Article About How "Hunters" Are Against Lead Bullets

[Deanimator]

https://www.peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-lead/PDF/0307 Tranel.pdf

"We found over 130 species of animals (including upland birds, raptors, waterfowl, and reptiles) have been reported in the literature as being exposed or killed by ingesting lead shot, bullets, bullet fragments, or prey contaminated with lead ammunition. The impacts of ingested lead on wildlife included decreased survival, poor body condition, behavioral changes, and impaired reproduction."

(Emphasis added.)

I'll leave you to sort through the citations for the full list of 130 affected species.

This seems to relate almost exclusively to birds and bird shot. The thread title is misleading, and almost entirely irrelevant to handgun and rifle hunting.

Then there's the assertion that lack of evidence of poisoning doesn't point to a lack of poisoning. Someone asserting a "fact" is obligated to prove it. There is no obligation to disprove it. If I assert that cannibalism is prevalent among anti-hunting activists, it's not on them to prove they don't eat human flesh.

 

[Big7]

I'm calling BULL-CHIPS on this one.

I'm not going to write 50 paragraphs
on a cell phone. BUT some things of interest
(at least to me) are:

Lead vs steel on waterfowl.
When you consider how many
birds die a horrible death due
to being shot with low energy
steel to the few that die from
eating lead shot that is an easy
one for me. Not to mention a
10rd box of nontoxic cost $25.00
where I live and I ain't doing that.

I believe the cast bullet guys have addressed
that. Nuff said.

A non toxic .22? REALLY? Nuff said.

My biggest gripe about all this crap
is very simple.
I have thousands of milsurp rounds that contain lead.

Also bench drawers FULL of tried
and true bullets that I've invested
many dollars and countless hours
labor developing loads in multiple
calibers.

Tens of boxes 1000 count primers.

Dies, tools and blah blah and blah.

I have never bought non toxic
and don't plan on it.

Luckily, I have enough to last my
shooting lifetime. Shotgun shells are cheap enough now to buy. I do have a MEC
for 12 and 20ga.

WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS TELL
THE TREE HUGGERS AND goo*berment
THAT WE SIMPLY WILL NOT COMPLY.

PLENTY for them to worry about other
than lead bullets!

 

[entropy]

Waterfowlers didn't decide anything, they were told they couldn't use lead shot.

And some of us were so disgusted with the lackluster performance of steel shot, we quit duck hunting. Steel caused way more crippled duck than lead ever would have.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

Steel caused way more crippled duck than lead ever would have.

Still does. When steel was first forced on us I was particularly irritated by articles in hunting magazines on the great performance of steel shot.

 

[Sniper66]

Worrying about toxic shot and animal health is like worrying about flooding if you pee in the ocean.

 

[primalmu]

This seems to relate almost exclusively to birds and bird shot.

Why does that matter? The number of known species of birds outnumbers the number of known mammalian species by nearly 2 to 1. A quarter of the species in that study (raptors/scavengers, reptiles, and mammals) were most likely exposed to lead after consuming carrion containing lead (where birdshot vs rifle/handgun ammunition is irrelevant).

 

[Deanimator]

Why does that matter? The number of known species of birds outnumbers the number of known mammalian species by nearly 2 to 1. A quarter of the species in that study (raptors/scavengers, reptiles, and mammals) were most likely exposed to lead after consuming carrion containing lead (where birdshot vs rifle/handgun ammunition is irrelevant).

It's hardly irrelevant, as the odds of wildfowl ingesting individual rifle or pistol bullets is virtually nil. Yet it would used as a justification for banning lead BULLETS solely to price as many people out of shooting as possible.

 

[brewer12345]

Bismuth can be a good alternative for someone wanting to shoot muzzleloaders without lead. I want to shoot muzzleloaders without lead. I don't want to not have a choice or to force my choice on others. The limitation that keeps me away from muzzleloaders more than anything else is the lack of availability of lead-free caps. I'd still shoot flint, wheel and matchlocks, but dirty-caps are a big turn-off to me. It's a pity because there's an existing ability to make lead-free caps that perform very well, but not enough will to do it.

For smoothbores with shot, besides bismuth, tungsten is widely regarded as having better performance than steel or lead. It may not be the choice of someone firing an antique smoothbore with a damascus barrel, but if a person has got to do that, let them do it with lead by all means. I want the ability to make safer choices for myself and my children, not to control what anyone else is doing.

I believe you can buy lead free 209 primers (think Fiocchi makes them) and you can easily convert a percussion cap nipple to accept 209 primers.

 

[primalmu]

It's hardly irrelevant, as the odds of wildfowl ingesting individual rifle or pistol bullets is virtually nil. Yet it would used as a justification for banning lead BULLETS solely to price as many people out of shooting as possible.

Please re-read my comment, as I said nothing about waterfowl. I said that the irrelevance was related to lead poisoning of raptors, scavengers, mammals, and reptiles, not waterfowl. Those subgroups are much more likely to be exposed to lead from conventional bullets.

A quarter of the species in that study (raptors/scavengers, reptiles, and mammals) were most likely exposed to lead after consuming carrion containing lead (where birdshot vs rifle/handgun ammunition is irrelevant).

Are you saying it is more likely that these species are exposed from eating the remains of game birds shot with lead than from, say, deer remains shot with a lead bullet? If so, please cite your source for said information.

 

[Jeb Stuart]

I live near the Virginia "Back Bay". Beautiful land of marshes and one of the biggest areas of Migratory Ducks, and geese. Hiking back there you can see tens of thousands of White geese with they make there flights as well as just about every variety of duck you can imagine.Lead shot has been a real concern over the years. So many articles and studies for as long as I can remember. And Lead pellets are a real serious threat. These concerns and regulations were done well before the anti-gun crowd started their push. Other major threats are the Nutria and the wild hog. And I have seen first hand how much damage they can cause. I guess some would say that they do not do any damage just like many here say lead shot does not harm the wildlife.
What is interesting is the fact that these concerns are not from anti 2nd amendment people. Nor were the studies. In fact many hunters in our area understand this. They love the land and the wildlife.
I read post so many times where I really get the feeling that there are a whole lot of hunters and pro gun rights, that can be just as bad as the far left Pita, and tree huggers. Actual hatred for environmentalist.
Just like the post above that say's "Worrying about toxic shot and animal health is like worrying about flooding if you pee in the ocean?" Sorry it is a real concern where I live. And I would hate to see they day that these beautiful creatures and magnificent land gone.
By the way, I am a pro hunter, have hunted all my life, and pro gun rights as you can get. But there has to be a balance.
This hatred for Environmentalist, protection of the environment and wildlife is something I never have understood.

 

[Deanimator]

Please re-read my comment, as I said nothing about waterfowl. I said that the irrelevance was related to lead poisoning of raptors, scavengers, mammals, and reptiles, not waterfowl. Those subgroups are much more likely to be exposed to lead from conventional bullets.

1. As previously noted, "exposed to", meaning WHAT?
2. What exactly is the quantity of carcasses LEFT LYING that any significant quantity of scavengers are IINGESTING lead rifle or pistol bullets? Are people hunting with Gatling and Gardner guns without harvesting the game?

 

[primalmu]

1. I fail to see how you are having difficulty understanding exposure. Lead poisoning occurs from ingestion of lead. It does not occur from looking at lead. It does not occur by being in close proximity to lead. And it doesn't occur by a non-lethal gunshot wound with a lead bullet. Why exactly are you hung up on this point?
2. You seem to think that animals must be ingesting significant quantities of elemental lead to become poisoned. Furthermore, you seem to be unaware of the nature of chronic lead toxicity which has a cumulative effect. Birds of prey can get lead poisoning simply by eating another animal that has elevated levels of lead in its tissues. This is the exact same concept behind concerns over mercury levels in tuna and other fish -- animals higher in the food chain (tuna/raptors) accumulate heavy metals from their prey lower on the food chain (sardines/waterfowl).

 

[primalmu]

Also, just for fun, here are some numbers.

The LD50 of lead in humans is 450 mg/kg. If you aren't aware, LD50 is the dose of a particular substance that, when give, is lethal to 50% of individuals that receive said dose. This is the most common method used to express relative toxicities for substances and drugs. For a 120 lbs human, this equates to 24,545mg of lead, or approximately a 380gr lead bullet.

Now, we run into a bit of a problem because there's not much research done into toxic doses for lead in birds. If we assume that the LD50 for lead in a bald eagle is comparable to human (it likely isn't, but I can't find any information so its time to extrapolate), then a 14 lbs bald eagle would only need to consume 44gr of elemental lead to receive the LD50 dose. This is an extrapolation between species, and the LD50 for bald eagles could very well be higher or lower than humans.

Keep in mind that this is just for acute toxicity, not chronic toxicity. Chronic toxicity is the accumulation of much smaller doses, and this is the most common type of lead toxicity in wild birds. Also consider that lead exposure can come from ingestion of lead in tissues of other animals, including fish from contaminated waterways.

 

[JohnKSa]

I fail to see how you are having difficulty understanding exposure. Lead poisoning occurs from ingestion of lead. It does not occur from looking at lead. It does not occur by being in close proximity to lead. And it doesn't occur by a non-lethal gunshot wound with a lead bullet. Why exactly are you hung up on this point?

The article and the quote lumps exposure together with fatality ("exposed or killed") as if exposure automatically implies harm. Of course, exposure, in and of itself means essentially nothing unless it rises to the level of toxicity. There is no doubt that we have all ingested lead in our lifetimes; however only a very small percentage of people actually suffer ill health effects. That is because in the vast majority of cases, the exposure is not sufficient to create toxicity.

I think it's a given that predators are exposed to lead as the result of bullet/pellet fragments remaining in waste from hunting (gutpiles, etc.). It's also a given that animals are exposed to lead from other sources--it is a naturally occurring substance, unlike, say Plutonium, which must be manufactured.

So there are really two issues that need to be addressed:

1. The implication that exposure equates to harm is problematic. There needs to be at least some effort made to quantify the harm caused by the exposure rather than hand-waving it in with fatalities.

2. Lead exposure needs to be sourced, rather than just assuming that all lead exposure is the result of hunting related activities. For example, it's a bit concerning that California Condor lead levels and exposure do not appear to have been reduced by the prohibitions on lead ammunition in their range.

 

[labnoti]

I believe you can buy lead free 209 primers (think Fiocchi makes them) and you can easily convert a percussion cap nipple to accept 209 primers.

I have not seen them available. If you see them in stock, for sale, let me know where. From what I can tell, though they have existed for something like 10 years, they have not been on the market as components. But if I saw them for sale, I would almost certainly buy. I have read a lot of hearsay about lead-free primers on forums over the years, but none of it is firsthand. What I can say from my firsthand experience with Fiocchi lead-free SPPprimers is they perform better than any conventional primer I've ever used from any of the major brands. Reliability has been perfect for thousands of rounds. Ignition is very thorough and clean for .357 cases full of compressed magnum powder and a half-dozen other powders. My experience totally contradicts any rumor of poor reliability or ignition. I bought twelve thousand and I hope they are not out of stock next year when I'll want to buy another twelve.

 

[labnoti]

I think there are two separate issues with lead: one is a personal safety issue and the other is an environmental issue. For me, the personal safety issue is settled. Anyone who thinks lead exposure from shooting and reloading is not harming them is just denying it like smokers did for decades. But that is not to say that lead exposure cannot be controlled except by eliminating lead. Shooters and reloaders of lead can limit their exposure without banning lead. But there should be no doubt left that they need to in order to avoid substantial harm.

The environmental issue is broader. I would expect to see much more compelling evidence before I thought lead ammunition was causing harm to the environment in a way that reducing or eliminating lead ammunition would prevent, cure or reverse the damage. I haven't seen anything but junk science on the topic and so I don't see any validity to the cause to eliminate lead for environmental reasons. Where environmental contamination almost certainly does occur is at shooting ranges, and the mitigation and cleanup of those sites can be managed without affecting other areas.

 

[Deanimator]

1. I fail to see how you are having difficulty understanding exposure. Lead poisoning occurs from ingestion of lead. It does not occur from looking at lead. It does not occur by being in close proximity to lead. And it doesn't occur by a non-lethal gunshot wound with a lead bullet. Why exactly are you hung up on this point?
2. You seem to think that animals must be ingesting significant quantities of elemental lead to become poisoned. Furthermore, you seem to be unaware of the nature of chronic lead toxicity which has a cumulative effect. Birds of prey can get lead poisoning simply by eating another animal that has elevated levels of lead in its tissues. This is the exact same concept behind concerns over mercury levels in tuna and other fish -- animals higher in the food chain (tuna/raptors) accumulate heavy metals from their prey lower on the food chain (sardines/waterfowl).

You're not showing me a mechanism by which significant numbers of animals are ingesting significant numbers of rifle and pistol bullets. AGAIN, where are animals finding LOTS of carcasses with LEAD BULLETS in them? Knob Creek? Where are they coming from? .450 Maxims?

 

[Deanimator]

I think there are two separate issues with lead: one is a personal safety issue and the other is an environmental issue. For me, the personal safety issue is settled. Anyone who thinks lead exposure from shooting and reloading is not harming them is just denying it like smokers did for decades. But that is not to say that lead exposure cannot be controlled except by eliminating lead. Shooters and reloaders of lead can limit their exposure without banning lead. But there should be no doubt left that they need to in order to avoid substantial harm.

The environmental issue is broader. I would expect to see much more compelling evidence before I thought lead ammunition was causing harm to the environment in a way that reducing or eliminating lead ammunition would prevent, cure or reverse the damage. I haven't seen anything but junk science on the topic and so I don't see any validity to the cause to eliminate lead for environmental reasons. Where environmental contamination almost certainly does occur is at shooting ranges, and the mitigation and cleanup of those sites can be managed without affecting other areas.

Every range to which I've belonged recycled (and recast) their lead waste.

 

[mag1911]

We had a company owned trap/skeet gun club built many decades ago that, when built, was a few miles from town. As the town grew some very expensive subdivisions sprang up all around the range.

Some new homeowners complained about the noise saying it was against local noise ordinances and lobbied company executives to close the range. They ran into the Range Protection Statues on that one. When that didn't work they lobbied the sheriff to close the range due to downrange safety concerns. When that didn't work they claimed lead shot from the club was contaminating the small lake next to it so the gun club paid to have the lake tested. As I recall the lake had less lead contamination in it than the city water supply.

Eventually the company fell on hard times and sold the property to a "developer" who closed the range to "build houses" on it. That's been many years ago and not a single structure of any kind has been built to my knowledge.

It's my belief the complaining homeowners banded together, formed a development company and bought the property just to close the range. They tried everything they could think of first, including that nebulous lead claim not backed by anything but wishful thinking, before they finally had to get out their money.

On a side note, if the goal is really to save bird lives then getting rid of all of our cats, cars ,buildings with windows and power lines seems to get the most bang for the buck.

 

[Ironicaintit]

On a side note, if the goal is really to save bird lives then getting rid of all of our cats, cars ,buildings with windows and power lines seems to get the most bang for the buck.

lets not forget the wind power turbines, as well

 

[LOLBELL]

I'm well aware that the use of lead shot for hunting birds of the Anatidae family, was banned starting 30 years ago. I also remember well how many resisted then using the same excuses. Now three decades later you hear little or no snibbling over the lead vs steel debate. The switch to non-toxic from lead did not kill the sport, nor did the cost drive folks away from the sport. Nowadays a good non-toxic goose load costs me no more than a good quality lead pheasant load. In fact, I don't have an issue with using non-toxic for pheasants. Nor do I have an issue with using it for Wild Turkeys. In the last few years, altho I have a huge stockpile of cup and core bullets to reload for my handguns, I have switched over to Barnes solids for hunting deer with my .44s and .460. The cost difference for the small amount I use over the hunting season is minimal at best, compared to other monies I spend on the sport. Will my changeover affect anything? Maybe, maybe not, but I'd rather be one of those folks known for fighting for the well-being of non-game animals than one known for ignoring an issue that has been proven over and over. Right now, the threat to me and my family from the incidence of CWD in deer is probably more of a threat than me or my family getting lead poisoning from eating animals I've killed. But....any risk, regardless of how small to my grand-kids, concerns me, and I will do what ever I can to reduce that threat. As I said....others are free to scoff if they want. One can bury their head in the sand and shout....na, na, na, na, nah, all they want. As with waterfowl, the restricting of lead for use in hunting game animals is on all of our horizons. As the article states, it has happened in many areas and is happening more and more. It seems the push now is to get folks to change willingly as opposed to making them, via a ban. Maybe if enough folks use non-toxic voluntarily, there would be no ban and folks that want to melt and cast their own lead projectiles will still be able to. To me, that seems like the best solution.

Why not just properly dispose of the carcasses instead of banning lead to save the eagles. I would think that would help the environment more than a lead ban.

 

[Jeb Stuart]

We had a company owned trap/skeet gun club built many decades ago that, when built, was a few miles from town. As the town grew some very expensive subdivisions sprang up all around the range.

Some new homeowners complained about the noise saying it was against local noise ordinances and lobbied company executives to close the range. They ran into the Range Protection Statues on that one. When that didn't work they lobbied the sheriff to close the range due to downrange safety concerns. When that didn't work they claimed lead shot from the club was contaminating the small lake next to it so the gun club paid to have the lake tested. As I recall the lake had less lead contamination in it than the city water supply.

Eventually the company fell on hard times and sold the property to a "developer" who closed the range to "build houses" on it. That's been many years ago and not a single structure of any kind has been built to my knowledge.

It's my belief the complaining homeowners banded together, formed a development company and bought the property just to close the range. They tried everything they could think of first, including that nebulous lead claim not backed by anything but wishful thinking, before they finally had to get out their money.

On a side note, if the goal is really to save bird lives then getting rid of all of our cats, cars ,buildings with windows and power lines seems to get the most bang for the buck.

Think about how the wildlife hates new development. They removed a outdoor range in my area. No need to worry about lead. Too easy for the Developers to just say move it. They have the money, the lawyers and the necessary Greed. And what makes me sick is how these new Home owners rant and complain about how Deer are infringing on THEIR property.
Our city is a city that local politicians are bought. And the biggest buyers are Developers. They own the city. The rest is just Riff Raff, like the new member of city council that was elected, simply because he was a former NFL player. No business experience at all. The city is going to hell in a basket and very quickly.

 

[George P]

https://www.peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-lead/PDF/0307 Tranel.pdf

"We found over 130 species of animals (including upland birds, raptors, waterfowl, and reptiles) have been reported in the literature as being exposed or killed by ingesting lead shot, bullets, bullet fragments, or prey contaminated with lead ammunition. The impacts of ingested lead on wildlife included decreased survival, poor body condition, behavioral changes, and impaired reproduction."

(Emphasis added.)

I'll leave you to sort through the citations for the full list of 130 affected species.

Quoting from sources with a built in bias lends zero credibility to the post

 

[Ohen Cepel]

https://www.peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-lead/PDF/0307 Tranel.pdf

"We found over 130 species of animals (including upland birds, raptors, waterfowl, and reptiles) have been reported in the literature as being exposed or killed by ingesting lead shot, bullets, bullet fragments, or prey contaminated with lead ammunition. The impacts of ingested lead on wildlife included decreased survival, poor body condition, behavioral changes, and impaired reproduction."

(Emphasis added.)

Should note that of the 130 species allegedly impacted that is globally, NOT, in the US alone. Didn't know there was any hunting in Japan but guess there is.

The Army was pushed to get away from lead years ago and went with tungsten which created even bigger issues on one range up in MA as that environment was rather odd and the bullet design less than ideal for that instance. So, I am very leery of jumping for the "new and improved solution" which will likely cost us much more and could well be MUCH worse for all concerned including the wildlife. Link to a non-technical article is here (as the veterinarian assumes we're not educated nor scientific) https://www.lightfighter.net/topic/tungsten-ammo-problems There are scholarly, peer reviewed articles on the situation if one looks.

Tons and tons of lead has been put into locations by shooters and the military with very little, if any impact. I'm not sure we'll be able to do that with the alternatives as there will be unique issues like the MA range above, then, we have a serious mess on our hands with a very expensive clean up and real environmental issues.

Restricting lead shot made some sense to me, moving that logic into bullets I am not convinced is sound. Anecdotal "evidence" of a few animals in a species being impacted or needing treatment is not enough for me to roll the dice with other unproven solutions.

As mentioned before, the article was weak at best.

 

[Jeb Stuart]

Don't let your kids eat Paint chips with lead. They do not do well in school.