Padre86
-
Posts
387 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Hunting New York - NY Hunting, Deer, Bow Hunting, Fishing, Trapping, Predator News and Forums
Media Demo
Links
Calendar
Store
Posts posted by Padre86
-
-
Any other tracking seminars happening in the near future, especially ones near NY?
-
Look up the dicky amendment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996)
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/08/168889491/gun-control-advocates-say-atfs-hands-have-been-tied
http://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/may/28/underfunded-atf-must-survive/
http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/new-atf-director-faces-tough-challenges
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/07/nra-interferes-with-atf-operations/1894355/
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/08/168889491/gun-control-advocates-say-atfs-hands-have-been-tied
Even people who aren't a "gun nuts" know this! Except you i mean you apparently never heard of any of this so enjoy a good read.
Most of the sources you're using to support your argument aren't exactly known for being neutral on this issue.
However, I'll leave this conversation to you and others. Gun rights are relevant to hunters, but I came here to talk about hunting in NY, not to hear people opine about gun laws and politics.
-
1
-
-
Careful who you claim is "one sided ignorant", Laws like the Dicky amendment are created to keep Americans ignorant about gun violence. Under funding the ATF and practically forcing them to keep paper records or no records at all is another way of taking the teeth out of any laws already enacted.
yeah I know all about ignorance
How are laws keeping Americans ignorant on gun violence? Care to go into some detail on that?
In this day and age, I just have a hard time buying that. The FBI and any number of websites by private advocacy groups publish and maintain all types of data related to gun crimes and overall gun deaths.
Also, under-funding the ATF? Again, maybe explain that a little bit more?
The ATF is prohibited, by law, from creating an universal, electronic gun registry. And the reasons for that should obvious, even to someone who isn't a so-called "gun nut." Now, as to whether or not the ATF can update its record-keeping methodology without violating individual freedoms is perhaps a talk worth having, thought getting off on a tangent.
-
1
-
-
7mm strikes me as a caliber that hunters out west use to deal with the long distance shots they are more likely to take out there.
I find that any shot beyond 200yards is not the norm for hunting here in the Northeast, and as such, something like 7mm might be an overkill, though there is certainly nothing wrong with that.
Personally, I use .308 150gr Federal Soft Points. I find this grain and make put more than enough energy on target within the distances I'm likely to take a shot. And, in the off chance that I need a little more reach, there are grains and makes that perform easily out to 700-800 yards (not that I would ever see myself taking a shot of that distance in NY).
I also target shoot quite a bit, so my inclination to use .308 is also motivated in part by the ammo's availability, cost, and established history and loading data. I know a few other, more traditional hunters, who prefer 30-06 since they view it as a jack-of-all-trades cartridge, capable of taking down most game that inhabit North America.
-
1
-
-
I did hope Mr. Bowguy was joking a bit,,,, it is pretty funny.
And that someone would get on Curmudgeon's case when no one got on the bowman's case is also funny.
But I'll let the invitation stand, you don't need to ask me to shoot with you, but if you do, I'll borrow a pick-up and leave my Prius with the Bernie bumper sticker home if that will make you feel better.
If I weren't on the other side of the state from you, I'd take you up on that offer. I am actually interested in shooting some non-lead types just to see how they compare performance-wise.
Also, I really don't care if someone else, who calls himself a hunter, has completely different views from me. This country was built to be a place where differing views on politics, religion, culture, life in general would be able to thrive and co-exist. So you make reference to leaving your prius and Bernie sticker behind in order to make us traditional/conservative types feel more comfortable....maybe that was a joke, I don't know. But either way, it doesn't matter to me and I don't consider you, or anyone else, any less of a hunter just because your political views are different from mine. I might disagree with your opinions, but as said earlier, that's to be expected in a free society.
-
With attitudes like that expressed below, it is impossible to have an intelligent reasonable conversation. You wouldn't want to shoot with someone who has already decided he knows everything about you, and none of it is good.
There are actually quite a few on here who are willing to have an intelligent conversation on this topic and others. But when you label those with opposing viewpoints as "angry" and imply that anyone who disagrees with you is misinformed, no one is going to take you seriously.
Earlier, I asked you some very earnest and direct questions about lead bullet and raptor studies you had referenced. As well someone else had given a very thoughtful and well-articulated counter-point to your view, demonstrating that eagles, and raptor populations overall, have made a tremendous comeback over the last 20-30 years, despite our use of lead ammo. I'm eager to see you respond to these posts and continue this conversation in a productive manner.
Or you can whine about how no one here is capable of an "intelligent" conversation and refuse to directly respond to others like a, well, curmudgeon.
-
The bald eagle’s recovery, a truly great conservation success story, was made possible and funded by hunters using traditional ammunition. In fact, recent statistics from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service show that from 1981 to 2006 the number of breeding pairs of bald eagles in the United States increased 724 percent. And much like the bald eagle, raptor populations throughout the United States are soaring. Needlessly restricting or banning traditional ammunition absent sound science will hurt wildlife conservation efforts as fewer hunters take to the field thereby undercutting financial wildlife management resources.
This statement right here reinforces what I've been saying. How much have lead bullets truly been harming the bald eagle and other raptor populations if their numbers have experienced such a significant increase, despite the type of the ammo hunters have been using?
The bald eagle, and other, populations have recovered and are doing just fine in terms of numbers and diversity. Why all of a sudden is there a push to correct the "lead bullet problem," when that "problem" seems to have an almost negligible impact on the eagle population, especially compared to other man-made issues? I think we are bickering about pennies while there are other more pressing environmental issues that deserve our attention.
-
I could write hundreds of words on threats to eagles. Actually I just did but that was for a journal not a hunting forum. Just because they are not mentioned here, does not mean other sources of mortality are being ignored. This is a hunting forum and a bullet discussion. Our GPS tracking of eagles was motivated by wind development. Having reviewed many avian impact assessments for wind projects, most that I have seen can be called insufficient. Some are incompetent. Some egregiously bad.
The fact that GPS tracked eagles are leading us, and others to sources of lead - and being poisoned by them - has not been a goal of tracking research. One of those eagles - a bald eagle - is in the video. It was tracked to where a commercial processor dumped his trimmings. Another, dead eagle was found near it. A different eagle led us to a pile of pigs dumped by USDA.
About 60% of golden eagles in the lower 48 are suffering from at least low level lead poisoning (above 10) in late fall and winter (based on 239 blood samples from wild eagles, 190 on the Rocky Mtn Front, 49 in the Appalachians). I don't have equivalent bald eagle data but they scavenge more than goldens so cannot be expected to be lower.
I actually thought this thread was played out a while ago. But if you guys want to continue it, I will continue to state that yes, changing ammo makes a difference. It is an easy and effective way for an individual who cares about wildlife to make a positive difference.
So you give little credibility to the studies demonstrating avian deaths from wind and solar projects, while giving full credibility to studies which demonstrate lead poisoning from bullets? For what it's worth, there are quite a few studies establishing the link between these projects and bird deaths. It's hard to determine the exact number of deaths attributed to this issue (just like it is for lead poisoning), but most of these studies do acknowledge that the deaths number anywhere from hundreds of thousands to millions every year. Are the number of birds dying from ingesting lead bullets anywhere close to that?
And how do we know 60% of golden eagles in the lower 48 are suffering from low levels of lead poisoning if the study you referenced only covered a sample population of 239 from two very specific regions?
How do we know that all of the lead exposure was from bullets and not from other sources?
This conversation has turned into a battle of ideologies more than anything else, but I am perfectly willing to hear your responses to these questions, as I'm sure are others.
-
And while there is some evidence to suggest that raptors and certain birds are more affected by the lead in game carcass, are any of those populations shrinking or under threat because of lead bullets?
some evidence? and are we only concerned about poisoning these birds if it causes a shrinking population?Again referring to the Condor discussion in CA, that state's wildlife officials acknowledged (after the lead ban went into effect) there were other sources of contamination that were affecting that bird.the lead ban still has not gone completely into affect(2019), where else did they get the lead?Yes, there are other places, countries, that environmentally do horrific things, and this lead issue may seem trivial, but it is something you and I can do something about. I personally can't do anything about the raw sewage dumped into Rio's harbor, or Japan's slaughtering dolphins for pet food, or the Chinese dog meat festival, but I am trying to do my part here to stop the needless suffering of eagles and limit the possibilities of lead poisoning in children.How many raptors and birds all together in the US are dying or have serious health issues because of lead bullets? How many are dying because of lead poisoning relative to a whole slue of other causes (both natural and manmade)? This is my point, that people like to pick and choose what they get outraged over. They will throw a fit when a small portion of birds die from lead poisoning, but have no qualms whatsoever about hundreds of thousands, millions by some estimates, dying annually from solar panels, wind turbines.
An average of 116 Golden Eagles have died annually from turbines at just one wind farm in CA, according to a report: http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/new/us-windfarms-kill-10-20-times-more-than-previously-thought.html
This is why I think this whole conversation has a narrow focus. Too many here and elsewhere are willing to make a stink out of the use of lead ammo, but its negative side affects seem marginal, almost negligible, compared to other ways we influence the environment and its inhabitants.
BTW, CA's fish and wildlife acknowledged, after the ban was passed legislatively (yes I know its not fully implemented, but it has been turned into law) that there were other sources of lead and pollution which were affecting the Condor's health:
The Fish and Wildlife Service report released in October 2013 concluded that California condors continue to be exposed to lead despite California’s ban on lead ammunition in the “condor zone,” and offered explanations that included alternative sources to hunters’ bullets.
“[T]here are other sources of lead in the environment that condors may be accessing, including five individual condors apparently ingesting chips of lead-based paint in a fire tower (since remediated),” said the report.
from: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/2/lead-ammunition-ban-passed-after-feds-withheld-key/
What I am reading in the recent spate of post is, there are big intractable problems, therefore, we should not take simple, effective and inexpensive measures to reduce scavenger lead poisonings, and the amount of lead in venison.
This is perhaps a case of the glass half full or half empty, but my take is this: will removing lead bullets, and their resulting fragments from strikes, have any meaningful impact on our health and the health of other animals? And, are there other, more pressing issues, that warrant our attention over the use of lead bullets?
Based on the studies I've seen so far, I think this whole topic is an argument over pennies when there is real money to be made by adopting other measures which promote a healthy environment.
-
2
-
-
This back-and-forth shows that there are plenty of people looking for a cause to adopt and make their own. All of a sudden lead bullets have become a topic of debate in the conservation circles. In reality, there are much more pressing issues in NY, and elsewhere, that need to be addressed.
- I've not heard of hunters getting lead poison from eating wild game shot with lead bullets. Maybe it has happened, but I haven't heard of those incidents.
- The lead levels of sample populations which eat wild game is generally about the same as the US population as a whole, if not slightly lower.
- And while there is some evidence to suggest that raptors and certain birds are more affected by the lead in game carcass, are any of those populations shrinking or under threat because of lead bullets? Again referring to the Condor discussion in CA, that state's wildlife officials acknowledged (after the lead ban went into effect) there were other sources of contamination that were affecting that bird.
If my understanding of any of these issues changes drastically, I'll reconsider my stance on lead bullets. As of now, I just don't see this as the crisis that some people are making it out to be, especially considering the environmental catastrophes that are taking place in most 3rd world countries. We're sitting here arguing about tiny fragments of lead, meanwhile pretty much every undeveloped nation is dumping all kinds of waste and trash into their environment...it helps to keep things in perspective.
-
2
-
-
The regs just state that it is illegal to take a deer or bear while it is in water..
Manner of Taking
It is unlawful to:
- Take big game while the deer or bear is in water.
- Possess a firearm of any description when bowhunting or when accompanying a person bowhunting during special archery seasons.
- Make, set or use a salt lick on land inhabited by deer or bear.
Right. Those are the regs that I am familiar with. You can't shoot at animals in water, but shooting over water, as far as I know, is okay....obviously be aware of your surroundings and don't shoot over people boating or paddling by, but that should go without saying.
Ceder lake and West Lake areas. all ill say.
Ceder Lake? Do you mean Cedar Lake?
And West Lake? Where is that?
To all posters, thanks for the detailed feedback. I definitely have some new ideas to take into consideration. I am deadset on hunting in the ADK's this year, regardless of how difficult it might be. So I'll continue to scout, mark my map and take notes on where I see activity.
-
I feel like I am trying to put information out there that people can read that is not someones opinion, but rather scientific papers or based on papers. And I think if one looks honestly at the information, even if one isn't quite sure,, why risk feeding lead to your family.
And, having shot both, the copper groups better, kills better, and, I don't worry about any lead contamination.
check this out if you wonder about copper's effectiveness: http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/tortured-path-armys-m855a1-ar-15/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=122615chronicle&utm_campaign=CH122615-torturedpatharmysm855a1ar15
You might be putting out informative studies, but the conclusions that you are drawing from them are what I question.
Again, if shooting deer with lead bullets is such a health risk, why hasn't anyone conducted a comprehensive and comparative study demonstrating the difference in lead blood levels between two sample populations: those who do eat lead-shot venison; and those who don't? The only study that even comes close to covering that topic was the 2008 ND study, which showed that people eating lead-shot venison still had lower lead levels than the US population as a whole.
I'm agnostic on this topic as a whole; if scientific review demonstrates that there is a measurable health risk from eating lead-shot game, I'll stop using lead. But I do question the methodology and tone assumed by some here. If the science is settled on this matter, please show me the studies which settle it. I'm not interested in listening to someone preach from their pulpit.
Edit: Also, I'd be interested in seeing someone chime in on the performance characteristics of lead and copper bullets. As I understand it, there are some inherent pro's/con's associated with each type.
-
1
-
-
Also, why all of a sudden is there this sudden push to ban or de-emphasize lead bullets?
How many birds get fried flying over solar panel arrays?
How many people are exposing themselves to radiation when they talk on their phone for 2 hours a day or watch TV?
How much industrial waste and harmful runoff is generated to produce pretty much everything we buy, use and eat in this consumer culture of ours?
I don't question that lead is bad for us and the environment, but the tiny fragments, and often times microscopic residue, we're talking about here barely even counts as a drop in the proverbial bucket when you consider all the other ways we are degrading this environment and our bodily health. If the vocal opponents to lead bullets, here and elsewhere, were truly adhering to some environmental principle, there should be a slue of other action items that take priority over banning lead bullets.
-
Then why do you want to ingest it?
I don't. If I see lead fragments in my meat, I pull them out out. But I don't find a lot of those fragments, and in fact a lot of these studies have shown that the lead residue being left from bullet strikes are only observable at the microscopic level. Eating lead is bad. Is eating lead residue so small that you can't even see it with the naked eye really going to have a measurable affect on you? It's like saying that eating paint chips are bad for your, but if a tiny spec of one falls into your dinner plate and you eat it by accident, are you really going to notice? I don't know that anyone has decisively proven that either way. The studies I've read into have shown that people who eat lead-shot game meat, as a whole, have the same lead exposure, if not slightly less, than the average American (who most definitely does not lead-shot game meat). Again refer back to the 2008 North Dakota study.
Then tell me why it is relevant. You are not making any sense, whether you know it or not.
Lead and many other harmful substances naturally occur in this earth, and it is not unheard for there to be natural exposure to such substances. That aside, there are a whole bunch of other man-made applications that use lead, and so when animals turn up with lead poisoning, it is not necessarily a given that a hunter's bullets were the cause...again refer back to the Washington Times article on the lead ban in CA and the Condors....there were obviously other sources of lead that were affecting the Condors, not just bullets.
You all ask for "proof" or for studies, but never provide your own substantiations. No matter how many studies that are cited, you all have your ideas why the study is flawed. Anti - hunters do the same thing, So does industry, Its an old game. That is why sound laws do not get passed. But a thinking person does not need laws to protect himself and his family. All a thinking person has to do to be safe is be guided by the evidence. The evidence shows eating meat harvested with lead ammo is not a good idea.
I actually provided a well referenced and reviewed study conducted by a scientist, and while he did a fairly decent job of concealing any obvious biases, there is no doubt that he is against using lead for hunting bullets.
https://www.peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-lead/2008%20CDC%20ND_Final_TripReport_5NOV08.pdf
The "proof" that I cited was quoted directly from the study:
While this study suggests that consumption of wild game meat can adversely affect PbB, no participant had PbB higher than the CDC recommended threshold of 10µg/dl—the level at which CDC recommends case management; and the geometric mean PbB among this study population (1.17µg/dl) was lower than the overall population geometric mean PbB in the United States (1.60 µg/dl) (CDC 2005).
I am willing to acknowledge the results and findings from other studies, but as I have pointed out numerous times now, there should be no reason that we can't conclusively prove this case one way or the other using real-world data and real-world sample populations (of humans). Hypothetical models and studies using livestock are nice, but we as humans have been ingesting lead-shot game meat for a long time now. It shouldn't be hard for someone to analyze the data and make the case that eating lead-shot meat is bad, if in fact there is a case to be made. If the matter is so settled, as you claim it is, why can't you provide me with a link to such a study?
Also you should reply to my actual quote blocks next time instead of writing within the quote blocks.
-
If you search the literature you will discover that the smaller the lead particle, the easier it enters the bloodstream. And that there is no safe level of blood lead.
It accumulates in many tissues, but also in bone were it mimics calcium. When women get pregnant calcium and lead is leached from the bones and enters the bloodstream of the fetus and later into the milk, Fetus and infants have a much lower level of tolerance for lead. An adult can have low levels of blood lead but still have health problems linked to lead exposure when he was a fetus or infant.
Also, the story about lead naturally occurring in the environment is irrelevant. So is radon and a lot of harmful stuff.
Yep, I agree that there are health risks associated with ingesting lead. I think we've covered this several times over now.
Lead is a naturally occurring element, and that is in fact very relevant. In fact, there are several, at least, natural elements found in the earth which are harmful to most living organisms, and within that context, lead is not nearly as harmful as some of these others.
I have a long day tomorrow, but before I quit tonight I wanted to resend the link to the pig study and send on just one part from the abstract.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005330
Mean blood lead concentrations in pigs peaked at 2.29 µg/dL (maximum 3.8 µg/dL) 2 days following ingestion of fragment-containing venison, significantly higher than the 0.63 µg/dL averaged by controls
I'll take a look at it. But again, why are we talking about a study using pigs? We, as humans, have been eating lead-shot wild game for quite a long time now. Why are there no studies which compare two obvious sample populations (those who do eat lead-shot meat and those who don't) to demonstrate if there any measurable health risks?
-
1
-
-
As you have brought up the CDC a number of times, is this an agency that you would believe?
If so, read this.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/LeadFragmentsinVenison/Venison%20and%20Lead%20HC%20110408.pdf
In it is this calculation:
At the mean lead concentration found in pantry samples, the model predicts that consuming venison with 6.2 mg/kg lead every 15 days will result in 80 % of children less that 7 years old having blood lead greater than 10 μg/dL level of concern. If the ingestion frequency is reduced to once every 30 days, the predicted percentage of children with blood lead >10 μg/dL is 50%.
That's cool man, and certainly worth considering. But you're talking about a hypothetical model. I'd like to see you present some actual numbers and statistics derived from real-world examples and sample populations (like I did using the 2008 North Dakota study).
It's not that I think the CDC's model is a bunch of garbage, but at this point, having used lead to kill our game meat for centuries, there should be no lack of raw data for scientists and statisticians to review and make the case that there are specific and measurable health threats from ingesting wild game meat shot with lead bullets.
-
Padre, that is a good point about the lead levels in the ND CDC study, and I couldn't agree with you more that there are more significant avenues for lead to get into our bodies. I looked at the study and thought the people were fortunate to have low blood levels, but I also saw that the people who consumed game meat had a higher level than those that did not. If there is no safe level, why add lead to our diet, and even if we are below the national average, why increase our lead levels at all?
Did you read the study with the venison from the food pantries that was fed to the pigs? I was curious why the blood lead levels stopped increasing after 4 days(I think), even though the study went for 9 days or so.
Can you find me any scientific links that suggest that lead does not affect our wildlife?
This is a short simple read from the NPS with some pretty sad facts about lead poisoning and bald eagles in the midwest. https://www.fws.gov/midwest/InsideR3/March14Story14.htm
I did read the part of the 2008 North Dakota study which stated there were some people who were eating game meat and did have higher lead levels in their blood. Again though, if the US population as a whole has a higher exposure than a sample population (which predominantly ate lead-shot venison), and considering that most Americans don't eat wild game meat, what does that say about the health threat from eating lead-shot game relative to other lead sources?
I have not read the study on feeding food pantry meat to pigs, though i have heard it referenced. Perhaps you could summarize those talking points which are relevant to this conversation?
That piece from the FWS on eagles sounds nice on paper, but there are a lot of unknowns that are left unaddressed:
- How many of the eagles died from lead exposure? The article said that 38% of the sample population had lethal amounts of lead in their livers, so right off that indicates that the remaining could have died from other causes.
- Do we know that the eagles were getting their lead exposure solely from shot animals? The article certainly didn't say that, though they did assume that shot deer carcasses were the likely culprit. How did they arrive at that assumption? A similar assumption was made about the Condors in California...after the lead ban went into effect, information (which had until then been sat on by an official with CA's fish and wildlife) was released which suggested that lead bullets were not having as big of an effect on the Condors as was previously thought: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/2/lead-ammunition-ban-passed-after-feds-withheld-key/
Again, we all know lead exposure can potentially lead to health issues. The real question that needs to be answered is whether tiny fragments from bullets will have anything other than a negligible effect on us and other animals.
-
There is a great piece written by Carroll Henderson, http://soarraptors.org/2016/03/op-ed-piece-from-carroll-henderson/
He is the gentleman that is probably the most responsible for banning lead for hunting waterfowl. He is also the gentleman that worked with folks from our DEC to bring back Bald eagles into NYS. The eagle that was killed in western NY, just over a year ago, was one he had caught, and sent back to us 38 years ago as a nestling. http://www.dec.ny.gov/press/102089.html
If you are old enough, you probably remember there were no eagles to be seen here in the 70's, mostly due to DDT, which for many years we thought was fine to use.
Anyway, it is a well written piece to read.
I'm sure they are interesting reads, but what does this have to do with lead exposure in game meat?
You're bringing up a lot of tangential topics and studies when the original discussion and title of this whole thread was about lead being used in hunting ammo and the possible health consequences.
My suggestion is to stay specific to the original topic and make an argument based on studies/papers which address this issue.
No one disputes that lead exposure is very bad for children or that eagles have made a comeback in NY due to better conservation practices. If you want to argue that lead bullets have negative health affects for us and other animals, there are some very simple metrics and measures that you could try to find and reference to make your point...so far I've not seen you do that.
I again refer you to the 2008 study conducted in North Dakota where a sample population (which predominantly ate lead-shot venison) had a lower lead exposure relative to the overall US population:
https://www.peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-lead/2008%20CDC%20ND_Final_TripReport_5NOV08.pdf
Do you have a direct response to the findings I brought up from that study, or do you want to continue on your rant?
-
Please don’t feel like anything I say is in anyway condescending, I am very happy to be able to have this conversation.
What sort of consensus of scientists would be needed? I read this statement a while back: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6dq3h64x
I can do a Google search of lead and wildlife and come up with lots of papers about it’s negative effects.
The CDC has reduced the level for intervention from 10µg/dl to 5, but they also say there is no level known without effects on children. And when I read about the lead issues in Flint, I remember there though there were some very high blood lead levels(very few sick people though), the concern was long term problems. I came across this in one paper I was just reading,
I wasn't aware that the CDC had reduced the max amount of lead exposure from 10µg/dl to 5µg/dl. And I understand that children are especially vulnerable to lead exposure, as they are to a bunch of other things. But when the U.S.'s population as a whole has a lead exposure (geometric mean, not arithmetic average) of 1.60 µg/dl while a sample population from North Dakota (where 80% were consuming lead-shot venison meat) only has 1.17 µg/dl, again I ask how much of an affect lead bullets are having on our lead exposure and our health overall. If that study proved anything, it was that there are forms of lead exposure that far supercede the exposure from tiny lead fragments in our meat.
You're not being condescending and I welcome a discussion on this. But like I said earlier, no one is arguing that lead doesn't have negative health affects. The million dollar question is whether or not the tiny fragments left from bullet strikes will have any meaningful affect on the environment and its inhabitants (including us). So far, I have not seen any studies that conclusively prove that there is a significant health threat from eating lead-shot game meat, and there are years and years of data from which to draw and make such a case.
-
I said lead was a naturally occurring element in another thread about this very topic. Yes lead is harmful, but the real question that has yet to receive a definitive answer is whether or not the small amounts deposited by bullets are actually having some measurable effect on other wildlife and humans.
There was an often quoted study conducted in North Dakota back in 2008, where about 740 people were surveyed for lead content in their blood (nearly 80% had been consuming wild venison, which the study assumed had been killed with lead bullets). The study can be found here:
https://www.peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-lead/2008%20CDC%20ND_Final_TripReport_5NOV08.pdf
And there have been a wide range of interpretations of the study's results:
Scientific American claiming that this study conclusively proved that lead bullets "raises lead exposure" :
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wild-game-deer-venison-condors-meat-lead-ammunition-ban/
National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) saying that the lead levels found in the study still fall under what the CDC considers to be a safe amount:
I think the best answer to date is found within the study itself:
While this study suggests that consumption of wild game meat can adversely affect PbB, no participant had PbB higher than the CDC recommended threshold of 10µg/dl—the level at which CDC recommends case management; and the geometric mean PbB among this study population (1.17µg/dl) was lower than the overall population geometric mean PbB in the United States (1.60 µg/dl)
The µg/dl you see behind each of those numbers stands for micrograms per deciliter which is how the lead content was measured in the blood for those surveyed.
Ingesting lead is bad for our health (and for any animal's health). We all know that. Whether or not lead bullets are having any significant affect on our health and other wildlife's health relative to other forms of lead exposure is the million dollar question.
And how long have hunters in America, and throughout the world, been using lead to kill game and then harvest and eat the meat? You'd think by now we'd have some confirmed link between eating lead-killed game meat and some disease or sickness. To my knowledge there are no studies proving such an outcome.
Listen, if the scientific consensus eventually determines that lead bullets are having an adverse affect on our health, I'll accept that and find another source of ammo (as will most other hunters I'm sure). The problem is that there is no consensus yet, though there are a lot of opinionated websites and media groups that are trying to claim the issue is settled.
-
1
-
-
You can not fire a gun across open water,...check the regs for the details. I think deep woods deer are at least as alert as "civilized " deer....they haven't been able to acclimate to human smell and activity. I would first identify the seasons food availability for the areas you are going to ...any mast, late season berries, new growth, perhaps new logged areas. In the Moose Area I have found many water crossing / shore sites of repeated activity. Expect to put much more time in. Hunting the north country is as much about being there as hoping to get a deer.
I had read that taking big game in water was illegal. I had never seen anything about shooting over water...I'll have to read through the regs again though. I'll spend more time looking for the food sources you mentioned. Thanks for the input.
Deer density is very low in the plains... best chance of ADK hunting is on snow in the deep woods. When the woods is dry and noisy it will be nearly impossible to catch up to a whitetail. You need to also remember that food source is very limited in the ADK's and it is hard to pattern whitetails by feeding habits. It is entirely possible if you aren't a tracker to hunt your entire life in the ADK's and never see a buck. Having said all that, the better you get to know the woods you hunt the better your chances of picking up deer sign and getting a handle on deer activity. For some the rule is... "If there's no snow... don't go." Unless of course you're like me... and it isn't all about killing a deer. The ADK's will definitely test your hunting abilities. Good Luck... have fun!
Yeah, I've noticed that even hiking and camping, it's hard to move anywhere without creating some noise...the undergrowth, fallen leaves and sticks are everywhere so every footfall makes a noise. I'd prefer to hunt the deer in the snow as well...tracking and movement should be somewhat easier. But I'm planning for the worst and hoping for the best...if there is no snow, I'll be out there all the same.
If your goal is to take any Adirondack whitetail, you can greatly improve your odds making your hunt during the 1 week ML season. Does are legal then. If you wait for rifle season, it will be bucks only, which are far less common. Key on the food sources. Look for white oaks on ridges. Don't overlook thick, brushy areas close to the roads, especially if overgrown pastures are nearby. Old apple orchards are another hot-spot, as are pine trees near swampy creek-bottoms. Later in the season, when there is snow, tracking is very popular. Sometimes "backtracking" is effective to learn the feeding patterns, then setup an ambush a few days later. Still hunting with a good pair of binoculars has accounted for many an Adirondack buck and it is a lot easier against a snowy white background.
So there are no Deer Management Permits issued for regular season in the ADK WMU's? Only Buck's during regular season? I had no idea. Well that hunt is going to be a little harder than what I originally anticipated.
-
I'll be heading into the ADK's for some more remote deer hunting this coming season. I've already spent a few days heading out to areas to scout and get a feel for the terrain and sign. I've been focused so far on the Blue Ridge Wilderness area and the Moose River Plains Wild Forest. I've seen very little in the way of deer sign (scat, hoof prints, ect.), though I think I've come across game trails in these 2 areas. My questions:
1) I've read that deer don't need to drink from bodies of water nearly as much as we do since they get a lot of their water from the plants they eat. Does this match up with people's experiences? Is posting up on a lake shore or creek a good way to get a deer? Is that ethical or legal? I know that shooting an animal in water isn't allowed, but what about shooting one as it stands on the bank and drinks from a lake or other body of water?
2) I've covered a lot of ground during several days of hiking (probably 10-14 miles in total so far). Through the course of that hiking, I've come across more open areas (relative to the rest of the terrain); either blow-down or old clear cuts. Should I focus my scouting and hunting efforts on these areas? As I understand it, deer, even the in ADK's, are more likely to travel and frequent these relatively open areas.
3) Are there any specific plants or trees that deer feed on and I should be on the lookout for as I hike through these wilderness areas?
4) Are the deer in the ADK's as skittish as the deer in Western NY? I know from experience that the deer in my area of NY (near Rochester) were absolutely loathe to move outside of morning and sunset hours. Once the light hits and the day begins in earnest, they tend to sit in place, likely because they know that hunters are out and about. Are the deer in the ADK's the same, or are they less educated on hunter activity?
Any feedback would be awesome.
-
First of all, I realize you have more than 2 brain cells knocking around in your skull. But you dont pay attention very well.......
......I will tell you this, you can learn from me as I from you. If you dont think so, well thanks anyway. If you are willing to help us out, we are on the web, It would be awesome to here from you.
So you're asking the guy who doesn't pay attention very well to help you?
And how did this thread on the Moose hunting bill turn into one about Dove hunting? I know we are all hunters here, but shouldn't we have separate threads for different topics?
-
1
-
-
If you are asking me if I condone the safe act, the answer is no. However, I knew from the beginning it was not going to be repealed nor was the Governor going to be voted out. All the wind was bravado. People who (actually) hunt have no time for "blow harden".
Andrew Cuomo is pro hunting. He was more than willing to work with the hunting community for several years. The safe act was and is a done deal. It should have been considered a disagreement and the hunting community should have continued to work with AC. Numerous opportunities were blown and it is unlikely we will see another governor as in tune with hunting as him.
The safe act and posturing about AC was a red herring and grandstanding to dumb down the hunting community. Doc and others had no shortage of time to fish for red herring when there were other fish to fry.
How exactly is Cuomo "in tune" with hunters? He has the occasional letter in the DEC magazine? He poses with a deer hunter for a photo every now and then? Cuomo is a politician, and barring any extensive backwoods experience he may have (which I've not heard of, but then again I haven't researched much about his past) his "support" for hunting seems to only go so far as is needed to bring in the rural, blue-collar votes (as is the case with many other politicians).
I won't get into the back-and-forth on the SAFE Act other than to say that most hunters I know are pro 2nd amendment and don't like it, which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
As for fishing for red herring, it's funny that you bring that up. Your signature talks about building support for dove hunting, while you don't seem to have any problems with trashing other people's ideas/opinions that differ from your own on issues like firearm legislation or bear hunting. I realize others on here have been side-tracking this thread with overtly political comments, but you've also been doing a bit of pot-stirring yourself, far too much of it in my opinion to be calling other people out.
As for how we reframe trophy hunting, I think education is a good approach. Educating hunters on proper game management (truthfully, I find that the average hunter already knows quite a bit on the local wildlife and their ecological role in the region vs the average non-hunter) and educating the public, who by and large know very little about hunting, wild-life management, land management, ect.
If non-hunters are using HSUS and PETA videos to learn about hunting, then of course they're going to get a very one-sided narrative. Government wildlife agencies and hunter conservation groups should at least provide information to the public, engage in conferences, public meetings, ect. to explain how hunting takes place and is managed for long term sustainability.
-
4
-
Question about hunting with licensed tracking dogs in the Northern zone
in General Hunting
Posted · Edited by Padre86
Alright, so I do plan on contacting the DEC to get clarification on this, but I wanted to post this here just to see if my idea on this is way off or not.
I recently received my NYS leashed tracking dog license from the DEC. The license allows me to use my dog to track wounded big game (specifically deer and/or bear) on behalf of another hunter or I also believe on my own behalf. There are specific requirements in terms of DEC notification, leashing the dog, weapons carried/used, ect. all of which can be found here: http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/25020.html
So my question is: am I allowed to bring my dog with me into the field when I deer hunt in the Northern Zone (specifically the Adirondacks)?
The obvious answer to this used to be no, as the DEC had very specific language regarding hunting with or even being accompanied by a dog in the Northern Zone while carrying certain shotguns and rifles:
found here: http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/27801.html
But this is where the tricky part comes in. If I legally shoot a deer by myself in the Northern zone, and the deer, for whatever reason, doesn't go down but runs away wounded, I should theoretically be allowed to go and get my dog and track that deer, carrying whatever weapon (whether it be shotgun or rifle) that I legally used (due to the license I now have). Doing that however directly goes against the previously mentioned restriction on weapons and dogs in the Northern zone.
Moreover, if it turns out that it is in fact legal for me to use my dog, while carrying a rifle or shotgun, to track a wounded deer (or bear) then it should be legal for me to be afield with a dog, while deer or bear hunting. My line of thinking on this is that if my license allows me to track the big game with a dog, while carrying, then I should be able to have my dog at my side prior to and during the hunt in case such tracking is needed.
And before anyone gets the wrong idea, no, I'm not trying to find a loophole in the system so that I can chase, harass, or otherwise take deer and/or bear in an illegal and unfair manner. There are two main reasons that I am trying to get clarification on this:
1) My dog loves going into the outdoors with me and it's been a pain every time I've had to leave him behind because I'm not allowed to even have him accompany me during big game hunts in the Northern zone. I have an electronic collar on him when we go into the wilderness and have trained him not to take off after deer, so he knows to stay with me.
2) Hunting in the Northern zone, especially the Adirondacks, is remote and rough. If I do wound a deer or bear and need help tracking it, it would be extremely impractical, almost prohibitively so, to hike out to my car, go back to my cabin, get my dog, drive back, hike out and then try to find the animal.
So what do people think of this? Is there perhaps a legal argument to be made on my part?