I am sure that many of you receive these NRAILA updates, but just for those who don't I thought I would post this link. I guess you call this Obama's parting shot! And it shows the importance of the Republican victory in the last general election.

Lead ammo ban https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170120...d-lead-ammo-ban

Typical emotional left wing science, making a decision based on false science.

It is just another reason to keep them forever from office

I've been hunting on FWS properties for decades with non-toxic ammo. Easy to do and it is a non-issue to me and many. Kinda like if you are anti-abortion don't have one. The rest of you can and should stay home.

I've been hunting on FWS properties for decades with non-toxic ammo. Easy to do and it is a non-issue to me and many. Kinda like if you are anti-abortion don't have one. The rest of you can and should stay home.

It'd be great if there could be some youth hunting and new hunter programs on FWS properties. Get some folks out of the house.

Wow! So much for the idea that we can all hang together or we will all hang separately, huh?

SRH

When you were busted for taking the deer out of season, were you using non-tox, Ben?


Best,
Ted

Oh, so we have some poaching going on here. Well we hang horse thieves and poachers after giving them a fair trail, of course.

Don't treat this too casually. California has already banned all lead ammo for all hunting and depredation, statewide, for EVERYTHING. Ban is being phased in and is almost complete. Our legislature is comprised of idiots and we are all screwed. And I have not heard a peep from or about the NRA on this CA ban. Coming soon to a field near you.

If one is hunting upland birds and you're not around wetlands, nor around fields where doves congregate and there's a lot of shot fall, there's not much reason to use shells that are ballistically inferior to lead.

I expect the incoming director of the USF&WS will reverse the ban with a stroke of the pen. Certainly should do so.

Doves?

SRH

Oh yeah, Stan they have had it on their mind......
FWS and cohorts made a run in Texas some years back....

Several (7-9) years back there were lethality test conducted in conjunction with TxP&W officials (some of whom say that it was forced down their throats). If I recall correctly the project was headed by the Feds consultant , the well known Mr. Roster.

The test were conducted on some scattered fields in a County two counties South of my ranch.


I was contacted and asked if I wish to participate as a "gunner". I declined.....

Turned into a real " real cock up" as the Brits say......

TP&W State Game Wardens were not informed and descended on the shooters, Oh did I mention that the test were "quietly" conducted on the August weekend preceding the Opening day of the North Zone season.....

Outfitters with large investments in leases, adjoining landowners and local merchants (The Dove Opener is BIG Business in that County). soon had State Senators, House members and a Congressman on the phone wanting to know WTF....

That was about the end of it, nothing came of the study, and the sitting TXP&W Director has given several of us assurances that it won't happen on his watch....

We can only hope.....Won't be much of a market for Best 410's and even 28's if steel is mandated.....

Nice sentiment, but ignores the issue of whether or not the increased cost and decreased lethality have any real science that statistically demonstrates a significant need for such a ban.

Yes we can use non tox and I have used non tox to access some less hunted land under that restriction in South Dakota, but it ignores the point. The directive is political and not good policy.

This bolded sentence in your post has to be one of the dumbest statements ever made on this board Replacement.

Read the original post again... slowly this time so you can digest the words. Right there in the original post is a link to an NRA-ILA announcement notifying sportsmen and FUDD's that the Obama Administration has taken one last shot at them. Here's another link to NRA-ILA concerning the lead ammunition ban in California. You have to click on those blue link thingy's to read the content Replacement. Maybe ask one of your grandchildren to help you.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150828...ason-and-beyond

Then you can ask the grandkids to do that Google thing to search for the NRA's involvement in opposing lead ammo bans in California and elsewhere. The grandkids may find some juicy accusations from anti-lead zealots that the NRA pulled the http://www.huntfortruth.org/ website from the internet, but it's alive and well. Or you can go on denigrating the efforts of the NRA because they can't stop Liberals and FUDD's from electing agenda driven anti-gunners.

Of course, people like you would think it is reasonable to expect that 4.5 million NRA members can do ALL of the heavy lifting for 40-50 million U.S. gun owners. You can pitch in and help, or you can b*tch about incrementally losing your rights. We have people right here who support lead ammo bans, and criticize the NRA, and some folks actually feel that we should welcome them into our fold:



NRA has been at the forefront of efforts to prevent and reverse lead ammunition bans. They have been the most reliable source of notifying sportsmen and gun owners about the many efforts to use junk science to ban lead ammunition. They have been very involved in lobbying legislators and countering the kind of junk science Grouse Guy Ben Deeble uses to advance lead ammo bans. If Replacement had invested in an NRA membership, he might know this instead of denigrating the extremely effective lobbying organization that has done the most to protect our gun rights.

Never forget that Roster holds a patent on the wad technology for steel shot. He is a constant proponent of non-toxic shot and it does not surprise me that he would be a government "consultant".

Keith, you continue to act the fool. I read the NRA puff piece last summer. Simply telling us that the state is banning lead and that we should be careful about what ammo we shoot in certain parts of the state is not the same as doing anything about the ban.

Re the CA lead ban, this is the most significant portion of the NRA links you posted:

This ban legislation has been around for a while now, and is almost fully implemented. The NRA's statement that they are "currently
exploring legal challenges" is old news and nothing seems to have come of it. What, if anything, have they actually done to fight the ban or to try to have it overturned? Everything else in the links relates to other fights, mostly local. Get your facts in order before you mouth off.

I doubt the NRA can do much in California other than court challenges given the overwhelming democrat legislature and minority gun owner voter base.

California is a sad story of a great stae gone bad.

Replacement, you clearly said " And I have not heard a peep from or about the NRA on this CA ban."

Then you return here to tell us that you have indeed heard things from the NRA about this ban. You lied about the NRA not being involved, and then admitted that you were aware of their activities including notifying sportsmen about the ban from the time legislation was introduced, the risks of using lead ammo made illegal by the ban, and exploring legal options available to them to challenge these anti-lead ammo bans.

And you call me a fool??? Too bad Kalifornia shooters can't use your brain as bullets or shot. Much denser than lead, but apparently in very short supply.

Unfortunately, the Board of the NRA does not comprise the Kalifornia Legislature, and Wayne LaPierre is not Dictator, or even Governor of Kalifornia. The people and FUDD's who support and elect anti-gunners are your problem, not the NRA. Anti-lead ammo advocates like Ben Deeble and King Brown are your problem... not the NRA.

EPA Surrenders to NRA on Gun Control/Lead Ammo Ban Issue

Maybe if gun owners and sportsmen actually banded together and voted in a manner that expressed their extreme displeasure with these assaults on our rights, instead of rolling over like whipped puppies and thinking they'll never bother me and my old double shotguns, things would be different. Once again, expecting 1 in 10 gun owners who actually spend a lousy $25 or so a year on an NRA membership to do all the heavy lifting versus anti-gun billionaires like Michael Bloomberg and George Soros is unrealistic. In spite of that, the NRA does a remarkable job given the fact that so many gun owners are simply apathetic until something like your lead ammo ban happens. Then they cry like you.

Considering the not so brilliant defense of your idiotic initial observations concerning the NRA in this thread Replacement, I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear that you voted for some of the legislators who are screwing you.

Keith, did you even read the NRA piece? Telling us that there is a ban and that we are screwed is not the same as doing anything about it. We already knew that there was a ban.

Part of my daily activity is involved in changing how communities get things done. Results are satisfactory. Exactly 50 years of experience in social and resource development has taught us that joining, licking stamps, sending cheques, writing petitions, makes people feel better. Action comes from getting out of the house, being part of the action, exercising intergenerational strengths. Rights are protected by a well-balanced diet of information that better educated populaces have grown to expect, and know how to show their appreciation.

The NRA isn't half bad at all about keeping folks informed. As to picking and choosing battles, I don't know if kali is the best place to expend resources responsibly. The NRA gets really good mileage on the national level, and purely for the various federal fundings, kali has signaled that they may ease up on some of their policies.

In the US, and particularly places like kali, education forced hard left might be considered well established, and validated by their court system. Note how you teach us what a glorious thing it is to kick and scream about the election.

I don't think we're really discussing a 'right' here, but rather policy. Maybe, it's time for tough love? Can you believe the excitement of the union leaders, ya, ya, representing the forgotten middle class, after yesterday's WH meeting? Smart folks not wanting to be left behind, or a new subclass of misogynists?

Not discussing election, craig. Commenting on how to change things. No need for the other here.

NRA isn't half-bad. It's good on getting out information to its members. Key is content for improving public support. Branding itself by promoting responsible use of firearms, as it did successfully, evolved into one of the most powerful Washington lobbies often seen by many in the pejorative, apart from its original wholesome brand. Walking the talk, I've offered my opinion to NRA of how to elicit stronger public support, as well to Senator John McCain.

Sorry about that King. In an awkward way, I was trying to contrast two ways of educating folks about an example, the election. Shouldn't we be 'educating' folks to work with what life throws them, instead of complain and attempt to delegitimize what is inevitable? What happens when soro's foreign funding for the show drys up? Beg for more or get a job?

King, we've seen the advice that you offered to the NRA. It included giving up ground to the anti-gunners by giving up on large capacity magazines as you suggested here:



It also included meekly rolling over when Obama and Co. were attempting to pass massive anti-gun legislation after Newtown in 2013. Here's a quote by King Brown from his post # 308159 on 1/8/13 where he lambasted the NRA and suggested that they should consider the massive gun control Obama was attempting to shove down our throats as he exploited a tragedy to infringe upon our Constitutional Rights:



You have roundly and repeatedly criticized the NRA, especially about Wayne LaPierres comment that "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun". You continued your NRA bashing even after that Wayne LaPierre statement was borne out in Canada when Mountie Kevin Vickers retrieved a gun and killed the Muslim Terrorist who was shooting up Parliament.

Thankfully, the NRA did not accept your insane advice to cede ground to the anti-gunners. That's kind of what happened during the passage of the GCA of 1968, and we have spent nearly 50 years attempting to claw back some of what we lost.

Stick to negotiating the clear-cutting of pulpwood King. We don't need or want any advice from an anti-gun Troll who is still in denial about the 2008 Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions:

Replacement, your last lame reply indicates that it is you who cannot or will not read. Of course I read the NRA piece, and I have already noted that they have been unable to do much to reverse the Kalifornia ban. Did you see where I noted that the NRA Board does not comprise the Kalifornia Legislature and Wayne LaPierre is not either Dictator or Governor of Kalifornia? Or did your big mouth block your vision? The NRA absolutely has tried, which is likely a lot more than you have done. Have you done even a tiny bit of research to see what they have accomplished elsewhere? Did you bother clicking on this link? Or are you too invested in denial, denigrating the NRA, and attempting to prove me wrong:

EPA Surrenders to NRA on Gun Control/ Lead Ammo Ban Issue

The NRA has done a tremendous amount to both inform gun owners and sportsmen about lead ammunition bans, and to lobby and mount legal battles to stop or reverse them. They spend a huge amount on efforts to elect pro-gun politicians... the kind King Brown would never support. If you aren't happy with them, you could ask for a refund of your membership dues money... that is, if you ever put your money where your mouth is and joined the fight.

Depends what you mean by working with what life throws them, craig. Most people live with an expectation of change for the better in their own lifetimes. I do and key is work, not whining, coming up with better ways to make healthier and happier communities, starting with small projects demonstrating more benefits, more competent and less expensive management for government to respond to. It's not government's job to make better social and economic infrastructure. Big government comes from saying you pols and bureaucrats come up with ideas and do it while it's commoners who have real experience living it with skin in the game. As for big-money funding drying up, a couple presidential candidates did really well crowd funding from the seat of their arse. Bottom-up, craig, not top-down.

Some bird hunting on land owned by the State of Illinois requires non-tox ammo. Not a big deal, and not much of a problem.

JERRY

It's "death by a thousand cuts" here in Kalifornia. There are always a few guys out there that figure the latest regulation is not really a big deal. And maybe it isn't. But they keep adding up and we keep losing shooters and hunters, in this state for sure. And it has become almost ridiculously easy for "them" (the anti's and GC zealots) to pass the next piece of legislation. The anti's have realized how easy it is to divide and conquer us. They must be laughing all the way to the bank.

That's how it works. Stalin, dividing up the spoils at Yalta said to FDR or Churchill or both "How many divisions has the Pope?" Holding back antis is all about the shooting sports making friends, coalitions, showing a broad public interest, not a case of special pleading. Decision-makers have little time for little numbers, those who come alone. Proved time and time again.

Not discussing Stalin, King. We don't need that here.

Hey Ted:

I always use non-toxic. My favorite load for big game is 6.5 cal in 139 gr. Barnes copper pill. Entirely lethal and only kills what you shoot at, instead of avian scavengers quickly, and your family slowly. Ever wonder why Jr. is so slow???

Well, Ben, Junior, as you call him, is able to fluently read, write, and speak two languages, and has pretty much since he started school, starting in pre-school, where he was known as a "talker" since, he could communicate with his teachers, in either language, from day one. He was the only one in his class that did. He has been participating in the lake Pepin three speed tour (google it) since he was 6, and holds the youngest self propelled rider title, and will, for a long time to come. Few 6 year olds, ride a 70 pound English three speed, over 80 miles, in the course of a weekend, few adults can, either.

I believe I can handily disprove any notion of "slow" in my son, figuratively, or literally.

As demonstrated by other liberals this week, you also lack the common decency to leave kids be kids, which, will come as no surprise to anybody who knows you. My boy is 10. A clearer notion of who you are as an individual would be hard to demonstrate, and I thank you for showing the board exactly where you are as a man.

He has not had any convictions from Montana fish and game, which, had he held a wildlife biologists position in that state, should have qualified him for some "ward of the state" time, if he had. My opinion.

Care to comment on that, Ben? How much jail time did Montana have you do? And, while we are on the subject, you still haven't answered the original question-did you use non-toxic loads to take the deer you were convicted of shooting out of season?


Best,
Ted

Ted, I'm sure your boy is a million bucks. Probably, g's idea of camo is vagina head gear, blends in with the other marchers. With a bit of luck, when your boy is heading to college, there might be a good eight years of slowing the downward spiral. Please don't send him to a school that requires lego and coloring book skills to graduate.

Right. The two situations in which nontox requirements for upland birds seem to make sense are on public lands where waterfowl or doves are hunted. All federal Waterfowl Production Areas (WPA's), for example, require nontox even if you're hunting pheasants and not ducks. Pretty much all state-owned wetlands in Iowa have the same restriction. The situation with doves on public land is similar: You can have a whole lot of shot fall in a relatively small area. Much higher potential for the birds to ingest spent lead shot. The Wisconsin DNR restricts dove hunting on DNR lands to nontox only. Seems reasonable to me. Private land, I'm not in favor of any restrictions on lead when hunting upland birds.

The fact you always use Non Toxic is fine and in part your choice, the reality the science is not really there to prove it is a universal that should apply to everyone-everywhere.

There is little proof that the lead damage you posit has more than a minor impact if at all, especially as you relate to human consumption.

PS to all: Is it really necessary to pick on people's kids for what are inevitably ridiculous points? Most if not all people here have great children they are rightly proud of.

I understand it's an old dead horse that you're passionate about, but this seems like a tactic.

Gone huntin'

Winchester makes a really nice #7 steel shell, very effective for the quail we are finding around here right now.

Dead horse or not, here's my take, craig. The ban should not apply to everyone everywhere. Lead is dead compared to its earlier major role in society. Its perniciousness has been recognized for a long time.

Benjamin Franklin in 1786: "...the Opinion of this mischievious Effort from Lead is at least above Sixty Years old; and you will observe with Concern how long a useful Truth may be known and exist, before it is generally receiv’d and practis’d on’

A couple hundred years later, UNCED 1992 came up with its Precautionary Principle: "Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."

Most waterfowlers know of dozens of places where lead could be measured in tons within a gunshot. Nontox should be used in any locales of similar exposure to avians. I've seen dozens of ducks carried off by raptors but never grouse or pheasants.

I speak solely from my experience. If some see it as a tactic, imputing some sort of ulterior motive, I declare a bias for prudence with respect for the game. Larry said the same thing. It's sensible and reasonable to me. The ban should not apply to everyone everywhere.

did Grouse guy ever "come out" and admit his Greenpeace connection ?

Thankfully Trump has frozen all regulations and directives ,this like other federal directive's will be removed-lead of course is part of the environment,no harm was ever proven from hunting use, just more rants from evironanazi's who days of any impact are numbered-new sheriff in town for the next 4-8 years.

Build the damn wall,finish the pipeline and keep shooting lead (in those doubles).

Experience, ulterior motives and bias? Doesn't that seem like an unseemly view of other opinions? I can actually understand what you say, though I wonder if the NS fishing community should be using lead weight on their lines and nets. Whew, did that come out of left field?

Serious questions. If game is due prudence and respect, why does that end at a private property line? Shouldn't sensible and reasonable apply to everyone everywhere?

Using snips of Larry's opinion, you questioned whether they represented a tactic: a skilful device calculated to gain some end/advantage.

Larry's contributions here make the forum an important port of call for me. Like all of us , he expressed an opinion. That's all there is, take or leave it. .

Where I live, prudence and respect doesn't end at property lines. You have as much right to trespass, picnic, explore flora and fauna, hunt on my property as I do, who pays the taxes.

That's why the Old Country immigrants came to these lands: freedom.

You seem to paint me in an unseemly way when it comes to Larry's contributions. If it seems like I snipped his opinion, sure I did to get to what seems like the point. I wouldn't mind at all quoting the entire comment, but it would seem unnecessary.

I believe you were in on the marathon notox shot thread, and in the end we're all left to either take it or leave it. What I took out of it, was that if someone 'seems' to be able to connect dots, then those dots may end up published, and referenced as truth. Does that seem fair? Never mind.

Okay, now you really gone and done it. I'm gonna come up there, feel like a subsistence hunter, and slaughter ducks in your backyard. And fair warning, the property line doesn't blur at the front door. I'm claiming rights to the couch, a corner of the frig, and time on the throne. Freedom!

Indeed, the horse is LONG dead when it comes to shooting lead at waterfowl. Or, for that matter, anywhere waterfowl are likely to congregate. No use fighting a war that we lost long ago. Doves . . . you get the same conditions of heavily concentrated shot fall that you can get when hunting waterfowl . . . but seldom get when hunting other upland birds. That's the basic difference, and it's why we're still able to shoot lead at upland birds in most places. And why I will continue to advocate for lead shot for upland birds . . . unless someone can show me some science I've yet to see, indicating that widely scattered shot fall poses much danger to either upland birds or any other critters.

We wound ducks that die later with steel more so then we did with lead. More so, I think, then ducks damaged by lead consumption. Most of our shot falls at a distance in to the deep portion of the water. The dabber ducks aren't going to ingest it. Divers possibly but the shot is very wide spread by that time. Also if there is so much shooting that the mud is contaminated. The ducks are going to avoid that area.

from the NSSF
"This directive is irresponsible and driven not out of sound science but unchecked politics,” said Lawrence Keane, National Shooting Sports Foundation senior vice president and general counsel, in a statement. “This directive was published without dialogue with industry, sportsmen and conservationists. The next director should immediately rescind this, and instead create policy based upon scientific evidence of population impacts with regard to the use of traditional ammunition.”

In the past, the NSSF has argued the economic impact of California’s ban on the use of traditional lead ammunition in hunting could triple ammo prices and force hunters out of the sport in that state.

Under the Trump administration, the USFWS will likely fall under the portfolio of Montana Republican Congressman and retired Navy SEAL officer Ryan Zinke, who has been nominated to become the 52nd U.S. Secretary of the Interior. In his term in the U.S. House, Zinke was co-sponsor of several pro-gun and pro-hunting bills including a sportsmen’s package that protected lead ammo use.

lead ammo is far from done and we will have sanity back in the USFWS.

Maybe the following point has already been made in this discussion and I missed it. If so, I will repeat it anyway.

Some of us, perhaps many of us, would like to be able to continue to use our classic non-steel compatible doubles like my 12 and 20 gauge Browning Superposeds for upland hunting. Upland type non-steel non-toxic loads suitable for them, particularly the 20, are hard to find and quite expensive when available at all. Most readily available non-steel, non-tox loads are intended for waterfowl and contain relatively heavy loads of large diameter shot, often too hard for classic guns. Non-tox cost and lack of suitable light loads of relatively soft small diameter shot would make continued use of classic doubles for dove hunting especially problematic.

I could always retire my Superposeds and shoot only contemporary guns, but don't look forward to being forced to by politically based decisions.

While growing-up, I spent many summers on a relative's New England dairy farm where venison from deer shot with lead loads, (legally because they were destroying crops and properly tagged by the local game warden after shooting), was eaten several times per week. It did not prevent me from earning a Ph.d. in aerospace engineering from Princeton. As for speed, at 74, I can still run somewhat over 7 minute miles with only minimal weekly training mileage, and expect to do much better after I retire from full-time employment and have time for more training.

Well, you can darn sure keep that crap up there, far as I am concerned.

SRH

It's the old story, Stan. We're the oldest part of Canada in sense of first the Europeans settled, population under a million. Lots of open spaces, thousands of miles of waterlines, generally good hunting, exceptional in many respects, and as a result few issues between hunters and landowners. US different story and, as you say, you can darn sure keep it. One size doesn't fit all.

Way to go Ted. Congratulations on the great verbal b*tch-slap of that anti-lead zealot Grouse Guy Ben Deeble. Ben's response of tucking his tail between his legs and slinking away like the coward he is says it all. I guess Mr. Anti-Lead sportsman doesn't wish to talk about his illegal hunting activities either.

Safe to say that if you had taken a similar cheap shot at one of Ben's family members, he'd be throwing a tantrum and demanding that you should be banished. And several other Libtards here would be singing the same sad song in unison. Where are they now that one of their own kind has acted in such a low class manner???

King Brown's lunatic advice to the NRA was so bad, that they totally ignored it. He never would tell us exactly what he advised them to do, but we saw plenty of examples of his idiotic ideas of giving up hard won rights to the anti-gunners. He should have submitted his worthless concessionary ideas to the NRA on toilet paper so they could at least wipe their butt with them.

It's good to see King's little brother Larry Clown picking up right where he left off in last January's Lead and Condors thread. That thread got locked when Larry cried like a little baby to Dave about being taken to task for his opinions that deer hunters and lead bullets were responsible for lead poisoning in eagles.

There, Larry was frantically denying that he supported any additional lead bans. He repeatedly told us that the lead ammo bans for waterfowl were settled science and there was no use denying the facts, as he saw them. He absolutely refused to consider obvious contradictions in a famous University of Minnesota study and other junk science, and he repeatedly denied being a supporter of any additional lead ammo bans, although he threw deer hunters under the bus for supposedly leaving lead tainted deer carcasses and gut piles for poor lead starved eagles to feast upon.



Now we finally have him making he case for lead ammo bans in places where there is heavy shot fall in places where doves are hunted. Nobody is complaining about massive lead poisoning in doves. Nobody is wildly claiming that eagles are ingesting large quantities of lead tainted doves. If that were indeed a problem, eagles in places like Argentina would be on the verge of extinction. But here we have an opinionated blowhard in denial now throwing dove hunters under his anti-lead bus. Let's all welcome Larry Clown into the big tent of Kumbaya, so he can stab us in the back by making the case for additional lead ammo bans.

Anybody wanting to do a study of lead ingestion in eagles, due to feeding on doves killed with it, should go to Córdoba, Argentina. Within 5 minutes of beginning shooting large numbers of eagles and hawks descend upon the fields, alight on the ground around the shooters and begin feeding on the dead doves. This has probably been going on ever since dove shooting began there in earnest, at least since I first went in 2003. If there is any death in them due to lead it would be hard to comprehend. The numbers of raptors there is just phenomenal. Not only raptors but wild cats of all descriptions, iguana lizards, canines, and on and on. All eating lead killed doves. There could be no better place on earth to study lead ingestion and it's effect on raptors, reptiles, or mammals.

SRH

According to a recent article in the New York Times, surprising given the paper's political slant, the US eagle population has increased to the extent that it is causing substantial damage to other wildlife and significant problems for some farmers and ranchers. Sheep farmers in parts of New England, for example, are experiencing serious losses of young lambs, while being prevented from taking action by federal laws protecting eagles.

Lead in game carcasses does not seem to be adversely affecting US eagle populations.

Nova Scotia had a role in reestablishing bald eagles in northeastern US. We've got lots of them; two nests on our small 70ha property bring out two new ones each year. I'm not aware of complaints from our sheep farmers about eagles although the usual sources have been chirping without traction about banning lead in bullets for the last 10 years. Curious New England has serious lamb losses although, as far as I know, none here.

I could be wrong but my guess would be that the catastrophic decline of Bald Eagles in the lower 48 was more due to indiscriminate shootings than DDT. See predator and shoot it.

And it's subsequent return has to do with being on the protected list and a change in mindset where only the most determined to break the law and thumb their nose at the rules that govern wildlife would shoot them today.

They are thick as rats at Lake of the Woods. Have been for decades. Had one in a tree in my backyard when I lived in Winnipeg....old part of the city, very close to downtown. Only thing that ever scared my cat. Now THAT was panic personified!

Interesting observations Stan. I wonder, if no one wants to do the studies, there may be the foregone conclusion that the results might not fit the direction some want to take the US. I wonder if 'notox' shot fills the fields and water around those high volume South American waterfowl shoots. Another missed opportunity for a study?

In spite of their rising numbers, the best place to search for stack 'em up body count pictures is at the base of wind generators. Another dot, previously considered, that's best not connected.

The federal government sets a quota, in the thousands, of the acceptable number of eagles that can be killed by wind turbines.
Eagle numbers continue to increase . . . in spite of which raptor rehabilitators deal with birds that are suffering from lead poisoning. Where wildlife are concerned, we usually focus on the overall health and population dynamics of the entire species. But eagles, for better or worse, are both extremely visible and our national symbol. So sick or dead eagles get a lot of press if lead is involved . . . but oddly enough, a whole lot of them being killed by wind turbines don't get much press.

The concern with doves and lead in this country--since we pick them up--is not with what might eat them, but rather that the doves themselves will ingest lead and die. Since they're basically pests in Argentina, I doubt anyone worries much about whether a few of them die from ingesting lead.

If you are not willing to support your argument, you are not creditable or very smart in your approach if you have real beliefs with a supporting set of facts.

Since you provide no real data other than you like non tox I can only assume you beliefs are emotionally based and without merit.

Am I right or do you have evidence that supports the banning of all lead as having true statistical significance with scientific (that means independently repeatable) results from real studies with open books (that means they don't just state their conclusions but open their data and methods for review)??

I believe you are right in terms of the lead ban and other regulations on hunting and trapping.

Here is a link to two NY Times eagle articles. Interesting reading. They make the idea of a lead shot ban to protect eagles seem absurd.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/01/15/us/ap-us-bold-eagles.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/magazine/bald-eagle-national-burden.html

I disagree it is a dead horse. There are holes in the logic of the danger of lead and the volume of lead. While I agree the reintroduction of lead for general and unrestricted use on waterfowl is not going to happen there are holes that can be reasonably exploited.

Already most if not all see that use in the uplands where concentrations do not occur are not at issue.

Current law prohibits it for waterfowl everywhere even though there are many situations where the accumulation of lead and ingestion by waterfowl is not an issue.

Current law allows use of lead on non waterfowl species where upland and waterfowl species overlap and science has not shown that to be the major issue it appeared to show waterfowling with lead was.

From these points I show that some lead (very limited) is not a major waterfowl issue and I posit that the limited authorization of use of lead for waterfowl harvest is possible without creating the significant damage to waterfowl.

The issue of what enforceable restricted use of lead on waterfowl could be made is actually out there. Rateher than diver this thread I will start another.

Stan,
Bald eagles are well known to have different digestive physiology than just about any other avian predator. They have unusually high acid content in the digestive tract, the theory is it developed in response to the eagles penchant for eating carion, when available, as a way to protect the birds gut while consuming spoiled meat. Owls seem to be almost impervious to lead poisoning, by way of comparison.
It makes Bald Eagles more sensitive to lead in the environment.
THAT SAID, nobody has been able to demonstrate that using lead ammunition has hurt eagle populations in the last 50 years.
I'm all for good science, and not knee jerk regulation.

Best,
Ted

That is very interesting, Ted. Thanks.

I'm somehow not surprised that owls are somewhat immune to lead poisoning. My experiences with Great Horned Owls have caused me to believe that they are some kinda tough critters. They are far above a big Red-tailed Hawk in terms of hunting ability and flying strength. I have seen, oft times, a mature redtail catch a rabbit, in the middle of a corn field I was harvesting, and attempt to carry the rabbit to the edge of the field to eat. It can barely fly, and will only be able to get a few feet above the ground with it's catch. OTOH, a big owl can catch a rabbit sized animal and fly in a very steep climb to the top of a tall nearby tree with it.

My apologies if this is too far off topic. I'll hush.

SRH

Here is a link to additional information about species that are immune to lead poisoning:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4961898/

In the last 50 years, there's been a veritable explosion in the eagle population: From only a few hundred breeding pairs to the current five figure level. Unfortunately, although we usually focus on wildlife as a species, the bald eagle is a separate case. Highly visible, our national symbol. And obviously, because there are so many more of them these days--in places where they hadn't been seen in a very long time--more sick birds will be found.

It would seem that woodcock also have a high tolerance for lead. Studies have shown that the lead in their systems far exceeds the level that would be fatal to waterfowl. Of course in the case of woodcock, it's particularly difficult to determine the source of the lead, given what and how they eat. If there's lead in the soil, since they probe for worms, it's quite likely they'll ingest lead. Analyzing the lead, researchers note that it COULD come from lead shot. But none of the birds examined in the study in question had any lead pellets in their digestive systems.

Grade school level pablum, wretched up with the purpose to grind a specific axe.

Note in the second paragraph, where lead is referred to as an "environmental chemical". This is a deliberate misdirection, that implies that humans manufacture lead, when, it is, of course, an element, found widely, and in the environment since before there were humans.

The article is filled with similar distortions, intended to mis-inform.


Best,
Ted

I hear tell eagles taste almost like chicken....

This statement is absolutely false, and just goes to prove that Grouse Guy Ben(the deer poacher) Deeble doesn't even read the anti-lead crap he dumps here.

But this is nothing new, because Ben has demonstrated in the past that he is too stupid and too agenda driven to digest the material he dumps here anyway.

This paper is not about species that are immune to lead poisoning. The subject is lead poisoning in humans. The only non-human species within this paper are where it attempts to compare lead toxicity in humans to the physiology of mice and rats.

Nice to have some unethical slob hunter who gets arrested for trespassing and shooting game out of season lecturing us about what ammo to use based upon links to papers he obviously has not even read.

i never thought i would see in my life time , eagles , turkeys , deer , coyotes ,and bobcats would come back in hugh numbers to illinois. we even have sporatic sightings of mountain lions , wolves , and bears . as for the lead ban , most of the river rats i know , never believed lead was a problem .