doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Public commentary to MN DNR.

Keith, it depends on the source of the lead, but in some cases, the source can be determined via analysis. Sometimes not. Woodcock, for example, show indications of lead in their systems, although in a study by the WI DNR, none were ever examined that had lead shot in their systems. And in that case, the examination was unable to determine whether the source of the lead was lead shot or whether it came from the soil--the 2nd option being quite plausible with woodcock since they spend a lot of time with their beaks in the ground probing for worms.

And you're wrong to include Audubon with the antis. The Iowa DNR discovered that their public forests in NE Iowa had aged to the point that there was very little suitable habitat (young forest) left for ruffed grouse (and various neotropical songbirds). They put on a number of seminars to inform the public that it was their intention to begin managing the forests to restore some balance between new growth and mature timber. Obviously, those of us in RGS supported the DNR's efforts. The Audubon Society was our best ally in that effort, and they didn't mind at all that the DNR was using the declining number of ruffed grouse as their poster bird.

And you're confusing lead lodged in bodies from shot or bullets with lead that's ingested. A study conducted in North Dakota showed that of those who provided blood samples, lead levels were higher (although still far below the CDC's "level of concern") among those who ate wild game compared to those who did not.

I'm squarely among those who are not prepared to willingly give up lead without seeing good evidence. And in the case of lead shot, it's pretty difficult to prove that ingesting it poses a threat either to upland birds themselves or to eagles. Or to humans for that matter, unless maybe we're talking about someone who eats pheasant every day. The MN DNR's Nontoxic Shot Committee admitted as much in their own report. Those pushing for further restrictions on lead are pretty much stuck with "Well, it's a poison, and we ought to get rid of it." We need to force them to come up with better evidence than that.