Non Lead Bullets For Hunting?

[virgil]

Of course he's wrong. Next, he'll revert back to the 'science is for liberals/elitists/mindless.....'position.

[jjb4900]

nothing wrong with lead, I suggest it for all your cookware and if you can find it, use it for solder in your household plumbing and for painting your house.

[adkbuck]

Virgil,

 

I really don't know why people feel they have to play mind control games and put the "pressure on" when someone doesn't agree with them.  I first saw this when the SDS was preventing freedom of discussion on college campuses in the early 70's.  Why not just make you point and  to be a gentleman about it?  Give us a break.   Everyone has a right to state their opinion, its not a communist state,  there is still room for dialogue.  If you are not willing to let people voice their opinion why not start you own web site where no one can disagree with you.   

 

The other point of view is substantiated by well controlled studies.  To wit: 

A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2008 tested lead levels in the blood of 700 North Dakotans. Most (81percent) had consumed wild game, including venison. Most (62 percent) ate venison at least once a week.

None of the people tested had lead blood levels above the CDC's recommended levels. In fact, the average lead level was below that of the overall U.S. population.

 

No one has ever been documented to have gotten sick from eating game killed with lead bullets.  Not ever.   We are talking about people who are not birds.  Birds have stomach mechanisms and stomach chemistry much different than humans.   Pure copper shot is not currently allowed to be used for waterfowl hunting.  A small amount of copper used in plating is allowed but pure copper shot is not permitted. Why is that?   Do you think there may be some long term hazards associated with copper particles being worked by the gizzards of birds?   I'm interested and I have an open mind.

Thanks for letting me speak.   

 

[vlywaterman]

just finished reading these posts, one thing I like very much about this is that it is a discussion, topics are being discussed,,, and my belief is that if I can't sell someone on the value of using alternatives to lead,  I'm not doing a good enough job or maybe that person is not ready yet, but at least the information is out there.

About that CDC study that seems to come up quite often, actually it was one of the first to be done. everything adkbuck said was true, however I would like to add that the lead levels in the folks who ate game meat were higher than those that did not, none of the folks eating the donated meat to the food pantries were tested, and lastly, the levels the CDC had at the time has been halved, from 10 to 5micrograms/deciliter of blood(I think that is the right unit). The average in the study was still below the threshold for intervention, but the point is, is that there is no safe level of lead in the blood.

I'm not sure why many of the people posting don't believe there is lead in the meat, you can see it in the X-rays of the deer or pigs or sheep, if you don't believe these then maybe try to watch a video called "The NonLead Hunter" with Anthony Prieto, he actually shoots these pigs with both lead and copper ammo, and has a vet come in and do and X-ray of the animal in the field, that has just been shot, this isn't in a lab. I'd be happy to loan my copy to anyone that would like to watch it, it's only 24 minutes long, you can watch it at 

And about the eagles, here is a paper one can read, with lots of footnotes. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0051978

As we have become the top predator, many raptors and carrion eaters have become dependent or at least utilize us as a source of food. The paper cited above mentions how the eagles migrate in to coincide with hunting season. We can see eagles dying from lead poisoning, where else could it come from?

[vlywaterman]

About the CDC lead levels, I meant to say the threshold for intervention was halved, from 10 to five, they are not saying 5 is ok, just not a need for intervention,,, the person should not get sick.

 

Look at Pierce Ammunition, made right here in NY, they carry quite a bit of non lead ammo.

 

off camping with the grandkids for a few days, may not get back on here till Sunday.

 

 

[Curmudgeon]

My post late yesterday was inadvertently sent out before I was finished. I wanted to address the copper toxicity issue. As Vly suggests, shoot some lead and copper into water jugs and weigh them afterward. I haven't done it but those who have find the copper retains 99-100% of its mass. If lead did the same thing, the problem would not exist for people, and be greatly minimized for scavengers.

 

adkbuck - What do you mean by "getting sick"? It is well documented that children suffer IQ deficits and numerous other problems from microscopic amounts of lead. That's why NY contractors need to go through a lot of hassles to renovate old houses. My nephew had high blood lead when he was young. They had to do a lot of things in their house to cover and remove lead paint from his room and the dirt around the house. These efforts are not for nothing. Would you consider a loss of 5 IQ points "getting sick"? I've been talking to a pediatrician. She has a patient with high lead levels. They have ruled out everything she could think of but the blood lead stays high. After talking to me, she is going to ask about his diet. Being from an urban area, it never occurred to her the kid might be eating it at the dinner table.

 

Vly mentioned that the CDC reduced the lead level threshold from 10 to 5 micrograms/deciliter. We are talking unbelievably small amounts of lead in the blood. Having done some writing on this subject, I have been forced at times to convert parts per million to μg/dL. 5 μg/dL is .05 ppm. In other words, 5% of 1 ppm.  If you doubt me, here's the conversion site I used - http://www.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_10_micrograms_per_deciliter_of_lead_equal_in_ppm

[virgil]

adkbuck, not sure how you took my post as me trying to prevent anyone from expressing their opinion.  that's what we're all doing here.  my post was simply expressing my frustration with the too-common anti-science stance.

[Doc]

adkbuck, not sure how you took my post as me trying to prevent anyone from expressing their opinion.  that's what we're all doing here.  my post was simply expressing my frustration with the too-common anti-science stance.

There is no "anti-science" stance. Simply a statement that far too many people daily read garbage that is put forth as "a study" and eagerly swallow every word of it without any engagement of their own brain simply because it uses the word "study". To me that is a true frustration.

 

Not wanting to talk for him, but I suspect his comment may have had more to do with your propensity for uncivil ways of conversing when discussions don't go the way you want them to.

 

[virgil]

Oh, please Doc.  Read some of your own posts.

[Doc]

Oh, please Doc.  Read some of your own posts.

Look, I am only offering up a possible explanation for the comment. If you feel good about your conduct in the discussion, that's up to you.

[Lawdwaz]

How does the actual ballistis compare to a lead bullet of the same weight? Energy at longer yardage? I know you have had great luck with them

 

As you can see, other smarter & more eloquent members have answered this question.

 

I could go on for hours touting the benefits of the all copper bullet but I prefer to let my picture do the talking..........................

 

 

 

That is 100% weight retention: 80gr Barnes TTSX, launched at IIRC 3400FPS.  235 yard shot at a straight on adult Pennsylvania doe.  Bullet was found in a roast when being sliced for grinding after 6 months in the freezer.

 

I don't shoot them for environmental reasons although that is OK with me.  This year I'll be shooting a big fat 165 BT (loaded with lead!) in the 300WSM for some of the deer season.

[Curmudgeon]

I am not a purist. I use lead in the .22 for woodchucks around the garden. The lead-free .22 stuff I bought from Cabelas has terrible accuracy. I use it for slaughtering only. I do bury the woodchucks to keep them from the vultures. I like vultures too. In fact, I changed my photo from an eagle feeding on a deer to one of me holding a wild vulture.

 

I've been puzzling over the resistance to copper. Maybe you can help me understand. Here's what I know:

 

1. Copper has better terminal performance. i know this first hand. See the post above or ask why Ted Nugent uses it.
2. Copper reduces the lead in our food supply. This is especially important for young children.
3. Copper reduces lead poisoning of raptors, vultures, ravens and other scavengers.
4. Copper costs more than cheap lead. It costs about the same as premium lead. Increased cost is minimal as long as hunters only use it in the field. The cost/benefit equation for copper used for hunting deer is very good. The cost/benefit for target practice is very bad.

Now, imagine a worst case scenario: The courts give the EPA control over the use of lead in ammo. Hillary is elected in 1016 and immediately tells the EPA to ban lead. All the ammo you now own is illegal.

 

Tell me how admitting that copper is a better choice now influences that possible outcome. Tell me how switching because it is the right thing to do makes a ban more likely. I could make the argument that if most hunters switched, the risks to people and wildlife would be much smaller. If everyone voluntarily used copper for hunting, the lower risks would take away the case for a ban.

 

 

[virgil]

The issue is purely that people don't like being told what to do regardless of the reasoning behind it.

[Mr VJP]

The problem is, even if every NY hunter refused to use any lead in the field, a ban on lead would be at the national level and would once more make your personal property illegal, like they did with certain semi-auto firearms.

 

People in America are getting fed up with a government that keeps making your previously legal, personal property, illegal, and threatening to put you in prison for possessing it.  That's tyranny.

 

You don't solve environmental problems by creating bigger social ones.  If we allow this to happen, we open the door to a huge amount of government abuse that will lead to a total police state.  Besides, Condors and raptors of all sorts are getting killed by windmills, and I see no desire by greenies to put a stop to those things.  Do they really care about the birds, or only ones killed by lead?

 

So my question is this, how do we get hunters in all of America to shun lead ammo voluntarily without making them the whipping boys and putting the burden of a huge expense on their shoulders?

 

 

[virgil]

What is the huge expense?  How many rounds does the average hunter fire in the field in a year?

[Mr VJP]

I'm talking about banning all of the ammo they currently own and not paying them for it when they make them turn it in.  Plus the increased cost of all ammo you will ever buy in the future, including all of your target practice ammo.

 

Edited September 4, 2014 by Mr VJP

[virgil]

The title of your thread is 'Non Lead Bullets FOR HUNTING', no?  And, in your orginal post, you stated that the man you talked to about the subject was not pushing for a ban. 

[mike rossi]

Mike, do you believe the lead ban proponents claims are based on good science?

 

Yup. There is a lot of established knowledge derived from research about the negative impacts of lead ammo on both wildlife and people who eat game killed with lead ammo. The arguments by organizations representing hunters made to invalidate the known facts are not at all compelling. There is also mounting evidence from ballistic testing showing that non lead ammo is not inferior from a shooting perspective. I would like to know what the motive of organizations representing hunters is for resisting the facts...

[mike rossi]

I'm talking about banning all of the ammo they currently own and not paying them for it when they make them turn it in.  Plus the increased cost of all ammo you will ever buy in the future, including all of your target practice ammo.

 

When you buy ammo, you are already indirectly paying a 12% excise tax for wildlife restoration. I know its hard for some of you  hardcore right wing guys to use the Wildlife Restoration Act interchangeably with the Pitman-Robertson Act, but it is what it is... 

 

I also know that the NRA American Hunter and/or Hunt for Truth published a lengthy article which was quite erroneous, including statements that PR funds are only to be used for game species and hunting. Not true.

 

Like it or not, PR funds will be used to leverage state money to conserve species impacted by plumbism: eagles, California condors, and many others.

 

Wouldn't it make sense to forfeit some ammo and maybe pay a nominal amount more for green ammo and burn less of the conservation fund on wildlife impacted by plumbism? Don't hunters "pay for conservation"?

 

When they banned the leg-hold trap in NJ (1982?) they made it illegal to possess those traps in the state, did they pay trappers? That was pre ebay too. Some of the same people who fought against banning the leghold are the same people fighting today to ban lead ammo... Its not about animal rights...

[Doc]

When they banned the leg-hold trap in NJ (1982?) they made it illegal to possess those traps in the state, did they pay trappers? ....... Some of the same people who fought against banning the leghold are the same people fighting today to ban lead ammo... Its not about animal rights...

The last sentence of this paragraph makes no sense to me. Certainly the banning of leg-hold traps is indeed the end product of animal rights activity. And yes I think I see the handprint of those very same people involved with the banning of lead ammo. I think you can also add the authors of the Safe Act into this same group.

 

I would interpret that paragraph as an endorsement of the idea of banning previously legal products without compensation. That's the same mentality as the authors of the Safe Act. Screw the hunters, screw the trappers. It's hard to believe that this is what you are really saying. What am I mis-interpreting here? Or am I not actually mis-interpreting anything that you are saying in this regard.

[Curmudgeon]

"Besides, Condors and raptors of all sorts are getting killed by windmills, and I see no desire by greenies to put a stop to those things.  Do they really care about the birds, or only ones killed by lead?"

 

Mr. VJP - You are so very wrong. There are many "greenies" opposed to wind in the wrong places. The FWS wants to issue 30 year "take" permits at wind farms for eagles - http://eaglescoping.org/. Do some poking around on the internet and see how the "greenies" are reacting. I have personally been involved in the SEQRA process for at least 5 NY wind projects. One was recently abandoned by the developer when myself and others demonstrated serious flaws in their avian assessment. 

 

 

 

 

[Doc]

 

"Besides, Condors and raptors of all sorts are getting killed by windmills, and I see no desire by greenies to put a stop to those things.  Do they really care about the birds, or only ones killed by lead?"

 

Mr. VJP - You are so very wrong. There are many "greenies" opposed to wind in the wrong places. The FWS wants to issue 30 year "take" permits at wind farms for eagles - http://eaglescoping.org/. Do some poking around on the internet and see how the "greenies" are reacting. I have personally been involved in the SEQRA process for at least 5 NY wind projects. One was recently abandoned by the developer when myself and others demonstrated serious flaws in their avian assessment. 

 

 

The bunny-huggers come in all shapes and sizes, but they do not call wind energy "green power" because of the color of the windmills.

[Mr VJP]

Maybe they have opposition in NY, but not in California where they are most widely used.

 

Virgil, the original question was about using non-lead for hunting, and the man did not want to see a ban, but as we go into this discussion, it becomes obvious the government will allow the debate to only go on for so long before it will drop the hammer on the discussion and apply a total tyrannical ban, with no regard for the people that will be most effected by it. That's why I think we need to have a discussion on how non-lead use can be brought into being WITHOUT forcing a ban on sportsmen.

 

 

[Mr VJP]

BTW, the leg hold trap ban was a huge disaster for trappers in NJ, putting many out of the field.  That decreased the number of fur bearers trapped and the populations of all sorts of vermin became a huge problem in many suburban areas of NJ.  It was an emotional law that had no other purpose but to allow animals to suffer less when trapped.  So now the un-trapped animals cause NJ residents to suffer.  I hear rabies is on the rise there at an alarming rate.

 

 

Edited September 4, 2014 by Mr VJP

[Curmudgeon]

Maybe they have opposition in NY, but not in California where they are most widely used.

 

In CA too. The turbines were having even a greater impact on bats until they all died from white-nose disease.

 

On Altamont Pass in CA from a CA environmental group:

 

"The APWRA was established in 1982 and contains 5,400 wind turbines. The APWRA has the highest

numbers and rates of raptor kills of any wind facility in the world. The bird kill fiasco at Altamont

Pass is a result of poor planning that allowed wind turbines to be built along a major raptor migration

corridor in an area with high wintering concentrations of raptors and in the heart of the highest

concentration of golden eagles in North America. Wind turbines at Altamont Pass kill an estimated

880 to 1,300 birds of prey each year, including up to 116 golden eagles, 300 red-tailed hawks, 380

burrowing owls, and additional hundreds of other raptors including kestrels, falcons, vultures, and

other owl species. The APWRA is an ecological sink for golden eagles and other raptor species and

may be having significant impacts on populations of birds that are rare and reproduce infrequently."