doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Lead & Condor deaths

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