NSSF: Aiming for Accuracy

"AR-style Rifles Spurring Some Debate"

In a story of that title, outdoor editor Bob Frye of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review looks at the growing popularlity of hunting with AR-style rifles and whether states like Pennsylania, which currently does not allowing hunting with semi-automatic rifles, will eventually change their regulations. Read the story.

Also, NSSF President Steve Sanetti talks about NSSF's recently launched education campaign about "modern sporting rifles" in a Shooting Industry Magazine article.

Obama Hates Bambi . . .

That's the conclusion—we believe tongue in cheek—of Newsweek's Steve Tuttle when he misconnects the recent surge in firearms and ammunition sales—due to fears that the Administration will push for new restrictions on gun ownership—to somehow aiding deer hunters in their pursuit of game. "The deer don't stand a chance," says Tuttle, in his article.

Tuttle gets the background right when he says that the surge in firearms and ammunition sales over the past year has been a windfall for wildlife conservation. The 1937 Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid In Wildlife Restoration Act imposed an excise tax on the sale of firearms and ammunition, with the funds generated being routed back to the states to underwrite wildlife conservation and habitat preservation projects. Firearms and ammunition manufacturers paid about $110 million in the first quarter of 2009, a 43 percent increase from the same period a year ago due to the surge in sales. That’s more money for conservation. More than $5 billion has been raised for conservation since Pittman-Robertson legislation went into effect 72 years ago. Thankfully, these funds "can't be diverted to other uses," otherwise federal legislators and bureaucrats almost certainly would have diverted them, as some states have tried to, with the result that wildlife populations in America today would not be as healthy or widespread as they are.

Despite the writer's quip that “the deer don’t stand a chance,” deer and other game species are doing quite well under America's hugely successful system of wildlife management, a model emulated around the world. This system is responsible for increasing white-tailed deer populations in America from about 500,000 around the turn of the last century to over 26 million today. No one is unhappy with that except perhaps the victims of car vs. deer accidents or the owners of munched on shrubs in their suburban yards. Similar conservation successes are connected with the wild turkey, Rocky Mountain Elk, wood duck and other game species, benefiting nature watchers and hunters alike. Are there more opportunities for hunters to take deer and to put healthful food on their tables and on the tables of those less fortunate through programs like Hunters for the Hungry? Yes, there are, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

Seeding the Story on Lead and Condors

With the California Fish & Game Commission nearing the August 6 deadline by which it will decide whether to expand a ban on traditional ammunition to include small game and upland birds in California condor regions, a story appeared yesterday whose timing bears scrutiny.

The Californian.com reports that a three-month-old, wild-hatched condor chick has tested positive for lead and says a condor official indicated . . .

the lead may have come from the carcasses of animals that may have accidentally swallowed lead ammunition . . .

That's way too many "may haves" on an issue which is reliant on sound science for a fair discussion and where unsubstantiated claims could lead to more bad policies that further erode hunting in the Golden State, reduce hunter-generated revenues that support wildlife conservation, and damage an industry that has contributed millions of dollars in to wildlife programs.

As NSSF has repeatedly noted, most recently in its June 25 news release, the ban against the use of traditional ammunition is not justified due to the lack of conclusive, science-based evidence that links the use of ammunition containing lead components to the health of the California condor.

The article demonstrates how inconclusive the math can be.

A blood sample found 18 micrograms per deciliter in the condor nestling. Daniel George, manager of the condor region near where the chick was hatched, said no guidelines for lead toxicity levels exist for condors (nor, to our knowledge, any other animals except humans). Given the absence of that baseline, scientists often use human thresholds, which are 10 micrograms per deciliter for a child and 25 micrograms per deciliter for an adult.  Yet, scientists determined that the blood lead level of the chick was not significant enough to require treatment even though it exceeded the level of concern for a child. First of all, it is inappropriate and scientifically unsound to apply the blood lead level threshold for concern established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for human children across species, and, in this case, those guidelines were not even used to recommend treatment.

We'll keep you posted on the actions of the Fish & Game Commission on August 6, and sooner if other news stories begin to suspiciously appear in order to nudge the commission toward expanding the current ban.

See other posts on this blog under the "ammunition" category, and also NSSF's background paper on traditional ammuntion.

Abraham Lincoln and So-called "Assualt Weapons"

As part of NSSF’s continuing efforts to correct misperceptions about civilian sporting rifles that look like military rifles, Doug Painter, NSSF senior advisor, puts the evolution of modern sporting rifles into perspective in a piece posted at OutdoorLife.com . . .

On an August afternoon in 1863, Christopher Spencer made his way to the White House with a rifle in hand.

The gun he was carrying, and which he had invented, was significantly different from traditional rifles of the time that could only be fired once before having to be reloaded. The new Spencer Repeating rifle could be loaded with seven cartridges in a tubular magazine and featured a lever under the trigger. When the lever was pushed down and then brought back up, the spent casing of the round that was fired was ejected and a new round was automatically fed into the chamber . . .

If the anti-gun movement had been active in the late 19th century, they may well have labeled such rapid-fire, high-capacity magazine rifles as the “assault weapons” of their day.

And it would have been as inaccurate then as it is today to label a civilian sporting rifle an “assault weapon.”

Read Doug's column.

Hunting Is a Wildlife Management Tool

Whenever The New York Times' editorial writers bring their urban sensibilities to outdoor matters such as hunting, the result is something we can only read with amusement, such as today's opinion on culling the overpopulated elk herd in Theodore Roosevelt National Park.

The Times does not like Senator Byron Dorgan's (D-ND) idea of a "common-sense" public hunt to reduce the herd from approximately 900 animals to 300, the number wildlife biologists say the park's ecology can sustain. The Times instead advocates bringing in sharpshooters to cull the herd, as is done in Rocky Mountain National Park, which is nearly four times the size of TRNP and has extensive wilderness areas.

The irony here is lost on The Times. In a public park named after America's greatest conservationist, Teddy Roosevelt, public hunting, which is central to wildlife management, is not considered an option for herd management.

Hunting is one of the seven pillars of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation: that every citizen has the right, under law, to legally hunt on public land in the United States. (You can read the others on the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Web site.) Granted, most national parks do not permit hunting, but when it's necessary to keep wildlife populations in balance, public hunting, under appropriate restrictions, should be allowed.

Sound scientific game management will tell what proportion of bulls versus cows should be taken, and appropriate hunting permits issued for the park hunt could easily make sure that these best practices would be followed to manage the herd. Apparently, The New York Times thinks that only bulls would be taken by "unprofessional" hunters, which once again reveals its lack of knowledge and experience in real-world, hunting-related matters.

Hunting is an extremely safe activity and there is no cause for anyone to think that "sharpshooters" are the only "safe" and "more efficient" way to reduce the herd.

NSSF does agree that the decision on how to cull the herd should be decided by the National Park Service and that it should be based on sound science. What concerns us, however, is that NPS does not always act on the basis of sound science.

Recently, NPS announced its intention to ban the use of traditional ammunition and fishing tackle that contains lead components without producing the necessary "sound science" to support that policy. In response to an outcry from the conservation community and an NSSF press release, NPS claimed its press release was premature and was misunderstood and that its policy was only an internal one that intends to ban the use of traditional ammunition by park personnel and hunters participating in a culling hunt on NPS land. It is clear, however, the NPS fully intends to eventually eliminate the use of traditional ammunition by all hunters on park service-managed lands.

NSSF has continued to call upon the NPS to engage sportsmen and the conservation community that includes the fireams and ammunition industry in a dialogue before announcing policy unsupported by science and to actually conduct some scientific research to determine whether wildlife population management or human health warrants such a drastic policy that will harm hunting.

Read more about the issue of hunting and the use of traditional ammunition in this background paper from NSSF.

Media Gets it Right on Lead Ammo

After several weeks where all too many articles about eating game harvested with lead ammunition were negative, it seems as though more and more members of the media are understanding the true facts.

Take a recent article by Connie Mertz, "Lead ammo does not spoil harvested game." This reporter took the time to ask all the right questions, understanding that "researchers" who have ties to anti-hunting groups may not be the most accurate sources of information when it comes to issues of game and ammunition.

In her piece, Ms. Mertz identified that the dermatologist who started the lead ammunition scare was actually a member of the Peregrine Fund -- an organization dedicated to eliminating the use of lead ammunition for hunting (The dermatologist serves on the Fund's Board of Directors).

She also addressed the fact that, according to the recent CDC Study of blood lead level in hunters , hunters actually have a lower blood lead level than the average American.

Perhaps most noteworthy though, the reporter reached out to the head of Hunters Sharing the Harvest (HSH) -- a group responsible for donating venison to the hungry. Commenting for the HSH, John Plowman said, "Donated meat is processed into ground venison burger, and butchers have several inspection opportunity 'windows' to remove any foreign material, including ammunition fragments. I do not foresee any problem with the quality or edibility of donated deer meat and I eat it all the time. It should be noted there have been no advisories issued by the Pennsylvania Game Commission, Department of Health or any other public agencies about any lead problems with Pennsylvania venison. The NSSF is right on target," he emphasizes, referring to the NSSF statement on the safety of eating game taken with lead ammunition.

Reporting like this is what will help save the heritage of hunting. People need to know the facts about lead ammunition and the real threat to our health -- politically driven de facto bans on healthy, low-fat, high-protein food affecting the growing number of America's hungry in these times of economic uncertainty and increasing unemployment.

Eating Game Taken With Traditional Ammo Does Not Pose a Health Risk

We all know that hunters have been using traditional ammunition with lead components for hundreds of years. It is a staple in every hunter's pickup truck and cabin. Game harvested with such ammunition has been safely consumed by humans for hundreds of years and is a source of healthy, low-fat food. Naturally, hunters would be concerned about any claim that game harvested with traditional ammunition posed a health risk, even when the claim is unwarranted, as occurred in North Dakota earlier this year. Fortunately, the release last week of a Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study of blood lead levels in North Dakota hunters validated what hunters have always known: consuming game harvested with traditional ammunition containing lead does not pose a human health risk.

It's important that all hunters and their families know this and other key facts from the study:

• The average lead level of the hunters tested was actually lower than the blood lead level of the average American, including non-hunters.
• The average lead level of children in the study was only .88 micrograms per deciliter of blood; the CDC's level of concern for lead in children is 10--more than 10 times the amount found!
• The difference between participants who ate wild game harvested with traditional ammunition and non-hunters was only .3 micrograms--a clinically insignificant number.

The baseless claim that caused concern about consuming venison harvested with lead ammunition was born out of the anti-hunting movement. The story started when a dermatologist with ties to the Peregrine Fund--an organization dedicated to eliminating the use of lead ammunition for hunting--claimed to have collected packages of venison from food banks that contained lead fragments. Out of fear and an overabundance of caution, North Dakota health officials (who never conducted their own study) accepted the dermatologist's findings and ordered all food banks to discard their venison.

The CDC study was prompted because of the unscientific "study" conducted by the dermatologist, to determine if hunting with lead ammunition caused a health risk in humans.

If the unscientific allegations of an individual who serves on the board of directors of a politically driven group intent on banning lead ammunition could start all this, you can be assured that other anti-hunting organizations will try to manipulate the data from the CDC study and scare people into thinking it is unsafe to eat game taken with traditional ammunition. To our point, just yesterday the Humane Society of the United States, an anti-hunting group and not the organization that runs your local animal shelter, came out in favor of banning all lead ammunition. This is as unsurprising as it is baseless, as a Washington Times article points out.

Common sense and the CDC science-based study demonstrate that this issue is not about ammunition. It's about banning hunting. We believe strongly that hunters should take this opportunity to educate other hunters about the CDC study and the facts about consuming game harvested with traditional ammunition, with a reminder to properly field dress and butcher their game. Regardless of the findings of any study, it is always a good idea to remove and properly discard all shot-damaged meat before processing or cooking.

Hunters should also point out the CDC study to local food pantries and organizations that feed the homeless with meat generously donated by hunters so that this valuable food source for needy persons is not wasted out of an overabundance of caution, misinformation or baseless fears.

If you know a hunter or anyone who enjoys the pleasure of a venison meal, we urge you to forward this post to them in the spirit of spreading accurate information about eating venison taken with traditional ammunition.

The truth about lead ammunition

The "issue" of whether or not it's safe and responsible to hunt with traditional ammunition (lead ammunition) has surfaced again in recent years.  Claims have been made that hunting with lead is killing scavengers (feasting on gut piles) and endangering those who eat the game.  Despite the fact that these allegations have been spread by anti-hunting groups, there is nothing wrong with taking a deeper look into the issue of lead ammunition.

Earlier this week, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) released the preliminary results of a study concerning fragmentation of lead bullets after impact.  The report showed varying results but did note that in some cases fragments traveled "further from the wound channel than many hunters might assume." 

The information in the report is good to know. Of course hunters (and for that matter butchers and processors) benefit from understanding how far ammunition fragments can travel after impact.  However, just as important is the need for hunters (and others) to understand what "exposure" to these fragments really means in terms of health and wellness.

For more than a century, millions of Americans have safely consumed big game, including whitetail deer, harvested using traditional hunting ammunition and there has never been a case of anyone suffering adverse health effects from consuming the meat.

The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is currently conducting a study of hunters and others that have consumed game to determine whether they have an elevated level of lead in their blood that can be attributed to the ammunition used to harvest the game. Preliminary indications of the CDC study released last month by the North Dakota Department of Health (DOH), which is participating in the study, show that none of those tested had unsafe blood lead levels. In fact, according to the North Dakota DOH's press release, the readings were far below the level considered elevated for a child (10 micrograms per deciliter); let alone the level for an adult (25 micrograms per deciliter).

Now consider that the Iowa Department of Public Health has conducted an extensive panel of blood-lead testing for more than 15 years. The IDPH has stated that "if lead in venison were a serious health risk, it would likely have surfaced within extensive blood lead testing since 1992 with 500,000 youth under 6 and 25,000 adults having been screened."

Here's what it comes down to: getting more information, based on sound science, is a good thing. Taking the word of individuals and organizations tied to anti-hunting groups; well, that's not so good.