Just a few more points from the crowd that thinks the whole "eating lead shot killed waterfowl" thing was a scam, that eagles are not a big deal, and that proof that bullet fragments are causing lead poisoning in eagles is lacking:
1. The waterfowl debate is over and done with. We were shown lead pellets in ducks and geese that got sick and died. If they're getting sick and dying now at anything approaching the same rate, why isn't it being reported? Why are we not seeing them? The evidence would seem to show that by not depositing 25 years worth of lead shot around wetlands, we've significantly reduced the numbers of ducks and geese dying from lead poisoning. And easy enough to tell if left-over lead shot is involved if a duck or goose does die from lead poisoning. While a lead fragment may not conclusively come from a bullet, it's hard to come up with anything else out there that looks like a lead shotgun pellet. (And that fact actually HELPS us when the anti-lead folks suggest we shouldn't be shooting lead shot at upland birds. Why not? Show us the upland birds dying from ingested lead shot. The Wisconsin DNR tested woodcock with high lead levels . . . but they did not find lead shot in any of the birds, and admitted the lead could have been acquired from the soil in which woodcock feed, or from the worms they eat.)
2. If an eagle is sick or dies and has both high lead levels and lead fragments: Yes, it's possible the fragments are not the source (or are not the SOLE source) of lead in the bird's system; and yes, it's possible that the fragments didn't come from bullets. But those fragments don't come from lead in the air (which has been significantly reduced thanks to unleaded gas) nor from the water they might drink, nor from the fish they eat. Not nearly as likely as in the past that they'd come from paint chips, since lead-based paint is far less common than it used to be. All in all, it's harder to prove that an eagle with lead poisoning and fragments didn't get those fragments from scavenging something that was shot. And unfortunately for those who hunt with rifles, while we can easily say shotgun pellets aren't the problem because we don't see any, the guys who use bullets are going to be pushed into a position of proving those fragments come from something OTHER THAN BULLETS. Otherwise, bullets will be the assumed source. And the only real way to prove they're not is to switch to non-lead bullets . . . and see if the problem goes away. But good luck switching back to lead.
3. Lead is toxic. Toxic = bad. Why not get rid of as much of it as possible? And we can shoot steel shot, and there are nontoxic substitutes for lead bullets. So we are ALL going to have to deal with the challenge of why shouldn't we switch, rather than defending the status quo by saying why should we. That, unfortunately, is where we're at. And in states where we don't have strong hunter numbers (like California), we might very well find ourselves in the same boat they're in. All we can do is make as much noise as possible, and insist on "good science". But we're shooting ourselves in the foot if we keep trying to fight the battles we've already lost (like waterfowl).
With that . . .I'm outta this discussion. Unless someone can come up with an EXPERT source, from among all the wildlife biologists out there, who tells us that the lead ban on waterfowl was just one big scam. That I'd like to see.
Last edited by L. Brown; 01/26/16 06:29 PM.
