# Lead shot ban - Federal lands....National Forests... Michigan



## ryan-b (Sep 18, 2009)

some of the comments on here I'm seeing are the reason many people view uplanders as stuck up arrogant assholes. The elitest attitude is find blowing. **** everyone else. WOW!


----------



## Lauren Allen (Jan 18, 2017)

kingfisher 11 said:


> Let's be honest the average hunter does not spend the money you do or can afford it. The most popular gun I believe is the 870 Remington, average bird hunter trains his own dog. Just because we can afford it I highly doubt we are thinking of the average hunter. Unless I missed something I did all these hunts with my trusty 870 using cheap shells and my GSP. Buying real expensive shells is something that is over kill.


I have an 870 as well. I trained my dog up to live bird then some neighbors started carrying on at the dead bird stage. So I had to hand off the training or deal with the local sheriff showing up because the neighbors complained about dead pigeons and dogs. guess not enough for them to do other than complain about me and what I'm doing with my dog. I still have no problem dishing out a few more for non tox. Of all the fights to pick in this world , this one is minor and like I've said it's better in the long run for our prey stock. Therefore it's better for us as hunters. Healthy bird stock is a good thing. A healthy environment breeds good stock. It's a win win. It's a few extra bucks to make sure the sport has a strong future.


----------



## brdhntr (Oct 1, 2003)

Seems a few here don't understand how lead in the environment works. Lead shot fired at upland birds in the woods had pretty much zero chance of harming other humans, even if said humans are actively rooting in the ground eating dirt. The reason lead paint is bad for humans is we come into skin to skin contact which is then transferred to the mouth. Once ingested it can become a problem, but the blood stream does remove it over time. The reason it was such a big problem in water fowling was because it involves a stationary sport dumping large amounts of lead into an area where ducks would feed and ingest the lead. In upland situations, the amount of lead spread in an area is negligible. Unless the lead is actually ingested by a human or animal, lead in the ground is pretty much harmless.


----------



## dauber (Jan 11, 2010)

brdhntr said:


> Seems a few here don't understand how lead in the environment works. Lead shot fired at upland birds in the woods had pretty much zero chance of harming other humans, even if said humans are actively rooting in the ground eating dirt. The reason lead paint is bad for humans is we come into skin to skin contact which is then transferred to the mouth. Once ingested it can become a problem, but the blood stream does remove it over time. The reason it was such a big problem in water fowling was because it involves a stationary sport dumping large amounts of lead into an area where ducks would feed and ingest the lead. In upland situations, the amount of lead spread in an area is negligible. Unless the lead is actually ingested by a human or animal, lead in the ground is pretty much harmless.


I have eaten at least 50-100 gamebirds every year for the last 40 years. I'm sure there has been lotsa lead in them. Still kicking. Populations of eagles and hawks have sure increased over last 30-40 years. Maybe they need more lead?


----------



## Ray Adams (Feb 17, 2006)

dauber said:


> I have eaten at least 50-100 gamebirds every year for the last 40 years. I'm sure there has been lotsa lead in them. Still kicking. Populations of eagles and hawks have sure increased over last 30-40 years. Maybe they need more lead?



In a perfect world, we'd remove anything dangerous. 

We don't live in a perfect world.

Hunting's problems go far beyond lead shot shells. We're losing land at a rapid pace and we're losing young hunters even quicker to their tablets and cell phones.

Please people, all I was saying is that we don't need one more obstacle.


----------



## fowl (Feb 15, 2003)

"Maybe they need more lead?"
Wow Dauber that's some ignorant sh**. Good fuel for the antis. Definitely don't agree at all with you. 

Since the majority of the population are not bird hunters. Maybe non toxic shot would help defend our sport to those that don't partake and understand what we do.


----------



## gundogguy (Oct 5, 2008)

Well at least your paying attention...to the sarcasm.



fowl said:


> "Maybe they need more lead?"
> Wow Dauber that's some ignorant sh**. Good fuel for the antis. Definitely don't agree at all with you.
> Since the majority of the population are not bird hunters. Maybe non toxic shot would help defend our sport to those that don't partake and understand what we do.


Non-tox would not defend a duck flea from the anti's or any other liberal regressive group out there. Screw the anti's and liberal cupcakes. Back in the mid 70's when non-tox was eased into place there were duck every where here in SW Mich. Today and for some ten years now I see no ducks and I'm on the water until Nov 15th I hear no shooting and see no ducks on the water or trading.Local wood duck populations are marginally. I have 12 bodies of water to use 20 minutes from the house and that includes the St Joseph river, I rotate them religiously through out the spring, summer and fall. We do have some nice Bass and Pike fishing here even with all the lead sinkers I donate. Where are the ducks? If Non-toxic was supposed to be good for the ducks after almost 50 years of "saving" the enviroment where are the ducks?.
I did not beleive the liberals back in the 70's I still do not believe in the climate guys today!


----------



## oilcan (Feb 10, 2007)

brdhntr said:


> Seems a few here don't understand how lead in the environment works. Lead shot fired at upland birds in the woods had pretty much zero chance of harming other humans, even if said humans are actively rooting in the ground eating dirt. The reason lead paint is bad for humans is we come into skin to skin contact which is then transferred to the mouth. Once ingested it can become a problem, but the blood stream does remove it over time. The reason it was such a big problem in water fowling was because it involves a stationary sport dumping large amounts of lead into an area where ducks would feed and ingest the lead. In upland situations, the amount of lead spread in an area is negligible. Unless the lead is actually ingested by a human or animal, lead in the ground is pretty much harmless.


Pretty sure you are wrong about lead leaving the body through the blood stream. It collects in the muscles and bones just like many other bad things like aluminum and bad pesticides and the many bad things our bodies collect over time. Look up Dr Klinghardt. There are things that help you rid yourself of pollutants but it is not easy and should be monitored by a Doctor. Thats why Flint is such a big issue. Even so I'm not afraid of lead-shot.


----------



## bc993 (May 6, 2008)

Here's my take and it's my last on this subject. Whomever thinks lead is harmless anywhere in the environment is uneducated. Science has proven it is not good for living things. There are way too many parameters that can change it's composition and it affects everything from micro-oganisms,earthworms and groundwater. Why do you think it was removed from gasoline? Thinking it's just going to sit in the woods with no effect on anything is ridiculous. Just ask the folks of Flint, just changing the acidity of the water supply had a negative effect leaching the lead of the pipes into the water. Ever heard of acid rain?

There are several alternatives to lead. Bismuth which is my choice has a similar density and although much more expensive than lead has been proven to be non-toxic. I use it while upland game & waterfowl hunting as I find I get less cripples and seems more effective than steel in my experience.

The whole issue that started here was the use of lead on government lands. Land owned by everyone not just hunters, everyone. If you're hunting on Federal lands in your pursuit of game and you take 4 shots in that pursuit what gives you the right to deposit 1/4 lb of a toxic substance on the lands owned by all? You don't. We need to pick our fights to protect our land that we as hunters have access to. Protecting the use of a known detriment to the health of children is not one. Just check the properties that were used as shooting ranges military or public they're considered toxic.

I happen to feed my grand nieces and nephews the pheasant and ducks I shoot and hope they don't end up with an unfound pellet. However, I'm not willing to risk that it's a lead one. I still have no problem using lead on a shooting range as that's what it is and will eventually become an EPA clean up site.

https://www.epa.gov/lead/learn-about-lead
Here's the Aussies take: https://www.lead.org.au/lanv1n2/lanv1n2-8.html

I really liked the comment about upland hunters being elitist aholes. Shooting a double gun at grouse and pheasant with a good dog isn't elitist it's HEAVEN. Kinda like chasing trout with a bamboo fly rod.
Also liked the one about no ducks at least on the west side. Maybe you need a roadtrip east. I've been hunting ducks since 1972. I have seen more ducks in the past 5 years than I have seen in the 80's and 90's . On second thought you're right no ducks in Saginaw Bay or Lake St Clair. Best bet is No. Dak or Arkansas

Hope everyone enjoys the game tomorrow.


----------



## fowl (Feb 15, 2003)

Not too long ago we thought ddt was good. Think about it.


----------



## Mr. Botek (Mar 15, 2011)

I've been vaguely following this thread, and understand the feelings on both sides. The state managed areas that I hunt dove on in Indiana have required non-toxic shot for a few years. When they switched, I went to steel, and use it for everything. I understand that this isn't an option for some firearms, and that other types are more expensive. I also understand the feeling of an end around gun rights. 

I remember reading about this a while back and thought it was pertinent. Another article on the same case theorized that as a pellet passes through the intestinal tract, when it goes by the appendix the heavy pellets "drop-out" into it, and are trapped. Anyway, an interesting subject all around.
http://www.livescience.com/38914-mysterious-lead-poisoning-pellets.html


----------



## Lucky Dog (Jul 4, 2004)

I wonder how many eagles have died because of windmills vs because of lead shot?


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

Lucky Dog said:


> I wonder how many eagles have died because of windmills vs because of lead shot?


I am all for banning them too....but that is a different topic entirely. Has nothing to do with how toxic lead is


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

As far as the steel being too hard on some guns.....there are many options.

1. Buy a reloader and learn about loading steel loads that have an acceptable level of pressure. You can create loads that have lower chamber pressure and are easier on your gun. It takes alot of research and you may have to buy specific wads with specific powder felt spacers etc... ever shell is different and results can vary between brands.

2. Have screw in choke tubes installed in your gun so you can shoot more forgiving chokes if you need to.

3. Shoot higher priced shells. There are alternatives that everyone has mentioned. If you really must shoot that old side by side and you are unwilling to risk altering the gun or shooting steel. shoot the expensive stuff. If you go through 10 boxes a season we are talking $200 extra a yr.....Pretty small amount in the grand scheme of things. You can also buy a reloader and learn to load alternative shot to save money. Duck hunters have been doing this for decades.

4. Buy a safer gun to shoot If none of these options work for you.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

I believe that I would be in favor of a ban on lead fine/bird shot. There are plenty of good options out there these days. I know lead out performs steel, but, modern steel is very good and once one learns it's limitations, and shoots within them, there is no problem. 

Any older guns I had that were not designed for steel I have either sold or "retired" them if they had "family" value.


----------



## birdhntr (Jan 25, 2014)

I have to recognize both sides of the debate. And giving this considerable thought on my own use of lead hunting and fishing not to mention decoy weights that I alone have left at least 20 pounds a year for over 30yrs which equals 600 pounds.Truly food for thought as I am only one person.It would be nice to have cost effective alternatives with the effectiveness of lead. If the same effort on legislation was spent on an Alternative we may be better off?IMHO


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

birdhntr said:


> I have to recognize both sides of the debate. And giving this considerable thought on my own use of lead hunting and fishing not to mention decoy weights that I alone have left at least 20 pounds a year for over 30yrs which equals 600 pounds.Truly food for thought as I am only one person.It would be nice to have cost effective alternatives with the effectiveness of lead. If the same effort on legislation was spent on an Alternative we may be better off?IMHO


Fine shot, bird shot, is the biggest problem. Decoy weights, can't be ingested. I don't know how much lead I have left, but 20lbs a year sounds like an awful lot to me. 

They are working on lead alternatives all the time. Steel shot is cost effective and modern steel shot is very effective. Rifle bullets are not yet nearly cost effective, maybe someday they will be. The performance of lead free bullets is getting to be quite good, it's just the cost right now, it has to come down, a lot, before they are a good alternative for lead.


----------



## birdhntr (Jan 25, 2014)

1oz of shot times 16 equals one pound.one box is around 1.5 pounds.one case is 15 pounds on average.The average I stated is use of lead through the year.one case shooting clays at my dads adds up fast


----------



## John Singer (Aug 20, 2004)

dauber said:


> I have eaten at least 50-100 gamebirds every year for the last 40 years. I'm sure there has been lotsa lead in them. Still kicking. Populations of eagles and hawks have sure increased over last 30-40 years. Maybe they need more lead?


Just because you are still alive does not mean that you have not sustained damage. I have heard chain smokers and alcoholics make the same comment.

Glad you are still with us.


----------



## dauber (Jan 11, 2010)

John Singer said:


> Just because you are still alive does not mean that you have not sustained damage. I have heard chain smokers and alcoholics make the same comment.
> 
> Glad you are still with us.


Add to that I grew up in the lead paint era, I currently live and have always lived in houses built pre 1986 that have lead pipe fittings and lead solder. Many many cities still today have lead water lines. Lead is a natural substance! Sure the bodies tolerance is less for lead than shale but much of this is hugely overblown. Most of these so called studies where lead has been found to be ingested are limited to waterfowl, and scavenger birds such as eagles, condors and some hawks. The rest is " it makes sense to me" it could happen. The lead tested in other birds was fed to them. The one study on quail had a small area where 8,000 or so shots of lead shells fired, then had 250 or so quail put in. After a period of time they were killed and 3 of the 250 or so had a pellet but no sign of lead poisoning. This is an extreme example and still no effect. 

What I'm saying is sure lead is a concern. But in dispersed hunting on federal land there is zero effect. The people pushing this is the Anti hunting crowd and their game plan is to incrementally reduce hunter numbers by chipping away and pitting hunters against each other. They are quite successful too, look at hunter numbers. To be honest if lead shot is banned on federal lands I have no use for them any longer and certainly won't spent any of my time fighting to keep them public.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

dauber said:


> Most of these so called studies where lead has been found to be ingested are limited to waterfowl, and scavenger birds such as eagles, condors and some hawks.


I remember, several years ago, when the check station at Pointe Mouillee was in a different place than it is now. It was close to where the garage is now. 

On the wall, behind the desk, was the "map" of the blinds etc. Near the bottom of that "map wall" there were several "groups" of lead pellets glued to that wall. They ranged in groups of 3 to around 8 pellets per group. Next to each group was the information on the bird it had killed. The species, sex, age etc. 

There is no doubt that fine lead shot that is ingested by birds, can kill. Will a ban on lead make a real big difference now? I don't know. Would it hurt in the long run? Not likely.


----------



## brdhntr (Oct 1, 2003)

Lead does leave the body, but slowly. Certain things can speed it up, but it leaves naturally. The problem starts when you are ingesting more than your body can remove and it builds up to toxic levels. That's what happened in Flint. The lead in gasoline was in a form that could be absorbed through the skin, that made it even more toxic than lead paint, lead pipes, etc. It was also burned during the combustion process making it an inhalation problem. 

In it's natural solid form lead is very stable. And lead is a naturally occurring element, it is already in the environment, so anyone arguing any lead in the environment is bad just doesn't have a basic understanding of how things work.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

What we call lead shot is normally not pure lead, which is often too soft on it's own. We add 2% to 8% antimony to the lead to harden it. Antimony can also be toxic.


----------



## John Singer (Aug 20, 2004)

Here is an interesting scientific study that was conducted in the United Kingdom. Realize that the UK allows game animals to be sold to the general public. 

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0010315

The article shows definitively that game birds shot with lead shot will contain lead and pose a risk to those that consume them. I choose to use nontoxic shot for all my bird hunting as I too grew up in cities with lead pipes, lead solder, leaded gasoline, and lead based paint. Knowing the toxicity of the substance, I choose to reduce the exposure for me and my family. We all have the opportunity to determine what risks we want to take and those we want not to take. You all can live your life and I will live mine. 

dauber, I will address this point with you:


dauber said:


> . The people pushing this is the Anti hunting crowd and their game plan is to incrementally reduce hunter numbers by chipping away and pitting hunters against each other. They are quite successful too, look at hunter numbers. To be honest if lead shot is banned on federal lands I have no use for them any longer and certainly won't spent any of my time fighting to keep them public.


You state that lead shot bans are being pushed by the anti-hunting crowd. I will not disagree with that. However, you then state that if lead shot is banned on federal lands you will not hunt there and will not support keeping them public.

At that point, are you not doing exactly what the anti-hunting crowd wants to have happen?


----------



## dauber (Jan 11, 2010)

John Singer said:


> dauber, I will address this point with you:
> 
> 
> You state that lead shot bans are being pushed by the anti-hunting crowd. I will not disagree with that. However, you then state that if lead shot is banned on federal lands you will not hunt there and will not support keeping them public.
> ...


I believe the anti-hunting crowd wants federal lands public, they just don't want hunting on it. That's my point, if I can't hunt on it I don't want it to be their playground. If not for hunting it wouldn't be managed at all, if private at least there is a chance it will be managed.


----------



## John Singer (Aug 20, 2004)

dauber said:


> I believe the anti-hunting crowd wants federal lands public, they just don't want hunting on it. That's my point, if I can't hunt on it I don't want it to be their playground. If not for hunting it wouldn't be managed at all, if private at least there is a chance it will be managed.


Then you must have missed my point. It does appear that the federal government has the authority to ban lead shot on federal land. We should continue to hunt such land (with nontoxic shot if it is required). 

I did not quit driving my car when leaded gasoline was banned. I did not quit soldering copper water lines when leaded solder was banned. I did not quit drinking water when lead delivery lines were banned or removed.

I chose to use the nontoxic alternatives in all the above instances. I will do the same with my firearms.


----------



## dauber (Jan 11, 2010)

John Singer said:


> Then you must have missed my point. It does appear that the federal government has the authority to ban lead shot on federal land. We should continue to hunt such land (with nontoxic shot if it is required).
> 
> I did not quit driving my car when leaded gasoline was banned. I did not quit soldering copper water lines when leaded solder was banned. I did not quit drinking water when lead delivery lines were banned or removed.
> 
> I chose to use the nontoxic alternatives in all the above instances. I will do the same with my firearms.


And I didn't say you shouldn't. Do whatever makes you happy. I use a 28 ga due to a deteriorating shoulders. Steel isn't an option, Hevishot is but at $92.50 per 25 shells...no. Some tell me Bismuth but it still is 86% as dense as lead so my 30-35yd range is dropped to 25, then add in it is 1200fps a drop of 100fps... a 20 yard gun behind my flushing dogs...ya right. It's not worth the leadfree gas to get there. 
Do I blame the antis? No it's the "sportsmen" who think they are environmentalists and about to save the world by joining arms with the Anti's then belittle us who have old guns or bodies. Yes I will then move on to other activities to occupy my time and finances. That's why when you come begging for help to save some federal lands I will be busy elsewhere. Maybe I'll be the only one in the country. 
But as I learned last weekend at the statewide RGS meeting in 1980 there was 1.7 million upland bird hunters...in 2011 there was 570,000. At that rate in 30 years there won't be any public ground hunting anyway. So go ahead and feel good about yourselves as yous will be the last of the hunters unless you are very wealthy and own your own estate, you'll be able to afford $100/box.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

dauber said:


> Do I blame the antis? No it's the "sportsmen" who think they are environmentalists and about to save the world by joining arms with the Anti's then belittle us who have old guns or bodies.


Many of us who hunt/fish/trap etc are "environmentalists". I am, which is why I spend so much time working with Ducks Unlimited and the Pointe Mouillee Waterfowl Festival. I want to see our wild lands protected. 

I also know that fine lead shot, bird shot, is toxic if ingested by birds. It does cause harm. That is a fact of which there is no doubt. 

Now, I too have bad shoulders, and have taken steps to reduce recoil to preserve what I have left. I have gone to all semi-auto shotguns to accomplish that goal. I have both a 20GA and a 12GA. I find the recoil on these guns are far lower than what I was shooting before. My Beretta A400, 12GA, is _*MUCH*_ easier on my shoulder than my SBE was. I have a 20GA Weatherby SA-08. I use it for all my upland hunting as well as duck. 

I don't know how bad your shoulders are, or if you have tried looking into today's "recoil controlled" semi's, but that may be an option.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

It would be interesting to see what the perceived recoil on your 28GA and the Beretta A400 Xplor Action 20GA, with Kick-off, would be. Having shot an A400 12GA, I know it's recoil is much softer that any of my older guns, WAY lower than any other 12GA I have shot. It almost feels like a 20GA with 3" loads. I wonder what it would feel like in a 20GA with lighter 7/8OZ loads.


----------



## dauber (Jan 11, 2010)

DecoySlayer said:


> It would be interesting to see what the perceived recoil on your 28GA and the Beretta A400 Xplor Action 20GA, with Kick-off, would be. Having shot an A400 12GA, I know it's recoil is much softer that any of my older guns, WAY lower than any other 12GA I have shot. It almost feels like a 20GA with 3" loads. I wonder what it would feel like in a 20GA with lighter 7/8OZ loads.


It isn't the recoil it is the weight carrying then mounting. Upland hunting is much different than waterfowl, you can't sit the gun down in boat or blind and wait for a flight. You carry the gun for the duration. That is why I do have a semiauto with one barrel for lighter weight out front. 

I have not said non-tox shouldn't be used in waterfowl and high intensity areas. I say it is very very close to zero problem on National Forest lands. Even if every single one of the 570,000 upland hunters in Mi only hunted on National Forest lands and shot all the ammo on those 2.8 million acres the lead would be so dispersed since upland hunters are always moving and rarely are more than one or two shots from a spot that it adds virtually zero lead to the environment and would be impossible to discern if it is natural lead or 8 shot. 

Oh ya, I have shot well over 1,500 waterfowl with steel shot. I know it's limitations. I also spend more than our family should on DU, PF, NTA and RGS along with many days of time donated.


----------



## ryan-b (Sep 18, 2009)

dauber said:


> And I didn't say you shouldn't. Do whatever makes you happy. I use a 28 ga due to a deteriorating shoulders. Steel isn't an option, Hevishot is but at $92.50 per 25 shells...no. Some tell me Bismuth but it still is 86% as dense as lead so my 30-35yd range is dropped to 25, then add in it is 1200fps a drop of 100fps... a 20 yard gun behind my flushing dogs...ya right. It's not worth the leadfree gas to get there.
> Do I blame the antis? No it's the "sportsmen" who think they are environmentalists and about to save the world by joining arms with the Anti's then belittle us who have old guns or bodies. Yes I will then move on to other activities to occupy my time and finances. That's why when you come begging for help to save some federal lands I will be busy elsewhere. Maybe I'll be the only one in the country.
> But as I learned last weekend at the statewide RGS meeting in 1980 there was 1.7 million upland bird hunters...in 2011 there was 570,000. At that rate in 30 years there won't be any public ground hunting anyway. So go ahead and feel good about yourselves as yous will be the last of the hunters unless you are very wealthy and own your own estate, you'll be able to afford $100/box.


Well said. At our county fair there a humane society donation boxes on every barn. What people dont understand is that thier money isnt all going to help a dog or cat. Its also going to help stop the production of market livestock and what they enjoy doing. The AHS would love nothing more then to make sure there would be no terminal animals allowed in county fairs.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

dauber said:


> It isn't the recoil it is the weight carrying then mounting. Upland hunting is much different than waterfowl, you can't sit the gun down in boat or blind and wait for a flight. You carry the gun for the duration. That is why I do have a semiauto with one barrel for lighter weight out front.
> 
> I have not said non-tox shouldn't be used in waterfowl and high intensity areas. I say it is very very close to zero problem on National Forest lands. Even if every single one of the 570,000 upland hunters in Mi only hunted on National Forest lands and shot all the ammo on those 2.8 million acres the lead would be so dispersed since upland hunters are always moving and rarely are more than one or two shots from a spot that it adds virtually zero lead to the environment and would be impossible to discern if it is natural lead or 8 shot.
> 
> Oh ya, I have shot well over 1,500 waterfowl with steel shot. I know it's limitations. I also spend more than our family should on DU, PF, NTA and RGS along with many days of time donated.


I am well aware that upland is much different than waterfowl. I started hunting only upland and, when I am able to walk, still like to hunt grouse. 

I don't disagree that lead shot in the National Forests is really not a problem but such a ban is likely to happen. How soon? Hard to say. I can even for see the day when we will not even produce fine lead shot. 

I also understand the weight problem which is why I carry the 20GA, much lighter than the 12GA. 

I don't disagree with much of what you are saying, I just choose to fight battles that I have a chance of winning and do my best to work around the rest.


----------



## Lucky Dog (Jul 4, 2004)

I think quite a few here would benefit from doing a little research on lead toxicity, how it effects critters, and how far reaching it is.


----------



## k9wernet (Oct 15, 2007)

This is where one of Bobby's Dihydrogen Monoxide memes would come in handy...

I don't question whether lead under certain conditions can be harmful. I do doubt whether the amount of lead, the way it is dispersed throughout the environment by upland hunters, is. Steel for waterfowling? Sure, due to the way the birds feed and the way they're hunted. Big game? Upland? Fishing? Those who want to make a case, please make your case. Present some evidence.


----------



## BIGSP (Sep 16, 2004)

Lauren Allen said:


> I fail to see how bismuth makes it any harder to afford. my dog cost me 700, finishing off her training another grand, my new gun 1500 or so. All in all it isn't a cheap sport. a few bucks more so I can take care of my environment, my prey and make sure if a hawk flies off with some bird I shoot it doesn't get sick and die from the lead in it is worth it to me. I've got bigger fish to fry than a lead ban, keep public lands in public hands so we have public hunting land is far more important than the lead ban. a lead ban is meant to keep our prey and waters safe so we have prey and good water. I've always shot non tox and I'll continue to do it.


Probably because you don't kill much! Go out and 40-50 days a year and your "inexpensive " alternative becomes cost prohibitive. There are no studies showing lead shot affects anything. It's just another liberal ploy to ban hunting by fiat.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

BIGSP said:


> There are no studies showing lead shot affects anything. It's just another liberal ploy to ban hunting by fiat.


Sorry, but this statement is totally incorrect. Some of the earliest work done on lead shot being toxic was dohe right here at Pointe Mouillee back in the '70's. There is no doubt that lead shot is toxic. Whether or not it is a problem for upland hunting may be questioned but in heavily hunted waterfowl areas the evidence is irrefutable. Those studies were not done by anti-hunters but by DNR biologists who were waterfowl hunters themselves. It's too bad that board, with all the shot from birds killed by lead poisoning that was in the check in station at Pointe Mouillee was not kept. It would be interesting for many today to see. I remember that board like it was yesterday. I am going to have to ask some guys if they know what happened to it. I tend to think it went away when they moved.


----------



## John Singer (Aug 20, 2004)

BIGSP said:


> Probably because you don't kill much! Go out and 40-50 days a year and your "inexpensive " alternative becomes cost prohibitive. There are no studies showing lead shot affects anything. It's just another liberal ploy to ban hunting by fiat.


Do you mean to tell me that the fact that I cannot use lead for water lines anymore is the liberals fault?

You need to do some more reading. There are many studies showing that lead is a neurotoxin and its distribution in the environment causes damage. 

For your own benefit look at the following. It is a bird that was killed with lead shot. Would you rather eat that bird or one that was killed with shot that is not a neurotoxin? What is better to feed to your family?


----------



## BIGSP (Sep 16, 2004)

John Singer said:


> Do you mean to tell me that the fact that I cannot use lead for water lines anymore is the liberals fault?
> 
> You need to do some more reading. There are many studies showing that lead is a neurotoxin and its distribution in the environment causes damage.
> 
> ...


My teeth would rather bite into lead than steel. I also pick out the pellets of birds I shoot. No offense but, you guys that are for this are nuts! If you don't think this is a starting point to erode hunting rights you are very foolish. I see it for waterfowl because the hunting is much more concentrated and the birds live much longer than upland birds.


----------



## Lucky Dog (Jul 4, 2004)

John Singer said:


> There are many studies showing that lead is a neurotoxin
> View attachment 243725


Could you please direct me to the studies that prove that a lead shotgun pellet is a neurotoxin?


----------



## John Singer (Aug 20, 2004)

Lucky Dog said:


> Could you please direct me to the studies that prove that a lead shotgun pellet is a neurotoxin?


You do understand that lead is a neurotoxin, yes? Do you also understand that lead shotgun pellets are made of lead?

If the answer to the above is yes, is your inquiry serious? 

If so, are you interested in studies on human or animal?


----------



## dauber (Jan 11, 2010)

John Singer said:


> When I was a kid, there was another kid that lived in the neighborhood who's parents bought him a brand new leather football. Several of us got together to play a game of street football. The kid who owned the football did not like the rules of the game. So, he started crying and then took his football and went home.
> 
> The rest of us found another ball and continued to play the game.


I look at your analogy as flawed. Should be;
"When I was a kid we played ball with a a good leather football, then one of the kids parents bought a nerf football and demanded we play with the safer softer nicer football or they would stop us all from playing. So we all quit and took up hockey.


----------



## GDLUCK (Dec 2, 2002)

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/13/health/bullets-blood-lead-study/index.html

hey Ky, no judgment on your political leanings but are you insinuating the right doesnt have an agenda? really?


----------



## Ky fastflyer (Jun 16, 2016)

No judgment taken GDLUCK.
The right's agenda is to:
Create jobs;
Lower taxes;
Lower healthcare cost, improve coverage;
Improve infrastructure;
Rebuild the military;
Protect U.S. citizens;
Reduce National debt;(if possible)
Rollback, mandated, job killing regulations;
And most of all, reverse the trend, of Hollywood, the liberal media, and the far leaning left, imposing their opinions and ideologies on mainstream Americans, and trying to make us like it...


----------



## 9mm Hi-Power (Jan 16, 2010)

Ky fastflyer said:


> No judgment taken GDLUCK.
> The right's agenda is to:
> Create jobs;
> Lower taxes;
> ...


And respect the 2nd. Amendment so those of us who wish to carry a shotgun afield will be able to do so without undue governmental interference.

9mm Hi-Power


----------



## Ky fastflyer (Jun 16, 2016)

ABSOLUTELY!!!
9mm Hi-Power..


----------



## John Singer (Aug 20, 2004)

dauber said:


> Here is an interesting bit on how much lead shot is toxic to tiny quail.
> "Galliformes—The minimum dose for bobwhite quail de- scribed by Damron and Wilson [64] that adversely affected body weight gain was five #8 shot pellets per week for 4 weeks ( 350 mg lead/week), which produced an 18% decrease in body weight but no mortalities in 10- to 16-week-old bobwhite quail. A mortality rate of 10% was observed when this exposure was continued for an additional 2 weeks."
> 
> From this study- http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1135&context=usepapapers


You may want to go back and read that entire paper. For you to state that you have proof that there would be zero effect on birds in NFS lands is a misinterpretation of the available information. 

Read the entire paper. It does not support your position.


----------



## dauber (Jan 11, 2010)

John Singer said:


> You may want to go back and read that entire paper. For you to state that you have proof that there would be zero effect on birds in NFS lands is a misinterpretation of the available information.
> 
> Read the entire paper. It does not support your position.


I have read it and it most certainly does support nearly zero effect. If in the most concentrated lead shot area there is there is a tiny effect it will be much less on NF to being virtually zero. 

Here is the table that does. It probably won't come out formatted correctly (page 7) but this was done in dove fields where 1000 times and more shot is dropped on bare ground with 1000 times more chance of being picked up in grit because it is basically on bare ground. This is absolute worse case it could be x1000. There is no way you can compare National Forest dispersed hunting with years and years and years of concentrated dove shooting in public dove fields. But what you can scientifically infer is if 1.8% of doves in this study had lead in gizzards (which is what the number is out of 3,536 doves checked) is it would be .00018% on dispersed NF lands. Also keep in mind this 1.8% is just birds in this super high concentrated area, not all dove populations. It does prove my point. I can get you the HSUS address so you can donate to help them ban lead shot. 

Ok table had no format so refer to link above page 7 Table 3 to see the data. Also in their summary they just recommend a "discussion" but they thought shooting ranges and dove fields might be a concern, other areas (such as NF) not so much.


----------



## John Singer (Aug 20, 2004)

dauber said:


> Here is the table that does. It probably won't come out formatted correctly (page 7) but this was done in dove fields where 1000 times and more shot is dropped on bare ground with 1000 times more chance of being picked up in grit because it is basically on bare ground. This is absolute worse case it could be x1000. There is no way you can compare National Forest dispersed hunting with years and years and years of concentrated dove shooting in public dove fields. But what you can scientifically infer is if 1.8% of doves in this study had lead in gizzards (which is what the number is out of 3,536 doves checked) is it would be .00018% on dispersed NF lands. Also keep in mind this 1.8% is just birds in this super high concentrated area, not all dove populations. It does prove my point. I can get you the HSUS address so you can donate to help them ban lead shot.
> 
> Ok table had no format so refer to link above page 7 Table 3 to see the data. Also in their summary they just recommend a "discussion" but they thought shooting ranges and dove fields might be a concern, other areas (such as NF) not so much.


Do you struggle with reading comprehension or do you just not understand the concept of proof? I stated that, as a whole, the article that you cited does not support your position. You then cherry pick a graph and tell me that is "proof". 

The decision to ban lead use on federal lands is not just about your favorite 7 1/2 shot grouse/woodcock load and the potential effect that it may have on grouse and woodcock or even quail. All lead use is banned, including fishing tackle, rifle bullets and shotgun ammunition. 

This decision was put in place by an outgoing FWS director of the former administration. It is my understanding that it will be in place until July 2018.

Now, unless the Trump administration takes measures to reverse the ban or chooses to not enforce it, what options do you have?

Some have stated that they will no longer hunt Federal land. I am confident that HSUS and other anti-hunting groups would like that.

I look at this through the lens and experience of a waterfowl hunter. I have been down this road before. I know how this story ends. I already waterfowl hunt with nontoxic shot. I also upland hunt in western states where nontoxic shot is required on both state and federal lands. 

I have made the decision to use nontoxic shot for all my hunting. Before you attack me for being anti-2nd Amendment, stop and realize that you have no idea about my occupational or dietary exposure to lead or other toxins and the effect that they have had on my health.

Having been down this road before (with waterfowl hunting), I am betting my money on using nontoxic alternatives so that I can continue to hunt and fish on federal land.

To characterize my position as anti-hunting or anti-2 amendment demonstrates much more about your ignorance than mine.


----------



## dauber (Jan 11, 2010)

John Singer said:


> Do you struggle with reading comprehension or do you just not understand the concept of proof? I stated that, as a whole, the article that you cited does not support your position. You then cherry pick a graph and tell me that is "proof".
> 
> The decision to ban lead use on federal lands is not just about your favorite 7 1/2 shot grouse/woodcock load and the potential effect that it may have on grouse and woodcock or even quail. All lead use is banned, including fishing tackle, rifle bullets and shotgun ammunition.
> 
> ...


So where is this proof in this study?? The only thing "studied" was in table 3 and it was done in the highest concentration they could find of lead shot and that is what they base everything on. 

Here is the conclusion in their words all of it. I agree with this. I do question 1.8% of doves in a high use area being "substantial" and they do admit this is nothing to do with the population, but otherwise this is what should happen. 

"Conclusions
Data suggest substantial risks of widespread and repeated mortality in mourning doves exposed to high densities of spent lead shot in habitats where hunting or shooting is concentrated. Hunting and shooting ranges are distributed throughout the United States and Canada, and their use and numbers are in- creasing. Documented cases of lead poisoning in other upland birds and raptors are also of concern, but the extent of risk to these and other species cannot be ascertained from the available data. The panel recommends that additional research be con- ducted to determine (1) the proportion of the mourning dove population that is at high risk; (2) the identity of other upland bird species (especially raptors) that are at risk; and (3) whether this risk is large enough to reduce population levels significantly and therefore merit regulatory action. We also recommend a more open process, fully involving all stakeholders, than is currently envisioned in the EPA’s risk management process."

The only group to sue to do this and who is pushing it is HSUS and other anti hunting groups. You are the one arguing their point. I cannot afford $92.50 per box of shells to hunt.


----------



## birdhntr (Jan 25, 2014)

I'm not so convinced at this point that it has no effect on the environment. John singer I believe not to many have read your link to the Minnesota dnr research.This is truly informative. The concern iis not only about lead pellets being ingested. But explains that lead is soluble and is affecting plants and insects and so on.The study showing worms having a 90% of the worms such high levels way above the norm.The other section with the chukkars iin Utah was enlightening as well explaining the risks associated with untilled areas.I have to wonder about the studies on woodcock and the population decline along with behavioral changes which possibly could be from the lead solubility iin wetland areas iin which they live and possibly in the worms they eat?I have been reading for weeks on lead shot study's and this I have noticed.There is three groups out there.one is biased for the protection of lead use,the next group is totally for elimination of lead and is biased.Then the ones that search for the truth and when you read their work you can tell they are non biased and onely seeking the truth.And for the statement above that lead is a natural to the environment that is correct. But when you mine it and take it and manipulate its properties for use and then put it in the environment in an different manner then it is no longer natural.


----------



## birdhntr (Jan 25, 2014)

And I have to say my pheasant loads cost more than my steel shot.low brass steel is inexpensive Technically plastic is natural and anything else on this planet. We just manipulate the properties of the natural elements. (Chemistry)


----------



## John Singer (Aug 20, 2004)

dauber said:


> So where is this proof in this study??


There is no "proof" in this study. That was my entire point and you missed it.. The study is evidence. It is likely the type of evidence that policy makers will use when they make decisions on this matter.



dauber said:


> Here is the conclusion in their words all of it. I agree with this....


I believe that you do agree with the small part of the conclusion that you cited. Again, you cherry picked only part of the conclusion that you happened to like. Did you even read the entire conclusion? 

I suggest to you that the paper that you cited, when read in its entirety, or even just reading the entire conclusion, does not support the outcome that you appear to promote. 

I did not cite that paper, you did. You also stated that if lead shot is banned on federal land that you have no use for them anymore.

Stop accusing me of supporting the HSUS agenda.


----------



## GDLUCK (Dec 2, 2002)

Ky fastflyer said:


> No judgment taken GDLUCK.
> The right's agenda is to:
> Create jobs;
> Lower taxes;
> ...


Well you didn't disappoint or surprise. I respect your position. keep on keepin on


----------



## bc993 (May 6, 2008)

dauber said:


> I see the link didn't work, I'll try again but in case it don't work it is titled
> "Northern Bobwhite and Lead Shot Deposition in an Upland Habitat"
> 
> Authors Keel, Davidson, Doster, and Lewis.
> ...


Read the study and it is complete BS.
Where are the parameters?
number of coveys or bird #s at the start.
Ground water levels at the start.
All this says is that a few quail probably died of lead poisoning.
That's a few more that shouldn't have or wouldn't have if a lead alternative was used.

I might ad that your FACTUAL STUDY starts with "we estimated"


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

bc993 said:


> Read the study and it is complete BS.
> Where are the parameters?
> number of coveys or bird #s at the start.
> Ground water levels at the start.
> ...


I admit to have been lurking throughout this thread...

We must have read different studies with the same Title. Total shots expended over 202 acres were estimated, not unheard of in any study. The study I read states that quail mortality associated with lead shot ingestion was not noted or evidenced over 24 years and that ingestion rate was low (1.3%) during the study interval: the converse of what you state. The 'Parameters' are explicitly outlined in the Methods section. Study goals were broadly stated in the first sentence of the abstract. Rate of ingestion and total proportion of quail sampled that contained lead pellets within their G.I. tracts was what the determinants were: no need to specifically know how many coveys on site or actual bird numbers within the study enclosure.

Over my time as a research biologist, I know of no study conducted on a large acreage tract where base population numbers of the study organism were counted...they are estimated, usually employing parametric statistical techniques.


----------



## BIGSP (Sep 16, 2004)

So many "do gooders" out there are willing to give up their and our rights for some perceived benefit. "Oh we don't need assault weapons", "Oh SUV's are bad for the environment" etc. If the data proves that this is detrimental then let's have a discussion but, let's not just give into stupid fallacies that make people feel good. More harm has been done in this country by people "doing good" than by people doing bad, that's a fact.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Here is an interesting study done on Wild pheasant lead contamination at shooting preserves in South Dakota. The authors censored pen-reared birds from the data.

https://gfp.sd.gov/wildlife/management/research-projects
/docs/LEAD%20PHEASANT%20FINAL%20REPORT_7554.pdf

Not very compelling evidence.

I read through another study done in Wisconsin on raptors and woodcock. The authors noted significant and variable concentrations in woodcock chicks, YOY, and adult birds sampled at several sites state wide. They attempted to tease-out the influence of dietary lead ingested while feeding in Precambrian soils versus that of ingested lead shot via stable isotope analysis. Results were inconclusive with broad overlap in lead signatures within the population and life-stage sampled.

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/documents/pbbirds.pdf


Is a lead shot ban warranted to protect waterfowl- Yes. Raptors, yes.; Loons, yes. Why? Bioaccumulation/magnification via ingested prey.

Upland birds outside of doves in heavily gunned, managed fields...not really supported by the current evidence.

Lead ingestion related toxicosis is highly variable between upland species.

The broad data indicate an incidence in upland game birds that ranges from 3-6%. Lead clearance in these populations occurs within about 14-17 days post-ingestion. Bone, liver, and soft tissue sites are reservoirs for lead accumulation. What the overall data do not support is that lead toxicity from ammunition pellet ingestion has marked detrimental impacts at the population level, even for doves, one of the more sensitive species to Pb contamination and toxicity.

Here is a summary piece published in 2014. Scroll down to Figure 1. and note the Pb soils distribution in western upland game destination states, particularly Wyoming, Montana, and South Dakota.
https://www.fws.gov/cno/es/CalCondor/PDF_files/2014-9-CONDOR-Orn-Applications.pdf


----------



## Ray Adams (Feb 17, 2006)

BIGSP said:


> So many "do gooders" out there are willing to give up their and our rights for some perceived benefit. "Oh we don't need assault weapons", "Oh SUV's are bad for the environment" etc. If the data proves that this is detrimental then let's have a discussion but, let's not just give into stupid fallacies that make people feel good. More harm has been done in this country by people "doing good" than by people doing bad, that's a fact.


I often consider the mourning dove hunting proposal from the 1990's. A lot of my contemporaries at that time said, "I'll never hunt doves, I'm not voting for that." 

Back then, I'll have to admit, I semi-agreed. Now days, I'd love to hunt doves, but that's not the point either.

I'm politically pretty neutral. I'm not a conspiracy theorist and don't feel the government is coming after us. I _do_ feel that people and government are money-driven and ultimately look out for themselves. 

Whether we bear hunt with hounds, use black rifles for deer, or hunt doves, we need to stand together for _hunting as a whole_, not just bird hunting or wherever our interests lie, or we will lose it eventually.

Ray


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

In light of Ray's comments, I thought I would pull and post the general population trends and semi-current status nationwide for mourning doves:
https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/...urningDove/MourningDovePopulationStatus15.pdf

Scroll through Figures 3-7 for the age structure and population numbers stratified by management unit. Essentially, there is significant turnover ( instantaneous mortality) operating on mourning doves throughout their range in the USA, with mean age roughly less than 2YO. Eleven year population trend numbers estimates and the 90% C.I. intervals scribed on these individual point estimates are stable and tight (low variance terms), respectively.

Other than raptors, Gaviidae members, and waterfowl lead contamination from shot discharge sources appears to be a minor influence on overall numbers through time.

Dauber's earlier comments on proportional distribution in soils when extrapolated. appears to be a good indicator of risk. So, why a broad landscape wide ban on Federal lands?


----------



## gundogguy (Oct 5, 2008)

This thread has been a lively discussion of lead and non lead shot used on Federal lands.
Regardless of where you might stand on what type of ammunition you might favor,as I have stated I view Federal intrusion into my pastimes as "incrementalism and a form of gun control".

Quite honestly it is rather passive approach to unarming folks and depriving them of their 2nd amendment rights. The "500lb elephant" in the room is the real dagger in this debate which is now rearing its ugly head in this country.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/20/m...n-control-the-old-fashioned-way-higher-taxes/


----------

