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

Larry, you suggest that documented population level impacts are the only ones we should care about as wildlife managers or sportsmen. AmarilloMike, you seem to agree. Well, wait a second here….

Sportsmen all over this nation have accepted a whole range of regulations which have nothing to do with preventing population level impacts. Things like seasonal restrictions, daily bag limits, night hunting prohibitions, sink box bans, gauge or equipment restrictions, trophy zones… the list could go on and on. Why shouldn’t I be able to shoot a buck with a crossbow at midnight with a spotlight in its face? Is there any more biological impact than shooting a buck at dawn with a 30-30? Why shouldn’t I have a season limit for quail (say, 100 a year) which I can shoot all in one day if I’m that good, instead of only six or eight or ten a day? Why can’t I shoot all the cock pheasants I want any day during the non-breeding season (this is generally agreed to have no biological impact, because pheasants are polygamous, with one rooster capable of inseminating fifty or more hens), particularly on my private land?

Haven’t sportsmen already accepted, in fact suggested, a whole bunch of restrictions of their behavior and equipment for something going on 100 years in the U.S.? Restrictions which have nothing to do with population level impacts, but in fact addressing some higher level of behavior or responsibility afield?

From one who has known him for some years, arguing with liberal-minded Ben will get you nowhere. But I can at least elevate the discussion by setting the record straight on a few counts:

Keith, Ben is not ‘gay’. He likes the ladies, irregardless of whether he has had much long-term luck with them or not. And he actually does hunt a fair amount; and likely has a zebra-hide tablecloth….having gone to Africa a couple of years back.

And, in general, he is not the ‘goody-two-shoes’ type some assume….after having been on the wrong end of a MDFWP citation book a few years back for some serious violations we won’t go into.

But what Ben IS, is a ‘water-walker’ who is happiest when asserting his perception of the world’s problems irregardless of our need for him to do so. One of the things I’ve done over time is to save all of his personal e-mails to me (back when we actually had some mutual respect for one another)……and not all of which pertained to lead shot bans.

However, just one of several which illustrates that Ben’s mind is already made up on this issue was an e-mail lecture I received about the lost Franklin Arctic Expedition of 1845. Ben related to me that the crew all died from lead-poisoning via food consumed from metal cans whose seams had been lead soldered. No mention of other reasons or circumstances of death beyond plumbism. His pitch seemed a bit simplistic, so I ‘googled’ up all that I could on Franklin and his crew, and sure enough, discovered that lead poisoning was a factor. Problem was it was about fourth on the list after 1) hypothermia, 2) pneumonia, and 3) probable cases of tuberculosis. (It is also theorized that the bulk of the lead poisoning originated from the engine plumbing of the ship’s sea-water conversion apparatus, and not so much the food tins.)

But no matter, for in Ben’s mind, their demise was wholly attributable to lead consumption…or else ‘why’ write me this page and a half to support his lead-ban study initiative of 2008? I also have another e-mail where he puts on a white lab coat and suggests that my chronic dealings with systemic lupus are very probably a result of a higher-than-normal lead burden caused by my shooting activities. He was concerned enough that he suggested I be tested. As usual, a helpful sort short on science….. but long on supposition.

Ben is one of those who seems happy to accept all science, just as long as it supports his position. We think of him here in Montana as our own little mini-Gore, who refuses to recognize that contemporary ‘science’ can often be manipulative. And why should he, when it is flowing his way for the moment?

For me, however, just seeing how the CDC reported the North Dakota ‘contaminated meat’ study of 2008 is enough to create suspicion of our Federal government’s ever supplying objective data on this subject. Read the entire report thoroughly, if you care to, and you’ll learn that sportsmen and women from ND eating wild game harvested with lead bullets/shot for as long as forty and fifty years duration have lower lead levels than our national average! But, read just the abstract and conclusion of same report and you’ll only deduce that pregnant women and young children should not consume game harvested with lead components……no mention of the long-term insignificance of lead upon long-term consumers. For that you’ll have to dig deep and read all fifty-some pages.

I won’t belabor this further other than to again mention Ben’s initial proposal of 2008 which was intended to induce MDFWP to contract or perform the necessary studies that would support his proposal’s resolution points. If any of you are interested in that document, I’m sure Ben would be open to supplying you with a copy. If not, it can still be found here in the message archives of July and August of 2008. Or just look up the posts for 'Grouse Guy' and myself and you’ll come upon it. You might even ask him how he advanced his 2008 effort on the local level, as I’m sure he is real proud of that too!

Ben keeps saying throughout this thread that "it is not about him",..... but in truth, it is very much about him, and others just like him, who assume the moral authority to alter our lives only because they ostensibly know better. In short, and as a retired wildlife biologist of 35 years experience, I still need convincing....


Rob Harris
Conner, MT

Rob,

Thank you for your detailed input.
It brings clarification about this thread. It is a waste to keep arguing with Ben anymore.

What I find very sad is that if we want it or not, if it's right or not what Ben has been pushing here will happen. However, I sent my opinion to the MT FWP.

It is an infringement on our liberty forced on us by the powers that are. A form of extremism.

Ben, your laundry list includes a whole lot of "fair chase" issues. That's what many of your "restrictions" on behavior and equipment amount to. Likewise seasonal restrictions. Much of The non-hunting months of the year are largely off limits because the birds need time to breed and nest, and because the young need time to mature. If you hunted them in the spring, summer, or very early fall, that would surely impact populations. Spotlighting deer violates fair chase, just as shooting turkeys off the roost after dark does. Restrictions on hunting are usually related to "what's enough" (the establishment of limits, both daily and possession) and "what's fair chase" (no night hunting for most species of birds and animals, restrictions on equipment, etc). That's a different story entirely than the issue of population levels--which is not the only issue we should care about, but a key one when we make a decision to limit or eliminate the use of lead shot because other individuals, from otherwise healthy (and even increasing) populations are dying from the ingestion of lead.

Whatever "higher level of responsibility" we aspire to, we need to proceed with caution in anything as significant as a blanket changeover from lead to nontoxic shot (and bullets). Where shot is concerned, nontox proponents state that steel is no longer at an economic disadvantage compared to lead. Agree . . . but only for those whose guns are capable of shooting steel. If you have to buy a new gun because the one you own won't handle steel, then that's not an economically viable solution for that particular gun owner. And there are hundreds of thousands of Browning Superposeds and A-5's out there through which--according to the Browning website--steel should not be shot. Not to mention a lot of the guns used by the audience of this BB, which are off limits for steel due either to the hardness of the shot or the pressure generated by the load, or both. All those people would have to choose between one of the other (VERY expensive) nontox alternatives, or buying a new shotgun. And for those who hunt with either the 28ga or .410, although there are now steel loads available, they don't come close to matching the performance of lead loads. So the real smallbores are also consigned to the dustbin of history.

Then there's the question of whether steel performs as well on upland birds as does lead. Although this has been answered satisfactorily where waterfowl are concerned, it has not been answered for large upland birds, such as pheasants. In fact, in a steel shot lethality test Tom Roster conducted, in which some 300 pheasants were shot, he made the following comparison between lethality of loads on pheasants vs ducks:

"On a typical going-away pheasant shot, a pellet must penetrate the massive gizzard to reach the heart and lung area. As shooting distance increases, the gizzard is more likely to stop pellets. A gizzard presents the same obstacle for duck and goose hunters, but few of their shots are at birds going straight away."

Add to the gizzard the fine, hairlike underfeathers of a rooster's tail end. 'One of the great lessons we learned from doing this test,' Roster commented, 'is that there's a much higher rate of feathers that get balled up around pellets trying to penetrate a pheasant, than we were ever able to notice with waterfowl.'"

So, because most waterfowl shots are from different angles (incoming or crossing) versus pheasant shots (mostly going away), there may be entirely different dynamics at work than have been observed with waterfowl. That may be why even those pheasant hunters who also hunt waterfowl have not rushed to switch to steel for pheasants--even though steel is now as cheap (or sometimes cheaper) as quality lead loads. In an attempt to save those (relatively few?) pheasants killed due to ingesting lead, might we actually be killing more--by crippling them through mandating less effective steel loads?

The 'Nanny' state concept applies...we, the government, MUST protect you and make sure you are all safe.
Reminds me,
'Trade your liberty for safety and you deserve neither'
or maybe
'A government big enough to give you everything is also strong enough to take everything'.

MT FWP site has changed slightly since January 14th. Now try and leave a comment!

Hey Larry:

Bag limits have nothing to do with fair chase. That sounds to me like some sort of ethics argument on what is enough killing. What is enough killing for you isn't necessarily what is enough killing for me. Don't try to regulate my ethics, you one-worlder. If I want to go to Cordoba and shoot a flat of shells a day, then give away the pile of pigeons for hog feed that's my business. Don't try to cram your ethics nonsense down my throat.

Neither is restricting cock pheasant harvest to the non-breeding season a fair chase issue, say allowing hunting in February, March and April as well as the fall. Any pheasant with enough color to identify as a rooster is flying well enough to make a sporting target. I shoot pheasants from winter cover in December... why not in March too? I say "if it flys, it dies!" Just what statistically valid studies can you site proving such extended season harvest would have population level impacts on pheasant? Just where, exactly, has such harvest been proven to be the sole cause of a pheasant population crash? I want studies from wild populations. Otherwise you are just a patsy for PETA.

Here are some more studies on lead and birds:

Bishop, R.A., Wagner, W.C., 1992. The US cooperative lead
poisoning control information program. In: Pain, D.J., (Ed.),
Lead Poisoning in Waterfowl. IWRB Spec. Pub. 16, Slimbridge,
pp. 42–45.
Keymer, I.F., Stebbings, R.S., 1987. Lead poisoning in a partridge(Perdix perdix) after ingestion of gunshot. Vet. Rec. 21, 276–277.
Kennedy, S., Crisler, J.P., Smith, E., Bush, M., 1977. Lead poisoning
in sandhill cranes. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 171, 955–958.
Bloom, P.H., Scott, J.M., Pattee, O.H., Smith, M.R., 1989. Lead
contamination of golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) within the
range of the Californian condor (Gymnogyps californianus). In:
Meyburgh, B-U., Chancellor, R.D. (Eds.), Raptors in the Modern
World. Proceedings of the 3rd World Conference on Birds of
Prey and Owls, Eliat, Israel, pp. 481–482.
Calvert, J.H., 1876. Pheasants poisoned by swallowing shots. Field
47, 189.
Campbell, H., 1950. Quail picking up lead shot. J. Wildlife Manage.
14, 243–244.
Demayo, A., Taylor, M.C., Taylor, K.W., Hodson, P.V., 1982. Toxic
effects of lead and lead compounds on human health, aquatic
life, wildlife, plants and livestock. CRC Crit. Rev. Environ.
Control 12, 257–305.
Hall, S.L., Fisher, F.M., 1985. Lead concentrations in tissues of
marsh birds: relationships of feeding habits and grit
preference to spent shot ingestion. Bull. Environ. Contam.
Toxicol. 35, 1–8.
Hoffman, D.J., Franson, J.C., Pattee, O.H., Bunck, C.M., Anderson,
A., 1985a. Survival, growth and accumulation of ingested lead
in nestling American kestrels (Falco sparverius). Arch. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. 14, 89–94.
Hoffman, D.J., Franson, J.C., Pattee, O.H., Bunck, C.M., Murray,
H.C., 1985b. Biochemical and hematological effects of lead
ingestion in nestling American kestrels (Falco sparverius).
Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 80C, 431–439.
Iwata, H., Watanabe, M., Kim, E.-Y., Gotoh, R., Yasunaga, G.,
Tanabe, S., Masuda, Y., Fujita, S., 2000. Contamination by
chlorinated hydrocarbons and lead in Stellar’s sea eagle and
white-tailed sea eagle from Hokkaido, Japan. In: Ueta, M.,
McGrady, M.J. (Eds.), First Symposium on Stellar’s and
White-tailed Sea Eagles in East Asia. Wild Bird Society of
Japan, Tokyo, pp. 91–106.
Janssen, D.L., Oosterhuis, J.E., Allen, J.L., Anderson, M.P., Kelts,
D.G., Wiemeyer, S.N., 1986. Lead poisoning in free-ranging
California condors. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 189, 1115–1117.
Kaiser, G.W., Fry, K., Ireland, J.G., 1980a. Ingestion of lead shot by
dunlin. Murrelet 61, 37.
Kaiser, T.E., Reichel,W.L., Locke, L.N., Cromartie, E., Krynitsky, A.J.,
Lamont, T.G., Mulhern, B.M., Prouty, R.M.S., Stafford, C.J.,
Kendall, R.J., Scanlon, P.F., 1981. Effects of chronic lead ingestion
on reproductive characteristics of ringed turtle doves (Streptopelia
risoria) and on tissue lead concentrations of adults and
their progeny. Environ. Pollut. Series A 26, 203–214.
Kendall, R.J., Veit, H.P., Scanlon, P.F., 1981. Histological effects and
lead concentrations in tissues of adult male ringed turtle
doves (Streptopelia risoria) that ingested lead shot. J. Toxicol.
Environ. Health 8, 649–658.
Kenntner, N., Krone, O., Altenkamp, R., Tataruch, F., 2003.
Environmental contaminants in liver and kidney of
free-ranging northern goshawks (Accipiter gentilis) from three
regions of Germany. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 45,
128–135.

Kenntner, N., Tataruch, F., Krone, O., 2001. Heavy metals in soft
tissue of white-tailed eagles found dead or moribund in
Germany and Austria from 1993 to 2000. Environ. Toxicol.
Chem. 20, 1831–1837.

Ben, we know you haven't been reading the links you've been posting. That's well established, since you keep throwing up crap about preserve chukar in southern Ontario ingesting lead, which has absolutely nothing to do with wild pheasants in Montana. Now we also know you're not even reading the (much shorter) posts to which you're responding. But I boiled it down to the key sentence fragment concerning limits, since you missed it last time. As for seasons . . . why not shoot rooster pheasants, right up through April? Well Ben, maybe a real smart guy like you could do that, because I'm sure you'd be able to go out and hunt ONLY roosters--without disturbing the hens, which may already have been stressed by a hard winter. I'm positive you wouldn't flush those stressed hens out of their good winter cover and into the open, where they're much more likely to fall victim to predators in a weakened state . . . now would you, Ben? You're not far off track on roosters being excess baggage, but it appears you never considered what the impact of hunting pheasants into late winter/early spring would be on hens. And if you've read the same studies I have, and hunted pheasants as long as I have, then you also know that some hens get shot accidentally, due to misidentification. Straight from the Iowa DNR "The Ring-Necked Pheasant in Iowa": "Examination of pheasants killed by non-hunting (vehicles and blizzards) means after the close of the season showed that about 24% of the cocks and 3% of the hens carried lead shot. Using these data, it was calculated that 9% of the fall hen population was killed during the hunting season." So, just so you can shoot a few more roosters, you want to make the season longer--which means more hens (and you can't deny that they're critical to the long-term population!) will be wounded or killed. Actually, I think the stress of pushing them out of good winter cover, more so than is already happening due to other predators, would be even worse on them. But that's a really bad idea, Ben. Thought you studied wildlife management. I'm beginning to think maybe . . . art history? Underwater basket weaving?

Nope, much better idea to let them alone--both roosters and hens--when the season ends in January. Shooting only roosters, unfortunately, does not mean that you're KILLING only roosters--when you're talking about hunting pheasants in late winter/early spring. How long does the season have to be, anyhow? Another question of "what's enough"--settled by the game biologists. Just like 3 pheasants a day is also "enough"--everywhere, I think, except KS where they let you shoot 4. Not so much a "fair chase" issue as an "enough" issue.

"Patsy for PETA" . . . Ben, that's rich. You've been looking in the mirror, for sure. Let's see . . . a guy who wants to get rid of all lead shot, which would mean some people would no longer own a shotgun with which they could hunt--without paying $2-$3/shell. Ben, you get rid of enough hunters that way, and you won't have to worry about hunting pheasants in November and December, let alone in Feb/Mar. The antis will walk all over what's left of us after you're done.

Hey Larry:

Apparently one of plumbism's symptoms is an inability to detect sarcasm?

I support both bag limits and pheasant seasons which limit winter stress on populations and hens as they begin to build their physical reserves for viable egg production.

Back to Roster and his tests on steel shot effectiveness for pheasant harvest. Let me quote him....

"Of all birds struck with the No. 2 steel load, 108 were retrieved and 10 were lost, an 8.5 percent wounding loss rate. No. 6 steel produced a 13.6 percent wounding loss, and No. 4 steel came in with a 14.3 percent wounding rate. Interestingly, hunters lost only two of 68 birds hit at distances of less than 30 yards with all three loads combined, a wounding rate of 2.9 percent. All test loads together produced 15.1 percent wounding loss at shot distances of 40 yards or greater.

For the entire test, wounding loss was 12.2 percent. "That's a pretty low wounding rate," Roster noted, especially when compared to findings of 15 shotshell lethality tests on waterfowl, some of which examined both lead and steel. Trained observers in those tests detected 30 percent or more of birds hit by hunters with either shot type were not retrieved."

Roster also found that shots at pheasants were generally closer than those for waterfowl, and a going-away presentation, an easier shot to make for most shooters. Using #2 shot he found steel highly effective for pheasants, without the "balling up" of feathers you cite above.

Here are some more studies on lead toxicity to birds and other wildlife:

Lewis, J.C., Legler, E., 1968. Lead shot ingestion by mourning doves
and incidence in soil. J. Wildlife Manage. 32, 476–482.
Locke, L.N., Bagley, G.E., 1967. Lead poisoning in a sample of
Maryland mourning doves. J. Wildlife Manage. 31, 515–518.
Locke, L.N., Bagley, G.E., Frickie, D.N., Young, L.T., 1969. Lead
poisoning and Aspergillosis in an Andean condor. J. Am. Vet.
Med. Assoc. 155, 1052–1056.
Locke, L.N., Friend, M., 1992. Lead poisoning of avian species other
than waterfowl. In: Pain, D.J., (Ed.), Lead Poisoning in
Waterfowl. IWRB Spec. Pub. 16, Slimbridge, pp. 19–22.
Locke, L.N., Smith, M.R., Windingstad, R.M., Martin, S.J., 1991.
Lead poisoning of a marbled godwit. Prairie Nat. 23, 21–24.
Lumeiji, J.T., Wolvekamp, W.T.C., Bron-Dietz, G.M., Schotman,
Martin, P.A., Barrett, G.C., 2001. Exposure of terrestrial raptors to
environmental lead: determining sources using stable isotope
ratios. International Association for Great Lakes Research
Conference Programand Abstracts 44. IAGLR, Ann Arbor, p. 84.
Martin, P.A., Campbell, D., Scheuhammer, A., 2003. Lead exposure
in terrestrial foraging raptors in southern Ontario, 1999–2001.
International Association for Great Lakes Research Conference
Program and Abstracts 44. IAGLR, Ann Arbor, p. 269.
Mateo, R., Cadenas, R., Manez, M., Guitart, R., 2001. Lead shot
ingestion in two raptor species from Don˜ ana, Spain.
Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety 48, 6–10.
Mateo, R., Estrada, J., Paquet, J.-Y., Riera, X., Domı´nguez, L.,
Guitart, R., Martı´nez-Vilalta, A., 1999. Lead shot ingestion by
marsh harriers (Circus aeruginosus) from the Ebro Delta, Spain.
Environ. Pollut. 104, 435–440.
Mateo, R., Molina, R., Grı´fols, J., Guitart, R., 1997. Lead poisoning in
a free-ranging griffon vulture (Gyps fulvus). Vet. Rec. 140, 47–48.
Mateo, R., Taggart, M., Meharg, A.A., 2003. Lead and arsenic in
bones of birds of prey from Spain. Environ. Pollut. 126,
107–114.
Miller, M.J.R., Wayland, M.E., Bortolotti, G.R., 2002. Lead exposure
and poisoning in diurnal raptors: a global perspective. In:
Yosef, R.M., Miller, M.L., Pepler, D. (Eds.), Raptors in the New
Millenium, Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of the Raptor
Research Foundation and The World Working Group on Birds
of Prey and Owls, Eliat, Israel, 2–8 April 2000. International
Birding and Research Centre, Eliat, pp. 224–245.
Miller, M.J.R., Wayland, M.E., Dzus, E.H., Bortolotti, G.R., 2000.
Availability and ingestion of lead shotshell pellets by migrant
bald eagles in Saskatchewan. J. Raptor Res. 34, 167–174.
Miller, M.J.R., Wayland, M.E., Dzus, E.H., Bortolotti, G.R., 2001.
Exposure of migrant bald eagles to lead in prairie Canada.
Environ. Pollut. 112, 153–162.
Mudge, G.P., 1992. Options for alleviating lead poisoning: a review
and assessment of alternatives to the use of non-toxic shot.
In: Pain, D.J. (Ed.), Lead Poisoning in Waterfowl. IWRB Spec.
Pub. 16, Slimbridge, pp. 23–25.
NationalWildlife Health Laboratory (NWHL), 1985. Lead poisoning
in non-waterfowl avian species. USFWS unpublished Report.
Pain, D.J., 1990a. Lead shot ingestion by waterbirds in the
Camargue, France: an investigation of levels and interspecific
differences. Environ. Pollut. 66, 273–285.
Pain, D.J., 1990b. Lead poisoning of waterfowl: a review. In:
Matthews, G. (Ed.), Managing Waterfowl Populations. IWRB,
Slimbridge, pp. 172–181.
Pain, D.J., 1991a. Lead poisoning in birds: an international
perspective. Acta XX Congressus Int. Ornithol., 2343–2352.
Pain, D.J., 1991b. Why are lead-poisoned waterfowl rarely seen?
The disappearance of waterfowl carcasses in the Camargue,
France. Wildfowl 42, 118–122.

Once again, Ben, ducks and pheasants ain't the same critters. I've kept careful track of my "wounding loss" rates for about 35 years, and it's way lower than 15%. Matter of fact, it's way lower than the 8.5% Roster's guys experienced with steel 2's--and they were shooting preserve birds, which virtually any pheasant hunter with experience on both the wild and the released variety will tell you are a good bit easier to bring to bag. And I have large enough numbers on wounding losses on wild birds that my own statistics are, I'd venture, pretty reliable. Back when we were shooting more pheasants than we are in Iowa these days, during one 5 year period, I and my hunting partners shot and recovered 437 wild roosters; 12 were wounding losses. That's less than 3%. In any season in which I've shot a reasonably good number of birds (like 3 dozen or more), I've never had a wounding loss rate higher than 5%. So while loss rates of 8-12% may not look bad compared to waterfowl (which are typically shot at longer ranges than pheasants--and I'd note here that I'm not a waterfowl hunter so can't compare my own rates), they look very poor compared to my own wounding loss rates. Which, again, are on the harder to bag wild pheasants vs preserve birds.

And you need to work on your sarcasm, Ben. Sure sounded to me like you were serious . . . and I'm still suspicious that you may have been, until I pointed out the problems with disturbing hens in late winter/early spring. But whatever, glad you understand that issue now, whether you did or not previously. I'd also point out that the Iowa DNR won't even allow you to run dogs on WMA's from March 15-July 15.

Finally, I'd add that of your latest laundry list of "research", there's NOT A SINGLE STUDY that pertains to lead ingestion by upland gamebirds in the wild. Do you have something that actually pertains to the subject at hand? Something on upland birds, other than those on preserves? Something that establishes upland gamebird mortality from ingesting lead in the wild? The lack of such data must be why both the MN DNR and MT FWP say that the research just isn't out there. Guess they're more interested in specific research on upland birds in the wild, rather than stuff like urban pigeons eating paint chips. When the switch was made to nontoxic shot on waterfowl, it was because waterfowl were dying from ingesting lead. Shouldn't we be looking for the same kind of data if we're going to switch to nontox for upland birds? Seems only reasonable to me.