The scientific community of researchers are prominent in the debate on the use of traditional ammunition, consisting of lead components, in hunting and recreational shooting sports. Published studies allegedly linking lead ammunition to lead poisoning and mortality in wildlife is key to the environmental activists campaign to ban traditional ammunition for hunting and recreational shooting. There is substantial evidence, however, that the groups behind the assault on lead ammunition have based their claims on “faulty science” and questionable scientific methodology.
Relying heavily on the California condor as a means to advance the campaign against traditional ammunition, researchers and activists attempting to impede hunters’ rights have misled the public, the legislative and the regulatory agency representatives into supporting unnecessary lead bans by publicizing faulty scientific claims based on biased research and preconceived conclusions, while routinely ignoring alternative sources of lead in the environment.
Misstating the truth in the debate regarding the use of traditional ammunition, activists endanger public interests, threaten hunters’ rights, stifle valid conservationist goals and threaten wildlife, especially the fragile California condor population.
There are a number of researchers that have published papers that form the foundation for the anti-lead ammunition movement and, thus, they are inherently part of the debate on the use of traditional ammunition for hunting and recreational shooting. These scientific researchers and authors play a major role in the debate to ban lead ammunition in the various states and nationwide.
Unfortunately, not all of the researchers and authors are scientifically pure, as most are intimately involved in the anti-lead ammunition and anti-hunting campaigns. Numerous researchers involved in the scientific study of lead ammunition and its effects on humans and wildlife are members of the various nongovernmental organizations, which are the so called “environmental” activists and primary players attempting to ban lead ammunition nationwide. Additionally, some of these researchers are funded by regulatory agencies (taxpayer money), while actively seeking to implement lead ammunition bans by influencing policy and regulations with studies allegedly finding lead ammunition impacts on wildlife. Accordingly, these published papers allegedly establishing a nexus between lead ammunition and lead poisoning in humans and wildlife need to be critically evaluated and thoroughly debated in an open and objective forum before conceding to their preconceived conclusions.
These activist researchers are in fact advocates for the so called “environmental” organizations and biased regulators attempting to ban lead ammunition. This activist portion of the scientific community is a highly organized network of like minded researchers with an agenda to ban lead ammunition. These researchers are extremely passionate and active in sharing misinformation and coordinating efforts to support their research and published conclusions. The campaign to ban traditional ammunition is heavily reliant on science, in order to claim proof of a causal link between lead ammunition and lead poisoning in wildlife. Indeed, researchers are important players in the lead ammunition debate.
Hunt for Truth will expose the researchers associated with “faulty science” critical of lead ammunition in order to facilitate an open and transparent debate on the use of traditional ammunition in hunting and recreational shooting sports. Frequently check the Expose section for investigative reporting on the misuse of science, and the real truth in the debate on lead ammunition.