calling Diane at 207 745 0049.

Copy the Story Link