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

Larry, you're a hoot. I can't believe you continually say that lead bullet hunters 'have a problem to deal with'. Then, say it's okay to shoot birds with lead. On big things it's easier to lop off the part that looks shot, not so practical on smaller birds, but you made a blanket statement about 'lead in any meat is...', not good. You've given me a bunch of advice, how about some in return. Try to word smith about the joys of the uplands without repeating how many problems the other folks that hunt have.

I have a little nit picking about your first comment. I keyed in on one study because you had said to check the FWS for conspiracies and you started to throw a few percentages around. So, I believe I found the source of your figures, and I believe I pointed out some significant concerns, but it didn't matter to you.

For a fun exercise on agendas, take a look at the FWS lead-n-eagles dying study. I had mentioned the undisclosed 'data' that they helped themselves to from SOAR. Take a look at the 107 lead fragment gut pile xray. If that was from a true 'hunt', that poor deer must have had every orifice shot out, and the whole pile stuck in a blender. But, it plays better than one or two microchips that an eagle would urp up with the big hair ball anyway. You know, they study those things to determine what the eagles in the area had been eating, I wonder if there's xrays of 'em to show that insignificant, incidental lead is actually expelled? I'm waiting on the good folks at DW, will you take on that study?

Craig, I'll take one more shot, then you can join Keith in the "over and done with" pile . . . and continue to search for what amounts to your Holy Grail: a wildlife scientist who says that the lead ban on waterfowl is junk science. You'd think there'd be one out there, given not only the federal lead shot ban on waterfowl (and on all federal Waterfowl Production Areas), but numerous state wildlife agency bans on lead shot around wetlands, even when hunting upland game (like pheasants). Can't believe that somebody, somewhere didn't smell a rat and blow the whistle.

Must be lots of folks not doing such a hot job of lopping off the part that looks shot with big things, when over 50% of those ground venison packets showed lead fragments. Unless there's maybe a conspiracy among the butchers that process a lot of venison to leave the lead in there. Or perhaps put lead in there. Maybe they're working hand in hand with terrorists or something, trying to poison us. Obviously, lead in any meat is bad. Doesn't keep me from eating the birds I shoot, but I'm really careful about not swallowing the pellets. I don't think lead in wild game is a HUGE problem for humans, but I don't intend to go down to my reloading table and sprinkle #8's on my toast for breakfast either. But you're missing the point. Lead showing up in ground venison is a problem for people who hunt deer not so much because of its impact on those who consume the meat, but because it clearly shows how fragments can be ingested by eagles (and other critters scavenging deer, and other shot and unrecovered game--except we don't worry much about the other scavengers). Always good to sound the alarm about a potential problem, Craig. The lead in eagles issue is not going to go away just by ignoring it. Trust me on this one. It cropped up when I did my lead shot articles 6 years ago, and it's still with us today. And given the fact that eagle numbers are increasing, we're likely to hear more about it. "Head in sand" makes it hard to face a problem.

I have no interest in doing a study on lead in eagles. I don't shoot eagles. It does not appear that eagles are ingesting the stuff with which I hunt (lead shot). And especially given that we no longer shoot ducks and geese with lead, it's much more likely that eagles are going to be scavenging something very large that was shot with lead (like a deer) than a crippled pheasant that flies off to die in the tall grass. So take some eagles, feed them meat laced with lead fragments similar to that revealed in the ND study and see what happens. Does it pass through their digestive systems? Does it result in an increase in blood lead levels? Doubt anyone will do that. Alternatively, try to prove that the lead fragments that show up in eagles do NOT come from bullets. Otherwise, based on the fact that we no longer shoot lead at waterfowl because ingesting it has been determined to cause massive deaths, we're looking at the possibility of switching to nontox bullets because eagles are dying from lead poisoning, with the possible source being bullet fragments. But I think, unlike the federal ban on lead for waterfowl, it would have to be a state by state thing because the critters we shoot with lead bullets aren't migratory birds. In any case, it's a potential problem. Best taken on by someone with better scientific credentials than either you, Keith, or me.

No wonder why KY Jon took a hiatus.

Larry, I at first thought that the only problem was that you simply cannot admit to being wrong. Then it became apparent that you also have very poor reading comprehension and math skills. But it appears that the root cause of this silly discussion is that you are just dumber than a box of rocks.

After grabbing the ball and running it into the wrong end-zone a couple times, you have done it again and spiked the ball and are doing a victory dance... again in the wrong end-zone.

I was concerned that just confronting one part of your stupidity, and breaking it down into small pieces might still be too much for you to digest at one sitting. It was. So once again, here's the sentence that followed my quoting of your "Lead is Toxic. Toxic = Bad" statement". And this time, I made it even more simple and am only repeating the explanation of the 90% figure that you can't understand.



I tried to break that sentence down into small pieces that even a mentally retarded person might understand. But it was too much for you Larry. You still didn't get it. I was not even suggesting that you are 90% against lead. I was clearly referring ONLY to the COMMENTS you had made in your previous posts WITHIN THIS THREAD Larry.

How much more hand holding do you need to understand this, and to stop putting words in my mouth that I never said?

At this point, we don't really know where you stand, because you have been all over the map on many issues. I was merely observing and confronting things you said within this thread. And I wasn't the only one who noticed your apparent anti-lead bias... except for upland hunting use.

You told craigd, "I have no interest in doing a study on lead in eagles. I don't shoot eagles. It does not appear that eagles are ingesting the stuff with which I hunt (lead shot)."
I suggest you Google "X-rays of lead shot in eagles stomach" to see what is still being put out to support lead bans for upland hunting.

I told you, I have found quite a few studies and research papers that conclude that lead shot is but a very minor contributor to lead poisoning in birds. None have an abstract that announces that the purpose of the study is solely to refute the 1991 lead shot ban for waterfowl. The Holy Grail you seek may or may not be out there. I suppose the researchers who find through observation and experimentation, that chunks of metallic lead are far less dangerous than lead dust, vapors, or chemical solutions, all assume the reader is supposed to be intelligent enough to connect the dots and understand that science based upon feelings, suppositions, and circumstantial evidence is not good science. That leaves you out Larry. You not only have no credentials in this matter Larry... you also have no concept of what constitutes a proper scientific study or a proper research paper.

You keep telling us that all we can do is to "demand good science". What good is it to "demand good science" when you don't even know the difference between good and bad science, Larry?

General Format For A Scientific Research Paper

Your reference to that so-called study on lead fragments in packets of ground venison is just further proof of that. All of the deer hunters here who have never once bitten into even a tiny piece of lead in their deer burger realize by now that you will grasp at anything to prove you are right... and even go so far as to put words in someone's mouth so that you can deliberately mischaracterize what they actually said.

Show me the beef, Keith. Links to those studies that show that lead poisoning WAS (prior to the ban) "but a very minor contributor to lead poisoning". IN WATERFOWL, not just ANY birds. Hey, I found studies (and even cited one of them here, from Tall Timbers on quail) that lead is essentially a non-issue with quail. But because it's a non-issue with quail, that doesn't mean it was a non-issue with waterfowl before the ban.

"Connecting dots" does not cut it, Keith . . . because you don't have the credentials to connect the dots. Neither do I. Neither does Craig. So show me the studies that relate specifically to lead shot and waterfowl. Otherwise you're playing with puzzles that are way beyond your grade level. Hey, no insult there. Beyond mine as well. Your problem is that you're the standard issue Internet Expert. You do your research with an agenda. You don't think lead is a problem, so you look until you find something that you THINK says lead isn't a problem. Except it turns out that it doesn't relate to the SPECIFIC issue of lead in waterfowl. How much lead is accessible at the bottom of a pond, for example, has zip to do with upland birds, because they're not going to swim out there and scoop it up. But waterfowl can, and do. Good science is specific. A scientist is very likely to see different dots to connect, or a different way to connect them, than you or I do. That's why the information has to be specific to the danger posed to waterfowl by lead shot. Unless, that is, you can find a wildlife biologist who's worked with waterfowl who will connect those dots for you and say "Hey, you're onto something there. Something we missed when we were looking at lead shot in waterfowl."

So it's still Wendy's commercial time, Keith. Show me the beef. Not the pork or the chicken, but the beef.

That's it Larry, unless you can come with one study from a certified hunting biologist, you're on my over and done with list. I like the way you worked in the fast food, a much healthier alternative to pheasant soup?

Just kidding Larry, I'll visit here and there if things seem unfair and unbalanced. If you write of the attributes of a fine upland gun, I promise I won't butt in that duck gun specs are settled science.

Just for a bit of follow up, I'll set a one week time limit on revisiting this thread in case the DW folks reply to my inquiry.

Not yet Larry. We still haven't determined whether you can read with comprehension or even know the difference between my observation of 90% of your comments within this thread and 100% of what you actually believe. That was the last installment, and now you are attempting to skirt the issue. What good is beef if you think it's something else? You like to change the subject when the alternative would be admitting you are wrong. That reminds me very much of King Brown. The possible family resemblance is getting stronger.

After we get that resolved, we're going to revisit some of the other things you couldn't comprehend. And we're going to correct more of the things you misattributed to me. I'm sick of people like you who can't win with facts so they turn to fictional accounts of what was said. When I tried to go over it all at once, you showed us that it was too much for you to handle. This could take a while Larry.

I know a lot more about the scientific method and what goes into a proper research study than you do Mr. Professional Writer. That much is quite obvious. It was pounded into our heads in college freshman biology, chemistry, physics, etc. It is more than just cherry-picking things you like and ignoring those things you don't like. It is much more than looking at some circumstantial evidence and jumping to conclusions based upon preconceived notions. Many of the things that pass for science or accredited studies for you would get an F in any undergraduate biology class. I'm a little tired of your attempts to discredit me or craigd because we lack whatever credentials you desire. I never felt one had to have so-called experts credentials just to be able to connect some fairly obvious dots. There's a lot to be said for just not being stupid, but maybe you wouldn't know about that. Let's not forget about the many court cases where two "accredited experts" give totally different testimony for the defense and prosecution. They are both considered experts, but only one can be right. Just because you are incapable of reading with comprehension and critical analysis, and can be easily fooled, doesn't mean everybody else is.

EDIT: I just answered a PM from someone who ridiculed the silly notions about your precious study that found lead fragments in 50% of ground venison samples. I agreed completely, and said this:

"Yes, I've eaten a helluva lot of ground venison, my own and other peoples, and never once bit into a piece of lead or bullet jacket. It could happen I guess, but most people and most meat processors cut away the shot-up meat. When a butcher cuts up your deer for you, they typically charge by the deer, not by the pound. So taking the chance of feeding a customer shot-up meat with bullet fragments isn't going to make them any more money, and it will damage their reputation as a meat-cutter. Larry will look for any ridiculous excuse to defend his position."

Simple common sense is all that's needed to refute a lot of the garbage that you willingly accept. Nothing more. Which means you'll probably never get it.

Keith, back away from the 90% BS . . . very slowly. Did you look at ALL my posts and determine that this one is anti-lead, that one isn't, and come up with your figure? Did you do the math? If not, then it's not very scientific, is it?

Besides which, your interpretation of what is "anti-lead" varies significantly from mine. For example, until you or Craig can prove otherwise, I will accept that lead shot is bad for waterfowl, was killing lots of them, and the ban was a reasonable step to take. Doesn't mean I'm anti-lead. Rather, it means I'm waiting to hear from someone who doesn't believe that all steps to remove lead are being taken by people who are anti-gun and want to shut down hunting and shooting, which seems to be the position from which you and Craig start. Because if you start from that position, then all regulations banning or limiting the use of lead in ammo are inherently bad--even if you can't disprove the evidence behind them.

Concerning the lead found in ground venison . . . North Dakota is a state with one of the highest percentages of hunters in the nation. I find it hard to believe that the state Department of Health would say that they found lead in those packets of ground venison if they didn't. We're obviously talking very small particles. It's not the equivalent of biting into a pheasant, finding a #6, and spitting it out. But hey, if you have evidence that the ND Dept of Health "cooked the books" on the lead fragments, please supply it.

You don't know what would "pass for science or accredited studies" for me. I'm still waiting for you to provide even ONE of the links you referred to, about lead shot being a minor contributor to lead poisoning in birds. You put your car in reverse and backed away at full speed when I pointed out that those studies don't make any difference where waterfowl are concerned unless they deal with waterfowl. I have a study from the WI DNR that reports high blood lead levels in woodcock. I read it eagerly, looking for reports of lead shot in the doodles' digestive system. Instead, although the study stated that they could not eliminate lead shot as a source of the high blood lead levels, no lead shot was found in any of the woodcock they examined. So the lead could have come from the soil, or from the worms woodcock eat. But there's little or nothing in that study that causes me to relate it to waterfowl. Waterfowl ain't woodcock. Far heavier concentrations of lead shot deposited around the wetlands where lots of waterfowl are shot; relatively little deposited in all the woodlands where most woodcock are shot.

The issue with waterfowl is that lead shot WAS present in a lot of sick and dead birds that were examined. And we're not seeing all the sick and dead ducks and geese we saw prior to the ban. So the evidence does point strongly in the direction of lead shot having been a significant cause--probably the primary cause, albeit not the only cause--of lead poisoning in waterfowl.

As far as "analysis" is concerned, I served in Military Intelligence for 20+ years after leaving CIA. I was an intelligence analyst. One of those years, my unit was selected as the top small unit in the entire Army Reserve (out of hundreds of them). And USAITAC (the Army's Intelligence and Threat Analysis Center) selected our unit as its top MI detachment, out of about a dozen. And one of our soldiers was selected as ITAC's top Reserve intelligence analyst, out of about 200 that supported ITAC: me. I was an NCO one day and a captain the next day, and they don't hand out direct commissions like that, even on the battlefield, except to people who perform well above the average. Went on to command two different MI units with the mission of intelligence analysis. Was put on a special flight from DC to Ft Bragg to brief the 82d Airborne prior to a potential deployment to a combat zone. (Turned out they did not go.) After which the 82d began requesting intelligence studies from our little unit out in Iowa, by name. That's how good they thought we were. So whatever "credentials" you think you have in research and analysis, I think I'll see yours and raise you everything I have in my pockets. And I have the official records to prove it. But I'm certainly willing to admit that science is not my strong suit, and that I know a whole lot less about waterfowl and waterfowl hunting than I do about upland birds and upland hunting. But I do know just a little about research and analysis. And the people to whom studies were submitted that I either wrote or edited confirmed that, by giving me promotions and awards and medals. All in the official records.

So feel free to keep blowing smoke . . . and keep ducking my requests to produce even ONE of these studies that you claim casts doubt upon the science behind the lead shot ban for waterfowl. Same conclusion, Keith: You're still not showing me the beef.

Thanks for bringing me back into it. Have the qualifications for being an expert on this thread changed?

On the surface of it, you don't acknowledge the whole thread, but apparently, you look at ALL of it. If hunters were a mil. unit, are you providing them intel to complete their mission? Or, setting the majority of the unit up for failure?

Have you analyzed and provided intel on the weaknesses of the 'enemy', or does your intel to the unit conclude the enemy 'won'?