February 9, 2008

From the SHOT Show

How has ‘green’ become a dirty

word with the hunting industry?

     I have to admit that I wearied of people telling me that I should move out of California at the Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade (SHOT) Show held in Las Vegas Feb. 2-5.

     By about the third day, it got old.

     Not that I don’t understand the sentiment, but it’s clear a lot of these people believe all the clichés. When it gets that far down the road, the fun joke becomes ignorant prejudice and I don’t like to play along any more. To the largely ultra-conservative guns and hunting community – of which I consider myself a card-carrying member – California is the land of fruits and nuts and political liberalism just a click off socialism. OK, that’s pretty close to true, but that doesn’t mean everything said or done in this state is automatically wrong.

     The lead-poisoning-wildlife issue is one of those things that apparently the hunting and shooting industry still doesn’t understand – perhaps because it’s coming from California, a place everyone loves to hate.

     I have always said that if you show hunters the mounting scientific evidence that says that lead bullet residue in gutpiles is poisoning scavenging wildlife, they would happily – and voluntarily – refrain from shooting lead. We didn’t need regulations like those passed here late last year: Hunters would do the right thing for wildlife on their own – even big, ugly condors.

     I still believe that.

     We would do it because hunters are the first, best, and most diligent conservationists in the world. That’s who we are. Our efforts and money do more for wildlife conservation in a single year than all the lobbying and lawsuits by today’s extreme environmental groups have done in their entire history. If being green is defined by actions, hunters are the real greenies.

     But the way the people in the shooting and hunting industry are behaving toward the mounting evidence that lead is bad for a wide variety of wildlife (not just condors in California), I’m wondering if the makers of these products are more interested in profits and keeping the status quo than doing what would be best for wildlife and those of us who love to hunt.

     I suspect it was the industry’s stubborn and bullheaded approach to the issue that helped make the lead ban in condor range possible. The industry attitude spooked legislators and regulations in this state and convinced them that hunters would not do the right thing unless we were forced to do it. A lot of these regulators don’t particularly like hunters as it is – this is the land of liberalism, after all – and we certainly don’t need to give them fodder to hate us. Industry people in denial about the science behind the lead issue are a black eye for the hunting community. Much of this data is so rock-solid that we look stupid when we deny it. Yet, some of this industry howling was louder than the leveler heads of our hunting community at the meetings and hearings. The hunting industry claimed to represent us, but I’m not so sure.

     The SHOT Show reinforced this suspicion for me. After being surrounded by members of the hunting industry for four days, the ignorance and arrogance was stunning.

     There’s no question that some of the legislators and whacko environmentalists glommed on to this issue to get at hunters. And, yes, there are grant whores who will write the science however you want it. They are all pretty easy to spot. But there are also a whole bunch of good people in the political and scientific process who just want to do what’s best for wildlife and hunters. I shouldn’t have to defend good science and good people; I shouldn’t be ridiculed because I write about this issue, at least not in my own house, among my own family. Green should not be a dirty word with hunters and the hunting industry. It should be a goal.

     Thankfully, there are some people in the hunting and firearms industry who accept the science and simply see this as a business opportunity: Hunters need a non-lead product for big game and varmint hunting in a big swath of California. So there is a rush to fill that need and do something good for wildlife and the hunter’s image in the process.

     I happen to believe that the current non-lead bullets for big game hunting are among the best bullets on the market. We don’t sacrifice anything using them. The Barnes’ lines of X-bullets are available in all calibers for rifles, handguns, and muzzleloaders. Nosler is also making a non-lead big game bullet called the E-Tip. Non-lead varmint slugs are already available from Barnes (Varmint Grenade) and Speer is entering the marketplace this year (TNT Green). If you aren’t a handloader, Federal, Winchester, PMC, Black Hills, and Weatherby are all loading some of these non-lead bullets into factory ammunition for common calibers and pricing is no more than for other premium hunting ammunition.

     Other companies will follow suit, some dragging their heels, kicking and screaming the whole way. These are the same type of folks who balked at setting hunting regulations a century ago.

     We all understand that research and development is expensive, but there will be a good side to all this.

     I happen to believe that with the skyrocketing costs of lead and copper, we will actually see some developments in the use of an iron matrix (or some other material) for bullet cores that will keep the price of .22 ammunition as cheap as it’s ever been. Need drives innovation.

     Even though it will be California that forced open the door for these developments, I’m not holding my breath the ridicule about this state will stop when some very good things come out of it.

     Anyway, I plan to stay here – in spite of all the unsolicited advice I received at SHOT. I like the climate, the people, the fishing, and the hunting. (Wyoming’s a nice place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there.) I also like to argue. So this is a good place for me.