Washington State Lead Ammo Ban
January 26th, 2009
Back in September, I noted an effort in the state of Washington to ban lead ammo.
I was contacted the next day by the Washington Dept. of Ecology’s spokesperson for the proposed plan with this info:
Ecology’s plan does NOT recommend any new ban on lead ammunition. The agency wants to reduce lead in the environment to protect the health of people, and wildlife. The plan proposes working with hunters and shooters on a voluntary, educational program to promote the use of non-toxic alternatives to lead. Read the lead plan and our fact sheet about how the plan address ammunition on Ecology’s webpage.
I did check out the page, and saw that the page said more or less what she told me it said. I wrote:
I remain skeptical of the end goal of at least some of those backing this plan, but it does seem plain, at least from this version, that the proposal does not call for any additional bans on lead ammo.
So here’s the some of the text of the proposed legislation Washington Senate Bill 5095:
3 NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 77.15 RCW 4 to read as follows: 5 (1) A person is guilty of unlawful hunting in the second degree if 6 the person possesses shot, either in shotgun shells or as loose shot 7 for muzzle-loading, other than nontoxic shot when hunting game animals, 8 game birds, or waterfowl in those areas as determined by rule of the 9 commission in which waterfowl, California condors, or other endangered, 10 threatened, or sensitive species could be harmed by lead shot. 11 (2) The commission shall by rule determine the areas in which a 12 person may not possess shot, either in shotgun shells or as loose shot 13 for muzzle-loading, other than nontoxic shot when hunting game animals, 14 game birds, or waterfowl. 15 (3) The commission shall by rule determine the types of nontoxic 16 shot consistent with federal regulations that may be used in the areas 17 in which a person may not possess shot, either in shotgun shells or as 18 loose shot for muzzle-loading, other than nontoxic shot when hunting 19 game animals, game birds, or waterfowl. 20 (4) Unlawful hunting in the second degree is a misdemeanor. 21 (5) In addition to the penalties set forth in this section, upon 22 conviction: 23 (a) The court shall require a payment of one thousand dollars as a 24 criminal wildlife penalty assessment that must be paid to the clerk of 25 the court and distributed to the state treasurer for deposit in the 26 fish and wildlife enforcement reward account created in RCW 77.15.425. 27 The criminal wildlife penalty assessment must be imposed regardless of 28 and in addition to any sentence, fine, or costs imposed for violating 29 this section. The criminal wildlife penalty assessment must be 30 included by the court in any pronouncement of sentence and may not be 31 suspended, waived, modified, or deferred in any respect; and 32 (b) The department shall revoke the hunting license of the person 33 and order a suspension of hunting privileges for two years.
Here is an outline of the Department of Ecology’s “voluntary, educational program to promote the use of non-toxic alternatives”:
- If you use non-approved ammunition in a restricted area:
- Misdemeanor
- $1000 fine
- Lose hunting privileges for 2 years
If Kathy Davis, media contact for Washington Dept. of Ecology’s Lead Chemical Action Plan, is out there, I’d love to get an update from her. Someone was not telling the truth, and I’m wondering if it was the legislators, the DOE, or just her personally.
Tags: WA
January 26th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
[...] More details over at GunPundit. [...]
January 26th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
It doesn’t ban lead shot, either for possession or for target practice or hunting. It only prohibits the use or possessing lead shot while hunting in specifically-designated areas in which lead shot could be toxic to waterfowl or endangered species. “The commission” (whichever commission that is) is to publish lists of approved non-toxic shot and the areas in which they must be used; outside those areas, lead shot is OK.
It’s restrictive, certainly, but it’s not any kind of a ban. And the first quote you give above clearly describes their educational program as voluntary, not the hunting regulations. You may or may not like the proposed law, but there seems to be nothing false, or even very misleading, about the way it’s being promoted. You do have to read it accurately, of course.
January 26th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Ah. It’s not a ban. It’s just a ban in areas where it’s banned.
Thanks for clearing that up.
As for the quote about the “educational program,” it was sent in direct response to the NRA saying it was a ban on lead ammo. No, not a ban. A voluntary educational program. is either what they meant or what they hoped we thought they meant.
Meanwhile the ban that isn’t a ban except in areas where it is a ban moves ahead. And then someone comes along and helps cover for them and say the misunderstanding is our fault because we didn’t read it right.
BTW, in case it’s not real clear, I’m calling “bullshit” on your explanation…I want to make sure there’s no inaccurate reading.
January 27th, 2009 at 4:29 am
I’m just trying to figure out how banning lead ammo, even just in specific areas, would do ANYTHING for “ecology” and I can’t really follow the train of thought. Whoever came up with this would, likely, row a boat with a teaspoon.
I mean, what’s the point? I seriously doubt that the amount of lead in lead ammo that is fired in America’s hunting grounds is impressively high.
The only way lead ammo can endanger a species is… if you shoot it with that ammo. I mean… honestly… Why not milk mice?
January 27th, 2009 at 9:31 am
I suspect that this is just a cut and paste of California’s legislation. As I understand it, the California Condor doesn’t even live in the state of Washington.
January 27th, 2009 at 9:56 am
As a former LEO, I’m frankly opposed to this legislation. Many of the alternative materials are harder than copper jacketed, lead bullet and will penetrate police body armor. In essence, the State of Washington is mandating that hunters now use the irrationally dubbed “cop killer bullets”. What a bunch of maroons!
January 27th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Like the lead ban on waterfowl. That started in Texas, then accross the whole U.S. Its a matter of time befor lead is banned everywhere. Lead is deadly, thats the reason i hunt with it. Many times i have knocked the feathers off ducks and watched them fly away to die somewhere else. Bleach is toxic may be they should ban it.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Keven: Thanks for clarifying this regulation for us.
Now that you have properly explained it to us Washington residents, our proper course is clear.
We should defeat this crap, and see to it that the retards who drafted this crap never serve the public again.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Real intelligent, Olympia! Ban lead shot for the casual shooter, hunter etc. Tax us even more for our ammo. But ignore the biggest users of lead in ammunition in our state. What are the many thousands of policemen here gonna use? Sling shots? And how many shooters do you think are in the military that are stationed in Washinton? Are you to ban the soldiers from shooting in this state also? Or are you planning on penalizing just us taxpaying sportsmen and let the police and military get away with using lead ammo?
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Ah. It’s not a ban. It’s just a ban in areas where it’s banned.
Right. Just like smoking is “banned” . . . next to gas pumps, pointed scissors are “banned” . . . in kindergartens, and oxygen is “banned” . . . under a MIG welding nozzle. Because if anything is restricted anywhere, under any circumstances, the state has “banned” it.
(In case it’s not real clear, I’m calling “bullshit” on your ability to use ordinary terms of language the way any normally intelligent person would do.)
I’m just trying to figure out how banning lead ammo, even just in specific areas, would do ANYTHING for “ecology” and I can’t really follow the train of thought. Whoever came up with this would, likely, row a boat with a teaspoon. I mean, what’s the point?
OK – you don’t understand it, so it’s wrong.
Alternatively, you could try understanding it. (The reason, if this helps, is that lead shot pile up in wetlands and the shores of marshes where birds are hunted, and lead fragments are found in gut piles from dressed-out hunting kills; these fragments are often ingested, either by waterfowl or scavenger birds, and cause lead poisoning. It’s a serious-enough problem that it affects endangered bird species. Steel shot are mandated in many states to prevent this problem.)
I seriously doubt that the amount of lead in lead ammo that is fired in America’s hunting grounds is impressively high. The only way lead ammo can endanger a species is… if you shoot it with that ammo.
Well, you’re wrong. The problem has been extensively studied, and recognized for many decades. Many states have taken steps to eliminate lead ammo residue from sensitive habitats.
Many of the alternative materials are harder than copper jacketed, lead bullet and will penetrate police body armor. In essence, the State of Washington is mandating that hunters now use the irrationally dubbed “cop killer bullets”. What a bunch of maroons!
What could this possibly mean? Hunters using non-lead ammunition (mostly birdshot) in specified hunting zones are a danger to police officers? How? (Do your duties in law enforcement require you to habitually dress up like a duck and sit in a hunting zone?) Designating ammunition as “cop killers” is irrational but you’re afraid of it anyway? (Pick one.) Requiring non-lead ammo for (some) hunting will encourage people to shoot it at cops? (But they can already do that. The ammo has always been legal – the state is just mandating it for some kinds of hunting in certain specified zones. Do you think otherwise law-abiding hunters are going to go looking for cops to shoot just because they have some non-lead bullets?) None of this makes any sense.
ignore the biggest users of lead in ammunition in our state. What are the many thousands of policemen here gonna use? Sling shots? And how many shooters do you think are in the military that are stationed in Washinton?
How much shooting do police and the military do in hunting zones that are home to endangered species? I’m sure the military’s practice ranges are off-limits as public hunting lands, and vice versa. And I doubt the police are busting a lot of lead-loaded caps in waterfowl habitats. (Unless . . . maybe . . . they got a report of a suspicious character dressed as a duck, sitting in the marsh impersonating a law enforcement officer!)
Would you at least try to understand what you’re talking about? There is no “ban”; hunting with lead ammo is perfectly legal other than in designated areas; using lead ammo for all other purposes (target shooting, etc.) remains untouched; lead ammo is restricted only for hunting in specifically-designated areas that are home to endangered species; it has absolutely nothing to do with the military or the police; it is not going to prevent the police from using their weapons, and not going to encourage people to use weapons against the police; it’s essentially identical to policies that have been in place, in some cases for years, in other states, and have not been a problem; it’s intended to protect bird species that would otherwise ingest lead left in their environment by hunters – a problem that is long-known, and was in fact first identified by hunters themselves.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Please take a moment and read RCW 9.41.290. [snippet] “Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.”
No ‘commission’ will be able to get this passed without a legal dual. The State preemption would take force and nullify any legislation that would be passed. I guarantee it! No worries, continue to shoot lead responsibly as all sportsman have done since the colonial days.
May 14th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
I have some problems with because as mentioned, it is a cut-7-paste from California law, so no science relating to WA. State is behind it.
Second, it is banned in areas they apply the ban to, which is giving lawmakers who subscribe to junk-science-misapplied the authority to just willy-nilly add area to the ban. Nothing in this limits their ability to spread the banned areas to the whole state.
I agree that lead shot in the water areas has plenty of research to be valid, but upland bird areas should never be included.
If they want to ban something for upland birds, ban copper clad shot as it makes a wounded bird VERY sick and turns the flesh green over time. If you harvest one of these birds it is a totally wasted harvest.
Lead shot unencumbered by copper cladding in a wounded bird is encapsulated and isolated by the healing process and doesn’t cause a problem to the bird. They can recover from the wounding. I have seen this many many times over my hunting years.
I think that this should be referenced to actual studies of actual raptors etc. that may feed off of the lead shot birds that actually reside in the Wa. State borders. Have these studies even been done? Apparently not otherwise they would be referenced instead of the Cal Condors.
Until they present the science they shouldn’t be messing with the shot.
August 12th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
This a fascinating subject which now intrigues me because I just moved up to Washington from California. As it has been mentioned here that a possible ban on lead ammo is being looked at for certain hunting areas. The ban on lead shot for waterfowl has been in effect for sometime now and is mandated by the Federal government. A bit more expensive than the lead ammo as is for all non-lead hunting ammo. What got me is the mention of the ban being a cut and paste version of California’s lead ban law and the steps and claims leading to the enactment of that law are strangely similar. Claims by those backing the ban saying its not a ban at this time, we want to propose that hunters voluntarily participate to use non-lead hunting ammo. They went so far as to recruit some hunters to use and write articles to support the use of non-lead ammo. Then a few years after the request for the voluntary program the ban became law. At that time the ban was only in effect in travel corridors of the California Condor because the claim that condors were eating gut piles left by hunters after a kill that contained fragments of lead round that were contibuting to the lead poisoning of the condors. Now once the ban became law there were calls to make the ban county wide in counties that the corridors passed through, even though those corridors went through a very small portion of the county. This is where I got interested and did some research into the lead ban law. The ban went into affect throughout the whole county even though the corridor was located about a hundred miles from where I lived and hunted. There has never been a condor ever seen in that area, but the ban went into affect anyway. One significant event that took place to enact the ban county wide was the actions of the lead ban commitee to pass the ban. The commitee ignored the advice of the state fish and game that the ban county wide should not be passed because the hunting with lead ammo in non corridor areas had no affect on the condors and did not contribute to their poisoning. Initially the ban was for hunting big game animals and predators, upland game and small game are exempt from the ban. However, there is now a push to make the ban state wide and for all types of hunting.
Now compare the same steps and claims for lead ban program in Washington state. If I did not know any better it is the exact same steps that were taken in California to get the lead ban started and expanded slowly until it is state wide. I ask the question are these bans for the sake of ecology or is it for some other reason. And if it is for the sake of ecology why was the California State Fish and Game recommendation ignored by the lead ban committee? The hunters affected by this ban were seriously concerned because of the price of non-lead ammo was at least ten to twenty dollars more for a box of 20 rounds. This was such a cost jump that many hunters might not be able to afford to hunt and some quit hunting because of it. Others just started reloading their own like I did, sounds like an affordable way to still hunt. Until California legislators decided to pursue a bill to restrict the amount of ammo or bullets that can be bought per month. The magic number for that amount is 50 rounds of loaded ammo or bullets for reloading. So far the last I heard it made it past the first round by a couple of votes. This law affects more than just hunters, can you imagine if you were a competition shooter in California, you could not effectively practice on fifty rounds a month. I was glad when my wife received military orders to Washington, I could get out of California.
Here’s a little background on myself, I am retired military, twenty years in the Air Force. I was a Federal Conservation Law Enforcement Officer for the Department of Defense at the base we lived on in California for the last five years and resigned to move to Washington State.
One last thing before I end this reply. A very wise and knowlegable gun advocate I met once asked me if I knew the most effective way to enact gun control. I said no, he replied it all has to do with money and convenience. I asked him to explain and he said that if gun ownership and shooting were made to be so inconvenient and expensive for the common law abiding citizen then they would either give it up or not want to ever be involved with it.