Use Promo Code Randy for 20% off OutdoorClass

Lead Shot Ban

Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay. ......and if you found out that copper, tungsten and bismuth were more toxic than just lead and steel accounted to more lost game?

"... There are other options as well to reduce the lead left ..."
...and what might those options be?

If both of that was true then yes, but how do you quantify "more lost game"? That's entirely subjective....for example I've been apart of over 30 animals being shot with copper, no extensive tracking, many dropped in their tracks. In my experience, I don't have that "and". I'll wait for the science on the other part.

Removing animals whole from the field like AZ had as part of their program is an alternative.
 
“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.”

@Hydrophilic
I think there is a lot of meaningful dialogue in the statement.
One of the tools of the left is to deflect and redirect.

Many years back, there was a push to "log" pistol ammo purchases. (I personally had to log hundreds of boxes of .22LR ammo!) The consensus was, "We may not get the guns, but we can get the ammo."
THAT didn't work. Then, the lead ban (mid 70's) began to rear it ugly head.

I think there is a HUGE possibility that the current "lead ban" is an attempt to punish, distract and obstruct hunters and that the "condor, raptor, waterfowl" angle is a convenient (crisis) to deflect and distract.

Just my personal observations and opinions.
 
When you consider the amount of lead shot (or fragments) that must be introduced into an environment to actually have an effect is unbelieveable.
The amount of carrion a condor (or eagle) would have to ingest to acquire THAT much lead is like a lifetime.
One of those articles states that condors are also subject to multiple sources of lead beyond what is deposited by hunters and is probably much more detrimental.

Anyway. Good reading. Enjoy.


"Furthermore, each year,∼20% of free-flying birds have blood lead levels (≥450 ng/mL) that indicate the need for clinical intervention to avert morbidity and mortality. Lead isotopic analysis shows that lead-based ammunition is the principle source of lead poisoning in condors. Finally, population models based on condor demographic data show that the condor’s apparent recovery is solely because of intensive ongoing management, with the only hope of achieving true recovery dependent on the elimination or substantial reduction of lead poisoning rates" (Finkelstein et al 2012)

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/109/28/11449.full.pdf


20% of condors at risk of dying EVERY YEAR without intervention. Lead ammo shown as the main source of the elevated lead levels. I could post studies until I run out of characters, this is one of the most well-defined interactions in endangered species recovery.

"I think there is a HUGE possibility that the current "lead ban" is an attempt to punish, distract and obstruct hunters and that the "condor, raptor, waterfowl" angle is a convenient (crisis) to deflect and distract."

This isn't a conspiracy man, copper is being pushed because there are endangered birds dying from lead poisoning. There's a relatively easy way to solve that. And yeah, I love my accubonds and lead #6's, but I'm willing to give those up to avoid killing condors, golden eagles, or waterfowl.
 
Last edited:
"...more lost game..."
Ducks and geese due to steel shot being ballistically piss poor.
Nobody said monolithic bullets were not effective. Just not cost effective and just as toxic as lead.

"...Removing animals whole from the field like AZ had as part of their program is an alternative. ..."

Who's gonna help you load a thousand pounds of bull elk onto a horse on the back side of nowhere?
 
"...more lost game..."
Ducks and geese due to steel shot being ballistically piss poor.
Nobody said monolithic bullets were not effective. Just not cost effective and just as toxic as lead.

"...Removing animals whole from the field like AZ had as part of their program is an alternative. ..."

Who's gonna help you load a thousand pounds of bull elk onto a horse on the back side of nowhere?

Are you just arguing for the sake of it or trying to make a point?
 
"... Are you just arguing for the sake of it or trying to make a point? ..."

The "lead ban" is "pointless".

Especially if copper, tungsten and bismuth are just as toxic, if not worse than lead.
When they outlaw those where do we go?
Frozen peas?
 
"... Are you just arguing for the sake of it or trying to make a point? ..."

The "lead ban" is "pointless".

Especially if copper, tungsten and bismuth are just as toxic, if not worse than lead.
When they outlaw those where do we go?
Frozen peas?


"The average mortality in mallards fed lead--magnesium alloy shot was less (58 percent) than that occurring in birds fed commercial lead shot. Mortality among mallards fed iron, copper, zinc-coated iron or molybdenum-coated iron shot was significantly less than in birds fed lead shot, and was not significantly greater than the conrtols [sic]." (Irby et al 1967)



"The potential absorption rates of iron and tin (0.54 mg Fe/day, and 3.89 mg Sn/day)from eight tungsten–bronze spheres of total mass 1.42 g would not prove toxic, based on empirical studies of tin and iron ingestion in waterfowl. The release of 43.17 mg copper/day from eight tungsten–bronze spheres, while exceeding the daily copper requirements of domesticated birds, is far below the levels of copper known to cause copper toxicosis in birds. We conclude that sintered tungsten–bronze material made into gunshot, fishing weights, or wheel balance weights, would not pose a toxic risk to wild birds when ingested" (Thomas and McGill 2008)



"We detected no toxic effects in game farm mallards dosed with six Bi/Sn alloy shot and observed for 30 days. Survival, body weight, Hct, and weights of organs were not affected. Gross and microscopic examination of the kidneys, liver, and gonads of the ducks also revealed only slight tissue changes. Our data support the conclusions of Sanderson et al. 1992,who reported no toxic effects in game farm mallards dosed with 100% Bi shot." (Sanderson et al 1997)


But sure, feel free to start chucking peas.
 
Especially if copper, tungsten and bismuth are just as toxic, if not worse than lead.
Are you stating that these have been scientifically shown to have a more negative impact on wildlife than lead due to toxicity? Or are you making up a potential future state in which that is the case as your primary argument for keeping lead legal?

We've known for a long time that lead is harmful to humans and other animals, which is why industries have phased it out over the decades. I'm not aware of any similar issues with the other materials.
 
How many golden eagles are in the Root? mtmuley
I don't know. They did say that they caught 91 eagles in 7 years. Of those caught they put telemetry collars on many, and found that 2/3ds left here and traveled really far, and remote. To get lead they deducted that the Montana hunting season was to blame for the high lead blood counts.
 
I don't know. They did say that they caught 91 eagles in 7 years. Of those caught they put telemetry collars on many, and found that 2/3ds left here and traveled really far, and remote. To get lead they deducted that the Montana hunting season was to blame for the high lead blood counts.
Not a long shot to say those birds picked up the lead somewhere else. mtmuley
 
"The average mortality in mallards fed lead--magnesium alloy shot was less (58 percent) than that occurring in birds fed commercial lead shot. Mortality among mallards fed iron, copper, zinc-coated iron or molybdenum-coated iron shot was significantly less than in birds fed lead shot, and was not significantly greater than the conrtols [sic]." (Irby et al 1967)



"The potential absorption rates of iron and tin (0.54 mg Fe/day, and 3.89 mg Sn/day)from eight tungsten–bronze spheres of total mass 1.42 g would not prove toxic, based on empirical studies of tin and iron ingestion in waterfowl. The release of 43.17 mg copper/day from eight tungsten–bronze spheres, while exceeding the daily copper requirements of domesticated birds, is far below the levels of copper known to cause copper toxicosis in birds. We conclude that sintered tungsten–bronze material made into gunshot, fishing weights, or wheel balance weights, would not pose a toxic risk to wild birds when ingested" (Thomas and McGill 2008)



"We detected no toxic effects in game farm mallards dosed with six Bi/Sn alloy shot and observed for 30 days. Survival, body weight, Hct, and weights of organs were not affected. Gross and microscopic examination of the kidneys, liver, and gonads of the ducks also revealed only slight tissue changes. Our data support the conclusions of Sanderson et al. 1992,who reported no toxic effects in game farm mallards dosed with 100% Bi shot." (Sanderson et al 1997)


But sure, feel free to start chucking peas
 
@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.
 
@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.
Can you post your opinion one more time? I’m not sure I understand your position.
 
Not a long shot to say those birds picked up the lead somewhere else. 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.
 
@Hydrophilic

"... Otto, your links are heavily centered on lobby groups for the shooting industry, and less centered on research or substance. ..."

Yes sir, I. Suppose some of them are.
I'm reminded of my nephew. Boy could read an encyclopedia and repeat nearly every word when asked.
Boy could not pour pi$$ out of a boot with instructions on the heel!
Worked with Joe in Dallas. Joe built ultralight, one seat aircraft with VW motors and props that pushed rather than pulled.
Joe was barely able to write.

Being intelligent doesn't mean you're smart.
Being smart doesn't mean you're intelligent!

Most of our Founding Fathers had only a rudimentary education. Some of them were even scalawags. But they still formed the greatest nation in recorded history.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top