doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Lead shot increasingly under fire

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

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

Cheers
Marcus

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Marc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just trying to clarify points of confusion or error here.

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

Bald eagle recovery, most likely reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rookhawk

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

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

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

Cheers
Marc

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