doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Effectiveness of #4 lead

Thanks, Mike. Sorry, I just didn't think about taking any pics that time. If I get another opportunity to, I will.

SRH

No Larry, it's not that simple. You don't run me, and I don't take orders from you. I told you in the Condor thread that you are obviously not yet ready to digest studies that debunk the junk science on lead ammunition that you cling to. You need to grow up and get past your reading comprehension problems first.

What did you think you were going to accomplish with your insulting PM to me yesterday, along with wild-assed explanations that bore no resemblance to what you stated in that Condor thread? And why did you send a second PM to me after I told you, "Go try to intimidate someone else. It won't fly with me. I'd prefer to have this discussion in the open forum where everyone can see what you are doing."?

In the Condor thread you were obviously referring to the original North Dakota study on lead in venison. You mentioned it several times, and in your post #434842 on 2/1/16, you clearly stated:

"Lead in any meat is going to cause "food safety questions" . . . mostly by those who don't eat it. And by those in the health industry. The ND study on lead levels in humans came about as a result of a study in which 53 out or 95 packets of ground venison donated to food pantries contained lead fragments. As a result the ND Dept of Health temporarily halted distribution of venison to food pantries. Like I said, guys who hunt with lead bullets have an issue to deal with. Not throwing them under the bus; simply allowing those who've done more research in that area than I have and who know more about it to present their views in case someone proposes a lead bullet ban."

That figure of lead in 53 out of 95 packets of ground venison is right out of the original study that was done by a dermatologist who just happened to also be a falconer and a member of the anti-lead ammunition Peregrine Fund. Here's the flawed "research" for you to try to comprehend... all 31 pages.

North Dakota Study on Lead in Ground Venison

It was the work of the dermatologist/falcon lover Dr. William Cornatzer, who claimed to find lead in 53 out of 95 packets of ground venison, that was discredited by numerous State Game agencies and researchers, including those from Iowa. Actually, Dr. Cornatzer was on the Board of Directors of the anti-lead Peregrine Fund, and had been active in anti-lead ammunition initiatives in California. But the methodology of the CDC's 2008 follow-up study was flawed as well. And why would I care about what you may or may not have written in your magazine articles... which I never read? I was responding to what you posted right here on this BBS. Of course, between your arrogance and crude insults, there was more back-pedaling and excuse making similar your earlier reply to my quoting of your "Lead is toxic. Toxic = Bad" statement. That quote was from your post #434181 on 1/26/16 where anyone could see that your statement wasn't worded to convey that those were the sentiments of the anti-lead public, and not yourself. If that wasn't what you meant to convey, you shouldn't have written it. By then, you had also made numerous posts that did in fact throw deer hunters under the bus and had found fault with hunting with lead in just about everything except upland game hunting. Of course, several guys besides me had noticed the same thing.

I doubt if you'll be able to find any flawed methodology in that North Dakota study, because you'll be too busy concentrating on some way to avoid admitting that you aren't as smart as you think you are.

Figured you couldn't come up with anything new on the "junk science" that supported the lead ban for waterfowl. More bluff and blather.

Where did I make any comment at all on the validity of the study that found lead fragments in ground venison? You keep missing the point. That study, flawed or not, resulted in another study: By the CDC, of the blood lead level of North Dakota residents. And the CDC study is very GOOD news for those who want to continue shooting lead, because it showed that the average blood lead level of everyone in that ND study was lower than the national average--which would indicate that ingesting lead from wild game isn't much of an issue as far as human health is concerned. The National Shooting Sports Foundation made the following statement in a press release, concerning the ND CDC study:

"The CDC report on human lead levels of hunters in North Dakota has confirmed what hunters throughout the world have known for hundreds of years, that traditional ammunition poses no health risk to people and that the call to ban lead ammunition was nothing more than a scare tactic being pursued by anti-hunting groups."

Once more: Lead poisoning isn't the subject of this thread. Start a new one . . . if you have anything new or worthwhile to contribute.

Poor Larry. Still trying to hold me to a different standard than you hold yourself? The original topic of this thread is #4 lead shot, but that didn't stop you from going off-topic and talking about steel shot and hunting waterfowl that can no longer be hunted with any lead shot in the U.S. or Canada. So why don't you start a new thread to enthrall us all with your vast shotgun and pellet counting knowledge?

I see you backed away from that wild claim you made earlier when you said this about your "Lead is Toxic. Toxic = Bad." statement:



It would be impossible for you to support that lame excuse to anyone who took the time to actually read that whole post (#434181 on 1/26/16), especially after all of the other posts you made in the Condor thread preceding it. But I guess it was more important to attempt to discredit me than to tell the truth.

If you didn't consider the original North Dakota data on lead fragments in 53 out of 95 packets of ground venison valid, then why did you keep repeating it... along with your many unproven statements about seeing eagles feeding on almost every road killed deer you saw in Wisconsin, comments on eagles feeding on hunter shot deer carcasses or gut piles that are contaminated with lead bullet fragments, and the obviously biased data on the alleged large amount of lead bullet fragments found in gut piles and dead game animals? I didn't miss your actual points within that thread, and neither did craigd or any of the several other guys who disagreed with you.

Besides, we weren't discussing blood lead levels in humans. Your big concern was raptors that had allegedly been getting sick and dying from eating lead tainted ducks and geese until the 1991 ban on lead shot, and then apparently moving on to consuming lead tainted deer and gut piles that were chock full of lead bullet fragments. That, and the problem rifle hunters faced in justifying the continued use of lead bullets.

Since you are such a great ballistics expert Larry, did you ever stop to think about those alleged bullet fragments that supposedly ended up 2 to 3 feet from the wound channel in Dr. Comatzer's junk study? He said that many of these particles that showed up on CT scans were difficult or impossible to locate within the meat because the particles were usually extremely small... down to dust size. So Mr. Ballistics Expert, how does a dust sized fragment of lead take a near right angle turn, and travel so far from the wound channel through muscle, entrails, and other tissue? What is the sectional density of tiny particles and lead dust?

And isn't that exactly why I have said you aren't ready to engage in a discussion on all of the science that is readily available to anyone with an interest... Science that opposes the junk science that you tout, and that was used to support the Federal lead shot ban in 1991? Do you really think I'd just be bluffing about something like that? If you did ten minutes of serious searching, and had the ability to differentiate between good science and agenda driven garbage, you'd quickly realize that you are wrong. But being able to admit you are wrong just isn't in you. You keep demanding something that you couldn't understand and would never accept, and would sooner shoot any messenger who disputes your beliefs. A smart guy like you should understand by now that attempting to dishonestly discredit me isn't going to make me go away.

Gentlemen, gentlemen! This appears to be a heated issue betwixt you. Please take a step back, go burn some powder while taking the aggravation out on some clays, and enjoy your doubles for a couple days. Most clubs are open tomorrow, and it's supposed to be beautiful weather in many places. I for one don't know much on the topic so would enjoy reading a POLITE new thread on the subject. Cheers!

claycrusher, if you are seriously interested in the ongoing lead ammunition dispute, there is a veritable ton of information on both sides of the debate. Here is just one little link that will take you to a page with over 40 other links to research papers and studies that refute much of the anti-lead propaganda that passes as science which is routinely used against shooters and hunters. This is not for Larry. He's too entrenched in trying to discredit anyone who disagrees with him.

http://www.huntfortruth.org/science/scientific-opinions/papersstudies/

You can also do searches on any search engine to find enough reading to keep you busy for months or years. Many of the anti-lead arguments you'll also find are pretty persuasive until you actually use your brain and your other senses to see through conflicting data, unverified opinions passed off as real science, and pure agenda driven Bullshit. In many instances, as with the situation involving the aforementioned North Dakota study by Dr. William Comatzer of the Peregrine Fund, you have to follow the money or do some sleuthing to see what their actual motivations or affiliations are.

Nice to see you are an NRA Patron Life Member. The NRA has been at the forefront in this battle for years, and they are another good source for information on the subject. An NRA membership is the best and cheapest gun insurance any gun owner can buy and membership also gives you $2500 of Firearms Insurance as just one of the member benefits. You also get a magazine subscription that has a lot of information you won't find in other news sources. There is currently a $10.00 discount to join for annual memberships, and in the current political climate and an election year, a lot of new members will send a loud and clear message. Not bad for only $25.00 a year.

https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp?CampaignID=XR020795

Thank you Keith. I've just started waterfowl hunting, always been a deer hunter, so know nothing besides that one cannot use lead.

And Life Memberships are only $500- far cheaper than when I got mine. And upgrades are $250 for another couple weeks, which I took advantage of.

Keith, how about a comment re the effectiveness of #4 lead shot on pheasants? That's the subject of THIS thread.

I see you're avoiding my challenge to actually start a thread with evidence from some contrarian SCIENTIST (that would not be you, nor Craig, nor me for that matter) debunking all the "junk science" surrounding lead in waterfowl. Stupid of you to argue with me about what I've seen, or me with you about what you've seen . . . although I saw a bald eagle in Iowa, just yesterday, feasting on a road-killed deer. Same area where I used to live and hunt 25+ years ago . . . and never saw bald eagles. But that's all anecdotal, not terribly scientific. I've never held up my observations--nor my opinions, for that matter--as good science. The difference between us is that you do.

You remind me of a dog that's in serious need of a bark collar.

Thanks for starting this new thread Larry. It'll take me quite a while to read the good links that you provided, and correlate it to your scientific findings. Disclaimer, snipped and quoted in my prefered method.

I can't for the life of me figure out why you went off topic and mention road-kill. Apparently, the formerly 'good science', your observational opinion, that deer hunters are in a heap of environmental trouble except for their political clout, is now not good enough? Not long ago, you were very adamant that Mr. eagle was likely consuming lead fragments. You make an excellent contrarian scientist, but can I suggest it be contrarian to me for the sake of barking, rather than contrarian to your recent position.

Hey, did you know that all waterfowl/lead shot science has to be 'good' because waterfowl are only hunted in small, concentrated, heavily used areas, and the uplands are always, except for migratory doves, spread over vast, miniscule concentration lead safe zones? Thus, the beauty of #4 lead shot.

I have found that with #4 shot: the right load in the right gun in the right hands is extremely effective. Holds true whether at 20 yards (more open chokes! The right gun) or at 50 yards. Again, using an appropriate gun in the right hands. Added bonus is having to pick little or no shot out of the bird