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

Craig, you misunderstand. I'm not "passionate" about how bad lead is for waterfowl. That fight is over. Finished. We don't shoot lead at waterfowl. But you do need to help Keith understand that waterfowl are more susceptible to lead poisoning than upland birds because there was much more concentrated lead shot fall where the birds also concentrate, and because of how they feed. Pretty basic stuff. Plus, as Tall Timbers reported, hardly any quail found with lead in their gizzards.

Re waterfowl, have you looked at the studies on waterfowl closely enough to be able to state that the ONLY evidence of lead poisoning was lead in their digestive systems? No blood tests done to detect elevated blood levels? Those are being done on eagles. If quail were significantly impacted by lead poisoning, don't you suppose they'd notice it at Tall Timbers . . . given the fact that their birds are exposed to much more heavily concentrated shot fall than are quail in typical upland hunting settings? 8,000 shells fired on less than a section of land. Not as concentrated as on a heavily hunted waterfowl area or dove field, but very heavy shot fall by upland standards. Waterfowl and doves migrate, so you've got more to shoot at when the latest flocks show up. With quail and other upland birds (other than doves and woodcock), hunting success on heavily hunted ground declines as birds are shot, and you don't get a "resupply" until the following season.

You're telling me the feds are in on a conspiracy? Concerning what? Lead poisoning and waterfowl? Show me the proof. A study by someone in the field showing that lead shot was not a major cause of lead poisoning in waterfowl. And just who am I demonizing in the bird hunting community? I'm DEFENDING the continued use of lead shot for those birds we can still legally shoot with lead. Until someone shows me that ingestion of lead shot is killing lots of upland birds, or is killing some species with declining numbers, or is killing eagles. Nothing I've seen shows me any of that.

Keith, you are as confused about what "proving a negative" means as you are about "selective editing", and about the relative susceptibility of waterfowl to lead poisoning (back when we shot lead at them) compared to upland birds. You need to do some basic homework to help you understand all those things. Otherwise, intelligent discussion is impossible.

I've already addressed the difference between waterfowl and upland birds when it comes to susceptibility to lead poisoning, assuming we shoot lead at both. And I've already addressed "selective editing". With examples. Prove a negative . . . nope, that would be asking you to prove that NO waterfowl died of lead poisoning as a result of ingesting lead shot. What I'm asking you to do is to come up with a study, just ONE, from the wildlife management community, that demonstrates that causes other than lead poisoning, or lead poisoning from sources other than lead shot, were responsible for most of the dead and dying geese and ducks we were shown. Since there are contrarian scientists when it comes to climate change, why not a contrarian biologist when it comes to lead shot and waterfowl--especially considering many of them would now be retired and don't have any concerns with job security.

Keith, my statement that lead is toxic, toxic = bad is an example of PUBLIC PERCEPTION. Not what I believe myself. But incidents like lead in the water in Flint do tend to reinforce that perception. The public in general tends to be pretty low-information. Especially concerning topics in which they have no real interest--other than knowing that, by God, lead is bad.

As for what you can or cannot refute in studies to which you refer . . . have you contacted the people who put out the studies and pointed out all the glaring errors they made? What are your credentials to "refute" much of anything? Since an earlier quote from you seems to establish that you don't even recognize why waterfowl would be more susceptible to lead poisoning by ingesting shot than upland birds, I think most wildlife biologists would be laughing so hard they'd have trouble responding to your emails, letters or phone calls.

I know you're defending lead shot use in the uplands Larry. That's a great thing, no complaint from me.

You have though lobbied heavily that lead shot and bullets is the only reason for lead poisoning deaths of other wildlife, and of course the uplands are immune. Try to separate yourself from the narrow waterfowl/lead shot topic, and see if you can 'prove' that deer hunters should thrown under the bus by upland lead shot bird hunters.

You said, 'didn't intend to mention any studies' back a page. If I don't want to site studies or bring in a biologist, will you accept my logic and feelings as the equivalent of yours?

Would it make the Libs happy if lead was green instead of gray?

It seems they will file bills to ban ANYTHING that doesn't meet their "green" aganda.

craigd, Larry has already answered your question. Larry's logic and feelings are obviously superior to everyone because he is a Professional Outdoors Writer and ex-CIA employee. He is no more an expert on this subject than anyone here, but if you dare disagree with him, he will make a total ass of himself by resorting to ridiculous attempts to discredit you.

I have many times acknowledged that some waterfowl undoubtedly die from exposure to lead shot, whether by eating it or getting shot with it. I also acknowledged that there may not be any researchers who have put out papers or studies that show there was no massive lead poisoning of waterfowl. And there may be no whistle-blowers about a vast conspiracy. That is the negative I referred to when I said Larry was asking me to prove a negative.

You don't need a vast conspiracy though, when so many people are so willing to swallow anything. Just look at how many millions believe and support Hillary Clinton even though she destroyed evidence of over 30,000 State Dept. e-mails stored on a private server... during a Congressional Investigation... and tells us that the smartest woman who ever lived did not know that some of it was classified secrets and ultra-classified secret information.

By the same token, there was a very long time period when there were no experts who said, or even knew, that trans-fats were actually more dangerous for your heart than butter. My whistle-blower could still show up. Wouldn't matter though. Larry would just say he didn't have good enough credentials.

But that's the best Larry can do here... besides resorting to silly semantics games... because he was unable to use logic and reasoning to explain away any of the glaring inconsistencies, errors, and absolute bullshit in those articles or studies I referred to.

Lacking anything of substance, he felt the childish need to revisit the "selective editing" thing. Once again Larry... craigd's use of a part of Audobon's position statement on hunting did not in any way change, enhance, or diminish a thing. However, your use of only a part of that statement was intended to support your earlier erroneous contention about Audobon, which craid's partial quote proved was 100% wrong. If craigd had posted the full statement, it wouldn't have changed the point he was making one tiny bit. On the other hand, if you hadn't intentionally left out the juicy part, you would have proven yourself wrong. I was generous and kind to call what you did "selective editing". Actually, now it would be more accurate to call it "deceptive editing".

I have no idea why you would want to revisit that one. Talk about wasting time on battles you have already lost! But when you're grasping at straws, I guess you have to try anything to discredit your opponent.

Re: Lead poisoning in waterfowl vs. upland birds. Susceptibility (or vulnerability or sensitivity)and exposure to a toxin are two very different things. To tell you the truth, I don't know if three # 6 lead shot in the crop of a 2 lb. duck will create a higher blood lead level than three #6 lead shot in the crop of a 2 lb. pheasant, assuming equal time of retention. I would assume they would be very similar. Not all waterfowl frequent areas of high shot concentrations, and conversely, not all upland game birds spend their lives in areas of very low shot concentrations. Very high concentrations that sink into deep water will be unavailable to do any amount of poisoning. You are making a very simplistic and incorrect assumption about the feeding habits of waterfowl Larry. I'm not into waterfowl hunting and haven't done any since college because I don't care much for duck or goose meat. But even I know that some may probe the bottom where there may be shot, and some are dabblers that use their bills to strain out aquatic vegetation, algae, and aquatic invertebrates... and seldom venture to the bottom where the shot may be, while they are feeding in water. Diving duck species typically aren't rooting around in the silt, but rather feeding upon aquatic plants, insects, and small fish.

I'm no accredited expert, but intelligent enough to understand that the presence of lead shot in a crop, gizzard, or stomach absolutely does not prove that is a MAJOR contributing factor to any lead in a bird's system. It is entirely circumstantial until other more bio-available sources can be ruled out. This is in stark contrast to what you, and what seems to be the majority of these so-called experts, believe. Many immediately conclude that any small number of lead shot or bullet fragments in a digestive tract has to be the sole cause of high blood lead levels or fatal poisoning. Many also reach that same conclusion in the complete absence of shot or bullet fragments.

Larry's statement saying "Lead is Toxic. Toxic = Bad" was not put up as an example of public perception. He is not playing to low information voters or uneducated members of the public here, so his explanation for that statement rings hollow. I purposely reproduced the entire statement, so that Larry couldn't accuse me of selective editing. There was no disclaimer to inform the reader that was not Larry's belief. In fact, the parts that followed, along with 90% of what he has said prior to that in this thread, would support the conclusion that Larry is generally anti-lead except for upland game, as craigd has also noticed. Insofar as I can tell, he has already thrown deer hunters under the bus, and feels that they are just lucky to have the numbers to stave off lead bullet bans.

Larry closes his most recent attempt to discredit me, and my lack of credentials, by once again showing us he doesn't know the difference between susceptibility and exposure to a toxin. Being dumb once wasn't enough for him. Larry is no more an expert on this subject than me. He probably knows far less about it than I do, and apparently lacks the ability to critically analyze even the most obvious absolute crap that passes for science. Lacking his precious "expert" credentials, he feels I don't have the right to question anything. If Larry believed in Santa Claus, and I disagreed with him, Larry would be arguing that I am not worth having an intelligent discussion with because I am not an accredited expert on life at the North Pole.

OK Larry, show us proof that 2-3,000,000 ducks and geese per year were dying from lead poisoning in the U.S. alone prior to the 1991 lead shot ban. I don't want any pictures of sick birds, or examples of some small fraction of that number that had one or two pieces of lead shot in their belly. If cavemen had cameras, they could also show me pictures of dead or sick ducks. Ducks and geese have been dying for eons. I don't want so-called studies with more holes in them than a colander. Prove to us that the Federal lead shot ban was based upon verifiable facts and double-blind peer reviewed data... the gold standard for good science.

Since you won't be able to do that, you can always fall back on childish games and less than brilliant attempts to discredit me with semantics.

Keith, if you could READ--seems you have a problem in that area--then you'd clearly understand that I do NOT believe the simplistic "lead is toxic, toxic = bad" stuff. If I DID believe that, then how come I'm DEFENDING the use of lead shot on upland birds? Doesn't compute, does it? Even Craig gives me credit for defending the continued use of lead for upland hunting.

As for the difference between susceptibility and exposure, Keith . . . I don't claim any greater scientific credentials than you have. But I'd humbly suggest that you probably don't want to get into word games with a writer. Susceptible in my dictionary: "Open, subject, or unresistant to some stimulus, influence, or agency." Waterfowl are clearly more subject to the influence of spent lead shot--or were, when we were hunting them with lead--based on their EXPOSURE to spent lead shot. Upland birds are less subject to the influence of spent lead shot because they are much less likely to encounter it--based on a lower rate of exposure. Exposure and susceptibility go together in this case, kinda like the old horse and carriage.

Actually, Craig and Keith, I came here this evening with an idea that should help you. You both start from the premise that the lead shot ban for waterfowl was based on junk science. OK, so maybe a few waterfowl died from ingesting spent lead shot . . . but not in the numbers being cited as the reason we had to get rid of lead for waterfowl hunting. So . . . where do we go to look for BIOLOGISTS who would have screamed their heads off if they thought the ban was junk science? How about to the two largest organizations of waterfowl hunters in the country: Ducks Unlimited and Delta Waterfowl. I did my own quick search and found out very quickly (by googling Ducks Unlimited Lead Poisoning) that they do not question the numbers of ducks and geese supposedly dying off annually back then. Delta Waterfowl . . . no luck there, but they do have an "ask the biologist" option. So if you guys want to know where DW stands on the issue, why don't you check it out?

And while you're checking, think on this: Both DU and DW depend on hunter $. Hunter $ decrease, their funding decreases. So obviously, they work hard to keep duck hunters happy. Back then, there were certainly duck hunters who were wondering whether ingested lead shot was killing so many ducks and geese that they had to switch to steel. And they were wondering just how effective steel would be on ducks and geese. In fact, when the ban went into effect, some waterfowl hunters quit. Obviously not a good thing for organizations like DU and DW, which depend on hunter $ to survive. And both of those organizations employ biologists. So . . . if the lead shot ban was based on junk science, then why weren't DU and DW biologists screaming their heads off, presenting their contrary evidence about other sources of lead or something else that was killing the ducks? And maybe pointing out as well that we might be doing more damage by shooting ballistically inferior steel at ducks, and crippling and losing as many with steel as we were saving by switching from lead. Surely, if "the truth is out there", DU and DW would have been playing the roles of Mulder and Scully from "The X Files" and digging hard as hell to find the truth on the junk science behind the ban.

No discrediting involved, Keith . . . but you keep trying to excuse your inability to find ANYONE in the wildlife community who has screamed "junk science" concerning the lead ban. Now I've given you the two organizations that would logically have been the most EAGER to discredit the lead ban, and the most EAGER to retain lead shot, thus keeping their members happy and donating $. That is, unless their biologists really believed that lead shot was responsible for large numbers of waterfowl dying, and that they'd be losing money because fewer ducks and geese would have resulted in fewer hunters if we continued shooting lead.

Hey Keith, you're the one who's saying the lead ban was based on junk science. Up to YOU to look at the studies and come up with with peer-reviewed proof that it WAS junk science. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air. Which can be welcome in the winter, but not for us in Iowa. We have enough politicians blowing hot air in our state to convince me that they are impacting climate change, for sure.

Maybe DU doesn't care how many hunters quit if they have a couple billionaire backers writing them checks. Hey, that's a few dozen? hundred? thousand? less yahoos floating down MY river shooting MY ducks.



_____________________
Scully is a hottie.

Hey Larry, I've had it all wrong. I thought you were fighting a lead ban in the uplands? That's not happening is it? You have nothing to worry about, any lead ban in the uplands would be based on good science. I could see how silly it would be for me to try to dig up peer reviewed science, when it couldn't be good.

And hey, thanks for your helpful idea.

Larry, your responses keep getting ever more ridiculous. And if anyone has a problem with reading, it is you. You proved that again in your very first paragraph when you made this statement:

"Keith, if you could READ--seems you have a problem in that area--then you'd clearly understand that I do NOT believe the simplistic "lead is toxic, toxic = bad" stuff. If I DID believe that, then how come I'm DEFENDING the use of lead shot on upland birds? Doesn't compute, does it? Even Craig gives me credit for defending the continued use of lead for upland hunting."

OK Larry, now have someone read this to you, and have them read the part which is in bold purple type twice, so you can get it through your thick head:



Did you see it this time Larry, or are you really that blind or dumb? I was addressing your lame-ass excuse claiming that your "Lead is Toxic. Toxic = Bad" statement was addressed to low information people. I never said you are 100% against lead. I very clearly said "In fact, the parts that followed, along with 90% of what he has said prior to that in this thread, would support the conclusion that Larry is GENERALLY anti-lead EXCEPT FOR UPLAND GAME." Learn to read Larry. You keep putting words in my mouth in a disingenuous attempt to discredit me... Hey, Look everybody... Keith can't even read! That is not Professional Writing. That is childish. It is utter dishonest bullshit Larry. You keep doing this because this is all you've got. It started with your wild-assed claim that almost every road killed deer you saw in Wisconsin had an eagle feeding on it, a story which later changed, and it has just snowballed.

Then you continue putting words in my mouth and attempting to discredit me. You added things I never said with my statement on susceptibility to lead poisoning of waterfowl and upland game. I went back to my original statement to be certain of what I had said. But you have totally changed my statement used that change to alter my original intent by changing it from "susceptibility" to "RELATIVE SUSCEPTIBILITY". How did you see a word that wasn't even there Larry? Why did you change my words... more deceptive editing???

You obviously didn't understand my statement the first time. So I took the time to explain it to you, even though you felt the need to use your misinterpretation to discredit me,... waterfowl vs. upland birds... equal weights... equal exposure to lead shot... equal time of retention. That wasn't good enough, so you continue to twist my words and add things I never said because you have the inability to ever admit being wrong. You are just stuck on your incorrect interpretation, and felt the need to add the word "relative" to my statement to attempt to explain your poor reading comprehension. It was understandable that you'd be so simple-minded as to make the incorrect and simplistic assumption that all waterfowl would always be more exposed to lead shot (pre-ban) than all upland birds (except doves). It was an understandable error the first time Larry. Continuing on that path after I fully explained it, and changing my words to change my meaning is deceitful and disgusting.

I didn't simply say the lead bans were/are based upon junk science. I've given you numerous glaring examples, which you at first tried to explain away with ridiculous arguments, like a good little anti-lead soldier might use. That didn't work out well, so you have lowered yourself to this kind of crap, while you steadfastly ignore obvious anti-lead ammo bias and bogus science. Once again, craigd also sees it...no amount of proof will satisfy you. I think you probably want to believe, but that would mean admitting you were wrong. And you can't do that, can you?

I'll make another post later to address some of your other stupidity, and your apparent inability to explain or even acknowledge some of the glaring inconsistencies in much of the literature which supported, or continues to support, lead shot bans. I just wanted to make this post to illustrate how one so-called Professional Writer operates. You said, " But I'd humbly suggest that you probably don't want to get into word games with a writer." No indeed Larry, not with your kind of writer. Being sleazy and deceptive, in my opinion, isn't going to win this dirty little word game.

Not a question of trying to dig up peer reviewed science about the impact of lead on upland birds, Craig. There's no "junk science" supporting restrictions on lead in the uplands, for the simple reason that there's NO science--junk or otherwise--establishing that ingesting lead is a problem for upland birds. Those who are suggesting further lead bans for upland hunting are basing their proposals on conjecture, not science. (With the exception of a study or two on lead shot and doves in very heavily-hunted locations, which is more akin to waterfowl hunting in terms of exposure than to upland hunting.) From the MN DNR's Nontoxic Shot Advisory Committee: "The issues are extremely complex and conclusive data on wildlife populations is lacking." From the WI Natural Resources Board's proposal to ban lead shot on all DNR-managed lands: "Because wildlife affected by lead toxicity tend to seek isolation and protective cover, they may not be readily apparent . . . Chronic losses with carcasses removed by scavengers (who may be secondarily poisoned themselves) make lead poisoning somewhat of an 'invisible disease.'" (Sounds a lot like invisible science to me!) From MT Fish, Wildlife and Parks: "Lead presence and accumulation under extremely low levels of lead shot use has not been established as a significant environmental concern." (Sounds like they're saying that there isn't any science.)

Peer reviewed science on lead shot and waterfowl: Doubt you'll have any trouble finding plenty of that. Review away and refute away if you so desire.