What's the straight dope on lead ammo?

[Lumpy]

Two things that are indisputably true: (1.) There is virtually no substitute for lead that can match it's utility in firearms; and (2.) Lead is not a good thing in our environment. So the question becomes how to balance the two. Naturally we don't want an ammo ban to be a form of back-door gun control, but is lead toxicity a genuine concern for wildlife? With the proposed lead ammo ban currently in session, I would like to make heads or tails of the competing claims about lead residue from hunting, and the effectiveness (if any) of the proposed ban.

[yuppiejr]

It depends on your perspective, if you are of the "if it saves just one life" (eagle or otherwise) the ban is worthwhile, like most chicken little causes (going with the theme tonight). If you consider it from a rational, scientific perspective it's unlikely that the amount of lead hunters introduce to the environment is statistically significant enough to cause a measurable impact on the local environment compared to other causes.

This isn't about being rational.

[crbutler]

Number 2 is not necessarily true.

Lead is ubiquitous in our environment. It is found in most samples of earth in minute trace amounts. It is also something that is found in high concentrations in some places (like where they mine it as an example...)

Excessive amounts of anything are a problem for living creatures that are not biologically adapted to that level of a substance- if you drink too much water, you die; if you breathe too much air (oxygen) you pass out before you can blow off enough CO2 to kill yourself- but living in 100% oxygen is not possible either.

Lead has become one of these pseudoscientific bugaboos.

Excessive exposure to lead is harmful- the question is what is "excessive"? It used to be we ran toxicology tests on lower animals and extrapolated the information based on LD 50 or LD 95 to discover a "threshold" but now our level of knowledge is such that we think certain things have no positive value, and if something with no positive value is associated with toxicity at a higher level we state that there is no acceptable threshold- stuff like dioxin is something that is held this way. The problem is as we get more advanced, we are able to detect these "unacceptable" items at a lower and lower concentration.

Lead is neither fish nor fowl. It is present in the environment at some level everywhere. However, it is not known to be at all necessary for life. Every living creature has detectable lead levels in it, but where do we draw the line of what is acceptable?

In the case of lead and ammunition, no study has shown any real world level of problems with lead- the DNR in fact admits this as far as lead from hunting, but there is data from studies that exposed animals to much higher levels of lead than would be conceivable in a real world setting and some lead toxicity was found. Some of the original studies showed large "correction" factors to make up for what they were assuming were carcasses that were killed by lead but not actually collected.

Right now, the DNR seems to be saying we know that there are no real findings here, but since everyone knows that lead is bad, we should get rid of it... and be proactive, after all any additional pollution theoretically is bad, even if we cannot prove it.

This neglects the increased losses due to crippling (yes steel is much better than it was, but it is no where near as efficient as lead...) and the decrease in opportunity due to increased costs.

It also paves the way for bans down the road (remember that anything can be bad in excess... Iron is just as capable of being a problem if you ingest too much of it...) so what do we do if we agree that lead is a problem, and then in 20 years they decide that "even one life" is too much and we need to get rid of steel shot or copper projectiles? We will have already acquiesced to any pollutant is bad.

In my opinion, we are being led down a path that has no real good end.

If the DNR had solid evidence that lead in the amounts that are found in actual hunting areas (as opposed to lead smelters or toxic waste dumps) in MN is toxic and causing a problem, then yes, I would agree to a ban. As long as its theoretical and involves "modelling" I would decline.

[photogpat]

The DNR has spent most of its time shooting down the opposition's arguments to this ban, instead of showing the actual wildlife populations (not individual animals) impacted by lead shot. They simply can't show a scientific based need or benefit.

Yes, certain lead compounds (like those in lead paint) can be toxic. Elemental lead in monolithic metal form (shot), is a different beast from a toxicity perspective. Studies HAVE shown that hunter's blood lead levels can increase after eating game harvested with lead shot...but in no cases outside of subsistence hunting have they shown them to rise to a level becoming toxic or requiring treatment...and the study in ND actually showed that collectively, the hunters in the study had blood lead LESS than the average American.

Make your own choices about what type of shells or bullets you want to use...but don't legally limit options. I like to stay pro-choice on the matter.

[Ghost]

Interesting story here
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/nongame/projects/leadout.html

Lead poisoning of a loon
It started when the DNR received a report on a loon that had not migrated. It was the day after Thanksgiving, and the lake was freezing. The loon was keeping a small hole open in the ice on Big Jay Gould Lake near Cohasset in Itasca County. Members of the Cohasset Fire Department used the "ice angel" air boat and wet suits to retrieve the loon. Early the next morning, the loon was taken to the Garrison Animal Hospital and was diagnosed with lead poisoning. An x-ray showed that a lead jig-head was in its stomach, and blood tests indicated a blood lead level of 2.28 parts per million (ppm). By the time the lead jig was removed, it was too late. The lead had already poisoned the bird. It died. Lead poisoning occurs in birds of blood levels greater than 0.2 ppm and birds usually die with levels greater than 1.2 ppm.

Also referenced is this
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10370_12150_12220-26676--,00.html

[Holland&Holland]

There was a dead turkey this morning on 94 near saint Cloud. I guess we need to ban roads.

[JJ]

Interesting story here
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/nongame/projects/leadout.html

Lead poisoning of a loon
It started when the DNR received a report on a loon that had not migrated. It was the day after Thanksgiving, and the lake was freezing. The loon was keeping a small hole open in the ice on Big Jay Gould Lake near Cohasset in Itasca County. Members of the Cohasset Fire Department used the "ice angel" air boat and wet suits to retrieve the loon. Early the next morning, the loon was taken to the Garrison Animal Hospital and was diagnosed with lead poisoning. An x-ray showed that a lead jig-head was in its stomach, and blood tests indicated a blood lead level of 2.28 parts per million (ppm). By the time the lead jig was removed, it was too late. The lead had already poisoned the bird. It died. Lead poisoning occurs in birds of blood levels greater than 0.2 ppm and birds usually die with levels greater than 1.2 ppm.

Also referenced is this
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10370_12150_12220-26676--,00.html

Anecdotes do not a trend make. If there was a legitimate long term threat documented, it would be one thing. Much like any other discussion on gun rights, should we really be restricting the thousands of hunters here in MN because a couple animals died?

Is there some risk associated with the use of lead shot? Yes. is there a widespread documented trend of wild game dying? No

[igofast]

I don't understand why we don't have scientific tests that are conclusive about this - and I expect that's the point. If there was a conclusive test that showed we were poisoning animals it would be a slam dunk - if not look to California for the way things will go if left unchecked(from https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/hunting/nonlead-ammunition):

Nonlead Ammunition in California

Effective July 1, 2008, the California Fish and Game Commission modified the methods of take to prohibit the use of projectiles containing lead when hunting big game and nongame species in an area designated as the California condor range.

In October 2013, Assembly Bill 711 was signed into law requiring the use of nonlead ammunition when taking any wildlife with a firearm in California. This law requires the Commission to adopt by July 1, 2015, regulations that phase-in the statute’s requirements, but it must be fully implemented by July 1, 2019.

CDFW conducted extensive public outreach during 2014 and proposed regulations that phase-in the nonlead requirement. This outreach effort included question and answer sessions at sportsmen’s shows, meetings with hunting organizations and a series of eight public workshops throughout the state. CDFW then presented draft regulations, as modified by public input from these workshops, to the Fish and Game Commission.

In April 2015, the Fish and Game Commission adopted CDFW’s proposed regulations, which will implement the nonlead requirement in the following three phases:

Phase 1 – Effective July 1, 2015, nonlead ammunition will be required when taking Nelson bighorn sheep and all wildlife on state wildlife areas and ecological reserves.

Phase 2 – Effective July 1, 2016, nonlead shot will be required when taking upland game birds with a shotgun, except for dove, quail, snipe, and any game birds taken on licensed game bird clubs. In addition, nonlead shot will be required when using a shotgun to take resident small game mammals, furbearing mammals, nongame mammals, nongame birds, and any wildlife for depredation purposes.

Phase 3 – Effective July 1, 2019, nonlead ammunition will be required when taking any wildlife with a firearm anywhere in California.

Existing restrictions on the use of lead ammunition in the California condor range remain in effect while implementation proceeds.

[Ghost]

Anecdotes do not a trend make. If there was a legitimate long term threat documented, it would be one thing. Much like any other discussion on gun rights, should we really be restricting the thousands of hunters here in MN because a couple animals died?

Is there some risk associated with the use of lead shot? Yes. is there a widespread documented trend of wild game dying? No

I'm definitely not pro lead ban. Just posting up that sinkers are likely much more of an issue than shot and considerably less than bullets.

[photogpat]

Anecdotes do not a trend make. If there was a legitimate long term threat documented, it would be one thing. Much like any other discussion on gun rights, should we really be restricting the thousands of hunters here in MN because a couple animals died?

Is there some risk associated with the use of lead shot? Yes. is there a widespread documented trend of wild game dying? No

I'm definitely not pro lead ban. Just posting up that sinkers are likely much more of an issue than shot and considerably less than bullets.

Bullets are less of an issue than shot.

Eagle populations, which are usually given as the victims of lead bullets, are at RECORD highs in Minnesota and elsewhere. If it were a serious problem, we'd see their populations tanking.

If you're really concerned about eagles, cover your gut piles. If you're concerned about "health effects" and are NOT a subsistence meat hunter you're fooling yourself. If all else fails, YOU personally have a CHOICE to buy and shoot copper bullets.

But don't legislate away that CHOICE for the rest of us...please and thank you.

[MJY65]

Anecdotes do not a trend make. If there was a legitimate long term threat documented, it would be one thing. Much like any other discussion on gun rights, should we really be restricting the thousands of hunters here in MN because a couple animals died?

Is there some risk associated with the use of lead shot? Yes. is there a widespread documented trend of wild game dying? No

I'm definitely not pro lead ban. Just posting up that sinkers are likely much more of an issue than shot and considerably less than bullets.

I see your point and agree. As a side note: That seems like a lot of resources to spend on saving a bird. I guess there's some training benefit to using the equipment, but perhaps the money could be spent more productively.

[CROSBYK2]

Interesting story here
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/nongame/projects/leadout.html

Lead poisoning of a loon
It started when the DNR received a report on a loon that had not migrated. It was the day after Thanksgiving, and the lake was freezing. The loon was keeping a small hole open in the ice on Big Jay Gould Lake near Cohasset in Itasca County. Members of the Cohasset Fire Department used the "ice angel" air boat and wet suits to retrieve the loon. Early the next morning, the loon was taken to the Garrison Animal Hospital and was diagnosed with lead poisoning. An x-ray showed that a lead jig-head was in its stomach, and blood tests indicated a blood lead level of 2.28 parts per million (ppm). By the time the lead jig was removed, it was too late. The lead had already poisoned the bird. It died. Lead poisoning occurs in birds of blood levels greater than 0.2 ppm and birds usually die with levels greater than 1.2 ppm.

Also referenced is this
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10370_12150_12220-26676--,00.html

Anecdotes do not a trend make. If there was a legitimate long term threat documented, it would be one thing. Much like any other discussion on gun rights, should we really be restricting the thousands of hunters here in MN because a couple animals died?

Is there some risk associated with the use of lead shot? Yes. is there a widespread documented trend of wild game dying? No

I found a dead loon on Leach lake that obviously died from starvation caused by fishing line wrapped around its beak. Should we ban fishing line? I don't think so either.

[Ghost]

I found a dead loon on Leach lake that obviously died from starvation caused by fishing line wrapped around its beak. Should we ban fishing line? I don't think so either.

Baby steps, baby steps

[Nougat]

I wonder if rodents poisoned by those little bait stations for pest control have any adverse effect on birds?

[Holland&Holland]

So wait, am I no longer supposed to bite the lead BB weights anymore?