We used asbestos for decades. Does that mean its safe?Originally Posted by guninhand
They are right about the problem, they are wrong about the source. A gut pile contains very little if any lead, depending on shot placement. Even if it was whole contaminated a gut pile is unlikely to be shared among more than a few animals.
Shot gun ranges compromising of 40-100 hectares of land heavily contaminated with lead that has been accumulating for a century, which is trafficked upon and a source of food for hundreds of species that migrate is the more likely source.
Hunting accounts for probably less than 1%, probably 0.1% of all ammunition fired. I would suspect that lead used in hunting really only posses an immediate risk to the hunter and his family. Any ban on lead for hunting might be worth discussion, but that discussion should recognize that the effect of any ban on hunting will be negligible.
Shooting ranges ARE the problem.
We have a right to own firearms. We have a right to defend our life. We do not have a right to pollute the environment with toxic substances.
Managing lead in the environment is not difficult, but it does carry some cost. Very few outdoor ranges have been doing a good job of mitigating the risks of accumulated lead. Either we start picking up our own trash, or something far less informed and interested in civilian firearms ownership will legislate a solution for us.
Well this is pretty ignorant. With this attitude you are giving the government every excuse to ban lead outright in order to compel you, and industry, to get on board with lead free alternatives.
As a staunch libertarian, I dont care what you shoot as long as you pay the full costs of your activities. Shoot lead. Fine. Then go pick it up. If we had to pay the full costs of the ammunition life cycle, very quickly you would get on board with the convenience of using a non toxic ammo that you can just walk away from.
I put down more than double that much every time I got to the range, which is at least weekly. Like most industries, the top 10% of users are probably consuming more than 90% of the goods.
The cost of range memberships wouldn't need to go up very much in order to cover the costs of properly managing lead on shooting ranges.
I just emailed the environment minister to tell them that the government should be subsidizing and funding shooting ranges to modernize lead management practices. If they can give 100 million to ontario for green energy retrofit programs, they can give money to ranges to help manage lead. I also told them that they need to be promoting the use of shooting ranges through range membership subsidies and tax breaks, were lead can be contained and managed.
Large municipalities like Toronto and Vancouver have an ignorant attitude about shooting ranges and an association to gun crime. Closing shooting ranges in major centres just contributes to greater commuter pollution and the use of public lands for sport shooting where lead will never be managed and remediated effectively. If we don't take ownership of this problem a solution will legislated that will make no one happy.
|
" - Grumpy Wolverine.
