I guess this is abit OT
But I was just watching a wildlife show, they were blaming the rarity of Condors, & their deaths on hunters shooting the large dead animals they scavenge on with lead bullets?
.Only 72 birds in the area, so they say, n they were trapping them n testing for lead
This was around the Grand Canyon area.
I find this a bit hard to...er swallow.
Unless people are leaving the animal & not taking the meat, how could this happen?
Most bullets would pass right through anyhow, no?
Just seemed a bit far fetched to me.
Any opinions
Srry, but I just wanted to ask..I dont post many OT posts
Do smell a rat?
cheers
Franc

Franc, there was a lot of related discussion in this recent thread that Ted posted here a few weeks ago:

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=428690&page=1

And here's a link to an article from http://www.huntfortruth.org/ about the proposed statewide ban on lead ammunition in California because of alleged lead poisoning in the California Condors.

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/05/rebuttal-to-audubon-societys-support-for-statewide-lead

Do you smell a rat? I would say yes, a big stinky one. Is your thread really all that OT compared to threads on Pipe Smoking or Hunting Boots? Well, only if you think bans on the ammunition most suitable for our vintage doubles has nothing to do with double guns.

Franc, the issue is animals that are wounded, not recovered, go off and die, and then the scavengers show up. And bullets do fragment.

Re the California ban, I believe it passed--although perhaps not in force yet.

The entire idea is just the dumb being lead by the dumber....

The demise of the California condor is probably a done deal because of climate change and environmental changes in the regions. Some are human caused, some are not.

Look at CA on any big satellite photo. You can see US, and US aren't condor range. Perhaps a bigger factor is that we are in a post-post glacial era.

There were many different species of condor/vulture in CA during the post-glacial era--you can see them at the La Brea Tar Pits Museum in LA. Some were even bigger than the California condor. They didn't survive the demise of the Pleistocene mega-fauna.

The California condor got a brief reprieve when the Californios replaced the mega-fauna with extremely wasteful cattle raising in the 18th and 19th century. When drought and Anglo efficiency killed that, the condor declined to near extinction. I've seen a grand total of one wild one in my outdoor life in CA, and that was in the Temblor Range in 1963, at a distance of nearly a mile.

I'm not against "getting the lead out" in general. But I'm also sure that the haste in doing it in CA is motivated as much by anti-hunter and anti-gun malice as it is by environmental concern.

We need vultures, and preserving them is worthwhile. We don't need California condors any more. Frankly, I think the money spent on trying to preserve this living fossil would be better spent on developing (especially rimfire) nonlead bullets that the average shooter can afford. And that will actually hit what he aims at!

Finding trace levels of lead in humans is very common, and there are allowable limits. Maybe, the condors get their lead the same way humans do, air, ground and water being among the possibilities. If it's okay to make assumptions, maybe kids are scavenging unrecovered game?

If you delve down into the propaganda spewed by HSUS (the anti-hunters) you'll find that one of the things they deem "cruel" about hunting is the use of lead shot. Because. They present no science (never do, it's all emotion) and want to eliminate all lead projos.
I read a lot of their crap a year or two ago b/c they came to Maine and tried to ban use of bait, traps (cable snares - jawed bear traps have been illegal for decades) and hounds for hunting bears. Those were inhumane and cruel, they said.

The condor is a sad case, to be sure. Likely was a goner before man showed up. Just a matter of time. But they're using reintroduction efforts as the fulcrum to ban hunting, starting with lead projos. They really don't give a shit about the condors - just ending hunting.

The HSUS website may not NOW say they want to ban hunting but that's a result of their failed 2014 bear campaign here in Maine. Their chief propagandist and lobbyist was sandbagged on live radio about it. Their line was the typical "we don't want to ban all hunting, just these "cruel" methods" and she was spouting it. And then the host confronted her with a screencap of the HSUS website where it quite clearly said they want to ban all hunting. Got that classic "dead air" when she couldn't lie her way out of it* and couldn't admit it, either. The website was scrubbed of the "we want to ban all hunting" language a day or two later.

If you or your organization get into it with them and want that screencap, the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine has it. Talk to Becky.

--
* She was an attorney admitted in Mass. but gave up her law license. Noises were being made about reporting her for ethical violations based on some of the whoppers and campaign tactics she was putting forth.

It's the law, governor signed it a couple of years ago. Ban is being phased in and is already in place in a lot of prime hunting areas. The phase-in was an enforcement option in the bill as signed, and the Sacto Bozos are taking advantage of that language to screw us early and often. Confusion is somewhat rampant because of piecemeal implementation. There are a lot of ag fields along Hwy 111 in the Imperial Valley, near the Salton Sea. Prime habitat for doves and pheasants. Some of the fields are OK for lead, some are non-tox only, depending upon who owns them. No postings, you are just supposed to know. One wrong step on a dirt road and you are a criminal. I hate this state government.

Well . . . condors probably aren't eating lead-based paint chips or drinking water that comes out of lead pipes. At least not very often. And bullet fragments have been found in meat such as venison. In fact, it was those fragments which caused North Dakota to do a study of lead levels in humans some years ago. The results were that those who reported eating wild game had higher lead levels than those who did not. However . . . the average lead level for everyone from whom blood was drawn (I seem to recall around 700 or so) was lower than the average lead level nationwide. And I'd expect to find a MUCH higher percentage of people who eat wild game in North Dakota than I would nationwide.

This is being discussed about condors and eagles. Where are all the dead buzzards? Around here damaged meat is thrown out to the scavengers most of the time besides the occasional lost game animal.

This, in a nutshell, is what I find troubling. The fact that lead fragments can be recovered occasionally from carrion, does not mean it was the source of a lab measurable level of lead taken from a live healthy condor, or a recovered dead, from undisclosed causes, condor. You, yourself, mentioned that an average level of lead has been determined nationwide, in humans. I believe in California there are many water and ground sources tainted naturally with heavy metals that enter the entire wildlife food chain.

Still, there're friends of shooting and hunting that strongly support the notion that any lead trace found out in the woods are from lead hunting bullets. If lead traces can be found in humans, why can't the mantra, from friends, be, 'it may be that an occasional condor lab sample shows traces of lead, it's natural and not from lead sporting bullets'.

Yup.

All that lead in the environment could just as easily - probably more easily - be from atmospheric sources as anything else. For example, good old tetraethyl lead in gasoline. Or trace amounts occurring naturally in coal.
.
There's a theory out there that goes something like this: there has been a noticeable decrease in the rates of violence pretty much across the world, a decline going back to the 80s. There does not seem to be any statistically valid correlation to age distributions in populations, wealth distribution, harsher prison sentences, more lenient prison sentences, drug policy or anything else. Except the banning of lead from gasoline, which resulted in an immediate decline in atmospheric lead levels and which does seem to correlate pretty directly to the decline in violence.
Of course, this is "new" scientific theory and has to be tested.
But it also means that particulate lead - i.e., projectiles from sporting arms - is also pretty much out of the equation.
But not to worry, that just means the antis will come out with some other reason to ban hunting.

Cattle ranches appear to be the most likely source of lead tainted carcasses and guts that are consumed by Condors and other scavenging raptors. Hunter's gut piles might be a concern if hunters were routinely gut shooting their game. They are not.

Check out this link to "The Cattle Site", a veterinary website specializing in medical disorders in cattle, that says:

"Lead is the most common cause of cattle poisoning. Animals die or perform poorly after accidentally ingesting lead. Gradual poisoning may also occur in areas with heavy industrial pollution."
- See more at: http://www.thecattlesite.com/diseaseinfo/217/lead-poisoning/#sthash.ka5vfFcK.dpuf

Then check out the map of California Lead Mines found here:

http://www.us-mining.com/california/lead-mines

Vast areas of California have been stripped by hydraulic mining, removing the surface soils that covered lead and other minerals. Dave-in-Maine has mentioned several other likely sources of lead that are much more bio-available than a relative few bullet fragments in lost game or gut piles. I gotta agree with craigd. We all need to stop shooting ourselves in the foot by blindly accepting the crap that is being put up as evidence by those with an anti-hunting and anti-gun agenda.

We really need to invest in developing lasers. pew pew.

(sorry, I couldn't resist)

Keith, the majority of road-killed deer I saw in northern Wisconsin had bald eagles doing the cleanup. Our problem in that part of the country, obviously not related to condors, didn't have anything to do with either cattle or gut piles. Rather, with wounded and unrecovered deer. That's where the eagles were picking up the lead fragments. Unfortunately, the WI Natural Resources Board thought the solution was to ban lead SHOT on all DNR controlled lands . . . when there was no real evidence of eagles ingesting lead shot, now that we're no longer shooting lead at waterfowl. But bird hunters were an easier target than deer hunters. However, we were fortunate enough to shoot down that idea before it became policy.

Might ought to tell Isis about this new and stupid theory....

Repeated quite regularly. Is the only route of lead poisoning rifle bullet fragments from unrecovered game? In Wisconsin, is there a chance that the majority of Bald eagles have migrated due to seasonal cooling by the time gun deer season starts? Wisconsin's gun deer hunting season is relatively short, are eagles free of exposure to lead the remaining eleven plus months of the year? Is lead poisoning from fragments the cause of death, or is there the coincidental presence of an occasional rifle bullet fragment, but undisclosed cause of death?

Since you have concluded that the cause of death of Bald eagles is lead poisoning specifically from ingested rifle bullet fragments, how come conclusions can't be questioned?

Larry, I wasn't talking about bald eagles. I was talking about condors. But I did not know there were no cows in Wisconsin. I wonder where all that cheese comes from??? But you seem determined to make the case that lead poisoning in bald eagles is caused by lead bullets from hunter's wounded and lost game. I guess we need to ask you for the same proof that we should be asking the other anti-hunters about.

So many bald eagles. Wow! One or more feeding on the majority of road killed deer in northern Wisconsin. That's a LOT of birds. They hardly sound threatened or endangered when you tell us that story. The 'possums, crows, magpies, and other carrion eaters must all be starving from being pushed aside by this gigantic population of lead-starved eagles.

I think it's time to throw the B.S. flag on this one. With so many eagles eating so much road-killed deer meat, it would stand to reason the more likely source of lead in their systems is from automotive paint chips. But I don't believe that either. Now how about showing us those poisoned eagles containing bullet fragments from hunter's guns. I'm talking fragments of lead, copper jackets, little plastic Nosler ballistic tips, etc., not some blood tests from the Audobons. We've already discussed the invalidity of isotopic analysis and the poor bio-availability of chunks of lead which soon pass through the digestive system. So let's see your forensic evidence done by non-agenda driven pathologists.

This is what I meant when I said we all need to stop shooting ourselves in the foot over this issue. Shotgunners placing the blame upon riflemen or vice-versa isn't going to prevent the eventual ban on all lead ammunition.

First of all, bald eagles are not endangered. Not even threatened. Since we got rid of DDT and stopped shooting lead shot at waterfowl (eagles do a lot of hunting/scavenging around bodies of water), they've made a miraculous recovery. IF we managed eagles the same way we manage other species--which is by the overall health of the SPECIES, not the INDIVIDUAL ANIMAL--there wouldn't be any concern about eagles. Their numbers are not declining. Matter of fact, they're still increasing. Thus, from a wildlife science standpoint, we really shouldn't be concerned about the deaths of a few individual eagles, no matter the cause.

However, the public does not look at eagles that way. Concern about them stems from the facts that a) they are highly visible; and b) they're our national symbol. So, unfortunately, we can't just blow it all off by saying: "A few eagles more or less . . . what difference does it make?" The antis will always make hay out of anything they can. And unfortunately, they can use that attitude against us, very effectively--because it resonates with a lot of non-hunters. (And this country has WAY more non-hunters--on the fence/don't care about the issue one way or the other--than it has either hunters or antis. No need to help the antis draw more non-hunters to their side by showing a callous regard for dead eagles. It's just plain bad PR.

As for the situation in Wisconsin . . . Keith, the northern third or so of the state isn't much for farming. The rest of the state is a different story. Northern WI grows mostly trees, not cows. And SW WI does have old lead mines, and it does have dairy farms. So possible connection there? Sure. But that's a long ways from "Up North". Automotive paint chips in road-killed deer? It's my understanding they got the lead out of auto paint about a decade plus or so ago. So I guess maybe if it's an old car. As for other possible sources of lead . . . of course lead bullets aren't the only one. But we do kill a lot of deer in Wisconsin, and others get shot and go unrecovered. And there's no shortage of evidence that eagles will scavenge dead deer. For information on lead showing up in eagles, you can google eagles x rays lead poisoning. Evidence with which you can either agree . . . or not. You can say that the evidence is "agenda driven" . . . but then we're pretty "agenda driven" ourselves here, aren't we? I made a very strong case for retaining lead shot in a two-part article I wrote on the subject for Pointing Dog Journal a few years back, and I don't feel any differently now. But I included evidence from both sides, didn't start with the assumption that everyone who opposes lead is an anti. They're not . . . and Audubon certainly is not squarely in the anti-hunting camp. I can provide personal experience on that one, should anyone wonder.

Migration . . . no, eagles are still around during gun deer season in Wisconsin.

Hey Larry...

If Flint Michigan can do it....

I don't believe anyone 'blew off' anything here. First, the few dead eagles that you mentioned are lead bullet hunting related, right. Of all the body of possible sources of lead, ten year old paint chips are the example chosen to poke fun at? I wonder if the people who live in Flint, MI or the eagles that pass through that way beg to differ. If an eagle passes through the Flint area, is there a chance that they drink water from unknown sources?

Sure there's deer hunting in Wisconsin. Asked again, let's assume you're right, are there enough off season poached lead laced unrecovered carcasses to feed eagles or does all lead poisoned eagle deaths occur during the Wisconsin gun deer season?

A quick look at google and I thought the first listed search summed it up nicely. From soarraptors.org comes a general piece about the tests that they do, but then they cite the single example of a 23 year old rescue eagle. "Yep, she had probably been feeding on a lead-shot deer gut pile or deer that had been shot by a lead slug and not found by the hunter. How could this death have been prevented? If the hunter had used a non-lead slug to harvest that deer there would have been no lead shrapnel left behind to impact a non-target species."

Is that the 'probably' kind of evidence that you are basing your position on that it is lead hunting bullets that are the problem? Another quote from the Audubon folks, "....we will advocate restrictions on hunting, including the complete closure of a hunting season, whenever we are convinced that the welfare of the species involved requires it...we do not advocate hunting. This is no contradiction, though some people seem to think it is. Our objective is wildlife and environmental conservation, not the promotion of hunting. We think lots of justifications for hunting are weak ones, and too often exaggerated for commercial reasons....".

Anecdotal evidence of a hunting buddy that happens to be an Audubon member may not reflect their national platform, resource allocation and political lobbying. I have mentioned and have personal experience with a fed managed Montana duck hunting marsh that was drained for extremely vague reasons, but the dike system and access roads are fully maintained in the closed to hunting 'bird watching area'.

I also know from first hand experience that there're still eagles around in Wisconsin during the gun deer season. I also found out some time later that supposedly some of those very same eagles are already down wintering at Lake Buchanan in central Texas. There's little doubt in my mind that there are less eagles around during gun deer season, than there are drinking water in places like Flint during the summer.

Absolutely I see an agenda, and it's always a little mention at the end. We should be willing to throw lead bullet hunters under the bus in favor of lead shot hunters. Why, because those folks can withstand the anti hunting pressure because they'll be more vocal. Huh?

Great post craigd. Especially that quote from Audobon on their actual position on sport hunting. That needs to be repeated in big bold letters!

Another quote from the Audubon folks, "....we will advocate restrictions on hunting, including the complete closure of a hunting season, whenever we are convinced that the welfare of the species involved requires it...we do not advocate hunting. This is no contradiction, though some people seem to think it is. Our objective is wildlife and environmental conservation, not the promotion of hunting. We think lots of justifications for hunting are weak ones, and too often exaggerated for commercial reasons....".

I never claimed that eagles, condors, ducks, or other species have not consumed lead bullets or shot. I'd guess that they have. The question is, was that the total cause of high lead levels or lead poisoning... or was it merely a contributing factor to some other sources that are much more bio-available, but possibly not visible in X-rays? That would include lead dust from mining waste, leaded gasoline, paint, and a multitude of other sources. The presence of a bullet fragment in an eagle's stomach or crop absolutely does not prove that lead ammunition was the cause of sickness or death.

I certainly hope we all are driven by our own agenda to preserve hunting and shooting. It is under constant attack, and we need to either stay focused on keeping those rights or we we certainly lose them. Shotgunner's placing blame on rifle hunters and vice-versa is not an intelligent strategy going forward. It is indefensible.

Well . . . the welfare of eagles, as a species, doesn't require anything. They're increasing, and they're not hunted anyhow.

As for Audubon, we (RGS Iowa) worked hand in hand with them in Iowa when the DNR was selling the public on the idea of fairly significant timber management on public hunting areas in the NE part of the state (where we used to have quite a few grouse, but the population had declined badly due to too much mature timber and not enough young, regenerating forest). They worked with us when we held private landowner workshops to try to convince
those folks to manage their timber for more habitat diversity (while making a buck or two off timber sales). Audubon did not mind a bit that we used grouse and woodcock as our "poster birds" for the DNR management projects. They knew that a bunch of neotropical songbirds, also declining in numbers, needed the same habitat we were creating for grouse and woodcock. And then there's the Audubon guy--not a hunter--who's on the banquet committee of a local Pheasants Forever chapter. What's he doing there? "PF does the best local habitat work of any conservation organization." And he's smart enough to realize that habitat for pheasants is also good habitat for other birds.

Leaded gasoline is pretty much gone. So is lead paint. An eagle in WI isn't terribly likely to be drinking water over in Flint. That's on the other side of a very large lake. I don't want to blame eagle deaths on bullet fragments if they die from lead acquired some other way. But deer hunting is big in Wisconsin--which also happens to have a lot of eagles. And some studies have shown that lead levels in scavengers' blood increases from the start to the end of hunting season. None of which is 100% solid . . . except is there something else happening during the same time and in the same area that might be a cause?

Any time proof is not 100%, I agree we shouldn't just say "that must be it". For example, the WI DNR tested lead levels in woodcock and found them very high. They suggested one source might be lead shot. But, given that woodcock eat with their beaks in the ground, they admitted that it might very well be lead from either the ground itself or the worms they were eating just as easily as from lead shot. And they also stated that they hadn't found any lead pellets in the digestive systems of any of the woodcock they tested.

I guess if we wanted 100% proof, we could always keep a bunch of eagles in captivity and feed them meat with bullet fragments, testing their blood lead level at the start and making sure they're not getting lead from any other source. Then watch to see if they get sick, how much lead they need to ingest to get sick, etc. But I doubt that's going to happen. Maybe the deer hunters and other guys who kill critters with rifles ought to get together and fund such a study. The only problem being, they might not like it if the results were to turn out bad for them.

Thanks for the follow up comments Larry. I don't think 'we' want or even need a 100% proof, it would be a hollow victory. You mentioned a bit ago that in the few years since you wrote the piece, your mind hasn't changed. I can appreciate that.

You also mentioned, that we can't blow things off because the public will look at things in a different way. Something makes the public look at things in an anti hunting way, and it's not facts and figures, let alone 'pro' hunters validating their much less than 100% proof.

Larry, you might want to re-read that one sentence in the statement from Audobon Society that craigd posted earlier:

"Our objective is wildlife and environmental conservation, not the promotion of hunting."

That appears to be the only reason that a few people from Audobon were supportive of your timber management efforts and habitat management efforts by Pheasants Forever. They were supportive of that which would benefit birds overall, but according to the statement craigd found, they would turn on you in a minute if they thought, rightly or wrongly, that some bird species was threatened by sport hunting.

We have discussed the lead paint and leaded gasoline thing in other threads before. I hate to keep repeating myself, but here goes again. Leaded gasoline and lead paint may be mostly gone, but the lead from those products that was deposited in the environment will persist in our soils and waterways for hundreds of years or more... just like the lead shot that was used along lakes, rivers, oceans, and swamps before the Federal ban. All of that shot is still there in sandy, rocky, gravel, or silted bottoms. There is probably literally millions of tons of it fired over the last 200 years, and nobody cleaned it up. A lead bullet on a civil war battlefield still looks like a lead bullet because they don't dissolve or break down readily as other toxic things like DDT did. But strangely, we are not seeing those heart wrenching pictures of dying ducks and staggering geese anymore. Why? Obviously lead shot was not the problem with poisoning waterfowl that it was made out to be. The anti-lead people got what they wanted and are moving on to the uplands and deer woods.

There are many other sources of lead in the environment besides leaded gasoline, lead paint, or lead ammunition. Much of it is much more bio-available than lead bullets or shot. I'm glad you brought up the river water in Flint as a facetious example. That river water did not get contaminated with lead from bullets. The river in Flint is not the only waterway to get contaminated with lead from industrial or mining wastes. Eagles eat a lot of fish too, not just wounded and lost deer.

It's not at all surprising that lead shot was not found in woodcock that had high blood lead levels. It is much more likely the source was earthworms that digested lead tainted soils. WI DNR admitted that, but kept the erroneous conclusions about lead shot on the table even though they found no lead shot in the birds. How do you explain that? More importantly, how can you accept that?

As craig notes, there are plenty of people in the general public who look at things in an anti-hunting way, even when the facts and figures do not add up. I do not wish to be a part of giving them any ammunition to use against us.

Keith, the National Shooting Sports Foundation--wouldn't you say they're probably pro-hunting?--regards Audubon as neutral on hunting. Along with the Sierra Club and some other organizations. You want anti, take a look at the positions of HSUS, Friends of Animals, etc. Here is Audubon's official statement on hunting:

"Has never been opposed to the hunting of game species if that hunting is done ethically and in accordance with laws and regulations designed to prevent depletion of the wildlife resource."

They're not all about promoting hunting, but I can live with that position. And if we, as hunters, can make common cause with them . . . so much the better.

As for lead in the soil . . . indeed, easy to see how a woodcock--given how they feed and what they feed on--might get lead from the soil. And of course lead is a naturally occurring element. We don't need to do anything to "put it into the environment". But it's a little hard to see how upland birds other than woodcock would be nearly as likely to end up with lead in a similar manner. Nor, for that matter, to ingest lead pellets--unless that happens when they're picking up grit. And there are examples of doves with lead pellets in their digestive system. But doves are more like waterfowl (a lot of concentrated shot fall on areas where they're heavily hunted) than they are like pheasants or grouse or quail, where shot fall is going to be very scattered. And while lead shot and bullets don't break down readily or dissolve, the soil where they drop does not remain static. If it did, rather than having to dig up lead on shooting ranges--especially trap and skeet ranges--you could just go out there with a hoe and scrape all those pellets together in a big pile. Depending on the composition of the soil, as a result of freezing, thawing etc, it gradually works itself underground. Same with the bottoms of lakes and streams, which are constantly getting new layers of silt. We've significantly reduced the amount of lead we're dropping into water, and that's now been going on for about 25 years. If lead were still a significant problem in marshes, lakes, etc . . . then why aren't we still seeing all those dying ducks and geese? Why did the problem largely resolve itself as a result of the lead shot ban? Pretty easy to turn that example on its head and leave it to you to come up with some other source of lead that was killing ducks and geese previously but is now gone. And just happens to have disappeared at the same time we stopped shooting lead at waterfowl.

I'll agree that Flint isn't the only example of a contaminated waterway . . . but I think you'll agree that it is an EXTREME example. Although the various DNR's issue precautionary notices on some bodies of water, there aren't many where lead contamination is so high that eagles are likely to die from lead poisoning as a result of eating the fish. And if a dead eagle shows a high level of lead in its blood as well as other signs of having been poisoned, lead poisoning is a pretty likely cause.

The real problem with lead is that it's toxic. Toxic = bad. The simplistic solution therefore: Get rid of that bad, toxic stuff. That's what we're up against. But we can insist on "good science" to support any claims that it's really lead--and lead from bullets or shot--that's killing species X, Y, or Z.

And who can do the impossible...

I have a quick comment to add to your Audubon 'official' statement. It is the exact preceding sentence before the quote I provided, and I suspect you're aware of it. If you continue rereading their position, they are aware of their contradictory message and link hunting with corporate profiteering. Did they come up with that conclusion by scientific analysis and improving grouse habitat?

Wisconsin's DHS says that lead containing pesticides, last used in the 50's are still a significant source of lead in soil. They have recommendations for home gardeners on former orchard grounds to minimize lead exposure. There's a known source of dissolved lead that rodents and insects near the beginning of the food chain don't have to wait for speculation on whether lead shot is able to dissolve.

Anyway, if we should insist on "good science", how come we have to accept that 'lead poisoning is a pretty likely cause'. I had thought to bow out of the discussion, but I'd repeat again, why bother opposing enemies with good science, when friends of hunting tell us likelihoods are good enough?

Nearly every body of water in Wisconsin has consumption warnings due to various poisons that accumulate in fish, and countless rodents root around in soil of the Wisconsin countryside. Maybe, we only look for 'proof' where we want to find it.

One last question Larry. If you really feel that we should be demanding good science and absolute proof that it is lead from bullet fragments or lead shot that is poisoning some birds, then why in hell are you digging deep for every excuse you can imagine or theorize to prove to us that lead ammunition absolutely is a problem?

How can I politely say this? I was trying to use rationale and reason and not simply be blunt. When I was talking about hunters and shooters who shoot us, and themselves, in the foot by repeating agenda driven anti-lead ammunition data, theories, and junk science, I was hoping you'd finally see that is exactly what you are doing. You aren't helping our side at all. Better that you should do nothing at all. You aren't related to King Brown, are you? King actually claims that he is on our side and is helping us when he denigrates and undermines the 2nd Amendment, criticizes the very successful strategies of the NRA, and supports extreme anti-gunners like Obama. You can't make this shit up! Thanks.

I think the complete unedited official statement on Sport Hunting from Audobon speaks for itself. I wonder why you only showed us the the good parts? King does that kind of stuff too. He calls it "the craft of journalism." I call it disingenuous when I'm feeling particularly benevolent. I call it much worse when I am in my normal B.S. Flag throwing mode.

Oh, one last thing. Heavy objects do not necessarily sink into the soil as the earth freezes and thaws. And heavy objects in the water like gold bars and coins from sunken ships are often churned out of the silt by waves and storms where they are found centuries later by treasure hunters. Artifact hunters frequently find Indian spear and arrow heads that work their way back to the surface. I have found some myself in fields that hadn't been plowed for years. I frequently hit good sized rocks that pop up out of the ground after the winter when I am mowing with my brush hog. I almost totally ruined one brush hog when I hit a beach ball sized chunk of granite that was 3/4 exposed, but not at all visible the summer before. The blades got forced upward into the deck and sliced an arc 2/3 of the way around before the shear pin on the drive shaft broke. That was a heavy old New Holland Brush Cutter, not one of those thin cheap imports. It actually stalled the 45 HP tractor before I could disengage the PTO. It took lots of welding to fix that one. Other rocks that surfaced eventually beat it to death and it has been scrapped and replaced with a Woods. If you hunt, you've probably seen piles of rocks at field edges and fence rows that farmers take off of their fields over the years.

Just trying to be "fair and balanced". As for Audubon, I showed the positive part of the statement because someone else already showed the negative. That would be fairness and balance. And I also showed an excellent example--from personal experience--of Audubon working hand in hand with a pro-hunting organization in an effort to improve habitat for birds we hunt.

Re freezing and thawing . . . indeed, stuff "pops out" of the soil as a result. But there's a lot happening on most shooting ranges in addition to what Mother Nature does. For example, most ranges mow grass with riding mowers. You run over lead pellets, that can bury them. That's just one example.

If a critter that dies has high blood lead levels and shows signs of lead poisoning, then it's a pretty good bet it died from lead poisoning. If it has lead in its system--either lead pellets or lead fragments--that adds to the likelihood.

Re the situation with waterfowl, maybe someone can take a shot at explaining the coincidence I mentioned previously: Waterfowl dying with lead pellets in their systems. Ceases to be a problem, or at least a problem to the same degree it was previously . . . when we stop shooting lead. If that's just a coincidence, what was killing them before that isn't killing them now? And why isn't it killing them now?

Boy oh boy Larry, you are the Energizer Bunny of supporting the junk science of the anti-lead people and countering actual instances of the Audobon Society supporting lead ammunition bans.

"Fair and Balanced"??? Where is the Fair and Balanced treatment from the anti-lead and anti-hunting people? You seem to be going out of your way to help them. Why? What are they doing to help us? Do you consider it a fair trade-off if a few Audobon people contribute a small fraction of what hunters contribute to habitat improvement if the other side of your balanced equation includes ammunition bans and the inability to use our vintage doubles?

I have agreed that the presence of a lead bullet fragment or lead shot pellet in a bird or animal may slightly elevate the blood lead level of that animal. But you seem to also be going out of your way to deny that many other sources of lead are much more bio-available than chunks of elemental lead from ammunition. It is well known that pieces of shot or bullet fragments are more likely to simply pass through the digestive system before they can leach out enough toxicity to be anything but a very minor contributing factor. Once again Larry, lead dust from mining waste and decades of burning leaded gas, and soluble forms of lead from paints and pesticides are much more easily absorbed by ingestion, breathing, drinking, and physical contact.

Your example of lead shot being forced downward into the soil by riding lawn-mowers is really reaching to make excuses that give aid and comfort to the anti-lead side. I haven't seen many riding mowers around lake shores, swamps, or even in the fields and woods where I do my upland bird hunting.

I have already spoken to your question about waterfowl ceasing to die from lead poisoning after the Federal lead shot ban. I do not believe it was ever the serious problem it was portrayed to be by agenda driven propagandists. I talked about those heart wrenching pictures of dead and dying ducks and (supposedly) lead poisoned staggering geese. All of that drama stopped after the anti-lead people got what they wanted. But the lead shot that had been fired into the water and shorelines for hundreds of years was still there. It is still there now Larry. Nobody has gone out there and cleaned it all up... probably millions of tons of the stuff. It is still churned up by storms and wave action, and frost heaving. If lead was the problem back then, it would stand to reason that there would still be a high incidence of lead poisoned ducks now. The lead is still there in their environment where they eat, drink, and swim. Once again Larry, the drama stopped after the anti-lead people got what they wanted. Then they moved on to use the same propaganda and junk science to attempt to ban lead in upland and other hunting areas. Are you going to continue to help them? So far, suggesting that you stop shooting us in the foot hasn't done any good.

So what about all of those propaganda pictures of dead and dying waterfowl in pre-ban times? You ask what was killing them then that is not killing them now? Uh, how about old age, disease, parasites, and a hundred other things that have been killing ducks and keeping ducks from being immortal for thousands of years before guns were ever invented? These are mostly migratory birds that travel to countries that have not banned lead shot. Between the lead shot that is still being used elsewhere, and the lead shot that was deposited by over two centuries of waterfowl hunting here, they should be too sick to fly. Have you read about the massive numbers of doves in Argentina and the massive amounts of lead ammunition that is fired at them. With that massive volume of lead, they should all be dead or dying from lead poisoning too.

I am not trying to be "Fair and Balanced" with the anti-lead and anti-hunting forces. I am doing what I can to counter propaganda and junk science. So is craigd. What you are doing is supporting the anti-lead position, and almost assures that there will be more lead ammunition bans.

I find your Audubon comment interesting, you see it as 'good' and 'negative'? How about truthful or otherwise. Fairness and balance means to conceal their pertinent policy from a hunter's perspective? I've mentioned anecdotal evidence before, we can all come up with some, but it's only value would be to trigger emotion. I've approached this topic from the point of view that you have much larger voice in the field than most do, I've tried to point out that you may be lobbying for a position that's based on preconceived preferences. Does you anecdotal evidence motivate the base like staged stacks of dead critters for an agenda.

Your waterfowl scenario is an excellent example. First, you say the hunter and their ammo is THE problem, fair? Second, even your dots require connection by coincidence, so it's impossible for the facts to take a different path? And finally, 'killing them now'. Do 'we' get to independently test the current samples? Do 'we' get to pull the old samples from the 70's that have been properly documented and preserved, like good science would do, and test those with updated technology to do a fair comparison. Does the government provide grants to do this, for fairness, because they commission studies to achieve preconceived conclusions? Is it fair to say that because water is the most common things around ducks, that we can conclude that they drown?

If a hunter, ethically and legally, walks out of a field with a few game birds, we know exactly what killed them. And, of course, there'll never be an end to what's killing them now. I wish someone would stick up for what's killing hunting.

The thread is descending into imputing motives and artful casuistry. What has Larry's influential voice got to do with it? There is never a final answer in a biological system. One answer always leads to another question.

Your last sentence implores me to join those who want to stop the killing. What's killing hunting is a growing abhorrence of killing. I'm partly responsible for the sentiment among my children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

They think of the dead furs and feathers, entrails to the crows and raptors, blood on the snow behind the shed as disgusting, in time to become rare as spittoons, their Grampy Boy the last of the dinosaurs. I'll stick to shooting.

Well it wasn't descending until you showed up! Just kidding King, if you say so, then it must be so.

King, Larry himself said his voice wasn't so influential. I gave my reasons for mentioning his voice in the industry, admittedly I did not read his PDJ article that he mentioned from a few years back, did you? Be that as it may, so you say that he is in fact influential, hmmm.

By the way, thanks for the guidance you provide to our future generations. I like your blood-n-guts behind the woodshed story. Is that the kind of anecdotal evidence we can read about in future 'hunting' magazines?

Maybe, you can explain something. Fish is 70 to 90% of an eagles diet, waterfowl comes next, and last various rodents. Carrion is listed as incidental. With all that market hunting you did with lead shot back in the 60's-n-70's, did you contribute to waterfowl picking up spent lead shot?

Now then, how come, back around the implementation of steel shot, didn't we find lead shot in eagles because of the waterfowl that they ate, just as it's such a problem today with the gruesome graphic lead laced deaths that so many unrecovered shot fawns face?

Could it be that there was no hunting season on eagles, so something else had to be blamed for the thin eggshells, that didn't stand up to the hammer test of the researchers at the time? Hey, didn't DDT use continue for at least 20 years after the 'ban'. Duck hunting disgusting, the Jakes would take you out behind the woodshed for a thought like that.

Keith, where--from the National Audubon Society--do you see a statement supporting a lead ban? I can't find one. I find a couple from Audubon affiliates talking about alternatives, educating hunters, etc. But nothing from Audubon National on a lead ban. And I hope you are aware that there are HUNTERS who think it's a good idea to get rid of lead. I do NOT happen to be one of them, and have written in support of retaining lead for a national publication. The real danger comes from those who not only oppose lead, but who put out false information in support of their opposition. (Like steel is as effective as lead, or steel is safe in all modern shotguns.) You'll see me respond to misinformation like that any time it appears.

I'm sure we haven't gotten rid of all the lead in wetlands etc. However, the soil isn't static. Silt builds up, buries what's underneath. And are you suggesting that ducks and geese are still dying from lead poisoning but that no one's reporting it . . . because the anti-lead folks "got what they wanted"? Sorry, but I'd call BS big time on that one. You've got a bunch of people out there, both private and public (DNR etc), that are going to be made aware of sick and dying animals. You've got people in the rehabilitation business. If someone is showing up on their doorstep with sick ducks and geese, they are NOT going to keep that secret. They're going to make noise about it, just as they make noise about eagles (using the most visible species: their "poster bird") getting sick and dying. So the "drama" is still there, and if it were still there to the same extent with waterfowl, then you'd hear about it. Count on it. You need to come up with a better explanation of why we are NOT seeing all the sick and dying ducks and geese that we saw before the ban took place. On another BB, there's a retired game warden in WI who saw enough of it that he switched to steel long ago. He's retired, so he no longer has to worry about his organization's "agenda"--assuming they have one.

Keith, please explain to me how I'm "shooting us in the foot" where upland game is concerned. Maybe you didn't read my articles. If you'd like, send me a PM along with your address and I'll send you copies. What you'll find are points I made along these lines:

1. Steel is NOT safe in "all modern shotguns". Visit the Browning website. They recommend no steel in any of their Belgian-made guns, like the A-5's, Superposeds, etc--hundreds of thousands of which shoot modern lead ammunition and were produced after WWII.

2. We know that steel is less efficient ballistically than lead. There have never been any side by side, blind studies of lead vs steel on upland birds. When Tom Roster conducted steel shot lethality studies on pheasants, he found problems with steel (more frequent examples of feather-balling and less penetration) than he saw on ducks. There was also a 12% wounding loss rate in that test, which I consider unacceptable and higher than one would expect with standard lead loads. If we were to ban lead shot, for example, for pheasant hunting, would we perhaps be trading more pheasants that fly off crippled and die in order to save the occasional bird that picks up spent lead pellets?

3. There is no proof--other than in the case of doves on very heavily-hunted areas such as public land--that upland birds ingest lead pellets as do waterfowl. For example, Tall Timbers quail research facility in FL fired over 8,000 shells on 500 acres--which is incredibly concentrated shot fall by upland hunting standards. They examined the gizzards of 241 quail; found pellets in 3 of them. And they noted no instances of suspected lead poisoning. Lead shot simply does not pose the same kind of threat to upland game, except under very specific circumstances, that it does to waterfowl.

4. There is no proof that eating wild game shot with lead ammunition, in quantities that most people would consume it, poses any threat to human health. If one were to eat it on a daily basis and pay no attention to the removal of lead shot and/or visible bullet fragments, it might be a different story.

Those are some of the points I made. Sounds real anti-lead, right? I also pointed out all the vintage guns we use that cannot be used with steel, and for which there is no reasonably priced "nontoxic" alternative to lead.

Re the dead and dying waterfowl, are you suggesting that no one bothered to check their blood lead levels? No one checked to see if they'd ingested lead pellets? Keith, you need to give up on your contention that the science on waterfowl was bad. We already lost that one. We're not going to be shooting lead at waterfowl again. See my points above. We have to take our stand on the fact that upland birds are different than both waterfowl and scavengers in that they are much less likely to ingest lead. And that's a very easy argument to make. Show us all the dead pheasants, quail, etc along with evidence that they've been dying of lead poisoning--which evidence was shown to us before steel was banned on waterfowl.

Where do American waterfowl spend much time where lead is NOT banned, Keith? It's banned here and in Canada. As for Argentina, those doves are PESTS. They could care less if they live or die. That's why they permit hunters to shoot unlimited numbers of them. You find a dead dove in Argentina, the assumption is going to be that it was shot and went unrecovered. And who would care if they died off in big numbers from lead poisoning . . . other than the people who make money off the hunting tourism industry?

I'd say that people like you, Keith, are the ones that are hurting efforts to retain lead. You start by assuming that the lead ban for waterfowl was based on junk science. That won't fly. It's water over the dam. It's a fight we already lost. We need to make the fight to retain lead ammunition for those species on which we can still shoot lead. And, as I pointed out above, we have plenty of ammunition to make that fight. And the antis don't have anywhere near the ammunition they had on waterfowl. The Nontoxic Shot Advisory Committee to the Minnesota DNR admitted as much in their own report, back in 2006: "The issues are extremely complex and conclusive datea on wildlife population impacts is lacking. Furthermore, it is unlikely that conclusive data can ever be obtained dues to the cost of this type of research." It's not nearly as easy to find large numbers of upland birds--or for that matter, almost any other birds--that can be shown to be sick or dying from lead poisoning. Not so hard with waterfowl, for the simple reason that waterfowl concentrate heavily; other bird species (and especially upland birds) do not. And, as the Tall Timbers research shows, even when there are fairly heavy concentrations of upland birds and unusually heavy shot fall, there isn't any evidence of a significant impact on the quail.

Starting an argument by going back to a battle we've already lost is a losing tactic. Forget waterfowl. That battle is over. Done with. Make your points on the critters we can still hunt with lead.

Sorry I'm not keith, but the whole point has been about one critter that we can still hunt with lead containing bullets and that's the deer. You have sounded very anti lead deer hunting rifle bullets. You have repeatedly said that the cause of actual lead poisoning deaths in Bald eagles is from lead bullet fragments in unrecovered game.

Forget lost battles and move on. To what? Upland bird hunters saying, 'I'd say people like you, are the ones hurting efforts to retain lead', of other hunters.

Rightly or wrongly, justified or otherwise, the lead horse is over the hill---gone. There aren't split-shot or sinkers in our fishing tackle shops either. Eagles eat fish. They're a tourist draw here. There are so many the Province has been shipping them to New England for years to restore its stocks. Three bald eagle nests are on our property.

I grew up in a village of subsistence fishermen. Perhaps six were market hunters. My neighbour provided 125 sea ducks for Christmas one year for $2 a pair. They shot over limits and out of season to live. I set off a firestorm when I said here 10 years ago they had a hunting ethic surpassing most of what I see from the blinds and bay today.

Shells were precious. Villagers didn't shoot out of range, never sky-busted and always sacrificed time and effort to retrieve dead and crippled. A lost bird was to be disgraced. I was humbled to do the eulogy for my fisherman cousin, acclaimed the best gunner on the Eastern Shore.

Yes, I contributed to ducks picking up lead. Off Rum Point particularly, generations of villagers deposited tons of lead on a hard bottom. I believe lead is bad stuff, and erring in favour of ducks and geese gets no groans from gunners around here.

Thanks for you long reply Larry. Some of it shows that you are coming around, and some of it shows that you have missed my point entirely.

I have not posted examples of anti-lead initiatives or support for anti-lead ammunition bans by the Audobon Society in this particular thread. But I have done so here in the very recent past in threads which you participated in. I don't believe that you would be willing to make any substantial wager that representatives of Audobon have not supported lead ammunition bans. They have. I would suggest a substantial wager, but I'll go easy on you. It took less than a minute to find evidence of Audobon support for a lead ammunition ban. Make my next homework assignment a bit more challenging:

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/05/rebuttal-to-audubon-societys-support-for-statewide-lead

Here's another from Audobon's own website:

http://ca.audubon.org/banning-lead-ammunition-condor-habitat

I know that silt builds up and I know that heavy dense objects sink in mud, silt and water. I also know that wave action from storms, tidal action, etc. is a very powerful force that erodes entire beach fronts and helps to cleave off gigantic icebergs. Roiling up a 2 grain piece of lead shot is nothing compared to what waves can do. I already gave a long dissertation on upheaval from frost, and you can go back and read it again and tell me where I am wrong. I am not suggesting that ducks and geese are still dying from lead shot deposited into their environment decades ago. I am saying that I simply do not believe that huge numbers were dying from lead poisoning when the anti-lead propagandists were using heart wrenching pictures and junk science to make their case. Of course ducks were dying. They have been dying ever since the first duck evolved from whatever prehistoric species they came from.

Listen carefully as I repeat this point. The millions of tons of lead shot that was deposited from the earliest days of market hunting to the Federal ban is still there. It has not gone away. It is in the silt and sand and gravel bottoms of our rivers, lakes, swamps, and ocean shore lines. It is in the water where ducks feed, eat, and drink. Yet strangely, miraculously, remarkably, all those major lead poisoning problems suddenly dropped off the front page as the anti-lead people moved on to seek lead ammunition bans in other areas. They got what they wanted and moved on. I don't care if doves are seen as pests in Argentina. my point was that with all of the lead shot that is deposited in their environment, we would expect to see them on the verge of extinction from lead poisoning if lead shot was really and truly that dangerous.

I agree with what you said in the points you made in excerpts from your articles. But as craigd notes, that's not what you have been saying here so far. I am not alone in noticing that you seemed to be doing more to blame deer hunters and lead bullet fragments than to discredit junk science. We wouldn't be having this endless debate if that was what you were posting earlier. I would simply say +1 Larry! Agree completely.

We have not lost the argument about bad science because our argument was unsound or unproven. We lose it when people we expect would be on our side repeat and support the junk science. Do you want me to to go on forever posting links and proof that much of the anti-lead propaganda... I won't call it science.... is false? What good will that do if you ignore it and keep going back to deer hunters bullet fragments?

I also have to disagree with your contention that there is no reason to go back to past wrongs and try to reverse them. You say that I ASSUME that the ban on lead was based upon propaganda and junk science after I have posted hard evidence to the contrary. I ASSUME nothing. I can't do anything to convince you if you refuse to read it or do a little research for yourself rather than regurgitating information that absolutely is shooting us in the foot.

Forget lost battles? Why? We were able to recoup some of the ground we lost after the Gun Control Act of 1968 got rammed down our throat by sticking together and fighting to reverse bad legislation. I can still remember waiting periods for law abiding citizens to buy a gun, and having to produce identification and sign to purchase .22LR and handgun ammo. I can also remember gun prices going up and firearm manufacturers being forced into bankruptcy by frivolous lawsuits that were banned in the Firearm Owner Protection Act of 1993. Hillary Clinton wants to reverse that policy. The fight to preserve shooting and hunting is a never ending battle.

It's not at all surprising to see King Brown enter this fray with his tired old refrain about the shooting and hunting sports dying within a generation. It's not surprising to see him here supporting the bans on lead ammunition either. King confidently announced that "Lead is Dead" in this forum years ago. I apologize to you Larry, for asking if you were related to him. craigd is very astute to notice that King has obviously done nothing to support or perpetuate the shooting sports, even in his own children and grandchildren. Instead, he has been placing us on life support and is ready to pull the plug when it comes to shooting, hunting, and gun ownership. He knows full well that the number of guns in the U.S has increased by over 50% in the last 10 years... he knows that gun sales are extremely brisk and Gun Manufacturer stocks are one of the best performers in the stock market. He knows ammunition manufacturers can barely keep up with demand. Yet he keeps repeating the same tired refrain in his never ending attempt to undermine us. That's what anti-gun Trolls do.

edit: added a couple links for Larry to prove that Audobon has supported lead ammunition bans.

Arguing that lead ammunitions have no effect on raptors is a losing battle. That rarely stops people from waging war however.

but the data on lead poisoning in eagles is a slam dunk and has been for decades. Whether they got it from wounded waterfowl or gut plies now it is happening, and denying that it is happening is foolish.

There have been many here that have denied it's role in waterfowl populations as well, which again is a slam dunk.

Several years ago in several of these debates, I made a bunch of publications available that were just drops in the bucket with respect to the mass of scientific literature out there. But it has zero effect on anyone's opinion here.

There is no doubt that lead is responsible for significant losses in condors AT THE POPULATION LEVEL - that is a meaningful problem that has to be addressed.

Lead does kill eagles but that is NOT a problem at the population level.

If hunters want to be constructive, instead of fighting everything to do with lead restrictions, they instead got rational about it, there would be a chance of installing rational, adaptive legislation that would minimize everyone's attention on population level problems. But the most vocal hunters would rather fight than win.

Brent

Wow Brent, if some of the good science including intentional feeding of birds with lead pellets won't convince you that the effect is minimal compared to other more bio-available sources of lead... nothing will.

Sorry, but I have studied this situation pretty extensively and I still do not see lead poisoning due to lead ammunition in either raptors or waterfowl as a slam dunk. Not even close. As even Larry has noted in point # 3 of his last post, lead shot isn't even on the radar screen when it comes to upland game birds. It is a virtual non-issue even in areas of very heavy shot-fall.

I don't make contentions about bad science. I have actually seen it. I have even eaten it. I once ate some brook trout that were killed by a researcher, and in his paper, the deaths were blamed on low pH water in a study on acid mine drainage into Pennsylvania trout streams. Don't try to tell me it doesn't happen. My Alma Mater conspired with East Anglia University in Great Britain to manipulate climate data to prove Global warming. You don't hear much about the 2009 Climate-gate scandal because the Liberal Press barely reported it.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/6748-ipcc-researchers-admit-global-warming-fraud

Data gets fudged all the time, and when there is government grant money involved, the incentive to cheat becomes even greater. The researcher who killed and grilled the trout told me that if you could manage to get the word "Cancer" into your grant requests, you more than doubled your chances of getting money.

The first lead ban that was supposed to protect Condors didn't even make a statistically significant dent in their population decline or blood lead levels, so rather than admit that there must be some other source of lead to blame, the anti-lead ammunition people including Audobon pursued a statewide ban. Pray tell, what kind of surrender, or what you call "rational, adaptive legislation" would have been a viable alternative?

In other words, how do you figure that accepting agenda driven bad science and simply laying down in surrender is a winning strategy???

This has to be some of the craziest stuff I have seen since the massive document dumps of easily refuted crap that was posted here by that anti-lead lunatic Ben (GrouseGuy)Deeble. Your post, taken in its' entirety, reminds me of some of the political double-speak you would find in George Orwell's "Animal Farm".

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
George Orwell, Animal Farm

“No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”
George Orwell, Animal Farm

“This work was strictly voluntary, but any animal who absented himself from it would have his rations reduced by half.”
George Orwell, Animal Farm

Nobody, including the MN DNR in their own report has ever claimed to have a slam dunk on evidence in regards to use of lead shot, and lead poisoning in any population of wildlife.
If any population of fauna should be exposed to lead and lead fragments, it would be coyotes and wolves, I would think.
No outcry, just yet.


Go get 'em Keith.

Best,
Ted

I believe this to be true also, but it's apparently slam dunk enough for many folks. I wonder how many folks would agree to something like, the Wisconsin DNR stumbled on a cure for cancer while researching wildlife lead poisoning. It hasn't really been vetted because they'll only release generic reports,but they say it's good enough for them. We'd like to try it out on your wife and see how it goes.

I believe Brent's slam dunk is great to be aware of. His biggest passion seems to be single shots from the 1800's, not necessarily with original barrels. But, chances are those rifles will be around long after we're gone. It'll be a slam dunk that either the bores will be ruined, or the rifles regulated to unusable status, but we'll feel better about our lead free future.

Whatever a slam dunk is, this from federal Environment and Climate Change Canada website:

"Increased exposure to heavy metals can cause:

weight loss, weakness
blindness, muscle paralysis, seizures
increased likelihood of predation
increased susceptibility to disease and infection
altered patterns in foraging behaviour, loss of appetite
reduced ability to reproduce

"Researchers use a combination of field study and laboratory analysis to identify, track and investigate the effects of heavy metals in wildlife species, specifically birds, and their environments. Where heavy metals are suspected, researchers investigate food sources, food chain transfers, individual species and ecosystem functioning.

"Research on heavy metals is helping to predict adverse effects of environmental contamination and aiding the development of science-based environmental policies and regulations for the management of environmental lead and mercury contamination.

Lead

"Research on lead in wildlife has focused mainly on the issue of ‘lead shot,’ small pellets of metallic lead used as projectiles in shotgun ammunition for hunting and target shooting. A related issue is the accidental ingestion of small lead fishing sinkers and jigs used in recreational angling.

Waterbirds can ingest spent lead pellets or lost fishing tackle, resulting in poisoning. In addition, birds shot with lead pellets and not retrieved by hunters can become a source of secondary poisoning for predatory and scavenging wildlife. Other animals may prey upon dead or wounded game animals having lead shot embedded in their tissues.

Research ongoing since the 1960s led researchers to conclude that lead shot was the most important source of elevated lead exposure in waterfowl and some other waterbirds species. It was estimated that annual lead poisoning affected 250,000 birds in Canada, and about 2.5 million across North America.

Based on this research, Environment Canada banned use of lead shot for hunting most migratory game bird species. The nation-wide ban, in place since 1999, has resulted in a dramatic decrease in elevated lead exposure in wild waterfowl. It was found that elevated lead in bones of migrating ducks decreased between 52% and 90% depending on the species and location sampled."

Geez King, that simplistic, outdated, and erroneous data on Lead Ammunition is easily refuted, and most of it has already been refuted within this thread. This is as agenda driven and as false as your very recent and dishonest assertion that Thomas Jefferson did not make known his feelings about the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms. In fact, it appears that Jim (formerly Italiansxs) provided all of this to you in the "Is King Brown An Anti-Gunner?" thread:



This is not for the purposes of political debate. This is to illustrate your inherent and compulsive dishonesty. You had been told of Jefferson's original intent on the RKBA numerous times and still posted bald-faced lies about it. Why would anyone trust you now?

I am not at all refuting the very real dangers posed by heavy metals poisoning. But I am saying that it has been proven that ingestion of lead shot or bullet fragments is very low on the totem pole of being the cause of lethal blood lead levels. But no amount of proof is likely to reverse your repetition of anti-lead ammunition falsehoods

If Canada had indeed banned lead shot on the basis of this information you posted, then Canadian hunters got railroaded... just as they did with much of Canada's anti-gun legislation. I particularly liked the very last sentence of your post. It appears the author uses the same "craft of journalism" as you. Again, it is no surprise to see you Trolling anti-lead junk science in the same manner as you Troll anti-2nd Amendment bullshit. No need to impute motives. Your anti-gun and anti-lead agendas are quite evident to all. An absolute slam-dunk in my opinion.

That is an assumption, on your part, that is just not so. I spend my life outdoors, farming, stewarding forestlands on my property, hunting, fishing ........... heck, just walking and looking, lots of times. Many game birds have mortality rates that are extremely high. Doves, for example, are 50+%, according to game biologists. With as many doves as there are here, and the time I spend outdoors in their habitat, why don't I see them "sick and dying" all the time? I NEVER see it. And that's just one species. How about all the other species? With the proliferation of fauna here, you never see any "sick and dying", except for roadkills. "Why?", doesn't pertain to your original argument, but it is because most animals, birds included, when they realize they are weakened from whatever means, including age, seek a hiding place to recover or die. And, it's also because predators take out the sick and dying very quickly. I see scatterings of dove feathers all the time, where hawks kill and eat them, but no "sick and dying". And piles of feathers prove nothing, except that the bird was eaten.

To postulate that people are just naturally going to be made aware of sick and dying animals is ridiculous, and doesn't stand up to close scrutiny.

SRH

Stan, you need to talk to your local raptor rehabilitator, if you have any in your vicinity. They get plenty of sick and dying patients. Especially eagles. Why especially eagles? Well, because they're big, very visible, and there are a lot more of them now than there used to be. And people like to watch eagles.

Waterfowl fall into somewhat the same category. They're relatively large, and lots of them tend to congregate around lakes, marshes, etc. Many of those lakes and marshes are either federal or state wildlife areas, which means that there are either USFWS or state DNR employees around, keeping a watch on things. Seeing sick and dying birds is part of their job.

Stan, I lived in northern Wisconsin for 4 1/2 years. There was no question we had wolves. I saw evidence of wolves. But in my 4 1/2 years, including a whole lot of time spent in the woods, both before the bird season as well as during the season, I never saw a wolf. Not once. Doesn't mean they weren't there, or that I might not have trapped one or more of them had I desired to do so and known how to go about it.

And when the bird flu hit in Iowa, I don't recall that the DNR had any trouble finding dead birds to examine. And the most common species impacted were crows and bluejays. Not all being cleaned up by scavengers before they could be collected.

So no, sorry, I don't accept your contention (or Keith's if he's still making it) that there could still be a lot of waterfowl getting sick and dying, and no one would notice.

Brent, thanks for an unemotional view from the other side. But hey, you must have an anti-lead agenda. I'll bet you don't even hunt. But you've got to be one of the bad guys!

Keith, lead shot isn't on the radar screen for upland birds for a whole bunch of reasons which I listed earlier. But upland birds are not waterfowl and they're not scavengers. We've lost the fight on waterfowl, and claiming that the lead ban on waterfowl was "junk science" HURTS our cause rather than helps it. You have to make specific arguments that pertain to specific situations and species. The deer hunters need to make their own case . . . but I'm not worried about them for the simple reason that they have significant strength in numbers. That's why the WI Natural Resources Board made the rather strange decision to go after lead shot on DNR land rather than lead bullets, even though it was bullet fragments rather than shot that was showing up in venison, and in eagles: We upland hunters, in that case, are the low hanging fruit. We are far fewer in numbers than the deer hunters. So we have to make the case in regards to OUR situation. Are upland birds picking up lead shot and dying from it in numbers large enough to impact the overall population? Are scavengers (and especially eagles) dying from secondary ingestion of lead shot they get from scavenging unrecovered pheasants, grouse, quail, etc? That's the evidence "good science" has to show us in order to make the case where lead SHOT is concerned.

They've already made their case with waterfowl. That battle is over and done with. Let's fight the battles that remain, and that we can win. And I think we can win where upland birds are concerned.

Keith, you're wandering off the track with diversions into "Animal Farm", charges of being anti-gun, acting like someone else, etc. Let's stick to specific cases. As for your Audubon examples . . . California? Really? You know why we didn't have a prayer in California? Look at demographics. According to figures I've got, the Dakotas--N and S combined--have about 400,000 paid hunting license holders. CA has about 300,000. The big difference there: The Dakotas, combined, have a population of about 1.5 million; California, 38 million. Which means not even 1% of Californians hunt. Which explains why they're not going to win many battles where restrictions on guns and hunting are concerned--other than relying on the 2nd amendment to preserve their most basic rights. In all of these fights, numbers matter. CA doesn't have enough hunters to make enough noise to stop anything. As for Audubon, they flat out tell you that they will work to eliminate hunting if the species in question is impacted. In this case, it's condors rather than a hunted species . . . but they accept the evidence that condors are in trouble because of lead. And condors are an endangered species. End of discussion. But note that you don't see Audubon lobbying for no pheasant hunting in the Dakotas, or no quail hunting in TX. And then there's my personal experience of working WITH Audubon to expand grouse and woodcock hunting opportunities in Iowa, on both private and public land. What happened in CA would have happened with or without Audubon. Meanwhile, here in Iowa, when we finally got a dove season, our own Natural Resources Commission said it should be nontox shot only. Iowa hunters fought it, and the legislature (split control, Dems and Republicans) overruled that. You'd never see that in CA because there aren't enough hunters to make enough noise.

As for the deer hunters . . . as mentioned above, they're in pretty good shape because of their numbers. But if bullet fragments like those found in venison are also found in eagles, and if those eagles are suffering from lead poisoning, then they have a fight on their hands. They may need to go beyond proving that there are other potential sources of lead, and instead prove that those other potential sources are the real problem and that the danger from bullet fragments is not the problem, or perhaps only a very minor problem. But given their numbers, I'm sure that any attempt to require nontoxic ammo--which would also impact varmint hunters, squirrel hunters, etc--would require rock solid proof that bullet fragments are the real problem. And even then, they can probably put enough pressure on politicians to fight off a lead ban, even if it looks like science is on the side of those who support it.

Ted, re your contention about coyotes and wolves . . . makes sense that lead poisoning from scavenging dead animals should impact them. However, a coyote is a whole lot bigger than a duck or a goose, or even an eagle. And a wolf is a whole lot bigger than a coyote. So I'd expect they'd need to ingest more lead for them to get sick. And especially in the case of wolves, numbers are so low--and given the fact I never saw one, living in wolf country for 4 1/2 years--that while it might be happening to the occasional animal, it might also escape notice.

Larry, a quick few minute search brought up the 'Georgia Wildlife Rescue Association'. They have a feature story on a Dr. Jay Whitesell, who is 'the most experienced and respected raptor rehabilitator in the southeastern United States'. He 'works on' fifty raptors a year, not even one a week.

The good doctor's work is commendable, your sensationalism is questionable, but it's a good tactic for motivating anti hunters. Ever notice how in recent years, if you see a picture of a number of dead eagles arranged to make a point, that regardless of the topic, the picture tends to originate from recovered raptors killed by wind turbines. Not a speck of lead or any other toxin, just acceptable agenda that makes some habitat completely unusable for some raptors. Many times those are the very same 'researchers', who downplay those casualties due to policy.

I would hope you're able to research Brent's comment a bit more. Though he mentioned eagles and waterfowl, he did not exclude any wildlife from lead poisoning. Are you looking for a fan club or facts? Still more speculation, coyotes and wolf are bigger, so it's okay, they can eat more lead laced food. If the problem comes from consumption, are these predators eating 70-90% fish?

Cougar scat, tracks and attacks on farm animals and horses. Very easy to get evidence of cougars in southern Ontario over the last 10 years. Very difficult to get the MNR to admit they are here? Why? Agenda driven policies of not scaring people plus not admitting an apex predator can live here so clearly more environmental work must be done.

What's my point? Tell me again how unbiased the MNR's and DMR's are? They, like most of government, get politicized and are agenda driven.

I'm beginning to wonder how many lead-deniers live 24/7 in wide-open spaces. From where I'm writing this, I've seen bald eagles swoop from perches in trees, clutch ducks from small and large groups on the water, "swim" to shore with their wings, and eat them. From blinds in the harbour or bay, I've observed that dead or crippled ducks end up in an eagle if not retrieved quickly by dog or boat---every time. Non-tox is better than lead for ducks and geese. It's normal to have different opinions on this but churlish, and to make no sense at all, to say that those who believe as I do are anti-hunter and anti-gun.

Environmental issues are always agenda-driven, rightly and wrongly. As Larry noted, votes count and legislators in democratic societies mostly do what the people want and allow a test of their performance at election time--- where there are more anti-killing votes than there are us.

I was a principal protagonist in Canada's biggest environmental story of the 70's. Publics were made to believe that protecting forests by spraying against the spruce budworm was killing children, later proved to be surpassingly bad science. I announced that finding at an international forestry conference.

By then budworm created the biggest clearcut on the continent, observable by astronauts in space. The forest community was devastated. The misled greens had the numbers. Elizabeth May was principal protagonist on the other side. We are friends. (She now federal leader Green Party, I still in the woods.)

King, you probably live in one of the most beautiful areas in all of North America.

Allow me to be so churlish as to repeat, again repeat, why wasn't the waterfowl component of an eagle's diet ever found to be the source of lead poisoning back before non toxic shot was mandated. You yourself said just a bit earlier in this thread that eagles eat fish. Pretty cut and dry eh? But, of course I would be rude to mention that. Is it rude to mention all the other toxins spread by the raping and pillaging of pristine wilderness by corporate greed. Did you ever use DDT back in the day.

King, I think Larry is right on many points, but continues to base his comments on foregone conclusions and speculation designed to trigger emotion. And, you said, so what if he's an influential outdoor writer. Even for Canadians, I believe 'sources' should be vetted, or you have no reason to be force feeding it as good science. The basics would be is there openness about the researchers, their methods and reasons. And, who's paying for the 'research'.

Larry, the fact that coyotes and wolves do not have crops means that particulate lead passes through them much faster and without being digested or assimilated - totally different situation in birds. So, eating some lead is not a concern for a mammal once in awhile, when in particulate form (as opposed to in lead paint for instance).

The focus needs to be on POPULATION LEVEL effects, not individual effects. We know, with out doubt, that a few lead pellets in the crop of an eagle or a condor will kill it. We also know that this happens to wild birds without question, and that the pellets come from ammunition, without question (isotope analyses among other things).

We know the same used to happen to ducks, without question.

But in one case that has significant population consequences, in the other, it does not. That is where we the hunters and shooters need to focus. Stick to the fighting battles where population level effects are minimal, concede where they are signficant. And with those concessions needs to be language that could allow the return of lead when the population problems are no longer an issue (ie, the species is fully recovered), AND they can sustain the lead risk. For some species, like condors, this may be very doable. For ducks, it will never be, because the population effects would immediately return. One could hope, reasonably, that condors will be more like eagles than like waterfowl.

Let's not sit around and fight about whether the sun goes around the earth of vice versa. These types of arguments are only good for breaking up the hunting community's otherwise unified voice and jeopardizing our credibility. Lots of gun folks, like lots of environmentalists (but far from all), or lots of feminists (but far from all), or members of any other group would rather fight for the sake of fighting than figure out how to solve problems. I'm only interested in solutions.

Brent

Keith reminds me of the three monkeys... Hear No Evil, See No Evil, and Speak No Evil.

Except maybe for the last one....

I'm only commenting because I think I've been the hardest on you.

When it comes to broken unity, I agree without a doubt and without question. Possibly, you can see two points. First, to get along it has to be your way. Second, if you are solution driven, where are the solutions? Give up on an issue with 'wording' that it's reversible? Once you contend that something's a toxin, how could it ever not be? I wonder if upland birds have crops?

Larry, you are amazing. Somehow, simply because Brent agrees with you, and even surpasses you in support of bad science, that makes his argument unemotional. Never-mind that virtually all of what he has said has already been proven to be wrong... not by me or not simply because I said so.

In the same vein, it is apparent that you intend to cling to the death to your preconceived notions, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. It was entertaining to see you shrug off Stan's actual first hand observations of the wetlands environments where he spends so much time, in favor of agenda driven anecdotal claims by the anti-lead people. Stan isn't the only guy here Larry, who spends large amounts of times going where few DNR employees or Fish and Game people ever go. But no one is seeing this massive lead poisoning carnage. I have been checked by Game Wardens twice in my entire life, both times along the road. Why, even the Great King Brown himself very recently told us that he has hunted extensively over the last 65 or 70 years without ever once seeing or being checked by a Fish or Game Warden.

Poor craigd is beating his head against the wall too. He's been shredding many of your erroneous contentions with facts, and you simply pivot to another lame excuse. He was the first to note that when you posted Audobon's position on hunting, you left out the parts that proved you were wrong. When you kept repeating the incorrect information about dead deer comprising the bulk of the diet of eagles, he corrected you with the information that bald eagles eat 70-90% fish. You acted like raptor rehabilitators are swamped with cases of lead poisoned eagles, and craigd quickly shot that one down too. The most experienced raptor rehabilitator in the Southeast U.S. only treats 50 "raptors" a year. So if we take out the raptors that are other species such as hawks and owls, and we subtract the raptors that are sick or dying due to other factors besides lead poisoning, we can see that you are hysterically overstating the case of lead-poisoned bald eagles. In your endless effort to prove that you are right at all costs, you are either intentionally or inadvertently supporting the position of the anti-lead forces. Either way, you are not helping us.

Even after you got busted here with selective editing of the Audobon's true stance on hunting and their support of anti-led legislation, you won't even acknowledge that you were 100% wrong.
You asked for proof that you claimed you could not find. It took me all of a minute of Google Searching to find abundant proof that Audobon supports lead ammunition bans. One I gave you was from their own website.

So what did you do? Did you apologize for your selective editing? Did you man-up and admit that you were 100% wrong for ridiculing the positions on that taken by craigd and I? No, you simply danced away from your intentional half-truths and went on to mock actual evidence as some lost cause that we shouldn't even consider because the battle is lost.

With guys like you shooting us in the foot, you may be right about that.

I was quite amused when you admonished me about pointing out the very obvious anti-gun and anti-lead ammunition positions of King Brown. I'm never surprised anymore to see him in complete denial of smoking gun evidence and his serial dishonesty on the matter. I cannot stop him from making a fool of himself, but I don't have to stand by when he puts up absolute falsehoods in order to undermine our Constitutional 2nd Amendment Rights.

But right after you took me to task for wandering off track with charges of "Animal Farm" style propaganda and separating out anti-gunners from the rest of us, you went right into the very same thing. You went on to compare the demographics and general anti-hunting attitudes of the population of California with that of North and South Dakota in yet another wild assed attempt to make excuses for Audobon yet again. You are in complete denial of the positions on their own website. You make the lame excuse that the lead bans in California would have happened with or without their considerable influence. Yet you act as if I alone am a bigger danger than this national organization because of my observations of flawed science.

So a few Audobon guys helped you out with some pheasant or grouse habitat development? B.F.D. They would stab you in the back and turn on you in a second if they found so much as a single piece of #6 shot in a pile of grouse poop, even if it passed through without any evidence of sickening the bird. We don't have to guess about their position. They put it in writing on their website. But you are still in denial.

Your statement about upland birds was stunning... "They are not waterfowl and they are not scavengers". So what? Are you trying to tell us they don't eat or drink? Are you trying to say they don't pick up small stones for their crops or little round objects that resemble seeds? Or that they do not eat grubs, worms, or insects that have consumed and concentrated lead dust or soluble lead residue from paints, pesticides, mining wastes, or soils? How many days or weeks will you go on grasping at straws and denying facts in order to support your preconceived anti-lead notions? For someone who claims to be on our side, you sure are going out of your way to support the anti-lead position. Don't get pissed at me for labeling you. Anyone can see it. The anti-lead King Brown sees it and agrees with you. I can see it. craigd, Stan, and Ted can see it too. You might as well have it tattooed on your forehead.

I don't really care if you are "hard on me" or not. It is not about me or my way (you can try to make that if you want though - that is standard internet operating procedure when up against a brick wall). It's about the facts and what is done with them. I have a little experience in science and wildlife ecology, and I know how science is done, how it works and, in this case, with some of the people who have done it. This is not rocket science.

If you don't know whether upland birds have crops (and gizzards, where the actual damage is done) then what are you doing in this discussion? Really. Not to be hard on you back just for the sake of retaliation but if you don't know something about bird biology, population dynamics or some such, why are you here?

For instance, I don't know jack about interplanetary physics so I don't bother to interject opinions into discussions about whether or not there is a 9th planet that is 10x the size of earth sharing our sun. I'll leave that to folks that really have the facts and marvel in the creative ways they have gone about finding evidence for this.

Everything can be a toxin. How much and in what way and to what degree are the consequences important is what matters. Of course, Lead is toxic. Do you really want to debate that? This is a hunting/shooting/collecting forum, not a presidential debate where the debating the existence of things that are factually known to not even exist is considered valid.

Sorry Brent, but you have just revealed that you don't care about facts. You didn't even read what I said, and just want to continue with your knee-jerk repetition of bad science that has been proven incorrect. I just mentioned the habit of upland birds picking up small stones for their crops. I know all about crops and gizzards, and I know what they do. My degree is in Biology, by the way. I don't know your credentials, but it is obvious to me that I have way more knowledge of this subject, and have devoted way more time to dissecting both side of the issue than you. Now you know why I am here.

Can you please show us where I have ever once said that lead is not a toxin? But you are wrong when you say that everything is a toxin. Copper is a toxin too. So is bismuth and tungsten. Do you even know anything about the different forms of lead and the dramatic differences in bio-availability. I keep using that word, but I guess that I am assuming that people like you even understand bio-availability. Do you understand that lead dust or lead in solution is much much more readily absorbed by the body of a bird, insect or mammal than a piece of #6 shot that passes through the digestive system? When you make your emotional arguments about lead ammunition, it becomes apparent that you do not.

You're right. This is not rocket science. But it is apparent that you still do not get it.

You are also right about this being a hunting/shooting/collecting forum. That makes it all the more amazing to see the number of guys who make erroneous statement that undermine those very activities, and cling to them even when they are proven wrong. Some are just stubborn. I still think you and Larry are stubborn, and that isn't a bad thing. But some are downright dishonest and mentally ill enough to deny smoking gun evidence of their dishonesty. Right King?

By the way, that was a nice custom Winchester single shot .22LR you posted pictures of yesterday. Did you shoot those squirrels with no-tox bullets? Since everything is a toxin, what did you use? Can you scare them to death with blanks?

Kieth, I know the science. I've done the homework. You are barking up the wrong tree. I realize you won't stop, but go ahead. (my comments about gizzards were directed towards CraigD, apparently you failed to notice).

Keith, I'll match your degree in Biology with one card. I've got a bigger hand left to play if you want, what's your next card?

I shoot many hundreds of pounds of lead per year in rifles. Your comments only serve to show you are not capable of rational discussion. I'll go home tonight and load more lead for the coming summer.

..sigh... somethings never change, and you will, of course, not change from your preaching of falsehoods.

Carry on.

Yeah Brent, you know the science. You will relentlessly repeat one side of it that has been effectively refuted. You still want us to believe that people with an anti-lead agenda would never give you incorrect or false data. Even after I took the time to give you two examples of bad science, you will maintain that lead ammunition is a serious problem that should be eliminated, and we are unwise to fight it. One of those examples, Climate-gate, was a world-wide scandal that pretty much silenced the Global Warming alarmists for several years.

If you still do not think that data get fudged every day in order to achieve a desired result, then it's obvious that you haven't spent much time in labs. Remember all of the excitement over Cold Fusion... until those wondrous experiments could not be replicated?

Now you are dragging this into the mud and accusing me of preaching falsehoods. Where did I lie Brent? You never told us where I ever once claimed that lead is not a toxin. Neither did craigd. I don't know craigd from Adam, but craigd has obviously spent quite a bit of time researching this matter and very effectively slicing and dicing many of Larry's assertions. I'll bet that he knows what crops and gizzards are, and has more right and reason to debate this issue than you... whatever your mysterious expert card is.

I don't care how many hundreds of pounds of lead bullets you shoot a year. I doubt if your lead bullets are poisoning any birds or animals unless you consider a bullet hole in a squirrel's head as poisoning. But you seem to think otherwise, so I can't imagine why you continue while you support the anti-lead ammunition agenda.

No kieth, I did not say that lead should be eliminated. You failed to read what I wrote.

I went back on this thread and looked at the other posts you made and have now seen how you treat others in discussions. I have no interest in further BS with you.

The literature speaks for itself, and I have posted a tiny portion of it on this website previously. anyone seriously interested can do their own research today but simply going to scholar.google.com and digging in to the primary literature - not the fluff and blow pieces in blog sites and other agenda driven BS.

Or, keith, you could just go back and reread my posts, but I'm done with you now.

Slam dunk? Arguing against lead bans is a losing battle? Denying it is happening is foolish? Meaningful problem that has to be addressed?

You said those thing Brent. So if that is not calling for or supporting lead ammunition bans, just what the hell is it? I read and understood exactly what you were saying. You say you see how I treat others in discussions? What's the matter Brent... you think it's unfair to confront someone with their own words and call them on their Bullshit, grasping at straws, and selective editing? You feel bad for King Brown after he repeatedly says the Framers never made their feelings on our Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms... even when I show proof that he has been provided with those views numerous times? Not just here but in many other threads and in the Misfires forum. It's a long path from simply making a mistake or even forgetting something to intentional deception. King crossed that line long ago in my opinion. His agenda is clear. But my opinion was formed slowly over thousands of his posts... not just what he said here. You may have missed the recent thread where he repeated the same lie that he was corrected about in this 2007 thread, and many other times. King's anti-2nd Amendment rhetoric goes way back, and his cries of innocence are simply more dishonesty:

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=38521&page=1

You still never showed us where either craigd or I claimed that lead was not a toxin. You claimed that I was posting falsehoods but ran away from that statement when I asked you to show us those lies. It sucks to be wrong and to get called out on baseless accusations, doesn't it?

Of course you are done with me now. You think the literature speaks for itself, and that flawed or fudged science is not happening. And you have your mysterious magic card to back you up. I am so impressed.

I'm glad you made these comments, and I generally agree. Lead is a heavy metal toxin, but it's not always toxic. I think you tried to say that, but I flat won't presume that. 'How much and in what way and to what degree' makes sense, have I said any different?

Why am I here? I've mentioned my motivations for commenting and tried to make my case. If you'd look back, much of the back and forth was about, while it's around in the uplands, lead shot was said not to be toxic to upland birds. Now, you confirm what I suspected, upland birds do have crops. Your conclusion? Upland birds are at risk of lead poisoning from only one source, firearm projectiles including shotgun pellets?

So, what's the solution? Blame deer hunters, not target shooters or upland hunters, for the lead that poisons wildlife, because they have higher numbers and may be more vocal?

Other than giving up and hope we get it back, are there any nonconfrontational solutions. If you tripled your biology credentials and brought science along with it, does it matter to lobbyists. Apparently, adding hundreds of pounds of lead to the environment each year doesn't bother you, maybe your lead isn't toxic to the wildlife. Instead of explaining to me how many problems I have, why can't the 'discussion' be about the reasonable use of toxins instead of spreading around that it's all toxic.

Craig, kinda hard to rehabilitate a bird that dies after striking a wind turbine. We have plenty of them in Iowa. Matter of fact, Iowa is next to TX in the amount of electricity generated by wind turbines. The raptor rehabilitators do good work, but they're not like Miracle Max in "The Princess Bride". If the bird is dead, or even mostly dead as Max would say, chances are they aren't going to revive it.

If you can't google and find anything about the raptor rehabilitators and the various DNR's ending up with eagles that are suffering from lead poisoning, you're like the "see no evil" monkey. It's there. But hey, everyone that's claiming eagles die from lead poisoning is lying. . . just like they lied to us about waterfowl. Right. The truth is out there . . . it's those darned aliens from Roswell that are killing the eagles. And killed the ducks and geese previously.

And referring to an earlier post you made about eagles eating waterfowl and lead poisoning before lead was banned on waterfowl . . . You're neglecting the fact that there were far fewer eagles back a quarter century ago, when the lead ban on waterfowl took place, than there are now. About 3,000 breeding pairs in the entire country. 20 years later, the midwinter bird count came up with a tally of 3,000 eagles, just in Iowa. The reason we see more sick, dead, and dying eagles today? Because there are a lot more of them to get sick and die than there were 25 years ago. That's excellent evidence that the eagle population is doing well . . . but also significantly increases the chance that someone is going to come into contact with a sick or dead eagle. But I never heard anyone say that eagles dying from lead shot ingested when they scavenged waterfowl was not an issue of concern when lead shot was banned.

Good Lord Larry, you and Brent see only what you want to see. You just put up a quote from craigd where he specifically tells you he did do a search on raptor rehabilitators, and then you go off half cocked again advising him to do a Google search for raptor rehabilitators.

He did it Larry. He told us what he found. He never said that Bald Eagles that were killed by getting struck with windmill blades were being brought in to raptor rehabilitators to save them or resurrect them from the dead. We both broke it down with the realization that Bald Eagles are only a fraction of the raptors they treat, and that certainly only a fraction of sick raptors are treated for poisoning of all kinds.

craigd is not like the "see no evil monkey". But you and Brent are like the agenda driven anti-hunters who will never accept anything except their preconceived notions.

None of us who disagree with you ever said that there are no eagles, waterfowl, condors, or other birds that die from lead poisoning. You think you can discredit us by comparing us to UFO conspiracy nuts. We have merely stated repeatedly that there is a great deal of evidence that the lead responsible for killing birds is more often than not from another source, and if lead ammunition is involved, it is a lesser contributing factor. You cannot accept that and would rather dig your heels in and put up ridiculous arguments to support your position.

When you do that, you are also supporting the anti-lead ammunition position. Like it or not.

You have been the one who put up incorrect data and selectively edited mission statements from the Audobons. You lost a lot of credibility when you did that. I can see this thread going on for 100 pages before you'll change your mind or quit grasping at straws. I'm OK with letting you go on making a fool of yourself, but I'm not going to sit here and let you demonize and ridicule me or anyone else when you are steadfastly clinging to much of the anti-lead ammunition mantra. And even desperately searching for lame excuses to support it.

It was very revealing to see Brent accuse me of spreading falsehoods and never even mention your little faux pas with that selective editing of the Audobon mission statement. And equally revealing to tell me you couldn't find anything that supported my contention that they (Audobon)were anti-lead ammunition... and then later admonishing craigd for not doing a simple Google search??? What are we to think Larry? Who do you think you two are fooling?

Keith, Craig refers to "a quick few minute search". You can find whatever you want on the Internet, pro and con. You stop on the one you like . . . "Hey, this guy agrees with me, so I must be right."

A fraction of the birds they treat . . . OK. I find an article on an eagle that died of lead poisoning in my old home county back in 2010. 5.6 ppm blood lead level. Toxicity occurs at 0.2 ppm. Approximately 30 reported to have died in 2009 from exposure to lead. Another rehabilitator in Iowa reports that of the 130 that died at rehabilitation sites in the past 5 years, nearly 60 percent tested positive for lead poisoning. Yes indeed, that's only a fraction . . . but it's hardly a small fraction.

As for being "agenda-driven" . . . are you suggesting that the various state DNR's are anti-hunting? How about the USFWS? Them too? So it's some vast conspiracy on the part of those agencies that regulate hunting . . . and they're actually anti-hunting? Man, are we ever in BIG trouble!

Think on this for a moment, Keith: Many state DNR's are funded mainly, if not entirely by hunter dollars. License fees. The antis don't pay squat because they don't hunt. If hunting stops, the DNR's are out of business. So does it make sense for them to be anti-hunting? Not to me it doesn't. And even assuming there were this vast anti-hunting conspiracy within the agencies that regulate hunting, both state and federal, don't you think there would be the occasional whistleblower? Somewhere? Someone? I spent several years working for the CIA, and a bunch more in Military Intelligence. And what always got me about the conspiracy theorists--and that's what you and Craig are, because you believe that all these wildlife biologists were complicit in lying about what was killing waterfowl, and they're now complicit in lying about what's killing eagles and condors--is that when you get too many people involved in a conspiracy, it ain't gonna stay a conspiracy for very long. Somebody, somewhere is going to blow the whistle. Go to the media. Write a book exposing the evil conspiracy, all the lies about lead etc. Where are those whistleblowers among wildlife biologists? Their jobs depend on hunting, because antis don't pay, and nonhunters don't pay. So you'll have to explain to me how it makes sense that all those people would keep their mouths shut tight when they know that the information they're putting out to HUNTERS is bogus. Lead shot really didn't kill waterfowl, and lead poisoning--at least some of which comes from bullet fragments from scavenged animals--isn't killing deer. (SOAR--Saving Our Avian Resources--says "We know it's the lead fragments that are making them sick." They have an obvious bias, so I'm not buying the fragments as the cause in all cases. But in some cases? Maybe most cases? We know there are lead fragments in venison, and we know that eagles scavenge deer, and we know that lead fragments show up in their systems. I don't think we can give lead bullets a "pass" . . . at least not to the same extent we can defend lead shot in the case of upland game. To the extent that's a problem for hunters . . . well, we have to face up to it.)

As for "editing" Audubon's statement on hunting . . . do I need to quote you and Craig, Keith? YOU TWO edited it to start with, several pages back. All I did was include the VERY FIRST PART of their statement on hunting, which YOU left out. If you'd been "fair and balanced" from the get-go, I wouldn't have had to add the statement you guys conveniently omitted.

Since you accuse me of cooking the books on Audubon's position on hunting, Keith . . . here's Craig's quote:



All I did was reply with what HE left out, and what YOU repeated later. Again, lack of fairness and balance on the part of both you guys. (Sure glad you are not "agenda-driven".) Here's what comes before that quote: "The National Audubon Society has never been opposed to hunting of game species if that hunting is done ethically and in accordance with laws and regulations designed to prevent depletion of the wildlife resource. We have made this clear in official statements of policy, and it remains Audubon policy." Too bad you and Craig did NOT make it clear, from Craig's very first quote, and from your repetition of his quote. And Craig also failed to include what comes after the quote he lifted:

"However, we insist on sound scientific information before deciding these issues."

Sounds a whole lot different when you include what comes before and after the quote you and Craig posted, doesn't it? Looks to me like you and Craig are the guilty parties when it comes to "selective editing".

Please come back with more good evidence of just who's guilty of what here, and how this vast anti-lead, anti-hunting conspiracy on the part of the people who regulate hunting can have lasted for so long without someone, somewhere, from INSIDE the wildlife agencies, blowing the whistle on all the evidence their own biologists are faking. First about waterfowl deaths; now about eagle deaths. Because the only way anything you're suggesting makes sense is if the wildlife agencies themselves intentionally put out false evidence about lead poisoning in waterfowl, and are continuing to do the same with eagles.

As for your comment in an earlier post about Stan being one of (apparently) many guys who goes where DNR guys never go . . . I'm not talking about game wardens. I'm talking about wildlife biologists and technicians who LIVE ON THE PUBLIC MARSHES the DNR's manage for waterfowl hunting. Are you suggesting Stan or anyone else (probably including Superman with X-ray vision) is going to be more familiar with those places than the people who live there and manage them? They are there year round--lots of them, on lots of different wildlife management areas. If there are ducks and geese dead and/or dying, they may very well be the ones to find them. If not, they are very likely the people to whom dead or dying waterfowl will be reported by other people visiting that particular wildlife area--whether to hunt or to bird watch. That's certainly where I'd go if I were at one of those places and saw a bunch of sick or dead birds. But then maybe you wouldn't go to those people, because after all they must be part of the vast conspiracy to feed us false information that you're clearly implying is going on.

Larry, craigd posted the part of Audobon's mission statement on hunting that contradicted what you were trying to convince us of pertaining to their support for hunting. He was right and you were proven wrong. There was no need for him to post the entire statement to prove you wrong. That is why I did not admonish him for the same kind of selective editing you did. The part you left out would have disproved your attempted rebuttal. Stop trying to excuse your behavior by demonizing craigd. Or me, for that matter, for not giving you your fairness and balance. craigd wasn't attempting to mislead anyone. You were, because you couldn't just admit to being wrong.

Instead of accepting and acknowledging that fact, you came back with one small part of their statement that said they would not oppose sport hunting if done ethically, etc. You were still in denial about what the complete statemnent said, and you bolstered your position with just the parts you liked.

You still think their support for the anti-lead ammunition ban in California is justified because of the rest of their statement... "However, we insist on sound scientific information before deciding these issues." Not only did craigd not bother with this sentence which was not germane to your contention that Audobon does not oppose hunting, but neither did you. So lay off trying to put this on craigd. But the later statewide ban banned lead ammunition outside of the Condors normal range, and totally ignored the lack of impact from the prior ammunition ban that was limited to their range. Is that your idea of sound science? I guess it is.

Then you continued to state that I was wrong about their anti-lead ammunition stance. You piously claimed you couldn't find anything that supported my statements. It took under a minute to Google search "Audobon anti-lead". Plenty of results came up and I posted two links for you since you were having so much difficulty. One was from Audobon's own website, so it was from some agenda driven liar like me, and it wasn't from any Roswell UFO aliens.

There has been plenty of junk science that various anti-lead and anti hunting and DNR officials and biologists have been using to enact and impose lead ammunition bans. Furthering the ban in California when there was no impact from the previous ban is but one example. I gave you the example of the Climate-gate scandal as another example of how this works. There was a conspiracy to put out agenda driven fraudulent data until computer hackers stumbled on e-mails proving it. The fraudsters did not turn each other in. Do you think we'd even know about it if their dirty little secret didn't get out? The Liberal Left news media barely reported it. They would like us all to forget it.

I'm kind of hoping that Stan and SnipeHunter and all of these guys who spend countless hours in wetland habitat will tell us about all of those DNR Biologists that are living in the swamps 24/7/365. They must be camouflaged pretty good, because I haven't seen them. And I wonder why we aren't getting reports from those DNR Biologists on the increased number of cripples due to ballisticaly inferior steel shot

You are getting more and more desperate here Larry. It isn't working.

The shot surely is toxic to them but they don't encounter it the way waterfowl or eagles or condors do. Is this hard to understand? thus, lead in the uplands is not a problem at the level of affecting populations of upland birds.



I understand you now craig. You are here to fight for the sake of fighting, like Keith. Nowhere did I say anything remotely like that, but you choose to invent things I never said and then ascribe them to me. Quite low behavior. Among the lowest of the low actually.


craig by inventing things I did not say, you have demonstrated there really is no conversation here, only diatribe. I will leave you with keith to carry on as you must.

Let me address these statements too Larry. You found an article about an eagle that died with a 5.6 ppm blood lead level. So tell us the source of that lead. You are using this to support lead ammunition bans to protect eagles. What was it that caused those very toxic blood lead levels? Then you say that 30 died from exposure to lead in 2009. Was that at one raptor rehabilitation center, or several? What was the source of the lead? Then your Iowa rehabilitator reports that of 130 eagles that died at rehabilitation sites over 5 years, nearly 60% tested positive for lead poisoning. 130 over 5 years is an average of 26 deaths from all causes per year over multiple raptor rehabilitation sites. So we are talking about an average of 15.6 per year that died from some unknown source of lead at multiple raptor rehabilitation sites. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.

Again, what was the source of the lead Larry? Since virtually are all out there consuming lead bullet tainted gut piles, and wounded deer that are full of bullet fragments... according to you, why don't 100% of them have high blood lead levels? Didn't you tell us your Bald Eagle's version of "a chicken in every pot" was that practically every eagle you saw was feeding on a dead deer? Are you telling us that 40% of those poisoned eagles live and feed in areas where there is no hunting with lead shot or bullets? Since their diet actually is 70-90% fish, where are they feeding where both lead ammunition and lead fishing sinkers and jigs are not used? Where is this magical lead-free kingdom Larry?

Your argument isn't holding water Larry. Keep throwing bullshit until something sticks. But don't keep doing this and try to tell us that you are on our side.

edit: craigd, we must remember to only quote Brent's actual words. You cannot condense many paragraphs of obvious support for lead ammunition bans into one very accurate blanket statement or you will be accused of putting words in his mouth. Even though you are right, he will use that as his excuse to demonize you and me. And never forget this insanity... lead ammo isn't affecting populations of upland birds, so it is not a problem. Nor is it affecting Eagles at the population level, so we should just shut up like good little anti-lead soldiers, and accept lead ammunition bans. And I guess we should have quoted everything on Audobon's entire website even though only a couple sentences were needed to refute what Larry was trying to convince us of. These two birds are a trip.

Got a minute Larry, hope you might sit through my area 51 cow pies.

I'll start up top. 'My' quick search was as keith said, the search that you called for. So, I look, and find a complementary to you write up about some premier raptor rehabilitator. I thought the guy might walk on water, but it turns out he 'works on' about fifty raptors a year, this being doctor number one in the whole southeast. So, it makes me comment that maybe the raptor rehab folks aren't shuffling the big sensational numbers like Larry seems to indicate.

Pittman-Robertson funds do not pay for DNR's. They get rolled into the budget of the Dept of the Interior, that gets the vast majority of its funding from income tax payers including non hunters. The head of this dept is a presidential appointee. This is the person that decides on what does and doesn't get funded, studied and how it's presented.

What do you mean by whistle blowers. They are employees of the presidential appointee, and work for their goals. I think the conspiracy is on your side, just kidding, I think it's silly.

Back to your facts and figures, and how about that FWS. Where'd you get that 60% number? It's very easy to look up, FWS 'lead exposure in bald eagles in the upper midwest'. 58 dead birds sampled, a bit small eh, 60% of those showed trace, repeat trace, levels of lead. Of those, 38% showed high levels, only one, repeat only appeared to show lead poisoning signs.

They looked at potential, repeat potential sources of lead, which we know are many. The 'researchers' arbitrarily decided to focus on lead from rifle hunting bullets in gut pile. Not my words, it's in the report, with no reason or justification given.

25 gut piles were studied from an Illinois management area, most of the dead eagles were collected from Iowa and Wisconsin. They say these results conclude, deer offal is a very likely pathway to lead exposure. Do you think those dots are connected well enough?

Here's an interesting tidbit. Who did the collecting and studying of the 25 deer gut piles that the FWS says is the 'likely pathway'? Who describes the study on their website, who provided the x-ray of the 107 pieces of lead fragments in a gut pile? SOAR. Who uses the 'evidence', the FWS.

You know, that could be just fine, but you yourself said SOAR has an 'obvious bias'.

Call me anything you want, but I don't believe the FWS study is half way decent science. You and Brent can 'win' no big deal to me, but Brent seems to be getting a little warm under the collar. I hope an authoritative Brent will revisit this, and break down where I'm wrong. Yes, eagles can and do get lead poisoning and have died from it.

Want a quick lesson in junk agenda driven science and deceptive data kiddies?

First read this short article from the University of Minnesota Raptor Center:

http://www.raptor.umn.edu/our-research/lead-poisoning

It sounds pretty bad for lead ammunition until you really take a look at what they're saying. Their research, along with Minnesota DNR research was instrumental in providing evidence to support the 1991 Federal lead shot ban for waterfowl.

But when they did another study in 1997 to evaluate if the lead shot ban had reduced the number of lead poisoned eagles, it showed the prevalence of poisoned eagles didn’t change even with good hunter compliance. This lead them to conclude that eagles were being poisoned from another source of lead... deer gutpiles left in the field by hunters.

So they are telling us that the 1991 lead shot ban had no effect, even though they had maintained that eagles eating lead poisoned waterfowl or birds wounded with lead shot was the main source of lead poisoning in eagles.

It was all bullshit!

Now they are trying to convince you that the prevalence of lead poisoned eagles did not change by 1997 because of bullet fragments in deer... even though this new alleged source of lead, wounded deer and deer gut piles, is only available for a few weeks a year. But allegedly lead poisoned or lead containing ducks and geese were supposedly dying year round from both hunting and bottom feeding. Wouldn't you expect that the numbers of lead poisoned eagles, and their blood lead levels, should have dropped considerably?

They didn't!

Now check out this 2012 article from the National Biological Service:

http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/publications/documents/95JCF.OLR01.pdf

Pay special attention to the map at the bottom left of the page that shows the numbers of eagles killed by lead poisoning by state. And note that the article does not even consider other sources of lead besides ammunition.

Iowa lost 16 eagles with an annual deer harvest of about 99,000 deer.

Illinois lost 9 eagles with an annual deer harvest of about 102,000 deer.

Wisconsin lost 43 eagles with a deer harvest of about 243,000.

Minnesota lost 23 eagles with an annual deer harvest of about 192,000 deer.

Maine lost 9 eagles with a deer harvest of just 21,000 deer.

Florida lost 14 eagles with an annual estimated deer harvest of about 136,000 deer.

South Dakota lost 22 eagles with a harvest of about 91,000 deer.

Ohio lost 4 eagles with a harvest of about 219,000 deer

Louisiana lost just 2 eagles with a deer harvest of about 117,000.

Pennsylvania lost only 1 eagle, that's 1 as in ONE, with a much higher annual deer harvest of about 330,000 deer.

Clearly, there is virtually no correlation between the numbers of hunter killed deer and the numbers of purported lead poisoned eagles. The correlation doesn't even hold up when you look at the total numbers of nesting pairs of eagles in these states. Pennsylvania had over twice as many nesting pairs as South Dakota in 2012... had a 3 1/2 times larger deer harvest... yet only a tiny fraction of lead poisoned eagles compared to S. Dakota. Virginia has the 5th highest number of nesting pairs of eagles in the continental U.S. and a 2012 deer harvest of over 231,000 deer, and only 2 eagle deaths by lead poisoning in 2012.

I imagine Larry will try to tell us that Pennsylvania and Virginia deer hunters do not leave wounded deer or gut-piles in the woods. Or maybe the UFO aliens are beaming them up before the eagles can eat them.

The University of Minnesota Raptor Center did not even consider other sources of lead... especially sources that are more bio-available, and thus more prone to actually cause toxic levels in the bloodstream. They jumped to a wild assed conclusion that helped pave the way for the 1991 Federal lead shot ban, and when that didn't help alleged numbers of poisoned eagles, they jumped to another wild assed conclusion about lead bullet fragments in deer carcasses and gut piles.

This is the crap that Larry and Brent are clinging to like a security blanket.

The Univ. of Minn. isotope analysis sounds impressive until you consider that isotope analysis cannot definitively prove that a sample of lead came from bullets or shot or some other source. It can only (sometimes) show what mine that lead came from. Lead comes from the natural decay of uranium, and uranium from differing sources decays into lead at different geological times. If the lead in the sample has been mixed with recovered or recycled lead, or lead from multiple sources, then isotope analysis is all but worthless. When you see lead isotope analysis being used as a smokescreen to try to sell the idea that lead ammunition should be banned, you should be very very suspicious. The same isotopes can be found in a bullet, a wheel weight, and a lead paint chip.

Keith, I'm a writer. People pay me for articles and books that I write. So I do know just a little about writing and editing. Craig was the FIRST to quote Audubon, in response to my statement that they were not anti-hunting. He left out the part that says they don't oppose hunting, and he left out the part that says when they do oppose hunting of specific species, they insist on "sound scientific information". That is clearly selective editing on his part. And then you repeated his highly selective quote. Caught with your hand in the proverbial cookie jar, I can see why you don't want to own up to it. But the quotes I added were the ones Craig "conveniently" left out. When an organization has a position on hunting and you're trying to prove they're pro, anti, or neutral, you must include the ENTIRE quote--unless, like you and Craig, you're agenda-driven. And are into selective editing. Guilty as charged. Next case.

Where eagles are concerned, Keith, you're ignoring the problem. Ignoring a problem won't make it go away. It's likely to come back and bite you in the ass when you're not looking. So "only" 140 eagles were lost in a total of 10 states, in one year. No big deal, you say. Well no . . . I pointed out from the get-go that eagles are not endangered, nor even threatened, and that in fact their numbers are increasing. But you're in denial about the fact that eagles are not crows, ravens, or vultures. If a few of those die from lead poisoning, no big deal. But eagles--although you're doing your best to ignore it--ARE a big deal. Because they're eagles, very visible, and our national symbol. And also because, not so long ago, they were in real trouble. It may not be a big deal to you, but it is to the public. That's why eagles dying from lead poisoning--even if their population is not decreasing as a result--get a whole lot of coverage in the media. Which means that we, as hunters, have to deal with the problem. Stick your head in the sand if you want (try not to bump heads with Craig!), but it's an issue that isn't going to go away all by itself.

And sorry, but the analogy to climate change isn't valid. There are scientists out there who don't believe that humans are causing climate change. They've written articles, etc. Show me the articles written by biologists in the wildlife field who are debunking lead poisoning. Show me the evidence that there's been a vast conspiracy within the wildlife management community to convince us that lead shot was killing waterfowl when it wasn't, and that lead bullet fragments are now killing eagles when they're not. Show me a link to an article by a whistleblower who's a wildlife researcher. Otherwise, I'm not buying what you're selling on waterfowl. And when it comes to eagles, you're clearly in denial of a problem hunters have to deal with. Even if you don't happen to think it's a big deal. I'm thinking that denial must be the major river wherever you live.

Craig, same response to you: You just don't get it that eagle numbers don't need to be huge for it to be a big deal. 140 in 10 states in one season . . . that is going to sound huge to the general public, even if it doesn't to you. Ignoring the problem by saying the numbers aren't big won't make the problem go away.

P-R dollars are only a small part of a DNR's budget. Most rely on the sale of hunting licenses. P-R money is only icing on the cake . . . although the icing is thicker lately thanks to increased sales of firearms and ammunition. And DNR employees work for the respective states, not for DC. DNR's don't need P-R $ to look at a few sick or dead eagles, take some X-rays, draw blood samples, etc.

Still waiting for that elusive whistleblower link from you or Keith. Surely someone in the business will have said "it's all junk science and it's all about anti-hunting"--because, after all, it's hunter $ that fund the very agencies and biologists who supported the conclusion that lead shot was a problem for waterfowl. Odd, don't you think, that no one inside the wildlife management community would point out that they're shooting themselves in the foot with hunters--since hunters pay their salaries?

Still grasping at straws Larry? You couldn't refute any of that information I posted last night about the extremely questionable anti-lead ammo work done by the Univ. of Minnesota Raptor Rehabilitation Center, and the total lack of correlation between the numbers of lead poisoned eagles and numbers of deer shot by hunters in various states. So instead, you feel the pathetic need to go back to accusing craigd of selective editing.

You may be a writer, but you ought to try being a reader too.

Once again, craigd was merely responding to your denials that Audobon had engaged in anti-hunting efforts. All he needed was a short section of their own statement on that to prove you wrong. Even if he had posted the complete statement, including the last part which you also left out, it wouldn't have changed a thing. You would have still been wrong. It was you who intentionally left out the part which proved you were wrong about their anti-hunting attitudes. You were still trying to deny something that was right there on their own webpage. The part craigd left out would not have made him or me wrong. But when you can't win an argument with facts or ideas, why not resort to lame attempts to discredit the opposition, right Larry?

Only 140 eagles? WTF Larry... yesterday it was 130! Did 10 more die overnight? My point is, I don't care if it is 10 or 1000 eagles that are dying from lead poisoning if hunters and their lead ammunition are being incorrectly and dishonestly blamed for it. Did you see how many eagles are killed by power lines Larry? Are you supporting eliminating the electric grid the same way you are supporting lead bullet bans by clinging to your silly notions about eagles feasting on bullet fragment laced deer and gut-piles? We all know the bald eagle is a very visible national symbol. You don't need to keep repeating that. That doesn't excuse placing the blame for their poisoning in the wrong place.

That is what you are doing, and in the process, you are helping anti-lead ammo efforts. No Larry, I am not suggesting that we should ban power lines. Don't get all excited and accuse me of that now.

I found a ton of extremely questionable and contradictory data last night when I took the time to post those two links that should show all but the most agenda driven fool that there is no link to lead bullets as being a major source of lead poisoning in eagles. Did you even read that Larry? Did you catch the very disturbing statement from the Univ. of Minn. Raptor Center that said that their 1997 follow-up study to determine if the 1991 Federal lead shot ban had reduced the number of lead poisoned eagles, it showed the prevalence of poisoned eagles didn’t change, even with good hunter compliance.? This lead them to conclude that eagles were being poisoned from another source of lead... deer gut piles left in the field by hunters.

You refuse to even acknowledge bombshell evidence that the 1991 Federal lead shot ban didn't reduce lead poisoning in eagles. The so-called science the Univ. of Minn. Raptor Center did to support that Federal ban was absolute garbage!

Did you notice that those two links I provided were from sources that are propping up the idea of lead from ammunition as the source of poisoning in eagles Larry? I did not cherry-pick my Google search to find something that agreed with me. I intentionally avoided the many sources that agree with me. I found things that agreed with you and Brent, and then easily refuted it.

You want more? I'll give you more. But you obviously wish to simply sidestep what I gave you last night, and continue on your single-minded path to prove you are not wrong.

You simply act like you never even read it and go back to your same silly arguments and demands that I should find a whistle-blower. Climate-gate had nothing to do with this? It was an illustration that deceptive science is common. It was an illustration that Government funded agencies do sneaky things in order to advance their agenda. The Lois Lerner scandal in the IRS is another one. You were in the CIA Larry. There would be no need for the CIA if Governments did not do sneaky things. Hillary Clinton is being investigated by 150 FBI agents for destroying evidence and keeping classified information on a private e-mail server. There are no links to whistle-blowers on those things. Climate-gate would have never been known about if computer hackers didn't accidentally find out about the fudged data.

But this has become all about your inability to admit that you are wrong about so many of your assumptions about lead ammunition and lead poisoning in birds. I found a lot more highly questionable and contradictory data in about an hour of searching last night Larry. It's very easy if you just open your eyes and let go of your preconceived notions. I don't think you can do that, but I will post some more for others to digest later.

Keith, you just keep at it, don't you? First of all, to go back to the very beginning and your contention that cattle in CA are a more likely source of lead in condors than bullet fragments: If you read the article you posted, you'll find that the article itself mentions lead shot as one of the sources of lead in cattle. I guess ingested via grazing activities? . . . but that's their statement, not mine. Second, cattle are ruminants. They chew their food. Whatever they eat gets chewed. Therefore, it seems to me that any lead that entered their mouths whole would get chewed up before it got swallowed (like paint chips, etc) and would not resemble bullet fragments if a dead condor were x-rayed for lead. Bullet fragments from deer and other animals, on the other hand, don't enter a deer through its mouth. And eagles don't chew their food. So there are going to be fragments in the critter scavenged, and will remain fragments in the digestive tract of the scavenger.

Correlation between the number of lead-poisoned eagles and the number of deer shot? It's your assumption that the "correlation" does not make sense. Eagles aren't the only scavengers out there, and their density is not so great that they're going to be eating all the wounded and unrecovered deer. They may only eat part of a dead deer (cleaning up after some other scavenger); they may miss the parts that contain bullet fragments; or the eagle in question may ingest fragments, go off and die, and not be recovered to be examined. I wouldn't hang my hat on that one if I were you. Way too many possibilities.

My initial statement concerning Audubon was not a direct quote from them. What I said was: "Audubon is not squarely in the anti-hunting camp." And their own statement clearly establishes that they are not. Craig left out all the pro-hunting parts . . . quite conveniently. That's what agenda-driven people do. It's an attempt to avoid being fair and balanced.

The prevalence of lead poisoned eagles . . . well Keith, there were 3400 breeding pairs of bald eagles in 1991. By 1997, that figure had increased to 5300 pairs. So if as many were dying from lead poisoning in 1997 as in 1991, that would mean a significant REDUCTION in the PERCENTAGE of eagles dying from lead poisoning. Plus, as you have pointed out yourself, just because we stopped shooting lead shot didn't mean it disappeared instantly. Ducks and geese could still ingest it, and eagles could still eat ducks and geese and end up with lead shot as a result. But if the number remained relatively constant, that actually shows a REDUCTION in lead poisoning, which could well be a result of the lead shot ban. But since the scavenged animals shot with lead bullets were there in 1991, lead bullets weren't banned, and scavenged animals shot with lead bullets were still there in 1997, that could obviously be a source of lead poisoning--at roughly the same rate--both before and after the lead shot ban.

As for the CIA, it has nothing to do with "sneaky activities" in the US government. That would be the business of the Dept of Justice and the FBI . . . and the FBI guards its turf very jealously. And very little extra-legal is likely to happen in CIA, for the simple reason that--as I pointed out where conspiracies are concerned--some whistleblower is going to toot his whistle about what's going on. Mainly because it's not good for one's career, and can quite easily involve jail time, if you play fast and loose with the law and the regulations that govern the intelligence community.

As for your contention that hackers debunked climate change . . . Nope. Contrarian scientists debunked climate change. All hackers did was reveal some inconsistencies in data. But the hackers aren't the big deal. The scientists who disagreed from the start are the big deal. So where are the wildlife scientists who are debunking the great lead poisoning scam you're suggesting? Looks like from all your googling, you haven't found their equivalent. And your "refutations" of evidence are based on assumptions you make, through which I can punch fairly large holes without any significant effort. Show me an EXPERT who says all the lead poisoning stuff is bogus. Sorry, but you're not an expert.

Just a few more points from the crowd that thinks the whole "eating lead shot killed waterfowl" thing was a scam, that eagles are not a big deal, and that proof that bullet fragments are causing lead poisoning in eagles is lacking:

1. The waterfowl debate is over and done with. We were shown lead pellets in ducks and geese that got sick and died. If they're getting sick and dying now at anything approaching the same rate, why isn't it being reported? Why are we not seeing them? The evidence would seem to show that by not depositing 25 years worth of lead shot around wetlands, we've significantly reduced the numbers of ducks and geese dying from lead poisoning. And easy enough to tell if left-over lead shot is involved if a duck or goose does die from lead poisoning. While a lead fragment may not conclusively come from a bullet, it's hard to come up with anything else out there that looks like a lead shotgun pellet. (And that fact actually HELPS us when the anti-lead folks suggest we shouldn't be shooting lead shot at upland birds. Why not? Show us the upland birds dying from ingested lead shot. The Wisconsin DNR tested woodcock with high lead levels . . . but they did not find lead shot in any of the birds, and admitted the lead could have been acquired from the soil in which woodcock feed, or from the worms they eat.)

2. If an eagle is sick or dies and has both high lead levels and lead fragments: Yes, it's possible the fragments are not the source (or are not the SOLE source) of lead in the bird's system; and yes, it's possible that the fragments didn't come from bullets. But those fragments don't come from lead in the air (which has been significantly reduced thanks to unleaded gas) nor from the water they might drink, nor from the fish they eat. Not nearly as likely as in the past that they'd come from paint chips, since lead-based paint is far less common than it used to be. All in all, it's harder to prove that an eagle with lead poisoning and fragments didn't get those fragments from scavenging something that was shot. And unfortunately for those who hunt with rifles, while we can easily say shotgun pellets aren't the problem because we don't see any, the guys who use bullets are going to be pushed into a position of proving those fragments come from something OTHER THAN BULLETS. Otherwise, bullets will be the assumed source. And the only real way to prove they're not is to switch to non-lead bullets . . . and see if the problem goes away. But good luck switching back to lead.

3. Lead is toxic. Toxic = bad. Why not get rid of as much of it as possible? And we can shoot steel shot, and there are nontoxic substitutes for lead bullets. So we are ALL going to have to deal with the challenge of why shouldn't we switch, rather than defending the status quo by saying why should we. That, unfortunately, is where we're at. And in states where we don't have strong hunter numbers (like California), we might very well find ourselves in the same boat they're in. All we can do is make as much noise as possible, and insist on "good science". But we're shooting ourselves in the foot if we keep trying to fight the battles we've already lost (like waterfowl).

With that . . .I'm outta this discussion. Unless someone can come up with an EXPERT source, from among all the wildlife biologists out there, who tells us that the lead ban on waterfowl was just one big scam. That I'd like to see.

Larry, what we need to keep in mind is that you're a writer, and I'm not. I'll keep a look out for complete expert quotes, so that I know what I'm reading is fair and balanced.

Just one more comment, going back over Keith's rantings:

Keith, you really ought to take your own advice about being a reader. Try reading again. The 130 number--as clearly stated in my previous post--is the number of eagles that died over 5 years in rehab sites in Iowa. The 140 number--clearly stated in my post as a one year total from 10 states--that's from YOUR post, from the MN study YOU cited. I simply added up the numbers from those 10 states and rounded off, the actual total being 143. But the 10 states reference should have told you that I was talking about information YOU had posted. Eagles deaths in 1 year in 10 states does not = eagle deaths in 5 years in 1 state.

No point trying to have an intelligent discussion with someone who doesn't recognize information from his own post.

All we can do is insist on good science was a point you've brought up several times. Yet, page after page I read volumes about what may or may not be and what is likely or not likely. I was called the lowest of the low for unnecessary arguing, do you recognize what little information there is in your posts, and how much of your opinion and logic is supposed to be taken as fact? I can recall only one other back and forth I decided to get into it with you back a few years ago, and it seems your passions are not very open to input. Sorry about not just walking away.

Nobody accused you of having an intelligent discussion Larry. Far from it. You should be more careful with the facts if you are trying to correct me. First off, you said your 140 number was rounded off from adding up the number of eagles cited in the Univ, Of Minnesota study. That is incorrect. That number 140 came from adding up some numbers off of the map from the other source I had cited to show zero correlation between poisoned eagles and deer killed by hunters... not Univ. Of Minn. as you said. I guess I was right about you not understanding what you are reading. Then you rounded off your number of unstated origin on the low side. Why round it off at all, and then expect anyone to know what you are referring to? Aren't you interested in accuracy? Was it harder to type 143 than it was to type 140?

How am I supposed to recognize information from my own post when you change it and manipulate the numbers? Nice try Larry.

This is just illustrative of what I said earlier, and the extreme nonsense and lengths you will go to in order to discredit what you cannot intelligently deny. You show us more of that ridiculous behavior with that really dumb statement about cows eating lead shot and bullets, and chewing them up into unrecognizable pieces. In that Veterinary Medical source, lead shot was the very last source of lead poisoning in cattle they mentioned. Here's what they actually said:

"Even a small amount of lead can kill cattle. Cattle will readily drink crankcase oil, lick grease from machinery and chew on lead plumbing and batteries. Other frequent causes of poisoning include flaking high lead paint, ash from fires in which lead materials were burnt, lead shot from shooting "- See more at: http://www.thecattlesite.com/diseaseinfo/217/lead-poisoning/#sthash.ka5vfFcK.37hoAf1e.dpuf

I guess you would have us believe that cows are routinely licking the ground in search of tasty lead shot instead of grazing by biting off grasses above the surface as they actually do, and that pastures are concentrated sources of lead shot. Hey, wait, didn't you also tell us that this shot sinks into the soil? Damn cows must be using metal detectors to find it.

Then, after telling us this much earlier in this thread:



...You have now switched gears, and are saying that eagles' population density is really not so great, and that other scavengers are beating them to the punch, and eating the lead contaminated deer before the eagles have a chance... or that eagles in some states are simply missing the lead tainted portions.

Which is it Larry, good science and facts, or ever changing wild-assed assumptions? Did you see eagles feeding on a majority of road-killed deer, or was that just more of your bullshit? I think craigd's got your number on that one. Since there are a helluva lot more road killed deer than there are eagles, it's pretty easy to see that you'll just make shit up to make a point. I retract my apology for asking if you are related to King Brown. I'll bet you wish we would just give up and bow out of this. I won't, and I hope craigd won't let you have the final word by endlessly repeating baseless opinions, flip-flopping, and denigrating him.

Are you so desperate to make a point that you will grasp at any and every foolish supposition? It appears that you are.

Then you continue with the foolishness by trying to discredit what I had posted about the 1997 Univ. of Minn. study that found no difference in the prevalence of lead poisoned eagles 6 years after the 1991 Federal ban. First you try to explain this away by citing the increased population from 3400 breeding pairs in 1991 to 5300 in 1997, and postulating; "that would mean a significant REDUCTION in the PERCENTAGE of eagles dying from lead poisoning."

Here, Mr. Professional Writer, is a definition of "Prevalence" from Merriam Webster: "the degree to which something is prevalent; especially : the percentage of a population that is affected with a particular disease at a given time."

Here's another from Wikipedia: "Prevalence in epidemiology is the proportion of a population found to have a condition (typically a disease or a risk factor such as smoking or seat-belt use)".

Did you understand that Larry? Percentage. Proportion. Not total numbers in an increasing population. If you think the Univ. of Minn. was so careless as to overlook that very important factor, then you are doing more to discredit their work than I ever could. I never even considered that they would be that stupid. Agenda driven and single minded, yes... stupid enough to not factor in a burgeoning population, no.

Then you go on switching gears and grasping at straws by now agreeing with my earlier assertion that the pre-ban lead shot was still available for ducks and geese to eat. First, you ridiculed that idea by repeatedly telling us that lead shot sinks deep into the silt and soil, and that more silt is deposited to bury it and make it unavailable. Now you say that isn't the case, and that ducks and geese are still being exposed to it. Yet somehow apparently, that exposure is bypassing those ducks and geese, since we aren't hearing about vast numbers of them dying anymore, but it is still killing significant numbers of bald eagles. Whew! It's getting hard to follow all your flip-flopping.

That's what happens when the best you can do is grasp at straws and demonize an opponent who is expected to know you are rounding off numbers from unknown sources. You are reduced to saying anything and everything trying to defend your simplistic position. And the Big-Time Professional Outdoors Writer looks like a fool.

Furthermore, I never once said that computer hackers debunked climate change in the Climate-gate scandal. I also never said that the CIA had anything to do with sneaky activities in the U.S. Gov't. You only see what you want to see. Once again, you are talking instead of reading. I said that the hackers accidentally uncovered a conspiracy to manipulate climate data between East Anglia University and Pennsylvania State University. I used that as just one example of the junk science and fudging that is routinely done to achieve a desired result.

I have found plenty of science to back up my claims. You could find it too if you ever took your head out of the sand and looked instead of repeating bullshit and making silly excuses for the proponents of lead ammo bans. You admonished craigd about doing searches for data that agreed with him, so I intentionally used sources that (incorrectly) agree with you. I told you that, but you'd rather go off half-cocked and write, than read with comprehension.

The third of your numbered "final points" is all over the map Larry. Should we insist on good science and fight back, or should we roll over and accept the bad science that was used to promote the 1991 Federal ban? You say I did nothing to refute the Univ. of Minn. studies I cited. That is correct. All I did was point out glaring inconsistencies and errors that you refuse to consider. You have to be smoking powerful drugs to see any correlation between the numbers of lead poisoned eagles and hunter shot deer in the studies I cited. Pennsylvania and Virginia eagles must be much smarter or luckier than Minnesota or Wisconsin eagles! And It was Univ. of Minn. that said the 1997 study showed that the 1991 ban did nothing to reduce the prevalence of lead poisoning in eagles. They essentially told us that their earlier assumptions and science was mistaken. It was they who used lead isotope analysis as a tool to assume that samples of lead were absolutely from hunters bullets... something which is virtually impossible... unless it can be proven that a certain mine or smelter sold all of their lead to Hornady or Sierra, and no other sources of lead or end users were involved. It was both sources who didn't even consider the many other sources of lead that are much more bio-available.

I keep using that word-- "bio-available"-- for a reason Larry. It is to refute your repeated and silly notion... "Lead is toxic, Toxic = bad."

Lead is toxic. No disputing that. So is table salt. But some forms of lead are way more likely to cause poisoning than others, and you are stuck on shot and bullet fragments... two of the least likely sources to be absorbed into avian or animal tissue. You drink and eat from glass dishes without harm. But if you ingest or inhale glass particles, dust, or fibers from fiberglass, it can kill you. Same thing with lead. Lead water pipes were used for decades without killing people. It can still be found in some older homes. Yes, it caused elevated blood lead levels and probably caused people to have lower I.Q. scores. But that is a far cry from killing them, even with long-term daily exposure.

Leaded gasoline and lead based paint is mostly gone. But the lead from those products that was deposited in our soils and lakes is still there. That lead, as with lead from pesticides, paints, other lead containing chemicals, mining, and smelting is much more easily absorbed by worms, insects, birds, and animals because it ranges from dust down to molecular in size. Lead dust or vapors will make you sick much easier than playing with a toy soldier or handling lead bullets while reloading. The mere presence of lead shot or bullet fragments in a crop or digestive system does not indicate that is anything more than a very minor contributing factor in lead poisoning. Lead shot that is regurgitated or passes through a digestive tract doesn't pose nearly the same risk posed by long term eating, drinking or breathing of lead particles on a molecular scale.

You keep making excuses for getting rid of all lead just because some forms of lead are very easily absorbed and actually do pose a serious risk. Just what is your definition of an "expert" on this subject Larry? It sure isn't you. It also isn't any researchers who find elevated levels of lead in a bird, and automatically assume that the source must be bullets or shot without even considering much more bio-available sources. The only double-blind peer-reviewed study I can locate on the subject of lead ammunition and lead poisoning in birds was purportedly done by SOAR, who you yourself admitted was agenda driven. They did not cite who the unbiased parties were that supposedly reviewed or replicated their work. What I read was every bit as contradictory and error filled as the Univ. of Minn. garbage.

You cited a source from 2010 that found a dead eagle with a blood lead level of 5.6 ppm. I have another source saved that tells of eagles that "apparently" died of lead poisoning with lead levels of between 26 and 38 ppm. So the so-called "experts" you rely on and believe 100% cannot even agree on what constitutes a lethal dose of lead. The medical standard would typically be micrograms per deciliter instead of ppm anyway. I found one anti-lead source that claimed eagles would migrate from Canada to Wyoming to consume lead tainted deer. You told us they don't migrate. The source claimed rapid declines in blood lead levels as soon as the supply of tainted deer meat ran out and they returned to Canada. A former co-worker who got lead poisoning from dust and fumes in a battery manufacturing plant took a very long time to reduce his blood lead levels even with chelation therapy. The giant holes you think you poked in my arguments are silly little pin pricks.

EDIT: Just read the post from the Anti-2nd Amendment Troll King Brown below this. Here ya go King...

Stick your unwavering support for anti-lead and anti-gunners where the sun don't shine!

keith could be contributing to the support and enjoyment of our shooting community and board if he hadn't set himself up as the sole arbiter of members' loyalty by categorizing on grounds whether they agreed with his opinions. Dividing members into "us" and others plays straight into the antis' hand.

With as many pages as this thread has generated, I’m imagining about half a dozen individuals are even still paying attention……

But having read it all, I feel the need to say a couple of things as a retired wildlife biologist of 35 years. (FWIW to the reader, I spent almost half of that time in large ungulate management, and the remainder in wetland assessment and mitigation work.)

And I’ll try to keep it brief by simply saying that those that still doubt there is agenda-driven ‘science’ being promulgated at the state and federal levels are naïve at best. A fair amount of that ‘shaky science’ has been aired here re: the lead/upland bird issue. And if you need further proof, you can delve into the USFWS’ wolf introduction program for the Rocky Mountain region as implemented over the past two decades. You’ll find our own Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife & Parks cheer-led that questionable effort, to where they tried to tell us that our rapidly declining elk calf numbers were now a likely result of hypothermia rather than wolf depredations.

You’d also learn that the USFWS actually collaborated with an environmental group in allowing them to review and approve wolf-related press releases prior to public dissemination, this according to a widely respected publication titled ‘The Real Wolf’ by Lyon & Graves (no connection here, in any way). But that is just the tip of the iceberg, and we’ll leave it there so as not to hi-jack the actual topic of this thread.

Face it, folks, we frequently see half-truths to out-right lies being fed to the public most every day not only from the White House level, but from both parties of Congress, and right on down the food-chain. So ‘Why’ do some of you doubt it’s any different from what you might receive at times from managers of your public trust? I’m not contending that all the science profferred today is ‘junk’…..as it clearly is not. I’m just telling you from a lifetime of personal experience in this field that you need to apply a very critical eye especially now that most everything is being politicized. In my opinion, the science is increasingly being driven by the ‘narrative’ rather than by the sound management principles first put forth by such founders as Aldo Leopold, Durward Allen, Valerius Geist, et al.

With that off my chest, I’m outta here. I won’t be responding to any replies that would further turn this into a pissing contest. It’s just something I had to say, and I appreciate Dave W. allowing this particular thread/dialog to take place, as I think it has to have been informative for at least a number of individuals.

With my 'Thanks'

Rob Harris

Well, sorry I came back and looked again . . . but now Keith has me "making excuses for getting rid of all lead". Pure BS . . . coming from those lead-eating cows of yours, Keith. I guess. The articles I wrote for Pointing Dog Journal were clearly in DEFENSE of lead shot. PM me, I'll send you my address, and if you send me yours AND a stamped, self-addressed envelope (no point wasting money on you, in addition to time) I'll send you copies of the articles. Then you can apologize for suggesting that I'm "making excuses for getting rid of all lead". The problem we're facing, Keith, is this: THE ANTI-LEAD PEOPLE ARE GOING TO COME AT US THAT WE SHOULD GET RID OF ALL LEAD, SHOT AND BULLETS BOTH, SIMPLY BECAUSE LEAD IS TOXIC. That'd be the folks on the OTHER side. Not me. And by the way, you'll find that I didn't address the issue of lead bullets in the article. Pointing Dog Journal is a magazine for bird hunters, not deer hunters. I'd leave it up to someone writing for deer hunters (and in fact all those who hunt with lead bullets) to do the research and produce articles like mine for that segment of the hunting/shooting community.

Now to the really important part: Rob's post re junk science. Note that Rob, who worked in the field for 35 years, has no problem saying that there's junk science out there. He's blowing the whistle. So . . . if it was some great conspiracy within the wildlife management community that resulted in the lead ban on waterfowl, if it was all "bad science" as some here would suggest . . . then why can't anyone produce any denunciation of that bad science? Where are the whistleblowers on the lead ban? If lead poisoning wasn't killing those ducks and geese, then why haven't we heard that it was so much junk science--from someone who worked in the field back then? Like Rob, many of those people are now retirees. What do they have to lose by blowing the whistle on junk science? Some black helicopter or drone going to come along and blow them away? Are they likely to meet with an unfortunate "accident"? Where "climate change" is concerned, we can find scientists who say it's junk science. So why not wildlife biologists who are ready to tell us that the whole "ingested lead shot is killing waterfowl" stuff was junk science? I'm ready to read evidence of that nature, if anyone can find any. Rather than the usual "conspiracy theory" BS from guys who think that anyone suggesting lead shot or bullets could possibly be any problem at all are anti-lead, anti-gun . . . and probably don't like Mom and apple pie either.

They are the same bunch of idiots that can't see the forest for the trees....

We have wildlife biologists who say much of the anti lead dogma is junk science Larry. If you'd take your head out of the sand, you could see that's what Rob said, and that was why he took the time to post. He sure wasn't here to refute me or to agree with you. I didn't have to produce an expert. We had one answer you of his own accord, and you are still in denial.

I wouldn't waste a stamped self-addressed envelope to get copies of your articles Larry. You showed us your position on lead shot and lead ammunition right here in this thread:



So who is guilty of pure B.S. Larry?

Actually, it's hard to know where you really stand. You are like the broken clock that is right twice a day. Here's an excerpt from your post#175254 from 1/20/10 when you were attacking that anti-lead shot goofball Ben Deeble:



So there you were Larry, attacking Ben for use of junk science to promote bans on lead ammo. Yet you now attack me for reminding you that most of the anti-lead ammo science is agenda driven garbage that doesn't come close to meeting the accepted standard of being double-blind peer-reviewed, and is filled with glaring inconsistencies.

And there you were Larry, denying any connection between the ingestion of lead shot, and lead poisoning in upland birds (other than doves). What would make doves more susceptible?

That old thread was quite interesting to re-read. Other than seeing you actually defending some of the very same positions you are attacking now, there were many other interesting posts. We had AmarilloMike telling us that he has about 30 pieces of # 6 shot imbedded in his leg from a hunting accident, and no ill effects. We had Doug (PA24) tell us how many thousands of gallons of leaded gas that he personally burned in large prop driven aircraft, and calculations of how many tons of tetra ethyl lead he alone deposited in the environment. Remember, this is just one pilot. And this is just from airplanes.



We had Joe Wood tell us this:



And here in 2015, we have you Larry, telling us that Rob, a retired professional wildlife biologist is blowing the whistle... and in the next breath asking us where the whistle-blowers are? With so much bad science against lead shot, why do you insist on a whistle-blower pertaining to the 1991 ban? Isn't the admission by Univ. of Minn. that their 1997 study showed no reduction in the prevalence of lead poisoning in eagles enough? Didn't you tell us eagles were getting poisoned from consuming lead contaminated ducks? You want me to waste a postage stamp on goofy writing like this? No Thanks.



I KNOW THE ANTI LEAD PEOPLE ARE COMING AFTER US LARRY. I'm fighting that while you are telling us to accept it, and roll over and let it happen, and to not even think about reversing past lead bans that were based upon junk-science.

If you wish to regain any credibility at all in this matter Larry, you are going to have to stop contradicting yourself and making a total fool of yourself. And you are going to have to take your head out of your posterior.

I saw a great quote yesterday on Leverguns.com ... it said, "It is much easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they have been fooled."

EDIT: Here's another big fat lie from anti-gun Troll King Brown posted below:



Perhaps King can show us where either Larry or Brent said that they have become anti-gunners because of me. They are not anti-gun, and they became anti-lead on their own. Misfires closure was largely because of King's trolling and posting dishonest assertions about the 2nd Amendment, the NRA, and gun rights. King absolutely does not want Misfires to come back because he doesn't want anyone to see the things he posted there, like this one where this atheist accuses us of abandoning Jesus' teachings for defending gun rights and concealed carry.



King doesn't like me for showing his anti-2nd Amendment rhetoric, and his pathological dishonesty. King advises Larry to ignore me, but King can't help himself from trying to discredit me every chance he gets. Monomania, if you ask me. Sick.

Truth be known Larry's been hanging with Col. Bernie Sanders while he's politickin through Iowa....

Leave it, Larry. His pleasure is the sound of his voice. Reasoning with his twisting is a waste of time. He quickly pushed two valued members---you and Brent---to his anti-gun list because your opinions differed from his. Misfires closure was partly because of his errant behaviour. He wants it back. Now he's at it here.

Maybe, it would help to take a look at your previous comment, [blank] could be contributing to the support and enjoyment of our shooting community and board if..... Substitute blank for Larry, or maybe Brent. Does your comment still stand? It seems to, eh?

Rob passed along personal experience, just as Larry did with his Audubon comments. Instead of Larry countering something, he didn't like, with some shooting fraternity facts and figures, what does he do? Whistle blower conspiracies, junk science demonizing, black helicopter and drone covert operations, he even drug mom and apple pie into the picture. Who again likes to read his writings?

Remember, you were the one that said it didn't matter? If a customer were paying for a publication and didn't agree with a point being made, does this give him or her a bit of an idea of how much effort was being put into unity and the value of a differing thought?

Take a look back at Rob's thought. I don't think he ever mentioned massive conspiracies and tin foil hats. I believe he explained who he worked for, what the job description was and that the job was/is executed. Do you read anything more into it?

I should know better than to step into an exchange like this, but Rob said he's not coming back into it and I can't let pass this characterization of his post.

"We have wildlife biologists who say much of the anti lead dogma is junk science Larry. If you'd take your head out of the sand, you could see that's what Rob said, and that was why he took the time to post."

Rob told us from an insider's viewpoint that "agenda-driven ‘science’" happens, but he conspicuously made only a general statement about studies of lead, and his reference to "shaky science" applies to criticisms of those kinds of studies made by both sides of this debate. He took no one's side here, but simply said we need to look at purported evidence with a critical eye.

This exchange has become so driven by personal attacks that it's lost anything like reasonable perspective. I think the most telling comment Rob made was this:

"With as many pages as this thread has generated, I’m imagining about half a dozen individuals are even still paying attention……"

It's turned into a churning mess. Guys, just please stop.

(I apologize for some initial sloppiness in this post that I've tried to clean up with edits.)

Jay

Actually, that is the sum total of what rob said about lead. Lead and upland birds. And I'm with him 100%: there isn't good science to make the case that lead poses a threat to upland birds. I've only said that here about umpteen times; posted a quote from the MN DNR's Nontoxic Shot Advisory Committee admitting the same thing; posted research from lead shot at Tall Timbers quail research station in FL saying the same thing. Indeed, when it comes to lead shot and its impact on upland birds (with PERHAPS the exception of doves in areas of extremely heavy shot fall), ALL the science is shaky.

Then Rob went on to talk about wolves. He never addressed the issue of the lead shot ban for waterfowl. Not once. If he had the goods on that--if he knew it was a scam and could have presented evidence--that would have been exactly what I'm looking for. But we still have guys here saying it was all one big scam . . . although they can't seem to find anyone--NOT ONE SINGLE WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST, CURRENT OR RETIRED--who agrees with them. And if it had been a scam, just like Rob made some comments about the wolf introduction, surely someone out there would have commented on "the great lead ban conspiracy". Still waiting. I have a feeling there will be icicles in hell before I see anything other than conspiracy THEORY (not backed by anyone with a background in science, much less in wildlife biology) rather than conspiracy PROOF.

That's not what Rob said Jay. It appears you are attempting to mischacterise the nature of his post

Since it was Brent and Larry who were repeatedly in denial about the plethora of junk science in support of lead bans, it seems remarkable that you refuse to recognize where this statement from Rob was obviously being directed...

"And I’ll try to keep it brief by simply saying that those that still doubt there is agenda-driven ‘science’ being promulgated at the state and federal levels are naïve at best."

Then I would refer you to Rob's previous words on this subject from that 2010 thread where he was repeatedly countering the massive document dumps of anti-lead science links that were being posted by Ben (GrouseGuy) Deeble. I won't put words in his mouth, but it is pretty apparent where he seems to stand if you take the time to look at what he has said now and in the past.

Of course, Rob was hardly alone in countering Ben. Sentiment against him was almost 100% except for a very few guys who were on the fence. King Brown was one who said the jury was still out, but even he made one of his typical bloviating statements on Junk Science:



So who really exposed the real cause of Reye's Syndrome, Health Canada or the Great Bloviator and Resume Inflator? By the way, the Mayo Clinic website says,"Exposure to certain toxins — such as insecticides, herbicides and paint thinner — also may contribute to Reye's syndrome."

If King Brown was capable of being honest or objective, he would accuse you of twisting Rob's intent. PM sent Jay.

Larry still seems to think that ducks and geese that ingest lead are much more susceptible to lead poisoning than pheasants or grouse. And apparently, he still is clinging to his flip-flopping explanation of the Univ. Of Minn.'s admission that the prevalence of lead poisoning in eagles did not decrease at all 6 years after the Federal ban. If any researcher or whistle-blower ever does admit that lead shot was not a major source of lead poisoning in waterfowl, Larry will never accept it. I made points where Larry was wrong in probably a dozen places within this thread. He never acknowledged even one. What a stand-up guy!

Can I pick fault with you here? Perhaps we would have a bit more fairness and balance if you quoted in its entirety?

I feel the key to Rob's comment was the part about, 'having read it all'. It's possible that you have overlooked 'proof' in your certainty that there's a conspiracy to poke fun at.

Keith, state of mind assumptions and attributing motives is what I think makes too much of this thread distasteful and counter-productive to understanding. You assert that "it appears (I'm) attempting to mischacterise the nature of his post". Here's what you quoted from Rob in support:

"And I’ll try to keep it brief by simply saying that those that still doubt there is agenda-driven ‘science’ being promulgated at the state and federal levels are naïve at best." Rob immediately followed the part you quote with this: "A fair amount of that ‘shaky science’ has been aired here re: the lead/upland bird issue."

He said not another word about lead. None of this (or what followed) is inconsistent with how I summarized my understanding of his post:

"Rob told us from an insider's viewpoint that "agenda-driven ‘science’" happens, but he conspicuously made only a general statement about studies of lead, and his reference to "shaky science" applies to criticisms of those kinds of studies made by both sides of this debate. He took no one's side here, but simply said we need to look at purported evidence with a critical eye."

You may understand his opinion to be something more than what he wrote yesterday. Maybe it is, but that's no basis for saying I attempted to mis-characterize what he wrote yesterday.

I'm gonna follow his lead and say I also am "outta here. I won’t be responding to any replies that would further turn this into a pissing contest."

Jay

Jay, you are correct. I apologize for saying that it appeared that you were attempting to mischaracterise what Rob't Harris had said. That was a poor choice of words. I should have said that you were mistaken and explained to you why I felt that way, based upon the sum total of what he actually said, his considerable efforts to fight the lead shot ban in Montana (including the faulty science behind it), and what he had written here numerous times in the past in other Lead Ammunition threads. You could certainly be excused for not knowing about those important details if you were not aware of them. I do feel this statement tends to also back up my interpretation of his intent. It wasn't me that was contending that Game Management agencies would never do anything agenda driven simply because they were getting paid by us.



I wish he would weigh back in to clarify one way or the other, since that apparently isn't enough, but that would be up to him. I'm very confident that my interpretation of what he said was correct, and would publicly eat crow if I was somehow mistaken... which is more than could be said for some of the participants in this thread.

Ok, Keith, accepted. I didn't want to come back here, but this was good reason.

I responded to what Rob posted, apart from opinions he may have expressed elsewhere. I took his major point to be that agenda driven proposals are often built on weak or less than honestly presented science. On other discussion boards devoted to shotguns, I've seen Larry make the same point re lead shot ban proposals in IA, MN, and WI. I didn't and still don't see that Rob was taking sides in this thread.

Other than Rob's post as written, it's been too many pages since any helpful new information has been introduced in this thread.

Jay

For the sake of clarity here, I’m going to make a liar of myself by responding…

I should first remind folks that I earlier stated my areas of actual experience as a biologist, and that I have no professional expertise with plumbism in wildlife populations. That is ……other than that which unexpectedly came to me by way of Ben Deeble's attempt to have lead shot lethality studies conducted on our state’s upland bird populations.

In fairness to Ben, he stated that he was not seeking to have lead shot banned outright, but rather to simply ask our Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks personnel to begin studies to determine if lead shot on the landscape posed any potential for additive mortality. To me, his action was in essence seeking a solution for a non-existent problem - but that was, and is, just my opinion. What I really took exception to was the under-handed way he went about it, while a biologist for the NWF. And I’ve no intention of rehashing all of that here rather leaving it to others to provide links -if they care- to the various threads/posts that appeared on this bbs. Suffice it to say, it took the activating of some twenty sportsmens’ groups around the state, engaging in letter-writing and phone-in campaigns, before Ben was directed by the Montana Wildlife Federation to table his proposal that he hoped would be acted upon by state wildlife managers. And my gut feeling is that Ben is still not done with our Montana uplands in this regard……


With that said, let me say the following as a layman…..and not as a biologist:

I’ve always been skeptical that within a matter of a decade, we’re told that the switch to non-toxic shot has dramatically turned waterfowl plumbism almost into a moot point. We no longer are being exposed to photos of crook-necked ducks and geese, and yet we know that some heavily gunned environments such as those over hardpan playas, sandy shorelines, and streambeds must still be offering up decades of lead shot deposition. We know that all of it has not sunk and become inaccessible to waterfowl, yet the problem has apparently gone away otherwise it would still be getting rubbed in our collective faces as hunters for the blame & shame it might cause.

And I’m always a bit surprised that there is little to no discussion by wildlife managers of the other potential sources of lead bio-availability; or that lead’s solubility or lack of, in aquatic environments is largely determined by the water’s pH. As I understand it, again as a layman, it is the extremes of high acidity or alkalinity that make lead particles more soluble and thus available to organisms. A good example of this is Flint, Michigan’s current predicament where for decades lake water has been delivered through a cast-iron and lead system to customers with no apparent ill effects; and then a cost-saving switch to the highly acidic (low pH) Flint river now has lead leeching out of the system and contaminating the whole lot to where it is now unfit for consumption.

And unlike grain-eating birds with their crops and gizzards, I’d like to know ‘why’ I never hear of any discussion by someone more versed in avian anatomy than me discussing the workings of the bifurcated esophagus found in raptors and owls. An adaptation that shunts the largely indigestible items such as fur/hide/bone fragments/large bullet fragments, perhaps?? into a portion of the tract where they are then regurgitated out as ‘pellets’ or ‘castings’. Biologists/researchers actually collect and analyze these to determine diet composition. But that’s not my area of expertise either, and I’d invite any edification, in layman’s terms, as to whether a bifurcated esophagus actually mitigates any lead ingestion at all. Ben is an upland bird biologist with the NWF and might be in a position to explain this to us or provide a reference that does. Or do the ingested lead pellets/fragments consistently make it to the bird’s first stomach, or proventriculus, where caustic acids begin making that lead soluble and thus toxic.

I know I could spend days on the computer researching this if I really had a mind to, but I’d rather be honing my retirement skills……which this entire post is keeping me from doing tonight…….

There’s so much to this topic that I don’t pretend to know…..but I do know this:

When graduating from Utah State Univ. in 1971, we learned via a poll that almost ninety percent of all our students in either wildlife or fisheries studies were involved in consumptive resource uses, i.e. they hunted or fished and then ate what they gathered. Contrast this to a figure I heard of a few years back (but cannot confirm) claiming that today’s graduating numbers from many of our top resource colleges hover closer to the fifty percentile mark for those that even care to hunt or fish. The demographic is clearly changing and you may not find it as empathetic to what many of you legally do afield … regardless of your license revenues paying for a big chunk of their departmental budgets.

As for the lack of ‘whistleblowers’, Larry, what can I tell you other than my own experiences? While I worked only for state and federal agencies over my whole career, I worked as an independent contracting biologist other than some early years with the Forest Service. But from personal experiences among a few friends, colleagues, and acquaintances that did seek a career within the agencies, I can tell you that not 'rocking the retirement boat' did play into some of their silence. And that once retired with twenty or more years of service in, a few of them did give voice to what they felt were bad upper management decisions not made in good conscience over their careers. Truth is, I would have respected them more had they done so during, so as to hopefully affect policy for the better, but you know that’s not the way it generally works, does it? And unfortunately, none of this was pertinent to lead toxicity ……so I can't help you much there.

And LASTLY, for one to say that lead=toxic=bad to the uninformed public is far too simplistic to even warrant serious consideration, and I feel it is up to resource professionals (and writers) to start changing that narrative whenever it is encountered since lead can and does remain inert in many instances within our environment.

I’ve said too much already in too long a post, and will hope we can all put this to bed for some time and come at it again on another day and with a better frame of mind……

Respectfully,

Rob Harris

Rampant throughout all government agencies. Been there, done that, saw enough of it to be disgusted.

Robt: That was an extremely well thought out, persuasive and well written post. Now, if only Keith would study your post, maybe he could see how to make a non-inflammatory while at the same time, very effective statement. Well done, sir.

Translation of the above: First quote demonstrates clearly that Keith does not understand the difference between waterfowl and upland birds, and how they're hunted. Highly concentrated shot fall around places where waterfowl are hunted in addition to the way waterfowl feed makes it much more likely that waterfowl will ingest lead vs upland birds. Shot fall very scattered in upland habitats compared to waterfowl . . . and even where it's quite concentrated, very few birds end up ingesting lead. Evidence presented by me, from Tall Timbers quail research.

Second quote is a lame excuse for not being able to come up with even ONE contrarian scientist where the lead ban for waterfowl is concerned. There are scientists who believe climate change caused by human activity is junk science, and who say so. Anyone who prides himself on "research", like Keith does, should be able to come up with just ONE wildlife biologist who worked in the field back then and who's going to tell us that the lead ban was all a scam. Otherwise . . . we're looking at a vast conspiracy involving thousands. Many of whom are now retired and have nothing to lose. And vast conspiracies involving thousands are seldom vast conspiracies. It's like any other secret. The more people who know, the greater the chance someone will tell. The truth is out there . . . but since we haven't heard otherwise, maybe we already KNOW the truth.

Agree with Buzz. Rob, excellent post.

Re lead = toxic so we should get rid of all of it: Agree 100%, that's WAY oversimplified. But then most Americans are "low information" types on issues like lead poisoning. And when they hear about something like Flint, that does not help the cause of those of us who are supporting lead ammunition by saying "Show us the good science."

Re the continuing danger to waterfowl posed by lead: A few years back, someone sent me a link to a long presentation made to Wisconsin's Natural Resources Board on the dangers of lead. Most of it had to do with either waterfowl and lead shot they were still ingesting, or even more graphically, loons ingesting lead sinkers or jigs. (And loons, in the North Woods, have a status similar to eagles. Even if their population weren't in decline, people would worry about each and every dead loon.) They didn't say much about lead in the uplands, and if they mentioned lead in eagles, I don't recall it--but it's been some time now. But it was not long after that presentation that the NRB made its proposal to go to nontoxic shot only on DNR-managed lands, for all kinds of hunting. Fortunately, Wisconsin has a unique mechanism that allows public voices to be heard. The DNR conducts annual spring meetings in every county in the state. There are discussions about proposed changes in DNR regs as well as NRB recommendations. The one about lead shot grabbed my attention, so I attended--and I spoke up about a lack of good science where lead shot in upland birds is concerned. So did 3 or 4 other people at the meeting. More of us spoke up on that issue than any of the dozens of other issues presented at the meeting. And attendees also get to vote. The statewide vote on NRB's lead shot ban on DNR lands was 1,979 in favor vs 2,726 opposed. We shot it down, which goes to show the value of strong hunter involvement.

But to return to whether lead shot in waterfowl is a problem today: While I'm sure some are still dying, my educated guess is that there are so few relative to what we were shown 25-30 years ago that it doesn't get much attention. In addition to hunters--who mostly only congregate around marshes during hunting season--birders also flock to those places. If they saw a sick or dead goose, I expect they'd make noise about it. And if they took the bird to a rehabilitator who then found lead shot in its system, I have no doubt that would be thrown in our faces--just as eagles are being thrown in our faces as evidence of the danger posed by lead. Likewise, if it were still happening at all frequently, wouldn't the biologists themselves be talking about it? As in: "See, the lead shot ban has REDUCED the danger to waterfowl significantly . . . but lead shot from 25 years ago or more is still around, and is still killing the occasional duck or goose. Which is why we need to get rid of all lead ammunition as soon as possible." Assuming that's their agenda. And that's pretty much the stated position of the MN DNR's Nontoxic Shot Advisory Committee. They stated in their report (10 years ago): "It is inevitable that lead shot will have to be restricted for all shotgun hunting at some future time."

Re the increasing numbers of "nonconsumptive users" coming into the wildlife management community: definitely true. Although DNR's still get a large proportion of their funding from us evil consumptive types: Hunters and anglers.

Re whistleblowers: Even in my former area (intelligence community, CIA and Military Intelligence) there have been whistleblowers--sometimes risking prison because it can be a question of revealing classified information. (Those who remember Vietnam will recall Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. More recently, Edward Snowden. Regarded as a hero by some because he spoke up for American privacy rights. Regarded as scum by people like me, because he didn't stop there. He also revealed FOREIGN intelligence operations, which have nothing to do with privacy rights or the Constitution.) But I'm skeptical that there's a conspiracy of silence in the wildlife community, given that many of the biologists working then are now retired, and given that there are so many people who would've had to be aware of what was going on. Rob gave examples of people who spoke up post-retirement. Why none in this particular area?

Maybe because it's not really a scam???

Final point: The danger to our continued use of lead is not what it was 25 years ago. We're no longer dealing with migratory birds, which fall under federal regulations. And Congress has taken away the EPA's authority to regulate lead in ammunition. So the threat is STATE BY STATE. If you're a state like CA with not many hunters, and unfortunately cursed by the presence of condors, you're in big trouble. Other places--with more hunters--the situation is very different. Politicians listen when we make enough noise. Demand "good science" at least equivalent to what we were shown on waterfowl. And make noise when you don't get it.

I carefully read through your last two posts. Impressively lengthy, but absolutely no new comments from all these previous pages. There are vague mentions of studies, but still nothing to evaluate critically.

Your passion is in the uplands and you claim to demand good science, yet you say, tough luck for the folks out in California because there's not enough of them? Then, you claimed the success of keeping lead shot in the Wisconsin uplands hinged on comments by you and three or four others in a vote involving some forty-seven hundred people.

You say to demand good science, but your very lengthy comments run about eighty percent on the dangers of lead, and lunacy of folks you don't agree with....re waterfowl. Is lead and waterfowl 'settled' science, or a tool to inject repetition about the dangers of lead.

You keep playing games with that lack of retired whistle blowers, but you conveniently leave out Rob's anecdotal evidence, personal experience, about the FWS and state DNR's consulting with anti hunting 'conservation' groups.

That, ad nauseam, should be looked at with a critical eye by someone demanding good science and admonishing fellow hunters, while continuing to vaguely reference that 'science'.

You keep on with the conspiracy theories and political overtones, when it's been explained about the job security and demographic changes in the work force. Thousands can attend a campaign stop, or a million man march, and they all leave nodding in agreement.

A conspiracy, or more than enough 'votes' to changes the future of sport shooting, based on the village they grew up in and the emotions that they're told to channel.

Didn't intend to mention any studies, Craig . . . although I did make a reference to the Tall Timbers study, to which I referred earlier. And gave a direct quote from the MN DNR's Nontoxic Shot Advisory Committee report.

Re CA and the condors, Craig: The confluence of two factors makes that a losing battle: 1. Not enough hunters to make sufficient noise. (Their "squeaky wheel" is about like that on a coaster wagon.) And 2. They have condors. Lost cause.

The success of defeating the NRB proposal in Wisconsin was based on the vote of those who attended spring meetings in each of the state's 70-odd counties. The fact that several of us, at a meeting in one small rural county, spoke on that one specific topic, out of somewhere around 100 topics up for discussion that evening--most of which generated no comments from the audience--would seem to indicate that a lot of hunters are interested in the lead shot issue. (I didn't know any of the other speakers.) And it shows that a relatively small number of people can have an influence when they take the time to actively engage, requiring a bit more effort than posting on a BB.

Can't find hardly anything in my last 2 posts re the dangers of lead. You reading the same posts I am, Craig? If lead isn't a danger to waterfowl, same challenge to you as to Keith: Find me the contrarian scientist--even just ONE--who says it's all a scam. And retired folks have no concern with job security, and we're talking about something that happened 25 years ago. ROB JUST SPOKE UP reference issues with which he's had personal experience. Why can't you find anyone who worked with waterfowl back then who will do the same thing? Why are all the whistleblowers silent in that one particular case . . . especially since there are, potentially, so many of them. Likely a majority of whom are retired, given that it's been 25 years since the ban.

You and Keith keep making excuses for being unable to find proof that lead shot killing waterfowl is bad science. Give me even ONE study for "critical evaluation". Seems there ought to be something, written by some contrarian wildlife biologist, somewhere along the line. Establishing that it's bad science requires proof. So far, all I've heard from you and Keith are the typical snippets on which conspiracy theories are based. A bit from here, a piece from there, and when you connect all the dots . . . right. And how many different theories are out there on the JFK assassination? Largely compiled in the same manner. But in that case, at least you can make money selling yet another conspiracy theory book.

You continue to miss my point Larry, but that's perfectly okay with me. You are more passionate about how bad lead is for waterfowl, than for pro ethical hunting. Okay, maybe you're not passionate about it, but repeat in hopes that it sticks.

I never said there is a conspiracy to conceal lead safety and waterfowl health, you said it. What you specifically say, underline specific is, if a dead duck is found and lead is found in its gizzard then that's conclusive that the duck died from lead shot sourced lead poisoning.

I painfully wanted to avoid your Tall Timbers study, but would you like to take a look at it, possibly a little more critically than you prefer? Your conclusion, 241 quail cut open, 3 had lead in their gizzards, none appeared to have lead poisoning. Correct?

Huh, no xrays, no blood tests, soils tests, water and food source tests?

Let's switch to your tactic, extrapolation. What percentage of quail die off annually anyway, that would've died from lead poisoning if they had a longer life span. More importantly, with the anticipated low carry over rate, how many dead, dying, or healthy appearing lead tainted quail were being eaten by raptors.

Remember, I'm not too worried about lost waterfowl opportunities at this point, but you say I am. So, I asked how come a dead bird is only tested for the presence of a substance, not the cause of death. Are the samples preserved, so that they can be retested if desired? Yes or no?

You asked about Raptor rehabilitators, so I looked. You asked about all the lead problems down in Georgia, so I looked. I asked you why your 'sources', soarraptors.org, had vague articles about lead, but then switched to tugging at heartstrings with the single death of a rescue bird. You came back later and said well, they're suspect. The you tell me to go look up what the fed wildlife service says and are they in on a conspiracy, and they reference a study and use pictures from soar....without disclosure.

You tell me eagles are dying from from lead poising of unretrieved lead bullet hunted deer. So I look for the study, and it's about only 25 gut piles evaluated on an Illinois management area. But, the FWS study says that concludes that eagles are dying from lead rifle bullet fragments in Wisconsin and Iowa. You also chose to ignore that in the entire FWS study, only one eagle appeared to show signs of lead poisoning.

But, you were aware of this already. Look back at your Tall Timbers 'study' where none of the quail 'appeared' to have lead poisoning. Then recall my stated motivation for commenting, your admission that eagles can be a poster bird for insignificant, scientifically, reasons, but your demonizing of members of the bird hunting community. Keep in mind you said tough luck for the deer hunters, they can take care of themselves. Tough luck for California, they just don't have the numbers.

But....all we can do is insist on good science.

Nicely done, Mike. Few people understand the reasons for survival of this Pleistocene relic to the current day. The Spanish/Mexican range cattle filled a lot of condor bellies during the 18th and 19th centuries.

The lead ban has passed the legislature and is being phased in. I live in one of the most desirable communities in California, I am a native Californian, but by the total phase in date, I will be living on Southern Arizona…

Many of these 'wild' condors are feed pieces and parts of domestic cattle. IIRC, this food has never been tested for lead. It might be inconvenient to find that this is a source of lead.

Not a biologist, not an expert, just a reader. I have read most of these 11 pages and the fact is the California Condor was in trouble 60 years ago.

Bald Eagles are carrion feeders, and how many have died from eating dead salmon filled with mercury from the Great Lakes, probably far more than lead.

Dabbling ducks and some divers are more susceptible to lead poisoning by the nature of which they feed, and if the plants are not anchored firmly in the silt will inject roots and all to include maybe a pellet or two occasionally. How many does it take to kill a duck that ingests them and how long? Lead wounded or steel wounded, most are going to die anyway.

As to an upland bird ingesting pellets, kind of far fetched as they peck for their food and I am certain they can tell the difference between a pellet and seeds and some young sprouts.

Cows tear grass to eat and use their tongue to do so, and therefore cannot get low grass, on the other hand, sheep eat roots and all, how many of them get lead poisoning?

I have spent the last couple hours reading instead of writing a response. Larry has been adamant in asking me to prove a negative, i.e., come up with one scientist who will say that the 1991 Federal lead shot ban was a scam. I have not found that whistle-blower as of yet... but if it will make Larry happy, I will keep looking. So far, as craigd has once again astutely noted, Larry has given us nothing of substance except to repeat his same tired refrain claiming that the 1991 ban was based upon sound, proven science, and is therefore a done deal that should not and shall not be questioned, lest we upset the establishment, and turn them even further against us. All we can do, is huddle in our little groups and demand good science.

I did find this very interesting 2014 article that said the "National Shooting Sports Foundation has obtained emails that it says indicate that a federal official withheld critical data on lead blood levels in the California condor until after gun control advocates in the California state legislature used the iconic bird’s plight to help push through a law last year to ban lead ammunition."

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/nssf-back...ammo-ban-passed

Some of the articles I've been reading are astoundingly ignorant. Like the information from the Univ. of Minn. Raptor Rehabilitation Center, it all sounds good until you take the time to pick out the glaring errors and inconsistencies that are routinely passed off as good science.

One so-called study from Biologicaldiversity.org makes the ludicrous claim that lead pellets often shatter into dust, particles, and residues while copper "leaves no dust and rarely fragments." You don't have to have a degree in metallurgy to instantly know that lead is more malleable and less prone to fragmenting than copper.

An emotional interview with a Condor Biologist from the Peregrine Fund in the Arizona Sun speaks about the dramatic comeback of the endangered California Condor from a low of 20 to more than 400 between California and Arizona in 2015. He only states that a major cause of Condor death is lead poisoning, but he gives no details about the source of that lead, or any results from ornithological pathologists to prove his single contention that the source of the poisoning is lead bullet fragments from gut piles. He claimed that Fish and Game biologists showed that a single bullet can leave up to 450 fragments.

Think about this. The population increased from 20 to 400 even though hunters and shooters were still using lead ammo. It was acknowledged that the first ban on lead ammunition in Condor range in California had zero effect on mortality. A Federal official withheld data on that until the statewide ban was passed. And now they are pressing for a lead ammo ban in Utah because some condors occasionally fly into Utah. The only real argument they have against lead ammunition is essentially the same as Larry's simplistic "Lead is Toxic. Toxic=Bad."

This so-called condor biologist went on to say that "Though they’re the biggest raptor in North America, they can be brought down by only 3 grains of lead." Just what is he saying here? 3 grains is less than one single # 4 lead shot pellet. What form of lead is this supposedly lethal 3 grains... solid, dust, suspended in a chemical, or a single #4 pellet in the head at a velocity of 1000 fps?

While on this subject of lethal doses of lead, I found some unbelievably wild extremes of lethal doses I mentioned earlier, from 5.6ppm cited by Larry to another study claiming that two bald eagles died with levels of between 26 and 38 ppm. My reading this afternoon has expanded those numbers dramatically from 48 ppm to this article from the Bangor Daily News:

http://bangordailynews.com/2014/11/13/outdoors/bald-eagle-found-in-howland-dies-of-lead-poisoning/

In it, there is an x-ray of an eagle's stomach that purports to show 4 fragments of bird shot found in a sick eagle. The 4 alleged pieces of shot are all clustered together... the pattern that hit the animal the eagle was feeding on must have been beyond tight. The alleged lead pellets are quite large in relation to other parts of this eagle's anatomy. And we are never shown actual shotgun pellets recovered in a subsequent autopsy. These objects could just as easily be steel or some other metal. Later in the article, it was stated that the blood lead levels of this eagle which died the day after it was brought into Avian Haven Bird Hospital, was off the scale of their sceening instruments" REALLY? They actually expect you to believe that nonsense after first telling you that this sick bird was found perched in a tree and that "It takes only a tiny, tiny amount to be a lethal dose.”

Think about that. This bird was claimed to have a blood lead level that was off the charts, too high to even read it, and way beyond lethal... yet it was strong enough to fly and perch on a tree limb where it was found. And think about this. People like Larry, Brent, and King are naive enough to swallow this crap and repeat it.

The frequent reference to lead in gut piles in many of these articles and many of Larry's posts has me shaking my head. I have hog-dressed over 50 deer in my life. Most were mine, and I don't pull the trigger unless my sights are on a vital area. I have never once put a bullet in the guts. I have gutted deer for a number of hunters who never did the job before, and only two were paunch shot. One was from a .44 magnum bullet that expanded very little and traversed from the front, through the lung and liver, and ended up in the stomach. The other was shot in the stomach with a .338 Win. Mag., and the bullet did not exit the stomach. Raptors are mostly meat eaters, so I doubt if they eat much, if any of the plant based stomach or intestinal contents of a deer. Yet these journal articles would have you believe that the vast majority of gut-piles are contaminated with lead... without offering a shred of proof. I know it happens. I just said so. But the numbers are undoubtedly much smaller than they attempt to portray.

Another study from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service studied the deaths of two loons. Because one had fishing line and fragments of lead sinkers and the other had only fragments of fishing line in the stomachs, they were "suspected" of dying from lead poisoning. Now there's some science you can hang your hat on.

Another article from 1981 in the New York Times that supported the banning of lead shot was documenting a large winter kill of thousands of geese in central Wisconsin that became concentrated in a small area which still had a little open water in winter.

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/15/sports/outdoors-debate-stirs-over-lead-shot.html

It went on to claim that 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 waterfowl were dying from lead poisoning each year. It told of dredging of lake bottoms by biologists that picked up as many as 118,000 pellets an acre. That would be less than 3 pellets per square ft. in the most concentrated place they dredged, and included the top 4-6 inches of silt. One would assume that these pellets had been there all along and certainly more available to these geese before the lake became mostly frozen over. But one would have to use their brain to even think about that fact. The article didn't tell us the average number of shot per acre found in this dredging, only the worst extreme, or what it was in the small area of open water available to the geese. Nor did they tell you the depth of that open water area. Geese are mostly dabblers while feeding on water, not divers... thus they dunk their heads under water while their tails remain above the surface. They strain suspended aquatic vegetation and invertebrates. They are NOT known to root around in 4-6 inches of silt looking for lead shot that was likely there for many decades... especially if that lake bottom is deeper than they can reach without diving under the surface.

We are not told the percentage of dead gees from this mass winter kill that actually had lethal levels of lead. I still cannot even find agreement in what that lethal dose number is in the literature. Even if they actually autopsied and tested every one for lead, we are not shown peer-reviewed proof that lead poisoning was the cause of mortality. Many could just as easily have died from hypothermia due to cold and poor condition from a lack of nutrition.

This occurred to me last night when I was watching a show on CNN about the Jonestown Guyana mass suicide. They kept showing pictures of over 900 dead people who had drank cyanide laced Kool-Aid. If someone from a State Fish and Game agency told Larry, Brent, or King that those people died from eating lead shot, they would swallow it hook, line, and non-lead sinker.

This long post is just a brief synopsis and a small fraction of the large amount of easily refuted and highly questionable garbage that is being passed off as science and unbiased information. I could go on forever, but some people are hell-bent on ignoring the elephant in the room.

I have never doubted that there are some waterfowl or raptors that die from lead poisoning. I believe that problem was, and continues to be highly over-stated, and especially when lead ammunition is blamed to the exclusion of much more bio-available sources. The more I examine this, the more convinced I am.

Too bad that Buzz is so hell-bent on demonizing me that he cannot be fair and balanced enough to point out Larry's inflammatory statements or King Brown's outright lies. Buzz did the exact same thing yesterday when I responded to Brian Dudley's ad hominem attack in a now deleted thread. Buzz has done this several times in the past. What a hypocritical jerk. Yes Jay, I thought that out very carefully before I said it.

Craig, you misunderstand. I'm not "passionate" about how bad lead is for waterfowl. That fight is over. Finished. We don't shoot lead at waterfowl. But you do need to help Keith understand that waterfowl are more susceptible to lead poisoning than upland birds because there was much more concentrated lead shot fall where the birds also concentrate, and because of how they feed. Pretty basic stuff. Plus, as Tall Timbers reported, hardly any quail found with lead in their gizzards.

Re waterfowl, have you looked at the studies on waterfowl closely enough to be able to state that the ONLY evidence of lead poisoning was lead in their digestive systems? No blood tests done to detect elevated blood levels? Those are being done on eagles. If quail were significantly impacted by lead poisoning, don't you suppose they'd notice it at Tall Timbers . . . given the fact that their birds are exposed to much more heavily concentrated shot fall than are quail in typical upland hunting settings? 8,000 shells fired on less than a section of land. Not as concentrated as on a heavily hunted waterfowl area or dove field, but very heavy shot fall by upland standards. Waterfowl and doves migrate, so you've got more to shoot at when the latest flocks show up. With quail and other upland birds (other than doves and woodcock), hunting success on heavily hunted ground declines as birds are shot, and you don't get a "resupply" until the following season.

You're telling me the feds are in on a conspiracy? Concerning what? Lead poisoning and waterfowl? Show me the proof. A study by someone in the field showing that lead shot was not a major cause of lead poisoning in waterfowl. And just who am I demonizing in the bird hunting community? I'm DEFENDING the continued use of lead shot for those birds we can still legally shoot with lead. Until someone shows me that ingestion of lead shot is killing lots of upland birds, or is killing some species with declining numbers, or is killing eagles. Nothing I've seen shows me any of that.

Keith, you are as confused about what "proving a negative" means as you are about "selective editing", and about the relative susceptibility of waterfowl to lead poisoning (back when we shot lead at them) compared to upland birds. You need to do some basic homework to help you understand all those things. Otherwise, intelligent discussion is impossible.

I've already addressed the difference between waterfowl and upland birds when it comes to susceptibility to lead poisoning, assuming we shoot lead at both. And I've already addressed "selective editing". With examples. Prove a negative . . . nope, that would be asking you to prove that NO waterfowl died of lead poisoning as a result of ingesting lead shot. What I'm asking you to do is to come up with a study, just ONE, from the wildlife management community, that demonstrates that causes other than lead poisoning, or lead poisoning from sources other than lead shot, were responsible for most of the dead and dying geese and ducks we were shown. Since there are contrarian scientists when it comes to climate change, why not a contrarian biologist when it comes to lead shot and waterfowl--especially considering many of them would now be retired and don't have any concerns with job security.

Keith, my statement that lead is toxic, toxic = bad is an example of PUBLIC PERCEPTION. Not what I believe myself. But incidents like lead in the water in Flint do tend to reinforce that perception. The public in general tends to be pretty low-information. Especially concerning topics in which they have no real interest--other than knowing that, by God, lead is bad.

As for what you can or cannot refute in studies to which you refer . . . have you contacted the people who put out the studies and pointed out all the glaring errors they made? What are your credentials to "refute" much of anything? Since an earlier quote from you seems to establish that you don't even recognize why waterfowl would be more susceptible to lead poisoning by ingesting shot than upland birds, I think most wildlife biologists would be laughing so hard they'd have trouble responding to your emails, letters or phone calls.

I know you're defending lead shot use in the uplands Larry. That's a great thing, no complaint from me.

You have though lobbied heavily that lead shot and bullets is the only reason for lead poisoning deaths of other wildlife, and of course the uplands are immune. Try to separate yourself from the narrow waterfowl/lead shot topic, and see if you can 'prove' that deer hunters should thrown under the bus by upland lead shot bird hunters.

You said, 'didn't intend to mention any studies' back a page. If I don't want to site studies or bring in a biologist, will you accept my logic and feelings as the equivalent of yours?

Would it make the Libs happy if lead was green instead of gray?

It seems they will file bills to ban ANYTHING that doesn't meet their "green" aganda.

craigd, Larry has already answered your question. Larry's logic and feelings are obviously superior to everyone because he is a Professional Outdoors Writer and ex-CIA employee. He is no more an expert on this subject than anyone here, but if you dare disagree with him, he will make a total ass of himself by resorting to ridiculous attempts to discredit you.

I have many times acknowledged that some waterfowl undoubtedly die from exposure to lead shot, whether by eating it or getting shot with it. I also acknowledged that there may not be any researchers who have put out papers or studies that show there was no massive lead poisoning of waterfowl. And there may be no whistle-blowers about a vast conspiracy. That is the negative I referred to when I said Larry was asking me to prove a negative.

You don't need a vast conspiracy though, when so many people are so willing to swallow anything. Just look at how many millions believe and support Hillary Clinton even though she destroyed evidence of over 30,000 State Dept. e-mails stored on a private server... during a Congressional Investigation... and tells us that the smartest woman who ever lived did not know that some of it was classified secrets and ultra-classified secret information.

By the same token, there was a very long time period when there were no experts who said, or even knew, that trans-fats were actually more dangerous for your heart than butter. My whistle-blower could still show up. Wouldn't matter though. Larry would just say he didn't have good enough credentials.

But that's the best Larry can do here... besides resorting to silly semantics games... because he was unable to use logic and reasoning to explain away any of the glaring inconsistencies, errors, and absolute bullshit in those articles or studies I referred to.

Lacking anything of substance, he felt the childish need to revisit the "selective editing" thing. Once again Larry... craigd's use of a part of Audobon's position statement on hunting did not in any way change, enhance, or diminish a thing. However, your use of only a part of that statement was intended to support your earlier erroneous contention about Audobon, which craid's partial quote proved was 100% wrong. If craigd had posted the full statement, it wouldn't have changed the point he was making one tiny bit. On the other hand, if you hadn't intentionally left out the juicy part, you would have proven yourself wrong. I was generous and kind to call what you did "selective editing". Actually, now it would be more accurate to call it "deceptive editing".

I have no idea why you would want to revisit that one. Talk about wasting time on battles you have already lost! But when you're grasping at straws, I guess you have to try anything to discredit your opponent.

Re: Lead poisoning in waterfowl vs. upland birds. Susceptibility (or vulnerability or sensitivity)and exposure to a toxin are two very different things. To tell you the truth, I don't know if three # 6 lead shot in the crop of a 2 lb. duck will create a higher blood lead level than three #6 lead shot in the crop of a 2 lb. pheasant, assuming equal time of retention. I would assume they would be very similar. Not all waterfowl frequent areas of high shot concentrations, and conversely, not all upland game birds spend their lives in areas of very low shot concentrations. Very high concentrations that sink into deep water will be unavailable to do any amount of poisoning. You are making a very simplistic and incorrect assumption about the feeding habits of waterfowl Larry. I'm not into waterfowl hunting and haven't done any since college because I don't care much for duck or goose meat. But even I know that some may probe the bottom where there may be shot, and some are dabblers that use their bills to strain out aquatic vegetation, algae, and aquatic invertebrates... and seldom venture to the bottom where the shot may be, while they are feeding in water. Diving duck species typically aren't rooting around in the silt, but rather feeding upon aquatic plants, insects, and small fish.

I'm no accredited expert, but intelligent enough to understand that the presence of lead shot in a crop, gizzard, or stomach absolutely does not prove that is a MAJOR contributing factor to any lead in a bird's system. It is entirely circumstantial until other more bio-available sources can be ruled out. This is in stark contrast to what you, and what seems to be the majority of these so-called experts, believe. Many immediately conclude that any small number of lead shot or bullet fragments in a digestive tract has to be the sole cause of high blood lead levels or fatal poisoning. Many also reach that same conclusion in the complete absence of shot or bullet fragments.

Larry's statement saying "Lead is Toxic. Toxic = Bad" was not put up as an example of public perception. He is not playing to low information voters or uneducated members of the public here, so his explanation for that statement rings hollow. I purposely reproduced the entire statement, so that Larry couldn't accuse me of selective editing. There was no disclaimer to inform the reader that was not Larry's belief. In fact, the parts that followed, along with 90% of what he has said prior to that in this thread, would support the conclusion that Larry is generally anti-lead except for upland game, as craigd has also noticed. Insofar as I can tell, he has already thrown deer hunters under the bus, and feels that they are just lucky to have the numbers to stave off lead bullet bans.

Larry closes his most recent attempt to discredit me, and my lack of credentials, by once again showing us he doesn't know the difference between susceptibility and exposure to a toxin. Being dumb once wasn't enough for him. Larry is no more an expert on this subject than me. He probably knows far less about it than I do, and apparently lacks the ability to critically analyze even the most obvious absolute crap that passes for science. Lacking his precious "expert" credentials, he feels I don't have the right to question anything. If Larry believed in Santa Claus, and I disagreed with him, Larry would be arguing that I am not worth having an intelligent discussion with because I am not an accredited expert on life at the North Pole.

OK Larry, show us proof that 2-3,000,000 ducks and geese per year were dying from lead poisoning in the U.S. alone prior to the 1991 lead shot ban. I don't want any pictures of sick birds, or examples of some small fraction of that number that had one or two pieces of lead shot in their belly. If cavemen had cameras, they could also show me pictures of dead or sick ducks. Ducks and geese have been dying for eons. I don't want so-called studies with more holes in them than a colander. Prove to us that the Federal lead shot ban was based upon verifiable facts and double-blind peer reviewed data... the gold standard for good science.

Since you won't be able to do that, you can always fall back on childish games and less than brilliant attempts to discredit me with semantics.

Keith, if you could READ--seems you have a problem in that area--then you'd clearly understand that I do NOT believe the simplistic "lead is toxic, toxic = bad" stuff. If I DID believe that, then how come I'm DEFENDING the use of lead shot on upland birds? Doesn't compute, does it? Even Craig gives me credit for defending the continued use of lead for upland hunting.

As for the difference between susceptibility and exposure, Keith . . . I don't claim any greater scientific credentials than you have. But I'd humbly suggest that you probably don't want to get into word games with a writer. Susceptible in my dictionary: "Open, subject, or unresistant to some stimulus, influence, or agency." Waterfowl are clearly more subject to the influence of spent lead shot--or were, when we were hunting them with lead--based on their EXPOSURE to spent lead shot. Upland birds are less subject to the influence of spent lead shot because they are much less likely to encounter it--based on a lower rate of exposure. Exposure and susceptibility go together in this case, kinda like the old horse and carriage.

Actually, Craig and Keith, I came here this evening with an idea that should help you. You both start from the premise that the lead shot ban for waterfowl was based on junk science. OK, so maybe a few waterfowl died from ingesting spent lead shot . . . but not in the numbers being cited as the reason we had to get rid of lead for waterfowl hunting. So . . . where do we go to look for BIOLOGISTS who would have screamed their heads off if they thought the ban was junk science? How about to the two largest organizations of waterfowl hunters in the country: Ducks Unlimited and Delta Waterfowl. I did my own quick search and found out very quickly (by googling Ducks Unlimited Lead Poisoning) that they do not question the numbers of ducks and geese supposedly dying off annually back then. Delta Waterfowl . . . no luck there, but they do have an "ask the biologist" option. So if you guys want to know where DW stands on the issue, why don't you check it out?

And while you're checking, think on this: Both DU and DW depend on hunter $. Hunter $ decrease, their funding decreases. So obviously, they work hard to keep duck hunters happy. Back then, there were certainly duck hunters who were wondering whether ingested lead shot was killing so many ducks and geese that they had to switch to steel. And they were wondering just how effective steel would be on ducks and geese. In fact, when the ban went into effect, some waterfowl hunters quit. Obviously not a good thing for organizations like DU and DW, which depend on hunter $ to survive. And both of those organizations employ biologists. So . . . if the lead shot ban was based on junk science, then why weren't DU and DW biologists screaming their heads off, presenting their contrary evidence about other sources of lead or something else that was killing the ducks? And maybe pointing out as well that we might be doing more damage by shooting ballistically inferior steel at ducks, and crippling and losing as many with steel as we were saving by switching from lead. Surely, if "the truth is out there", DU and DW would have been playing the roles of Mulder and Scully from "The X Files" and digging hard as hell to find the truth on the junk science behind the ban.

No discrediting involved, Keith . . . but you keep trying to excuse your inability to find ANYONE in the wildlife community who has screamed "junk science" concerning the lead ban. Now I've given you the two organizations that would logically have been the most EAGER to discredit the lead ban, and the most EAGER to retain lead shot, thus keeping their members happy and donating $. That is, unless their biologists really believed that lead shot was responsible for large numbers of waterfowl dying, and that they'd be losing money because fewer ducks and geese would have resulted in fewer hunters if we continued shooting lead.

Hey Keith, you're the one who's saying the lead ban was based on junk science. Up to YOU to look at the studies and come up with with peer-reviewed proof that it WAS junk science. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air. Which can be welcome in the winter, but not for us in Iowa. We have enough politicians blowing hot air in our state to convince me that they are impacting climate change, for sure.

Maybe DU doesn't care how many hunters quit if they have a couple billionaire backers writing them checks. Hey, that's a few dozen? hundred? thousand? less yahoos floating down MY river shooting MY ducks.



_____________________
Scully is a hottie.

Hey Larry, I've had it all wrong. I thought you were fighting a lead ban in the uplands? That's not happening is it? You have nothing to worry about, any lead ban in the uplands would be based on good science. I could see how silly it would be for me to try to dig up peer reviewed science, when it couldn't be good.

And hey, thanks for your helpful idea.

Larry, your responses keep getting ever more ridiculous. And if anyone has a problem with reading, it is you. You proved that again in your very first paragraph when you made this statement:

"Keith, if you could READ--seems you have a problem in that area--then you'd clearly understand that I do NOT believe the simplistic "lead is toxic, toxic = bad" stuff. If I DID believe that, then how come I'm DEFENDING the use of lead shot on upland birds? Doesn't compute, does it? Even Craig gives me credit for defending the continued use of lead for upland hunting."

OK Larry, now have someone read this to you, and have them read the part which is in bold purple type twice, so you can get it through your thick head:



Did you see it this time Larry, or are you really that blind or dumb? I was addressing your lame-ass excuse claiming that your "Lead is Toxic. Toxic = Bad" statement was addressed to low information people. I never said you are 100% against lead. I very clearly said "In fact, the parts that followed, along with 90% of what he has said prior to that in this thread, would support the conclusion that Larry is GENERALLY anti-lead EXCEPT FOR UPLAND GAME." Learn to read Larry. You keep putting words in my mouth in a disingenuous attempt to discredit me... Hey, Look everybody... Keith can't even read! That is not Professional Writing. That is childish. It is utter dishonest bullshit Larry. You keep doing this because this is all you've got. It started with your wild-assed claim that almost every road killed deer you saw in Wisconsin had an eagle feeding on it, a story which later changed, and it has just snowballed.

Then you continue putting words in my mouth and attempting to discredit me. You added things I never said with my statement on susceptibility to lead poisoning of waterfowl and upland game. I went back to my original statement to be certain of what I had said. But you have totally changed my statement used that change to alter my original intent by changing it from "susceptibility" to "RELATIVE SUSCEPTIBILITY". How did you see a word that wasn't even there Larry? Why did you change my words... more deceptive editing???

You obviously didn't understand my statement the first time. So I took the time to explain it to you, even though you felt the need to use your misinterpretation to discredit me,... waterfowl vs. upland birds... equal weights... equal exposure to lead shot... equal time of retention. That wasn't good enough, so you continue to twist my words and add things I never said because you have the inability to ever admit being wrong. You are just stuck on your incorrect interpretation, and felt the need to add the word "relative" to my statement to attempt to explain your poor reading comprehension. It was understandable that you'd be so simple-minded as to make the incorrect and simplistic assumption that all waterfowl would always be more exposed to lead shot (pre-ban) than all upland birds (except doves). It was an understandable error the first time Larry. Continuing on that path after I fully explained it, and changing my words to change my meaning is deceitful and disgusting.

I didn't simply say the lead bans were/are based upon junk science. I've given you numerous glaring examples, which you at first tried to explain away with ridiculous arguments, like a good little anti-lead soldier might use. That didn't work out well, so you have lowered yourself to this kind of crap, while you steadfastly ignore obvious anti-lead ammo bias and bogus science. Once again, craigd also sees it...no amount of proof will satisfy you. I think you probably want to believe, but that would mean admitting you were wrong. And you can't do that, can you?

I'll make another post later to address some of your other stupidity, and your apparent inability to explain or even acknowledge some of the glaring inconsistencies in much of the literature which supported, or continues to support, lead shot bans. I just wanted to make this post to illustrate how one so-called Professional Writer operates. You said, " But I'd humbly suggest that you probably don't want to get into word games with a writer." No indeed Larry, not with your kind of writer. Being sleazy and deceptive, in my opinion, isn't going to win this dirty little word game.

Not a question of trying to dig up peer reviewed science about the impact of lead on upland birds, Craig. There's no "junk science" supporting restrictions on lead in the uplands, for the simple reason that there's NO science--junk or otherwise--establishing that ingesting lead is a problem for upland birds. Those who are suggesting further lead bans for upland hunting are basing their proposals on conjecture, not science. (With the exception of a study or two on lead shot and doves in very heavily-hunted locations, which is more akin to waterfowl hunting in terms of exposure than to upland hunting.) From the MN DNR's Nontoxic Shot Advisory Committee: "The issues are extremely complex and conclusive data on wildlife populations is lacking." From the WI Natural Resources Board's proposal to ban lead shot on all DNR-managed lands: "Because wildlife affected by lead toxicity tend to seek isolation and protective cover, they may not be readily apparent . . . Chronic losses with carcasses removed by scavengers (who may be secondarily poisoned themselves) make lead poisoning somewhat of an 'invisible disease.'" (Sounds a lot like invisible science to me!) From MT Fish, Wildlife and Parks: "Lead presence and accumulation under extremely low levels of lead shot use has not been established as a significant environmental concern." (Sounds like they're saying that there isn't any science.)

Peer reviewed science on lead shot and waterfowl: Doubt you'll have any trouble finding plenty of that. Review away and refute away if you so desire.

Sorry Keith, but saying that I'm only 90% anti-lead doesn't get you off the hook in your bogus interpretation of my "lead is toxic, toxic = bad" quote. If that's what I really believed, then I'd be 100% anti-lead.

Road-killed deer in WI . . . yes, as a matter of fact, most of the ones I saw DID have an eagle paying it a visit. Now that may not have been true in other parts of the state, but that's what I saw where I lived. Didn't realize you were sitting in the passenger seat, hiding in your cloak of invisibility, so you could refute my statement.

Relative susceptibility . . . you're having word problems again, Keith. You present a comparison between a duck and a pheasant, each with 3 lead 6's in its crop. You are RELATING one to the other, discussing which might be more susceptible. (You draw no conclusion. At least that is a good thing!) Nope, you didn't use the adjective "relative", but that's what you're talking about: relative susceptibility. The only problem being, of course, that a duck--back in the lead shot days--would have been far more likely to ingest those lead pellets than a pheasant, based on "relative" shot fall in the different environments the two species inhabit, and where they're hunted. The fact you didn't use the term "relative" is irrelevant. I never put any words at all in your mouth. Never misquoted you. Simply responded to what you said. If I quote you, then you can look for these little marks--" "--around your statement.

You have it all figured out about the inconsistencies in the studies that supported the lead shot ban for waterfowl. But you admit you're not a scientist, and you can't find any "contrarian" scientists who agree with you that it's junk science. All those scientists missed your "glaring inconsistencies"? Even the ones working for DU and DW--organizations that depend on duck hunter $ to survive? Truly amazing! You're smarter than all those scientists . . . or else all those scientists--every one of them--are engaged in this massive conspiracy to shove steel shot down waterfowlers' collective throats. Well Keith . . . if that's true, if they're all evil, anti-lead types, then why haven't they come up with studies to shove lead bans down upland hunters' throats? If they can manufacture evidence on ducks and geese, why not on quail and pheasants? Maybe they're working on it and it's just that we have yet to see their evil plans in action.

Let's see . . . you're not a scientist, nor am I. You're not a waterfowler, nor am I. Yet you're holding forth on inconsistencies--glaring, no less--in studies of lead shot in waterfowl. Looks to me like there's not much use you and I arguing about something neither of us knows that much about. Which we've both admitted. Kinda like the blind leading the blind.

So let's hear from someone who DOES know about it and who says that the lead shot ban was all a big scam. From now on, if you can't come up with evidence along those lines, this is all a big waste of time--which most folks here have likely already determined.

Show me the evidence that it was a scam, Keith. From a scientist. Not from you, a non-scientist, non-waterfowler. Otherwise, I'm outta here.

I decided to quote your entire comment, though I feel it's helpful, to me at least, to normally snip out non contributory fill. I see you using the exact tactic of the 'ban' folks, the squeaky wheel is supposed to win. I also decided not to respond to your previous reply to me because, it basically took the tone of a conspiracy theorist.

You have two particular rants, that I think will cause you to 'loose' in the uplands. First, if I was sitting in a bar and a hundred and thirty-seven biologist were discussing lead conspiracy theories, do I 'win' because you weren't there. I believe you've seen eagles feeding on road kill, I would hope you don't believe that's smoking gun evidence. Please try to recall, that the 'science' of the study wasn't about road kill or unrecovered game, it was about 25 gut piles down in Illinois, not northern Wisconsin. But, you extrapolate as it suits your preferences.

Second, do you really suppose we can demand only hunters of a particular species have the authority to study and conclude about those game birds? Haven't you been told that the wildlife service employees have a hugely decreasing percentage of hunters of any type. Are the folks who ban, regulate, tax and write law hunters? Not likely, huh.

'Relative susceptibility' is particularly interesting, I think you're well aware that pheasant MAY tote systemic lead better than ducks can. Like quail, where do they sit in the food chain, and are your contentions worth one kid in the rural Dakotas or one raptor at a rehaber face possible lead exposure.

I've tried to check the wild goose chases you sent me on, FWS, SOAR, the rehabers, I'd hope you don't see them as smoking guns. I put a question out to DW, I couldn't find an equivalent 'ask a biologist' over at DU. If I get a response, I'll present it here, regardless of what it says, including the exact wording of how I posed the question. It didn't take me much time, so I figured, why not. I'll disclose that I attempted three times to make a twenty dollar donation, but their website kept kicking it out, so I left that line blank.

I figured if I sent money I could bribe them to make it sound like it supports me, but in reality I would know that whatever the response might be, it would just be hearsay. They did mention it could be posted on their website, so I suppose that would raise credibility.

Lots of story there for not much smoking gun, eh. Kind of a silly call for someone to insist on, but this is what I'm concerned about that you get to base your position on and 'win'. You never did address why you feel it's okay to throw lead bullet using deer hunters under the bus for an upland hunter's agenda.

It's actually kind of sad how much speculation there is about upland game bird lead levels from lead shot using upland game bird hunters leading to food safety questions, by of course, non hunters. But, you're aware of that, aren't you, and accept it as good science, with the defense, it wasn't me.

I see you still cannot comprehend what I wrote Larry. Even putting it in bold colored type and underlining it didn't work. Then going even further and explaining what I had underlined, bolded, and colored didn't help you. Let's try it again:

"In fact, the parts that followed, along with 90% of what he has said prior to that in this thread, would support the conclusion that Larry is GENERALLY anti-lead EXCEPT FOR UPLAND GAME."

Let me break that sentence down into small pieces that even a mentally retarded person might understand.

"In fact, the parts that followed,"... This means I was referring to the parts of your statement that came directly after your "Lead is Toxic. Toxic = Bad." declaration.

"along with 90% of what he has said prior to that in this thread,"... This means I am referring to 90% of what you have said before you made the statement I quoted. This does not in any way suggest that I am making this observation on the sum total of your life. Only what you have posted in this one thread Larry. Got it? I have already said here, that you were much more supportive of lead ammo in the 2010 thread. Furthermore Larry, 90% of your comments in this thread IS NOT THE SAME as being 100% anti-lead ammo. You do believe that lead is toxic... at least I hope you do. I believe that as well. I just don't believe that pieces of shot, bullets, or sinkers are the real problem with birds. Your math may be worse than your reading.

"would support the conclusion"... This means that I was making the observation that those words, "Lead is Toxic. Toxic = Bad", along with the other things you had written IN THIS ONE THREAD could make someone believe, or conclude, that you support the 1991 ban and also support lead bullet bans. I am not the only one who took note of that Larry.


"that Larry is GENERALLY anti-lead EXCEPT FOR UPLAND GAME."... This is referring to you Larry. Can you spell your name? Again, we're talking about what you posted earlier within this thread. Try to stay with me on this. You had been supportive of earlier lead shot bans. You said it was settled and claimed they worked and achieved the desired result. You said that rehashing old battles that we have lost is foolish. You made bogus claims about lead bullet fragments in wounded deer and gut piles and made a direct link between bullet fragments and dead birds. You weren't even talking about other more bio-available sources of lead. The only place you defended the continued use of lead was for upland game hunting. My making note of your continued support for lead shot for upland game means that you cannot be 100% against lead ammo. So we're back to being both bad at math and bad at reading. You may be the poster child for "No Child Left Behind".

Now I know this is a lot for you to digest, so I won't go into your two contrarian statements about road killed deer right now.

And later, after when your little brain can digest more information, we'll go back to your nonsense about Susceptibility, Relative Susceptibility, and now... Your wild-assed explanation for putting words in my mouth and misinterpreting my meaning... even after I clearly explained it to you.

I have a lot of studies for you to check out Larry. I told you that last night. But first we have to teach you to read and comprehend. There will even be some numbers involved, and that's another problem for you. This could take a long long time by the looks of it. And craigd did notice all of that non-contributory fill you use to explain things that we never said. It's too much for you to deal with right now Larry.

By the way Larry, a lot of the studies I have read on the anti-lead side ARE supporting a total ban on lead ammo, even for upland game. But you are too invested in proving me wrong to notice that apparently. Your inability to understand the written word, clear explanations of what was said, and your refusal to acknowledge glaring errors and mere suppositions, in what you call science, has led us far off topic.

Larry, he's the only one on the board who behaves this way. Look at this for reasoning:

". . . along with the other things you had written IN THIS ONE THREAD could make someone believe that you support the 1991 ban and also support lead bullet bans. I am not the only one who took note of that Larry."

Persons can be made to believe most anything. Someone believing doesn't make it so. Some want to believe things for all sorts of reasons, often in spite of science-based evidence to the contrary.

I prefer to look at his last post as qualifying his position. He appears to be modifying significantly from you're not anti-this-or-that although some members including himself could have drawn that conclusion.

Hope springs eternal.

Interesting website:

http://www.howtoarguewithanidiot.com/

Norm, I usually like arguing with idiots by using their own words against them. But many, like King Brown, then deny their own words.

I'll check out your link later when I get home. But since King is back, can you recommend a link to a website on how to argue with a dishonest anti-2nd Amendment Liberal Left Troll? Thanks.

King, Larry already addressed this, said something like we shouldn't play word games with a writer back a page. I hate to bring bad news, but if you subscribe to Larry's qualification requirement, commenting here must mean you're an idiot like us regular folks. If you missed that part, maybe you should actually read his comments. I'm gonna go look up how tough grape stains are to get out of snow geese, and I'll be back.

http://www.youngcons.com/the-12-unspoken-rules-for-being-a-liberal/

Craig, there are numerous reports of lead fragments in sick and dead eagles. WAY more than just one study. And obviously, if I see eagles feeding on a road-killed deer, it's not likely they're going to ingest lead from a bullet . . . unless the deer was wounded by a hunter, wandered out to the road and died there, or got whacked by a car there. Simply establishing that it's not at all unusual for eagles to scavenge deer.

Re nonhunters entering the wildlife field . . . Craig, the lead ban dates from a quarter century ago. First suggestions of a lead ban on waterfowl go back more like half a century ago. Back in those days, the wildlife management field was still HEAVILY dominated by hunters.

You don't need to ask DU about their position on the lead ban. I got it to pop up first google attempt. DW, I poked around, couldn't find anything better than their "ask a biologist"--and I figured you guys could ask, and that way you'd be getting it straight from them.

Those who hunt with lead bullets have a problem to deal with. How good is the evidence so far? Well, there IS evidence. Up to them to deal with it one way or the other. I don't write for deer hunting mags, don't hunt deer . . . so doesn't make much sense for me to take on that fight. Upland, that's my bag--and I have a whole folder worth of research I did before writing my articles. But it's been 6 years, so I'd dig a bunch more before writing an article today.

Lead in any meat is going to cause "food safety questions" . . . mostly by those who don't eat it. And by those in the health industry. The ND study on lead levels in humans came about as a result of a study in which 53 out or 95 packets of ground venison donated to food pantries contained lead fragments. As a result the ND Dept of Health temporarily halted distribution of venison to food pantries. Like I said, guys who hunt with lead bullets have an issue to deal with. Not throwing them under the bus; simply allowing those who've done more research in that area than I have and who know more about it to present their views in case someone proposes a lead bullet ban.

Nice rant, Keith. But it doesn't change the fact that you're still wrong on the "lead is toxic, toxic = bad" statement. If I believed that myself, I'd be 100% anti-lead. 90% anti-lead doesn't make sense, based on that statement. But then neither do you.

I don't care about anti-lead studies unless it's something I feel a need to deal with. Like about upland game. And given the fact that I can quote two state wildlife agencies that say there isn't any good evidence in that area, I'm not too worried.

And I see you're still dodging the issue of the contrarian biologist who will debunk the lead ban on waterfowl as junk science. Carry on. Unless you can come up with same, nothing else of any interest to read from you on the subject.

Larry, you're a hoot. I can't believe you continually say that lead bullet hunters 'have a problem to deal with'. Then, say it's okay to shoot birds with lead. On big things it's easier to lop off the part that looks shot, not so practical on smaller birds, but you made a blanket statement about 'lead in any meat is...', not good. You've given me a bunch of advice, how about some in return. Try to word smith about the joys of the uplands without repeating how many problems the other folks that hunt have.

I have a little nit picking about your first comment. I keyed in on one study because you had said to check the FWS for conspiracies and you started to throw a few percentages around. So, I believe I found the source of your figures, and I believe I pointed out some significant concerns, but it didn't matter to you.

For a fun exercise on agendas, take a look at the FWS lead-n-eagles dying study. I had mentioned the undisclosed 'data' that they helped themselves to from SOAR. Take a look at the 107 lead fragment gut pile xray. If that was from a true 'hunt', that poor deer must have had every orifice shot out, and the whole pile stuck in a blender. But, it plays better than one or two microchips that an eagle would urp up with the big hair ball anyway. You know, they study those things to determine what the eagles in the area had been eating, I wonder if there's xrays of 'em to show that insignificant, incidental lead is actually expelled? I'm waiting on the good folks at DW, will you take on that study?

Craig, I'll take one more shot, then you can join Keith in the "over and done with" pile . . . and continue to search for what amounts to your Holy Grail: a wildlife scientist who says that the lead ban on waterfowl is junk science. You'd think there'd be one out there, given not only the federal lead shot ban on waterfowl (and on all federal Waterfowl Production Areas), but numerous state wildlife agency bans on lead shot around wetlands, even when hunting upland game (like pheasants). Can't believe that somebody, somewhere didn't smell a rat and blow the whistle.

Must be lots of folks not doing such a hot job of lopping off the part that looks shot with big things, when over 50% of those ground venison packets showed lead fragments. Unless there's maybe a conspiracy among the butchers that process a lot of venison to leave the lead in there. Or perhaps put lead in there. Maybe they're working hand in hand with terrorists or something, trying to poison us. Obviously, lead in any meat is bad. Doesn't keep me from eating the birds I shoot, but I'm really careful about not swallowing the pellets. I don't think lead in wild game is a HUGE problem for humans, but I don't intend to go down to my reloading table and sprinkle #8's on my toast for breakfast either. But you're missing the point. Lead showing up in ground venison is a problem for people who hunt deer not so much because of its impact on those who consume the meat, but because it clearly shows how fragments can be ingested by eagles (and other critters scavenging deer, and other shot and unrecovered game--except we don't worry much about the other scavengers). Always good to sound the alarm about a potential problem, Craig. The lead in eagles issue is not going to go away just by ignoring it. Trust me on this one. It cropped up when I did my lead shot articles 6 years ago, and it's still with us today. And given the fact that eagle numbers are increasing, we're likely to hear more about it. "Head in sand" makes it hard to face a problem.

I have no interest in doing a study on lead in eagles. I don't shoot eagles. It does not appear that eagles are ingesting the stuff with which I hunt (lead shot). And especially given that we no longer shoot ducks and geese with lead, it's much more likely that eagles are going to be scavenging something very large that was shot with lead (like a deer) than a crippled pheasant that flies off to die in the tall grass. So take some eagles, feed them meat laced with lead fragments similar to that revealed in the ND study and see what happens. Does it pass through their digestive systems? Does it result in an increase in blood lead levels? Doubt anyone will do that. Alternatively, try to prove that the lead fragments that show up in eagles do NOT come from bullets. Otherwise, based on the fact that we no longer shoot lead at waterfowl because ingesting it has been determined to cause massive deaths, we're looking at the possibility of switching to nontox bullets because eagles are dying from lead poisoning, with the possible source being bullet fragments. But I think, unlike the federal ban on lead for waterfowl, it would have to be a state by state thing because the critters we shoot with lead bullets aren't migratory birds. In any case, it's a potential problem. Best taken on by someone with better scientific credentials than either you, Keith, or me.

No wonder why KY Jon took a hiatus.

Larry, I at first thought that the only problem was that you simply cannot admit to being wrong. Then it became apparent that you also have very poor reading comprehension and math skills. But it appears that the root cause of this silly discussion is that you are just dumber than a box of rocks.

After grabbing the ball and running it into the wrong end-zone a couple times, you have done it again and spiked the ball and are doing a victory dance... again in the wrong end-zone.

I was concerned that just confronting one part of your stupidity, and breaking it down into small pieces might still be too much for you to digest at one sitting. It was. So once again, here's the sentence that followed my quoting of your "Lead is Toxic. Toxic = Bad" statement". And this time, I made it even more simple and am only repeating the explanation of the 90% figure that you can't understand.



I tried to break that sentence down into small pieces that even a mentally retarded person might understand. But it was too much for you Larry. You still didn't get it. I was not even suggesting that you are 90% against lead. I was clearly referring ONLY to the COMMENTS you had made in your previous posts WITHIN THIS THREAD Larry.

How much more hand holding do you need to understand this, and to stop putting words in my mouth that I never said?

At this point, we don't really know where you stand, because you have been all over the map on many issues. I was merely observing and confronting things you said within this thread. And I wasn't the only one who noticed your apparent anti-lead bias... except for upland hunting use.

You told craigd, "I have no interest in doing a study on lead in eagles. I don't shoot eagles. It does not appear that eagles are ingesting the stuff with which I hunt (lead shot)."
I suggest you Google "X-rays of lead shot in eagles stomach" to see what is still being put out to support lead bans for upland hunting.

I told you, I have found quite a few studies and research papers that conclude that lead shot is but a very minor contributor to lead poisoning in birds. None have an abstract that announces that the purpose of the study is solely to refute the 1991 lead shot ban for waterfowl. The Holy Grail you seek may or may not be out there. I suppose the researchers who find through observation and experimentation, that chunks of metallic lead are far less dangerous than lead dust, vapors, or chemical solutions, all assume the reader is supposed to be intelligent enough to connect the dots and understand that science based upon feelings, suppositions, and circumstantial evidence is not good science. That leaves you out Larry. You not only have no credentials in this matter Larry... you also have no concept of what constitutes a proper scientific study or a proper research paper.

You keep telling us that all we can do is to "demand good science". What good is it to "demand good science" when you don't even know the difference between good and bad science, Larry?

General Format For A Scientific Research Paper

Your reference to that so-called study on lead fragments in packets of ground venison is just further proof of that. All of the deer hunters here who have never once bitten into even a tiny piece of lead in their deer burger realize by now that you will grasp at anything to prove you are right... and even go so far as to put words in someone's mouth so that you can deliberately mischaracterize what they actually said.

Show me the beef, Keith. Links to those studies that show that lead poisoning WAS (prior to the ban) "but a very minor contributor to lead poisoning". IN WATERFOWL, not just ANY birds. Hey, I found studies (and even cited one of them here, from Tall Timbers on quail) that lead is essentially a non-issue with quail. But because it's a non-issue with quail, that doesn't mean it was a non-issue with waterfowl before the ban.

"Connecting dots" does not cut it, Keith . . . because you don't have the credentials to connect the dots. Neither do I. Neither does Craig. So show me the studies that relate specifically to lead shot and waterfowl. Otherwise you're playing with puzzles that are way beyond your grade level. Hey, no insult there. Beyond mine as well. Your problem is that you're the standard issue Internet Expert. You do your research with an agenda. You don't think lead is a problem, so you look until you find something that you THINK says lead isn't a problem. Except it turns out that it doesn't relate to the SPECIFIC issue of lead in waterfowl. How much lead is accessible at the bottom of a pond, for example, has zip to do with upland birds, because they're not going to swim out there and scoop it up. But waterfowl can, and do. Good science is specific. A scientist is very likely to see different dots to connect, or a different way to connect them, than you or I do. That's why the information has to be specific to the danger posed to waterfowl by lead shot. Unless, that is, you can find a wildlife biologist who's worked with waterfowl who will connect those dots for you and say "Hey, you're onto something there. Something we missed when we were looking at lead shot in waterfowl."

So it's still Wendy's commercial time, Keith. Show me the beef. Not the pork or the chicken, but the beef.

That's it Larry, unless you can come with one study from a certified hunting biologist, you're on my over and done with list. I like the way you worked in the fast food, a much healthier alternative to pheasant soup?

Just kidding Larry, I'll visit here and there if things seem unfair and unbalanced. If you write of the attributes of a fine upland gun, I promise I won't butt in that duck gun specs are settled science.

Just for a bit of follow up, I'll set a one week time limit on revisiting this thread in case the DW folks reply to my inquiry.

Not yet Larry. We still haven't determined whether you can read with comprehension or even know the difference between my observation of 90% of your comments within this thread and 100% of what you actually believe. That was the last installment, and now you are attempting to skirt the issue. What good is beef if you think it's something else? You like to change the subject when the alternative would be admitting you are wrong. That reminds me very much of King Brown. The possible family resemblance is getting stronger.

After we get that resolved, we're going to revisit some of the other things you couldn't comprehend. And we're going to correct more of the things you misattributed to me. I'm sick of people like you who can't win with facts so they turn to fictional accounts of what was said. When I tried to go over it all at once, you showed us that it was too much for you to handle. This could take a while Larry.

I know a lot more about the scientific method and what goes into a proper research study than you do Mr. Professional Writer. That much is quite obvious. It was pounded into our heads in college freshman biology, chemistry, physics, etc. It is more than just cherry-picking things you like and ignoring those things you don't like. It is much more than looking at some circumstantial evidence and jumping to conclusions based upon preconceived notions. Many of the things that pass for science or accredited studies for you would get an F in any undergraduate biology class. I'm a little tired of your attempts to discredit me or craigd because we lack whatever credentials you desire. I never felt one had to have so-called experts credentials just to be able to connect some fairly obvious dots. There's a lot to be said for just not being stupid, but maybe you wouldn't know about that. Let's not forget about the many court cases where two "accredited experts" give totally different testimony for the defense and prosecution. They are both considered experts, but only one can be right. Just because you are incapable of reading with comprehension and critical analysis, and can be easily fooled, doesn't mean everybody else is.

EDIT: I just answered a PM from someone who ridiculed the silly notions about your precious study that found lead fragments in 50% of ground venison samples. I agreed completely, and said this:

"Yes, I've eaten a helluva lot of ground venison, my own and other peoples, and never once bit into a piece of lead or bullet jacket. It could happen I guess, but most people and most meat processors cut away the shot-up meat. When a butcher cuts up your deer for you, they typically charge by the deer, not by the pound. So taking the chance of feeding a customer shot-up meat with bullet fragments isn't going to make them any more money, and it will damage their reputation as a meat-cutter. Larry will look for any ridiculous excuse to defend his position."

Simple common sense is all that's needed to refute a lot of the garbage that you willingly accept. Nothing more. Which means you'll probably never get it.

Keith, back away from the 90% BS . . . very slowly. Did you look at ALL my posts and determine that this one is anti-lead, that one isn't, and come up with your figure? Did you do the math? If not, then it's not very scientific, is it?

Besides which, your interpretation of what is "anti-lead" varies significantly from mine. For example, until you or Craig can prove otherwise, I will accept that lead shot is bad for waterfowl, was killing lots of them, and the ban was a reasonable step to take. Doesn't mean I'm anti-lead. Rather, it means I'm waiting to hear from someone who doesn't believe that all steps to remove lead are being taken by people who are anti-gun and want to shut down hunting and shooting, which seems to be the position from which you and Craig start. Because if you start from that position, then all regulations banning or limiting the use of lead in ammo are inherently bad--even if you can't disprove the evidence behind them.

Concerning the lead found in ground venison . . . North Dakota is a state with one of the highest percentages of hunters in the nation. I find it hard to believe that the state Department of Health would say that they found lead in those packets of ground venison if they didn't. We're obviously talking very small particles. It's not the equivalent of biting into a pheasant, finding a #6, and spitting it out. But hey, if you have evidence that the ND Dept of Health "cooked the books" on the lead fragments, please supply it.

You don't know what would "pass for science or accredited studies" for me. I'm still waiting for you to provide even ONE of the links you referred to, about lead shot being a minor contributor to lead poisoning in birds. You put your car in reverse and backed away at full speed when I pointed out that those studies don't make any difference where waterfowl are concerned unless they deal with waterfowl. I have a study from the WI DNR that reports high blood lead levels in woodcock. I read it eagerly, looking for reports of lead shot in the doodles' digestive system. Instead, although the study stated that they could not eliminate lead shot as a source of the high blood lead levels, no lead shot was found in any of the woodcock they examined. So the lead could have come from the soil, or from the worms woodcock eat. But there's little or nothing in that study that causes me to relate it to waterfowl. Waterfowl ain't woodcock. Far heavier concentrations of lead shot deposited around the wetlands where lots of waterfowl are shot; relatively little deposited in all the woodlands where most woodcock are shot.

The issue with waterfowl is that lead shot WAS present in a lot of sick and dead birds that were examined. And we're not seeing all the sick and dead ducks and geese we saw prior to the ban. So the evidence does point strongly in the direction of lead shot having been a significant cause--probably the primary cause, albeit not the only cause--of lead poisoning in waterfowl.

As far as "analysis" is concerned, I served in Military Intelligence for 20+ years after leaving CIA. I was an intelligence analyst. One of those years, my unit was selected as the top small unit in the entire Army Reserve (out of hundreds of them). And USAITAC (the Army's Intelligence and Threat Analysis Center) selected our unit as its top MI detachment, out of about a dozen. And one of our soldiers was selected as ITAC's top Reserve intelligence analyst, out of about 200 that supported ITAC: me. I was an NCO one day and a captain the next day, and they don't hand out direct commissions like that, even on the battlefield, except to people who perform well above the average. Went on to command two different MI units with the mission of intelligence analysis. Was put on a special flight from DC to Ft Bragg to brief the 82d Airborne prior to a potential deployment to a combat zone. (Turned out they did not go.) After which the 82d began requesting intelligence studies from our little unit out in Iowa, by name. That's how good they thought we were. So whatever "credentials" you think you have in research and analysis, I think I'll see yours and raise you everything I have in my pockets. And I have the official records to prove it. But I'm certainly willing to admit that science is not my strong suit, and that I know a whole lot less about waterfowl and waterfowl hunting than I do about upland birds and upland hunting. But I do know just a little about research and analysis. And the people to whom studies were submitted that I either wrote or edited confirmed that, by giving me promotions and awards and medals. All in the official records.

So feel free to keep blowing smoke . . . and keep ducking my requests to produce even ONE of these studies that you claim casts doubt upon the science behind the lead shot ban for waterfowl. Same conclusion, Keith: You're still not showing me the beef.

Larry....Larry.....Larry'e eeeeee

You think anyone but Keith reads your silly crap ?

eYe'm betting you two would argue about how long and and how high a turd would float.

Thanks for bringing me back into it. Have the qualifications for being an expert on this thread changed?

On the surface of it, you don't acknowledge the whole thread, but apparently, you look at ALL of it. If hunters were a mil. unit, are you providing them intel to complete their mission? Or, setting the majority of the unit up for failure?

Have you analyzed and provided intel on the weaknesses of the 'enemy', or does your intel to the unit conclude the enemy 'won'?

goddamn, Larry, that's impressive. But did you know Jackie O or Martin King? Sorry King! I couldn't resist!

My military career is rather less impressive and quit frankly, I'm amazed I managed to stay out of the brig all these years.


Somewhere, a condor is crying.



_______________________
One of the few benefits of being a journalist is that you're not in the Army. P.J. O'Rourke

It is an impressive record. There have been at least two other impressive member MI practitioners whom I have corresponded with over the years---no longer here.

If you're interested in that kind of work google Canada's defence minister Harjit Sajjan, a Sikh, considered one of the best allied intelligence assets in Afghanistan:

"Sajjan’s intelligence-gathering and analytic skills soon attracted the attention of senior U.S. military and strategic advisors. His opinion letter concerning the Taliban, local warlords and the Afghan opium trade was appended in full in a major 2008 report on U.S. anti-narcotic strategies by Barnet Rubin, senior advisor to the U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. In both 2006 and 2009 Sajjan came under enemy fire, saw open combat and coped with dead and wounded soldiers.

Following Sajjan's second deployment in 2009, U.S. Major-General James Terry, Commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan’s southern provinces, requested that he join the U.S. Command Team for a third deployment 2010, where he served as Special Assistant to General Terry."

"If you're interested in that kind of work..."

Kingsley, I'm interested in women, cars, guns, alcohol, tobacco, food, books, music, golf, hockey, architecture (I'm a mid-century mod Mies, Eames kinda guy) and a bunch of other stuff, and don't give a 🐀's arse about some Sikh intel guru, God bless him.

Who do you like, Bernie or Hill?


______________________
I find condors dreadfully boring.

Bernie but it's Hill.

Darned impressive guy, King. With CIA, I served with two complete rotations in the Defense Attache's office. Without question, the best intelligence officer of the bunch was an Army Attache who spoke fluent Arabic. Eventually converted to Islam. My boss, the CIA chief of station, was impressed by his reports--and he was not an easy guy to impress.

In the intel business, it's really bad if you do sloppy analysis. People can die. And you have to be willing to give bad news to the higher-ups. Those unwilling to speak their minds to power don't belong.

In the hunting business, it's really bad if you do sloppy analysis.

Sorry Larry, I couldn't resist. While not life not life and death, all hunters face real problems. I agree with our friend King here, thank you for your service. But, I think he's the fellow that typed something about the very near end to hunting in his brave new world.

Does it matter which socialist bas'turd he likes ?

Well, jOe, my in depth analysis of the question posed says absolutely not. *disclaimer* no actual analysis was done-I flipped a coin and it came up NO.

Mr. Sajjan's impressive conclusion on ISIS--blame the last guys. And climate change.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/harjit-sajjan-defence-isis-comments-1.3431806

edit: not sure of his position on the condor issue. add tag line.


____________________
http://youtu.be/VES_grfHmQE

C'mon, Joe! Don't like Iowans? Forty-three percent of Iowans said they think of themselves as socialists, according to a Des Moines Register poll last month. S'pose it's the condors? (To keep on thread)

I don't see the end of hunting in my "brave new world" vision, nor even in what's likely to be my son's brave new world. However, when the decision was made to go nontox only for waterfowl, there was the very real possibility of facing the end of waterfowling if the change hadn't been made. And that was 25 years ago. That's how well-accepted the evidence was. Considering that everyone also knew that lead shot is far superior, ballistically, to steel, it's hard to believe the switch was made based on junk science.

Other types of hunting face different challenges today. And in places where there is a very low % of hunters (like CA), the threat to hunting increases significantly. Throw in the general anti-gun attitude of many nonhunters and nonshooters . . . The shooting program at Simpson College in Indianola, Iowa is currently under attack. Some alum who's an ER doctor in a big city talks about having seen the results of gun violence. Not sure what that has to do with kids shooting clay targets with shotguns, which is a far safer sport than just about anything involving a ball. And the guns they're using are hardly ever the type involved in crimes. But the anti-gun folks never seem to pay much attention to such details.

LR, you would have enjoyed the home I grew up in. In 1960 my father gave a hot young architect a building lot he split off an acreage he owned in return for designing, building and furnishing our family home. The architect built his home next door. Both houses and the furnishings within were paeans to the mid century style and designers you mentioned. The homes were odd doppelgangers of each other, ours designed for a family of seven with somewhat traditional values, the other for a family of four with adults as hip and swinging as it was possible to be. His wife was, at the time, the prima ballarina of the Royal Winnipeg Ballet and their home a centre for artists and urban culture. Yet the two homes were remarkably similar in many respects.

The Habs are tanking so I'm depressed....the Jets are worse than last year so I'm getting the razors out. And New England is out so what is the point of going on! The only sporting salvation comes from Serena's ouster and Vonn's continued dominance.

King's blather about our new defense minister is more national insecurity masked as pride.....a Liberal fixation on personality rather than policy. It is his, and our nation's, Achilles Heel. The Libs are busy reclaiming Canada's role as a "soft" power and crowing about it too. We all know what soft power is.....impotence. Only the left can make that a virtue.

Trump will implode in the coming months leaving behind the particular gift of destroying PC, at least for a while, and enabling true conversations to happen. Rubio will overtake Cruz because Cruz just happens to be a particularly unlikable guy. And with any luck, Saunders will end Hillary's presidential aspirations and get the true leftist ambitions of the Democrats out in the open.

How does this relate to condors and lead? Regardless of who wins, the war on hunters will continue, with bad science that has emotional impact continuing to take precedence over sound science, reason and evidence based policy.

In politics there are no "true conversations"....

Good for you and your son. The wording of King's note was about someone, here as a fan of the double gun, encouraging grandkids and great grandkids, not just his, to 'progress' away from the barbaric and toxic nature of the blood sports.

Way back a bunch of pages, you mentioned that lead levels of 5 point something can be found in eagles, and .2 ppm is considered toxic. I'm confident that you're aware of 'studies' that show normal acting and appearing pheasant can have bone lead levels in the mid four hundreds ppm. Are you going to insist that the only source of that lead came from expended lead shot?

Speaking from familiarity with my part of the world, a virtual Shangri-la for those inclined to hunt and fish, there has been little or no increase in participants over the last 50 years.

Acadians still come down from Cape Breton to hammer away at "fish" ducks in our district, a few from cities and towns within 150 miles for other ducks and geese, but no increase in numbers of locals.

There's a strong consensus on this board for the reasons of a generational decline in interest everywhere. Publics wait for me as a dinosaur to be buried.

King, that's pretty true in the core duck hunting areas of Manitoba as well. Delta Waterfowl is trying hard to get youngsters involved but those kids tend to be the offspring of hunters and were going to be introduced to it anyway. Little new blood.

Not so horrible here. I had a new grad student walk in to my office yesterday and ask me if I could take him and teach him about hunting. And he is not alone, nor does he come from a hunting background, so he is entirely tableau rosa at this point. This is not too unusual for me actually and as often as not, it is women who are looking to hunt.

We shall begin with turkeys.

Well, a little increase shouldn't be minimized, as Canada has seen a significant population transition to urban areas, in much less than that time.

My understanding is ducks up around by you are just 'rats with wings', a position that the publics appreciate in terms of drawing agenda lines and labeling ethical hunters as slobs.

You should do a 'host a hunt' for one or two inner city kids that win a letter writing contest about why I'd like to try duck hunting, but don't have the opportunity. Heck, you could sit in your easy chair, stuff a few shells in their pocket, and point 'em towards the water while you watch with your morning coffee. Remind them, no eagle for lunch though. Just a thought.

Yes I have ran into quite few 'young' (25 - 35) year olds wanting to take up hunting. About half female and half male. Hunting in reality is a difficult sport to get into. It has a very costly start up cost (guns, shells, clothes and accessories, gas, food, etc), more than hockey (which is the most expensive sport for school kids) the amount of knowledge about the many different facets takes years to accumulate and it is hard work in many cases and takes time. Success does not come easily so there can be little gratification. After a few times out many of these 'young' people realize this and drop off.

The other reality is that in Calgary the divorce rate is around 60%, I believe somewhere in the +40% across Canada. That means single young mothers bringing up kids on their own. Most sports are out of the question due to time and cost and hunting doesn't rate a discussion.

It is super difficult and it's not just the cost. It is access to everything - access to land to hunt of course, access to places to shoot, access to licenses (either because of lottery or things like hunter-safety training, etc.).

I don't think single moms are really that big of a deal. Kids with single moms still have dads. I would say there is just a whole lot more competition for a kid's time and then there is pressure or at least a bias towards playing things like team sports and other organized things where there are mechanisms to get it started.

FWIW, in rural Iowa (and esp. semirural Iowa) schools the hottest sport in the last 5-10 years seems to be.... Trap shooting. No injury risk like football, no requirements for ridiculous training schedules like the big team sports, no equipment to speak of - a shotgun is easy and can even be shared or team-owned, and lots of kids that have been disenfranchised by the Friday Night Lights syndrome, so they shoot. Both boys and girls. Seems to be a lot of it going on, so much so that all my local trap ranges are running almost every night with one school or another borrowing the range for practice.

Brent, you Iowans are on to something. We had seven-time world and Olympic champion Susan Nattrass running a university sports program here for years. It didn't translate into greater interest among females and males.

From my experience with scads of young people, females have shown more interest, stick-with-it than males but I think the attraction is competition, and the females excel at competition. Shooting anything with feathers, no way.

Iowans obviously introduced shooting properly.

Craig, we need to avoid apples and oranges comparisons. The lead level in the eagle in question is BLOOD lead level, not bone. I have no idea how those compare. The only reference I have to bone lead level is in a study the WI DNR did on woodcock, trumpeter swans, bald eagles, and loons. The abstract says: "Bone lead concentrations considered to be toxic in waterfowl were observed in all age classes of woodcock." The woodcock for this study (other than a few chicks) were harvested using steel shot before the regular season opened. So obviously, they were relatively healthy when they were "collected". Given that the same lead level is considered toxic in waterfowl, it would be logical to conclude that woodcock are far more resistant to lead poisoning, based on comparative bone lead levels, than are waterfowl. And since waterfowl are several times larger than woodcock, it would appear that the ability to tolerate lead varies by species rather than by size. So I can't comment on the bone lead level found in pheasants, and since the woodcock bone lead level isn't given in ppm, I can't compare those either. But in any case, I've never been terribly concerned about lead shot ingestion by pheasants. However they were exposed to lead, based on the Tall Timbers research on quail taken off an area of much heavier shot fall than one typically sees in upland hunting, I'd doubt that any appreciable part of that exposure came from ingesting lead shot.

Larry, your woodcock abstract should point out that you choose to state 'obviously they were relatively healthy'. What you fail to admit, is that there is enough environmental non shot sourced lead to be measurable in woodcock. I agree that woodcock can not be compared to ducks, but in close proximity to duck habitat, you say steel shot zone, there is enough environmental lead available to be toxic to a duck.

Back to apples and oranges, can you blame someone for questioning your contention that all available lead necessarily comes from shot. I pointed out numbers, because while you may split hairs about apples and oranges, the very presence of measurable won't go well for your case.

All I was asking is that if a study comes up concluding x or y, are you just going to agree that it was caused by lead shot. And, please don't hope for a moment that there aren't 'studies' that implicate ingested lead shot in pheasant lead levels, as I've been hinting about repeatedly.

I wish I was retired so I could read all this but lead ingested by a condor would have to be a joke. Not sure about the ducks.

I'm back Larry. I didn't forget about you, just had a few very busy days at work, and a lot of overtime. I'm glad to see the thread is still active, even if it is straying further off topic, but as I said, I wasn't done yet anyway.



Believe it or not, I actually considered that you would argue about the accuracy of my 90% figure in a further attempt to get far away from your obvious inability to read and comprehend things. No Larry, I didn't calculate that exactly 90% of what you had said in this thread prior to my statement was anti-lead ammunition rhetoric. It was my estimate, and whatever the exact figure would have been, I'd say it has increased since then... except for upland game hunting of course. It wasn't meant to be scientific, but it is interesting to see your sudden interest in dead-nuts accuracy and science pertaining to that comment, but your continued acceptance of absolute junk science that was instrumental in enacting lead shot bans.

I have proof to show you Larry. I'm not bluffing or blowing smoke. You could find plenty yourself if you were really interested. I've already provided far more than you have, but you choose to dismiss it because craigd or I don't have the credentials to satisfy you. And you continue to show you don't have the ability to comprehend what you read anyway.

By the same token, we are also still waiting for you to show us irrefutable evidence that the blanket 1991 Federal lead shot ban was based upon sound science. That is something that I cannot find. Have you ever looked at waterfowl breeding population levels in the decades prior to the ban? 1963 was about an all-time low and 1966 wasn't much better, and the numbers bounced back tremendously, without the lead shot ban, in 1973 and 1979. The increases in duck populations didn't approach those levels again until 1997-98. So tell us Larry, was that 1997-98 population increase due to the lead ban, or was it due to much improved breeding conditions in the Midwest and also due to massive declines in the numbers of waterfowl hunters? There has been a 72% decline in waterfowl hunters in Canada since 1978, and about a 40% decline in the U.S. between the 1970's and 2008. Continuing significant declines of waterfowl hunters in the U.S. are still a matter of great concern due to the greatly reduced amount of money coming in for habitat improvement. Many states are reporting annual declines in Duck stamp sales of around 30% per year. Dramatically less hunting pressure and reduced access to remote hunting areas is certainly causing large increases in waterfowl populations that can and are being attributed to the lead shot ban. Figures lie, and liars figure. It's amazing what you can see if you have the ability to read and understand instead of being blinded by an inability to ever admit being wrong

The past credentials you claim as a MI analyst are/were impressive, if factual. All I can say about that is, if you ever really possessed those analytical skills... what ever happened to them? You sure haven't shown us any beef in that department here. I do agree with your admission that science is not your strong suit. Did you even read that North Dakota study on lead fragments in ground venison Larry? It's about 30 pages. Why don't you actually read it and see if you can find any obvious flaws before you hang your hat on it.

Would you shut up if anyone provided strong evidence that North Dakota study was seriously flawed Larry? Could you admit that you were wrong? In your mind, have you ever been wrong? I'm not ducking anything Larry. And neither have you shown us any beef. I am also still waiting. But if this was a contest for bloviation, side-stepping, and demonstrating an inability to comprehend things, you're doing a great job.

Craig, you're confused . . . and your "hints" don't rise to the level of evidence.

First of all, please show me ANYWHERE I've made the contention that "all available lead necessarily comes from shot". There's lead in the air, lead in water, lead from bunches of sources other than shot. But if you FIND SHOT in a critter's digestive system, then there's no way you can give ingested lead a "pass" as A source of lead poisoning. Notice I said A source, not THE source. Could be other sources as well.

And that woodcock study didn't have to tell me that doodles are likely to be exposed to lead from sources other than lead shot. In the first place, they examined 108 birds and didn't find lead shot in ANY of them. In the second place, woodcock eat by sticking their long beaks in the soil and probing for worms. So they ingest soil, and they ingest worms--either or both of which are likely sources of lead. And given the fact that shot fall in woodcock habitat tends to be quite dispersed (as it is for all upland birds except doves) rather than concentrated as it often is for waterfowl, the likelihood of lead shot being the sole source (let alone the main source) of lead in the soil in which woodcock feed is highly improbable.

As for your hints about ingested lead in pheasants, please "show me the beef". Links to studies. Does not make sense to me that lead poses a significant danger to pheasants . . . and here's why: Pheasants are the major species featured in driven shoots in the UK and elsewhere. Those birds, unlike our preserve birds, have been "out and about" on the shoot grounds for several weeks (if not months) before they're shot. The same drives are shot several times over the course of the season. In a single drive, a line of 8 guns might well fire 200 shots (or more). So, in the case of driven shoots, you have a much higher concentration of shot fall than you do in upland hunting as we practice it in this country. Preserves would be the only place in this country you'd get comparable shot fall, but they're not a good comparison for the simple reason that most of their pheasants don't survive outside their pens for more than a few days; therefore not having sufficient time to ingest much lead shot. Those British birds, on the other hand, are much more akin to our wild birds--except exposed to areas of much heavier shot fall. And because they have gamekeepers on patrol, looking for predators etc, it seems to me they'd be finding lots of pheasants dead from lead poisoning if ingestion of lead shot were an issue for pheasants.

I eagerly await your hinted-at study on pheasants and lead shot.

Then please, by all means, produce the links to said proof. So far, you haven't even shown the bun, the lettuce, the tomato or the cheese--let alone the beef.

As for the MI credentials . . . well, Uncle Sam sends me a check every month, pay appropriate to my rank of COL (retired), MI Branch. And I have all kinds of supporting documents. Can probably come up with a witness or two, if you insist. But I do have to be careful about telling you too much. Unlike a certain candidate for president, I take the protection of classified information very seriously. And if I were to tell you the whole story, given that I held a Top Secret clearance for 30 years, I'd have to kill you. But I think I'll just let your brain explode and do whatever damage that might result, while you're searching for the so far elusive "proof".

I'll stick by my opinion about your first point and on the woodcock abstract.

Since you brought it up, try searching 'lead exposure in ring-necked pheasants on shooting estates in Great Britain'. That search is basically the exact wording, that you used in your 'logic' as 'proof'. But, you should see an abstract on researchgate.net or the same on jstor.org. Sorry, I don't know how to do a link, one thing we seem to have in common.

Not too bad, 437 birds, 4 different seasons or parts of seasons, 32 different shooting estates, and 'recommendations'. Nearly a fourth are said to be significantly tainted with lead. Why not be aware that stuff like this is floating around out there before concluding that it is akin to our wild birds?

How to do a link? Well, if you can't do it any other way, simply look at the address of the website you've accessed and type it in. www.doublegunshop.com. That's all you have to do. Click on that and it will get you right back to this place.

I took a look at the brief item about shooting estates in Great Britain. Note how the gizzards were collected: "From birds that were shot . . . " That means they were quite healthy. The way the game is played on driven shoots, you don't shoot birds so sick they can't get off the ground, and you don't shoot them if they can scarcely fly because you might strike a beater, and you don't shoot low birds because it's not sporting--even if they are surrounded by sky (blue sky rule prevails over there, for the safety of the beaters). So these were HEALTHY birds. Which would seem to indicate that however much lead shot they ingested--and 3% of the gizzards out of 437 birds isn't a whole lot--it had yet to make them sick enough that they were not "sporting" targets to be shot by the guns. And if that's a typical rate of shot ingestion on British estates, then it reinforces my view that we have little or nothing to worry about in this country. Since, as I pointed out, those birds are exposed to far heavier shot fall than you're ever going to see when hunting pheasants in this country, other than where there are "released" birds.

I don't know how their bone lead level compares to that which was apparently fatal in waterfowl. But as I mentioned earlier, since woodcock were healthy and shot with bone lead levels that were considered fatal in waterfowl, that would seem to suggest that different species have different levels of tolerance for lead. With woodcock being significantly smaller than ducks, logic would seem to indicate that if it's enough to kill a duck, then it will surely kill a woodcock. But that does not appear to be the case. And perhaps pheasants--birds of a similar size to ducks--also have a greater tolerance for lead. But I see nothing in the article to tell me that just because a small percentage of pheasants are ingesting lead, apparently with no ill effects, that the same would hold true for waterfowl. Perhaps the researchers need to contact a bunch of gamekeepers and ask them to save any pheasants they find dead without any apparent evidence of trauma either before the shooting season starts or after it ends. Then necropsy and analyze the birds to see what their bone lead levels show, and whether lead poisoning might be a possible cause of death. If I go over again next season, I'll have to ask the keepers and the man who runs the shoot whether they're losing many birds during the off season for causes they can't tie to predators or anything else that's obvious.

I note that the article contains several references I used when I did my articles on lead shot: The Tall Timbers research and the article on woodcock in Wisconsin.

I have an Apple, so it may be little different but ............ I click on the bar where the website address is, at the very top of my page. It all turns blue, then I hold down the "command" key, and while doing so hit the "c" key, which copies the address. Then go back to the reply box and put your cursor where you want the link to appear and, again, hold down the "command" key and hit "v". The link will appear where you want it to and, when you look at the preview, it will appear in blue. Voila!

SRH

Thanks guys, I could and should learn how to do a link. I was only pointing out how the request for a link was a bit of a one way street, but that's okay.

Larry, should we take a look, or should I just go ballistic about what a conspiracy theorist you are?

I never said these were sick appearing, dead, recovered birds. I've repeatedly said, as you may be, that pheasants seem to tote lead much better than ducks. Yes, we are talking about HEALTHY appearing birds, I never said otherwise. Try to keep in mind that I dug it up for you because it was beef so to speak. My big concern, your logic that tells you you're always correct, is very weak at debunking this little abstract.

First let me say, I didn't read the whole article, and I ain't paying to do so, but the abstract seems to say more than enough. I'm also going to ask if you can step out of your waterfowl commingling, because you asked for some beef on pheasant lead shot ingestion.

3% of gizzards with lead shot in them is small, and remarkably similar to your ND study that said it varied between 3-6%. So what, the lab findings were that 22.4% of the pheasant contained a bone lead level of significant to very high. If lead is located in an internal organ, the bird may be in the process of expelling it. Once it's incorporated into bone, well, that's part of why I didn't want you making too much pheasant soup back a bunch of pages ago.

Weren't you the fellow that said I was a bad guy for not quoting what you wanted from the Audubon crew, although all I ever quoted was a part of their mission statement to refute the misleading statements from you that the society was hunt friendly. Are you trying to conceal and ignore the 22.4%? That abstract was basically an advisory about humans not eating game, that APPEARS healthy, but contains systemic, not particulate lead. You were the guy that brought up the ground venison and the comment about 'us' being in trouble if the feds felt the need to regulate a food source.

Of course, the true problem here is that you're 'discussing' this as though you fully agree that this is all due to ingested lead shot expended in the uplands. That and if I start calling you a conspiracy theorist, you won't buy it, and keep going with your feelings. Lucky guy, please enjoy your next estate hunt over there. One, don't bother with the game keeper, he can't help with the anti hunt spinners, and two, how you gonna push yourself away from the table when a big dollar chef presents, pheasant under glass from the first day's shoot?

Now, I'm going to switch off my commingling button, and remind you that while they may eat different things, you insist on 'proving' that toxic levels of lead are in the duck's zone. My conspiratorial side thinks the CRP and other habitat enhancing programs and the ban on DDT and other agricultural/manufacturing chemicals are the reason for a rebound in duck numbers, not steel.

In the UK the threat of a lead shot ban hangs over us. Already forbidden when shooting waterfowl, the government are awaiting the final report from an already discredited investigatory committee.

Whenever the argument rages about lead shot, I am reminded about a post written in 2012 by Guy N Smith, who writes for several of our shooting magazines. This is what he said:

"Blood Test
I requested a blood test to determine the level of lead in my blood. According to the internet the acceptable blood lead concentrations in healthy persons without excessive exposure to environmental sources of lead is less than 10ug/dL for children and less that 25 ug/dL for adults. My doctor was somewhat surprised at my request but agreed, stating that I would have to pay for it. I was only too happy to fork out £40 in an attempt to dispel the malicious myth. It turned out to be money well spent.

I have eaten game since I was old enough to consume solid foods. During the war years when meat rationing was in force we ate whatever my father shot. Without the benefit of a freezer, this comprised game throughout the Winter months and fresh rabbit and pigeon during the rest of the year.

Further to this, I had a small cartridge loading business during the 1960's when I must have handled tons of lead shot. Nowadays I am stripping down shotgun cartridges on a regular basis for review in this column. Hence I am undoubtedly classified as having excessive exposure to lead.

The result of my test showed that the level of lead in my bloodstream was just 5ug/dL, half that of a child without excessive exposure! That says it all as far as I am concerned and I shall ignore further press releases on this ridiculous claim with the contempt it deserves."

http://midlandcartridge.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1

Tim

Craig, please try to avoid going totally off the rails on me. First . . . the abstract you posted is NOT "beef". Beef would relate to waterfowl . . . because the conspiracy YOU are promoting is that lead poisoning in waterfowl as a result of the ingestion of lead shot is a conspiracy sold to the public via junk science. And if you agree that the evidence from the abstract seems to show that pheasants can tolerate ingested lead shot better than ducks, then you should KNOW that the abstract in question isn't beef. Ducks to pheasants. Apples to oranges. Beef to pork. Well, at least the abstract is MEAT, not a bun or a tomato or a slice of cheese. Maybe we're making progress.

I have no reason to "debunk" the abstract, and have no intention of doing so. It shows pretty much what I expected it would show: Due to a much higher concentration of shot fall than you would expect on this side of the pond in typical wild pheasant hunting scenarios, there's a much greater likelihood that pheasants would ingest lead shot on shooting estates in the UK. So I'm agreeing with what the abstract tells us. But I'm also pointing out what the abstract does NOT tell us: Any evidence of pheasants getting sick or dying from the ingestion of lead shot. Given the way shooting estates are run, with gamekeepers out and about and on the job protecting their birds from predators, I should think they'd find the occasional dead pheasant, if there are any lying about that have died from lead poisoning. But the abstract does not address that issue. That's why I stressed the fact that the birds examined were HEALTHY birds even though lead was found in 3% of the gizzards checked. Sounds pretty much like the WI woodcock study: birds with high lead levels (although no lead shot in the case of woodcock) that were healthy at the time they were collected (shot).

Not sure what "ND 3-6% study" you're talking about. The only "ND study" I have has to do with lead bullet fragments in venison--and that's 53 out of 95 packets, which clearly isn't 3-6%. And that's only in the introduction to the study, which is actually a Centers for Disease Control study on the blood lead level of humans in North Dakota.

And what does the bone lead level in pheasants have to do with anything . . . unless we're finding pheasants that are sick or dead from lead poisoning? NO study I'm aware of says that lead poisoning is killing pheasants as it did waterfowl. Never saw any "beef" of that nature when I was preparing my articles. In fact, the MN DNR's Nontoxic Shot Advisory Committee--which did a bunch of research on the subject--made the following statement concerning lead shot in upland game: "Conclusive proof regarding the effects of lead shot on other upland game populations is lacking . . . " In other words, nothing done on pheasants or any other upland species (doves excepted) shows the same effects as lead shot did with waterfowl. The most likely reason being that upland game species, except doves on heavily hunted areas, are far less likely to ingest lead shot than were pre-ban waterfowl. And since humans seldom eat pheasant bones, how would the bone lead level in pheasants have anything to do with human consumption? In the case of the venison packets, the lead fragments were IN THE MEAT--meant for human consumption. Apples and oranges again, Craig.

And once again, Craig, you're trying to put words in my mouth that are coming out of yours. Slimy tactic, that. Are you maybe a politician or something? "This is all due to ingested lead shot expended in the uplands." I'm not sure what "this" refers to in your quote, but I am well aware--and have stated multiple times--that there are plenty of sources of lead in the environment other than lead shot. From now on, if you want to quote me, then QUOTE ME--as I just did you--with these little squiggly marks " " around the statement so we know it came from me and not from you.

You and Keith have a real problem understanding the task you've set for yourself. I'm not interested in proving anything about ducks. I don't know whether you want to call the lead shot ban "settled science", but it is settled LAW. You can't shoot lead at waterfowl. End of story. It's not up to the wildlife managers to defend that decision, which has been with us for 25 years. It's up to you and Keith and anyone else who wants to prove it was a bad decision to explain why it was a bad decision. And to present your theories of what was killing all the ducks if it wasn't lead poisoning, to which lead shot was a major contributing factor (according to those who proposed and supported the ban). The climate change deniers don't just say "that's junk science". They come up with opposing theories. Those who deny evolution don't just say it's bunk. They also come up with opposing theories, like intelligent design. Up to you to either construct a cogent opposing theory yourself--not suggestions why there are factors other than the ban to explain why duck numbers turned around--but to what was causing all those dead ducks we're no longer finding.

As for your conspiratorial side . . . a couple problems with your suggestions about duck numbers and why they increased: 1. DDT was banned almost 20 years before the lead shot ban went into effect. 2. CRP went into effect in 1985. By 1987, we'd already seen the pheasant population in Iowa double as a result. Why didn't similar increases in waterfowl numbers show up that quickly. 3. CRP enrollment is now down from its peak by about 12 million acres. We've lost a third of the total CRP we once had. Shouldn't duck numbers be declining as a result? 4. Because we now have more land in row crop production (replacing all those lost CRP acres), that means more ag chemicals applied. And because of the loss of CRP, more of those ag chemicals are washing into our wetlands and waterways. The Des Moines Waterworks has filed suit against some upstream Iowa counties because their water is no longer fit to drink without significant filtration. Nothing in either 3 or 4 is good news for ducks . . . but are we seeing lots of dead ducks as a result? CRP was mainly good for ducks because it provides better protection for nesting birds in the Prairie Pothole region. Reduces predator losses. But it's pretty easy to tell a predator kill from something like lead or chemical poisoning.

Lots of stuff you've thrown up against the wall to see what would stick. Now if you'll quit misrepresenting what I believe and what I've stated, and get around to producing your scientific theory on why lead poisoning was not a major factor in waterfowl mortality pre-ban, maybe we can return to a more intelligent discussion. And please, Craig . . . From now on, anything you claim I said needs to be a quote. I will do the same if I refer to anything you said.

TRW, that's an interesting comment on lead in humans. Here in the States, the only direct impact lead had on me was when our Environmental Protection Agency shut down a 50 foot indoor firing range we had in an Army Reserve center, where I was the senior officer. Inadequate ventilation, they said. Too much lead in the air.

Well, we had all the soldiers who worked there full time, not just one weekend a month, tested for lead in their blood. None of them had a blood lead level that was out of the normal range for adults. And in all cases, it was well below the Center for Disease Control's level of concern. Similarly, a study conducted on several hundred volunteers in North Dakota--where hunting and the consumption of wild game are quite common--showed that their average blood lead level was below the nationwide average. And in no case did it approach the CDC's level of concern.

It will be interesting to see what information coming out of Flint, Michigan--where there is currently a serious issue with lead-polluted drinking water--shows us. Problems with lead poisoning in humans--even those of us who are "home loaders" and work with lead shot--don't seem to be all that common. And given that rural North Dakotans showed a lower blood lead level than the national average, I'd guess that perhaps people living in urban areas, in dwellings where there may still be lead paint and lead pipes, are more likely to be impacted by lead accumulation in our bodies than those of us who consume wild game.

Larry, you're going off the rails with your slimy tactics, okay, got that out of the way.

I honestly fail to understand why you play word games with your own words, but I think it's a slimy tactic. I repeat, you've regularly been putting words in my mouth and pretending to approach from a position of authority based on wordiness.

You asked, I want to see a study about pheasant ingesting lead shot in the uplands. You said, I think the shooting estates of Great Britain are a good example. You said, the shooting estates of Great Britain are akin to our hunting.

Why do you now repeat that the only beef you asked for has been about waterfowl? It just isn't true. You asked about pheasant in the uplands ingesting lead shot. I asked you not to commingle the topics, but you don't have to comply, nor understand the request, Again, you have used the slimy tactic of commingling unrelated topics.

Tim (tw) had a great post. Not because you buddied up to him and agreed that some obscure study said we did blood tests. The value of his post show where this heads. Who cares about blood tests. Haven't you repeatedly said, all that matters is the appearance of whether something looks sick or not and if it might have died from the speculation.

Ask the parents in Flint if they'll take an all clear because most of the kids don't look sick. Ask how those high bone levels of lead got there, not well heck I don't think the gamekeepers have found any dead pheasants off season. You are the one that says British estates are akin to upland hunting in the US unless you are softening that position or back peddling. Are you a politician.

Let me switch off your narrow request for a study, beef, on pheasant ingestion of lead shot for a moment again. I think it's pretty common knowledge that allowing wetlands to return or restoring them takes much more time than upland cover takes to come back. So, I'll apply some of your logic and recommend to you that the lag between significant CRP implementation and other duck habitat restoration and numbers rebound is about as expected compared to upland birds.

Also, if you'd take a moment to check, DDT was used commonly into the early steel shot era under the brand name of Kelthane, some of the farmers here may remember it, I used some myself. The current runoff is thought to be safer and friendlier to humans and the environment. There are late 80's studies about increases in DDT detection well after the ban that you tout. When was that full steel shot ban, around '91?

I think it's a slimy tactic to keep repeating the same thind over and over.

I always quote your words Larry. I use single squigglies by my choice and mine alone to send up a flag to any reader that clarification and full context, from you, is available. I make the conscious choice to play word games, when I get personally attacked, not countered with 'beef'. I'll gladly return and acknowledge correction for anything I've stated incorrectly.

There you go, Craig. The big lie. That is you, is it not? Or do you have an evil twin brother craigd? That is clearly stated incorrectly--by one helluva long ways. You cannot come up with a quote where I stated what you claim above. As a result, that's one slime too many from you. I'm out of here as far as you're concerned. Enough lies and BS. You come up with a study that directly challenges the lead shot ban in waterfowl, PM me with a link. Otherwise . . . go eat a sandwich filled with lead 8's, have your blood and bone levels tested, and come back and report.

Larry, look a bit further up this page, and you wrote that it was incumbent on me to 'construct a cogent theory'. In eighteen pages, I can't read where you have given any consideration to lead sources other than shot. The only exception may be vaguely with the woodcock, and an occasional gratuitous mention in general.

How simple could it be, yes I stand by my comment. Instead of quoting that comment, why don't you back out of bs mode and quote me where you have shown quail, pheasant or particularly ducks have been shown to pick up lead from non shot sources. Of course, I'm referring to the last eighteen pages, and not some new bs.

I firmly believe you've brought up some valid and true points. You said way back, all we can do is present good science, and you emotionally call me the liar and bs'er. All along this thread, I've honored you with looking at studies and examples that you thought were important, when all it comes down to is tolerating page after page of reading your conspiracy and worse stories, just to see if an occasional pertinent point is made. Your rules huh Larry, you can ratchet things up, but I can't respond in kind?

I truly have been sorry I've stuck around on this one, but you kept calling me back when you responded to keith, and best I could, I tried to stay on lead and the birds in question.

Larry has done a lot more than ratcheting things up craigd. He has actually accused you of the "slimy tactic" of putting words in his mouth. I find that laughable, and especially interesting since Larry has been desperately grasping for BEEF ever since he got caught putting words in my mouth. He really thinks that he has some right to make demands for BEEF when he has been totally unresponsive to similar requests. And he would rather find disingenuous ways to discredit us than to acknowledge some of the gaping holes and glaring errors in what he considers sound and settled science that none of us should dare to question.

First it was his insane and repeated accusation about my observation that 90% of what he had said WITHIN THIS THREAD was anti-lead ammunition. This was after his "Lead is Toxic. Toxic = Bad" pronouncement. OK, I confess, it was an estimate. It might have been 89.675% or 91.328%. But what matters is that Larry attempted to say that my observation of his rhetoric within this thread amounted to some insane claim that I was saying he is 100% anti-lead shot. One wonders how this stickler for accuracy could even make that statement after I had already acknowledged his continued support for lead shot for upland hunting, and noted his previous general support for lead ammo in the 2010 Lead Shot thread.

Then he went on to put words in my mouth again about the susceptibility of waterfowl and upland birds to lead shot. He then attempted to change my statement and its' meaning by adding the word "relative" to susceptibility, and stuck to his perverting of my words even after I explained it to him and corrected him.

Slimy tactic indeed! And even worse to try to further sidestep the issue and evade the debate by accusing you of the same thing... again for making the observation that Larry has been predominately against lead ammunition in this thread... EXCEPT FOR UPLAND GAME HUNTING. And other than a couple recent admissions about some other sources of lead in our environment, Larry has either avoided or minimized that and has been extremely supportive of the pseudo-science that led up to the 1991 Federal Lead shot ban for waterfowl.

This is the guy who wants and demands BEEF, when he isn't ready to even digest pablum. That became even more apparent when he made his erroneous suppositions about lead concentration in bones. There are many sources of information about lead uptake into skeletal systems, so one has to wonder just how hard he looked if he could only manage to find one study from WI-DNR. There is no shortage of information on lead ammo toxicity, or lead poisoning in various birds and mammals. And it doesn't take a genius to see that quite a bit of it is agenda driven crap. But you can't be very hungry for BEEF when you are standing in the butcher shop and are unwilling to even look at it.

Larry obviously still hasn't read the North Dakota study that reported finding lead fragments in 53 out of 95 packages of ground venison. It's only about 30 pages of now largely discredited info, but Larry would rather keep clinging to damaged goods to keep the onus on lead bullets and deer hunters than to learn that the North Dakota study was as seriously flawed as much of the junk science that led to the 1991 bans.

Nor has Larry had anything to say about the extremely conflicting fluctuations in waterfowl populations prior to the 1991 lead shot ban, or the effects that weather and a huge reduction in waterfowl hunters has had on populations. It must be very convenient to be so simple minded as to say things like "Lead is Toxic. Toxic = Bad", and to just sweep everything else under the rug.

Pablum for you Larry. Beef is for grown-ups.

No beef from you either, Keith. Not even one contrarian scientist who questions the lead ban? How come we have them on climate change, evolution, etc, but not on the lead ban? Sorry Keith, but you don't have the credentials to discredit anything. Throw a bunch of crap up against the wall . . . except none of it sticks. And even if it did, it wouldn't mean anything. Come back when you find SCIENTISTS discrediting the lead ban, just like we can find contrarian scientists challenging man-made climate change and evolution. The fact that you think it's easy to shoot holes in the decision to ban lead shot for waterfowl only proves that you're unqualified with the "gun" you're using. Surely, somewhere, the truth is out there . . . but you just keep blathering on and coming up empty.

Truth is, a few comments ago, you wrote, 'I'm not interested in proving anything about ducks'. The counter theory from good logic seems to be, you're blowing unnecessary and illogical smoke, bs so to speak. How about them uplands eh Larry, and heck, at least the Bronco's are opening up with a game of it, we'll see how it plays out.