Scientists identify a deadly toxin that's been killing birds. (Can I have regular ammo back now?)

[FLATHEAD]

Thank you... maybe it's a talent, maybe it's a lifestyle. What can I say? I remember what I read. I thought everybody else did too, but experience has shown me that most normally, they don't. I think this other way of being probably stems from all those former students that never really learned the topic... they only learned to cram enough about the topic temporarily into their lobes just enough to get past some test.. then it's like it wipes away faster than it took to get in there! Some of us wanted to learn because we wanted to learn it. So we want mastery. Full understanding. Each and every time, so we can keep adding to the skillz list.

They merely regurgitate what another philosophically superior has told them.
It is because they say so.
How dare you question them.
Anyone with a different view is ignorant.
Seems to have been an influx of this the past few years.

 

[TheGDog]

I'm assuming though that these Condors.... which we are reading from others ALL apparently have some level off lead poisoning... have the possibility of producing offspring which DO NOT have lead poisoning. Would that be a correct assumption? Like if they did enact legislation, which they have, to change the availability of that source of contamination... then shouldn't we quickly see a trend moving in the direction of less lead contamination? For surely the Condors aren't going to be eating the same previously shot animal a 2nd time after they already been eaten and passed thru another creatures bowels. So it's not like all this lead is just sitting out there and mercilessly pre-emptively attacking the Condors. They'd have to actually ingest it, or something contaminated by it.

So... my thinking here is... if we haven't seen a (fairly) rapid change due to this legislation... then obviously it's not the source of the problem, thus to persist with such a legislation in effect amounts to nothing more than tyranny just for the sake of seeing if they can get away with it. No? This is another subject that needs to be heavily pounded upon in this country again. It's like Ok... there's this problem... so because of this specific problem, we're going to impose something which limits the rights of others. My point is... the very second we can confirm the actions taken are moot in yielding the intended outcome... then we must post-haste repeal any action which gave the governance more power over you.

It's like there needs to be a defaulted sunsetting clause inherent with all these measures so that they'll automatically go away if the prescribed method of study indicates no efficacy for the intended problem to be solving is being acheived.

I mean come on! We have a ton of weirdo old laws on the books in places that they can still get you in trouble for, even though the law is now about something people do all the time today of their own free-will anyway. Things of a personal life-choice type of matter. Things that don't hurt anybody else.

Seems settled then. Hard-wire into all these measure a sunsetting clause based on real-life testing results. Or if not available then flat-out just a sunsetting timeframe that's agreed upon ahead of time and written into the measure for gaurantee that it will reach an end.

 

[oenanthe]

Read this article and then ask yourself, why are they ignoring DDT poisoning? Because it doesn't fit California's anti-gun agenda! More, there are fewer than 300 condors in the west and only 160 left in California, all suffer lead poisoning and breeding issues from it. Why is this important? Because lead is an irreversible neurotoxin meaning once in a body, it is never gonna leave. There is no hope for the poisoned condors for this reason. The laws will not (in any way) alter their shared fate.

California Condor | Hunt For Truth

California condors (Gymnogyps Californianus) are a New World vulture of the Cathartidae family. The condors have wingspans up to 9 feet, and weigh 16-31 pounds.

www.huntfortruth.org

I asked for a reference for your claim that "Metallurgical lab testing of "lead poisoned condors" in CA revealed the sources as flaking paint from abandoned government building in the middle of nowhere and not birdshot or bullets." Can you provide that?

I'm not going to address the misinformation in your post above (Marbles did a good job of that).

 

[Marbles]

I'm assuming though that these Condors.... which we are reading from others ALL apparently have some level off lead poisoning... have the possibility of producing offspring which DO NOT have lead poisoning. Would that be a correct assumption? Like if they did enact legislation, which they have, to change the availability of that source of contamination... then shouldn't we quickly see a trend moving in the direction of less lead contamination? For surely the Condors aren't going to be eating the same previously shot animal a 2nd time after they already been eaten and passed thru another creatures bowels. So it's not like all this lead is just sitting out there and mercilessly pre-emptively attacking the Condors. They'd have to actually ingest it, or something contaminated by it.

So... my thinking here is... if we haven't seen a (fairly) rapid change due to this legislation... then obviously it's not the source of the problem, thus to persist with such a legislation in effect amounts to nothing more than tyranny just for the sake of seeing if they can get away with it. No? This is another subject that needs to be heavily pounded upon in this country again. It's like Ok... there's this problem... so because of this specific problem, we're going to impose something which limits the rights of others. My point is... the very second we can confirm the actions taken are moot in yielding the intended outcome... then we must post-haste repeal any action which gave the governance more power over you.

It's like there needs to be a defaulted sunsetting clause inherent with all these measures so that they'll automatically go away if the prescribed method of study indicates no efficacy for the intended problem to be solving is being acheived.

I mean come on! We have a ton of weirdo old laws on the books in places that they can still get you in trouble for, even though the law is now about something people do all the time today of their own free-will anyway. Things of a personal life-choice type of matter. Things that don't hurt anybody else.

Seems settled then. Hard-wire into all these measure a sunsetting clause based on real-life testing results. Or if not available then flat-out just a sunsetting timeframe that's agreed upon ahead of time and written into the measure for gaurantee that it will reach an end.

The legal discussion is very interesting, and overall I have to agree with you. I think CA has created a lot of resistance by banning it. Again, it is interesting to me that Arizona has seen a significant decrease in lead toxicity in its wild condors with about 80% voluntary compliance following education campaigns in the region the condors live in, but California has not seen improvement, dispite a ban.

The question that I don't have the information to clearly answer is why. Are people using lead ammunition in CA as a form of resistance? Or, is there something that has been missed?

Data points I don't have, but would help (I don't put much trust in a survey that basically asks if someone breaks the law) would be things like:
-how much premium lead ammunition is sold for "target practice" and how much copper
-how many people are cited
-how aggressive is it looked for/enforced

My inclination is that education and voluntary compliance is more effective and the ban has been counter productive. Especially as with a few changes in practices lead can be used without causing harm.

Due to the nature of lead and how it is stored in bones, providing for prolonged elevated serum levels, the argument could be made that CA's complete ban (2019) has not had time to show its full effects. It would be interesting to see the birds annual serum lead levels plotted out to see if the partial ban made anny difference beyond just did any of the birds need chelation. There should certainly be a point where society realizes an approach is not working and looks for a different one.

 

[MattB]

The legal discussion is very interesting, and overall I have to agree with you. I think CA has created a lot of resistance by banning it. Again, it is interesting to me that Arizona has seen a significant decrease in lead toxicity in its wild condors with about 80% voluntary compliance following education campaigns in the region the condors live in, but California has not seen improvement, dispite a ban.

The question that I don't have the information to clearly answer is why. Are people using lead ammunition in CA as a form of resistance? Or, is there something that has been missed?

Data points I don't have, but would help (I don't put much trust in a survey that basically asks if someone breaks the law) would be things like:
-how much premium lead ammunition is sold for "target practice" and how much copper
-how many people are cited
-how aggressive is it looked for/enforced

My inclination is that education and voluntary compliance is more effective and the ban has been counter productive. Especially as with a few changes in practices lead can be used without causing harm.

Due to the nature of lead and how it is stored in bones, providing for prolonged elevated serum levels, the argument could be made that CA's complete ban (2019) has not had time to show its full effects. It would be interesting to see the birds annual serum lead levels plotted out to see if the partial ban made anny difference beyond just did any of the birds need chelation. There should certainly be a point where society realizes an approach is not working and looks for a different one.

As is typical in CA, our state passes laws/regulations and then puts very few resources into enforcement. So as the problem gets worse, they pass more laws/regulations to address it, likewise without additional enforcement.

While not a gun hunter, what I can say is very little of the ammo sold at our local retailers is lead-free.

 

[MattB]

The legal discussion is very interesting, and overall I have to agree with you. I think CA has created a lot of resistance by banning it. Again, it is interesting to me that Arizona has seen a significant decrease in lead toxicity in its wild condors with about 80% voluntary compliance following education campaigns in the region the condors live in, but California has not seen improvement, dispite a ban.

The question that I don't have the information to clearly answer is why. Are people using lead ammunition in CA as a form of resistance? Or, is there something that has been missed?

Data points I don't have, but would help (I don't put much trust in a survey that basically asks if someone breaks the law) would be things like:
-how much premium lead ammunition is sold for "target practice" and how much copper
-how many people are cited
-how aggressive is it looked for/enforced

My inclination is that education and voluntary compliance is more effective and the ban has been counter productive. Especially as with a few changes in practices lead can be used without causing harm.

Due to the nature of lead and how it is stored in bones, providing for prolonged elevated serum levels, the argument could be made that CA's complete ban (2019) has not had time to show its full effects. It would be interesting to see the birds annual serum lead levels plotted out to see if the partial ban made anny difference beyond just did any of the birds need chelation. There should certainly be a point where society realizes an approach is not working and looks for a different one.

The lead ban in the condor range went into effect in July 2008. There was additional legislation that phased in a complete lead ban statewide (fully implemented in 2019), but I do not believe that any of the additional layers would positively impact condors.

 

[Moserkr]

A condor ate a quarter and died. Also, they still regularly feed carcasses to them to keep the population alive. Lead was just a scapegoat.

My theory is this: Back before the white man came along, there were elk, wolves, and grizzlies all over CA. That left an abundance of large carcasses to feed on, think yellowstone type interactions. Only that level of predation on large ungulates could support a large scavenger like the CA condor. Its a battle they will never and can never win with our modern, failure of an ecosystem. Condors will never be independent and self sufficient, always requiring humans to keep the species alive due to our own encroachment of their ancient way of life.

As for birds of prey in the midwest, my family has hunted birds out there for over a century. So many cripples lost and still tons of predatory birds. Id be interested to hear about how lead affects them. My 95 year old grandpa ate birds shot by lead his whole life with no effects so it doesnt seem to hurt us.

 

[Newtosavage]

It's pretty astonishing to me that on a Conservation forum within a forum of people who say they care about wildlife and the outdoors, that the consensus is we need more (not less) lead in the environment.

I sometimes wonder when fellow hunters will stop surprising me in this way. My fault that I continue to allow myself to be surprised I guess.

I started shooting steel at flying things about 25 years ago and have ever since. I've never felt handicapped by that. In fact, my hit % increased on dove because of the added speed. Go figure.

 

[Newtosavage]

A condor ate a quarter and died. Also, they still regularly feed carcasses to them to keep the population alive. Lead was just a scapegoat.

My theory is this: Back before the white man came along, there were elk, wolves, and grizzlies all over CA. That left an abundance of large carcasses to feed on, think yellowstone type interactions. Only that level of predation on large ungulates could support a large scavenger like the CA condor. Its a battle they will never and can never win with our modern, failure of an ecosystem. Condors will never be independent and self sufficient, always requiring humans to keep the species alive due to our own encroachment of their ancient way of life.

As for birds of prey in the midwest, my family has hunted birds out there for over a century. So many cripples lost and still tons of predatory birds. Id be interested to hear about how lead affects them. My 95 year old grandpa ate birds shot by lead his whole life with no effects so it doesnt seem to hurt us.

Most of the central US pre-settlement consisted of vast (and I mean VAST) prairies. Illinois is known as the "Prairie State" although there is an almost insignificant amount of actual prairie left in that state, or anywhere else in the U.S. Birds of prey used to have very, very few perches historically. The open prairies were sanctuaries for their prey because those BOP's would have to use so much energy to hunt that they would primarily be relegated to the borders of these massive prairies, along major creeks and river corridors. What we have seen in our lifetime cannot be compared to pre-settlement conditions when it comes to birds of prey or even most predator-prey relationships.

 

[Newtosavage]

I'm going to write one last thing on this topic before the angry mob comes after me with their pitchforks.

There was a time when the best examples of hunters were viewed as pioneering conservationists who had not just the game they sought to "reduce to bag" in mind, but the whole of the ecosystem they occupied. Hunters like Teddy Roosevelt and Aldo Leupold and others, who gave us the modern model of wildlife conservation were and should still be our role models.

Anytime people see or hear hunters dismissing (or worse) actions that are intended to be beneficial to wildlife and the environment, it diminishes the public's view of hunters as a whole. The image of selfish, greedy and careless hunters is exactly what those who oppose our way of life want to see. Let's not hand it to them on a silver platter. We aren't the only ones who frequent these forums you know.

 

[Bubblehide]

DDT was outlawed in the 1970's, not what I would define as "ignoring." Nor can this research from 2016 be called ignoring https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23273747.2016.1173766

Lead in condor blood has been examined isotopicly and the predominant isotopes in poisoned wild birds matchs with ammunition, and not background lead exposure. Funny how "Hunt for Truth" ignored that fact, must not be hunting very hard.

Yes, lead is a cumulative toxin, but chelation therapy reduces its serum level and wild condors are currently captured, tested, and if levels are high given chelation therapy at least annually. They would certainly be better off without the exposure at all, but given current conditions repeated treatment is the only way to sustain the population.



13% of birds had isotopic lead ratios that don't fit with lead ammunition (79% of condors studied) or background exposure. Of that 13%, about a third were confirmed to be from lead based paint.

Lead poisoning and the deceptive recovery of the critically endangered California condor

Endangered species recovery programs seek to restore populations to self-sustaining levels. Nonetheless, many recovering species require continuing management to compensate for persistent threats in their environment. Judging true recovery in the face of this management is often difficult...

www.pnas.org

There were isotope studies after what you mention that exhibited 3 major sources of matching lead that is utilized industry wide. As such, lead bullets being the actual source is refuted, as there are many products, that can be the actual source.

Despite the above fact, lead in our environment is not a good thing, and efforts to remove it are clearly benifical.

As for copper vs lead bullets, copper in general has benifits over lead with the exception of terminal velocity at significant long range.

 

[Marbles]

There were isotope studies after what you mention that exhibited 3 major sources of matching lead that is utilized industry wide. As such, lead bullets being the actual source is refuted, as there are many products, that can be the actual source.

Despite the above fact, lead in our environment is not a good thing, and efforts to remove it are clearly benifical.

As for copper vs lead bullets, copper in general has benifits over lead with the exception of terminal velocity at significant long range.

You happen to know where I can find that study?

Do they refute lead ammunition as the source, or do they provide other plausible explanations weakening the strength of isotopic analysis as evidence?

 

[Bubblehide]

You happen to know where I can find that study?

Do they refute lead ammunition as the source, or do they provide other plausible explanations weakening the strength of isotopic analysis as evidence?

I would need the time to look for it. But from memory, the study basically destroyed the credibility of the isotope study. That does not mean that bullets are not the source, it just means that there are a multitude of possible sources.

 

[FLATHEAD]

Imagine that.

 

[Stalker69]

The anti lead cult will never let go.
They really dont care about the truth.

Nope, it won’t change no matter how much evidence they have.

 

[daziggle]

I feel that lead shot allows for a more humane (more lethal) kills than lead shot. I practice ethical shots >30 yds over decoys. Mainly geese with BB or 2 steel shot. If lead was allowed, I would use 4 lead with a denser pattern. This would allow more pellets in the head and neck. Thus reducing cripples.

 

[FLATHEAD]

I feel that lead shot allows for a more humane (more lethal) kills than lead shot. I practice ethical shots >30 yds over decoys. Mainly geese with BB or 2 steel shot. If lead was allowed, I would use 4 lead with a denser pattern. This would allow more pellets in the head and neck. Thus reducing cripples.

True Dat!!!

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

I've bird hunted Iowa my whole life being born and raised in the Hawkeye State. Raptors here make occasional meals of game birds, but more than 80% of their diet is rodents. Crippled birds are hunted and killed by ground scouring scavenging cats, raccoons, skunks, possums, foxes, and coyotes which are in FAR higher numbers than raptors.

We have several species of small-medium sized raptors with the red-tailed hawk being one of the most common. The competition between raptors as well as crows and owls is extreme, and couple this with their competition with terrestrial predators and raptors have incredibly small impact on game birds in Iowa and surrounding states. Thus the impact of lead on their numbers is not statistically significant.

This is another reason (in addition to it being against the law) why guys shouldn't shoot every hawk they see.