Please Sign In


New To Sportsman Network?

Lead ban

Reply
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/interior-secretary-repeals-ban-on-lead-bullets/ar-AAnJfF0?li=BBnb7Kz
I'm guessing that I still have to use non-toxic shot when duck hunting?

I do think lead was more efficient at getting clean kills over steel. Would like to see a study on how many birds and other critters died of lead poison back in the day v. how many cripples are lost when hit with steel.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/interior-secretary-repeals-ban-on-lead-bullets/ar-AAnJfF0?li=BBnb7Kz
Reply
   Lreynolds
Yes, you have to use non-toxic shot for waterfowl hunting as you have for at least 25 years.

The study (studies) you ask about have long been done. If you are really interested, you can read these 2 publications:

1) http://people.eku.edu/sumithrans/Migrat/READINGS/pbpoison/Pbpoison.htm

Along with a complete summary of lead poisoning with the associated scientific research and publications, on page, the section at: http://people.eku.edu/sumithrans/Migrat/READINGS/pbpoison/toxicosi.htm contains a review of the lead/steel shot field shooting studies. Remember, these studies were done during a time that hunters' guns, chokes, and wingshooting experience was entirely with lead-shot, but look at their performance with lead shot. We like to forget how many ducks we crippled and lost with lead shot. Spy-blind studies were done long before and after steel-shot regulations to estimate the crippling loss for waterfowl, and those losses are built into our 'kill rate' estimates by adding crippling to our harvest data. On average 1 bird is crippled and lost for every 4 brought to bag, and that rate remains the same.

2) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261061713_Ingestion_of_Lead_and_Nontoxic_Shotgun_Pellets_by_Ducks_in_the_Mississippi_Flyway

Using the same gizzard-collection methods used to quantify lead-ingestion in Flyway and nation-wide duck populations prior to the lead-shot ban for waterfowl hunting, the ingestion of lead and non-toxic pellets was evaluated at least 5 years after the ban. This is the seminal study confirming the clear benefits of the ban in reducing lead-ingestion. We have done similar work at Catahoula Lake showing similar shifts in composition of ingested pellets.

This is old stuff because the science is settled for waterfowl. There is a more recent summary of lead-related studies, with an extensive literature cited at: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/wildlife/research2007/13_lead_shot.pdf which includes some nice work on other species. Studies continue today on species like mottled ducks, that continue to have high lead-ingestion rates because they spend year-round on heavily hunted habitats, and in locations like Catahoula Lake, where lead remains available in relatively large amounts.
Reply
   DCDUCK1
Larry is the department still seeing a large frequency of lead ingestion in the gizzard studies on Catahoula at this date? I would have figured due to the rate of sedimentation and the high S.G of lead that it would have been beyond the reach of the waterfowl by now. I clean a good portion of my gizzards and I cant remember the last time I have found any ingested lead shot. I do see quite of few instances of steel ingestion. Due to the fact that a lot of ducks on Catahoula feed the adjacent agricultural fields which also provides dove shooting with lead do would think this might skew any data?
Reply
   Lreynolds
After gizzard collections in 2007-08, which you assisted in, I had hoped it was declining to the point where we could quit flooding the lake to 34.0 as soon as the season ended and maintain or increase (depending on what the water level had done during the season) foraging habitat for ducks until at least March 15. But gizzard collections in 2011-12 and 2012-13 showed higher lead ingestion, especially in diving ducks, than I expected. LDWF Veterinarian, Jim LaCour, also re-did the historic transects to assess lead availability and showed some very surprising results. Hopefully, the graphics will post OK.
Reply
   Lreynolds
OK. That'll work. Again, in 2011, we took soil cores along the same transects as in the past to determine the amount of lead on the lakebed substrate. Then, we collected gizzards during the 2011-12 and 2012-13 hunting seasons to evaluate pellet-ingestion. That is the source of data for the graphics.

We were VERY surprised by the coring results on the 2 southern transects, and I think we all know how that happens. I was told enforcement efforts were stepped up as a result. But the take-home message is that due to the hardpan less than a foot under the soil surface, there is still a lot of lead available on the lakebed.
Reply
   Lreynolds
One last graphic of past gizzard collections and pellet ingestion rates to get some perspective on how things have changed, and to compare with the 2011-2013 data. Note these data were only for mallards and pintails.
Reply
   DCDUCK1
Larry,
Thank you for the data. I agree, it certainly doesn't support an early drawdown which has been a point of discussion at a couple of the CLGFP meetings. If you don't mind I will get with you later to get a copy of this electronically to present or if available you are invited to come and present. again I am really surprised, especially by the transect results from the Stock Landing and Willow Springs area.
Reply
Although I have no problem with the modern steel shot loads of today I do have a question.
What genius came up with the idea that you can shoot lead at doves in the ag fields in September but have to switch to non toxic loads to hunt waterfowl in the SAME fields during the waterfowl season? I guess that lead on the ground magically disappears!
Reply
uh oh, somebody found a gap. I never actually thought of that before with the dove hunting in those adjacent fields mostly because i've never hunted those northern areas of the state. I would love to see an explanation on that one too.
Reply
It's actually in the same fields in the winter. They are dry for dove hunting then flooded for waterfowl during the duck season. We have some geniuses . THE DAMN LEAD IS STILL THERE FROM DOVE HUNTING!
Reply
   Lreynolds
With no disrespect intended, you can't possibly think that is a new or mind-blowing observation? In fact, many people that make that argument somehow think the solution to this 'glaring inconsistency' is to allow lead for waterfowl hunting rather than ban it for dove hunting.

Hell guys, not so long ago, I listened to a LWF Commissioner say 'waterfowl habitat and snipe habitat are not the same thing' when we first proposed banning use of lead-shot for snipe hunting on our WMAs. Seriously? The best snipe hunting is on our moist-soil impoundments, managed precisely for waterfowl hunting. He had to leave the Commission before we could get THAT common-sense change made. Just this year were we able to eliminate lead-shot for dove hunting on WMAs and leased dove fields.

Because of the controversial nature of banning lead-shot for waterfowl hunting, very little has been studied as much. Just peruse the literature cited of the publication at: http://people.eku.edu/sumithrans/Migrat/READINGS/pbpoison/Pbpoison.htm. There was a tremendous scientific foundation for addressing lead-poisoning in waterfowl from controlled lab studies to nationwide gizzard collections to shooting trials using both computer-guided shotguns and field-shooting under hunting conditions. Even with that, it was a judicial decision involving the Endangered Species Act that forced a nationwide ban on lead-shot for waterfowl hunting.

If a similar scientific effort is required to further ban lead shot for say dove hunting, especially when we know there are situations like you describe where waterfowl will be hunted in the same habitat ..... but there are LOTS of doves killed where that is NOT the case, then those inconsistencies will exist for quite some time.

And I think most hunters would say .......... I don't care; I'm fine with that.
Reply
NO one said it was a 'new or mind blowing observation.'
NO one has ever given an answer to the question. I have been asking this question for over 25 years!
Reply
   Lreynolds
No-one has ever told you, that because hunters don't like using steel-shot for waterfowl hunting, used every scientific, legal, and political angle (including complete BS) to keep it from happening, and some continue to do so today (like the Commissioner I described and those that cow-towed to him) ....... that it is extremely difficult to address even the most common-sense issue like NOT shooting lead at anything where waterfowl are going to be?

No-one ever discussed the difficulty in creating laws specific for that situation when many (most??) doves, and other gamebirds, are killed in habitats where waterfowl are NOT going to frequent some other time during the season in response to your question?

No-one said it's tough/expensive/time-consuming to do all the scientific work for other species that was done for waterfowl to justify a lead ban, even on a hot-spot basis which was occurring before the legal ruling forcing the nationwide lead-shot ban for waterfowl hunting?

I guess I can understand that unless you're dealing with it regularly. But those are the reason why you can shoot lead at doves in the same locations waterfowl be hunted later in the year.
Reply
I just wanted a common sense answer. The thing is I do not have a problem with the modern steel shot loads of today. They are extremely effective. One more question. Is lead shot legal for rails and gallinules?
Reply
Get this scenario. I can go to my duck ponds and set up a skeet thrower and shoot lead all day long at clay pigeons. Go back the next day duck hunting and have to shoot non toxic shot at the ducks. It is comical . Just don't have lead shot in your possession while hunting waterfowl.
Reply
   Lreynolds
Yes, lead-shot is legal for snipe and gallinules on private land. It is not on our WMAs, and I'm not sure on NWR property.

I'm with you! Steel-shot loads are very effective and economical now, but they were neither when first required. The reason there was a 5-year phase-in period (1987-91) was so the manufacturers could ramp up supply to provide sufficient ammo for duck hunters. A lot of people find this unbelievable, but the State of California sued the USFWS to keep them from implementing the judicial-ordered nationwide ban on steel-shot. Even that liberal hot-bed was totally AGAINST the implementation of steel-shot regulations. But they lost.
Reply
   Lreynolds
'Get this scenario. I can go to my duck ponds and set up a skeet thrower and shoot lead all day long at clay pigeons. Go back the next day duck hunting and have to shoot non toxic shot at the ducks. It is comical.'

Not so comical to the birds ....... That is EXACTLY what happened a few years ago in the Gueydan area (I'd have to look up which year), but snow geese were dead and dying all over the fields near town. Hundreds of them. When we picked up a few and had them fluoroscoped, they were full of very small lead pellets, size 8 and 7.5. A fallout field from at least 1 club's clay-target range had flooded very shallow, and the snows got in there big-time and picked up a bunch of lead.

So suggest to me law that needs to be passed to avoid this?

Again, with no offense intended, I have had this conversations dozens of times, and it is almost always with someone that wants to belittle requiring of steel-shot for waterfowl by showing very specific situations where they continue to be exposed. Seldom has it been with someone genuinely concerned about the distribution of lead on the landscape. After all, we have an over-population of snow-geese, so why should we care if a relatively few get lead-poisoned?

But the fact is that large-scale gizzard collections (flyway- and nation-wide), done the same way as those in the past, showed a big decline in lead-ingestion and thus lead-poisoning losses following the lead-shot ban. So despite it's imperfections; it worked. It is working at Catahoula Lake as well where 25-30% of the hunter-killed ducks continue to have ingested pellets, just like 30 years ago, but it is now mostly steel-shot and not toxic.

But hunters and their representatives still fight every effort to limit use of lead-shot for other species.
Reply
What I meant is that it is comical that we have laws that require steel shot when hunting waterfowl in the same location where you can use lead shot to hunt non waterfowl.
Like I said I have NO problem at all with the steel shot loads of today. How hard would it be to ban ALL lead shot for hunting ANY game species in all the coastal marshes,agricultural fields,flooded timber,etc?
Reply
   Engstfeld
Larry said: 'But hunters and their representatives still fight every effort to limit use of lead-shot for other species.'

Larry, based on the above sentiment, it sounds like you are in favor of a total ban on lead shot. I'm still not sold on it for small shot size. If only because I've not had the chance to field test it. It is more expensive than game loads in lead by roughly 40%.
Reply
   lanco1
Those early steel loads were REALLY poor! Today not so much. And there are plenty of loads in steel for doves/snipe/skeet. I cut gizzards on 80% + of my ducks and probably 15% of those have steel shot. In the end lead shot vs. lead rifle bullets is not a comparable issue. Shot gunners put way more lead out there than rifle hunters and rifles aren’t going to work with steel rounds (I know sabot flachettes exist). So switching to monolithics is a much heavier lift than even the switch to steel for ducks. I do think that more and more public land nationwide will require non-toxic shot for all shotgun hunting. I use steel for snipe on my lease. The only problem with steel is it will crack ur teeth! Hunt hard and chew carefully!
Reply