Lead poisoning in eagles

[cubdriver84d]

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.

I've read many papers on the topic spanning almost 20 years, and most of them point in a similar direction. Based on that, I have decided not to shoot lead at animals (with maybe a few exceptions). I still love flinging lead at targets and rocks just as much as the next guy though. Anyone is free to similarly survey the evidence and make their own decisions.

Now I have images of eagles pecking at paint stuck in my head...

 

[Bubblehide]

I've read many papers on the topic spanning almost 20 years, and most of them point in a similar direction. Based on that, I have decided not to shoot lead at animals (with maybe a few exceptions). I still love flinging lead at targets and rocks just as much as the next guy though. Anyone is free to similarly survey the evidence and make their own decisions.

Now I have images of eagles pecking at paint stuck in my head...

I have likely read many of the same, but there was not a single bit of actual evidence in any of the papers that the source was actually bullets. Science is supposed to present facts, not conjecture. However, if you chose to believe that lead is a major source, you are free to do so.

With that said, with magnum based cartridge's, copper and gilding metal based bullets have excellent performance out to 600-700 yards, but past that lead takes the lead in performance. It certainly would not hurt to consider this when hunting certain locations.

 

[Tomek]

The original study published by science.

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

Here you go, good read and strong evidence and the assumptions or most likely causes are identified as such

 

[Bubblehide]

Here you go, good read and strong evidence and the assumptions or most likely causes are identified as such

Yes they assume, assuming is not science, but unfortunately in todays world, it is being passed of as science.

 

[Tomek]

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.

We can now distinguis from the various sources of lead, using a Multicollector Mass Spectrometer (the thing that traces the isotopes) we can know the origin of the lead and tell the difference if it is from bullets, pipes, paint, or other sources

 

[cubdriver84d]

Yes they assume, assuming is not science, but unfortunately in todays world, it is being passed of as science.

Scientists ask questions, then generate some hypothesis or assumptions about those questions, then test those hypotheses/assumptions. The results of those tests provide evidence. That is science.

 

[Bubblehide]

Scientists ask questions, then generate some hypothesis or assumptions about those questions, then test those hypotheses/assumptions. The results of those tests provide evidence. That is science.

Exactly. Now show me proof /real evidence that bullets are the source, not repeated assumptions.

 

[Tomek]

Yes they assume, assuming is not science, but unfortunately in todays world, it is being passed of as science.

Mate science is literally making assumuptions and trying to disprove them. For example when they say there is a strong correlation between fall and winter lead cases and hunting seasons combined with the habbit of eagles to scavange more offal and carcases in that time period, the connection is still considered an assumption even though there is strong evidence that it is correct..
Along the same lines there is a very big difference in the definition of theory in the common use vs scientific use. In science a theory is an assumption that tries to explain facts. Theories never become facts themseles even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

So in this case the fact is that eagles are dying from lead poisoning, the prevelant theory is that this is caused by ingesting lead form bullets and there is strong evidence to support this with not much evidence to support other/contrary theories. This is never a zero sum situation and happens mroe a spectrum

Such an argument to discredit scientific work is based on a crumbling foundation of logical falacies and mostly used in circles where objectivity has gone out the window and blind support of a predetermined point of view is the primary objective.

 

[cubdriver84d]

Mate science is literally making assumuptions and trying to disprove them. For example when they say there is a strong correlation between fall and winter lead cases and hunting seasons combined with the habbit of eagles to scavange more offal and carcases in that time period, the connection is still considered an assumption even though there is strong evidence that it is correct..
Along the same lines there is a very big difference in the definition of theory in the common use vs scientific use. In science a theory is an assumption that tries to explain facts. Theories never become facts themseles even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

So in this case the fact is that eagles are dying from lead poisoning, the prevelant theory is that this is caused by ingesting lead form bullets and there is strong evidence to support this with not much evidence to support other/contrary theories. This is never a zero sum situation and happens mroe a spectrum

Such an argument to discredit scientific work is based on a crumbling foundation of logical falacies and mostly used in circles where objectivity has gone out the window and blind support of a predetermined point of view is the primary objective.

Yes. I was working on a similar response.

"Proof" is a word reserved for basically only mathematics (maybe a few exceptions in other fields).

 

[Tomek]

Exactly. Now show me proof /real evidence that bullets are the source, not repeated assumptions.

Like isotopic traces that match bullets found in eagles that were killed by lead poisoning?

 

[Bubblehide]

Mate science is literally making assumuptions and trying to disprove them. For example when they say there is a strong correlation between fall and winter lead cases and hunting seasons combined with the habbit of eagles to scavange more offal and carcases in that time period, the connection is still considered an assumption even though there is strong evidence that it is correct..
Along the same lines there is a very big difference in the definition of theory in the common use vs scientific use. In science a theory is an assumption that tries to explain facts. Theories never become facts themseles even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

So in this case the fact is that eagles are dying from lead poisoning, the prevelant theory is that this is caused by ingesting lead form bullets and there is strong evidence to support this with not much evidence to support other/contrary theories. This is never a zero sum situation and happens mroe a spectrum

Such an argument to discredit scientific work is based on a crumbling foundation of logical falacies and mostly used in circles where objectivity has gone out the window and blind support of a predetermined point of view is the primary objective.

Correlation is not causation, as such correlation provides zero evidence; what it does provide is a possible direction for science to investigate. By the way, science tries to prove things, in doing so, it also disproves previous hypothesis. Keep in mind that a hypothesis is just a guess, perhaps a simi informed guess, but a guess non the less.

No a theory is something that is unproven, but supported by facts. Yet in the studies in question, they take a hypotheses and continually repeat it as if it is fact. This fall under that old adage that if you say or hear something often enough you begin to believe it is true. We are being sold a bag of garbage here.


"So in this case the fact is that eagles are dying from lead poisoning, the prevelant theory is that this is caused by ingesting lead form bullets and there is strong evidence to support this with not much evidence to support other/contrary theories. This is never a zero sum situation and happens mroe a spectrum"

This ^^^ is completely false. Just one look at the supposed science tells you that someones notion of the source is continually being repeated with no evidence and then cited as truth. That is NOT the real science. Show me actual evidence that bullets are the source, please.

Do not be mistaken, I am not saying that these birds are not dying from lead poising. I am arguing the source. Paint has been proven, bullets has not.

"Such an argument to discredit scientific work is based on a crumbling foundation of logical falacies and mostly used in circles where objectivity has gone out the window and blind support of a predetermined point of view is the primary objective."

When this so called science continually repeats someone's (peoples) opinions and represents it as fact, they are the one eroding the foundations of science. The circles promoting these fallacies are groups such as The Center for Biological Diversity, and many more. They do not conduct actual science, they present conjecture and doll it up to call it science.

 

[HighUintas]

The high percentage of retardation in these hunting forums amazes me and also saddens me.

 

[Bubblehide]

The high percentage of retardation in these hunting forums amazes me and also saddens me.

And depression diminishes cognitive functioning, likely a good hypothesis as to why the masses accept the dribble presented here as science.

 

[87TT]

Is anybody worried about the buzzards magpies and ravens?

 

[FLATHEAD]

Is anybody worried about the buzzards magpies and ravens?

MY first thought as well.
Shouldnt they be dying also?
I think they dont evoke the same emotional response as an Eagle.

 

[87TT]

And bears, wolves, coyotes, raccoons, lions etc.

 

[87TT]

Does anyone know how many birds including eagles and condors are killed by wind turbines?

And powerlines?

 

[cubdriver84d]

Does anyone know how many birds including eagles and condors are killed by wind turbines?

There’s been quite a bit of research on this. Some info about eagles on FWS’s eagle management page https://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/eagle-management.php

 

[manitou1]

I don't believe it for a minute. We see more eagles than any other bird this time of year. My wife makes a game of counting bald eagles when we drive to other towns, which is often.
If they are getting lead poisoning around here, it is a good thing, otherwise they would be a plague!
Regardless, I would wager anybody that has bird hunted and rabbit hunted all their lives has consumed more lead than an eagle... anywhere.

 

[Sled]

Is anybody worried about the buzzards magpies and ravens?

yes, i'm worried we haven't killed all the magpies yet and i can't shoot them all myself. the ravens seem smart enough to pick around the lead.