doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Simon says, Oh, never mind…

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6675766/



Another source:
Whole blood levels >0.2 ppm suggest lead toxicity. Whole blood levels >0.4 to 0.6 ppm are considered diagnostic for lead toxicity.
Another sources suggested levels >0.2 ppm with compatible symptoms is diagnostic for lead toxicity.
(20 microgram/deciliter = 0.2 part/million)

I have no idea the point you are trying to make with this (link to the abstract).
https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/entities/publication/88187710-c019-4aa5-9bdb-94fd6351ddbe/full
The purpose of the study was to investigate the use of fecal sampling to avoid having to catch and draw blood from free flying eagles. Are you saying that the study was retracted, or proved to have been falsified?
Have you found any study regarding lead in waterfowl, raptors or condors that was retracted or proven to have been falsified?


Mostly good news for Mike
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4139699/

More good news re: risk of lead from consumption of upland game
Dove in South Carolina
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935197937890

I hunted waterfowl in the 1960s,.70, 80 right up until hopefully again this winter. In NW MN we transitioned to lead in the late 1970s on WPAs up there. The only ammo was 2 3/4 #4.steel from Federal. We never noticed the difference BUT we shot over.decoys and our go-to shells were our 1oz 7.5 trap loads out of our skeet guns. When you let them get close enough for our light trap loads to kill them an ounce of steel 4s worked just as well.

I think the problem is trying to substitute range for hunting skill. We're seeing it in every facet.of hunting, buy equipment to reach beyond your skill to get.close to game. TSS shot, inline muzzle loader, compound/cross bows, long range rifles and night hunting predators.

I still shoot 7/8 oz of ITX 6s and 1oz of Bismuth 5s for waterfowl out of my hammer shotguns and have no problems killing waterfowl. I don't shoot at birds that are marginal I shoot birds I know I can kill. If you keep your shots inside skeet field distances any shot will kill them. I hunt public lands almost exclusively and love to eat ducks. Most days I don't shoot a limit, I shoot enough for dinner and call it a day. I do take hunting trips rarely leaving the house to hunt but hunt for a few.dayz and camp where I'm hunting. I hunt mornings for waterfowl, then trade my shotgun for a rifle and l call coyotes.

Hi Doc Drew,

I plucked this out of the middle of your comment for no particular reason, and I realize your point was about retraction of scientific merit. Are these the types of supporting scientific studies use to make political lead firearm projectile ban policy?

Most definitely correct me if I'm wrong, but the source of the lead in these particular eagles is not cited?

Many anti lead advocates here have anecdotes to pass along. How about a snap pole, anyone notice any green butt holed ducks? How about up around the potholes where I suspect lead shot and projectiles are frequestly used around nesting grounds? How about dead eagles, when we are out in our haunts, how many sick and dead ones have we seen? I've stumbled on one dead Bald, over a good few decades and foot miles. How it got that way, I don't know, and I don't know why I couldn't have taken a few flight feathers, as that fellow had no further use for them.

craig are you saying that the hundreds of documented dead eagles, photographed, autopsied, and confirmed to have died of lead poisoning are all a hoax? Just curious what you are claiming is a hoax.

There are tons of data on the effect of lead on waterfowl populations. I'm unaware of any such study that has been retracted but there are many, many such studies. I've posted many of them here in the past, and , of course, you and Stan, etc. simply claim it is all a hoax and conspiracy without a shred of evidence to the back that up. We've been down that road many times.

Personally, I don't worry about lead poisoning in bald eagles now that waterfowl have been been protected. Eagles may die, and die in substantial numbers, but their populations continue to expand. As far as I'm concerned it is a population-level problem, or it's not a problem. For waterfowl it was a problem and that has been evaluated many, many times. So, go do your homework to dispute them all. It might take you a week or two...

If hundreds of dead eagles have been found and reported, then thousands have died in the wilderness and never been found. Much of my lion conservation work in East Africa in the last 25 years has been on poisoning and we know that only a small fraction are found, reported, and documented. Populations of lions and all other predators and scavengers, especially vultures, have plummeted due to poisoning but relatively few carcasses ever come to the attention of the people who are counting.

I agree, entirely. But eagles continue to grow their populations at amazing rates. As a population-level impact, lead poisoning seems to be relatively unimportant. That's not the case for condors, of course, and maybe other species. But since waterfowl has become non-tox only, it seems that population consequences of lead are not particularly great.

No Brent, I never said it wasn't possible to become sick, or die from lead poisoning, and I never used the word, hoax. Every comment above is your opinion, and not science. I see nothing wrong, and it's my personal instincts, to not be impressed or swayed by you talking down to me from your academic ivory tower.

It is not lost on me that a quick look at the cv of the lead author of the piece I selected, happens to be a colleague of yours in Iowa. If you can speculate about the unimportance of lead poisoning in bald eagles, then I will note the left wing political agendas you've aligned with over the years here, and that you find comfort in working towards common goals with like minded "ecologists", grant sponges?

Simply, you selectively read. I want to know, as you have taken years of failing to explain, why you can shoot tons of lead slugs out of single shot rifles into the wildlife habitat of your choosing, but support politically motivated bans against those who enjoy sporting choices that do not interest you?

You use anedotes, I want to know, where are the incidental, unfortunate green arses of today, in waterfowl habitat where sportsmen can factually say that lead firearms projectiles are currently used. Don't distract, we do not need retractions to create political policy, do we?

Who says you get to choose, what is relatively unimportant, or are you not giving LGF the latitude of a little sensationalizing. Do you two peas in a pod want to play on heartstrings. I have a great idea, let's construct the biggest human feces and drug paraphernalia cess pool in the streets of kalifornia, but entitle the kali condor to cost is no barrier, elite level ocare.

This has been an interesting debate, but I've got another relaxing and luxurious mission trip to organize to the middle-of-nowhere Guatemala so I'm done.

It is my hope that in future discussions we can avoid dismissing 60 years of research with "the science sucks"; which IMHO just makes us look foolish.

I very much agree however that the political and agenda driven application of the science may certainly suck. There are a lot of things in the world, and our nation, that suck right now, and are more important to me than steel shot.

The research that we have seen so far could be valid in a narrow band it is applied to. My comment, which seemed to make you angry, was directed at the notion that because the science was from a study on waterfowl, it should apply to pheasants, dove, grouse woodcock, et Al, which, was already attempted here in Minnesota. One of the researchers who made every meeting pointed out the wounded swans that had been shot by hunters with lead shot, seemingly unable to grasp the concept that if you have swans die of lead poisoning after being shot with lead shot, your problem, per say, is not lead shot.

There is no season on swans in the state of Minnesota, just for reference.

Yea, Drew, that science sucks. And they tried to stick it up our asses at those meetings where the MN DNR attempted a spectacularly unsuccessful end run around the legislature on the use of lead shot.

I’m willing to listen. I haven’t seen a whole lot of that same willingness in the “lead should be dead” group that seem to infest discussions on the subject, however.

Have a safe trip.

Best,
Ted