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.

Larry,
The Audubon society you get in NE Iowa is NOT the Audubon you get in Mpls, MN. or some other places. The article in the Mpls. Red Star I noted, that was published the day after public commentary to the DNR ended, was written by two members of the Audubon society board here in Minnesota.
If you want data unsupported by facts, have another look at that article on the website. They slung a lot of BS in that piece.
I don't think Keith is confusing anything on lead. Simply having a study that says people who eat wild game have higher lead levels doesn't explain where the lead is coming from. If you live a rural existance, on an older homestead, the lead could very well come from the pipes, or the solder holding the pipes in the place, or the water from the well. Not the game you eat.
Like I pointed out, an Eagle who eats lead will have a much higher chance of being poisoned than an owl or a hawk. The physiology is different between the birds. The eagle will always be their poster child for anti-hunting, and, make no mistake, banning lead shot is not about saving eagles, it is about ending hunting.


Best,
Ted

Larry, the Audobon Society has been in support of California's AB 711 lead ammunition ban. Here is a rebuttal to their allegations made by Hunt For Truth:

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/05/rebuttal...on-ban-in-cali/

It is not surprising that some factions within Audobon may be supportive of hunting while others may not. Just look at the number of guys right here who support anti-gun politicians.

The WI DNR study you talk about in your first paragraph above appears to have absolutely excluded lead shot as the source for lead in the systems of woodcock, but still refuses to make that determination when it is almost certain that lead from other sources was concentrated in the worms they eat... not from sticking their beaks in the soil. As far as I know, worms do not eat lead shot, but there is still plenty of tetraethyl lead dust in our soils from decades of burning leaded gasoline. Lead isotope analysis can seldom identify the exact source of lead because lead smelters supplied lead from the same mines to many end users of lead.

I do understand that lead lodged in bodies is different than ingested lead, and made that distinction in my prior post. I also mentioned that ingested lead, although more bio-active due to contact with digestive acid, is also typically excreted long before enough is dissolved to cause lead poisoning. I'm not the least bit confused about that.

The North Dakota study you cited on increased lead levels in people who ate wild game was mostly due to venison consumption where bullet fragments far from the wound channel ended up in ground meat... not from lead shot. And it could not be determined that those wild game eaters who had higher than normal lead levels did not get that lead exposure from other sources of lead besides bullet fragments.

I am absolutely not in denial that lead can be a toxin. But there are a multitude of much more threatening environmental toxins that are a far greater threat to humans and animals. Your last sentence in your post above says it all... "We need to force them to come up with better evidence than that."

I still don't follow the line of reasoning. 'They' say it's a poison, and you say it's a poison. Doesn't that settle the issue?

I believe these issues only apply to law abiding folks, and the key, as I see it, is what does 'willingly give up' mean. Should legal hunters take lead to the field in protest of a regulatory ban, preach to the choir, or concede to 'better' evidence.

No, it doesn't -- unless you think lead is inherently evil. In fact, lead has demonstrated value, and can cause harm. The issue and reasoning is pretty simple: do we allow the government to restrict behavior without evidence that the particular use causes harm? This proposal is to ban lead shot for upland bird hunting based on harm shown for other uses, with no showing of harm from this use.

Jay

With lead it's all about how "bioavailable" it is. The mining companies fought back against the EPA in the 1980s and 90s by feeding mine waste to pigs and then doing necropsies to determine how and what was damaged by the ingested lead (I was directly involved in this "war" as an EPA contractor". It was fun to watch the bureaucrats fold and run when this data was presented.) That data was developed by using hard and sound science and has kept EPA well at bay until now. Lead has many forms, carbides, sulphides, metallic, etc. The science I have seen so far that supports any sort of ban is pure rubbish. Lead dust in the air can be a problem, metallic lead pellets randomly spread around the soils and muddy bottoms of various lakes and rivers is not, period. What I have seen presented so-far is purely emotional speculation, hype and fear-mongering.

Banning lead is not about the environment or the birds. It is just about the people who want to control everything 'feeling' that hunting is wrong, guns are bad and that they should dictate your life for you. I think they should all be rounded up...Geo

Of course there are all kinds of sources for lead, especially where humans are concerned. Lead pipes, lead paint, etc. The interesting thing about the ND study is that, although those who ate game had higher blood lead levels than those who did not, the average blood lead level for everyone in that study was LOWER than the overall national average. Which would seem to indicate that, while you can certainly ingest lead when eating wild game, it's likely that there are other sources out there which are worse than what you'll get from eating wild game.

When we were working with the Iowa DNR on forest management, Audubon was squarely on our side. The bad guys on the OTHER side were Sierra. They don't like cutting down trees, period. I also recall a call-in birding show on a local radio station. Couple Audubon guys answering questions. At one point, one of them mentioned that although he wasn't a hunter, he was on the banquet committee of the local Pheasants Forever chapter. The host of the show asked why he'd support a hunting organization if he doesn't hunt. Answer: "Because PF does the best local habitat work of any conservation organization." I'm more than happy to work with allies like that.

There are quite a few politicians who are anti-gun but pro-environment, and plenty who are pro-gun but anti-environment. Very few get it right most of the time in BOTH areas. Several years back, the Iowa DNR requested an increase in license fees. There hadn't been one in several years, the increase was relatively modest, and Iowa sportsmen were generally in support. Iowa Legislature shot it down because so many of them had made a "no new taxes" pledge . . . and after what that did to GHW Bush when he ran for reelection, by God they were going to stick by it. Even if it's really a "user fee", and most of the users are OK with increasing it. That's politics for you.

Back to lead. We're stuck with the fact it's a toxin; we're stuck with the fact that eagles die of lead poisoning; and we're stuck with the antis going after lead. Asking for solid evidence in the SPECIFIC area they're pushing for restrictions (like lead shot for upland game) is the best we can do.

I had the thought to visit this topic because chances are you have a voice in the industry that others might not. Yes, I snipped out a bunch of stuff, but wouldn't this comment matter. If all we're doing is asking, then I suppose you're saying we should accept 'no'. Here's hoping there's a better somewhere out there. I'm sure you're having a great Christmas, take care.

I don't really have a voice "in the industry", although I do have a different platform than most, as a regular columnist for a hunting magazine. My editor had no problem with the two part feature I did on the whole lead vs nontox issue several years back. Other than what's going on in California, not much has happened since then. There's been significant push back against further restrictions on lead shot in several states where the % of hunters/shooters is great enough that the politicians are likely to listen. CA's main problem, in addition to the fact that they're cursed with the condors, is that their numbers aren't significant enough to give them a strong pro-gun, pro-hunting lobby.

Because Congress has taken away the EPA's authority to regulate lead in ammunition, most of what can happen now will occur at the state level. And fortunately for Minnesotans, according to somewhat dated statistics I have, they sell about twice as many hunting licenses as does CA--with only 1/7 the population. Which means that the politicians down in St. Paul are far more likely to listen if the hunting/gun lobby starts making noise.

And the last thing I'm doing is saying we should accept "no" when we ask for sound scientific evidence. If the DNR can't come up with the evidence, that's the point at which we start bombarding the politicians with phone calls, letters and emails telling them that the hunters and shooters of MN are getting the shaft--and are not happy about it. Making the best case we can that shooting lead shot in the uplands isn't causing any significant threat to either wildlife or humans--which is a pretty good argument to keep it around.