Lead poisoning in eagles

[Bubblehide]

The acknowledgments section of the paper lists multiple agencies (state and federal) and some private groups as funders.

Perhaps you should be looking into the sources of lead

Could be. I don’t know much about isotopes and wouldn’t claim to. (Although what I do know suggests there isn’t “thousands of products” that have the same isotopic signature as lead in bullets). Either way, what is the evidence that suggests something else with the same isotopic signature as lead bullets is causing the lead levels commonly observed in raptors and other scavenging wildlife?

Then perhaps you really don't know much about this at all. Perhaps you need to look into the sources of lead, and how long those sources produced/have been producing lead and then the compaines they sold to and products produced.

It's very clear you know nothing about this subject, but it is a good time to educate yourself.

 

[Tomek]

Are you saying the news outlets are using the findings of the paper to push an agenda or the research and the way it’s presented in the paper are pushing an agenda?

I was specifically talking about researchers allowing their bias to seep into their work and not accounting for it, all in a general sense not speaking to any one study specifically. Or worse when poor or short sighted regulations get pushed through fueled by polarized emotions (regardless of side) based on biased and incomplete science.

 

[Tomek]

This study include over 1200 eagles. Not really a small sample size in wildlife studies

Excerpt from the paper: Acute poisoning of both species was generally higher in winter months, when bald and golden eagles commonly scavenge (3–5). Elevated lead concentrations in predatory and scavenging birds are usually caused by primary lead poisoning, most frequently direct ingestion of lead fragments from ammunition (2, 12, 13). Use of lead in ammunition during hunting seasons corresponds directly, both spatially and temporally, with the feeding ecology of facultative scavengers such as bald and golden eagles (5, 14), a problem that has been studied extensively (5, 14, 15). Our data show a continent-wide temporal correspondence between acute lead poisoning of eagles and the use of lead ammunition.

Thanks, I'll read up on things, I was definitely opining and haven't stayed current on the topic but it looks like there's some good info out there

 

[cubdriver84d]

Perhaps you should be looking into the sources of lead
Then perhaps you really don't know much about this at all. Perhaps you need to look into the sources of lead, and how long those sources produced/have been producing lead and then the compaines they sold to and products produced.

It's very clear you know nothing about this subject, but it is a good time to educate yourself.

Way to dodge my question.

 

[cubdriver84d]

Looking into the scientists....these guys are as anti hunting as we can expect.

Trophy hunting: Science on its own can’t dictate policy

Discover the world’s best science and medicine | Nature.com

www.nature.com

https://m.facebook.com/tim.appenzeller.7

I don’t see those guys in the list of authors on the paper?

 

[Wrench]

I pulled him straight from the acknowledgments and did some google foo. Feel free to check all their references.

Like I said, we can make any data we want.

To tell me that a bird is going to search out lead pellets in the wild is a tough sell. Even on the shotgun range they're not easy to find, let alone in the field.

I can't argue that their sample did contain lead, and that eagles may prey on hunter killed game....but how many healthy, wild eagles have they killed to asses their health? If their on this massive trend to die from lead poisoning, how are they on such a strong increase in population?

In the 60's there was still a majority of lead used in house water supplies and yet humans didn't vanish.

I'm not trying to say they have no merit in the study, but I will bet there's a desired outcome stresssed before the data collection occurred.

As a challenge to all, go find 3 lead pellets in the field this year. I'll give you the whole year because you'll need it.

 

[Trogon]

Some creative arguments here. They have to be since the article is behind a paywall so assume almost no one has read it. Be great if someone could put up a copy.

 

[Trogon]

You are WRONG. Sure bullets have the same isotope as the studies, as to thousands of other products. Thus, the isotope information does NOT conclude bullets are the source.

If it’s not coming from bullets there needs to be an alternative model. Please provide a list of these lead sources with same isotope ratio as bullets so we can figure it out.

 

[Tomek]

Some creative arguments here. They have to be since the article is behind a paywall so assume almost no one has read it. Be great if someone could put up a copy.

Which article are you referring to, drop the link and I'll see about getting a copy

 

[Trogon]

Which article are you referring to, drop the link and I'll see about getting a copy

The original study published by science.

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

 

[long hunter]

Don't eagles eat fish, what about the lead content in fish, must be a lot of fish shooting going on. Interesting a few posts back it was mentioned the research was partially funded by private sources. but made no mention of those organization's names, it would be interesting to see who is contributing to the research. It seems to me this is a leading effort to restrict further the use of lead projectiles for hunting. Stinks like California on this one.

 

[cubdriver84d]

The original study published by science.

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

I have read it, but doesn’t look like anyone has posted a shareable version on the internet yet. The supplementary material, which includes a detailed description of the methods is available though:

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

 

[cubdriver84d]

Don't eagles eat fish, what about the lead content in fish, must be a lot of fish shooting going on. Interesting a few posts back it was mentioned the research was partially funded by private sources. but made no mention of those organization's names, it would be interesting to see who is contributing to the research. It seems to me this is a leading effort to restrict further the use of lead projectiles for hunting. Stinks like California on this one.

Bald eagles do eat fish but often scavenge carrion. Golden eagles do not eat fish.

 

[cubdriver84d]

I pulled him straight from the acknowledgments and did some google foo. Feel free to check all their references.

Like I said, we can make any data we want.

To tell me that a bird is going to search out lead pellets in the wild is a tough sell. Even on the shotgun range they're not easy to find, let alone in the field.

I can't argue that their sample did contain lead, and that eagles may prey on hunter killed game....but how many healthy, wild eagles have they killed to asses their health? If their on this massive trend to die from lead poisoning, how are they on such a strong increase in population?

In the 60's there was still a majority of lead used in house water supplies and yet humans didn't vanish.

I'm not trying to say they have no merit in the study, but I will bet there's a desired outcome stresssed before the data collection occurred.

As a challenge to all, go find 3 lead pellets in the field this year. I'll give you the whole year because you'll need it.

Still not seeing where they’re mentioned (could totally be missing it though). That said, the folks in the author list are responsible for the research and writing the paper.

They didn’t kill any eagles for this study. They drew blood from live eagles and sampled other tissues from dead eagles that were necropsied. Bald eagles recovered from DDT recently and golden eagles have likely been declining in North America recently (https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/goleag/cur/introduction)

 

[Wrench]

The one I quoted was from the science link.

 

[Bubblehide]

Way to dodge my question.

I ask you previously, in your other thread to identify the sources of lead for all of us, why did you dodge that question.

You come here promoting a clear anti gun agenda with faulty evidence, yet you are in denial of that fact. You insist on promoting the studies you present as if they are gospel, despite all the holes in them. You refuse to do further research as suggested, as if you have hit the Holy Grail. You deny the FACT that your studies point to bullets as the source with no evidence at all that the source is bullets.

But I'll spell it out for you a bit better; when a mine mines lead, and sell that lead to industries that produce various products, all of those products made have lead containing the same exact isotope. By the way, those mines, were in production for decades producing product. The fact that you are blind to this tell us everything we need to know about you and your posts.

Trash science is just that, trash. Actually it is not science at all, it is opinion.

 

[cubdriver84d]

I ask you previously, in your other thread to identify the sources of lead for all of us, why did you dodge that question.

What other thread?

You come here promoting a clear anti gun agenda with faulty evidence, yet you are in denial of that fact. You insist on promoting the studies you present as if they are gospel, despite all the holes in them. You refuse to do further research as suggested, as if you have hit the Holy Grail. You deny the FACT that your studies point to bullets as the source with no evidence at all that the source is bullets.

What have I done to promote any agenda? All I have done is provided information and asked questions.

But I'll spell it out for you a bit better; when a mine mines lead, and sell that lead to industries that produce various products, all of those products made have lead containing the same exact isotope. By the way, those mines, were in production for decades producing product. The fact that you are blind to this tell us everything we need to know about you and your posts.

I understand that completely. So, let me ask my question again: of those other products, which do you think are more plausibly causing lead poisoning in raptors than bullets and what is the evidence?

Trash science is just that, trash. Actually it is not science at all, it is opinion.

Agreed.

 

[Trogon]

I ask you previously, in your other thread to identify the sources of lead for all of us, why did you dodge that question.

You come here promoting a clear anti gun agenda with faulty evidence, yet you are in denial of that fact. You insist on promoting the studies you present as if they are gospel, despite all the holes in them. You refuse to do further research as suggested, as if you have hit the Holy Grail. You deny the FACT that your studies point to bullets as the source with no evidence at all that the source is bullets.

But I'll spell it out for you a bit better; when a mine mines lead, and sell that lead to industries that produce various products, all of those products made have lead containing the same exact isotope. By the way, those mines, were in production for decades producing product. The fact that you are blind to this tell us everything we need to know about you and your posts.

Trash science is just that, trash. Actually it is not science at all, it is opinion.

You seem to know a lot about this topic. How does the lead get into the eagle? Any research you’ve done or links to peer reviewed science that is not trash and explains an alternative source would be an interesting addition to this debate.

 

[cubdriver84d]

I was unaware of this other thread on the topic. Some similar discussion going on over there: https://www.rokslide.com/forums/thr...posted-feb-17-2022.253384/page-4#post-2480809

 

[Bubblehide]

What other thread?

What have I done to promote any agenda? All I have done is provided information and asked questions.

I understand that completely. So, let me ask my question again: of those other products, which do you think are more plausibly causing lead poisoning in raptors than bullets and what is the evidence?

Agreed.

My mistake, it was someone else's thread.

You give a very strong indication of ignoring facts and going with the opinion of the researchers in question, instead of questioning their research, as science should do.

I have not researched this. However, I do know that in the past, paint was identified as a major source and confirmed visually, photographically and with video evidence of such birds pecking and ingesting lead based paint. Granted, lead based paint has been illegal for some time, but unfortunately, it has also been painted over instead of being removed. In the past the forest service was called out for not removing lead based paint from their structures.

Additionally, and once again, lead occurs naturally in the environment. Birds in general ingest many things, including small rocks, pebbles... which can and in some cases do contain lead. Simply pointing the finger at bullets with no real evidence is simply not science and not acceptable. But this type of agenda proliferates anyway.

As I suggested previously, you can simply search industries that use and have used lead in their products, it's really pretty simple, even the laziest of persons can do a decent job. But to name one more, the plumbing field has used lead extensively, and can be a possible source. But as I stated previously, there are literally thousands of possible sources as lead was a very common element in many products over the years; singling out one product with no real evidence is NOT science.