Lead and Wildlife

Status
Not open for further replies.
Toxic?

If lead is so toxic, why do doctors soemtimes leave bullets in patients when removing them would cause more harm then good? If lead was such a hazard, a surgeon would do whatever it takes to remove the bullet.

I have a friend that has had a 22 caliber lead pellet in his hand for over forty years. I swear to you that is he is very much alive.
 
I believe its a knee jerk reaction to psuedo science pushed by folks with an agenda.

If you want to shoot non toxic, shoot it. But keep your hands off my lead projectiles until you show me concrete proof from an impartial source that its a real danger.
 
"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." JohnSKa, above.

JohnKSa you started out pretty well but at the end of your statement you returned to the skeptic's position by labeling science you don't agree with as "junk." This is one of my points, that there are valid concerns about lead ammunition but a small group of advocates on the left and right are trying to control the dialog for the rest of us and one way to do that is to challenge available science that yields conclusions that we disagree with. To be considered valid science, research must test an hypothesis, have a transparent methodology and be repeatable, and be subject to review by experts in the field. Peer-reviewed science is not a popularity contest that we can agree or disagree with. I think you can say both extremes use sound bite logic and scare tactics but to label all science involved as "junk" is dismissive of the state fish and game agencies that have done research in the area.

Scorch, your statement "Yes, lead is toxic when birds ingest it, we've known this for years" supports my point that there is clear data on this issue available if you give credence to any science at all, and by extension it supports my point that lead is bad for humans when ingested, especially young children. Look around for health studies on what happens when lead trinkets from China are accidentally eaten by little kids and you will find an acute effect much different than roy reali's example of a piece of lead lodged in an adult's muscle. Anyone out there mad that we banned lead trinkets that hurt our kids? If so do you still smoke while your kids are in the car? "Sorry about that asthma Junior but don't blame my cigs because you can't prove a connection, cough cough."

Regarding the precautionary principle, it works for individuals very well but it also necessary for society at large and should be a guide for us when we contemplate allowing activities we can reasonable expect to be harmful. The precautionary principle says instead of permitting something we might reasonably expect to be harmful (complex chemicals or tiny lead fragments in our food) we should thoroughly examine the possible impact and our alternatives before allowing their use. Sure the precautionary principle imposes costs on society but are the social costs shared among us all a greater burden than the personal costs imposed by cancer or a baby with birth defects on hundreds and thousands of individuals and families?

Look at pesticides. No one questions that pesticides can be effective for helping farmers improve crop production (good for the farmer) but we now know that some pesticides are very harmful and persistent in the environment, DDT and 2,4,5,T for example, and that harm is shared by everyone who is exposed to those chemicals. Perhaps we didn't originally know the chemicals were so bad for wildlife, consumers or pregnant mothers but when scientists figured out the harm, we Americans collectively decided to ban them. This really annoyed a lot of farmers and a few big chemical companies but that is how a republic works - we inform ourselves about issues and are allowed to express our opinions and vote to achieve our goals, and the most votes represents the greatest good in America. Sidebar: in a republic good information is a choke point which is why so much money gets spent on advertising, tv networks, talk radio, and political campaigns to convince voters of one thing or another, and why we need to protect the scientific community as a neutral referee.

Finally, perhaps some of you think it isn't ME or MY family getting harmed and I won't allow anyone to infringe on my LIBERTY nor will I suffer TYRANNY at your hands. But in a very large, very complex society what you or someone else calls "liberty" and "tyranny" can be pretty confusing. The so-called "anti-hunters" probably consider it tyranny that a small minority of gun-owning, deer-hunting Americans would prefer to risk the exterminate our condors rather than shoot non-toxic bullets, fer crying out loud! A lot of guys love to mock California but study the numbers and you'll see that more people there would rather have condors than lead ammo and Amazing! that's what they have. And that is what could happen in every state in the U.S.A. if we don't wise up and support good research that settles the issue in a responsible, transparent way.

And now for my final point. Wildlife science costs money and a lot of hunters don't want to use license fees or excise tax revenue to support research, which is why we need to say thanks! to hunters for protecting our wildlife all these years and now it is time for public wildlife, parks, and waters to be supported by money from general tax revenues, in order to remove the conflict of interest created when the hunter who pays only wants to spend money on projects that yield more game to hunt or fish to catch. We do need more money for both game and non-game wildlife, and hunters are a ever-shrinking minority that is losing the ability to support fish and game agency budgets. Perhaps it is time for the nation as a whole to pay the cost and share both the responsibility and the opportunity to decide what is best for wildlife! Uh-oh, hope I didn't stir up a tea party!
 
JohnKSa you started out pretty well but at the end of your statement you returned to the skeptic's position by labeling science you don't agree with as "junk."
Click to expand...
That's just it. I DO understand the science and the arguments don't follow nor does the research prove the points it is claimed to prove.

For example, one study is quoted as saying that the lead "fingerprint" in lead found in condors with elevated blood levels is "similar" to that from "a sample of ammunition purchased in Southern California". This sounds pretty scientific but it leaves a lot of information out.

Is the lead in that sample of ammunition mined in California? If so, then the study is meaningless.

Does the lead in that sample of ammunition also have a "similar" fingerprint to sources of lead in the condors' environment? Again, a very important bit of information.

How "similar" is the fingerprint? Is it a conclusive match or only a rough similarity?

How specific is the kind of "fingerprint" used in the study. Are the chances of two different samples being similar 1 in 1,000? 1 in 10? 1 in 1,000,000?

Are there other reasonable explanations for how that fingerprint similarity could come about? Were any other reasonable explanations even sought?

Has anyone demonstrated a mechanism that results in raptors being lead poisoned from metallic lead given the significant differences in their digestive systems versus seed/grain eating birds, particularly their gizzards?

Why don't they give us any information about this "sample of ammunition"? If Southern CA is like my area you can buy ammunition made locally from local materials or foreign materials or ammunition made virtually anywhere in the world.

The condor situation stands in stark constrast to the problem with waterfowl where there really is good evidence that lead poisoning is a valid issue.
Sure the precautionary principle imposes costs on society but are the social costs shared among us all a greater burden than the personal costs imposed by cancer or a baby with birth defects on hundreds and thousands of individuals and families?
Click to expand...
This argument is an emotional argument, not a rational, scientific argument.

We all live with risk every day. It is an unavoidable part of life and attempts to eliminate it are futile. Are you going to have the speed limits set at 4 mph and then try to justify it by saying any inconvenience to society can't be compared to loss of children hit by cars and killed in car accidents?

We've all seen this same general argument used against guns as well by those with an agenda. "We have to get rid of guns because children are killed by guns." It's a great argument for those with "sound bite logic" or who reason with their feelings instead of their intellect but it doesn't hold up under logical scrutiny.

The problem is that if legislating away potential risk based on supicion not only infringes heavily on freedom it brings any productive activities to an end. Man could never have created air travel, gotten into space, learned to perform surgery, developed X-Ray machines or motor vehicles if he had taken the attitude that anything potentially risky had to be banned until it could be proven safe.

By the way, how did we get from talking about a population of 150 condors which may or may not be affected by lead ammunition to associating the hazards of lead ammunition with "cancer or a baby with birth defects on hundreds and thousands of individuals and families".

It's appalling that you think it's reasonable to use the word "science" in the same post with that sort of pseudo-scientific emotional terrorism.
Finally, perhaps some of you think it isn't ME or MY family getting harmed and I won't allow anyone to infringe on my LIBERTY nor will I suffer TYRANNY at your hands. But in a very large, very complex society what you or someone else calls "liberty" and "tyranny" can be pretty confusing.
Click to expand...
Pure unadulterated male bovine excrement.

The difference between liberty and tyranny is not at all confusing although there are certainly people who want to impose tyranny and CALL it liberty.
 
re:plattski

If lead is indeed so toxic, how come folks live long, healthy lives with bullets in them? I know another guy that was peppered in his rear-end with birdshot. The lead pellets were left in. He is also very much alive and quite healthy I might add.
 
I do not necessarily buy your assertion that the majority of Cal people would ban all lead for the Condors.The outcomes of polling can be profoundly manipulated by how the questions are worded.
However,if I humor your assertion,it is very easy to target a group of "other" people to make the sacrifice.I will say again,it is what the Califorians have done to California that is killing ff the Condor.
California was once like Alaska.The Condors were fine.
The eagles do quite well in Alaska.Here in Colorado,too.
I suspect if California would clear the coast back a three mile limit,make it a Coast National Wildlife refuge,think what it would do for the marine life,the ocean,the Condors,the turtles.I bet if we worded the survey question right,over 50% of the nation would favor it.I could at least make the wild claim,oh,and all those homes in the foothills,gotta go.
When your loyalty to wildlife is strong enough that you will sacrifice what is precious to you and your family,then come talk to me about what I should give up.
If you value the views of the majority of Americans,think,.hypocracy(big jets,many big houses,gross consumption) Al Gore.East Anglia,altered data,etc.Junk science. Much more supporting the fraud revealed in Wikileaks.
Fraud and manipulation for the sake of power and the greed to make money with carbon credits and taxes.All barn carpet exposed for what it is.
Gutpile and anti-gun anti hunters are suing the EPA to ban lead bullets.
The stroke of non toxic bullets will make many firearms non usable.
Your statement that non toxic bullets out perform lead bullets is either a deliberate lie or an ill informed statement of ignorance,
The very most important factor in non toxic bullets require sophistcated manufacturing processes which will therefore make ammunition much more controllable,taxable,and expensive.Through this ,the shooting sports will be further reduced and maginalized.The second Ammendment will be weaker without active shooters.
One part of preserving Freedom is being able to home cast a bullet out of reclaimed lead,and if necessary,use a piece of flint and home made black powder.
Another brilliant stroke is the banning of incanescant bulbs in favor of the mercury flourescents.How is the mercury in the fiosh,lately.Lets ban flouescent bulbs.
 
Last edited:
i believe its a matter of how much lead gets in the digestive track rather than if it just exists in raw form embedded in tissue - the acids in the digestive track break down lead and create hazardous lead based compounds to living tissues delivered by the blood stream... simply having lead on your skin or having a lump in your buttox wont do it... besides that, anything in an over concentration will kill you.....

just a thought

cheers
 
re:jammin1237

the acids in the digestive track break down lead and create hazardous lead based compounds to living tissues delivered by the blood stream...
Click to expand...

What if someone swallows a lead pellet and it shoots on out of the person, no pun intended, how much acidic breakdown are we talking about? Kids ingest pennies all the time, they seem to come out pretty much in the same shape they went in. Copper, or most metals for that matter, are toxic in high enough levels. Yet, when a kid swallows a coin, even doctors want to let nature take its course.
 
If we are going to argue about what the science is, why don't we link the studies? I know the CDC did one on folks that ate game killed with lead ammunition. That might be a place to start.
 
Last edited:
Metallic lead is pretty inert. Acids can break it down, but not as easily as one might expect. Still, there is a considerable difference between the amount of lead that will be assimilated from consuming lead vs. getting a lead "implant".

The body isn't very acidic and it also tends to encapsulate foreign objects which isolates it from the rest of the body's subsystems.

The problem with seed/grain eating birds and lead shot is that the lead shot is retained in the gizzard and over time small pieces are ground off of it and then pass through the acidic digestive system. It's very different from what would happen to a person who swallowed a lead pellet or two since there's no grinding action in the human digestive tract and also because no significant material is retained in the human digestive tract. It all passes through fairly rapidly--generally in a matter of a few hours.

Raptors (including condors) have a digestive system that is, in some ways, more similar to the human system than it is to the digestive system of seed/grain eating birds. They don't retain material in their gizzards for grinding and they also regularly expel the indigestible contents of their gizzards by regurgitation.
 
JohnKSa has pretty well summed up the science and biology on the issue. Enough for this particular iteration. I have no doubt that it will come around again...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top