July
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
Who's Online Now
2 members (fullandfuller, SKB), 191 guests, and 4 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums10
Topics38,708
Posts548,155
Members14,438
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
Thread Like Summary
BrentD, Prof, Buzz, ChiefAmungum, craigd, Drew Hause, eeb, FelixD, greener4me, Imperdix, John Roberts, Karl Graebner, keith, LeFusil, mc, old colonel, Parabola, Robt. Harris, Run With The Fox, Stanton Hillis, susjwp
Total Likes: 64
Original Post (Thread Starter)
#627061 03/07/2023 3:10 PM
by Little Creek
Little Creek
Tom Roster published a paper on steel shot lethality February 22, 2023. The lethality of modern steel is much improved. His paper is worth reading. It was posted on Outdoor Life.com.
Tom recommends various chokes for different birds/ranges.
Has anyone seen a table that gives choke constrictions for steel shot? I.e., what do the chokes measure?
Liked Replies
#627233 Mar 11th a 09:01 PM
by keith
keith
I don't know why I wasted my time, but I read the outdoorlife.com article by Tom Roster.

This lunatic has spent something like 40 years trying to convince everyone that steel shot is the ballistic equal of lead, or perhaps even better. Nothing could be further from the truth. The density of steel shot is around 7.85 grams per cu. cm versus about 11.35 grams per cu. cm for lead shot.

Ammunition makers have made up for some of steel shot shortcomings by increasing velocity. But now Roster is actually saying that increased velocity isn't even needed for steel to equal lead shot effectiveness.

Using Roster's goofy logic, if steel shot is as good as lead, or even better, then aluminum shot should be better yet! And it wouldn't damage our barrels either!

Killing birds or breaking targets is highly dependent upon pattern density and kinetic energy. So the anti-lead agenda driven Roster desperately wants us to accept that a ballistically inferior shot that requires much larger size to remotely compare to lead, and which loses velocity and retained energy faster, is better all around.

That's just nuts. But why should we pay attention to the laws of physics in an insane world where Joe Biden gives the 2023 Woman of Courage Award to a biological male, and Liberals still think he respects women more than Trump?
9 members like this
#627392 Mar 15th a 10:27 AM
by Salopian
Salopian
This whole Steel versus Lead controversy as gone on for far too long.
Steel shot in my opinion is nowhere near as efficient in shotgunning as is Lead shot and never will be.
But let us get down to basic necessities , here in the UK we will be subjected to a total ban on using Lead by 2025!
Small bore guns and air rifles will possibly become obsolete due to ammunition becoming unavailable .
But more worrying for myself is that China seems to be the only supplier of Steel shot !
If they cannot cope and supply now we are in serious trouble Worldwide in 2026 or earlier.
Also in this environmentally conscious World obsessed with energy saving has anyone calculated the energy wastage used to produce steel /soft iron shot compared with moulding molten lead into shot?
7 members like this
#627419 Mar 15th a 08:35 PM
by John Roberts
John Roberts
Originally Posted by LGF
I learned about lead shot in 1968, from a warden at Sauvie Island, outside of Portland. He talked about picking up hundreds of 'greenies', ducks dead or dying with their butts stained green from the undigested vegetation dribbling out the back because lead shot in their gizzards prevented digestion. A vast amount of research since then showed that ingested lead kills birds; free-flying condors in California are trapped annually and put through a chelation process, broadly similar to dialysis, to remove lead from their blood. They pick it up from gut piles or ground squirrels shot with .22's.

I have no idea if birds saved from lead poisoning outnumber crippling losses due to steel, but there is absolutely no question that lead shot in ponds kills waterfowl. Not all science which inconveniences us is a hoax or evil conspiracy - seen any mercury thermometer recently? If you want to disprove the science, start swallowing lead #8's and see how you feel in a year or two.

What a human could do to mimic the feeding habits of waterfowl re lead poisoning is a fool's errand, but you knew that. Condors are dead species flying that cannot be saved by govt. money. Wonder how many fly into wind turbines annually? Soft bottom marshes, sloughs, swamps, and almost all waterfowling areas allow lead to sink in deep enough to be non-threatening, hard bottom "ponds", not so much. Banning lead shot everywhere was gross overreach.
JR
5 members like this
#627499 Mar 17th a 02:03 AM
by keith
keith
Originally Posted by BrentD, Prof
Originally Posted by Stanton Hillis
Originally Posted by John Roberts
Banning lead shot everywhere was gross overreach.

That's in a nutshell. It was bad "science".


Do tell. From whence do you draw this grand decree? Any data? Any personal expertise? Any knowledge at all?

Or just more armchair bullshit, Stanley?

Put your facts on the line. Your experiments, samples, calculations. Lay it out.

You are blowing bullshit.

And it begins again... another discussion of the alleged dangers of lead ammunition begins its' descent into chaos, personal attacks, and name-calling. Based upon past behavior, I'm sure the professor's Canadian pal would likely say that I started the brouhaha too.

Originally Posted by LGF
I learned about lead shot in 1968, from a warden at Sauvie Island, outside of Portland. He talked about picking up hundreds of 'greenies', ducks dead or dying with their butts stained green from the undigested vegetation dribbling out the back because lead shot in their gizzards prevented digestion. A vast amount of research since then showed that ingested lead kills birds; free-flying condors in California are trapped annually and put through a chelation process, broadly similar to dialysis, to remove lead from their blood. They pick it up from gut piles or ground squirrels shot with .22's.

This QUOTE from LGF was interesting. He gives purely anecdotal evidence of hundreds of ducks suffering from alleged lead poisoning. He didn't actually see it. He took someone else's word for it. Then he tells us the lead that Condors allegedly ingest comes from gut piles or ground squirrels killed with lead .22's. We know that ingested lead is toxic to various degrees. However, there are quite a few sources of environmental lead in California, yet all these anti-lead advocates are blind to every other more bio-available source of lead except these vast numbers of lead contaminated carcasses and gut piles. Now that the lead ammo is banned there, do you think they will reconsider the bans when Condors still get sick?

Answer: A resounding NO! They will instead blame lead ammo from other states, or from skeet and trap ranges. In the Thread linked to above, we already saw that the 1997 study done by the Univ. of Minnesota saw no decrease in lead poisoning in Eagles versus their famous 1991 study, despite good no-tox ammo compliance from hunters after the Federal lead ammo ban. It became quite obvious that Eagles must be getting lead into their systems from other sources. And suddenly, the facts changed, and the blame was placed on deer hunters and gut piles that allegedly had hundreds of lead fragments in them. Lead from paint, pesticides, industrial sources, or decades of millions of tons of microscopic particles from burning leaded gasolines were not considered by the anti-lead ammo zealots.

We asked many questions about the so-called "science" that led to Lead ammo bans before, in the Thread the Preacher provided the link to, and several other Threads. We had an anti-lead zealot who used to routinely dump links to dozens of articles and papers which he obviously never read or understood. When he, or the nutty professor, or other anti-lead ammunition guys were questioned about highly questionable or conflicting data, they refused to answer, or resorted to other cowardly behaviors.

I asked about an eagle that supposedly had a blood lead level many times the lethal dose... yet that bird was strong enough to fly and perch on a tree branch. How is this even remotely possible?

I asked about numerous papers that gave wildly conflicting and different numbers for what constituted a lethal dose of lead in the blood of ducks. I got no reply to a very valid question.

I asked why ducks and geese suddenly stopped dying from lead poisoning when all of the lead ever fired over our lakes, ponds, and sea shores was still there??? Nobody cleaned it up. But all of a sudden, the ducks apparently stopped dying en masse from lead poisoning. And let's not forget that these are migratory birds that winter over in Central American countries that didn't ban lead shot. So the birds were still quite able to ingest shot, carry it in their crops, and even have a few pellets embedded under their skin from being shot at. As far as I can determine, lead shot is still legal for waterfowl in Mexico and other parts of Central and South America.

It became apparent that many of the disciples of supporting lead ammo bans either hadn't really read the data, or were not intelligent enough to see glaring faults and discrepancies.

I gave sound examples of the "Science" being either wrong or dishonest. I provided examples of "Science" that had data manipulated or falsified to reach a predetermined conclusion. Yet we are told to blindly "Believe the Science". We are mocked when we question the "Science". And we are also expected to believe obvious agenda driven lies that make zero sense, and don't even remotely agree with the bullshit they and their peers print. Then we are expected to simply move on and forget that they lied to us, and to stand idly by like sheep as the anti-gun forces continue to attack lead ammo, attempt to sue gun and ammo makers into bankruptcy, and make hunting and shooting much less affordable.

Worse yet, there is a faction right here that will be doing everything they can to convince Dave Weber to lock or delete this Thread, and to Censor any further discussion... all in the name of phony civility.
5 members like this
#627621 Mar 19th a 08:51 AM
by keith
keith
The smartest guy on the Doublegunshop forum writes...

Originally Posted by BrentD, Prof
START reading. You haven't seen them because you haven't looked. Now, they due stable isotope analyses to determine lead source.
.

They don't "due" stable isotope analysis. They "do " it.

However, people who know how to spell "do", and use the word correctly, might also be intelligent enough to understand the limitations of stable lead isotope analysis.

There are four stable isotopes of lead. and the ratios of those isotopes in a sample of lead MAY tell you where in the world that sample of lead was mined. That's because the lead ore in different deposits has naturally decayed at slightly different rates, leaving unique ratios of stable isotopes that can indicate to a researcher where it was mined.

Anti-lead activists like the nutty professor love to cling to the false notion that stable isotope analysis can absolutely pinpoint lead shot as the culprit in avian lead poisoning. Nothing could be further from the truth.

There are several problems with clinging to stable isotope analysis in the never-ending quest to blame lead shot and lead bullets for lead poisoning. Most important is that lead is one of the most recycled metals in use. The lead in shot or bullets may be virgin lead, or more likely, it will be an alloy or mix of new and used lead from multiple sources and multiple smelters. Before it became ammunition, there is a good chance some or all of that lead was previously used in lead pipes, lead acid battery plates, lead flashing, or dozens of other products. So the ratio of stable isotopes are very unlikely to tell the researcher anything about where it was mined. It's about as useless as doing DNA testing on a single hair found in a busy barbershop, and thinking that will tell you who killed the barber.

The fact that the minute quantity of lead in a blood sample has a certain ratio of isotopes also cannot prove that lead came from shot or bullets either. Lead smelting plants sell lead and lead alloys to many different customers. The minute amounts of lead in any blood sample could come from multiple sources. And the worst sources when it comes to plumbism, or lead poisoning, are not chunks of elemental lead in shot or bullet fragments. The worst sources are lead in chemical solutions or dusts, because lead is much more bio-available in those forms. Lead poisoning is a real thing. But the dangers of it from lead ammo has been greatly exaggerated, while other sources are all but ignored. Many guys I know have had lead exposure from reloading, casting bullets or fishing jigs, etc. The only one who ever suffered lead poisoning was a friend who had repeated exposure to lead dust while working as an electrician in a battery manufacturing plant. He told me most was from breathing lead dust while blowing out electrical panels with compressed air.

The nutty professor is at much more risk of increasing his blood lead levels from exposure to the fumes and dust generated by bullet casting than from handling them during reloading, or even swallowing one. And one or two lead shot in a crop or gizzard absolutely does not indicate that any and all lead in that birds blood came from that shot. The single greatest source of lead in our environment came from decades of burning billions of gallons of gasoline that contained tetraethyl lead. And lead continued to be used in aviation fuel even after it was banned for use in cars and trucks. That lead did not simply disappear. It remains every place it was deposited after precipitation washed it out of the air and left it in soil or water.

In addition, those dots on the x-ray images provided by the Preacher are not proof of either lead or lead poisoning. We have zero proof that they are even lead. They could be steel shot, or bismuth, or tungsten. or little round stones. Evidence like that would never fly in Court. Therein lies the big problem. I have read the literature. A great deal of it. And the more I read, the more skeptical I have become. The vast majority of the so-called "science" is not double blind or peer reviewed. Much of it comes from highly suspect and anti-hunting agenda driven sources, such as the Peregrine Fund. I'm sure Ben Deeble is very happy to have the Preacher dumping links to their bullshit here. I have already mentioned that if you actually read this so-called "science" carefully, you will soon see that they cannot even agree on what constitutes a lethal blood lead level in ducks, or geese, or various raptors. When the liars can't get their obviously fictional stories straight, they cannot expect people with any capacity for thoughtful analysis to believe their crap. But the nutty professor mocks anyone who actually uses their brain and questions bullshit. This is a guy who whines about civility and cries about how much nicer it is on Upland Journal forum, as he belittles the guys here who are fed up with the efforts of the Left to end hunting and shooting as we know it.

The best thing the anti-lead people have going for them is that the majority of people don't understand or are too lazy to study the issue. And they are easily fooled by liars and frauds with a PhD after their names. Dustin is wasting his time repeatedly asking the nutty professor to address some of the disparities and absurd assertions in the so-called "science" which I pointed to earlier. He refused to address those things in prior Threads on the subject in the past, and it isn't going to happen now. We should all understand by now that ignoring or dismissing facts is one of the most valuable tools that the Liberal Left uses.

So please, read the "Science". Read all you can, and pay very close attention to the numbers and data and details. You will soon begin to see that a great deal of what passes for "Science" isn't really science at all. And you will similarly see that many of the people who pontificate on the matter of lead ammo bans are agenda driven petty hypocrites who, as craigd astutely notes, do not practice what they preach, and are not nearly as smart as they want you to believe.
5 members like this
#627397 Mar 15th a 02:09 PM
by LeFusil
LeFusil
Steel shot sucks, always has, always will. Sure, there’s been improvements over the years, but it’s still steel shot. Lead is superior ballistically in all facets when compared to steel, everybody knows that, including Roster. Dead centering a decoying bird with steel shot is no guarantee that it’s gonna be a dead bird with steel. How many times have you dead centered a 20 yard bird with a 1450 fps, 1 1/4 Oz of steel 3’s only to watch the bird try and swim for cover, or swim around and die 5 or 10 minutes later? Or cleaned a bird you know you dead centered at close range only to find 1 or 2 holes in the entire bird? I’ve never seen that with lead or bismuth. Patterning steel shows all kinds of inconsistent variations from one shell to the next even out of the same box. It’s frustrating. Unfortunately, it’s the only economical shell to use if you spend any significant time on the water.
I shoot quite a bit of steel during the course of a waterfowl season and it’s semi effective for me because I take birds within its effective range, but that seriously limits my opportunities (both in guns I can use and ranges I can take birds), and I still have to deal with wounded birds.

I agree with Keith. Rosters been spouting this jibberish for years, it’s like he’s being paid to do it.🤔
4 members like this
#627468 Mar 16th a 04:36 PM
by John Roberts
John Roberts
Pomposity is your strong suit, Brent. You wear it well.
JR
4 members like this
#627590 Mar 18th a 06:16 PM
by LeFusil
LeFusil
YOU read through those studies and YOU show us where they definitively show that the studied birds didn’t die from Avian Cholera or bird flu. I’m not talking about a biologist just “knowing” what they think they died from, I’m talking about actual, real scientific analysis proving empirically that these dead birds didn’t have, weren't carrying and ultimately died from an avian disease. Are you saying that there were no bird flu or cholera outbreaks during those times I stated? What if the bird had cholera or flu when it died but had lead in its system (from what source, who knows) List its death like a Covid death?? Died from cancer but had Covid so it’s a Covid death? Talk about lala land. How convenient for an agenda huh.
Address my remarks about South America. Where did I lie or tell tall tales out of school?? Don’t be upset with guys like me who question the “science”. I’m not one of your students that’s afraid to piss the professor off. I know, you’re not used to that. I’m surprised you stick around here, having to deal with all of us mental midgets and smart asses. There’s tons of examples over the years that prove the science was absolutely wrong in all sorts of fields & disciplines. Science is to be questioned and reviewed, if it wasn’t we’d still be sticking leaches on a sick person or taking mercury as a medicine. Ya, that was scientist that told people that was all good too.

And while you’re at it, please address Keith’s statements in his post.
3 members like this
#627399 Mar 15th a 03:19 PM
by GLS
GLS
Forty years ago Roster had a 10 ga. lead load that several of us tried. It had been published on a BP flier. Next year it was no longer listed. Too many bloopers; a buddy had a blooper at the moment of truth with a turkey. I think the turkey fell down laughing at the nickel plated shot dribbling out of the barrel's end. That was enough bad for the rest of us to use something else. Gil
2 members like this
#627460 Mar 16th a 03:33 PM
by John Roberts
John Roberts
Don't challenge academia or the bureaucracy, Craig. All they do is cast aspersions on your observations you've gleaned from years of in-the-field experience and common sense. Results-driven research is far more acceptable in their little bubble. Lead haters have been around a very long time.
JR
2 members like this
#627587 Mar 18th a 05:39 PM
by LeFusil
LeFusil
Originally Posted by BrentD, Prof
Originally Posted by LeFusil
Suck it, Brent. You’re the biggest pair of clown shoes here. 😂😂😂
That the best you got? You are hilarious.

Brent, you’re as sharp as a bowling ball. You thinking otherwise, now that’s really hilarious!!! 🤣🤣
A real mental “larper”. 😂
2 members like this
#627403 Mar 15th a 03:57 PM
by lagopus
lagopus
Back when lead shot was banned here for waterfowl shooting I used steel and vowed never to use it again as it was just wounding birds. Two shots to bring it down and one to finish it off seemed to be the order of the day. Bismuth I found o.k. if the range was respected and found to be quite adequate for small duck like teal especially. I did get some Tungsten before the price went way up and found it to be very good; I still have some left. I more or less stopped duck and goose shooting. I intend to continue to use lead where legal until it is either banned or my existing stock dries up. Steel has said to have been much improved since the early days. One problem is that the steel cartridges sold here do not attain the velocity that the ones in the U.S. do, in order to conform to European Proof requirements, so are inferior to the ones with which you may be familiar. One major problem is I like to shoot vintage guns and muzzle loaders where steel is a 'no go' option. I do have a modern auto loader and over/under which are steel shot proof. My present option was to get a Baikal over/under, that are made as tough as old boots, and can be bought for very little. Mine was given to me by a Dealer who said he can't get rid of them. I intend to just fire any type of steel cartridge through that is 2 3/4" regardless of shot size. It is bored 1/2 and 3/4 choke and just see what happens. Nothing to loose. Steel shot may see a market for cheap Spanish and Italian boxlock non-ejectors that are virtually worthless here and Baikal over/unders. Use them then discard when worn out and get another. Lagopus.....
2 members like this
#627410 Mar 15th a 05:13 PM
by John Roberts
John Roberts
Steel shot requirements for waterfowl hunting under the guise of being necessary to prevent the wholesale loss of ducks geese, etc. due to lead poisoning from ingestion, is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated on the hunting community, or the populace in general for that matter. But Roster's drivel along with a willing Federal bureaucracy and alarmist thinking got it rammed down our throats. It was never the threat it was accused of being. Sure, there were some places where extreme hunting pressure on public lands allowed lead to accumulate enough for a few waterfowl to pick up lead pellets in enough quantity to eventually kill a very small number, but not even a blip on the screen enough to matter. Lies and damned lies foisted by flawed data.
JR
2 members like this
#627645 Mar 19th a 05:50 PM
by Stanton Hillis
Stanton Hillis
Originally Posted by keith
The smartest guy on the Doublegunshop forum writes...

Originally Posted by BrentD, Prof
START reading. You haven't seen them because you haven't looked. Now, they due stable isotope analyses to determine lead source.
.

They don't "due" stable isotope analysis. They "do " it.

Due to the fact that I have BrentD on ignore I don't see his posts unless they are quoted by another, as above, or decide to "open" it to read. But, I find it odd that one who tags himself as Prof. (supposedly for someone named Stanley) would not be more careful about spelling.
2 members like this
#627691 Mar 20th a 07:03 PM
by Drew Hause
Drew Hause
William: the only time you are in my head is when I pray that you somehow find peace and healing. And I must admit it was tough at first to do so.

Some of the genuine "Preachers" we support and visited 10 days ago in San Luis, San Juan Tecuaco. The guy to my right is Pastor Juan. He was serving in a small church in Aldea Ijorga with another pastor, and through their evangelism efforts, and the transforming power of the Gospel, families were being saved and lives changed. The local criminals thought this were hurting their "business" so they murdered the other pastor and told Juan he was next if he didn't leave. He's still there, and it was my great honor to stand with him.
That is courage Keith. Try to find the courage to admit that you need help, and get it.

[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]

This oughta get the thread locked now wink
2 members like this
#627398 Mar 15th a 03:01 PM
by KY Jon
KY Jon
I think both Keith and LeFusil are right about steel and Roster. He has made himself an often sought out expert, for four decades on steel shot. Early steel shot was pathetic, inhumane in its lack of killing ability which caused game wasted by flying off to die unrecoverable in numbers never seen before. Well, over 40 years they have redeveloped steel about four time, altered wads, invented new powders and instead of sucking wind it not just sucks. For hunting purposes I’ll stick to Bismuth. If I can’t afford Bismuth I’ll just stay home. And Bismuth is a poor cousin to lead in performance. Tungsten is a better option but it cost too much to be anything other than a six dollar answer to a fifty cent problem.
1 member likes this
#627454 Mar 16th a 01:04 PM
by craigd
craigd
Originally Posted by BrentD, Prof
….that's the best you've got I guess. No data, no nothing. Just ignorance and arrogance.
There was a time when I thought you were a gun person, shame on you for the arrogant bs. Never again, or shame on me.
1 member likes this
#627786 Mar 21st a 10:05 PM
by ChiefAmungum
ChiefAmungum
So now more questions. Why limit your shooting to the inferior steel, or correctly, iron shot? There are a couple alternatives that closely mimic lead performance or surpass it. Cost, really? How many rounds do you shoot per season? Compared to the expense of the rest of the trip where does the cost of bismuth or tungsten ammo fit? Do you shoot 100's + rounds per season? I reiterate that I do not hunt waterfowl. I can assure that in my trips that ammunition costs are minimal compared to fuel, food and lodging/campsites. None of which so far have kept me from taking the trip(s).

Just not liking something or someone is a pretty weak argument.
1 member likes this
#627558 Mar 18th a 11:31 AM
by Drew Hause
Drew Hause
I was not aware that concern regarding lead toxicity and waterfowl started in the 50s.
"Lead Poisoning in Wild Waterfowl" was published in 1951
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/items/17375

This is a good review in 1966
https://archive.org/details/ontariofishwildlv5n2onta/page/8/mode/2up

Nilo Farms - Olin Corp. - Winchester were early movers in the effort to avoid waterfowl losses from lead
1961
https://iopn.library.illinois.edu/journals/inhs/article/view/172
1975
R.S. Holmes, "Lead poisoning in waterfowl : dosage and dietary study: joint report of Illinois Natural History Survey and Olin Corporation, Winchester Group"

Of course the Greens, Audubon Society, etc. appropriated what was a legitimate effort on the part of sportsmen and conservationists; and here we are today.
1 member likes this
#627571 Mar 18th a 02:58 PM
by LeFusil
LeFusil
And then there’s this….I’ve seen nowhere, in any of these studies where “they” can determine with empirical, evidence that the lead found in the carcasses of these birds was actually from lead shot specifically. They somehow ruled out every single naturally occurring environmental or industrial factor? Hmmmm. Damn that’s weird.
Leaded gasoline? Lead used in industry? Pollution of all types? Contaminated rivers, streams, lakes, etc from decade upon decade of industrial dumping and waste. Great way to slant an argument to suit your purposes, just leave all that out.

Another thought…Avian Cholera. You know, the diarrhea, green and yellow runny stools and stained butts, erratic behavior, lethargy, mental and physical issues, etc. Were all of these dead carcasses tested for Avian cholera? Nah. They weren’t. Can’t dig em up and test them now can we. The symptoms described as lead poisoning by all the experts sure sound like EXACTLY the same as what happens when a bird is infected with cholera or bird flu.
Avian Cholera was detected in North America in the 40’s. How was the science and research into Avian disease in the 1940’s-the 70’s? Not exactly high tech or highly funded.
There were a few “big” outbreaks of avian disease during the exact times all of these so called studies were taking place. Especially in the 1970’s. That’s facts, yet never mentioned by the lead shot haters. Weird. South America as far as I can tell, has never had a significant outbreak of Avian Cholera or Flu. Until recently, they just started jumping on the lead shot ban yet they haven’t had any significant decrease in waterfowl populations. Hmmmm.
1 member likes this
#627597 Mar 18th a 08:34 PM
by LeFusil
LeFusil
Stop Brent. Just Stop. Stop being so dense.

My comment on the signs & symptoms was directly aimed at the post “LGF” had about his experience in 1968 that he shared. How in the hell did that warden deduce that the bird died of lead poisoning?? Because it had lead in its gizzard??? Birds have all kinds of things in their gizzards, including asphalt, steel, contaminants that would otherwise be deemed toxic., etc. Did he do a blood test? Did he study organ damage? Did he definitively isolate the source of the lead in that birds blood? Did they test the dead bird for avian disease and eliminate that from the equation?? Nah. The good warden didn’t. He saw lead in its gizzard and a green rear end and came up with the conclusion all on his un-scientific own didn’t he? If you’re now disputing that Avian cholera or flu doesn’t cause that exact set of described signs coming from the rear end of a duck…then you are dumber than a bag of hammers. And his so called “vast amounts of research” comment is also being disputed.
When you gonna comment on Keith’s post?


LGf’s comment:
“I learned about lead shot in 1968, from a warden at Sauvie Island, outside of Portland. He talked about picking up hundreds of 'greenies', ducks dead or dying with their butts stained green from the undigested vegetation dribbling out the back because lead shot in their gizzards prevented digestion. A vast amount of research since then showed that ingested lead kills birds; free-flying condors in California are trapped annually and put through a chelation process, broadly similar to dialysis, to remove lead from their blood”.
1 member likes this
#627639 Mar 19th a 03:28 PM
by craigd
craigd
Peer review is an important medical standard. It may be present in all the referenced studies, but probably shouldn't be assumed.

Doc Drew, is a 2015, soil sample study relevant? Probably and possibly, but how many decades after the lead ban is this time period, and why are we looking at soil samples, when these typical non tox waterfowl zones are wetlands? It's okay, the speculations starts, stratified layers of settlement from previous generation hunters are continually uncovered and ingested by waterfowl.

Back up a bit to the soil sample studies, often related to Woodcock models and other upland situations. The glory pictures of waterfowl xrays showing ingested lead shot, are basically nonexistent in Woodcock, but dismissed as immaterial to their conclusions. Yet, an xray caught your attention to be worthy of highlight on an earlier comment. Soar Raptors is a .org, heavily gov funded source, that appeared in previous "discussions" here. They had a glory picture of a hundred and twenty or thirty some odd lead fragment xray, supposedly ingested by a Bald Eagle feeding on a hunter's big game gut pile. I seems it has since been pulled, even though it was likely a great emotional donation magnet for their cause.

Peer review is a living, evolving concept. The source of funding in today's science will largely point to conclusions anticipated, and the products of our modern higher education system are peers who are trained to see socio-political agendas as integral fact. The peers are the greens with an agenda, the example of how "we" handled covid should be ample evidence.
1 member likes this
#627787 Mar 21st a 10:06 PM
by craigd
craigd
Originally Posted by Drew Hause
….It doesn't help to throw into a pot lead toxicity in waterfowl, lead toxicity in raptors, lead toxicity in scavengers and then mix in climate change, the efforts by some to outlaw sport hunting, shut down target ranges and outprice target shooting, lead in the water in Flint, the "Green Movement", COVID, George Soros, Greta Thunberg & environmental racism and pour out some vast conspiracy theory as to why lead shot was banned. Conspiracy theories (and faux-omniscience) are coping mechanisms, esp. for the not so smart and those with OCD, but we usually find out over time that they are detached from reality….

Yup, it’s almost as if I’m a loon, instead a waterfowl hunter. Sad story, I’ll use and enjoy what I have, but I flat out prefer not to spend my money on gent’s guns and rifles anymore. Nowadays, my coping mechanism is to buy things that “friends” of the double gun lecture me about being offensive and are proactively trying to ban. I do not believe it’s in my head, I can tell what’s going on? Always a pleasure Doc Drew, thanks for your tolerance.
1 member likes this

doublegunshop.com home | Welcome | Sponsors & Advertisers | DoubleGun Rack | Doublegun Book Rack

Order or request info | Other Useful Information

Updated every minute of everyday!


Copyright (c) 1993 - 2024 doublegunshop.com. All rights reserved. doublegunshop.com - Bloomfield, NY 14469. USA These materials are provided by doublegunshop.com as a service to its customers and may be used for informational purposes only. doublegunshop.com assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in these materials. THESE MATERIALS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANT-ABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. doublegunshop.com further does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials. doublegunshop.com shall not be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages, including without limitation, lost revenues or lost profits, which may result from the use of these materials. doublegunshop.com may make changes to these materials, or to the products described therein, at any time without notice. doublegunshop.com makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. This is a public un-moderated forum participate at your own risk.

Note: The posting of Copyrighted material on this forum is prohibited without prior written consent of the Copyright holder. For specifics on Copyright Law and restrictions refer to: http://www.copyright.gov/laws/ - doublegunshop.com will not monitor nor will they be held liable for copyright violations presented on the BBS which is an open and un-moderated public forum.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.0.33-0+deb9u11+hw1 Page Time: 11.433s Queries: 32 (11.419s) Memory: 0.8267 MB (Peak: 1.4341 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-07-22 12:05:23 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS