At shooting ranges the lead is contained and recycled.

I've shot and reloaded for years, recycled lead, steel, copper and brass for years too. Unless my doctor is lying to me my lead test come back as zero. With the right knowledge and personal protective equipment (low cost) personal lead contamination is not an issue.

Trap and skeet ranges are routinely surface mined to recover the lead. Recovered lead is worth about $1000/ton. Lime is sown to passivate the soil so the lead does not leach out. This works really good in areas affected by acid rain.

On outside ranges bullets are generally copper jacketed so lead exposure is a non issue. Bullets slam into the berms and remain there inert until reclaimed. At a smelter the recovered projectiles can be melted to separate the copper from the lead.

People who smoke, eat and drink at the range are most likely to be exposed to lead. I've only known four people in as many years to have elevated lead levels. My son and daughter both shot high school rifle (4 years each) which is indoor and 100% lead bullets. Lead in their asses maybe but not in their bodies (unless the doctor is lying).

The "residue" that you get on your hands (aka GSR for the CSI watchers) is carbon base nitrocellulose. It washes off with soap and water.

Let alone the guns itself.

When I play minigolf, they give me a ball and putter, I don't bring my own.
(and some bowlers have lockers at the lanes and don't pack and carry bowling bowls into bars and supermarkets and schools.

Together putting heads together, there seems to be no reason whatsoever for anyone to
actually own bullets.

which reminds me of a thread I wanted to start.

I save about 75% of the cost of new ammunition.

I also shoot at several ranges and know people who travel interstate for competition.

those are now obsolete

JFK asked not what your country can do for you
He asked what sacrifice can you do for the good of the mass people

If getting rid of bullets ended mass killings with guns (and it would if there was zero tolerance) and other gun deaths, giving up a little sport is indeed a well worthy for the sake of mankind
sacrifice, don't you think?

Smoking used to be a recreation.

The collateral damage, way more in one year than all the collateral used in drones forever,
is worth the sacrifice.

Same as boxing has dropped in entertainment value, wrestling has dropped, and hitting heads in football has dropped in value, along with Michael Vick type dog fights.

Everyone has to do their part for the good of the country.

It's no sacrifice, if people are saved, or better protected.

And bullets can be at all competitions and ranges, without a singular person bringing them in.
And so can harmless bullets (blanks) be used.
(and please, no argument over which type of gun or bullet, they are all the same to me).

More more more

> At shooting ranges, why can't people just get bullets there and not need to bring them in?

Not all ranges sell ammo.
Not all ranges rent guns.
Not all ranges have storage lockers.

The shooting range I go to is small, and usually there is no staff there. So your plan would require them to pay for a full time employee, plus stock every possible ammo caliber.

I think a lot of people don't realize how many bullet calibers there are. There are so many that keeping them all on hand would be impossible at a small range. Plus, its nice to hand load ammo, since it can be tailored to your gun, to be more accurate, and its cheaper.

So the problem with your plan is its not possible. Plus, people have the right to have ammo at home for self defense, which has been upheld by the supreme court. Even if that was overturned, I doubt a criminal who is going to go on a mass shooting would be deterred by having to steal a box of ammo at the range. Its not like it would be difficult, since everybody at the shooting range carries a bag, and I doubt shooting ranges are going to start checking every bag as people leave.

and then they can pay the people who are former gun store employees a good wage to
do just that.

And pay for the bullets there.

There is a simple answer for everything.

One never needs to have a bullet in the street

(and someone else saying above about a little bitty bitty rodent like a fieldmouse or a rat the picture in my mind is so hilarious...

like the NRA poster person Elmer Fudd shooting at the rabbitt


AND WHAT PART OF YOUR HOME IS NOT THE STREET DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
AND WHAT PART OF YOUR HOME IS NOT THE STREET DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
AND WHAT PART OF YOUR HOME IS NOT THE STREET DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
AND WHAT PART OF YOUR HOME IS NOT THE STREET DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
AND WHAT PART OF YOUR HOME IS NOT THE STREET DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
AND WHAT PART OF YOUR HOME IS NOT THE STREET DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
AND WHAT PART OF YOUR HOME IS NOT THE STREET DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
AND WHAT PART OF YOUR HOME IS NOT THE STREET DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
AND WHAT PART OF YOUR HOME IS NOT THE STREET DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
AND WHAT PART OF YOUR HOME IS NOT THE STREET DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
AND WHAT PART OF YOUR HOME IS NOT THE STREET DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
AND WHAT PART OF YOUR HOME IS NOT THE STREET DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
AND WHAT PART OF YOUR HOME IS NOT THE STREET DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
AND WHAT PART OF YOUR HOME IS NOT THE STREET DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
AND WHAT PART OF YOUR HOME IS NOT THE STREET DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
AND WHAT PART OF YOUR HOME IS NOT THE STREET DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
AND WHAT PART OF YOUR HOME IS NOT THE STREET DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
AND WHAT PART OF YOUR HOME IS NOT THE STREET DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

and trying to appear to be arguing that shooting is not polluting, when actually reading your post, it clearly is polluting under all conditions, and only under ideal conditions, which often don't exist or aren't enforced, there still remains pollution.

but you say that your lead test was "zero", because it's all safe.

i hope the hosts are watching the poster whose username is based on Remington Rifle.

I'm open for discussion based on facts and experience.

let's just not be afraid to say what you believe, or else it's a lot less convincing.

We found out that our little Half Cat had "pellets" in her because some local degenerate had shot her. We had wondered why kitty developed this twitch when we touched her back.

If the intent is to make an argument with substance, be sure of the accuracy before you make the claim. Putting out an argument that is demonstrably inaccurate, is counter-productive, in terms of convincing those on the fence to sway one way or the other.

There are federal regulations related to the use of lead shot, it's prohibited from being used for hunting waterfowl. specifically due to the potential impact of ingesting lead shot by bottom feeding ducks and other creatures. That law is an example of good legislation, environmentalists pointed out the danger resulting from using lead shot and the government responded with sensible regulations that mitigate the risk. Waterfowl hunters are required to use steel or bismoth shot, specifically for that reason and that's been the law for over a decade.

Similar concerns have been voiced in recent years over the potential for lead contamination in raptors that consume big game carcasses that go unrecovered by hunters, that may be contaminated by lead bullets. As a result, in areas where there are populations of large raptors that are threatened, such as the California Condor, laws have been enacted to require that hunters use non-lead bullets when hunting big game in those areas. Again, a sensible solution to the problem. Non-lead bullets are becoming increasingly popular among many big game hunters, even in areas where there are not challenged populations of raptors, it's likely that the popularity of non-lead bullets will continue to grow and I would not be surprised if lead bullets disappear at some point in the future. The use of jacketed bullets also reduce the amount of lead residue in particulate form, that is created while shooting.

My point is not to suggest that gun control advocates should not raise these issues, only that arguments that are intended to sway the undecided are likely to be more effective if they can stand up to scrutiny. That's typically a more effective strategy.

lead from the environment doesn't just come from shooting related to hunting, but to target practice and other recreational shooting.

some areas are well regulated, some are not.

scrutiny? yes, my post and point are well taken, saying otherwise does not stand up to scrutiny.

Take it as constructive criticism, if one of the points of this group is to promote effective arguments supporting gun control, then it's probably a good idea to make sure of the validity of those arguments. Promoting information that is easily contradicted would seem to be counter-productive to those efforts.

Yes, it's true that lead shot has affected waterfowl in many places. That might sound like a reasonable example of one of the dangers associated with guns. But it becomes a less convincing example in light of the fact that lead shot was banned by the Federal Government in 1991, for use in waterfowl hunting. It's akin to protesting that cars are dangerous due to the use of leaded gasoline. Cars are certainly dangerous for a variety of reasons but unleaded gasoline has been the standard for a long time now.

That's not to say that there may not be some legitimate concerns about lead contamination resulting from the use of firearms, just that the lead shot issue in regards to waterfowl has been addressed through regulations and may no longer be a particularly compelling argument to be made.

first trying to narrow the topic to lead shot from hunting, as if it were the only source of contamination.

typical of NRA style arguments, focus on one small aspect of a much broader argument, then say something false about it, then explain that this false thing about a narrow part of the argument renders the entire piece moot.

i'm going to ask the hosts to look at this.

because i know what you are doing.

I pointed out that there may be some legitimate arguments regarding lead contamination. You obviously take issue with someone contradicting your claim that lead shot pose a threat for waterfowl, that's fine, it's your privilege to do so. That does not alter the fact that it's a flawed argument due to regulatory changes that occurred over two decades ago. If the goal of this group is to foster support for gun control, then the validity of arguments used to support that goal is a fundamental necessity for effectively changing public opinion on this issue.

you also continue to make it sound like the only harm would be from lead shot, the only harm would be to waterfowl, you dismiss or ignore the dangers it poses in other settings.

your posts don't belong in this group, first because they are false and second because you are using this group to actively fight any regulation of guns and/or ammunition.

Where did I lie? I stated that lead shot has been banned for use in hunting waterfowl by the Federal Gov. since 1991. That's a fact. The reason for that ban was a good one. Lead shot used in waterfowl hunting collected in sediment in shallow ponds favored by ducks and geese and was frequently ingested by them while feeding. Ingesting lead is particularly toxic. The solution was to ban the use of lead shot around water (waterfowl hunting) and replace it with non-toxic alternatives. That has been a successful regulation change, which eliminated most of the lead toxicity problems related to waterfowl.

I then said that there may some legitimate concerns about other types of lead contamination related to hunting or shooting, is that a lie?

Lastly, I've been supportive of many suggested changes that are part of gun control efforts, to claim that I'm attempting to fight any regulation of guns or ammunition is both false and ludicrous.

I don't view most topics, particularly highly politicized ones, as being all or nothing. In order for effective reform to be accomplished, it has to be politically possible. Some of the individuals who post here would like to see guns absolutely abolished from private ownership and take a black/white approach of intolerance to any opinion that differs from that absolute. I would disagree with applying that standard of zealotry to this group, lest it become a star chamber based solely on dogma, instead of an effective tool to promote gun control. If an effective campaign for gun control is to have even a reasonable chance of moving public opinion, there needs to be room for progressive minded individuals who also support private gun ownership rights, as defined in the Democratic party platform and by the President.

it offers the comment that the fact that deficiencies in the proposed AWB's are likely to frustrate those who see an AWB as a means for removing all firearms. I would guess that the vast majority of those who support the idea of an AWB are not in favor of eliminating the private ownership of firearms, you are the one who is suggesting that to be the case, not me.

...because its too narrow geographically and many hunters don't follow the law.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0626/Condors-threatened-by-epidemic-lead-poisoning-from-hunters-bullets-video

I presume you would oppose further restriction on the sale of lead ammunition in California?

If there is evidence that lead bullets continue to pose a problem for challenged wildlife populations, I have no problem further restriction the sale of such ammunition and would support the their restriction. It's an easy fix. Solid copper bullets are more effective big game hunting bullets anyway and they eliminate the issue of potential lead contamination, the only drawback is that they tend to be more expensive. But it's a reasonable trade off in order to further the protection of a threatened species.

So you would generally agree in regard to the topic of gun control that when legislation fails to accomplish its task that further legislation is called for and should be expeditiously passed?

that's the game being played here.

but i refuse to be played.

I don't think everyone in this group is a "gun grabber", though there are certainly individuals who have expressed sentiments that are consistent with the desire to eliminate the private ownership of firearms. But that idea is not the stated purpose of this group, nor should acceptance of that idea be the metric that is used to determine participation.

to act like i'm the one who said it when it was you that said it.

and of the two of us, that fits with the fact that you use the term "gun grabber".

you are showing concern on gun control legislation, again and again as you do on the rest of DU.

if the further legislation has a reasonable expectation of achieving a tangible goal, then yes it should be expeditiously passed. If the further legislation is incapable of accomplishing the desired task for the same reason that the previous legislation failed to accomplish the task, then no, legislation should not be passed simply to put another law on the books. That's speaking in general terms, the situation might vary somewhat depending on the specific regulation being proposed.

BTW - academic studies time and time again have shown that tighter gun control reduces gun violence both in the international context and in the domestic context. Are those studies wrong?

Would you accept this basic fact: gun violence happens because of easy access to guns?

I'd accept the premise that some gun violence happens because of easy access to guns.

As to the first question, which academic studies? Without having read them, I can't offer an informed opinion in terms of their accuracy.

How about most? Because the gun extremists don't permit public sponsored study of the issue we frankly don't know how horrendous the statistics are but I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of gun violence doesn't happen because someone stole a gun from a gun safe.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/07/gun-laws-_n_2828656.html

Do you know what the gun homicide rate is in Western Europe compared to the US?

You seem to want to argue about the need for gun control, which is surprising given the SOP of this group. I support the need for gun control efforts and have stated that fact clearly in a number of different threads. Now if you want to debate the effectiveness or value of specific gun control measures, I'd be happy to do so but I'd suggest that this is not the appropriate forum for doing so.

You may wish to consider this forum: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172

I thought that the purpose of this forum was to support and promote effective gun control measures, not to debate the idea or the necessity of gun control, which is apparently what you want to do given the questions you have asked?

The post of yours cited above is an example of opposition to those policies. Why are you surprised that you're not likely to be taken very seriously on these topics when you've made asinine arguments comparing AR-15s to Porsche's? Let me be clear: this is a pro-gun control group. Not a dithering well maybe we should do something or not do something group - the members who created this group and form its backbone want the White House package including the AWB passed! I'm being blunt because you're beating around the bush.

you post something about guns

and they pick it apart either falsely or via picayune details that don't undermine the overall point.

they stink up each thread with concern and caution, but the overall point is DO NOTHING or as close to nothing as possible.

and it works remarkably well.

CHECK OUT MY PROFILE!

I view this as a process. Rome wasn't built in a day my friend

or is harm to non-threatened species acceptable?

nevermind that lead contaminates the environment, regardless of whether a critter eats it or not.

the true purpose of your posts here is to undermine the idea that there is anything substantially problematic with the current use of guns and ammo in terms of the environment or health.

Again, you seem to have this black/white interpretation of things but the real world does not work that way. Yes, lead can contaminate the environment. Ingesting lead presents a much higher risk for lead toxicity, hence the concern over lead shot and waterfowl, as well as children ingesting lead from lead based paint and the concern over the leaching impact that occurs from lead solder in old plumbing. Does that mean that other forms of lead contamination are unimportant? Of course not but it also does not support the idea of zero tolerance for lead contamination as being a reasonable measure for whether product should be permitted.

as long as it's not associated with a zero level?

i ask because while a zero would effectively mean a prohibition on lead into the environment from firearms...

any safe level is going to mean substantial restrictions on the types of shot or shooting allowed.

I've already indicated that I've supported regulations that limit lead risk such as steel shot regulations and lead bullet restrictions in parts of California, so clearly I support some lead restrictions. As far as "safe levels", as long as there is some peer reviewed, published scientific research used to establish that criteria , then I would probably be supportive of further restrictions. But the concerns would have to be supported by data, not just with a vague assertion that lead is harmful, ergo restrictions are needed.

why are you asking for further peer review on that which is already established?

the peer review would involve the confirmation of lead associated with bullets being a major source of environmental contamination, outside of some extremely localized situations.

to make the government agencies spend lots more money and take lots more time to create a regulation?

Regulations related to health concerns should be based on tangible scientific data, not the unsupported claims of laymen. No different than any other regulation. Same response that I would make to those who want to ban vaccinations based on unsubstantiated claims. Not exactly an unreasonable expectation to require some proof before passing a law.

and said that the number used would be from some "layman" and basically an arbitrary number, when i asked you since there were already numbers and standards for this pollutant and that the work would likely be done by gov't agencies and never referenced any "laymen", you seem to be turning this entire thread into an opportunity to debate strawmen.

not only that, you won't fess up whether you plan to be involved in legal action against regulations you clearly don't support.

No strawman, just the opinion that any government regulation based on health concerns should be supported with scientific data. How is that a strawman?

"fess up"?

I highly doubt that I would be involved in any legal action against regulations that I don't support, related to this issue, should that be the case and I don't know it to be. I already said, if there is demonstrable evidence of lead contamination causing a health risk, related to shooting, that I'd probably be supportive of regulating it.

Now, since you have been doing all of the questioning, let me ask you one. If research indicated that lead related to shooting and hunting did not pose any kind of a serious health risk or have a significant environmental impact, would you support the continued use of firearms in those activities?

congratulations.

mission accomplished.

My original contribution to this thread was simply to point out that if you are going to promote talking points to be used to convince people to support gun control, such as the concern that you voiced in the OP over the hazards of lead shot and waterfowl, that it's a good idea to make sure that they are accurate and defensible ones. I stand by that suggestion. You chose to take offense and switched into attack mode because you don't like my stance on some aspects of the gun control debate. Had you simply responded and said, "Yeah, good idea, we should make sure that our arguments are valid", I doubt that the thread would have been "ruined".

and got away with it.

congratulations.

I came here because I support some gun control measures that I think would help the situation that we face in regards to gun violence in this country. I'm very open about supporting some measures and opposing measures that I don't think will do any good and in fact could be counter-productive to more meaningful violence reduction efforts.

You seem to want to demand some kind of blood oath of everyone who comes here, that they support any conceivable suggestion in terms of gun control, regardless of it's effectiveness, regardless of any potential negative unintended consequences it might have or of it's political viability. The portion of the progressive movement willing to adhere to such a rigid standard is likely to be pretty small. On the other hand, the portion of the progressive movement willing to support common sense measures which can actually be enacted and which could have a meaningful impact on reducing gun violence is likely to be huge. If the goal is to promote meaningful gun control, which of those two standards is likely to be more successful?

I used the term once as a rhetorical device in a reply title that mimic'd the title of the post I was responding to and I did not call someone else a "gun grabber."

The individual I was responding to titled a post "Again with the NRA talking points...." and I responded with a post titled "Again with the gun-grabber moving of goalposts...."

Keep trying, next I suspect you will claim that my mother wears combat boots.

brought to you by the following...

That one's a bit of a stretch. Are you implying that there is no sound science backing up claims of climate change? I think you have things a little bit backwards, my friend. Climate change deniers are the ones that are insisting that their point of view is the accurate one, without any science to back them up. I happen to believe that climate change is occurring (kind of hard to deny that fact) and that there is an anthropogenic basis for an acceleration in the rate of change. But I didn't subscribe to that point of view because some nameless, faceless guy on an internet forum claimed that to be the case, I did so on the basis of the totality of the scientific data that's available on the topic.

You seem to be claiming that lead from shooting and hunting is causing health hazards and environmental damage and use that basis as a means of regulating those actions. You can make any claims you want and I'm not suggesting that might not be the case, all I've said is that I'd like to see some scientific data to back up that claim. Not exactly an unreasonable demand before passing regulations.

it's your job to know what you're talking about before denying it.

but much as climate deniers do, you are arguing using the same tactics that the problems aren't serious enough or proven enough TO YOU (not that data doesn't exist, but that you don't know of it --as if overcoming your lack of knowledge should be the basis for government action...).

yes, this is a completely similar form of argumentation that is used by climate change deniers who argue against the phenomenon of anthropogenic or actual climate change.

and stop acting so surprised. your arguments are too cleverly created to not be aware.

if you are the one suggesting the regulations, then it kind of it your job to provide some evidence to support your claims and that goes beyond the simple dismissal that it's "widely studied and understood". Sorry, that's typically how it works if you want to be taken seriously.

If I was to make the claim that hybrid vehicles should be banned because nickle mines have been proven to cause environmental damage and the nickle-hydride batteries used in some hybrids require increased levels of nickle mining, you can be damn sure that more proof is going to be required before hybrids get banned, than a simple statement that pollution related to nickle mining is "widely studied and understood".

You made the claim, back it up.

And for the record, I'm a huge supporter of hybrid technology.

if you lack knowledge of a subject which has much literature and scientifically supported conclusions, as well as numerous existing regulations based on that vast body of knowledge, it's patently ridiculous to give you a 101 class on it.

when you just don't want regulation, you want someone who supports it to spend all their time teaching you what you could learn yourself.

though you haven't learned it by now, i doubt you have the interest or that your opposition is based on just not knowing enough --instead it is something philosophical in your opposition and evidenced by your use of the term gun "grabber".

Failing to do so, your claim remains totally unsubstantiated and are not worthy of any serious consideration as a basis for regulatory change. Sorry, that's the way it works. If you can't provide a reasonable number of cite's to bolster your claims, we must assume that such supporting evidence does not exist. That's how science and academia works. Now if you want to use standards established by tabloids, that's a different story. I hear Elvis was spotted in Oregon last week.

no it's no more my job to prove that lead is polluting than it is my job to explain to you why the sky looks blue.

if what i'm posting is novel, lacks study, etc., then some substantiation is warranted (like the Elvis sighting).

lead being a problem is documented, regulated, studied, etc.

proving it to you when it has already been proven to you is ridiculous.

you just dont' care about the problem. in fact, knowing that it is a documented problem, you will ignore it until someone posts the right link or data for you --because you don't care. if you cared, you would look and attempt to find out.

but this is a game and it's a game to stop regulation.

and it is playing out just like climate change denial arguments --the deniers say, "i don't know, prove it to me!!!".

sorry the whole scientific world doesn't stop what it's doing to prove to you what it's already demonstrated through it's previously published work.

The claim that you are making concerns lead pollution specifically related to one source. It's reasonable to ask that you provide evidence that that particular source actually causes lead pollution and in what amounts and whether or not those amounts have any substantive impact on human or environmental health. A little bit different then explaining why the sky is blue.

But just to assume that because lead is found in the environment, that the source must be from sport shooting or hunting is merely an assumption, until you can provide some substantiating evidence.

and have almost solely focused on it since, yet, interestingly, not before.

so obviously, my post being gun related, and *after* Newtown, is of interest to you.

but that often happens at DU. post for a while then develop a new topical interest!

yay!

and are moving on to further unsubstantiated speculation.

Was there a point there straining to get out?

or were you just making random social commentary?

yet not interesting at all now.



seek first to understand, then...

Take a look at the current photography contest, you'll see one of my pics.

We'll even if you win I suspect that you won't be able to host the next photography contest because your time on DU is likely short.

Go back to the Cave rDigital!

all photog.

now that the most fascinating time at DU is past, little interest in photog.

just empirical observation is all.

i frankly don't know squat. you're right.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1262314

Dead swans laid out for necropsy. Photo by M. Jordan.


THE PROBLEM

In late December 1999, Trumpeter Swans began dying in large numbers from lead poisoning in north Whatcom County, Washington, and over the border in Sumas Valley, British Columbia, The deaths continued to increase over the next several years with a peak of nearly 400 dying in 2005. A similar, but much smaller die-off occurred in 1993 in this same area. It is unclear why 7 years passed before this poisoning reoccurred or why the problem became so much more severe during the past decade.

As of late April 2009, the total documented mortality since 1999 of about 2,300 swans included about 97% Trumpeter Swans and a few Tundra Swans. Most of the birds have been picked up dead or dying on the ponds that they use for night roosts in the U. S. and, to a lesser extent, in Canada. There is no way to estimate the number of additional dead birds that have escaped detection in the wintering grounds or that may have died as they tried to migrate north in the spring.

The swans die after swallowing lead shot pellets while feeding. One of the primary sources of lead shot is at Judson Lake, which straddles the border between Whatcom County, Washington and Sumas Prairie area, British Columbia. This lake was a substantial night roost for swans for many years. In the past, lead shot was deposited when it was legal to use it for waterfowl hunting and many decades ago was used for trap shooting. Studies have shown that portions of this lake still have substantial amounts of lead shot that is available for feeding swans to ingest...

The die-off has now occurred for 10 consecutive winters and swan distribution has changed. As the swans disperse into new wintering areas, the geographical area where they are picking up lead shot and subsequently dying has increased. Swans are now dying in Skagit, Snohomish and King counties, directly south of Whatcom County. During winter 2008-09, about 150 dead Trumpeters were picked up with lead poisoning in this larger geographical area; most of the deaths were in Whatcom and Skagit counties.


Volunteer picking up two very sick swans from icy Shadow Lake night roost. Photo by: Martha Jordan.

More at the link:

http://www.trumpeterswansociety.org/wswg/lead.htm

This is stupid and irresponsible, an example of people doing as they please and fuggitabout, as if there is a magic wand to eliminate toxins or someone else is going to clean up their toxic mess.

The solution has not worked, what is called 'hazing' or chasing them with cracker shot, since they have only gone to other areas to be poisoned there, and dependent on private and government funding. No responsiblity taken by those who left the lead.