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.
Craig, please try to avoid going totally off the rails on me. First . . . the abstract you posted is NOT "beef". Beef would relate to waterfowl . . . because the conspiracy YOU are promoting is that lead poisoning in waterfowl as a result of the ingestion of lead shot is a conspiracy sold to the public via junk science. And if you agree that the evidence from the abstract seems to show that pheasants can tolerate ingested lead shot better than ducks, then you should KNOW that the abstract in question isn't beef. Ducks to pheasants. Apples to oranges. Beef to pork. Well, at least the abstract is MEAT, not a bun or a tomato or a slice of cheese. Maybe we're making progress.
I have no reason to "debunk" the abstract, and have no intention of doing so. It shows pretty much what I expected it would show: Due to a much higher concentration of shot fall than you would expect on this side of the pond in typical wild pheasant hunting scenarios, there's a much greater likelihood that pheasants would ingest lead shot on shooting estates in the UK. So I'm agreeing with what the abstract tells us. But I'm also pointing out what the abstract does NOT tell us: Any evidence of pheasants getting sick or dying from the ingestion of lead shot. Given the way shooting estates are run, with gamekeepers out and about and on the job protecting their birds from predators, I should think they'd find the occasional dead pheasant, if there are any lying about that have died from lead poisoning. But the abstract does not address that issue. That's why I stressed the fact that the birds examined were HEALTHY birds even though lead was found in 3% of the gizzards checked. Sounds pretty much like the WI woodcock study: birds with high lead levels (although no lead shot in the case of woodcock) that were healthy at the time they were collected (shot).
Not sure what "ND 3-6% study" you're talking about. The only "ND study" I have has to do with lead bullet fragments in venison--and that's 53 out of 95 packets, which clearly isn't 3-6%. And that's only in the introduction to the study, which is actually a Centers for Disease Control study on the blood lead level of humans in North Dakota.
And what does the bone lead level in pheasants have to do with anything . . . unless we're finding pheasants that are sick or dead from lead poisoning? NO study I'm aware of says that lead poisoning is killing pheasants as it did waterfowl. Never saw any "beef" of that nature when I was preparing my articles. In fact, the MN DNR's Nontoxic Shot Advisory Committee--which did a bunch of research on the subject--made the following statement concerning lead shot in upland game: "Conclusive proof regarding the effects of lead shot on other upland game populations is lacking . . . " In other words, nothing done on pheasants or any other upland species (doves excepted) shows the same effects as lead shot did with waterfowl. The most likely reason being that upland game species, except doves on heavily hunted areas, are far less likely to ingest lead shot than were pre-ban waterfowl. And since humans seldom eat pheasant bones, how would the bone lead level in pheasants have anything to do with human consumption? In the case of the venison packets, the lead fragments were IN THE MEAT--meant for human consumption. Apples and oranges again, Craig.
And once again, Craig, you're trying to put words in my mouth that are coming out of yours. Slimy tactic, that. Are you maybe a politician or something? "This is all due to ingested lead shot expended in the uplands." I'm not sure what "this" refers to in your quote, but I am well aware--and have stated multiple times--that there are plenty of sources of lead in the environment other than lead shot. From now on, if you want to quote me, then QUOTE ME--as I just did you--with these little squiggly marks " " around the statement so we know it came from me and not from you.
You and Keith have a real problem understanding the task you've set for yourself. I'm not interested in proving anything about ducks. I don't know whether you want to call the lead shot ban "settled science", but it is settled LAW. You can't shoot lead at waterfowl. End of story. It's not up to the wildlife managers to defend that decision, which has been with us for 25 years. It's up to you and Keith and anyone else who wants to prove it was a bad decision to explain why it was a bad decision. And to present your theories of what was killing all the ducks if it wasn't lead poisoning, to which lead shot was a major contributing factor (according to those who proposed and supported the ban). The climate change deniers don't just say "that's junk science". They come up with opposing theories. Those who deny evolution don't just say it's bunk. They also come up with opposing theories, like intelligent design. Up to you to either construct a cogent opposing theory yourself--not suggestions why there are factors other than the ban to explain why duck numbers turned around--but to what was causing all those dead ducks we're no longer finding.
As for your conspiratorial side . . . a couple problems with your suggestions about duck numbers and why they increased: 1. DDT was banned almost 20 years before the lead shot ban went into effect. 2. CRP went into effect in 1985. By 1987, we'd already seen the pheasant population in Iowa double as a result. Why didn't similar increases in waterfowl numbers show up that quickly. 3. CRP enrollment is now down from its peak by about 12 million acres. We've lost a third of the total CRP we once had. Shouldn't duck numbers be declining as a result? 4. Because we now have more land in row crop production (replacing all those lost CRP acres), that means more ag chemicals applied. And because of the loss of CRP, more of those ag chemicals are washing into our wetlands and waterways. The Des Moines Waterworks has filed suit against some upstream Iowa counties because their water is no longer fit to drink without significant filtration. Nothing in either 3 or 4 is good news for ducks . . . but are we seeing lots of dead ducks as a result? CRP was mainly good for ducks because it provides better protection for nesting birds in the Prairie Pothole region. Reduces predator losses. But it's pretty easy to tell a predator kill from something like lead or chemical poisoning.
Lots of stuff you've thrown up against the wall to see what would stick. Now if you'll quit misrepresenting what I believe and what I've stated, and get around to producing your scientific theory on why lead poisoning was not a major factor in waterfowl mortality pre-ban, maybe we can return to a more intelligent discussion. And please, Craig . . . From now on, anything you claim I said needs to be a quote. I will do the same if I refer to anything you said.
Last edited by L. Brown; 02/06/16 11:30 AM.
