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

Craig, we need to avoid apples and oranges comparisons. The lead level in the eagle in question is BLOOD lead level, not bone. I have no idea how those compare. The only reference I have to bone lead level is in a study the WI DNR did on woodcock, trumpeter swans, bald eagles, and loons. The abstract says: "Bone lead concentrations considered to be toxic in waterfowl were observed in all age classes of woodcock." The woodcock for this study (other than a few chicks) were harvested using steel shot before the regular season opened. So obviously, they were relatively healthy when they were "collected". Given that the same lead level is considered toxic in waterfowl, it would be logical to conclude that woodcock are far more resistant to lead poisoning, based on comparative bone lead levels, than are waterfowl. And since waterfowl are several times larger than woodcock, it would appear that the ability to tolerate lead varies by species rather than by size. So I can't comment on the bone lead level found in pheasants, and since the woodcock bone lead level isn't given in ppm, I can't compare those either. But in any case, I've never been terribly concerned about lead shot ingestion by pheasants. However they were exposed to lead, based on the Tall Timbers research on quail taken off an area of much heavier shot fall than one typically sees in upland hunting, I'd doubt that any appreciable part of that exposure came from ingesting lead shot.

Larry, your woodcock abstract should point out that you choose to state 'obviously they were relatively healthy'. What you fail to admit, is that there is enough environmental non shot sourced lead to be measurable in woodcock. I agree that woodcock can not be compared to ducks, but in close proximity to duck habitat, you say steel shot zone, there is enough environmental lead available to be toxic to a duck.

Back to apples and oranges, can you blame someone for questioning your contention that all available lead necessarily comes from shot. I pointed out numbers, because while you may split hairs about apples and oranges, the very presence of measurable won't go well for your case.

All I was asking is that if a study comes up concluding x or y, are you just going to agree that it was caused by lead shot. And, please don't hope for a moment that there aren't 'studies' that implicate ingested lead shot in pheasant lead levels, as I've been hinting about repeatedly.

I wish I was retired so I could read all this but lead ingested by a condor would have to be a joke. Not sure about the ducks.

I'm back Larry. I didn't forget about you, just had a few very busy days at work, and a lot of overtime. I'm glad to see the thread is still active, even if it is straying further off topic, but as I said, I wasn't done yet anyway.



Believe it or not, I actually considered that you would argue about the accuracy of my 90% figure in a further attempt to get far away from your obvious inability to read and comprehend things. No Larry, I didn't calculate that exactly 90% of what you had said in this thread prior to my statement was anti-lead ammunition rhetoric. It was my estimate, and whatever the exact figure would have been, I'd say it has increased since then... except for upland game hunting of course. It wasn't meant to be scientific, but it is interesting to see your sudden interest in dead-nuts accuracy and science pertaining to that comment, but your continued acceptance of absolute junk science that was instrumental in enacting lead shot bans.

I have proof to show you Larry. I'm not bluffing or blowing smoke. You could find plenty yourself if you were really interested. I've already provided far more than you have, but you choose to dismiss it because craigd or I don't have the credentials to satisfy you. And you continue to show you don't have the ability to comprehend what you read anyway.

By the same token, we are also still waiting for you to show us irrefutable evidence that the blanket 1991 Federal lead shot ban was based upon sound science. That is something that I cannot find. Have you ever looked at waterfowl breeding population levels in the decades prior to the ban? 1963 was about an all-time low and 1966 wasn't much better, and the numbers bounced back tremendously, without the lead shot ban, in 1973 and 1979. The increases in duck populations didn't approach those levels again until 1997-98. So tell us Larry, was that 1997-98 population increase due to the lead ban, or was it due to much improved breeding conditions in the Midwest and also due to massive declines in the numbers of waterfowl hunters? There has been a 72% decline in waterfowl hunters in Canada since 1978, and about a 40% decline in the U.S. between the 1970's and 2008. Continuing significant declines of waterfowl hunters in the U.S. are still a matter of great concern due to the greatly reduced amount of money coming in for habitat improvement. Many states are reporting annual declines in Duck stamp sales of around 30% per year. Dramatically less hunting pressure and reduced access to remote hunting areas is certainly causing large increases in waterfowl populations that can and are being attributed to the lead shot ban. Figures lie, and liars figure. It's amazing what you can see if you have the ability to read and understand instead of being blinded by an inability to ever admit being wrong

The past credentials you claim as a MI analyst are/were impressive, if factual. All I can say about that is, if you ever really possessed those analytical skills... what ever happened to them? You sure haven't shown us any beef in that department here. I do agree with your admission that science is not your strong suit. Did you even read that North Dakota study on lead fragments in ground venison Larry? It's about 30 pages. Why don't you actually read it and see if you can find any obvious flaws before you hang your hat on it.

Would you shut up if anyone provided strong evidence that North Dakota study was seriously flawed Larry? Could you admit that you were wrong? In your mind, have you ever been wrong? I'm not ducking anything Larry. And neither have you shown us any beef. I am also still waiting. But if this was a contest for bloviation, side-stepping, and demonstrating an inability to comprehend things, you're doing a great job.

Craig, you're confused . . . and your "hints" don't rise to the level of evidence.

First of all, please show me ANYWHERE I've made the contention that "all available lead necessarily comes from shot". There's lead in the air, lead in water, lead from bunches of sources other than shot. But if you FIND SHOT in a critter's digestive system, then there's no way you can give ingested lead a "pass" as A source of lead poisoning. Notice I said A source, not THE source. Could be other sources as well.

And that woodcock study didn't have to tell me that doodles are likely to be exposed to lead from sources other than lead shot. In the first place, they examined 108 birds and didn't find lead shot in ANY of them. In the second place, woodcock eat by sticking their long beaks in the soil and probing for worms. So they ingest soil, and they ingest worms--either or both of which are likely sources of lead. And given the fact that shot fall in woodcock habitat tends to be quite dispersed (as it is for all upland birds except doves) rather than concentrated as it often is for waterfowl, the likelihood of lead shot being the sole source (let alone the main source) of lead in the soil in which woodcock feed is highly improbable.

As for your hints about ingested lead in pheasants, please "show me the beef". Links to studies. Does not make sense to me that lead poses a significant danger to pheasants . . . and here's why: Pheasants are the major species featured in driven shoots in the UK and elsewhere. Those birds, unlike our preserve birds, have been "out and about" on the shoot grounds for several weeks (if not months) before they're shot. The same drives are shot several times over the course of the season. In a single drive, a line of 8 guns might well fire 200 shots (or more). So, in the case of driven shoots, you have a much higher concentration of shot fall than you do in upland hunting as we practice it in this country. Preserves would be the only place in this country you'd get comparable shot fall, but they're not a good comparison for the simple reason that most of their pheasants don't survive outside their pens for more than a few days; therefore not having sufficient time to ingest much lead shot. Those British birds, on the other hand, are much more akin to our wild birds--except exposed to areas of much heavier shot fall. And because they have gamekeepers on patrol, looking for predators etc, it seems to me they'd be finding lots of pheasants dead from lead poisoning if ingestion of lead shot were an issue for pheasants.

I eagerly await your hinted-at study on pheasants and lead shot.

Then please, by all means, produce the links to said proof. So far, you haven't even shown the bun, the lettuce, the tomato or the cheese--let alone the beef.

As for the MI credentials . . . well, Uncle Sam sends me a check every month, pay appropriate to my rank of COL (retired), MI Branch. And I have all kinds of supporting documents. Can probably come up with a witness or two, if you insist. But I do have to be careful about telling you too much. Unlike a certain candidate for president, I take the protection of classified information very seriously. And if I were to tell you the whole story, given that I held a Top Secret clearance for 30 years, I'd have to kill you. But I think I'll just let your brain explode and do whatever damage that might result, while you're searching for the so far elusive "proof".

I'll stick by my opinion about your first point and on the woodcock abstract.

Since you brought it up, try searching 'lead exposure in ring-necked pheasants on shooting estates in Great Britain'. That search is basically the exact wording, that you used in your 'logic' as 'proof'. But, you should see an abstract on researchgate.net or the same on jstor.org. Sorry, I don't know how to do a link, one thing we seem to have in common.

Not too bad, 437 birds, 4 different seasons or parts of seasons, 32 different shooting estates, and 'recommendations'. Nearly a fourth are said to be significantly tainted with lead. Why not be aware that stuff like this is floating around out there before concluding that it is akin to our wild birds?

How to do a link? Well, if you can't do it any other way, simply look at the address of the website you've accessed and type it in. www.doublegunshop.com. That's all you have to do. Click on that and it will get you right back to this place.

I took a look at the brief item about shooting estates in Great Britain. Note how the gizzards were collected: "From birds that were shot . . . " That means they were quite healthy. The way the game is played on driven shoots, you don't shoot birds so sick they can't get off the ground, and you don't shoot them if they can scarcely fly because you might strike a beater, and you don't shoot low birds because it's not sporting--even if they are surrounded by sky (blue sky rule prevails over there, for the safety of the beaters). So these were HEALTHY birds. Which would seem to indicate that however much lead shot they ingested--and 3% of the gizzards out of 437 birds isn't a whole lot--it had yet to make them sick enough that they were not "sporting" targets to be shot by the guns. And if that's a typical rate of shot ingestion on British estates, then it reinforces my view that we have little or nothing to worry about in this country. Since, as I pointed out, those birds are exposed to far heavier shot fall than you're ever going to see when hunting pheasants in this country, other than where there are "released" birds.

I don't know how their bone lead level compares to that which was apparently fatal in waterfowl. But as I mentioned earlier, since woodcock were healthy and shot with bone lead levels that were considered fatal in waterfowl, that would seem to suggest that different species have different levels of tolerance for lead. With woodcock being significantly smaller than ducks, logic would seem to indicate that if it's enough to kill a duck, then it will surely kill a woodcock. But that does not appear to be the case. And perhaps pheasants--birds of a similar size to ducks--also have a greater tolerance for lead. But I see nothing in the article to tell me that just because a small percentage of pheasants are ingesting lead, apparently with no ill effects, that the same would hold true for waterfowl. Perhaps the researchers need to contact a bunch of gamekeepers and ask them to save any pheasants they find dead without any apparent evidence of trauma either before the shooting season starts or after it ends. Then necropsy and analyze the birds to see what their bone lead levels show, and whether lead poisoning might be a possible cause of death. If I go over again next season, I'll have to ask the keepers and the man who runs the shoot whether they're losing many birds during the off season for causes they can't tie to predators or anything else that's obvious.

I note that the article contains several references I used when I did my articles on lead shot: The Tall Timbers research and the article on woodcock in Wisconsin.

I have an Apple, so it may be little different but ............ I click on the bar where the website address is, at the very top of my page. It all turns blue, then I hold down the "command" key, and while doing so hit the "c" key, which copies the address. Then go back to the reply box and put your cursor where you want the link to appear and, again, hold down the "command" key and hit "v". The link will appear where you want it to and, when you look at the preview, it will appear in blue. Voila!

SRH

Thanks guys, I could and should learn how to do a link. I was only pointing out how the request for a link was a bit of a one way street, but that's okay.

Larry, should we take a look, or should I just go ballistic about what a conspiracy theorist you are?

I never said these were sick appearing, dead, recovered birds. I've repeatedly said, as you may be, that pheasants seem to tote lead much better than ducks. Yes, we are talking about HEALTHY appearing birds, I never said otherwise. Try to keep in mind that I dug it up for you because it was beef so to speak. My big concern, your logic that tells you you're always correct, is very weak at debunking this little abstract.

First let me say, I didn't read the whole article, and I ain't paying to do so, but the abstract seems to say more than enough. I'm also going to ask if you can step out of your waterfowl commingling, because you asked for some beef on pheasant lead shot ingestion.

3% of gizzards with lead shot in them is small, and remarkably similar to your ND study that said it varied between 3-6%. So what, the lab findings were that 22.4% of the pheasant contained a bone lead level of significant to very high. If lead is located in an internal organ, the bird may be in the process of expelling it. Once it's incorporated into bone, well, that's part of why I didn't want you making too much pheasant soup back a bunch of pages ago.

Weren't you the fellow that said I was a bad guy for not quoting what you wanted from the Audubon crew, although all I ever quoted was a part of their mission statement to refute the misleading statements from you that the society was hunt friendly. Are you trying to conceal and ignore the 22.4%? That abstract was basically an advisory about humans not eating game, that APPEARS healthy, but contains systemic, not particulate lead. You were the guy that brought up the ground venison and the comment about 'us' being in trouble if the feds felt the need to regulate a food source.

Of course, the true problem here is that you're 'discussing' this as though you fully agree that this is all due to ingested lead shot expended in the uplands. That and if I start calling you a conspiracy theorist, you won't buy it, and keep going with your feelings. Lucky guy, please enjoy your next estate hunt over there. One, don't bother with the game keeper, he can't help with the anti hunt spinners, and two, how you gonna push yourself away from the table when a big dollar chef presents, pheasant under glass from the first day's shoot?

Now, I'm going to switch off my commingling button, and remind you that while they may eat different things, you insist on 'proving' that toxic levels of lead are in the duck's zone. My conspiratorial side thinks the CRP and other habitat enhancing programs and the ban on DDT and other agricultural/manufacturing chemicals are the reason for a rebound in duck numbers, not steel.