Thought you guys may like to see this...

http://www.startribune.com/531/story/879359.html
Lead shot increasingly under fire
It apparently is a matter of time before the toxic substance is restricted for upland hunters. The Department of Natural Resources is examining and weighing the results of a citizens' committee report as it considers the matter.
By Doug Smith, Star Tribune

Should lead shot, a toxic substance already banned for waterfowl hunters since 1991, also be banned for upland hunters? An 11-member citizens committee recently examined the issue for the Department of Natural Resources and last week released its 70-page report. Bill Penning, DNR farmland wildlife program leader and liaison to the group, discusses the issue.
Q Why was the committee formed?

A There's a lot going on on the national level right now. Numerous states are discussing implementing nontoxic shot regulations above and beyond existing federal regulations for waterfowl. Some, like South Dakota, already have done that. Lead shot there is banned on almost all public lands. We know it's toxic to humans and wildlife. Missouri studies show it's killing doves. It's an impor- tant issue that merits public discus- sion.

Q In Minnesota, lead shot for upland hunting is legal on state wildlife management areas but illegal on federal waterfowl production areas, which can cause confusion -- and citations -- for hunters. Did this situation help spur the discussions?

A Well, we do have state and federal areas that often are adjacent, which can be a problem. But the evidence and need for this has been building. We decided it was time to be proactive.

Q What was the group's goal?

A They were charged with coming up with recommendations. Everything was on the table, from taking no action to a total ban on lead shot. They didn't come up with one final recommendation saying, "DNR, this is what we think you should do." But we got some very useful information.

Q What did they recommend?

A They agreed unanimously that the DNR should regulate lead shot on managed public dove fields, which we did last year. And they said the DNR ultimately should implement some regulations that are more restrictive than current state and federal regulations.

Q The group also agreed on seven principles [see accompanying story], including that lead shot inevitably will have to be restricted for all shotgun hunting at some time in the future. That's a very blunt statement.

A It is. Everybody agreed to it. But how long that will take is open to debate. Some think it will be within five years; some think it will take 50 years.

Q The group ultimately came up with five options?

A Yes. We started with over 40 options and winnowed it down to five. We knew we were not going to have universal agreement on any one of those.

Q Will the DNR choose one of those options?

A We may or may not pick one of those as written. It may be some combination. We may phase something in. This is the first small step in generating broader public discussion and awareness of the issue.

Q Would you be surprised if any restrictions were implemented by next fall?

A Yes, I would.

Q Did the group consider lead bullets or slugs used by big-game hunters?

A No. The scope of this was shotgun hunting of upland species.

Q How would banning lead shot affect hunters with older-vintage shotguns?

A It used to be that steel shot could score the barrels of older guns, but the new nontoxic loads have shot-cups with thick plastic; the shot doesn't come in contact with the barrel walls. I shoot steel with an 1898 Parker and a 1948 L.C. Smith.

Q Why did you switch to all nontoxic shot?

A It was a personal decision. I have three young kids who eat wild game, and I didn't want to feed them lead. It was a no-brainer for me.

Q So how long before we see more lead-shot restrictions?

A I don't know. The DNR has not made any decision yet. There are a lot of factors, including politics -- and we're getting a new DNR commissioner. But personally I think we'll move forward on this issue and that it will be a matter of years rather than decades.

The committee's report is available online at http://www.startribune.com/a2075.


http://www.startribune.com/531/story/879453.html
The 11-member Nontoxic Shot Advisory Committee agreed on several principles, including:
•It's inevitable that lead shot must be restricted for all shotgun hunting at some future time.

•Lead shot restrictions should be phased in over time.

•The regulations should be simple, understandable and enforceable.

The group narrowed a list of 40 options to five that the DNR could consider banning lead shot for:

•Dove hunting on public and private lands statewide.

•Hunting all small game on all public lands in the state's farmland zone.

•Hunting all small game on all public and private lands in the farmland zone.

•Hunting all small game on all state wildlife management areas.

•Hunting all small game on all public and private lands statewide.

Halvey,

Thanks for the link. I have been wanting to reload shotshells for a while now. I think I am getting motivated.

Also, regarding the use of steel in the 1898 Parker and the 1948 Elsie - not an expert - but doesn't the steel hurt the barrels because of the hardness of the shot regardless of the shot-cup?

I am curious for others to chime in on this. I think the combination of speed above 1200fps and pressure greater than 8,000 combined might have damaging effect to stock head, barrels, etc.

Duke

Buy your own land, and do what you want - I do!
Never a soul, has ever looked over my shoulder to see what I'm doing.
The one and only agent is just glad that some of us, keep our land wild.
I could touch-off a punt gun on the lake without a worry matey.

I live in an area that as mined lead since the Romans invaded Britain.
I understand that the ingestion of lead can cause madness.
Well let me tell you Sirs that the only madness that I suffer from is these crass, stupid people that foist there opinions, theories and ideology upon me without first getting their facts right.We do not have a higher incidence of mental health problems here, than anywhere else, despite having our drinking and bathing water flowing through lead pipes.
When we were asked to stop using lead shot over wetlands we were represented by the National shooting organisation that said it supported the ban on lead shot providing an effective alternative was found to lead by the time the ban was implemented.
More than ten years later we do not have that alternative available, that is as efficient at despatching birds, that is as cheap, that is readily available.
I am not convinced that lead is as problematical as the do-gooders would like to have us believe.

Lead is a health risk, but you can legally buy any drug you want on the streets of Amsterdam. Get rid of the Socialists in Europe and Brittian and you will sovle your lead problem.

I think we are just a few steps away from having lead shot banned at sporting clay ranges, unless clubs take a more proactive stand in controlling the possible contamination problem on their respective ranges.
Banning lead shot would be the death of the shotgun shooting sports. Is this a place where the NRA could step in and reason with these folks

The health issue associated with lead is simply a red herring. It is gun control by another name. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was quoted once as saying (to paraphrase) "forget banning the guns because there are too many of them, ban the ammo."

I'm pretty familiar with South Dakota politics, and must confess doubt that South Dakota's lead shot restrictions on lands open to public hunting are connected with an effort to ban guns there.

Don't want to hijack from the main discussion but can't help comment that the level of alarmism, agitprop and disinformation concerning guns and gun-related issues is disturbing. Recent report stateside radio (perhaps NPR) raised horrifying spectre of bank robbed at gunpoint with AK-47 apparently shipped to CONUS by Iraqui war vet standing down. Reported rate of fire 750 rnds per minute. Those of you who have inverted a few lashed up banana mags or watched a barrel start to squirm will find this far-fetched but those inclined to believe, will.

jack

There is a news item I read in the Detroit News today on line under the Google for guns in America or such in which they are VERY alarmed about flawed guns getting into the hands of our citizens. The article is nothing shout of lies and distortion propagated to help the anti gun lobby. We have an up hill fight on our hands and the new Democratic congress is going to throw us some hard balls!! David

Gunflint Charlie I don't remember the exact dates but according to Wanye Capooths book "The Golden Age of Waterfowling" they knew of the effects of lead shot on waterfowl back in the 1920's.
I don't associate banning lead shot with gun control.
Cox

HJ - No one is disputing the effects of ingested shot on waterfowl or humans. However, the banning of lead shot from the wide open spaces of BLM land, or shooting ranges sounds like the gov't protecting us from ourselves - again. The antis love any restriction that concerns the use of firearms. Is there a health threat posed by lead shot deposited on ranges or public land? If there is reputable scientific evidence supporting this then I'd love to hear it. Are gamebirds showing signs of lead poisoning from ingesting shot into their craws, or is lead on the surface somehow leaching into the groudwater? I have no doubt the Humane Society/PETA et. al. are funding studies to support just such a ban. The DNR officer who was quoted in the above article stopped using lead by because he didn't want his kids eating shot by accident. That's fine, his choice, but I would submit to him that his children's health is endangered far more on the ride to school in the morning than from the potentiality of swallowing a shot or two found in a pheasant breast. Sounds like more unnecessary handwringing to me. Just my $.02.

A 10b Scott will make a good door-prop for defrosting his front porch ice box.
That is, if lead is banned all-around!

Join the NRA if you want the shooting sports as we know them to continue!
JR

Bismuth works just fine Mr. Lowell.

In Tennessee lead has been banned on National Wildlife Refuges for several years for all game. Some still allow lead for turkey hunting only. I don't know that the Humane Society/Peta had any influence on their decisions.
They started trying to ban lead shot in the 1920's it took about 80 years to be banned. I don't think the Humane Society or Peta was around back then.
No doubt Lead shot will eventually be banned.

I just hope the ammo companies will get the price down on the alternatives.
Cox

If the prices of ammo are not reduced when lead is banned you can expect the firearms manufacturing firms to go out of business. Ammo is a huge part of their past, present, and future. Without ammo you cannot sell firearms. This is why Peta/HS and others are trying so hard to ban lead. It will likely happen.

Jim

There is no question that there is a movement afoot to at least regulate lead shot. Whether this is motivated by anti-gun sentiments or environmental concerns is certainly debatable, probably some combination of the two. The EPA has been very active in NY and has required Gun Clubs to adopt lead management programs. These programs basically require Clubs to keep their soil pH in the shot fall zone w/i a certain range within which lead will not be "mobilized" so that it gets into ground water. Clubs are also supposed to consider having their fields mined when it makes economic sense to do so. The way shot prices are climbing that may happen sooner than later. The EPA has much literature available to assist Gun Clubs in managing their lead, and in EPA's Region 2 they are in effect requiring this. Whether this will be ratcheted up only time will tell but, at least in this area, the EPA is not going to allow Clubs to keep their head in the sand on this issue. I am not aware of any movement to ban lead shot for upland hunting in NY but with a new democratic anti-gun governor taking the reins January 1 (Eliot Spitzer), it may be on the horizon.

As a matter of interest, I have a book on the famous rifle ranges at Bisley, in England. They state that they do not feel lead is an issue, the ranges have been in use since 1890, and there has never been any attempt to close the ranges because of lead laying around. The area is a nature preserve too. I do have a concern re waterfowl, but not upland gamebirds. (Puts flame suit on and prepares to lose yet another star.)
In the matter of steel shot for Olympic Clay target, the International Shooting Sport Federation came to the conclusion that the use of steel shot in Olympic Trap and Skeet should be prohibited due to the danger to shooters and range personnel from ricochets. Timely for the season: "don't shoot your eye out" like I nearly did 50 years ago with a steel BB bouncing back from a sheet of plywood. 177 lead pellets do not ricochet to any degree.

I also highly doubt that lead shot on upland hunting grounds poses any threat to humans or wildlife. Unfortunately, from a politician's standpoint it's a no-win situation to try to defend the spreading of toxic material to the public. As a practical matter, on it's face it's just as difficult an argument for us to make. Most voters don't want to spend much time working to understand this, and faced with different views will opt to err on the side of no-tox.

On the political scorecard, I wonder if we don't lose more than we gain by fighting this battle. In the long run I don't think it's winnable. I just hope the ammunition companies can bring down the cost of no-tox shot with higher volume production.

No man is a kingdom. I have tried to buy my own land. When I hunt waterfowl on the farm I have to follow the rules. Even though the shot never leaves the farm and I never miss so all the birds end up dead and recovered. I will not stop hunting if lead is banned but it will get much more expensive. This is just another backdoor attempt to regulate guns and private gun ownership and hunting in general out of existance.

Why is it that a Liberal will feel sympathy for a pedefile or psyco killer but go crazy at the mention of a hunter? Why are all guns assult weapons or automatics? Why do we need to understand a serial killer? How can you pass laws to correct everything in life when you can not get every one to agree what is wrong in the first place? Why are there just Conservative Republicans and Democrats in every nation news story? Why the extra label? And last, is PETA still killing animals and dumping them into dumpsters in the Virginia area? Love to see a "right wing, conservative, Republican" group try that. There would be blood on the decks when the press got done with that story.

If I wanted to be a tree hugging, veggieterian with an inabiltiy to accept either responsibility for my own actions or the fact that I am a looser I would be a Liberal Democrat. Since I did not suffer major brain injury at birth or later, I am not. Do not shove your blessed concepts of a perfect world down my throut. I have family and friends that are decent Democrats but they are getting to be a real minority in that party. Most people get so sick of the spin masters that they do not care or trust anyone these days Republican or Democrat.

Lead shot is vastly over rated as a problem. Do the math. One ounce of # 9 shot, shot at a bird, in upland conditions. If a bird has to eat ten # 9 shot pellets to get a lethal or even a non-lethal dose of lead, and shot falls out over an area of 300 yards by a cone from one inch to a width of 30 feet at the terminus for a fallout range, this creates an fallout area of 13,500 square feet. How many pellets per square foot are there? Well, there is one pellet for every 23.077 square feet. Our bird has to only peck over 230.77 square feet of ground to get his ten pellets. No way that he can miss eating those ten #9 shot pellets in that small area.

Here is a fun fact. Sexually transmitted diseases, aids, hep, ect... will kill more people this year than guns in the US. How many people want to give up sex for safeties sake? You can not force people into safety or health. Last time they tried to ban Alcohol in the US the country got just a little drunk. We have won the war on drugs, ended poverty with the Great Society, and cured most of mankinds problems with ever increasing government. Please do not help me anymore, I can not stand it.

When the ban on lead for waterfowling was being introduced in the US and Canada, our major (in fact, the only at the time) outdoor magazine ran a series of articles on lead vs non-tox shot, with some expert opinion. The series generated a flow of readers' letters, and I vividly remember one of those. It ran like this:

"I load my shells on a table in my backyard. I keep chicken, and every time a pellet drops on the ground, a chicken will run up and peck for it, thinking it's something edible. And every time the chicken will recognise something is wrong, and spit the pellet right out! Now, if a domestic chicken is smart enough to know that a lead pellet it not food, you'll never convince me that a wild duck, who's ten times smarter than any chicken, will be stupid enough to gulp it down!"

Now, I guess a ban on lead shot is not exactly a laughing matter. But every time I hear about this nonsense, that old letter comes back to me, and never fails to cheer me up!

No man is an island, but I feel pretty much buffered from the anti-lead crowd's doings. Today and tomorrow, I will shoot what I please on my own land.
Nobody paid for it, but me!

While I remember the effect on waterfowl from ingestion being a concern when I gave up duck hunting (thats right, I said "the hell with it" when lead shot was verbotten, and shooting a redhead or a canvasback got you about the same penalty as shooting a bald eagle, about 1980 or so) the real reason was the effect on higher predators that fed on mildly poisoned ducks, which concentrated the lead in them. Bald eagles have made an impressive comeback since then, but, I dare anyone to show us how it was from banning lead shot for waterfowl hunting. Banning DDT, I might be persuaded to believe, but, lead?
Best,
Ted

It all boils down to the issue of control. Lead may be a problem for some people BUT we grew up in houses painted with lead paint , I lived in old houses which had generations of lead paint on them and in the ground around them. I painted red lead paint on bridges and towers as a young man and got lead in my mouth and on my skin every day for many months with no ill effects. My parents told me as a child that lead was toxic to eat but did not prevent me from casting toys made of lead. Lead is a naturally occuring metal and its presence in water or food is easily determined if one is looking for it. We had lead pipes in Charleston, SC that fed our municipal water supply. A few children ingesting lead paint has fueled this public hysteria about lead. Instead of educating the public about the dangers of the world is not better to make the world as safe as a childs nursery? No guns in the nursery, therefore no guns anywhere except in the hands of the police and military. There is a an ulterior motive behind the wish to control all dangerous materials and weapons which plays into the hands of those who believe that our government should hold all power and that we as citizens should be completely under its control. These people have the Thomas Hobbs mentality. Aparently it is a strong trait in human nature. Those of us who believe that man must be in charge of his own life are not always strong enough to fight off the Hobbes types, but we must try. When a shooting war comes along we get our chance and the Hobbes guys are extremely glad to have us around but in times of peace we get battered. David

No person is an island Lowell. My smallest farm is over 200 acres and the largest is over 600 acres. Most areas that I hunt have no chance of the shot ever leaving my property. But the tree huggers know best how to safe guard me from all risk. The nanny state makes it every increasingly harder to do want you want with land that is your own.

I had one "State Official" tell me that I did not own the shoreline, that it was "state property" and I was not allowed to do anything with it with out their permission. Funny how they wanted to tax me for it just like I owned it. So I deeded a narrow strip over to a "not for profit charity" which was tax exempt. Made my waterfront proterty into water view property and forced the government to lower my tax bill by thousands of dollars. They took it to court and lost. Claimed that because I kept a right of way and simple easement that they should still be able to tax me at the higher assessed value. Judge and jury so no. Thought that they were going to crap bricks. Bright day for me I have got to tell you.

Lead was banned from waterfowl because the "endangered" birds were thought to be at risk because of it. Same was the case for the complete ban of DDT 40 years ago. This week it was anounced that DDT is being brought back because it is very effective in insect and pest control and the use of it will same many thousands of lives in the third world.

The last time I saw a Bald Eagle, back east on my farm, it was eating a dead chicken that had been removed after they came to get all the chickens. This one died that day and was left to be removed with the crust manure. When it was spread in the feild it is fair game for vultures or other "birds of prey". This one was being eaten by a Bald Eagle. Some national symbol. Just a vulture with a good paint job.

Lead will be banned in the next 30-50 years unless we get real smart. How about some chemist figuring out how to coat the pellets with someting that makes it disoulve in water or a plastic to seal it so it is inert after shot? Or just make the use of it a taxed thing, opps it is already. What is not anymore?

Sounds like it might be safer to shoot Damascus barreled guns than to have sex.
Ky Jon pick up a copy of "The Golden Age of Waterfowling" good read when you can't shoot or have sex or you can enloy all three, if your good at the same time.

Maybe there is something to the lead contamination making people crazy. Look at the French. There were two major wars on there soil and I'm sure there are many tons of lead in their farm land soils. I wonder if that means that the people around Gettysburg will soon become crazy also? I agree with KY Jon's opinion. But you need to start referring to the Democrats as to what they actully are as I do. Communist! The Democrats have absorbed the Socialist and Communist party and adopted it's principals. Gun control has nothing to do with guns but everything to do with control.

Mr. Lowell I hear too much leAd can cause your pencil to quit writing. Then you'll need Viagra.

Remember our forefathers paid for your land...you are just a tenant. You should be okay I figure there's not much chance of you polluting the land with your little Kimber .22 shooting at a few crows.

Way to sock it to the Gov. KY Jon! good job!

I own some land, a little over 100 acrs that has two streams. Part of the land is down stream from a local R/G club that has been around for more than 50 years. I shoot there from time to time ..... The stream that passes through the club has no living creatures ..... and when I had the water tested, with the idea of putting a well near by, I was told that it contained 500X the lead level of safe drinking water. The other stream supports Brownies and Brookies in good health and size. I knew the club was there when I bought the place so I have no argument with what is/was shot there ..... I shoot there myself ...... BUT, to say the lead issue is just a tree hugger lie or an anti gun plot is very short sighted. Anyone who doubts lead is toxic and would like to drink a few gallons of that stream ..... just send me a jug and I'll fill it for you.

After about ten seconds in the swamp with Pogo, it has a lead oxide shell and IS by most measurements chemically inert.

jack

j0e, land first and guns and ammo second.
There maybe a few ozs of lead down by the lake and a couple of 22 slugs stuck in trees put by me, but otherwise I think I could eat the dirt. Good land is harder to come-by, than good guns these days.

Bouvier

There is a real difference between the amount of lead one hunter will shoot and that that a gun club will shoot over a year, five years or ten years time. A decent gun club will drop tons of shot each year. I doubt that I have shot a ton of shot in my lifetime hunting. I think that your response to the situation was very reasonable and wish more would use good, common sense, like you have.

I refuse to call Democrats commies or socialist. If I were trying to be funny I could say that was because I respected the commies or socialist. Truth is that many family or freinds grew up as Democrats and feel that they have no place to go now that the party has moved away from them and their views. There is no place in the Democrat party for a Conservative, God fearing, gun toting, sane, normal, hard working person. If you can not claim that atleast three of the above do not apply you can not be in the modern Democratic party. You need to be a victom, whiney or stubron as hell to stay a Democrat these days if you are most or all of the above.

The Republican party is almost as bad, just the reverse side of the same coin. I vote each election because I think that if you do not vote you have no right to BITCH. Many times I have to hold my nose and vote for the slightly lesser of two evils.

Lead levels may not all be coming from the gun club. Like Iron and Calcium, Lead can be from natural sources. I have one farm with such high Sulfer and Iron levels that well water is not fit to drink. Safe but not fit to drink. Others have extreme rust or iron problems, nirtires or other metals in the water. Looked at a ranch one time out west and was told that lead levels and some other heavy metal was in the water in high levels. I suspect it had been a reclaimed mine site perhaps. Passed on that land and bought more closer to home.

Gentlemen,
We could debate this issue for ever and a day, but unless we become rational, and more important, united we will have to accept restrictions and the banning of lead shot, which in turn will lead to people giving up shooting and finding alternative pastimes.America is the largest participant country in shooting sports in the World.With I believe one of the best representative organisations (NRA).What we need to do is to unite in the fight to keep our sport and mobilise the organisations to dig in and stand up for what is rightfully ours.You were the first country to roll over and give in to the greenies, and I have NEVER seen scientific evidence that proves that waterfowl have benefitted solely from the banning of leadshot.I saw plenty of evidence to get it banned and we didn't contest it.Here in the UK the largest participant sport is Angling and the anglers have never united to protest against the greenies, but mark my words, it will not be too long before they come under threat.Here in the UK we have banned hunting with dogs, which as resulted in our Rural roads being littered with the corpses of foxes,badgers,boar and deer as the result of vehicle collisions, sometimes resulting in the loss of human life.Perhaps a conservation slogan could be 'Kill your Daughter to save her running over a Fox'
I learned last week that 1 in 10 native Britains are emigrating because of the state of this country. (FACT)

Salopian - Tell your countrymen(women) if they wish to come here the easiest way is to sneak under the wire.

Other than non-tox for waterfowl, we've been able to hunt and shoot at our own pace. No marchers at our gates.
The high deer population has turned the garden set into believers. The geese mess-up the corporate sidewalks. Giving-up lead for fowl has calmed the beast, perhaps!
A record number of hunters, and kills is a good sign of the health of hunting in my state.

Ky Jon .... For the record there have been no lead mines in this area or industry that discharged lead in it's waste in recorded history. For the record, I am a God fearing, gun toating Democrat as were my father and grandfather .... Our family has served the country during all generations loosing our loved ones in every major conflict this country faced. I am happy to say that none of us are one issue voters.

I do not believe that the elimination of lead shot will deminish my ability to own and shoot my guns. The elimination of lead additives in gas did not deminish the number of cars. It's a fact that when something is taken off the market lot's of things surge in to take their place. At the moment alternatives to lead are expensive but if lead were eliminated it wouldn't take long for the market place to find a way to sell the replacements at prices that will let us all be able to shoot as much as we like.

I would be willing to bet that within a year of a lead shot ban you will be able to buy as much non lead as you want at Wal Mart .....

Al

Setting all the emotion aside; as I recall the only remotely scientific evidence that was ever published tying lead to waterfowl mortality had to do specifically with Mallards [only Mallards] ingesting corn when lead shot was present in their gizzards. Its been a long while since I was looking into all of that, but that was the the only ref that I EVER saw or was aware of that made any remotely scientific connective link. I remember opening the gizzards of some several hundred assorted ducks taken in N. TX over several seasons. I found 67 that had lead pellets in their gizzards. All were healthy when taken and in full flight and were subsequently retreived to bag, cleaned and consumed. One must remember that one does NOT become 'mad as a hatter' by rolling a few drops of Mercury around in their hand from a broken thermometer. In today's world of misinformed & idiots, an emergency response TEAM is needed to even begin to fathom the evil from such an incident. Misinformation has always been around, but it travels faster today and is given more weight when it is repeated by pretty people and given even further creedence through tort law decisions.

edit: Please, this is not meant to call any participants here idiots, nor is in intended to deny that lead & a number of other elements can cause certain types of poisoning if absorbed [that being the more appropriete term, since there is a distinct dif between consumption and absorbsion] in sufficient quantity. This issue is primarily one of objectivity getting in the way of the objective .. and it ain't remotely about saving wildlife, just as the legislation that created the EPA wasn't about protecting the environment. Grow up, people.

Nonetheless, there is good that comes from dialogue and discussion and from honest research and discovery. Its the classic insitu of, " .. whose ox is being gored?"

Me? I'm making another contribution directly to the NRA-ILA. The waterfowl issue is a dead duck here already, sanity sat aside and let it happen. Lets not stay the same path for upland game.

It is tiresome to have to read the same mindless generalizations about Democrats, Libs, Lefties, etc. that Ky. Jon, Tanky and others have written. Leave off with the ad hominem attacks. They advance nothing except rancor.
Will

tw, very well said.It is a pleasure to read a well balanced point of view.
May I take this opportunity to apologise to any one I may have offended in my previous rant.But I do get emotional when I can see my love of hunting being threatened by well meaning but misinformed people.
It is now the season of good will to all, so may I say "A very happy Christmas to you all, and may your families and loved ones be protected, a prosperous,happy & healthy New Year to one and all of you.Salopian

Salopian you guys turned in your hunting dogs...might as well give it all up.
Cox

Hey hOmeless, speaking of mallards, they still got the ducks at the Peabody?

jack

Jack rumor is a Gent from Missouri purt near killed all of them with his trusty .22 during the ice age a few weeks back.
The EPA has been called in.

Seems they're still digging lead out of the paneling, the place is total wreck. They're blaming the excessive damage on the Sports' cheAp scope.

j0e has this wonderful old ice box on his front porch in which I stuffed a few of those ducks.
Eat well j0e!

Mr. Lowell I know of no one that has an appetite for crow like you do.

It's rural fast food j0e!
...and tastes better than those 'possums you have hanging by the front door.

That's about as lame as your .22 scOpe...lol.

No, as lame as hens with an auto-loader!
Please post that picture again j0ey - I think there was an abandoned semi-rig parked in the background.

Lead paint --- Delicious but deadly!

Troy McClure

I guess I'll have to shoot a crOw and post a picture for you Sport.

Would you prefer it shot with a SxS or an autoloader...lead, Bismuth or Hevi-shot ?
jOe

A rook rifle will do the trick j0ey!

Lowell,
How about inviting some of us down for a shoot? You have the land, we have the guns.
jas

That would be great....Mr.Lowell could demonstrate the effectiveness of his 20 inch BeeZley on crows and we could demonstrate the effectiveness of high quality scopes on cheap .22 rifles.
jOe

It's sort of annoying to see folks claim that there is no validity in something that is quite well established scientifically. It takes about 2 minutes in scholar.google.com to find lots of references to bone up on the subject IF YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW. But then who REALLY wants to know right?

But here is the abstract and citation from just one follow up study on the benefits of nontoxic shot. Be careful. If you really don't want to know this little inconvenient detail, stop reading right here...


Titre du document / Document title
Ingestion of lead and nontoxic shotgun pellets by ducks in the Mississippi flyway
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
ANDERSON W. L. (1) ; HAVERA S. P. (2) ; ZERCHER B. W. (2) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Illinois Department of Natural Resources, 279 Natural Resources Building, 607 E. Peabody Drive, Champaign, IL 61820, ETATS-UNIS
(2) Illinois Natural History Survey, Forbes Biological Station, F.C. Bellrose Waterfowl Research Center, P.O. Box 590, Havana, IL 62644, ETATS-UNIS
Résumé / Abstract
We examined the extent to which ingested nontoxic (steel and bismuth-tin) shotgun pellets replaced toxic (lead) pellets in ducks harvested in the Mississippi Flyway during the 1996 and 1997 hunting seasons (fifth and sixth yr after nationwide conversion to nontoxic shot). Gizzards were collected from 16,651 ducks and processed for the presence of pellets. Prevalences of ingested pellets were 8.9% for 15,147 mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), 12.7% for 749 ring-necked ducks (Aythya collaris), 4.3% for 579 scaups (Aythya affinis and A. marila), and 9.7% for 176 canvasbacks (Aythya valisineria). For gizzards with ingested pellets, as much as 68% of mallard, 45% of ring-necked duck, 44% of scaup, and 71% of canvasback contained only nontoxic pellets. We estimated that nontoxic shot reduced mortality from lead poisoning in Mississippi Flyway mallards by 64%. Ingestion of ≥2 toxic pellets declined by as much as 78%. To the extent that our findings apply to other species and flyways in North America, an estimated 1.4 million ducks in the 1997 fall continental flight of 90 million were spared from fatal lead poisoning. Only 1.1% of 1,318 gizzards positive for shot-in pellets came from ducks shot with toxic pellets, and only 1 toxic fishing sinker was found in the 16,651 duck gizzards.
Revue / Journal Title
The Journal of wildlife management (J. wildl. manage.) ISSN 0022-541X CODEN JWMAA9
Source / Source
2000, vol. 64, no3, pp. 848-857 (1 p.1/4)
Langue / Language

I didn't need convincing.

Lead is bad news, whither it's in a ducks gizzard or in someone's azz....right Stoney.
jOe

After reading some of the available articles on lead shot and the growing discussion of a ban of it entirely, I would advise everyone on the board to invest heavily in bismuth futures contracts. The ammo companies will love a ban on lead. They will only have to sell half as much product for triple the current margin.

As it stood we the Sportsman have been 'held hostage' by the companies that developed Hevi-sHot and Bismuth.

I believe in the near future the big three Winchester, Federal and Remington will make their products available at an economical price. These high prices will pass the big three is going to stomp them out of business...and tomorrow won't be soon enough.

Look at the prices of Envirometals loaded ammo verses their components it doesn't take a genious to see they are breaking it off in the Sportsman.
If you want to purchase Envirometals Hevi-shOt It's cheaper to purchase their loaded Ammo and dissasemble it than it is to purchase just the shot for reloading.
How does that add up ?

They tried to hold up Remington and you see what happened...no more Remington Hevi-shOt.
Cox

Here are some follow up letters in the 12/24 paper...

http://www.startribune.com/531/story/893556.html

Readers split on issue of banning lead shot
By Doug Smith , Star Tribune
Last update: December 24, 2006 – 10:50 AM
Last Sunday, we wrote about the recent report by the 11-member nontoxic shot advisory committee, which said it's inevitable that the use of lead shot by hunters will be further restricted because of toxicity concerns. Though changes don't appear imminent, Department of Natural Resources officials are mulling the issue and say future restrictions are likely.
We asked readers what they thought. Here's a sampling of letters.

If lead shot is being phased out, my suggestions would be to announce the ban with enough foresight to allow consumers time to use up any lead shot they have already legally purchased. Then it would make sense to establish a lead shot for steel shot swap program, much like has been established for swapping lead fishing tackle for non-toxic tackle. Educating the public as to the need for these changes is extremely important.
MIKE PANKEY, LAKEVILLE

About time! Having done toxicology for 30 years, I have seen a vast number of eagles, owls, swans, ducks, loons, etc., with lead poisoning from ingested lead shot and sinkers. As a sportsman I am appalled that a ban on lead has not occurred years ago. If sportsmen are indeed sportsmen, then I would think they would all want it banned to preserve and safeguard the environment and the animals therein.
TOM ARENDT, CHISAGO CITY

Where is the science behind banning lead shot? Where are the studies that report it as a significant risk to upland game populations? Why all the talk on banning it, when to date there is only a perception of a problem? I disagree with a ban, at least until someone can prove to me that lead shot is causing significant problems to the health of our upland game populations. In addition, the cheapest alternative non-toxic shot, namely steel, does not have the density of lead, which is a factor in knocking down and killing birds. The use of steel shot ... leads to the additional wounding of birds that will eventually die.
ANDREW BICEK, ELK RIVER

I believe that common sense should play a role in the proposed implementation of a lead shot ban. I hunt grouse in northern Minnesota and sometimes walk 4 to 5 miles for every five to 10 shots taken. Would the few ounces of lead scattered in the woods affect this ecosystem? I hardly think so. A blanket ban of lead shot should not even be considered.
GARY HEGLUND, ANDOVER

Personally, I think lead shot should be 100 percent banned right now. I do a lot of bird hunting, mostly for pheasants, but also grouse and ducks. I'm sure there are good, non-toxic loads for grouse, and I will switch over to them on future purchases. I have been using steel for years on pheasant and ducks.
DAVE MORSE, LAKEVILLE

My three-step way out of the heavy issue: 1) Stop the manufacturing of lead shot or the importing of lead shells into Minnesota. 2) Give the stores two years to sell out and stop the use of lead shot on state and federal land at the same time. 3) Give the hunters three years to use up the old inventory.
SCOTT THOMAS SANDHOLM, MINNETONKA

I haven't bought or used lead shot since steel became available. That should tell you what I think the DNR should do about lead shot.
DAVE JENSEN, WILLMAR

A total ban on the use of lead in all sporting sports is not an "if"' but rather a "when" situation. The evolution of non-toxic shot has made the use of lead an unnecessary evil. Issues of ballistic efficiency, firearm damage and cost have been put to rest. Many of today's non-toxic loads are superior to lead in lethality, alternatives are available for older guns and costs continue to moderate. My opinions are based on my observations as a shooter who shoots cases rather than boxes of shells annually.
PETER T. BROWN, LINO LAKES

There certainly are issues with lead and exposure to it, but I, as a private landowner, have a hard time believing that the lead shot I use to dispatch unwelcome pigeons and raccoons on my place creates a significant health issue. If they want to ban lead on the governmental hunting areas, fine. If they want to pay me for the boxes of lead shot I still have, I might listen.
DAN MUELLER, MONTROSE

This may be an unpopular position for a hunter, but I think this is the best reason to completely dispense with lead shot in the field is: confusion. We have enough laws governing game and this (outlawing lead) would cut to the chase. The second is the toxicity to predators (eagles, hawks, raptors) that feed on crippled birds.
DOUG LASSEY, HASTINGS

Lead is dead.

I don't see anyone providing much more than armchair wishful thinking here. Apparently, few of you know much about the feeding habits and digestive tracts of birds - not even ducks.

I know Lowell just has to think that it bad science and instant presto it is, but is that how all of you make decisions? Lowell has yet to offer up the smallest tidbit of data - nor has anyone else for that matter.

So, if it inconveniences you, it is bad science? Is that right? Must be.

The report that Al posted, is dated 1988. It was published before the full implimentation of non-tox shot was in place. It was preliminary then and out of date now. Further, it is not original research - indeed, it is not research at all, but a summary of the literature at that time.

Since then what else has come to light? Quite a lot it appears from a quick perusal of the literature. All of it supporting the need to ban lead shot for waterfowl hunting. Earlier, I posted a few of those lists for all of you, again, only to see it ignored by the armchair experts. Pretty sad, but I guess many of you do not want to learn - so much easier to deny I suppose.

I will leave the discussion with one more repeat post (also ignored) - an abstract of research, a bit more up to date and relevant to the Mississippi Flyway - for those of you that might care about hunting in it as much as I do. Sadly, I don't think many of you do, I feel sorry for the future of hunting...

I have to say, I have little sympathy for most of the hunting crowd if this site is representative of the attitudes and lack of intelligence.

Brent


Titre du document / Document title
Ingestion of lead and nontoxic shotgun pellets by ducks in the Mississippi flyway
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
ANDERSON W. L. (1) ; HAVERA S. P. (2) ; ZERCHER B. W. (2) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Illinois Department of Natural Resources, 279 Natural Resources Building, 607 E. Peabody Drive, Champaign, IL 61820, ETATS-UNIS
(2) Illinois Natural History Survey, Forbes Biological Station, F.C. Bellrose Waterfowl Research Center, P.O. Box 590, Havana, IL 62644, ETATS-UNIS
Résumé / Abstract
We examined the extent to which ingested nontoxic (steel and bismuth-tin) shotgun pellets replaced toxic (lead) pellets in ducks harvested in the Mississippi Flyway during the 1996 and 1997 hunting seasons (fifth and sixth yr after nationwide conversion to nontoxic shot). Gizzards were collected from 16,651 ducks and processed for the presence of pellets. Prevalences of ingested pellets were 8.9% for 15,147 mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), 12.7% for 749 ring-necked ducks (Aythya collaris), 4.3% for 579 scaups (Aythya affinis and A. marila), and 9.7% for 176 canvasbacks (Aythya valisineria). For gizzards with ingested pellets, as much as 68% of mallard, 45% of ring-necked duck, 44% of scaup, and 71% of canvasback contained only nontoxic pellets. We estimated that nontoxic shot reduced mortality from lead poisoning in Mississippi Flyway mallards by 64%. Ingestion of ≥2 toxic pellets declined by as much as 78%. To the extent that our findings apply to other species and flyways in North America, an estimated 1.4 million ducks in the 1997 fall continental flight of 90 million were spared from fatal lead poisoning. Only 1.1% of 1,318 gizzards positive for shot-in pellets came from ducks shot with toxic pellets, and only 1 toxic fishing sinker was found in the 16,651 duck gizzards.
Revue / Journal Title
The Journal of wildlife management (J. wildl. manage.) ISSN 0022-541X CODEN JWMAA9
Source / Source
2000, vol. 64, no3, pp. 848-857 (1 p.1/4)
Langue / Language

Brent, my argument has come under the broad heading of science.
Science can serve up most anything depending on activist agendas.
Science on demand.
State wildlife biologists are not immune to this!

Lowell,
I guess you are correct. Science said/says the world is round because that was more convenient for the explorers. Science said/says microbes cause disease, which can occasionally be cured, because doctors need to make a living. Science said/says electricity can power things because it makes big bucks for power companies. Its all politically motivated. Screw science. There really ain't no such thing as a scientific fact. We can believe whatever we want. Those guys in the white coats are just a pesky nuisance. No sense in changing anything because those meddlesome activists think that they "proved" some "cause and effect" with their agenda motivated "experiments." Jake

The mantra of the junk science is now we "estimated" The 1988 report, I can see why you would not want to go there Brent. They had the affront to talk about the reduction of lead in waterfowl blood levels due to the elimination of lead in gasoline.

That by the way was from the link you provided, thank you Brent.

How did you shoot today?

Just curious, but have the "scientist" done any studies of the effects of lead on migrating waterfowl & doves in Central & South America?? How have the so called negative effects of lead damaged these birds? They (the fowl) appear to be reproducing in record numbers and hunting with lead has been going on there for a long long time. Most of these fields, marshes and lakes that these birds are shot at see thousands upon thousands of more "lead" than probably any field in north America, due to the volume of shooting of course. Just food for thought.

Dustin

We are not talking BS metaphysics here, we are talking about folks that are suppose to use the "Scientific Method".

I find this to be much like junk law. You know where in decisions are reached in a court of law based on a previous bad decision?

Bad science, that now, has a record as being passable due to the test of time.

Has Brent given us the data from tests he has personally run?

Where was the other people doing these test from say DU?

In the same areas from birds from the same flyways.

Brent, you don't have to worry about the future of waterfowl hunting in America. It's nearly dead. At 3.50 per shell plus the costs of stamps, gear. It is just about dead.

That by the way is what every state in the Union, that has waterfowl has been reporting for years, a continual decline.

Of course we can fly south and shoot without limits and use lead.

It has become a sport for the rich. Are we proud yet?

Thats why we get second opinions Jakearoo!
...and things like the 9th Circuit Court demand it.

I'm sure that there are some, who'd like to see a whole host of things nixed by the men in white coats with butterfly nets.

Get up the scratch and fly to South America and shoot all the ducks you want with all the lead shells you can afford...Geo

With the advent of new, exotic shot materials like Bismuth, Hevi-Shot, etc. it is not an issue of whether non-toxics should be used. The issue here gentlemen is the COST of said exotics. Should we not be asking our congressmen and women for SUBSIDY to pursue our sport of waterfowling?!?! Aren't we already paying an additional tax on our ammunition to assist in the conservation effort? How much more should we have to pay to "save the environment"? Should we not receive help from our government to keep our sport alive? Or must we burden ourselves with the cost alone?

I know it probably won't happen, but you never know....I'm not used to asking the gov't anything. But when you ask for money, and they don't provide it, then you can point the finger back at them saying, "We tried, and you did not help." And I say finger pointing, becuase the lead vs. non-tox is really just a bunch of finger pointing. I don't want any wild animal to suffer any lead (or any other man-made) poisoning. However, when I can field hunt a turkey with lead #4 but cannot raise the muzzle of said gun in that same field against a goose or duck without changing shells to a non-tox load shows there is a bit of hypocrisy in the current regulations.

But first things first, no unfunded mandates for non-toxic shot. The "party line" should be subsidize or shut-up to the gov't. My infation-adjusted $0.02.

Mike Doerner

I've the scratch ol'Geo., but it doesn't go for anything south of our border si!
Wait till notox hits the southern dove shooters(its a southern thing anyway)!
Talk about expensive, what's the average on shells spent for birds shot?
...and what about the 28g. plantation quail hunter's new cost?

Lowell, I'm as contrarian as many members here but I can't understand why price is the factor we profess it to be. The average gunner won't give up his sport because of the cost of non-tox any more than gas-price increases will affect his driving habits. We hunt for the experience, for the recreation, the camaraderie, and everyone here gets their birds with five or six shots anyway, eh?

To a certain extent, yes we can absorb the cost. But with Non-Tox prices rapidly inflating, along with fuel, at some point you either reduce the amount of hunting you do or at some point cease hunting those game requiring the more expensive component altogether. My point is that if there is no cost difference between lead and Non-Tox shot, you've eliminated the argument against Non-Tox shot's widespread adoption.

Mike Doerner

You make the point well, Mike. And I forgot to mention the dog---we hunt for the dog. We leave the house for the dog. A day with the dog is immeasurable. Price does not enter into it because it's all there with a clean shot and the dog in his element with a retrieve. One duck, one dog, puts a smile on my face. And no duck is enough when we've done everything right: 'coys, blind, keeping low, warm and dry.

Look fellows, it ain't about what we do now, it's about the new kids that should becoming into this activity. That flat out can't.

Gone are the days when a kid slips out with his dad's old model 12 and a few shells to pop a duck or two. This is where the infection comes from. Not from the once in a lifetime trip with dad or granddad.

What I'm willing to spend has no bearing on this at all, only what the young ones can afford does.

Think about this, at every turn in America to day we see are youth discouraged from hunting and shooting.

Heck yes, we are willing to fight, if we only knew how. The question remains how do you raise up a generation that is willing to fight? The traditions of their fathers is lost to them, why will they care?

I fear, that do to our poor education system, we no longer even know what freedom means.

Al, my kids and their kids are better than the generation of kids I grew up with. I don't know how to account for it. When there's something to fight for I've noticed they are there, not leaving it to their parents and grampys.

Most kids look at us sideways when we say we're hunting and fishing and killing the creatures we love. They don't get the notion of taking wildlife and eating it. They know it will pass as generations move along. They bide their time.

The issue is what they fight for. Wildlife and wilderness, preserving it for future generations, sends them to the barricades. Dinks telling telling them what's good for them, they don't like, either. They're doing their thinking for themselves.

I'm 75, Al. I've seen the best of it. What you're talking about is gone. A scimitar of concrete and highways is covering eastern North America, nearly so in the U.S. Southwest running out of water. They call it progress. Maybe it is.

The traditions of their fathers, however, are no longer seen as wholesome to a growing number of them. I don't disagree with them. We did the best we could with what we knew but a whole generation has grown up with different values.

Regards, King

Yes Sir, I hear what you say. I have seen with my own eyes the loss of the love of the land and the meaning of the word "FREEDOM".

People have become confused into thinking that our freedom comes from a piece of paper or from a Government. They believe that a Man can rule over them.

They think that Government rules over there freedom and it was granted to them by government, how foolish!

King, a duck for Thanksgiving, and a goose for Christmas won't break me.
BUT!
If nontox comes to upland, and we have one less supplier of the notox stuff, the chaps who use 10 shells to get one bird(doves here)...are in big trouble.

Are you talking about me? I resemble that!

You ain't a Reb is you - BIG AL!
I shot by a catfish farm in the south - them boys can use up the lead and feed the fish at the same time.

Found out. And I thought I hid it so well.

You guys think .22's will be next ?

Now you've done it j0e, they'll be after my my stash of Eleys next! Can America be America, without the poor ol' squirrel hunter tramping thru her woodlots?

Gentlemen,
I have not previously read this post until now but whilst browsing I noticed it was a post that I am very passionate about.
Imagine my anger and rage when it opened up on page 6, and I read the post from BrentD.
To have the gall to insinuate that we objectors to the imposition of Non-Tox are not aware of the facts is insulting and inflammatory.
Sir taking your figures furnished, just goes to prove to me the poppycock and balderdash written and foisted upon us by ill informed and ignorant idiots with hidden agendas.
I have asked repeatedly for 'scientists' to produce waterfowl from a waterway that had died from lead ingestion.To date I have received none.The figures produced in your report were from birds 'harvested' I.E. SHOT therefore the ingestion of lead was the least of their worries.Also their body condition is not reported, were they gangrious, malnourished etc.,?
Because your figures are based on flawed science they are irrelevant.
What is the estimated migratory numbers? How many waterfowl suffering from lead in the gizzard have been harvested that have died a terrible death from toxic shot ingestion? How many toxified waterfowl have been found to be unable to fly, feed, breed?
How many waterfowl have been force fed with toxic shot under laboratory conditions to justify this ban?
Sorry BrentD I do not believe that I am ignorant, and that I ignore facts and science.
I do believe that I am a sportsman, concerned with the humane despatch of legitimate quarry.
Until an economic viable alternative to lead is available I will continue to rebel.

If you are not ignorant, then you have my condolences for the much worse condition from which you suffer. Read the literature dude.

It is pretty clear that convenience, not science dictates your attitude. So, yes, chalk up another one for the faithful believers.

Brent

Looks like in the USA at least,ammunition control turned out to be lots easier to impose than gun control. Maybe the Brady gang or PITA bought up the controlling interest in The Bismuth Shot Company..Geo

Darn, lost a star over this one.

Oh yeah, that's it. Gun control...

Do you guys smoke a lot of funny weeds or something?

Brent, just because you've bought the goods, doesn't mean we have. Maybe you should twaddle-off to something more Soros!

Lowell, as usual, nothing to add except your own sorry BS. Got any data yet? Didn't think so. How many armchairs do you wear out every day being such an armchair expert? What a sorry person you are.

Brent

I've added my bit ol'sod! See "Times Beach," and the Dioxin scare.
Science spent millions and millions of dollars, and pronounced life as we know it to be dead for a 1000years
Today...its a Route 66 green space for all to enjoy.
Science makes mistakes - and so did you!

And what does TB and Dioxin have to do with lead shot? Are you having trouble connecting the dots today Lowell? Can't stay between the lines? Come on Lowell, certainly you can do better than that. Let's see what you know about lead shot poisoning.

Don't fall out of your armchair - or is that a highchair....

What an idiot.

Lighten up Brent, I was just kiddin'. Given the madness of this thread so far, I was only surprized that no one else had made the connection to GUN CONTROL...Geo

How can Brent lighten up, when he has swallowed hook-line-and sinker?

Brent - I admit that I know very little about the lead problem as it pertains to fowl. I did read your post on the results of the number of birds checked and what was found in their gizzards. What the numbers don't answer are the questions posed by salopian. How many ducks/geese have been found that were suffering from the actual effects of lead poisoning? For example, if I have an ounce of whiskey in my stomach, that doesn't mean that I will die from or suffer any permanent effect from alcohol poisoning. I've reloaded shotshells and cast bullets for over 50 years and my Dr. says my lead level is very low. I know that doesn't prove anything, but tends to make me skeptical of the serious dangers of lead. I'm just asking both sides of the arguement to present me with simple facts to convince me one way or the other that lead is or is not killing enough birds (by ingestion) that I should be concerned about it.

B Frech,
If you REALLY want to know look in the libaries. It's all there.

Dosages (# pellets etc needed to kill a mallard or an eagle are documented and you can find them for yourself. Along the way you will learn a lot more than simple LD 50s and the like. The report that Al posted will give you an opening into the literature, but in the age of the internet, there is no reason you can't research the what is known about any issue on your own.

As for your years of loading and casting - congratulations. You have good hygene, and you probably tend not to eat the stuff. I load, cast, and swage myself. So, I am not too worried about lead poisoning either as I practice a few simple precautions as I imagine you do.

But even if you did eat the occasional bullet, or two, your risk of lead poisoning is quite a bit less than a bird. What you and I lack that birds do not is a crop. And that, makes all the difference in the world.

Brent

One wonders how much of this poisonous Lead the Professor has contaminated the environment with in the last year?

Oh, on the order of couple hundred pounds. I have well over a 1000 in the garage to turn into bullets at the rate of 1.25 oz per bullet.

Of course, I don't shoot them into wetlands - and thus the difference.

That lead still leaches into the water table, and it can be as toxic to wildlife as any shot it the wetlands.

Citations?

Brent

Bouvier's post disturbed me a bit. He is a major property owner who has a stream that measures 500 times the proper lead or contaminant level (I don't recall his exact wording). He blames the upstream gun club. Has he had the water tested upstream from the gun club? As a major property owner with interest in the quality of water, I would assume he has done this. However, he didn't say he did. My gun club has been accused of contaminating the downstream water, but the water was found to be contaminated at the test level upstream from the gun club. I am against contamination, but think that industrial and development contamination exceeds gun club contamination by multiples.

Yep

http://www.vpc.org/studies/leadfour.htm

Brent, unfortunately the Lead cannot tell the difference between a wetland and land that get wet with water.

"To all"

You know there is no one here on this thread thats posted, that I do not respect. So is it possible to reframe from the personnel slurs?

Because your opinion and mine does differ, does that mean I should hold you in any other than high regard?

Can't we as Americans have different views on this subject and not be polite, one to another?

As I was taught as a child, it's better to kill with "Kindness".

As Rodney King put it..."kAin't we alls jist get alOng".

What's the real deal with Bismuth shot...are they or are they not going to make it ?

Dunno yet. They haven't sold the business yet and production has stopped. Fall is right around the corner, you do the math, do you think new production Bismuth will be on the shelves before the season starts? Methinks not....

BTW, this whole argument is becoming moot. The wholesale price of lead is up to $1.20-something per lb. A couple more weeks of this and sporting clays with rock salt will be the only way to go.... Here's the lead commodity link.....

http://www.kitcometals.com/charts/lead_historical_large.html

Mike Doerner

I have tons of the stuff, wish I could find somebody to pay a buck a pound for all of it.

Brent - I know that the library and internet contain thousands of articles on lead poisoning. This is the internet, and I just thought since that's what's being discussed on this thread, and you have obviously taken a strong position based on your knowledge of the subject, that you might share the facts that have brought you to your conclusion about death caused by lead ingestion in birds. I come to this website to learn from those who are more knowledgeable than I. It saves me countless hours looking for answers on subjects of interest to me as a shooter and hunter. I assume you have the answers and I am only asking you the courtesy of sharing them.

I do not believe that to be true.
In 1991 through 1995 I was the President of the San Diego Miramar Trap and Skeet Club. We operate on Federal land on the edge of the Miramar Air base. Our club is on the on the flats above the edge of a large gorge or canyon. Our lease was running out and the base was changing from Navy top gun to a Marine base. There was a woman at the Federal EPA who wanted us out in a big way.
The club was required to do an expensive (over 100 grand as I recall) EPA investigation. The issue was leaching of lead into the water table. They checked the hell out of it. On the sides of the canyon, down at the bottom, down stream 100 yards to 1/2 mile. NO lead. NONE. This, despite our zillion tons of lead over many years up on top.
The investigators told me that lead in that form is inert from "leaching" into the enviornment through water action.
We kept the lease. The club is still there and one of the best in the country.
Regards, Craig

P.S. Much as I hate it, I do believe the science is there to show that birds who eat lead die.

Lead has seen a 600% increase in four years. How many of our stocks have done as well? Funny thing is that I bought two pallets of lead several years ago back when it was in the $10-11.00/ bag price range. Figured that my two sons where about to start shooting high volume of skeet or trap targets and might as well buy it while I had the money. My wife of course knew that my mental condition was in steep decline. Most likely because of lead levels.

Brent, Please do not take this wrong, but you need to understand how studies really work. First you need a hypothsis. Then you need to design a means to test the hypothsis and gather data. Then you need a source of funding. He who funds the study gets to almost dictate what the final outcome will be in the study. Write a few hundred proposal for studies and you will find this out. After you get the money you do the study. If your results do not come out as you expect you do not publish if they agree with your hypothsis you submit your study for review. If your study is a valid study it is peer reviewed. If the peer review does not like your results, your hypothsis, how you data was collected or even who funded your study they will not aprove it. Then to get your study published you either have to pay to have it published or alter your results to get it peer approved.

I spent several decades doing this. I know what I am telling you. My wife was an epidemoligist before I sent her to medical school. She can take a set of data and make it tell you anything that you want to hear or tell you how to run it, the study, again to get the "correct" data. Further, for a study to be valid it has to be easily repeated by others who get the same results. Single studies are worse than suspect. Studies that cite only their own pervious studies are bogous. If it is real, others will test and confirm the study.

There are subjects which are absolutley impossible to study these days. Let me give you an example. You will never see a study to see if ethnic genetic make up has any effect on intelegence. This is an absolute untouchable subject to test. Not only can you not get any funding to test it, all governing bodies that review will gut your results in a second. You will never see a valid study to confirm one race is smarter than another. Might be funny if we did the study and found out that Asians were number one. But it will never happen.

A soon to be undesputable subject, or one that has already become one, is global warming and the certain fact that green house gasses are the cause, i.e. the SUVs and man are the problem. If that is so can anyone tell me why the mean tempature of Mars is up just as much as Earths is? Last I looked martians had no suvs. No study to date has taken into account the effects of the Sun and Solar wind. That is until a Swedish study did and their results are very interesting and hard to dismiss. 40 years ago the same global warminging expert were looking at the same data set and warning of global cooling.

When others dispute the effects of lead and you site studies you need to be a little more careful. Those studies were not run by virgins with wide open eyes and no concept of what they might find. More Eagles were killed by DDT than ever were killed by lead shot. In fact that last Eagle I saw on one of my farms was eating a dead Prudue chicken from cleaninng out the chicken house. Please do not site any Eagle killed by dead chicken studies. Uncle Frank would spin in his grave.

BrentD,
Your replies to My posts have proved to me that you have not read and understood them and their content.I have read and understood your posts and enclosures and as I said at the time they are flawed science.You Sir dragged this debate into the gutter by your rude comments to myself and Lowell.I can see no future in trying to debate with a Rude, Ignorant person who refuses to acknowledge facts when they refute their perceived beliefs.End of Debate.

Is the old saying true....about lead putting lead in your pencil ?

Whats the yearly rainfall at Miramar?

KY Jon,
Perhaps I know a lot more about what you are talking about than you suspect. I've been working in the field for over a quarter century. I am well aware of how to conduct science. Something I have seen no sign of on this forum.

I am also not only well aware of the peer review process, I am part of it at several levels including authoring, reviewing and as an editor of a pair of major ecological journals.

And that's just the point, I know how science is done, how it is funded, published, etc. But the folks here prefer armchair pontification over science and I cannot provide much experience with that. A pretty sorry statement for the future of hunting if this is a representative sample.

Brent

salopian,
I am sorry you do not care for what I post. I loose patience with ignorance that is compoounded with political agenda and preconceived notions. As usual, you claim flawed science but offer nothing better, nor even any worthy description of the flaws. As such, your criticisms are laughable.

As for Lowell, he dishes out far more rudeness and belligerence than he receives.

You haven't even begun to debate. Still awaiting your "facts".

Brent, I don't think anyone ever implied that the half dozen or so posters about the subject on this website are a "representative sample". If you include me as a "representative sample" of researchers on the subject, you are overestimating my qualifications. I would appreciate a reply from Bouvier to my earlier post.

I feel sorry for science - one who stands so firmly on his pet science without an open mind, has no science at all.
Sounds like a lopsided cause!

Not too much. About 15 inches usually. But it all runs from our 13 or so fields right into the canyon and has for 20 years. We harvest many, many tons of shot from the fields every couple of years. Jake

Brent,
Not everyone comes here to exchange knowledge, a few have a different agenda. I too agree that if a concept will not hold up to the scrutiny of the scientific method, it must be disregarded or held as theory. It's your attitude that is the last best hope for this bulletin system. Scientific reasoning and historical accuracy will always be the currency that 99% of the readers are looking for. I will pay closer attention to your posts in the future.

I steped in "it" two weeks ago and four weeks ago...now you've steped in "it"...I wonder whos turn it will be next week?.....How many other BBS members have been the victim of his sharp tongue?..... just scrape that poster off the bottom of your shoe and move on...He'll leave you alone now...it's a pecking order thing...I guess

Hey, I'm a mechanical engineer. We also studied measurement systems and their associated error. Question: If you see a "trend" inside the margin of error in your instrumentation, what do you have? Answer: Nothing. So this so called 1-3 Deg F temperature rise that is within the +/- error band (I've heard 3-5 deg F) is not a measurable phenomenon with the current technology. Also, people slap thermometers where it's convenient, like the sides of buildings and parking lots. Last time I checked, you can cool off in the woods, but not in a parking lot in summer. Land use may be the real culprit, but who wants to give up their mega-mall for a bunch of mom and pop shops? (Maybe the Anti-Globalists, but I digress....)

Flawed sicience and a bunch of junk data = liberal hysteria over nothing. (Never trust someone with an ARTS degree when you need someone with a SCIENCE degree.)

The CO2 rise is real though, I cannot deny this (looked up the data on it) I just cant say is 100 ppm makes a difference. The proactive amongst us may say it will continue to increase and we must reduce emissions now. I say, wait and see, it snowed in the Alps today.....

Mike Doerner

I'd like to know more than I've learned by twice reading the estimate of nos. of waterfowl leading healthy lives on the flyways because they have non-tox in their craws. I'd like to know more about the action of the craw or crop in producing lead poisoning. Is it a matter of mechanical abrasion, a milling operation, so to speak? What is the connection to field corn? Another relatively hard object which must be ground? Please enlighten me.

jack

Oh I get it! Just a few years into non-tox and the longevity of large waterfowl is of a duration which means that if they hadn't been poisoned, we should still be able to find live (well, actually recently deceased) birds with the older sort of ballast, right? But we don't so they were (poisoned). Isn't that clever?

jack

Mike,
Your point? Not sure where global mean temperatures fit in but if it makes you any happier, all my degrees are in Science. As is my profession.

How long will you wait?

Brent

Jack,
You read an abstract. A one paragraph summary of the entire 5-15 page paper. If you want to know what the details are, read it and find out.

And yes, the gizzard is a milling operation.

Brent

BrentD

Get a life. This is not the proper place or time to get on a environment soapbox. A true expert can tolerate people who do not agree with their position and do not feel threatened by it or need to attack them for their non belief. You posts are getting off the subject of guns and into much more subjective things.

Some "currency," isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
The fact is, some scientific currency is science fiction.

I Googled up LEO and discovered that a high quality abstract "provides logical connections (or transitions) between the information included". All I saw in Brent's was total nos. of birds opened up per species and the prevalence of non-tox in the pre-digester. If I were an academic, I'd probably think what Brent presented was a summary of data but I'm not so I won't.

jack

KY I've got a fine life thank you. Your's seems to be a bit thin in some areas but perhaps it suits you. Now what's not germaine about lead shot poisoning? And what's subjective about the data? Let's see the specifics.

Brent

Ecological journals and Al Gore's greenie science!
Lead shot barely jarred the Richter Scale when it came to pollution. Lobbied, bought and sold quack science found the duck hunter easy prey to put under it's well greased thumb. With all that man has done to his world - it was the lead in the old boy's gun that was made to be the monster.
Welcome to the Pan-American world of science - trust me!

Lowell you ever read Capooths book "The Golden Age of Waterfowling"....they started trying to get lead shot outlawed for duck hunting in the early 1900's.
Isn't that before weird Science and Green piece ?

Best I can figure...It was because of the concentrations of lead that were occuring at the duck hunting honey holes.

Isn't lead one of the most common metals on the planet ?

I'm having problems seeing how an upland hunter is going to ever throw enough lead in one spot to make any difference ?

Gun Clubs clean up their ranges...so where's the beef with lead shot ?

Where you been h0miej0e?
My biff has been in almost everyone of my replies.
The duck hunter was the scientific greenies whippin'boy.
How about the traditional southern dove fields, where the boys make 10 shots for every downed bird with that tasty #7 shot.
The flyways are fairly void of hunters these days.
Its kinda like putting pepper on your meatloaf from the space station.

Lowell,
That you making noises again?

The "flyways failr void of hunters"? where ya been? Sitting in front of your TV I guess. Hard to find a place to park your boat trailer at the landings, and parking spots in the marsh must be secured before a quarter past midnight or you won't get one at all.

I guess you are living in your own imaginary world with your own imaginary problems. A sad life indeed.

Brent

"Hard to find a place to park your boat trailer at the landings, and parking spots in the marsh must be secured before a quarter past midnight or you won't get one at all."

Holy mackerel, say it's not so, an exaggeration! I wouldn't bother with hunting on those terms, for the same reason I wouldn't bother with rotation on salmon pools.

Brent you have to excuse Lowell he don't get out much...

Lowell I say show "proof" that the lead shot at a dove field makes it back into the food chain.

Don't have to h0mie, but you can be sure that notox will find it's way to doves.
Better sell-off that Brummie 10b hammergun with the 32" damascus barrels to a cowboy - won't be much good for anything else!

Lowell I bet you'd like to have about a foot of those 32 " barrels to weld on the tubes of your Cowboy'd Beesly.

That old Ten will reach places your 12 can only dream of and it works great with Bismuth...just ordered me some more.

Tut-tut h0mie, but I would love to have a really old thing like that ten of yours to put over my fireplace mantel.

Fireplace mantel....

Mines Nitro proofed Lowell.

"Lowell doesn't get out much."
Well enough to know h0mie, while deer and turkey tags sell like hotcakes, and throngs of hunters take to the woods, small game and duck stamps pretty much go un-sold.
Sign of the times?

You don't get out much do you...I've never heard of a small game stamp.

He just makes this crap up. It come natural to him...

Trying to get this thread back on line.

If lead is increasingly under fire as being unsuitable for wildfowling what pray do the Scientists recommendas a suitable alternative?
Tom Roster and CONSEP seem to indicate that the REAL problem MAY be inefficient marksmanship.
That apart what is the feeling about alternative shot?
Kent don't seem to be marketing Tungsten very well.
Bismuth?
Heavyshot isn't all it was cracked up to be and is horrendously overpriced here in the UK.
Zinc?
Tin?
Soft Iron? ( Steel)causes environmental issues.
What do we need to use that is economical, efficient, readily available?
Lead?

Heavyshot..is whOre'rendously over priced here and useless in a fine gun.
Remington is fix'n to put a wupp'n on Hevi'shot...maybe they'll step to the plate and buy Bismuth shot company.

We really need to get the NRA behind us on this lead shot issue.

What is the problem re Kent marketing: availability, advertising, low demand, price? I live in the sticks and it is available here. The price has gone up 80 per cent.

Hevi-shot has the ballistic statistics that are better than lead and kills as or more effectively then lead, the only drawback is it's price!!! And we are only talking about a small number of hunters that want to hunt with older shotguns, I don't think the firearms industry is going to cater to that small of a market because there are plenty of shotguns, doubles included, that are built to handle steel and Hevi-shot.
All the best

That's probably it re tungsten. Treblig. I'm the only guy using it within 50 miles. The other doubles guys are using steel. Good duck habitat is within an hour's drive in Nova Scotia so I don't consider the cost of hunting at tungsten prices a factor in the experience. What: the price of a movie, a few in a bar?

King B, Amen to that brother!!!! A good day hunting is priceless!!!
All the best

Please don't ask for that, the less we do to expose what goes on in the NRA hierarchy the less the general membership will know how we've been ripped off.

Goodness, How I miss NEAL KNOX!

In Missouri there are small game permits, you would need a resident(or non-resident) small game permit(no deer, or turkey) + Missouri migratory bird hunting permit.
These permits have gone wanting for years.
Missouri is very pro-hunting, that and also with the largest turnout for an NRA event this last year in St.Louis.
...and still!

This is a blast from the past..........good read and opinions for the dull late summer.......

Cheers,

Returning to the original topic . . . Iowa's Natural Resources Commission added a requirement for nontox shot only to that state's (first ever) dove season this fall. The state legislature's Administrative Rules Review Committee removed the nontox requirement, and Governor Branstad scolded the NRC because "an issue of this magnitude of public policy should be decided by the legislature, not by an unelected commission".
Score one for lead.

Once it is banned for one type of hunting, then it will only be a matter of time for the rest and most likely a short one.

Sort of ridiculous statement given that lead waterfowling has been the lay of the land for what? Two decades at least.

And how many people have given up waterfowling becase of it? And how many in the next generation never started because the people who would have sarted them on it, quit because of steel and/or increased cost?

Two of my friends - manic duck hunters on Barnegat Bay in the past gave it up because of the combination of steel (they'd have had to have replaced their shotguns), cost (of steel, gas, licenses, etc.) and limits (one black duck per day, and b/c 90 percent of the black ducks winter there, it seems all you see are black ducks). Another friend, a local gun store owner here in Maine, says it's been years since he went duck hunting - because of steel, cost and "all that for one duck" limits.

These guys all have kids, who've surely never gone duck hunting because their dads don't.

I don't, because my duck hunting would be incidental to upland hunting and I don't want to have to ditch the lead shells (and hope I could find them later) to shoot a duck legally. In the days of "Duck and Pheasant Loads" (I picked up a box of them at a gun show last year - nostalgia in a box), you could go down to the swampy part of the cornfield, maybe get lucky and bring home a nice mixed bag. Now, if you were to be stopped with a mallard and a pheasant in your gamebag, you'd better only have steel or no-tox, even if you'd have legally shot the phez with lead.

None that I know of.

And what it has done for waterfowl in general and a few other species (e.g., bald eagles) is flatly undeniable.

"None that I know of.

And what it has done for waterfowl in general and a few other species (e.g., bald eagles) is flatly undeniable."

This idea doesn't account for the wounding losses. I guess denying this fact and that the inconvience of steel could influence the occasional duck hunter to leave the sport and long term decrease our recruitment numbers really is lost on you.

Oh my. Actually that premise is completely deniable, or at least not nearly as relevant as you appear to think it is. The banning of DDT and laws passed in the 60's and 70's protecting bald eagles and their nesting areas were exponentially more impactful than anything having to do with a lead shot ban. And what else has the lead shot ban lead to...to use your term, an "undeniable" increase in the amount of wounded/lost game. Fewer hunters in the field which results in a loss of license income which is vital for protecting critical habitat, which probably has a far greater impact on the future of game populations than any theoretical population loss due to digesting lead shot.

The most disturbing thing about the whole lead shot issue is how many sportsmen are willing to stand by and let more environmental activists dictate the future of the sport, with false claims and pseudoscience. A total ban on lead shot would be the death of hunting in America. No young kids would ever be able to afford shells to hunt, let alone burn through a few boxes to practice with which is just as important as hunting. Hunting is increasingly expensive every year as it is, and has to compete with everything else that kids have today. You guys need to open your eyes and see what these lead shot bans really are trying to accomplish. If we have this many in our own ranks that are seemingly willing to go along with this, I'm afraid it is already too late.

I figured you would say that but you have not kept up on the literature. You might as well debate the world is flat.

I'll continue to endorse the lead ban on waterfowl and I do not find it the slightest bit difficult even though I shoot only old doubles, mostly damascus.

For the most part, every corner of every waterhole is filled with hunters in the Midwest. We seem to be coping.

Sadly hunters only shoot their own credibility in the foot continuing to argue against lead in waterfowling. That will haunt them when they legitimately try to keep lead for upland hunting.

And I guess that is the exact thing I thought you would say. Here is a link to the USFWS report on the increase in population of the bald eagle. http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/population/index.html

Notice how they determine that the dramatic turnaround in population was is directly related to the banning of DDT and the placing of the eagle on the endangered species list. And notice of the rate of population growth is unchanged after the all important lead shot ban was put into place in 1991. But what does the USFWS know, they are only arguing that the earth is flat. You better send them some of what you have been reading so they can change the results they have been compiling for the past 40 years.



What an arrogant and selfish response. Of course you don't have a problem using non-tox shot for hunting. I, like yourself have been blessed to be able to afford nice, antique damascus barreled guns. Paying for expensive shot is not a problem for me. It is though, for a 16 year old farm boy how wants to shoot a couple boxes at doves, or go out after some pheasants, or God forbid fire a few boxes to practice. Why would he spend $30-$50 on a few boxes of shells when he can just as easily buy the latest PS3 game for the same price.



That's because there are fewer and fewer waterholes every year to be filled up by those hunters. To use your term again, it is undeniable that the number of hunters is declining. We lost 10% between 1996 and 2006, and I'm sure that number is much higher today http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/03/national/main3228893.shtml
and I guarantee those hunters in your Midwestern waterholes are getting grayer and longer in the tooth every year.



I don't think I ever argued against the lead ban for waterfowl. I am merely pointing out your false claims as to how impactful it was (and your many other false responses). It did have the most impact to waterfowl specifically. That is important to point out, because it's effect is mostly limited to waterfowl and waterfowl only. The negative aspects of the lead ban (i.e. wounded game, expense, loss of hunters) are limited to waterfowl hunting only. If you can't afford to shoot ducks you have other options. By calling for a useless ban of lead shot for everything from squirrels to deer to pheasants and even target shooting, you would damage the future of hunting beyond repair. But as long as you can afford the shot that is all that matters I guess. Try again Brent, you can do better than this.

YOu are predictable and you march in the usual lockstep of the internet expert. Sadly, you don't understand anything of the science - a small portion of which i have posted on this website multiple times.

You can continue your rants, but your credibility is zilch. Read the science. I have.

And I'm out on the water so I know what is going out there too

And I think we just found out everything we need to know about you. Are you actually claiming that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's research data is false, and their 40 years of population monitoring is bogus? The most credible organization to ever study this issue has false information in their website for everyone to see? That cannot be! Please post your irrefutable evidence that shoots their studies out of the water so we can all see for ourselves how right you are.

Hopefully your next post will have more substance other than personal attacks, because I think it's someone else's credibility that is quickly approaching freezing.

Just read the literature. Or look through my old posts on the topics of lead and waterfowl where you will find links to the literature.

Then you can come back and continue your personal attacks.

Understood...you have nothing. Thanks for playing.

If someone is a die hard hunter at heart I don't see a few bucks and little piece of shot stopping them from hunting.

The total ban of lead shot for waterfowl unjust....

If they were going to ban lead shot it should have been in permanent duck blinds where lots of lead shot could accumulate in one spot over the years.

The mobile waterfowler or upland hunter is not going to put enough lead in one spot to make any difference in the world to any creature.

I gave you four concrete examples - my two friends in Jersey, my friend in Maine, myself.

More to the point, though, is how diehard those hunters were. The one Jersey guy, had so many decoys he had no room for oher decor in his house. We hunted brant and sea ducks over his spread of cedar decoys. I assume you know you don't just toss a dozen dekes out there when you hunt brant or sea ducks. Loading those out barely made a dent in the piles in the room he had set aside for decoys (BTW - cedar decoys are much more lifelike than plastic or cork in the way they float.) He had a share in a duck shack - a cabin on stilts out in the marsh. He'd go out there and spend the late season - most of December and January - hunting ducks every day and live there, coming in only for shells, gas, beer and food. (His business was slow in the winter, so he wasn't missing out by living in the marsh all winter.) The other Jersey guy was there when he had a chance, which he made a lot of. They'd go out there in some of the worst weather - sideways snow, fog, waves and wind that threatened to swamp the boat (a Garvey) - and lived for duck season.

Both those guys have quit, in large part because of steel but also because of cost and "all this for one duck" limits.

My friend in Maine I haven't known as long, but he is an avid hunter. He gave up ducks long ago - steel was the issue that pushed him over the edge to quit.

None of these guys' kids have ever hunted ducks, to my knowledge.

So, it's not only the guys who quit. It's the future generations that never start.

Around here, a watchword relative to range safety and neighbor manners is that we are not just worried about our own shooting, but we want our kids and grandkids to be able to shoot, too. The same principle should be applied to waterfowling and, more generally, the whole lead shot issue. The antis failed to take away the guns. But they will not stop trying to end the shooting sports, figuring that if they make it too expensive by requiring expensive ammunition only, they'll turn the guns into expensive paperweights.

Don't help them.

Science on waterfowl is one thing; science on upland birds, something very different. I can provide quotes from two or three state game agencies essentially admitting that the same kind of "good science" that showed ingested lead as a problem for waterfowl does not exist, and probably never will exist, where upland birds are concerned. Although that does not seem to stop them from periodically attempting to add additional nontox restrictions where they don't seem to make much sense.

The raptor rehabilitators will point out that bald eagles, mostly feeding on unrecovered deer shot with lead, are still getting sick and dying from lead poisoning. But we have to remember that we manage wildlife not by what happens to the occasional individual, but by the overall welfare of the SPECIES. And, as a SPECIES, bald eagles have made a miraculous recovery. The lead restrictions we now have in place may or may not have helped, but the lead we're still shooting does not appear to be harming eagles as a SPECIES. And other than maybe doves, in areas where a lot of shells are fired, it does not appear that there is enough shot deposited in any particular area by upland hunters to present the same kind of threat that existed for waterfowl before the lead ban. (And in the pre-ban days, it was also undoubtedly much worse for eagles, given all the scavenging they do around lakes and marshes. With lead shot banned for everything on federal WPA's as well as around wetlands in general in a lot of states, that's doubtless made it much less likely that scavenging eagles would ingest shot from birds killed with lead.)

In the pre-steel days, a major source of lead in eagles was from wounded waterfowl, esp. along the Mississippi River but also in other regions (e.g., eastern KS). Lead from deer carcasses is pretty minor in the way of affecting eagle population dynamics (probably what you mean to imply by "SPECIES") though undoubtedly a few must get lead that way occasionally.

In eastern KS where much/most dove hunting is done over farm ponds and shallow flooded basins, steel shot might make sense. But in Iowa, I have no idea where the predominant hunting habitats will be. I hear about folks planting sunflowers and shooting them, basically over bait fields, but hell, why bother with doves in IA in the first place?

This just keeps on...A few years ago when everyone was wringing their hands and whining about it, I tried through this forum, to organize some"watch groups", so we knew what was actually going on and could try to manage it...The number of volunteers was overwhelming.........NONE...We deserve what we get.....

I know I'll get a lot of hate-mail and venomous responses to this opinion, but here goes.

The primary reason TODAY for lead bans is due to the varmint "hunter" creating a lot of bad press. To a secondary level, it is the big game hunter leaving his gut piles in the field.

The data is in and pretty conclusive in the Western USA as it pertains to raptors getting lead toxicity from bullets. Varminters go out with their lead bullets and slaughter entire prairie dog towns on BLM land, they clean up nothing, they delude themselves into thinking that wholesale slaughter of entire prairie dog towns is some noble land reclamation effort, and then they leave.

In the subsequent days, the raptors ingest the lead and die in fairly substantial numbers.

Those people and also the big game hunters leaving their gut piles are the primary cause of lead bans. There is good data to implicate their practices as destructive to conservation causes.

Now for waterfowl and water supply contamination? That on the other hand is a more dubious ecological argument against lead shot.

The mentality "we must hang together or we'll surely hang apart" is really the wrong way to go with conservation minded hunters concerned about lead. We need to shun the sloppy hunters that are causing problems and we need to reform our cleanup and mitigation practices from within...otherwise the long hand of government will further legislate us and we'll be unable to use lead for anything.

Rook, with the emphasis on "TODAY", I can agree with you. Lead shot bans for waterfowling is about all that was/is needed. I don't know if raptor ingestion of lead in prairie dog towns has an effect on raptor populations or not. Never seen, or looked for any literature on it. Have you? I'd be interested in a few citations if you know of any.

Lead in water supplies is not, never was, an issue.

Lead in Condors from carcasses is an issue. But that is only condors and only so long as their populations are so small.

BrentD,

The impact on raptors collectively is significant. I don't have my data sources handy but the Peregrine Fund (a conservation group founded by hunters/falconers) has studied it and fostered a lot of scientific symposiums to explore the issues.

In short, there are a lot of raptors dying of toxicity, most frequently in Western states that have lots of varmint hunting. The raptors most impacted are Golden Eagles, Bald Eagles, Furruginous Hawks, and other plains species of the genus Buteo.

Vultures and Ravens are also impacted for the same reasons.

Of the about 300 california condors in existence, more than two dozen had high lead levels and some were fatally wounded by lead toxicity from refined, munitions lead attributable to gun hunters. (the lead recovered was refined, had antimony or other alloys in it, etc)

peregrinefund.org has some great info and an xray photo of a deer gut pile. You can't believe how much lead fragmentation occurs. All it takes is a sliver, a few grams of lead, to kill the largest raptor. (keep in mind a large female bald or golden eagle is only 9-11 pounds...doesn't take much lead to kill such an animal)

From what little I have seen of lead in gun piles and carcasses, it is high-velocity lead that is the issue. Lead fired in rifles that exceed 2000 fps or some such speed. Lead from shotguns slugs and slower (blackpowder) rifles seems not to fragment much or at all as I understand it.

BrentD,

I'm certain that is true. I'm also certain that people that varminters are the ones most interested in frangible ammunition.

Further, I'd suggest that shotgunners are different than varminters in that we are reclaiming all our downed quarry whereas the long range rifle folks may be making no attempt to collect animals they kill.

For purposes of hunting large game with rifles, the goal is to have massive deformation of the bullet without any franging. The desired result is that the bullet expands to a maximum size possible causing a larger wound channel while retaining maximum weight. The aforementioned design spec leads to humane, quick kills for centerfire rifles.

Rook,
the shotgun slug hunters do remove their kills (at least the meat portion) when the recover them. ARound here, they tend to not recover a bunch of wounded ones. But be that as it may, what I was referring to specifically was a study done by the MN DNR showing that slow moving lead when fired into dead sheep as test targets did not fragment, whereas the higher velocity lead from bullets designed to expand did put fragments of lead throughout the carcass and not just in the gut pile. This was a concern to some folks that were worried about eating lead-laced meat. Of course, for all practical purposes occasional ingestion of lead metal by humans is not terrifically problematic anyway such as it is for raptors.

As I recall the differences in fragmenting between shotgunners and muzzleloaders on one hand and rifle hunters on the other, was quite substantial. Simply plucking the rifle slug out of a gut pile was not going to get the job done particularly well.

I get bilious reading some of the crap written by so called experts on lead and its effects. Raptors dying because of eating lead in Prairie dogs? Has this fool ever seen a prairie dog? Over the years we have hosted hunters here who have killed prairie dogs in the thousands. I have YET to evidence a prairie dog big enough to retain a bullet traveling at 2400 ft secs plus.Since I am OUTSIDE every day in the field every day, some of the experts should try getting out more, I have never seen a dead raptor that hasnt clearly been killed by some other means. Power lines and cars being the most common. When working fields the tractor, any tractor is followed by raptors in fairly large numbers eating bugs worms and mice served by their friendly farmer host. We have more than ever. They all quote "read the papers" Bullshit, get out and look..

$ you are part and parcel of the problem. Because you don't look carefully enough to know. Nor have you ever x-rayed a pile of prairie dogs for lead. Try it sometime.

Meanwhile, keep farming for those worm eating golden eagles. Glad to know now where they REALLY come from.

I concur. Considering I've spent the majority of my lifetime studying raptors and reading relevant journals on the topic, I know a thing or two. As a Federally licensed raptor rehabilitator I've seen more than a few cases of lead toxicity as well. As a student of western eco-systems and their raptors I recognize the volume of Ferruginous Hawks, Rough Legged Hawks and Golden Eagles that depend upon prairie dog towns for a symbiotic relationship, I know the raptor's feeding tendencies.

Lastly, I know from x-rays and from marketing literature provided by Hornady, Remington, Barnes, Nosler and others that the frangible, fragmenting ammunition does just what it says...it fragments violently, often causing an awesome explosion with the prairie dog / ground squirrel rocketing into the air out of its hole to dramatic fanfare. That is what the varminter wants...shock and awe. Last time I was at a gun show they had a video for sale called "Exploding Varmints" that showed tumbles and spins of prairie dogs getting knocked out of their holes by frangible/fragmenting rounds.

It seems for most imbeciles, Full Metal Jacket clean kills aren't enough, it has to become a spectacle. Taking delight in the most gruesome death possible for an animal that has intrinsic value to the wild and for which has no value to the shooter is sociopathic behavior. If a kid did the same thing to the animal with a machete they'd lock him up certain he would become a serial killer next.

This coming from a lifelong hunter and NRA Life Benefactor Member mind you. Just my opinion based on real data and formalized study of the problem.

Clean up your gut piles and stop leaving dead varmints in the fields, maybe, just maybe, we can retain the right to use lead in various forms of hunting.

What's symbiotic about the relationship between Hawks and Prairie Dogs? What do the Prairie Dogs get out of the deal??

I'm torn between gun rights and a natural (I think) revulsion at the idea of exploding ground squirrels. Whatever happened to .22 rimfire rifles?

I know that scientific data sometimes over-rules intuition from first hand observation, but I think all of us have developed a healthy suspicion regarding scientific data that we're told is irrefutable, when common sense says something entirely different...Geo

GEO.
There is a vast difference between healthy skepticism and reflexive
complete denial.

Common sense is something we all have to a greater extent that everyone else. The math for that doesn't work out, but math is a science and thus it must be a lie too I suppose. Meanwhile, there are several things about predator-prey relationships that are pretty quick to contradict "common" sense.

Brent

Brent, I've always respected the ecological knowledge you seem to have. I never implied that science was a lie.

I just said symbiotic was an odd term for raptors and squirrels, and that some "science" might ought to be questioned when the "mathmatical" results seem off base.

While science is not a lie, some scientists have a bias which may lead them to lie to us (by 'fixing' the science) to achieve what their idea of "common sense" dictates the answer to a question should be. In the case of lead shot and upland bird hunting, I think the bias may be gun control...Geo

Geo.
I wasn't directing that comment at you, quite the contrary. Just the world in general and the i-net in particular. Seems pretty common that when the facts tell one something that that doesn't fit with one's political position - just hell it is all a lie, and claim common sense for your own side, do it loudly and often and eventually, it will become the truth.

And yes scientists have lied. But not often and they have a long way to go to catch up to politicians. But science should always be questioned and tested = and generally speaking, it is. So, eventually, the liars and the cheats find themselves with their backs to the wall and that wall turns out to be in front of a firing squad.

How does this strike you for common sense? Globally, in about a quarter of the predator/prey interactions out there, the prey population is larger in the presence of a specific predator species than when the predator is absent.

Geo,

The symbiotic relationship that a raptor provides a prairie dog town is thus:

Prairie Dogs breed at a high rate of speed. They annex new territory quickly. The higher their numbers, the increased odds of disease and in particular, bubonic plague. (for which they are hosts) Pressure from raptors kills the weak, the dumb and the frail of the prairie dog town keeping the stock healthy and in check.

Further, the pressure from the raptors reduces feeding opportunities for the prairie dogs (keeping them close to holes) which reduces their sprawl and consumption of limited sage habitat desirable for other members of the ecosystem.

For more than half a century there was a double eyrie (nest) of Ferruginous hawks in Wyoming not far from Medicine Bow on BLM (Bureau of Land Management, Public Land) The primary eyrie was at least 15' tall and produced as many as 6 chicks per year. The secondary (backup nest) eyrie was only 30 yards away and was perhaps 8' tall.

In the tremendous valley adjacent the eyrie was a huge prairie dog town that provided enough food to create a sustainable food base for the largest hawk in North America. (A species so large Audobon called them "spotted eagles")

When I went out about 6 years ago to check in on the area all the prairie dogs were gone. Not half, not 95%. Every prairie dog out of the hundreds and hundreds that existed were gone. In the valley there was thousands of .223 military trash-grade brass cases where it was clear a group of yahoos came in, came onto WE THE PEOPLE'S LAND and exterminated an ecosystem.

The Ferruginous hawk eyries are still there but the nests are no longer active. Did the wholesale slaughter of all the dogs force the hawks to move from their 50 year home? Or, did the pile of lead infused prairie dogs become foraging ground for them until lead toxicity took hold and eradicated the hawks directly?

Either way, this is the kind of BS that varmint hunters do for pleasure on national lands with little understanding of the harm they are causing. These animals weren't "varmints" hurting a farmer or rancher's land, they were part of a natural, intact ecosystem. Some schmucks just came along and exterminated that ecosystem for pleasure using lead ammunition where 100% certainty is that they left the carcasses to rot in the open until another animal consumed them and received secondary poisoning.

As hunters we have to be better than this. We have to prune our own ranks and ostracize these marginal, fringe hunters, self regulate and protect our sports from these people's negative PR.

Well, it strikes me as common sense that the greater the prey population, the greater the predator population will be...what doesn't follow in my mind, is the idea that the predator presence causes the prey population to increase. Or, as Rookhawk pointed out above that population increase in the prey population is a healthy thing in the first place...Geo

Geo. Indeed, it is not so obvious, but can and does happen about 25% of the time. The clue it the general mechanism is almost apparent in Rook's argument above. But it is not quite completed.


Also, the killing of the weak and and the sick etc. generally is NOT a benefit accrued to a species in an adaptive sense. It requires a group selectionist argument that doesn't stand up to the math.

But right now, I have to solve some paleohuman questions with a student.

Brent and Rookhawk both, I know this is a situation where your viewpoint is generally unpopular (after all its a GUN forum), but also where your insight can be of some substantial value to those who really wish to understand the lead shot argument more clearly. Please continue this diologue as time permits and while I may not be willing or even capable of reading and understanding the literature, I am quite willing and would appreciate the chance to listen to the "executive summary" of what the research does say...Geo

Here's an x-Ray of a deer showing the lead fragmentation that gets left in the field either whole (with varmints) or in the guts (with game cleaned in the field with remnants left to rot).

Brent, this seems like the thinking of an evolutionist that is focused on those moments in time when adverse conditions encourage or support evolutionary changes to a species. I don't think that a predator/prey relationship encourages new adaptation, rather the consistent predator/prey relationship encourages the status quo equilibrium between them.

But dare I say, I'm taking us off topic here. The topic was really: "why are we getting more pressure to ban lead" to which my hypothesis is in part "because fringe / marginal hunters are destroying ecosystems with wanton waste using lead. That in turn is causing negative press on all lead use that is undermining the sports we cherish."

Rookhawk, that x-ray showing all the lead fragments in the deer creates a powerful impression, but it begs the question: what kind of rifle bullet was used? Of course I could shoot a deer with one of the highly frangible 'varmit bullets' and an x-ray would probably look just like your example, but I wouldn't. I do not accept it as fact that a proper lead bullet intended by the maker for deer sized game would leave a fragmentation field like your photo depicts. Conversely, it also is not clear to me that the fragmentation field resulting from shooting a deer sized animal will be the same in a squirrel.

That is the problem with the lead ban debate. If you're drinking the Sierra Club cool-aid things look one way and if you are walking in lock-step with the NRA the "evidence" has a completely different complexion.

Not to argue semantics, but respectfully, I still don't accept your position that the predator-prey relationship between species equates to a symbiotic one...Geo

Don't you suppose that REASONABLE people, almost by definition, do not drink anyone's koolaid or walk in lockstep? Why be so binomial about it?

And does anyone know what sorts of bullets are being use on deer these days? I'd love to have x-rays of the two deer I shot with factory Winchester silvertips (one .308 one .30-30). Both blew up ridiculously. And of course, Win STs are NOT varmint bullets, and both calibers are slow dogs in today's world of "adequate" hunting rifles.

And just how many times was that deer shot? And what are the sizes of slug reflected in the image.

The first deer I saw killed was one which wandered into the area hunted by a neighboring deer camp. It took 31 hits from no one knows how many different calibers of centerfire rifle, and a couple of rifled slugs, before it collapsed.

The radiograph is interesting, assuming it's a real one and not a forgery. But it might be useful if, for starters, we knew how many times the animal was shot, and the scale of the radiograph.

Rookhawk, it would be interesting to note the particular bullet that was used to kill the deer you show in the x-ray. I'm sure it is not known though. I find it hard to believe that a properly constructed large game bullet would fragment in such a manner. Perhaps I'm wrong but it makes me question whether that x-ray was staged with a frangible bullet being used?

I enjoy watching the local raptors here but honestly find it hard to be overly concerned about their populations increasing when I see far more of their numbers than I do the winged game I enjoy hunting. I haven't seen a wild pheasant or quail here in close to 25 years. I can take a 15 minute drive around my home and see 8-10 Redtails and 2-5 Kestrels. Can't say the same for cottontails or any upland game.

Cheers
Marcus

Whoa, there Geo. I wouldn't go trusting much of what Brent says blindly. Especially when he starts talking about all the "literature" he has been reading. Don't forget that he blatantly lied earlier in this thread:


and when directly confronted with evidence that completely discredited his statement about bald eagles which was put out by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/population/chtofprs.html

His only response was to do what only the slimiest politicians do, and go on a personal attack and not acknowledge any of the data by the most credible agency to ever study this issue. Instead he insisted he had read the "true" literature and everything else was a lie. In fact he insisted that I go back and look at the correct literature about this issue that he had posted numerous times before. Since this is an important topic, I actually went back to look through his posts to see if I could actually find this mythical literature about lead shot and bald eagles. I searched all the way back through 2008, and you guessed it, I found zilch. Not very easy data to find that would apparently blow the USFWS research out of the water. I urge you and others to go back and look at his previous posts in this thread to find out just what kind of person he is, and make your own decision on what his true agenda actually is.

The fact is that the lead shot ban in 1991 had no major, or even minor affect on the recovery of the bald eagle. The percentage of increase in the population of the bald eagle was actually higher before the ban went into place. I don't want anyone to believe me personally. Do your own research and find out for yourself, don't rely on anyone else to make up your opinion for you. Here it is again, and take out of it what you will:
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/population/chtofprs.html

This is extremely important to get across because the anti-lead crowd knows that the bald eagle is a red herring for the media, and any time they point out anything that harms a single eagle it will be picked up and used at a poster child for their cause, which is why Brent lied about that fact.

George and Dave, I see you were posting similar questions while I was slowly typing away on my IPhone. Sorry for the redundancy.

Marc

That was kind of my point, Brent. Don't be put off by my skepticism; it is not important whether you convince me or I convince you. What is important that those with the knowlege to do so (and I consider you one) share the valid and relevant facts so that we all can listen to intelligent debate and come to an informed opinion...Geo

Who is talking about Bald Eagles here? I was referring to plains raptors impact on lead toxicity, specifically golden eagles, ferruginous hawks, rough legged hawks, etc.

I don't really keep up on the hype around bald eagles because:
A. Not my specialty
B. I find them to be an annoying bird and a nuisance
C. They are in the largest numbers ever recorded in human history
D. The lead issues with Bald Eagles are alleged to come from lead sinkers and the fishing community. (I don't fish nor keep track of that stuff on a species of ZERO population concern)

As to another poster, the claim was that there are plenty of raptors in the area and there are insufficient prey animals. (desirable game animals they enumerated)

1. Red Tailed Hawks and Kestrels do not provide biodiversity. In fact, both are at record numbers because they adapted to man's changing of the habitat. Those raptors that were most prevelant during colonial and pre-industrial times are now in fewer numbers than ever, several states have them on State endangered species lists, in fact. (e.g. Red Shouldered Hawks)

2. The beloved game species you listed in part are:
A. Not indigenous so from a conservation perspective, who cares?
B. Not a primary prey of either of the raptor species specified.

3. Stating that you believe you see a sufficient number of raptors in your area is therefore grounds to state there is not a lead toxicity problem in the Western USA with raptors is cloudy logic.

A. You're not in the Western USA to my knowledge.
B. The species listed do not hunt "varmints" that are the target of leave-it-lay target shooting.

Just trying to clarify points of confusion or error here.

Brent did, and insisted that it was the lead shot ban that was responsible for their recovery.

Bald eagle recovery, most likely reasons:

1. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1969 banned their slaughter, made prison a consequence of harming them.

2. DDT ban in USA reduced the egg shell thinning issues that made for more successful clutches.

3. Increased domestication over time encouraged more urbanized breeding opportunities that opened up further prey bases / habitats. (e.g. Chicago River Basin, Adjacent to freeways throughout the nation, etc.)

4. Lead ban of 1991 for waterfowl? I don't know about that one way or the other. I'd need data on the number of lead toxicity cases in relation to the population at large from pre-1991 reconciled against data from today. Brent may be correct that the ban reduced mortality but I don't have the data.

Finally someone who knows what they are talking about. The only numbers that matter about the bald eagle are these right here:

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/population/chtofprs.html

The ban in 1991 had no affect on the rate of increase in the population, in fact the percentage of gain actually starts going down by the 90's. I keep pounding this point, because the waterfowl lead ban affecting bald eagle recovery is constantly used by the uninformed, or intentionally mis-leading anti-lead activists to further their cause.

Rookhawk

Let me "clarify several points of confusion and error" on your part. Bobwhite quail are indigenous to Pennsylvania so from a conservation point I do care. Nowhere in my initial post did I say I had no concern for lead toxicity in western raptors. I did not even imply it.

As to the original question posed by George, Dave and myself regarding the x-ray shown as proof of lead fragments, where is the data showing it was a properly constructed big game bullet that created the wound? If there is none and a properly executed control group was not used, how can it be presented as factual evidence?

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your statements but arrogance and condescension are no way to sway opinions. I can empathize with your closeness to this topic but emotion has no place in science IMHO.

Cheers
Marc

There is no intended arrogance or condescension here, Marc. Constructive contention and debate is healthy and welcomed by me. Lets keep the discussion moving forward positively.

Sounds good to me Rookhawk.

As to the question that's already been posed twice- can the background on the x-ray be provided? If not, I believe that needs to be noted and not be held up as factual evidence to the discussion.

Marcus

WOW! I'm impressed in just 2 pages, Brent and Rookhawk have made me part of a problem that may or may not exist, conjured Golden Eagles behind my tractor, and converted military ball to lead bullets! With all of the misstatements, and pomposity they have destroyed what little credibilty they had, at least with me..Almost all of our prairie dogs are gone, with 7-or 8 years of shooting, we didnt make much of a dent in them...A Government sponsored poision campaign did the trick in short order...Prairie dogs staying close to their holes in fear of raptors? Now I know these fools have never seen a prairie dog...

Least now we know we can blame it all on the varmint hunters...

And why not use it as evidence, unless you have some better evidence to the contrary? Are you saying no evidence is better?

Meanwhile the MN DNR did a similar study a few years ago and shot a bunch of sheep instead of deer, with different firearms. And I mentioned that above somewhere. In any event, dig it out if you wish. It's there for your pleasure and I'm sure it googles pretty easily.

$, I believe you said that more farms and more farm tractors = more raptors. No?

I've seen some gazillion of pdogs of course. But rant on if you wish.

There is no more need for you to post on this topic any longer Brent, your credibility is non-existent.

And you pretend to have greater credibility? Let's see it? Per usual, you have no cards.

I think this Brent guy must be a politician..Can ANYONE read into what I said, what he said? No Creds....Pure Babble

Just reading like you $.

I expect bald eagles do die from lead ingestion of sinkers, jigs, etc. However, the raptor rehabilitators will tell you that scavenging unrecovered deer and ingesting bullet fragments from them is also an issue. I can't verify the source of the lead, but there are bald eagles that still sicken and die from lead poisoning. That being said, as noted above, the bald eagle population has increased remarkably, and eagles as a species certainly are not in trouble due to lead ingestion.

Sometimes I think the raptors are getting more fish and pheasants than me. Damn competition in the food chain.

Brent

I'm not the one who presented the x-ray as evidence. The burden of proof lies with the one presenting it as fact. I asked a simple question. I wanted to know the facts regarding that particular x-ray. I don't believe I made any mention of your information. Has academia and the scientific community reached the level of arrogance where the masses are not allowed to question the "facts" presented to them?

I don't have PhD after my name Brent. Therefore, I'm certain, my words are of no concern to you. The only evidence I can personally present were the approximately 3,500 whitetail deer I was involved in processing while working in a friend's father's butcher shop over a period of 6 separate deer seasons here in PA. Of all the deer that went through his shop, I saw only a handful that had a wound similar to the one represented in the x-ray. Most of that fragmenting was from the copper jackets, not the lead core.

Marcus

L. Brown, I wanted to provide a quick comment that bifurcates yoru statement. Eagles are not a species in this country, we have large fish hawks (Bald Eagles) Haliaeetus leucocephalus that may be suffering from lead toxicity for the reasons you suggest, but as we have all established, they are at record numbers. Bald Eagles are highly adaptive because they are scavenging, thieving, adaptive scoundrels of the sky. (this coming from a guy that likes raptors) Bald Eagles can adjust to most niches of our diverse ecosystem pretty handily.

The second eagle is a true eagle, the Golden Eagle (Aquila Chrysaetos). The Golden Eagle is not nearly as adaptable to changing ecosystems are loss of prey base. In fact, I believe the latest count I heard is that biologists are tracking some 45 Golden Eagles east of the Mississippi river that are "native". Obviously during migrations additional birds get pushed east but heavy forests and mottled habitat has never been quite good for Golden Eagles to thrive in huge numbers in the east. In the west, there are large numbers of golden eagles but they certainly due suffer from lead toxicity and loss of habitat just like all the plains raptors that rely on high quanitites of jack rabbits, prairie dogs, sage grouse and other prey that has natural and unnatural fluctuations in numbers. (due to nature and man)

If we wish to examine another species as an indicator in the Western USA, the California Condor currently has 135 known birds in the wild population. That's 135 birds total. Of that populace more than a dozen have died of lead toxicity. Of a recent study of 26 Condors they took blood samples from, 20 had extremely high lead levels.

Considering all the attention the Condor gets (due to the small numbers) and the intense study data biologists gather on the population, it is possible to extrapolate that other western raptors with the same feeding habits are likely to suffer similar results.

Do we notice a few % of a population in other raptors dying from lead? No, because we don't study the populations that closely in most cases. The western birds are susceptible and it all comes down to man being a measurable factor to some extent. To what long term effect and to what level this behavior still allows them to sustainably reproduce, we don't fully know yet. But sloppy lead use on unrecovered quarry gives all hunters a bad name.

Marc, here is quite a bit of data about the amount of lead residual found in deer and other game animals due to fragmentation provided by a host of agencies and State Health organizations. It might be of some help addressing your questions that I cannot. (I'm not a ballistics and fragmentation expert)

http://peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-lead/2008PbConf_links.htm

Rookhawk

I appreciate the links. I have seen a number of those studies in the past. Unfortunately, as with most of the contentious issues we face today, I find myself skeptical of the statistics presented as fact. It really seems that the majority of studies are no longer truly unbiased and are results driven by whichever side is funding the study. Just as the NRA wouldn't publish a study showing gun control is beneficial, I find it hard to believe that an organization such as the Peregrine Fund would post studies contradicting their viewpoint. Truth has become too subjective.

Last time. Would you cite the source and background for the x-ray?

Cheers
Marcus

The North Dakota Health department did a study on human hunters and lead about two years ago. Hundreds of hunters had blood sampes taken. Many of these hunters had eaten ducks, upand game and deer for many years. Many of the people tested had hunted for 50 or more years. Hunting has a strong tradition in North Dakota so many of these people had consumed thousands of animals.

No evidence was found indicating humans who have eaten game animals have higher levels of lead than people who did not eat game

Hey Brent D! Call me "Mr. Dollar", only my friends get to call me $.......

That's incorrect. In the ND study, those who reported having eaten game did show a higher blood lead level than those who did not. However, the average lead level of everyone in that study--and something like 80% of them reported that they ate game--was lower than the average blood lead level nationwide.

Rookhawk, I stand corrected. I left out a word. Should have said: "As a species, BALD eagles are not in danger from lead ingestion."

The x-ray was from Boise State University labs. I don't have any other info on the type of cartridge or bullet though.

Here are the two key quotes from the North Dakota study, in which blood was analyzed from 736 volunteer participants (80% of whom consumed wild game):

"Participants who consumed wild game had . . . higher blood lead levels in comparison with those who did not consume wild game."

"While this study suggests that consumption of wild game can adversely affect blood lead levels, no participant had a blood lead level higher than the CDC recommended threshold, the level at which CDC recommends case management; and the geometric mean blood lead level among this study population was lower than the overall population geometric mean blood lead level in the United States."

As a practicing veterinarian with over twenty years experience in taking and interpreting radiographs, I'd like to make a few observations on the one presented here:

1) It is a horrible view. It is so under-exposed that I can barely identify the anatomical region it was taken from (and even then only the general region). It is certainly of no diagnostic value, in that it shows almost no anatomic structures due to the underexposure. It is clear that the exposure was manipulated for the sole purpose of demonstrating the fragmentation (which is fair to do, if that is the stated purpose). However it obscures the main damage to the large bone that it HAD to have impacted to fragment like that. The under-exposure makes it impossible to evaluate the wound tract path, and structures involved, as well as the extent of the damage they sustained. Large-game hunting bullets don't fragment without hitting fairly substantial bone.

2) Having radiographed hundreds of dogs shot with everything from BB guns to deer rifles, including many large-breed, heavy-boned dogs like Rottweilers, that pattern of fragmentation exceeds anything I've ever seen. No normal hunting bullet I've ever seen would fragment like that, even on hitting a solid bone. I have not seen any patients shot with "frangible" ammunition, but I can't imagine that they could possibly fragment any more than this bullet did.

3) No one would ever radiograph a dead deer unless they are looking to see the fragmentation pattern. Bullet manufacturers typically use gelatin to demonstrate performance. Whoever took this one was definitely trying to show the fragmentation pattern because it's useless for anything else. The manipulation of the exposure to maximize the appearance of the fragmentation causes one to question the motives of the one who took it, simply because it does not follow normal radiographic technique. It COULD still be unbiased, but there's ample evidence that it could also very easily be biased to demonstrate a pre-determined conclusion. It would be much more legitimate if it followed standard radiographic technique, but it wouldn't be anywhere near as impressive (i.e. intentional underexposure makes the tiniest fragments show up brighter and more vivid/"impressive", while all anatomic detail is lost in a "white-out").

4)The vast majority of fragments that come off of a normal hunting bullet will be found to be pieces of the copper jacket. When removing bullets surgically, the main lead core of the bullet is almost always still together for the most part. If we were to analyze the fragments shown, most of them would be copper (and as stated before - if this isn't a frangible bullet, it is the most extreme case of fragmentation of a normal bullet I've ever seen).

5) It's very hard to imagine that any animal hit like this (i.e. hard enough to cause such extraordinary fragmentation) would ever be "lost" to later die and be eaten by scavengers. This deer would have been collected at the point it was standing when the bullet impacted, or maybe a few scant yards away. Animals who are lost are generally poorly-hit (gut-shot, etc.) which means that the bullet either wholly or mostly only impacted soft tissue, or light bones like ribs, which results in minimal fragmentation. An exception to this would be an upper extremity, with the bullet hitting a large bone and fragmenting, but not causing enough immobilization to prevent the animal from being lost to die later.

Your observations are only obvious to people with common sense...

If a particular Eagle or large fish-hawk, or whatever you wish to call it, is dumb enough to eat a lead fishing sinker or an entire 30-30 slug and croaks because of it, its no evidence that the lead is a danger to the resource overall. I quit shooting lead at waterfowl when it became the law and when I became convinced it was a danger to the waterfowl population (not neccesarily the same time), not because I was afraid a particular member of the population might be harmed.

If we worried this much about everything that might harm a buzzard or a raptor, we'd have to take down all the power lines and close all the highways. The Condor is a perfect 'poster boy' for the anti lead guys because there are so few of them to begin with, and anything that harms one of them might well be a danger to the population. There probably would not be any left outside of zoos anyhow if it were not for the interest and support of conservationists, led by sportsman...Geo

While this is true, a radiograph is taken to show the structure of interest. That does not make it biased. The structures of interest were not bones or guts, but small metallic particles. Now of course the animal may have been "salted" in which case it's outright fraud, but if we are looking for a femur fracture we use the proper voltage and exposure for that purpose.

The degree of fragmentation in that radiograph is enormous - I wonder how common that is. It is also curious how far within the tissue mass some of the smaller fragments must have traveled. These tiny particles must have had a lot of energy! It is these issues that concern me more than the exposure of the plate.

Gnomon - I did not say it was biased, only that it caused me to question whether it is. I addressed the concerns of your first paragraph in MY first paragraph, where I said it was clear that the exposure was manipulated to show the fragmentation "WHICH IS FAIR TO DO IF THAT IS THE STATED PURPOSE". In this case, the purpose is not stated, so we are left to ourselves to decide if the presenter wanted to just maximize the fragmentation pattern to show it, or if they want us to think this is a typical appearance of what a bullet does inside the body (which it most definitely is not). To me, my concern is that the average person not used to viewing bullets on radiographs would think, "Wow! I had no idea that bullets did that inside the body," when in fact this is a rare/extreme case at best. Not sure if that's what the presenter wants us to think, though.

Regarding your second paragraph, all of that WOULD be much more apparent if the exposure followed standard diagnostic technique. You would be able to see anatomic structures and be able to judge distances, and also see what was impacted to cause such fragmentation. As it is, all the anatomy is lost in a white-out. You wondered how common that is - I can assure you that in hundreds of these cases over twenty years I've never seen one this dramatic, but we can't see what the bullet impacted to make it do this - because the technique is manipulated for a different result. My point was that standard technique would have made this radiograph tell us A LOT MORE about what really happened, and your questions would have been self-evident.

How rare is rare?

How rare is rare enough?

The long version
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/fish_wildlife/lead/bulletstudy/resources/publicsummary.pdf

The short version
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/hunting/lead/short-summary.html

Thanks for your comments vh20. Rookhawk, thanks for at least providing the source of the x-ray.

That's step 1. Step 2 is to determine whether those lead fragments pose a danger to humans. (The North Dakota test, in which some 80% of those tested ate game shot with lead, would seem to indicate it does not pose a danger--unless one eats a whole lot more game than those tested did.) Step 3 is to determine whether those lead fragments pose a danger to upland game (they don't scavenge, so we can eliminate that one) or predator/raptor SPECIES. In the latter case, there is evidence that INDIVIDUAL raptors/scavengers can get lead poisoning from unrecovered carcasses, although there does not appear to be much evidence that any otherwise healthy SPECIES (the condor being an exception because of its endangered status) is declining in numbers due to the ingestion of lead.

Given the way many buffalo hunters operated back in the mid to late 19th century, taking only the hide and maybe the hump and the tongue, you'd think that if lead fragments were a threat to the predator/raptor species, we would have wiped out a bunch of them, wholesale, back then--given the number of carcasses left lying on the plains. If someone thinks the prairie dog shooters are a problem, they ought to think on the buffalo hunters.

Larry, if the discussion is about humans, than I can agree with you about step 2. But I don't believe that is what we were discussing was it?

It is really only step 3. And if you wish, yes, Condors matter here, and the rest of the raptors - so far as we know, CURRENTLY do not. But you have to admit, you know damn little about many of them.

If you go back and look at the data from the MNDNR you will see that buffalo hunter lead fragments were really not such a big deal. You will also do well go to back and look at what is know about the predators of the day - particularly raptors, not mammals. A little anatomy is useful there.

The really interesting part of the "short version" above is here:

The ballistic tip bullet (rapid expansion) had the highest fragmentation rate, with an average of 141 fragments per carcass and an average maximum distance of 11 inches from the wound channel. In one carcass, a fragment was found 14 inches from the exit wound.


Soft point bullets (rapid expansion) left an average of 86 fragments at an average maximum distance of 11 inches from the wound channel. In this research, bonded lead-core bullets (controlled expansion, exposed lead core) performed almost identically to the soft-core bullets and left an average of 82 fragments with an average maximum distance of nine inches from the wound.


Shotgun slugs left an average of 28 fragments at an average maximum distance of five inches from the wound channel. Muzzleloader bullets (245-grain and 300-grain respectively) left an average of three and 34 fragments, respectively, at an average maximum distances of one and six inches, respectively.


A key take away message from the study is that given fragments were found so far from the exit wound, routine trimming likely will not remove all of the fragments and DNR cannot make a recommendation as to how far out trimming should occur.


In counting fragments, only about 30 percent were within two inches of the exit wound. The vast majority was dispersed further from the carcass. In some cases, researchers found low levels of lead as far away as 18 inches from the bullet exit hole. The DNR also learned that rinsing a carcass produced mixed results. While rinsing tends to reduce lead around the wound channel it also transports lead away from the wound.


The research also showed that a shot to the hindquarters of a deer – where heavy bones are found – will result in extensive fragmentation. Fragmentation was so pronounced that a hunter would likely not want to utilize this meat as there would be no way to remove all the fragments. The full research report is available at www.dnr.state.gov/lead.



***Pretty astounding how much bullets fragment, isn't it?

One thing I'd like to mention about this conversation:

While I may receive varying degrees of disagreement with people that goes from "polite contention" to absolute hate mongering that I'm somehow a pawn of gun-grabbers, I'd like to point to the path where even if I"m right, none of this makes any trouble for us as sportsman.

1. If we do not leave carcasses or gut piles in the field, there is no need for a lead ban in rifle cartridges. (plus it's rude, sloppy and gross. I hate when my dog finds YOUR garbage and rolls in it)

2. If those that must shoot varmints for legitimate reasons (protect their land and crops), and should they insist on leaving the caracasses to rot, they could simply buy non-toxic rifle rounds in most calibers from 17 HMR to .30-06.

If sportsmen were a little tidier on cleaning up after themselves and using due care, they could go a long way to protecting both our 2nd amendment rights AND protect our natural ecosystem for which they gather so much enjoyment.

Being a conservationist and sportsman is about being a gentleman. (or Lady) Shotgunners seem to be the most "gentry-esque" of sportsman on the average and the varmint hunter to my way of thinking tends to be the most un-sporting on average. If we can either change the habits of the fringe members of the hunting sports, or if necessary segregate ourselves from them, we may very well continue to enjoy the privilige of shooting lead.

Rookhawk

I think the notion that we remove the entire animal from the field prior to dressing it is unrealistic and unreasonable. Field dressing a big game animal does not make one ungentlemanly. Just the opposite. It shows a respect for the game animal you just killed. Once an animal is down, you have a responsiblity to cool the carcass as quickly as possible in order to thwart any spoilage. That is best done by removing the entrails and opening up the body cavity.

Of the raptors in question, what percentage of their diet is from scavenged carcasses?

Marcus

Brent, are you suggesting that we should NOT worry about lead in humans? Darn . . . wonder why they bothered to run that test up in ND. Seems to me, since we know that the ingestion of lead is toxic to humans, we should indeed worry about them. The animal rights types might say that a dog is a pig is a rat is a boy, but I think I'll put the boy on the top of the "worry" scale.

We do know, from raptor rehabilitators, that eagles are getting sick from ingesting lead. Would appear to be the kind of lead we were discussing most recently (fragments from bullets in unrecovered large game animals, or perhaps in what's left behind when the animal is field dressed. It's not at all unusual to see eagles on road-killed deer up here in WI. Don't know why they'd avoid animals that have been shot and not recovered.)

The MNDNR says a lot of things, including the following from their own Nontoxic Shot Advisory Committee: "The issues are extremely complex and conclusive data on wildlife population impacts is lacking. Furthermore, it is unlikely that conclusive data can ever be obtained due to the cost of this type of research." It was much easier to tell with waterfowl, because they've been closely monitored for a very long time, and are comparatively easy to observe. Also easy to tell with bald eagles (again, fairly closely monitored and observed), with numbers that were very low at the time lead was banned for waterfowl. But it's a bit hard to say how much of a role the lead ban played in the bald eagle recovery, because DDT was also banned not long prior to that.

[/quote]

You guys should seek help...

Larry, as I am sure you know, ingesting metallic lead from time to time is not particularly bad for most mammals. Lead oxides are another thing of course.

Lead in humans in ND was a factual observation. That it comes from game seems quite unlikely. Pretty much end of story for us. Not that it was part of the story in the first place. It is simply a source for information about the distribution of lead in game animals. And that is a bit more to the point, no?

Now, since I know you, I also know that you are bright enough to have all of this figured out. So, other than figuratively kicking an ant nest to see what pours out, what's your point?

If that means us North Dakotans have "more lead in our pencils", I'm all for it. Super-Size mine.

If you are referring to my post, I'll make you an offer: I've got about 20,000 radiographs on file. Of those, there are many hundreds of gunshot wounds. These are all real-world cases, not experimentally produced, or "simulated." In virtually every case, the shooter was intending to kill. You are welcome to peruse each and every one (I already have over the last 20 years). Or, I can save you some trouble and tell you what you will not find - which is any case that looks like the one presented in this thread. You may find one or two that start to approach it, but not equal it.

That's what I mean by "rare."

vh20.

Good for you. how many of those 20k pictures are of highpower HUNTING rifle inflicted wounds?

Are you taking issue with the MNDNR radiographs too?

And again, how rare is rare? Rare enough?

A large number of them were from high-powered rifles - we live in a rural area, and residents are well-equipped to kill trespassing dogs (even though it is illegal in most cases).

I am not taking issue with ANY radiographs other than the one presented here, and I have not seen MNDNR's. I AM stating that the radiograph presented on this forum is far more dramatic than what I have seen in 20 years of radiographing gunshot wounds as part of my profession. I am NOT stating it is disingenuous. I AM stating that the technique was deliberately manipulated to dramaticize the fragmentation pattern. I am not making any judgement, and I am not making some other point. I AM pointing out how evidence presented can be other than what it appears to be on the surface, and as a result conclusions that seem obvious may not be correct.

Make of it what you will. Furthermore? I cannot comment.

That's a difficult question to answer without huge study sizes over long periods of time. What I can tell you is in winter months in SW Wyoming and NE Utah, over 2-4 week observation periods, over 6 years out of the past ten, I observed as follows:

Eagles and Buteos eating from roadkill and gut piles hundreds upon hundreds of times. In that same observation period I saw predation on live quarry only a few dozen times. During harsh conditions wildlife will return for weeks to the same frozen carcass until there is nothing left but bones.

Contrast this with raptors east of the Mississippi where scavenging is much less common for these same species.

Sorry I have no formal study to point you to.

The point, Brent--unless I'm missing yours, and you seem to be wandering all over the place--is that those who are trying to ban lead shot, lead bullets etc, will use ANY excuse (based on "good science" or not) to promote their agenda. Lead poisoning is a fact in humans; it's a fact that it will kill birds. The question is, what danger is posed by the lead we shoot, transferred to us by the game we eat, or to birds by the lead they ingest from feasting on unrecovered game shot with lead. Those are the questions to which we need to respond, based on the facts in evidence, when dealing with the specious reasoning presented by the nontoxic shot proponents.

Larry, a lot of people have a lot of different motivations for getting into the lead shot/bullet issue. If you continue to lump them all into one group, you will miss the boat. Lead in meat we eat is quite different in effect than the same lead in meat that raptors might eat. Which, of course, you know quite well, but seem to wish to avoid acknowledging.

Your vocabulary tells me you have already made up your mind sans data of course.

Still at it, hey Brent? Your credibility in this thread has been diminished to such an extent that any further posting on your part is down right laughable.

All anyone has to do is look back about a week ago to the blatant lies you posted on this thread and your childish behavior after you were caught red handed.

Your continued insistence on posting about this topic is only hurting your anti-lead/anti-hunting cause, which in afterthought, I am all for.

There's 25 pages to this thread, so I don't know - but has anyone addressed the issue of turkey vultures, their choice of what is essentially a 100% carrion diet, and the effect it has had on them and their numbers? It seems like that would be a good sentinel species.

Sorry if this was covered already.

Here's why the Turkey Vulture isn't a good indicator species for lead toxicity in other raptors:

http://www.jwildlifedis.org/cgi/reprint/39/1/96.pdf

In summary: "considerable tolerance by turkey vultures to the deleterious effects of lead ingestion.
Based on these observations, turkey vultures appear to be poor models for assessing the risk of
lead poisoning to California condors or predicting their physiologic response."

That's pretty interesting Rook.

Also, its important to note that the physiology of a new world vulture is very different than other raptors. (Raptor simply means "to bind with claws" not an implication of common family or ancestry)

The Black Vulture and Turkey Vulture are most closely related to Wood Storks than any other living bird. Thus, without knowing much about wood storks I can't comment much on the aforementioned new world vultures but to say that their anatomy and physiology are quite different than other birds.

And just to mention two funny things about them to lighten the tense mood on this thread:

1. Vultures have incredibly strong uric acid that they excrete on their feet to sanitize themselves after eating putrid, rotting flesh. When vultures find a nice comfy asphalt roof to loiter on in droves they just can't be convinced to move on to the neighbor's house. Their excrement will eat through a 30 year roof shingle in about 6 weeks!

2. They can projectile vomit to defend themselves. Imagine the joy of having them shoot their lunch at you in all it's 99 degree half-digested, half-rotten goodness! Mmmm. Great bird to work with.

They also have a keen (for a bird) sense of smell. TVs that is. Not BVs. Condors????

Brent, I was in the threat analysis business, as an intelligence officer, for a very long time. I don't believe in ignoring ANY threat. We focused on the Soviet Union as THE bogeyman for a long time, and they certainly presented the most serious threat in terms of the harm they could do. But it was not the Soviet Union that attacked us on 9/11. We could say that "data" is irrelevant when it is either nonexistent (as the MNDNR's Nontoxic Shot Advisory Committee admits, when it comes to threats to wildlife) or proves the opposite of what the lead opponents are trying to prove (as in the ND study, showing that eating meat shot with lead poses at worst a minimal threat to humans), but that's the "data" the lead opponents will continue to use. In spite of the best "good science", they'll continue to toss the kitchen sink in our direction. If we ignore their "data", no matter how specious it may be, we're essentially yielding the floor to them. So far, what's kept us from having more unnecessary nontoxic requirements has been hunters and shooters, making noise to local politicians--as you should know very well, from what happened in Iowa just this year. Twice, in fact. If anything, we need to increase the volume.

I've got to be honest here - what I see is a study that concluded that turkey vultures are a lot LESS susceptible to lead ingestion than was expected. What I don't see is a corresponding study to show that other raptors are any more susceptible than the vultures. Sure, there is the assertion, but no proof. And I'm having a hard time accepting the dramatic differences in physiology that are being proposed. No proof there either, and while it isn't my specialty, none that I was ever taught. It would be unusual to find that much physiological difference in species that similar, to say the least. I know that we would treat them medically the same, because the physiology is the same where drugs, etc. are concerned.

To summarize, we've got a species that basically makes its living off of eating dead animals - the very ones we are concerned about that got that way due to a poor shot by the hunter and are horribly contaminated by hundreds of bullet fragments. Yet for some inexplicable reason, this species of raptor that is most-exposed is relatively insulated from the toxic effects of lead contamination in the carcass, while the other species in the group (who are actually less opportunistic and will actually hunt for prey rather than depend on finding carrion) are somehow much more susceptible, despite the fact that they don't partake of carrion nearly as often as the vultures.

No one would accept the premise that lead ingestion had decimated the vulture population, because all one has to do is lift an eye to the sky in any non-urban area and more than likely one or more can be found soaring on thermals. Come to think of it, the other indiginous raptor species in this region are thriving as well...

The condor thing is a bit of a red herring. We worry about condors, whether or not they have problems with lead, because they're endangered. Same story with bald eagles, back when nontox was mandated for waterfowl: they were endangered back then. We worry about them a whole lot less now, even though we know that there are individual eagles dying from ingesting lead, because the overall population has made a miraculous recovery--in spite of the fact that we have not totally banned lead in ammunition.