I really like my hammergun with a Jones Underlever, even if it does confuse people used to an O/U.

I've managed to get three shooters at my local skeet club to take their first steps down the SxS path. I doubt they'll go down the path as far as Damascus barrels and 2 1/2" chambers, but I will continue enabling and corrupting them.

I give the guys from Holt's credit. They are making a strong, professional, run at promoting SxS shooting and vintage guns.
Jonny has a talent, and I'm glad to see it's development in that venue, on this topic.

Also, I'm going to try a new non-lead, alloyed pellet from Spain next week. It should allow the use of vintage guns with choke on game.

As if it were not already possible? I've been using non-tox shot in my tightly choked vintage doubles for over 15 years, with much success I might add. Made in the USA, too.

If it's Bio-Ammo Blue read what Diggory Hadoke has to say https://www.vintageguns.co.uk/magazine/an-unscientific-study

Did he actually say anything? It read like he shot poorly and his loader changed cartridges to allow him to make the bag.
Non lead is here to stay, so we should celebrate and support, the development of better, non lead alloys.

Before people get started, it’s their country, and they are able to have all the rules that they want without concern for what we think.

If it`s Bioammo Blue 25gr ,I think you`ll find it works fine ,as long as you don`t miss !!!!

So what is the alloy they are using in Bioammo Blue? I haven't seen it explicitly stated anywhere.

@ The blend of Aluminium, Tin, Bismuth and Zinc has the advantage of being softer than steel.
Copied from a scribe hound article.

His loader changed the cartridges from the Bio-Ammo Blue to lead and his "shooting" results improved. Dig is a hell of a good game shot - I've shot on the same line as him on a driven shoot day in the UK and seen him in action. I'd put money that his "shooting" improved because the lead cartridges performed better than the Bio-Ammo Blue.

Yes, I think that’s how it’s going to be.
Plenty of estates have already adopted non lead cartridges. Plenty of evidence being sold off game carts.
Looks like they work just fine.
Not sure what the consensus is on high birds.

I was curious about this myself, so I did a little digging to see what I could learn. The best information I was able to find in one source was this article:

https://www.shootinguk.co.uk/reviews/ammunition/non-toxic-ammunition

Straight away, we see that Bioammo Blue shot is 25% less dense than lead. While softer than steel and a little less brittle than bismuth, it is still quite a bit harder and more brittle than lead. They are launching it at pretty high velocity to attempt to make up for it's ballistic shortcomings. I didn't find any reference to chamber pressure produced, so I'd assume it is near C.I.P. maximum until I knew for sure.

It was nice this review gave some pattern plate results. Thus far, I have had no use or need for non-lead ammo because I am not a waterfowl hunter. So as far as I'm concerned, this stuff is just another more costly and less effective product than lead.

If I pull into a Gas Station, and they are selling a new fuel that promises poorer performance, 25% less mileage, and costs considerably more, I'm moving my truck to a pump dispensing plain old gasoline. But that's just me.

While I agree that non-toxic, non-lead, whatever you want to call it is the future, it should be implemented voluntarily and gradual, not mandated by some city elected official who knows nothing about conservation and wildlife management, and wouldn't know which end of the barrels to put a cartridge in.

I don't know if the next generation of sxs, vintage gun shooters care about, or can even imagine this type of shooting. Strip away the unobtanium shoots for most, is there a solution to getting the new shooter over the ammo sticker shock, or is that a strategy for pushing new shooters out of the game.

We are seeing `death by a thousand cuts` being administered to shooting by organisations which have been stealthily infiltrated by anti shooting people over many years.
Each little victory that they achieve gives opportunity for further curtailment of the pastime and the countryside that we and many before have enjoyed .

I shoot a lot.
At multiple ranges across Mi.

It looks to me like the young have moved to waterfowling from the uplands.
They have never shot much lead.
I regularly hear of younger guns buying cases of steel, and splitting the case.

When visiting a clays ground in a metro area, if you see a younger person, they are of means typically.

So, I’m thinking that the soaring cost of participation has reduced younger participation in the clay sports in this region.

It may not be that way everywhere.

For reference, a non member line of skeet (25 targets) is $5.00, and a box of 20 gauge skeet loads is $10.99 around here.
So, $16.00/line.
That is a 300% increase over 15 years.

Weighing enjoyment/$, there are all kinds of alternatives available.

The science behind lead toxicity still escapes me. It all boils down to bioavailabilty, and "lead shot" (or even lead bullets) isn't a problem for anybody except a few eagles that were eating wounded geese back east. That's the wedge issue that started us done this ridiculous road, but no matter. New Federal rules are coming that will further restrict the use of lead as projectiles. Plan accordingly.

Stan: what non-toxic alternative are you referring to?

Bismuth, occasional KTM if you have some or happen upon it.
Pretty rare to see the light loads in either of those on the shelf anymore.

So you're okay with poisoning thousands of eagles, vultures, condors because you are inconvenienced by nontoxic shot? But you're even wrong about that - the lead ban was instituted because enormous numbers of waterfowl were dying after picking up lead shot from the bottom of ponds as grit in their gizzards. USFWS spend years doing endless studies on that mortality and the decision to ban lead was taken very reluctantly in the face of overwhelming evidence. Of course, there are those among us who label any data we don't like as 'junk science' if it suggests that we need to change old habits or tolerate an inconvenience merely to prevent needless wildlife death and promote conservation. Yes, steel shot causes more crippling but even that has improved greatly since it was introduced. I would much prefer to use lead rather than expensive bismuth in my old guns but not at the cost of causing great waterfowl mortality from starvation after ingested lead prevents them from digesting food. But that's just me.

Only 5 months since our last good lead blow up!
Maybe we could read through here and see if there is something new to say...and if not...don't
https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=627061

Or not. They all get locked eventually.

LGF: I'm suspicious of your assertions here ( thousands?) as I was an EPA contractor in the "lead" wars some 20-years ago where the mining companies challenged the so-called studies being presented as fact by the "regulators" then. They effectively held-off some of the more-onerous requirements. Sadly, there's nobody left to fight what is coming now.

Poisoning thousands of eagles?

https://www.treehugger.com/bald-eagles-no-longer-endangered-5070353

As we all know, lead shot has been banned for waterfowl hunting since the early 1990's. Eagles, Hawks, Owls, and Ospreys are thriving. In fact, eagles are killing each other due to the number of them. Growing up in the 1960's-70's an eagle sighting was a rarity. Now they are a fairly common sighting.

While I feel that the days of lead are numbered, I don't agree with some of the arguments. My feeling has always been that loss of habitat and wetlands, human encroachment, and unchecked predation do far more damage to waterfowl and game populations than lead shot.

Mandated lead shot bans, like we are seeing on some of our Federal Wildlife Refuges/Areas are just political backdoor ways to curtail hunting, price people out of it, or make you find other activities. Hunters have always been the true conservationists. An eventual transition to non-toxic shot/projectiles should be voluntary and gradual, never mandated.

Before Dave locks the door on this thread, anyone care to expound on Simon’s statement (@ 5:20f) that “Muzzle flip with a side by side is down not up.”?

I was scratching my head over that one too. Downward muzzle flip in a SxS. That’s news to me

Sounded like he was saying something about the barrels physically deflecting downwards under firing, but if I remember correctly they oscillate up and down like a wave, not just only down.

And, the cost of the cheap stuff is driving new shooters away? Plus, the march towards three plus dollars a shot is inevitable?

I think many of us can remember a red rider being the best thing ever, point being, there is no conceivable connection to good doubles. I think, know, the next classic and antique enthusiasts are shooting their red riders today, and they look like Glocks and tactical ARs. A few kids will grow up and think, why not pay for a quality double, they've already put a small fortune into trendy things that go bang.

A few of the smart kids will think less of ole papa for letting some great, uniquely American traditions become so eroded. Hey gramps, it's okay, you can keep yourbiden baseball cap, but wanna go out for some rare steak with bacon lunch, my treat.

How many thousands of eagles are you looking the other way, and pretending they are not dead at the base of wind turbines? No, it's not just you, look at your likes. So, what is the more glorious image, dead Goldens scooped before too many pictures are snapped, or the mighty Bald eagle, engrosed in road kill. No, I guess my examples don't work for you, and I'm not even belittling you?

Bismuth, Lloyd. Plain old bismuth. Been around since the 90s. I, for one, don't think it's going away anytime soon.

All my best, SRH

Did the lead that was deposited in those ponds over the last 125 years or so suddenly vanish when non-toxic shot was mandated? Or, do waterfowl not pick up that lead shot anymore?

Inquiring minds want to know.

The science sucks. Always has.


Best,
Ted

Preacher, it is amusing to see you are concerned about repetition concerning the lead ban threats that have the potential to negatively affect both our vintage doubles and future participation in the shooting sports.

The lead ban threads might not get so contentious if it wasn't for easily refuted garbage like LGF posted, that the anti-lead advocates are afraid to answer. For instance, if lead shot was truly killing vast numbers of waterfowl before the ban, then why did the damage stop so abruptly? Large numbers of ducks should still be dying slow deaths since thay are still feeding in the same shot contaminated waters. All of the lead shot deposited in lakes, ponds, estuaries, and swamps over a couple hundred years should still be there. There was no Super Fund cleanup. Many of these migratory birds are wintering in countries where lead shot is still legal too. And they almost totally ignore all of the other environmental sources of lead that is/was in much more bio-available forms, and deposited in far higher quantities.

How about the highly questionable data in all of those non-peer reviewed studies that have been posted here by the anti-lead guys? Most come from rather anti-hunting and very agenda driven sources. We've seen great disparities in what supposedly constitutes lethal blood lead levels in both waterfowl and various raptors. The differences are so stark that you'd have to be blind to accept them as factual and credible. One study these fools cling to cited a sick eagle that had blood lead levels that were said to be so high they were far beyond lethal and literally off the charts. Yet this bird was miraculously strong enough to be found perched in a tree. I'd be embarrassed to believe utter bullshit like that.

In one Thread, our ex-CIA Intelligence Analyst posted a dishonestly edited version of the Audobon Society's position on restrictions on bird hunting. He went on to deny his own quoted post, and got highly pissed when craigd called him out on his edit of the truth. Is it any surprise that civility goes out the window when people pull crap like that? What is even more pathetic is that a few exceptionally thin-skinned guys then whine and cry to Dave Weber in order to get the threads locked or deleted

I’m really sorry to see some say that lead ammunition bans are inevitable. The best way to have that happen is to simply give up the fight, or to vote for the anti-gun Democrats who are behind it.

Those "scientists" want us to believe that, because of the density of lead, it continually works it's way down into the bottom, regardless the soil type, to a depth that makes it eventually inaccessible to feeding waterfowl.


Amen.

More selective outrage and corrupted science...

Arghhh. I tried.
Here's some low-lights of the linked previous thread, which discusses the issue of where lead goes when deposited in water
https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=627061&page=6

1. There is bad science...falsified "science" (which always gets exposed eventually)...and good science
2. Good science withstands critical review and repetition of studies over time
3. IMHO is it highly inappropriate, when we don't like a study, to declare that the researchers are corrupt and compromised. Concern about lead toxicity started in the 60s and was driven by professional wildlife biologists. The professionals I met in Kansas and Missouri were, IMHO, sincerely driven by the best science available (which we all understand changes over time) and, despite resistance from governmental, commercial, "greens", and private landowner interests, obviously with other agendas, tried to do what was best for fish & game, and IMHO were certainly NOT anti-hunting. In retrospect, certainly decisions made by "the management" often turned out to be mistakes.
4. Those of us who have been in academia understand:
a. Your future advancement depends on publishing
b. Your future advancement depends on receiving grants
c. Unless in the sound chamber of woke liberal arts, where your future advancement is in not rocking the boat with reality orientation, much of what you do is prove that other researchers were wrong.
5. So if we don't like a study, please critically analyze the study. Don't impugn the integrity of the professional wildlife biologists and researchers. If they are crooked, or wrong, it will eventually be exposed.

Cue the personal attacks, obligatory rant and locking the thread I'm sure Fauci and the evil FDA - AMA - Big Pharma triad can be worked in somehow

Aargh, such a corrupt and compromised comment, lol?

You touch on a point, then ignored it. Where do grants come from, and who do they go to. I believe it is important to note that most grants of this sort have political awarding policies, and are sought by gov agency political appointees, and academia administrators of a political bent.

I believe you have to address, due to your certainties, the conclusions and policies that result from your "good science" standards. Specifically, why do restrictions, penalties, and progressive goals not follow the science? Are the crooked and wrong eventually exposed, in the context of recreational shooters and sport hunters being outstanding financers and stewards of the environment and wildlife habitat?

Maybe address, why can't critical analysis impugn the integrity of professional wildlife biologists and researchers. I've seen a few of these team leaders, posted in some of the most beautiful and semiremote hunting areas in the US, with their sole career goal to tic of an assignment box, to get back to the DC area. I know it will never happen, but I've always openly wondered why our opening position is to oppose and demonize friends, instead of work with them. We all recognize, understand and use notox shot as we are forced to, maybe work on forcing the science to matter.

Absolutely the "science" suks. And not a single administration in the last 50 years has questioned it and set the record straight. No politician actually does anything more than pay lip service to the shooters to scam their vote.

Eagles are beyond common.

Until convinced otherwise, I’ll maintain that their recovery had NOTHING to do with a lead shot ban, but, tracks very closely with the banning of DDT. Which, should NOT have been banned to the extent it was. It is a very useful pesticide, and, has limited applications where there is certainly nothing better.

You guys all miss the point, every time this comes up. The end goal IS NOT that you will no longer have lead shot, or, bullets. It is that you will no longer be able to hunt, and at that point, will have no reason to own a firearm.

The powers that be are on a longer schedule than you in this endeavor. They are after your children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren. You, don’t matter.

Best,
Ted

To me its a lot like the ethics of handicapping in sports. The market hunters killed enough waterfowl and other birds to allow many rules to take effect. They got handicapped by bag limits, season lengths, and restrictions on equipment. Populations of canvasbacks and other birds recovered for benefit of sportsmen and other bird lovers. Then came smokeless powder, autoloading shotguns, outboard motors, lightweight boats, plastic decoys, shot cups, synthetic insulation, etc. It became easier and more comfortable to get birds in close and kill them at longer ranges. So I feel for ethical reasons alone the handicapping of hunters by the three-shell limit, establishment of zones, refuges and rest areas was justified for the continuation of sport hunting and acceptance by the public. Now that lead shot, lead-acid batteries, lead paint, etc. have been found to cause heath problems in humans and birds alike, I do not object to the conversion to non-toxic shot. If birds could shoot, it would be like moving them forward a few yards at the trap range.

Keith said - "I’m really sorry to see some say that lead ammunition bans are inevitable. The best way to have that happen is to simply give up the fight, or to vote for the anti-gun Democrats who are behind it."

While I agree with you, I think it is inevitable because we are simply outnumbered. We are having all sorts of things forced upon us that we don't agree with. Too many people vote with emotion rather than logic or vote over a single-issue rather than the bigger picture. Finally, so go the cities, so goes the State. Great example is New York. It doesn't matter what or how the North Country/Adirondacks or other rural areas think or vote. Voters in NYC and the large cities decide.

It is also inevitable because we have numerous outdoor and shooting "writers" pushing for it as well under the foolish belief that it is the "right thing to do" and will save our heritage/activities. In my opinion, it just gives the anti-hunting/shooting groups another little victory and they are off to the next ban.

We as sportsman should not give an inch on anything. They are constantly trying to ban hound hunting. Many hunters think "I don't hunt Bears or Coyotes with hounds, so it doesn't affect me."

You will feel very differently when they come after your Beagles, or even Retriever next, because they will never stop.

Back to the OP - I really enjoy the TGS videos on YouTube. Very well done and informative.

While I agree with most of your above post, OMW, I am not as ready to acquiesce as you seem to be. I do not think a total lead ban is inevitable. Not anymore than I think EVs are going to totally replace fossil fuel vehicles, or that heterosexual marriage is a thing of the past. Evil will not always win, though at times it may seem hopeless. History abounds with examples of smaller numbers defeating seemingly overwhelming odds. We must be sure our fight is righteous, and not just emotional. We will not win this fight with keyboard warriors alone, important as they may be. We can only win it by countering the false claims of the greenies every day in our secular lives, electing righteous people to public office, and praying to the Almighty for justice to prevail in our lifetimes. If complaining about it on a forum is the best we can do, then yes, stick a fork in us because we are done.

The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing. Edmund Burke

This could be a reason some believe a lead ban is inevitable. We have friends here that insist it is inevitable, along with the sentiment that, they just shoot classic double guns and rifles, so there is no threat to their likes.

Compromise is heading towards....no one has banned hunting, there are plenty of estates for the holdouts. Shooters have numbers, but it's 9mm and 223 sales where the numbers are. Friends, not necessarily, enemies, not necessarily, allies, why not.

Craig: we all get that academic fraud is rampant
https://www.ft.com/content/fcad4a70-5ba0-4c42-bcec-332cf3b19f5d
And they all get caught, eventually
Are you aware of a lead in wildfowl or eagle study that was proven to be faked? I understand the interpretation of the data may certainly be suspect.

We all get that research grants awarded by either the government or private industry come with an agenda

We all get that our moral and intellectual progressive superiors in government despise us "deplorables", our culture, and our standards - and are increasingly willing to make that clear.

We all get that political appointees do what their superiors tell them to do, not what is best for us or the wildlife

I don't believe however that proclaiming "the science sucks", some of which is now 60 years old with hundreds of published studies, or implying that professional wildlife biologist are all corrupt and duplicitous in a scam contributes anything helpful to the conversation.
What, exactly, about the "science" sucks - the methodology, the statistics, the lead levels, the sampling, the autopsies...or is it the assumptions and conclusions that "suck"?

Fair enough Doc drew, and I am willing to go through a long list of my points to ultimately agree with you. If it is okay with you, I'll use one of your earlier examples. Say you have a dear loved one in need of heart surgery, in an ideal world, would one turn to the type of research that Dr Fauci claimed was driving his covid policies, or do we have trust in the science that guides the cardiologist, just about to start the procedure?

I am of the opinion that the cardiologist must demand that their head and hands be guided by real scientific principals, maybe similar in a small way that the sportsman steward is, of our habitat. I get it, I wouldn't feed my grandkids old paint chips, but does the country truly benefit from kali political science wagging the dog? Solutions may solve your rhetoric concerns, but we are in a time where one must be loud and, or provocative to be heard. Isn't that why this subject appears on your radar?

I would edit to add, there are many voters who have absolutely no clue where grants or conclsions come from, only what the chairman wants them to see siktok. If you go back to the thread that linked soarraptors, living on a govgrant existence, at the time they sensationally splashed an xray image the showed some hundred twenty lead pieces, now long pulled.

Occasionally, I shoot at The Skyway Shooting Club in St. Petersburg, Florida about 3 miles from my condo. Nice club, but it is a poor setup because you shoot trap directly at a hillside and on the other side of that hill/backstop is a lake. They go through a lot of instruction about how to shoot, (I believe they even made me watch a movie) because of the numerous lawsuits they have had against them for people shooting into that lake. If you shot over that hillside you will be banned from shooting there anymore. You have to purchase their boxes of steel shot ammo at $10.00 a box and it costs $8.00 for a round of trap. A person walks with everyone when they shoot and you can't shoot until they tell you to shoot- so they can be behind you to watch you when you shoot. I recently started to drive about 40 miles up to Odessa and started shooting at The Silver Dollar Shooting Club. Beautiful place and better shooting. You can shoot your own lead reloads there and not have to worry about any wildfowl.

Dr. Drew: I am clearly not against all science (as most of it has been beyond-beneficial for all of us). My laser sight-corrected eyes and and my wife's rebuilt knee (with a cadaver ACL) are a testament to all that. Two college degrees and 25-plus years working as a federal government contractor has taught me a few things though...which you obviously understand as well..."We all get that our moral and intellectual progressive superiors in government despise us "deplorables", our culture, and our standards - and are increasingly willing to make that clear."

Corrupted science is my particular dislike, and it seems to be rampant these days. We are clearly in an immense culture war, and since demography is destiny (& our borders are now completely porous) we seem to be losing that war. Not sure how it will all end-up but I've largely thrown in the towel. I simply can't spend all my remaining days angry & frustrated so... I collect my paycheck, vote my conscious, and I keep my head down and my mouth shut (pretty-much everywhere else but here). I'm grateful for the many good things in my life and I try to make every day count. I do what I can in my immediate world to promote what I believe to be true and just, I try to get closer to my God (not an easy thing for me) and I try very hard to be positive influence, not a negative one (& that, for me, is where the real challenge lies).

This is just more repetitive and silly nonsense Preacher. In the last Lead Thread that you provided the link to, you repeated your baseless idea that scientists who fake or fudge data all eventually get caught... and that they pay a hefty penalty.

I quickly refuted that by reminding you and the other anti-lead ammo advocates here about the 2009 Climategate scandal where leaked emails showed that climate data was being falsely manipulated by researchers at Penn State University and East Anglia University in order to propagate the notion that the Earth was warming far faster. After that, talk about Global Warming suddenly became very quiet for about a year until the scandal faded from the public's short memories. Then the "Scientists" went right back to providing more highly questionable data, and calling anyone who questions it a Climate Denier. No need to rehash some of the Global Warming debates we've had here. I have also told about the trout dinner I enjoyed in college. The trout were supplied by a researcher who was studying the effects of acid mine drainage contaminating Pennsylvania trout streams. He told me he sacrificed the fish for us to eat at a college party, and would place the blame on low pH exposure in his study results. He explained that manipulating data was pretty common to achieve the desired conclusions. He went on to tell us how, at that time, it helped a lot to work the word "Cancer" into any grant application... just as the new favored buzz-word to procure funding is now "Climate Change".

When Ben Deeble did one of his huge dumps of links to anti-lead ammo studies. I read them and noticed a very wide disparity in what the researchers claimed constituted a lethal blood lead level in ducks. I have repeatedly asked the anti-lead true believers here numerous times to explain that. They all can't be right. So do we believe them, and just pretend that the data doesn't come close to a consensus? It would seem you want us all to simply stop asking you uncomfortable questions, and you instead hope Dave Weber will lock or delete the Thread and shut down any further discussion that doesn't agree with your preconceived notions. That is intentionally deceitful behavior.

One study I referenced earlier, was posted in the Lead and Condors Thread. It told the horrific story of the eagle that had blood lead levels that were alleged to be far beyond lethal, and literally off the charts. Are you saying that you actually believe that blood lead levels can be so high that an avian research facility couldn't even measure them? Well, it would appear you do.

And are you really saying that you also actually believe that an eagle with such a massive and fatally toxic dose of lead could actually have the ability to fly, and still be strong and coordinated enough to perch on a tree branch? Somebody needs to call the Vatican to investigate such a miraculous event, because they might wish to build a church on that spot.

So who even got the chance to prove that was a fake study? As with most of what passes for science on the subject of advancing lead ammo bans, there was no peer review. When they publish this bullshit, they don't provide the carcass or the lead laced gut piles for independent toxicological analysis. So what exactly is left for readers who can actually comprehend that there is no way for it to be even remotely credible. They just put this garbage out there and count on naive guys like you to accept it, and to be critical of anyone who dares to question it.

Here is an interesting study for the few who are capable of critical analysis. The Chicken Little's are unlikely to get past the first sentence without again jumping to the conclusion that lead ammo has to go:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0300985818813099

Note first that the first sentence of the Abstract specifically emphasizes ingestion of lead from spent ammunition as a cause of mortality in eagles. Then note that this was a study of 93 eagles that were admitted and either died or were euthanized due to lead toxicity over a period of 11 years from 2004 to 2015. This was done at the Raptor Center at the University of Minnesota. Now go to Table 1 on page 291 and note that only 27 of these 93 birds were found with Lead particles found within the gastrointestinal tract (clinicalradiographs or necropsy) So only 29% of the sick birds had lead particles in their digestive system, and the study does not say what the source of those lead particles was. Yet the Abstract focused only on lead from spent ammunition, and nowhere in the entire study was there mention of all of the many other sources of lead contamination in the environment.

So even if lead ammo was the sole cause of lead poisoning in those 27 sick eagles, which is highly doubtful considering that many other sources are much more bioavailable, that amounts to about 2.45 birds per year admitted to a facility specializing in treating sick or injured raptors... Which is hardy excessive compared to the numbers that are killed due to windmill strikes and numerous other causes. From 1986 to 2017, the leading cause of Bald Eagle deaths in Michigan was being hit by cars. So with that knowledge, surely people like LGF will stop driving a car, because it would be hypocritical to continue placing birds at risk. Plus as Ted noted, we have a healthy and rapidly expanding eagle population. I am now much more likely to see a Bald Eagle in Pennsylvania than a native Ringneck Pheasant. But for this, the Chicken Little's are running around screaming that lead ammo must be banned. Remember that the mortality rate in eagles is greater from electrocution and collision trauma than of poisonings from all sources including lead. And lead ammunition is not the sole cause of lead poisoning in eagles. Far from it. It's sad to think that any shooter or hunter would simply bury their head in the sand and just allow the anti-gunners and anti-hunters to incrementally destroy us. They won't ever stop, even if they succeeded in banning lead ammo entirely.

I can't improve on Doc Drew's response: blaming inconvenient science on corrupt scientists or commie plots just reveals ignorance of how science works. There were years of study all pointing to the same conclusion on ingested shot killing waterfowl; if that research was all wrong, please show us the studies proving it.

I first encountered the issue in 1968, talking to an old warden on Sauvie Island outside Portland. He told me of finding hundreds of 'green-asses' every year, dead or dying ducks with their vents stained green from undigested food dribbling out because ingested lead bound digestive enzymes. They simply starved. Observations like this go much farther back and finally led to the research at the USFWS wildlife toxicology lab at Patuxent which eventually led to the lead ban.

And yes, lead shot does sink into the mud and become unavailable to birds picking up grit from the bottom - you don't find green-asses anymore.

Every condor in California is trapped annually and put through a dialysis-like procedure to remove lead from their blood, the lead coming from gut piles and ground squirrels shot with .22's. This is very expensive and personnel-intensive but the birds would die out otherwise.

The main reason that there are more raptors today is that they have recovered from the DDT era, during which bird and fish eating species nearly went extinct due to DDT thinning their eggshells. Like lead sinking under mud, DDT is disappearing from the environment in North American and Europe after the ban and the birds have recovered, but it is still a huge problem in the tropics, where it is widely used, and for northern birds which winter in the tropics.

As to saying that other things like wind turbines kill eagles and everything else that flies, yes they absolutely do, which is why I favor nuclear power over wind, or covering much of the US with solar farms. But adding to that mortality with lead poisoning doesn't negate the impact of either - mortality is additive. That's like the cat-lovers saying that window strikes, poisoning, and predators also kill songbirds so why worry about the billions killed by cats?

Wildlife numbers worldwide are plummeting at a terrifying rate, for any number of human-related causes. It is up to us to resolve as many of those factors as possible, not point to some as reasons to ignore or justify others. We are destroying Creation for our own convenience.

"2009 Climategate scandal where leaked emails showed that climate data was being falsely manipulated by researchers at Penn State University and East Anglia University"
Not that simple and you should know better
https://stories.uea.ac.uk/the-story-behind-the-trick/

Please post a link or reference to a lead toxicity study in waterfowl or eagles that was retracted for falsifying/faking data. 500-600 papers are retracted every year - there's gotta be some from wildlife biologists
https://www.science.org/content/art...about-science-publishing-s-death-penalty
They call it the "death penalty" because research misconduct is a big deal in academics
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK214564/

Please post a quotation where I advocated a lead shot/ammo ban

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0300985818813099
86 or the 93 had histologic evidence of lead toxicity.
Maybe they pooped out the ingested lead?? Or eventually puked the lead out with the casing??



https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jwmg.21822
1,490 dead eagles. 176 from lead poisoning

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ational_Wildlife_Health_Center_1975-2013
2,980 bald eagles and 1,427 golden eagles
879 were poisoned, and of those poisoned, 552 were poisoned by lead



Buried in this. You are correct. Golden Eagles die from lots of things
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9286660/
We recovered 175 dead golden eagles that were tagged with transmitters and determined the cause of death for 126 (72%). The observed causes of death were starvation and emaciation (N = 37), shooting (N = 16), collisions (N = 16; five with vehicles, two with wind turbines, two with power lines, one with a train, and six undetermined), accidents (N = 15; four predation, two impacts with natural features, one drowning, one burned in a wildfire, and seven trauma but in natural settings), electrocution (N = 13), poisoning (N = 10; four lead, three multiple substances including lead, two Aldicarb, and one anticoagulant rodenticide [Cholorophacinone and Diphacinone]), disease (N = 8; four West Nile virus, two septicemia, one complications from knemidocoptiasis, and one with multiple issues), intraspecific fighting (N = 7, 6 of which were AY3 individuals), and trapping (N = 4; one Conibear, one snare, and two unspecified traps).
For > 1 yr golden eagles, the model indicated most deaths were from shooting (20%), collision (18%), electrocution (14%), and poisoning (13%).

Your personal observations regarding eagle recovery in PA (a good thing) are irrelevant to whether eagles are dying from lead ingestion. Is it really your position that lead has no toxicity in wildlife? Based on one anecdotal report of high lead levels in a surviving eagle?

But we're just repeating ourselves. Dave can do what he wants. His forum.

You seem to be a passionate advocate, but I'm not so sure your likes and dislikes are any more valid than any others.

I believe lead is a toxin, that can be harmful and deadly to wildlife. I hope you can join me in a brief smile, inappropriate as it might be. The one thing that's indisputable would be, were I a sick Bald Eagle, the science says to decline chelation therapy.

Back to my question, what do we do about polisci.

This is rich... LGF posts that he can't improve upon the Preachers response which "reveals ignorance of how science works", then in the Preacher's very next post he admits that at least 5-600 Scientific Papers are retracted every year, and he provides a link that admits 60% of the thousands retracted are due to FRAUD.

Hahahaha! Trust the phony science, and just ignore what you actually see and read! And pretend there is no FRAUD even after the Preachers posts a link to an article proving retractions due to FRAUD exist, and that the number is only getting larger.

LGF also repeats the lame excuse that all those thousands or perhaps millions of tons of lead shot that was deposited in lakes, swamps, rivers, oceans , and other wetlands is no longer killing ducks because it has sunk deep out of reach into the silt. This is a silly assumption that neglects some very important facts. Not all bottoms of all water bodies are covered with deep silt. There are gravel, clay, and rocky bottoms, firm enough that lead shot won't sink deep, if at all. Furthermore, the density of pure lead is is 11.3 gr/ cu. cm while the density of gold is much greater at 19.4 gr./cu. cm. Yet divers and treasure hunters manage to find gold bars, coins, and objects from shipwrecks that happened hundreds of years ago. This much denser gold did not sink totally out of sight or out of reach. Guys who pan for gold in creeks routinely find lead shot. Bullets fired over 150 years ago on Civil War battlefields are often found on or near the surface. Then we have to consider that different ducks have vastly different feeding habits. Dabblers typically do not probe the bottom where spent shot would be. They feed on suspended aquatic vegetation and invertebrates. Stiff-tail divers actually probe into the silt where LGF says this spent shot is inaccessible. And don't forget that silt is easily churned up by storms and wave action. The ducks should still be dying in large numbers, and hunters should be reporting large numbers of waterfowl with green stained asses and other symptoms of lead poisoning.

It was also interesting that Preacher once again did not did not even try to address the questions I have been asking about obvious bias and widely conflicting data about what constitutes a lethal blood lead level in ducks. He essentially ignores the reporting of the eagle that had a blood lead level so high it was reportedly way beyond lethal, and too high to even measure... yet it was somehow still healthy enough to fly and perch in a tree.

Preacher dishonestly attempts to twist my argument by asking if it is my position that lead has no toxicity in wildlife, when I have never once made such a statement. In fact, it was a really stupid question considering that I acknowledged right here that eagles die from lead poisoning, but die in greater numbers from electrocution and being struck by vehicles.

Preacher also asks me to provide a QUOTE where he has ever advocated a lead ammo ban. But I never claimed he made such a direct statement. He really doesn't have to because he is showing us that he is supportive of the anti-lead so-called research, and is highly critical of anyone who dares to even question it. Actions really do speak louder than words.

In the past Lead Ammo Threads, I have also posted links to research that intelligently disputes the agenda driven anti-lead ammo research. There really is strong conflicting science out there that is in opposition to the notion that lead ammo is such a serious threat, that some isolated poisonings are just cause for further bans and restrictions. I thought we are supposed to be managing wildlife on a species population basis rather than an individual basis, and making knee-jerk policy based upon threats that are not nearly as bad as other things that are largely ignored. Here's a link to Hunt For Truth, a Pro-Hunting organization that has amassed and reviewed tens of thousands of papers and studies that refute the idea that lead ammunition is the major source of lead poisoning in birds and animals. I've posted this before, but apparently the Preacher couldn't be bothered to consider any data that our former anti-lead Guru Ben Deeble wouldn't agree with.

https://www.huntfortruth.org/

https://web.archive.org/web/20170319070811/http://www.huntfortruth.org/science/scientific-opinions/papersstudies/

Here's another paper that recognized metallic chunks of lead such as shot pose far less risk to birds than other more bioavailable sources such as lead dust, paint chips, pesticides and chemicals, etc. If ingested, they typically pass before any significant amount can be absorbed into the system. Anyone remember Amarillo Mike telling us that he has several dozen lead shot pellets embedded in his posterior from a hunting accident, and isn't suffering from lead poisoning? If he had the same amount of lead dust in his tissue, he would likely be dead. The information is out there for anyone who is intelligent and open-minded enough to understand that there is a ton of anti-hunting, and anti-gun, and anti-lead ammo bias in Academia. And anyone who says that Game Department wildlife biologists are infallible and always working for hunter's best interests is smoking crack.

https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/entities/publication/88187710-c019-4aa5-9bdb-94fd6351ddbe

Finally, I have cited the 2009 Climategate scandal several times as one source of evidence that science is sometimes falsified in order to reach a predetermined conclusion. It hit close to home because I am embarrassed to say my Alma Mater was involved in the FRAUD. So I followed it very closely when it happened. If Pensylvania State University was innocent, I would have defended what they did. Not every Meterologist at Penn State participated. I took a course in Meterology taught by Dr. Joel Myers, the co-founder of Accu-Weather. He and Penn State Meterologist Joe Bastardi refute much of the radical Climate Change propaganda. The Preacher has not paid attention to what has happened with that huge scandal that very nearly derailed the Global Warming agenda. When it happened, it was a huge embarrassment to the guilty parties. Even the Liberal Media saw how bad the falsification and manipulation of data was, and they steered clear of reporting about Climate Change for many months. They waited until the memory of the scandal faded away, but could never get past many people like me who remembered exactly what happened. So in recent years, the Left has twisted the truth again, and are trying to place the blame on the Hackers who intercepted and published the Smoking Gun emails. Now they are accusing the people who exposed the truth of misrepresentation, and attempting to discredit them as Climate Deniers. The Left has done the same with the fraudulent data published by Dr. Michael Mann with his discredited Hockey Stick graph that falsely proved Global Warming at a faster rate. They are shooting the messenger in an attempt to save face. Hitler's propaganda minister Josef Goebbels would be proud, and the Preacher should know better.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6675766/



Another source:
Whole blood levels >0.2 ppm suggest lead toxicity. Whole blood levels >0.4 to 0.6 ppm are considered diagnostic for lead toxicity.
Another sources suggested levels >0.2 ppm with compatible symptoms is diagnostic for lead toxicity.
(20 microgram/deciliter = 0.2 part/million)

I have no idea the point you are trying to make with this (link to the abstract).
https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/entities/publication/88187710-c019-4aa5-9bdb-94fd6351ddbe/full
The purpose of the study was to investigate the use of fecal sampling to avoid having to catch and draw blood from free flying eagles. Are you saying that the study was retracted, or proved to have been falsified?
Have you found any study regarding lead in waterfowl, raptors or condors that was retracted or proven to have been falsified?


Mostly good news for Mike
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4139699/

More good news re: risk of lead from consumption of upland game
Dove in South Carolina
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935197937890

I hunted waterfowl in the 1960s,.70, 80 right up until hopefully again this winter. In NW MN we transitioned to lead in the late 1970s on WPAs up there. The only ammo was 2 3/4 #4.steel from Federal. We never noticed the difference BUT we shot over.decoys and our go-to shells were our 1oz 7.5 trap loads out of our skeet guns. When you let them get close enough for our light trap loads to kill them an ounce of steel 4s worked just as well.

I think the problem is trying to substitute range for hunting skill. We're seeing it in every facet.of hunting, buy equipment to reach beyond your skill to get.close to game. TSS shot, inline muzzle loader, compound/cross bows, long range rifles and night hunting predators.

I still shoot 7/8 oz of ITX 6s and 1oz of Bismuth 5s for waterfowl out of my hammer shotguns and have no problems killing waterfowl. I don't shoot at birds that are marginal I shoot birds I know I can kill. If you keep your shots inside skeet field distances any shot will kill them. I hunt public lands almost exclusively and love to eat ducks. Most days I don't shoot a limit, I shoot enough for dinner and call it a day. I do take hunting trips rarely leaving the house to hunt but hunt for a few.dayz and camp where I'm hunting. I hunt mornings for waterfowl, then trade my shotgun for a rifle and l call coyotes.

Hi Doc Drew,

I plucked this out of the middle of your comment for no particular reason, and I realize your point was about retraction of scientific merit. Are these the types of supporting scientific studies use to make political lead firearm projectile ban policy?

Most definitely correct me if I'm wrong, but the source of the lead in these particular eagles is not cited?

Many anti lead advocates here have anecdotes to pass along. How about a snap pole, anyone notice any green butt holed ducks? How about up around the potholes where I suspect lead shot and projectiles are frequestly used around nesting grounds? How about dead eagles, when we are out in our haunts, how many sick and dead ones have we seen? I've stumbled on one dead Bald, over a good few decades and foot miles. How it got that way, I don't know, and I don't know why I couldn't have taken a few flight feathers, as that fellow had no further use for them.

craig are you saying that the hundreds of documented dead eagles, photographed, autopsied, and confirmed to have died of lead poisoning are all a hoax? Just curious what you are claiming is a hoax.

There are tons of data on the effect of lead on waterfowl populations. I'm unaware of any such study that has been retracted but there are many, many such studies. I've posted many of them here in the past, and , of course, you and Stan, etc. simply claim it is all a hoax and conspiracy without a shred of evidence to the back that up. We've been down that road many times.

Personally, I don't worry about lead poisoning in bald eagles now that waterfowl have been been protected. Eagles may die, and die in substantial numbers, but their populations continue to expand. As far as I'm concerned it is a population-level problem, or it's not a problem. For waterfowl it was a problem and that has been evaluated many, many times. So, go do your homework to dispute them all. It might take you a week or two...

If hundreds of dead eagles have been found and reported, then thousands have died in the wilderness and never been found. Much of my lion conservation work in East Africa in the last 25 years has been on poisoning and we know that only a small fraction are found, reported, and documented. Populations of lions and all other predators and scavengers, especially vultures, have plummeted due to poisoning but relatively few carcasses ever come to the attention of the people who are counting.

I agree, entirely. But eagles continue to grow their populations at amazing rates. As a population-level impact, lead poisoning seems to be relatively unimportant. That's not the case for condors, of course, and maybe other species. But since waterfowl has become non-tox only, it seems that population consequences of lead are not particularly great.

No Brent, I never said it wasn't possible to become sick, or die from lead poisoning, and I never used the word, hoax. Every comment above is your opinion, and not science. I see nothing wrong, and it's my personal instincts, to not be impressed or swayed by you talking down to me from your academic ivory tower.

It is not lost on me that a quick look at the cv of the lead author of the piece I selected, happens to be a colleague of yours in Iowa. If you can speculate about the unimportance of lead poisoning in bald eagles, then I will note the left wing political agendas you've aligned with over the years here, and that you find comfort in working towards common goals with like minded "ecologists", grant sponges?

Simply, you selectively read. I want to know, as you have taken years of failing to explain, why you can shoot tons of lead slugs out of single shot rifles into the wildlife habitat of your choosing, but support politically motivated bans against those who enjoy sporting choices that do not interest you?

You use anedotes, I want to know, where are the incidental, unfortunate green arses of today, in waterfowl habitat where sportsmen can factually say that lead firearms projectiles are currently used. Don't distract, we do not need retractions to create political policy, do we?

Who says you get to choose, what is relatively unimportant, or are you not giving LGF the latitude of a little sensationalizing. Do you two peas in a pod want to play on heartstrings. I have a great idea, let's construct the biggest human feces and drug paraphernalia cess pool in the streets of kalifornia, but entitle the kali condor to cost is no barrier, elite level ocare.

This has been an interesting debate, but I've got another relaxing and luxurious mission trip to organize to the middle-of-nowhere Guatemala so I'm done.

It is my hope that in future discussions we can avoid dismissing 60 years of research with "the science sucks"; which IMHO just makes us look foolish.

I very much agree however that the political and agenda driven application of the science may certainly suck. There are a lot of things in the world, and our nation, that suck right now, and are more important to me than steel shot.

The research that we have seen so far could be valid in a narrow band it is applied to. My comment, which seemed to make you angry, was directed at the notion that because the science was from a study on waterfowl, it should apply to pheasants, dove, grouse woodcock, et Al, which, was already attempted here in Minnesota. One of the researchers who made every meeting pointed out the wounded swans that had been shot by hunters with lead shot, seemingly unable to grasp the concept that if you have swans die of lead poisoning after being shot with lead shot, your problem, per say, is not lead shot.

There is no season on swans in the state of Minnesota, just for reference.

Yea, Drew, that science sucks. And they tried to stick it up our asses at those meetings where the MN DNR attempted a spectacularly unsuccessful end run around the legislature on the use of lead shot.

I’m willing to listen. I haven’t seen a whole lot of that same willingness in the “lead should be dead” group that seem to infest discussions on the subject, however.

Have a safe trip.

Best,
Ted

I'm going to add in that many of the things that "suck" today, are all rooted in a common political agenda.

If I am a person that could potentially find common ground on issues such as these, maybe on your return, you might help come up with solutions to the Brents and LGFs of the nation, using emotion based opinion to have an automatic legitimate point? I think the article I used as an example, sucks. Why, because it made zero link to lead projectiles out of any type of firearm, but it is "proof" that laws and regulations imposed by antis have merit.

In any event, regardless of how routine your trips down south have become, safe travels.

You are describing religion, not science, as you clearly don't understand how science works. As scientists, Brent and I deal in testable hypotheses and provable fact, the very opposite of opinion. Emotion based opinion is your contemptuous dismissal of any science which inconveniences you.

LGF.if so why are eagles expanding in numbers actual countable numbers . Mabey condors are at the end of of there evolution ladder

And maybe they are not. Pretty clearly, their habitat has suffered far more anthropogenic impacts that balds. Meanwhile, go back and read LGFs earlier posts. He spelled it out for you. And you know it, of course.

I believe you're a good guy LGF, but that's not why you mentioned condor dialysis, is it? I asked quite a while ago, if a loved one of your's needs heart surgery, do you want the surgeon completely versed in the most appropriate science, or do you want some song and dance about podiatry best practice?

You don't get it do you, I believe I understand science better than fits your comfort level, I call on you to apply it, when you intend to harm me, and my family with binding policy. I live with incoveniences on a daily basis, happily, but that comment is just a game you came up with that we're not really playing, are we?

Hey, on a lighter note, where are today's green arses, not of yesteryear when the tailpipes of every car in North America spewed lead laced plumes, or companies were still putting it in paints and children's toys? Why are we guessing that wild birds are laying dead of lead poisoning in unknown places, when science is repeatable and Muscovy ducks could graze a triple concentration lead shot seeded control field, to verify what happens? What, might not work, shucks Iowa State should give it a go.

kali used to be one of my favorite places to visit, and there was a time when the pacific flyway was something special. Did you ever consider that you messed up that once great state, and not responsible sportsmen?

craig, you don't understand up from down.

It would take one to know one.

A guy accused you of being a scientist, yet, we had multiple pages of discussion about patterning for Ruffed Grouse, initiated by who?

Let that sink in. Patterning a gun for Ruffed Grouse? Really?

I’ve seen them hit with the wad out of a shotgun shell, the shot obviously going off in a different direction, and the damn bird brought to bag. When I was perhaps 17, I fired one round at a piece of cardboard, out of an IC choked Remington model 17, and determined, scientifically, I had a killer grouse gun.

Weird, huh?


Best,
Ted

It doesn't surprise me that you would not pattern a gun. Your Darnes are probably as bad as mine (that was yours). The last thing you would want to see is their actual patterns on a target. You really are clueless. But you are easy to figure.

You keep hunting grouse with wads, while I laugh.

There is a way to determine the source of lead using lead isotopes. Here is a paper which shows that the high lead levels in a young bald eagle were associated with lead paint, lead in gasoline and lead smelting and not with lead ammunition.

"The Use of Lead Isotope Analysis to Identify Potential Sources of Lead Toxicosis in a Juvenile Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) With Ventricular Foreign Bodies"

https://www.jstor.org/stable/44806036

It would be nice if all research used those methods when lead was found to be contributing to the death or ill health of birds and other animals.

Interesting. Where do you suppose a juvenile in the 20teens would be guzzling leaded gasoline?

Here's another - and not just one individual. A bit more substantial data set, wouldn't you say? Different results.
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ecs2.3006#:~:text=Isotopic%20ratios%20of%20206Pb,to%2089%25%20of%20the%20nestlings.

Lots of other papers out there. Most show ammunition lead.

Lead is a persistent contaminant. The bird was not "guzzling leaded gasoline".
Stop being so juvenile.

Once I respected scientific articles. Having seen enough bunk between Climate and COVID, I am now suspicious of supposed scientific truth. The liars, spinners, and politicians of science have taught to read their stuff with much more caution. I see it in economics, education and history too and with a little thought could carry it into more fields with ease. Academic journals appear at times more about getting published than producing sound supported truth.

Nor do I believe that the politically motivated twisters of truth get their just desserts. I have lived long enough to see scoundrels prosper.

Should we insist scientists abide by the classic rules they once claimed to, of course we should. Do I think the genie of biased unscientific results masquerading as definitive truth will disappear, not likely.

Even medicine seems poisoned by the have changed, one example is equity over excellence in admissions. Psychology is terribly tainted with politics, every year we seem to add a new sex orientation category and then pretend it is new biologically founded truth. COVID goes without saying. I could go on but I believe the point is made.

Now back to the original question of Lead shot first for waterfowl then the the uplands. I remain convinced while extreme examples can be found that the evidence for non toxic waterfowl is suspect. It is a dead subject that is likely not to get revisited.

The science for the uplands might have some proof with condors, however given who produces those studies my suspicions are naturally raised. The same state argues for Carbon reduction, while consistently increasing their carbon footprint. Outside of their fairly unique Condor situation I have not heard any proven general upland threat posed by lead shot that is proven.

I believe that Upland lead shot bans are more about a back door to gun control. We must fight it hard. I really feel for hunters in blue states as they have an uphill battle.

So where did it come from? What's the chain that leads to eagles - a juvenile nonetheless.

"So where did it come from? What's the chain that leads to eagles - a juvenile nonetheless".

Are you really that stupid or do you just like stirring the pot? I'm through discussing science with you since you and science appear to be not well acquainted. Just because you claim to be a university prof does not make you a scientist.

Doesn’t surprise me that a liberal professor, dottering toward retirement, doesn’t have a clue where to start the process, with a species that is so easy to kill, either.


Best,
Ted

In other words, you can't answer. I get it. Pretty amazing that it hangs out in quantities large enough to kill a juvenile for decades. Interesting indeed.

Ted, if only you were half as tough and smart as you think you are.

But continue on. Maybe you can shoot another grouse with a wad (in your dreams like the first one). In the meantime, you will continue on as the bitter old man on a keyboard. At least you are good at that.

Behold, the professor who has discovered for us all, that wads in factory loaded ammunition can’t kill birds. He can’t read, either. I never said I did it, only witnessed it.

Details are important in science.


Best,
Ted

Thanks Ted, your determination to make an ass of yourself has been successful. Congratulations. Now, get out there with your wad loads and have at it. Great to know that we don't need lead - we don't even need shot. Just a wad. Yup. Great news.

Yes, up is down. I'm thankful for the little things, such as you're no longer accepting students. Stick 'em with a small fortune in loans, when they could pick up the same science and philosophy degree at the corner latte shop for free, right B.

Science is definitely over your head, craig. Rational thought, in general, is too much of a reach. But continue on. I want to hear more of your expertise on this matter. It's greatly entertaining.

Rather than insult each other speak to actual facts and to logical steps of proof.

Too often disagreement becomes personal animosity.

Put another way, the current explosion of predator populations demonstrates that lead is not a threat to increasing eagles numbers. Moreover the loss of habitat and prey species is invariably a greater factor in predator populations. BTW this includes condors. If looked at rationally lead is a marginal threat compared to habitat.

Michael, I've posted facts here on this topic for years. It falls on deaf ears, that are, of course, willfully deaf.

How does the "current explosion of predator populations" demonstrate that lead is not a thread to eagle numbers? What it says even better is that not much is preying upon mesocarnivores and the price of fur is low. Looked at rationally, lead is a big and immediate threat to condors. This is extremely well documented. If you want to be rational - look at the research. It's pretty obvious that lead is not "marginal" regardless of trends in habitat.

This is off topic but points to science error.back in 1974 I had a class that woods hole and Bernard barni pipkin and another professor from scrips in San Diego NASA contributed to the scientific fact we were heading into a global cooling like the little ice age or even a new ice age the money was flowing at every level to study this pending disaster this went on for years and guess what! No ice age all the science from these great bastions of learning were incorrect on a giant scale and the fudging of the global warming data....just follow the money

I’m not sure that “following the science” is where we should place our faith and trust. Science has changed more than scientists want to admit…

Follow the money

Looked at rationally, how do your facts extrapolate to a hunting lead projectile ban across the entire state? I have no interest in your brand of entertainment, just connect the dots between science, agendas, and law.

Seriously, can you cut through the hypocrisy and do your part by example? Hasn't the california condor been found in New Mexico, not far from Raton? What's your nonlead mono metal load for your late 1800's Ballard moose rifle? Have you destroyed your lead bullet casting molds, so that they never again contribute to environment lead contamination, or have you sold them, for your monetary gain and allow someone else to damage wildlife? No, you're keeping the lead bullet casting molds? Have a good stash of pristine 20:1, 30:1 casting lead, both and more? So, you shoot for a whole month down at Raton, what's that add up to, two, three hundred pounds of lead added to the edge of kalicondor range, or does the science say you get a pass in your mind because of the way you vote?

Are you complaining about the science or the law? They are not the same thing. You want to rail about bad science, corrupt science - prove it. That's a very objective process.





My moose rifle has never hunted in Condor country. Sorry about that, but if you claim otherwise, that's just another "alternative fact" that you have made up out of thin air. Shooting targets is not a danger to condors. Are you claiming that it is? You are, as always, failing to be rational and continually moving goal posts. But carry on. What's next? I can hardly wait while your knickers become more and more knotted. If only Stan could join you...

1600 scientist signed the Kyoto treaty ....16000 other scientist wouldn't sign ,if you like the science you use it if not then you are a ignorant hillbilly. there should never be consensus with science

Perhaps I failed to express my point better.

The current explosion of predator populations means not that lead does not affect them to the degree it must be eliminated. It means eliminating lead is not a critical need as their populations are doing well. It also means lead is not a dominant factor in their decline. This means upland lead is not a necessary action outside of the unique problem of the scavenger Condor. Even the condor issue appeared more linked to lead bullets from big game as opposed to bird shot, I guess the one size fits all solution had better appeal in California.

My point about the Condor was not that lead was not a problem for them, but that habitat is a greater problem. It is a marginal issue in places like Kansas.

Lastly the politicization of science is a real problem as is the proliferation of garbage in what was once more respected “peer reviewed” publications.

Putting the debate over science and insults aside, here is a different problem many would face in an eventual ban on lead ammunition:

There are many vintage deer rifles still in the woods. Yes, they make lead-free rifle ammunition, but only in the most popular or best-selling calibers. Not everyone hunts with a .30-06, .308, or .270. I have seen it in .30-30 and .45-70. The guy who hunts with a .32 Winchester Special, .35 Remington, .300 Savage, or even .250 Savage is going to be out of luck, because the ammunition manufacturers are just not going to produce those calibers. Right now, it's still tough to find lead ammunition in those calibers.

Is the guy who likes to hunt with his great-grandfather's Remington Model 8 or 81, or Savage Model 99 supposed to just hang it over the mantle? Or just buy a new rifle? I can tell you that there are still plenty of those rifles and calibers in the Northwoods (Maine, Adirondacks, etc.).

How about the traditional muzzleloading hunter? Hornady produces a lead-free bullet designed for the modern, in-line type muzzleloaders, but they are not compatible with a traditional flintlock or percussion rifle. Hornady or Speer have no plans to produce a lead-free round ball. I asked.

Vintage and antique shotguns have been well discussed and covered in numerous posts and threads.

While I believe individuals here are passionate and sincere regarding the environmental and wildlife impact of continued use of lead ammunition, the activists and money groups, along with the current regime are just using any bans as a way to curtail, restrict, and drive people away from hunting.

Tell me more about the proliferation of garbage in peer reviewed publications. What, in your opinion, is this garbage and which publications? I posted one above - neither you nor anyone else wanted to comment on that. Fine, but if you are claiming it is garbage - prove it.

So habitat is a greater problem for condors. What's your point? Habitat is probably a greater problem for upland birds than poaching - does that mean we would ignore poaching? Clearly, environmental lead can affect condors at a population level. Do we blow that off because habitat is "bigger"? And how do you really know it's bigger? What facts do you have to back that up? I don't disagree or agree with you on that. Show me.

Last, I don't have much problem with lead for upland game in most places and I continue to use it. Have I said otherwise?

If you attack science as false, and you have, it should be very easy to disprove it. If you don't like the way science is being applied in the form of laws then you have your ballot and the Great American Way. Sometimes, your way turns out not to be the Great American Way. That's the way it goes sometimes, if you are an American.

Presumably, many more non-tox bullet calibers and conformations would become marketable in a total non-tox world, but I have my doubts. Frankly, the ammo makers are not even trying to supply brass in many of these chamberings already. Loaded ammo is effectively extinct for most of them (seen any .30-40 loaded ammo lately, lead or otherwise?). Even common stuff like .32-40 is now uncommon, at best.

I have heard that there are totally satisfactory substitutes for lead using patched roundballs. I don't know if this is Bi-Sn, but I suspect it is, and of course, that would be very expensive. In any event, there is something out there.

I don't see the current "regime" driving people away from hunting, but if it fits your agenda, why not claim it.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/conse...dmins-regulation-efforts-hunting-fishing


Sure.

Best,
Ted

In mid-February most of Europe (except Britain) banned the use of lead shot for any game shooting within 100 metres of any 'water course or lake'. It will be interesting to see if this is enforced in the next season. Even having one cartridge in your pocket counts as an offence!

However at the same time they said that shooting wild boar with a 12 bore roundball would continue to be OK, because the little birds could not swallow such a large lump of lead...

A reliable source of truthful information.

Sure.

Best,
Brent

There are commercial sources for rare, obscure, and antique calibers such as .32-40 and .38-55. Black Powder Cartridge Rifle shooters also would be hard pressed to stay in their activity if lead ammunition were to be banned. They all don't shoot .45-70.

I do all of my deer hunting with traditional muzzleloaders or my 1885 single-shot in .38-55. I can tell you that there are no suitable non-toxic round balls available. A small company produces Bismuth round balls in a few calibers, but they are under-sized, and results have been spotty at best. I see zero opportunity for a non-toxic .38-55 cartridge.

As to Fox News, not always reliable but something has to be an alternative to most media which have evolved into American versions of Pravda or the "Daily Oppressor."

All they really do is read from DNC talking points.

You're in the thick of these publications, you must be familiar with the peer review in question. Does the content of your character matter, regarding the credibility of a publication?

Why question a publication, you have patent nonanswers, why attack your version of science, you have obvious nonanswers. Here's a thought, you are the problem. If you are right, answer the questions that you make fun of and talk down to, or don't. Thank you for showing what to expect of the next generation of "ecologists", equity, diversity and inclusivity, core tenets per the website, huh Brent.

craig, thanks again for the humor. Pretty good stuff. You should quit your day job and do stand-up or the digital equivalent. Does character matter? Depends I suppose. If you have a known reputation for lying and making stuff up, as you do, then I suppose it might. But many publications have gone to blind peer review. Yet another level of striving for perfect objectivity. Unlike Fox News, for instance. Did you hear about their latest scandal with regards to Marine Sargent Nicole Gee? Sadly, that is not so funny as your crap.

Meanwhile, the answers are in the literature, and it strongly disagrees with your line of BS. But carry on. I'm sure you will find another amusing alley to wander down without telling us exactly how you know that the science on lead poisoning in wildlife is "garbage". Lets see it. We keep asking for the data.

Such foolish nonsense huh Brent, you hypocritically shoot tons of lead shot out of classics and antiques, then make fun of others who are running out of options.

Take a look at what has happened to the number of hunters in kali, home of your, double down, nothing is too good for the condor. The fifth largest economy in the world has sapped the will out of the next generations of hunters. But hey prof., you already knew this, didn't you.

Thanks Brent, I will. Rest assured, if I wanted to discuss garbage, I would. There is a rich vein of triple blind hypocrisy, around your bubble.

No, I make fun of you for being such a dolt. But carry on. Numbers of hunters is plenty. Ever tried to get an elk tag? And if that's bad, look into moose or goats. Oh yeah, you don't actually hunt. You just whang away on your keyboard. I know, I know. While you do that, I'll be out poisoning the world with lead and in the company of some of the "next generations of hunters" across the country. You continue to know nothing of which you speak. Now, how about how that lead poisoning in wildlife is all garbage science? I thought not...

Come on, craig, you posted it, then deleted it. Put it back and have some guts. Would you like me to repost it for you? I'd be more than happy.

Another thing to consider about non-lead or non-toxic ammunition is the cost.

We ask all the time where the young people are or the declining, almost non-interest in hunting for young people today. If they do inherit their grandfather's vintage or antique firearm, how interested or enthusiastic do you think they will remain when they find out that the ammunition for that firearm is scarce, or $85-95 a box or even more?

All sportsmen need to support each other and resist any proposed bans or restrictions on our activities, no matter if it is trapping, hunting with hounds, or lead ammunition.

This one better?

https://americanmilitarynews.com/20...ting-americans-from-hunting-and-fishing/

I like how you deny the story, because of the source.

So simple. So dumb.

Best,
Ted

Please do.

The dots are easy to connect. This is a policy decision, our friend of the double Brent, is in lock step with. It's worth paying attention when he plays the dolt, unable to come up with a cute answer for this line of questions, in other words, pay attention to those who claim to be your friend in this great passion.

Brentd.did you read the story Ted posted ? What is untruthful about it?if you dismiss it out of hand because fox was the reporting service that's not very scientific is it.

Ted posted a story? Cool. He makes them up too

In the meantime, I'm waiting for ya'll to outline exactly the garbage science on lead poisoning in waterfowl.

I had read a scientific report from Washington DC that said wildfowl can easily pass shotgun pellet thought there system.also does it have to be garbage science ?

Do you have the reference? May not be garbage at all. Let's see it. Waterfowl are/were dying of ingested lead regardless so not all lead is being passed. That's really not questionable.

I will try to address some of your questions, though not in their original order for the sake of the examples blotting out my answer.

"Last, I don't have much problem with lead for upland game in most places and I continue to use it." I am glad we have common ground on general banning of lead in the uplands. Our common belief here shows that there is often more common ground that sometimes get clouded in a disagreement.

"So habitat is a greater problem for condors. What's your point?" My point is that lead bans are not supportable outside of the unique Condor situation as lead is a minor factor. About the condors specifically even their decline is more about habitat than lead, not that lead is not a factor with them.

"If you attack science as false, and you have, it should be very easy to disprove it." You should know that the media establishment often trumpets as scientific facts things which flawed studies spin. Our recent COVID experience demonstrates this, but I will include some good general examples.

You know very well that the proliferation of journals living to publish is a real issue as is the parroting of findings both in and out of context by various media sources

"Tell me more about the proliferation of garbage in peer reviewed publications." I see findings sold as truths when they cannot be supported by repeatable confirmation garbage. . (See the following after my other answers)



“According to a 2020 survey by DARPA (the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), in 2009, 53.4 percent of social-science papers had “failed to replicate,” meaning that efforts to reproduce their results had not succeeded. By 2018, that figure had risen to 55.8 percent. Flipping a coin would give you better odds of success.”......

“The author told National Review at the time, “We wanted to see in this case if [it] would be possible to publish a paper in an elite journal when the paper is full of blatant and clear statistical errors.” Of course it was possible. The journal Nature estimates that “hundreds of gibberish papers still lurk in the scientific literature.” That gibberish papers are published as truth does not mean that science is gibberish; “hundreds” is a very small proportion of the literature. But the willingness of peer reviewers and editors to air outlandish claims without subjecting them to adequate investigation suggests that such decisions are influenced by ideology, and that the more ideologically freighted a topic, the more skeptical one should be.”....

“In the field of glaciology, taxpayer dollars were spent on a peer-reviewed research paper titled “Glaciers, gender, and science: A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research.” An excerpt from the abstract: “Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human–ice interactions.” The research was published in the journal Progress in Human Geography. The author, the University of Oregon professor of history and environmental studies Mark Carey, has received over $700,000 in grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF).”
“The public, too, will often be misled. Consider the case of a famous 2008 study by University of Nebraska researchers of conservatives’ alleged psychology. The research — rather clearly motivated by ideology, suggesting that conservatism stems from conspiratorial thinking and “negativity bias” — proved impossible to replicate when tested by other researchers. But it had already been widely disseminated in the media and continues to be popularly cited. “
https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2022/07/11/too-political-science/

“Peer review is typically held up as the barrier than prevents nonsense from making its way into the scholarly literature. But a series of recent cases suggest that those who peddle pseudoscience – and who want the imprimatur of peer review to demonstrate the legitimacy of their ideas – have found vulnerabilities in the system.”
https://academic.oup.com/mit-press-...stract/287509829?redirectedFrom=fulltext


“A recent analysis of the prevalence of research misconduct by Daniele Fanelli looked at “scientific behaviors that distort scientific knowledge” and found that 2% of the scientists surveyed admitted to serious misconduct (falsification or fabrication of data) at least once and nearly 34% admitted other questionable research practices. When participants were asked about their colleagues’ practices, the results were much worse: 14% for falsification of data and 72% for other questionable practices.“
https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(15)00190-1/fulltext

"Social science studies are notorious offenders. A landmarkstudy < Caution-https://www.natureasia.com/en/research/highlight/12661/ > in the journal Nature Human Behaviour in August reported the results of efforts to replicate 21 social science studies published in the prestigious journals Nature andScience between 2010 and 2015.
The multi-national team actually “conducted high-powered replications of the 21 experimental social science studies — using sample sizes around five times larger than the original sample sizes” and found that “62% of the replications show an effect in the same direction as the original studies.” One out of the four Nature papers and seven of the seventeen Science papers evaluated did not replicate, a shocking result for two prestigious scientific journals. The authors noted two kinds of flaws in the original studies: false positives and inflated effect sizes." https://www.realclearscience.com/ar...become_a_profitable_industry_110810.html

“However, a review – that both the institution and publisher should have done – shows bias, undisclosed conflicts, clear violations of institutional and publishing ethical standards, and lack of evidence as the hallmarks for these claims. This research does raise new questions – questions for George Washington University and the journal Environmental Health. “……….
“In a study published in the journal Environmental Health last month [Feb 10, 2022], GW researchers claimed they had discovered three in five Americans tested positive for “high” levels of herbicide residues, which they represented as a human health risk. The publication’s ethics disclosures stated the work received “no funding,” and the GW authors denied any conflicts of interest. The same couldn’t be said be said of another co-author, not from GW, whose name raised eyebrows among watchdog groups and academics who follow pesticide health risk claims.”
https://www.realclearscience.com/ar...tted_serious_ethics_breaches_826830.html


"The realization that there’s something rotten in academic epidemiology research, in particular, is hardly new. As long ago as 2002, two epidemiologists at the University of Bristol (U.K.)wrote" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1124898/ > in a journal article:

"An analysis of 30 years of educational research by scholars at Johns Hopkins University found that when a maker of an educational intervention conducted its own research or paid someone to do the research, the results commonly showed greater benefits for students than when the research was independent. On average, the developer research showed benefits — usually improvements in test scores — that were 70 percent greater than what independent studies found." https://hechingerreport.org/the-dark-side-of-education-research-widespread-bias

" as a part of a year-long probe .. to find out how much certain political biases have taken root within a small but powerful sector of academia. Over the course of that year, we submitted 20 papers to journals that study topics of identity like gender, race, and sexuality, which we feared has been corrupted by a form of political activism that puts political grievances ahead of finding truth." ....... Seven of our papers were accepted........, many in top-ranking journals. These include an adaptation of Adolf Hitler’s "Mein Kampf," which was accepted by a social work journal. Another develops the concept of “fat bodybuilding” for a discipline called fat studies, and a third claims to address “rape culture” by monitoring dog-humping incidents at dog parks in Southeast Portland, Oregon.

But how was this possible? We succeeded not so much because we tricked the journals, but because our papers fit in with what they consider scholarship. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...tia-mein-kampf-racism-column/1575219002/

“The Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) annual “Dirty Dozen” list is a perfect marriage of scientific and journalistic negligence. Each year, the EWG, a controversial, agenda-driven organic activist group, purports to rank the top 12 fruits and vegetables most contaminated with pesticides. And each year, the media takes the bait without fail, and the coverage reads like sponsored content.”………
“Take spinach, for example, which took the number two spot on the Dirty Dozen list this year. The average man would need to eat 4,487 cups of spinach a day to exceed safe consumption levels of permethrin, a pesticide found on spinach. Of course, this would never happen in practice, because it only takes 11 cups of spinach to exceed the safe consumption level of iron. That man would die of iron toxicity long before pesticide ingestion became a problem.”
https://www.realclearscience.com/ar...me_cynical_but_not_skeptical_773849.html

“The second part of Koonin’s indictment concerns the distortion, misrepresentation, and mischaracterization of climate data to support a narrative of climate catastrophism based on increasing frequency of extreme weather events. As an example, Koonin takes a “shockingly misleading” claim and associated graph in the United States government’s 2017 Climate Science Special Report that the number of high-temperature records set in the past two decades far exceeds the number of low-temperature records across the 48 contiguous states. Koonin demonstrates that the sharp uptick in highs over the last two decades is an artifact of a methodology chosen to mislead. After re-running the data, record highs show a clear peak in the 1930s, but there is no significant trend over the 120 years of observations starting in 1895, or even since 1980, when human influences on the climate grew strongly. In contrast, the number of record cold temperatures has declined over more than a century, with the trend accelerating after 1985.”
https://www.realclearenergy.org/art...t_matters_by_steven_e_koonin_778065.html

That is a very well constructed post, O C. Well done.

SRH

Mr old colonel thank you for the hard work .and you didn't call any names:)

It's a shame the Preacher had to leave for another long weekend trip to Guatemala, and such a waste too. The way the anti-gun false president Joe Biden is criminally obstructing justice by preventing the Border Patrol from enforcing Federal Law, most of the population of Central America should be right here in the U.S. pretty soon.


But if Preacher was here, I'm sure he would be sternly lecturing the Nutty Professor about personal attacks and name calling, all while posting under an anonymous screen name. Actually, no, he wouldn't... because only Conservatives are subject to those types of pious hand wringing lectures from the Preacher... and the other Manners Police.

In my last post, I made the silly mistake of assuming that the Preacher could connect the dots that I laid out for him. I hoped he'd actually read the research paper from Iowa State, instead of not looking past the Abstract. I specifically noted that a major finding from that study was that it recognized metallic chunks of lead such as shot pose far less risk to birds than other more bioavailable sources such as lead dust, paint chips, pesticides and chemicals, etc. If ingested, they typically pass before any significant amount can be absorbed into the system.

Unfortunately, our so-called scientists who keep demanding "science" which opposes the agenda driven anti-lead ammunition position, refuse to even look at it when it is given to them. I also provided the link to the "Hunt For Truth.org" website that is a convenient resource with links to a large number of research papers that confirm lead ammunition is actually one of the more minor sources of lead exposure in birds and animals. But they don't even care to look. I repeat the same questions about wide disparities in lethal doses of lead and the eagle that had a blood lead level so far beyond a fatal dose that it couldn't be measured, not because I expect them to acknowledge that the science behind it must be junk. I repeat it to show they don't have the stones to admit they are wrong.



That's why I chuckled at the long response made by Old Colonel. I read all of it. But it was a total waste of time if he actually thinks that any of it made an impression on the Preacher, the Nutty Professor, or LGF. They have made up their minds that lead ammunition is a real serious problem that needs to be severely restricted or eliminated entirely... and nobody with opposing views or facts is worthy of even stating them or pointing out obvious errors. They say better alternatives are out there, and insist exorbitant costs and limited availability are non-issues. Some actually think that increased demand for an inferior product will lower ammo costs if lead ammo is banned.





The arrogance of these guys is astounding! How dare we mere mortals question their collective brilliance? Well actually, if you look at the overall record of the accuracy of Science researchers, it is foolish and irresponsible to not question them... and their frequently erroneous results. The number of times that scientists and researchers has been dead wrong throughout history is huge, and that number continues to grow. And as we've seen with the Covid19 pandemic, contrarian views that turned out to be 100% correct were ridiculed, demonized, and even censored by so-called experts who were wrong. Another long held view held up as Gospel by researchers was that the Toba Supervolcano eruption 74,000 years ago left humans on the brink of extinction with only a few thousand left alive. Now it has become apparent that was a gross exaggeration of the truth, and unassailable "science" has been proven wrong again. In large part, we should trust science. Science properly applied has been invaluable to humanity... but Science and Scientists are two very different things. We should be very leery of trusting many scientists.... especially those with hidden agendas, and egotistical narcissists who think their thoughts and findings are beyond reproach, criticism, or doubt.

The post by Ian Forrester with the link showing how lead isotope analysis revealed that "the high lead levels in a young bald eagle were associated with lead paint, lead in gasoline and lead smelting and not with lead ammunition", was predictably ridiculed by the Nutty Professor. He actually questioned whether juvenile bald eagles were guzzling leaded gasoline, and apparently thinks that the millions of tons of lead that was deposited into the environment by the burning of tetraethyl lead gas has simply disappeared. This is someone who actually feels he is brighter than any of us.

However, you have to remember that many researchers hang their hat on lead isotope analysis, and attempt to use it as proof positive that sick birds are dying from spent lead ammunition. The problem is that there are four stable isotopes of lead, and supposedly the ratio of them can pinpoint the source of any sample of lead. That sounds good until you understand that lead is one of the most recycled metals there is, and isotope analysis is all but worthless unless you are testing virgin lead. Once scrap lead from various sources such as batteries, flashing, pipes, etc. has been mixed, isotope analysis loses all accuracy. Also, lead mines and smelters supplied metal to many different end users. So to test a sample using isotope analysis and say with certainty that it came from shot or bullets is often virtually impossible.

Those of us who fish and eat what we catch are certainly aware of the warnings about lead or mercury contamination in fish in certain waterways. The vast majority of the lead came not from lead shot, bullets, or fishing sinkers, but from chemicals and industrial sources such as tetraethyl lead, paint residues, and pesticides. For us, eating occasional fish meals that contain trace amounts of lead will never cause problems. But fish is the number one food source for bald eagles. A real scientists would know that, and would question why so much research focuses upon our ammunition. We aren't going to change the Nutty Professor's mind. But the longer this goes on, the more we can see all his crying about how much more civil and nice it is on the Upland Journal forum is nothing but phony bullshit.

This little line in OC's post above speaks to the root of the problems we face in so many areas of proposed legislation, and misguided legislation that has already been foisted upon the unsuspecting and ill-informed .....

"a form of political activism that puts political grievances ahead of finding truth."

..... in the "holy" name of science.

"a form of political activism that puts political grievances ahead of finding truth."

That is the problem. This way of thinking has infected every aspect of our government and daily lives.

I didn't say WHEN I was leaving keith, which would be foolish on a public forum in which I post by my identity. Have been waiting for Dave to OK your post. And I am otherwise occupied with things more important to me.

Thought you could get away with lying again keith? Please post a quote by me advocating eliminating lead ammunition
"the Preacher, the Nutty Professor, or LGF. They have made up their minds that lead ammunition is a real serious problem that needs to be severely restricted or eliminated entirely... and nobody with opposing views or facts is worthy of even stating them or pointing out obvious errors."

I guess you missed this (or lack the cojones to address it) so I'll try again with bigger letters. Read the part about "susceptability to lead poisoning" and the levels established as toxic



TO REPEAT MYSELF
1. Is it your position keith that there is no evidence that lead shot is a hazard for waterfowl? Eagles? Condors?
2. We all get that there is academic fraud, and fraud in the application of research. Please site a single study of lead toxicity in wildfowl that has been proved to have been falsified or retracted. You've got 60 years of research to review. I've looked and I'm sure Michael looked. And try to stay on topic.
3. Hating the political and agenda driven decisions needs to be separated from hating the science (and professional wildlife biologists), or we look like fools. I really do pity the fact that hate is all that you live on keith.

It is not foolish at all to think that political activists and anti-hunters have infiltrated the Department of the Interior, USFS and State Fish and Game Departments.

I am not arguing lead contamination does not take place with eagles and condors. Nor am I going back to the waterfowl non tox question at the moment. I accept that lead shot does impact Eagle populations, however I also hold that Eagle populations are overall doing well and that the principle of acceptable attrition is part of the professional government wildlife establishment.

When researching over the last few days I did notice a pattern in the description of “lead fragments” from dead carrion and its role in poisoning condors. What I found curious was that I have yet to find bird shot as a factor with condors ( I centered on the condor question as it appears to me a major driver in justifying the lead ban California).

Oddly every reference I find on California Condor diets parallel the bird fact.com website.

“What birds do condors eat?
California condors do not eat birds. Their diet consists of large mammals, and very occasionally, in coastal regions, marine mammals and fish.
Andean condors have been observed to hunt for small birds, as well as raiding the easily accessible nests of seabirds for their chicks and eggs.”
https://birdfact.com/articles/what-do-condors-eat

If Condors do not, or rarely eat birds, If eagle populations are healthy, is there really a need to ban lead bird shot?

Though officially there have not been any Condor wind farm deaths they are preparing for them. The federal government and many state governments appear to accept a level of eagle and condor attrition from wind farms, not to mention all the other birds. That the US Fish and Wildlife Service seems to believe that it is ok with the death of up to 11 condors and 11 condor chicks over a 30 year period in the Kern County California area alone. Their “incidental take” rules Included that the wind farm will provide $6 million toward Condor programs In mitigation over the 30 years of the rule. https://www.fws.gov/press-release/2023-06/us-fish-and-wildlife-service-issues-incidental-take-permit-multiple-wind#:~:text=The%20permit%20covers%20the%20incidental,of%20these%20wind%20energy%20projects.
 

I note that California hunters and fishermen provide significant financial input to care for wildlife in terms of sales tax, licensing fees, and Pittman-Robertson taxes.
The California one year share of Pittman-Robertson income from hunters and fishermen is roughly $22 million a year. Somewhat more than the $6 million contribution over numerous years by the wind energy industry to compensate for their “taking” of Condors over. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/news-attached-files/WRFinalApportionment2021.pdf

I will not even get into the complex permitting of Wind Farm Eagle ““incidental take” except to say the body counts are both extensive and acceptable to the USFWS. Look it up online, but prepare for skillfully delivered doublespeak in support of the wind energy industry at the expense of birds to include but not limited to all species of Eagles.

Having shown that Condors are less likely to suffer from bird shot than wind farms blades and wind farm “incidental take” is acceptable for both Eagles (not a threatened species) and of the valued scavenger California Condor. That the acceptable mitigation for 11 Condors plus 11 Chicks is $6 million (as set by USFWS) along with the green energy gained. That in today’s dollars sportsmen, over the same time as the USFWS condor rule, will possibly contribute a minimum of at least $660 million which benefits wildlife across the state, mitigating any negative impacts by sportsmen. Yes the case of sportsmen more than paying their way is solid. Having shown all that why not let sportsmen use lead bird shot?

The greenies accept their attrition, we are forced to do likewise by government action. Real EQUITY would be their acceptance of our attrition as sportsmen are significantly contributing and mitigating both in the past, currently, and in the future.

"It is not foolish at all to think that political activists and anti-hunters have infiltrated the Department of the Interior, USFS and State Fish and Game Departments."
Absolutely no argument from me.

Michael: I also agree. Lead fragments in carrion is the primary problem with condors in AZ; not lead paint and car batteries dumped out in the Arizona desert.
This 2007 study from AZ also documented lead pellets in the stomach of condors
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org...dors-and-lead-exposure-JWM-comentary.pdf



Lots of lead pellets are scattered around the countryside in SE AZ during Mearns season, but that is outside the condor's range

BTW: Avian flu (H5N1) hit the condors hard in Northern AZ & Southern Utah this spring. Carcasses were sent to the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory, but I couldn't find a follow-up regarding lead levels of those killed by HPAI.
This was released today, but no mention of the autopsies or lead levels
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/endangered-california-condors-get-bird-flu-vaccine/


I also agree that the agenda driven have clearly chosen to sacrifice eagles (and likely whales) to windfarms.

Follow the money there is a lot of money in activism and politics.and I still stand by that i read a report that wild fowl easily pass shot picked up while feeding and lead oxidizes and slow leaching into surrounding environments but I don't recall the amount oxidation slows the leaching effect.the fact that the plan is to eliminate hunting and firearms ownership should be troubling as they will use any means.

Drat, I missed the study you have cited. I will await further confirmations, but if there is one, it is likely there will be more.

I remain amazed at the level of attrition the greenies accept for their wind turbines. Then again while decrying carbon emissions California has managed despite all their efforts have by reduction of nuclear power actually achieved a net increase in carbon emissions. Funny how zealots can work against their supposed values. More so, if you consider all their interstate power importation. Imagine if their neighbors declined to send it.(an amusing thought not likely to occur)

That said this is a long game and they know it. We (hunters and lovers of vintage guns) must stay vigilant and remain politically active. We must pursue common sense and insist on it in policies we support. We must point out the errors and weaknesses of argument when they occur. I have no doubt that many policies espoused in some quarters are both ill advised and counter-productive. At the same time there is common ground and to breed good solutions that common ground should be emphasized as hating our opponents is useless, though being weary is still essential.

We, and common ground? Aren’t you commenting, because there is no “we” in this community? I like feel good rhetoric as much as the next person, but I prefer not to get played for a fool. I’d support your efforts, if we can some how not manage to give too much away while we are playing long ball?

IMHO, the key is to willingly give up nothing. If there is common ground it will be used against us at sone point. There is an end game the other side is after……no hunting and no guns in private hands.

It doesn’t matter that there may be apparent common ground in the short or medium term. To the other side, it’s just the thin edge of the wedge. And they do play the long game. Multi-generational.

P.S.THE GOVERNMENT FUNDS ACADEMIC STUDIES.

Interesting responses which reflect the dichotomy in our political environment as well as the real world experience dealing with the other side’s tactics. I have kicked this post around for a bit.

Although, for a moment I thought I would lead off with a joke like where is Edmund Ruffin when there is need of him, or fire on fort whatever now. But neither sentiment is funny and our nation is seriously divided.

I believe that the current way Washington politics have evolved to my way or the highway is horrific. Both sides neither talk nor socialize and have become extremists, in some cases vile ugly extremists. We are now farther apart than we have ever been since the civil war. That is not a good thing.

I have spent a good part of my life in countries that melted down into vicious conflict. I do not want that in my country. Finding ways to better things matter.

While I agree weariness is critical and do not espouse any wholesale compromise of values. I do believe in courtesy is always a better course. I rarely violate that. I believe if politicians looked for actual common ground some things might be improved.

Voters must elect better politicians, people capable of actually solving something.

I do believe that most of us on this board have much more in common than differences. I do not think civility will kill me, nor is admitting if my facts are wrong, that is once I am actually convinced I am wrong.

No one is going to win or lose critical ground that matters on this board. We discuss and or debate. On major political issues no one is converted.
Elections are where we will win or lose our future , write your congressman, donate to the right causes, be active in you local party. Do not ignore city and county offices, and definitely pay attention to school board elections.

Great post. The division in this country is truly alarming. As a veteran who has been all over Europe, parts of Africa, the Caribbean, and Central and South America I still believe in what President Reagan once said, that you can take all of our problems and multiply them, and we still have it better than anyone else.

The biggest things that bother me are that we have lost our ability to agree to disagree, put party above best interests of the country at all costs, and we have lost our sense of humor.

In many ways, we are quickly becoming what me and my fellow veterans served to protect us from. There are many reasons for this, and there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides.

I for one, would like to see an end to career politicians who have basically wormed their way into what amounts to life-time jobs. Too many now see Congress not as a way to serve our country but as a pathway to becoming a millionaire. That is not what our founders intended.

And I agree that local elections are very important. I would add that people need to actually research and read about their candidates before actually voting for them, that would be a great start.

I still believe that we are the greatest country in the world. And yes, I believe in American exceptionalism. We are already great. We just need to get back to the reasons for this and remember that we are all Americans first, and are in this together as one.

When we have an administration actively interfearing in free speech we have a problem when we have an administration going after certain religions like Catholics we have a problem.when we have media and social media only reporting the administration talking points we have a problem.when anti hunting zealots are in charge of BLM and other traditional public hunting we have a problem.and when the administration wants to eliminate competition at the ballot box we are in trouble.

The Catholic angle is interesting, as a single point of many. Being Catholics themselves in the highest positions, are they hypocrits, are the Catholics getting big grants, do they sacrifice their own for ideology, do they sleep through anti Christian agenda meetings and let radical advisors make policy. All of the above?

What does that have to do with nontox shot, politicizing wildlife, pricing our kids out of the traditions, attacking lawful firearm ownership and usage, everything.

The colonel makes some excellent points and to most I agree. However, I am less and less hopeful that the divisions in America, concerning liberals and conservatives, will be peacefully resolved. I am not a revolutionary, in the sense that a couple members here have referred to me, but I will not compromise my beliefs and ethics and morals to find "common ground". I know the colonel wasn't advocating that, but many do, in the name of civility and "progress". Democrats and Republicans could once find some common ground, enough to make some meaningful legislation, but when one of the above parties (you figure out which) decided to go ultra-lib, and advocate for the agendas they now do, finding common ground became almost impossible. The Constitution of the United States is a sacred document and I will never accept it being treated as something that should be modified to fit the times. The descendants (by belief, not necessarily by bloodline) of the founding fathers, who founded this nation on a belief in God and His Holy Word, cannot compromise these beliefs and mores. I cannot.

"Polarization" was the buzz word, maybe a decade ago, to describe the state of affairs our nation's government was/is in. It was berated by both sides as being terrible. I said then, and say now, that polarization is impossible to avoid when the values and core beliefs of such a large contingent of America veer so far away from the word of God. True believers will not "go along to get along". I place myself solidly in that group. May God help us all.

Icraigd ..it has to do with going after people using the dept.of justice as a club. the same as going after people who hunt shoot going after people who believe differently then you do going after reporters going after FFL dealers.putting an anti gun anti hunting person in charge of the BLM.and all of the things I list you pick the Catholic angle .why aren't you worried about an administration that wants to end hunting shooting gun ownership you won't be needing any notox shot if you don't have a gun.and yes there are lots of people in the administration who want on outright ban on guns

I see it as one of many, and the same ideology goes hand in hand with rest of the agenda. I see a multi part worry, but when educators among us are agenda driven, I am fully certain that they require their political leanings to be part of the core curriculum.

The hypocrisy around their progressive version of Catholicism is interesting, when I'm not so sure the prez can tie his shoes. Certainly, old double barrel, fire two shots in the air, doesn't make him a friend of the community, but there are many voters on autopilot, that gladly give free reign. Maybe, they are taught that, maybe they must teach it, because they message that they are above question?

In answer to your question on hypocrites, yes and no, if they held the beliefs of what they claim to be yes, if they claim a label while actively undermining the faith they purport, then they are simply opportunistic liars. One cannot claim membership and then utterly repudiate and undermine.

What does that have to do with non-tox and the rest? If the opposition cannot honestly adhere to our constitution in their public service, or to the faith they claim, then they demonstrate a consistency which requires my opposition. I believe in our constitution and expect likewise in our public service. I know people are flawed and not perfectly consistent; however fatally flawed ones must be opposed as the flaws are indicative of a cancer on the body politic. That cancer is further shown in their insensible policies. The example I earlier pointed out that the left in California claim climate change is a major crisis that requires Herculean action now, but then adopt policies that are actually growing emissions and damaging the natural environment they claim sacred. They fly private jets to resorts to commiserate. They are hypocrites and intellectually inconsistent in their stated beliefs and actions. You cannot claim to want to help the poor then price them out and trap them in their status.

Our traditions are both a target of their ridiculous ideal, and a side effect of their defective world view. Their actions in their incoherence are coherent to that view. MC’s example helps show that.

Let’s get a few things straight, Mr. Obfuscation. I never sold you a gun. Period. Never would. You bought a gun at an auction, and begged for free help. I knew the gun, bought it, serviced it, sold it, to someone who wasn’t an idiot, maybe a month tops at my house. That was a long time before it became your gun. I never shot it, as it had enough right hand cast to knock a lefty silly. At least one Darne owner here called you out on your nonsense about misregulation being an issue with Darne guns. He had owned more than a few.

An English trained gunmaker, with a lifetime of experience in the matter, told you right here what the likely problem was. You ignored him.

I pattern guns regularly. But the process for doing that, for a species like Ruffed Grouse, sure doesn’t require help from an internet shotgun website.

Unless you are a college professor.

Best,
Ted

They came for the jews I said nothing,they came for the Muslims ,I said nothing they came for the Catholics I said nothing,,this is what is going to happen.never give an inch

Worth quoting Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) accurately Mark.
He was a Lutheran pastor in Germany, who initially supported Nazi political movements. After Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933, Niemöller became an outspoken critic of Hitler’s interference in the Protestant Church, which was many ways colluding with the Nazis. He spent 1937 to 1945 in Nazi prisons and concentration camps, along with other members of the "Confessing Church", Catholics, and other "undesirables".
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Confessing-Church

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.



Dietrich Bonhoeffer paid for his opposition with his life.
"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act."
(Though attributed to Bonhoeffer, this quote does not appear in any of his letters or works and is found in Robert K. Hudnut's A Sensitive Man and the Christ, 1971)

The Cost of Discipleship
"Jesus bluntly calls the evil person evil. If I am assailed, I am not to condone or justify aggression. Patient endurance of evil does not mean a recognition of its rights. That is sheer sentimentality, and Jesus will have nothing to do with it. The shameful assault, the deed of violence and the act of exploitation are still evil."


Christians are called to be peacemakers, but making peace is never enabling sin. But every disagreement is not grounds for hating the one with opposing views...unless hate is one's "meat and drink" (Romans 14:17-19)


A.W. Tozer, Jesus, Our Man in Glory, Chapter 6 - "Jesus, Standard of Righteousness"
Hebrew 1:9a You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness...
It is a sin for the children of God not to hate what ought to be hated. Study long and well the record and the teachings of Jesus while He was on earth. Our Lord Jesus loved righteousness, but He hated iniquity. I think we can say He hated sin and wrong and evil perfectly!
If we are committed, consecrated Christians, truly disciples of the crucified and risen Christ, there are some things we must face.
We cannot love honesty without hating dishonesty.
We cannot love purity without hating impurity.
We cannot love truth without hating lying and deceitfulness.
Jesus never hated a sinner, but He hated the evil and depravity that controlled the sinner. He did not hate the proud Pharisee, but He detested the pride and self-righteousness of the Pharisee.

I apologize if I'm reading you wrong Doc Drew, but you may be misreading, if you detect hatred? Intolerance of secular progressive agendas, detest the pride and self-righteousness of joandkamala supporter, why not?

Craig: we are to hate what God hates...not those He gave His son to save (John 3:16)
God hates sin
Deuteronomy 27:26 & James 2:10-11 are clear that there is no hierarchy of sin, but some sins however do have greater consequences than other sins. (Exodus 32:30-31, Matthew 11:24, John 19:11)

And some sins particularly stir the wrath of God
1. In our rebellion and pride imagining Him to be other than who He has revealed Himself to be (Exodus 20:1-3, Psalm 50:17-21, Isaiah 65:2)
2. Child sacrifice and the shedding of innocent blood (2 Kings 17 & 21) ie abortion
3. Leading children into sin (Matthew 18:6-7) ie the sexualization of children
and
Proverbs 6:16-19
There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

Starting each day (or post) with a big chug of hatred ultimately destroys one's soul.

A blessed Lord's day to all.

Drew you got my point.you know what I'm saying.you post the original quote,I made my point

Thanks mc and Doc Drew. I simply wanted to make my point that hatred can pertain, but not from my approach. This is an ideological conflict of this earth, and the same anti 2A advocates are taking God out of our lives today, conditioning our children to belittle God, and are seriously eroding Christianity based societal morals. In this context, I do not have the first instincts to turn to scripture, but in another context of everyday life, I see left wing policy ruin communities with drug abuse and horrendous domestic violence. And, there is a steady increase of knee jerk lefties coming out of our higher education system, programmed to not only continue, but worsen the spiral.

The same people that are saying, trust me, I can tell you what, where, when, how to own and shoot, are the same ones that hypocritically ignore drugged out of their minds biobirth factories, allowing their minor children to be sexually brutalized, brushing it off as a medical condition. If there's something to hate, I'd say the new meaning of compassion is right up there.

Just in the news: https://www.aol.com/news/house-republican-pushes-age-limits-130005919.html ----------------- What say ye?

It will never pass those in power want to stay in power.how bout Biden saying he will use measures to keep trump from being president ? How does that work ? Bananas anyone!