Hornady just sent me an email.

[taylorce1]

Asking us to send letters to lawmakers stoping the HSUS petition to ban traditional hunting bullets on all Federal land. LINK

I don't mean for this to be a drive by post and if considered so please delete.

Reject the HSUS petition that
threatens hunting on public lands!


Call Interior Secretary Sally Jewell and tell her to reject the HSUS petition that threatens hunting on public lands! Call 202-208-3181 and email our pre-written letter to voice your objection.

The future of hunting is under attack! Hornady® Manufacturing urges firearms owners, hunters and sportsmen to call Interior Secretary Sally Jewell and demand she reject a petition filed by the HSUS that seeks to ban hunting with traditional ammunition on public lands.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), anti-hunting groups, and five individual sportsmen have teamed up to file a petition with the Interior Department demanding rules that ban hunting with traditional ammunition on public lands – more than 160 million acres of federal lands managed by the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. That’s one-fifth of the total land area in the United States.

Weighing in at a hefty 50 pages, this petition is rife with emotional statements based on fuzzy science, and fails to make the case that using traditional ammunition threatens wildlife or humans in such a way as to justify eliminating it altogether. It claims prohibiting lead ammunition should be an easy accomplishment since non-lead alternatives are available. But this is nothing more than a back-door way to ban hunting altogether, by making the sport of hunting in America cost prohibitive. Once the rules change with regard to traditional ammunition on public land, it opens the floodgates for over-reaching restrictions on hunting as a whole.

Tell Interior Secretary Sally Jewell how this petition falls short on reason and logic: •It lacks sound science to support banning the traditional hunting ammunition used by hunters for centuries.
•It is another attempt by the HSUS to ban hunting altogether.
•The adverse impact of traditional ammunition upon wildlife has not been substantiated to the point of necessitating such a drastic move.
•There is no evidence that consuming game taken with traditional ammunition poses a human health risk to hunters and their families.
•Approving this ban would reduce the 11% excise taxes currently raised from the sale of traditional ammunition, which is used to support wildlife conservation. A ban of traditional ammunition would harm the very animals HSUS claims to protect.

CONTACT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TODAY!

Here is a list of the groups filing this petition: •Humane Society of the United States
•Fund for Animals
•Defenders of Wildlife
•Natural Resources Defense Council
•Wildlife Conservation Society
•International Wildlife Rehabilitation Council
•National Wildlife Rehabilitators Association
•South Florida Wildlife Center
•Chocolay Raptor Center
•Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition
•Northwood Alliance
•National Wolfwatcher Coalition
•Five individual sportsmen, including Judd Hanna, former California Fish and Game commissioner

The truth has been clearly revealed. HSUS and its ilk want to ban hunting altogether. Don’t let them succeed. Call your officials today:

Dept. of Interior Office of Communications: 202-208-6416
Dept. of Interior Executive Office: 202-208-3181
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell at 202-208-3181 or
submit a letter and demand the rejection of the HSUS petition.

[Sharkbite]

Mods....PLEASE DONT DELETE.

We need to get the word out on this.

[TXAZ]

2 other options, as it's unlikely you will actually get past an assistant phone administrator

Email: [email protected] (Forget the secretary_jewell@ email, it's the 'public' email for her)

Her twitter account is @secretaryjewell

[bamaranger]

As a general rule, hunting of any kind is not allowed on National Park lands...period. Petitioning to allow traditional lead ammo for hunting in NP's will mark one as ill informed. You cannot legally hunt on NP's. There are but a few exceptions, National Recreation Areas, for one.

The vast bulk of the lands under Interior open to hunting will be BLM lands, not National Park lands.

[hooligan1]

I got the same email but my phone is kind of crappy and so I ned to try again today.

[buck460XVR]

The biggest issue is just not the use of traditional ammo on Federal lands, but the minute the feds ban it, so will most states on state controlled public land. This is similar to what we went thru in the late 80s and early 90s with lead shot and waterfowl. Many claimed it was the doom of waterfowl hunting. Seemed all it did was jack up the price of waterfowl ammo. The higher priced ammo tho, meant higher excise taxes. Opposite of what Hornady is claiming. I don't see a problem with single projectile lead hunting ammo. No real evidence of it doing any harm, with the exception of a few carrion eaters. BTW....around here Bald Eagles are just as likely to be seen on a deer carcass as vultures. Once they start showin' up dead from lead poisoning, lead hunting ammo is done. On many areas of Public land, one already has to use alternative shot for upland game. Biggest threat would seem to be those who hunt with traditional muzzleloaders that don't wish to use sabots. I got the e-mail, followed thru and have contacted my lawmakers about it. I believe tho, that ammo makers along with reloading component manufacturers, should concentrate on developing low cost alternatives to lead, like they did with shotshells, so things like this will not be an issue in the future.

[taylorce1]

It's not just National Parks that are controlled by the federal government. This will include any military base that's large enough to allow hunting, blm lands, national grasslands, and national forests. This is what HSUS is after, and then like stated above it'll make the federal government put pressure on states to do the same.

[thallub]

A federal law prevents the US government from banning lead in ammunition. The US Justice Dep't. has declined to intervene in these types of actions.

Federal law already bans the EPA from regulating lead ammunition, but more than 100 radical environmentalist groups petitioned the EPA in March to impose a ban on lead ammunition. The groups claim that lead can poison those who eat wild game and kill other animals who might eat carcasses containing lead bullets.

http://epaabuse.com/6440/news/house-...in-ammunition/

More:

In 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denied a petition filed by a number of groups (led by the radical anti-gun, anti-hunting environmental group Center for Biological Diversity) to ban the use of lead ammunition. The 2010 denial was based on the simple fact that the EPA does not have the legal authority under the Toxic Substance Control Act to ban or regulate ammunition.

As we reported in 2010, this is not an accident. When TSCA was passed in 1976, pro-gun legislators led by the late Sen. James McClure (R-Idaho) added language to the bill specifically exempting ammunition from EPA control. They knew, even then, that radical anti-hunting groups could try to use the law to end hunting and recreational shooting by making ammo too expensive. Their foresight has now provided an invaluable protection against the effort to ban traditional lead ammunition.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/fe...mmunition.aspx

[Unlicensed Dremel]

bamaranger:

BLM, FS, F&WS==> generally allow hunting (including "wilderness areas" run by any of these three)
NPS==> generally does not

BLM=Bureau Land Management
FS=Forest Service
F&WS=Fish & Wildlife Service
NPS=National Park Service.

My question is on the SCIENCE....is there really any science to show that some lead bullets stuck in and around the ground harms anything?

Even if it does, is it limited to say, the C. Condor areas, and if so, why do we need a one-size-fits-all rule for all NPS lands if the C. Condor is in one state?

[buck460XVR]

Originally posted by Unlicensed Dremel:

My question is on the SCIENCE....is there really any science to show that some lead bullets stuck in and around the ground harms anything?

It's not just about lead on the ground. There's a lot of evidence that is does do harm, my question is, does the amount of damage justify a complete ban?

http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/publication...birds_2009.pdf


http://www.peregrinefund.org/subsite...tification.htm

[Mosin-Marauder]

Can I get a TL;DR for this petition? I happen to hunt on a National Forest.

[Barnacle Brad]

Originally Posted by TXAZ

Email: [email protected]

I wish the Hornady website had provided this information to use with the downloadable file (letter), instead of asking me to submit all my personal information in their form.

Good info...(not (edit))

Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists:

[email protected]
The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator.

OK - So maybe not so helpful after all. The original email I sent was addressed to [email protected] which at least was delivered.

[jasmith85]

I haven't read into this aside from this thread so pardon me if I am missing something, but what is the big deal if lead ammunition is banned on federal land? I only deer hunt and when I do I shoot 308. I can buy a box of 100% copper ammunition for under $10 more than lead per box of 20. I take one or two deer a year and rarely miss. At most I figure I fire 5 rounds a year while in the woods. Ammunition used to sight a gun in can be lead since I imagine you won't be doing it on federal land so those 5 rounds would be all that I would be required to be lead free. That only adds up to an extra $2.50 a year if lead ammunition was banned. I know that plenty of people hunt a lot more than me but from where I sit I don't see the big issue. Like I said before, is there something I am missing or is the price difference the only complaint against banning lead ammunition?

[taylorce1]

HSUS goal is to eventually ban all hunting. So first it's lead in bullets, next is's all hunting on federal land. Keep that in mind when you say you don't understand what the big deal is.

You use 100% copper bullets for hunting that is a choice you make, however banning lead from bullets would take away any choice you have. After the Feds ban or regulate something what do they do next? They put pressure on States to follow the path they have taken. What do you think is going to happen once lead in bullets is banned and you have no choice but to use copper? You'll see shortages and increases in price until the bullet companies can catch up to the demand.

The question you have to ask yourself is do you want more or less government regulation? Me I don't really like having the government involved in my life, so I'm almost always against more regulation. To use copper or cup-and-core bullets should be my choice not something mandated by the government.

[uofudavid]

jasmith85 - "I can buy a box of 100% copper ammunition for under $10 more than lead per box of 20"

Where do you find copper 308 ammo for this price?

[jasmith85]

Where do you find copper 308 ammo for this price?

My lgs. Last I checked they had Winchester lead free hollow points for about $32 a box and I give $22.99 for Remington Core-Lokt at my local Walmart. I am aware there are cheaper types of 308 than Core-Lokt but its what I shoot and most of the cheaper rounds are full metal jacket which I would not want to hunt with.

You can also find them online within $10 of each other. Cheaperthandirt.com has Remington Core-Lokt 308 for $22.66 and Winchester Razorback lead free for $32.10. All you have to do is look around.

[buck460XVR]

Originally posted by taylorce1:

HSUS goal is to eventually ban all hunting. So first it's lead in bullets, next is's all hunting on federal land. Keep that in mind when you say you don't understand what the big deal is.

While HSUS goal may be to ban all hunting, we know that ain't gonna happen. Neither is the banning of hunting on most federal properties. Most new proposed legislation about hunting and federal lands is in support of such. Again, there were folks back when the lead shot for waterfowl ban was first being proposed that claimed the same....that it was just a ploy by antis to take away hunting rights. Modern waterfowl hunting is just as popular now as it ever was and opportunities and places to hunt are just a great if not more so. Limits on geese is actually much higher and seasons longer than back before the ban. Could be the ban on lead actually helped waterfowl. Many of the best places to hunt waterfowl are on Federally controlled wetlands. Even tho some folks made a big deal outta it the proposed lead shot ban, it really wasn't that big of deal at all.

It isn't just HSUS that is concerned about lead and it's use in hunting. My state issues warnings in it's hunting pamphlets about how to safely handle meat that has been shot with lead. They also have been monitoring levels of lead in the blood of birds of prey and scavengers. Here in Wisconsin one of the major concerns is Bald Eagles. There have been many accounts of dead and sick Eagles found with lethal lead content in their blood. So far, because the Eagle is not considered endangered, and there are plenty of them around, this has not been a major issue. Yet. If folks start seeing dead and dieing Eagles, things could change. One needs to remember, the Eagle was endangered until the ban on DDT. There were some folks that whined about the ban on it too. Banning it was gonna lead to major insect infestations and the world was gonna starve because of famine, cause by the new hoards of insects. Didn't happen, and now we have Eagles most everywhere you look. Thus, if lead proves to be a major detriment to the health of even a few species of animals, especially those highly prized and endeared by the majority of folks.........it will be banned. Odds are, it is going to happen for hunting. Folks at Hornady know this. But they do not have a product line of ammo or components that is lead free. You think their concern is primarily about the hunter....or the ammo they do not have that the hunter will have to purchase elsewhere?

Like searching for alternative energy, it's easier to whine and continue with what we have. Again, at this time, I see no legitimate reason to ban single projectiles made with lead for hunting. I see others feel differently. Seems the best solution is to find a good, economically feasible replacement now, before it's mandatory.

[taylorce1]

Originally Posted by buck460XVR

While HSUS goal may be to ban all hunting, we know that ain't gonna happen. Neither is the banning of hunting on most federal properties.

I wouldn't say it won't ever happen. The more people are removed from hunting the easier it is to change things. Will I see it in my lifetime? I hope not, but one thing is for certain nothing ever stays the same.

I got to witness what a state government can push down the people throats in the matter of a few days in Denver. No discussion was really allowed, nor dissenting opinion was truly given a chance to be heard. The whole thing was orchestrated to force gun legislation down our throats, because we didn't know any better. All it takes is for people to be complacent and anything can and will happen.

I don't care if people choose to use all copper or traditional cup and core bullets, it's a personal choice. Like I said I'm against government regulation of what I choose to send down my barrel, just as I oppose any bans on any firearms. If HSUS is going to push for something that could possibly affect my life, I'm going to push back.

[Barnacle Brad]

And they will never ban leg traps, hound hunting or baiting...right! Anytime envirnmental and or game management practices are being decided by left leaning, or ill informed individuals, the "feel good" crowd wins. Stay informed and use your own 'pen and phone'!

[old roper]

Colorado Division of Wildlife has warning about lead page 15 2014 big game regs and gives a link also
http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hun...mendations.pdf

I would think state would do it before Feds and have to figure who's going to enforce such a ban if from the Feds. I think maybe 30% or more big game tags here are for private land tag.

Colorado owns 3.5 million acres some of that is open for hunting aalso.

hard to say

[buck460XVR]

Originally posted by Barnacle Brad:

And they will never ban leg traps, hound hunting or baiting...right! Anytime envirnmental and or game management practices are being decided by left leaning, or ill informed individuals, the "feel good" crowd wins. Stay informed and use your own 'pen and phone'!

Didn't know the Feds had banned leg hold traps, hunting with dogs or the use of bait(exception being the baiting of waterfowl). Thought those were state and or regional regs that did not ban hunting, but only prohibited methods that are determined locally or culturally to be "unethical". I know here, we still use leg hold traps, along with hounds for bear and fubearers. Baiting for deer, while frowned upon by many of us, and altho once illegal, is now a popular method of hunting them. Many times these bans are proposed and backed by hunters themselves. I know around here, most deer hunters are highly opposed to hunting deer with the aid of dogs and would fight it tooth and nail, while those same hunters look forward to bear season and running them with hounds. They are not " left leaning, ill informed individuals, the "feel good" crowd", but dedicated sportsmen, just practicing the ethics they are accustomed to. This is not a conspiracy to ban all hunting by the use of special restrictions, but just a way to preserve the resource, and to provide for a quality hunt for others.

Again, while I feel that single projectile lead ammo is not a big enough issue to completely ban it, I understand the concern for it's continued use. That's part of being a Sportsman and being aware of the impact you make on the animals you hunt, their habitat and the consequences of your hunting methods. Just as those that bait need to be aware of the increase of transmission of disease to the animals they hunt and others that may frequent their bait sites, one needs to be aware of the consequences of using lead ammo for hunting. If one determines there is an issue, then changing to an alternative projectile, even tho not mandatory, is the responsible thing to do. Seems to me, the responsible thing for ammo/reloading component companies to do is to offer reasonable options, instead of just pushing for no change, because they don't want to invest monies in R&D of lead alternatives. You really think they are looking at the welfare of the sport as opposed to the end of the year financial report? If there was enough hunters out there voluntarily using lead alternative, the complete banning of lead may not be deemed necceasry, and life would go on as normal. Hunters should take a lesson from sport fishermen. The reason Bass and Musky fisheries are so healthy, even with fishing pressure and fishing technology at an all time high, has nuttin' to do with regs concerning size limits and bag limits. It has to do with so many of them practicing catch and release. While it's legal to take home X amount of fish that are a minimum of X inches of length, most take none home. This discretion not only helps the resource, but gives a positive image to others of them and their sport. They could continue to take home everything they caught that was legal, but that would only lead to more restrictions. Instead of taking the stance that "nobody is gonna tell me what to put down the barrel of my gun!", one should say "give me a reasonable alternative instead." Besides, if you hunt specific game, odds are somebody is already telling you what gun and ammo you can use to hunt it. If you are target practicing at a public facility, odds are someone is telling you what and what not you can shoot there.

[Barnacle Brad]

I think Buck missed my point. If one takes for granted his or her rights, and or disregard attempts to diminish them, whether Local, State, or Federal, then one gets what one deserves.

All I advocate is to stay informed and when "they" start coming after your rights and choices, speak up and let them know how you feel. If you support a ban on lead - good for you - your right.

Originally Posted by buck460XVR

They are not " left leaning, ill informed individuals, the "feel good" crowd", but dedicated sportsmen

I have to set the record straight here. My words were taken out of context. Clearly I was referring to individuals staffed at Fed Agencies and voters in general - not "dedicated sportsmen". If anyone else made that jump, my apologies.

[hooligan1]

My senator Roy Blunt returned my email, hes emphaticallyagainst outlawing lead in any sport in Mo.

Go Roy!

[Sure Shot Mc Gee]

Although my Representative are Dems. I doubt they would vote yes on a bill like this commented fully knowing they would be looking for a different job after their next coming election. Is has happened before where one lost his job voting on such un-popular State bills. (Governor) Bill passed or not has no effect on me. But I wouldn't want to see it passed for the sake of those others who it might effect. {Ammo company employees especially}

[Brotherbadger]

I'll shoot out an email today. thanks for the heads up.