Here is a picture of lead fragmentation in 4 different animals. All the little white spots are lead fragments.
This is the link FWIW.
This is the link FWIW.
Upvote 0
Lead and its impact on raptors
- Thread starter Dougth
- Start date
Sorry, but that makes no sense. All carrion eaters consume lead from game carcasses; their physical size or species should not matter. If lead is toxic to one species, it is toxic to all. One would assume a smaller animal would be even more greatly affected than a larger one.
Lead is found in many plastics. Plastic particles are found in many fish and animal species..including humans. In ocean species, the top of the food chain has the highest concentrations of any bad chemical or heavy metal..like mercury and DDT in tuna and dolphins and seals. Why not lead from plastics? 66% of documented CA condor deaths are from DDT type chemicals found in the carcasses of dead marine mammals.
Question..Is it possible the lead killing condors is from aircraft engine emissions? How many of the condors killed by lead lived near small muni-airports? Leaded gas has been banned from cars since 1996..but not from leaded-fuel piston-engine aircraft.
Why small planes still use leaded fuel decades after phase-out in cars
Piston-engine aircraft remain the single largest source of highly toxic airborne lead.
www.nbcnews.com Question..if lead from bullets is really killing condors, then why has it only recently become an issue? Lead has been used since the early 1800s to take all manner of game in CA. Settlers and farmers and ranchers engaging in subsistence hunting year-around until modern hunting laws were put in place in the early 1900s.
Question..If lead has been banned for hunting in CA since 2019, then why are condors still dying from lead poisoning? Effective July 1, 2019, non-lead ammunition is required when taking any wildlife with a firearm anywhere in California. It has been nearly four years since the lead ban implementation. I’m pretty sure condors are not still eating lead found in in four year old animal carcasses.
Question..if lead is so darn deadly, then why are human hunters not suffering and dying in droves from lead toxicity? Given the x-rays showing bullet fragmentation, it is safe to assume human hunters also ingest lead.
Question..if lead bullets are the source of lead toxicity, why is there no record or evidence of a bullet ever being found in the gut of a dead condor?
Correlation is not causation.
Remember back in the 1970s, when environmentalists told us that logging old growth forests was responsible for the decline of the Spotted Owl? False. A larger invasive owl species was eating them.
Remember the Delta Smelt? Environmentalists told us that their decline was due to excessive water usage by farmers and ranchers. False. The smelt are being eaten by Striped Bass..a species not native to CA.
Remember in the 1970s when environmentalists told us that we would all die from human caused Global Cooling?
Remember in the 1990s when environmentalists told us that we would all die from human caused Global Warming?
Remember how environmentalists are currently telling us that we will all die from human caused Global Climate Change?
How many times do environmentalists get a pass for “Crying Wolf!”
Below is the URL to one of the research articles you’ve referenced. Notice the words used in the sentences I’ve cut from it. Words like: “however, estimates, proportions, statistical models, regression models, and approximate” do not engender confidence in the resulting conclusions.
——
Poisoning caused by ingestion of spent lead (Pb) ammunition in food items is a common cause of death of raptors. However, there has been no previous attempt to assess the impact of lead poisoning on populations of raptors throughout Europe or examine how this relates to the prevalence of hunting.
ECHA (European Chemicals Agency) has presented estimates of the numbers of individual birds at risk of being killed by lead poisoning, and per capita annual mortality rates from this cause (ECHA, 2021; Table 1–55). These estimates are mostly based on the proportions of wild birds found dead with clinical signs of lead poisoning and/or tissue lead concentrations indicating lead poisoning as the likely cause of death.
However, although that review documented tissue lead concentrations, it did not attempt to assess the numbers and proportions of raptors killed by lead poisoning throughout Europe or its possible effects on their population size in Europe.
We excluded data from studies which focussed specifically on potential exposure to lead from a point source such as a mining area or smelter.
There were no eligible data on liver lead concentration in any raptor species for 16 of the 29 countries in our study region (compare Supplementary Tables A1 and A2). To overcome this problem we fitted statistical models to describe the relationship between the proportion of sampled birds with clinical levels of lead in the liver and independent covariates.
In addition, Kanstrup et al. (2019) reported liver lead concentrations for 124 raptors of ten species sampled in Denmark in 2013–2016, at least seven years after the ban. We fitted logistic regression models to a dataset which included the results from Denmark of Clausen and Wolstrup (1979) and all other countries, but not those from Kanstrup et al. (2019).
There were no eligible data on liver lead concentration for many species-country combinations and no data for any raptor species for over half of the countries in our study region (Supplementary Tables A1 and A2). Therefore, to allow the estimation of approximate values of PPb for countries with missing values,
Upvote 0
So this is a subject that I'm personally interested in ever since I did a term paper on the effectiveness of CA's lead ban vs voluntary/incentive-based lead-free programs on California Condors many years ago. All of the pictures you see of that lead "snowstorm" or whatever is obviously from centerfire rounds, which doesn't apply to low velocity airguns obviously, so I think Doug's question is fair game about whether airgun pellets fragment in the same way as centerfire bullets.
I did some looking and found this study: https://sci-hub.se/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.03.025 - apparently fragmentation does occur when shooting cow femurs embedded in ballistic gel at moderate velocities from an airgun at certain angles. It does not occur (i.e. no lead contamination) when going through soft tissue/ballistic gel only. I'm not much of a hunter myself, I feel small game would have much weaker bones and so passthrough or not I don't think there would be fragmentation as such? This is something I would love to hear from actual hunters - have you guys seen your pellets fragment and not just deform (which wouldn't really cause lead contamination if removed whole)?
I did some looking and found this study: https://sci-hub.se/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.03.025 - apparently fragmentation does occur when shooting cow femurs embedded in ballistic gel at moderate velocities from an airgun at certain angles. It does not occur (i.e. no lead contamination) when going through soft tissue/ballistic gel only. I'm not much of a hunter myself, I feel small game would have much weaker bones and so passthrough or not I don't think there would be fragmentation as such? This is something I would love to hear from actual hunters - have you guys seen your pellets fragment and not just deform (which wouldn't really cause lead contamination if removed whole)?
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I'm sick of lead phobia. Most research is flawed because it started with an agenda. Lead passes through most animals too quickly after ingestion to have effect. Forget eating animals that have pass through wounds.
Ducks really? I need steel shot in my bay because supposedly ducks get lead poisoning eating algae and plants off the bottom where the lead shot accumulates. First of all, how densely covered is the bay bottom with lead shot that they could eat enough lead to get sick? Second a friend of mine, a third generation Bayman that has hunted ducks for over fifty years said, "I have never found a pellet in a duck that I didn't put there". Meaning it was from his fatal shot. He processes dozens of ducks every season, every year for over fifty years. His father and grandfather father did as well. How did they not die from lead poisoning. When they'd occasionally spit out lead shot while eating their ducks. They'd certainly have to have missed a few and accidentally ingested some shot. Third lead is heavy and will quickly settle into the bottom below forage levels.
As a caster of lead with young children I was concerned about the health of my kids so I looked into it. Truth is lead doesn't become airborne easily and people don't readily absorb most forms of lead either. Most lead fears are stoked by well meaning but ignorant environmentalist and companies making big money on abatements.
Just stop the stupidity
Ducks really? I need steel shot in my bay because supposedly ducks get lead poisoning eating algae and plants off the bottom where the lead shot accumulates. First of all, how densely covered is the bay bottom with lead shot that they could eat enough lead to get sick? Second a friend of mine, a third generation Bayman that has hunted ducks for over fifty years said, "I have never found a pellet in a duck that I didn't put there". Meaning it was from his fatal shot. He processes dozens of ducks every season, every year for over fifty years. His father and grandfather father did as well. How did they not die from lead poisoning. When they'd occasionally spit out lead shot while eating their ducks. They'd certainly have to have missed a few and accidentally ingested some shot. Third lead is heavy and will quickly settle into the bottom below forage levels.
As a caster of lead with young children I was concerned about the health of my kids so I looked into it. Truth is lead doesn't become airborne easily and people don't readily absorb most forms of lead either. Most lead fears are stoked by well meaning but ignorant environmentalist and companies making big money on abatements.
Just stop the stupidity
Upvote 0
Ahhhh! So we should listen to an angry hunter instead of research by scientists. Makes sense……
Upvote 0
Its been proven over and over that animals are exposed to lead from lots of sources, both artificial and natural. Thats right, lead can be found all over in nature. Here in CA the sacred Condor has been filmed many times eating lead paint and wheel weights and even feeding things to its young. The amount of lead contributed by hunters is almost not even measurable.
Upvote 0
I don't see anything wrong with a member bringing up a concern. But an admittedly brief review of the linked data doesn't convince me that the problem is significant enough for the suggested "cure". The paper on Europe estimates a death rate of less than 1/2 of 1 percent from lead. It's speculation but my guess is the accuracy in the estimate is roughly similar. Even if it's accurate, is it worth every hunter in Europe switching projectiles to save less than half a percent of the raptors? I don't think so. I like the birds but that is a very small percentage.
The population density in Europe is far higher than it is in the U. S.. From that I would guess the effects here are less. But it would be interesting to see some actual data on the impact. To me that is how the decision should be based. The impact of making the change versus the impact of not making it. In the extreme, affecting all the nations hunters to save one bird would not make sense to me but sometimes I wonder if it might to some others.
I have a few shotguns but have never hunted ducks and geese and haven't hunted upland game in years. But conversion to steel and bismuth in shotgun shells was expensive and the steel may damage guns. Maybe it was justified but I haven't seen the data. I haven't really looked, however.
I just hope we don't go down the same slippery slope on PB and airgun projectiles. It seems like people wanting a change will latch onto the tiniest piece of questionable data to justify a large change with lots of impacts. Copper based projectiles from center fire rifles may from some standpoints even be superior to lead core bullets. But not all lead core bullets fragment. Ones intended for big game should shed a small fraction, at most, of their weight. It is possible to use bullets intended for varmits on big game and if they are placed to avoid bones very rapid kills can result. But I don't view those hunters as ethical because if you hit a shoulder you will create a very nasty surface wound and will not recover the animal. Those are probably some of the ones the raptors get. But if a hunter is unethical enough to use a varmit bullet on a big game animal why would they use a copper based projectile regardless of what is legal? You might mainly get a conversion of people who hunt ethically now and recover the animals they shoot at and use bullets that do not fragment. Unethical ones may continue to be unethical and there will be no benefit.
Whether I get pass through on my PB kills are a function of the gun I use and it's power level. On my 18 fpe Prod and 19 fpe P35-177 maybe half the shots do not pass through. But I recover the squirrels I shoot, I've killed more than 40 now without a loss. So even if they have a pellet in them it is me, not a raptor, that would be affected. I've shot 24 now with 32-42 fpe airguns and I've only had the pellet stay in the squirrel on three. So mostly pass throughs. I use copper coated pellets in my Prod and sometimes in my 177 because it shoots them well. I do not want to switch to lead free ammo in any of my airguns because they are too light to have similar trajectory and I don't think there is measurable benefit to the environment. I do not leave dead animals laying around for raptors to eat.
The assumption that hunters kill things they do not recover is inherent in the thinking that the ammo needs to change. If that is true, perhaps that is what needs to change. And/or maybe gut piles need to be carried out of the woods by big game hunters.
The population density in Europe is far higher than it is in the U. S.. From that I would guess the effects here are less. But it would be interesting to see some actual data on the impact. To me that is how the decision should be based. The impact of making the change versus the impact of not making it. In the extreme, affecting all the nations hunters to save one bird would not make sense to me but sometimes I wonder if it might to some others.
I have a few shotguns but have never hunted ducks and geese and haven't hunted upland game in years. But conversion to steel and bismuth in shotgun shells was expensive and the steel may damage guns. Maybe it was justified but I haven't seen the data. I haven't really looked, however.
I just hope we don't go down the same slippery slope on PB and airgun projectiles. It seems like people wanting a change will latch onto the tiniest piece of questionable data to justify a large change with lots of impacts. Copper based projectiles from center fire rifles may from some standpoints even be superior to lead core bullets. But not all lead core bullets fragment. Ones intended for big game should shed a small fraction, at most, of their weight. It is possible to use bullets intended for varmits on big game and if they are placed to avoid bones very rapid kills can result. But I don't view those hunters as ethical because if you hit a shoulder you will create a very nasty surface wound and will not recover the animal. Those are probably some of the ones the raptors get. But if a hunter is unethical enough to use a varmit bullet on a big game animal why would they use a copper based projectile regardless of what is legal? You might mainly get a conversion of people who hunt ethically now and recover the animals they shoot at and use bullets that do not fragment. Unethical ones may continue to be unethical and there will be no benefit.
Whether I get pass through on my PB kills are a function of the gun I use and it's power level. On my 18 fpe Prod and 19 fpe P35-177 maybe half the shots do not pass through. But I recover the squirrels I shoot, I've killed more than 40 now without a loss. So even if they have a pellet in them it is me, not a raptor, that would be affected. I've shot 24 now with 32-42 fpe airguns and I've only had the pellet stay in the squirrel on three. So mostly pass throughs. I use copper coated pellets in my Prod and sometimes in my 177 because it shoots them well. I do not want to switch to lead free ammo in any of my airguns because they are too light to have similar trajectory and I don't think there is measurable benefit to the environment. I do not leave dead animals laying around for raptors to eat.
The assumption that hunters kill things they do not recover is inherent in the thinking that the ammo needs to change. If that is true, perhaps that is what needs to change. And/or maybe gut piles need to be carried out of the woods by big game hunters.
Upvote 0
I do agree to a point. Most hunters are very concerned about the environment, contrary to what propaganda tells everyone else. The problem I have experienced is the lead replacements have been far less effective on animals, they are far more expensive, and they are far more finicky to achieve proper accuracy. Just another example of people making decisions based on emotions, or it looked good on paper. The Outside is a whole different reality that the people who make these decisions have never seen first hand.
Upvote 0
The thing is, most of us here are what I would consider responsible hunters, and actually beleive there is an ethical way to hunt that INCLUDES recovering anything that could harm animals we don’t intend to harm.
Then there are those here that see a post like this, and are triggered into thinking the government is out to get them and take their guns, and ban anything and everything that we all love. It becomes a thread of conspiracies and not intellectual correspondence. At that point it puts hunter against hunter, and makes enemies of friends. For this reason I usually try to avoid these kind of posts, but alas! Here I am, and I’ve also been one of the ‘triggered’.
Upvote 0
Yup. I’ve had enough, the politics and conspiracies here have completely outweighed the intelligent conversations that should be had!
I’m out!
I’m out!
Upvote 0
Interesting. all good points made by passionate people. It is that passion that drives our sport and our interests.
Thank you for all the information.
Cheers.
Doc
Thank you for all the information.
Cheers.
Doc
Upvote 0
Many people like to shoot ground squirrels and leave them lay - the lead does in fact move up the food chain. If you don’t police your kills - gather the carcasses you are affecting many animals unintentionally
Upvote 0
Please stay on topic, keep the conversation related to airguns, and remember we have a rule against political conversation on AGN.
Thank you!
Thank you!
Upvote 0
Holy frack!!! Didn’t realize lead bullets fragmented that much, always thought it would just punch a hole and go right through. Guess it’s a good thing CA made us switch to copper bullets, I certainly wouldn’t want to eat that!!!! Although this may explain a few things……..
Upvote 0
I see no such warnings coming from USFGS. When you choose to believe sources like (www.researchgate.net) and (www.sciencedirect.com) over them, good luck to you.
Upvote 0
Whenever someone states that a controversial topic is "established science" I want to gag. If you believe that, post a link to the data your conclusion is based upon. When you do not, you establish that it is just your belief that you have no real scientific basis for.
The word "science" is another whole topic for me that I will try and avoid a rant on but in it's simplest form, we need to observe that the things we call science have a wide range of uncertainty about them. By education I am a Mechanical Engineer, well trained in physics. There are "Laws" in physics, things that are provable by experiment that any doubter can reproduce for themselves. These "Laws" are thus quite certain. On the other end of the spectrum is geology. I am no expert but it seems to be closer related to "library science" than to physics. They do a good job of making observations orderly but when they tell you how old something is, you need to take it with a grain of salt. They cannot prove their assertion or even provide meaningful data to support it, it is an opinion of an "expert". I am not trying to defame geologists, it is the nature of their field of study. In my view, medicine is between these extremes. You can do experiments but your subjects are quite complex and you really can't control all the variables involved. So one experiment may contradict another. Over time, things become more certain. Again, this is not to defame doctors it is just the fact that our bodies are quite complex and difficult to study in a controlled manner. Physical systems are much easier to control for variables and obtain more certain conclusions from.
I think there is sufficient data to establish a harmful effect of having lead accumulate in our bodies. If I had lead plumbing pipe in my house I would be doing something about it. On the other hand, I do not fear eating squirrels that had a pellet pass through their bodies. I also think banning lead in plumbing solder was an over reaction based upon a near total lack of data to support the action. The amount of exposure from the tiny amount of lead in the joints is very different from having the entire pipe made out of lead. Or a child eating lead based paint chips. There may be some data showing lead accumulation in specific waterways from heavy hunting of waterfowl. But I really, really, doubt that there is any such data showing any significant accumulation of lead in the thousands of acres of land used for hunting. A pellet or a bullet here or there in an acre just doesn't amount to much.
I really hope that the rest of the country is smart enough to recognize that many things the state of California does are not the wisest and may lack a good basis for the action. Banning lead projectiles needs to be based upon good data concerning the costs and benefits, not antidotal evidence of the examination of a few dead birds. Those examinations are a basis for further study in my opinion but not a good basis for wide ranging actions.
I would, however, favor a ban on the use of varmint bullets on big game. I think the practice is unethical now and it is the most likely source of the fragmentation xrays posted earlier in this thread. Even if their lead does not damage a bird, their use wounds rather than kills unless the placement is perfect and there are many better projectiles widely available to use. I don't hunt ground squirrels but I think that sort of "hunting" where the carcase is left for scavengers to eat is another area where costs/benefits should be studied. But for game harvested ethically I fail to see a basis for the banning of lead based projectiles. They are not left in the environment for scavengers to be injured by.
With respect to airguns, I use simple domed pellets to hunt. When they do not pass through I examine them and have yet to see any evidence of fragmentation. I also recover what I shoot so fragmentation if it occurred would be in my dinner, not an animals. Expanding pellets might fragment at some velocity but the ones I've tested in wet paper did not. The metal or plastic tip comes off polymags and metalmags but it is not lead.
The word "science" is another whole topic for me that I will try and avoid a rant on but in it's simplest form, we need to observe that the things we call science have a wide range of uncertainty about them. By education I am a Mechanical Engineer, well trained in physics. There are "Laws" in physics, things that are provable by experiment that any doubter can reproduce for themselves. These "Laws" are thus quite certain. On the other end of the spectrum is geology. I am no expert but it seems to be closer related to "library science" than to physics. They do a good job of making observations orderly but when they tell you how old something is, you need to take it with a grain of salt. They cannot prove their assertion or even provide meaningful data to support it, it is an opinion of an "expert". I am not trying to defame geologists, it is the nature of their field of study. In my view, medicine is between these extremes. You can do experiments but your subjects are quite complex and you really can't control all the variables involved. So one experiment may contradict another. Over time, things become more certain. Again, this is not to defame doctors it is just the fact that our bodies are quite complex and difficult to study in a controlled manner. Physical systems are much easier to control for variables and obtain more certain conclusions from.
I think there is sufficient data to establish a harmful effect of having lead accumulate in our bodies. If I had lead plumbing pipe in my house I would be doing something about it. On the other hand, I do not fear eating squirrels that had a pellet pass through their bodies. I also think banning lead in plumbing solder was an over reaction based upon a near total lack of data to support the action. The amount of exposure from the tiny amount of lead in the joints is very different from having the entire pipe made out of lead. Or a child eating lead based paint chips. There may be some data showing lead accumulation in specific waterways from heavy hunting of waterfowl. But I really, really, doubt that there is any such data showing any significant accumulation of lead in the thousands of acres of land used for hunting. A pellet or a bullet here or there in an acre just doesn't amount to much.
I really hope that the rest of the country is smart enough to recognize that many things the state of California does are not the wisest and may lack a good basis for the action. Banning lead projectiles needs to be based upon good data concerning the costs and benefits, not antidotal evidence of the examination of a few dead birds. Those examinations are a basis for further study in my opinion but not a good basis for wide ranging actions.
I would, however, favor a ban on the use of varmint bullets on big game. I think the practice is unethical now and it is the most likely source of the fragmentation xrays posted earlier in this thread. Even if their lead does not damage a bird, their use wounds rather than kills unless the placement is perfect and there are many better projectiles widely available to use. I don't hunt ground squirrels but I think that sort of "hunting" where the carcase is left for scavengers to eat is another area where costs/benefits should be studied. But for game harvested ethically I fail to see a basis for the banning of lead based projectiles. They are not left in the environment for scavengers to be injured by.
With respect to airguns, I use simple domed pellets to hunt. When they do not pass through I examine them and have yet to see any evidence of fragmentation. I also recover what I shoot so fragmentation if it occurred would be in my dinner, not an animals. Expanding pellets might fragment at some velocity but the ones I've tested in wet paper did not. The metal or plastic tip comes off polymags and metalmags but it is not lead.
Upvote 0
I would suggest that you look at the actual effects of appropriately used DDT and the profound impact it being discontinued has on the mosquito born diseases in Africa as well as the subsequent studies and the false premise for it to be banned . But this entire discussion is getting way off tangent.
Upvote 0
I have a recollection that when pure lead is in the environment, it corrodes, forming a protective barrier encapsulating it.
Upvote 0
Metals that do not fall apart over time like aluminum and lead oxidize very rapidly and the oxide is very adherent. The oxide thus shields the metal from further oxidation. But I believe the lead in paint may be lead oxide, the same chemical on the outside of the metal. So I don't think the oxidation of lead helps protect animals from the dangerous effects of significant accumulation.
What happens for many substances that get banned or limited in their application is we do enough research to know the level that will cause death or serious harm. But we do not do enough research to understand the effect of low levels of exposure. The most typical approach is to use a straight line graph to determine the effect of low levels of exposure. That is justified as being conservative. But it ignores the fact that for many substances our bodies can tolerate and may even do better with low levels of exposure even though high levels can kill or harm us. I will use radiation as an example only because I am more familiar with it than lead exposure. We know how much radiation will cause very rapid death and how much will just increase the risk of certain cancers later in life. We also know that everybody gets a certain amount of radiation from the materials the earth is made of and from the sun. We calculate the health affects of low levels of radiation by extrapolating the risk of high levels. But research indicates that people living at high altitude who get more radiation and people working in an industry that exposes them to more radiation actually have a lower incidence of the very cancers we worry about. A little seems to help while a lot is certainly deadly. I suspect lead is like that, there is a level that is definitely harmful but the impacts of low level exposure are not as well understood and could even be mildly positive.
What happens for many substances that get banned or limited in their application is we do enough research to know the level that will cause death or serious harm. But we do not do enough research to understand the effect of low levels of exposure. The most typical approach is to use a straight line graph to determine the effect of low levels of exposure. That is justified as being conservative. But it ignores the fact that for many substances our bodies can tolerate and may even do better with low levels of exposure even though high levels can kill or harm us. I will use radiation as an example only because I am more familiar with it than lead exposure. We know how much radiation will cause very rapid death and how much will just increase the risk of certain cancers later in life. We also know that everybody gets a certain amount of radiation from the materials the earth is made of and from the sun. We calculate the health affects of low levels of radiation by extrapolating the risk of high levels. But research indicates that people living at high altitude who get more radiation and people working in an industry that exposes them to more radiation actually have a lower incidence of the very cancers we worry about. A little seems to help while a lot is certainly deadly. I suspect lead is like that, there is a level that is definitely harmful but the impacts of low level exposure are not as well understood and could even be mildly positive.
Upvote 0