To protect eagles, hunters and conservationists rebuild old alliances (non-lead ammo)
- Thread starter bucdoego
- Start date
Ummmmmm, No. mtmuley
I know you like the older guns that probably need (?) lead to be safely shot.... is that the issue here? Or you got beef with the science behind it?
@nastynate As I didn't read your linked article, did the DNR findings of metallic fragments detail what percentage of the fragments made it into consumable meat or organs, or simply detail how many fragments were found?
As I see it, there are two concerns about using lead containing projectiles. Human consumption (me, my family and friends) and then fragments left in the field to be ingested by scavenging critters and dispersed about the landscape.
As I see it, there are two concerns about using lead containing projectiles. Human consumption (me, my family and friends) and then fragments left in the field to be ingested by scavenging critters and dispersed about the landscape.
Correct- I think there are two different concerns, meat and poisoning scavengers.
The study was designed around the human consumption perspective, not the poisoning scavenger perspective. However, they looked at fragments around entry/exit wounds on the whole carcasses and did some muscle (meat) samples at varying distances from the shot.
bucdoego
Well-known member
I can't answer directly, but your question leads to another that you might want to consider: What are the penalties when they catch someone cheating on the mono-metal bullet requirements?
Last edited:
I love my lead ammo and definitely will not switch to copper unless it is government mandated. How many game animals are wounded and lost due to poor performance of non lead ammo? Nobody knows and apparently nobody cares. I’ve seen as many ducks and geese wounded and lost as I’ve seen bagged when steel shot is used. Somebody convinced my good friend that he needed to switch from lead bullets to copper for all the overblown reasons already stated above. He was shooting 1moa with cheap lead ammo and the premium copper ammo he stocked up on (for a big chunk of $$$) shoots 5moa…all over the paper. I told him to go back to the lead and ditch the coppers. He didn’t take my advice until missing elk 5 different times and HOPEFULLY not wounding anything. Save the eagles…When I haul my trash to the dump I see tons of eagles gorging on, breathing in and bathing in our toxic refuse. I’m sure you and your local landfill poison far more eagles in one year than my 1 or 2 bullets/year of lead ammo ever will. IMO this is the anti-hunting crowd cooking up a nonissue into an issue that they can use to vilify hunters. Copper pushers are obnoxious and have the their heads stuck up their …
BrentD
Well-known member
The former for sure. But the latter isn't so much about the quality of the science as it is which science is relevant. Once upon a time, when I was still in peach fuzz, conservation was a population/species issue. We used science to manipulate populations to have positive growth and wide distributions. That was the only goal, and "we," as a society, were extremely effective and successful over and over again.
Now, conservation is often (not always) directed at individual organisms. And it is sufficient to say X is a problem if an individual suffers or dies from X, regardless of how the population is doing. One cannot say that lead is currently a problem to the conservation of eagles (sensu us old guys), as the populations of eagles are clearly exploding. But clearly eagles do suffer and die from lead poisoning. Getting lead out of waterfowl and DDT out of the environment had everything to do with that (the latter more than the former?) Lead bullets in prairie dog shooting might be an issue. Has anyone looked into it? But lead and eagles in any other form of hunting as currently practices (i.e, nontox waterfowl regs in place) is not, and the populations of eagles is testimate to that.
I have a problem with technology. I can admit that. I think it is killing hunting (pun intended). Turning technology back might do more for wildlife, particulary hunted ungulates, than anything else.
Just my not so random thoughts, from my not so random perspective.
BucksnDucks
Well-known member
Yes, opinions. I gave my opinion of your response to a forum of hunters. I will reply with my opinions on each current comment.
-I engaged in the discussion making assumption that your passionate response about it being a no brainer, the smart thing to do, and shooting "toxic" ammo at food would logically imply you are in favor of a ban for the good of society and wildlife as a whole.
-About the USFWS ban origins. As I recall the focus of this, originating in the Grasslands waterfowl area of CA was on the volume of lead pellets concentrated in flooded ponds being consumed by waterfowl. I'm certain there is literature about raptor consumption of waterfowl, but I remember the brunt of discussion was on lead pellets accumulating in the area, not poisoning from raptor ingestion of carcasses as was the focus of the "Condor ban".
- As far as your spoon fed info, safe space, mincing words reply. Seriously? Safe space? I appreciate your passion on the subject, but this is kinda silly and hypocritical. I replied with a critique of your approach and choice of wording in statements directed at a group of hunters. Lead is indeed toxic at certain levels and hunters do indeed eat game shot with lead projectiles. You may not be mincing words, but my opinion is your response is exaggerated. Shooting "toxic" ammo and eating therefore "toxic" venison burger to the point of fragments in molars comes off as fear mongering. Again, my opinion of this approach.
-"Time to pick our battles, gents, and lead ammo isn’t one of them." Okay, so your point that I missed entirely is the battle for the sport of hunting entirely and credibility. Not regulating lead ammo? This is achieved by what as it pertains to lead ammo?
Again, I will say I appreciate the passion but maybe relax a bit on the wording and tone " your condescending and misinformed reply" it's a no-brainer and the smart thing to do.
I suppose it depends on your perspective. Both kill just as effectively, so what's the argument to be made for using something that causes your food to be saturated with carcinogens and dispense toxins into the food chain every time you fill a tag? Saving a few cents per round?
BrentD
Well-known member
Ah, you are being ridiculous. I suspect you know that.
BucksnDucks
Well-known member
If this is a serious statement, the level of exaggeration reaches a point of harming your intended meaning.
The data suggests otherwise. Here are two of the most recent studies showing that lead is prolific throughout game meat harvested with lead bullets from centerfire rifles, and that much of it makes its way into the food chain. By this point, there are decades of science showing this.
The adverse reactions I always get when I point this out seem to be from conflating that scientific observation with political overreach. To clarify, I am very much against big government telling people what to do- I hated almost every second I was stationed in CA, and think an outright ban like theirs on lead ammo is heavy handed.
But that doesn't stop me from recognizing the potential negative effects of shooting stuff with lead and taking steps to avoid it. The reality is that if we look at this from a 30,000 foot view, this issue is not going away any time soon and the best thing we could do as outdoorsmen to preserve our rights would be to take away the arguments that make themselves every year in the form of dead hawks and eagles showing up in the fall.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
BucksnDucks
Well-known member
No, it doesn't. This statement is not supported by that data. Read it again as if you did not write it.
"using something that causes your food to be saturated with carcinogens and dispense toxins into the food chain every time you fill a tag?
I would not disagree with the rest of what you're saying. My point is sensational, exaggerated statements like this, even on the internet tend to push others away. I think credibility can be lost for other relevant points when topics are addressed like this. My food is not saturated with toxic death and the food chain is not in imminent peril every time I fill a tag.
Relevant issues like this can and should be addressed in a rational manner, even on the interwebs.
sierrahunter
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2015
- Messages
- 133
Sigh. This is making my butt tired. Here’s my response to your response of my critique of your critique of my original post from the OP.
It’s easy to determine why the USFWS banned lead shot for waterfowl. Just look up the Federal Register notice and read their rational. Let me help. It’s 51 FR 23444 and was published in 1986. The very first sentence reads, “When consumed by waterfowl, bald eagles and migratory birds, spent lead shot often produce lead poisoning and death”. Let’s just agree that you’re wrong on this, shall we? We can blame it on your memory.
Regarding lead fragments in burgers, this happened to me. I bit into a venison burger and could feel something odd in my molar that wouldn’t come loose. I picked it out with my finger, and pulled out a piece of lead. This was particularly surprising to me, because I used a copper bullet, but had used a butcher shop to process my burger. That was the last time I ever used a butcher shop. By the way, you’re making a bad habit of assuming. I thought we already talked about this.
Finally, about picking battles. I didn’t realize this would be a difficult concept. The idea is to fight a battle that is worth fighting and preferably win. So let’s spend our energy on the bigger threats to our sport, not the issues that we really can’t defend. Make sense?
BucksnDucks
Well-known member
Yea, tiring. Go take a hike and save your butt, it is obviously hurt from the internet comments, that if you read them are not real harsh. You're right lead is bad, like really really bad.Sigh. This is making my butt tired. Here’s my response to your response of my critique of your critique of my original post from the OP.
It’s easy to determine why the USFWS banned lead shot for waterfowl. Just look up the Federal Register notice and read their rational. Let me help. It’s 51 FR 23444 and was published in 1986. The very first sentence reads, “When consumed by waterfowl, bald eagles and migratory birds, spent lead shot often produce lead poisoning and death”. Let’s just agree that you’re wrong on this, shall we? We can blame it on your memory.
Regarding lead fragments in burgers, this happened to me. I bit into a venison burger and could feel something odd in my molar that wouldn’t come loose. I picked it out with my finger, and pulled out a piece of lead. This was particularly surprising to me, because I used a copper bullet, but had used a butcher shop to process my burger. That was the last time I ever used a butcher shop. By the way, you’re making a bad habit of assuming. I thought we already talked about this.
Finally, about picking battles. I didn’t realize this would be a difficult concept. The idea is to fight a battle that is worth fighting and preferably win. So let’s spend our energy on the bigger threats to our sport, not the issues that we really can’t defend. Make sense?
All the stuff I read about ducks consuming lead pellets in the Grassland as opposed to fragments or pellets in carcasses was a vague memory for sure.
Absolutely get another butcher, that one is putting toxins in your burger. Better yet do it yourself.
I will agree the level of hubris is high, so pat yourself on the back because like always you're right. Does that make you feel better. I hope so.
On to bigger and better battles. Makes sense, right. It's definitely the smart thing to do, right? like a no brainer.
338win
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2015
- Messages
- 444
i don’t see any way that a federal lead ammo ban doesn’t turn into a boondoggle. I prefer education and incentives. I have been using monos and tss for a decade. I also don’t want to shoot steel at squirrels
