The antis are a crafty lot. They claim (they being Wayne Pacelle of the HSUS in sworn testimony before a Senate committee) they do not want to ban hunting. Good thing. Attempts so far have had limited results. But there is more than one way to skin a cat, and today that cat-skinning technique is to attack lead ammunition.
You see, an article appeared on a self-proclaimed “science-based” website, that claimed venison in North Dakota was contaminated with fragments from lead bullets, and that the venison was unsafe to eat. Turns out the so called “study” was conducted in an unscientific manner by a North Dakota dermatologist who sits on the board of the Peregrine Fund, an organization whose stated agenda includes banning lead ammunition, and that the release of the "study" was timed to coincide with a Peregrine Fund conference aimed at advancing its agenda.
Though the results of the false report were soon refuted, in a classic case of “better safe than sorry,“ North Dakota health officials ordered food banks to destroy tons of nutritious meat, and in the process, gave credence to the myth that game harvested with lead bullets creates an increased risk of disease.
So let’s set the record straight: consuming game taken with traditional lead ammunition does not pose a health risk. And though the questionable findings of a dermatologist in North Dakota attempts to refute this, a somewhat more credible source, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, came to a different conclusion than the North Dakota acne doctor. The CDC's study of North Dakota hunters found that their blood lead levels were lower than the average American's. And in related findings, the Iowa Department of Public Health, which as employed extensive blood lead testing of its citizens since 1992 has stated “if lead in venison were a serious health risk, it would likely have surfaced by now."
The fact is, there is no evidence of a single case of human lead poisoning related to eating game taken with traditional ammunition, and no peer-reviewed scientific evidence exists as a reason to ban the use of such ammunition.
So why all the bother? Who cares what an unqualified, agenda-driven anti-hunter has to say?
In this world where perception often has a way of becoming reality, hunters cannot allow even the most preposterous falsehood to go unchallenged in the court of public opinion.
Turns out, achieving the antis stated objective to ban all hunting is a tall mountain to climb. The antis know they cannot abolish our sport directly, but by nibbling away at the edges…by winning a ban on so called “assault weapons”, serializing ammunition, or banning the use of lead for hunting, are the kind of incremental victories that can ultimately result in the loss of sportsmen and women’s rights, or put another way, our privilege to hunt.. We must all stay vigilant to guard against any attack against our freedoms, be they large or small.