|
|
Post by bigbore5 on Oct 22, 2023 9:20:00 GMT -5
Far more lead is introduced into wildlife's bodies by pollution from industrial sources than by hunters onbthe scale of billions to one. That's also there in the science, but not focused on by the mainstream because it's not as easily manipulated for their ends.
Many of the reports cited lead content in birds, but barely mentioned the extremely elevated levels of other heavy metals if they admitted them at all. The most prevalent being high levels of mercury and thorium. Both far more lethal than lead in all species.
If you make the personal decisions to avoid lead bullets and are getting good results and ethical performance on game, then by all means carry on. Several types of non-lead rifle bullets do seem to perform well on game. But handguns are very different from rifles.
The typical handgun round provides far less impact velocity than the typical rifle round. This lowered velocity is usually not high enough to to reliably deform and expand non-lead bullets. The industry hypes fragmenting bullets to address this, but that sheds weight and losses straight line penetration due to not all the petals shedding at the same instant.
On the reverse, the majority of hunters simply do not know how to hunt with solid, non-expanding bullets. I see it on here as well as any other forums I have read. People tend to think in the terms of rifle bullet performance. Handguns are an entirely different animal.
A solid bullet through the typical heart/lung area is lethal. But the animal will rarely drop at the impact unless a large meplat on a large diameter bullet at a medium impact velocity is used. Thus they run for whatever distance. Most people have substandard tracking skills these days and want instant gratification.
For a non-expanding bullet to anchor game, the supporting skeletal and muscle systems must be broken down or the central nervous system interrupted. Given the small target the CNS makes, it's best to break major supporting bones, ie shoulders.
I have been a nearly exclusive handgun hunter since 1989. During that time I have been lucky enough to take 24 black bear and over 100 whitetails with various types of handguns. Most have been with a 6" Security Six 357 shooting the Keith bullet on #9 for 1175fps. By no means a super heavyweight. But it does break the shoulders and put them down fast, if not on the spot in the close-up brush hunting tactics I use for deer or with dogs for bear. Any recovered bullets usually weigh exactly the same as when they were fired
|
|
|
|
Post by northerngos on Oct 22, 2023 11:51:42 GMT -5
Don't take this the wrong way but no room for debate is absolutely horse #$%@# of those three gut piles you stumbled upon. how many were killed with a bow, barnes x bullet, nosler e-tip etc.you are right, all this lead issue is being MANIPULATED. I should have said “if those animals were shot with run of the mill lead bullets”. I’d lay every revolver I own on a wager that none were killed with a bow. Very few bow hunters cruising the roads in northeast washington during modern firearm season. edited to add: the point of the observations wasn’t to say anything happens all of the time. It was more to show what lead me to be conscious of what I am doing by having open eyes to what the effects can be. Bumping a bunch of birds off of gut piles on the way to picking up trailcam photos of a pile of different critters that found and scavenged a very well hidden kill kind of drove it home. But I want to say again, I’m not trying to preach or say what anyone should or shouldn’t do. I still use lead in many weapons. But I’m trying to illustrate that lead consumption from gut piles and kills is being increasingly studied, and it has been conclusively shown that it does happen, and it does lead to mortality, and it does give the feds a big stick they can use to beat us over the head with once any of those documented species that are affected are listed as endangered (regardless of the actual reason of their population decline). |
|
|
|
Post by northerngos on Oct 22, 2023 12:07:23 GMT -5
Far more lead is introduced into wildlife's bodies by pollution from industrial sources than by hunters onbthe scale of billions to one. That's also there in the science, but not focused on by the mainstream because it's not as easily manipulated for their ends. Many of the reports cited lead content in birds, but barely mentioned the extremely elevated levels of other heavy metals if they admitted them at all. The most prevalent being high levels of mercury and thorium. Both far more lethal than lead in all species. If you make the personal decisions to avoid lead bullets and are getting good results and ethical performance on game, then by all means carry on. Several types of non-lead rifle bullets do seem to perform well on game. But handguns are very different from rifles. The typical handgun round provides far less impact velocity than the typical rifle round. This lowered velocity is usually not high enough to to reliably deform and expand non-lead bullets. The industry hypes fragmenting bullets to address this, but that sheds weight and losses straight line penetration due to not all the petals shedding at the same instant. On the reverse, the majority of hunters simply do not know how to hunt with solid, non-expanding bullets. I see it on here as well as any other forums I have read. People tend to think in the terms of rifle bullet performance. Handguns are an entirely different animal. A solid bullet through the typical heart/lung area is lethal. But the animal will rarely drop at the impact unless a large meplat on a large diameter bullet at a medium impact velocity is used. Thus they run for whatever distance. Most people have substandard tracking skills these days and want instant gratification. For a non-expanding bullet to anchor game, the supporting skeletal and muscle systems must be broken down or the central nervous system interrupted. Given the small target the CNS makes, it's best to break major supporting bones, ie shoulders. I have been a nearly exclusive handgun hunter since 1989. During that time I have been lucky enough to take 24 black bear and over 100 whitetails with various types of handguns. Most have been with a 6" Security Six 357 shooting the Keith bullet on #9 for 1175fps. By no means a super heavyweight. But it does break the shoulders and put them down fast, if not on the spot in the close-up brush hunting tactics I use for deer or with dogs for bear. Any recovered bullets usually weigh exactly the same as when they were fired I agree with everything you are saying, and will reiterate that I myself use lead handgun bullets for hunting. My only really disappointing experience with a handgun involved a barnes hollow point. And you are correct regarding other heavy metals and other sources of contamination of course. I can’t control any of that, and none of that changes the fact that in addition to other sources of contamination, birds have been very thoroughly proven to ingest lead fragments from animals shot with bullets contain lead (that of course is predominantly from bullets that are running at high velocity and are designed to fragment. So I choose to mitigate that myself, but again don’t judge anyone for using whatever they want). But the point I am trying to make is, because lead ingestion has been proven to cause an increase in mortality in birds, and because some of those bird species are declining (through a whole host of reasons to be sure), if they get to the point where they are listed for federal protection the result will be a big old club that the feds can use to push through all kinds of restrictions that won’t be likely to be rescinded until our great grandkids have a say in the matter. And I think we can count on the obvious result being federal and state governments hammering us any way they can. One interesting thing powder coating might bring is a work around against some of this legislation if it happens, even though as you say, I’m sure the amount of lead left behind be a nice tough hard cast lfn or similar would be so insignificant it would be pretty hard to even measure. edited to add: my fear is, bureaucrats have never been logical in their restrictions. I don’t want any bullet bans nor any legislation here. But IF it came to pass that we were looking at a lead bullet ban, I think the research is pretty solid that banning fragmenting lead projectiles would “fix” almost all of the “problem”. Mushrooming projectiles with high weight retention are a minimal issue at worst. Hard cast flat nose are probably a zero issue. But I think it’s most likely that any legislation would be “no lead for you” type legislation. |
|
|
|
Post by bula on Oct 22, 2023 12:13:30 GMT -5
A list of all the options that may be left to us ? I've gone thru, used 2 boxes of the Lehigh WFN solid in the 475 version. No game taken. I'd try again, if I had to. CEB, know of, no experience with. What else ?
|
|
|
|
Post by northerngos on Oct 22, 2023 12:36:06 GMT -5
Have any of the researchers ever documented the uptick of lead in the blood with the area where this is found? All roadways and up to a mile either side of them are contaminated with lead because of its use before being band in fuel. These bird eat things from those areas as well as game from hunting. The amount of lead particles found in animal guts is not enough to produce what you describe. Eating rodents and road kills from near roadways could produce the results you describe. Most bullet that hit game animals pass through. Those that do not usually end up as keepsakes by the hunter. So, I don't buy your claim. I don't doubt you may find elevated lead levels in the animals you are testing. I doubt the source you attribute it to. In rural Texas we have seen a ban on shooting hawk for half a century because of DDT. They are so numerous now they are endangering sheep herds. A little lead poisoning could be a good thing here. When lead was banned from shotgun pellets it caused an over population of water fowl and way more died from cholera than ever died from any lead poison. The truth is the only reason it is coming up as an issue is because it is seen as a back door to gun control. If you check humans, you will more than likely find elevated levels of toxins including lead, mercury, and all the petrochemicals. Not enough people hunt and eat the meat to account for those toxin levels. I’m not trying to tell people what to do, and I’m not judging anyone for what they do, and I’m not saying what I do is better. I am not really interested in an argument, and I’m not conducting research I am reading it. I am offering my personal observations. However, the point where you say a little lead poisoning can be a good thing kind of assures me we are unlikely to see eye to eye. I’m not sure where you are getting information about lead poisoning being a good thing to help keep waterfowl numbers down (  ). If you are referring to shooters having to use steel and killing fewer waterfowl which somehow lead to overpopulation I would argue that steel shot use likely lead to an increase in hunter mortality for waterfowl because more waterfowl that were shot with steel were not recovered so more birds were shot to fill the same bag limit. This is just conjecture though. I will say that if you are worried about sheep ranchers you are thinking about eagle depredation which can be significant. I have helped trap eagles off of rangeland in Wyoming under some of the permits that allow this. However, hawks are comparatively a non issue here. I imagine somewhere a red tail has figured out that it can eat a newborn (more likely stillborn) lamb but that would be so rare as to be insignificant. Eagles have learned that they can eat lambs and even ewes, and they can cause a lot of damage. Certainly the ranchers aren’t making an issue of hawk depredation compared to their issues with eagles. If you don’t think birds can ingest fatal amounts of lead from animals that have been shot then you are demonstrably, factually wrong, on the level of the folks who say the earth is flat because the horizon looks flat. Ingestion of bullet fragments is not the only source of contamination. Lead, like other heavy metals does accumulate faster the further you go up the food chain. Hawks aren’t eating lead contaminated greenery from along the highways, but they eat other animals who might have accumulate enough lead this way to lead to problems. But my bigger point is: none of that matters at all. What matters to us (or what should, in my opinion, matter to us) is that if the feds can draw a line between use of lead in the field by us and a harmful effect on any animal at all that can be listed as endangered, then we will likely be done legally using lead in our ammunition. This is a proven model that California has used by way of the condor, and California tends to be a trendsetter for these types of things. And by the way, they are already drawing that line on a broader scope because independent research is consistently showing it to be a factor for many species. It doesn’t matter whether it is the only factor, and it doesn’t even matter if it is the biggest factor. It matters if it is measurable. |
|
|
|
Post by ridgeline on Oct 22, 2023 13:53:50 GMT -5
northerngos said:
"Regardless of how anyone feels about these assertions, these things are well studied and commonly observed and there really isn’t room for valid debate here."
----------
I have no issue with someone presenting this side of the argument, which includes many valid points, although I think it is selective with the evidence, some of which is purely anecdotal. But the assertion that there is no room for valid debate throws cold water on the whole thing. And while I don't agree with the notion that some lead exposure might be a good thing, comparing those who disagree to flat-earthers will not encourage anyone to take this argument seriously. There is always room for valid debate and disagreement. It sounds suspiciously like those who push the currently fashionable notion of "settled science", which unfortunately includes many scientists who should know better. There is no such thing as settled science. There never has been. That's not how science works. And this is coming from someone with scientific training and a physics degree who learned that science is always to be questioned and debated. I don't know if you intended to push it that far, but it sure sounded that way to me. If you had left that one statement out and not followed up with the flat-earther swipe, I would have been fine with it, although not entirely in agreement.
|
|
|
|
Post by potatojudge on Oct 22, 2023 14:10:02 GMT -5
What matters to us (or what should, in my opinion, matter to us) is that if the feds can draw a line between use of lead in the field by us and a harmful effect on any animal at all that can be listed as endangered, then we will likely be done legally using lead in our ammunition. This is a proven model that California has used by way of the condor, and California tends to be a trendsetter for these types of things. And by the way, they are already drawing that line on a broader scope because independent research is consistently showing it to be a factor for many species. It doesn’t matter whether it is the only factor, and it doesn’t even matter if it is the biggest factor. It matters if it is measurable. I think your last statement hits the nail on the head. In the setting of a mass extinction and immeasurable pollutants, parsing out the effect of lead ammunition (really, proving any single environmental exposure as the cause of an adverse outcome) is extremely difficult. To say lead, shot specifically, doesn't contribute to the lead problem is to be in denial. Linked are a few studies using lead isotope ratios to guess at the source of lead in wildlife, and to save everyone time and clicks the takeaway is: it depends. Hunting preserves, shooting ranges obviously wildlife will be exposed primarily through shot. Elsewhere, it may be industrial or background (natural geological) lead or lead paint, or it may still be from shot and there is no way to guess- it has to be studied and measured. Maybe mandating a specific lead isotope ratio to be used in ammunition would help us study the significance and magnitude of our sport specifically, but that's entirely too nuanced for lawmakers and isn't politically expedient for either side who just wants to yell over each other. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29698079/www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749120315815www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749122002883link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1008855617453www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1203141109Is lead ammunition the #1 problem to tackle in our ongoing environmental crisis? Not by a long shot. Will all-copper bullets be better in the long run? Nobody knows, but we do know copper is toxic also. In that respect, people saying lead bans are really just an attack on the shooting sports aren't wrong, because following a lead ban will be a copper ban under the same reasoning. In the background, companies will still be paying politicians to allow them to keep pumping out toxins of all sorts. People who say that lead ammo bans are a distraction from tackling the overall problem of pollution are right also. Classic tactic of turning people on each other rather than holding industrial polluters accountable. |
|
|
|
Post by northerngos on Oct 22, 2023 15:50:25 GMT -5
northerngos said: "Regardless of how anyone feels about these assertions, these things are well studied and commonly observed and there really isn’t room for valid debate here." ---------- I have no issue with someone presenting this side of the argument, which includes many valid points, although I think it is selective with the evidence, some of which is purely anecdotal. But the assertion that there is no room for valid debate throws cold water on the whole thing. And while I don't agree with the notion that some lead exposure might be a good thing, comparing those who disagree to flat-earthers will not encourage anyone to take this argument seriously. There is always room for valid debate and disagreement. It sounds suspiciously like those who push the currently fashionable notion of "settled science", which unfortunately includes many scientists who should know better. There is no such thing as settled science. There never has been. That's not how science works. And this is coming from someone with scientific training and a physics degree who learned that science is always to be questioned and debated. I don't know if you intended to push it that far, but it sure sounded that way to me. If you had left that one statement out and not followed up with the flat-earther swipe, I would have been fine with it, although not entirely in agreement. I have twice typed a response to this, and twice had it evaporate into the ether when I tried to post. Hopefully third time is the charm. Ridgeline, you are right to admonish my use of phrase. Jgt, my comment was not to say that you are dumb, but that you are wrong in that statement. That statement, for clarification, wasn’t that lead poisoning can be a good thing (that’s your opinion) but that you disagree that birds can consume enough lead from shot animals to cause a problem because the bullet passes through or is kept as a trophy. This isn’t dumb. It is thoroughly wrong and has been very well demonstrated to be so. Ridgeline, your statement that there is no settled science is correct. However, if you have a background in physics I don’t need to tell you that when something is accepted to be a fact due to quality research, if it is later shown to be false this will occur through more thorough, better executed research not because people just don’t like it. If someone takes issue with research but hasn’t read it or come up with good reason to refute it, if later research shows that person to be right they won’t be right because they had a reasoned dispute, they will be right for all the wrong reasons. When I say there is no room for debate I am not saying debate is bad, it isn’t. I’m not saying something is concrete forever, or “I’m right so stfu”. When I say there is no room for debate that is me using that phrase colloquially and for me it means “this has been so thoroughly proven through solid peer reviewed research that it is accepted by the scientific community in general so if you want to refute it you need to come from a position of having read and reviewed the research and identified errors in its execution or its interpretation because if all you have by way of contribution is that you don’t like the results then… there isn’t room for THAT debate.” My point here wasn’t to be “right”, it’s not even my research. My anecdotes were identified as such to illustrate how my experiences have informed my decisions, that’s all. I use lead, I love lead. But I don’t use it in rifles. I have tried to be clear that I came to that conclusion because of the research I have read and through my own observation. I don’t judge what anyone does or what they use. Even these things aren’t the point I was mostly trying to make. What I have been trying to say is that there is a bridge being built that starts at our use of certain lead projectiles and leads to a place where lead use in the pursuit of game is banned. I don’t ever want to get anywhere near that place but even if that bridge is a political construct that has been tweaked and twisted in the anim of banning hunting or firearms use altogether its foundation unfortunately is not without scientific merit. And I think that if we don’t come up with something as a whole, it is a foregone conclusion that that is where we wind up. The motivated naysayers and overlords have most of the pieces that they need already. They just need a species that has been identified to be negatively affected by lead bullet use to be listed on the endangered species list. I have exhausted my ability to type, and unfortunately hijacked the thread. Anyone who wants to take up a new “Joel is a nitwit” thread to continue discussing their disapproval of the research has my full support but in the interest of avoiding furthering the tangent I probably won’t continue that here. As far as options, I don’t much like anything out there. Maybe some enterprising soul will come up with a nice heavy tungsten core copper bullet for us. |
|
|
|
Post by northerngos on Oct 22, 2023 15:52:44 GMT -5
What matters to us (or what should, in my opinion, matter to us) is that if the feds can draw a line between use of lead in the field by us and a harmful effect on any animal at all that can be listed as endangered, then we will likely be done legally using lead in our ammunition. This is a proven model that California has used by way of the condor, and California tends to be a trendsetter for these types of things. And by the way, they are already drawing that line on a broader scope because independent research is consistently showing it to be a factor for many species. It doesn’t matter whether it is the only factor, and it doesn’t even matter if it is the biggest factor. It matters if it is measurable. I think your last statement hits the nail on the head. In the setting of a mass extinction and immeasurable pollutants, parsing out the effect of lead ammunition (really, proving any single environmental exposure as the cause of an adverse outcome) is extremely difficult. To say lead, shot specifically, doesn't contribute to the lead problem is to be in denial. Linked are a few studies using lead isotope ratios to guess at the source of lead in wildlife, and to save everyone time and clicks the takeaway is: it depends. Hunting preserves, shooting ranges obviously wildlife will be exposed primarily through shot. Elsewhere, it may be industrial or background (natural geological) lead or lead paint, or it may still be from shot and there is no way to guess- it has to be studied and measured. Maybe mandating a specific lead isotope ratio to be used in ammunition would help us study the significance and magnitude of our sport specifically, but that's entirely too nuanced for lawmakers and isn't politically expedient for either side who just wants to yell over each other. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29698079/www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749120315815www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749122002883link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1008855617453www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1203141109Is lead ammunition the #1 problem to tackle in our ongoing environmental crisis? Not by a long shot. Will all-copper bullets be better in the long run? Nobody knows, but we do know copper is toxic also. In that respect, people saying lead bans are really just an attack on the shooting sports aren't wrong, because following a lead ban will be a copper ban under the same reasoning. In the background, companies will still be paying politicians to allow them to keep pumping out toxins of all sorts. People who say that lead ammo bans are a distraction from tackling the overall problem of pollution are right also. Classic tactic of turning people on each other rather than holding industrial polluters accountable. Thank you Sir, very well done. I think I came across too preachy but I think we should all be heads up about this issue, it has the potential to cause real problems for us. |
|
|
|
Post by northerngos on Oct 22, 2023 15:56:58 GMT -5
Northerngos, if there ever was an effectively written and validated post on the subject, I think you just wrote it. But you are the first person I have ever read from or talked to that had ANY intelligent evidence to present to the debate. I actually like Barnes bullets but shy away because of the price. If we are banned into non-toxic or monolithic bullets for hunting, self defense or practice you might as well write me off. Again, excellent post. First one on the subject I have found any thought in. I appreciate it, I’m not trying to preach or anything like that. I dread a lead ban as much as anyone but to decide that any argument about issues with lead use is a meritless concoction of the environmental left I think causes more problems for us in the long term. I feel like if we ignore it it’s going to really bite us. |
|
|
|
Post by bigbrowndog on Oct 22, 2023 16:26:10 GMT -5
Things to remember is the mantra of the vaccine pushers,……..follow the science!!! Sadly the science is based on money and feelings, and written by those that require the money to support their research. The socialist EU implemented lead bans despite equal research both supporting and denouncing direct lead affects on wildlife. It is in my opinion simply another means of limiting gun ownership. California is a microcosm of feel good politics, sadly some of their policies spill out to affect other more prudent states. Far too often science stating what could happen, becomes will happen, when interpreted by others. The times they are a changing!!!
Trapr
|
|
jpw480
.30 Stingray
Posts: 140
|
Post by jpw480 on Oct 22, 2023 16:40:39 GMT -5
you did not say the gut piles were found by the road you said on your way to retrive sd card.their are alot of deer wounded and left to die who were hit with an arrow we find a few every deer season in just the area we hunt. i'm saying alot of this lead poisioning is only focused in one direction and that's towards hunters.
|
|
|
|
Post by ridgeline on Oct 22, 2023 16:52:37 GMT -5
northerngos,
With all due respect to a thoughtful post, I wasn't intending to refute anything specific about your argument with my comment, but rather to point out that your statement regarding no room for debate and insinuating that anyone is a flat-earther for expressing something doesn't encourage anyone to take any argument seriously. I do understand your point about how the issue is being used to ultimately clamp down on hunting rights, and more, nation-wide, and that is a very serious concern. As for actually refuting anything, I'm sure there is plenty to be debated there, but that is a rabbit hole that probably wasn't intended for this thread as you pointed out. My apologies for contributing to the hijacking of the thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by x101airborne on Oct 22, 2023 18:03:28 GMT -5
Wait, the Earth ISN'T FLAT?
I am just adding some levity.
I like the idea of specific isotope for testing but think that would rule out recycling our own lead as we see fit, so basically we are down to monolithic rounds as far as cost but yet still shooting lead. It is an interesting point though.
|
|
|
|
Post by northerngos on Oct 22, 2023 18:19:44 GMT -5
you did not say the gut piles were found by the road you said on your way to retrive sd card.their are alot of deer wounded and left to die who were hit with an arrow we find a few every deer season in just the area we hunt. i'm saying alot of this lead poisioning is only focused in one direction and that's towards hunters. Even worse, I forgot to mention it was modern season at all, and here it’s one or another. We have a lot of road systems up in the mountains from logging activity and it behooves a guy to get out of sight of the road fast when hiking in, because guys are cruising and they are ready to rumble! And you are for sure right about the focus. Potatoejudge and bigbore5 among others made good points about that too, it all kind of ties in to the big problem which is we have a big target on out back in the best of times. And this isn’t the best of times 😅. |
|
). If you are referring to shooters having to use steel and killing fewer waterfowl which somehow lead to overpopulation I would argue that steel shot use likely lead to an increase in hunter mortality for waterfowl because more waterfowl that were shot with steel were not recovered so more birds were shot to fill the same bag limit. This is just conjecture though. I will say that if you are worried about sheep ranchers you are thinking about eagle depredation which can be significant. I have helped trap eagles off of rangeland in Wyoming under some of the permits that allow this. However, hawks are comparatively a non issue here. I imagine somewhere a red tail has figured out that it can eat a newborn (more likely stillborn) lamb but that would be so rare as to be insignificant. Eagles have learned that they can eat lambs and even ewes, and they can cause a lot of damage. Certainly the ranchers aren’t making an issue of hawk depredation compared to their issues with eagles. If you don’t think birds can ingest fatal amounts of lead from animals that have been shot then you are demonstrably, factually wrong, on the level of the folks who say the earth is flat because the horizon looks flat. Ingestion of bullet fragments is not the only source of contamination. Lead, like other heavy metals does accumulate faster the further you go up the food chain. Hawks aren’t eating lead contaminated greenery from along the highways, but they eat other animals who might have accumulate enough lead this way to lead to problems. But my bigger point is: none of that matters at all. What matters to us (or what should, in my opinion, matter to us) is that if the feds can draw a line between use of lead in the field by us and a harmful effect on any animal at all that can be listed as endangered, then we will likely be done legally using lead in our ammunition. This is a proven model that California has used by way of the condor, and California tends to be a trendsetter for these types of things. And by the way, they are already drawing that line on a broader scope because independent research is consistently showing it to be a factor for many species. It doesn’t matter whether it is the only factor, and it doesn’t even matter if it is the biggest factor. It matters if it is measurable. 
