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

[Bubblehide]

The fact that they (these supposed scientist) are not looking at identifying other sources of cause is very telling and a complete disservice to these birds and science.

 

[Bubblehide]

From the study "Majority of free-flying condors have a blood lead isotopic composition that is consistent with lead-based ammunition"

Yes they are correct, but what they don't say is that that isotope is not necessarily unique to the mine the bullets came from. They also don't tell us that many products are produced from the lead the mine produces, what those products are, where those products have been used, and if those products have ever been considered as a source of the poisonings.

 

[MattB]

Why would I care about compliance for a regulation that was passed based on a lie?

How would I know why you care?

 

[Bubblehide]

How would I know why you care?

That was not the question

 

[MattB]

That was not the question

Got to love internet chat boards, that was exactly the question.

 

[Bubblehide]

Got to love internet chat boards, that was exactly the question.

Not exactly, the why part was directly tied to "based on a lie". That right there changes the question, but then any reasonable person, including you knows that, right?

 

[JjamesIII]

To add: it’s obvious we can skew data to support most any argument. What is the true motive for the “study”. I’ve read other types of studies concerning lead bullets being bad for raptors. They all start with the premise of raptor advocates assuming lead bullets are the root cause of the decline in their pet bird’s populations, then they work backwards from that point - by tying in loose evidence to support their biased assumptions. Understating, or out-right ignoring, more important contributing factors.

It’s more of the tree hugger b.s that keeps popping up every few years. Eventually it will gain traction outside of California. All they need to do is get in the ear of a few more politicians that don’t look at the issue objectively. Hell, they might even knowingly realize the lead bullet issue is a stretch, but support it as an anti hunting or gun control agenda.

Food for thought, outside of raptors; Lead free waterfowl loads are said to be saving ducks and geese. I’d love to see if they ever took in account the countless number of birds that are flying off, crippled and dying, without the hunter’s knowledge. I’ve seen birds hit hard flying off, obviously hurt bad. I’m constantly finding ducks floating in public marshes. Geese soak up steel shot even more. Do they have the data for that? No, they don’t, no way of accurately collecting the numbers of birds actually lost due to using steel.
Lead works, we all know that. Their isn’t a cost effective alternative that matches it, in both ballistics and efficacy on taking game. The little bit we shoot in hunting is so insignificant compared to the major sources of industrial pollutants that are impacting our wildlife. Just look at the push for green cars and their battery packs- weighing 900 pounds! That’s a lot of heavy metals going into the landfill for the sake of a greener earth, lol

 

[cubdriver84d]

Found it.
" Directly linking an observed feeding and/or recovery of ingested ammunition fragment(s) from a lead-poisoned condor is uncommon, largely because condors can fly over 200 km and traverse their entire range in a single day (35), but their feeding episodes can last less than 1 h (36). Since 2007, in part because of increased efforts by condor biologists and veterinary staff, there have been six cases where a lead-containing metal fragment (or in one case, buckshot) was recovered from a lead-poisoned bird or a condor was observed feeding on a carcass that had been shot with lead-based ammunition. In all six of these cases, isotopic analysis showed that the fragments/ammunition and condor blood had highly similar (difference ≤ 0.22%) lead isotope ratios (207Pb/206Pb) (Fig. S3), establishing that the recovered lead-containing fragment (or ammunition from the carcass on which the bird was observed feeding) (22) was the cause of the lead poisoning."

This actually only links one bird to lead poising from buckshot. The other fragments were not identified as buck shot or a bullet, just simply fragments, perhaps lead based paint? Furthermore, one birds exposure, proven to be from ammunition, is not significant in a scientific basis. The fact is that they rely on isotope identification, which is exceptionally unreliable in identifying the actual source.

Again, since the lead ban in Ca (this is a Ca study), we should be seeing a significant drop in lead poisonings events "within the feathers" of condors; Plenty of time has elapsed to exhibit that, yet they present zero evidence of any reduction.

I would still like to hear a plausible hypothesis for how a condor or any other raptor could get a “lead-containing metal fragment” inside it from a source other than a lead bullet.

 

[Bubblehide]

I would still like to hear a plausible hypothesis for how a condor or any other raptor could get a “lead-containing metal fragment” inside it from a source other than a lead bullet.

I watched them in the past numerous time eating paint from metal roofs. That is one example. Ingesting pebbles naturally occuring in the environment. That is a second example.

You really should be reading both of these threads.

 

[cubdriver84d]

To add: it’s obvious we can skew data to support most any argument. What is the true motive for the “study”. I’ve read other types of studies concerning lead bullets being bad for raptors. They all start with the premise of raptor advocates assuming lead bullets are the root cause of the decline in their pet bird’s populations, then they work backwards from that point - by tying in loose evidence to support their biased assumptions. Understating, or out-right ignoring, more important contributing factors.

It’s more of the tree hugger b.s that keeps popping up every few years. Eventually it will gain traction outside of California. All they need to do is get in the ear of a few more politicians that don’t look at the issue objectively. Hell, they might even knowingly realize the lead bullet issue is a stretch, but support it as an anti hunting or gun control agenda.

Food for thought, outside of raptors; Lead free waterfowl loads are said to be saving ducks and geese. I’d love to see if they ever took in account the countless number of birds that are flying off, crippled and dying, without the hunter’s knowledge. I’ve seen birds hit hard flying off, obviously hurt bad. I’m constantly finding ducks floating in public marshes. Geese soak up steel shot even more. Do they have the data for that? No, they don’t, no way of accurately collecting the numbers of birds actually lost due to using steel.
Lead works, we all know that. Their isn’t a cost effective alternative that matches it, in both ballistics and efficacy on taking game. The little bit we shoot in hunting is so insignificant compared to the major sources of industrial pollutants that are impacting our wildlife. Just look at the push for green cars and their battery packs- weighing 900 pounds! That’s a lot of heavy metals going into the landfill for the sake of a greener earth, lol

I have met a lot of biologists who study wildlife of all sorts. A whole bunch of them are hunters and most of them at least have a firm understanding of the important role hunters play in wildlife management, which is often taught in entry level wildlife courses. The idea that most biologists who study wildlife have some anti hunting or anti gun agenda to push is kind of silly. News outlets that interpret research are another story of course.

 

[cubdriver84d]

I watched them in the past numerous time eating paint from metal roofs. That is one example. Ingesting pebbles naturally occuring in the environment. That is a second example.

You really should be reading both of these threads.

What species of raptor have you seen eating paint?

If you saw a pebble or a paint chip, would describe it as a “lead-containing metal fragment”?

 

[Bubblehide]

I have met a lot of biologists who study wildlife of all sorts. A whole bunch of them are hunters and most of them at least have a firm understanding of the important role hunters play in wildlife management, which is often taught in entry level wildlife courses. The idea that most biologists who study wildlife have some anti hunting or anti gun agenda to push is kind of silly. News outlets that interpret research are another story of course.

You need to keep up with the times, most biologists that study wildlife matters, are not hunters, they do not work for Fish and Wildlife agencies, they work for non profit organizations with agendas.

 

[cubdriver84d]

You need to keep up with the times, most biologists that study wildlife matters, are not hunters, they do not work for Fish and Wildlife agencies, they work for non profit organizations with agendas.

I’ve met a lot of biologists that work for non profits that are hunters or at least understand the role of hunting in wildlife management.

 

[Bubblehide]

What species of raptor have you seen eating paint?

If you saw a pebble or a paint chip, would describe it as a “lead-containing metal fragment”?

It is not a matter of how I would describe it, and you know that. It is how those phony researchers you look up to like Gods describe it. They could easily publish photographs of their samples within the body of their research, but do they?

 

[JjamesIII]

I have met a lot of biologists who study wildlife of all sorts. A whole bunch of them are hunters and most of them at least have a firm understanding of the important role hunters play in wildlife management, which is often taught in entry level wildlife courses. The idea that most biologists who study wildlife have some anti hunting or anti gun agenda to push is kind of silly. News outlets that interpret research are another story of course.

I love wild life biologists. The ones that study and release data that is unbiased and informative. We need them, and should value their work in managing our natural resources. I’m also good friends with a couple (pro-hunters pro-environmental advocates) and have met several more. I’ve seen all flavors- anti-hunting and pro hunting ones and in between.

The anti hunting ones I feel are disingenuous, for the fact that they are blinded by an emotional connection to their subjects. Science is not to be muddled in personal emotions. Some I’ve spoken to, I can tell aren’t crazy about hunters, but they did keep an open mind to our rights to use the resources. I respect that. I don’t expect everyone to like the idea of us out there killing animals.

 

[cubdriver84d]

It is not a matter of how I would describe it, and you know that. It is how those phony researchers you look up to like Gods describe it. They could easily publish photographs of their samples within the body of their research, but do they?

You could also email the corresponding author and ask for photographs rather then accusing them of violating their scientific integrity (and probably the scientific integrity polices of the organizations they work for).

And the answer to my other question?

 

[Tod osier]

You could also email the corresponding author and ask for photographs rather then accusing them of violating their scientific integrity (and probably the scientific integrity polices of the organizations they work for).

I'd go so far as to say if you contacted them with a real interest in understanding what they do that many of them would engage and tell you about their work especially if you had specific questions that their papers don't address. I'd even bet that some of these ivory tower experts are actually normal guys on hunting internet forums.

 

[Bubblehide]

You could also email the corresponding author and ask for photographs rather then accusing them of violating their scientific integrity (and probably the scientific integrity polices of the organizations they work for).

And the answer to my other question?

Where have I accused them of what you suggest?

 

[cubdriver84d]

Where have I accused them of what you suggest?

I guess you didn’t state it explicitly, but you seemed to imply something along the lines of the researchers might’ve not published photos because they knowingly did not accurately describe the fragments and that affected the findings of their research, which would likely be considered falsifying data. Apologies if I misinterpreted.

 

[Bubblehide]

I guess you didn’t state it explicitly, but you seemed to imply something along the lines of the researchers might’ve not published photos because they knowingly did not accurately describe the fragments and that affected the findings of their research, which would likely be considered falsifying data. Apologies if I misinterpreted.

They may or may not be falsifying data, I don't know. But they clearly are biased.

To answer your other question, Condors, many times, several different birds, based on their tags.