Tom Roster published a paper on steel shot lethality February 22, 2023. The lethality of modern steel is much improved. His paper is worth reading. It was posted on Outdoor Life.com.
Tom recommends various chokes for different birds/ranges.
Has anyone seen a table that gives choke constrictions for steel shot? I.e., what do the chokes measure?
Been reading and watching videos from the UK as they are shooting steel. Most recommend 3/8 and no more than modified.
I don't know why I wasted my time, but I read the outdoorlife.com article by Tom Roster.
This lunatic has spent something like 40 years trying to convince everyone that steel shot is the ballistic equal of lead, or perhaps even better. Nothing could be further from the truth. The density of steel shot is around 7.85 grams per cu. cm versus about 11.35 grams per cu. cm for lead shot.
Ammunition makers have made up for some of steel shot shortcomings by increasing velocity. But now Roster is actually saying that increased velocity isn't even needed for steel to equal lead shot effectiveness.
Using Roster's goofy logic, if steel shot is as good as lead, or even better, then aluminum shot should be better yet! And it wouldn't damage our barrels either!
Killing birds or breaking targets is highly dependent upon pattern density and kinetic energy. So the anti-lead agenda driven Roster desperately wants us to accept that a ballistically inferior shot that requires much larger size to remotely compare to lead, and which loses velocity and retained energy faster, is better all around.
That's just nuts. But why should we pay attention to the laws of physics in an insane world where Joe Biden gives the 2023 Woman of Courage Award to a biological male, and Liberals still think he respects women more than Trump?
This whole Steel versus Lead controversy as gone on for far too long.
Steel shot in my opinion is nowhere near as efficient in shotgunning as is Lead shot and never will be.
But let us get down to basic necessities , here in the UK we will be subjected to a total ban on using Lead by 2025!
Small bore guns and air rifles will possibly become obsolete due to ammunition becoming unavailable .
But more worrying for myself is that China seems to be the only supplier of Steel shot !
If they cannot cope and supply now we are in serious trouble Worldwide in 2026 or earlier.
Also in this environmentally conscious World obsessed with energy saving has anyone calculated the energy wastage used to produce steel /soft iron shot compared with moulding molten lead into shot?
Steel shot sucks, always has, always will. Sure, there’s been improvements over the years, but it’s still steel shot. Lead is superior ballistically in all facets when compared to steel, everybody knows that, including Roster. Dead centering a decoying bird with steel shot is no guarantee that it’s gonna be a dead bird with steel. How many times have you dead centered a 20 yard bird with a 1450 fps, 1 1/4 Oz of steel 3’s only to watch the bird try and swim for cover, or swim around and die 5 or 10 minutes later? Or cleaned a bird you know you dead centered at close range only to find 1 or 2 holes in the entire bird? I’ve never seen that with lead or bismuth. Patterning steel shows all kinds of inconsistent variations from one shell to the next even out of the same box. It’s frustrating. Unfortunately, it’s the only economical shell to use if you spend any significant time on the water.
I shoot quite a bit of steel during the course of a waterfowl season and it’s semi effective for me because I take birds within its effective range, but that seriously limits my opportunities (both in guns I can use and ranges I can take birds), and I still have to deal with wounded birds.
I agree with Keith. Rosters been spouting this jibberish for years, it’s like he’s being paid to do it.🤔
I think both Keith and LeFusil are right about steel and Roster. He has made himself an often sought out expert, for four decades on steel shot. Early steel shot was pathetic, inhumane in its lack of killing ability which caused game wasted by flying off to die unrecoverable in numbers never seen before. Well, over 40 years they have redeveloped steel about four time, altered wads, invented new powders and instead of sucking wind it not just sucks. For hunting purposes I’ll stick to Bismuth. If I can’t afford Bismuth I’ll just stay home. And Bismuth is a poor cousin to lead in performance. Tungsten is a better option but it cost too much to be anything other than a six dollar answer to a fifty cent problem.
Forty years ago Roster had a 10 ga. lead load that several of us tried. It had been published on a BP flier. Next year it was no longer listed. Too many bloopers; a buddy had a blooper at the moment of truth with a turkey. I think the turkey fell down laughing at the nickel plated shot dribbling out of the barrel's end. That was enough bad for the rest of us to use something else. Gil
Back when lead shot was banned here for waterfowl shooting I used steel and vowed never to use it again as it was just wounding birds. Two shots to bring it down and one to finish it off seemed to be the order of the day. Bismuth I found o.k. if the range was respected and found to be quite adequate for small duck like teal especially. I did get some Tungsten before the price went way up and found it to be very good; I still have some left. I more or less stopped duck and goose shooting. I intend to continue to use lead where legal until it is either banned or my existing stock dries up. Steel has said to have been much improved since the early days. One problem is that the steel cartridges sold here do not attain the velocity that the ones in the U.S. do, in order to conform to European Proof requirements, so are inferior to the ones with which you may be familiar. One major problem is I like to shoot vintage guns and muzzle loaders where steel is a 'no go' option. I do have a modern auto loader and over/under which are steel shot proof. My present option was to get a Baikal over/under, that are made as tough as old boots, and can be bought for very little. Mine was given to me by a Dealer who said he can't get rid of them. I intend to just fire any type of steel cartridge through that is 2 3/4" regardless of shot size. It is bored 1/2 and 3/4 choke and just see what happens. Nothing to loose. Steel shot may see a market for cheap Spanish and Italian boxlock non-ejectors that are virtually worthless here and Baikal over/unders. Use them then discard when worn out and get another. Lagopus.....
Lagopus,
That makes sense when you can go to auction and pick up a serviceable 12 bore (or two) for less than the cost of a 25 round box of Bismuth.
Steel shot requirements for waterfowl hunting under the guise of being necessary to prevent the wholesale loss of ducks geese, etc. due to lead poisoning from ingestion, is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated on the hunting community, or the populace in general for that matter. But Roster's drivel along with a willing Federal bureaucracy and alarmist thinking got it rammed down our throats. It was never the threat it was accused of being. Sure, there were some places where extreme hunting pressure on public lands allowed lead to accumulate enough for a few waterfowl to pick up lead pellets in enough quantity to eventually kill a very small number, but not even a blip on the screen enough to matter. Lies and damned lies foisted by flawed data.
JR
I learned about lead shot in 1968, from a warden at Sauvie Island, outside of Portland. He talked about picking up hundreds of 'greenies', ducks dead or dying with their butts stained green from the undigested vegetation dribbling out the back because lead shot in their gizzards prevented digestion. A vast amount of research since then showed that ingested lead kills birds; free-flying condors in California are trapped annually and put through a chelation process, broadly similar to dialysis, to remove lead from their blood. They pick it up from gut piles or ground squirrels shot with .22's.
I have no idea if birds saved from lead poisoning outnumber crippling losses due to steel, but there is absolutely no question that lead shot in ponds kills waterfowl. Not all science which inconveniences us is a hoax or evil conspiracy - seen any mercury thermometer recently? If you want to disprove the science, start swallowing lead #8's and see how you feel in a year or two.
I learned about lead shot in 1968, from a warden at Sauvie Island, outside of Portland. He talked about picking up hundreds of 'greenies', ducks dead or dying with their butts stained green from the undigested vegetation dribbling out the back because lead shot in their gizzards prevented digestion. A vast amount of research since then showed that ingested lead kills birds; free-flying condors in California are trapped annually and put through a chelation process, broadly similar to dialysis, to remove lead from their blood. They pick it up from gut piles or ground squirrels shot with .22's.
I have no idea if birds saved from lead poisoning outnumber crippling losses due to steel, but there is absolutely no question that lead shot in ponds kills waterfowl. Not all science which inconveniences us is a hoax or evil conspiracy - seen any mercury thermometer recently? If you want to disprove the science, start swallowing lead #8's and see how you feel in a year or two.
What a human could do to mimic the feeding habits of waterfowl re lead poisoning is a fool's errand, but you knew that. Condors are dead species flying that cannot be saved by govt. money. Wonder how many fly into wind turbines annually? Soft bottom marshes, sloughs, swamps, and almost all waterfowling areas allow lead to sink in deep enough to be non-threatening, hard bottom "ponds", not so much. Banning lead shot everywhere was gross overreach.
JR
Banning lead shot everywhere was gross overreach.
That's in a nutshell. It was bad "science".
It's impossible to tell but I wish it could be known how many more thousands die each year from steel shot crippling than did from leaf pellet ingestion. After using steel for a number of years, and switching over totally to bismuth and other better non-tox, and seeing the difference in it first hand, it's my opinion that the number would be staggering. And, good as it is, bismuth still isn't nearly lethal as lead.
Banning lead shot everywhere was gross overreach.
That's in a nutshell. It was bad "science".
Do tell. From whence do you draw this grand decree? Any data? Any personal expertise? Any knowledge at all?
Or just more armchair bullshit, Stanley?
Put your facts on the line. Your experiments, samples, calculations. Lay it out.
You are blowing bullshit.
Banning lead shot everywhere was gross overreach.
That's in a nutshell. It was bad "science".
Do tell. From whence do you draw this grand decree? Any data? Any personal expertise? Any knowledge at all?
Or just more armchair bullshit....
Do tell prof. Have you published any research on the topic, or still parroting acedemia armchair bs?
Banning lead shot everywhere was gross overreach.
That's in a nutshell. It was bad "science".
Do tell. From whence do you draw this grand decree? Any data? Any personal expertise? Any knowledge at all?
Or just more armchair bullshit....
Do tell prof. Have you published any research on the topic, or still parroting acedemia armchair bs?
I've read the published research. Have you? I've listed many articles on this forum for you to read. Did you?
Thought not. Neither did Stanly
....I've read the published research. Have you? I've listed many articles on this forum for you to read. Did you?
Thought not. Neither did Stanly
We've been over this, congrats. Thought not, try thinking more.
....I've read the published research. Have you? I've listed many articles on this forum for you to read. Did you?
Thought not. Neither did Stanly
We've been over this, congrats. Thought not, try thinking more.
that's the best you've got I guess. No data, no nothing. Just ignorance and arrogance.
That's just one of several threads.
….that's the best you've got I guess. No data, no nothing. Just ignorance and arrogance.
There was a time when I thought you were a gun person, shame on you for the arrogant bs. Never again, or shame on me.
….that's the best you've got I guess. No data, no nothing. Just ignorance and arrogance.
There was a time when I thought you were a gun person, shame on you for the arrogant bs. Never again, or shame on me.
Oh, I'm a gun person, no doubt about that. I'm not blind to reality either, and I don't march in lock-step. Try reading up on the topic a little before you pronounce your decree. What you want to be true and truth are not the same thing. A few folks hear have trouble wrapping their heads around that.
….Oh, I'm a gun person, no doubt about that. I'm not blind to reality either, and I don't march in lock-step. Try reading up on the topic a little before you pronounce your decree. What you want to be true and truth are not the same thing. A few folks hear have trouble wrapping their heads around that.
Of course you are a gun person, because your favorites are on all the likely safe from ban lists, huh pontificator? Still shooting those big lead slugs out your single shots, hypocrit?
I read the topic, and I added my two cents in response to arrogant bs. Higher education, what a bunch of arrogant bs, huh prof? What’s the score, one or two of your flock hunt ducks, the rest have phds in philosophy from u of starbucs?
….Oh, I'm a gun person, no doubt about that. I'm not blind to reality either, and I don't march in lock-step. Try reading up on the topic a little before you pronounce your decree. What you want to be true and truth are not the same thing. A few folks hear have trouble wrapping their heads around that.
Of course you are a gun person, because your favorites are on all the likely safe from ban lists, huh pontificator? Still shooting those big lead slugs out your single shots, hypocrit?
I read the topic, and I added my two cents in response to arrogant bs. Higher education, what a bunch of arrogant bs, huh prof? What’s the score, one or two of your flock hunt ducks, the rest have phds in philosophy from u of starbucs?
You don't know much of anything do you? Certainly, you have not read the topic. When you really don't have a clue what you are talking about, you probably should be bite your tongue.
Don't challenge academia or the bureaucracy, Craig. All they do is cast aspersions on your observations you've gleaned from years of in-the-field experience and common sense. Results-driven research is far more acceptable in their little bubble. Lead haters have been around a very long time.
JR
Don't challenge academia or the bureaucracy, Craig. All they do is cast aspersions on your observations you've gleaned from years of in-the-field experience and common sense. Results-driven research is far more acceptable in their little bubble. Lead haters have been around a very long time.
JR
In other words, you have nothing too. Never did.
You can only believe what you want to believe. But there is a difference between believing and knowing and understanding. The last two you are quite resistant to. You run entirely on faith, unfortunately.
Pomposity is your strong suit, Brent. You wear it well.
JR
Pomposity is your strong suit, Brent. You wear it well.
JR
Don't look in the mirror, John. Don't.
Pomposity is your strong suit, Brent. You wear it well.
JR
Don't look in the mirror, John. Don't.
Too late, part of my morning routine. Goes well with dealing with online posers. Nice edit, huh?
JR
Banning lead shot everywhere was gross overreach.
That's in a nutshell. It was bad "science".
Do tell. From whence do you draw this grand decree? Any data? Any personal expertise? Any knowledge at all?
Or just more armchair bullshit, Stanley?
Put your facts on the line. Your experiments, samples, calculations. Lay it out.
You are blowing bullshit.
And it begins again... another discussion of the alleged dangers of lead ammunition begins its' descent into chaos, personal attacks, and name-calling. Based upon past behavior, I'm sure the professor's Canadian pal would likely say that I started the brouhaha too.
I learned about lead shot in 1968, from a warden at Sauvie Island, outside of Portland. He talked about picking up hundreds of 'greenies', ducks dead or dying with their butts stained green from the undigested vegetation dribbling out the back because lead shot in their gizzards prevented digestion. A vast amount of research since then showed that ingested lead kills birds; free-flying condors in California are trapped annually and put through a chelation process, broadly similar to dialysis, to remove lead from their blood. They pick it up from gut piles or ground squirrels shot with .22's.
This QUOTE from LGF was interesting. He gives purely anecdotal evidence of hundreds of ducks suffering from alleged lead poisoning. He didn't actually see it. He took someone else's word for it. Then he tells us the lead that Condors allegedly ingest comes from gut piles or ground squirrels killed with lead .22's. We know that ingested lead is toxic to various degrees. However, there are quite a few sources of environmental lead in California, yet all these anti-lead advocates are blind to every other more bio-available source of lead except these vast numbers of lead contaminated carcasses and gut piles. Now that the lead ammo is banned there, do you think they will reconsider the bans when Condors still get sick?
Answer: A resounding NO! They will instead blame lead ammo from other states, or from skeet and trap ranges. In the Thread linked to above, we already saw that the 1997 study done by the Univ. of Minnesota saw no decrease in lead poisoning in Eagles versus their famous 1991 study, despite good no-tox ammo compliance from hunters after the Federal lead ammo ban. It became quite obvious that Eagles must be getting lead into their systems from other sources. And suddenly, the facts changed, and the blame was placed on deer hunters and gut piles that allegedly had hundreds of lead fragments in them. Lead from paint, pesticides, industrial sources, or decades of millions of tons of microscopic particles from burning leaded gasolines were not considered by the anti-lead ammo zealots.
We asked many questions about the so-called "science" that led to Lead ammo bans before, in the Thread the Preacher provided the link to, and several other Threads. We had an anti-lead zealot who used to routinely dump links to dozens of articles and papers which he obviously never read or understood. When he, or the nutty professor, or other anti-lead ammunition guys were questioned about highly questionable or conflicting data, they refused to answer, or resorted to other cowardly behaviors.
I asked about an eagle that supposedly had a blood lead level many times the lethal dose... yet that bird was strong enough to fly and perch on a tree branch. How is this even remotely possible?
I asked about numerous papers that gave wildly conflicting and different numbers for what constituted a lethal dose of lead in the blood of ducks. I got no reply to a very valid question.
I asked why ducks and geese suddenly stopped dying from lead poisoning when all of the lead ever fired over our lakes, ponds, and sea shores was still there??? Nobody cleaned it up. But all of a sudden, the ducks apparently stopped dying en masse from lead poisoning. And let's not forget that these are migratory birds that winter over in Central American countries that didn't ban lead shot. So the birds were still quite able to ingest shot, carry it in their crops, and even have a few pellets embedded under their skin from being shot at. As far as I can determine, lead shot is still legal for waterfowl in Mexico and other parts of Central and South America.
It became apparent that many of the disciples of supporting lead ammo bans either hadn't really read the data, or were not intelligent enough to see glaring faults and discrepancies.
I gave sound examples of the "Science" being either wrong or dishonest. I provided examples of "Science" that had data manipulated or falsified to reach a predetermined conclusion. Yet we are told to blindly "Believe the Science". We are mocked when we question the "Science". And we are also expected to believe obvious agenda driven lies that make zero sense, and don't even remotely agree with the bullshit they and their peers print. Then we are expected to simply move on and forget that they lied to us, and to stand idly by like sheep as the anti-gun forces continue to attack lead ammo, attempt to sue gun and ammo makers into bankruptcy, and make hunting and shooting much less affordable.
Worse yet, there is a faction right here that will be doing everything they can to convince Dave Weber to lock or delete this Thread, and to Censor any further discussion... all in the name of phony civility.
I linked the previous thread so we could be spared repeating ourselves.
Here's the Eagle thread
https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=543722 Literature review from 2008
https://science.peregrinefund.org/legacy-sites/conference-lead/PDF/0307%20Tranel.pdf Recent review with > 125 references, most of which can be accessed by clicking on the reference
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-019-01159-0This is interesting, for any of us with embedded shot
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4139699/And BTW William, my name is Drew, please use it and thanks.
Sounds like they have their head in the sand?
I was not aware that concern regarding lead toxicity and waterfowl started in the 50s.
"Lead Poisoning in Wild Waterfowl" was published in 1951
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/items/17375This is a good review in 1966
https://archive.org/details/ontariofishwildlv5n2onta/page/8/mode/2upNilo Farms - Olin Corp. - Winchester were early movers in the effort to avoid waterfowl losses from lead
1961
https://iopn.library.illinois.edu/journals/inhs/article/view/1721975
R.S. Holmes, "Lead poisoning in waterfowl : dosage and dietary study: joint report of Illinois Natural History Survey and Olin Corporation, Winchester Group"
Of course the Greens, Audubon Society, etc. appropriated what was a legitimate effort on the part of sportsmen and conservationists; and here we are today.
....Of course the Greens, Audubon Society, etc. appropriated what was a legitimate effort on the part of sportsmen and conservationists; and here we are today.
Population of the US in 1970, 205 million, waterfowl hunters that year, supposedly the peak, 2 million. Today, 330 million in the US, maybe 10 percent illegally, half the waterfowl hunters.
And here we are today, the center for biological diversity chelating condors and the fifth largest economy in the world, gladly feeding sea turtle tons of plastic and stainless steel illegal drug needle litter. There may be double the upland bird hunters, and a few of us have noticed waterfowl feeding in the grain field of pheasant country.
I get it, 'friends' of ours don't like hunters and shooters.
And then there’s this….I’ve seen nowhere, in any of these studies where “they” can determine with empirical, evidence that the lead found in the carcasses of these birds was actually from lead shot specifically. They somehow ruled out every single naturally occurring environmental or industrial factor? Hmmmm. Damn that’s weird.
Leaded gasoline? Lead used in industry? Pollution of all types? Contaminated rivers, streams, lakes, etc from decade upon decade of industrial dumping and waste. Great way to slant an argument to suit your purposes, just leave all that out.
Another thought…Avian Cholera. You know, the diarrhea, green and yellow runny stools and stained butts, erratic behavior, lethargy, mental and physical issues, etc. Were all of these dead carcasses tested for Avian cholera? Nah. They weren’t. Can’t dig em up and test them now can we. The symptoms described as lead poisoning by all the experts sure sound like EXACTLY the same as what happens when a bird is infected with cholera or bird flu.
Avian Cholera was detected in North America in the 40’s. How was the science and research into Avian disease in the 1940’s-the 70’s? Not exactly high tech or highly funded.
There were a few “big” outbreaks of avian disease during the exact times all of these so called studies were taking place. Especially in the 1970’s. That’s facts, yet never mentioned by the lead shot haters. Weird. South America as far as I can tell, has never had a significant outbreak of Avian Cholera or Flu. Until recently, they just started jumping on the lead shot ban yet they haven’t had any significant decrease in waterfowl populations. Hmmmm.
And then there’s this….I’ve seen nowhere, in any of these studies where “they” can determine with empirical, evidence that the lead found in the carcasses of these birds was actually from lead shot specifically. They somehow ruled out every single naturally occurring environmental or industrial factor? Hmmmm. Damn that’s weird.
Leaded gasoline? Lead used in industry? Pollution of all types? Contaminated rivers, streams, lakes, etc from decade upon decade of industrial dumping and waste. Great way to slant an argument to suit your purposes, just leave all that out.
Another thought…Avian Cholera. You know, the diarrhea, green and yellow runny stools and stained butts, erratic behavior, lethargy, mental and physical issues, etc. Were all of these dead carcasses tested for Avian cholera? Nah. They weren’t. Can’t dig em up and test them now can we. The symptoms described as lead poisoning by all the experts sure sound like EXACTLY the same as what happens when a bird is infected with cholera or bird flu.
Avian Cholera was detected in North America in the 40’s. How was the science and research into Avian disease in the 1940’s-the 70’s? Not exactly high tech or highly funded.
There were a few “big” outbreaks of avian disease during the exact times all of these so called studies were taking place. Especially in the 1970’s. That’s facts, yet never mentioned by the lead shot haters. Weird. South America as far as I can tell, has never had a significant outbreak of Avian Cholera or Flu. Until recently, they just started jumping on the lead shot ban yet they haven’t had any significant decrease in waterfowl populations. Hmmmm.
START reading. You haven't seen them because you haven't looked. Now, they due stable isotope analyses to determine lead source.
And anyone worth calling a biologist knows how to diagnose avian cholera from lead poisoning. You gotta try harder if you want to make up alternative facts.
Suck it, Brent. You’re the biggest pair of clown shoes here. 😂😂😂
....START reading. You haven't seen them because you haven't looked. Now, they due stable isotope analyses to determine lead source....
So prof, when were these tests initiated for waterfowl studies, before or after the lead shot ban? Do you still shoot large lead slugs into the far off distant country side, or do the woodcock and condors, not frolic in your neck of the woods.
How about providing a little anecdotal evidence, modern notox 45 cal bullets run through barrels from the late 1800's, unicorn and isotopes play at the base of rainbows. No, I think you want to kill off sport shooting, as long as you can afford it your way with lead, before you call it a day, huh prof.
Suck it, Brent. You’re the biggest pair of clown shoes here. 😂😂😂
That the best you got? You are hilarious.
Suck it, Brent. You’re the biggest pair of clown shoes here. 😂😂😂
That the best you got? You are hilarious.
Brent, you’re as sharp as a bowling ball. You thinking otherwise, now that’s really hilarious!!! 🤣🤣
A real mental “larper”. 😂
Suck it, Brent. You’re the biggest pair of clown shoes here. 😂😂😂
That the best you got? You are hilarious.
Brent, you’re as sharp as a bowling ball. You thinking otherwise, now that’s really hilarious!!! 🤣🤣
A real mental “larper”. 😂
Fine. If it makes you feel better, stick with it. You are still living in La La Land preaching fake facts that even you don't believe.
YOU read through those studies and YOU show us where they definitively show that the studied birds didn’t die from Avian Cholera or bird flu. I’m not talking about a biologist just “knowing” what they think they died from, I’m talking about actual, real scientific analysis proving empirically that these dead birds didn’t have, weren't carrying and ultimately died from an avian disease. Are you saying that there were no bird flu or cholera outbreaks during those times I stated? What if the bird had cholera or flu when it died but had lead in its system (from what source, who knows) List its death like a Covid death?? Died from cancer but had Covid so it’s a Covid death? Talk about lala land. How convenient for an agenda huh.
Address my remarks about South America. Where did I lie or tell tall tales out of school?? Don’t be upset with guys like me who question the “science”. I’m not one of your students that’s afraid to piss the professor off. I know, you’re not used to that. I’m surprised you stick around here, having to deal with all of us mental midgets and smart asses. There’s tons of examples over the years that prove the science was absolutely wrong in all sorts of fields & disciplines. Science is to be questioned and reviewed, if it wasn’t we’d still be sticking leaches on a sick person or taking mercury as a medicine. Ya, that was scientist that told people that was all good too.
And while you’re at it, please address Keith’s statements in his post.
In the dark ages of the 60s, finding lead pellets in the gizzards of dead waterfowl was felt to be evidence of lead poisoning
https://archive.org/details/ontariofishwildlv5n2onta/page/8/mode/2up![[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]](https://photos.smugmug.com/Gun-Stuff/Gun-Stuff/i-tx2Z9SW/0/f0e3aadf/L/Screenshot%20%281701%29-L.png)
Criteria from the 80s
![[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]](https://photos.smugmug.com/Gun-Stuff/Gun-Stuff/i-SKX5JnX/0/1b570dae/L/Screenshot%20%281702%29-L.png)
Abstract from 2017
https://www.jstor.org/stable/90010761Avian cholera and lead poisoning may co-exist, and it is very likely that lead poisoning may increase lethality from avian cholera and avian botulism
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6887448/
Not to mention fatal blood lead levels. Pretty simple to diagnose. It was news to me (and the rest of the planet) that dramatically elevated blood lead levels was a symptom of Avian Cholera. That's part of the comedy here, I guess.
Stop Brent. Just Stop. Stop being so dense.
My comment on the signs & symptoms was directly aimed at the post “LGF” had about his experience in 1968 that he shared. How in the hell did that warden deduce that the bird died of lead poisoning?? Because it had lead in its gizzard??? Birds have all kinds of things in their gizzards, including asphalt, steel, contaminants that would otherwise be deemed toxic., etc. Did he do a blood test? Did he study organ damage? Did he definitively isolate the source of the lead in that birds blood? Did they test the dead bird for avian disease and eliminate that from the equation?? Nah. The good warden didn’t. He saw lead in its gizzard and a green rear end and came up with the conclusion all on his un-scientific own didn’t he? If you’re now disputing that Avian cholera or flu doesn’t cause that exact set of described signs coming from the rear end of a duck…then you are dumber than a bag of hammers. And his so called “vast amounts of research” comment is also being disputed.
When you gonna comment on Keith’s post?
LGf’s comment:
“I learned about lead shot in 1968, from a warden at Sauvie Island, outside of Portland. He talked about picking up hundreds of 'greenies', ducks dead or dying with their butts stained green from the undigested vegetation dribbling out the back because lead shot in their gizzards prevented digestion. A vast amount of research since then showed that ingested lead kills birds; free-flying condors in California are trapped annually and put through a chelation process, broadly similar to dialysis, to remove lead from their blood”.
Hey Brent, When are you going to contribute monetarily to this website which you seem to use with your pontifications more so than the majority of others? Surely you don’t want to be thought of as a free loader…..or do you????
Goody! Brent has rejoined the discussion. Having read the good Dr. Drew's links, at least skimmed, then I would ask. After nearly 40 years of no tox shot has there been a documented,(proved) mass die off? Looks like most suffered a less than 3% mortality on a limited number of ducks, sporadically, in certain locations dependent on weather. Die offs were limited to specific locations dependent on the type of bottom and depth of the marsh. Different species are affected differently. Available food seems to play a role. Could protection of nesting habitat mitigate the losses?
Next questions;
How many fewer hunters today as opposed to 1970, 80? Does anyone seriously think that hunter's numbers will increase? Not in the near future I'd sadly wager. I'm not personally interested in hunting waterfowl, some are, I support your efforts! This raises the question. On average how many rounds would you shoot in a season? I find hunting grouse and pheasant that a couple boxes maybe three usually suffice. I mean you can only eat so many. There is a possession limit after all.
Chief
Article from 2022 reviewing data from Illinois 1981-2017 and primarily addressing crippling rates, which did increase after the lead ban but dropped to the pre-ban levels, likely related to limited the distance of shots taken
Fewer duck hunters, and more geese hunters
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wlb3.01001Black duck lead levels in N.J. 1978 to 2017 from the
Journal of Fish and Wildfowl Management, 6-2021
"The prevalence of ducks with blood lead levels 1.0 ppm, considered clinically evident toxicity, declined from 19% in 1978 to 1% in 2017."
The abstract however does not estimate a change in black duck mortality.
This is the only article I could find estimating the decrease mortality after the ban; in the July 2000
Journal of Wildlife ManagementThe article was cited by Brent back in 2006
https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=243004&page=6The thread went to 26 pages
We examined the extent to which ingested nontoxic (steel and bismuth-tin) shotgun pellets replaced toxic (lead) pellets in ducks harvested in the Mississippi Flyway during the 1996 and 1997 hunting seasons (fifth and sixth yr after nationwide conversion to nontoxic shot). Gizzards were collected from 16,651 ducks and processed for the presence of pellets. Prevalences of ingested pellets were 8.9% for 15,147 mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), 12.7% for 749 ring-necked ducks (Aythya collaris), 4.3% for 579 scaups (Aythya affinis and A. marila), and 9.7% for 176 canvasbacks (Aythya valisineria). For gizzards with ingested pellets, as much as 68% of mallard, 45% of ring-necked duck, 44% of scaup, and 71% of canvasback contained only nontoxic pellets.
We estimated that nontoxic shot reduced mortality from lead poisoning in Mississippi Flyway mallards by 64%. Ingestion of ≥2 toxic pellets declined by as much as 78%. To the extent that our findings apply to other species and flyways in North America, an estimated 1.4 million ducks in the 1997 fall continental flight of 90 million were spared from fatal lead poisoning.
That "64%" reduction is repeated now over and over in every Green blog and website
The survival data is complicated by the fact that there is only a 30-50% first years survival rate for ducks, and deaths from avian influenza A(H5N1), avian cholera & botulism, and aflatoxicosis have increased
Any unbiased studies that track the number of (wasted) deaths in ducks due to crippling losses before and after the ban on lead?
Hundreds of ducks found in an area having symptoms of some kind of poisoning in 1968 in Portland how much lead would it take to cause this symtom? How many rounds of lead shot? Why have I never heard of tule lake Klamath basin or goose lake area having simular out breaks or symptoms ????
The smartest guy on the Doublegunshop forum writes...
START reading. You haven't seen them because you haven't looked. Now, they due stable isotope analyses to determine lead source.
.
They don't "due" stable isotope analysis. They "do " it.
However, people who know how to spell "do", and use the word correctly, might also be intelligent enough to understand the limitations of stable lead isotope analysis.
There are four stable isotopes of lead. and the ratios of those isotopes in a sample of lead MAY tell you where in the world that sample of lead was mined. That's because the lead ore in different deposits has naturally decayed at slightly different rates, leaving unique ratios of stable isotopes that can indicate to a researcher where it was mined.
Anti-lead activists like the nutty professor love to cling to the false notion that stable isotope analysis can absolutely pinpoint lead shot as the culprit in avian lead poisoning. Nothing could be further from the truth.
There are several problems with clinging to stable isotope analysis in the never-ending quest to blame lead shot and lead bullets for lead poisoning. Most important is that lead is one of the most recycled metals in use. The lead in shot or bullets may be virgin lead, or more likely, it will be an alloy or mix of new and used lead from multiple sources and multiple smelters. Before it became ammunition, there is a good chance some or all of that lead was previously used in lead pipes, lead acid battery plates, lead flashing, or dozens of other products. So the ratio of stable isotopes are very unlikely to tell the researcher anything about where it was mined. It's about as useless as doing DNA testing on a single hair found in a busy barbershop, and thinking that will tell you who killed the barber.
The fact that the minute quantity of lead in a blood sample has a certain ratio of isotopes also cannot prove that lead came from shot or bullets either. Lead smelting plants sell lead and lead alloys to many different customers. The minute amounts of lead in any blood sample could come from multiple sources. And the worst sources when it comes to plumbism, or lead poisoning, are not chunks of elemental lead in shot or bullet fragments. The worst sources are lead in chemical solutions or dusts, because lead is much more bio-available in those forms. Lead poisoning is a real thing. But the dangers of it from lead ammo has been greatly exaggerated, while other sources are all but ignored. Many guys I know have had lead exposure from reloading, casting bullets or fishing jigs, etc. The only one who ever suffered lead poisoning was a friend who had repeated exposure to lead dust while working as an electrician in a battery manufacturing plant. He told me most was from breathing lead dust while blowing out electrical panels with compressed air.
The nutty professor is at much more risk of increasing his blood lead levels from exposure to the fumes and dust generated by bullet casting than from handling them during reloading, or even swallowing one. And one or two lead shot in a crop or gizzard absolutely does not indicate that any and all lead in that birds blood came from that shot. The single greatest source of lead in our environment came from decades of burning billions of gallons of gasoline that contained tetraethyl lead. And lead continued to be used in aviation fuel even after it was banned for use in cars and trucks. That lead did not simply disappear. It remains every place it was deposited after precipitation washed it out of the air and left it in soil or water.
In addition, those dots on the x-ray images provided by the Preacher are not proof of either lead or lead poisoning. We have zero proof that they are even lead. They could be steel shot, or bismuth, or tungsten. or little round stones. Evidence like that would never fly in Court. Therein lies the big problem. I have read the literature. A great deal of it. And the more I read, the more skeptical I have become. The vast majority of the so-called "science" is not double blind or peer reviewed. Much of it comes from highly suspect and anti-hunting agenda driven sources, such as the Peregrine Fund. I'm sure Ben Deeble is very happy to have the Preacher dumping links to their bullshit here. I have already mentioned that if you actually read this so-called "science" carefully, you will soon see that they cannot even agree on what constitutes a lethal blood lead level in ducks, or geese, or various raptors. When the liars can't get their obviously fictional stories straight, they cannot expect people with any capacity for thoughtful analysis to believe their crap. But the nutty professor mocks anyone who actually uses their brain and questions bullshit. This is a guy who whines about civility and cries about how much nicer it is on Upland Journal forum, as he belittles the guys here who are fed up with the efforts of the Left to end hunting and shooting as we know it.
The best thing the anti-lead people have going for them is that the majority of people don't understand or are too lazy to study the issue. And they are easily fooled by liars and frauds with a PhD after their names. Dustin is wasting his time repeatedly asking the nutty professor to address some of the disparities and absurd assertions in the so-called "science" which I pointed to earlier. He refused to address those things in prior Threads on the subject in the past, and it isn't going to happen now. We should all understand by now that ignoring or dismissing facts is one of the most valuable tools that the Liberal Left uses.
So please, read the "Science". Read all you can, and pay very close attention to the numbers and data and details. You will soon begin to see that a great deal of what passes for "Science" isn't really science at all. And you will similarly see that many of the people who pontificate on the matter of lead ammo bans are agenda driven petty hypocrites who, as craigd astutely notes, do not practice what they preach, and are not nearly as smart as they want you to believe.
According to the 1960 research as little as two #6 pellets could or would cause symptoms of poisoning. There again the exposure to the lead shot was dependent on the type of bottom, mud vs. sand/gravel. The mud bottom being better in terms of shot not available to the ducks. Water depth factored in as well. Some recovered if favorable food was available. I'm not familiar with the bottom condition of Klamath or Goose lake. According to the 1960's study weather concentrating ducks in certain areas factored large in creating a die off. It is an interesting read that I will take more time with soon. It starts into the reasoning of how much loss is tolerable, unavoidable? To Keith's point , the lead is certainly still there it has not been cleaned up.
At the time this study was done there was not much of a "green" movement. Mostly state biologists and private concerns looking into what they perceived as a problem. Interesting that there was no conclusion that eating a poisoned duck would be detrimental to a human or other animal.
Another long review
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-019-01159-0Findings suggesting of lead poisoning
Signs include anaemia, lethargy, muscle wastage and loss of fat reserves, green diarrhoea staining the vent, wing droop, loss of balance and coordination and other neurological signs such as leg paralysis or convulsions.
re: what happens to the lead shot
"Gunshot generally sinks slowly through most types of soil and mud and may be available to feeding birds for many years, although a high proportion of gunshot ingested is that most recently deposited. Pain et al. (2015) review this in relation to soil types and management practices."
Pain, D. J., R. Cromie, and R.E. Green. 2015. "Poisoning of birds and other wildlife from ammunition-derived lead in the UK. In Proceedings of the Oxford Lead Symposium."
Chief's point is important - the concern regarding lead toxicity
started with professional wildlife biologist and conservationists, and was only later hijacked by the greens with an agenda. I choose to believe the published peer reviewed research by wildlife biologist is legitimate, and accessible with a bit of looking.
It is certainly reasonable to argue regarding the conclusions and application of the research, but attacking the character of professional wildlife biologists (at least those not carrying the stink of the D.C. swamp) is inappropriate.
George Bird Grinnell expressed concern about ducks, geese and swans dying from lead poisoning in
1894Aldo Leopold's papers included an article from 1915, and he published regarding the issue throughout his career
https://search.library.wisc.edu/digital/AV24ZV6CYHMAZF8B/pages/ASOSBQQZ7MDLJ484?as=textGood opinion piece by a pro-hunting group
https://www.themeateater.com/hunt/f...ildlife-separating-science-from-advocacy
Peer review is an important medical standard. It may be present in all the referenced studies, but probably shouldn't be assumed.
Doc Drew, is a 2015, soil sample study relevant? Probably and possibly, but how many decades after the lead ban is this time period, and why are we looking at soil samples, when these typical non tox waterfowl zones are wetlands? It's okay, the speculations starts, stratified layers of settlement from previous generation hunters are continually uncovered and ingested by waterfowl.
Back up a bit to the soil sample studies, often related to Woodcock models and other upland situations. The glory pictures of waterfowl xrays showing ingested lead shot, are basically nonexistent in Woodcock, but dismissed as immaterial to their conclusions. Yet, an xray caught your attention to be worthy of highlight on an earlier comment. Soar Raptors is a .org, heavily gov funded source, that appeared in previous "discussions" here. They had a glory picture of a hundred and twenty or thirty some odd lead fragment xray, supposedly ingested by a Bald Eagle feeding on a hunter's big game gut pile. I seems it has since been pulled, even though it was likely a great emotional donation magnet for their cause.
Peer review is a living, evolving concept. The source of funding in today's science will largely point to conclusions anticipated, and the products of our modern higher education system are peers who are trained to see socio-political agendas as integral fact. The peers are the greens with an agenda, the example of how "we" handled covid should be ample evidence.
The image with the lead in the duck is from 1966 William. No steel shot in 1966, other than that being investigated by Olin. Read a little closer.
Relevant to Craig's observation, I understand how academics work. I was at the UMKC-SOM for 7 years. Advancement is dependent of publishing and obtaining grant money (inter-related). The folks paying for studies expect the results they hope for. But today, every article requires the authors to list any financial connections to those paying for the studies. And falsifying data is academic suicide. You'll be eventually caught, and teaching in a Jr. High the rest of your life.
Blood lead testing has been confirmed by erythrocyte protoporphyrin since the 70s, and can be performed in the field with a small (finger prick-like) sample. It has nothing to do with lead isotope analysis.
https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/11605/Kennedy1977.pdf?sequence=1William: Did you miss that my name is Drew? Could you please use it?
The smartest guy on the Doublegunshop forum writes...
Originally Posted by BrentD, Prof
START reading. You haven't seen them because you haven't looked. Now, they due stable isotope analyses to determine lead source.
.
They don't "due" stable isotope analysis. They "do " it.
Due to the fact that I have BrentD on ignore I don't see his posts unless they are quoted by another, as above, or decide to "open" it to read. But, I find it odd that one who tags himself as Prof. (supposedly for someone named Stanley) would not be more careful about spelling.
The image with the lead in the duck is from 1966 William. No steel shot in 1966, other than that being investigated by Olin. Read a little closer.
Relevant to Craig's observation, I understand how academics work. I was at the UMKC-SOM for 7 years. Advancement is dependent of publishing and obtaining grant money (inter-related). The folks paying for studies expect the results they hope for. But today, every article requires the authors to list any financial connections to those paying for the studies. And falsifying data is academic suicide. You'll be eventually caught, and teaching in a Jr. High the rest of your life.
Blood lead testing has been confirmed by erythrocyte protoporphyrin since the 70s, and can be performed in the field with a small (finger prick-like) sample. It has nothing to do with lead isotope analysis.
https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/11605/Kennedy1977.pdf?sequence=1William: Did you miss that my name is Drew? Could you please use it?
Preacher, an expert and know-it-all like you should be aware that steel shot in a .175" diameter has been commercially available since the 1920's. And believe it or not, little round stones have been found in the crops and gizzards of birds for much longer than that. White dots on a x-ray may or may not be lead, even in 1966. And even the actual presence of lead shot in a crop or gizzard is not absolute proof that lead ammunition is the major or sole source of systemic elevated lead levels. There are many sources of environmental lead, and many that are far more bio-available. Please pay attention. I am here to debunk junk and agenda driven "science", not to give it credence.... no matter how loathsome I find you to be.
I was particularly amused by your assertion that we should simply trust anything published by researchers, no matter what personal biases or agendas they may have... so long as they are not part of the D.C. Swamp.
That's just silly and naive. I have previously mentioned how researchers at my alma mater and East Anglia University conspired to falsify and manipulate climate data in order to "prove" that global temperatures were rising far faster and higher than they actually are. This was the famous 2009 Climategate Scandal. However, even though researchers were caught, their careers were not ruined, and they were not relegated to teaching Jr. High School, as you assert. The complicit Liberal Left media and academia simply swept it under the rug, and they didn't talk about Global Warming very much for a year or so until the scandal faded from memory. There are many other examples of research being falsified or manipulated to satisfy an agenda. But you knew that.
Another point is that I didn't bring up stable lead isotope analysis as evidence that the lead in bird's blood came from lead shot. That was your buddy the nutty professor. I merely pointed to the absurdity of that tired old crap being used by researchers as proof positive that our lead ammo must be the one true cause of plumbism in birds. Maybe you should spend more time on reading comprehension, and less time attempting to prove me wrong.
I liked your list of symptoms associated with lead poisoning in birds. I was perfectly aware of them. And that was precisely why I questioned the nutty professor and Larry about that poor eagle in the Lead and Condors thread that allegedly had many times the lethal dose of lead in its' blood. Yet it was somehow strong enough and coordinated enough to fly and perch in a tree. Anti-lead ammo advocates swallow that crap in their precious anti-lead research papers, and expect us to swallow it too. And you apparently also think we should believe it... so long as the "science" didn't come from the D.C. Swamp. Do you ever think before you get on your soap-box?
I also found it amusing that your entry into this thread was some deep concern that there would be repetition of things said in the prior anti-lead ammo threads. Too bad you are too self-centered to notice the many times you have repeated the same old copy-and-paste shotgun pressure graphs, load data for long obsolete powders, pictures of cracked shotgun frames, old advertisements, etc., etc.
Finally, I'd like to explain once again why I call you Preacher. It is NOT a term of respect. Anything but! I do it because you have continually behaved in a most un-Christian manner, and are a parody of a preacher, not worthy of respect in my opinion. In addition, you know full well that I have been called Keith since I was an infant, and never went by William. Yet you choose to be cute, and continue to disrespect me. Knock yourself out. But expecting me to respect you, while you disrespect me in the same sentence. is simply further evidence of your terminal narcissism. Get over yourself Preacher. Maybe consider having your blood tested for elevated lead levels, or acid in your soul. You could always just put me on IGNORE, as Stan does with the professor. Meanwhile, I enjoy living rent-free in your little head.
William: the only time you are in my head is when I pray that you somehow find peace and healing. And I must admit it was tough at first to do so.
Some of the genuine "Preachers" we support and visited 10 days ago in San Luis, San Juan Tecuaco. The guy to my right is Pastor Juan. He was serving in a small church in Aldea Ijorga with another pastor, and through their evangelism efforts, and the transforming power of the Gospel, families were being saved and lives changed. The local criminals thought this were hurting their "business" so they murdered the other pastor and told Juan he was next if he didn't leave. He's still there, and it was my great honor to stand with him.
That is courage Keith. Try to find the courage to admit that you need help, and get it.
![[Linked Image from photos.smugmug.com]](https://photos.smugmug.com/Grace-Ministries/Grace-Ministries/i-6zHHRwt/0/bb30c0cf/M/San%20Luis%201-M.jpg)
This oughta get the thread locked now
...Relevant to Craig's observation, I understand how academics work. I was at the UMKC-SOM for 7 years. Advancement is dependent of publishing and obtaining grant money (inter-related). The folks paying for studies expect the results they hope for. But today, every article requires the authors to list any financial connections to those paying for the studies. And falsifying data is academic suicide. You'll be eventually caught, and teaching in a Jr. High the rest of your life.
Blood lead testing has been confirmed by erythrocyte protoporphyrin since the 70s, and can be performed in the field with a small (finger prick-like) sample. It has nothing to do with lead isotope analysis....
No, don't lock it, lol.
My purpose for introducing the medical spin on "peer review" was because it was presented as grail. I have seen peer reviewed articles in the AMA Journal and The Lancet, conclude that when random people go to an emergency room for medical care, that black ethnicity is medically relevant for cutting to the head of the line?
Back to steel shot, and related to your insights, should we expect a predictable conclusion when various branches of the department of the interior, commission "studies". Who are the peers who keep this science on topic? Someone probably has the numbers, but I'd guess it's likely the late1800's, since any gov study said, yes hunters/shooters have a point.
The isotope test were mentioned because it is seen as indisputable proof that the source of lead is neccessarily sporting shotgun lead shot. Of course, even the purpose driven authors of these papers, such as one you linked, must admit to inaccuracies and assumption, in a minimalist way. The Canadian study in your link said that weather likely carried massive amounts US generated combusted gasoline containing lead additive, north, but isotopes say it's impossible for an earthworm to ingest that variant. I would bet we could shoot lead paint chips, and that would be safe, because of how assumptions are made by worshipping the isotope. Something tells me, any time lead isotopes come up mixed source, blame the shogun pellet.
I'll edit to add that I added a like to your post, right next to the prof, simply for the purposes of noting that there is a difference between traditional science that can be repeated any where in the world with high predictability, and the science of emotional triggers. Now faith is entirely a different matter, and hopefully the secular progressive prof doesn't belittle the notion.
Craig: reasonable people, with some capacity to critically analyze information, can disagree regarding methodology, statistical analysis, interpretation and most certainly the application of the information.
Lead is a (useful) environmental toxin, and especially hazardous to children.
IMHO a dead duck, with a green vent, lead in the gizzard and an elevated lead level is adequate evidence of a problem.
Conservationists have been concerned with the issue for 120 years, and professional wildlife biologists have been publishing articles for 60 years, which I cited. And at least the wildlife biologist I met in Kansas, with degrees from Ft. Hays State, Emporia State, and K-State were mostly from rural areas, smart and fully capable of critically analyzing some of the stuff coming out of Washington. I believe ad hominem attacks on their integrity, because one doesn't like the data, is inappropriate. (See the Eagles thread)
It doesn't help to throw into a pot lead toxicity in waterfowl, lead toxicity in raptors, lead toxicity in scavengers and then mix in climate change, the efforts by some to outlaw sport hunting, shut down target ranges and outprice target shooting, lead in the water in Flint, the "Green Movement", COVID, George Soros, Greta Thunberg & environmental racism and pour out some vast conspiracy theory as to why lead shot was banned. Conspiracy theories (and faux-omniscience) are coping mechanisms, esp. for the not so smart and those with OCD, but we usually find out over time that they are detached from reality.
Since lead shot was banned, lead levels in waterfowl have fallen dramatically. I wish there was better data to confirm that fall has resulted in lower mortality - everyone keeps repeating an "estimated 64% reduction" based on a single study > 20 years ago. Unfortunately. waterfowl diseases have been increasing during that same period.
And I agree steel shot is terrible stuff for humanely harvesting game.
The best study of this issue that I have read is "Lead poisoning as a Mortality factor in Waterfowl populations" F.C. Bellrose, 1961. It is available on line but is quite lengthy as it involved nationwide input and control experiments involving feeding raised Mallards lead shot in controlled doses. It addresses many of the questions expressed in this thread and is, in my opinion most informative. If someone would post a direct link to it that would be beneficial.
All the best!
So now more questions. Why limit your shooting to the inferior steel, or correctly, iron shot? There are a couple alternatives that closely mimic lead performance or surpass it. Cost, really? How many rounds do you shoot per season? Compared to the expense of the rest of the trip where does the cost of bismuth or tungsten ammo fit? Do you shoot 100's + rounds per season? I reiterate that I do not hunt waterfowl. I can assure that in my trips that ammunition costs are minimal compared to fuel, food and lodging/campsites. None of which so far have kept me from taking the trip(s).
Just not liking something or someone is a pretty weak argument.
….It doesn't help to throw into a pot lead toxicity in waterfowl, lead toxicity in raptors, lead toxicity in scavengers and then mix in climate change, the efforts by some to outlaw sport hunting, shut down target ranges and outprice target shooting, lead in the water in Flint, the "Green Movement", COVID, George Soros, Greta Thunberg & environmental racism and pour out some vast conspiracy theory as to why lead shot was banned. Conspiracy theories (and faux-omniscience) are coping mechanisms, esp. for the not so smart and those with OCD, but we usually find out over time that they are detached from reality….
Yup, it’s almost as if I’m a loon, instead a waterfowl hunter. Sad story, I’ll use and enjoy what I have, but I flat out prefer not to spend my money on gent’s guns and rifles anymore. Nowadays, my coping mechanism is to buy things that “friends” of the double gun lecture me about being offensive and are proactively trying to ban. I do not believe it’s in my head, I can tell what’s going on? Always a pleasure Doc Drew, thanks for your tolerance.
No almost craig. Buy some bismuth or just wait 'til they are closer. Pretty simple.
That's good prof, of course it's simple, when you have no substance. I gladly use nontox shot for waterfowl, but that's not good enough for you, is it. When my grandkids visit, they shoot thousands of rounds of whatever they feel like, and bismuth aint gonna cut it. They know papa isn't a hypocrit like prof shooting subsonic lead out of his ban free .22s, or feeding earthworms lead, five hundred and fifty grains at a time. Do as I say, not as I do huh prof.
That's good prof, of course it's simple, when you have no substance. I gladly use nontox shot for waterfowl, but that's not good enough for you, is it. When my grandkids visit, they shoot thousands of rounds of whatever they feel like, and bismuth aint gonna cut it. They know papa isn't a hypocrit like prof shooting subsonic lead out of his ban free .22s, or feeding earthworms lead, five hundred and fifty grains at a time. Do as I say, not as I do huh prof.
Did I ever say you should? Just waterfowl, Craig. You really are loosing it entirely.
This oughta get the thread locked now
Preacher, I kind of suspected that your goal was to get this thread locked when you began trolling links to some of the same agenda driven anti-lead source posted in the past by Ben Deeble. I felt you were probably hoping to ignite a shit-storm.
Nice try, and nice of you to confirm that getting this thread locked was your hope. But that sort of scheming, conniving, and duplicitous behavior is what I've come to expect from a phony like you. I did accurately predict in my second post here that there was a faction that would be attempting to get this thread locked or deleted.
It was a nice touch to include that pic of you with some real preachers in another attempt to try to keep fooling people. Personally, I think you would have ginned-up more support and sympathy if you had posted that picture of the little Guatemalan girl or your dead dog again. The dead dog photo you have posted was a real tear-jerker, and one of the most pathetic displays I have ever seen from someone who purports to be a male. Even you should admit that your new group photo was a pretty lame response when you had no cogent response to the points I had made, and had to fall back once again on deception and personal attacks.
I'm sorry that you aren't capable of separating and mentally processing a Thread which may contain comments on several related and unrelated topics at once, such as lead poisoning in ducks, raptors, scavengers, along with comments on phony climate science intended to demonstrate that we shouldn't be fooled by demonstrably bad or dishonest science. I know that's a lot for someone like you, who also apparently feels the pathetic need to exaggerate and include things that have not been posted in these lead ammo discussions, such as George Soros or environmental racism, whatever that is. Are your emotions getting the best of you again??? Do you have any anti-anxiety meds in your little fanny pack? Please take some.
I think it shows a lot about you when you attempt to tar others as OCD or consumed by vast conspiracy theories when it is a well-known and widely recognized fact that the Green Movement and some of the sources of anti-lead junk "science" such as Peregrine Fund and SOARRaptors have an anti-hunting agenda, and have funded so-called research that is non-peer reviewed, highly biased, and contains very questionable data and methodology to reach premeditated conclusions.
I have stated many times that I am not a waterfowl hunter, because I am not fond of eating duck or geese. I do however often find myself in various waterfowl habitats, and simply have not seen any evidence of widespread lead poisoning problems. None of the many other hunters I know see it either. And I'll tend to trust the veracity and observations of guys like Stan, who have hunted waterfowl with a passion for decades in multiple states, over a multitude of swamps, rivers, lakes, and sea shores. These are guys who put in the long hours, and absolutely would be alarmed if they saw evidence that the resource they hunt was in grave danger of significant population loss or extinction due to the use of lead ammunition. Instead, the vast majority seem to question the 1991 ban, and see crippling losses from steel as a bigger problem. I'll believe them over some anti-lead activists, anti-hunters, or some wild-eyed professor of ecology who is pacing in front of a lecture hall and regurgitating "science" which contains glaring errors and wildly conflicting data concerning lethal doses of lead in avian blood.
It's pretty sad when someone who talks a lot about courage lacks the stones to admit that such bad "science" is a real thing, and is instead more heavily invested in trying to start a shit-storm in order to deceptively manipulate Dave Weber into censoring or locking discussions that are intended to show that many of the attacks on our sport, our choice of ammunition, and our rights to own firearms are also rooted in deception.
I don't want someone like you to pray for me. But if you must, pray that I'll be delivered from phonies like you.
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/2V1jy80R/false-preacher.jpg)