Well . . . the welfare of eagles, as a species, doesn't require anything. They're increasing, and they're not hunted anyhow.
As for Audubon, we (RGS Iowa) worked hand in hand with them in Iowa when the DNR was selling the public on the idea of fairly significant timber management on public hunting areas in the NE part of the state (where we used to have quite a few grouse, but the population had declined badly due to too much mature timber and not enough young, regenerating forest). They worked with us when we held private landowner workshops to try to convince
those folks to manage their timber for more habitat diversity (while making a buck or two off timber sales). Audubon did not mind a bit that we used grouse and woodcock as our "poster birds" for the DNR management projects. They knew that a bunch of neotropical songbirds, also declining in numbers, needed the same habitat we were creating for grouse and woodcock. And then there's the Audubon guy--not a hunter--who's on the banquet committee of a local Pheasants Forever chapter. What's he doing there? "PF does the best local habitat work of any conservation organization." And he's smart enough to realize that habitat for pheasants is also good habitat for other birds.
Leaded gasoline is pretty much gone. So is lead paint. An eagle in WI isn't terribly likely to be drinking water over in Flint. That's on the other side of a very large lake. I don't want to blame eagle deaths on bullet fragments if they die from lead acquired some other way. But deer hunting is big in Wisconsin--which also happens to have a lot of eagles. And some studies have shown that lead levels in scavengers' blood increases from the start to the end of hunting season. None of which is 100% solid . . . except is there something else happening during the same time and in the same area that might be a cause?
Any time proof is not 100%, I agree we shouldn't just say "that must be it". For example, the WI DNR tested lead levels in woodcock and found them very high. They suggested one source might be lead shot. But, given that woodcock eat with their beaks in the ground, they admitted that it might very well be lead from either the ground itself or the worms they were eating just as easily as from lead shot. And they also stated that they hadn't found any lead pellets in the digestive systems of any of the woodcock they tested.
I guess if we wanted 100% proof, we could always keep a bunch of eagles in captivity and feed them meat with bullet fragments, testing their blood lead level at the start and making sure they're not getting lead from any other source. Then watch to see if they get sick, how much lead they need to ingest to get sick, etc. But I doubt that's going to happen. Maybe the deer hunters and other guys who kill critters with rifles ought to get together and fund such a study. The only problem being, they might not like it if the results were to turn out bad for them.
Last edited by L. Brown; 01/21/16 07:17 PM.
