lead in ammunition

[Four Season Whitetail's]

1 hour ago, vlywaterman said:

The NSSF is your source for science?

Did you read the CDC study? (And they have since lowered the level from 10 to 5) They also say no level of lead is not without consequences, there is no safe level,,,, the people who ate game meat did have a lower lead level than the national average, but it was higher than those that did not(not insignificant). They got lead from eating game meat, no safe level, why would anyone feed lead to their family,,,, because we have always done that? Because people aren't dying from it? Where is your science saying that it  is ok, or that it doesn't affect wildlife?

 

Science is what they want you to believe and fits an agenda at times. This kinda makes me think of the CWD in the Urine hoax that so called Science uses. They can take a needle and inject the CWD prion into deer urine and then inject a mouse with that same urine and the mouse becomes positive. BUT after how many thousands of deer tested and many were CWD positive at the brain stem and the Nodes but there has never been a whitetail to be found with the CWD prion in their urine? 

I would be real careful what science you believe in. In this case its a small little part of a real big agenda and that is to get rid of hunting altogether!

[airedale]

Yes I will believe the NSSF and the rest of the shooting-hunting industry over a dermatologist with ties to the Peregrine Fund --( an organization with an agenda dedicated to eliminating the use of lead ammunition for hunting)-- who came up with and ran the fear mongering scheme that eating game killed with traditional ammunition causing harm. 

Al

[DirtTime]

Aren't there some "scientists" who have proof of big foot, the yeti, UFO's/aliens, werewolves, vampires, unicorns, and honest democrats? Yeah, you sure can trust a scientist. Especially when you can get a degree online.

[Curmudgeon]

18 hours ago, airedale said:

Yes I will believe the NSSF and the rest of the shooting-hunting industry over a dermatologist with ties to the Peregrine Fund --( an organization with an agenda dedicated to conserving raptors.)-- who came up with and ran the fear mongering scheme that eating game killed with traditional ammunition causing harm. 

Al

Al - I fixed your mistake. Tom

[vlywaterman]

Rob, yes, that is so true, some "science" is not really science. This is a link to just what we are talking about, with a bit of a twist. 

 

[vlywaterman]

Someone in the beginning of this thread asked about a consensus. It's not just a dermatologist(and it was the CDC by the way that did the study), and it's not just the Peregrine Fund. I posted a link that lots of scientists had signed on to, and looking at papers a consensus of papers say this is true, and I am still waiting for someone to post a link to a science study(other than the one from "truth out"), that says that lead is not affecting wildlife, and is not a problem in your game meat. 

[fasteddie]

vlywaterman ---- Entertaining video . I will watch the rest of it later . I wonder if the guy will mention Climate Change aka Global Warming . 

[airedale]

 Common sense and the CDC science based study demonstrate that this issue is not about ammunition. It’s about banning hunting. 

 

It’s important that all hunters and their families know this and other key facts from the study.

 

• The average lead level of the hunters tested was actually lower than the blood lead level of the average American, including non-hunters. • The average lead level of children in the study was only .88 micrograms per deciliter of blood; the CDC’s level of concern for lead in children is 10 -- more than 10 times the amount found! • The difference between participants who ate wild game harvested with traditional ammunition and non-hunters was only .3 micrograms -- a clinically insignificant number.

 

And that is why nobody has ever been linked to lead poisoning from eating game taken with traditional ammo!!!

 

Al

Edited July 31, 2016 by airedale

[vlywaterman]

this is what the study says, those that ate game meat had a higher concentration of lead in their blood, this is not insignificant. Read it yourself.http://soarraptors.org/wp-content/uploads/NorthDakotaCDCreport.pdf

These findings have population-wide implications, since a substantial proportion of the population in the United States, including hunters and their families as well as low-income families, consume wild game as a major source of protein and may be exposed to this environmental source of lead. 

Most of these participants (81.8%) reported that the meat was processed by themselves or family members 

and:

Results: Most participants reported consuming wild game (80.8%) obtained from hunting (98.8%). The geometric mean PbB were 1.27 and 0.84 mg/dl among persons who did and did not consume wild game, respectively. After adjusting for potential confounders, persons who consumed wild game had 0.30 mg/ dl (95% confidence interval: 0.16–0.44 mg/dl) higher PbB than persons who did not. For all game types, recent (o1 month) wild game consumption was associated with higher PbB. PbB was also higher among those who consumed a larger serving size (Z2 oz vs. o2 oz); however, this association was significant for ‘other game’ consumption only.

Conclusions: Participants who consumed wild game had higher PbB than those who did not consume wild game. 

[airedale]

 

I read the NSSF report what the CDC said and that is good enough for me, You pick your slanted view and source I will pick mine!!!

Quote from NSSF

"You can be assured that other anti-hunting organizations will try to manipulate the data from the CDC study and scare people into thinking it is unsafe to eat game taken with traditional ammunition."

 

Al

Edited July 31, 2016 by airedale

[vlywaterman]

I think I quoted the actual report, not an interpretation. and these are about 8 years old. It's ok if you want to use your information, but lets keep the facts as facts, this is the study, not my interpretation or some author writing for the NSSF, who may not be a scientist. In the following conclusion,(I quoted) we can take the last part of the last sentence and say it's an insignificant health hazard, but that is not what the whole study says. I was tempted to cut that part off, but I wanted to be honest. 

Another CDC consultation for Wisconsin, done before the study in ND.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/LeadFragmentsinVenison/Venison and Lead HC 110408.pdf

Conclusions

• The quantified presence of lead bullet fragments in venison intended for human consumption indicates that a completed exposure pathway exists for the ingestion of lead- contaminated meat.

• The modeled exposure estimates, based on currently available field data, indicate that even at the lowest exposure scenario, there is predicted risk of elevated lead levels in blood among children consuming venison shot with lead ammunition.

• Because elevated blood lead has not been confirmed among consumers of venison, and because the measured lead content in venison varies greatly, there is an indeterminate public health hazard among those consumers. 

[airedale]

As I have stated many many times in this thread, proper butchering of your game animals and discarding all blood shot or questionable meat that may have any bullet fragments will reduce any lead that may be left behind to insignificant levels.

"You can be assured that other anti-hunting organizations will try to manipulate the data from the CDC study and scare people into thinking it is unsafe to eat game taken with traditional ammunition."

Again I will pick my source for info and whom to believe on this scam you can pick yours. There is still not one single case that anyone can point to where a person got any significant lead poisoning sickness from eating game shot with traditional ammo.

One thing you can be assured of I will not sit idly by and see you wolves in sheep's clothing eagle zealots attempt throw millions upon millions of hunters and shooters that use traditional ammo under the bus with this false narrative.

Al

Edited July 31, 2016 by airedale

[vlywaterman]

fair enough Al, and I will not sit idly by while the sheep are getting false assurances from no science that using lead ammo has no affect on either wildlife or humans when real science says it does.

Do you believe that there was a lead problem in Flint? How many people did you see that "got any significant lead poisoning sickness from" drinking the water?

[Rattler]

1 hour ago, vlywaterman said:

I will not sit idly by while the sheep are getting false assurances from no science that using lead ammo has no affect on either wildlife or humans when real science says it does.

Correct me if I'm wrong but, I see the "science" saying it has an affect IF it is consumed by raptors, IF they eat a POSSIBLY contaminated gut pile, POSSIBLY left in the woods by a hunter.  The only actual dead raptors found that can be traced to the source of their toxins show a deer processor was the source.  Obviously a large amount of deer gut piles in an open dumpster would attract raptors and probably have a high concentration of lead from bullets in it.  I didn't see any CONCLUSIVE evidence of any dead raptor being traced to the source of a hunter's gut pile.  I see leaps of presumption in that direction based on speculation.  I'm not saying any raptor hasn't died from a hunter's gut pile.  I'm saying there is no proof as of this date as far as I can see.  Therefore I am against putting the burden of the bulk of the problem on the backs of hunters when regulating the processors is more effective and simpler.

The same thing can be said about proof that a hunter's consumed venison was PROBABLY contaminated if it was killed with a typical copper jacketed hunting bullet.  I see no "science" of anyone randomly going to a hunter's house and randomly taking a tenderloin from their freezer and testing it to see if it is contaminated.  Therefore the "science" and it's conclusions remain open to question.

Am I wrong here?

Who can be sure this fish doesn't have lead split shot in it?

 

Edited July 31, 2016 by Rattler
spelling

[airedale]

I only know that there is a lot of lead in the water so I have no idea of what the ultimate consequences of the Flint water fiasco will end up being  because I have not really followed it closely. I am sure we will all know exactly what the real impact was over time once tests are eventually done and the dust settles and the lawsuits hit.

But it would not surprise me to see concentrations of lead in people that actually drank and consumed a lot of that water full of lead over a long period of time, how could there not be?

Still it is much different than eating a few meals of properly butchered game meat taken with traditional ammunition. Like playing the tobacco card not even close to being an analogy between the two.

 

Al

 

Edited July 31, 2016 by airedale

[vlywaterman]

Al, I couldn't agree with you more, this is much different than eating the tiny bit of lead in venison. And if you are doing your own hunting and butchering, you probably do a very good job and get most of the lead out. As for me, and I say again, as for me, I don't want to risk that, because I don't have to. For the tiny bit of extra expense, I can be sure I don't get any lead in my venison. 

Rattler, we can be fairly certain that some of those fish do have lead shot in them, an immature bald eagle I picked up last year laying in a ditch by Grand Gorge had high zinc levels, the rehabber thought it might be from lures. Nonlead ammo doesn't fix everything, but it is something I can easily do something about.

this link from a number of sources suggests that eagles are poisoned by us hunters. http://esapubs.org/archive/appl/A025/092/appendix-A.php

Eagles are opportunistic scavengers, consuming big-game carrion primarily when it is most available and when alternative food sources are less available (Kelly et al. 2011, Bedrosian et al. 2012, Finkelstein et al. 2012, Nadjafzadeh et al. 2013). Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) scavenge primarily in the late fall and winter when carrion is preserved by colder temperatures, and more rarely in late spring and summer unless the carrion is fresh (Kochert et al. 2002). Eagles are efficient at detecting carcasses and gut piles, which are typically consumed within hours of the game animal’s death (Fisher et al. 2006, Kelly et al. 2011).

Eagles are exposed to lead when scavenging on animal carcasses and gut piles that hunters leave in the field. Lead residue in carcasses and gut piles is largely due to fragmentation of ammunition, which can number in the hundreds of fragments per carcass or gut pile (Hunt et al. 2006, Craighead and Bedrosian 2008, Harmata and Restani 2013). Hunt et al. (2006, 2009) found no lead fragments of any size in only 10% of 20 deer gut piles examined in Wyoming and California; while Warner (2014) reported no lead fragments in 64% of 25 deer gut piles from Illinois, where “many hunters” use lead ammunition and some use non-lead bullets. In addition, Hunt et al. (2006) found that many lead bullet fragments were “minute.” “Ingestion of very small particles of lead would explain the accumulation of sublethal levels in the blood of golden eagles during the hunting season” (Wayland and Bollinger 1999). Eagles typically regurgitate undigested bones and feathers once daily at dawn (Duke et al. 1975), and ingested lead pellets are also typically regurgitated within a week and most often within 2 days – but not before some lead is eroded (Pattee et al. 1981). 

Hunt et al. (2006, 2009), Green et al. (2008), and Bedrosian et al. (2012) have documented lead exposure levels in eagles as a predictable function of the number of big game animals shot with lead and hence contaminated carcasses and gut piles available. Seasonal peaks in blood lead levels associated with game hunting seasons and local exposure to shot game animals have been widely and consistently reported for eagles and other avian scavengers (e.g., Pattee et al. 1990, Wayland and Bollinger 1999, Bedrosian and Craighead 2009, Stauber et al. 2010, Fernandez et al. 2011, Kelly et al. 2011, Kelly and Johnson 2011, Bedrosian et al. 2012, Cruz-Martinez et al. 2012, Rideout et al. 2012, Harmata and Restani 2013, Nadjafzadeh et al. 2013).

and this, seems to coincide with hunting season, and of course frozen carcasses/gut piles will last well into spring particularly if there is plenty of snow cover. We are talking about 12,000-18,000 deer being harvested per year from 2001-2008, that is a lot of gut piles, and they estimated 10% were wounded and lost.

[vlywaterman]

7 hours ago, vlywaterman said:

 

trying to attach a graph, formatting problems.

 

Edited August 1, 2016 by vlywaterman
wrong copy

[vlywaterman]

can't seem to get just the graph, here is the link, look at the graph on page three. That goes with my statement on the last post.

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/get_the_lead_out/pdfs/Neumann_2009.pdf

and this, seems to coincide with hunting season, and of course frozen carcasses/gut piles will last well into spring particularly if there is plenty of snow cover. We are talking about 12,000-18,000 deer being harvested per year from 2001-2008, that is a lot of gut piles, and they estimated 10% were wounded and lost.

Edited August 1, 2016 by vlywaterman
graph formatting problems

[vlywaterman]

I just came across this in an article which about the lead and condors. from: http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/perspectives/082655/condors-and-carcasses

The National Rifle Association (NRA) disputes the view that lead ammunition from gut piles or game carrion left in the field by hunters is the primary source of lead exposure to condors. They claim that “there is compelling evidence of alternative sources of lead in the environment. Such alternative sources of lead include paint chips from old buildings, legacy leaded gasoline in soils, mining wastes, old insecticides and microtrash.” While it is true that there are other potential sources of lead in the environment, to date no published scientific data shows another credible pathway of exposure from sources other than ammunition for the vast majority of the cases.

From 2002 to 2011, the Santa Cruz team analyzed the blood-lead data collected on 110 free-flying condors by the Condor Recovery Program, and about 80 percent of the birds were found to have lead isotope signatures (ratios of two naturally occurring stable lead isotopes that are often characteristic of a particular source) that were consistent with lead-based ammunition or fragments, whereas only five condors were found to have blood-lead signatures consistent with lead-based paint. The latter was traced to legacy lead paint peeling off of an old fire tower. There was no evidence that any of the 110 tested condors were significantly affected by lead from legacy leaded gasoline in soils or microtrash.

 

[airedale]

From Jim Mathews, Outdoor News on the California DFA

 Just the condor program is a prime example. The state is supposed to be the coordinator of a broad-based coalition of scientists and researchers from private, state and federal agencies working with this critically endangered bird. After 35 years of supposedly intensive study, we still really have no idea of where or what condors eat in the wild. With all of the birds wearing markers and most with radio telemetry gear so we can track their movements and location, we still only have anecdotal information on where and how they feed in the wild. There has never been a food study done on condors.

 

     

This is a critical omission when you have been telling everyone for two decades that lead poisoning from the condor’s food is their biggest threat to recovery. And that lead poisoning — they have and continue to say — is caused by lead ammunition remnants left in game gut piles and carcasses discarded by hunters. But then we banned lead ammunition for hunting in condor country, there was a real shocker. It didn’t help.  The after-ban data shows the condors are still getting lead in the same amounts. Now, the so-called experts are scrambling trying to make the data fit the disproven theory. They are grasping at straws: ‘Hunters must not be complying.’ ‘Poachers are still using lead.’ But all the excuses beg the simple question, why isn’t it working for condors? Well, it appears the simple answer is that the assumption about condor lead coming from ammunition was at least partially wrong, mostly wrong.

 

     

Has the DFW said, ‘Whoa, we need to finally, once-and-for-all, do a condor food study and see where this lead is coming from’?

 

No, they are mismanaging endangered species like they have the resources — the hunted and fished species — that could make them a mint in license sales if those populations of game and fish were optimized.

 

A total ban on hunting with lead ammo goes into effect on July 1, 2019

The NSSF surveyed California hunters after AB 711 passed and found that nearly 40 percent said they will either have to stop or severely reduce their hunting due to the much higher costs of non-lead ammunition. This goes for 22 rimfire ammo also, probably the most widely used ammo of all. So far the best they come up with for 22 rimfire is a powdered copper X poly pressed bullet that shoots like crap and costs 10.99 for fifty. And “widely available?” Forget that. 

 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has an approved list of non-lead ammunition that has less than 40 manufacturers on it. Further, due to local restrictions in densely and highly populated Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento and San Francisco, ordering ammo by mail is nearly impossible—if not all together forbidden.The NSSF report says the ban could lead to a loss of $20 million in revenue for the state.

Edited August 22, 2016 by airedale

[vlywaterman]

Is this one persons opinion(Jim Mathews)? where is the science? 

banned lead ammunition for hunting in condor country,,, complete ban for hunting doesn't go into effect for a few more years,,,so I don't think they can decide if the ban has helped yet or not.

and what about that survey by the NSSF, how many hunters? and do you think the NSSF may be an unbiased organization to conduct a survey?

[airedale]

They are no more biased than you and the bunch you represent!

 

Al

[vlywaterman]

Of course I'm biased, I don't deny that, I'm trying to convince hunters to switch to non-lead ammo, but I'm using science backed information to try to show why it is important. "The bunch" I represent are mostly hunters who will look at the science and make an intelligent decision based on that, to protect their families and the environment. I'm not forcing anyone to do anything,,,,, just putting information out there, with links to actual science studies. I'm still waiting for some science studies that claim lead in ammo is not a concern.

[Curmudgeon]

Anyone read page 38 of the 2016-17 Hunting Regulations book?

[Rattler]

49 minutes ago, Curmudgeon said:

Anyone read page 38 of the 2016-17 Hunting Regulations book?

Yes, they are starting to push non-lead ammo in the Regs book.  I notice they make no definitive statement about lead ammo other than it "may" do things and not using it "helps" reduce lead risks.  They also vaguely discuss costs, comparing them as "similar" to "premium-grade" bullets, without mentioning what "premium-grade" bullets are and what they cost.  They then go on to minimize the cost of "expensive" ammo.  Kind of like when they say tax increases are only "small" increases.   Regardless of the lack of concrete evidence, instead relying on de facto conclusions, it won't be long until they push a mandate to ban lead ammo for hunting.  What is on page 38 is a "shot across the bow" for NY hunters.  When the unforeseen consequences of that ban become apparent, and likely no improvement in raptor deaths, nobody will take the blame for pushing the agenda from the beginning.