EPA denies bid to ban lead in hunting ammunition

[Big_E]

Lead sinks in water. So are these birds eating off the bottom of ponds? I know that they dive to catch fish but unless they are consuming catfish, which are bottom feeders, then how are they ingesting lead shot and sinkers? Its not like lead floats around at the surface of water.

I would be all for finding a cheap, malleable, less toxic metal to replace lead, but that is very difficult to do.

 

[David E]

We've made more headway since Obama was sworn in than we did in the eight years preceding.

Do you think Obama wouldn't have rallied Congress for an extension of the AWB and signed it the same day?

I know Bush said he would sign it, but he also knew it would never reach his desk. Had he ginned up support for the extension, it probably would have happened.

Obama is no friend of the gunowning public.

 

[rbernie]

Sadly, the UVT article is exactly the kind of pseudo-scientific publication that annoys the snot outta me. Yes, the study contained toxicology statistics, because they are easy to quote and relatively uncontroversial. It also contained data of how many loons found dead had lead objects in them; a very powerful number if viewed non-critically.

However, the article failed to cover the really key statistic - the per-capita deaths of the loon population due to lead pellet ingestion. If 22% of 200 loons (44 actual count) found dead were killed via lead pellet ingestion out of a watershed population of 2000, we might rightly conclude that our activities are causing serious harm to this species and that restrictive regulation was needed. However, if 22% of 202 loons (44 actual count) found dead were killed via lead pellet ingestion out of a watershed population of 200,000, then we might alternatively conclude that our ecological footprint is small enough to not warrant further regulative action. The article also failed to indicate if the loon deaths due to lead ingestion were having a negative impact upon the population stability in the study regions (i.e. they're being killed faster than they can reproduce), and failed to address whether or not lead ingestion is a principal factor in loon death or if other factors are more statistically significant than lead ingestion (e.g. upstream run-off of nitrates or phosphorus compounds caused more loss of habitat and population compression than ingestion of lead sinkers).

If we're going to talk about an issue as if it's systemic relative to a species or ecosystem, then the data used to analyze the issue should address the totality of the ecosystem.

Passing regulation based upon incomplete data, simply because it sounds plausible, is a fraud.

Lead sinks in water. So are these birds eating off the bottom of ponds?

Yes - waterfowl collect sand and pebbles in their crop to grind up the vegetation that they consume, and they will hoover up the smooth lead shot pellets from the bottom to add to their crop. Unlike lead ingested by other animals, these lead pellets will not pass thru the bird with relatively little harm, but will instead sit in the crop and release lead into the bird's digestive tract until the bird is poisoned.

 

[LibShooter]

Lead sinks in water. So are these birds eating off the bottom of ponds?

Loons and other waterfowl seek out little pebbles to swallow. They go to the gizzard to help the blunt beaked birds "chew" their food. They often find the little rocks in the strambed. Lead sinkers and shot look like gravel, and if they're shiny they may attract the birds' attention. The lead pellets stay inside the animals for a long time and are eroded by the action of the gizzard. That's why lead is such a problem for waterfowl.

If you or I or any other mammal swallowed a lead pellet it would most likely make it through the GI tract before very much lead got into our bloodstream.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

Excellent!!!!!!

 

[Archie]

Keep Watch

Not only does lead sink in water, lead sinks in dirt and bottom mud. Lead shot and bullets is heavier than common dirt and actually sinks into the dirt given a modicum of time. Having spent some time learning from gold miners and seekers, heavier elements don't stay on the surface.

The horror story of lead infiltrating the water supply is another bogus claim. Lead simply does not dissolve in water in the same manner as salt or alkalai.

rbernie, I think we should also consider how many of the 41 dead loons with lead pellets in their stomachs actually DIED from lead poisoning. If it turns out 17 of the loons died after being run over by tree huggers in motor boats, those lead pellets take a much smaller profile. How many of the dead loons were over the average life expectancy of loons already? This reminds me of the statistic that 100 % of the people who ate pickles prior to 1850 are dead.

My guess is this 'regulation' was dumped when the Obama Administration realized they're going to lose big in November. I'd look for another push after the elections, when they understand they only have a couple months to screw up the U. S. prior to leaving office.

 

[Animal Mother]

22% of 202 Common Loons found dead in New England had ingested lead objects, principally sinkers and jigs. ...(Twiss, 1998).

Twenty-two percent of a tiny sample size of birds had some lead in their digestive system does not prove that they died from lead poisioning.

 

[rbernie]

My guess is this 'regulation' was dumped when the Obama Administration realized they're going to lose big in November. I'd look for another push after the elections, when they understand they only have a couple months to screw up the U. S. prior to leaving office.

Well, let's be fair - junk science knows no political boundaries or affiliations and no party is above using pseudo-science to advance whatever regulatory agenda they are pursuing.

We ought to be on guard for any presentation of junk science from any party. The minute that somebody states that they see a need for further regulation, there ought to be a standard of proof that goes well beyond 'because it's plausibly needed' and actually passes critical and contextual examination.

 

[LibShooter]

Sadly, the UVT article is exactly the kind of pseudo-scientific publication that annoys the snot outta me. ...

However, the article failed to cover the really key statistic - the per-capita deaths of the loon population due to lead pellet ingestion.

That's not pseudo-science that's statistics. Twiss couldn't find every dead loon in New England. He (or she) selected a statistically significant sample of 200 and found that 22% had significant amounts of lead in 'em. That's the per-capita contamination rate.

It's barely possible those were the only 44 birds with lead in them, but that's unlikey. You have to assume had they collected 2,000 birds they would have found 400 contaminated loons. 200,000 dead loons would have turned up about 40,000 lead infested birds. That's how these assays work. It's the size of the sample that matters.

He also didn't say lead killed the birds, because he didn't know. Just how many birds had deadly levels of lead.

 

[Big_E]

Well it's nice to learn that waterfowl swallow pebbles to help ingest food. However, how exactly is steel shot less harmful besides that lead can be toxic? It can't be good to have steel shot inside the digestive system?

 

[MinnMooney]

Did you notice that the article said that they HAD NO POWER to make such a ruling..... not that they disagreed with doing it if they could. Scary.

 

[rbernie]

You have to assume had they collected 2,000 birds they would have found 400 contaminated loons. 200,000 dead loons would have turned up about 40,000 lead infested birds. That's how these assays work. It's the size of the sample that matters.

But the sample was only dead birds that were found by the researchers during whatever time period they used to look for dead birds. So all we know of that 22% of those specific dead birds found by those researchers during that time period had lead in 'em. We don't know how many dead birds were not found by the researchers, or what percentage of the total population the number of dead birds represents. The study was so focused on identifying the proximate CAUSE of mortality that it ignored the more relevant data point - the mortality rate itself. As I stated, and you ignored:

If 22% of 200 loons (41 actual count) found dead were killed via lead pellet ingestion out of a watershed population of 2000, we might rightly conclude that our activities are causing serious harm to this species and that restrictive regulation was needed. However, if 22% of 202 loons (41 actual count) found dead were killed via lead pellet ingestion out of a watershed population of 200,000, then we might alternatively conclude that our ecological footprint is small enough to not warrant further regulative action. The article also failed to indicate if the loon deaths due to lead ingestion were having a negative impact upon the population stability in the study regions (i.e. they're being killed faster than they can reproduce), and failed to address whether or not lead ingestion is a principal factor in loon death or if other factors are more statistically significant than lead ingestion (e.g. upstream run-off of nitrates or phosphorus compounds caused more loss of habitat and population compression than ingestion of lead sinkers).

Simple logic dictates that it doesn't matter if 100% of loons found dead have lead pellets in their gullet *if* the mortality rate for the study area is in line with other areas *or* if the loon population in the study area is stable and healthy despite the presence of lead *or* if the presence of lead was not reasonably considered the causative reason of death.

The simple fact remains that no hard scientific community would ever accept such a poorly-bounded set of data points as an actionable study.

You have to assume had they collected 2,000 birds they would have found 400 contaminated loons. 200,000 dead loons would have turned up about 40,000 lead infested birds.

No, you don't. The study had too many variables to allow for such extrapolations (the most obvious one being the actual mortality rate). And that's the point I'm trying to make.

I have no dog in this fight. I do not care if lead sinkers are banned or not. I only care that any regulations that we create be based upon sound scientific data and not upon conjecture.

 

[LibShooter]

The study had too many variables to allow for such extrapolations (the most obvious one being the actual mortality rate). And that's the point I'm trying to make.

We are quoting a quote of the study. I haven't read the original paper, but we have no reason to suspect the numbers.

But the sample was only dead birds that were found by the researchers during whatever time period they used to look for dead birds...

I asssume the researchers made an effort to make sure their collection methods resulted in a statistically significant and repersentative sample. I have helped out in similar survey studies... and the white coat brigade always took pain to get a good sample. Maybe they didn't, but I doubt it.

The study was so focused on identifying the proximate CAUSE of mortality that it ignored the more relevant data point - the mortality rate itself. As I stated, and you ignored:

The mortality rate was not what they were investigating. All the birds were dead; the mortality rate was 100%. They didn't even try to determine what caused the mortality. They were trying to find out how many of the birds had deadly levels of lead, and they did: 22%. Whether lead caused a single one of those 41 deaths doesn't matter. Neither does the total loon population. What they found was one out five of the loons in the study had lead objects in their bodies that could have killed them. That seems like a big deal.

However, how exactly is steel shot less harmful besides that lead can be toxic?

The toxicity of lead is the problem. I don't know how steel shot in a bird's gizzard affects it's health. I do know that large amounts of iron and carbon, the major ingredients of steel, are naturally found in bird's bodies. Lead is not.

 

[hso]

The Activism thread discusses the basis for EPA saying it didn't have the authority to act on this petition. The short version is that the regulation that the petition was wanting to use for the ban is TASCA and there's a specific provision exempting cartridges form coverage under TSCA. EPA can't change that section of the law, only Congress can. Lacking the authority to alter the law they simply rejected the petition. Happens all the time when someone wants a regulation changed and the change is fundamental enough to require Congress to amend the law to change the regulations. http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=537759

A representative sample of a whole population has to be made to produce a small enough error rate to keep the random fluctuations within the population from biassing the data and wrecking the validity of any conclusions. If a overall population is very large and the sample population is too small then the data can be unreliable since it's possible to sample a particular group on one end or the other of the cross section of the whole population. 100 out of 100 for a total population vs. sample population would give you complete correlation of the results of the study with the general population. Nice, but not feasible. 10 out of 100 is more realistic, but now the overall population is too small to trust the data. 100 out of 1000 is a little better while 1,000 out of 10,000 is better still. As the total population gets larger the confidence in the data improves such that you can sample smaller percentages of the total population to treat the data as representative of the whole population. Numbers like 5 or 1 or .5% sample population give very good confidence for large total populations. If out of a population of 100,000 birds the sample size was 100 birds (1% of the total population) you'd have a specific confidence in the sample population being representative and you'd have confidence in the data resulting (as long as you didn't do anything stupid in your study). Making the assumption that any presence of lead was the cause of mortality seems too obvious an error for any independent researcher to make. Tissue samples subjected to chemical analysis and study of the corpses for the physical markers of lead poisoning would be required to not get laughed at out of hand.

 

[Kentucky_Rifleman]

but we have no reason to suspect the numbers.

We have no reason to accept them either. I trust no one in the scientific community anymore, because I've been flagrantly lied to too many times to have any faith left in me for scientists. I believe what I can see with my own eyes and what I can reason out myself.

All else is suspect and begs scrutiny, ESPECIALLY when MORE governmental regulations hinge on data that remains suspect.

KR

 

[LHRGunslinger]

A governmental agency realizing it doesn't have the authority to do whatever it damn well pleases?! I'M COMIN 'LIZABETH!

 

[rbernie]

I asssume the researchers made an effort to make sure their collection methods resulted in a statistically significant and repersentative sample. I have helped out in similar survey studies... and the white coat brigade always took pain to get a good sample. Maybe they didn't, but I doubt it.

My quarrel was/is not with the statistic relevancy of their sample size; it is with the nature of the sample itself and the intended end goals of the study. The study was quoted as a rational for regulatory action in the linked article, and that is what I have accused of being pseudo-science. The original study may have been flawed or it may have been used out of content to support an agenda - it matters not to me which is true. I only quarrel with the 'case for action' linked to that study.

The mortality rate was not what they were investigating. All the birds were dead; the mortality rate was 100%. They didn't even try to determine what caused the mortality. They were trying to find out how many of the birds had deadly levels of lead, and they did: 22%.

But the premise of the post to which I originally responded was that lead sinkers were a sufficient environmental hazard to warrant regulatory action. In order to make that statement, you dang well better be able to articulate the mortality rate attributable to the presence of lead in the loon population. Simply telling me that some quantifiable number of dead loons were found with lead in 'em is not adequate to justify regulatory action.

If out of a population of 100,000 birds the sample size was 100 birds (1% of the total population) you'd have a specific confidence in the sample population being representative and you'd have confidence in the data resulting (as long as you didn't do anything stupid in your study).

A tissue sample of 1% of living birds within a given population would be far more telling WRT the extent of lead poisoning in loons than a necropsy of dead loons found, with no other data points available.

 

[LibShooter]

But the premise of the post to which I originally responded was that lead sinkers were a sufficient environmental hazard to warrant regulatory action. In order to make that statement, you dang well better be able to articulate the mortality rate attributable to the presence of lead in the loon population.

The University of Vermont article refers to further research with captive loons that shows even one sinker is enough to kill a bird.

Through experimenting with captive waterfowl it has been shown that a single dose of .3 grams of lead per bird will result in death. Lead sinkers and jigs generally weigh between .5 and 15 grams, hence the ingestion of even one sinker will be fatal to the loon (Twiss, 1998). These sinkers and jigs present a problematic situation to waterfowl based on their feeding habits.

Therefore, the statistical survey shows about a fifth of the loons in New England are likely to have ingested lead tackle. Lab experiments show that that dose is enough to kill the birds. Put those two bits of information together and it's clear that lead sinkers are a hazard. Whether the birds in the first study actually died of lead poisoning, accident or suicide is not important. The experiments show they would have died of lead poisoning.

And all we have to do to prevent those deaths is use lead-free jigs. Sounds like an easy choice.

 

[rbernie]

Therefore, the statistical survey shows about a fifth of the loons in New England are likely to have ingested lead tackle.

No matter how many times you say this, it is not valid. The study showed that about a fifth of the DEAD loons in the survey sample had ingested lead tackle. You are extrapolating what may be valid (what was found in the dead population) and rendering it invalid by applying it against a different group (the population of live loons). I cannot say it again, any differently than I already have, and so I will say it no more.

Sounds like an easy choice.

Exactly. The scientific method is dead, in favor of what sounds easy.

 

[LibShooter]

You are extrapolating what may be valid (what was found in the dead population) and rendering it invalid by applying it against a different group (the population of live loons).

And I'll say what I'm saying one more time. You CAN apply what you find in the sample of dead birds to the population of living birds assuming the scientists took the proper precautions that they collected their sample correctly. I'm willing to assume that because researchers have gotten good at it.

The scientific method is dead, in favor of what sounds easy.

I don't know what you mean by scientific method, but most of the science done in the world today uses statistical sampling like that used in this loon study. When they check your cholesterol level, they don't drain evey drop of your blood to test it. They take a sample and assume those mililiters are representative of your entire blood supply.

These guys took a sample of loons, if they did it right they can assume that sample is representative of all the loons. That's how it works.

 

[rbernie]

When they check your cholesterol level, they don't drain evey drop of your blood to test it. They take a sample and assume those mililiters are representative of your entire blood supply.

To use your analogy - it's like attempting to tell me my cholesterol based upon the sampling of the blood in a number of cadavers in north Texas.

These guys took a sample of loons, if they did it right they can assume that sample is representative of all the loons. That's how it works.

Sampling isn't the issue - choosing your sample population and being careful not to extrapolate beyond that is exactly the issue.

You also assume, in the absence of documentation, that the study addressed the factors needed to extrapolate that which was found in the dead loons into the population of live loons. Accepting on faith data that was not presented is not adhering to the scientific method.

 

[orionengnr]

but we have no reason to suspect the numbers.

We have no reason to accept them either.

The whole "Global Warming" thing gave me all the reason I need to suspect any agenda-driven study several years ago.

Have you paid any attention to the corn-ethanol situation? There have been any number of engines damaged by "10% ethanol", due to "splash-blending" and other more questionable practices. Do a search.

Unilaterally, Congress has recently increased the ethanol mandate (in gallons of ethanol used per year). This willl require (at current gasoline consumption levels) an ethanol percentage of 15-20%.

More importantly, Congress did not ask EPA to determine whether this was a good idea or not. Instead, they mandated the EPA to find that this was do-able. This is another example of "junk science" that our government is using day in, day out.

www.insideautomotive.com documents numerous articles on the subject. Or check "Businees Week" and "Ed Wallace" for some good reading.
He is a non-partisan non-voter who has been part of the auto industry for 25+ years. He is a weekly contributor to Fort Worth Star-Telegram. He does his homework and cites his sources.

 

[hso]

The scientific method is dead, in favor of what sounds easy.

That's a completely irresponsible statement and incorrect. I work in this area. I see the rigor that the vast majority of qualified scientists put into this work. If you have a problem with some bad studies that have been specially selected to support the preconceived agenda of some activists who want to achieve a social goal then the problem is with the people who cherry pick the literature for studies that support their position and not with science as a whole. Making the accusation is no more rational than an anti picking the "study" that people with guns in the home are more likely to suffer firearm related deaths and injuries than households without guns. Both are wrong.

The majority of scientists are conducting work by accepted methods and challenged when they don't follow them. Activists look for any opportunity to find anything resembling data supporting their preconceived conclusions. A single CCW holder that doesn't follow our idea of what a good shoot is and who is held up by antis is no more representative than one poorly conducted study is of all of research.

 

[LibShooter]

Sampling isn't the issue - choosing your sample population and being careful not to extrapolate beyond that is exactly the issue.

OK, I guess my skull is just too thick. Explain how lead found in a sample of loons found dead in the wild is no good for predicting the lead levels in the entire population of loons that will eventually die in the wild. I'm just not seeing the problem.

You assume, in the absence of documentation, that the study addressed the factors needed to extrapolate that which was found in the dead loons into the population of live loons. Accepting on faith data that was not presented is not adhering to the scientific method.

You are right. I didn't read the methodology in this study. I read stories about research and discoveries all the time in the popular and scientific media. I'll confess that I don't often go to the primary sources to check up on the stories I read in Discover. I trust scientists to do their jobs correctly. They almost always do. There are too many other folks checking up on them to do otherwise.

If the Unversity of Vermont and The Journal of Environmental Management are in a conspiracy to kill the lead sinker industry, they fooled me. It just seems more likely that they are presenting good evidence and analysis.

 

[Point4orLarger]

And this, from a "hoarder":

DANGIT!!! There goes my new Dan Wesson, to be bought from my hoarder's profit. But seriously folks, I have at least 1,000 rounds of every caliber I shoot: .50AE, .45, .444, .357, .308, .380, .30-06, .22-250, .22LR, and shotguns. Am I :
a) being safe.
b) being paranoid.
c) in O.K. shape.
d) non of the above, yet dangerous.