CalendarCalendar   Photos  * FAQ
It is currently Wed Nov 26, 2014 1:31 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Image



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Ingestion of lead shot, by ducks specifically,orally!!
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:21 pm 
Crown Grade

Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 12:52 am
Posts: 4760
Randy,
That quote you took is a little bit out of context, if one did not know better one might think it came from someone in the MSM. If you look at the full post, as well as the title, you should note that the whole context was in regards to "ducks specifically" and I assumed waterfowl in general. In my reading of it there did not seem to be any interest in other game such as big game as implied in the DofI message you referred to nor did it seem any information regarding gun bans was being looked for. The thread appeared to be going far off track especially as the message you posted seemed to be in response to my asking for more recent studies on the effectiveness of steel shot on waterfowl as I doubt there is any disagreement that today's steel loads are vastly improved over those being produced in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Based on my own experiences and observations of others recorded in journal entries while waterfowl hunting and guiding during the transition periods (counting the transition while hunting in Canada), those who spent a lot of time successfully shooting waterfowl with lead had a hard time transitioning to steel. Those rather new to the sport and had little to no lead experience had a much easier time adapting. those who were plain out poor shots showed no real difference as they tended to miss regardless of shot type. Today's average steel shot load does not lead to cripples any more or any less than with lead for me. Journal records from 1995 to the present show much the same ratio of cripples whether lead or steel is used. I picked that time frame as that is when my shooting appears to have plateaued per classification in trap and sporting clays. My hunting style and techniques pretty much became static also so I am not comparing birds over deoys with pass shooting quite so much.

T-Train,
The 10 ga grew in popularity starting in the early steel shot days as it was difficult to get a decent payload at a reasonable velocity in a 3" 12 ga hull. the popularity of the 10 ga has fallen off since about 1989 when the 3.5" 12 ga became available. since those days, the 3" 12 ga round has become much more potent and, in my case, is as effective as a 10 ga for me. I hardly use my 10 ga these days, about the only use it sees is for crane or swan specific hunts or more often for nostalgic reasons. I do agree that there are regional differences in ammo costs but I find that the difference between good 3" steel loads and good "high brass" lead loads to be fairly small. Looking online I find the least expensive decent lead loads to run as low as $10 a box for Fiocchi High Velocity and Kent Fast Lead with the Big 3 brands ranging from a low of $12.66 for Federal Wing Shock at Ableammo to $16.50 for Winchester Super X at Cabela's. The equivalent steel loads run from $13 for 3" Kent Fasteel at Cabela's to $19 for Remington Nitro Steel at Cabela's. Premium buffered and/or nickel plated loads for lead seem to run upwards of $19 for Fiocchi Golden Pheasant to the $30 mark for Federal Premium, both in 2 3/4". Top line steel loads seem to run from $19 for 3" Winchester Supreme at Ableammo to $24 at the same place. That is not taking into account shipping and I find normal store prices to be slightly higher during season. Waiting for off season discounts, one sees many more deals involving steel shot than lead. Add to that the frequent manufacturer's rebates on steel shot (I do not recall seeing any rebate for lead shot other than the recent two involving Win AA and Rem STS) and steel becomes even less expensive.




Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ingestion of lead shot, by ducks specifically,orally!!
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:28 pm 
Shotgun Expert
Shotgun Expert
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:02 am
Posts: 14689
Location: Plainfield, IL
There is, of course, quite a bit of disagreement as to how "improved" fluffy iron loads are. Increasing the velocity of a low density sphere is hardly a vast improvement as it causes the already poor flying sphere to shed velocity at an even greater rate than before.

BBB steel fired at 1616 fps equates to 850 fps @ 40 yards, with penetration of just over three inches.

#1 lead fired at 1330 fps 3 ft. velocity (1405 corrected at actual muzzle) outperforms the faster steel load at all ranges, penetrating more at 50 yards than the "faster" steel can manage at 40 yards.

It gets worse when you compare 1-3/8 oz. pellet counts.

1-3/8 oz. #1 lead = 99 pellets
1-3/8 oz. BBB steel = 83 pellets

Less pellets, less penetration, more recoil-- there isn't much to show that steel compares favorably to lead.

#2 lead outperforms BBB steel by no small measure. Here, the depleted pattern potential of steel is even more vivid, with 1-3/8 oz. #2 lead equating to approximately 119 pellets.

Back in the day, as they say, the baby magnum 1-1/2 oz. of #2 was considered excellent goose medicine and it sure was with 130 pellets.

With over 56% more pellets than the 1-3/8 oz. failboat load of BBB steel, it is no contest-- lead spanks steel quite soundly.

And yes, the lead scare has already had impact far beyond the notion of a duck or a goose: http://www.nrahuntersrights.org/LeadIssues.aspx.

Isolated to ducks? Think again:

In 2007, California totally banned the use of lead ammunition for big game hunting throughout condor habitat in the state, and that prohibition took effect on July 1, 2008. In February 2009, the state Fish and Game Commission began considering a statewide ban on the use of lead ammunition. The commission also considered a ban on lead ammunition for small game and upland bird hunting in the state's condor zone but opted against that proposal by a 4-1 vote on Aug. 6, 2009.

California has pushed for these additional lead bans even though data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) shows that the state's existing lead ban has not reduced blood-lead levels in condors. Despite reports of nearly 100 percent compliance from hunters in the first year of the lead ban, a California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) report utilizing the USFWS data showed that improvement in condor blood-lead levels was almost negligible between the first six months of 2008 (pre-lead ban) and the second half of 2008 (post-ban). During the January through June 2008 time frame, 59 percent of the condors tested had blood-lead levels above what is considered a normal or acceptable background level. In the second half of the year from July through December, 45 percent of condors had blood-lead levels above normal. (Source: "Lead Ban Not Really Helping Condors," Jim Matthews, San Bernardino Sun, July 30, 2009)

In Washington State, SB 5095 would authorize the Fish and Game Commission to ban the use of lead for hunting anywhere in the state the Commission deems necessary. (Read an NRA-ILA alert on this issue by clicking here.) The Washington State Dept. of Ecology has also issued a Lead Chemical Action Plan that paves the way to a lead ammunition ban. (NRA has submitted comments on that plan calling for the entire section on lead ammunition to be deleted.)

The Humane Society of the United States has called for a complete ban on all lead ammunition.

Minnesota State Representative Sandy Masin has announced her intent to introduce a ban or significant restrictions on lead ammunition.

In a Draft Position Statement, The Wildlife Society advocates the replacement of lead-based ammunition and fishing tackle use and production with non-lead products.

North Dakota’s Sportsmen Against Hunger Program began accepting only deer killed with arrows in 2008, but in July 2009 the program announced that it would resume accepting deer taken by hunters with traditional lead ammunition for the 2009-2010 hunting season. (Source: Grand Forks Herald, July 30, 2009)

In the spring of 2008 the Peregrine Fund hosted a symposium entitled, "Ingestion of Spent Lead Ammunition: Implications for Wildlife and Humans." Most of the speakers present advocated a ban on lead ammunition.

In March 2009, the National Park Service (NPS) announced its intention to ban lead on properties it manages: "Our goal is to eliminate the use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle in parks by 2010," said Acting Park Service Director Dan Wenk. (NPS made this decision without seeking public comment.) After heavy criticism from NRA and other hunting groups, the Park Service later said the ban would only apply to its employees and authorized agents, while leaving open the possibility of banning lead ammunition and fishing tackle by the general public on a park-by-park basis.

On Aug. 6, 2009, officials of Grand Teton National Park and National Elk Refuge issued an announcement asking hunters to voluntarily switch to non-lead ammunition for the 2009 elk and bison seasons.

In August 2009, the Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife announced that it is requiring hunters to use non-lead shot when dove hunting on state wildlife areas for the 2009-2010 mourning dove season during the month of September, although the ban does not apply to dove hunters on private land.

_________________
--Randy

http://randywakeman.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ingestion of lead shot, by ducks specifically,orally!!
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 12:58 am 
Crown Grade

Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 12:52 am
Posts: 4760
I think we can agree that ducks, geese, swans, and the like do not eat many rifle and handgun projectiles for whatever reason but their eating of lead shot pellets has been agreed upon by everyone including yourself. This latter is what the original poster has asked about based on his subject line and tenor of original post. Whatever political leanings one may read into the matter is in the reader's mind. Notice I have not said yes, no, or maybe on the matter, just that it does not pertainto the original question.
As to the effectiveness of steel, I agree with your regarding the velocity issue and personally find steel loads in the 1375-1450 nominal velocity range to do anything I need at an equivalent recoil of the old 3 3/4 dram, 1 1/4 oz 12 ga load moving at a nominal 1330 fps.
I don't know what test medium was being used for the penetration tests but I do know from actual use that steel BBB at my preferred velocity range will regularly exit an incoming Canada goose in the 12 pound range at a range out to 57 yards as determined by a laser rangefinder. it had plenty of penetration to pass through, but not exit the body, the vital areas of similar sized geese out to nearly 65 yards. I've been involved in a double handful of tests using various shot types over the years and that was the findings of the people running the tests. As far as I am concerned, that is more than adequate for my needs. I still shoot some of the old 1980s vintage steel loads, I've picked up a flat or two over the years from widows and/or kids who's husbands/fathers have died and they have no idea what to do with the ammunition. For field shooting ducks it works adequately at the very close ranges one often gets to take ducks. At best one goes through a box a week this way so it takes a couple of years to finish off a single box. I can say there is a very noticeable difference in the reaction to ducks when hit with these loads at a claimed 1265 fps and a modern load in the 1400 fps range. I won't even use the older shells once the sun peeks over the horizon and ducks begin to be taken in the 30 yard or more range. There comes a point when one reaches diminishing returns and I feel this is it with steel.
I do agree that the old "baby magnum" #2 lead loads were great on geese, they were my preferred factory loads though a 3" handload at 1 3/8 oz was magically effective though looked like garbage on the patterning board.
I also tend to believe that a major reason hunters did better with lead than steel was due to how prevalent the cheap, low antimony "duck and pheasant" loads were. When fired through the commonly found full choke, these loads tended to open up patterns to a fair degree making hits easier at the 35 yard and under range that is within the skill set of the vast majority of hunters. When steel came along, the often tighter patterns made such shots harder as the typical hunter was now getting full choke performance. At close range, a true full choke pattern of any pellet type does not have many pellets in the fringe area which often means a fringed bird is only hit with a pellet or two rather than possibly a half dozen with a more open choke. This factor caused amny to blame the ammunition for a lower success rate rather than on the shooter for not being skilled or knowledgeable enough to choose the correct tools for the conditions.
As always, a person who is knowledgeable in their skills and equipment is going to do much better than those who are not. The vast majority of hunters are not overly practiced in either area and it will show in the field. The most successful shooters also tend to have a less selective memory and remember their failures as well as their successes in order to reduce repeating the mistakes of the past. Once I decided to quit bemoaning the loss of lead shot and put in the time, effort, and money to learn to shoot steel shot, I came away with a whole different outlook on the material. The last wo years of being able to use lead shot for waterfowl in Canada found me using mostly steel shot as I had problems switching back and forth between the two types.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ingestion of lead shot, by ducks specifically,orally!!
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:16 am 
Shotgun Expert
Shotgun Expert
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:02 am
Posts: 14689
Location: Plainfield, IL
I've not been to Kiwiland for several years, so I don't know what the current 'debate' is-- though it seems that lead is out, or on its way out.

So, like it or not-- lead waterfowling days are gone in the US and they aren't coming back. Steel is no sub for lead, not even close.

Kent TM is just as good as lead, a couple of other shot types (Winchester HD) are markedly better. Problem is, hunters are asked to shell out (pun intended) unreasonable amounts of cash when a larger overview of the matter shows that lead plays a minor role, and most of the unwanted lead in the environment comes from batteries, poor mining and smelting practices, etc.

Everyone seems to forget that elemental lead 1) is not toxic 2) and non-water soluble. Lead oxide is of course toxic.

Problem is, the U.S. has done a pretty good job distributing lead on top of Germany and throughout Europe, continuing to do so in the mideast. Our government isn't worried about cleaning up the lead thay have spent untold millions of dollars "distributing."

Far easier to just attack hunters and sportsman, ignoring the costly toxins the U.S. spreads through failed war games throughout the world.

It is hard to believe that the spreaders of Agent Orange, with 5000 of our human dead in Iraq are really sincerely worried about a duck's long-term health.

_________________
--Randy

http://randywakeman.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ingestion of lead shot, by ducks specifically,orally!!
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:42 am 
Crown Grade

Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 12:52 am
Posts: 4760
I was not aware the lead used in shotshells was still in its elemental state. I've seen a few samples of unprcessed lead and it does not look anything like what I've found in a bag from Lawrence. Lead goes through a smelting process in which it is "purified" and then alloyed with other materials to produce a final product. That lead in this form can be absorbed into the body seems to be a subject that has long been proven in many organisms. As even you seem to agree, lead oxide can be absorbed into the blood stream and body and it appears finely ground lead particles such as those produced in the gizzards of birds can also be introduced into the system. The solubility of lead in water is not a concern regarding waterfowl and has not been a concern in regard to ingestion poisoning of waterfowl. As a matter of fact, as lead is so insoluable as you claim, then I see no reason why anyone would be concerned with the amount of it laying around Europe and the Middle East nor with its clean up. As nobody really is, then that is a non-issue. I fully agree that there are also other means that these heavy metals are being introduced into the ecosystem but to push the blame solely on them is a bit disingenuous too. Kind of like saying the used motor oil you dump into the storm sewer is so minor compared to what is spilled by tankers that it should be overlooked. Both are wrong and if other feasible means to produce the final result are available, then those means should be used and until then regulation as possible of the process seems perfectly acceptable. Now, uneven or sporadic enforcement is another matter and grounds for a dfferenet discussion. Besides, if tungsten is also so toxic, then why would anyone wish to increase its use in the environment? Is that any different than weaning an alcoholic off bourbon with tequila?
Personally, I find the mention of the "failed war games" our government has been involved with since the 1940s (and I would dispute the failure of many of them, at least militarily, but that is a political discussion) to be not pertinent as to hunting and conservation conversation as this section is for. Maybe a thread on the political section would be more proper.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ingestion of lead shot, by ducks specifically,orally!!
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 12:52 pm 
Shotgun Expert
Shotgun Expert
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:02 am
Posts: 14689
Location: Plainfield, IL
Unfortunately, the newly discovered idea of "lead" problems is far more political in nature than anything else. See California legislation. A well-rounded, thorough, balanced discussion does not happen as it is political and legislation-based, is gun rights based (or anti-gun rights based), not conservation-based.

As laudable as "conservation" may sound, it has always been completely intertwined with politics since the days of Teddy Roosevelt.

As to "why" lead would be replaced with other toxic substances, all we have to do is try to learn from the past. Cyclamates were banned in the U.S.-- a rush to judgement. The asbestos scare destroyed an industry, and we spent millions on clean-up ONLY to discover that often the "clean-ups" did the opposite, just increasing airborn asbestos levels. Most Americans have lead in their mouths-- we paid dentists to put it there.

Whether the topic is global warming, burning horribly filthy fuels like coal, or lead in a duck, junk science and rushes to judgement are typical. While one may have a disdain for all things political, anything regulation or legislation-based is of course political whether we like to view it as such or not.

_________________
--Randy

http://randywakeman.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ingestion of lead shot, by ducks specifically,orally!!
PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 8:23 pm 
Crown Grade

Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 12:52 am
Posts: 4760
Randy,
Is not the "California legislation" you mention recent and in regards to an increase in lead levels of Condors in certain areas of the region? If so, that is pretty similar to what is happening with waterfowl and lead shot. I won't get into my opinions on the matter as it is not germaine to the original poster's question. As for the "newness" of the lead shot problem, again I don't think 1959 and older rates as being new for an idea. A gun, yes but not research.
I fully understand the asbestos situation and that there is often a cost in unintended consequences. In the case of steel shot for waterfowl, I don't see those negative consequences. High crippling rates have been endemic to the sport and has been so noted for many, many decades. The ingestion of lead pellets by waterfowl has been noted in many studies which should lead to a lessening of mortality from that factor. In fact, a 1997 USFWS/ IL DNR study stated a 64% decrease in lead shot ingestion by mallards and a 78% decrease in lead pellet ingestion in overall duck populations when compared to a 1986 study by Sanderson and Bellrose ans near as I can figure out. That seems fairly significant as it is up to 1.4 million duck savings for that flyway.
I still don't see why you are suggesting the use of tungsten over steel as you seem to have some degree of concern over its toxicity or at least potential. As of now, it appears steel is the safest and best choice availabe based on all factors: toxicity, effectiveness, and especially cost. The Kent Matrix shot you mentioned earlier is tungsten based as is the Remington, Winchester, Envirometal, et al versions of their "heavier than lead" shot. Bismuth may be the other option but as has been pointed out, is rather expensive too. By far the best bet would be to endorse the use of steel for waterfowl as it is the best alternative available and is effective within the abilities of the vast majority of hunters. One can't control skybusting and it occurs regardless of guage, shot size, pay load, shot material, ability, etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ingestion of lead shot, by ducks specifically,orally!!
PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:26 pm 
Shotgun Expert
Shotgun Expert
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:02 am
Posts: 14689
Location: Plainfield, IL
c404 wrote:
Hi all,
Enjoy the forum and its wealth of information. I have a question which is plagueing a lot of duck hunters over here in NZ re lead shot. Do ducks eat it or dont they?
We have been on non toxic shot for a couple of years over here now, except for the smaller gauges, and this question still raises its head every now and then during discussions.
What do you guys in the US really think about the banning of lead?
I am not particularly anti steel or non toxic myself, having never been involved in our sport when lead was de rigeur, but am interested in the debate.


Alright, I'll direct this right back to the original posting.

The problem with lead in the United States has been self-inflicted and continued for 50 years with the knowledge and co-operation of the U.S. Government. Ducks and hunting had no major role then, nor do they now. Killing 5000+ Americans a year from heart disease, exposing 68 million children to toxic levels of lead is a national disgrace. That isn't a hunting issue or a waterfowl issue, it is far far greater than most people have ever imagined: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000320/kitman.

The issue for all these decades was not pellets in a pond, or worry about keeping ducks healthy so we can kill them, nor about the amazing wounding losses with or without lead.
The big issue all along was and is airborne lead, not the hunter nor the dizzy wet duck.

If you understand Aunt Ethyl, you will be better able to understand the lead shot "debate" for what it is: a hollow, tinny, belated, backhanded attack against hunting and shooting. It never was about killing or saving a duck-- it was and is about stopping humans from killing humans.

_________________
--Randy

http://randywakeman.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ingestion of lead shot, by ducks specifically,orally!!
PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:27 pm 
Tournament Grade
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 8:06 am
Posts: 240
Location: Southern, Florida
I am going to get in this. One question, who of you are a scientist? Please.. This section is for Hunting and Conservation. Not a personal agenda or going off topic. Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ingestion of lead shot, by ducks specifically,orally!!
PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 9:58 pm 
Diamond Grade

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 12:31 pm
Posts: 1228
Location: 20" from my computer screen
Wow....what was the OP?

Last time I checked, a lead or steel pellet would look/feel about the same to a feeding duck as a kernel of milo. So yes, they will ingest it.

Secondly, I agree with the idea that poor shooting skills wounds far more birds than the type of pellet leaving the end of you gun. Does steel perform as good as lead? No. Is it as cheap as lead USED to be? No. Does it kill ducks and geese consitantly? Heck yes. Some on this site have the idea that mallards are flying around wearing flack jackets and nothing short of the latest, greatest, most expensive shell will bring them down cleanly. Not the case guys.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ingestion of lead shot, by ducks specifically,orally!!
PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:19 pm 
Presentation Grade
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 11:06 am
Posts: 765
Location: WI
While this is not dealing with lead shot toxicity, I though it interesting that when the EPA decided asbestos was dangerous they did not realize that most of the asbestos used in the U.S. was not harmful; in fact, it is hamful only when it is removed. Many states want to ban led shot completely, some have, and there is no science behind any of it, just radical anti-hunters and environmentalists who would rejoice at having humanity drop dead to save the preciious animals.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ingestion of lead shot, by ducks specifically,orally!!
PostPosted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:10 pm 
Shotgun Expert
Shotgun Expert
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:02 am
Posts: 14689
Location: Plainfield, IL
The article is part of a broad look at lead from Harvey Mudd College. It was Harvey Mudd College that was linked to, not a 'flagship of the left'.

All you have to do is go to the main site that presents not only that article, but a reasonably comprehensive look at lead and man from many, many sources: http://www4.hmc.edu:8001/Chemistry/Pb/ For those truly interested in boning up on lead, William Kovarik, PHDs paper on the matter (along with 110 citations) covers Aunt Ethyl in great detail found at the same site: http://www4.hmc.edu:8001/Chemistry/Pb/resources/kovarik-ijoeh.pdf. These health problems, to humans not to ducks, were well-known in the 1920s. Yet, fifty years later "Lead content in gasoline peaked in 1973 at an average of 2.2 grams per gallon, which amounted to about 200,000 tons of lead used per year in the United States. Airborne lead, of course, the kind that all animals and humans like to breathe. No crops or gizzards required.

Sure, lead kills ducks. So does a lot of things-- and killing ducks is the general idea when duck hunting.

There are a lot of factors at play here, but it is hardly driven by a Superposed and a duck. Nor is it driven by a dove or a deer. The costs of crop damage by doves is large; the cost of automobile / deer collisions is also large. These costs are generally ignored if the agenda is to ban guns and hunting. We have an incredible record of ignoring costs-- see our Federal government for more details on that one. Whether cash for clunkers, Government Motors, the Wallstreet / banking industry bailout, or fighting wars we can't pay for surely a little perspective is in order here?

What actually would make sense is for the government, private insurance companies (if they last), and our agricultural dept. to subsidize hunting ammunition costs. For without the human predator, crop damage, deer / auto collisions, and other issues cannot be contained. Hunters spend a lot of money and they save farmers and insurance companies a lot of money as well. Hunters fund DNRs, hunters spend money in areas that otherwise have very little industry.

There is no debate that lead alternative pellets like tungsten-matrix are the equal of lead and far, far more effective than steel. It just boils down to costs and who is expected to pay for them. Your local dentist may prefer steel-- but no Browning Superposed or anyone else does.

Lead is an issue; but a far greater issue in non-hunting related areas, and as far as "conservation"-- the current debate has little to do with it. Eighty years of ignorance does-- to use what is already known as a back-handed, belated attempt to attack hunting is what is shameful.

_________________
--Randy

http://randywakeman.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ingestion of lead shot, by ducks specifically,orally!!
PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 3:19 pm 
Utility Grade

Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:27 am
Posts: 19
I'll add two short stories almost on topic despite not having read all of the voluminous posts above.

I started hunting the last two years lead was legal in Maine. My father and I hunted eiders on the offshore ledges using 1 1/4 of lead 4's. I missed and crippled a lot of ducks, most of the swimming cripples we retrieved with the aid of a full choked break-open single shot kept in the boat for the pupose, shooting 7 1/2's for head shots. We only took shots over the decoys. I doubt the lead shot we deposited on the rocky seabottom was ever ingested by eiders, who feed on mussels, not seeds. When we shifted to steel shot, observed crippling rates actually went down. My father was a pathologist and never cleaned a duck without performing an informal autopsy. He felt the steel made bigger wound channels and expended all their energy within the bird instead of passing through. He did grumble about having to chew dinner more carefully, though.

A couple of years later I was going to school in Louisiana and drove up to Catahoula Lake for an early season duck hunt. The campground was full of hunters and I expected a crowd scene on the lake the next morning. I turned to be the only one on the lake the next morning, being the only dumb yankee who didn't know that the ducks hadn't come south yet. Everybody else was harvesting a bumper crop of fox squirrels. I saw and shot one duck, a canvasback that swam into the decoys and I shot him on the water, thinking he was someone else's cripple. When I started to clean him, I realized he was emaciated. Knowing Catahoula Lake was a poster child for lead shot poisoning and weight loss a symptom, I tossed the duck. The only canvasback I've ever shot, and I didn't feel safe eating him.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ingestion of lead shot, by ducks specifically,orally!!
PostPosted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:23 am 
Diamond Grade
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 6:15 am
Posts: 1307
Location: Western Minnesota
I believe that lead shot ingestion was much less common continent-wide than was claimed in the "scientific" estimates, which were based on studies that quite naturally only looked at certain specific areas where lead poisoning in birds was known to be a problem.

A more comprehensive study should have been conducted before the comprehensive lead shot ban (for waterfowling) was imposed in the U.S. IMO, it is entirely likely that lead shot ingestion in waterfowl was overstated by a factor of ten. Not that action was not needed to reduce the problem, but political over-reaction should not be confused with scientifically justified action.

BTW, Wounding loss is going to be different with steel loads than with lead loads. The idea that they are statistically similar percentage-wise may or may not be accurate, but considering the enormous differences in aerodynamic efficiency (which favors lead) and pattern efficiency (which favors steel), the conditions that result in the wounding are going to be quite dissimilar. The distances at which ducks were wounded by each type of shot, and the margins for error (misses) that result in a bird being hit but not harvested must be very, very different for steel versus lead shot. It is pretty unscientific to simply say, "wounding loss is similar for both types of shot" and not explain how that is even remotely possible considering the vast differences in the way the two materials perform as shot pellets. :evil:




-Dave

_________________
"If it flies it dies. And if it sits it dies too. –Phil Robertson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ingestion of lead shot, by ducks specifically,orally!!
PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:42 pm 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 9:31 pm
Posts: 16252
Randy,
Way to get in the hunt! I must agree. The use of steel shot is just another way to tax hunters out of the feild. We have a Sept. teal season here. My partner, a ever so law abiding sort was shooting 3" 12 bore non lead 4s. Good thing he was packin' a Bannelli! Every one of those dinky ducks took at least two to finish. I was shooting a 20 bore double 2 3/4" with lead fives. Splash four ducks!
My partner is a fine shot and his ducks were well preped for the maranade!
Larger lead shot is the way to go. It sinks further down in the muck and is unreachable. The cripples created by non lead shot far out weigh the number of ducks poisoned by elemental inert lead. IMHO.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ingestion of lead shot, by ducks specifically,orally!!
PostPosted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:57 pm 
Diamond Grade
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 6:15 am
Posts: 1307
Location: Western Minnesota
heelerman,

IMHO you need to acquaint yourself and your shooting buddy with these nontoxic loads for Teal:

Image
I'm taking the 20 gauge version to the sloughs this fall and see how they do. I bet they'll kill just about everything out to 35 yards, but we'll see...

Despite scientifically documented lack-luster performance on Mallards and Pheasants, #4 steel has more than enough pellet energy to take down a teal; if your friend is wounding the little 7/8-pound birds with #4 steel, the reason is probably either shooter error, or the relatively low pellet count of his chosen loads. An ounce of steel 4s has about 191 pellets, whereas an ounce of steel 6s has about 315. If a big drake mallard needs 90 pellets in a 30" circle to kill it cleanly, a bird 1/3 his size should theoretically need 270!

I will just ignore the fact that you appear to have admitted to illegally harvesting waterfowl with #5 lead shot. :shock:




-Dave

_________________
"If it flies it dies. And if it sits it dies too. –Phil Robertson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ingestion of lead shot, by ducks specifically,orally!!
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 1:35 pm 
Presentation Grade
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 11:06 am
Posts: 765
Location: WI
Civil disobedience? :)

Lead shot has been banned for nearly 40 years now. But, with all those ducks who have been saved by non-toxic shot, why is it uncommon for me to see ducks in NE WI. I don't live far from the lake, and there are many marshy areas around me, but I just don't see them. Can anyone help me?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ingestion of lead shot, by ducks specifically,orally!!
PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:26 pm 
Diamond Grade
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 6:15 am
Posts: 1307
Location: Western Minnesota
Ducks like prairie better than woods, I guess. :| We have the same issue here in Minnesota, guys complain about years without ducks, the DNR made a huge deal about it four or five years back. But I saw plenty, killed 16 or 17 too, and it was only my second year. What's my secret? I lived in the western part of the state - all prairie habitat.
Now I live in South Dakota, should be even better! :twisted:

Many years ago Minnesota had a lot more grass cover, even in the north. The bonanza logging days of the 1800s were followed by HUGE forest fires after the turn of the last Century. Lots of people were killed in the biggest fires in 1910. Then came the dust-bowl years of the 1930s, NW Minnesota was hit the hardest and it kept the swamp country DRY. Sharptail grouse numbers exploded. They were killing a third of a million per year by the late 1940s! But slowly the climate became cooler and wetter, and forest fires got knocked down quicker as technology to fight them increased. The 1970s saw the last few good years for Sharptails in Minnesota with about 50,000 harvested. By the 1980s people were leaving the state to hunt them. Then finally the Minnesota Sharptail Grouse Society was founded to educate the DNR about the vanishing bird and its preferred habitat types. You see, the Indians used to call the Sharptail the fire bird because unlike the other grouse species in Minnesota, it only used large burned over areas with grass, or low bushy cover for its spring mating dance. If a hawk or a bobcat shows up and starts watching them, they'll shut down the dance in a heartbeat! They'll even abandon a dancing ground if tall trees grow up too near.

What's my point of all this? Simple: Most ducks need large grassy areas of habitat surrounding their wetlands. You don't see that in northern Minnesota, or northern Wisconsin any more. That, IMHO, is the whole explanation for why duck harvest and breeding survey numbers have been down in those two states in recent decades. In a sense, we've managed our northern forest lands too well.

Still, I would think you'd be in the thick of the woodducks, and see quite a few teal and ring-neck migrate through, T-Train...:?: Maybe start diver-hunting the Great Lakes shores instead...:idea:




-Dave

_________________
"If it flies it dies. And if it sits it dies too. –Phil Robertson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ingestion of lead shot, by ducks specifically,orally!!
PostPosted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:39 pm 
Utility Grade

Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:13 pm
Posts: 18
Off topic but ties into the grand scheme, or should I say Schism.
You think thats bad take a look at silver almagam dental fillings. They contain MERCURY!! No body gives a hoot, but look closely at the vapor they emit after: eating, drinking hot liquids, brushing them, dental "hygentis" treatments, grinding them when your sleeping or just mad. Bad news. Save your money and buy gold fillings, much better buy than any of those no-tox loads.

Politics, an old word, meaning, way to rob Peter to pay Paul.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ingestion of lead shot, by ducks specifically,orally!!
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:55 am 
Presentation Grade
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 6:59 am
Posts: 982
Location: SMITHFIELD, PA
For all SGW members who feel they may have consumed waterfowl/game animals that have been killed or contaminated with lead. Take DMSA capsules very good for removing lead from the human body,cheap & easy to take. No prescription needed over the counter.


A500R




Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Registered users: 2lo8s, afish85, AZ Dutch, Azraz, BakerBB, Bill Miller, Bing [Bot], Bird Guide, Bubzola, budrock56, Charlie16ga, Cheoah, Cooper4141, Double P, eiderz, EricHarvey, Ga. Skeet, GLS, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, Granpooba, grassfarmer, havoc21, HogRider357, HoosierBob, hopper810, ILLINOIS, jdwaddle, jer901, JFE, jfkid, jharrington, Joe-Eastern Shore MD, joebet, Johnny G, Kyler Hamann, learjet56, les_garten, lt0026, Majestic-12 [Bot], Mark LT, MarkCO, mortum, mykal19, NCMikeR, niner, oregunner, PJDiesel, porsche911er, Riflemeister, Ron Mahle, RUT, saleen351, Stuck-N-Kali, SuperXOne, tash, Tijeras_Slim, tim josey, tjen, verp, wcampb7899, Will Fennell, woodcock1


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group     -  DMCA Notice