doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Eagles and lead poisoning

Just read where they found a deceased female Eagle with traces of lead- ingested from a dead elk carcass outside the Yellowstone Park boundaries-- CA- the great anti-gun and anti-hunting State, has already banned lead for big-game hunting, hunters must use the way more expensive copper bullets. What's next from the great State that gave us: "Haight-Ashbury" Piss=headed Hippies and Flower Power drug wasted folk running amuck in their skivvies, etc.

Went back to Hemingway's "True At First Light" to re-read how he left a dead horse for bait in WY (Old Kite)- and later returned to shoot the eagles that came to feed on said carcass--Always wondered how old "Don Ernesto" got away with that- No: "Shoot, Shovel and Shut-up" for old Ernesto- "back in the day"!! RWTF

I'll wave the bullsh*t flag on this one. It's probably just an attempt to outlaw lead bullets for big game hunting nationally. The same B.S. line that was used to mandate non-toxic shot for waterfowl hunting.

At the dump in Kodiak --



In our yard --



There is no shortage of them.

And that is the key. The populations are NOT at risk. Lead poisoning of eagles is only controversial on gun/hunting websites. Elsewhere, it is an indisputable fact. The salient point, however, is that the populations continue to grow and thus lead bullet bans over eagles are unwarranted.

Saw a bald eagle about a month ago eating a dead chicken. Farmer cleaned out his crusty cake manure and had a couple dead chickens the catchers left behind. So he loaded them up into the manure spreader and they ended up out in a field. Apparently bald eagles like Oven stuffers.

So, you�re concluding that if lead is present in an eagle, then it came from a hunter�s lead bullet? The salient point here is that in some circles, hunters are not only blamed, but ridiculed. The indisputable fact is that hunters and gunners may be correct, not automatically wrong.

I've never heard of a study tracking lead levels in live eagles. It seems lead levels are as good an excuse as anything for dead eagles. There seem to be enough of them to allow an authorized kill rate for windmills producing electricity. Wouldn't it be horrible if a Condor flew into one of those?

Where people have traced the source of the lead, yup, it usually is. But if it won't fit with your world view, feel free and unencumbered to invent another one.

Up this way, it's a very common sight to see eagles feeding on deer carcasses along the roadside. Of course, especially at this time of year, it's likely that those are road killed deer and not hunter killed deer. But they do a lot of scavenging.

Can't say I know a lot about the golden eagle population, but the bald eagle population has made a miraculous recovery after DDT was banned and after the ban on lead shot for waterfowl. (Eagles do a lot of scavenging around water.) Used to be the only place we saw them in Iowa was along the Mississippi, and then very rarely. Before I moved to WI in 2010, it wasn't at all unusual to see them some distance from major bodies of water.

I see golden eagles fairly regularly near my cabin. Their main prey appears to be ground squirrels. In fact, I�m not sure I have ever seen one catch or eat anything other than a rodent. They don�t like fish. Some people speculate their preference for mammals is why they were not as affected by DDT as balds.

Not a big fan of the eagle.

In the past I have put up and maintained a bunch of wood duck boxes. But now with eagles present I�m thinking on removing the ones I have up. The eagles have zeroed in on the boxes and are feeding on the adults and young alike.

Given the choice, I would rather have the ducks.

I've got eagles, wood duck boxes, and wood ducks. I'm sure they get a few, but I doubt very many. They sometimes circle our house spying on our own domestic ducks. So far (~7 yrs) they haven't tried for one, but that may change. Everyone has to eat.

If you look at some of the eagle nest cameras on line (Google Decorah eagles for a couple of the better ones), you can look at what they bring to the nest. Lots of squirrels, lots of fish. I saw a duck only one time (mallard). Crows. They seem to be hell on crows. Muskrats. Lots of odds and ends. As I understand it, ducks are a primary winter food, but not a primary summer food.

Here is a video of feeding from yesterday - fish was on the menu https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYC0HzwIhr0

This one should take you to the 24/7 live camera
https://youtu.be/pIEUiJaMPQ4 If not, then go to https://explore.org/livecams and select Decorah eagles.

Brent, I hope your right, but in the last month My brother and I on separate occasions have seen them trying to get the adults and the little ones. Although I didn�t see them catch one I feel sure they have and the harassment has got
To effect the survival.

Before we had them a good friend of mine said his best wood duck hole was duck free since the eagles moved in.

I was use to not seeing a bald eagle. Don�t want to become that way about ducks.

Eagles have made a remarkable recovery in central and eastern Virginia over the past 25 years. I saw one yesterday afternoon when I was driving across the I-95 bridge over the James River in downtown Richmond.

I see them grabbing fish out of the river in front of my cabin on the lower James all the time. I also see them feeding on various roadkill. Wounded game would be only a very minor part of their diet. At any rate, their numbers are increasing here.

Willie, I am sure individual birds will do unique things. There is no such thing as "the average" eagle.

I watch them kill ducks during the winter on almost a daily basis where small flocks are insisting on staying in a small hole they keep ice-free all winter.

I doubt seriously that the wood duck hole phenomenon was eagles - probably not even the hunter , but why blame the eagle and not the hunter? Birds shift, habitat changes. Lots of possible explanations. Could be Great Horned Owls.

Eagle diets are undoubtedly extraordinarily well documented and described in the literature. That's the place to get an informed answer.

Your probably right Brent. I think the two on my farm have focused on wood duck boxes as I have around twenty of them up and maintained. To bad because I love watching the little ones leave the box. The eagles work around a 1200 acre areaon my farm. They have a nest but I have never seen more than two. The guy with the pond he called a woodduck hole, has around twenty working his area. I Don't doubt him for a minute.

Guess it's just bad luck.

Pfft one dead eagle from lead poisoning.

Upper Mississippi sees a lot more than that around deer season. USFWS gather them for analysis.



There has been a push for quite awhile now to ban lead bullets the Secretary of the Interior just overturned a ban on lead bullets a couple of years ago that was based on protecting Eagles. But imagine it is only a matter of time before it happens. Despite the fact that the population of Eagles has been rapidly expanding.

Have mainly baldies here, some Golden in the winter. The Golden are in the bluffs an hour or so away from the river. I live an hour from the Miss. and there are several pairs of resident baldies that fly over the house all the time.

I shoot Eagles. In the winter they will take a coot they are welcome to all they can eat as far as I care. Most of the time prefer fish if they can get it.





They would rather steal from each other than work for their own given the chance. And as someone else mentioned have seen dozens of them pick through manure in a field after it has been spread.

This field is a quarter mile from my house and this juvi was picking apart a road kill deer.



While these other 2 decided fighting each other was more important.



Given half a chance they would rather be a scavenger or thief than work for food from what I have observed.

Seems Iowa newborns, urban and rural, have similar elevated lead blood levels. Do they get it by ingesting lead shot gut piles, or do their mom's have well documented cravings while they're expecting?

Maybe, the science shows that there are environmental sources of lead. Maybe, the various fish and critters that eagles feed on have similar environmental lead exposure sources that babies do. But, I agree with you, regardless of what the science says, the important thing is to stigmatize hunters and shooters, eh?

Good thing BPCR ranges are in urban areas away from wildlife, and all have gone to lead free bullets.

Craig, you aren't making much sense. But carry on. BTW, the range here is pretty much in town.

If you have any more hysterical exaggerations and tall tales, air them all out. But I am more interested in documented, or at least well reasoned, discussions.

And for sure, if it is lead from firearms, it is important to deny it and belittle anyone that actually is interested in the truth and the facts.

Sorry about belittling you Brent, you seem to switch the victim role on and off. Isn't normal, confidence that exudes toxic masculinity? Just kidding, besides, I'm the hysterical exaggerator and tall taler.

I wasn't denying just curious, why do a high percentage of Iowa newborns have an elevated lead blood level? Metoo Brent, you have many good points to offer, but I am more interested in documentation and well reasoned discussion, when things start getting comingled with feelings. I'm glad your range is in town, it would be hypocritical to think otherwise.

Yeah, you really can't help yourself. I understand it when you don't have a leg to stand on. It's all you have left.

I have a theory about lead. I think the whole anti-lead movement is hogwash. When a dead animal is found to contain traces of lead there is a rush to the conclusion that the animal died of lead poisoning.

Lead poisoning is a real thing, and it is a very ugly thing to watch happen to a human. But, it occurs only after a lifetime of repeated daily exposure to lead fumes or lead oxide. It will not occur from ingesting metallic lead in the form of bullets or shot.

Also, the idea that carrion eating animals ingest lead from hunter's bullets in gut piles smacks of a complete lack of knowledge of how things work. I have hunted for a lot of years and killed a lot of deer and other animals. So, I will speak only form my experience, which I think is a fair sampling. I will make a conservative estimate, from my observations, that 90% of the deer I have killed have no bullets or fragments remaining in their bodies. I try very hard to keep my bullets that I shoot at deer OUT of their guts. 90% are total clean passthroughs. Another 9% are passthroughs with some degree of fragmentation so there is a slight possibility that a tiny amount of lead did not exit the animal. I have recovered about 1% of the bullets (pieces) that I have shot at deer.

So, bullets in gut piles? Hogwash. Bullets in dead animals that were not found? Hogwash.

We may hunt waterfowl with only non-lead shot. Whether it be in the arctic, the great plains, or coastal marshes. Waterfowl. To my knowledge the only restrictions on lead shot in an area are the coastal marshes. Doves, quail, pheasants, anything else may be hunted with lead shot except of course while you are hunting waterfowl. So, lead shot is being used in the same areas that waterfowl frequent but are simply not being actively hunted with it.

Anyone who has actually set foot in a coastal marsh soon finds out that the water is about 1' deep and the mud is about ... well it goes to the center of the earth as far as I know. Lead is heavy. Your pocket knife is heavy. Drop your pocket knife in the coastal marsh and neither you or a mud eating shoveler is going to get it back. The same thing happens with lead shot. It hits the mud and keeps on going. Ducks just simply don't have the ability to dive into 3' of mud to gag down lead shot.

As a duck hunter who has lived and hunted in both the lead shot world and the non-lead shot world I can say that the number of ducks that have flown away, swam away or simply gotten away crippled from the use of steel shot is far greater than the number I have killed with lead shot total.

So, any reason to not use lead shot, is pure Hogwash.

Biting into a lead shot hurts and is not recommended. Biting into a steel shot will break a tooth and cost $250 - $2000 depending on which tooth and what has to be done. That's Hogwash too! Because it doesn't have to be that way.

I've seen sporting clays courses set up over water. They use lead shot. When there is no shooting there are ducks and other water birds out there all the time. Those ducks aren't ingesting lead? No, they're not, ...

Because it's all Hogwash.

That's my theory.

Leaded gasoline is another story. Elemental lead vaporized in the heat of an internal combustion engine and deposited on the roadway, washes into the bar ditch and does indeed contaminate the soil and plants and anything that ingests those plants. But the entire bar ditch could be covered with lead shot and it would not do the same thing.

Alan

Brother, I hate to say this but judging an animal based on it's evolutionarily developed method of food gathering is foolish anthropomorphism of the highest degree. There is no "better" or more "noble" method of gathering food. There is just what it is.

They contribute to the food chain and ecosystem regardless of how they gather food. They have their place. As do all animals. What we should be watching for is excessive population loss or gain based on man's influence on the environment. Not judging one animal's worth based on a food gathering method we would prefer not to use ourselves.

Yup

Incorrect. There are many "areas" where you cannot hunt ANYTHING with lead shot. Example: All federal WPA's (Waterfowl Production Areas). Even if you're only hunting pheasants (or whatever else) on any WPA anywhere in the country, you are restricted to nontoxic shot only.

There are also "area" restrictions under state law. In Iowa, for example, there are several counties in which ALL public hunting areas are nontoxic shot only. Quite a bit of public land in South Dakota is also restricted to nontoxic shot only, even if you're hunting pheasants rather than ducks. In Wisconsin, if you hunt doves on DNR land, you must use nontoxic shot.

Add them up, there are quite a few areas--primarily (but not all) areas used by waterfowl--where, even if you're not hunting waterfowl, you can't use lead shot. Last season, my hunting partner and I shot several pheasants on a public area in Iowa. In that particular county, there was no county-wide restriction on lead shot on public hunting areas. But we had to use nontox on that specific area. Clearly marked with signs indicating the restriction.

Whatever else we might choose to do to continue to use lead shot (which I use in all my upland hunting wherever it's legal), we're beating our heads against the wall if we think we're going to do anything about the nontoxic shot rule for waterfowl. Or, in many places, nontoxic only restrictions on areas used by waterfowl. We lost that battle long ago. What works for the pro-lead side of the argument: Under current regulations, the EPA has been denied the authority to make any rules on lead ammunition. As long as that rule stands, we're pretty much safe from any further nontoxic restrictions out of DC. However, the states can do pretty much whatever they decide to do--which can be pretty darned restrictive if you happen to live in California. So focus on fighting your battles at the state level. And demand "good science" from those who would push to further restrict lead ammunition.

We tried good science in CA and we got crap back from our legislators such as, "hunters are poisoning the homeless population by donating wild game to homeless shelters because the game meat is contaminated with lead." You can't make this stuff up.

Oh no disagreement brother canvasback ;-)

My point was that given a chance Eagles will be eating deer that are shot and never recovered over most any other food source available. And there a LOT of deer that are shot and never recovered.

The USFWS picture of the dead Eagles I posted is from Wisconsin where rifles are used for deer hunting. On the other side of the River in SE Mn. it is restricted to shotgun slugs. Rifle bullets fragment easily and it doesn't take much lead to kill an Eagle, or Loon. They find a lot more dead Eagles on the Wi. side than the Mn. side of the River.

For what ever reason those 2 avian species are extremely sensitive to lead poisoning, it doesn't take much lead to kill them. It does not require a long term exposure to lead like it does most people, it is kryptonite to them.

Guess should get back to work, someplace out there someone has solved the same problem I am working on. And posted the code to do so. Time to use google and copy and paste. I didn't work this hard to get to the top of the food chain to reinvent the wheel. I have no problem scavenging the work of someone that parked a solution to my problem in the public domain. I believe most people given a chance pick the low hanging fruit.

There is also the truth that many eagles scavenge dump sites to eat the carcasses of dead domestic animals which are put to death with toxic drugs. the drug is then ingested and over time the eagle gets sick or dies.
Some dump sites use the practice of making sure they bury these animals because of the poisons but most don't only because of laziness.

Laws in Iowa about burying dead livestock are pretty strictly enforced.

Again, I try to only speak from experience. I've never hunted public land or on a WMA, so I don't know about them. Some years ago I hunted doves on some properties that TPW had under their control. We used lead shot to hunt doves and squirrels. If we had gone back to hunt ducks we would have had to use steel shot on the same property.

Alan

Like everything in politics, it's a numbers game. Hunters in CA . . . you don't have the numbers. You can play the squeaky wheel, but you're more like off a baby carriage than a big old hunter's 4 WD truck.

The problem with lead shot and "experience" is that the rules are different from state to state. If you're somewhere you're unfamiliar with the rules, make sure you read and understand them. Telling the game warden it isn't that way where you're from won't work.

Oh, I'm pretty big on rule following. There's enough of Texas for me to hunt in. But, yes, I understand.

Alan

A bald eagle that ingests lead shot is in trouble, more so than just about any other bird species. The physiology of bald eagles breaks down lead/antimony alloy very efficiently, due to strong stomach acids. Shot that would pass through other creatures ends up in a bald eagle�s bloodstream.
That said, there will be most of a dozen of them, hanging with the crows, on any road killed deer or moose north of about highway 95 in Minnesota.

There is absolutely no shortage of them.


Best,
Ted

Ted,
It is not just strong stomach acids. In reality it is the crop gizzard where pebbles and bullets or pellets reside for long periods while they are ground away and then easily absorbed into the blood stream. A pellet or two will kill any bird but in a human or other mammal, it will pass through, largely undigested and thus fairly harmless as a rare event.

Well, if they are that fragile and there are that many lead laden carcasses laying around , I'm surprised there's a one of them left.


Alan

Maybe, you could clarify some confusion that I have about this.

We're told that Eagles, which consume lead laced gut piles and lost lead shot game animals, succumb to lead poisoning quickly. Thus, the pictures of stacked dead Eagles, collected during the fall hunting season. How does that reconcile with the reality that one or two lead pellets require long periods in the gizzard of an Eagle to result in lethal blood levels of lead?

Apparently, lethal blood levels of lead have not been established in Eagles, or so says sources like Soar Raptors. Where can I learn about the absolute avian lethality of one or two lead pellets, from I would assume hunters and shooters? Is it settled science that only lead discharged from a firearm is toxic to birds, or was the one to two pellet example used for emphasis?

While not as commonly toxic to Eagles as lead, are birds susceptible to copper and zinc poisoning? I ask because copper and brass are likely components of lead free bullets. Do you think that while rare to less common, that scientific fact could result in calls for or actual banning of the use of current lead free hunting bullets?

It would appear, based on measuring lead levels in various species of birds, that some are more tolerant than others. Woodcock, for example--per a study by the University of Wisconsin--often show extremely high lead levels. Yet none of the birds studied had lead pellets in their digestive system. And the researchers could not determine the source of the lead. Given what woodcock eat (worms), it only seems logical that they would ingest lead because the soil in which the worms live contains lead, from a variety of sources.

The gizzard in an eagle not only performs the task of primary digestion, by grinding up harder to digest food, but also forms pellets of indigestible substances. Within 24 hours of ingestion these pellets form and travel back to the mouth where they are vomited out and expelled. The usual substances contained in them are hair, feathers, and sometimes bone. Can someone explain to me why a lead fragment would not be included in the substances that an eagle cannot digest, and would not be expelled like all other indigestibles within 24 hours or so?

SRH

Stan, ever seen an eagle cough pellet?

Ever seen gravel, very very worn gravel in a gizzard?

What is a lead shot pellet more similar too, a feather or gravel?

You guys can read the biology literature as well as anyone else. Look it up, because nothing that anyone tells you here that you don't want to hear is going to change your preformed minds. There is a lot of data out there on all of these aspects - if you really want to know.

What makes you think I have preconceived opinions about it?

What causes you to lump me in with any particular group on this issue?

Could it be narrow-mindedness on your part, because we disagree on other issues at times?

There is lots about this issue I don't understand. We have many bald eagles, and the highest deer population one could imagine at the same time. Deer limits here are 10 deer per season, plus thousands shot during the crop growing months on depredation permits. How come, given all the deer killed here with lead based bullets, and buckshot, there are no lead poisoned eagles ever found here?


SRH

We just want to know what your end game is Brent. Eagles on occasion will ingest lead (from a variety of sources) and possibly die, no one is disputing that. However, those deaths are statistically insignificant for the population as a whole, and are inconsequential to the population growth of the species.

If you are a calling for an across the board lead ban, just say so. At least we would then know what your ultimate motive is.

You really can't help yourself, huh, Brent. What's a preformed mind?

Sure there's lots of data out there, but I'm still unclear. Where's the Eagle time/abrasion charts for lead shot in a gizzard? Are any adjustments made for gizzard size, tone and acid production? Is there an optimum lead shot size efficacy study for one vs. two pellets? Is there any correlation with velocity of the pellet/pellets at the time of intake?

I have read the data that a high percentage of Iowa newborns have an elevated lead blood level. Having missing or certainly underdeveloped gizzards at the time of birth, do human babies have access to a source of lead that birds do not? Never mind, I read up on that, you should read up the agendas that results from selective reading.

Mike, glad to see I was just dense and misunderstood you. Now get back to work sourcing code. LOL

The bald eagle population is indeed rising, as it is still recovering from the DDT era, during which they and many other birds high on the food chain virtually disappeared from the Lower 48. Purely from an ethical standpoint, however, I would argue that dying of ingested lead poisoning is a crappy way for any creature to die, and that alone is enough to inform my choice of ammo.

Further, lead vapor travels well beyond the wound channel in a game animal, and well into the meat we eat. As a Californian affected by all our absurd new gun laws, I hate to abandon all my older rifle ammo, but in this case I think it is the right thing to do, for the people who eat my venison, and for the condors and eagles which may eat the gut pile.

How is it that people that survive(ed) on game killed by lead bullets, buckshot, etc and didn't all just die off in droves?

If they found you dead in the woods and your blood was tested high for lead what would your cause of death be?

What if they found an eagle dead in the woods and its blood was tested high for lead. You figure out the rest about scientific data.

If the family of the deceased really wanted to know, I expect a coroner could examine the body and give them a pretty good idea. Lots better science where human cause of death is concerned. And it would be very unusual to test an adult human and find the lead level above the CDC's level of concern. Unless maybe he'd been living on a diet of lead paint chips or something. Back in 2008, blood samples were drawn from 736 volunteers in North Dakota. 80% of them stated that they had eaten wild game. NONE of those blood samples showed a blood lead level above the CDC's recommended threshold.

In the area where I jump shoot woodducks, I can say categorically, when there are eagles in the air, there are no wood ducks to be found.

Mergus

Sorry, maybe I am being too obtuse.

Of course they would check further for your cause of death and maybe find out you died of a brain aneurysm then that would be your cause of death not lead poisoning, of course.

However if you were an eagle and had bad eyes (I am joking here) and ran into a tree and died of a brain aneurysm but they checked your blood and it had a high content of lead you would be counted (I am not joking now) in the study for lead poisoning from eating dead deer carcasses.

The statistic is convenient for the college professor who is doing a study paid for by the university or government or even an organization who champions animal rights.

We have Turkey Vultures and Caracaras here The leading cause of premature death is automobiles. Every year in Texas, on the first weekend of November, there is likely enough gut piles and lost deer and hog carcasses to wipe out the entire population of carrion eaters. But, there they are year after year, populations increasing.

Some folks get on the anti lead wagon and it's just too hard to let it go as Junk Science. They just have to have something to be against and lead is as good a target as any.

Anyway, like I said earlier, most rifle shots pass through and there is little or not lead in the gut piles. People do not intentionally shoot animals in the guts. In fact they try very hard not to do so.

Alan

If its anything like here, most of the eagles in the past that died from lead poisoning was by direct injection.

O.M

To a scientist, junk science is badly done research, usually with the aim of supporting a social, political, financial, or religious agenda. The classic junk science was the 'data' showing that vaccination causes autism, or that smoking does not cause cancer. A lot of social 'science' is junk because the methods are designed to support a (usually left-leaning) political agenda.

To the public, junk science is an accusation hurled at solid scientific research which suggests that we should change old habits for the good of other people or the environment. Rush Limbaugh is not the most qualified judge of scientific merit or integrity. The science behind birds and ingested lead has been solid for 50 years. Calling it junk because there are still vultures in the sky is just saying that you want to continue using lead because you don't like the alternatives.

I don't like them either, but I do like condors and am willing to use copper bullets to help them recover from the brink of extinction. I must be a junk scientist.

They can't explain because their entire theory is bull chit.

Seems they easily fool fools.

Does eagle taste like chicken Teddy'bOy?

Just because some junk science has been repeated for 50 years does not make it credible.

The use of steel shot did not save the ducks. Ducks Unlimited buying up wetlands and breeding grounds saved the ducks.

And no, changing old habits that work for the sake some feel good idealism is not a good thing, nor is it a good precedent to set for posterity.


Alan

What if someone's walking along and finds a bunch of dead eagles. Is there any standard of care for the carcasses to preserve the harvested samples, transport, storage, testing? What if the someone forgets to mention that they were found at the base of a windmill? What if the best way to get dramatic pictures is to make a quick stop at a row of turbines before the power company clean up crew makes their rounds?

LGF

I notice from your address line that you live in Kenya.
As an old expat, having lived in Kenya in the 1970's, let me give you an answer with some of my thoughts:

I agree with your first sentence in its entirety. But then you went fully offline.
I take it from your first remark that you are scientist?
Well, I am not a scientist, but let me give you a personal statistic

I am 73 years of age and have smoked since the age of 14 - 40 cigs a day by the age of 18, 100 a day for most of my life - about 50-60 a day nowadays.
None of my children, ex-wifes (although that is a different story & would mostly have been agreeable) - dogs or anyone I have ever been in contact with has died an early death because of my - or anyone elses - smoking.
My parents (and all of my family - as well as everyone we knew) smoked all of their lives - I'm sure my mother smoked in the Hospital when I was born! - and both died at the ripe old age of 81.

I have also during most of my life lived 'dangerously' (as some would call it now) - apart from smoking (which was always a 'normal' activity)- hunting dangerous animals in Afrika on foot, sailing single handed halfway around the world & a few other such endeavours.

I am a great believer in people making their own life (only do it! - don't look to other people to do it for you!)

Also, I do not remember people in the 60's/70's , when everybody smoked everywhere, that people fell over dead in the, then, very smoky nightclubs, pubs or restaurants that I frequented.

The same goes for 'lead' in my opinion - rather look at the chemical & other industries for that.

These industries produce so much 'poisenous' byproducts (because so many people need so much of their products) - if there were 50% of the existing population, half or less of that would be needed and less damage would be done.

So much for 'science having been solid for 50 years' - relating to smoking, 'lead' or otherwise.

As I said before - the only 'solid' science is that there are too many people on this planet & any and every problem we have stems from that fact!

In case you want to check on my credentials, I give my full name here

Gunter H. Maskort
(Kenya Centre Fire Pistol Champion (ISU) 1975)
Kenya Regiment Rifle Club 1975
Kenya Rifle Association 1975 (Brian 'Hawkeye' Hawkins)
Bamburi Rifle Club Mombasa 1974 (Founder Member)
British Pistol Club Life 1974
Nat'l Pistol Assn of Great Britain 1979 (Founder Member)
NRA (USA) Life 1974


Edit: LGF - re-reading your post I am not sure whether I read you correctly? I'm afraid your writing is a bit confusing!
Are you now for or against junk science? I am confused...


Edit again - after rereading your post again very carefully I can only conclude that this is the ususal obfuscation of pseudo-scientists! - make it look so that either side can use it for their arguments (unless one reads very carefully!)

Forever the cynic, I say lead bullet bans are primarily just another attempt to obstruct hunting through never-ending hyper regulations.

Accepting eagles and certain birds are extremely vulnerable to lead poisoning doesn�t mean a blanket lead ban is warranted. Nobody wants birds to die or to poison their friends and families. Determining best practices for field dressing and butchering would probably solve most of the problems. Maybe limited bans are warranted in specific locations at specific times. Let the State wildlife agencies manage it like everything else. Your antagonists at the Federal level will ban lead in areas that don�t even hold bald eagles or condors.

"I am 73 years of age and have smoked since the age of 14 - 40 cigs a day by the age of 18, 100 a day for most of my life - about 50-60 a day nowadays.
None of my children, ex-wifes (although that is a different story & would mostly have been agreeable) - dogs or anyone I have ever been in contact with has died an early death because of my - or anyone elses - smoking.
My parents (and all of my family - as well as everyone we knew) smoked all of their lives - I'm sure my mother smoked in the Hospital when I was born! - and both died at the ripe old age of 81.

I have also during most of my life lived 'dangerously' (as some would call it now) - apart from smoking (which was always a 'normal' activity)- hunting dangerous animals in Afrika on foot, sailing single handed halfway around the world & a few other such endeavours.

I am a great believer in people making their own life (only do it! - don't look to other people to do it for you!)

Also, I do not remember people in the 60's/70's , when everybody smoked everywhere, that people fell over dead in the, then, very smoky nightclubs, pubs or restaurants that I frequented.

The same goes for 'lead' in my opinion - rather look at the chemical & other industries for that."



Well....sounds like your anecdotal evidence is very convincing...to bad the tobacco industry lawyers didn't have you as a witness decades ago. You would have saved them billions....lol

Does anyone here actually believe this bullshit from the long-time anti-lead ammunition advocate BrentD??? Pretty hard to watch eagles killing ducks on a daily basis when you are also working at Iowa State and spending a great deal of time here on Doublegunshop being an expert on most everything. I call BULLSHIT on this statement. However, when you lack credibility, anything is worth a shot.



But just when you think the anti-lead bullshit can't get any deeper, another environmentalist wacko says this:



Hahaha... Wow folks, you saw it here first! Lead vapors from bullets going into meat! That's a new one that even the discredited wacko Ben Deeble would be proud of! It wasn't enough for anti-lead activists to claim that hundreds of lead fragments were laced throughout large numbers of deer and gut piles, going far beyond the wound channel. Now we have this "expert" proclaiming that lead bullets actually VAPORIZE well beyond wound channels to contaminate our venison.

Larry, BrentD, and LGF... Different circus... Same clowns! Some things never change. I'd suggest that newer members and readers delve into several past anti-lead diatribes from these three.

quote:
Well....sounds like your anecdotal evidence is very convincing...to bad the tobacco industry lawyers didn't have you as a witness decades ago. You would have saved them billions....lol unquote


Well - never too late hehe - could use some extra cash with the cigarette prices being what they are nowadays
regards
Gunter

Seems to me what makes that "junk science" credible is the fact that no one has ever shown me any scientists--as in waterfowl biologists who were working on that issue--who will say it was junk science. You can find scientists who are "climate change deniers", although they're in a minority. So, where are the "lead ban deniers", and where is their scientific evidence that questions the claim that ducks were dying from ingesting lead shot? Easy enough for me to say "Well, I don't believe it!" But I'm not a scientist. I find it really hard to believe that all those waterfowl biologists bought into lead ban junk science--hook, line, and sinker. That stretches common sense. It's like P.T. Barnum said: You can't fool all the people all the time.

If we can discuss absolutes, why pivot to climate change? How about sticking with Eagles, the topic of the converstaion?

If someone were so concerned about the purity of science, why would you belittle people by bringing up the term denier? Wouldn't good science ask the question, why do Eagle lead poisoning 'research' organizations always link to antihunting groups under the guise of advocating for lead free hunting projectiles? Why do wildlife and land management agencies throughout the nation use these organiztions in their footnote references when creating policy?

What prevents us from insisting that the same type of science that, for example, brings us a life saving medicine be used? A big pharma funded study can be key to bringing a medication to the market, but that is noted as a clear disclaimer, not woven into the research report as advertising. Would you want a loved one to do elective heart surgery based on a report with a handful of examples, the way we can consider infringing on all hunting based on xrays of a handful of gut piles?

I know you're absolutely correct about the clown analogy. Brent told us flat out that the Eagles as a whole are not at risk due to lead hunting projectile ingestion, yet some vigorously defend the science brought to us by antihunting and antishooting advocates. No one ever said we had to fool all of the people, only enough to control the agenda, in other words a minority.

Speaking of good reading for new board members, here is one of my favorite threads on the forum and a quote from Pocono Bill describing his hacking into forum a forum members hard drive.



read the full thread here:

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=535239&page=4

Glad to see you are back posting Billie. Hope your finally got your horse back in the barn. Have great day,
Steve

There is empirical evidence that half the US electorate, take your pick, will believe in almost anything. On this board, absolutely. Two of my under-10-year-old great-grandchildren tune to US politics as I used to turn to the comics. It's entertaining. They have opinions.

If they really want a laugh have them tune into Brussels.


__________________________
To paraphrase Public Enemy�The EU is a joke.

There is empirical evidence that a ten year old mind still has the chance to reason, if their roll models and educators didn't get their science from comic books.

😭

Uh... That was Abe Lincoln. P. T. Was "there's a sucker born every minute."

Probably more fitting for the followers of junk science.

Alan

This was pretty good for a laugh, but 200 million voted, so you are gambling that the voting public is a random sample of the entire public. I think that's a bit much. Perhaps the more perceptive Americans never even went to the polls, the choice being so awful.

But you do have a valid point nonetheless.

All of you conspiracy theorists are doing a rather poor job of bolstering your case. We are still waiting and will be waiting for an eternity for evidence that lead was not harmful to ducks at a population level. Meanwhile, every waterfowl biologist knows that as a simple fact, much like knowing the Earth is spherical, that the sun comes up in the east, and so forth, ingested lead kills waterfowl (and eagles). The data is overwhelming.

It also an interesting observation, at least to me, that all the waterfowl biologists I know of and have met are duck hunters - save one. And he was the supervisor and founder of the university's Ducks Unlimited Student Chapter, and thus a rather ardent if nonparticipatory supporter of the hunting of ducks.

So if this is all "junk" science, and a conspiracy to end hunting etc etc, you "junkers" and deniers (not derogatory - simply descriptive) have a lot of work cut out for yourselves.

Frankly, the science behind lead in waterfowl beats "Big Pharma" drug science a hundred times over. The reasons for that, are of course, blindingly obvious, and I am quite certain you are not so unintelligent to not see that, craig, so why the pretense? Yes, you can say anything you wish, but your credibility is pretty much shot.

Pony up. Let's see the literature. I've posted a fair number of studies on this topic in the past, so I've already got a long head start on you. Now it is your turn.

The choice was a no brainer. We absolutely could not allow Hillary Clinton the power of the presidency.

The choice in the next election is a no brainer too.

Alan

King�s goofy grandkids should get a good chuckle when Trump is re-elected.


__________________________
Get �em oot playing street hockey with Sid, King. He�s available.

It's an honor to discuss things with you because of your credibilty. Heck Brent, climate change was mentioned. What would make me think big pharma was yet another dog whistle for lefties? Only a hundred times, eh, a thousand would feel quite a bit more impressive.

You've forgotten, lonesome. My grandsons played street hockey with Sid. "He always won," they complained, "five-against-one."

ARM, the no -brainer is in the White House.

I am sticking with eagles. Simply using climate change as a comparison. Scientists with credentials are in the climate change minority (since you don't like the word "denier", Craig). Where are the scientists who were in the minority when the lead ban on waterfowl was passed? It was controversial mainly because the alternatives to lead shot (early steel loads) weren't nearly as effective. Not because anyone was hauling out evidence to make their case that ingesting lead didn't kill ducks. And as far as eagles go, Brent is indeed correct in pointing out that on a population-wide scale, lead does not pose a danger. The unfortunate problem, however, is that the eagle is our national symbol. Thus, even one dead eagle is going to make news. And those who oppose lead ammunition will use the eagle as their poster bird. On our side, we can respond that we do not manage wildlife populations (unless they're endangered) based on the fate of individual members of that species. We manage them based on the health of the population as a whole. And that example makes "our side" a winner where eagles are concerned, when it comes to "good science". But we still end up losers because of the emotional tug one dead eagle can exert. I don't know whether a large number of vultures die due to ingesting lead. And the point is: Who cares? But people DO care about dead eagles, even if the population continues to increase in spite of all the eagles that die from all the various things that kill them. We win on science but lose on emotion. It remains to be seen how that battle will play out as far as our ability to shoot lead ammunition is concerned.

Yea, but, leading the country in the best economic times it has ever experienced in history. You care to explain how the two hero�s of the left, Carter, and Obama, had better economies. Just for you, it is rhetorical. Save the answer for some idiot that cares.
A vast right wing conspiracy like the Trump economy is something I can get behind, just like a wall.

Best,
Ted

I think we're in complete agreement about the ineffectiveness of scientific arguement influencing agenda driven policy. As you know from the past, I've tended to question the emotional benefit enthusiastically handed to the antis, when they can count on some hunters and shooters graying the lines.

If it's okay, I'd mix in thoughts about your comments. In this day and age, I think it's a mistake to think that some sense of nationalism is driving sympathy for the death of an eagle. In simplified terms, the eagle manages to be a useful tool for the antihunting agenda, not just the lead is a demon increment. Do any of the raptor advocacy organizations display the Stars and Stripes?

When you ask who cares about vultures, shouldn't 'we'? Isn't condor the name given some species of vulture? Doesn't California policy pressure policy for the rest of the nation. Isn't the condor the sole reason legislation was introduced to ban lead projectile use in its range, which apparently has morphed into a hunting lead ban for the entire state?

What remains to be seen, the inevitable? As to digging up studies, haven't we been on that merry-go-round before? Isn't there a tendency to either dismiss or ignore? For the purposes of antihunting and gun control legislation, can you produce any studies that show the emotion that you pointed out can be countered with science? 'We' might study how they play the game.

Caution Ted, he's very emotional about the jimmy-n-barack economies.

Well done Ted!

Craig, you've wandered far and wide there. Raptor organizations flying the stars and stripes . . .why should they? Have they made a commitment to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic . . . or only to defend raptors? You might say they're being more honest in not flying the Stars and Stripes than are some private sector businesses who do so for . . . well, mainly because it's good for business?

And you just turned the condor into a red herring. The only reason we "care" about the condor is the same reason we "care" about all endangered species: Because it's endangered.

We didn't dismiss or ignore the studies showing that the ingestion of lead was killing ducks, did we? But we might not have been as willing to accept the evidence presented in those studies if other scientists had done studies presenting evidence to the contrary. It was an "easy sale" because there was really only one side to the argument.

The anti-hunters make a lot of noise about our cruel sport. Game agencies and conservation organizations counter that noise (which is based mostly on emotion) with studies showing that: a) Hunting is managed in such a way that it does not harm any of the species we hunt. And b) Hunters and the money they pay for licenses and donate to conservation organizations do far more to help the environment than anti-hunters. We seem to be doing a good job of winning those arguments . . . based on science and facts vs emotion.

And here's one for you: In spite of all the school shootings, one sport enjoying phenomenal growth--at least out here in flyover country--is youth trap shooting. Teams sponsored by high schools. You might think that the public would oppose putting guns in the hands of high school students and teaching them to shoot--based on emotion. But there are thousands of kids all over the country doing just that. And it's a darned good thing for the future of hunting. Once you've got kids breaking clay targets, it's only a very short step to turn them into hunters. About the only drawback is the unfortunate fact that most game species aren't as numerous as they have been in the relatively recent past. Pheasants and bobwhites--two very popular gamebirds--being good examples of that problem.

Honestly Larry, I'm not of the opinion that the best of American culture and traditions be switched on and off for convenience. It's awkward to appease an unfortunate problem under the guise of honesty. Truly a happy Easter to you and yours. God bless America and the best of its exceptionalism.

Ted, Start by reading the National Enquirer. Fox News is the National Enquirer of broadcast "journalism". If making money is your criteria for supporting a President, then Trump may be your guy. If you have grandchildren, you might want to start trying to figure out how you'll explain to them that you gave your support to a man who destroyed the future of their planet. If Trump wins a second term, it will be hard to imagine a future for democracy. Yes, I know the alt right disagrees. But they're too stupid to do otherwise.

When you sit with your grandkids at the dinner table, which one of the nineteen and growing do you want them to worship as the savior of the planet? I suppose you can pick more than one, but you can't roll your eyes when they ask, grandpa, how come white people can't help save the planet.

I have yet to see a single example of Donald J. Trump destroying anything, much less a planet.

What did you teach, hyperbole? You�re good at it.

Best,
Ted

pretty much obvious that CNN has handily out performed national enquirer - Fox news isn�t even in the running with CNN

I have no love for any of the current Democrat candidates but that was a pathetic comment even for you Craig. White people can't save the planet? What is wrong with you? Really?