Monos vs. Lead. Which do you choose and why?

[JGRaider]

Funny how data from scientists, DNRs, and university departments are "propaganda", but an article from some dude on a hunting site is your preferred single source of truth.

Yep.....no agenda.

 

[35WhelenAI]

Yes, absolutely no gray area at the individual level looking at a number of species using a number of approaches.

I see where you are going on that. The overall health of raptor species in general is strong, despite toxic levels of lead being found in a high number of individual birds that were tested. The same reason hunters take individual animals in order to ensure the overall well-being of the species.

The issue I see with my thought is raptors don't need population control. It would be part of my decision process in choosing monos vs lead bullets if acceptable losses are just that, acceptable.

Honestly when I chose Barnes bullets 30 years ago, it was because with traditional cup and core bullets meat damage was more than I deemed acceptable. Time marches on, now there is another reason that reaches beyond myself to continue using monos. I think we would all do well to consider beyond just ourselves with respect to many things, not just this.

I've used my nose for 30 years, as said. My experience with mono's may be more than most. The results I have had show a different picture than what is painted about mono's with respect to limiting opportunity or ability to put meat in the freezer.

 

[Tod osier]

I see where you are going on that. The overall health of raptor species in general is strong, despite toxic levels of lead being found in a high number of individual birds that were tested.

I'm saying that metallic lead is toxic to birds, absolutely. For sure in my opinion damaging enough for me to not want to leave it in gut piles if I have adequate alternatives. Taking a conservative approach for me is fine since the alternatives are fine. If I lost animals due to the poor performance of monos, I'd think differently, but that has not been the case for me.

The impact on individuals is where you start to understand how things work big picture (these are the first studies that you conduct) and can be where you end to make a decision. For me in this case I choose not to use lead.

As far as extending into population level impacts, No one would argue if you killed a bird, it would die, but would it affect the population in a meaningful way? That is what I was responding to, what we know about lead on a population level.

A final sticky widget and why I err on the side of caution is that things are not usually simple once you have a rich understanding of them. For example, for waterfowl feeding on spent lead shot, the toxicity of lead depends on the diet of the bird. When birds eat hard to process food like corn, they are more susceptible to lead because their gizzard has to work harder to grind corn than softer foods (and thus grind up the lead in their gizzard and absorb it). So, the affect of lead depends on the diet of the bird, which would depend in the time of year (waste corn is not always available) and the location (corn is not available everywhere). You can keep extending the caveats the more you understand about the biology at play. To understand the affect of lead on the population of raptors is a whole lot more complicated and expensive than it would seem and I don't think given the interest in the topic at large we will likely see significant progress on that front. For me (and this is what the thread is about) I don't care - I know it impacts individuals and I have good alternatives, so I avoid it.

 

[Rick M.]

Form, it's Rick, not Rich.

I've provided research, and you have not. Let us at least acknowledge that. I've made an honest attempt at backing up my conclusions. A screenshot of a chart showing that other stuff kills raptors too does not negate the negative effects of lead. That's intentionally disingenuous and does not bode well for an honest conversation. Also, the repeated attempts at appealing to extremes are also not sincere. We can't stop driving cars, we can reduce or eliminate the amount of lead that we leave in the field as far as ammunition is concerned.

Putting science in quotes also shows your general disregard for the scientific community, and unwillingness to accept a large body of well-researched evidence. With that being said, there's really no reason to move forward with any hopes of well-reasoned dialogue. I think at this point we've arrived at the junction of "agree to disagree". I still respect your opinion, and appreciate your depth and breadth of knowledge regarding ballistics.

 

[Rick M.]

First, I didn’t claim this is my only source of information.

Yet that's the only "source" that you provided to back up your reasoning for why you "don’t buy into the lead tainted meat propaganda".

First, most lead poisoning occurs from organic based lead and aerosolized lead. Lead used in bullets is inorganic and stable. It gets passed through pretty quick.

Again... let's try to refrain from making these types of statements without backing them up with data, otherwise they are essentially meaningless. I've posted several studies that directly contradict this claim. Let me reiterate that we are not talking about acute lead poisoning here, we are talking about adverse effects over time.

I'm open to reading actual scientific outcomes on your claim, but you failed to provide any...

 

[Drenalin]

Funny how data from scientists, DNRs, and university departments are "propaganda", but an article from some dude on a hunting site is your preferred single source of truth.

The "some dude" in this instance is a research scientist, Jim Heffelfinger. In the article, he references several studies (though he doesn't provide links to them). Carry on.

 

[Rick M.]

The "some dude" in this instance is a research scientist, Jim Heffelfinger. In the article, he references several studies (though he doesn't provide links to them). Carry on.

Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[amassi]

Yes. It's dismissive to make statements that assert there's no real issue or negative relationship between raptors and lead, or humans and lead, while providing absolutely no data or research of their own, yet dismissing data / research provided from multiple external sources. Again, it's one thing to have an opinion that raptors / condors aren't being killed via lead poisoning, or that lead is good for humans, but it's altogether different to assert it as fact without any foundational support. The "just trust me" system in a nonstarter for me.


I don't know, but I'd love to read some data if you've got it. Hopefully you're not about to tell me that it's made zero difference, provide no data / research supporting it, and expect me to absorb it as fact?



Enlighten me. Please.



What straw man? You're the one positing questions as a way to prove a point. I'm literally the only single person in this thread that has posted any legitimate data... everyone that has come out against it has been anecdotal or whataboutist. Absolutely nothing of substance.

Form, I would absolutely love to read over any research you've been a part of or are aware of that may shed light on both human / lead interaction as well as raptor / lead or raptor / turbine or raptor / lawn gnomes interactions that may further educate me on the subject. However, and with all do respect, when all you say is "I've been involved with... " and "I've heard it stated by x..." it's going to be difficult to take you seriously. I hope that's understandable.

Please, for the love of god, show me some data. Otherwise, what I've presented is all we've got, regardless of the holes you may want to poke in it. You don't trust multiple DNRs? Multiple separate university departments across several continents? All coming to the same conclusions with visual references and statistical data? Well, then maybe truth just isn't what you're after.

Let me Google that for you, Grundy...


Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969722011093?via=ihub

Surely there's no background lead in Europe from 2 world wars and the 500 years of cannon and musket war preceeding those calamities.

Condors have been extinct in the California wild for 40 years. The remaining birds don't survive in their own so southern CA is essentially a condor zoo.

Also the 70% of California with no condors is also under a lead ban. The raptor population that live in those areas have not increased during the ban, but decreased due to the prevelance of energy projects.

 

[amassi]

Just recognize that hammer bullets bcs are way lower than what is advertised on the website.

Steve from Hammer told me bc doesn't matter and brian litz doesn't know how to measure it. We're they incorrect?

 

[Billy Goat]

And everybody has a PhD in Wildlife Biology and Population Dynamics....

Well it is a hunting forum, I'm sure a few work in wildlife bio.



I'll agree it does seem like we have a lot of Doctors and Political tho.

 

[Rick M.]

Surely there's no background lead in Europe from 2 world wars and the 500 years of cannon and musket war preceeding those calamities.

 

[amassi]

View attachment 485846

The Greeks also used a s ton of lead. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Flyjunky]

Funny how data from scientists, DNRs, and university departments are "propaganda", but an article from some dude on a hunting site is your preferred single source of truth.

Yeah, we certainly haven’t seen any propaganda and self-serving science come from universities and scientists over the last 2 years…cough, Covid, cough.

DNR’s haven’t ever done the same thing, nah, never…..cough, salmon/steelhead, cough, wolves, cough, cougars, cough. These are all in my neck of the woods.

 

[Rick M.]

Surely there's no background lead in Europe from 2 world wars and the 500 years of cannon and musket war preceeding those calamities.

I just don't understand your though process behind making that statement. Can you elaborate? The study literally centered around finding modern lead fragments from hunting ammunition in dead and dying birds. You realize they can tell the difference, right? Were you being intentionally obtuse, or do you really think that your comment somehow discredited the study? Serious question.

 

[Flyjunky]

Steve from Hammer told me bc doesn't matter and brian litz doesn't know how to measure it. We're they incorrect?

Are you serious he said that? A bullet manufacturer saying bc doesn’t matter?

That pretty much seals the deal that if I ever decide to shoot mono it will never be a Hammer.

 

[Rick M.]

Yeah, we certainly haven’t seen any propaganda and self-serving science come from universities and scientists over the last 2 years…cough, Covid, cough.

DNR’s haven’t ever done the same thing, nah, never…..cough, salmon/steelhead, cough, wolves, cough, cougars, cough.

I don't follow the logic of continuously using covid as a escape hatch for critical thinking. Do you just type "covid, cough, covid" and then you're suddenly released from the burdens of critical analysis or sound argument? That must make for a blissfully ignorant existence.

I'll bite, though.

Give me a single, concrete example of universities / scientists putting out any Covid-related propaganda or "self-serving" science. There should be a plethora to choose from since this seems to be a common theme. I'm only asking for one. Then, please tell me how that relates to copper ammunition, lead in the environment, and the harmful effects of lead in both humans and wildlife.

Also, please provide an example of a decision made by a DNR regarding each of the following:

• Salmon / Steelhead
• Wolves
• Cougars

That were actually decided upon by the DNR themselves, without interference from a lawsuit / outside entity, and why you feel more qualified than they do to make those decisions.

If you can't be bothered to do that, then I can't take you seriously, and you really have nothing to add to the conversation other than jaded, tiresome, populist themes.

 

[Rick M.]

@Formidilosus

From the study I linked - section 3.3

3.3. Comparison of the post-ban proportion of raptors with clinical concentrations of lead in the liver in Denmark with expected values based upon the logistic model of data from countries without a complete ban​

We used Model 5, which includes data on liver levels of lead from countries without a ban on the use of lead shotgun ammunition for all hunting, to calculate expected values of PPb for Denmark for the 124 raptors of ten species sampled there by Kanstrup et al. (2019) after use of lead shotgun ammunition for hunting was banned in Denmark. Kanstrup et al. (2019) found that liver lead did not exceed the threshold for clinical effects in any of the birds sampled. The number of clinical cases expected from this sample, based upon Model 5 fitted to data from countries without a ban, was 3.77 cases (Table 3). The Poisson probability of observing no clinical cases if the expected number is 3.77 is 0.023. Hence, this result indicates that the prevalence of clinical levels of lead in the livers of raptors in Denmark after the ban was lower than that expected from the regression model of prevalences in countries without such a ban, including results from Denmark before the ban.

Source for reference: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969722011093?via=ihub

There's your requested data that not using lead ammunition has resulted in lower levels of lead toxicity in raptors. I realize it's not specifically for Arizona or California, but it's still relevant data / research that may be helpful.

 

[fngTony]

The nonsense is getting a little too strong with this one.

 

[amassi]

Are you serious he said that? A bullet manufacturer saying bc doesn’t matter?

That pretty much seals the deal that if I ever decide to shoot mono it will never be a Hammer.

Multiple times. At this very moment on longe range hunting forum aka hammertime 2.0 there's a lively conversation about how bc doesn't matter, or isn't real, or can't be calculated on hp bullets or bullets with custom boat tails.

 

[Rick M.]

These just got here today. My first batch of Hammers. Going to put them to the test in a couple of weeks.