Lead and Wildlife

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wyoming only requires non-toxic shot for upland birds in specifically defined Wildlife Habitat Management Areas and national wildlife refuges where pheasants are hunted, which are usually peripheral to wetlands. This doesn't apply to most upland bird hunting on public lands. You can still hunt forest grouse and sharptails in most public places with lead shot outside of the WHMAs, which are a very small percentage of land in the eastern part of the state. You're distorting the regulations, HiBC.

http://gf.state.wy.us/admin/regulations/pdf/Ch18_04262010.pdf

http://gf.state.wy.us/admin/regulations/pdf/Ch12_04262010.pdf

http://gf.state.wy.us/admin/regulations/pdf/Ch13_04262010.pdf

http://gf.state.wy.us/admin/regulations/pdf/Ch11_04262010.pdf

http://gf.state.wy.us/admin/regulations/pdf/Ch19_04262010.pdf

Pheasant, grouse, chukar and hun, sage grouse, and sharptails, in that order.

The only ban I see on lead is on the WHMAs and on national wildlife refuges.
 
Last edited:
As soon as I posted,I decided to check Wyo regs.It is true,the ban is not state wide.I edited my post to reflect what I found.It was not an attempt to distort,when I have gone to Wyo for walk in pheasant hunting,we took non toxic shot and my understanding was it was required.
 
I don't know HiBC...I see you edited your last post and that's why I'm writing again. I'm not familiar with EPA regulations in cities. I'm not trying to ruffle your feathers, so to speak, and pun IS intended...hope you chuckle at this. I'm just presenting facts as I see them.

Edit: You wrote as I was writing...Ya...I don't know about all walk in areas for pheasants...there are some that I hunted NE of Cheyenne for sharptail and they definitely did NOT require non-toxic, but all the WHMAs do. I don't think you'd find any pheasants on the walk in areas anyway, unless someone was growing corn. I didn't see any sharptails when I went. I haven't checked out the WHMAs for either bird, though. I just posted what I read in the regs.
 
Last edited:
Looks to me as though the sequence for birds ingesting lead would be that it gets ground in the craw and small traces then are acted upon by gastric juices. SFAIK, that would be the method for toxicity. Without this slow and ongoing process in the craw, occasional ingestion would be a rapid pass-through process with little or no harm.

Dangfino how you'd compare the numbers of ducks harmed by lead vs. the number of ducks wounded by steel shot and lost. Lots of unanticipated side-effects, unintended consequences, as we try to make our world better. Pick a subject...
 
I haven't duck hunted in years, and the last time I had to use steel shot was when I pheasant hunted on public land in 2005 in SD.

How are the newer non-toxic rounds? Bismuth, etc. I never hunted with them. Are they really expensive? I grew up on using steel for ducks and geese. Really not a fair comparison for me using lead on ruffed grouse or rabbits.
 
Yes, lead is toxic when birds ingest it, we've known this for years. And yes, birds ingest lead shot and it grinds up in their craw, killing them. And yes, there are alternatives to lead, have been for many years. But lead is cheap, and if you think people whine about the cost of steel shot, you should hear the wailing over the cost of bismuth, tungsten, tin/iron/tunsten matrix, or tungsten/polymer matrix shells. $30 for a box of 10 rounds is not uncommon. Lead shotshells sell for $5-$10/box of 25. Is it worth it to eliminate lead? That's a good question, and asking it is a great way to start either a debate or an argument among hunters.
 
lead toxicity

Several years ago a geologist hunting buddy and I did a bunch of reading on lead shot and bullets and there is a significant amount of information (including good state game agency x-ray studies from rifle-shot animal carcasses and packages of burger at the food pantry) that shows bullet fragments are found in game meat, especially when poorly constructed bullets fired at high velocity are used. There is also much data on non-target wildlife (i.e. condors and other scavengers) ingesting and being harmed by lead fragments found in the gut-piles of rifle-killed animals not to mention shot accidentally ingested by feeding birds. Finally there is quite a bit of research into the harmful impact of elemental lead ingested by humans, especially causing developmental problems in young children. I used to hunt elk and deer with cheap and accurate Remington "core-loss" bullets but I got tired of bad bullets after I recovered a dozen slugs from game that had literally blown apart and shed half of the lead into the animal including little lead fragments I've found in my dinner.

Because of all this I decided to shift over to all-copper bullets and bismuth shot for hunting so as to leave no poison in my wake or in my dinner. I still shoot lead bullets and shot at the range to practice but no longer in the field. Sure no-lead ammo is expensive but any premium bullet is costly and the Barnes TSX and TTSX are great bullets that really have done the job on 4 elk, a half-dozen antelope and numerous deer, grouse, chukars and turkeys. So far I've only recovered two copper slugs, both from quartering shots into large elk that lodged in the brisket area, and both mushroomed perfectly and retained 99% of their original weight. I don't see an anti-hunting conspiracy in the movement to require better hunting technology that helps to reduce the possibility of collateral damage to our wildlife, which I think includes scavenger birds and animals - "varmints." If I'm not specifically trying to kill it then I don't want it to die by my mistake. And I am very happy to do everything possible to protect my family, especially my young son who loves to eat wild game and who I hope will grow one day into a skilled hunter himself.
 
Wyoming only requires non-toxic shot for upland birds in specifically defined Wildlife Habitat Management Areas and national wildlife refuges where pheasants are hunted, which are usually peripheral to wetlands. This doesn't apply to most upland bird hunting on public lands. You can still hunt forest grouse and sharptails in most public places with lead shot outside of the WHMAs, which are a very small percentage of land in the eastern part of the state.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a good case study. Is there a measureable difference in the number of pheasants (or other birds) per square mile in the WHMA's?
 
As far as I know, the WHMAs are about the only places with suitable habitat for pheasants in WY. It wouldn't be a fair comparison to areas outside the WHMAs.

I'm not absolutely sure, though...I've only lived here a little over a year. I suspect the birds are stocked also. That adds another variable.
 
...there is a significant amount of information (including good state game agency x-ray studies from rifle-shot animal carcasses and packages of burger at the food pantry) that shows bullet fragments are found in game meat, especially when poorly constructed bullets fired at high velocity are used. There is also much data on non-target wildlife (i.e. condors and other scavengers) ingesting and being harmed by lead fragments found in the gut-piles of rifle-killed animals not to mention shot accidentally ingested by feeding birds.
Click to expand...
Both of these topics have been recently brought up by anti-hunting groups.

The lead fragments in game issue being a hazard to humans was pretty thoroughly debunked by comparing lead levels of humans who ate primarily hunted meat and humans who ate primarily farmed meat. Those eating farmed meat had higher levels because they tended to live in more urban surroundings and picked up more lead from their surroundings. The study didn't show that eating hunted meat resulted in elevated lead levels.

I've never seen actual data supporting the contention that gutpile bullet fragments are causing health problems in condors or other scavenger birds. I've seen some studies that strongly suggest it might be a possible cause of elevated lead levels in condors but nothing showing that it's actually what is causing the problem. I'd be interested in seeing data that actually ties gutpile bullet fragments to elevated lead in condors. It would surprise me if anyone could produce such data given that gizzards in raptors are quite different from those of birds such as ducks.
 
Really if you ask me the bulk of this lies with the ammunition manufacturers. Stop manufacturing lead shot, only make steel and the entire discussion becomes moot.

The people at remington and Federal and Winchester are likely sportsman themselves and as such should appreciate the wildlife and realize they have a HUGE impact on something like this.

I hope in a couple years that lead shot will be illegal no matter what you are shooting where.
 
"The lead fragments in game issue being a hazard to humans was pretty thoroughly debunked by comparing lead levels of humans who ate primarily hunted meat and humans who ate primarily farmed meat. Those eating farmed meat had higher levels because they tended to live in more urban surroundings and picked up more lead from their surroundings. The study didn't show that eating hunted meat resulted in elevated lead levels."--JohnKSa

This I believe, plattski. I admire your desire to protect your offspring, but I think the amount of lead your son might ingest is negligible regardless of wild game or USDA approved farm animals. And I'd be more suspicious of the USDA.

As far as raptors or predatory birds vs. ducks and grouse and pheasants there probably is a difference in the way gizzards process things. JohnKSa, do you have any resources to point to? Just wondering...I've cleaned and eaten many, many gizzards from ducks and grouse and chukars, but I've never seen one from a raptor.
 
It's all available online but I don't have a specific source.

Raptors regularly expel the contents of their gizzards (throw up) after eating to eliminate the indigestible portions of their prey. This is unlike seed/grain eating birds which retain small stones and other hard objects in their gizzards to aid in grinding their food.

Raptor gizzards are much less muscular because they aren't required to grind seeds the way seed/grain eating birds' gizzards are. They wouldn't grind off tiny pieces of lead from shot or bullet fragments that could pass through the rest of their digestive system and possibly be assimilated.

In addition, the gizzards of raptors do not contain digestive glands.

So there's not enough musculature or grinding action to make tiny fragments from lead shot or from larger bullet fragments. Even if there were the indigestible parts of raptors' meals are regularly expelled along with the contents of the gizzards after eating without ever coming in contact with digestive juices.

I am very interested in biology and am a wildlife lover. I don't like to see animals harmed unnecessarily. I also don't like to see unethical people (like anti-hunters) use well-meaning people's love of animals to further their own agendas by trying to twist the facts to suit their arguments and views.

It's clear there are some valid concerns regarding lead toxicity and its effects on humans and wildlife. The problem is, for the most part, I don't see those concerns being addressed rationally with a focus towards solving real-world problems that have well-established data to support them with a verifiable cause and effect chain. Instead it seems far more common to see anti-hunting/animal rights groups using junk science, sound bite logic and scare tactics about lead to try to further their goals.

We need to be careful not to let our valid concerns about the real issues involving lead cause us to be too ready to accept any negative things we hear about lead.
 
Well said,Johnska.
The idea that lead is somehow scattered throughout the carcass of a game animal does not make any sense.The effects of temporary cavitation make bloodshot meat that gets trimmed away.
I have certainly shot,dressed,.cleaned up and processed a fair number of animals.Given the primary penetration is in the direction of bullet travel,given it consumes energy to break off a tiny lead particle,given the tiny lead particle has very little mass and a really lousy sectional density,and given any lateral velocity will be a small fraction of forward velocity,what strange magical force scatters it about in the meat?
 
I'll check on this sometime, but I believe you JonhnSKa that the gizzards of raptors don't contain digestive glands. As far as I know, plants are a bit more difficult to digest (from a human's standpoint) than meat is. The cellulose of plants (indigestible fiber) makes me run to the can more often than meat. It would make sense regarding differences between the raptors and vegi eating birds.
 
Lord knows I've spat out a bunch of #8 from dove and quail. Probably got more lead in me from residual lead in highway dust than from any other source. Or maybe from a bunch of IPSC practice. As near as I can tell, I'm not yet goofy or senile, even at age 76. :D

I've yet to see how lead can travel from a deer's heart/lungs to the backstrap or hams. Duh? Dumb notion.

And as far as gut piles, I really doubt that as a source of lead--certainly not for one single scavenger, anyway. By the time some scavenger might--repeat, might--have consumed enough lead to be harmful, he's gonna be dead from old age or other causes.

And that's way different from lead in the craw of a seed/grass-eating duck.
 
When it comes to environmental hazards (especially those I can control) I believe in the precautionary principal, which states that it is wise to avoid exposure to suspected harm until an activity is proven harmless. Pretty simple especially when excellent alternatives are available as in the case of hunting ammunition, unleaded gasoline, lead-free paint, etc. The only meat I eat is wild game I kill or local farm animals with a history I can trace, and the same goes for other foods to the extent possible, from my garden or from local farmers (I don't have much faith in the USDA based on its many recent failures to ensure the safety of our food supply).

When it comes to using non-toxic ammunition some folks do their own research and decide for themselves that lead-free makes sense, but others see a dark conspiracy that reaches far beyond personal health and protection of non-target wildlife. I'd rather see non-toxic ammunition adopted voluntarily by hunters but the conspiracy camp (driven by the firearms industry including organizations like the NRA and NSSA) works hard to cloud the issue so reason isn't given a chance to prevail. The challenge the hunting community faces is that we are a very small minority in this country and we continue to hunt with the support of a large majority of non-hunters who are mostly agnostic about hunting but are broadly in support of protecting wildlife. When the voice of the hunting community is loud in opposition to moderate measures that protect public wildlife I think it undermines our credibility with our fellow citizens who do not hunt and exposes us to greater risk that we will lose our hunting privilege altogether. Fortunately many hunters are making the transition to non-toxic ammunition based on its superior performance and this shift helps to ease the manufactured controversy over lead-free ammunition as a tool of blue-helmeted anti-hunters coming in black helicopters to take granddad's hunting rifle. You can lead some horses to water but you can't make them think.
 
...I believe in the precautionary principal, which states that it is wise to avoid exposure to suspected harm until an activity is proven harmless.
Click to expand...
Nothing is "harmless". What you means is "sufficiently harmless"--in other words, "reasonably safe".

At any rate, living by such a principle is your prerogative and assuming that my restatement is actually what you meant then I suppose it's not an unreasonable principle to voluntarily apply in one's personal life--as long as it isn't taken to extremes.

And as long as that's as far as it goes. The problem is that many don't want to stop there.

Legislating that everyone else must adopt this principle is not at all reasonable. It is absolutely abominable to make laws based on the principle that we should outlaw anything that is suspected to be harmful unless we can prove it to be reasonably safe.

Laws restrict human freedom and personal choice, they ration the most precious commodities on earth. Laws should be made because they are absolutely necessary, not enacted on the basis that something might be harmful, that something hasn't yet been proven harmless or at least sufficiently harmless.
...others see a dark conspiracy that reaches far beyond personal health and protection of non-target wildlife.
Click to expand...
There are two things at issue here.

1. It is incontrovertible that the negative "research" on lead and wildlife has recently come from anti-hunting/animal rights groups. Pretending that's not relevant isn't productive.

2. There's a huge difference between a person's being voluntarily cautious about lead exposure and the use of lead versus forcing everyone to adopt the same standard or be punished. One is a personal choice--the exercise of freedom. The second is exactly the opposite of a personal choice--the exact opposite of freedom.

The idea that freedoms should be restricted based merely on the suspicion that something might be harmful is not only misguided it's alarming. Yet that's where many would take us if they could.

It's our responsibility to stand up and point out the truth to prevent it from being twisted and used against us.
 
I've always figured that the amount of lead shot that actually gets consumed by waterfowl was overstated. I don't doubt that it would kill a bird, but I never figured there were as many dying from it as you are lead to believe. But, then again, many of you have done alot more research on the subject than I have.

RamSlammer brought up an interesting point that has always been my theory on the lead vs steel debate, though. Is the number of birds being killed by eating lead shot greater than the number of birds being crippled and unrecovered by steel? As far as facts go, I've got one for you--steel shot cripples birds, lead shot kills them.
 
Actually for at least the last 100 years hunters and the revenue they provide are why we still have the wildlife poputations and habitat we have.Sportsmen put excise tax laws on sporting goods long ago to fund taking care of our wildlife.While I do not necessarily worship Teddy Roosevelt,his hunting and fishing adventures have something to do with why we have National Forests and National Parks.In the state of Colorado,big game hunting outranks the ski industry for the state economy.It is true not all Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants Unlimited members are hunters,but by far the membership,volunteer funds and efforts of these organizations are hunters.I recall when opening days of hunting seasons were some form of administrative day off in the school systems in support of the experience of familiies going hunting.What is ilt like now?
One of the ways the Make a Wish Foundation was able to support a dream for a terminally ill kid was outfitters would give a kid a free hunt.The PC crowd put a stop to that.There is the threat to the future of hunting,and wildlife.The birdwatchers and non-game wildlife check-off wont get it done.
Your comments to marginalize the folks who speak up against you as dark conspiracy whackos is textbook "Rules for Radicals"
I absolutely do support your right to choose the projectile of your choice.I believe in Liberty"
I take very serious exception to the sort that says"I prefer non lead and so I want to ban all lead" that is not Liberty,that is Tyrrany.
Since the Condor has been introduced as a pawn in this discussion,I suggest the issue of lead in gut piles is a red herring to make folks "Do something!" and in the grand scheme of things banning lead will not save the Condor.The threat to the Condor is far more about the people who inhabit the state of California and what they have done to that state.
It is where they build their houses and marinas and beaches and resorts and hiways and malls .
If your motives about saving the Condor are at all serious,forget the few days of hunting and a little lead that could be there,
Move the people out of the homes built on what was habitat for the Condor and many other species,and bulldoze them.Reclaim and restore the land to pristine.Return California(which seems to be the epicenter for "good" ideas) back to something similar to Wyoming for population.The wildlife will recover.It is people,not lead,that endanger species.
Oh,you don't think those folks want to do that? Hmm.
I'm a long way from any Condors.Leave my lead alone.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top