Non-lead bullets

[Slamfire]

We were touring Arizona these past 2 weeks checking out a lot of national parks and monuments. I noticed at several there were brochures very prominently placed in the visitor's center that stated that non-lead bullets (read solid copper) were claimed by 95% of Arizona hunters to be superior to lead. Really??

What you are reading is propaganda. Humans are a herd animal, if the herd is going in one direction, you follow. The powers that be want you to stop using lead bullets and they are teaching you to think that non lead bullets are better. Since all the smart people are using non lead bullets, and you want to be like those smart people, in time, you will accept your new non lead bullets.

Maybe copper bullets are better, maybe they are not. Regardless, lead bullets are going to be phased out. Just read the signs and demonstrate your acceptance with Revolutionary fervor. Ho, ho, ho, Chi Minh!

 

[JSH1]

They are re-introducing California Condors into the Grand Canyon, and the environmentalist park rangers believe in the lead bullets in gut piles are poisoning the Condors. Oddly enough, they are the only vultures that seem to suffer from this particular problem (sarcasm). They are the only scavengers that have this problem. And there is no evidence of condors living in the canyon in historic times. But other than the price and tighter barrel twists needed to stabilize them, there is nothing wrong with non lead bullets.

Every California Condor has radio tag on it. When one stops moving or starts acting erratically people go out and capture it and rehab it captivity until the levels of lead in the bird's blood are in acceptable ranges. They also attempt to recover the body of any condor that dies and do a necropsy to determine cause of death. Every condor death is studied and documented. 60% of them die from lead poisoning.

No one cares if a crow or common vulture wanders off and dies of lead poisoning.

 

[jerkface11]

Lead poisoning does not equal ate lead bullets.

 

[TimSr]

Lead poisoning does not equal ate lead bullets.

I agree. I have no faith in government funded, agenda oriented, "scientic" studies performed by special interest groups. I'd be hard to convince.

I like to think in terms of mathematical odds.

How many millions of acres is the Condor range?
How many carcasses are rotting within that range on a given day?
How many pounds of lead is contained iin all those carcasses?
What percentage of carcasses have lead in then?
What are the odds that one of 9(?) Condors will choose a carcass with lead to feed on?
Of those that feed on a caracass with lead, how many will eat it?

I have to think that whatever the numbers, the odds would be astronomical that it could happen.

I'm thinking the numbers would have to be like 100 grains of lead per 100 tons of meat, and one out of 10,000 carcasses has lead in it, or even more ridiculous numbers.

 

[JSH1]

Lead poisoning does not equal ate lead bullets.

No but the research does:

http://scavengerhuntfilm.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/2006-Hunt-first-fragmentation-study.pdf

 

[TimSr]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerkface11
Lead poisoning does not equal ate lead bullets.

JSH1: No but the research does:

http://scavengerhuntfilm.com/wp-cont...tion-study.pdf

1. What I got from the study is that if you feed enough lead pellets to bald eagles, you can kill them.

2. When you shoot deer with bullets, lead fragments can remain in its body.

3. 4 eagles of some type had lead frangments in their stomachs in Japan that was assumed to be from deer that were shot.

4. A lot of raptors tested for high lead content, therefore, they had to have eaten bullets.

5. Banning lead shot for waterfowl made no difference they could measure, so they moved on to blame lead bullets in deer.

The really interesting part of the study was that they did not bother to measure lead levels in non-scavenger birds to compare to.

This is why I don't trust studies from "scientists" who are trying to prove something rather than learn something.

 

[jerkface11]

Isn't it funny how the same people support every gun control attempt yet claim to be on our side?

 

[spazzy]

1. What I got from the study is that if you feed enough lead pellets to bald eagles, you can kill them.

2. When you shoot deer with bullets, lead fragments can remain in its body.

3. 4 eagles of some type had lead frangments in their stomachs in Japan that was assumed to be from deer that were shot.

4. A lot of raptors tested for high lead content, therefore, they had to have eaten bullets.

5. Banning lead shot for waterfowl made no difference they could measure, so they moved on to blame lead bullets in deer.

The really interesting part of the study was that they did not bother to measure lead levels in non-scavenger birds to compare to.

This is why I don't trust studies from "scientists" who are trying to prove something rather than learn something.

I don't claim to be in expert in scavenger/predator biology (a bit out of my scope of practice lol) and I didn't read/check all these links but they are valid peer reviewed articles, a few of the ones I browsed had been published in journals with great impact factors. The studies I looked at were funded by zoos/private groups, with some assistance from various DNRs for hunting data. If lead poisoning wasn't an issue the articles wouldn't have gotten published.

Edit: Science never proves anything, only rejecting the alternative

 

[JSH1]

medalguy:

Was this the brochure? http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/documents/110715_NonLead_broch_FINAL.pdf

I watched the film Scavenger Hunt this evening (on Hulu Plus) and it talked about the program in Arizona to get hunters to voluntarily use copper bullets for deer hunting. Since the hunt in Condor territory is lottery based they know which hunters get a license. They then send each hunters a coupon to get a free box of lead-free bullets mailed to them from Cabelas.

The main objection to copper bullets I hear is the cost. I suspect most of that difference in cost is due to the low volume nature of copper bullets. I checked spot prices today and the difference in raw material cost between copper and lead for a 150 grain bullet is about $0.04.

 

[Nuclear]

If you look into the "research", you find there are more mating pairs of eagles now than ever before. If they were really suffering from lead poisoning, there would be fewer or the numbers slowing down, leveling off or decreasing. This is not the case. People might not care about ravens or vultures not named condors, but every eagle death is documented and researched. There is no correlation between lead levels and the population numbers of tracked raptors. I have heard from researchers that don't want to lose their grants that condors' lead levels are directly related to where they nest and perch, not gut piles contaminated by lead. Hey, how come people don't get lead poisoning from eating meat contaminated by lead bullets?

 

[JSH1]

If you look into the "research", you find there are more mating pairs of eagles now than ever before. If they were really suffering from lead poisoning, there would be fewer or the numbers slowing down, leveling off or decreasing. This is not the case. People might not care about ravens or vultures not named condors, but every eagle death is documented and researched.

Just because population numbers of eagles are increasing doesn't mean they aren't adversely effected by lead in their diet. Also, every eagle death is not documented. The vast majority of eagles do not have radio tags and humans have no way of tracking them. Every known death may be researched but the majority die in the wild unknown to humans.

Hey, how come people don't get lead poisoning from eating meat contaminated by lead bullets?

They do. Research clearly shows large numbers of small lead fragments in deer killed by lead bullets. Research also shows elevated lead levels in people that eat wild game killed with lead ammunition vs populations that don't.

I had never thought about lead fragments in game meat until hearing about the condor studies. Looking back it makes sense that therewould be large numbers of small fragments in meat. We see the same thing in ballistic gel tests: Lots of little fragments and a measured retained weight significantly lower than the original weight.

I've attached a couple of pictures. No, they aren't from the same animal.

 

[medalguy]

JSH1: Yep that's the brochure.

Otherwise, just because a study is published doesn't make it accurate. I worked several years in a medical school lab doing pretty basic research and I saw first hand how figures can be easily manipulated to achieve a predetermined outcome by the researcher. Submit your findings to a journal eagerly seeking articles to fill its pages and bam, you're published in a peer reviewed journal. Still doesn't make the research accurate or truthful.

 

[JSH1]

JSH1: Yep that's the brochure.

Otherwise, just because a study is published doesn't make it accurate. I worked several years in a medical school lab doing pretty basic research and I saw first hand how figures can be easily manipulated to achieve a predetermined outcome by the researcher. Submit your findings to a journal eagerly seeking articles to fill its pages and bam, you're published in a peer reviewed journal. Still doesn't make the research accurate or truthful.

Getting caught faking research is a career ending proposition. One of the great things about the field of scientific research is that there are a lot of hungry young scientist looking to make a name for themselves by proving the agreed upon theory wrong.

My wife has worked in academic research and we have both worked in industry funded research. The academics tend to publish regardless of the outcome. Industry funded research gets published if it proves the hypothesis or improves the image of the company's product. If it doesn't the research goes into the vault not for public consumption. What you don't do is fake the numbers to get the intended results.

 

[climbnjump]

Hey, how come people don't get lead poisoning from eating meat contaminated by lead bullets?

They do. Research clearly shows large numbers of small lead fragments in deer killed by lead bullets. Research also shows elevated lead levels in people that eat wild game killed with lead ammunition vs populations that don't.

Well, it would be good if you could post links to the research of humans with elevated levels of lead in their blood from lead fragments in wild game. I'm not disputing you, but if the research "clearly shows" this, then there should be published studies you can link to.

Regardless, I am a fan of the Barnes copper bullets and have used them for deer, elk and caribou out of a .270 WSM, and on deer in my muzzleloader and .300 BLK.

 

[JSH1]

Well, it would be good if you could post links to the research of humans with elevated levels of lead in their blood from lead fragments in wild game. I'm not disputing you, but if the research "clearly shows" this, then there should be published studies you can link to.

Regardless, I am a fan of the Barnes copper bullets and have used them for deer, elk and caribou out of a .270 WSM, and on deer in my muzzleloader and .300 BLK.

Here is the North Dakota Department of Health's page on Lead in Venison. They did a study in 2009 showing an increase in lead levels for people that eat wild game shot with lead bullets. As a result of the study they issued a recommendation that children under 6 and pregnant women not eat meat shot with lead bullets

http://www.ndhealth.gov/lead/venison/

This is one where they looked at how many packets of ground venison shot with a lead bullet contain lead and then feed those containing lead to pigs. (Pigs are a pretty good analogy for people and it would be highly unethical to knowingly feed children lead to see what happens)

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005330

One on lead level in Inuits:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1740625/pdf/v060p00693.pdf


There are more below that you will have to hunt for the articles yourself. I haven't read them all of course but the articles I have found online show that show that shooting game with a lead bullet leaves lots of small lead particles in the meat and that eating meat shot with lead bullets leads to increased levels of lead in the blood. I haven't seen any that show the opposite, instead the argument is on the level and if those levels are a significant threat to human health. The fact that the NRA and other group opposed to banning lead bullets for hunting haven't produced any articles to the contrary makes me believe strongly that they don't exist.

Likewise the NRA could easily commission a study monitoring lead levels in hunters that consume wild game. They have a strong level of trust in the hunting community so finding a data pool shouldn't be a problem. Why don't they do this? (My opinion of course)

1. They have been successful with their current tactic of claiming banning lead in hunting is a slippery slope banning all ammunition.

2. They don't wish to create more research that contradicts their position that shooting game with lead bullets poses no health risks.​

More Journal Articles:

Bjerregaard P, Johansen O, Mulvad G, Pedersen HS, Hansen JC (2004)
Lead Sources in Human Diet in Greenland Source. Environ Health Persp112: 1496-
1498. (1, INT)

Coburn, Snary & Wooldridge (2003) Hazards and Risks from Wild Game: A
qualitative risk assessment. Veterinary Laboratories Agency, Weybridge. 155pp (3,
UK).

Dewailly E, Ayotte P, Bruneau S, Lebel G, Levallois P, et al. (2001) Exposure of the
Inuit population of Nunavik (Arctic Quebec) to lead and mercury. Arch Environ
Health 56: 350-357. (1, INT)

Dobrowolska A, Melosik M (2008) Bullet-derived lead in tissues of the wild boar
(Sus scrofa) and red deer (Cervus elaphus). Eur J Wildl Res 54: 231-235. (1, EU)

Green P (2010). "Heavy metal" - recent (veterinary) review of implications for human health from lead bullets in shot deer. (Deer magazine (BDS house mag) (4, UK)

Guitart, R; Serratosa, J; Thomas, VG 2002. Lead-poisoned wildfowl in Spain: a
significant threat for human consumers. International Journal of Environmental
Health Research 12: 301-309 (1, UK)

Gustavsson P and Gerhardsson L (2005). Intoxication from an accidentally ingested
lead shot retained in the gastrointestinal tract. Environmental Health Perspectives,
113, no. 4, 491-493. (1, INT)

Haldimann, M., Baumgartner, A., & Zimmerli, B. (2002). Intake of lead from game
meat - a risk to consumers' health. European Food Research & Technology 215: 375-379. (1, EU)

Hunt WG, Watson RT, Oaks JL, Parish CN, Burnham KK, et al. (2009) Lead bullet
fragments in venison from rifle-killed deer: Potential for human dietary exposure.
PLoS ONE DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0005330. (1, INT)

Iqbal S, Blumenthal W, Kennedy C, Yip FY, Pickard S, et al. (2009) Hunting with
lead: Association between blood lead levels and wild game consumption. Environ Res109: 952-959. (1, INT)

Jaffer, A. 2009. A scientific review of the risk to the consumer from lead shot in game meat. A report commissioned by the Food Standards Agency Game Group. March 2009 GG/12/03/4.

Abrar Jaffer, Veterinary Public Health Team, Hygiene and
Microbiology Division Johansen, P; Pedersen, HS; Asmund, G; Riget, F (2004). Lead shot from hunting as a source of lead in human blood. Environmental Pollution 142:93-97 (1, INT)

Johansen P, Asmund G, Riget, F (2004) High human exposure to lead through
consumption of birds hunted with lead shot. Environ Pollut 127: 125-129. (1, INT)

Knott, J., Gilbert, J., Hoccom, D.G. & Green, R.E. (in press) Implications for wildlife
and humans of dietary exposure to lead from fragments of lead rifle bullets in deer
shot in the UK. Science of the Total Environment (1, UK)

Kosnett M J (2009) Health effects of low dose lead exposure in adults and children,
and preventable risk posed by consumption of game meat harvested with lead
ammunition. In: Watson RT, Fuller M, Pokras M, Hunt G editors. Ingestion of Lead
from Spent Ammunition: Implications for Wildlife and Humans. The Peregrine Fund,
Boise, Idaho. pp. 24-33. (1, INT)

Madsen, H. H. T., Skjødt, T., Jørgensen, P. J., & Grandjean, P. (1988). Blood lead
levels in patients with lead shot retained in the appendix. Acta Radiologica 29: 745-
746. (1, INT)

Mateo R, Rodriguez-de la Cruz M, Vidal D, Reglero M, Camero P (2006) Transfer of
lead from shot pellets to game meat during cooking. Sci Total Environ 372: 480-485.(1, EU)

Monkiewicz J; Jaczewski S. 1990. Distribution of lead in the wild boars' carcasses is
dependent upon the distance from a rifle-shot wound Medycyna Weterynaryjna
46:187-188. (1, EU)

Pain DJ, Cromie RL, Newth J, Brown MJ, Crutcher E, et al. (2010) Potential Hazard
to Human Health from Exposure to Fragments of Lead Bullets and Shot in the Tissues of Game Animals. PLoS ONE 5(4): e10315. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.001031 (1,UK)


Scheuhammer AM, Perrault JA, Routhier E, Braune BM, Campbell GD (1998)
Elevated lead concentrations in edible portions of game birds harvested with lead
shot. Environ Pollut 102: 251-257. (1, INT)

Tsuji, L. J. S., Nieboer, E., Karagatzides, J. D., Hanning, R. M., & Katapatuk, B.
(1999). Lead shot contamination in edible portions of game birds and its dietary
implications. Ecosystem Health 5: 183-192. (1, INT)

Tsuji, L.J.S., Wainman, B.C., Martin, I.D., Sutherland, C., Weber, J-P., Dumasd, P. & Nieboerb, E. 2008. Lead shot contribution to blood lead of First Nations people:The
use of lead isotopes to identify the source of exposure. Sci. Total Environ. 405: 180-
185 (1, INT)

Tsuji, L.J.S., Wainman, B.C., Jayasinghe, R.K., VanSpronsen, E.P., Liberda, E.N.
2009. Determining Tissue-Lead Levels in Large Game Mammals Harvested with
Lead Bullets: Human Health Concerns Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 82:435–439 (1,
INT)

Tsuji, L.J.S., Wainman, B.C., Martin, I.D., Sutherland, C., Weber, J-P., Dumasd, P. & Nieboerb, E. 2008. The identification of lead ammunition as a source of lead
exposure in First Nations: The use of lead isotope ratios. Sci. Total Environ 393: 291- 298. (1, INT)

Verbrugge, L. A., S. G. Wenzel, J. E. Berner, A. C. Matz. 2009. Human exposure to
lead from ammunition in the circumpolar north. In R.T. Watson, M. Fuller, M.
Pokras, and W.G. Hunt (Eds.). Ingestion of Lead from Spent Ammunition:
Implications for Wildlife and Humans. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, Idaho, USA. DOI
10 .4080/ilsa.2009.0110 (2, INT)

Zmudzki J; Michalska K. 1992. Distance from rifle-shot wound and lead
concentrations in wild pig roe and deer tissues Medycyna Weterynaryjna 48:127-129 1992 (1, EU)

 

[climbnjump]

Thanks for posting all of those references. Like you, I haven't taken the time to look up and read the ones w/o links. I had previously seen the North Dakota study.

There was a period of a few years when a number of upper Midwestern states became concerned about the issue of lead in venison because lead fragments had been found in ground venison donated to food shelves. A number of states then requested the CDC to conduct studies of the possible effects of said particles when consumed by humans.

As far as I know, the only study that actually took blood samples from volunteers was the North Dakota study. I haven't been able to find the actual data from that study, but this article abstract references it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19747676

A quote from that abstract:

Most participants reported consuming wild game (80.8%) obtained from hunting (98.8%). The geometric mean PbB were 1.27 and 0.84 microg/dl among persons who did and did not consume wild game, respectively. After adjusting for potential confounders, persons who consumed wild game had 0.30 microg/dl (95% confidence interval: 0.16-0.44 microg/dl) higher PbB than persons who did not.

So, eating wild game shot with lead projectiles means more lead in your blood if you are one of those 738 North Dakota folks. But is that "high level" of 1.27 mcg/dl REALLY high relative to other populations? Apparently not according to this source: http://www.webmd.com/news/20060918/lead-in-blood-safe-levels-too-high which states data from a more general study of 14,000 adults:

Data for the study came from nearly 14,000 adults who had their blood lead levels checked between 1988 and 1994 for government health studies.

Their average blood lead level was 2.58 mcg/dL.

So in that study, the average lead level of that more general and much larger popluation was about double that of the ND wild game eaters.

The bottom line is that since lead is a toxin, then ANY amount of lead in your blood is undesirable. However there are many sources of lead in the environment that can contribute to blood lead levels in humans. Eating wild game shot with lead projectiles is only one of them.

And yes, it makes sense to take precautions such as not feeding such meat to young children or pregnant women. But for the vast majority of hunters, it just isn't that big of a deal.

(Finally, for those who enjoy such reading, here are a couple of the CDC studies:
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/LeadFragmentsinVenison/Venison%20and%20Lead%20HC%20110408.pdf
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/LeadinVenisoninMichigan/LeadinVenisoninMichiganLHC03182010.pdf)

 

[CoalTrain49]

Lead shot and bullets will become a thing of the past in the next 10 years. We have had restrictions on lead shot here for upland hunting going on 10 years. It's just a matter of time before there is a restriction on bullets. Actually I'm surprised it hasn't happened already.

I'm not sure of the science and environmental impact because I don't have the background or experience to dispute it but I'll give the tree huggers the benefit of the doubt. Lead may be hazardous to vultures and eagles that ingest it. I know I certainly wouldn't want to have it in my digestive tract. I have some experience with high levels toxic metal in my system. I had high levels of mercury from eating too much tuna.

I'm moving away from loading lead. I used to reload shotgun shells for trap but don't do that anymore. For the price of factory ammo it hardly makes sense anymore. I also used to load lead for my pistols but when my present supply of lead is gone I'm going to FMJ.

It's just the way things are going. Lead shooters are swimming upstream.

 

[JSH1]

So, eating wild game shot with lead projectiles means more lead in your blood if you are one of those 738 North Dakota folks. But is that "high level" of 1.27 mcg/dl REALLY high relative to other populations? Apparently not according to this source: http://www.webmd.com/news/20060918/lead-in-blood-safe-levels-too-high which states data from a more general study of 14,000 adults:


So in that study, the average lead level of that more general and much larger popluation was about double that of the ND wild game eaters.

The bottom line is that since lead is a toxin, then ANY amount of lead in your blood is undesirable. However there are many sources of lead in the environment that can contribute to blood lead levels in humans. Eating wild game shot with lead projectiles is only one of them.

And yes, it makes sense to take precautions such as not feeding such meat to young children or pregnant women. But for the vast majority of hunters, it just isn't that big of a deal.

(Finally, for those who enjoy such reading, here are a couple of the CDC studies:
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/LeadFragmentsinVenison/Venison%20and%20Lead%20HC%20110408.pdf
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/LeadinVenisoninMichigan/LeadinVenisoninMichiganLHC03182010.pdf)

I wouldn't compare lead levels in 1988-1994 to those in 2009. We have done lots of things in those 25 to 30 years to reduce lead in our environment. It would be interesting to see studies that show lead levels in the general population by the decade but I doubt that data exists.

I agree that the amount of lead in game shot with lead ammunition isn't an issue for the average adult. The average hunter I know doesn't eat wild game as a routine part of their diet. However, as you said, lead is toxic and any amount is undesirable.

Take this example: A person goes to the grocery store to buy 100 lbs of meat. One brand has small amounts of lead while another costs $1 more but has no lead. How many people do you think would buy the meat with lead to save a dollar? It is the same thing when hunting. Why knowingly put lead in your meat to save a buck on a bullet? When you break it down the savings are less than $0.01 per pound.

Edit: BTW, thanks for the CDC studies.

 

[TimSr]

Getting caught faking research is a career ending proposition. One of the great things about the field of scientific research is that there are a lot of hungry young scientist looking to make a name for themselves by proving the agreed upon theory wrong.

Somebody should tell that to the many research facilities that have been busted falsifying global warming data.

That aside, it is easy to "prove" any agenda with research data, by simply being selective as to what you test, and how you test it, and also by what you do not test. "Peer review" means little if the "peers" have the same agenda as the primary. The bigets fault with many studies is an inability to isolate, or even take into consideration all of the variables. It's like saying that bras cause breat cancer because most people who get it have used them.

I concede and accept that when you kill somethning with lead projectiles, it will likely have lead in it, that will show up on xrays (just like copper fragments and bone fragments). I will also accept (with a little skepticism), that condors and other scavengers may have lead in their system. For some it may even be elevated. I agree that ingesting anough lead can kill a bald eagle.

I've not seen anything that possitively connects bird lead levels with a diet of lead contaminated carcasses other than theories. Remember, banning lead shot changed nothing, so that is one peer review study debunked by their own research.

I need some hard evidence to show these birds find and eat enough lead contaminated meat to cause this, and that also shows a significantly higher prersence of lead than in other birds that do not eat meat. If Canadian Geese have similar levels as condors or eagles, that might indicate a different source of it. Science 101 is isolating variables.


My issue is not with the cost of non-lead ammo. My issue is big brother forcing me to use something different than what has a proven track record for me, in order to appease a group of special interests mostly made up of people who oppose hunting anything with any ammo. I highly suspect the motive is as much or more to make ammo less effective, as it is enviromental concerns.

 

[climbnjump]

I wouldn't compare lead levels in 1988-1994 to those in 2009. We have done lots of things in those 25 to 30 years to reduce lead in our environment.

Yes, good point.

It would be interesting to see studies that show lead levels in the general population by the decade but I doubt that data exists.

That data may be out there, but I spent the better part of an evening looking for it (when I SHOULD have been down in my reloading cave ) and didn't find much.

Why knowingly put lead in your meat to save a buck on a bullet? When you break it down the savings are less than $0.01 per pound.

Yepper. For most of my hunting I do choose Barnes all copper bullets. However, I have a couple of weapons that for whatever reason, just don't shoot them well, so still use traditional projectiles in those.

Most of the major bullet makers now have non-lead hunting bullet options. For those who are concerned about lead in your meat, it would make sense to pick one and it a try.

 

[JSH1]

I need some hard evidence to show these birds find and eat enough lead contaminated meat to cause this, and that also shows a significantly higher prersence of lead than in other birds that do not eat meat. If Canadian Geese have similar levels as condors or eagles, that might indicate a different source of it. Science 101 is isolating variables.

Isolation is science 101. If you want to know if lead in eagles is coming from eating lead tainted deer carcasses and gut piles you might measure eagles' lead levels before, during, and after the deer hunting season.

"The median blood lead levels for eagles during the hunting season was significantly higher than the non-hunting season (56.0 vs. 27.7 µg/dL, respectively; P = 0.01)."

https://www.peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-lead/PDF/0209 Bedrosian.pdf

"A noticeable increase in the percent of fatalities attributed to lead toxicity began in October and peaked in December. This pattern overlapped with the hunting seasons in Wisconsin suggesting lead ammunition could be a major source of lead exposure in eagles."

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/documents/pbbirds.pdf

"We tested 81 blood samples from bald eagles before, during and after the big game hunting seasons in 2005–2010, excluding 2008, and found eagles had significantly higher lead levels during the hunt. We found 24% of eagles tested had levels indicating at least clinical exposure (>60 ug/dL) during the hunt while no birds did during the non-hunting seasons."

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0051978

My issue is not with the cost of non-lead ammo. My issue is big brother forcing me to use something different than what has a proven track record for me, in order to appease a group of special interests mostly made up of people who oppose hunting anything with any ammo. I highly suspect the motive is as much or more to make ammo less effective, as it is enviromental concerns.

Which makes me believe that no amount of studies will change your mind.

 

[jerkface11]

So we aren't allowed to doubt the honesty of gun control advocates? These are the same people responsible for some rather draconian gun laws after all.

 

[JSH1]

So we aren't allowed to doubt the honesty of gun control advocates? These are the same people responsible for some rather draconian gun laws after all.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Bureau of Land Management, and North Dakota Department of Public Health are responsible for draconian gun laws?

 

[Nuclear]

Unfortunately, all of those organizations are run by rather liberal anti-gun, anti-hunting environmentalists (that may not be true of the Arizona Game and Fish, but they are heavily influenced by the Feds, who are. I'll have to ask some hunting friends about AZ.) So research financed by them is tainted, in my opinion.

Your sources may have shown a correlation between lead levels and hunting, but not causality. As someone who made a living using stats, that is the standard I will believe. Design an experiment with controls, execute it, publish and have others repeat it. Oh wait, no one can because all the animals involved are federally and state protected.

You want to buy all copper alloyed bullets, some with plastic tips, for an increased cost, that won't necessarily be as stable, accurate and effective, go ahead. But what are you going to do when they bring up copper toxicity? And what is it alloyed with? How toxic is that plastic?

My prediction is that once California bans all lead ammo the condors will still get lead poisoning from other environmental sources.