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

[JjamesIII]

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.

A red herring. The s.o.p. of the tree huggers since the 1970’s. Does lead ingestion occur in raptors from bullets, sure- totally possible. Is it the bane of their existence- highly unlikely. They have other contributing factors to worry about, but banning lead bullets is more for political leverage. Can you agree to that possible agenda?

 

[JjamesIII]

So, why are they targeting hunters specifically and not including eagles eating fish with lead sinkers in their guts? The wolf quota had been reached in Region 3 in MT, that had already been established. There's absolutely NOTHING the hunting community can do that will ever be considered good enough for the pro-wolf groups. Nothing. There's enough wolves, confirmed through camera studies, in Idaho alone to meet the entire ESA delisting requirement for the entire northern Rockies region. They still file suit after suit, most with public funding through the EAJA. Wolf numbers are growing, raptor populations are increasing, not decreasing. Name one instance where we have acquiesced to the antis demands and they have stopped there and not used it as a stepping stone to more restrictions.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

The tree huggers are definitely talking about lead sinkers. Woke lefty companies like Orvis are giving the idea traction. I heard them talking on a podcast. FYI- apparently catch and release fishing is bad also. We are being told to only catch and release a couple, then switch to less productive techniques/flies in order to catch and release less fish. Even with barbless hooks. Don’t dare hold a fish above the holy water either- you’ll kill them instantly.

 

[Tod osier]

Here in California, there have actually been studies showing that the birds have been getting lead poisoning from the old fire towers in the area that were painted with lead based paint.

https://www.pnas.org/content/109/28/11449#ref-38

Just to be clear, this is the same paper that says ammunition was the main problem in condors.

It seems that if the intent was to damage ammunition users as much as possible that the researchers would have withheld the small fire tower data set. Would have been easy enough to do if they were biased and not interested in telling the whole story to the best of their ability. Given the short format of the journal they were under extreme pressure to leave out anything they could - yet they left it in.

 

[FlyFishStout_CO]

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.

I'm originally from Iowa and would agree although I don't know what the population numbers are specifically. Visiting my folks over the holidays each year I'm astounded by the number of eagles perched up or in the fields over gut piles or road kill carcasses. I almost wonder if they are getting over populated in some areas?

 

[Bubblehide]

Just to be clear, this is the same paper that says ammunition was the main problem in condors.

It seems that if the intent was to damage ammunition users as much as possible that the researchers would have withheld the small fire tower data set. Would have been easy enough to do if they were biased and not interested in telling the whole story to the best of their ability. Given the short format of the journal they were under extreme pressure to leave out anything they could - yet they left it in.

Do you understand why they included that?

 

[jmez]

That's the thing, it's not a 3% loss. It's a 3% reduction in the growth rate of the population.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Actually no. Study says that a 3% reduction in growth rate of the population is possible based on statistical modeling.

 

[Tod osier]

Do you understand why they included that?

I would love to hear your take.

 

[Bubblehide]

I would love to hear your take.

They included it because the paint chips were a different isotope than the other lead fragments and the projectile. They believe that it points to bullets being the main source, or most will see it that way. However, it also exhibits their radical bias; simply put, it fits their agenda.

 

[Tod osier]

They included it because the paint chips were a different isotope than the other lead fragments and the projectile. They believe that it points to bullets being the main source, or most will see it that way. However, it also exhibits their radical bias; simply put, it fits their agenda.

That does not make sense to me, sorry, I can't see it.

 

[Bubblehide]

That does not make sense to me, sorry, I can't see it.

First and foremost, in science, if you have a hypothesis, you state it as a hypothesis until it is proven; they have failed in this matter, they state the source of all matching (bullet) lead as that of ammo as if it is a fact. The paint chips has been known and documented for decades. They happen to find a source with a different isotope. The unsaid implication is that the lead paint in general (i.e., all lead paint) is a different isotope, and therefore not related to the lead poisonings. What they do leave out of their discussion is a whole lot of past research exhibiting several different isotopes within differing paint samples, some matching the isotopes of bullet fragments; why?

Perhaps it is as simple as that information not aligning with their agenda?
There are a lot of past papers cited, I suggest, that if you have an interest in understanding this issue with an honest perspective, you start with reading each of those papers and do the same with what they cite.

 

[Tod osier]

First and foremost, in science, if you have a hypothesis, you state it as a hypothesis until it is proven; they have failed in this matter, they state the source of all matching (bullet) lead as that of ammo as if it is a fact. The paint chips has been known and documented for decades. They happen to find a source with a different isotope. The unsaid implication is that the lead paint in general (i.e., all lead paint) is a different isotope, and therefore not related to the lead poisonings. What they do leave out of their discussion is a whole lot of past research exhibiting several different isotopes within differing paint samples, some matching the isotopes of bullet fragments; why?

Perhaps it is as simple as that information not aligning with their agenda?
There are a lot of past papers cited, I suggest, that if you have an interest in understanding this issue with an honest perspective, you start with reading each of those papers and do the same with what they cite.

Thanks, I'll keep those suggestions in mind.

 

[cubdriver84d]

A red herring. The s.o.p. of the tree huggers since the 1970’s. Does lead ingestion occur in raptors from bullets, sure- totally possible. Is it the bane of their existence- highly unlikely. They have other contributing factors to worry about, but banning lead bullets is more for political leverage. Can you agree to that possible agenda?

Yes lots of sources of mortality for raptors on the landscape and lots of work goes into studying and mitigating those. A ban could certainly be used for political leverage and would just piss lots of people off. I’d hope that with the growing body of evidence that widespread use of lead bullets for hunting does have population level consequences for some species, good outreach and education on the topic will get folks thinking more carefully about the bullets they use. In theory, a ban isn’t necessary to substantially reduce the use of lead bullets.

 

[Bubblehide]

.... I’d hope that with the growing body of evidence that widespread use of lead bullets for hunting does have population level consequences for some species, good outreach and education on the topic will get folks thinking more carefully about the bullets they use. In theory, a ban isn’t necessary to substantially reduce the use of lead bullets.

Again, what growing body of evidence. You have nothing more than a correlation. Again a correlation is not considered acceptable evidence in science; it just gives a direction to further study, nothing more.

Once again, when ice cream consumption goes up, drownings increase, therefore consumption of ice cream causes drownings. That is virtually the same type of statement they are making, a correlational statement. The obvious reason drowning increase as consumption of ice cream increases is due to the fact that as temperatures rise, so does the number of people swimming (same for ice cream consumption), more people swimming equates to more drownings.

Thus, just because the lead ingested by raptors has the same isotope as bullets, it does not mean that the source IS bullets; it only means that the source could be bullets. But as they are disingenuous, so are you, as you are unwilling to accept the actual facts in this matter.

 

[cubdriver84d]

Again, what growing body of evidence. You have nothing more than a correlation. Again a correlation is not considered acceptable evidence in science; it just gives a direction to further study, nothing more.

Once again, when ice cream consumption goes up, drownings increase, therefore consumption of ice cream causes drownings. That is virtually the same type of statement they are making, a correlational statement. The obvious reason drowning increase as consumption of ice cream increases is due to the fact that as temperatures rise, so does the number of people swimming (same for ice cream consumption), more people swimming equates to more drownings.

Thus, just because the lead ingested by raptors has the same isotope as bullets, it does not mean that the source IS bullets; it only means that the source could be bullets. But as they are disingenuous, so are you, as you are unwilling to accept the actual facts in this matter.

Are you a scientist?

 

[cubdriver84d]

I’ll post this here again from the original study that got this thread started:

“Acute poisoning of both species was gener- ally higher in winter months, when bald and golden eagles commonly scavenge (3–5). Ele- vated lead concentrations in predatory and scavenging birds are usually caused by pri- mary lead poisoning, most frequently direct ingestion of lead fragments from ammunition (2, 12, 13). Use of lead in ammunition during hunting seasons corresponds directly, both spatially and temporally, with the feeding ecology of facultative scavengers such as bald and golden eagles (5, 14), a problem that has been studied extensively (5, 14, 15). Our data show a continent-wide temporal correspon- dence between acute lead poisoning of eagles and the use of lead ammunition.”

The data from the study are publicly available for anyone to investigate themselves (I posted this yesterday as well but seems to have been deleted for some reason): “Data underpinning this research are available at https://doi.org/10.5066/P9BXIY3B”

 

[Bubblehide]

Are you a scientist?

Do I sound like one?

 

[JjamesIII]

Yes lots of sources of mortality for raptors on the landscape and lots of work goes into studying and mitigating those. A ban could certainly be used for political leverage and would just piss lots of people off. I’d hope that with the growing body of evidence that widespread use of lead bullets for hunting does have population level consequences for some species, good outreach and education on the topic will get folks thinking more carefully about the bullets they use. In theory, a ban isn’t necessary to substantially reduce the use of lead bullets.

I’m going to stick with a common sense approach to this issue: Again, considering the low probability of the ingestion of my bullet by an eagle. Also considering their ever growing population in recent years, I will continue shoot jacketed lead bullets. Others may decide switching over to monolithic non lead alternatives is a worthwhile endeavor.

 

[Bubblehide]

I’ll post this here again from the original study that got this thread started:

“Acute poisoning of both species was gener- ally higher in winter months, when bald and golden eagles commonly scavenge (3–5). Ele- vated lead concentrations in predatory and scavenging birds are usually caused by pri- mary lead poisoning, most frequently direct ingestion of lead fragments from ammunition (2, 12, 13). Use of lead in ammunition during hunting seasons corresponds directly, both spatially and temporally, with the feeding ecology of facultative scavengers such as bald and golden eagles (5, 14), a problem that has been studied extensively (5, 14, 15). Our data show a continent-wide temporal correspon- dence between acute lead poisoning of eagles and the use of lead ammunition.”

The data from the study are publicly available for anyone to investigate themselves (I posted this yesterday as well but seems to have been deleted for some reason): “Data underpinning this research are available at https://doi.org/10.5066/P9BXIY3B”

Again, their link to ammo is anecdotal at best. They have ONLY one direct link with a shotgun projectile, nothing more, yet they break all the rules of science and state the connection of isotope typing as fact. They are simply lying. The bigger problem here is that this lie has been perpetuated in study after study after study.

And then here you are adding to the problem and attempting to spread the lie as truth.

 

[JjamesIII]

Actually no. Study says that a 3% reduction in growth rate of the population is possible based on statistical modeling.

“Is possible” lol A lot of outcomes “are possible “. Not outright lies, just talking like our politicians.

 

[cubdriver84d]

Again, their link to ammo is anecdotal at best. They have ONLY one direct link with a shotgun projectile, nothing more, yet they break all the rules of science and state the connection of isotope typing as fact. They are simply lying. The bigger problem here is that this lie has been perpetuated in study after study after study.

And then here you are adding to the problem and attempting to spread the lie as truth.

This is from the paper in Science published a few days ago, not the PNAS paper.