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

[Grundy53]

Oh, hell no let's not confuse doing the best we can when we can with stopping their march.

However IMO, doing the best we can when we can is acknowledging lead is an issue and if it slows the March even a little bit, that's something we can do as hunters to support the health of our overall sport.

Antis don't give a shit about wind farms or other things that are harmful to animals. They just care about what WE do that's harmful for animals. Even if the lead issue is 1000th on the list of issues affecting overall wildlife of all types, why would I want to do anything to give them reason to make it into their top 10.

You know what we do that's really harmful to animals? We shoot them. I'm thinking shooting them with a special bullet won't change anything.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

 

[JGRaider]

This is why it devolves- what you wrote above is bullshit. I’m stating it plainly so my meaning is understood.

If it was about “knowing better” or because you “care” about the animals- you wouldn’t be shooting them. You wouldn’t shoot coyotes, bobcats, mountain lions, bears, skunks, badgers- or any other predator because they’re predators. You wouldn’t shoot prairie dogs and ground squirrels for fun. You wouldn’t fish and then throw them back. You wouldn’t drive a car, use synthetic clothing, use oils, chemicals, or pesticides. You wouldn’t use bleach, you wouldn’t be ok with pharmaceuticals, birth control, planes, trains, automobiles, manufactured rubber or plastic, wind mills, coal, or electric cars.

The problem with all of the lead discussions is that it is a bad faith discussion. I have sat in meetings and briefings about “lead bullet bad” way before anyone here even heard about it, I can almost assure you.
It’s not about “the poor eagles”- that’s an emotional hook, that people who also clamber for solar panels everywhere and veganism push- things that result in millions of more death to wildlife than about anything next in line.

Very well said Form, much better than I can. Kudos for a spot on and accurate assessment.

 

[flathead#2]

Lead. Because it works and I havent seen any reason to change.

 

[35WhelenAI]

In this group we have more in common than we don't, that's why we're here. Keep on looking at the big picture, pick the things that we can stand behind and keep fighting the good fight, which is not about bullets. It's about a much bigger and dark agenda with respect to what we value and defend on this forum.

 

[TexasHTR]

Oh, hell no let's not confuse doing the best we can when we can with stopping their march.

However IMO, doing the best we can when we can is acknowledging lead is an issue and if it slows the March even a little bit, that's something we can do as hunters to support the health of our overall sport, our rights/privileges
and each other.

Antis don't give a shit about wind farms or other things that are harmful to animals. They just care about what WE do that's harmful for animals. Even if the lead issue is 1000th on the list of issues affecting overall wildlife of all types, why would I want to do anything to give them reason to make it into their top 10.

Because it wastes their time on something dumb. Let them waste time and energy on banning lead instead of banning hunting. Once they win the lead argument they will be able to fight more core issues. Go ahead and fight them on everything so it bogs down the overall march towards no hunting. I say fight every little thing they want to remove. I believe they will eventually ban hunting so fight every dumb thing they want to pick on. Concessions won’t appease them. They won’t say “these guys are smart and reasonable for banning lead, let’s let them keep hunting.” Nope. They will just move on to the next battle.

 

[Igloo]

None of the "we do a lot that harms animals" line of argument invalidates measures to redude that harm.

Really not concerned about human exposure to lead from lead cored hunting bullets at all, but the "hunter as a conservationist" part of me knows I'm doing easily avoidable harm to scavengers feeding off of gutpiles, etc.

"You shot an animal therefore you shouldn't care about harming them" is fallacious in the extreme. But that said, I don't feel like I am losing any killing ability with what I do with monos, they're a buck a pull and I ain't shooting a thousand of them a year, and I wouldn't impose that view on others in the form of legislation etc.

 

[JGRaider]

Point us to the data that proves we have fewer scavengers today due to lead poisoning from bullets please. I've asked the same question many times before and have gotten nothing, zero, nada.

 

[Igloo]

Point us to the data that proves we have fewer scavengers today due to lead poisoning from bullets please. I've asked the same question many times before and have gotten nothing, zero, nada.

I am unware of any studies that show there are *less* overall, but how would one show that? It would be a pretty tough experiment/study to run.

That said I have a few done locally that certainly show spikes in blood lead during/after moose season. Unless that is beneficial (hard sell, considering its very well established how little lead it takes to really jack up a bird) I have to ask WHY anyone would have to do a study showing that there are less overall to prove harm?

I'll be happy to post them if you feel like you can demonstrate that we grossly overestimate the effects of lead on avians.

The benchmark of "we have to prove there are LESS today" does not dismiss the possibility that I/we are doing avoidable harm in any way at all.

 

[JGRaider]

You made the statement that scavengers are in harms way due to lead in gut piles from bullets so you must have something to back it up. Prove it and then you may get taken seriously. Otherwise that argument is laughable.

 

[Igloo]

You made the statement that scavengers are in harms way due to lead in gut piles from bullets so you must have something to back it up. Prove it and then you may get taken seriously. Otherwise that argument is laughable.

What do you want me to post? Are we stuck on "demonstrate somehow that there are less than before" (you ignored the question of how that could even be demonstrated across species) or is "there is a clear link between hunting seasons and high blood lead concentrations" good enough. In which case it would be up to you to show how rising blood lead concentrations do NOT hurt scavenging avians.

If that works for you, posting won't be a problem. I have quite a bit of material. But you ARE going to have to show that they do fine with elevated blood lead levels.

 

[Pony Soldier]

Frankly after the amount of meat I have lost to ravens over the years as well as coyotes, I would welcome an opportunity to thin their ranks.

The 3,600 eagles killed on the rez for their feathers recently certainly has more effect than I could ever make.

 

[Igloo]

Frankly after the amount of meat I have lost to ravens over the years as well as coyotes, I would welcome an opportunity to thin their ranks.

The 3,600 eagles killed on the rez for their feathers recently certainly has more effect than I could ever make.

Thats what I mean about my version of "the hunter as a conservationist"...YMMV.

As for the eagles killed on a Rez, while its shameful its also Whataboutism. You cannot control what they do. Their wrongdoing does not justify doing same. Again, YMMV.

 

[fwafwow]

You made the statement that scavengers are in harms way due to lead in gut piles from bullets so you must have something to back it up. Prove it and then you may get taken seriously. Otherwise that argument is laughable.

I use lead bullets, fwiw.

But I think another way to say what @Igloo is saying is this. What if the overall population of raptors (or whatever scavenger you want to select) is stable, or even higher than it has been in many years, and that use of lead is (assume for this hypo) also constant or higher than it has been in years. Those are factors are correlated, but the population level doesn't indicate that lead IS NOT harmful to raptors. That would be causation. What if, again for arguments sake, that absent lead in gut piles, that the raptor population would be even higher than it is currently?

Anyway, I also appreciate the skepticism, as I don't believe as much as I used to. If lead-ban proponents are making the argument based on harm to raptors, there should be a way to demonstrate that harm. I just don't think that a high population level is a definitive rebuttal of that argument. FWIW.

 

[Igloo]

I use lead bullets, fwiw.

But I think another way to say what @Igloo is saying is this. What if the overall population of raptors (or whatever scavenger you want to select) is stable, or even higher than it has been in many years, and that use of lead is (assume for this hypo) also constant or higher than it has been in years. Those are factors that are correlated, but the population level doesn't indicate that lead IS NOT harmful to raptors. That would be causation. What if, again for arguments sake, that absent lead in gut piles, that the raptor population would be even higher than it is currently?

Anyway, I also appreciate the skepticism, as I don't believe as much as I used to. If lead-ban proponents are making the argument based on harm to raptors, there should be a way to demonstrate that harm. I just don't think that a
high population level is a definitive rebuttal of that argument. FWIW.

Thank you, very well said.

 

[TexasHTR]

I am unware of any studies that show there are *less* overall, but how would one show that? It would be a pretty tough experiment/study to run.

That said I have a few done locally that certainly show spikes in blood lead during/after moose season. Unless that is beneficial (hard sell, considering its very well established how little lead it takes to really jack up a bird) I have to ask WHY anyone would have to do a study showing that there are less overall to prove harm?

I'll be happy to post them if you feel like you can demonstrate that we grossly overestimate the effects of lead on avians.

The benchmark of "we have to prove there are LESS today" does not dismiss the possibility that I/we are doing avoidable harm in any way at

Because it wastes their time on something dumb. Let them waste time and energy on banning lead instead of banning hunting. Once they win the lead argument they will be able to fight more core issues. Go ahead and fight them on everything so it bogs down the overall march towards no hunting. I say fight every little thing they want to remove. I believe they will eventually ban hunting so fight every dumb thing they want to pick on. Concessions won’t appease them. They won’t say “these guys are smart and reasonable for banning lead, let’s let them keep hunting.” Nope. They will just move on to the next battle.

I know I said the lead thing is “dumb” but it’s one of the most strategic battles in hunting and shooting sports. A ban on lead ammo prices lots of folks out of the game. It will become a tax on shooting sports and hunting. Nothing shuts down something quicker than making it super expensive. So if it’s not causing population level declines of scavengers/raptors, the focus should be somewhere else. A quick google search shows raptors main causes of mortality are collisions with man made objects. Getting straight up illegally shot is way way higher up the list of mortality than lead poisoning by ingestion. I’d bet someone plowing a deer with their f150 to a hunting area and then a vulture feasting on the roadkill and subsequent getting smoked by a Prius is much higher up the list of mortality than lead poisoning.

 

[Formidilosus]

None of the "we do a lot that harms animals" line of argument invalidates measures to redude that harm.

In areas that ban lead bullet use, are the raptors or condors still having issues? In other words- CA banned lead ammo- are the condors good now?

The Kaibab has a nearly 90% voluntary lead free use by hunters, yet lead poisoning in the raptors hasn’t changed…. Hmmmm. Could it be possible that it isn’t from lead bullets? And, being that most are using lead free, and being that the birds still are having issues- why aren’t the “we live birds” people trying to actually find what’s causing it? Why, if all the things that harms birds- it’s always bullets- with very shaky, or no data that supports it.




So a near 90% (or higher) lead free use- you know hunters “giving a little”, and still-

Appeals court again shoots down attempt to ban hunters' use of lead shot

The U.S. Forest Service cannot be required to prohibit the use of lead shot by hunters in the Kaibab National Forest, a practice that environmentalists say can poison and kill wildlife, including critically endangered California condors.

cronkitenews.azpbs.org

 

[Igloo]

Yes, but I cannot control the actions of the F150 driver or the Prius driver. I can cantrol what ammunition goes into my firearm. That is more whataboutism.

And I did point out I am NOT in favour of making you use anything against your choice through legislation.

 

[Igloo]

In areas that ban lead bullet use, are the raptors or condors still having issues? In other words- CA banned lead ammo- are the condors good now?

The Kaibab has a nearly 90% voluntary lead free use by hunters, yet lead poisoning in the raptors hasn’t changed…. Hmmmm. Could it be possible that it isn’t from lead bullets? And, being that most are using lead free, and being that the birds still are having issues- why aren’t the “we live birds” people trying to actually find what’s causing it? Why, if all the things that harms birds- it’s always bullets- with very shaky, or no data that supports it.




So a near 90% (or higher) lead free use- you know hunters “giving a little”, and still-

Appeals court again shoots down attempt to ban hunters' use of lead shot

The U.S. Forest Service cannot be required to prohibit the use of lead shot by hunters in the Kaibab National Forest, a practice that environmentalists say can poison and kill wildlife, including critically endangered California condors.

cronkitenews.azpbs.org

I don't know enough about the California Condor situation to say, tbh. Never studied it or worked there. Here's something closer to home, to illustrate that regardless of what is happening in California, strong arguments can be shown that lead intake in birds spikes dramatically around hunting seasons. What could be driving the sudden, severe increases in blood lead concentrations that coincide with moose season, and actually increase and decrease according to the success of that year's hunting? If its not bullet lead...

Is lead good or bad for them?

High Risk of Lead Contamination for Scavengers in an Area with High Moose Hunting Success

Top predators and scavengers are vulnerable to pollutants, particularly those accumulated along the food chain. Lead accumulation can induce severe disorders and alter survival both in mammals (including humans) and in birds. A potential source of lead ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A potential source of lead poisoning in wild animals, and especially in scavengers, results from the consumption of ammunition residues in the tissues of big game killed by hunters. For two consecutive years we quantified the level lead exposure in individuals of a sentinel scavenger species, the common raven (Corvus corax), captured during the moose (Alces alces) hunting season in eastern Quebec, Canada. The source of the lead contamination was also determined using stable isotope analyses. Finally, we identified the different scavenger species that could potentially be exposed to lead by installing automatic cameras targeting moose gut piles. Blood lead concentration in ravens increased over time, indicating lead accumulation over the moose-hunting season. Using a contamination threshold of 100 µg.L−1, more than 50% of individuals were lead-contaminated during the moose hunting period. Lead concentration was twice as high in one year compared to the other, matching the number of rifle-shot moose in the area. Non-contaminated birds exhibited no ammunition isotope signatures. The isotope signature of the lead detected in contaminated ravens tended towards the signature from lead ammunition.

 

[wyosam]

Point us to the data that proves we have fewer scavengers today due to lead poisoning from bullets please. I've asked the same question many times before and have gotten nothing, zero, nada.

It would be hard to show a decrease, since there was not any data collected prior to widespread use of lead to take game. Negative effects of lead on raptors are well documented. Here is one of many- lots of studies targeting specifically areas with concentrated game harvest. I recall one that looked at the area just north of Yellowstone when there used to be a large winter elk harvest there.

Groundbreaking Study Finds Widespread Lead Poisoning in Bald and Golden Eagles | U.S. Geological Survey

A first-of-its-kind, eight-year study has found widespread and frequent lead poisoning in North American bald and golden eagles impacting both species’ populations.

www.usgs.gov

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TexasHTR]

Yes, but I cannot control the actions of the F150 driver or the Prius driver. I can cantrol what ammunition goes into my firearm. That is more whataboutism.

And I did point out I am NOT in favour of making you use anything against your choice through legislation.

I didn’t mean to quote you directly in my last post. Sorry about that. I shoot monos and lead. I also fish with lead and tungsten. I also shoot pointy sticks at animals which are likely much less “effective” than monos. I just generally believe in not giving an inch if the data doesn’t show conclusive evidence that the change is necessary.