EDITORIAL: We see some merit in hunters getting the lead out

Mar. 9—You've heard the term "shotgun approach." Scatter enough proverbial lead and you're bound to hit something, right?

Hunters, however, know better. One of the first lessons a novice waterfowler must learn is to focus on one specific bird when a flock of ducks flies by. It's tempting to simply point the gun at the whole flock and pull the trigger, but "flock shooting" seldom puts a bird in the bag.

Right now in St. Paul, a group of DFL legislators are "flock shooting" at a multi-faceted issue that demands a focused, specific approach — and as a result, they are extremely unlikely to hit anything.

The problem they are targeting is lead. We all agree that it's poisonous. For humans, there is no "safe" level of lead exposure, which is why paint and gasoline are now lead-free.

Similarly, no one disputes that lead ammunition and fishing tackle are toxic to waterfowl and avian scavengers. Ingesting just one lead shotgun pellet, fishing sinker or bullet fragment can kill a bald eagle, a loon and dozens of other species of birds that call Minnesota home.

To prevent lead exposure in humans and wildlife, a pair of bills in the House and Senate would phase out and ultimately prohibit the use of lead ammunition at gun ranges and for hunting in Minnesota. Lead fishing lures and sinkers that weigh less than an ounce would also be phased out.

This is an ambitious proposal. Put another way, it's an utterly unrealistic plan that has virtually no chance of becoming law. We can't fathom a single GOP legislator voting for it, and more than a few outstate DFLers will be very reluctant to sign on.

This proposal's scattershot approach is unfortunate, because some specific aspects of this legislation do have merit.

Let's start with hunting. Since 1991, waterfowlers nationwide have been required to shoot non-toxic shot (usually steel), to protect ducks, geese, and loons from ingesting lead pellets. Meanwhile, hunters who target pheasants, doves and other "upland game" have continued to use lead shot along waterways, in swamps and on lakeshores where spent pellets can and do poison waterfowl.

If that sounds illogical, that's because it is — especially now, when the price and effectiveness of premium non-toxic shotgun ammunition is similar to high-quality lead loads. A ban on lead ammunition for all bird hunting in Minnesota would cause a stir, but if it happened tomorrow, we doubt it would have a significant impact on hunting participation this fall.

Next, consider deer hunting and lead poisoning. Environmentalists have long known that eagles and other scavengers can ingest fragments of lead bullets when they eat "gut piles" left by hunters who have shot and field-dressed a deer, but it wasn't until 2008 that hunters and the entire hunting industry got a very loud wake-up call.

A doctor in North Dakota collected 100 pounds of donated venison from several food pantries. X-rays revealed multiple lead bullet fragments in 60 percent of the packages, and thousands of pounds of venison were recalled and destroyed.

Almost instantly, interest in non-toxic bullets exploded, especially among hunters who feed venison to their young children. Copper rifle bullets and deer slugs are more expensive than lead — and availability can be spotty, especially in less-popular calibers — but today they perform as well or better than lead bullets. Therefore, a gradually phased-in ban on lead ammunition for big-game hunting in Minnesota isn't an outrageous idea.

Next, consider what has become the headline-grabbing element of the proposed lead ban; namely, its impact on high school trap shooting, which last year had nearly 12,000 participants on 418 teams statewide. Each of these students shoots dozens of boxes shotgun shells during a season.

Ban proponents argue that children in grades 6 through 12 shouldn't handle lead ammunition, inhale lead dust or clean shotguns that could contain lead residue. Opponents of the ban say that the higher cost of non-toxic ammunition would increase student fees dramatically and could cause some teams to disband.

Both of these claims appear to be unsubstantiated, perhaps outright false.

We can find no scientific studies supporting the claim that shooting lead shotgun shells at an outdoor range poses any risk of lead poisoning. If people are being sickened by shooting a few boxes of shotgun shells each week, you'd think we would have heard about it by now.

We haven't. Has anyone?

As for the prohibitive cost of requiring non-toxic ammunition for school trap teams — well, we checked several retailers in the Rochester area, and we couldn't find any lead "target loads" for less than $8.99 a box. Non-toxic target loads were harder to find (because there is little demand for them), but we did find some at $9.99. That's four extra cents per shell. Not ideal, but not cost-prohibitive, either — provided that such ammunition is available in the volume needed for school teams.

So, if anyone can show scientific proof that lead ammunition poses some level of risk to young shooters, we could potentially support a mandated, statewide switch to non-toxic shot for school-based teams.

But that's just for minors. Any proposal to ban lead ammunition at shooting ranges will be rightly dead on arrival at the Capitol. Recreational shooting is a legal, widely enjoyed activity, and banning lead at ranges wouldn't stop people from shooting it. Rather, it would simply send more shooters to makeshift "private" ranges, where their spent lead wouldn't be later recovered and recycled, as it is at most gun ranges.

Finally, consider the proposed ban on lead fishing tackle. Every angler loses lures, jigs and sinkers. It's inevitable. One study, using DNR survey data, estimated that over a 20-year period, anglers on Lake Mille Lacs alone sent more than nine tons of lead into the lake bottom.

But a ban on lead tackle isn't the answer. The free market is.

Non-toxic tungsten fishing tackle is the new gold standard for many anglers. It's harder and heavier than lead, which provides a lot of advantages. Yes, it's more expensive, but people who've invested $10,000 in a boat and motor will happily spend an extra couple of dollars for the best jigs and lures. Ten or 20 years from now, lead fishing tackle might be tough to find — not because of a ban, but because no one will want it.

Sometimes — not always — it's better to let people choose the right path, rather than trying to force them onto it.