For the sake of clarity here, Im going to make a liar of myself by responding
I should first remind folks that I earlier stated my areas of actual experience as a biologist, and that I have no professional expertise with plumbism in wildlife populations. That is other than that which unexpectedly came to me by way of Ben Deeble's attempt to have lead shot lethality studies conducted on our states upland bird populations.
In fairness to Ben, he stated that he was not seeking to have lead shot banned outright, but rather to simply ask our Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks personnel to begin studies to determine if lead shot on the landscape posed any potential for additive mortality. To me, his action was in essence seeking a solution for a non-existent problem - but that was, and is, just my opinion. What I really took exception to was the under-handed way he went about it, while a biologist for the NWF. And Ive no intention of rehashing all of that here rather leaving it to others to provide links -if they care- to the various threads/posts that appeared on this bbs. Suffice it to say, it took the activating of some twenty sportsmens groups around the state, engaging in letter-writing and phone-in campaigns, before Ben was directed by the Montana Wildlife Federation to table his proposal that he hoped would be acted upon by state wildlife managers. And my gut feeling is that Ben is still not done with our Montana uplands in this regard
With that said, let me say the following as a layman..and not as a biologist:
Ive always been skeptical that within a matter of a decade, were told that the switch to non-toxic shot has dramatically turned waterfowl plumbism almost into a moot point. We no longer are being exposed to photos of crook-necked ducks and geese, and yet we know that some heavily gunned environments such as those over hardpan playas, sandy shorelines, and streambeds must still be offering up decades of lead shot deposition. We know that all of it has not sunk and become inaccessible to waterfowl, yet the problem has apparently gone away otherwise it would still be getting rubbed in our collective faces as hunters for the blame & shame it might cause.
And Im always a bit surprised that there is little to no discussion by wildlife managers of the other potential sources of lead bio-availability; or that leads solubility or lack of, in aquatic environments is largely determined by the waters pH. As I understand it, again as a layman, it is the extremes of high acidity or alkalinity that make lead particles more soluble and thus available to organisms. A good example of this is Flint, Michigans current predicament where for decades lake water has been delivered through a cast-iron and lead system to customers with no apparent ill effects; and then a cost-saving switch to the highly acidic (low pH) Flint river now has lead leeching out of the system and contaminating the whole lot to where it is now unfit for consumption.
And unlike grain-eating birds with their crops and gizzards, Id like to know why I never hear of any discussion by someone more versed in avian anatomy than me discussing the workings of the bifurcated esophagus found in raptors and owls. An adaptation that shunts the largely indigestible items such as fur/hide/bone fragments/large bullet fragments, perhaps?? into a portion of the tract where they are then regurgitated out as pellets or castings. Biologists/researchers actually collect and analyze these to determine diet composition. But thats not my area of expertise either, and Id invite any edification, in laymans terms, as to whether a bifurcated esophagus actually mitigates any lead ingestion at all. Ben is an upland bird biologist with the NWF and might be in a position to explain this to us or provide a reference that does. Or do the ingested lead pellets/fragments consistently make it to the birds first stomach, or proventriculus, where caustic acids begin making that lead soluble and thus toxic.
I know I could spend days on the computer researching this if I really had a mind to, but Id rather be honing my retirement skillswhich this entire post is keeping me from doing tonight.
Theres so much to this topic that I dont pretend to know..but I do know this:
When graduating from Utah State Univ. in 1971, we learned via a poll that almost ninety percent of all our students in either wildlife or fisheries studies were involved in consumptive resource uses, i.e. they hunted or fished and then ate what they gathered. Contrast this to a figure I heard of a few years back (but cannot confirm) claiming that todays graduating numbers from many of our top resource colleges hover closer to the fifty percentile mark for those that even care to hunt or fish. The demographic is clearly changing and you may not find it as empathetic to what many of you legally do afield regardless of your license revenues paying for a big chunk of their departmental budgets.
As for the lack of whistleblowers, Larry, what can I tell you other than my own experiences? While I worked only for state and federal agencies over my whole career, I worked as an independent contracting biologist other than some early years with the Forest Service. But from personal experiences among a few friends, colleagues, and acquaintances that did seek a career within the agencies, I can tell you that not 'rocking the retirement boat' did play into some of their silence. And that once retired with twenty or more years of service in, a few of them did give voice to what they felt were bad upper management decisions not made in good conscience over their careers. Truth is, I would have respected them more had they done so during, so as to hopefully affect policy for the better, but you know thats not the way it generally works, does it? And unfortunately, none of this was pertinent to lead toxicity so I can't help you much there.
And LASTLY, for one to say that lead=toxic=bad to the uninformed public is far too simplistic to even warrant serious consideration, and I feel it is up to resource professionals (and writers) to start changing that narrative whenever it is encountered since lead can and does remain inert in many instances within our environment.
Ive said too much already in too long a post, and will hope we can all put this to bed for some time and come at it again on another day and with a better frame of mind
Respectfully,
Rob Harris
