doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Lead Shot Ban in Montana

keith, please remove your death wish against another member.

I thnk a lot of what"Keith" said is way out of line. Ben Deeble and many of us arent going to agree on a lot of things, but I think Ben is keeping his arguments on a pretty high level. And some good points are being made on both sides. We dont need stuff like "Keith" is posting..........

Ben, we've been shooting pheasants in Iowa for about 85 years now. Hundreds of Iowa roosters . . . I'm a bit beyond that. I don't normally focus on season bags, but I once went into 3 figure range in a single season, wild birds only, without ever leaving the state. And of all the pheasants I've cleaned--that's a bunch of autopsies, because I also guided on wild pheasants for 4 years, and cleaned my hunters' birds for them--the only unhealthy roosters I can ever recall were ones that suffered from lead poisoning. However, that lead poisoning came from lead pellets they'd been SHOT with (old, nonfatal wounds), not any other cause I was unable to identify (like ingested lead).

Here's what I'm looking for, in specific: A study on upland birds (wild only, please) that were found dead (NOT shot) in typical upland settings--either private or public ground, but not preserves--and which died as a result of having ingested lead. Anything else, as far as the POTENTIAL impact of lead on upland birds, is pretty much that: POTENTIAL, unproven as far as mortality goes. All other studies are either of no relevance, or marginal relevance. Eagles . . . we have so many more of them than we did 25 years ago that we're bound to find more of them sick or injured than we used to. But their numbers also continue to increase, which means whatever is harming them is a threat only to INDIVIDUAL birds, not the population as a whole--which means we should pay no more attention to it than we do to deer hit by cars (where we only worry about the people in the vehicles, not the deer).

Can you cite any research that meets the above requirements?

King Brown and Last Dollar, Gee, I took Grouse Gays' above response as a wish that I had been aborted. I guess that's keeping the arguement on a "pretty high level". I have no plans on apologizing to, or being nice to a fake whose sole purpose here is to ban lead ammo, which I'm certain will reduce the number of shooters, which I'm equally sure will make it easier for his kind to eventually gut the Second Amendment. If you wish to consort with the enemy, that is your choice.

keith, for god's sake, you're a good guy and we're just exchanging opinions about lead and we all have a bad day, please remove your last sentence because in civil society you'd have a cop at the door for it. Fake, gay, liar is deplorable but that last sentence is criminal. Kind regards, King

I forgot to mention I still have about 30 pellets of #6s in me I received while pheasant hunting in 1980. Does that mean my body will be hazardous waste when I pass on to that great lead free happy hunting ground in the sky?

Best,

Mike

Hey AmarilloMike:

Doubtful, but let me guess how it happened....
You told Keith you were considering pulling the lever for Carter?
(Sorry, I keep doing that digressing thing!) This thread isn't about me, Keith, AMike, Carter, or Reagan.

PLEASE, no more death threats. Such behavior can't be good for any of our futures.

Here is some more reporting of lead research.... sorry but you probably really aren't going to like this one.

http://www.peregrinefund.org/Lead_conference/PDF/0307%20Tranel.pdf

Actually, Ben, I kinda like that link. Did you take the time to read it? If you did, you'll find the same references to chukar and pheasants in Ontario (remember when I questioned you about those before--obviously birds from PRESERVES, where shot fall is far heavier than birds would encounter in the wild), a reference to pheasants on shooting estates in Great Britain (same situation--way more shot fall than in upland settings in this country), etc. In other words, a compilation of "same old, same old". Interesting also the connection to the Peregrine Fund. The veterinarian whose claims about lead fragments in deer resulted in ND dropping the policy of donating deer to homeless shelters etc . . . he's a falconer. Might that indicate any sort of bias . . . just maybe, possibly? And when that happened, the Iowa DNR reviewed the same information--and continued its "Hunters for the Hungry" program, donating deer to homeless shelters.

Ben, it's fairly obvious your mind is already made up. You might try reading the research with a bit more of an open mind. Does the amount of lead to which a bird on a preserve is exposed have much of anything to do with exposure in typical upland hunting settings? No. Lead bans for waterfowl (and maybe even for doves, on public land where they're shot) make sense, because of the heavy concentration of shot fall. Lead bans for upland birds, in areas not frequented by waterfowl . . . that's an apples to oranges deal, and you can't really compare. Likewise, other species impacted by lead shot . . . the question is, what's happening to the SPECIES overall, not individuals. If you're talking about an endangered species, like the California condor (or eagles, a couple decades ago), then you worry about individual birds. But if the population is healthy and growing (like bald eagles today, for example), then you no longer concern yourself with occasional individual mortality. Because if we start to concern ourselves with individual mortality of a species that's not endangered, well then, guess what? We've just given the antis all the ammunition they need to SHUT HUNTING DOWN, whether we shoot lead or steel or depleted uranium. "That poor pheasant was shot. And died. How awful!" Well, it's only awful if pheasants are endangered because they're being shot. They're not, which means it's not awful at all. It's just hunting.

It's also interesting to see the reference to the MN DNR's Nontoxic Shot Advisory Committee, which did its own thorough review of the research available, and concluded in their report to the DNR: "The issues are extremely complex and conclusive data on wildlife population impacts is lacking. Furthermore, it is unlikely that conclusive data can ever be obtained due to the cost of this type research."

No one asked you to apologize, keith. No one asked you to be nice to anyone. You crossed the line of the rules of this distinguished international board.

I don't raise this as a goody-goody. I've left a trail of minor misdemeanours around the world. Casting those who disagree with your opinion as the enemy is no ornament to our board.

It's another example of the my way or the highway, with us or against us, I'm a patriot and you're not of the dread polarization that pulls us down. It's not the way of the Fathers of Confederation or the Founding Fathers there.

Grouse Guy I wan't making it about you or me but trying to make the point that lead is widespread in our nation. Any creature is going to have some lead levels because of:

Ubiquitous residuals of leaded gasoline
Aviation gas
Ubiquitous lead paint
Smelters, closed or operating
Lead mines
Other mines
Lead in the potable water supply

Repeating Larry as long as we have enough of some critter if one in 100 or 1 in 1000 dies from eating lead shot it doesn't matter.

The number of WILD UPLAND game birds dying from lead shot ingestion is negligible. It is minisucle compared to the number dying from:

Weather
Weather
Weather
Predation
Impact with automobiles
Impact with powerlines
Loss of habitat

What about the urban Peregrine falcon with the higher than normal blood levels in the link I posted above? How would a lead shot ban have lowered his lead levels?


Best,

Mike