brewer12345
Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,751
Hmm, you may be right as I cannot find them when I Google.
Article About How "Hunters" Are Against Lead Bullets
- Thread starter Speedo66
- Start date
- Status
Hmm, you may be right as I cannot find them when I Google.
primalmu
Member
If we look at the literature for humans, there is a growing body of evidence that any level of lead in the body is detrimental. According to a paper from the American Academy of Pediatrics (Prevention of Childhood Lead Toxicity, AAP 2016), blood levels as low as 5 ppb (yes, that's parts per billion) have been associated with developmental issues including reduced intelligence, behavioral disorders, etc. No, I'm not saying lead ammo is bad because we are making birds stupid. What this shows, though, is that there are no safe levels of lead in the body. "...[T]he Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention of the CDC concluded that there is no safe level of lead exposure..."
Therefore, yes, exposure does lead to morbidity (harm). Any level of lead is considered toxic as lead serves no purpose in the body, unlike other heavy metals such as zinc, cobalt, chromium, selenium, etc which actually serve biological roles in the body.
I can hear it now, though... "But birds aren't humans, show me that info for birds and other wildlife." Well, unless you want to fund those studies (I can hear the tax griping now) you aren't likely to get the same in-depth research for wild life that we have for humans. However, considering that biological processes are 99% the same across all species, we can extrapolate out. After all, that's how we establish toxic levels for most other substances for humans, only in reverse thanks to animal research (largely still a necessity today).
huntsman
Member
I quit duck hunting when steel was mandated because all my shotguns were vintage and the duck population was declining.
I thought about taking it up again but with the cost and loss of hunting area its better left in the past.
theotherwaldo
Member
The real bottom line:
There are many threats to wildlife in the world.
Most are ignored by scientists and regulators.
One is partially caused by hunters and shooters.
That one threat must be stopped immediately by regulators.
Oops!
These new regulations may incidentally cripple a right and a way of life that we oppose, politically and/or philosophically.
Ah, well.
Sacrifices must be made for the greater good. (Giggle.)
There are many threats to wildlife in the world.
Most are ignored by scientists and regulators.
One is partially caused by hunters and shooters.
That one threat must be stopped immediately by regulators.
Oops!
These new regulations may incidentally cripple a right and a way of life that we oppose, politically and/or philosophically.
Ah, well.
Sacrifices must be made for the greater good. (Giggle.)
armarsh
Member
This assumes that 100% of the metallic lead is soluble, which it is not. I find this extremely misleading. One of the most difficult parts of this problem is knowing how much lead is metabolized by an animal and you have not even mentioned it.
Its all a guess.
George P
member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2018
- Messages
- 7,772
The biggest threat to wildlife of all types is loss of habitat due to development for more homes and malls and those folks who "want to be closer to nature"; then whine when their lap dog becomes a snack for a bobcat or coyote
Ding ding ding!!! We have a winner!
When the steel shot mandate hit in Washington state I was in the business of selling hunting and fishing gear. I researched and studied every available bit of data I could find on steel shot. Up till then my standard duck hunting load was 1 3/8 oz of hardened #5 shot. My buddy and I could take a box of that handloaded ammo and come home with a limit of ducks and extra shells. 90% of the ducks we shot over decoys with that load were feet up when they hit the water. The kill zone in our decoy spread was 22 yards from the blind.
The lead ban arrives and everything I could find said to go up two shot sizes. So I purchased two boxes of Remington steel #2. Those were the first shotshells I had bought in years. My buddy also bought two boxes. Opening day arrives and we're on our favorite point on the Columbia river with our 10 dozen decoys spread out. We start calling in ducks and start shooting ducks. We could see them hump up with they were hit and then fly towards the center of the river and drop. Mind you these ducks were flying several hundred yards before landing or falling. The river there is over a mile wide. I ran through a box of shells and had two ducks in my bag. I was sick. I knew that I had wounded at least 20 ducks that were non-recoverable. Same for my buddy. He had three ducks. We had fired 50 shells for five ducks.
A week later I was on the north side of the river in the sloughs and the smell of death was overwhelming. There were hundreds of dead and dying ducks. I counted 120 dead or dying ducks in one 100 yard stretch of the sloughs. We went out on a boat and there were rafts of dead and dying ducks on the river. In the years when lead was legal I could go to the same area and find maybe 5 dead or dying ducks in that same 100 yard stretch.
All my customers were coming in and saying they just weren't able to cleanly kill ducks. Some of them were shooting 3" mag #1 steel shot and still couldn't harvest ducks.
That was the last year I hunted waterfowl. I'd been hunting them since I was 12. I was sickened by the waste fostered on us by the Government. I'm sure that non-toxic shot technology has come a long ways since then. But at what cost?
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,078
While lead is denser and retains more energy beyond 50 yards, before that, differences are insignificant. Sky blasting past 50 yards is probably the reason for cripples, not the shot. Regardless of what shot one uses, you still have to hit a kill zone. Steel patterns much better than lead, so again, missing the kill zone is probably the fault of the shooter. Tighter patterns mean a smaller margin of error. Folks didn't always compensate for this by using a larger choke. Problem when the first steel shot came out, folks used too small of shot and ammo companies made their loads too slow. For the most part, that is now gone. Like with deer hunting, folks always want to find an excuse for when they cripple game. Easier to claim the bullet failed than it is to say "I made a poor shot". Wildlife biologists and managers took/still take into account the increase in numbers of lost/crippled game against the numbers of those affected by ingested lead. Comes down to the lesser of two evils. Comes down to a waterfowler coming home with one less bird every so often or that same waterfowler contributing to the deaths of many more birds over a longer period of time. Again, it comes down to ethics AND the good of the whole ecosystem, including our kids and grandkids. I ain't that selfish that a few birds is more important to me than them. Again....others are free to feel differently. Kinda what ethics is all about.
Thing is, it isn't just about the proper disposal of processed carcasses. It's the leaving of gut piles and the carcasses of retrieved game that is causing the problem. Most of us who hunt deer either process the deer and properly dispose of the carcass or take it to a butcher who processes the deer and then properly disposes of the carcass. While this seems to many to be a very small amount of lead, and a very small amount of exposure to scavengers, like members of the Anatidae family, raptors and other birds that feed on carrion are highly susceptible to even very small amounts. Growing up as a kid, it was rare to see a Bald Eagle feeding on a car kill deer carcass along side the road. Nowadays, it rare to see any road kill deer laying along the road without one or two Bald Eagles present. This tells me this is a learned response to an easy and plentiful food supply. For them finding a gut pile and/or a unretrieved carcass in the woods is just as easy. Being a child of the fifties, I remember when even seeing a Eagle was a rare sight. It took the regulating of toxic chemicals and strict enforcement of protective policies that made them a common sight now to most of us here in the upper mid-west. Bothers me to think I may have contributed in the past to the demise of even a single one of them. Again, others are free to feel differently.Funny how many of those folks want to belittle or chastise folks like me that feel the way we do. Not really a convincing argument in a debate.
Again, I too hope we do not have to be forced not using non-lead projectiles for big game. Back in the 80s and early 90s I saw the same push for voluntarily using steel shot for waterfowl. It was the reluctance to do so voluntarily that made the use of lead illegal for waterfowl. I see the same happening with the use of lead for fishing and the use of lead for big game. Kinda up to us as hunters/sportsmen/conservationists. As for the scoffing at the amount of risk to humans, folks used to scoff about the amount of risk of lead exposure to lead paint, lead in our gas and the lead used in plumbing too.
primalmu
Member
Actually, I have addressed that issue in my LD50 discussion, where the LD50 of lead for birds has not been established, presumptively because there's no money to be made (i.e. the data from the research is not deemed valuable enough for the investment/funding). You cant disregard a line of reasoning just because no one has footed the bill for the research into a very narrow subject. And I guarantee you that no one here arguing against the negative impact of lead on wildlife would be willing to have their tax bill increased to fund such research. For one, we are generally a conservative bunch and don't want increased taxes.
It does seem to me that there's a sense that no amount of research would be enough for those arguing that lead is not making a significant impact on wildlife. Its the same with climate change deniers. And when research is presented, they attempt to discredit it by attacking the source solely based on the conclusions made.
Ohen Cepel
Member
Primalmu,
What is your solution to the situation?
What is your solution to the situation?
primalmu
Member
I'm not arguing for a solution. Talking about possible solutions is putting the cart before the horse when many can't (or refuse to) see that the problem exists in the first place.
I'm not a hunter, so anything I say regarding ammunition bans or lead-free ammunition wouldn't be taken seriously. I find it disturbing that so many outdoorsmen (and women, presumably) are completely unwilling to even consider the possibility that their hobby is harmful to the environment. And yes, for most, hunting is a hobby. If you are subsistence hunting and must hunt or starve, ya know what, you use whatever ammunition you want. But lets face it, most people are not hunting because they have to, they are hunting because they enjoy it. And there's nothing wrong with that. However, we still owe it to the environment and the wildlife that make our hobbies worthwhile by being good stewards.
entropy
Member
For some duck hunters, who skybusted before steel shot, this may be true. In my case, I know it is not, and I know it to be true for many other people I hunted with. Steel shot reduces effective range significantly, and individual pellet effect is reduced, requiring tighter patterns even within that shorter range. Add in the fact that tight patterns do not happen with steel shot, due to it's non-maellelability, the patterns blow out. And yeah, I heard the old "Well, you just have to be a better caller." And I went to BBB 3" Mags for ducks I used #5's on and shot farther out. And don't even play the old 'you must be a sucky shot' card. My shooting automatically went in the toilet, only on ducks mind you, while my Trap and Sporting Clays scores didn't drop, I was still deadly on pheasants? I don't think so.
Coming up with a solution that works for everyone would be a way to do that. Saying there's a problem (we all realize there is) and not considering solutions is basically a drive-by.
So far, the ammunition companies have come up with two solutions that sort of work, but are very expensive. Tungsten and Bismuth shot. DU would be an excellent solution balistically, and it's kinda funny how the military is able to use it (wherever it operates, which are usually inhabited) but it wouldn't even be considered for shotshells. So come on, I posited one possible solution, let's hear yours, guys.
primalmu
Member
I see plenty of people here denying there is a problem at all, or at least a problem that is big enough to work towards a solution for. Its easy to say someone should come up with a solution, but it would be even easier if everyone was on-board with coming up with a solution that works for everyone.
California took it a step further. After making billions of dollars worth of existing ammo obsolete, they required that all ammo sales go through a dealer and a background check, making getting legal replacement ammo difficult and expensive. A nice 1-2 punch.
Deanimator
Member
You see even more people pointing out that your description of the "problem" is fundamentally flawed and based on assertions premised on "facts" not in evidence.
primalmu
Member
Tell me, specifically, what you mean. What description of the problem, how is it flawed, and how is it not backed up by evidence? How specific do you want said evidence? Would you like to see necropsy reports with tissue lead levels and stomach content analysis? What evidence do YOU want, because there is plenty of evidence out there. I can't spoon feed you every bit of data -- that is what peer reviewed journal articles are for. What I see is a fundamental distrust of the scientific process and I doubt any amount of evidence would convince some people -- they would just throw their arms up and say the source is biased (without any proof or evidence, mind you).
Deanimator
Member
You've still never explained how RIFLE and PISTOL bullets were finding their way into a LOT of predators/scavengers. Where are all of these bullet riddled carcasses being found? Who's shooting all of these animals and leaving them to rot? The days of the great buffalo hunts are long over.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,078
Sorry, never meant to infer anyone in particular was a "sucky" shot. My experience in waterfowl hunting is where I came up with my statement about "sky-blasting" vs steel shot.One of the reasons I gave up waterfowl hunting was trying to compete with those other folks on the lake who figured shooting first was the only sure way to get their limit. Not only did they flare birds by shooting at them out of legitimate range, but then scared any ensuing birds by chasing cripples around.
It's a proven fact that steel shot patterns do not "blow out", but are indeed, much tighter than lead. Steel stays rounded, thus shooting straighter. Impossible to read anything about lead vs steel without this fact being confirmed. Again, the problem when steel first came out was eveyone had their favorite long piped "goose gun" with a full choke. I know, I was one of them. Steel, especially the larger shot, did not do well going thru a full choke tube. Many folks talked about steel shooting "donuts"...a pattern with a hole in the middle. While I never patterned that on a patterning board personally, I did quickly realized that a modified with steel patterned about like my full choke did with lead. With the improvement with regular lead shotshells, I learned that a modified choke works better than full on most pheasants too. That wasn't the case back in the 60s/70s before buffererd shot and full wad cups.
This talk about steel shot is all moot tho, since we are talking about(and the linked article) involves the use of non-lead monolithic bullets, that do not exhibit any of the claimed problems that steel shot has. Non-toxic expanding bullets designed for medium/large/dangerous game has been shown to be just as accurate and have equal terminal performance as it's lead counterpart. In the instance of dangerous game, even better. Seems the biggest reluctance to use them is cost and the "cache" of cup and core/solid lead many folks have. Most of us will not be faced with mandatory use of non-toxic single projectiles in the immediate future. I feel what I am doing, transitioning over to the use of non-toxic bullets for use on deer, while still using my cup and core/solid lead for practice and recreational shooting is one way to start. My theory is that if everyone did this. most of us will not face what those in Korneyforney are facing, the complete ban of lead/cup and core type projectiles. While I have seen Eagles on dead deer carcasses feeding, I have yet to see one digging thru my shooting berm. This is what the linked article(thus what this thread is about) is really about. The use of non-toxic projectiles for hunting, eliminating most of the chance of ingesting lead when feeding on animals shot with firearms. This includes humans as well as scavengers.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,078
Again....it is not just carcasses, but the gut piles. Sorry, but here in Wisconsin, most of us gut our animals in the field. Just how it works for us. Go out west and many folks quarter their animals out in order to get them out. As has been said, sometimes it does not take a lot of ingested lead to affect some species. In some cases, a single shotgun pellet can cause organ failure and brain damage, inhibiting an animal’s critical neuromuscular, auditory and visual responses.......this even if the animal/bird recovers. As I said in my first post, we loose about 20 Eagles a year due to confirmed lead poisoning. Many of these dead birds exhibit, when X-rayed, multiple bullet/lead fragments in their gizzards. The evidence is out there, even tho folks want to deny it. Folks used to scoff about the health concerns of cigarette and second hand smoke. Many still do, altho there is a ton of hard evidence to support the claims. I really enjoy getting to eat out in a smoke free environment nowadays, but iffin it was up to cigarette smokers, I'd still have to go home with red, watery eyes and my clothes smelling like Marlboro's.
JN01
Member
Why wouldn't people be skeptical of purported unbiased studies? As we have seen with those who champion anthropomorphic global warming, they are willing to alter data to support their hypothesis, and actively demonize or otherwise attempt to silence those who disagree with or question their view and/or methods. This has also happened for decades with gun control advocacy- "scientific" studies employing cherry picked data, misrepresented or out of context facts, and sometimes out and out lies.
Science is not political, scientists often can be.
Political operatives with an agenda can also twist conclusions as a means to and end.
Substitute copper for all lead projectiles and the leftist will soon be screaming about "armor piercing cop-killer bullets".
George Dickel
Member
I've been around quite a few years and have heard so many outright lies, disinformation, misinformation and half-truths from politicians, the media and organizations that have an agenda. There have been so many that I can't begin to remember all of them. As evidenced by the fact that this "humane organization" is nothing more than an animal rights group whose primary goal is to stop hunting but yet the media doesn't question their credibility nor their motivations or the source and veracity of the facts they spew. Is there any wonder that people don't believe what all these people and groups say? The real life experiences of actual HUNTERS is poo-pooed because their marksmanship ability is lacking by the advocates of steel shot. Just like calling a person racist, homophobe, misogynist, and any other number of pejoratives to turn the discussion away from the fact that maybe the claim by the advocates for "safe" ammo or whatever other cause isn't the complete truth. If these groups and "scientists" want to be believed, stop with the doomsday theatrics and lies.
JN01
Member
I'm not a hunter, so I;m trying to understand. You mention "a single shotgun pellet", do most hunters use buckshot as opposed to slugs or rifle bullets? Would predators ingest larger projectiles are readily as shot? When a game animal is shot, how often is the bullet left in the viscera as opposed to being lodged in the meat or exiting out the other side?
wankerjake
Member
When lead passes through an animal it leaves debris of varying sizes. So a lung-shot deer say, can have varying amounts of lead particles spread about the carcass. When the hunter leaves the gut pile, some of this lead is left behind and some of it is then eaten by scavengers. That doesn’t answer every part of your question but probably the heart of it. It’s not so much a big chunk of lead as it is trace amounts of lead fragments.
There is good evidence to support this (X-ray).
Some scavengers are more susceptible to harm from this than others. Lead is generally not very well absorbed by the GI tract, however the increased surface area of the small particles helps it to be absorbed better. The evidence I believe supports that birds are more susceptible to this than say coyotes (as well as humans, but we aren’t talking about them), and I believe this is because their gizzards grind up the particles even further allowing for better absorption.
There is scientific evidence to support this.
There is a paucity of scientific data that shows wide scale mortality or declining populations of scavenger species in the United States due to lead poisoning, specifically related to hunting.
So some people are concerned about a wide scale lead scare and subsequent ban, which will greatly impact far more than 20 eagles in Wisconsin, and especially since it’s not known how big an effect is really present.
These people are sometimes labeled as ignorant or scared of science or environmentalist haters.
There does seem to be some evidence that even very low levels of lead in human children can have deleterious effects, primarily related to learning and behavior.
That said, as you know, various organizations publish acceptable blood lead levels in humans. That is they publish blood lead levels below which no treatment is required (which is a good thing or we would all be in treatment) and the person is not advised that a change of behavior or environment is necessary to avoid harm.
More importantly, as you said earlier, extrapolation between species can be problematic.
Given your cautious statements earlier about extrapolating between species, it seems clear that you understand that a study showing behavioral/learning issues in human children at very low lead levels does not warrant the sweeping conclusion that all exposure to lead, regardless of the level and regardless of the species or developmental stage of the organism, causes harm.
And if we were to do that from a practical standpoint, rather than an emotional one, it would follow that there are acceptable blood lead levels in other species, just as there are in humans. Levels below which the harm done is insufficient to warrant treatment, or even a change in behavior/environment.
I'm not saying that animals are not harmed by lead--it is clear that some are, just as some humans are. I'm saying this:
1. Equating exposure with harm is a bit much. Panic about childhood lead exposure notwithstanding, with any potentially toxic substance, the dose makes the poison. That is a basic principle of toxicology.
2. Sourcing exposure is important since there are many sources of lead besides bullet/pellet fragments. The article I provided showing that the elimination of lead hunting bullets in the California Condor range hasn't resulted in lower exposure levels gives a good example of why it is worthwhile to raise that concern.
3. Any solution proposed will cause harm to hunters and hunting related industries and likely more generally to shooters and shooting related industries. Therefore, it's important not to just handwave about the level of harm done to animals and the environment. There needs to be a balance struck, and that can't happen until there's a genuine attempt to quantify the harm on both sides of the equation.
If the premise is that science shows that lead bullets are harming non-target animals, then let's really use science to prove or disprove the premise and to quantify the harm so it can be balanced against the harm caused by the solution rather than just implementing feelgood policies to provide the illusion of constructive activity.
Riomouse911
Member
That’s their bottom line, period.
- Status
Similar threads
