I haven`t hunted in quite awhile, and on`t know if this has been covered before....But is this really a concern?......
Article
Drink the Kool-Aid, eat the venison
Friday, May 23, 2008 10:29 AM EDT)
Sometimes I have to wonder about a few organizations that purport to represent those of us who hunt. Do they advance in public discourse an enlightened rationale for the continuation of sport hunting, one that a reasonable hunter or non-hunter might support? Or do they cavalierly dismiss us as dunderheads, incapable of rational thought or displaying concern for others, an attitude found among anti-hunters who characterize us as drooling Neanderthals who only lust for blood?
The issue comes to mind because of recent findings involving minute, often microscopically small particles of toxic bullet lead in the venison we eat that comes from the deer we shoot — and the initial, knee-jerk reaction to these findings by the National Rifle Association, Safari Club International and the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
The issue arose a few months ago when Dr. William Cornatzer, a North Dakota physician, gathered 95, 1-pound packages of ground venison donated to the state’s food pantries. X-rays detected the presence of metal in 53 packages. Five positive samples underwent further laboratory analysis, all of which tested strongly positive for lead.
This prompted the North Dakota Department of Health to order the state’s food banks to destroy all remaining venison. The venison, donated by hunters, had been distributed to the needy. Hunters were left to decide for themselves whether to discard any venison remaining in their freezers.
The North Dakota action marked a new development. As one big-game biologist put it, “I’ve never seen anything done on human health or muscle meat for human consumption.”
But it pointed to a potential problem because lead is extremely toxic when ingested. It raised the question of whether hunters should continue firing lead bullets.
How did the NRA, SCI and NSSA react? Rather than suggest the initial findings might be cause for concern, the groups launched a frontal attack on the North Dakota Department of Health and the physician who brought the matter to light.
An NRA spokesman called the North Dakota Health Department’s actions “reckless” because it was “based on a single ‘study’ conducted by a dermatologist. There is simply no science to justify the department’s directive to dispose of donated venison.”
Safari Club International declared the whole matter based on an “unscientific assessment.”
The National Shooting Sports Foundation asserted “there is absolutely no peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support the unfortunate and unnecessary overreaction by health officials in North Dakota.”
Indeed, the NRA blamed North Dakota for having “caused unnecessary fear to spread across the hunting community.”
If this vacuous bombast proved reassuring to hunters, it was short-lived. The state of Minnesota quickly ran its own tests on state food-bank venison. It found 25 percent of 299 samples contained lead fragments. It also ordered state food banks to destroy their remaining stocks of venison. Iowa tested 10 samples (a statistically insignificant number) and found “trace” amounts in 20 percent of them.
Then, last week, The Peregrine Fund and Washington State University released the results of a study of 30 white-tailed deer “killed under normal hunting conditions in northern Wyoming with standard lead-core, copper-jacketed bullets fired from a high-powered rifle. X-rays of all 30 deer showed widespread dispersal of lead fragments in the carcasses consistent with previous research. The fragments ranged in size from smaller than a grain of table salt to as large as a sesame seed.”
Further, there is a considerable body of scientific evidence involving the effects of lead on humans. It is especially toxic to children and pregnant women. The Food and Drug Administration permits no more than five parts per billion of lead in bottled water. The highest lead level found in the Minnesota venison study, assuming a 1-pound package, was 21,000 parts per billion — a level 4,200 times greater than allowed in a bottle of water you might buy at your local 7-11.
It is worthwhile to note that the NRA has a long history of opposing bans on lead ammunition. More than 30 years ago it opposed a regulation to require waterfowl hunters to use steel shot, even though biologists estimated 2 million ducks died each year from eating spent lead pellets.
Bald-eagles also died from ingesting lead pellets found in wounded or dead ducks. The NRA did not care. Several months ago it fought a proposed regional ban on lead ammunition to prevent the lead-poisoning deaths of California condors, the rarest bird in North America. It was brought to the brink of extinction partly because the birds ate lead fragments from the viscera and tissue of animals killed by hunters using lead bullets. The NRA did not care.
A few weeks ago NRA blocked an effort by the Minnesota legislature to prohibit hunters from using lead ammunition for small-game on public lands.
Instead of scurrilously dismissing Dr. Cornatzer as a dermatologist, a medical specialty the NRA suggests makes him unfit to warn of the dangers of lead poisoning, the organizations should have praised him for bringing to our attention a serious problem that had been over-looked. Instead of declaring on the basis of zero scientific evidence the “lack of science” in the North Dakota analysis, the organizations should have provided funds to find new ways to alleviate the lead-in-venison problem. (Using solid copper bullets is one way for deer hunters to eliminate lead in the venison they eat.)
The NRA’s actions over the decades tell us the organization cares little or nothing about wildlife. Now, we find the NRA, along with SCI and NSSF, dismissing the effects of lead on human health. (Since the three organizations support hunters giving venison to food banks for distribution to the needy, one could argue their recent statements tacitly support feeding toxic meat to the needy.)
As a hunter, I am appalled, as are many of my companions. Do they think concerned sportsmen don’t care? Do the recent statements from the three reflect the attitudes of responsible citizens and community organizations? Do their actions represent the views of an increasingly health conscious nation? I do not think so.
All of this suggests the recent actions of the NRA, SCI and NSSF are morally reprehensible, guided more by their own self-interest than the interests of their members who hunt deer, or who want to preserve wildlife, or who want to help the needy by giving venison to food banks.
james h. Phillips can be reached at jahoph@aol.com.
Article
Drink the Kool-Aid, eat the venison
Friday, May 23, 2008 10:29 AM EDT)
Sometimes I have to wonder about a few organizations that purport to represent those of us who hunt. Do they advance in public discourse an enlightened rationale for the continuation of sport hunting, one that a reasonable hunter or non-hunter might support? Or do they cavalierly dismiss us as dunderheads, incapable of rational thought or displaying concern for others, an attitude found among anti-hunters who characterize us as drooling Neanderthals who only lust for blood?
The issue comes to mind because of recent findings involving minute, often microscopically small particles of toxic bullet lead in the venison we eat that comes from the deer we shoot — and the initial, knee-jerk reaction to these findings by the National Rifle Association, Safari Club International and the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
The issue arose a few months ago when Dr. William Cornatzer, a North Dakota physician, gathered 95, 1-pound packages of ground venison donated to the state’s food pantries. X-rays detected the presence of metal in 53 packages. Five positive samples underwent further laboratory analysis, all of which tested strongly positive for lead.
This prompted the North Dakota Department of Health to order the state’s food banks to destroy all remaining venison. The venison, donated by hunters, had been distributed to the needy. Hunters were left to decide for themselves whether to discard any venison remaining in their freezers.
The North Dakota action marked a new development. As one big-game biologist put it, “I’ve never seen anything done on human health or muscle meat for human consumption.”
But it pointed to a potential problem because lead is extremely toxic when ingested. It raised the question of whether hunters should continue firing lead bullets.
How did the NRA, SCI and NSSA react? Rather than suggest the initial findings might be cause for concern, the groups launched a frontal attack on the North Dakota Department of Health and the physician who brought the matter to light.
An NRA spokesman called the North Dakota Health Department’s actions “reckless” because it was “based on a single ‘study’ conducted by a dermatologist. There is simply no science to justify the department’s directive to dispose of donated venison.”
Safari Club International declared the whole matter based on an “unscientific assessment.”
The National Shooting Sports Foundation asserted “there is absolutely no peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support the unfortunate and unnecessary overreaction by health officials in North Dakota.”
Indeed, the NRA blamed North Dakota for having “caused unnecessary fear to spread across the hunting community.”
If this vacuous bombast proved reassuring to hunters, it was short-lived. The state of Minnesota quickly ran its own tests on state food-bank venison. It found 25 percent of 299 samples contained lead fragments. It also ordered state food banks to destroy their remaining stocks of venison. Iowa tested 10 samples (a statistically insignificant number) and found “trace” amounts in 20 percent of them.
Then, last week, The Peregrine Fund and Washington State University released the results of a study of 30 white-tailed deer “killed under normal hunting conditions in northern Wyoming with standard lead-core, copper-jacketed bullets fired from a high-powered rifle. X-rays of all 30 deer showed widespread dispersal of lead fragments in the carcasses consistent with previous research. The fragments ranged in size from smaller than a grain of table salt to as large as a sesame seed.”
Further, there is a considerable body of scientific evidence involving the effects of lead on humans. It is especially toxic to children and pregnant women. The Food and Drug Administration permits no more than five parts per billion of lead in bottled water. The highest lead level found in the Minnesota venison study, assuming a 1-pound package, was 21,000 parts per billion — a level 4,200 times greater than allowed in a bottle of water you might buy at your local 7-11.
It is worthwhile to note that the NRA has a long history of opposing bans on lead ammunition. More than 30 years ago it opposed a regulation to require waterfowl hunters to use steel shot, even though biologists estimated 2 million ducks died each year from eating spent lead pellets.
Bald-eagles also died from ingesting lead pellets found in wounded or dead ducks. The NRA did not care. Several months ago it fought a proposed regional ban on lead ammunition to prevent the lead-poisoning deaths of California condors, the rarest bird in North America. It was brought to the brink of extinction partly because the birds ate lead fragments from the viscera and tissue of animals killed by hunters using lead bullets. The NRA did not care.
A few weeks ago NRA blocked an effort by the Minnesota legislature to prohibit hunters from using lead ammunition for small-game on public lands.
Instead of scurrilously dismissing Dr. Cornatzer as a dermatologist, a medical specialty the NRA suggests makes him unfit to warn of the dangers of lead poisoning, the organizations should have praised him for bringing to our attention a serious problem that had been over-looked. Instead of declaring on the basis of zero scientific evidence the “lack of science” in the North Dakota analysis, the organizations should have provided funds to find new ways to alleviate the lead-in-venison problem. (Using solid copper bullets is one way for deer hunters to eliminate lead in the venison they eat.)
The NRA’s actions over the decades tell us the organization cares little or nothing about wildlife. Now, we find the NRA, along with SCI and NSSF, dismissing the effects of lead on human health. (Since the three organizations support hunters giving venison to food banks for distribution to the needy, one could argue their recent statements tacitly support feeding toxic meat to the needy.)
As a hunter, I am appalled, as are many of my companions. Do they think concerned sportsmen don’t care? Do the recent statements from the three reflect the attitudes of responsible citizens and community organizations? Do their actions represent the views of an increasingly health conscious nation? I do not think so.
All of this suggests the recent actions of the NRA, SCI and NSSF are morally reprehensible, guided more by their own self-interest than the interests of their members who hunt deer, or who want to preserve wildlife, or who want to help the needy by giving venison to food banks.
james h. Phillips can be reached at jahoph@aol.com.
