Hornady just sent me an email.

T

taylorce1

New member
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.
Click to expand...
 
2 other options, as it's unlikely you will actually get past an assistant phone administrator

Email: sally.jewell@ios.doi.gov (Forget the secretary_jewell@ email, it's the 'public' email for her)

Her twitter account is @secretaryjewell
 
rule

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...


http://epaabuse.com/6440/news/house-blocks-epa-from-banning-lead-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.
Click to expand...

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/f...es-lawsuit-to-ban-traditional-ammunition.aspx
 
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...


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/publications/fact_sheets/pdfs/lead_poisoning_wild_birds_2009.pdf


http://www.peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-lead/2008PbConf_Justification.htm
 
TXAZ said:
Email: sally.jewell@ios.doi.gov
Click to expand...

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:

sally.jewell@ios.doi.gov
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.
Click to expand...

OK - So maybe not so helpful after all. The original email I sent was addressed to feedback@ios.doi.gov which at least was delivered.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
Where do you find copper 308 ammo for this price?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
buck460XVR said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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'!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top