Non Lead Bullets For Hunting?

[vlywaterman]

so, I am the"nice fellow there with a display" that was at Saturday's gun show. I'm very glad that this conversation got started, thank you. I was shocked when I started doing some research on lead in ammo, and I don't believe there needs to be a ban, I think most people will see for themselves that it really is a better choice. As far as the eagles, it could be coincidence that a few weeks after hunting season starts the rehab centers start getting the eagles in with very high lead levels, it would be difficult to prove that the source of the lead is from ammo. If we don't want to believe that, lets look at the meat. Look at the x-rays of sheep, deer, pigs, that have been shot with lead. The lead is not just in the wound channel. Its a foot or more away, in a whitetail, that is not something we would throw away. Look at the X-rays of donated venison packages they got from the food banks, not a lot of lead but it is there. There is no doubt that lead is toxic, it mimics calcium, so for kids, babies, calcium/lead is a very big deal, why would someone take that risk? The last thing about why I was promoting non lead was that it works better, according to a post in the "Army Times" http://www.army.mil/article/56157/  the green bullet is getting some pretty good reviews on how it shoots, and the damage it does.

After reading about the lead, I bought some copper, about the same as premium lead, right in my local gun shop-DelSports- I paid $46 for 30-06, $33 for 270, and $48 for 300 WSM(all Federal Premium). So, I use my cheap lead for fooling around, and really how many bullets do I need for hunting? Even if it was twice as much/box I wouldn't feed my family lead anymore. 

I've been shooting these copper bullets with some friends, comparing the lead and non lead, try shooting them into 5- 1 gallon containers filled with water(it stopped the 30-06 at 100 yds), and then measure the mass of the bullet you have left. It's pretty amazing.

sorry for the long wind, I do get excited about this.

oh, one last note, one post talked about our forefathers,,, it's the high velocities that are causing the lead to fragment, I don't believe they were shooting bullets at 3000ft/s a few hundred years ago.

 

 

[Doc]

I think we would all be shocked at the amount of various poisons and other health-harmful things that we ingest everyday. And yet the species continues, often without any indicators that we have taken in something unhealthy. Look, I don't want to see anyone chewing on a piece of lead, or sucking on a bar of lead, or gnawing on some lead based paint laden windowsill. But I do not run my life on unproven assumptions. Yes lead in significant quantities can create problems. The question is whether or not bullet residue in a carcass constitutes "significant quantities" or anything even close to significant. Like I say there are centuries of lead bullet usage (and by the way, high velocity cartridges are not a recent invention), and I have never heard of a lead-poisoning epidemic among hunters.

 

And of course the other question is whether or not any substitute for lead doesn't have equally or even more toxic problems. Jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire seldom works out in a satisfactory way.

 

The crusade for a lead-free bullet seems to be kind of a weak presentation based on a whole lot "could be's" and "perhaps" and "might be's" and "possible's". None of it rises to the level of "Hey we gotta get rid of this stuff or we're all in trouble".

[adkbuck]

Its kind of interesting to hear what Jessica Brooks-Stevens of Barnes Bullets had to say about the California Lead Bullet Ban, Not the preachy sermon one might expect......

 

"If anyone thinks the folks at Barnes Bullets have been rejoicing since misguided California legislation put a future ban on lead bullets for all hunting beginning in 2019, think again.(http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/jan/14/california-lead-ban-copper-/)

 

 Jessica Brooks-Stevens, daughter of X Bullet inventor Randy Brooks, said Monday at the 36th Annual SHOT Show in Las Vegas. “His reasons were so far from that it’s not even funny. It was more about performance. It only happened to work for the condor issue in California.

“We don’t support the legislation. We think this type of legislation is bad for hunting, bad for the base. People shoot lead-core ammunition because it’s cheaper to shoot. I know some hunters in California who have put their guns up over this. That’s not good for our sport. Bans like this hurt the future of the sport for everyone.”

Brooks-Stevens said Barnes copper bullets will cost hunters 50 to 75 percent more to purchase.

“Pure copper is expensive,” she said.

San Diego Times Union Tribune  Jan 14, 2014

 

 

[Mr VJP]

Good to see you found us here vlywaterman.  I think you can get a lot of good info on the mindset NY hunters have regarding non-lead ammo from this thread.  Any government ban on lead ammo is going to be a bad idea.  Whether or not hunters will voluntarily switch to non-lead seems to be a matter of very personal choice.  

 

If not for the high cost of alternative ammo, I believe it wouldn't be hard to switch, based on the performance of most non-lead ammo.  If it is more accurate and kills cleaner, that's great.  But if it costs too much, that's a killer.

 

[Curmudgeon]

Who is pushing for a ban on lead in New York? Given the backlash to the SAFE Act, the reality is, there will be no ban. I am plugged into a lot of different groups. I hear no talk of a ban. I did hear DEC is working to amend the act to allow internet purchases of ammo. This came from a personal discussion with DEC staff on improving the availability of lead-free ammo.

 

There is no doubt that lead is a powerful neurotoxin. Fortunately for the readers of this group, tiny amounts do not have a profound effect on adults. The same amounts have severe impacts on the brains of children under 6.

 

Regarding whether or not our ancestors "were a bunch of drooling idiots who could barely string words together": I thought moderators were supposed to be more moderate. However, taking the topic seriously, the velocity issue is significant, as is the amount of game available. There was no deer hunting in my part of central NY (4F) in the early 20th century. There were hardly any deer. I wasn't around then but I recall the old timers talking about going for a ride in the 1930s to see a deer. They were that rare. There were deer here when black powder and muzzle loaders were in use and velocities were slow.  

 

We could actually determine how chronically exposed to lead our ancestors were. Lead as the gentleman said, mimics calcium. It becomes part of bone. We could exhume our ancestors and measure their lead exposure over their lifetime. This wouldn't tell us how they consumed it. Water and paint are more likely sources. This type of research has already being done on Balck Vultures. Vultures - including condors - are obligate scavengers. They do not obtain lead from water pipes or paint, only from dead animals.

 

I am going to make an assumption (please forgive me) that the average intelligence of this group is higher than average. Everyone is computer savvy. Everyone is literate. Some of you are articulate, even eloquent. That is not random. We inherited that intelligence from our ancestors who were very smart. Suppose that the average IQ of this group is 120. Suppose we all fed our young children lead-tainted venison (as I did). We may have dropped our kid's IQ 5-10 points. Maybe the same thing happened to us. That doesn't make our kids or us "drooling idiots". In fact, all are still well above average. Now tell me, if you knew that feeding venison containing lead fragments was going to impact your children negatively, would you spend $4 more per year on copper ammo? That's what it costs me. I don't use it at the range. I put 2 rounds of copper through the rifle before the season. Then one round per deer. I spend more on gas for the UTV getting my Dad in and out of the woods than the $4 the copper costs me.

 

Does anyone doubt there is lead in venison? Is there anyone out there willing to X-ray random samples of meat from the NYS Venison Donation Program? They won't return my calls or emails. Why is that? Do you know what happened with ND's VDP? They took 100 random packages and X-rayed them. 59 had metal fragments. Some of it was probably from copper jackets but most was lead.

 

Back to scavengers. I love wildlife - everything from insects on up. I started using lead-free ammo because I was seeing eagles around my property every deer season. Twice I had to drag carcasses away from the road to protect eagles from being hit by cars - multiple eagles each time. To deny that these birds are getting lead from gut piles and unrecovered carcasses is just wishful thinking. Researcher Grainger Hunt and others X-rayed 38 deer carcasses and 20 gut piles from animals killed with lead bullets. 94% of the carcasses contained metal fragments. 90% of the gut piles had fragments: half had more than 100 fragments; a quarter had more than 200 fragments. The next time you have a road-kill nearby, drag it off the road and put a wildlife camera on it. See what feeds.

 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Who is pushing for a ban on lead in New York? Given the backlash to the SAFE Act, the reality is, there will be no ban. I am plugged into a lot of different groups. I hear no talk of a ban. I did hear DEC is working to amend the act to allow internet purchases of ammo. This came from a personal discussion with DEC staff on improving the availability of lead-free ammo.

 

There is no doubt that lead is a powerful neurotoxin. Fortunately for the readers of this group, tiny amounts do not have a profound effect on adults. The same amounts have severe impacts on the brains of children under 6.

 

Regarding whether or not our ancestors "were a bunch of drooling idiots who could barely string words together": I thought moderators were supposed to be more moderate. However, taking the topic seriously, the velocity issue is significant, as is the amount of game available. There was no deer hunting in my part of central NY (4F) in the early 20th century. There were hardly any deer. I wasn't around then but I recall the old timers talking about going for a ride in the 1930s to see a deer. They were that rare. There were deer here when black powder and muzzle loaders were in use and velocities were slow.  

 

First, Welcome. On the Safe Act. How much talk was there prior to it's actual passage? Not much chatter at all. I have the highest regard for the DEC and what they can accomplish given their limi9ted resource, but I would be curious how they are "working" to do this. Their head is a Cuomo appointee and will not go against any part of the safe act. Any change will required legislative or judicial measures, both of which the DEC is lacking.

 

As for the Moderators, they are members, monitor the site and try to keep it organized and monitor for rule compliance. It has nothing to do with how they must form their opinions and express them.

[Mr VJP]

As of today, there is no concerted effort on the part of DEC or the State of NY to ban lead ammo.  But since it has been done in other states, and it is gaining interest every where, it is a good idea for sportsman to be pro-active and get as much information as possible on the subject to be able to debate the issue intelligently for their own good.

 

That's why I started this thread and that is what I hope comes out of it.

 

I never want to see a mandated ban, but I would like to see non-lead ammo used in the future.  There are currently obstacles in the way and problems if that ever happens at this point in time.  My question is, can the problems and obstacles be overcome, or at least minimized, to the point where sportsman would embrace the use of non-lead ammo more than traditional lead ammo?

 

[virgil]

There are already laws against using lead in certain situations, no?  Not sure if it's statewide, but we have to use steel to hunt ducks in my area.

[Pygmy]

 

There are already laws against using lead in certain situations, no?  Not sure if it's statewide, but we have to use steel to hunt ducks in my area.

 

That's nationwide, and I beleive Canada also.

[EspressoBuzz]

Its sad when solid peer reviewed science get laid low by "been doing this for 100 years and my gut tells me its right" science. Our stewardship of land and animals should always be as broad and encompassing as possible because we cannot know the full impact of our deeds. I was taught that hunters are first and foremost conservationist, that our first responsibility is to the land and animals who inhabit it, and that we should err on the side more protection and not less. These are our lands and animalia to protect. Are we really going to say the price of protection is too high?

 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

There are already laws against using lead in certain situations, no?  Not sure if it's statewide, but we have to use steel to hunt ducks in my area.

That is Federal and if I recall was switched  in the early 90's. There are also specific areas in the state like Montezuma and Iroquois that require not lead shot for all hunting (not just waterfowl).

 

I remember hearing last year that the Fed's (EPA?)made a push to ban all lead ammo. Am I mixing that up with another topic?

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Its sad when solid peer reviewed science get laid low by "been doing this for 100 years and my gut tells me its right" science. Our stewardship of land and animals should always be as broad and encompassing as possible because we cannot know the full impact of our deeds. I was taught that hunters are first and foremost conservationist, that our first responsibility is to the land and animals who inhabit it, and that we should err on the side more protection and not less. These are our lands and animalia to protect. Are we really going to say the price of protection is too high?

You think ammo is in short supply now, watch what happens then. a lot of what I use is non-lead (but not all)and I keep hearing the "it doesn't cost that much we can afford 4 shots" on this thread. Tells me how much practice some actually do. how many rounds do you think some shoot when they are in trap or skeet leagues? range practice? Hunting? I am all for a cleaner environment but let's not make it sound like it is pocket change. There are cost and it will be felt by anyone that pulls a trigger, the scope of that effect will vary.

[virgil]

I agree with Espresso.  It's a shame that science-denial has become the standard response to any new information that might lead to us having to make changes or endure inconvenience.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I agree with Espresso.  It's a shame that science-denial has become the standard response to any new information that might lead to us having to make changes or endure inconvenience.

Virgil,

I think  many times it is the Boy that cried Wolf syndrome. There are so many lame brain ideas that get presented with little or suspect backing that everything now gets treated the same.

[virgil]

'Everything gets treated the same' because a bunch of lame brains have learned that, among a large portion of the population, it's perfectly acceptable to simply disregard a legitimate scientific study if that study yields results that you dislike.  You don't even have to argue the science.  Just simply reject it out of hand.  Just claim that it's another study done by a bunch of elitist academics.

[Mr VJP]

It's not so important what one thinks of the studies or the science, so much as the cost to remedy the actual problem when it is proven to be real.  Who has the right to force it on the people, especially if it has a severe impact on freedom and they don't want it?

 

I find this issue to be very much like the call for a ban on fracking in NY State.  Is there really a problem with that technology?  Is the ban worth the loss of economic gain and individual freedom that comes with it?

 

[Doc]

I agree with Espresso.  It's a shame that science-denial has become the standard response to any new information that might lead to us having to make changes or endure inconvenience.

And it's even more of a shame that those that worship at the altar of research, simply and mindlessly accept all studies without expending the mentality to apply logic and some good old healthy skepticism. There's been an awful lot of societal mis-steps because of studies that the public has simply accepted as the word of God. Anybody with an agenda can publish a study that may very well not be worth the paper it's written on, and policy can change because no one wants to or can run counter-studies to unmask the agenda. But I will say it. Just because we can't disprove it doesn't mean that we have to have the knee-jerk reaction to accept it and modify our lives because of it simply in the name of a study. It is getting to be a situation where anyone who can garner the most studies in favor of their position can dictate public policy. No one ever admits that there are political motivations that color some of these studies. No one is willing to admit that researchers are fallible and in some cases simply incompetent. If it is called a study, it is gospel. Well sorry, if there is a possibility that there could be political motivations, and the so-called facts spewed are kind of contrary to good old horse-sense and logic, I for one will not just blindly pick up their flag and start marching with it. That's not a response of convenience, that's simply an individual's responsibility to view input with a critical eye instead of throwing on the blinders and saying, "My gosh they did a study, it must be true". But when one "study" conflicts with another "study" what happens to this cult mentality? Well that happens often enough to cause some to look beyond the simple fact that it is "a study". And by the way, do not confuse a "study" with science. Some times it has more to do with salesmanship that any kind of science.

[stubby68]

How many times have we heard that science studies say something is bad just to have the same people do another study that says that same thing is ok. Heck one day they say do not eat eggs the next they say eat all you can. I am not saying it's good or bad I'm just saying that over time all science becomes suspect because the studies are so often proven to be sighted towards a persons or groups goals. Everything has a price and if people deem that price too high they stop paying it. If ammo is to expensive because of only haveing copper aviable many could stop hunting and get rid of there guns. One could look at it as a way of getting rid of all guns,price the ammo so high we can not afford it. Not saying that will happen but you never know. How do I know that the studies are not just a ruse and that is there end goal?

Like Doc said lead has been used for centuries and then suddenly someone found a dead Eagle and blamed it on lead because lead was found in it system whem they studied it. That doesn't mean it came from hunting lead is in many things it could have came from anything. Like I said I amnot saying it is good or bad but I do not see or hear of Eagles droping from the sky on a daily bases either. Science means nothing when there are so many ways to counter it. And sometimes the cost does out weigh the results

[virgil]

Yes, anyone can produce a study.  And, yes, there are biased studies that are produced to further agendas.  However, anyone who actually knows anything about science or the 'scientific method' knows how to tell a bogus study from a legitimate one.  Doc, do a little research of your own on the subject- maybe it'll save you from wiriting another longwinded but empty post.  Look up the term 'peer reviewed', look at who funds the research, look at what publications publish the studies.  'Good old healthy skepticism' can be useful.  But, without any good old fashioned knowledge of a subject, skepticism is just thickheadedness.

[EspressoBuzz]

And it's even more of a shame that those that worship at the altar of research, simply and mindlessly accept all studies without expending the mentality to apply logic and some good old healthy skepticism.

Show me the study that proves it's "even more"! LOL

 

Surprisingly it's much easier today to find out how, why, how many and by whom scientific research is being conducted. EQUALLY surprising is how few do so.

I may find a study by a few interesting. Science that is peer reviewed and carries the weight of scientific consensus is what I was talking about. A clear example is global climate change. Yeah science got that wrong! It's happening way faster than anyone thought. Some studies suggest Lead brought down the mighty Roman empire, not debauchery. Used in everything including food, makeup and water, wine and olive oil vessels.

 

I am not for or against a regulation, ideally WE as hunters should educate ourselves and freely choose to do what we perceive as right. Clearly Curmudgeon has done so and made his decision as so have many others here have.

 

As for me I have switched some time ago from lead in my largest bore weapons, and my air weapons. I still use lead at the range when competing or for practice. I keep lead around for home security when lead poisoning is the least of my concerns. For me this is a balanced approach that mitigates the costs.

[Curmudgeon]

It seems to be there are 2 different discussions going on. One is about bans and restrictions. The other is about protecting kids and scavengers. Can we oppose bans and oppose poisons in the food chain too?

[Mr VJP]

That's the end goal Curmudgen.  But how do we do that in the field, considering all of the lead that is used by sportsman for hunting and fishing, and the increased cost to bear for the alternatives, without mandating it?  

 

I wonder what percentage of outdoor people believe in it, much less would voluntarily pay the price to use non-lead alternatives 100% of the time in the field.  How do we implement it without addressing the concerns about it first?

 

[Doc]

Yes, anyone can produce a study.  And, yes, there are biased studies that are produced to further agendas.  However, anyone who actually knows anything about science or the 'scientific method' knows how to tell a bogus study from a legitimate one.  Doc, do a little research of your own on the subject- maybe it'll save you from wiriting another longwinded but empty post.  Look up the term 'peer reviewed', look at who funds the research, look at what publications publish the studies.  'Good old healthy skepticism' can be useful.  But, without any good old fashioned knowledge of a subject, skepticism is just thickheadedness.

Well, I might suggest that you take a bit of your own advice and do a little research rather than just mindlessly committing to this concept purely because it has the word "study" attached to it. It has even been made quite easy for you had you bothered to read the thread. adkbuck (reply number 6 of this thread) supplied counter studies that refute a lot of the emotion spewed by the lead bullet banners. Noted in that article are more of the studies that don't seem to be agreeing with the anti lead bullet proponents at all. And in fact he also supplied some data on copper toxicity for anyone who thinks that the lead alternatives are a safe materials. Also, had you bothered to read it, reply # 12 of this thread also noted a 2008 study conducted by the CDC (how's that for credentials) that pretty much destroys the idea that people who eat game taken with lead bullets are doomed to have higher levels of lead in their bodies because of it.

 

You see it's nice to cherry pick the studies that you want to campaign for, but as I said before you can pretty much go out there and find counter-studies in your little "study war" that will prove just about anything you want to prove. And by golly you will also find plenty of people who will pick up the banner of any cause simply because it has a study attached to it and run mindlessly with it.

[jjb4900]

That's the end goal Curmudgen.  But how do we do that in the field, considering all of the lead that is used by sportsman for hunting and fishing, and the increased cost to bear for the alternatives, without mandating it?  

 

I wonder what percentage of outdoor people believe in it, much less would voluntarily pay the price to use non-lead alternatives 100% of the time in the field.  How do we implement it without addressing the concerns about it first?

It seems that they already addressed the concerns of lead shot when it comes to waterfowl hunting, and I think the majority of waterfowl hunters are paying the higher price for effective alternatives. That being said, I also think the amount of animals that are hunted with single projectile types of ammo that are left unrecovered and become food for scavengers is a very small number...I would think if it's that big of a problem you would see a pretty high rate of lead poisoning in people who shoot and consume animals killed by that means, I would think that many of us have consumed hundreds of pounds of lead shot animals over many years with no ill effects from it....the main issue with birds is that they have crops, where there food is stored and mixed with sand or tiny gravel particles and it gets broken down before digestion, allowing the lead to be more easily absorbed, not so with mammals.

[Curmudgeon]

........he also supplied some data on copper toxicity for anyone who thinks that the lead alternatives are a safe materials. Also, had you bothered to read it, reply # 12 of this thread also noted a 2008 study conducted by the CDC (how's that for credentials) that pretty much destroys the idea that people who eat game taken with lead bullets are doomed to have higher levels of lead in their bodies because of it.

 

You see it's nice to cherry pick the studies that you want to campaign for, but as I said before you can pretty much go out there and find counter-studies in your little "study war" that will prove just about anything you want to prove. And by golly you will also find plenty of people who will pick up the banner of any cause simply because it has a study attached to it and run mindlessly with it.

Doc - You aren't cherry picking. You are wrong. I just went to the CBC site itself - Study title and conclusions copied and pasted. So much for destroying any ideas.

Hunting with lead: association between blood lead levels and wild game consumption. CONCLUSIONS: Participants who consumed wild game had higher PbB than those who did not consume wild game. Careful review of butchering practices and monitoring of meat-packing processes may decrease lead exposure from wild game consumption.

 

To jjb4900 - You are correct about birds and grit. However, adult humans are much more tolerant of lead than children. That doesn't mean there are "no ill effects".

Re: Unrecovered deer. I generally find at least one deer each year that someone did not recover. Considering some of my neighbors seem to fire 5 times at every deer they see means there may be many more unrecovered deer in my area than yours.