Archive: Opinions

On the Lansing Rod and Gun Club Environmental Pollution

I read recently that some people feel that the Lansing Rod and Gun club supporters' side of this issue hasn't been heard. It seems to me that since actions speak louder than words, we have heard from them. The rod and gun club are in the process of constructing another shooting range and have stated through their lawyer that they don't need to clean up the lead already deposited.

I was at a town board meeting in the Spring where a club member explained how a sanctioned event is run. (Perhaps this is one reason their current lawyer told them not to say anything.) He said a typical event has about 175 participants, each taking 300 shots.

At one ounce per shot that adds up to 3,281 pounds of lead. That's from one sanctioned event. Four events would leave behind 13,125 pounds. The club has been shooting there for about 60 years. If we just calculate the amount based on 4 events per year for the last 20 years that amounts to 262,500 pounds of lead. That does not include all the practice shooting.

The other issue that concerns me is the notion of "grandfathering in" something that's been done since before rules were made to prevent it. It would seem that there are exceptions made when it's in the best interest of the public's safety.

Lobbying by industry kept lead in use for a century after its toxicity was known.

According to Lansing order docket number rcra 02-2016-7301, found at EPA.gov , item 65 states" Nothing in this Order is intended or shall be construed to constitute a satisfaction or release from liability with respect to any conditions or claims arising as a result of past, current or future operations, ownership or use of the Club by Respondent, its agents, successors or assigns."

If they are allowed to proceed with their plan, which is to add more and not clean it up, are we not saying, as a community, that it's okay to continue to poison our children, air, soil, water and wildlife simply because they've been doing it for so long?

I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the notion that certain subgroups of society have the right to do things which adversely affect the health and safety of the rest of us. We end up with increased health care costs, fish that can't be eaten, areas of the lake that must be avoided, etc., and our quality of life is diminished.

We'll always have lobbying to keep some things "legal" but that doesn't make it moral. We know better. Can't we do better?

Dan Broadway
Lansing, NY
Citizens for a Healthy Salmon Creek Watershed
v14i47