Human nature is a funny thing. Like moths to the flame, we have a tendency to be drawn in many directions that may not necessarily be in our best interests. At the very least we often find ourselves jumping on bandwagons – even when the music stinks. We think it makes us look important or, somehow, by simply being there we become “better persons”.
This article was penned because of a recent example of one such wagon.
DNR considers ban on lead shot for small game is the title of a news story that found its way to my desk and it starts like this:
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is considering a plan to ban lead shotgun pellets for small game hunting in some parts of the state, requiring hunters to use nontoxic alternatives such as polymer, steel or tungsten.
In my not-so-humble opinion there are a number of issues at stake and, yes, I think the music on this particular wagon truly stinks.
Let’s start with the basic premise as stated in this news story.
Excerpt:
That lead is toxic to humans, birds and wildlife is not in doubt.
That is not the entire truth. Oxygen is also toxic to humans, birds and wildlife in high concentrations but there is no doubt that we also need it to live.
If we are to be honest in our discussion of this issue we need to move beyond the branding of lead as implicitly evil. There are many variables regarding lead exposure and no shortage of factors to be taken into consideration regarding its ban.
For instance, the alternatives to lead are not without potential problems of their own. You know, unintended consequences.
The Department of Physical and Environmental Sciences at the University of Toronto at Scarborough released a study in November 2004 that prompted the authors to recommend abandoning bismuth shot as an alternative to lead.
Excerpt:
Human and laboratory animal studies have suggested that excessive bismuth exposure may be linked to blood, liver, kidney and neural problems.
Likewise, tungsten has raised eyebrows, as well. The military began using “green bullets” made of nylon and tungsten at Camp Edwards on the Massachusetts Military Reservation in 1997. They did so as a result of Environmental Protection Agency orders to clean up lead on the shooting ranges at the base.
However, a CBS news story published in August 2005 reported on research concerning these bullets.
Excerpt:
But conventional wisdom about tungsten has been challenged by tests done in recent years at the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, N.J. Lab tests there found in 2002 that tungsten was not insoluble and that it could travel through soil under certain conditions. It also found that tungsten enables lead to move through the soil more quickly.
My point is simply this; any substance can be found to be deleterious if we look at it close enough and long enough. We can ban lead but then we may find ourselves banning its replacements down the road.
In the eyes of our detractors the only “acceptable” alternative to lead shot will ultimately be the absence of shot altogether.
What makes this potential ban even more controversial is highlighted through other issues mentioned in the news article.
Excerpt:
Birds ingest lead pellets while feeding in fields, lakes and ponds. Evidence from several studies is clear that lead shot has caused significant mortality of waterfowl and birds of prey that feed on waterfowl.
This statement is not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, either.
The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies has a committee known as the Migratory Shore and Upland Game Bird Working Group. An employee of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was kind enough to provide a copy of the “Spring and Fall Meeting Minutes for 2001” from this Working Group that outlined study data pertaining to this discussion.
One such study looked specifically at the question of ingestion rates of both lead and nontoxic shot by mourning doves. Two study areas were defined for this research. Lead shot was used on one study area while steel shot was used on the other. This excerpt is from the Minutes referenced above:
In the non-toxic shot area, the primary management objective there was to provide a quality hunting experience with lower hunter density and try to provide shooting throughout the entire month. Consequently, there were fewer shots fired with fewer number of pellets deposited. This is important to remember when looking at the ingestion rates later on. In the lead shot area, there were more hunters and, therefore, more pellets deposited.
No conclusions from this study were offered because, as is always expected, further study was recommended but the following passage was found several paragraphs down the page.
Excerpt:
Ingestion rates showed few birds with lead shot compared with 4-5% ingestion rates in steel-shot areas. This brings up the question of whether birds are actively selecting steel shot over lead shot.
The same employee of USFWS mentioned above also provided a copy of the publication “Webless Migratory Game Bird Research Program, Project Abstracts – 2001” that contained other study data regarding lead in birds.
One such data set outlined stable isotope analysis conducted in order to determine the source of lead in woodcock.
Excerpt:
The measured ratios of Wisconsin woodcock overlaps with the lead isotope compositions measured in shotgun pellets and lead characteristic of rock from the Precambrian era (a natural source). Therefore, the possibility that the elevated bone lead concentrations are a result of ingestion of shotgun pellets cannot be ruled out. However, the woodcock wing bones have lead isotope compositions that would be expected from lead that naturally occurs in Wisconsin or as a possible product of other industrial processes.
Translation: the lead found in these birds probably came from something other than shotgun pellets. Lead contamination can, and does, occur naturally.
Similar findings were documented for waterfowl in a United States Geological Survey (USGS) report entitled “A Review of the Problem of Lead Poisoning in Waterfowl”.
Excerpt:
The Winchester Group (1974) argued that lead in the wing bones of ducks as reported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1974) could come from low-level exposure to environmental lead and not from ingested lead pellets.
Continuing with this excerpt, it is important to understand how tendencies toward finding pre-conceived results can influence study protocol.
Excerpt:
Because scientists from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had analyzed the bones of immature mallards that had had only a few months in which to accumulate lead, they assumed that when two distributions of lead were found, the higher level represented ingested lead shot and the lower other environmental sources of lead. (emphasis added)
Translation: it is okay to replace hard evidence with assumptions in order to produce the desired outcome.
This has become a standard business practice in our wildlife and habitat management agencies, organizations and groups. Take for example the fact that whenever the discussion turns to banning lead there is a tendency to highlight the “success story” illustrated by historic waterfowl deaths and the federal government’s ban of lead shot in 1991.
There was another major ban that is rarely addressed concerning waterfowl deaths and which – more than likely – had as much, if not greater, influence on waterfowl mortality because of its implications for extensive environmental distribution.
Between 1975 and 1986 lead additives were removed from gasoline.
The USGS report cited above addressed this potential source of lead contamination.
Excerpt:
Ohi et al. (1974) found a significant difference in the lead content of femurs from pigeons collected from a farm house in a rural area and those collected from a crowded temple in downtown Tokyo. Higher levels in the city birds were attributed to atmospheric lead from automobile exhaust.
Excerpt:
Several reports of zoo animals suffering from lead poisoning, which in some cases was fatal, are available. Bazell (1971: 130), for example, studied animals in the Staten Island Zoo and observed that although “some of the lead in the animal’s bodies may have come from paint in their cages, the major source appears to be atmospheric contamination.”
Could, per chance, the decline in waterfowl deaths attributed to lead be due to the ban of lead additives in gasoline rather than the ban of lead shotgun pellets?
The answer to this question has simply been one more assumption in a decades-long agenda of removing lead from the sportsman’s hunting vest and fishing tackle box.
There is yet another issue that was suggested in the news story that inspired this article.
Excerpt:
“There’s a known, scientific problem with lead. Let’s address it and stop kidding around,” Bensch said, adding that requiring nontoxic shot statewide will raise hunting’s credibility among non-hunters and take away an issue from anti-hunters, helping to avoid lawsuits. “It’s going to help us as hunters, not hurt us.”
Is there a scientific problem with lead?
Yes, and as briefly outlined above, there are also “scientific problems” with bismuth, tungsten and steel.
Once lead is gone, will each of these alternatives also take their turn on the chopping block? Where will sportsmen turn when the alternatives are also eliminated?
As Mr. Bensch stated, will another ban “raise hunting’s credibility”?
Nope. Compromise has never brought us anything but lost ground. The fact remains that, by definition, compromise represents a settlement of differences reached by mutual concessions.
However, the only concessions being made by the opposition is an agreement to hurt us incrementally rather than all at once.
We still lose and the opposition will be back another day looking for more “compromise”.
In the end we simply die the death of a thousand cuts.