Conservation Groups Take Feds to Court Over Lead Shot

Every year, hunters, fishermen, and sport shooters release about 87,000 tons of lead into the environment, in the form of shot and fishing tackle. As my colleague Brandon Bosworth puts it, "All that buckshot goes into the air, and all that buckshot has to come back down." When it does come back down, far too often, it poisons any animal who swallows enough of it.

It is, by all accounts, a painful death. Scavengers, like bald eagles, are common victims. So are other species that ingest lead pellets when foraging, like the 32 swans that have died this year in Washington State.

Also, an avoidable one. That's why earlier this year, a coalition of environmental, wildlife, and hunters' groups petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to ban the use of lead in ammo and fishing tackle. Those groups — the Center for Biological Diversity, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the Association of Avian Veterinarians, the American Bird Conservancy, and the hunters' group, Project Gutpile — believe that the EPA has the power to put the kibosh on lead shot.

The EPA disagreed, and shot the petition down. It's not our job, they said.

Except, well, it kind of is their job. It's an environmental threat, and last I checked, that was the EPA's job — to protect the environment. Three of those groups that originally petitioned the EPA see it that way as well, which is why the Center for Biological Diversity, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, and Project Gutpile are taking the EPA to court and asking a judge to make them do their jobs and protect wildlife. The other two members of the original coalition aren't part of the lawsuit; the avian vets didn't have enough time to get their members to agree, and the American Bird Conservancy is pursuing "other methods."

Having resisted the pressure of wildlife advocates, including members of this community who called on the EPA to ban lead shot, the EPA finds itself in the unenviable position of having to ask the courts to let them not do their job. They can blow off a coalition of advocacy groups. Blowing off a federal judge is a little bit more difficult. If the groups suing the feds are right, the EPA doesn't have a leg to stand on.

There's no need to fight this in court, and it says something about the EPA that animal advocates have to sue them to get any kind of change in policy. The EPA ought to just go ahead and do its job, and make some rules governing the use of lead ammo and fishing tackle.

Photo credit: Jeff Kubina