Interesting......

[Hammsolo]

I'm not sure why this keeps devolving into kids eating lead fragments. I have seen birds die of lead poisoning. It is a terrible way to go. Ask a golden eagle if he wants to get clobbered by a truck or flop around on the ground for a week or so till he starves to death, I think we all know the choice he'd make. Hunters with ethics brag about being concerned that the deer they harvest die as humanely as possible ... but then patently don't give a shit if raptos suffer horribly and unnecessarily? Hard to wrap my head around that twisted code of outdoors ethics.

We need to remember how interconnected the environment is and how we can’t just do what we “want.” Wouldn’t be awesome if we could just choose to grow and shrink the populations we choose with no effects on other species?

 

[Franky'sFolly]

The only nontoxic buckshot I know of is Hevi-shot dead coyote. It’s pricey.

Does anyone know how raptors react to copper plated shot? I have been hunting coyotes with some old copper-plated lead loads from the old goose days? Would the copper coating prevent the raptors from crushing the lead and absorbing it?

 

[mtmuley]

View attachment 168631

Atta boy jr. mtmuley

 

[Brian in Montana]

Well, I've largely bowed out of this discussion, still skeptical, but nothing personal. Everytime I bring something up, there's several articles get posted to show otherwise. But seriously, we're to believe there is actually THAT much lead in THAT many gut piles, and that many eagles eating enough of it only IN THE FALL that we gotta wring our hands and talk about banning the bullets hunters have been using for the last century.

I could ask if magpies, crows, bears, and coyotes are getting poisoned too, but there's probably a study and a link. So the next obvious question is how have me and my family avoided lead poisoning? We eat wild game just about every day and although I have an appreciation for Barnes bullets, I've never rifle-shot anything with lead free bullets. Serious question.

I'm not doubting Golden Eagles are getting lead poisoning, but I am doubting that hunters are the cause of it, or at least the primary cause of it.

 

[refuseresist]

Well, I've largely bowed out of this discussion, still skeptical, but nothing personal. Everytime I bring something up, there's several articles get posted to show otherwise. But seriously, we're to believe there is actually THAT much lead in THAT many gut piles, and that many eagles eating enough of it only IN THE FALL that we gotta wring our hands and talk about banning the bullets hunters have been using for the last century.

I could ask if magpies, crows, bears, and coyotes are getting poisoned too, but there's probably a study and a link. So the next obvious question is how have me and my family avoided lead poisoning? We eat wild game just about every day and although I have an appreciation for Barnes bullets, I've never rifle-shot anything with lead free bullets. Serious question.

I'm not doubting Golden Eagles are getting lead poisoning, but I am doubting that hunters are the cause of it, or at least the primary cause of it.

Your questions were answered previously in the thread. Ultimately, if you have sincere interest in such topics I'd advise you speak to a few epidemiologists.

 

[Brian in Montana]

I don't know many epidemiologists. But anyway, this whole argument seems to me to have taken on a similar aspect as if you question lockdowns or how much good masks do at avoiding COVID, or if maybe not entirely sold on anthropomorphic climate change, then you're a flat-earther science-denier in a MAGA hat.

Anyway, I'll follow the laws if cup-an-core bullets are banned. I don't want to poison raptors any more than the next guy.

 

[Big Fin]

Well, I've largely bowed out of this discussion, still skeptical, but nothing personal. Everytime I bring something up, there's several articles get posted to show otherwise. But seriously, we're to believe there is actually THAT much lead in THAT many gut piles, and that many eagles eating enough of it only IN THE FALL that we gotta wring our hands and talk about banning the bullets hunters have been using for the last century.

I could ask if magpies, crows, bears, and coyotes are getting poisoned too, but there's probably a study and a link. So the next obvious question is how have me and my family avoided lead poisoning? We eat wild game just about every day and although I have an appreciation for Barnes bullets, I've never rifle-shot anything with lead free bullets. Serious question.

I'm not doubting Golden Eagles are getting lead poisoning, but I am doubting that hunters are the cause of it, or at least the primary cause of it.

Fair enough.

I've spent quite a bit of time with the guys who did the AZ and WY studies on raptors and scavengers. They have convinced me, though I still use AccuBonds in some of my loads, having switched to E-Tips in the majority of my loads. These guys doing the studies are very passionate hunters and they don't have any agenda, though some want to paint it that way.

They also do not want laws passed outlawing lead, as they have found far greater benefit in AZ with an education program than what CA was finding with a legal requirement. Their studies have seen large drops in measured lead amounts in raptors and scavengers as a result of the voluntary efforts in AZ.

These folks do want hunters to understand what the studies are showing. There is a reason they are promoting voluntary use and education in AZ; they know voluntary and education is more effective and provides better results.

Your expressed doubts and those of others have me asking some questions. The questions are not intended to be confrontational, but asked as a result of my own curiosity as to what level of information, and from whom, is helpful to convince people that changes in our existing habits could be helpful to wildlife. Not asking you to answer, mostly posting as rhetorical questions that I ponder during discussions such as these.

What number of studies would be needed that arrive at the same outcome as to the impact on raptors and scavengers to satisfy the doubts some have?

Who needs to do the studies, if not fellow hunters, for doubts to be removed?

What level of confidence in the findings must be demonstrated for doubts to be removed?

 

[sapperJ24]

Well, I've largely bowed out of this discussion, still skeptical, but nothing personal. Everytime I bring something up, there's several articles get posted to show otherwise. But seriously, we're to believe there is actually THAT much lead in THAT many gut piles, and that many eagles eating enough of it only IN THE FALL that we gotta wring our hands and talk about banning the bullets hunters have been using for the last century.

I could ask if magpies, crows, bears, and coyotes are getting poisoned too, but there's probably a study and a link. So the next obvious question is how have me and my family avoided lead poisoning? We eat wild game just about every day and although I have an appreciation for Barnes bullets, I've never rifle-shot anything with lead free bullets. Serious question.

I'm not doubting Golden Eagles are getting lead poisoning, but I am doubting that hunters are the cause of it, or at least the primary cause of it.

As one who often posts links in response, thanks for taking a look at them. And thank you for sharing your skepticism courteously. Unfortunately I don't have answers for you, just more links. But I appreciate the questions and skepticism because it makes me do more searching.

My understanding with respect to raptors is more of that lead consumption is through varmint or rodent scavenging year round. I am not a avian or human biologist, but I believe that raptors and other birds have different digestive mechanisms and skeletal system which make them more susceptible than humans. They're also likely encountering lead much more frequently than humans, multiple .22 shot Prairie dogs a week compared with six 30-06 (2 elk 4 deer (guessing for a family?)) Between a couple people over the course of a year.

This link discusses and summarizes many recent studies and conclusions from around the world. I didnt skim the whole thing yet. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6675766/
One of the citations is to an 1896 study looking at pheasants poisoned by shot, I wish I could see that paper.

 

[Brian in Montana]

Those are all good points and questions, Big Fin. The fact is most of the info I've ever gotten is from semi-contensious message board discussions like this one. And admittedly, it's not the topic of greatest interest to me when I log in, just come access it now and then and tend to get a little put off and move on to something else. And really no matter what anyone says on a topic like this, I tend to hear ban this or ban that. My impression is that's the logical conclusion, like gotta ban plastic grocery bags to save the sea turtles, for example.

I don't doubt you or what your saying about AZ. Sounds good, in fact. I still can't get past the memory of growing up eating doves and quail my uncles and grandaddy shot and having to pause and spit out lead shot now and then, or biting a lead sinker onto a fishing line - done this litterally hundreds of times, and nobody ever thought a thing of it, either for ourselves or the environment. Maybe that's what's wrong with me? I dunno.

But anyway, I do have this feeling that mono bullets are the future, and that's probably fine, but until then I'm likely going to keep loading Accubonds and Federal TBTs. Nothing personal to anybody, I am something of a skeptic by nature. And besides that, I work my tail off and run around getting kids to school and baseball practice and with my energy that's left I'm more interested in hunting, hiking, and learning about what I'm hunting or shooting than seeking out education on lead poisoning in birds of prey. Maybe I and the other skeptics will get there at some point. Until then, maybe I should just avoid threads like this.

 

[refuseresist]

I don't know many epidemiologists. But anyway, this whole argument seems to me to have taken on a similar aspect as if you question lockdowns or how much good masks do at avoiding COVID, or if maybe not entirely sold on anthropomorphic climate change, then you're a flat-earther science-denier in a MAGA hat.

Anyway, I'll follow the laws if cup-an-core bullets are banned. I don't want to poison raptors any more than the next guy.

For what it's worth I don't think of it as so black and white. I think your questions are valid and worthy of seeking answers to.

Only in the past five or so years did I start actively seeking out information and begin learning from science and those who do the research in various fields. The work I've put into understanding it (and I'll be frank there is very little I do understand, lol) has paid off many times over. My ability to apply epistemology in all parts of life was borne out of this effort.

It's not easy, particularly so for us who don't do work anything remotely related to research. Reading the abstract only gets us going in the right direction. Understanding the principles of research methodologies, their strengths and weaknesses and how they are applied is the important part.

This isn't directly related, but you may enjoy reading this book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Solve_It. It can be (legally) found in PDF form online pretty easily.

Also tangentially related: A couple years ago I came up with a list of questions to ask when consuming information--particularly online, but not only so:

1) What is the intent?
2) What possible biases might be influencing the content?
3) Being aware of my own personal biases, do I agree or disagree with this and why?
4) What are we expected to do with this information?

 

[Brian in Montana]

Anyway, on that note... Im going to go put on my MAGA cap and load up some Accubonds.

(I am being facetious now).

 

[Hammsolo]

Does anyone know how raptors react to copper plated shot? I have been hunting coyotes with some old copper-plated lead loads from the old goose days? Would the copper coating prevent the raptors from crushing the lead and absorbing it?

Interesting thought. I have not researched this, but have a solid understanding of the digestive system of a wide variety of species. I teach biology and wildlife biology.

The real problem for birds is their gizzard. If I eat a lead bullet it passes through me and will seem the same when passed in about 24 hours. My digestive acids will have removed an imperceptible layer of lead that has now been absorbed in through my intestines and into my bloodstream.

An eagle may eat shot or bullets intentionally or unintentionally. Why do birds intentionally eat pebbles? To aid in digestion due to their lack of teeth. They of course could ingest lead from a fish they caught that forages the bottom of ponds, or a gopher shot with a 22. That ingested lead will be much more mechanically digested while acting as grinders in the gizzard, that is the first modified section of stomach. They could stay there for some time as they do their job and send bits along the digestive tract.

 

[refuseresist]

Interesting thought. I have not researched this, but have a solid understanding of the digestive system of a wide variety of species. I teach biology and wildlife biology.

The real problem for birds is their gizzard. If I eat a lead bullet it passes through me and will seem the same when passed in about 24 hours. My digestive acids will have removed an imperceptible layer of lead that has now been absorbed in through my intestines and into my bloodstream.

An eagle may eat shot or bullets intentionally or unintentionally. Why do birds intentionally eat pebbles? To aid in digestion due to their lack of teeth. They of course could ingest lead from a fish they caught that forages the bottom of ponds, or a gopher shot with a 22. That ingested lead will be much more mechanically digested while acting as grinders in the gizzard, that is the first modified section of stomach. They could stay there for some time as they do there job and send bits along the digestive tract.

That's a really good point! Much of the answer is in physiological differences. I've taken that assumption for granted. And for the same reason chocolate, garlic and weed are highly toxic to dogs: They can't metabolize the substances properly.

Edit- this got me thinking about how testing on rats is so prevalent because they closely resemble human function in so many ways. Then through some googling I found this: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scie...ntific-triumphs-ethical-quandaries-180971533/

...which was a really good read on its own, but I thought the epilogue was quite fitting for this discussion:

“I think it comes down to how much we like them,” Makowska says. “People invest themselves much more in non-human primates. When it comes to dogs and cats, we have relationships with these animals. We are much more likely to acknowledge that they suffer.”
After all, if a mouse or rat escapes the lab to the streets of the city, it is considered a pest; anyone can kill it with impunity.

 

[refuseresist]

Sir John Franklin; lead poisoning before it was cool!

Word on the street is he also shot 6.5 cm

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Should state agencies start regulating minimum BC?

I stated the downsides of copper projectiles with zero reference to regulations. Of course they shouldn’t regulate BC.

 

[Gerald Martin]

What number of studies would be needed that arrive at the same outcome as to the impact on raptors and scavengers to satisfy the doubts some have?

Who needs to do the studies, if not fellow hunters, for doubts to be removed?

For me it was walking past the Raptor guys display at the BHA Rendezvous and seeing the gelatin block and pictures of bullet fragmentation. That got me thinking about the effect on scavengers.
About a month later I was frying up a piece of homemade summer sausage for a good old fried bologna sandwich and I saw a shiny sliver of fragmented Corelokt staring back at me from the slice of meat.
The clincher came when I considered bullet performance in terms of penetration and meat loss from over expansion with cheap bullets.
For me, I have viewed my nearly exclusive switch to monolithic copper bullets for big game as a positive step up in performance and function rather than settling for less.
As far as the complaint about higher costs, other than a couple year Corelockt deviation with a rifle that shot them extremely well, I used premium lead bullets before switching to copper. If there is any real world price difference between a box of Accubonds and a box of copper I doubt it’s more than the cost of a Town Pump coffee that I pick up going out of town to hunt.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Acceptable spending in the Modern Hunter's mind:
New rifle w/ scope: $2,500
Spotter (Let's go mid-range) $700
Bino's: $500
Fancy Camo: $1,500
ATV: $5,000
Camper: $10,000
3/4 Ton Truck (let's be generous & say used) $25,000
Affliction T-shirts & Jeans: $all your dignity
Premium bonded bullets: $35/box of 50

Unacceptable spending in the Modern Hunter's mind:
Copper bullets: $38/box of 50

My perspective on it - the monos I recently bought which seem to be most competitive with lead ballistically are cutting edge lazers at $1.68/ea projectile compared to $0.30-$0.55 for a berger or eld. I'm not going to shoot just 1 box of them a year, i'm probably going to shoot hundreds of bullets annually in most of my rifles.

I haven't looked at every link but I've yet to see a link where it shows human side effects from use of lead bullets. I'm not overly concerned with what is ingesting my gut piles in MT or MN. Perhaps i should be more concerned about my gut piles and I'm continuing to evaluate but i'm not to the point where I'm committed to spending more money for less performance with copper bullets. Honestly the performance is the main reason I haven't gotten on board with monos and paying way more for less performance makes it that much harder to switch. I realize for the average hunter who doesn't geek out about this stuff, shoots 2 boxes of ammo a year and is a MPBR type shooter limited to 200 yards, there is no reason not to switch.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

For further illustration.. I have a custom 7 SAUM that i'm planning to work up a load with 145 gr cutting edge lazer bullets. These are about the best BC mono available and should create wider wound channels than a barnes, gmx, or etip.

I expect this bullet to run about 3000 FPS out of my rifle. If you crunch the #'s you'll find this will have comparable external ballistics to a 6.5 creedmoor shooting 130 grain berger AR hybrids and I would not be surprised if the 130 bergers created a more devastating wound channel. So in effect, to shoot copper i'm shooting bullets that cost 4x as much through a more expensive chambering with less barrel life and more recoil to achieve similar results to what I could have gotten in a cheaper, more pleasant, and easier to shoot cartridge. Shooting expensive magnums to get creedmoor performance..

For a guy who shoots a box of ammo annually and isn't going to shoot over 200 yards, maybe it doesn't matter. We all know a lot of us geek out over these differences though.

 

[El Jason]

This thread is like watching a turd that circles endlessly but won’t go down the toilet.

 

[Gerald Martin]

For further illustration.. I have a custom 7 SAUM that i'm planning to work up a load with 145 gr cutting edge lazer bullets. These are about the best BC mono available and should create wider wound channels than a barnes, gmx, or etip.

I expect this bullet to run about 3000 FPS out of my rifle. If you crunch the #'s you'll find this will have comparable external ballistics to a 6.5 creedmoor shooting 130 grain berger AR hybrids and I would not be surprised if the 130 bergers created a more devastating wound channel. So in effect, to shoot copper i'm shooting bullets that cost 4x as much through a more expensive chambering with less barrel life and more recoil to achieve similar results to what I could have gotten in a cheaper, more pleasant, and easier to shoot cartridge. Shooting expensive magnums to get creedmoor performance..

For a guy who shoots a box of ammo annually and isn't going to shoot over 200 yards, maybe it doesn't matter. We all know a lot of us geek out over these differences though.

Different strokes and all that... each to their own.
My biggest limitation is time in the field, not my self-imposed 400 yard maximum distance or the or bullets that I choose to shoot.
Have there been times I didn’t take shots that others could have made? Absolutely. But that choice to not shoot was based on understanding my own ability to be accurate rather than bullet performance.
Something I don’t understand personally is taking a marginal elk caliber such as the 6.5 Creedmor and obsessing over how to get the best accuracy at ranges beyond where their kinetic energy is sub-optimal for the size of the animal.
Minimum velocity requirements for reliable expansion, kinetic energy, penetration and my personal accuracy skills in field conditions with the rifles I shoot all seem to converge right @ the 400-500 yard mark. That’s adequate for me.
From the research I have done, the advantages of better ballistic coefficients and sectional density take place at ranges beyond my personal ability to shoot so for me they’re not major factors in choosing a particular bullet.
Others have different input values in what determines their preferences for bullets and that’s fine.