Not sure about your local lake but the US Fish and Wildlife Service has been studying this for decades.I’m just asking because I don’t know the answer, I just know what the surgeon told me. Are they dying from eating lead pellets from a shotgun shell or drinking the water at my local reservoir?
Right but @SwaggyD took 1/3 the shots of 50 cent. Surgeon told him to go live life to the fullest and don’t swallow lake water. I’m curious as well doesn’t make sense.
Canyon Ferry is the lake he mentioned. How do they study one duck that has died from lead poisoning and say ‘it was from Darryl’s lead shotgun shell, not the water it drinks every day’. Genuinely curious.Not sure about your local lake but the US Fish and Wildlife Service has been studying this for decades.
Maybe they biopsy/ autopsy the duck, find how many pellets it has in its digestive system and they can correlate mass to amount of lead to determine cause of death. Hell I don't know! There's a reason you don't paint with lead anymore. Lol.Canyon Ferry is the lake he mentioned. How do they study one duck that has died from lead poisoning and say ‘it was from Darryl’s lead shotgun shell, not the water it drinks every day’. Genuinely curious.
Do they drink water with lead in it?
Thanks! I’ll read those.Pretty sure the lead is usually not in the water. It's in the mud/muck that waterfowl forage for seeds, tubers, insects, etc. It can be the pellets like elkfever said. The CDA river basin is an example of lead from mining, not hunters. Annual topic that comes up:
Click bait title, but interesting article here on the water in lake CDA:
Under Scott Pruitt, the Trump EPA approved the reopening of the Bunker Hill Mine on the nation’s second-largest Superfund site.www.bloomberg.com
If water gets acidic enough it can pull the lead and other metals out of soil and rock and make the water toxic. Berkeley pit would be an extreme example, not lead but other metals. But my limited (not a science person) understanding is that the idea behind how it works is similar.
On the night of Nov. 28, 2016, thousands of snow geese flew into the Berkeley Pit and landed on the toxic water. Thousands flew away, but between 3,000 to 4,000mtstandard.com
We? I'm speaking only for myself and my opinions. I don't profess to know everything. I may be wrong about something. Some day.
These lead bans are just another way for the antis to attack guns, gun owners, and hunting. I don't believe for a minute that it serves any useful purpose to benefit sportsmens resourses or the enviroment in any way. I believe we will have to pick a hill sooner or later. It is silly to keep giving away the high ground just to appease our enemies and people who are going to hate us regardless.
Well who is looking stupid kinda depends on who is doing the looking at who.So was it a way to stick it to gun owners to ban lead paint, lead gas, lead pipes? Seems like if we are going to pick a hill to fight on, could it at least be a fight that wasn't settled decades ago.
Or are we supposed to look at condors, and eagles and because there ain't a season on them not care if we are a cause of their harm?
I've shot steel shoot for 3 decades now. Coincidentally or not, during that time, waterfowl seasons have increased to over 100 days a year. Despite all the same dire warnings about the loss of lead.
This debate is one of those that really make hunters look stupid. We are conservationists, as long as we don't have to shoot copper. That's our red line ?
Also, lots of birds (upland/waterfowl) intentionally eat gravel/small stones/grit to help grind up food in their gizzard. You can often find pheasants/grouse doing just that on gravel roads. But I believe that was a major way ducks were getting exposed to lead shot; slurping it off the bottom of swamps. They aren't dying because the water in the wetland has lead in it, but directly from eating pellets.
Thanks for the explanation. This is what I was curious about.One more important piece of biology here... the lead that get's ingested is then dissolved and absorbed in the acidic digestive system. That's why a pellet in some muscle might not kill a bird from poisoning, but a pellet in the digestive system will.
When lakes/drinking water is acidic it does the same thing. For example, acidic water +lead pipes = bad drinking water.
It's really hard for me to continue to view environmentalists with a straight face.
When I saw this article https://www.hcn.org/articles/water-report-over-half-of-u-s-waters-are-too-polluted-to-swim-or-fish
I thought... that can't be true. So I went and looked at the original "report" which is incredibly generous label for that document. Turns out they simply used anything on the 303d list as not meeting the fishable and swimmable threshold. That list includes temperature, of which many of the local river around here are listed under, like the Columbia River, the same one that hosts >100k anadromous salmon a year and millions of resident fish, and within with 100k's of people swim in. Under no rational doctrine would anyone call it unfishable or unswimmable. Furthermore, we have a tributary "creek" that exceeds the temp threshold for most of the summer, every year. But it's almost entirely in the wilderness, without any real impacts from humans, except that the irrigation district manages a half a dozen of the lakes as reservoirs thus artificially maintaining higher cooler flows throughout the summer. It is loaded with trout, rainbows, westslope cutts, and bullies, yet apparently this is one of the unfishable and swimmable water bodies.
IMO this type of BS is just as bad as any anti-environment policy.
Sure, but it's not just the title, it's the entire article and the report behind it and the non-profit funding the report, it's way deeper than just a clicky title. It's a deliberate attempt to create data to fit an argument and call it "science".I see your point, and agree that misleading headlines/articles are not helpful in when trying wrestle with complicated issues. But I try hard not to get into an us vs them mindset on these issues. It's not like environmentalists got together and unanimously agreed that this article speaks for them.
I look at that article, my take home message is: the media is full of clickbait titles/exaggerations. Not that environmentalists overall are full of BS.
(To be clear, I'm not trying to misconstrue what you wrote as you thinking environmentalists are all full of BS).
Sure, but it's not just the title, it's the entire article and the report behind it and the non-profit funding the report, it's way deeper than just a clicky title. It's a deliberate attempt to create data to fit an argument and call it "science".
The longer I'm on this planet I find that more and more people are full of BS and hypocrisy, including environmentalists