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

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

Brent

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

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

Marcus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rookhawk

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

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

Cheers
Marcus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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