The Ninth Circuit on Lead Ammunition
BY Herschel Smith
1 year ago
Basically, the Sierra Club and others took the U.S. Forest Service (and then the state of Arizona) to court over lead ammunition.
On the other hand, in the same provision that gives USFS control over federal forests, Congress specified that USFS’s authority “shall [not] be construed . . . to require Federal permits to hunt and fish . . . on lands in the National Forest System.” 43 U.S.C. § 1732(b). And Congress has provided in recent appropriations acts that “[n]one of the funds made available by this or any other Act may be used to regulate the lead content of ammunition, ammunition components, or fishing tackle under the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.) or any other law.” Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022, Pub. L. No. 107-103, sec. 2, div. G, tit. IV, § 438, 136 Stat. 421 (2022). The implication of this restriction is not immediately clear to us. USFS has not argued to us that this provision outright bars the relief CBD seeks.1 We do not know the scope of the appropriations restriction and whether it would prohibit USFS from, for example, conducting a rulemaking to regulate lead use in the nation’s forests, but such provisions would surely test the current limits of USFS’s general authority. See United States v. McIntosh, 833 F.3d 1163, 1172–73 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that federal courts may enforce an appropriations rider restricting the Department of Justice from using funds to prevent states from implementing their own laws with respect to marijuana use). We do not refer to these provisions to suggest that USFS can or cannot use its existing authority to regulate the use of lead ammunition, but to demonstrate that, whatever the scope of USFS’s authority, Congress has not directed USFS to regulate hunters’ use of lead shot on federal lands.
Here is the decision. It’s a lengthy one and the read can study it for himself, but basically, the ninth circuit told the Sierra Club to go away. It’s the right decision.
I recently ordered two boxes of copper bullet cartridges at significant expense to me compared to lead bullets. First of all, I like what I see on ballistic tests of copper ammunition (i.e., the beautiful and symmetric bullet flower petal). Second, I like the weight retention inherent in the design, and the fact that the meat isn’t contaminated. That’s a big deal.
Third, I like the fact that I am helping not to adversely affect birds of prey or other animals that eat the remains of what I might have to leave behind. But that’s the third reason, not the first two.
I want to have the option to use copper ammunition, and if it’s safer for the environment, I think hunters and the shooting community should lead the way. I’m all in on that.
What I don’t want is to be told what I can and can’t do by a controller.
a
On September 4, 2023 at 12:09 pm, Longbow said:
Herschel,
Has anyone ever seen an exhaustive study which proves, or even heavily indicates, that predatory fowl are ingesting lead shot, from fish and other game, and THAT is what is causing elevated lead levels in their blood stream?
All I have ever seen in this debate the is assertion that this is so, I have never seen an imperial study which proves it.
We have been shooting game animals with lead bullets for five hundred years. Every dedicated hunter, and the families they feed, should have acute lead poisoning by now. Right?
A man came into my store one time and asked for some lead free ammunition. I told him I didn’t have any at the moment, but could order it and have it in a few days. Out of curiosity, I asked him why he wanted that particular ammo, thinking maybe he was going to hunt in Kommie-fornia or another restrictive State. He replied that, no, he wasn’t traveling, he just wanted lead free ammo so as not to contaminate the meat.
Ok, valid request and point of view. The customer wants what he wants. So be it.
Not to be argumentative, but asking in conversation, why he thought his meat would be unsafe to eat given that we have been shooting game animals with lead bullets for five hundred years and it hasn’t been a health problem for hunters and their families so far. He said he just wanted to be safe.
Not knowing the man and perhaps I should have kept my thoughts to myself, I said, “You know, they put mercury amalgam in your head for a lifetime and it is thought perfectly safe, but shooting game with lead bullets isn’t.”
He replied almost angrily, “I’m a dentist and THAT is perfectly safe!”
He never came in my store again. The customer wants what the customer wants. So be it.
On September 4, 2023 at 12:11 pm, Longbow said:
Damm spell Czech! I wrote “empirical”.
On September 4, 2023 at 4:29 pm, Billie Bumhole said:
I wonder about the lead contamination aspects too. It seems pretty obvious that killing your meat animal using a piece of lead travelling at high speed might end with contaminated meat. But common sense says you don’t eat the parts near the path of the projectile unless you really are >that< dumb. Then again, I am old enough to remember lead in our petrol too.
I agree that copper is likely to be the way forward, but the only thing with copper projectiles for hunting vs target use is "unleaded" projectiles don't expand as readily after they slow at ~ 200yds for most cartridges. With the emphasis on long range at this time, it might lead to a lot of wounded game.
So maybe copper will have unforeseen positive benefits and lead to a brand new fashion in hunting – being forced to learn to stalk close to your game – so it can be dispatched humanely.
On September 5, 2023 at 12:51 am, George said:
The meat isn’t contaminated by lead, either. I dont know anyone who eats the bloodshot meat around the track of a high velocity bullet.
On September 5, 2023 at 9:34 pm, Dave said:
Billie Bumhole you sound like a Sierra Club member? Weather it’s 50 or a 1000 yards, shot placement is what counts.