doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Steel shot testing 2023

Any unbiased studies that track the number of (wasted) deaths in ducks due to crippling losses before and after the ban on lead?

Hundreds of ducks found in an area having symptoms of some kind of poisoning in 1968 in Portland how much lead would it take to cause this symtom? How many rounds of lead shot? Why have I never heard of tule lake Klamath basin or goose lake area having simular out breaks or symptoms ????

The smartest guy on the Doublegunshop forum writes...


They don't "due" stable isotope analysis. They "do " it.

However, people who know how to spell "do", and use the word correctly, might also be intelligent enough to understand the limitations of stable lead isotope analysis.

There are four stable isotopes of lead. and the ratios of those isotopes in a sample of lead MAY tell you where in the world that sample of lead was mined. That's because the lead ore in different deposits has naturally decayed at slightly different rates, leaving unique ratios of stable isotopes that can indicate to a researcher where it was mined.

Anti-lead activists like the nutty professor love to cling to the false notion that stable isotope analysis can absolutely pinpoint lead shot as the culprit in avian lead poisoning. Nothing could be further from the truth.

There are several problems with clinging to stable isotope analysis in the never-ending quest to blame lead shot and lead bullets for lead poisoning. Most important is that lead is one of the most recycled metals in use. The lead in shot or bullets may be virgin lead, or more likely, it will be an alloy or mix of new and used lead from multiple sources and multiple smelters. Before it became ammunition, there is a good chance some or all of that lead was previously used in lead pipes, lead acid battery plates, lead flashing, or dozens of other products. So the ratio of stable isotopes are very unlikely to tell the researcher anything about where it was mined. It's about as useless as doing DNA testing on a single hair found in a busy barbershop, and thinking that will tell you who killed the barber.

The fact that the minute quantity of lead in a blood sample has a certain ratio of isotopes also cannot prove that lead came from shot or bullets either. Lead smelting plants sell lead and lead alloys to many different customers. The minute amounts of lead in any blood sample could come from multiple sources. And the worst sources when it comes to plumbism, or lead poisoning, are not chunks of elemental lead in shot or bullet fragments. The worst sources are lead in chemical solutions or dusts, because lead is much more bio-available in those forms. Lead poisoning is a real thing. But the dangers of it from lead ammo has been greatly exaggerated, while other sources are all but ignored. Many guys I know have had lead exposure from reloading, casting bullets or fishing jigs, etc. The only one who ever suffered lead poisoning was a friend who had repeated exposure to lead dust while working as an electrician in a battery manufacturing plant. He told me most was from breathing lead dust while blowing out electrical panels with compressed air.

The nutty professor is at much more risk of increasing his blood lead levels from exposure to the fumes and dust generated by bullet casting than from handling them during reloading, or even swallowing one. And one or two lead shot in a crop or gizzard absolutely does not indicate that any and all lead in that birds blood came from that shot. The single greatest source of lead in our environment came from decades of burning billions of gallons of gasoline that contained tetraethyl lead. And lead continued to be used in aviation fuel even after it was banned for use in cars and trucks. That lead did not simply disappear. It remains every place it was deposited after precipitation washed it out of the air and left it in soil or water.

In addition, those dots on the x-ray images provided by the Preacher are not proof of either lead or lead poisoning. We have zero proof that they are even lead. They could be steel shot, or bismuth, or tungsten. or little round stones. Evidence like that would never fly in Court. Therein lies the big problem. I have read the literature. A great deal of it. And the more I read, the more skeptical I have become. The vast majority of the so-called "science" is not double blind or peer reviewed. Much of it comes from highly suspect and anti-hunting agenda driven sources, such as the Peregrine Fund. I'm sure Ben Deeble is very happy to have the Preacher dumping links to their bullshit here. I have already mentioned that if you actually read this so-called "science" carefully, you will soon see that they cannot even agree on what constitutes a lethal blood lead level in ducks, or geese, or various raptors. When the liars can't get their obviously fictional stories straight, they cannot expect people with any capacity for thoughtful analysis to believe their crap. But the nutty professor mocks anyone who actually uses their brain and questions bullshit. This is a guy who whines about civility and cries about how much nicer it is on Upland Journal forum, as he belittles the guys here who are fed up with the efforts of the Left to end hunting and shooting as we know it.

The best thing the anti-lead people have going for them is that the majority of people don't understand or are too lazy to study the issue. And they are easily fooled by liars and frauds with a PhD after their names. Dustin is wasting his time repeatedly asking the nutty professor to address some of the disparities and absurd assertions in the so-called "science" which I pointed to earlier. He refused to address those things in prior Threads on the subject in the past, and it isn't going to happen now. We should all understand by now that ignoring or dismissing facts is one of the most valuable tools that the Liberal Left uses.

So please, read the "Science". Read all you can, and pay very close attention to the numbers and data and details. You will soon begin to see that a great deal of what passes for "Science" isn't really science at all. And you will similarly see that many of the people who pontificate on the matter of lead ammo bans are agenda driven petty hypocrites who, as craigd astutely notes, do not practice what they preach, and are not nearly as smart as they want you to believe.

According to the 1960 research as little as two #6 pellets could or would cause symptoms of poisoning. There again the exposure to the lead shot was dependent on the type of bottom, mud vs. sand/gravel. The mud bottom being better in terms of shot not available to the ducks. Water depth factored in as well. Some recovered if favorable food was available. I'm not familiar with the bottom condition of Klamath or Goose lake. According to the 1960's study weather concentrating ducks in certain areas factored large in creating a die off. It is an interesting read that I will take more time with soon. It starts into the reasoning of how much loss is tolerable, unavoidable? To Keith's point , the lead is certainly still there it has not been cleaned up.

At the time this study was done there was not much of a "green" movement. Mostly state biologists and private concerns looking into what they perceived as a problem. Interesting that there was no conclusion that eating a poisoned duck would be detrimental to a human or other animal.

Another long review
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-019-01159-0

Findings suggesting of lead poisoning
Signs include anaemia, lethargy, muscle wastage and loss of fat reserves, green diarrhoea staining the vent, wing droop, loss of balance and coordination and other neurological signs such as leg paralysis or convulsions.

re: what happens to the lead shot
"Gunshot generally sinks slowly through most types of soil and mud and may be available to feeding birds for many years, although a high proportion of gunshot ingested is that most recently deposited. Pain et al. (2015) review this in relation to soil types and management practices."
Pain, D. J., R. Cromie, and R.E. Green. 2015. "Poisoning of birds and other wildlife from ammunition-derived lead in the UK. In Proceedings of the Oxford Lead Symposium."

Chief's point is important - the concern regarding lead toxicity started with professional wildlife biologist and conservationists, and was only later hijacked by the greens with an agenda. I choose to believe the published peer reviewed research by wildlife biologist is legitimate, and accessible with a bit of looking.
It is certainly reasonable to argue regarding the conclusions and application of the research, but attacking the character of professional wildlife biologists (at least those not carrying the stink of the D.C. swamp) is inappropriate.

George Bird Grinnell expressed concern about ducks, geese and swans dying from lead poisoning in 1894

Aldo Leopold's papers included an article from 1915, and he published regarding the issue throughout his career
https://search.library.wisc.edu/digital/AV24ZV6CYHMAZF8B/pages/ASOSBQQZ7MDLJ484?as=text

Good opinion piece by a pro-hunting group
https://www.themeateater.com/hunt/f...ildlife-separating-science-from-advocacy

Peer review is an important medical standard. It may be present in all the referenced studies, but probably shouldn't be assumed.

Doc Drew, is a 2015, soil sample study relevant? Probably and possibly, but how many decades after the lead ban is this time period, and why are we looking at soil samples, when these typical non tox waterfowl zones are wetlands? It's okay, the speculations starts, stratified layers of settlement from previous generation hunters are continually uncovered and ingested by waterfowl.

Back up a bit to the soil sample studies, often related to Woodcock models and other upland situations. The glory pictures of waterfowl xrays showing ingested lead shot, are basically nonexistent in Woodcock, but dismissed as immaterial to their conclusions. Yet, an xray caught your attention to be worthy of highlight on an earlier comment. Soar Raptors is a .org, heavily gov funded source, that appeared in previous "discussions" here. They had a glory picture of a hundred and twenty or thirty some odd lead fragment xray, supposedly ingested by a Bald Eagle feeding on a hunter's big game gut pile. I seems it has since been pulled, even though it was likely a great emotional donation magnet for their cause.

Peer review is a living, evolving concept. The source of funding in today's science will largely point to conclusions anticipated, and the products of our modern higher education system are peers who are trained to see socio-political agendas as integral fact. The peers are the greens with an agenda, the example of how "we" handled covid should be ample evidence.

The image with the lead in the duck is from 1966 William. No steel shot in 1966, other than that being investigated by Olin. Read a little closer.

Relevant to Craig's observation, I understand how academics work. I was at the UMKC-SOM for 7 years. Advancement is dependent of publishing and obtaining grant money (inter-related). The folks paying for studies expect the results they hope for. But today, every article requires the authors to list any financial connections to those paying for the studies. And falsifying data is academic suicide. You'll be eventually caught, and teaching in a Jr. High the rest of your life.

Blood lead testing has been confirmed by erythrocyte protoporphyrin since the 70s, and can be performed in the field with a small (finger prick-like) sample. It has nothing to do with lead isotope analysis.
https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/11605/Kennedy1977.pdf?sequence=1

William: Did you miss that my name is Drew? Could you please use it?

Due to the fact that I have BrentD on ignore I don't see his posts unless they are quoted by another, as above, or decide to "open" it to read. But, I find it odd that one who tags himself as Prof. (supposedly for someone named Stanley) would not be more careful about spelling.

Preacher, an expert and know-it-all like you should be aware that steel shot in a .175" diameter has been commercially available since the 1920's. And believe it or not, little round stones have been found in the crops and gizzards of birds for much longer than that. White dots on a x-ray may or may not be lead, even in 1966. And even the actual presence of lead shot in a crop or gizzard is not absolute proof that lead ammunition is the major or sole source of systemic elevated lead levels. There are many sources of environmental lead, and many that are far more bio-available. Please pay attention. I am here to debunk junk and agenda driven "science", not to give it credence.... no matter how loathsome I find you to be.

I was particularly amused by your assertion that we should simply trust anything published by researchers, no matter what personal biases or agendas they may have... so long as they are not part of the D.C. Swamp.
That's just silly and naive. I have previously mentioned how researchers at my alma mater and East Anglia University conspired to falsify and manipulate climate data in order to "prove" that global temperatures were rising far faster and higher than they actually are. This was the famous 2009 Climategate Scandal. However, even though researchers were caught, their careers were not ruined, and they were not relegated to teaching Jr. High School, as you assert. The complicit Liberal Left media and academia simply swept it under the rug, and they didn't talk about Global Warming very much for a year or so until the scandal faded from memory. There are many other examples of research being falsified or manipulated to satisfy an agenda. But you knew that.

Another point is that I didn't bring up stable lead isotope analysis as evidence that the lead in bird's blood came from lead shot. That was your buddy the nutty professor. I merely pointed to the absurdity of that tired old crap being used by researchers as proof positive that our lead ammo must be the one true cause of plumbism in birds. Maybe you should spend more time on reading comprehension, and less time attempting to prove me wrong.

I liked your list of symptoms associated with lead poisoning in birds. I was perfectly aware of them. And that was precisely why I questioned the nutty professor and Larry about that poor eagle in the Lead and Condors thread that allegedly had many times the lethal dose of lead in its' blood. Yet it was somehow strong enough and coordinated enough to fly and perch in a tree. Anti-lead ammo advocates swallow that crap in their precious anti-lead research papers, and expect us to swallow it too. And you apparently also think we should believe it... so long as the "science" didn't come from the D.C. Swamp. Do you ever think before you get on your soap-box?

I also found it amusing that your entry into this thread was some deep concern that there would be repetition of things said in the prior anti-lead ammo threads. Too bad you are too self-centered to notice the many times you have repeated the same old copy-and-paste shotgun pressure graphs, load data for long obsolete powders, pictures of cracked shotgun frames, old advertisements, etc., etc.

Finally, I'd like to explain once again why I call you Preacher. It is NOT a term of respect. Anything but! I do it because you have continually behaved in a most un-Christian manner, and are a parody of a preacher, not worthy of respect in my opinion. In addition, you know full well that I have been called Keith since I was an infant, and never went by William. Yet you choose to be cute, and continue to disrespect me. Knock yourself out. But expecting me to respect you, while you disrespect me in the same sentence. is simply further evidence of your terminal narcissism. Get over yourself Preacher. Maybe consider having your blood tested for elevated lead levels, or acid in your soul. You could always just put me on IGNORE, as Stan does with the professor. Meanwhile, I enjoy living rent-free in your little head.

William: the only time you are in my head is when I pray that you somehow find peace and healing. And I must admit it was tough at first to do so.

Some of the genuine "Preachers" we support and visited 10 days ago in San Luis, San Juan Tecuaco. The guy to my right is Pastor Juan. He was serving in a small church in Aldea Ijorga with another pastor, and through their evangelism efforts, and the transforming power of the Gospel, families were being saved and lives changed. The local criminals thought this were hurting their "business" so they murdered the other pastor and told Juan he was next if he didn't leave. He's still there, and it was my great honor to stand with him.
That is courage Keith. Try to find the courage to admit that you need help, and get it.



This oughta get the thread locked now