Welcome to Part Two on the topic of lead and non-toxic ammunition. In Part One we talked about some of the history and why the MFGA adopted and promotes a voluntary approach to reducing the use of lead ammunition in large game hunting. Critics sometimes will say “show me the science” or “copper is not as good as lead”. So we will try to provide some information sources you can look up and read for yourselves. There is a mix of highly technical and easy reading. Pour yourself a cup of coffee and do some sleuthing on your own. You may not agree with our position, but you will hopefully understand why we support non-toxic ammunition in hunting.
A bit of science for you...
The proceedings of a 2008 scientific conference entitled “The Ingestion and Spent Lead Ammunition: Implications for Wildlife and Humans” at Boise State University are available online. The proceedings may be found at http://www.peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-lead/2008PbConf_Proceedings.htm This appears to be one of the more comprehensive conferences with just over 50 published articles. Some are human health-oriented while others are more wildlife-related. It is a good link for highly technical reports presented by the scientific community.
For readers who like the information in a less technical format the following is a good overview presentation by the University of Iowa.
https://naturalresources.extension.iastate.edu/wildlife/lead-contamination-wildlife
Go to Google Scholar https://scholar.google.com/ and do your own keyword searching. Google Scholar accesses scientific journals and publications. Not all are free access but there is often an abstract with key findings. Do your own objective research.
A hunter’s perspective...
The following web site is perhaps the most comprehensive one-stop-shop for non-toxic ammunition information as it includes everything from science references to bullet performance to lists of manufacturers. The site is very balanced and appears to be put together by conservation-minded hunters who value the traditions of being stewards of the resource. This site is highly recommended as it is written in plain language and has numerous relevant links. http://huntingwithnonlead.org/about.html
Human health…
There is no question that lead is bad for human health but here is some information. Field and Stream did a short article on concentrations of lead in wild meats. http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/ammunition/2010/06/more-scary-news-about-lead-levels-wild-game and the Center for Disease Control also looked at it in the USA. The CDC advised that young children and pregnant women should not consume large amounts of wild meat killed with lead ammunition.
“The Ingestion and Spent Lead Ammunition: Implications for Wildlife and Humans” conference mentioned previously also had a section on human exposure. http://www.peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-lead/2008PbConf_Proceedings.htm
Oh, but what about bullet performance…..
This writer did some informal comparisons based on literature and practical experience. He presented his thoughts on various non-toxic ammunition types. It seems to be a balanced approach that speaks of the pros and cons of some of the other non-toxic options. http://modern-hunters.com/are-non-lead-bullets-toxic/
This is another online comparison of general nature. Though not scientific it also presents some of the pros and cons. http://www.gohunt.com/read/seven-things-you-didnt-know-about-ammo
This citation http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4100882/ is a highly technical article on ballistic properties. The results indicated “All bullets showed an increasing cavity volume with increasing deposited energy. The dimensionally stable and fragmenting lead-free bullets achieved a constant conversion ratio while the deforming copper and lead-containing bullets showed a ratio, which increases linearly with the total deposited energy. The lead-containing bullet created hundreds of fragments and significantly more fragments than the lead-free bullets. The deflection angle was significantly higher for the dimensionally stable bullet due to its tumbling behaviour and was similarly low for the other bullets. The deforming bullets achieved higher reproducibility than the fragmenting and dimensionally stable bullets. The deforming lead-free bullet closely resembled the deforming lead-containing bullet in terms of energy conversion, deflection angle, cavity shape, and reproducibility, showing that similar terminal ballistic behaviour can be achieved.”
And, cost...
A report entitled “Conflicts in Lead Ammunition and Sinker Regulation: Considerations for US National Parks” seemed to be a most detailed public policy document and presents some interesting perspectives. Interestingly, on page 29 the author states “Voluntary use provisions do not create strong markets, especially when non-toxic products cost more than lead equivalents”. This is partially attributed to market demand forces and the generalization that “big game hunters do not fire large numbers of cartridges when hunting”. Based on this, one could postulate that education and the sense of stewardship of the natural resource would have to be a key component of any voluntary program. The Knowledge that a person might save an eagle or other bird of prey by using non-toxic ammunition may be the determining factor in spending a few dollars more or requesting non-toxic ammunition from the outfitter/supplier.
There is still a cost discrepancy, but with time, this is expected to close. One observer commented that ammunition represents only about 7% of the total cost of a hunt.
In conclusion…
A key element of ethical sports hunting is not just to respect the environment but also to represent the hunting/shooting community in an environmentally responsible and sustainable manner. The voluntary use of non-toxic ammunition whenever possible is a measure that we can easily undertake to show the non-hunting and non-shooting public that we take the stewardship of our natural resources seriously.