Lead Shot Ban

[tanner127]

Lead-free is just another hurdle to jump through. The rounds cost significantly more and are harder to find; even in a lead-free hunting state like California where you would think the local shops would stock up on the stuff. We can’t even order it online unless you ship it to an FFL which brings the price even higher. If you’re outside of California I’d recommend fighting like hell to block any lead-free legislation. My opinion is that it should be a personal choice of each hunter to chose what ammunition works best for them to humanely dispatch their target species.

 

[mtmuley]

You did watch the video, right? Many of those birds flew too, and spent the remainder of their time in really remote locations. Hard to pick up lead in remote locations. I'd say very long shot. All those birds have one common theme. They meet up in Montana for our hunting seasons harvest.

I saw the study and even posted it here a while ago. mtmuley

 

[.270Rem]

@churchcc12

metallic lead in ammunition (bullets and primers) has no significant impact on human health. It's a fact proven by several scientific studies and research papers.
----------------
In the United States, wildlife experts do not manage wildlife based on single mortality incidents or emotions. Our country’s wildlife management practices are based on the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which is widely recognized as the best in the world. For more than a century, wildlife in the United States has been successfully managed through this model and has led to an incredible restoration of multiple species.
---------------
anyone can go out to any body of water in my state that doesn't have special regulations and shoot moorhens, rails, snipe, dove, and even skeet over water with lead shot. They could even stand on shore or sit in a boat and shoot case after case of shells containing lead shot over the water, and it would all be perfectly legal. They just can't shoot ducks, coots, or geese with lead from the exact same spot. Conversely, if they wanted to intercept ducks flying low over a high hill between a roosting area and a feeding area, and ten miles from the nearest body of water, they would be required to use non-toxic shot. The same is true for shooting geese over cultivated fields or pastures where they feed. That is an inconsistency that has stood for over a quarter of a century. Over time the regulatory agencies started seeing the contradictions in their logic which offered two alternatives. One was to relax restrictions, the other was to increase restrictions for shooting that did not involve waterfowl. Since no bureaucracy has ever shown an ability to reduce restrictions the second option was chosen.
--------------------
“This is a policy that really isn’t designed to help wildlife conservation, but is designed to punish hunters,” Oliva said, “is designed to actually disinterest and put obstacles in the way of people being able to access the outdoors.”

Oliva also questioned the science linking hunting to lead ingestion by birds of prey, though there is wide agreement in the scientific community that feeding on gut piles — the entrails from hunters’ big game carcasses — is a leading cause of lead poisoning for birds.

“We think [the bill] is scientifically unsound and is counterproductive to wildlife restoration, wildlife management and conservation in America,” Oliva said.
‐---------------
The crux of anti-hunting activists’ argument against traditional ammunition rests on the misplaced assertion that the use of lead ammunition for hunting leads to elevated lead exposure and poisoning in scavenging animals, such as the California condor, that allegedly ingest fragments of spent ammunition in gut-piles or carcasses left in the field by hunters. The scientific studies relied on by the anti-lead proponents are in fact not scientifically sound. In other words, the proponents use “faulty science” to support their anti-lead ammunition agenda. HuntForTruth.org has procured and analyzed over one hundred thousand documents from governmental agencies, universities and researchers and have found systemic flaws, which include faulty methodology and sampling protocols and the selective use of data (i.e. "cherry picking" data for publication).
------------
Now, you have your "facts". I have mine.
The above is from various links I've already posted.

This is the same argument we have been getting since the "lead ban" began.
You can weep and wail and wring your hands until you turn blue in the face.
Won't change the argument.
Won't change the lead ban.
But be assured, (and you won't be) there is more to the "lead ban" than just banning lead shot.

I am fairly certain that if you hunt rails and moorhens now, you must use non-toxic shot. Minor point, but this has changed. Of course the volume of shot expended on doves dwarfs anything cut loose on many other species combined, so this is not having the most significant effect. With rail/moorhen hunting taking place over water, I can see where it was a matter of time before it went that way.

I heard a statement in the past year or so about lead in the environment. When lead was taken out of gasoline (I know it's still used outside the U.S.), it didn't mean we were against automobiles or driving. When we took it out of paint, it wasn't because we were against paint or home improvement. Moving to non-toxic projectiles for hunting doesn't mean we want to end hunting.

As someone who has worked for several state fish and wildlife agencies for nearly 30 years, I have heard more about this every year, especially with regard to rifle bullets. Many discussions center around how do people find these new alternatives in a high demand ammo market. When I started hunting, lead shot was on the way out for waterfowl and I know many folks would buy new waders if they could use it again. That being said, it has been the law of the land for 30 years and that won't change.

Look at the studies out there and the links shared previously. Thanks to all for taking the time to uncover this info and take the time to dive in and digest what if means. Find the x-rays of rifle shot game and see the particles found throughout the carcass, which may end up in your white packages in the freezer, and what gets left behind in a gut pile. Then choose what works for you and is within the law and regulations for where you will hunt.

Stay classy, HT.

 

[Perlodid]

@churchcc12

metallic lead in ammunition (bullets and primers) has no significant impact on human health. It's a fact proven by several scientific studies and research papers.
----------------
In the United States, wildlife experts do not manage wildlife based on single mortality incidents or emotions. Our country’s wildlife management practices are based on the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which is widely recognized as the best in the world. For more than a century, wildlife in the United States has been successfully managed through this model and has led to an incredible restoration of multiple species.
---------------
anyone can go out to any body of water in my state that doesn't have special regulations and shoot moorhens, rails, snipe, dove, and even skeet over water with lead shot. They could even stand on shore or sit in a boat and shoot case after case of shells containing lead shot over the water, and it would all be perfectly legal. They just can't shoot ducks, coots, or geese with lead from the exact same spot. Conversely, if they wanted to intercept ducks flying low over a high hill between a roosting area and a feeding area, and ten miles from the nearest body of water, they would be required to use non-toxic shot. The same is true for shooting geese over cultivated fields or pastures where they feed. That is an inconsistency that has stood for over a quarter of a century. Over time the regulatory agencies started seeing the contradictions in their logic which offered two alternatives. One was to relax restrictions, the other was to increase restrictions for shooting that did not involve waterfowl. Since no bureaucracy has ever shown an ability to reduce restrictions the second option was chosen.
--------------------
“This is a policy that really isn’t designed to help wildlife conservation, but is designed to punish hunters,” Oliva said, “is designed to actually disinterest and put obstacles in the way of people being able to access the outdoors.”

Oliva also questioned the science linking hunting to lead ingestion by birds of prey, though there is wide agreement in the scientific community that feeding on gut piles — the entrails from hunters’ big game carcasses — is a leading cause of lead poisoning for birds.

“We think [the bill] is scientifically unsound and is counterproductive to wildlife restoration, wildlife management and conservation in America,” Oliva said.
‐---------------
The crux of anti-hunting activists’ argument against traditional ammunition rests on the misplaced assertion that the use of lead ammunition for hunting leads to elevated lead exposure and poisoning in scavenging animals, such as the California condor, that allegedly ingest fragments of spent ammunition in gut-piles or carcasses left in the field by hunters. The scientific studies relied on by the anti-lead proponents are in fact not scientifically sound. In other words, the proponents use “faulty science” to support their anti-lead ammunition agenda. HuntForTruth.org has procured and analyzed over one hundred thousand documents from governmental agencies, universities and researchers and have found systemic flaws, which include faulty methodology and sampling protocols and the selective use of data (i.e. "cherry picking" data for publication).
------------
Now, you have your "facts". I have mine.
The above is from various links I've already posted.

This is the same argument we have been getting since the "lead ban" began.
You can weep and wail and wring your hands until you turn blue in the face.
Won't change the argument.
Won't change the lead ban.
But be assured, (and you won't be) there is more to the "lead ban" than just banning lead shot.

If you think huntfortruth and lobbying articles are even remotely reliable compared to peer-reviewed literature - then there really isn't much more to say on my end.

 

[mtmuley]

Is it acceptable to use lead for target practice? For shooting "gophers" or prairie dogs? In .22 LR for fun? I bet more raptors get lead from that kind of recreational shooting than from big game killed. And not just condors and eagles that these studies focus on. mtmuley

 

[jryoung]

I'd just as soon not. I'm on an android phone and my arthritis is kicking in!!

Currently treating a patient in our clinic that was having significant osteoarthritis flare-ups. Patient testing positive with lead blood levels of 50 mcg/dL. Currently treating the pt intravenously with dimercaptopropane sulfonate (DMPS).

Our debate about lead and hunting aside, this is something you may want to look into.

Whole blood lead levels are associated with radiographic and symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional analysis in the Johnston County Osteoarthritis Project - Arthritis Research & Therapy

Introduction Lead (Pb) is known to affect bone, and recent evidence suggests that it has effects on cartilage as well. As osteoarthritis (OA) is a highly prevalent disease affecting bone and cartilage, we undertook the present analysis to determine whether whole blood Pb levels are associated...

arthritis-research.biomedcentral.com

 

[Otto Matic]

Currently treating a patient in our clinic that was having significant osteoarthritis flare-ups. Patient testing positive with lead blood levels of 50 mcg/dL. Currently treating the pt intravenously with dimercaptopropane sulfonate (DMPS).

Our debate about lead and hunting aside, this is something you may want to look into.

Whole blood lead levels are associated with radiographic and symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional analysis in the Johnston County Osteoarthritis Project - Arthritis Research & Therapy

Introduction Lead (Pb) is known to affect bone, and recent evidence suggests that it has effects on cartilage as well. As osteoarthritis (OA) is a highly prevalent disease affecting bone and cartilage, we undertook the present analysis to determine whether whole blood Pb levels are associated...

arthritis-research.biomedcentral.com

I'm 70 years old. When the orthopedic surgeon x-rayed my hip implant, he told me my lower back had arthritis in every joint.
When the surgeon x-rayed my shoulder implant, all my joints, well, except for the shoulder, is full of arthritis.
When they operated on my heel, that foot is eaten up with arthritis.
I'm not having flare ups, I'm just old and worn out! LOL!

Despite all that, I'm still pretty mobil for my age and condition. I've spent all the time I care to in a hospital. Thank you, no.

 

[shoots-straight]

Is it acceptable to use lead for target practice? For shooting "gophers" or prairie dogs? In .22 LR for fun? I bet more raptors get lead from that kind of recreational shooting than from big game killed. And not just condors and eagles that these studies focus on. mtmuley

I'd guess that anything shot with lead fragmenting bullets will have lead spread in the flesh and transferred to the birds when they eat it.

 

[Otto Matic]

Is it acceptable to use lead for target practice? For shooting "gophers" or prairie dogs? In .22 LR for fun? I bet more raptors get lead from that kind of recreational shooting than from big game killed. And not just condors and eagles that these studies focus on. mtmuley

After you asked, I recalled a state game biologist telling me where I could find turkeys on a WMA.
I told him thanks but no, I don't shoot nontoxic shot.
Not a problem! Even on WMA land, toxic shot wasn't required for turkeys! !

I remembered thinking, I can shoot turkeys with lead shot in the lake watershed, but I can only shoot geese out of a 300 acre wheat field with non-toxic shot!
Far out and groovy.

 

[Otto Matic]

I'd guess that anything shot with lead fragmenting bullets will have lead spread in the flesh and transferred to the birds when they eat it.

Well, yes. I guess so.
But remember, there are coyotes, skunks, possums, coons, bobcats, feral hogs and other critters that scavenge on carcasses.
To hear the "lead ban" folks tell it, EVERY critter a hunter shoots ends up in a condor's crop! LOL!
You KNOW 'yotes eat anything they can find, but you don't see the landscape littered with scavenger carcasses. Even in California in the Condor Corridor!

P.S. - don't forget the bears! They like to eat too! LOL!

 

[shoots-straight]

Well, yes. I guess so.
But remember, there are coyotes, skunks, possums, coons, bobcats, feral hogs and other critters that scavenge on carcasses.
To hear the "lead ban" folks tell it, EVERY critter a hunter shoots ends up in a condor's crop! LOL!
You KNOW 'yotes eat anything they can find, but you don't see the landscape littered with scavenger carcasses. Even in California in the Condor Corridor!

P.S. - don't forget the bears! They like to eat too! LOL!

Well, yes. I guess so.

But remember, all those other animals aren't as susceptible to lead poison as birds are.

 

[Cornell2012]

If you think huntfortruth and lobbying articles are even remotely reliable compared to peer-reviewed literature - then there really isn't much more to say on my end.

This is the best summary of this thread that I think I could have come up with.

 

[JLS]

Just not cost effective and just as toxic as lead.

Where is your proof of this?

 

[Otto Matic]

Where is your proof of this?

Apparently, you didn't read the links I provided.

 

[Otto Matic]

If you think huntfortruth and lobbying articles are even remotely reliable compared to peer-reviewed literature - then there really isn't much more to say on my end.

....and this is why you can't have a discussion.

Just because an article written by some over educated brainiac was read by other over educated brainiacs he hangs out with DOES NOT mean the article is the Holy Grail on a subject. It just means his buddies read it.
If the information happens to be incorrect, being "peer reviewed" doesn't "correct" the data.....and don't tell me that 100% of "peer reviewed" papers are 100% correct, 100% of the time.
It only means that some people see "peer reviewed" and think the data is impeccable....and it's not.

Let me ask a "non peer reviewed" question.
There are vultures all across America.
I KNOW that thousands and thousands of deer are killed every year in just two states, Texas and Oklahoma, and gut piles are left lying all over both states. I would venture MANY more gut piles than what is left in the Condor Corridor.

Question:
Why is the adult* California Condor the "ONLY" vulture in the United States whose supposed "leading cause of death" is the ingestion of lead particles from gut piles left by hunters using lead and lead based projectiles?
What makes the California Condor more susceptible to lead poisoning than any other flying scavengers? Buzzards? Crows? Ravens?**

* - the "peer reviewed" article I read stated that the "leading cause of death" in California Condor nestlings was the ingestion of "microtrash" that their parents fed them.
** - I'm going to opine that because the California Condor is "endangered", it's a convenient hook to hang a "lead ban" hat on.

 

[SAJ-99]

The myth of “poisonous” lead ammo

Lead poisoning ammo*** Lead poisoning reloading ammo*** Lead poisoning ammunition debate***

www.all4shooters.com

Myths Debunked — Hunt forTruth.orgHunt-for-Truth

www.huntfortruth.org

I read your link. Very interesting.
Here's some research that disagrees.
I've no reason to doubt the truthfulness of any of the researchers on any of the links.

1) the number of "research papers" that assure us the lead ban is unnecessary are probably outnumbered 10:1 "for" a lead ban.
2) The number of research papers for or against doesn't matter. What matters is which data (datum?) is correct.
3) If you read any research paper with preconceived notions, you will tend to ignore the truthfulness that doesn't fit those notions.
4) You can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. - George Will

Neither of those are “research papers”. There is no data in either one. They are opinion pieces stating broad generalities to a target audience that already believes in the position, which I think was your point in 1-4.
To argue lead isn’t a poisonous substance is asinine. It also doesn’t make sense to equate a ban on lead with a ban on hunting. Some want one, some want both, some want to use one to get the other, but we should avoid labeling everyone as being in the same group. It makes for better discussion.
Yes this horse has been beat to death in my opinion.

 

[JLS]

Apparently, you didn't read the links I provided.

I must have missed the scientific data showing that.

 

[Otto Matic]

"... Neither of those are “research papers”. There is no data in either one. ..."

So, does that make the articles "untrue" or "worthless" just because they aren't "research" papers?
You don't have to be a "researcher" to bring a truth forward.
Researchers and scientists aren't "all knowing gods".

 

[SAJ-99]

"... Neither of those are “research papers”. There is no data in either one. ..."

So, does that make the articles "untrue" or "worthless" just because they aren't "research" papers?
You don't have to be a "researcher" to bring a truth forward.
Researchers and scientists aren't "all knowing gods".

Yes it kind of does make it worthless. You are the one that called them research. They are not anything resembling actual research. Finding someone on the internet that agrees with you isn’t hard and doesn’t make you “right” either. The data matters.

 

[Otto Matic]

I was a kid in the 60s and there were not many hawks and eagles around as I remember it . In fact there were so few they put protections on them . Now it is common to see raptors any time I am outdoors .
When this thread showed up yesterday I was interested in the topic so I spent several hours on the internet digging around on raptor numbers . The numbers of Bald Eagles for an example quadrupled between 1999 and 2009 . I googled eagle kill permits and found they are issued to wind farms to kill up to 4200 eagles per year . Wind generation seems to kill eagles but the numbers are all over the place depending on what you are trying to prove .
I will shoot copper bullets makes little difference to me . I already use them for moose .

Can anyone point me in the direction to find out how many raptors are killed by eating lead ?View attachment 186210View attachment 186211

I was a kid in the 60's too.
But I was raised in east Texas. We didn't have eagles or condors. We had plenty hawks, owls and buzzards.
There were game laws, both state and federal, that protected raptors even back then.
About the only hawk death potential was raiding gramma's chicken yard, unprotected power lines and old age!
A buzzards greatest threat of premature death was by auto windshield being flushed off road kill. (1)

I agree with you. I'd like to see a comparison of eagle deaths by windmill and lead ingestion. Same for condors.

I'd also like to know why the California Condor is the ONLY vulture endangered by lead ingestion.