Document dQzM85LjY37r8bE3pzLmdoVq

Lead Industries Association, Inc. Zinc Institute, Inc. 292 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017 Philip E. Robinson Executive Vice President July 10, 1973 (212) 679-6020 MEMO TO: Lead. Industries AssociationBoard of Directors Industry Development Committee Lead Shot Committee SUBJECT: N. Y. Times Lead Shot Editorial We have responded to a recent editorial in the N. Y. Times (July 5, 1973) which called for the banning of lead shot for waterfowl hunting. A copy of the letter is attached. In addition, copies of Connel Baker's testimony before the Maryland Natural Resources Commission, presented earlier this year, accompanied the letter to the TIMES. A copy of the editorial is also attached. PER:so*h Att: LIC05014 Lead Industries Association, Inc. Zinc Institute, Inc. 292 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017 Philip E. Robinson Executive Vice President July 10, 1973 (212) 679-6020 Editor The New York Times 229 West U3rd Street New York, N.Y. 10036 Dear Sir: Your editorial of July 5, 1973 (Lead Shot, Steel Trap) tends to over simplify a situation concerning-the use of lead shot in waterfowl hunting which many knowledgable people think is not quite so simple as it might seem. Indeed, this may he why the Department of Interior far from dragging its feet - continues to carefully weigh the var ious alternatives, including the substitution of iron shot. Not only is there indication of damage to gun barrels and other malfunctions with the use of iron shot, there is serious concern that the crippling rate among waterfowl will be signifi cantly increased. It is our understanding that tests are now being conducted concerning this latter point. While we cannot argue the figures used in your editorial because we do not know of any conclusive data that either confirms or denies them, it is interesting to note that some Maryland officials reported last year that 5,000 to 6,000 waterfowl died of lead poisoning in that State. Subsequently, a member of the State's Natural Resources Department reported that these deaths were from all causes, and seem ingly had been based on the examination of only 25 ducks and 3^+ geese. LIA05015 N 717.01 Editor The New York Times -2- July 10, 1973 Even the most ardent advocates of "banning lead shot in waterfowl hunting concede that there are other causes for mortality among these birds. Among them are the water levels and habitat of their feeding grounds. Man-made as well as natural changes in the environment have restricted the total areas of these feeding grounds. We do not question that if waterfowl ingest enough lead that in course of time, poisoning will occur. We do question whether each year 3 to 4 percent of the nation's waterfowl die solely from this cause, and we are seriously concerned that substitutes such as iron shot may well increase very significantly the mortality rates among waterfowl, perhaps well beyond that now occurring. Cordially, PER:so'h Att: cc: Nelson Bryant Outdoor Editor / Philip E. Robinson Executive Vice President LI AO50lb Lead Shot, Steel Trap If man's inhumanity to animals were not almost as great as his inhumanity to man, Congress would unhes itatingly pass two measures now before it which should have been passed literally decades ago. One ifi designed to save two to three million birds from needless deatH each year, not directly at the hands of hunters, but indi rectly. senselessly, slowly and agonizingly from ingesting the lead shot that hunters have already expended. Authorities have known for many years about the toxic effect of these pellets on ducks, swans, geese and marsh birds, which pick them up while feeding. But action is always deferred -- even as the Department of the In terior is now dragging its feet--on some such ground as the possible damage to gun barrels that might be caused by iron shot or the time required for manufactur ers to make the necessary changes in equipment Representative Roncalio of Wyoming has moved in the House of Representatives to put an end to the cruel folly of annually poisoning some 3 or 4 per cent of the nations waterfowl! His eftorTdeserves support tar toeyond that of the many environmental and wildlife organizations that have not only backed his proposed ban on lead shoT but also petitioned the Secretary of the Interior to push for quick action. The other measure that would mitigate the callousness of the hunt is intended to put an end to inhumane forms of trapping. Of the several proposals, the Bayh-Anderson bill seems most comprehensive. It would not merely ban the vicious steel leghold, which causes incalculable suffering, but all such atrociously inhumane traps. The Interior Department would be charged with the respon sibility of ruling out all those that fail to kill instantly. For constitutional reasons, such a law could only apply to Federal lands, but these are the most extensive trap ping areas. Moreover, all offensive traps and the furs of their victims would be banned from interstate shipment. Measures of such basic human decency should be voted through unanimously -- but without articulate public demand there is little chance they will be voted on at all. * I I (/Vt S 1 ^05017 N 717.02