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

[Tod osier]

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

What are you talking about poor shot placement and depth intervals?

I answered a very specific question with the best available data I know of in the scientific literature.

 

[displacedtexan]

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

The info I've seen says the same.

Our blocks were 8x8, and it was leaving the block.

18" out from the middle of the wound channel is regardless of shot placement.

 

[Sandstrom]

As a falconer for well over 20 years, I have first hand seen the steady increase in the number of eagles. The eagle population is out of control! The last falcon that I hunted with was killed by an eagle. I also have several falconer friends who have had their falcons killed by eagles. In some areas it impossible to fly your falcon without multiple eagles coming in to eat it! Definitely plenty of eagles...
Ryan

 

[Formidilosus]

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.

Potential for fragments up to 45 cm in the abdominal cavity. At 50m impacts. Small fragments- the ones you would notice- will not travel 18” in muscle tissue. In muscle tissue small lead fragments that will go unnoticed, will travel around 2-3” from wound track… which is the temporary stretch cavity, and matches mostly with the “blood shot” portion.

Here is a picture from the study-



Why aren’t the left and top portions filled with dots? Because that is muscle tissue and small fragments don’t go far in muscle. The spots are in the chest cavity and some in the abdominal wall.

 

[Formidilosus]

The info I've seen says the same.

Our blocks were 8x8, and it was leaving the block.

18" out from the middle of the wound channel is regardless of shot placement.

Please show video of properly calibrated 8x8x18” ballistic gelatin blocks shot from 20’ish yards and farther with standard hunting bullets that have small fragments leaving the gel out of the sides. I’ve only participated in a few hundred calibrated gel shots with Phantom cameras and have never seen such.

 

[displacedtexan]

Please show video of properly calibrated 8x8x18” ballistic gelatin blocks shot from 20’ish yards and farther with standard hunting bullets that have small fragments leaving the gel out of the sides. I’ve only participated in a few hundred calibrated gel shots with Phantom cameras and have never seen such.

I'll hop in my time machine and get it!

 

[Formidilosus]

I'll hop in my time machine and get it!

You don’t have it. Small fragments stay inside the temporary stretch cavity. The max TC in muscle tissue from a 10 foot shot with something like a 200+ grain rapidly fragmenting lead core projectile impacting at near 3,000fps is around 8-9 inches in diameter…. Thats 4.5 inches from center of wound track. That will spilt a gel block. However move that block to a 50m impact and it does not. Or use a 12x12x18” block and it does not even at 10 feet.

 

[Bubblehide]

What are you talking about poor shot placement and depth intervals?

I answered a very specific question with the best available data I know of in the scientific literature.

Research/science is meant to be questioned so that an honest value can be placed on it, or as honest as can be reached. Unfortunately, in todays world, much of what is being called science is presented with extreme bias.

I mentioned poor shot placement in an attempt to get you and others to think. What I meant was just how deep do you think good shot placement is on the game animals we hunt.? As such, one can conclude with few exceptions, that poor shot placement would easily account for such depth of travel. The vast majority of animals harvested do not have fragments travel that far. Those that I have hunted with and assisted in the field, have almost always hade clean pass-throughs, with no fragments recovered. Of the few where anything was recovered, the bullet hit bone.

The point here is that the research in question, is obviously presented with an agenda and subsequently extreme bias.

 

[Formidilosus]

I answered a very specific question with the best available data I know of in the scientific literature.

Thank you for that. I am familiar with the paper, and yours as well.

 

[Tod osier]

Potential for fragments up to 45 cm in the abdominal cavity. At 50m impacts. Small fragments- the ones you would notice- will not travel 18” in muscle tissue. In muscle tissue small lead fragments that will go unnoticed, will travel around 2-3” from wound track… which is the temporary stretch cavity, and matches mostly with the “blood shot” portion.

Here is a picture from the study-
View attachment 382925


Why aren’t the left and top portions filled with dots? Because that is muscle tissue and small fragments don’t go far in muscle. The spots are in the chest cavity and some in the abdominal wall.

The study was on skinned and gutted animals.

Per the Methods... " Our
 intent
 was
 to
 approximate
 patterns
 of
 fragmentation
 for 
deer 
that 
would 
be
harvested
 during
 fall
 hunting
 seasons.
 Therefore,
 we
 examined
 lead
 deposition
 in
 a
 manner
 that
 would 
be
consistent
 with 
how 
a 
hunter 
would
 handle
 a
 deer
 carcass.
 Thus,
 we
 removed
 the
 hide 
and
 viscera 
prior 
to
analysis."

I was very surprised that lead travelled that far.

 

[Formidilosus]

The study was on skinned and gutted animals.

Per the Methods... " Our
 intent
 was
 to
 approximate
 patterns
 of
 fragmentation
 for 
deer 
that 
would 
be
harvested
 during
 fall
 hunting
 seasons.
 Therefore,
 we
 examined
 lead
 deposition
 in
 a
 manner
 that
 would 
be
consistent
 with 
how 
a 
hunter 
would
 handle
 a
 deer
 carcass.
 Thus,
 we
 removed
 the
 hide 
and
 viscera 
prior 
to
analysis." The radiographs are from skinned and 
gutted deer."

I was very surprised that lead travelled that far.

I am familiar with it as I said. That is not lead in meat however. That’s lead in the body cavity. Remove the scapula, the hindquarters, lions and backstrap, and neck meat- you’re not going to find lead in them unless directly struck.

There are at least three separate issues-

1) Does lead from bullets kill raptors? There is no evidence at all that this is the case. In reality, it legitimately looks like it is not the case at all.

2). Does lead from bullets present a real risk to human consumption? While there is sensationalized “studies”, and I put them in quotes for reason, that try to link minor elevated lead levels to game meat consumption, they did not factor in overall lifestyle and other contributing issues. One study did, from Italy IIRC, that showed hunters having slightly elevated lead levels. However when they isolated those that drink wine, the none hunting wine drinkers did have elevated levels that matched the hunting wine drinkers.

3). If the issue is saving birds- why are non of the studies and groups pushing for the removal of the largest factors contributing to raptor mortality?

 

[Tod osier]

Research/science is meant to be questioned so that an honest value can be placed on it, or as honest as can be reached. Unfortunately, in todays world, much of what is being called science is presented with extreme bias.

I mentioned poor shot placement in an attempt to get you and others to think. What I meant was just how deep do you think good shot placement is on the game animals we hunt.? As such, one can conclude with few exceptions, that poor shot placement would easily account for such depth of travel. The vast majority of animals harvested do not have fragments travel that far. Those that I have hunted with and assisted in the field, have almost always hade clean pass-throughs, with no fragments recovered. Of the few where anything was recovered, the bullet hit bone.

The point here is that the research in question, is obviously presented with an agenda and subsequently extreme bias.

Science is meant to be questioned, however those doing the questioning should have a reasonable understanding of the issues at large and excellent understanding of the specific study they are questioning. At a bare minimum you should read the paper you are questioning, otherwise it looks somewhat foolish.

 

[Tod osier]

I am familiar with it as I said. That is not lead in meat however. That’s lead in the body cavity. Remove the scapula, the hindquarters, lions and backstrap, and neck meat- you’re not going to find lead in them unless directly struck.

It is lead in muscle tissue, maybe not the premium muscle tissue that we all favor, but trim. Many people who shoot deer save those tissues and in AK it is illegal not to harvest those tissues, so people are eating it. If you don't bring it home them something else is eating it.

From the paper... "We
 studied
 lead
 contamination 
levels 
(ppm)
 throughout
 carcasses
 using
 similar
procedures
 as 
those
 outlined 
in 
Dobrowolska 
and 
Melosik
 (2008).
 We
 collected
 muscle
 tissue
 samples
 along
 the
 abdominal
 cavity
 at
 perpendicular
 distances
 of
 5,
 25,
 and
 45
 cm
 from
 the
 exit
 wound
 on
 each
 carcass
 (Figure
 1).

 

[Formidilosus]

The info I've seen says the same.

Our blocks were 8x8, and it was leaving the block.

18" out from the middle of the wound channel is regardless of shot placement.

Here’s what you are looking for, though it does not support your statements-



8x8” gel block. How far are the fragments from center?

 

[cubdriver84d]

I started a thread about this in the Conservation forum because I hadn't seen this one. But, I'll share an excerpt from the Science paper here as well. It's a shame the paper isn't publicly available, but it's probably just a matter of time before someone posts it on the internet somewhere despite the copyright.

Excerpt from the paper: Acute poisoning of both species was generally higher in winter months, when bald and golden eagles commonly scavenge (3–5). Elevated lead concentrations in predatory and scavenging birds are usually caused by primary 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 correspondence between acute lead poisoning of eagles and the use of lead ammunition.

 

[Sandstrom]

One of the flaws in these studies is that they are not sampling the normal healthy population, they are getting their data from eagles admitted for veterinary work or are already deceased. It would be like going to a Ford dealer and looking in the service department and saying all Fords are broken. Based on the numbers advertised from the MN raptor center only 25 to 30 percent of injured birds (of 150 a year) that come in are toxic from lead. So roughly 40 eagles a year come into the u of m raptor center as toxic, one of the only places in a very large radius of states (at least ND SD WI IA MN) that is capable of working on eagles. That is roughly 40 birds that are seen out of how many thousands of the actual population of wild birds in those 5 states?
I would also question the numbers that they actually see there, I would not be surprised if the numbers quoted on their website are inflated to push their anti hunting agenda.
Ryan

 

[Formidilosus]

It is lead in muscle tissue, maybe not the premium muscle tissue that we all favor, but trim. Many people who shoot deer save those tissues and in AK it is illegal not to harvest those tissues, so people are eating it. If you don't bring it home them something else is eating it.

From the paper... "We
 studied
 lead
 contamination 
levels 
(ppm)
 throughout
 carcasses
 using
 similar
procedures
 as 
those
 outlined 
in 
Dobrowolska 
and 
Melosik
 (2008).
 We
 collected
 muscle
 tissue
 samples
 along
 the
 abdominal
 cavity
 at
 perpendicular
 distances
 of
 5,
 25,
 and
 45
 cm
 from
 the
 exit
 wound
 on
 each
 carcass
 (Figure
 1).

After evisceration. Small lead fragments are not “traveling” through 18” of tissue whether lung, stomach, or muscle. They pointed this out indirectly when the stated that not rinsing the carcass first, only 3% samples contained lead. With rinsing 11% at 45cm did.


This is the problem with research across the board- those doing the research lack an understanding of the entire thing. I am not a researcher, I do understand terminal ballistics and what bullets do in tissue. “Travel” whether intentional or not, gives the reader the belief that as the bullet is expanding/fragmenting inside the animal that fragments are being thrown radially outward from the wound path up to 18”. That is not true. It may not matter to the gut pile deal, it absolutely matters in being clear to people.

It would be no different than shooting a block of gel with all fragments remaining within 3” of the PC, then letting the gel block melt and carry those fragments in a 5 foot puddle, coming back, taking a radiograph of the puddle, and exclaiming that lead creates a five foot wound.

 

[Bubblehide]

I started a thread about this in the Conservation forum because I hadn't seen this one. But, I'll share an excerpt from the Science paper here as well. It's a shame the paper isn't publicly available, but it's probably just a matter of time before someone posts it on the internet somewhere despite the copyright.

Excerpt from the paper: Acute poisoning of both species was generally higher in winter months, when bald and golden eagles commonly scavenge (3–5). Elevated lead concentrations in predatory and scavenging birds are usually caused by primary 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 correspondence between acute lead poisoning of eagles and the use of lead ammunition.

Ask yourself if it rains during winter months, and if there is runoff from the rain. Then ask yourself if that runoff could have picked up some naturally occurring lead in the environment, and could those birds be ingesting lead from runoff.

When ice cream consumption increases, there are more drownings, therefore eating ice cream must cause drownings. That makes as much sense as bullets are the source of lead in these birds. Hopefully you can grasp the meaning of the ice cream correlation.

 

[roadrunner]

How was the lead identified and tied to bullets?
I ask this specifically due to past so called studies mistakenly identifying the lead source as from bullets.

They can't. Someone gets a PhD and suddenly whatever they say say is true.

_____________________________________

So, why aren't coyotes and bears dying from chronic lead poisoning? What about turkey buzzards and other birds of scavenge?

 

[Bubblehide]

They can't. Someone gets a PhD and suddenly whatever they say say is true.

_____________________________________

So, why aren't coyotes and bears dying from chronic lead poisoning? What about turkey buzzards and other birds of scavenge?

In my neck of the wood, coyotes and bears, at times do die of lead poising, but it's not from ingesting it.