Sunday, August 29, 2010

As everybody else has already reported...

...the EPA got punked on the lead thing.

So there.

18 comments:

Stranger said...

Yep, too much heat too close to elections. And while the EPA says it does not have the authority to regulate lead in bullets - watch them find a reason when it is convenient.

Steve Skubinna said...

I'm betting they got way more than they bargained for here, and a political appointee told them to knock it the hell off. Until after the election.

Chas S. Clifton said...

I went to the Center for Biological Diversity's web site and read this predictable news release.

I have to say that I've been around the hunting/conservation scene for a few years, and I have never ever heard of a "hunter's group" called Project Gutpile.

That has got be the cheapest sort of astroturf or somebody's idea of a joke.

Bubblehead Les. said...

Don't count your chickens too soon. EPA did say they would look into the lead fishing weight disaster that the TreeHuggers say will soon destroy the Planet! I think someone quoted Stalin as saying "If Communism makes 2 steps forward, yet has to take 1 step back, it is still making progress".

perlhaqr said...

So, someone who is a better bio-geek than me (Lab Rat?), can we get a run-down on how, erm, water / acid soluble lead is? I understand that lead ingested as small particles can be absorbed into the body, but if you take a cast lead bullet, and swallow it whole, how much of the surface and body of that projectile will be digested and absorbed?

Tam said...

Not much at all, AFAIK.

Further, people have lived long and productive lives with .68" lead balls encysted someplace in their body.

Lead oxide and vaporized lead is how the stuff gets into the system in a fashion that can cause problems, if I remember correctly.

B.S. philosopher said...

They're also still looking at banning lead wheel weights IIRC. Banning wheel weights is also a smack at sportsmen and target shooters since lots of them end up as boolits and sinkers in their second career.

jimbob86 said...

It is a problem for birds ... shot as gravel for grinding seeds in the gizzard, IIRC.

I am no chemist, but as I understand it: Lead oxidizes, but the coating of lead oxide prevents further oxidation, which is why lead bullets don't "rust away" like ferrous metals do. Lead oxide is not particularly hard- A bird's gizzard, combined with gravel, will grind it off to absorbed further on down the alimentary canal. This is the reason they banned lead shot for waterfowl hunting: dabbling ducks were turning up with lead poisoning.

Everything has unintended consequenses. I am finding it hard to believe that the world will miss the odd vulture that eats an expended bullet in a gut pile.

If we are going to ban entire industries to save a few birds that are pretty insignigant in the ultimate scheme of things, then we all just better dig a big hole and collectively jump in .... or better yet, throw in the greenies and stop worrying about it.

Don Meaker said...

It was important to me to have Tam ready to put on her Wookie suit. I figure she is pretty laid back, and wouldn't get worked up without cause.

Revolver Rob said...

I view this as a pessimistic victory. They'll be back for sure and next time they will have some crappy multi-year study of questionable scientific method and empirical evidence to back them up.

I think somebody, correctly, reminded the EPA that they were playing with fire. Casually reminding them that the worst economic depression of the last 80 years is around here, and that taking away a bunch of Americans' piece of mind, might result in things that would not be televised.

-Rob

Themadlemming said...

One thing about the EPA (and most of these alphabet agencies) is the idea that they have to "prove" their "worth". I deal with the Georgia EPD at least once a month at work and their constantly coming up with new guidelines and regulations. In this particular instance, the EPA bit off more than it could chew, but they'll try again later.

Desertrat said...

The EPA press release I saw cited said that they did not have the authority for such a ban, and thus the petition was denied. IOW, it was not an idea from within EPA.

Chas S. Clifton said...

I was fishing in Vermont in July, and discovered that that state has banned lead sinkers (not lead-core lines, however).

No lead sinkers, no CCW permits. Those quirky Yankees.

jimbob86 said...

"but they'll try again later."

They are Progressives ("Better Living Through Government"): How can they not?

Chas S. Clifton said...

One last thing: read Tom McIntyre's great takedown on the CPD's one-man "hunters' group," Project Gutpile.

Rob Reed said...

Congrats Tam! You are my first daily read.

Five years! Wow. Since blog years are like dog years, it's almost as if the blog has been around for decades.

Rob (Trebor)

Sigivald said...

It seems odd the way that everyone is simply assuming that "EPA wants to" ban ammunition.

As I've said before and elsewhere, taking petitions is legally required under the TSCA.

And they, quite rightly, and as I predicted, threw out the parts of this petition relating to ammunition, as the TSCA requires they do.

Like Desertrat said, I've seen exactly zero evidence of a "desire" by EPA to ban ammunition.

D.W. Drang said...

Wow, a Tamalanche! Thank you, ma'am.

OTOH, if the EPA had zero interest in banning lead ammunition, shouldn't they have said "Sorry, we don't have the statutory authority to do as you requested, come back later?" As opposed to posting the issue in an open comment period, getting their butt kicked, and then denying the request before the open comment period was over? Sure, we can ass-you-me that the sudden denial was politically inspired or motivated, but if we're going to do that, we may as well admit that the initial announcement may have been, too. (And I see no reason not to ass-you-me that this could have been the act of someone who does NOT think the EPA should be used as a vehicle to a backdoor gun/ammo ban.)

WV: surepud. Not goin' there...