WSJ - Lead Ammo Study and Eagle, Posted Feb 17, 2022

[Marble]

@EastHumboldt They say that because both species are not threatened and have growing populations.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[Marble]

I just read an article on Yahoo discussing this same study. For most people that read it, they will come away thinking eagles are dying in large numbers because of hunters.


Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[Zeke6951]

Where are all these hunters hitting the animals that have lead in gut pile? I don't gun hunt anymore, but when I did I tried to avoid the guts. Most of the times I got passthroughs.

 

[QuackAttack]

These people simply want to ban hunting. There is no arguing facts with them as they don’t care about eagles. It’s about stopping you from hunting.


Call them liars and move on.

 

[EastHumboldt]

Because in reality amount of lead that I put back into the earth, remember it’s a natural occurring element, is minuscule compared to the level that industries and probably even even your common household put on there.

Why does lead only affect eagles? Seems like no one gives a shit about vultures or crows.

And since you’re trying to bring the emotional argument of we’re poisoning our planet why don’t you to do your part and immediately park your vehicle and never drive again.
Also you need to stop using and rid your house of all plastics. Come on man stop poisoning the planet. Why wouldn’t you???

Do it for the children and the planet. You have to do your part first.

I do as much as I can on all the fronts you mention. But apparently if I say anything about it, I’m a virtue signaling granola munching libtard who wants to stop you from hunting.

I am reacting to an attitude that I see frequently on the Internet. I see plenty of it on this forum. It seems that often, quite often, if someone mentions anything About living in a way that tries to minimize impact on the natural world,They get dismissed and/or attacked. I said what I said, but I don’t see much point in saying anymore here.

 

[Formidilosus]

I am reacting to an attitude that I see frequently on the Internet. I see plenty of it on this forum. It seems that often, quite often, if someone mentions anything About living in a way that tries to minimize impact on the natural world,They get dismissed and/or attacked. I said what I said, but I don’t see much point in saying anymore here.

Because the “lead ammo and eagles” is not in any way, at any level about saving birds excepting maybe a couple of the very lowest level people. It is rooted 100% in an anti gun, and to a smaller part an anti hunting base. One can find my comments about this going back years with the history of the “lead free” projectiles in the military, and it’s juxtaposition into the hunting world. I said years ago that it will spread and it will be pushed on a wide scale, despite the lead free situation of California, and the “98% voluntary compliance” of the Arizona Strip- having no effect of raptor mortality.
The reality is that lead in bullets is not a major or minor cause of raptor mortality- if these groups were actually about raptor mortality they would be going after what factually causes raptor mortality. Anything else is disingenuous and false.


The “why won’t people do this one little thing if it helps just one bird”, is a dangerous and predictive path to totalitarianism and is first used by groups as an emotional hook for a subject that is not clear and true.

 

[406life]

Because the “lead ammo and eagles” is not in any way, at any level about saving birds excepting maybe a couple of the very lowest level people. It is rooted 100% in an anti gun, and to a smaller part an anti hunting base. One can find my comments about this going back years with the history of the “lead free” projectiles in the military, and it’s juxtaposition into the hunting world. I said years ago that it will spread and it will be pushed on a wide scale, despite the lead free situation of California, and the “98% voluntary compliance” of the Arizona Strip- having no effect of raptor mortality.
The reality is that lead in bullets is not a major or minor cause of raptor mortality- if these groups were actually about raptor mortality they would be going after what factually causes raptor mortality. Anything else is disingenuous and false.


The “why won’t people do this one little thing if it helps just one bird”, is a dangerous and predictive path to totalitarianism and is first used by groups as an emotional hook for a subject that is not clear and true.

I'd encourage you to listen to the first episode on my podcast, its all about hunters leading with non-lead ammunition.

I've hunted lead free for many years now. I've done the research on golden eagles and worked with others who have also conducted these studies and lead toxicity is a problem that is at least the western half of the NA continent wide. My call for hunters to switch to lead free is not about gun control at all, but rather a way to elevate your conservation ethic. For a minimal cost, you could have a significant impact. There are plenty of studies now on lead showing its impact if one wanted to read them. Citing them here to be dismissed out of hand isn't helpful to the cause. Yet the social capital to be gained by hunters by voluntarily switching would be a rare gain. We've seen recently what social cost there is for legal and regulated hunting of wolves north of YNP, and we have to ask if its worth to to hold on to something at all costs. Frankly, I see no win in holding out on using lead ammunition, but I do see the possibilities of increased hunter acceptance by the public when we make changes because its better for something other than the game we pursue.

 

[Formidilosus]

I'd encourage you to listen to the first episode on my podcast, its all about hunters leading with non-lead ammunition.

One simple question with a direct answer- has California’s ban on lead ammo dramatically or measurably changed raptor lead levels with no other factors involved or caused? Has the “voluntary use of lead free” by nearly everyone in the Arizona strip dramatically and measurably changed raptor lead levels with no other factors involved or caused?

Again a I am not asking about “maybe”, “ I think”, “I feel”, “why not”, or any other nonsense emotional, illogical ploy. I am asking directly and plainly if the lead ban for hunting has had a measurable and direct impact on the raptors with no other factors involved? If so, please cite.

 

[Cameron.25]

Ive seen bald eagles on a carcass before as well. I also am in the camp that i see no reason to ban lead bullets over it tho. I like copper bullets anyway but i also like bergers, i agree this mostly seems like just more gun control BS to me

 

[QuackAttack]

I'd encourage you to listen to the first episode on my podcast, its all about hunters leading with non-lead ammunition.

I've hunted lead free for many years now. I've done the research on golden eagles and worked with others who have also conducted these studies and lead toxicity is a problem that is at least the western half of the NA continent wide. My call for hunters to switch to lead free is not about gun control at all, but rather a way to elevate your conservation ethic. For a minimal cost, you could have a significant impact. There are plenty of studies now on lead showing its impact if one wanted to read them. Citing them here to be dismissed out of hand isn't helpful to the cause. Yet the social capital to be gained by hunters by voluntarily switching would be a rare gain. We've seen recently what social cost there is for legal and regulated hunting of wolves north of YNP, and we have to ask if its worth to to hold on to something at all costs. Frankly, I see no win in holding out on using lead ammunition, but I do see the possibilities of increased hunter acceptance by the public when we make changes because its better for something other than the game we pursue.

There is no social capital to be gained with liars that viscerally despise you. The people behind this are psychopaths that value the life of a wolf above that of a baby.

They are lying on this issue. Call them liars, attack their character as it’s vile, and polarise them as the mentally unwell children they are.


You can not reason with unreasonable people. Stop trying…

 

[OMB]

I thought the same thing. I live near a river, and in the winter, I can see 20+ eagles at one time perched in the trees along the river.

I shot a deer several years ago and left the guts in the middle of a field, and there were 5 eagles on it the next day. However, there wasn't any lead in the guts...

Hell, get out near a large hog operation where they discard dead piglets or a big dairy operation spreading manure in the winter, I've seen well over 100 eagles in one field scavenging. There's absolutely no lack of bald eagles in the Upper Mississippi river valley.

 

[displacedtexan]

Turkey vultures have a different system than eagles. Their tolerance to lead is extremely high in comparison. They’re not the right animal to compare with eagles. In my opinion, the country should be working towards affordable non-toxic shot and bullets. We just aren’t there yet and there has not been enough of a movement from shooters or hunters for companies to make the investment in it. In all reality, I feel like if copper performed as well as lead and was similar price-wise, 95% of people would switch immediately. But that could just be my own perspective of the issue.

In my (admittedly limited) experience shooting traditional jacketed lead soft points and mono copper into ballistic gelatin...

The copper clearly penetrates better, retains more weight, and expands more consistently.

In proportion to the increase of cost? That's far less obvious.

 

[def90]

Where they getting it? Carrion? Fish?

I see bald eagles daily and we have steel shot rules for ducks.

Bunch of BS

The argument would be bullet fragments in game animals that are shot and not recovered as well as gut piles.

 

[JjamesIII]

Sharing a few paragraphs I found interesting if others aren’t subscribers…

Across North America, bald eagle population growth rates are being suppressed by 3.8% because of lead exposure, according to a study published Thursday in the journal Science. Continentwide, golden eagles’ population growth, too, is being stunted by almost 1%.

“A lead fragment the size of a grain of rice is enough to kill an eagle,” said Krysten Schuler, a Cornell University wildlife disease ecologist who wasn’t involved in the new study, adding, “This is an anthropogenic source of mortality for eagles.”

The U.S.’s bald eagle population, which numbers around 316,000 in the Lower 48 states, is growing 10% annually, so the 4% growth rate suppression shown in the new study isn’t as concerning as the trend noted in golden eagle populations, according to Vince Slabe, a research wildlife biologist at Conservation Science Global, a New Jersey-based nonprofit, and co-author of the new study.

The researchers said there are roughly 36,000 golden eagles in the Lower 48 states.

After eagles ingest lead, acid in their stomachs breaks the neurotoxin down: The lead moves into the bloodstream, then into soft tissues like the liver and finally accumulates in the animals’ bones. Bone samples, collected from the femurs of dead eagles, can reveal chronic lead poisoning that recurs throughout an animal’s lifetime.

The study authors found that up to 33% of the bald eagles and up to 35% of the golden eagles they looked at showed signs of acute poisoning. Almost 50% of the 448 dead bald and golden eagles they sampled had bone lead concentra-tions above the threshold that veterinary pathologists classify as indicative of clinical poisoning.

The study authors found that up to 33% of the bald eagles and up to 35% of the golden eagles they looked at showed signs of acute poisoning. Almost 50% of the 448 dead bald and golden eagles they sampled had bone lead concentra-tions above the threshold that veterinary pathologists classify as indicative of clinical poisoning.

The study authors found that up to 33% of the bald eagles and up to 35% of the golden eagles they looked at showed signs of acute poisoning. Almost 50% of the 448 dead bald and golden eagles they sampled had bone lead concentra-tions above the threshold that veterinary pathologists classify as indicative of clinical poisoning.
Copper ammunition is more expensive than lead, Mr. Oliva said, adding that if hunters have concerns, they can also bury gut piles or field-dress animals out of the woods.

I’m seeing so many more eagles in Ohio in the last five years, soon they will be as numerous as our red tailed hawks. Definitely not concerned about a presumed loss of 3% of eagles. The days of ddt are over, bird populations are recovering most everywhere. Lead is not an issue for the ones that aren’t doing well. This tired argument echoes that of the California condors.

 

[Bubblehide]

One simple question with a direct answer- has California’s ban on lead ammo dramatically or measurably changed raptor lead levels with no other factors involved or caused? Has the “voluntary use of lead free” by nearly everyone in the Arizona strip dramatically and measurably changed raptor lead levels with no other factors involved or caused?

Again a I am not asking about “maybe”, “ I think”, “I feel”, “why not”, or any other nonsense emotional, illogical ploy. I am asking directly and plainly if the lead ban for hunting has had a measurable and direct impact on the raptors with no other factors involved? If so, please cite.

Based on their studies the clear answer is no. They have no actual evidence bullets are the source. Bullets being the source is just their opinion. They have tried to point to isotope typing as supposed confirmation, but that is simply a correlation. Considering thousands of products are made from the lead taken from just one plant (source), and the fact that lead occurs naturally in the environment, the idea of stating bullets is the source, is simply junk science, and not science at all, considering they have zero evidence.

 

[Formidilosus]

Based on their studies the clear answer is no. They have no actual evidence bullets are the source. Bullets being the source is just their opinion. They have tried to point to isotope typing as supposed confirmation, but that is simply a correlation. Considering thousands of products are made from the lead taken from just one plant (source), and the fact that lead occurs naturally in the environment, the idea of stating bullets is the source, is simply junk science, and not science at all, considering they have zero evidence.

Correct. It’s a joke at all levels. If lead projectiles was any issue at all I wouldn’t shoot them. I have an ingrained aversion to being lied to, and this is a subject that is fundamentally based on a lie.

 

[displacedtexan]

The argument would be bullet fragments in game animals that are shot and not recovered as well as gut piles.

Also when a lead bullet expands, lots of small pieces of lead come off and disperse all around the wound channel.

 

[Formidilosus]

Also when a lead bullet expands, lots of small pieces of lead come off and disperse all around the wound channel.

How far from the center of the wound channel do lead fragments travel?

 

[Tod osier]

How far from the center of the wound channel do lead fragments travel?

Grund et al. 2010 found lead fragments up to 18 inches from the center of the would channel. Fragments could have been travelling further, but the sampling design stopped at 45 cm.

 

[Bubblehide]

Grund et al. 2010 found lead fragments up to 18 inches from the center of the would channel. Fragments could have been travelling further, but the sampling design stopped at 45 cm.

So very poor shot placement, right?
Did they mention the percentage of animals at different depth intervals?