Lead Ammo Brief - go debate

[EspressoBuzz]

Every "few years". So that lead dropped on a day when the ground wasn't removed will still have lead on and in the ground.

 

The point is, it's not just hunters leaving lead behind. Agree or disagree?

 

Agree!

 

Knowing where lead is either in your diet or in the environment is part of the battle to keep it out of us!

 

Seriously, on Long Island at the Yaphank skeet range deer are all over the place and use to hearing blasts and I often wonder how much lead they are getting just from the plants and ground.

[Larry]

Back in the late 70s and early 80s myself and about 5 other duck hunters started to collect gizzard samples for the DEC. We collected over 600 gizzards in 3 years the ducks ranged from wood ducks to oldsquaws. The birds were shot anywhere from fields to the shore and bays of lake Ontario.  The bird we kill the most of were Blue Bills in 3 years we turned in over 300 Blue Bill gizzards. We hunted those birds from Kendell to Dexter. Three quarters of the gizzards contained lead shot pellets that included 2/3’s of the Blue Bills. With are help the DEC. was able to set the nontoxic regulation for waterfowl.We proved that most waterfowl were picking up lead shot pellets fired over water.

[shawnhu]

Agree!

Knowing where lead is either in your diet or in the environment is part of the battle to keep it out of us!

Seriously, on Long Island at the Yaphank skeet range deer are all over the place and use to hearing blasts and I often wonder how much lead they are getting just from the plants and ground.

Time to snatch one of those deer up and do some lab tests on it.

X-Calibur Lighting Systems

http://facebook.com/XCaliburLightingSystems

[mike rossi]

Most basic lead or copper coated lead bullets start at least $10 below the price of non lead bullets.

Example 1 ( current prices at Cabelas ):

Rifle - Federal Power Shok 7mm-08 $29.99  /  Federal Premium Vital Shok 7mm-08 $39.99.

 

Example 2 

Shotgun - Remington Game Load 12ga $5.97 per 25 at Wal-Mart  /  Rio Bismuth 12ga at Cabelas $26.99 per 10 , Hevi Shot Turkey $22.99-$37.99 per 5.

You can get steel shot for less, but it's not recommended in all barrels. Though most newer shotguns should handle it.

I would say that's 'proof'. 

 

Funny how you addressed and put a challenge to the cost part, but you didn't or can't address this part of my comment.

 

OK, this is good Rob. You provided evidence that backs up your statement. 

 

Now does anyone dispute Rob's evidence?

[mike rossi]

Here ya go!

 

Wild Meat Raises Lead Exposure

Tests by the CDC show that eating venison and other game can raise the amounts of lead in human bodies by 50 percent

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wild-game-deer-venison-condors-meat-lead-ammunition-ban/

 

Google it up you'll find other sources and for the patient the white papers are online too.

 

 

Near and dear to the heart...

 

John H. Schulz, a resource scientist at the Missouri Department of Conservation, has calculated that as many as 15 million mourning doves are killed in North America each year from lead poisoning, mostly from eating spent lead shot that looks like the weed seed they depend on for food. That’s almost as many as the estimated 20 million mourning doves legally shot and killed each year by hunters.

 

OK, this is good. However, nobody challenged bullet point 1 or 2, so all you are doing is throwing sand on the beach...

[mike rossi]

Does anyone challenge this argument: 

 

There is no clear, direct link between eating wild game and elevated lead blood levels. However, it is clear that lead is harmful to health and  lead fragments were found in the majority of meat samples which have been tested. Lead builds up in body tissues and when woman are pregnant lead that has accumulated in bone and perhaps other tissues is released; that can be more harmful to the fetus or nursing child which are small and developing than it is to an adult.

 

1) Although several random comments were made in reference to this; nobody made a compelling argument disputing:

 

A) No clear link exists between eating game and elevated lead levels

 

Lead fragments were found in the majority of tested meat samples

 

C) Lead accumulation in women who eventually become pregnant is transferred to the developing child and the impact of lead is greater to a fetus or infant.

 

2) "Some hunters argue lead alternatives are too costly"

 

Rob defended this premise with the following information:

Most basic lead or copper coated lead bullets start at least $10 below the price of non lead bullets.

Example 1 ( current prices at Cabelas ):

Rifle - Federal Power Shok 7mm-08 $29.99  /  Federal Premium Vital Shok 7mm-08 $39.99.

Example 2

Shotgun - Remington Game Load 12ga $5.97 per 25 at Wal-Mart  /  Rio Bismuth 12ga at Cabelas $26.99 per 10 , Hevi Shot Turkey $22.99-$37.99 per 5.

You can get steel shot for less, but it's not recommended in all barrels. Though most newer shotguns should handle it.

 

I did not word the bullet point correctly, however. I said " Some hunters argue lead alternatives are too costly". That is too subjective and meaningless. I should have said: Some hunters argue that lead alternatives are expensive and therefore will make hunting cost prohibitive to many people. 

 

At least Rob is getting the gist of litigation or debate. Hopefully others are too. It probably is too overwhelming to correct the bullet point and start over and Rob will feel dissed. 

[Curmudgeon]

"Too costly" is relative - and as Mike noted above - not necessarily "prohibitive". The skeet field discussion is not directly related to health issues hand. However, it does involve the cost issue and clearly illustrates that hunters are not the only source of ammunition based lead in the environment. The geese and doves that pick up grit at skeet fields are being poisoned by a poison environment - no different from landing in the water of the old copper mine in Butte and dying. No different than eating pesticide on a lawn. Skeet fields are a separate debate.

 

"Too costly", or "prohibitively" expensive depends on several factors. As Mike says, this is "subjective". Your income, the amount of ammunition you use hunting - not skeet shooting, and, your tolerance for risk all matter. Steve - with the new baby (luckily a lead-free baby) may have a very different tolerance for risk than the mother of his child were she well informed. The fact that the baby is lead free is likely due to the baby's physical environment, the mother's historic diet, how much wild game she currently consumes, the plumbing in the house and municipality, Steve's butchering practices and luck.

     For deer hunting, most responsible hunters only fire several rounds at deer each season. This is not "too costly".

 

Bullet 2 was clearly about secondary poisoning of wildlife. That it is stated in a slightly ambiguous way does not change that. Everyone knows what it means.

 

VJP - You acknowledge your gut piles are consumed by scavengers. You agree with bullet 2. Guessing which species are responsible, and implying they don't matter, adds nothing here. I have scavenger data that shows a much larger range of scavengers. You are choosing species not to care about.

 

Digression:

 

VJP - Yes, the CDC has a health agenda, just like the doctors who wrote the report on the ND VDP. You are just playing with words here - "gang violence" can be "gun violence".  In the spirit of this post, can you show that CDC is not concerned with "Gang violence"? CDC is also concerned with suicide. Guns in the house are a known suicide risk, especially for males. Do you object to these data also? http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

 

Edited March 13, 2016 by Curmudgeon

[Tacti_Steve]

"Too costly" is relative - and as Mike noted above - not necessarily "prohibitive". The skeet field discussion is not directly related to health issues hand. However, it does involve the cost issue and clearly illustrates that hunters are not the only source of ammunition based lead in the environment. The geese and doves that pick up grit at skeet fields are being poisoned by a poison environment - no different from landing in the water of the old copper mine in Butte and dying. No different than eating pesticide on a lawn. Skeet fields are a separate debate.

 

"Too costly", or "prohibitively" expensive depends on several factors. As Mike says, this is "subjective". Your income, the amount of ammunition you use hunting - not skeet shooting, and, your tolerance for risk all matter. Steve - with the new baby (luckily a lead-free baby) may have a very different tolerance for risk than the mother of his child were she well informed. The fact that the baby is lead free is likely due to the baby's physical environment, the mother's historic diet, how much wild game she currently consumes, the plumbing in the house and municipality, Steve's butchering practices and luck.

     For deer hunting, most responsible hunters only fire several rounds at deer each season. This is not "too costly".

 

Bullet 2 was clearly about secondary poisoning of wildlife. That it is stated in a slightly ambiguous way does not change that. Everyone knows what it means.

 

VJP - You acknowledge your gut piles are consumed by scavengers. You agree with bullet 2. Guessing which species are responsible, and implying they don't matter, adds nothing here. I have scavenger data that shows a much larger range of scavengers. You are choosing species not to care about.

 

Digression:

 

VJP - Yes, the CDC has a health agenda, just like the doctors who wrote the report on the ND VDP. You are just playing with words here - "gang violence" can be "gun violence".  In the spirit of this post, can you show that CDC is not concerned with "Gang violence"? CDC is also concerned with suicide. Guns in the house are a known suicide risk, especially for males. Do you object to these data also? http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

I disagree. "Too Costly" to me is anything other than the cheapest bullet when it comes to killing Deer. Generally I shoot Remington 1 oz rifled slugs. I can find them anywhere and less than a $1/round. My father bought 500 boxes of them years ago when they were still $0.25/round. 

 

I'm not saying lead is a good thing or that there is one alternative. We need alternatives that are equal or less expensive and as effective. Oh yeah and less toxic. So far there is no good alternative that when shot in the same volume as lead is any less toxic, less expensive and as effective. Again to scale.

 

And that article http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wild-game-deer-venison-condors-meat-lead-ammunition-ban/ I'mcalling BS. I'm calling that anti-internet spam. I want to see a real study that publishes its data, research and findings. Along with its assumptions. In fact I'm going to research how to test the meat in my freezer for myself. 

[Tacti_Steve]

This is a better article that dives deeper into the a different study and finds

"Ingesting lead particles in game meat is not the most important source of lead exposure to humans,”

"those who consumed game meat had only 0.3 micrograms per deciliter higher PbB than did those who had not consumed game meat."

https://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=311:lead-recommedations&catid=34:ONB%20Articles&Itemid=54

 

[mike rossi]

"Too costly" is relative - and as Mike noted above - not necessarily "prohibitive". The skeet field discussion is not directly related to health issues hand. However, it does involve the cost issue and clearly illustrates that hunters are not the only source of ammunition based lead in the environment. The geese and doves that pick up grit at skeet fields are being poisoned by a poison environment - no different from landing in the water of the old copper mine in Butte and dying. No different than eating pesticide on a lawn. Skeet fields are a separate debate.

 

"Too costly", or "prohibitively" expensive depends on several factors. As Mike says, this is "subjective". Your income, the amount of ammunition you use hunting - not skeet shooting, and, your tolerance for risk all matter. Steve - with the new baby (luckily a lead-free baby) may have a very different tolerance for risk than the mother of his child were she well informed. The fact that the baby is lead free is likely due to the baby's physical environment, the mother's historic diet, how much wild game she currently consumes, the plumbing in the house and municipality, Steve's butchering practices and luck.

     For deer hunting, most responsible hunters only fire several rounds at deer each season. This is not "too costly".

 

Bullet 2 was clearly about secondary poisoning of wildlife. That it is stated in a slightly ambiguous way does not change that. Everyone knows what it means.

 

VJP - You acknowledge your gut piles are consumed by scavengers. You agree with bullet 2. Guessing which species are responsible, and implying they don't matter, adds nothing here. I have scavenger data that shows a much larger range of scavengers. You are choosing species not to care about.

 

Digression:

 

VJP - Yes, the CDC has a health agenda, just like the doctors who wrote the report on the ND VDP. You are just playing with words here - "gang violence" can be "gun violence".  In the spirit of this post, can you show that CDC is not concerned with "Gang violence"? CDC is also concerned with suicide. Guns in the house are a known suicide risk, especially for males. Do you object to these data also? http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

 

Tom,

 

You are not establishing any factual basis with that. Rob or someone else who argues non-lead ammo is cost prohibitive needs to back up that assumption. When they back it up with something that has teeth, then you might respond.

 

Rob did look up info and post it, but (my fault) he did not show how that information proves non-toxic ammo will be a price barrier to hunting participation. Going back and forth saying "I won't pay a lot for that muffler is meaningless". Subjectivity, opinion that is not fact-based, and assumptions needs to be ironed out, not repeated over and over.

[airedale]

Stores listing Rio Bismuth shotgun ammo and actually stocking it to sell are two different things. Last fall I searched a 100 mile radius in central NY of every major sporting goods store doing business selling ammo.

 

2 Gander Mountains

2 Dicks

2 Bass Pros

2 Herb Phillipsons

And several small private guns shops.

There is non to be had anywhere!! I could not even special order it!!!!

 

I did find distributors online that had it in stock but thanks to our "safe act" no shipping to NY. Shipping to an FFL made the price per shell almost doubled, way too much! 

 

A friend of mine took a trip to Arkansas to visit relatives and I gave him $250 and told he could spend it all for non toxic shot shells that could be safely fired in doubles. Guess what even the giant pyramid Bass Pro did not have one shell in stock. We are talking the capital duck hunting area in the US. The best he could come up with is stores that would special order it. which would have done me no good.

 

I made a post on this board for any leads where I might find some non toxic within reasonable driving distance and came up with a fat zero again.

 

The only solution I could come up with is to buy components and reload my own ammunition which is still far from being reasonable.

 

Like I posted before in the other lead apocalypse fear mongering thread, are all going to die someday but absolutely no one is ever going to die or even get sick from eating game shot with lead bullets as long as they care for their meat properly.

 

Al

 

 

[Curmudgeon]

This is a better article that dives deeper into the a different study and finds

"Ingesting lead particles in game meat is not the most important source of lead exposure to humans,”

"those who consumed game meat had only 0.3 micrograms per deciliter higher PbB than did those who had not consumed game meat."

https://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=311:lead-recommedations&catid=34:ONB%20Articles&Itemid=54

 

Note: Since this was published, the threshold for lead poisoning in children has been dropped to 5 micrograms per deciliter from 10.

 

Quote from above:

 

"Both the North Dakota and Minnesota studies contain recommendations for hunters and others who consume game meat harvested with lead-based bullets.  Among the recommendations is an advisory that children under the age of six and pregnant women should not consume game meat harvested with lead bullets."

 

Why is that if there is no problem?

[DirtTime]

1) Although several random comments were made in reference to this; nobody made a compelling argument disputing:

 

A) No clear link exists between eating game and elevated lead levels

 

Lead fragments were found in the majority of tested meat samples

 

C) Lead accumulation in women who eventually become pregnant is transferred to the developing child and the impact of lead is greater to a fetus or infant.

 

2) "Some hunters argue lead alternatives are too costly"

 

Rob defended this premise with the following information:

Most basic lead or copper coated lead bullets start at least $10 below the price of non lead bullets.

Example 1 ( current prices at Cabelas ):

Rifle - Federal Power Shok 7mm-08 $29.99  /  Federal Premium Vital Shok 7mm-08 $39.99.

Example 2

Shotgun - Remington Game Load 12ga $5.97 per 25 at Wal-Mart  /  Rio Bismuth 12ga at Cabelas $26.99 per 10 , Hevi Shot Turkey $22.99-$37.99 per 5.

You can get steel shot for less, but it's not recommended in all barrels. Though most newer shotguns should handle it.

 

I did not word the bullet point correctly, however. I said " Some hunters argue lead alternatives are too costly". That is too subjective and meaningless. I should have said: Some hunters argue that lead alternatives are expensive and therefore will make hunting cost prohibitive to many people. 

 

At least Rob is getting the gist of litigation or debate. Hopefully others are too. It probably is too overwhelming to correct the bullet point and start over and Rob will feel dissed. 

I don't see many hunters quitting hunting if they made lead ammo illegal. I do think there may be a drop in ammo sales until the cost gets a little more equal to lead prices, especially for shotgun ammo.

 

As for starting a new thread on this topic, go for it. You won't hurt my feelings one bit. But, to alter this thread now because you did a side step and re thought how you worded things would render this thread worthless.

[mike rossi]

I don't see many hunters quitting hunting if they made lead ammo illegal. I do think there may be a drop in ammo sales until the cost gets a little more equal to lead prices, especially for shotgun ammo.

 

As for starting a new thread on this topic, go for it. You won't hurt my feelings one bit. But, to alter this thread now because you did a side step and re thought how you worded things would render this thread worthless.

 

Nothing was sidestepped, you over stepped. Answer and ask one question at a time. 

 

You had posted evidence showing a cost comparison, but you did not substantiate the claim that an increased  cost of ammo will drive down hunting participation. Above, you mention driving down ammo sales, but that is not part of the topic. 

Edited March 14, 2016 by mike rossi

[mike rossi]

 

"Ingesting lead particles in game meat is not the most important source of lead exposure to humans,”

"those who consumed game meat had only 0.3 micrograms per deciliter higher PbB than did those who had not consumed game meat."

 

 

Steve,

 

The topic is getting of course, but,

 

if you are suggesting that  the statement above means the health effects of eating meat harvested with lead ammo is negligible, such that the message is not to worry about it, you are mistaken, that is not at all what that means. 

[mike rossi]

Note: Since this was published, the threshold for lead poisoning in children has been dropped to 5 micrograms per deciliter from 10.

 

Quote from above:

 

"Both the North Dakota and Minnesota studies contain recommendations for hunters and others who consume game meat harvested with lead-based bullets.  Among the recommendations is an advisory that children under the age of six and pregnant women should not consume game meat harvested with lead bullets."

 

Why is that if there is no problem?

 

Tom,

 

I am not sure if he means take a look at this article or he thinks that what he quoted supports the opposite of what it actually does. He needs to clarify what he means. 

[Tacti_Steve]

Steve,

 

The topic is getting of course, but,

 

if you are suggesting that  the statement above means the health effects of eating meat harvested with lead ammo is negligible, such that the message is not to worry about it, you are mistaken, that is not at all what that means. 

 

Mike,

 

That's not at all what I'm saying. Ingestion of lead is bad. No dispute here. What I'm saying is that the studies are not inclusive enough. They are extremely small sample sizes with far too many assumptions. Take the Wisconsin study. It was about a dozen total Deer and just over 200 samples. It was all rifle but no data was gathered as to the types of bullets or where the meat was taken from. And still 8%-15% contained and avg of 1.4 mg/kg of lead. That is enough to raise a flag sure. That tells me a complete comprehensive study needs to be done. There was also absolutely no control study done. What if shooting the Deer is not how the lead is getting there? Simply banning lead bullets does not solve "the problem". It may stop the ingestion of lead. But if it leads to another type of toxic round then there is still a problem. We need to fully understand what is happening. 

[EspressoBuzz]

One study taken by itself is not convincing I agree but the Wisconsin study does not exist in a vacuum. There have been dozens of studies in many states. States with hard core hunting communities and their elected officials.

 

'The North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH) and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) have recently released independent studies that provide recommendations for minimizing lead exposure to hunters and other individuals who consume game meat harvested with lead-based bullets, reports the Wildlife Management Institute."

 

https://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=311:lead-recommedations&catid=34:ONB%20Articles&Itemid=54

 

Complete and comprehensive studies have been done by the CDC and other universities and research centers and continue to be done. As for the for the alternative being toxic also remember it is not just the toxicity that is important it is the fragmentation at high velocity. Even if copper were just as toxic, which it is not, it does not fragment at high velocity like lead.

 

Like climate change those who do not want to change will continue to say there is not enough evidence or that the studies were not done properly or worse that they know and don't care.

 

Arizona is on board!

http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/documents/110715_NonLead_broch_FINAL.pdf

Edited March 14, 2016 by EspressoBuzz

[mike rossi]

• Some hunters argue lead alternatives are to costly.
•  
• Some hunters argue lead alternatives damage guns
•  
• Some hunters argue lead alternatives perform poorly
•  
• Some hunters claim the conclusions about lead ammunition is part of a bigger conspiracy to restrict hunting or firearms ownership.

According to the National Dove Hunting Survey:

 

37.6% of dove hunters surveyed said they would quit dove hunting if lead ammo was banned 

 

65.7% of dove hunters surveyed  Oppose a lead ammo ban

 

53.2% Of dove hunters surveyed  think lead ammo performs better than steel or other non tox

 

52.2% Of d ve hunters surveyed say lead ban proposals are a conspiracy 

 

Who thinks any of that proves any of the bullet points?

 

Edited March 14, 2016 by mike rossi

[Tacti_Steve]

 

• Some hunters argue lead alternatives are to costly.
•  
• Some hunters argue lead alternatives damage guns
•  
• Some hunters argue lead alternatives perform poorly
•  
• Some hunters claim the conclusions about lead ammunition is part of a bigger conspiracy to restrict hunting or firearms ownership.

According to the National Dove Hunting Survey:

 

37.6% said they would quit dove hunting if lead ammo was banned

 

65.7% Oppose a lead ammo ban

 

53.2% think lead ammo performs better than steel or other non tox

 

52.2% say lead ban proposals are a conspiracy 

 

All that says is what every other survey of the sorts say. People don't like change. There was a time when people insisted the world was flat too. Bet you would have had similar survey results back then. I will say that I do oppose a ban on lead ammunition. Especially before a viable market alternative has been proven. 

[dbHunterNY]

 

Debate the points in this brief:  

 

• There is no clear, direct link between eating wild game and elevated lead blood levels. However, it is clear that lead is harmful to health and  lead fragments were found in the majority of meat samples which have been tested. Lead builds up in body tissues and when woman are pregnant lead that has accumulated in bone and perhaps other tissues is released; that can be more harmful to the fetus or nursing child which are small and developing than it is to an adult. - lead is shown to be hazardous to an individual's health.  majority of meat samples have in fact not been tested and proven the contain lead.  based on surveys across the country only a fraction of hunters donate game meat to programs this statement is referencing.  NDA for example, just did a survey that concluded a majority don't donate to programs.

 

• The use of lead ammo, either shot shells or bullets does indeed harm wildlife. As with meat samples, gut piles have also been tested for bullet fragments, and many contained lead fragments. Making up some numbers for example: if 200,000 deer are killed a year in NY, by firearms, then in 10 years that is 2 million gut piles. That does not account for wounded, unrecovered deer shot with lead bullets. - doesn't take into account a in southern portions of the state game isn't gutted out in the field.  also, a portion of harvested game is brought to processors where renderings are often picked up disposed of such that wildlife doesn't come into contact with it.  many modern lead cored bullets are designed around high weight retention.  this taken into account along with bullet pass through probability greatly minimize the likely hood of a substantial presence of lead in a gut pile.  also portions of game are taken with projectiles not containing lead, such as arrows during bow season and steel shot used for waterfowl hunting.

 

• Some hunters argue lead alternatives are to costly. - numbers have been previously posted.  however, it should be noted that 7mm-08 caliber isn't common.  when comparing ammunition of a more common caliber from a commonly used source, like 30-06 from Cabelas, the cost difference is more like 238% higher. 

 

• Some hunters argue lead alternatives damage guns - I have not experienced short term damage but have heard of it.  long term damage I believe is apparent.  I've had rifle barrels that have fouled sooner and more often with non-lead ammo requiring more frequent cleaning.  cleaning has been proven to wear down the barrel overtime itself, more so with improper clean techniques used by the average sportsman.  shotguns shooting non-lead alternatives also have manufacture restrictions on choke tube constriction, otherwise being susceptible to damage.  with the increasing use of non-lead ammunition it could be concluded that the probability of damage per gun owner would increase.

 

• Some hunters argue lead alternatives perform poorly - currently accessible options are limited for non-lead ammo compared to ammo with lead.  the likely hood of finding ammo that performs well with your particular gun and use is much less compared to lead ammo.

 

• Some hunters claim the conclusions about lead ammunition is part of a bigger conspiracy to restrict hunting or firearms ownership. - basic economics and everyday life experience suggests that you have high demand and low supply, cost increases and availability to the consumer decreases.  lead based protectiles are the majority when it comes to hunting ammunition.  banning and severely restricting the use of lead ammo will meet those previously stated economic conditions.  without ammo hunting would be restricted.  without ammunition availability the incentive to purchase or maintain ownership of a firearm would be greatly reduced.

...i acknowledge there are benefits to using non-lead ammo, but i can't support a lead ban.  it will only encourage my use of non-lead ammo once i reload.

 

[Curmudgeon]

 

 

Debate the points in this brief:  

 

• The use of lead ammo, either shot shells or bullets does indeed harm wildlife. As with meat samples, gut piles have also been tested for bullet fragments, and many contained lead fragments. Making up some numbers for example: if 200,000 deer are killed a year in NY, by firearms, then in 10 years that is 2 million gut piles. That does not account for wounded, unrecovered deer shot with lead bullets. - doesn't take into account a in southern portions of the state game isn't gutted out in the field.  Is this true? I really don't know. I suspect the wildlife most at risk from gut piles is less likely to reside there. I am pasting in some data from 2012.
•  
• also, a portion of harvested game is brought to processors where renderings are often picked up disposed of such that wildlife doesn't come into contact with it. What is done with it? Is it made into pet food like renderings from inspected slaugher houses?
•  
• many modern lead cored bullets are designed around high weight retention.  this taken into account along with bullet pass through probability greatly minimize the likely hood of a substantial presence of lead in a gut pile.  You seem to be referring to premium bullets. Monolithic premium bullets cost no more than lead core premium bullets.See next bullet.

 

• Some hunters argue lead alternatives are to costly. - numbers have been previously posted.  however, it should be noted that 7mm-08 caliber isn't common.  when comparing ammunition of a more common caliber from a commonly used source, like 30-06 from Cabelas, the cost difference is more like 238% higher. I have purchased 7mm-08 in gilding metal (copper alloy) well within the cost range of copper in common calibers. Prices fluctuate wildly depending on availability. 7mm-08 is more expensive across the board.

 

• Some hunters argue lead alternatives damage guns - I have not experienced short term damage but have heard of it.  long term damage I believe is apparent.  I've had rifle barrels that have fouled sooner and more often with non-lead ammo requiring more frequent cleaning.  cleaning has been proven to wear down the barrel overtime itself, more so with improper clean techniques used by the average sportsman.  shotguns shooting non-lead alternatives also have manufacture restrictions on choke tube constriction, otherwise being susceptible to damage.  with the increasing use of non-lead ammunition it could be concluded that the probability of damage per gun owner would increase. In rifles, why would copper jacketed be any different than copper solid?

 

• Some hunters claim the conclusions about lead ammunition is part of a bigger conspiracy to restrict hunting or firearms ownership. - basic economics and everyday life experience suggests that you have high demand and low supply, cost increases and availability to the consumer decreases.  lead based protectiles are the majority when it comes to hunting ammunition.  banning and severely restricting the use of lead ammo will meet those previously stated economic conditions.  without ammo hunting would be restricted.  without ammunition availability the incentive to purchase or maintain ownership of a firearm would be greatly reduced.

...i acknowledge there are benefits to using non-lead ammo, but i can't support a lead ban.  it will only encourage my use of non-lead ammo once i reload.

 

 

 

These are NYS camera trapping data from early winter to late winter 2012. 8 Sites were operated that season – Chemung (1), Chenango (1), Oneida (1) and Otsego (5) Counties. Bait was road-killed deer checked for bullet holes. Since data entry requires the examination of tens of thousands of photos, this is the most recent year completed. Geographically, the percentages would change, possibly significantly. If someone has better data on scavengers, please share it.

 

Percentage of days is not the number of individuals. There may have been 50 ravens or 1. Same with the others.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 14, 2016 by Curmudgeon

[dbHunterNY]

I meant to say in southern states not say southern tier of this state.  I have though known many that hunt close to a butcher shop have their deer gutted there too.  the list differs from here but is mostly the same.  not too many eagles by me.

I frequent a local shop and they have a guy come get the deer renderings.  I do not know exactly but know they just aren't dumped somewhere.  I believe they're incinerated if I was to guess but I've never felt the need to ask for further detail.
 

I'm not referring to premium bullets... Remington Cor-lokt, Federal Fusion, etc.  some bonded and some not but very affordable and commonly used bullets have an 80+% weight retention.
 

I agree prices fluctuate wilding and 7mm-08 is a more expensive caliber across the board.  I think we could agree if you go into a store or shop to buy factory loaded ammo, non-lead hunting bullet varieties will be much more expensive.  approximately what I previously posted for comparable bullet weight, etc.

 

not sure why myself.  my experience and that of a couple others I know have seen more copper or other synthetic fouling.  not new bore versus old bore either.  barrels broken in with standard jacketed loads.

 

[mike rossi]

These are NYS camera trapping data from early winter to late winter 2012. 8 Sites were operated that season – Chemung (1), Chenango (1), Oneida (1) and Otsego (5) Counties. Bait was road-killed deer checked for bullet holes. Since data entry requires the examination of tens of thousands of photos, this is the most recent year completed. Geographically, the percentages would change, possibly significantly. If someone has better data on scavengers, please share it.

 

Percentage of days is not the number of individuals. There may have been 50 ravens or 1. Same with the others.

 

Capture.JPG

 

Your camera trap data would be considered evidence. You and Rob are in the lead... 

[DirtTime]

Nothing was sidestepped, you over stepped. Answer and ask one question at a time. 

 

You had posted evidence showing a cost comparison, but you did not substantiate the claim that an increased  cost of ammo will drive down hunting participation. Above, you mention driving down ammo sales, but that is not part of the topic. 

At the bold part, are you serious? What? Am I back in school where I have to raise my hand too? Where's the bathroom pass? I have go #2 Mr. Rossi. Geez,

 

As for some people not being happy about the price of non lead ammo, I think it's very relevant to this topic. The person who buys lead shotgun ammo for $6 a box may not be able to afford to buy his/her usual ( this is an example ) 10 boxes a year when the cost would be more then triple that. If you think those people, people like me are irrelevant, you are the only one over stepping here.

I said, it may cause a drop in ammo sales. No one can validate or prove something that hasn't happened yet.

You asked questions or more specific for a 'debate'. If you don't like the answers, don't ask the questions.

 

This thread has been peppered more or less about doves, and then it got the point it was inevitably going to reach with this:

 

Posted Today, 01:51 PM

• Some hunters argue lead alternatives are to costly.
•  
• Some hunters argue lead alternatives damage guns
•  
• Some hunters argue lead alternatives perform poorly
•  
• Some hunters claim the conclusions about lead ammunition is part of a bigger conspiracy to restrict hunting or firearms ownership.

According to the National Dove Hunting Survey:

 

37.6% of dove hunters surveyed said they would quit dove hunting if lead ammo was banned 

 

65.7% of dove hunters surveyed  Oppose a lead ammo ban

 

53.2% Of dove hunters surveyed  think lead ammo performs better than steel or other non tox

 

52.2% Of d ve hunters surveyed say lead ban proposals are a conspiracy 

 

Who thinks any of that proves any of the bullet points?

 

 

 

 

Looking at this, and seeing it's all about doves, again, I think it proves the majority of dove hunters want to keep using lead ammo. Just sayin'. As for proving the bullet points? The stats you posted don't even really go with your 'bullet points'. They are facts ( maybe, where's the links to prove your stats are correct ) based on the opinions and feelings of others. An opinion isn't a fact.