doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Lead shot increasingly under fire

A rook rifle will do the trick j0ey!

Lowell,
How about inviting some of us down for a shoot? You have the land, we have the guns.
jas

That would be great....Mr.Lowell could demonstrate the effectiveness of his 20 inch BeeZley on crows and we could demonstrate the effectiveness of high quality scopes on cheap .22 rifles.
jOe

It's sort of annoying to see folks claim that there is no validity in something that is quite well established scientifically. It takes about 2 minutes in scholar.google.com to find lots of references to bone up on the subject IF YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW. But then who REALLY wants to know right?

But here is the abstract and citation from just one follow up study on the benefits of nontoxic shot. Be careful. If you really don't want to know this little inconvenient detail, stop reading right here...


Titre du document / Document title
Ingestion of lead and nontoxic shotgun pellets by ducks in the Mississippi flyway
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
ANDERSON W. L. (1) ; HAVERA S. P. (2) ; ZERCHER B. W. (2) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Illinois Department of Natural Resources, 279 Natural Resources Building, 607 E. Peabody Drive, Champaign, IL 61820, ETATS-UNIS
(2) Illinois Natural History Survey, Forbes Biological Station, F.C. Bellrose Waterfowl Research Center, P.O. Box 590, Havana, IL 62644, ETATS-UNIS
Résumé / Abstract
We examined the extent to which ingested nontoxic (steel and bismuth-tin) shotgun pellets replaced toxic (lead) pellets in ducks harvested in the Mississippi Flyway during the 1996 and 1997 hunting seasons (fifth and sixth yr after nationwide conversion to nontoxic shot). Gizzards were collected from 16,651 ducks and processed for the presence of pellets. Prevalences of ingested pellets were 8.9% for 15,147 mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), 12.7% for 749 ring-necked ducks (Aythya collaris), 4.3% for 579 scaups (Aythya affinis and A. marila), and 9.7% for 176 canvasbacks (Aythya valisineria). For gizzards with ingested pellets, as much as 68% of mallard, 45% of ring-necked duck, 44% of scaup, and 71% of canvasback contained only nontoxic pellets. We estimated that nontoxic shot reduced mortality from lead poisoning in Mississippi Flyway mallards by 64%. Ingestion of ≥2 toxic pellets declined by as much as 78%. To the extent that our findings apply to other species and flyways in North America, an estimated 1.4 million ducks in the 1997 fall continental flight of 90 million were spared from fatal lead poisoning. Only 1.1% of 1,318 gizzards positive for shot-in pellets came from ducks shot with toxic pellets, and only 1 toxic fishing sinker was found in the 16,651 duck gizzards.
Revue / Journal Title
The Journal of wildlife management (J. wildl. manage.) ISSN 0022-541X CODEN JWMAA9
Source / Source
2000, vol. 64, no3, pp. 848-857 (1 p.1/4)
Langue / Language

I didn't need convincing.

Lead is bad news, whither it's in a ducks gizzard or in someone's azz....right Stoney.
jOe

After reading some of the available articles on lead shot and the growing discussion of a ban of it entirely, I would advise everyone on the board to invest heavily in bismuth futures contracts. The ammo companies will love a ban on lead. They will only have to sell half as much product for triple the current margin.

As it stood we the Sportsman have been 'held hostage' by the companies that developed Hevi-sHot and Bismuth.

I believe in the near future the big three Winchester, Federal and Remington will make their products available at an economical price. These high prices will pass the big three is going to stomp them out of business...and tomorrow won't be soon enough.

Look at the prices of Envirometals loaded ammo verses their components it doesn't take a genious to see they are breaking it off in the Sportsman.
If you want to purchase Envirometals Hevi-shOt It's cheaper to purchase their loaded Ammo and dissasemble it than it is to purchase just the shot for reloading.
How does that add up ?

They tried to hold up Remington and you see what happened...no more Remington Hevi-shOt.
Cox

Here are some follow up letters in the 12/24 paper...

http://www.startribune.com/531/story/893556.html

Readers split on issue of banning lead shot
By Doug Smith , Star Tribune
Last update: December 24, 2006 – 10:50 AM
Last Sunday, we wrote about the recent report by the 11-member nontoxic shot advisory committee, which said it's inevitable that the use of lead shot by hunters will be further restricted because of toxicity concerns. Though changes don't appear imminent, Department of Natural Resources officials are mulling the issue and say future restrictions are likely.
We asked readers what they thought. Here's a sampling of letters.

If lead shot is being phased out, my suggestions would be to announce the ban with enough foresight to allow consumers time to use up any lead shot they have already legally purchased. Then it would make sense to establish a lead shot for steel shot swap program, much like has been established for swapping lead fishing tackle for non-toxic tackle. Educating the public as to the need for these changes is extremely important.
MIKE PANKEY, LAKEVILLE

About time! Having done toxicology for 30 years, I have seen a vast number of eagles, owls, swans, ducks, loons, etc., with lead poisoning from ingested lead shot and sinkers. As a sportsman I am appalled that a ban on lead has not occurred years ago. If sportsmen are indeed sportsmen, then I would think they would all want it banned to preserve and safeguard the environment and the animals therein.
TOM ARENDT, CHISAGO CITY

Where is the science behind banning lead shot? Where are the studies that report it as a significant risk to upland game populations? Why all the talk on banning it, when to date there is only a perception of a problem? I disagree with a ban, at least until someone can prove to me that lead shot is causing significant problems to the health of our upland game populations. In addition, the cheapest alternative non-toxic shot, namely steel, does not have the density of lead, which is a factor in knocking down and killing birds. The use of steel shot ... leads to the additional wounding of birds that will eventually die.
ANDREW BICEK, ELK RIVER

I believe that common sense should play a role in the proposed implementation of a lead shot ban. I hunt grouse in northern Minnesota and sometimes walk 4 to 5 miles for every five to 10 shots taken. Would the few ounces of lead scattered in the woods affect this ecosystem? I hardly think so. A blanket ban of lead shot should not even be considered.
GARY HEGLUND, ANDOVER

Personally, I think lead shot should be 100 percent banned right now. I do a lot of bird hunting, mostly for pheasants, but also grouse and ducks. I'm sure there are good, non-toxic loads for grouse, and I will switch over to them on future purchases. I have been using steel for years on pheasant and ducks.
DAVE MORSE, LAKEVILLE

My three-step way out of the heavy issue: 1) Stop the manufacturing of lead shot or the importing of lead shells into Minnesota. 2) Give the stores two years to sell out and stop the use of lead shot on state and federal land at the same time. 3) Give the hunters three years to use up the old inventory.
SCOTT THOMAS SANDHOLM, MINNETONKA

I haven't bought or used lead shot since steel became available. That should tell you what I think the DNR should do about lead shot.
DAVE JENSEN, WILLMAR

A total ban on the use of lead in all sporting sports is not an "if"' but rather a "when" situation. The evolution of non-toxic shot has made the use of lead an unnecessary evil. Issues of ballistic efficiency, firearm damage and cost have been put to rest. Many of today's non-toxic loads are superior to lead in lethality, alternatives are available for older guns and costs continue to moderate. My opinions are based on my observations as a shooter who shoots cases rather than boxes of shells annually.
PETER T. BROWN, LINO LAKES

There certainly are issues with lead and exposure to it, but I, as a private landowner, have a hard time believing that the lead shot I use to dispatch unwelcome pigeons and raccoons on my place creates a significant health issue. If they want to ban lead on the governmental hunting areas, fine. If they want to pay me for the boxes of lead shot I still have, I might listen.
DAN MUELLER, MONTROSE

This may be an unpopular position for a hunter, but I think this is the best reason to completely dispense with lead shot in the field is: confusion. We have enough laws governing game and this (outlawing lead) would cut to the chase. The second is the toxicity to predators (eagles, hawks, raptors) that feed on crippled birds.
DOUG LASSEY, HASTINGS

Lead is dead.

I don't see anyone providing much more than armchair wishful thinking here. Apparently, few of you know much about the feeding habits and digestive tracts of birds - not even ducks.

I know Lowell just has to think that it bad science and instant presto it is, but is that how all of you make decisions? Lowell has yet to offer up the smallest tidbit of data - nor has anyone else for that matter.

So, if it inconveniences you, it is bad science? Is that right? Must be.

The report that Al posted, is dated 1988. It was published before the full implimentation of non-tox shot was in place. It was preliminary then and out of date now. Further, it is not original research - indeed, it is not research at all, but a summary of the literature at that time.

Since then what else has come to light? Quite a lot it appears from a quick perusal of the literature. All of it supporting the need to ban lead shot for waterfowl hunting. Earlier, I posted a few of those lists for all of you, again, only to see it ignored by the armchair experts. Pretty sad, but I guess many of you do not want to learn - so much easier to deny I suppose.

I will leave the discussion with one more repeat post (also ignored) - an abstract of research, a bit more up to date and relevant to the Mississippi Flyway - for those of you that might care about hunting in it as much as I do. Sadly, I don't think many of you do, I feel sorry for the future of hunting...

I have to say, I have little sympathy for most of the hunting crowd if this site is representative of the attitudes and lack of intelligence.

Brent


Titre du document / Document title
Ingestion of lead and nontoxic shotgun pellets by ducks in the Mississippi flyway
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
ANDERSON W. L. (1) ; HAVERA S. P. (2) ; ZERCHER B. W. (2) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Illinois Department of Natural Resources, 279 Natural Resources Building, 607 E. Peabody Drive, Champaign, IL 61820, ETATS-UNIS
(2) Illinois Natural History Survey, Forbes Biological Station, F.C. Bellrose Waterfowl Research Center, P.O. Box 590, Havana, IL 62644, ETATS-UNIS
Résumé / Abstract
We examined the extent to which ingested nontoxic (steel and bismuth-tin) shotgun pellets replaced toxic (lead) pellets in ducks harvested in the Mississippi Flyway during the 1996 and 1997 hunting seasons (fifth and sixth yr after nationwide conversion to nontoxic shot). Gizzards were collected from 16,651 ducks and processed for the presence of pellets. Prevalences of ingested pellets were 8.9% for 15,147 mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), 12.7% for 749 ring-necked ducks (Aythya collaris), 4.3% for 579 scaups (Aythya affinis and A. marila), and 9.7% for 176 canvasbacks (Aythya valisineria). For gizzards with ingested pellets, as much as 68% of mallard, 45% of ring-necked duck, 44% of scaup, and 71% of canvasback contained only nontoxic pellets. We estimated that nontoxic shot reduced mortality from lead poisoning in Mississippi Flyway mallards by 64%. Ingestion of ≥2 toxic pellets declined by as much as 78%. To the extent that our findings apply to other species and flyways in North America, an estimated 1.4 million ducks in the 1997 fall continental flight of 90 million were spared from fatal lead poisoning. Only 1.1% of 1,318 gizzards positive for shot-in pellets came from ducks shot with toxic pellets, and only 1 toxic fishing sinker was found in the 16,651 duck gizzards.
Revue / Journal Title
The Journal of wildlife management (J. wildl. manage.) ISSN 0022-541X CODEN JWMAA9
Source / Source
2000, vol. 64, no3, pp. 848-857 (1 p.1/4)
Langue / Language