Finally, a small victory for hunters.

[CBronson]

when lead or other foreign debris are introduced into the body by one form or another your body will usually seal off the foreign material in fat and scar tissue to isolate it from the rest of your body and so long as said object does not introduce an infection into the body it can be inside you for a basically unlimited amount of time with no ill effects so long as it is left undisturbed...

I am honestly ok with nontoxic bullets for hunting now that the legislation has started there are many more non toxic bullets on the market than there used to be and the price has come down significantly mind you the bullets need not be solid copper to fit into the bill of non toxic and honestly how many bullets does one typically shoot at animals in a given year outside of varmint serous varmint hunters most people only fire a few rounds at game and when you compare guiding metal bullets to premium bonded core bullets the price difference is minimal .09 per bullet comparing hornady non toxic to bonded core and there a few varmint offering which are non toxic and only cost a few cents more per bullet even using barnes as the example 50 bullets for 6.5 cost 34 bucks and i know i probably wont shoot at big game more than 50 times in the next 10 years and to be perfectly honest i use barnes for my hunting loads any way so as to not risk introducing lead in to the diets of my family and friends as well as my own

on the topic of using non toxic at ranges i feel it is mostly bs as ranges are built with retrieving the lead in mind and are mined for lead every few years so that lead is not staying in the environment that in addition to the fact that lead oxidizes very quickly and does not react further once oxidized basically if people or animals are not eating the bullets your shooting the need not be non toxic

Nice response.

[CBronson]

That's fair. If someone were to have an agenda, they could sway their results, ie cigarette companies conducting research to prove that cigarettes don't pose a health threat. But thats bad science. Most of these articles, depending on the journal, are put under the review of experts before they are granted publication. Under harsh enough scrutiny, any scientific theory will come up with some holes, but it is the sum of research that determines whether the data or the holes are statistically significant. I'm not saying that article was an end all by any means nor do I disagree that their sample size was pretty small for their claim, but it points in the direction that lead is causing problems.

So far as environmentalists, I would consider myself one as well as anyone intelligent enough to realize it is a bad idea to crap in the water hole (pardon the term). I don't see anything wrong with striving toward a sustainable lifestyle and that is the goal of environmental research. The activists on the other hand, I'll have to agree that the majority of them are either self-righteous idiots or idealist adolescents with too much angst.

Back to the issue, sure, anti-gun politicians can absolutely pervert findings, whether legitimate or not, to suit their agendas. I'm just no sure if that's the case with the Center for Biodoversity. Have they been known for protesting ethical hunting?

[rickOshay]

I think most of the members of this forum would consider themselves environmentalists. However, the term has taken on a negative light due to environmental extremists. Extremism, be it religious, political, or environmental only makes it hard for those in the center to have a rational discussion.

I am a scientist, retired from the corporate world, and now consulting for renewable (green) fuels and chemicals. So my profession is dedicated to ending petroleum use and improving the environment.

And while I agree that this is not junk science, I would say that it appears to be a result of people with an answer out looking for the question. It appears that there is a desire to link lead to the endangerment of these birds. Although I have not read the body of literature cited by the one referenced by CBronson ( I will), I did not see any reference to what is a toxic level for these birds. And although the samples showed wide variation in levels, with 4 out of 150 seeming to be really high, we must remember that these feathers were taken from living, healthy birds. Not dead birds from obvious lead poisoning, or sickly birds in a condor rescue. So I do think this paper is trying hard to make a case that the authors have already decided.

I am in favor of non toxic anything, including ammunition. But I am not in favor of more government regulation, especially in the area of the 2nd Amendment.

[LRRPF52]

If you want to read a real scientific study of lead from shooting, read this one:

http://leadammunitiongroup.co.uk/pdf/Fer...%20Quy.pdf


Even though they basically do the same thing as the ultra amateur 152 feather study from condors in South America, they do admit throughout the paper that no real differences in toxicity were evident between non-shot and shot areas.

Overall, it was found that the bioavailability of lead in soils from both shot and non-shot sites was very low although higher in the shooting areas. Lead movement from soil water to higher trophic levels was minor and lead concentrations in biota were below statutory levels in all locations.

The study showed that despite a high deposition of lead pellets, the pellets remained relatively inert.

The effectiveness of the different methods for detecting ingested pellets has been evaluated. Visual examination missed 24% of ingested pellets because small, eroded pellets could not be distinguished from seeds and grit; X-rays of intact gizzards missed 28% of ingested pellets as they failed to detect small pellets obscured by grit, food and the muscular wall of the gizzard (study cited by [118]). Visual examination of grit in 3,389 mallard gizzards found ingested pellets in 6.3%, with the rate rising to 7.9% when grit samples were X-rayed and then to 8.2% when food samples that had been separated from the grit were also X-rayed [3]. The incidence of shot-in pellets was considered high enough (5.8% in 13,246 mallards) to influence interpretation of data if such pellets were not properly identified.

In a recent (2006) study on condors in California, a
17
background level of 3.75 μg/dl blood lead was used, substantially lower than the previous criterion [23]. The higher level was established when environmental lead exposures were greater than they are now and before there was widespread recognition of the precautions necessary to avoid sample lead contamination during collection, processing, and analysis.

Use of wet weights can produce sizeable errors as the degree of drying can be difficult to quantify and it has been recommended that drying to constant weight is necessary to produce reliable data [1]. An approximate conversion factor is 1 μg/g wet weight = 3-4 μg/g dry weight [96].

I could go on and on with the key points of a highly-detailed study such as this one. I suggest reading the "conclusions" first, and absorb what is said. Then go back and study the data if you wish. The whole thing is filled with "maybes", "possibly's", extremely large error margins, and even admissions that the studies are inconclusive, with no measurable differences in animal mortality. They also mention "suffering" experienced by birds who have been poisoned.

I'll tell you about birds suffering. When I have shot ducks with bizmuth, they don't go down, and continue to fly on. That is animal cruelty in my book, but I was limited by the local regulations when in those hunting trips. The only duck I saw downed was done illegally by my cousin, who used lead shot. We ate it, and it was a great meal, but only one duck harvested after a week of hunting them.

On top of that, the duck population was so scarce, thanks to our communist environmental activist useful idiot eco-terrorists, who released thousands upon thousands of farmed minks from their cages. (This was in Finland, where there are over 188,000 lakes.) The results were devastating for not only duck populations, but every other mamillian species except for one particular toad, which minks can't stand due to its horrid taste. They find duk nests, and every other bird nest on the ground, as well as in trees, and devour them like it was candy at Halloween. They even attack domestic animals and children. These releases have occurred in the UK & Sweden a well.

This whole subjet has nothing to do with conservationism and environmental protection, and everything to do with attacking firearms ownership via regulatory and economic warfare, to achieve the end goal of disarmament. It really is that simple, and if you choose to believe otherwise, you're fooling yourself.

[rickOshay]

Thank you LRRPF52 - good reading. Especially Summary Item #7.

[txgunner00]

I think most of the members of this forum would consider themselves environmentalists. However, the term has taken on a negative light due to environmental extremists. Extremism, be it religious, political, or environmental only makes it hard for those in the center to have a rational discussion.

I am a scientist, retired from the corporate world, and now consulting for renewable (green) fuels and chemicals. So my profession is dedicated to ending petroleum use and improving the environment.

And while I agree that this is not junk science, I would say that it appears to be a result of people with an answer out looking for the question. It appears that there is a desire to link lead to the endangerment of these birds. Although I have not read the body of literature cited by the one referenced by CBronson ( I will), I did not see any reference to what is a toxic level for these birds. And although the samples showed wide variation in levels, with 4 out of 150 seeming to be really high, we must remember that these feathers were taken from living, healthy birds. Not dead birds from obvious lead poisoning, or sickly birds in a condor rescue. So I do think this paper is trying hard to make a case that the authors have already decided.

I am in favor of non toxic anything, including ammunition. But I am not in favor of more government regulation, especially in the area of the 2nd Amendment.

Well said. You are something of an anomaly- pro second amendment environmental scientist. Don't hear that every day.LOL


I'm also for non-toxic but as LLRPF52 posted, lead has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be toxic in the the environment.

[CBronson]

Looks like a good read. I'll read through it over the next day or two and get back to you. Nice talking with you guys.

[rickOshay]

Well said. You are something of an anomaly- pro second amendment environmental scientist. Don't hear that every day.LOL

Anomaly ? That's not the word my wife uses. But thanks - I enjoy not fitting into boxes.

[Variable]

And while I agree that this is not junk science, I would say that it appears to be a result of people with an answer out looking for the question. It appears that there is a desire to link lead to the endangerment of these birds. Although I have not read the body of literature cited by the one referenced by CBronson ( I will), I did not see any reference to what is a toxic level for these birds. And although the samples showed wide variation in levels, with 4 out of 150 seeming to be really high, we must remember that these feathers were taken from living, healthy birds. Not dead birds from obvious lead poisoning, or sickly birds in a condor rescue. So I do think this paper is trying hard to make a case that the authors have already decided.

This.

Cherry picking puffery in search of grants while bolstering an agenda to boot.

Hummm, what do I want to prove today? How about: water causes cancer?

Lets see...

1.) Some people die of cancer.

2.) Those people consumed water at some point in their life.

3.) There is obviously a Corrolary here-- hence water is carcinogenic.

4.) Lets ban water.


Junk science: They arrive at their conclusion at the outset. Then they sift through massive piles of data looking for even the tiniest things that "might" corroborate it. They ignore anything contradictory as it doesn't get them to their preconceived notion.


I wonder if they mine lead in Argentina????? Oh yeah.... They do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Argentina
Hrrrmmmm. You reckon there might be naturally occuring lead in their environment already? How about if critters around mine tailing piles just happened to get eaten by raptors? Do you suppose that if you banned lead mining and magically sealed every mine in the region that an area with abundant (read commercially viable) deposits of lead might still offer it up to the flora and fauna despite their best banning efforts sometimes?

Nah, doesn't suit their notion, just ignore it.

[Schwag173]

Exactly.

[LRRPF52]

Our academia was taken over by communists, starting in the late 1800's, with most of the instructors and professors looking favorably on Karl Marx's ideas by the 1950's. Since disarmament of populations is absolutely necessary for Marxism-Leninism to succeed, an anti-firearms ownership template is fostered among elitists in most universities and propaganda machines posing as journalists. People who own firearms are portrayed as mentally ill, out of touch, old-fashioned, and alarmist.

Since there has been a continuing string of favorable court decisions in favor of self protection, firearms ownership, and individual rights, these marxists have been forced to cover-down on back-door restrictions as a means to continue the slow eradication of firearms ownership, and economic warfare combined with extra-judicial "rulings" by unconstitutional federal agencies have been working well for them.

If you'll recall, the Obama Administration's EPA declared a ban on lead ammunition and lead fishing weights in 2009, followed by a massive flood of calls to Congress, immediately reversing this "ruling" by the EPA. Switching gears to the individual States has been "productive" for them, since they can rely on socialists who occupy State legislatures, city councils, and other no-show jobs funded by the burdened taxpayers.

[bwaites]

Last Saturday night, Paul M. Barret, the author of Glock: The rise of America's Gun, spoke at the Boomershoot fund raiser. Mr. Barrett is a reporter, and even though he works for BusinessWeek, which is owned by Bloomberg (yes, that Bloomberg), he is an open minded journalist.

The book has some sections that are critical of BOTH sides of the argument regarding the 2nd Amendment.

I asked him during the Q&A after his speech if there was a significant difference in how Pro 2nd Amendment advocates and the opposition had responded to his book. He was pretty candid, and said that Pro 2nd Amendment people had been almost invariably positive in their response to the book, even though there were criticisms leveled at them in the book.

However, anti-2nd Amendment forces were almost uniformly negative, and he even mentioned that some co-workers and others whom he would have considered previously friendly had essentially shut him out and refused to speak with him any longer.

Isn't it strange that we bitter clingers are so much more willing to examine another viewpoint, different from our own, without condemning it out of hand?

Who REALLY are the close minded folk?

[txgunner00]

Who REALLY are the close minded folk?

Well it's the angry, conservative male, of course!

[rickOshay]

Here is a link to an interesting summary on lead mobility by those exacting scientific types at SAAMI:
http://www.saami.org/specifications_and_...bility.pdf

Their summary on page 12 is:

Studies published to date indicate a general lack of lead mobility under most environmental conditions. From the relatively few lead mobility studies conducted at shooting ranges, pH appears to be an important factor. Surface water pH values of ≥7.0 tend to indicate restricted lead mobility whereas pH values of ≤6.5 tend to indicate enhanced lead mobility. Attempts to statistically correlate lead concentrations in water with pH, alkalinity, or shot density, however, have not been successful, likely due to complex interactions of several other environmental factors.

[LRRPF52]

On the pH scale, it helps if you know that 7 is neutral, and pure water is usually 7-neither alkaline nor acidic. Your body works hard to keep your blood at 7.35, which is slightly alkaline. People who have a lot of acidosis in their tissues usually are on their way to taking a permanent dirt nap.

Lead breaks down in acidic soil/moisture environments, and forms an oxidized surface that is exacerbated by copper-jacketed bullets, which is an even safer condition for it to be in according to the study I cited several posts back.

As with any centralized gubm't power-grab or activist issue based on emotions, the facts have zero relevance, and can be sifted and cherry-picked to fit an agenda.

[OLd Man]

Gallena Illinois is home to many old lead mines. There is naturally occuring lead in the soil in pieces that are big enough to pick up. There have been people living in that area for centuries. There you expect to find lead if you are lookeng in the soil. People there don't even think about it and seem to have no ill effects. Other places ( Chicago) people claim illness and retardation from the dust of old lead paint. You have to be careful, if you try hard enough you can find what ever you want too.

[rickOshay]

Guess that explains why there are no Condors in Gallena. :p