Minnesota eagles fall prey to lead from hunters' bullets

[EJ_Mac]

Quote:

And this "lead is bad" stuff comes up every year (a few years ago, a lead "study" by some tree-hugging "scientist"

Not necessarily. Scientific American is hardly a "tree-hugging" publication.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...-ammunition-ban

First, you don't have to actually "eat" a bullet or pellet - just consume the meat that was contacted by it. It may be a small amount for human consumption, as we normally can see and avoid lead particles. Animals can't do that. One shotgun pellet and a full-grown raptor is done. But they're also being posioned by eating the meat that contacted the lead, too.

Also, remember that human beings are bigger, with a much higher bodyweight and a more varied diet, so we're not going to be as affected by eating lead-tainted meat as a 15-pound carnivorous bird that finds a dead deer and eats on it for 4 days straight, then flies off to try and find another.

But the issue is more about responsibility than it is a danger to humans, IMO. People have a hard time taking responsibility and sadly, many hunters are no different.

As hunters, when we see that something we're doing is hurting the resource, I think we have a responsibility to take a different course of action. That goes whether it's a game animal or not (maybe it's an animal that just happens to be our national symbol and IS federally-protected, for any genius who thinks eagles aren't "in danger" so it's OK that they die of lead posioning ).

As far as copper versus lead, this is the same debate that raged when lead was banned from waterfowl hunting, and today, much of the non-toxic shot for waterfowl hunting is just as good as lead. Better yet, waterfowlers know that the birds they kill are taken humaneley and cleanly, with none dying later on due to lead poisoning, suffering, and then ultimately going to waste.

I'd get used to restrictions like this, regardless whether they're advocated by a "tree-hugger" or not (does it really matter?). Because as people inhabit more of the planet, more of them take to the woods, those 'woods' get proportionally smaller, and natural resources diminish - this is what happens. It may be annoying and may be more expensive than what we've done in the past, but we really don't have such a surplus of wildlife that we can afford to "accidentally" be killing off animals with byproducts of our hunting practices. We need to change as the circumstances change.

Quote:

Why are we (or them) not finding dead ravens strewn about

I have found everything dead in the woods, from ravens, robins, and waterfowl to eagles, hawks and owls. I've also seen lead-poisoned geese and other animals. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

BTW - no species of wildlife should have to be "endangered" in order for us to care about its health and survival - not as ethical outdoorsmen and conservationists. Not caring about something that might be harming them is how they become endangered to begin with.

[leechlake]

merely a curiosity question here.

How many ducks are crippled and never recovered only to have the hunter keep hunting until he got his "limit" using steel shot vs the ducks that died from ingesting lead back when lead was legal?

I'm sure back in 1970-1980 or so studies were done showing how many ducks died from ingesting lead in some study. Was another study done once lead was banned? Probably not, but it should have been done. In my mind if more ducks were lost using steel vs lead than it's not a solution to the problem.

It does seem that like posted earlier this may be a solution to a problem that doesn't exist or is so rare that in the grand scheme of things isn't a priority vs other things.

[goblueM]

Leech, you're thinking about the issue merely through a narrow lens.

It isn't just ducks that are eating lead and dying, its all waterfowl, including loons. Also eagles and other scavengers that were eating the carcasses of animals dead by lead poisoning.

Its a larger environmental issue, not just a numbers game of how many ducks die each year from hunting and hunting-related activities

[psepuncher]

GUT PILES AND LEAD....WHAT A CONCEPT. {circa 1492}

I know alot of people who consume deer hearts.

And I'll also venture to say the majority of viscera finds it's way to the trash nowadays.

But somehow since the advent of lead, And one of our nation's most important tool since slice bread. The world animal population is thriving well today. I can remember since the dyas of the late 1900's when there were so many deer killed, but yet the eagle was removed from endangerd status, realy?....who'd a thunk?

[leechlake]

narrow lens or just focusing on ducks, depends on how you look at what I wrote. I'd wager zero loons have died from ingesting lead that they accidentally ate when eating pond weeds since their main diet is fish.

I think what gets frustrating for some of us is that many issues, not just outdoors are led by minority rules. Many times the minority has a pretty good voice because they use some emotionally led argument that sounds great but isn't backed up by solid facts. So, at times, we have ridiculous rules or laws that don't accomplish anything. Many times we forget about all of the rules and laws in Minnesota until you go to another state. We can't buy cars on Sunday or beer/alcohol why? Other states allow it. We're freaking about lead in venison and are deciding that we need to eliminate it from donation programs, why?

I guarantee the next time a freak one in a million accident happens some legislator will propose a bill making something illegal, why? Instead of focusing on issues that have a larger bearing on our lives it seems that many times we focus on the emotionally charged low lying fruit that really doesn't improve anyones life much, costs additional money, and takes peoples eyes off of the ball and things get worse instead of better.

[reinhard1]

+1. good luck.

[jentz]

So how long have coal burning plants been around??How much lead and mercury have they deposited? could it be that lead test seem to show? We should ban any and all coal burning!!I dont blame it on hunters! metals are all over!

[jmd1]

U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance

801 Kingsmill Parkway, Columbus, OH 43229

Ph. 614/888-4868 • Fax 614/888-0326

Website: www.ussportsmen.org • E-mail: [email protected]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Mike Faw (614) 888-4868 x 214

April 17, 2012 Sharon Hayden (614) 888-4868 x 226

U.S. House Votes to Protect Hunting /

Shooting on Public Land

(Columbus, Ohio) –With bipartisan support the U.S. House of Representatives today approved the most significant pro-sportsmen legislation in 15 years. H.R. 4089, which passed by a vote of 274-146, is a package of high priority issues supported by every nationally prominent conservation and sportsmen’s organization. The bill was supported by 235 Republicans and 39 Democrats.

Entitled The Sportsmen’s Heritage Act of 2012, H.R. 4089:

Classifies Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service lands as open to hunting, fishing and recreational shooting unless closed or restricted based on scientific evidence;

Confirms that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot ban lead in traditional ammunition or in sport fishing gear;

Protects recreational shooting on BLM National Monument land; and

Allows the import of legally hunted polar bear trophies now tangled in federal red-tape.

A major focus of the organizations that helped craft H.R. 4089 is to prevent frivolous lawsuits that unfairly restrict the rights of hunters, anglers and shooters and limit wildlife conservation and management. Over the last decade anti-hunting groups and their trial lawyers have filed multiple suits in courts arguing that existing federal law does not allow, or requires restrictions on fishing, hunting, and shooting on federal public lands. Defending against these suits has cost state and federal wildlife agencies and sportsmen’s organizations, including the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA), millions of dollars.

In 1998, USSA first proposed that federal BLM and Forest Service lands, which total over 700 million acres, be declared legally open to fishing, hunting and shooting unless closed by specific agency action. In the intervening years, USSA has worked to persuade the sporting community and Congress of the need for such legislation. House passage of H.R. 4089 is the result of this long effort to build strong legal barriers against anti-hunters and the animal rights lobby.

The bill also protects fishing tackle and ammunition from attacks. Recently, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a notice of intent to sue the federal government to force the U.S. EPA to ban the use of lead in ammunition and fishing tackle. Their claim misrepresented the intent of the Toxic Substance Control Act which was enacted in 1976 to allow the EPA to regulate new commercial chemicals entering the market and the distribution of existing chemicals found to pose unreasonable risks to public health or the environment. It was never intended to allow the regulation of ammunition and fishing tackle.

“H.R. 4089 spells out in plain language that hunting, fishing and recreational shooting are legitimate uses of federal public lands and that these lands are open, as a matter of law, to these traditional activities,” said Bud Pidgeon, USSA president and CEO. “And it makes it crystal clear that the U.S. EPA does not have the authority to restrict American’s choices of ammunition and fishing tackle.”

In addition to USSA, H.R. 4089 is supported by an array of sporting conservation groups including the American Sportfishing Association, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, and Safari Club International. A complete listing of supporters can be found here.

[laker1]

I just want to comment on the comment on loons not getting killed by lead. Autopsies of 100's of loons showed a very high correlation of death by lead toxcity,for some reason loons like to pick sinkers etc. of the bottom.Its a fact don't deny it.

I am not for a lead ban on rifles yet,but when the facts show there is a problem,we should not ignore them and bad mouth the results. I use to think sportsmen really cared about the environment. Most do,I think?

It is time to be mature and do what is necessary to protect the environment we really love.

[leechlake]

maybe it is a fact but just you typing it gives it zero credence. If it's a study it should be quoted or at least we should be told what study, this sounds like bar talk.

I'd guess (yes a guess) that more loons die getting stuck in whitefish nets than by eating a lead sinker. Let's ban nets first to save the most loons and then maybe lead.

100's of loons died in a year? Big whoop and I love loons and have a cabin on a lake that loons use as a staging area before migrating, nothing to see 80 loons in a "flock" late Summer it's an awesome thing to see.

You are making my point for me, stuff based on nothing factually just heart string emotional mumbo jumbo.

[flyfisher03]

Leech you want a fact that loons die from lead poisoning from ingesting lead fishing gear here is a website that references many scientific articles

http://www.tufts.edu/vet/loons/

Fact I think so.

[laker1]

Thanks Flyfisher for the site.

Yes leach we should back it up with info.-good point. I know one of the individuals who submitted many of the dead loons in the past and there first hand observation.

[psepuncher]

Leech you want a fact that loons die from lead poisoning from ingesting lead fishing gear here is a website that references many scientific articles

http://www.tufts.edu/vet/loons/

Fact I think so.

I also 2nd the link. It indicated children are susceptible to lead poison from sinkers and ........water.

I prefere to debate prudent info myself.

This tidbit is more unbiased, no?

Status of Minnesota Loon Population

Minnesota has more loons than all other states combined, excluding Alaska. In the 1980s, the Minnesota DNR’s rough estimate of the state’s loon population was 10,000 birds. Today, the agency places the number at about 12,000. Since 1994, the DNR has conducted an annual loon monitoring survey that serves as “an early warning system” to detect changes in the loon population. The survey shows that the loon population is holding steady. In the latest report (May 2000), program coordinator Rich Baker concludes that “Minnesota’s common loon population remains healthy in both number of adults and number of juveniles observed within the index areas.” 3

[BLACKJACK]

Its too bad some 'sportsmen' are more concerned about their pocketbooks than they are about protecting the environment and animals that they say they love. Lead is a proven poison, if eagles, loons, ducks, etc eat it, they die. Let’s stop the spread of this poison.

All I use on ducks and pheasants is two shot steel, I can count the number of crippled, lost birds in the last five years on one hand. It kills just fine if you're not sky busting.

There are good alternatives to lead bullets but they're expensive, and that’s where the whining comes in. Since steel has been required for waterfowl, the price has come down, the same would happen for rifle ammunition if more people used it. Unfortunately most hunters will go for the cheaper lead alternative, so its going to take a lead bullet ban for it to happen.

[goblueM]

+1 to everything Blackjack. I use Kent #2's for ducks and pheasants, had zero issues.

And if I was still rifle hunting for deer I'd buy some copper bullets. I don't like the idea of eating venison with lead fragments in it, I've seen them with my naked eye after shooting a deer.

[TylerS]

Well good on you guys for taking the high-and-mighty road. I'll stick with my lead split shots, copper-plated lead bullets, and, when legal, lead shotgun shells for any and all game.

[reinhard1]

+1. good luck.

[BLACKJACK]

good on you guys for taking the high-and-mighty road

Not taking the high and mighty road, just using what I've learned and observed over the years and making a decision to not spread poison out for the birds that I love to watch and hunt.

From a biological standpoint, all birds need grit to grind up their food in their gizzard. Put chickens in a cage with all the corn and water they can eat and they will eventually die without grit/rocks. Watch ground feeding birds under your birdfeeder or deer stand, they're hopping along eating any small morsel that looks like food or grit. Waterfowl hunters were singled out because they tended to congregate in certain spots and spread more lead around but even that random lead shot at a pheasant is going to leave little pieces of lead/grit for birds to come along and eat.

It’s a proven biological fact that it takes very few lead pellets to kill a bird. Its as simple as the math formulas we used to study in school, ‘A + B = C’, in this case ‘Lead shot + Birds = Dead Birds’.

Thirty years ago I didn’t know any better, now I do, not going to spread lead/poison around for birds to eat.

[EJ_Mac]

Quote:

But somehow since the advent of lead, And one of our nation's most important tool since slice bread. The world animal population is thriving well today. I can remember since the dyas of the late 1900's when there were so many deer killed, but yet the eagle was removed from endangerd status, realy?....who'd a thunk?

I'd hardly say the world animal population is "thriving." Not with urban sprawl, pollution, and habitat destruction being far more common than they were 100 years ago.

Also, the eagle was nearly wiped out by hunting and DDT, so it was listed as endangered. And as with all legislation, it took a long time after people noticed the decline in numbers until it actually became protected - until we actually started to DO something about it. But according to you, we should now ignore any information suggesting that lead may hurt not only eagles, but other species. So how long do we wait? And what does it hurt to try to do something on our own?

If YOU don't see it, it isn't there, apparently. Well, I see it every day. And it concerns me enough to take action in my own way - but not using lead. That's called "responsibility." Feel free to ignore the actions of sportsmen who actually care about our natural resources, all for the sake of laziness and personal convenience. But please don't try to tell the world that the state of the environment is peachy-keen and that all wildlife is "thriving" just because you haven't seen the things other people have.

If you really want facts, Google is your friend. You'll find two kinds of information on the net: scientific studies showing negative impacts on wildlife (including lead) and opinions from people like you who don't want to do anything about it because it's too expensive or too much effort. Personally, I'll take a scientific study over "bar talk." Especially when I see things that confirm what science is telling us and refutes all the chatter about "thriving" wildlife. But hey, that's just me.

Quote:

good on you guys for taking the high-and-mighty road

No one said anything about being "high and mighty." It's about taking responsibility and trying to help, and being more than just someone who simply takes from the resource, but who also protects it and tries to make it flourish. Understanding that wildlife needs assistance survive and trying to provide it is not being "high and mighty," and if you feel such an inability to be a part of the solution that you need to denigrate those who are trying to be, then I feel sorry for you.

[TylerS]

No one said anything about being "high and mighty." It's about taking responsibility and trying to help, and being more than just someone who simply takes from the resource, but who also protects it and tries to make it flourish. Understanding that wildlife needs assistance survive and trying to provide it is not being "high and mighty," and if you feel such an inability to be a part of the solution that you need to denigrate those who are trying to be, then I feel sorry for you.

And that's where our eyes don't meet. You think there is a problem (based on supposedlyunbiased scientific research) that requires a solution. I think the science is flawed, and backed by a anti-hunting agenda, thus creating the search for a solution (read: removal of lead) for a problem that really isn't there.

I'd much rather spend time, effort and resources on funding additional habitat and increased conservation through the education of a largely non-hunting, urban dwelling society, than by focusing legislation on the removal of, what has undeniably become, a standard of harvesting wild game; a move that is intrinsically divisive, pitting hunter against hunter.

[Musky Buck]

If our eagle numbers are high, I've heard that someplace that they are flourishing in MN, so I guess I don't quite get it.

[goblueM]

You think there is a problem (based on supposedlyunbiased scientific research) that requires a solution. I think the science is flawed, and backed by a anti-hunting agenda, thus creating the search for a solution (read: removal of lead) for a problem that really isn't there.

ah yes the good ol "flawed research" argument. From anti-hunting agencies such as USFWS and state DNRs even!

Debate all you want as to if banning lead shot for shotguns was worth the switch to steel, but its undeniable that lots of waterfowl die from ingesting lead.

[TylerS]

ah yes the good ol "flawed research" argument. From anti-hunting agencies such as USFWS and state DNRs even!

[BLACKJACK]

You can play the head in the sand approach all you want but just do a search on 'eagle lead poisoning', there are plenty of scientific papers written by biologists.

And excerpt from one:

Wildlife rehabilitators across the state of Iowa began gathering lead poisoning information on

Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in January 2004 for this ongoing project. Blood, liver, or bone

samples were analyzed for lead levels from 62 of the 82 eagles currently in the database. Thirty-nine eagles

showed lead levels in their blood above 0.2 ppm or lead levels in their liver above 6 ppm, which could be

lethal poisoning without chelation treatment. Seven eagles showed exposure levels of lead (between 0.1

ppm and 0.2 ppm in blood samples, between 1 ppm and 6 ppm in liver samples, and between 10 ppm and

20 ppm in bone). Several of the eagles admitted with traumatic injuries showed underlying lead exposure or

poisoning. Over fifty percent of the eagles being admitted to Iowa wildlife rehabilitators have ingested lead.

Behavioral observations, time-of-year data analysis, and x-ray information point to lead shrapnel left in

slug-shot White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) carcasses to be a source of this ingested lead. With

thousands of Bald Eagles spending the winter in Iowa (up to one fifth of the lower 48 states population),

this poisoning mortality could be significant and is preventable. Educational efforts are being directed at

encouraging deer hunters to switch from lead to non-toxic (copper) slugs and bullets.