Lead Bullets and Poisoning

[MHMT]

I think I saw a thread on this a while back but, I was curious what people thought about lead poisoning in raptors and humans from lead bullets.

I was pretty skeptical, but I just saw a pretty convincing presentation given by Vincent Slabe, the study was from Robert Domenech, Heiko Langner, and Vincent Slabe. I could only find an abstract of their paper.

http://www.peregrinefund.org/Lead_conference/PDF/0210%20Domenech.pdf

The thing that I found surprising, that they mentioned in their presentation but not was not mentioned in the abstract, was how many tiny lead fragments were showing up in meat in big game animals, even when the animal was shot perfectly behind the shoulder. It was also mentioned that a fair amount of lead was showing up in packaged wild game. If they had ulterior motive they did a good job hiding it, as some of the people involved in the study were hunters.

I don't know enough about it, but I was curious if anyone else knew more about it, or has any other links to learn more about it? Anyone switched to non-lead bullets?

 

[WT_in_MT]

Does it raise blood lead levels in humans? Yes. Is it enough to cause concern? Only you can decide that. Google "North Dakota lead exposure study" and you'll find plenty of info.

Here's the full study report:http://www.nssf.org/share/PDF/ND_report.pdf

 

[6speed]

I would be interested to see a comparison of lead in meat from hunted wild game and processed domestic animals. As a relatively common mineral that can be found naturally in many areas I would have to think if you looked hard enough you could find traces in meat from anything that eats off the ground. No science behind that but just my thought.

 

[shoots-straight]

I went to Barnes bullets.

 

[mdunc8]

MHMT, were you at the TWS meeting in Missoula last week?

Check out this study (http://www.ndhealth.gov/lead/venison/2008-2009LeadFragmentsInGroundVenisonProcessorsStudy.pdf).

It may not seem like a lot, but if wild game is all you eat, it may add up pretty quickly. Sure, no one's dad and grandfather died from lead poisoning, but seems like a good idea nonetheless. I will probably put more thought into switching over to Barnes as well.

 

[Horn Seeker]

I've been shooting Barnes for about 10 yrs now.... not because of that, but its a good side benny....

 

[BuzzH]

Wow, a whopping 5.94% of ground venision had lead in it...then you have to take into account how much of that lead is in soluable form for the body to absorb...for starters.

Secondly, the samples were taken from game processing places which probably dont do the best job butchering animals.

I read that same study a couple years ago and I'm of the opinion that if you carefully butcher your OWN animals, that your exposure to lead is about zero. Then, even if you somehow miss a lead fragment...how much of that lead is in a soluable form?

When I butcher my animals...I have a motto...when in doubt...throw it out.

I honestly think this whole lead debate is exaggerated and about as close to meaningless as it gets.

 

[mdunc8]

I agree with you on the human consumption part. Probably not a whole lot to worry about. However, I think it's pretty clear we're killing quite a few birds.

 

[BuzzH]

killing more birds than wind turbines?

I'm suspect that we're killing many birds from them eating lead fragments from a carcass.

I could be wrong.

 

[Brudno]

Wow, a whopping 5.94% of ground venision had lead in it...then you have to take into account how much of that lead is in soluable form for the body to absorb...for starters.

Secondly, the samples were taken from game processing places which probably dont do the best job butchering animals.

I read that same study a couple years ago and I'm of the opinion that if you carefully butcher your OWN animals, that your exposure to lead is about zero. Then, even if you somehow miss a lead fragment...how much of that lead is in a soluable form?

When I butcher my animals...I have a motto...when in doubt...throw it out.

I honestly think this whole lead debate is exaggerated and about as close to meaningless as it gets.

I'm glad to finally say me and buzz finally agree on something. He's spot on.

Ill take this a little further though and state my beleif this is part of a ploy to ban lead bullets. We have already seen a few groups try to petion the EPA thankfully they don't have the authority to ban bullets. We all. Know how expensive ammunition is right now, lead. Bans price ammunition out of the range of most recreational shooters. A fact not lost on gun grabbers.

 

[mdunc8]

Brudno, go to www.google.com/scholar and search for "lead exposure wildlife" and then tell me it's a ploy to ban lead bullets. True, human exposure is probably minimal as Buzz stated, but I find it hard to believe you can argue it's not an issue for animals consuming gut piles or other wounded animals.

 

[Brudno]

Brudno, go to www.google.com/scholar and search for "lead exposure wildlife" and then tell me it's a ploy to ban lead bullets. True, human exposure is probably minimal as Buzz stated, but I find it hard to believe you can argue it's not an issue for animals consuming gut piles or other wounded animals.

Ploy or not, this "research" is being used to try to ban lead bullets. Talk to anyone against guns they will openly tell u that if they can't ban guns they'll do what they can to make them unaffordable to shoot ie lead bullet bans, microstamping, and serialized ammunition.

 

[mdunc8]

Why refer to it as "research"? Have you even read one word of the literature? I seriously doubt it. It's just like your wolf arguments. You go around spouting off inaccurate numbers and facts or rely on your personal beliefs to make your arguments. Unless you've actually read the studies and find fault in their methods or interpretation, you can't debate the numbers. You can debate the consequences of their findings, but you can't brush away the studies as ploys to ruin your hunting. I can debate this stuff with folks like Buzz, TJones and SS because they tend to be well informed (usually more than myself).

 

[6speed]

I may have to swing to the Brudno side of this argument. It would be interesting to find a place that showed factual numbers of bird mortality rates connected with lead as compared to deaths by parasites, west nile, other toxins etc. I think the statistics can be made to reflect the point of view the presenter is trying to push. The website you list mdunc8 also contains links to articles stating global warming may kill us all soon and we won't need to worry about lead. I also noticed the first article that popped up on that site about lead and wildlife had to do with a bird in an urban environment so it most likely wasn't feeding on human induced (bullet) lead exposed food sources anyway. It was most likely exposed due to an industrial contamination of some sort.

 

[mdunc8]

6speed, those are valid arguments. I can deal with those. If you want mortality related deaths, just add "mortality" to the search. You can make the argument, and it may be a valid one, that mortality from lead isn't enough to warrant restricting lead bullets. I think there's a biological and personal argument to be made. Biologically they're probably fine. It's not like the ground is littered with dead baldies. Personally though, I would rather spend a few extra bucks on a box of rounds, and MAYBE save a few birds. That's a personal decision though. However, people (and Brudno in this case) come off as ignorant and uninformed blowholes by throwing around their personal opinion on what is actually happening rather than using the best information available to base their arguments on.

That's why I don't have a problem with TJones or SS on the wolf debate. They seem to be well informed (probably more than myself) and while I may disagree with the management approach, I don't disagree that something needs to be done. The data are very clear that something should be done. However, Brudno seems to base his arguments on personal opinion rather than facts which makes it difficult to have a sensible debate. It's no different than the folks who want to protect every last wolf. They're letting their personal opinions and motives get in the way of reality.

 

[Bwana]

As a means to call B.S. to the study and given my family and I eat wild game at least once a week, I decided to be a participant in the ND study.

When filling out the paperwork before they did the blood draw I was a bit concerned because they asked quite a number of questions regarding past work and/or hobbies where a person might have been exposed to lead. From old houses, automotive work, reloading, etc. Hmmm, maybe it will be high...

When all was said and done there was no statistical difference in lead levels in hunters versus non-hunters.

In other words if you like Barnes bullets then keep using them but no need to throw out the old core-lokts if that is your bullet of choice, at least not if you are only concerned with getting lead poisoning.

 

[Oak]

If you want mortality related deaths, just add "mortality" to the search.

Please define...

 

[mdunc8]

Please define...

Oops. You get my point though.

 

[Brudno]

6speed, those are valid arguments. I can deal with those. If you want mortality related deaths, just add "mortality" to the search. You can make the argument, and it may be a valid one, that mortality from lead isn't enough to warrant restricting lead bullets. I think there's a biological and personal argument to be made. Biologically they're probably fine. It's not like the ground is littered with dead baldies. Personally though, I would rather spend a few extra bucks on a box of rounds, and MAYBE save a few birds. That's a personal decision though. However, people (and Brudno in this case) come off as ignorant and uninformed blowholes by throwing around their personal opinion on what is actually happening rather than using the best information available to base their arguments on.

That's why I don't have a problem with TJones or SS on the wolf debate. They seem to be well informed (probably more than myself) and while I may disagree with the management approach, I don't disagree that something needs to be done. The data are very clear that something should be done. However, Brudno seems to base his arguments on personal opinion rather than facts which makes it difficult to have a sensible debate. It's no different than the folks who want to protect every last wolf. They're letting their personal opinions and motives get in the way of reality.

Lol, your to funny. I dont know how detailed i'm supposed to get typing off of a 4" phone screen while I sit in the truck during break time at work. But I truly, think your cluless in this, and trying to push your own personal agenda and beleif on this, while attacking my actual truths. Its more than a few dollars for ammuntion as well. Maybe you dont shoot other than when you hunt, frankly I dont care. The shooting sports industry is enormous. Whether your talking about competitive shooting, plinking or whatever, it doesnt take a genious to figure out what the devastion would be by banning lead. It wasnt 10 years ago a box of .22lr cost $7 for a box of 500. Now what is it $25-30? Now make all them projectiles copper? lol How about the most popular gun of the 21st century the AR platform. Ever price 5.56 ammo out? Maybe your a smug, little man and you fall into the Zumbo category, but there here to stay, unless people like you have your way and ban lead.

Your bias doesnt win any agruments over with me. Neither do your internet tough guy tactics. But you did win a few laughs over on my side of the screen.

 

[MHMT]

MHMT, were you at the TWS meeting in Missoula last week?
.

Ya, there were quite a few interesting studies, were you there?

Although some people might be using this to try and make ammunition more expensive, I don't think it is the people that are doing the scientific research. They were just stating what they tested and concluded. They weren't screaming and yelling that we need to ban lead bullets.