Lead free pest control.

Be very careful shooting lead free pellets. They ricochet.

Lead phobia again?

This thread should be locked because in essence it's politics. It spreads false information and fear and can't be addressed without getting into the political motivation

In all seriousness, you seem to have spent some time considering your situation and have come to your opinion with some effort.
Unfortunately, there are no current alternatives to lead for small bore air guns and hunting small game that offer the lethality and minimized wounding that lead offers. There are some people who are trying all copper projectiles for big bores and hunting larger game.
Life can be really difficult at times and will offer us no compromised way out of our predicaments. You can either go one direction or another and both will have to be well defined with no squishy middle ground available for retreat.
Were I you, I would be looking for other shooting or outdoor activities to replace my air gunning. This is not a flippant, snarky or condescending suggestion. If you are passionate about air gun hunitng and shooting I see no way to continue without compromising your conscience or values.
Archery and fishing would be my first choices. Both can be pursued with minimal or no use of lead.
Personally, if I were plagued with your thoughts and concerns I would be bailing out of this sport without hesitation.
The vast
I'll take a stab at discussing your questions. I too exclusively shoot unleaded at home, just for the simplicity of protocol, and perhaps the challenge. And while I'm favoring other methods to control pests besides shooting them, I like to keep it an option. Here are some observations:
1. Unleaded flies well only ~2/3 the distance of lead. So the 30 yard shots now have to be limited to 20 yards.
2. Unleaded pellets don't expand. Probably most lead pellets in most people's guns don't expand in a pest either, but with unleaded it isn't even possible. Maybe if you shoot them backwards you can get some petalling of the skirt, but otherwise expect caliber-sized holes only.
3. Those 2 demerits can be compensated for by using a larger caliber and higher power. So my .177 lead pellet only flies 30 yards, unleaded flies 20 yards, but a .22 unleaded can now fly 30 yards because it is heavier and has ballistics more like the .177 lead pellet. Of course that means I need a gun in the larger caliber with more power. And the bigger caliber ammo is more expensive.
4. .25 unleaded pellets, while high quality (at least the H&N Baracuda Greens and GTOs), are limited. If they just don't fit your gun then you're out of luck, unless you want to cast tin (pewter) pellets. For larger calibers casting is your only option. Which can be fun but is a separate hobby.
5. If you're super cheap, you can collect and re-shoot many of the unleaded pellets. Besides a few engraving marks, they tend not to deform much when shot into a softer target (box of rubber mulch or rags). Before I found how much fun it is to cast new pellets from recycled unleaded tin pellets, I would re-shoot at least half of them when practicing. Reuse, recycle, maaan! When it matters, I'd use fresh pellets.
This might be of interest:
Yeah, I've pretty much decided to just keep using a heavier lead pellet for pests. My wife and I feed the birds and animals around our home and consider very few critters pests anyway, but for us, rats absolutely qualify and are on the hit list. To be sure of the best possible probability of a one shot kill, I think the best thing to do is keep using suitable lead pellets. Thanks for the heads-up on the article at Pyramyd!
 
I regularly hunt a ranch that has a strict no-lead projectile policy, so had to navigate this question a few years ago.

Your best bet will be the Predator GTO non-lead pellets. They come in domed 6.8gr for .177 and domed 11.75g for .22. Not sure if they now offer a .25 cal option or not.

They are expensive, and there is a greater risk of ricochets than with lead pellets. But I’ve also found them to be very accurate in both my spring guns and my PCPs. With good shot placement, I have found them to be just as effective as regular JSB lead pellets for hunting. All that said, if I were not required to hunt with non-lead pellets, I would not choose to use them.

Good luck choosing.

R
 
I regularly hunt a ranch that has a strict no-lead projectile policy, so had to navigate this question a few years ago.

Your best bet will be the Predator GTO non-lead pellets. They come in domed 6.8gr for .177 and domed 11.75g for .22. Not sure if they now offer a .25 cal option or not.

They are expensive, and there is a greater risk of ricochets than with lead pellets. But I’ve also found them to be very accurate in both my spring guns and my PCPs. With good shot placement, I have found them to be just as effective as regular JSB lead pellets for hunting. All that said, if I were not required to hunt with non-lead pellets, I would not choose to use them.

Good luck choosing.

R
Already using those. ;-) And expensive they are -- whoa! Exceptionally good pellets though; I started using them in my .177 caliber airguns long ago, before I realized or much cared about using something lead free. I'll probably use something cheaper (H&N Barracuda Green or Match Green) for day to day, but I think this is definitely one of those "you get what you pay for" things. Great performance! Thanks for the recommendation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ezana4CE
.....So, what to do? Just concentrate on perfect shot placement with lead free pellets and hope for the best, or forget your decision to be lead free altogether and go nuclear with a much heavier lead pellet for the job?....

What a ridiculous analogy. A lead pellet being considered the "nuclear" option of weaponry. Silliest thing I've read on the internet in a long time.

And the drivel in most of the rest of your post only serves to harm the airgun/hunting/shooting community. Reads like the talking points of the misinformed, bored, bleeding hearts that seek to disrupt our sport with theories not in any way supported by science.
 
what size is your larger pest species and what sort of range? If no further than 25yards and no bigger than a rabbit then why not try lead .22 wad cutters at 500fps, they won’t pass through but carry more than enough clout to ensure a clean dispatch.

Bb
I had a Hw50 in 22 that shot 11.9 gr Hobbie wadcutters at 640ish IIRC. A light for caliber flat faced lead pellet that hit like brick. Pretty much flattened every Gray squirrels I shot inside of 25 yards without passing through. Gray squirrels are very tough so I even with textbook body shots I got a few that would make it into my neighbors yard 20 feet away before expiring. I wound up making only headshots after jumping fences to retrieve the bodies. At that point I went down in power to my quieter 177 Hw30 with 8.2 grain wadcutters. A 177 wadcutter in the noggin was as good as a 22 wadcutter. In tight quarters wadcutters limit pass throughs and potential collateral damage. They chop out big round holes (for caliber) at lower velocities that won't expand gimmicky "hunting" pellets. They're the bomb for close quarters work. They cream bunnies with any decent hit. Bunnies almost just keel over if you look at them wrong. A 177 Hw30 with a wadcutter wallops Sparrows with a cloud of feathers. So yes they will pass through small soft targets at close range but they still unlikely to retain dangerous energy out the other side.

As much as I love wadcutters they have a terrible BC and tend to lose too much energy and accuracy past 25-30 yards. Every gun is different so YMMV. It's worth trying them past 30 yards but typically they don't do well. Any environment I have to shoot longer than that I'm not usually worried about collateral damage so I use the most accurate domes for the gun in hand.
 
what size is your larger pest species and what sort of range? If no further than 25yards and no bigger than a rabbit then why not try lead .22 wad cutters at 500fps, they won’t pass through but carry more than enough clout to ensure a clean dispatch.

Bb
That's pretty much my thinking too. Luckily, I very rarely need to worry about the animals around here, and we don't mind most critters anyway, excepting rats, but I still have lots of lead pellets to fall back on, if the need arises. Thanks for the suggestion.
 
What a ridiculous analogy. A lead pellet being considered the "nuclear" option of weaponry. Silliest thing I've read on the internet in a long time.

And the drivel in most of the rest of your post only serves to harm the airgun/hunting/shooting community. Reads like the talking points of the misinformed, bored, bleeding hearts that seek to disrupt our sport with theories not in any way supported by science.
There was no underlying, mysterious message in my use of the word nuclear -- it was meant to add some light humor to the statement, so I'm sorry you saw it as something else.

As for the rest, the science and the facts speak for themselves. Perhaps a little time spent on researching the most recent scientific studies would help you determine the difference between these facts and 'what everyone knows' to be factual. What exactly is the misinformation you see here, anyway? Lead is toxic. There's LOTS of it. Those things aren't questionable or controversial. They're just the way things are! It's simple common sense: the well over one hundred million U.S. firearm users in the U.S., plus maybe one quarter to half that in pellet gunners (just a complete WAG: I don't have hard data on pellet gun hobbyists), including me on both counts, have added and continue to add a considerable amount of lead to the environment, where it's sometimes ingested by (or 'injected' into) curious, hungry, predatory, scavaging and other animals. This additional lead, whether eaten, or shot out of firearms and pellet guns into animals that end up both wounded and dead, absolutely has a negative impact on native wildlife. No conjecture here -- it has and continues to happen!

Really though, concerning the veracity or lack of it behind the effect, if any, of lead on wildlife, I could just as easily take a So What? attitude to the facts (if they weren't being disputed, that is). After all, I'm not suggesting anyone else here try to reduce their own use of lead pellets, and I have absolutely no underlying, hidden agenda behind my original question or anything I've said since. I asked what other hobbyists that reduced their use of lead thought about what they were using or might suggest to best get the job done. I felt no need to call my fellow shooters names or insult folks I've never even met, based solely on what I "thought they meant" behind the actual words they used. Why did you feel the need to do so? We're total strangers to each other; why assume the absolute worst about me based only on my ... whatever it is that set you off? If you feel so strongly about what you thought I was saying, why not ask for a little clarification before launching an attack? I just can't wrap my head around it.

However, If you refuse to believe I had no ulterior motive behind my original posted question, all I can do is say I am sorry you feel that way. On the other hand, I am completely sure about my facts, and see no need to brush up on my understanding of the hard science relative to the subject. I am NOT misinformed, and I ain't particularly gullible, either. Dang it Spartan, I'm totally in the dark as to why you see this as something requiring an attack... because I want to cut down on MY use of lead pellets? I don't see it, especially since I've also posted here, for any and all to see, my decision to stick with lead pellets for the rare occasions I do need something for pests (I'll grudgingly admit to being a little too old and gimped up for serious hunting anymore, so that's no longer an issue), coming to that conclusion based on the responses I DID get to my original question. So, what really is the big problem you're seeing here? I'd really like to know.
 
Last edited:
There was no underlying, mysterious message in my use of the word nuclear -- it was meant to add some light humor to the statement, so I'm sorry you saw it as something else.

As for the rest, the science and the facts speak for themselves. Perhaps a little time spent on researching the most recent scientific studies would help you determine the difference between these facts and 'what everyone knows' to be factual. What exactly is the misinformation you see here, anyway? Lead is toxic. There's LOTS of it. Those things aren't questionable or controversial. They're just the way things are! It's simple common sense: the well over one hundred thousand U.S. firearm users in the U.S., plus maybe one quarter to half that in pellet gunners (just a complete WAG: I don't have hard data on pellet gun hobbyists), including me on both counts, have added and continue to add a considerable amount of lead to the environment, where it's sometimes ingested by (or 'injected' into) curious, hungry, predatory, scavaging and other animals. This additional lead, whether eaten, or shot out of firearms and pellet guns into animals that end up both wounded and dead, absolutely has a negative impact on native wildlife. No conjecture here -- it has and continues to happen!

Really though, concerning the veracity or lack of it behind the effect, if any, of lead on wildlife, I could just as easily take a So What? attitude to the facts (if they weren't being disputed, that is). After all, I'm not suggesting anyone else here try to reduce their own use of lead pellets, and I have absolutely no underlying, hidden agenda behind my original question or anything I've said since. I asked what other hobbyists that reduced their use of lead thought about what they were using or might suggest to best get the job done. I felt no need to call my fellow shooters names or insult folks I've never even met, based solely on what I "thought they meant" behind the actual words they used. Why did you feel the need to do so? We're total strangers to each other; why assume the absolute worst about me based only on my ... whatever it is that set you off? If you feel so strongly about what you thought I was saying, why not ask for a little clarification before launching an attack? I just can't wrap my head around it.

However, If you refuse to believe I had no ulterior motive behind my original posted question, all I can do is say I am sorry you feel that way. On the other hand, I am completely sure about my facts, and see no need to brush up on my understanding of the hard science relative to the subject. I am NOT misinformed, and I ain't particularly gullible, either. Dang it Spartan, I'm totally in the dark as to why you see this as something requiring an attack... because I want to cut down on MY use of lead pellets? I don't see it, especially since I've also posted here, for any and all to see, my decision to stick with lead pellets for the rare occasions I do need something for pests (I'll grudgingly admit to being a little too old and gimped up for serious hunting anymore, so that's no longer an issue), coming to that conclusion based on the responses I DID get to my original question. So, what really is the big problem you're seeing here? I'd really like to know.
The one thing I have noticed about this thread is bubba can type.
 
I regularly hunt a ranch that has a strict no-lead projectile policy, so had to navigate this question a few years ago.

Your best bet will be the Predator GTO non-lead pellets. They come in domed 6.8gr for .177 and domed 11.75g for .22. Not sure if they now offer a .25 cal option or not.

They are expensive, and there is a greater risk of ricochets than with lead pellets. But I’ve also found them to be very accurate in both my spring guns and my PCPs. With good shot placement, I have found them to be just as effective as regular JSB lead pellets for hunting. All that said, if I were not required to hunt with non-lead pellets, I would not choose to use them.

Good luck choosing.

R

I have not myself used any non lead pellets or ammo yet, but I have just purchased the Huben GK1 in .25 and I have heard good results now with a few people whom swear by the GTO lead free pellets. One person on the air pistol forum has tested a lot and found that the .22 GTO's are more accurate than lead and now another couple have posted that the .25 GTO's are shooting well out of the GK1. Both seem to indicate that the ideal FPS is about 900 FPS and that is providing good accuracy, distance, but the drawback is the price of the ammo and yes they do NOT mushroom due to the hardness. The person whom shoots the .22 as his main ammo can pick them out of the ballistic putty stop and the pellets almost look like new yet he is smart not to attempt to reshoot them....

I am in California so we legally are not supposed to hunt with lead but there is really not a lot of options outside of .22 and .25 I have not seen any real big bore ammo yet in lead free and in rifles I read that many of the rifles do not have the ideal twist rate. Thus when they eventually become more available and find better blends of materials to increase the weight and/or make them softer then you will likely see slug liners with the ideal twist rate made for lead free ammo. If they ever make lead free ammo in .357 that is accurate and they make a slug liner that is probably required to make it accurate, then I would be willing to use them for hunting since I am in a state which is anti lead. I do not think the technology is ready yet but probably will be in the not too distance future....
 
There was no underlying, mysterious message in my use of the word nuclear -- it was meant to add some light humor to the statement, so I'm sorry you saw it as something else.

As for the rest, the science and the facts speak for themselves. Perhaps a little time spent on researching the most recent scientific studies would help you determine the difference between these facts and 'what everyone knows' to be factual. What exactly is the misinformation you see here, anyway? Lead is toxic. There's LOTS of it. Those things aren't questionable or controversial. They're just the way things are! It's simple common sense: the well over one hundred million U.S. firearm users in the U.S., plus maybe one quarter to half that in pellet gunners (just a complete WAG: I don't have hard data on pellet gun hobbyists), including me on both counts, have added and continue to add a considerable amount of lead to the environment, where it's sometimes ingested by (or 'injected' into) curious, hungry, predatory, scavaging and other animals. This additional lead, whether eaten, or shot out of firearms and pellet guns into animals that end up both wounded and dead, absolutely has a negative impact on native wildlife. No conjecture here -- it has and continues to happen!

Really though, concerning the veracity or lack of it behind the effect, if any, of lead on wildlife, I could just as easily take a So What? attitude to the facts (if they weren't being disputed, that is). After all, I'm not suggesting anyone else here try to reduce their own use of lead pellets, and I have absolutely no underlying, hidden agenda behind my original question or anything I've said since. I asked what other hobbyists that reduced their use of lead thought about what they were using or might suggest to best get the job done. I felt no need to call my fellow shooters names or insult folks I've never even met, based solely on what I "thought they meant" behind the actual words they used. Why did you feel the need to do so? We're total strangers to each other; why assume the absolute worst about me based only on my ... whatever it is that set you off? If you feel so strongly about what you thought I was saying, why not ask for a little clarification before launching an attack? I just can't wrap my head around it.

However, If you refuse to believe I had no ulterior motive behind my original posted question, all I can do is say I am sorry you feel that way. On the other hand, I am completely sure about my facts, and see no need to brush up on my understanding of the hard science relative to the subject. I am NOT misinformed, and I ain't particularly gullible, either. Dang it Spartan, I'm totally in the dark as to why you see this as something requiring an attack... because I want to cut down on MY use of lead pellets? I don't see it, especially since I've also posted here, for any and all to see, my decision to stick with lead pellets for the rare occasions I do need something for pests (I'll grudgingly admit to being a little too old and gimped up for serious hunting anymore, so that's no longer an issue), coming to that conclusion based on the responses I DID get to my original question. So, what really is the big problem you're seeing here? I'd really like to know.

Ok, hard science. How about these bits of science:

Approximately 35 times more vertebrate animals are killed in the US each year from vehicle collisions than are killed from lead poisoning.
Approximately 20 times more birds are killed in the US each year from vehicle collisions than are killed from lead poisoning.
Approximately 60 times more birds are killed in the US each year from colliding with glass windows than are killed from lead poisoning.
Approximately 240 times more birds are killed in the US each year from house cat predation than are killed from lead poisoning.
Approximately 71 times more birds are killed in the US each year from industrial sources such as power lines, wind turbines, and communications towers than are killed from lead poisoning.

So, science man that actively hurts our sport with non-sense, are you still driving a car? Have windows in your house? Have a cat? Use electricity or a cell phone?

I assume you must also be giving up these things that kill WAY more birds/animals than lead if you are so concerned about saving them.

Stop believing the lies that are perpetuated by the anti-hunting crowd. Because that is their real goal: to stop hunting, not to stop lead.

Sources:
Jensen, Derrick; Keith, Lierre; Wilbert, Max (2021). Bright Green Lies: How the Environmental Movement Lost Its Way and What We Can Do About It. Monkfish Book Publishing. pp. 346–347. ISBN 978-1948626392. via wikipedia
 
Yes, I realize lead is all but ubiquitous in our natural environment and sure, it can be handled pretty safely, but just because its natural doesn't mean it isn't toxic and potentially dangerous, especially to wildlife. Nothing strange or controversial about that -- it's a fact. It's also a sad fact that some folks (me included, as a reckless kid) sometimes would shoot a critter multiple times with a low-powered pellet rifle that failed to bring it down, so it escaped. Unfortunately, what can happen then is the lead-filled, now gimped-up animal becomes even easier pickin's for the four-legged and winged predators that won't hesitate to take advantage of such easy meat, and they don't. They bring it home, where it ends up either in their own stomachs or that of the hungry young bobcat or baby eaglet to which it's fed. Put another way: Critter gets pumped full of lead. Critter gets nailed by predator. Predator and family eat critter. Predator, predator family members and possibly even scavanger(s) become ill and/or croak. Surviving sickly victim(s) adds damaged DNA to gene pool, and around it goes. Such a scenario is documented fact,

As for the rest, the science and the facts speak for themselves. Perhaps a little time spent on researching the most recent scientific studies would help you determine the difference between these facts and 'what everyone knows' to be factual. What exactly is the misinformation you see here, anyway? Lead is toxic. There's LOTS of it. Those things aren't questionable or controversial. They're just the way things are! It's simple common sense: the well over one hundred million U.S. firearm users in the U.S., plus maybe one quarter to half that in pellet gunners (just a complete WAG: I don't have hard data on pellet gun hobbyists), including me on both counts, have added and continue to add a considerable amount of lead to the environment, where it's sometimes ingested by (or 'injected' into) curious, hungry, predatory, scavaging and other animals. This additional lead, whether eaten, or shot out of firearms and pellet guns into animals that end up both wounded and dead, absolutely has a negative impact on native wildlife. No conjecture here -- it has and continues to happen!
I know it must be true I read it on the internet. Please do not assume that everything you read on the internet is true. Please do not make silly assertions about lead altering DNA. If you do insist on making wild claims, at least do us the courtesy of providing links to the scientific studies that support your claims. If you do not supply support, then your claims are merely opinions. And everyone knows the adage concerning opinions.

There was a guy on AGN last year making similar claims regarding lead. He even had a website he created that plagiarized other works without accreditation. People will run across his webpage and bots and AI will reference it as "fact". It was mostly conjecture and BS promoting his agenda.

It prompted me to do a deep dive on lead..particularly in raptors. His claims were not supported by facts.

----------------------

The depuration rate of lead (or half-time for lead elimination from blood) has been estimated to be approximately two weeks in condors [37] and less than two weeks in common ravens [36].
Over an approximate 30 year period, there were 234 condor deaths..of which 114 were “presumed dead” after being missing for 365 days. I’m not sure how it can be stated that 51% of the 234 deaths can be attributed to lead poisoning..if 114 of the 234 were “assumed” dead and never found. So technically, there have only been 120 documented deaths from 1992 through 2021 (~30 years). Yet the nps.gov website states there have been 120 documented deaths from lead poisoning in the free flying population. 120 of 120 documented deaths are from lead poisoning is 100%. WTF. Only lead kills condors. NOT!

Head spinning from nps.gov triple-speak.

A study tracking effects of lead in large raptors (eagles, vultures, and condors) states lead is cleared to “normal “ trace levels within two weeks.
A study tracking CA condor mortality states 66% of condor deaths are attributed to ingesting DDT from dead marine mammals..whales, dolphins, and seals washed up on the CA coast. DDT is not cleared after it is consumed..it is cumulative.

Of the wild free-flying condor population 183 live in CA. Of the 28 deaths in the free-flying population, 16 occurred in CA. These numbers are for either 1 year or cumulative from 1995 or 1997. 13 mortalities occurred in the Central CA population. Of those deaths, it can be assumed 66% were from DDT..so 9 were from DDT and 4 deaths were from “other causes”. 3 mortalities occurred in the Southern CA population. So since their range is away from the coast, lets assume all 3 deaths were to “other causes”.

A total of 7 deaths in either one year or 27 years in there-flying CA condor population. 7 condors out of a population of 183. OMG..lead is killing everything!! Condors never grow old and die. Condors never get sick from anything other than lead. Condors don’t die from ingesting “trash”..like plastic bottle caps. Condors never fly into wind turbines or power lines. Condor never are attacked by predators like coyotes or mountain lions. Am I the only one that thinks this sounds totally ridiculous?

This article was written in 2012..5 years after Gov Schwarzenegger banned lead bullets in condor habitat in 2007. Curious is it not..all condors are captured 2 times a year. How is this done? Humans set out large animal carcasses to trap them. Doh! The researchers are literally creating a Pavlovian response in the condors by training them to see human activity like hunters around a dead animal as a dinner bell.

"In all likelihood, many more condors would likely have died from lead poisoning had it not been for the fact that all wild condors in California are normally captured twice each year, tested for lead poisoning and then treated if necessary," said Darin Schroeder, Vice-President for Conservation Advocacy for American Bird Conservancy (ABC), one of the nation's leading bird conservation organizations.

This study was published:: April 6, 2011
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0017656
Clinical signs associated with lead toxicity were not observed in any of our birds, although this may be difficult to assess in the field setting. In this study, 53% of golden eagle and 18% of turkey vultures sampled prior to implementation of the ban, and 18% of the golden eagles and 3% of turkey vultures sampled post-ban had blood lead concentrations consistent with subclinical lead toxicity (>20 µg/dL) [51]. Only one captured golden eagle had a blood lead concentration at a level that has been reported to cause lead poisoning and death in raptors (>100 µg/dL) [51]. Sampling of free-ranging birds using the capture methods we employed here may underestimate burdens of lead exposure and poisoning in scavenging and predatory bird populations, especially for birds with blood lead concentrations that are high enough to cause debilitation and preclude birds from flying and searching for food [52].


For anyone interested, the above link is one of the few scientifically done that is specific to CA Condors and their specific habitat.

Lead bullet have been banned in condor habitat since 2007.. In the last 10 years (1997-2007), it is estimated that roughly 30 Condors have died from lead poisoning in this manner.

TOTAL WORLD POPULATION = 537
Number of new wild-fledged chicks = 15
Number of birds newly released into the wild from captivity = 24
Number of mortalities in the free-flying population = 28

WILD, FREE-FLYING POPULATION TOTAL = 334
Southern California, USA Meta-Population [est. 1995]: Wild fledglings: 3, Releases: 4, Mortalities: 3, Total Size: 92
Central California, USA Meta-Population [est.1997]:
Wild fledglings: 6, Releases: 8, Mortalities: 13, Total Size: 91

WILD BIRD MORTALITY NOTES:
• From 1992 through 2021 (30 years) there have been 120 documented deaths from lead poisoning in the free flying population.
• Lead poisoning is responsible for 51 percent of the 234 condor deaths where a cause of death has been determined.
• An additional 114 free-flying condors have been presumed dead after missing for more than 365 days.

Best scientific data found

Interesting

Of questionable value..

Only bullet found in gut..and it was because it was fed to the condor

N/A because it deals with condors outside of CA..Uses “models” and “estimates”

Published false data

FlightAware plane tracking

Map of area around Pinnacles NP

Deer Success Rate

Deer Seasons

Deer Zone Map

All carrion eaters consume lead from game carcasses; their physical size or species should not matter. If lead is toxic to one species, it is toxic to all. One would assume a smaller animal would be even more greatly affected than a larger one.
Lead is found in many plastics. Plastic contains lead for pliability. Plastic particles are found in many fish and animal species..including humans. In ocean species, the top of the food chain has the highest concentrations of any bad chemical or heavy metal..like mercury and DDT in tuna and dolphins and seals. Why not lead from plastics? 66% of documented CA condor deaths are from DDT type chemicals found in the carcasses of dead marine mammals. If they eat marine mammal carrion, they consume plastic.

Question..How can DDT still be killing marine mammals so that they can be eaten by condors? When it was “banned” many steel 55gallon drums were dumped..drum-roll please..off the coast of California.

Question..Is it possible the lead killing condors is from aircraft engine emissions? How many of the condors killed by lead lived near small muni-airports? Leaded gas has been banned from cars since 1996..but not from leaded-fuel piston-engine aircraft.

Question..if lead from bullets is really killing condors, then why has it only recently become an issue? Lead has been used since the early 1800s to take all manner of game in CA. Settlers and farmers and ranchers engaging in subsistence hunting year-around until modern hunting laws were put in place in the early 1900s.

Question..If lead has been banned for hunting in CA since 2019, then why are condors still dying from lead poisoning? Effective July 1, 2019, non-lead ammunition is required when taking any wildlife with a firearm anywhere in California. It has been nearly four years since the lead ban implementation. I’m pretty sure condors are not still eating lead found in four year old animal carcasses.

Question..if lead is so darn deadly, then why are human hunters not suffering and dying in droves from lead toxicity? Given the x-rays showing bullet fragmentation, it is safe to assume human hunters also ingest lead.

Question..if lead bullets are the source of lead toxicity, why is there no record or evidence of a bullet ever being found in the gut of a dead condor?

Correlation is not causation.

Remember back in the 1970s, when environmentalists told us that logging old growth forests was responsible for the decline of the Spotted Owl? False. A larger invasive owl species was eating them.

Remember the Delta Smelt? Environmentalists told us that their decline was due to excessive water usage by farmers and ranchers. False. The smelt are being eaten by Striped Bass..a species not native to CA.

Remember in the 1970s when environmentalists told us that we would all die from human caused Global Cooling?

Remember in the 1990s when environmentalists told us that we would all die from human caused Global Warming?

Remember how environmentalists are currently telling us that we will all die from human caused Global Climate Change?

How many times do environmentalists get a pass for “Crying Wolf!”

——
 
Last edited:
Additional light reading...

There are 2 references, that I’ve found, that show a cyclical nature to lead toxicity in scavenging raptors. Lead levels are lower but still exist in the spring, summer, then tend to rise through the fall and winter..then return to lower levels again in spring..think sine wave Which would sort of indicate a correlation to lead in game animal carcasses..but..one of the papers is data from a state that does not allow the use of lead ammunition in firearms.

The depuration rate of lead (or half-time for lead elimination from blood) has been estimated to be approximately two weeks in condors [37] and less than two weeks in common ravens [36]. The 37 note is from a study done in 2003. The 36 note is from 2008.


What is the number of annual deaths caused by lead toxicity in raptors like condors, eagles and hawks? IDK..I wasn’t able to find statistics. I did find a study that stated the annual rate of population growth for Bald Eagles and Golden Eagles is approximately 10% and 4%. From 2009 to 2021 the Bald Eagle population grew from 72,434 to 316,700 for the United States (lower 48 only). Apparently, the population growth is outpacing deaths, from any means, by a large margin.

A further route of lead toxicosis in birds is uptake from diverse environmental sources in food. Most cases of poisoning occur following exposure to very elevated lead concentrations, such as may be found in the vicinity of mines, waste dumps, and industrial plants. Add municipal small plane airports to that list..as all aviation fuel for small planes is still leaded.

Inorganic forms of lead do not biomagnify and do not bioaccumulate. Inorganic meaning processed lead as found in bullets.
Lead is cancer-causing, and adversely effects reproduction, liver and thyroid function, and disease resistance (Eisler 1988b). The main potential ecological impacts of wetland contaminants result from direct exposure of algae, benthic invertebrates, and embryos and fingerlings of freshwater fish and amphibians to lead. It can be bioconcentrated from water, but does not bioaccumulate and tends to decrease with increasing trophic levels in freshwater habitats (Wong et al. 1978; Eisler 1988b). Lead adversely affects algae, invertebrates, and fish. There are also limited adverse effects in amphibians, including loss of sodium, reduced learning capability, and developmental problems (Horne and Dunson 1995; Freda 1991). Fish exposed to high levels of lead exhibit a wide-range of effects including muscular and neurological degeneration and destruction, growth inhibition, mortality, reproductive problems, and paralysis (Eisler 1988b; EPA 1976). Lead adversely affects invertebrate reproduction; algal growth is affected. Lead partitions primarily to sediments, but becomes more bioavailable under low pH, hardness and organic matter content (among other factors). Lead bioaccumulates in algae, macrophytes and benthic organisms, but the inorganic forms of lead do not biomagnify.

At elevated levels in plants, lead can cause reduced growth, photosynthesis, mitosis, and water absorption (Eisler 1988b). Birds and mammals suffer effects from lead poisoning such as damage to the nervous system, kidneys, liver, sterility, growth inhibition, developmental retardation, and detrimental effects in blood (Eisler 1988b; Amdur et al. 1991).
Lead poisoning in higher organisms has been associated with lead shot and organolead compounds, but not with food chain exposure to inorganic lead (other than lead shot, sinkers or paint) (Eisler 1988b). There are complex interactions with other contaminants and diet. Lead poisoning in higher organisms primarily affects hematologic and neurologic processes.

Bioaccumulation / Bioconcentration / Biomagnification:
Bioaccumulation is the general term describing a process by which chemicals are taken up by a plant or animal either directly from exposure to a contaminated medium (soil, sediment, water) or by eating food containing the chemical. Related terms are bioconcentration in which chemicals are absorbed by an animal or plant to levels higher than the surrounding environment; and biomagnification, in which chemical levels in plants or animals increase from transfer through the food web (e.g., predators have greater concentrations of a particular chemical than their prey).


Lead shot for migratory birds has been banned in the US since 1991..”phased-in starting with the 1987-88 hunting season. The ban became nationwide in 1991. “ Lead shot has been banned for waterfowl hunting for 32 years. Bald Eagles are most commonly found around bodies of water because their primary food source is normally fish. Sure they would eat a wounded duck, but what are the odds that said duck was wounded with lead..since it been banned. Yes..I’m sure there are hunters that still use lead shot illegally in the US for waterfowl.

The bald eagle population climbed to an estimated 316,700 individual bald eagles in the lower 48 states.

The number of bald eagles in the lower 48 U.S. states has quadrupled in the last 12 years to more than 316,700, between 80,000 - 110,000 in Alaska, and between 50,000 - 500,000 Canada. So 316,000 plus 95,000 plus 275,000 is approximately 686,000 bald eagles in North America.



If you were to read this article you’d think the Bald Eagle was again on the brink of extinction..

”A first-of-its-kind, eight-year study has found widespread and frequent lead poisoning in North American bald and golden eagles impacting both species’ populations.” A 9 year study..WOW! So a total of around 236 live Bald Eagles and 384 Golden Eagles over an 9 year period is “groundbreaking”..seriously?? 69 birds per year. Roughly 1.4 Birds per state. That’s 236 Bald Eagles out of a population estimated to be around 686,000. Put another way.. a sampling of 0.0344% of the population is groundbreaking. But wait..only 45 of the 236 were considered as having a potentially lethal dose of lead. So thats 45 out of a population of 636,000. Damn..that’s a real problem.

“These findings are the first to look at bald and golden eagle populations across North America, using samples from 1,210 eagles over 38 U.S. states including Alaska. Poisoning at the levels found in the study is causing population growth rates to slow for bald eagles by 3.8 percent and golden eagles by 0.8 percent annually. Previously, evaluations of lead exposure and its impact on eagle populations were only performed in local and regional studies. This groundbreaking study documents how lead poisoning inhibits both species’ population growth across North America. ”

Problems with the study..IMO..The study was done over 9 years and no data was taken for the year or exact location of collection. In addition, the web write-up state 1210 eagles were sampled, but only 620 were blood samples. GPS coordinates could have been used, but instead a very general state and migration flyway were noted. The reason these are both issues with the report are 1) if a data collection year had been recorded or exposed in the study, it could have been determined if the lead issue were increasing or declining. 2) if a GPS data point were included, it could have identified a more specific location which could have been used to identify mining and ore processing operations or municipal airports as a source of lead. If a GPS location had been provided it would have been very easy to show if the collection was done on or near areas associated with hunting and used of lead bullets. 3) Why not take and publish blood samples from all 1210 birds?

When you do a study that traps or examines primarily sick birds, why would you be surprised to discover that there are sick birds in the data set? The vast majority of the birds tested..90%..did not meet the toxicicity guidelines set by the USGS for removal from the wild.

“The study’s modeling shows that lead reduces the rate of population growth”. First..the study relies on computer modeling. This type of “study” is biased toward the results desired by the person designing the model. Second, the populations of Bald Eagles and Golden Eagles are not in decline. Unless you carefully read the wording..according to the study, a reduction in the rate of increase is considered a decline..DOH!

The following data were extracted from the .CSV files attached to the research..
For Blood above 60 μg/dL birds need a detox..all else can be released

Data sample Bald and Golden Eagles Combined
Blood 620. Only 102 of 620 were above the level of 40 μg/dL. and only 61 of 620 were above the level of 60 μg/dL

Data sample Bald Eagles
Blood 236. Only 68 of 236 were above the level of 40 μg/dL. and only 45 of 236 were above the level of 60 μg/dL

Data sample Golden Eagles
Blood 384. Only 34 of 384 were above the level of 40 μg/dL. and only 16 of 384 were above the level of 60 μg/dL

Following USGS 60 μg/dL Guidelines specified below…

Lead poisoning is a threat to birds, particularly scavenging birds of prey. … Best practices suggest that birds whose blood-lead levels are <40 μg/dL be released back to the wild as soon as possible after capture. The decision to release or treat birds with blood-lead levels between 40 μg/dL and 60 μg/dL should be made based on the presence of clinical signs of poisoning and relevant biological characteristics (e.g., breeding status). Finally, birds with blood-lead levels >60 μg/dL are potentially lethally poisoned and best served if removed from the wild for appropriate treatment at a licensed rehabilitation facility and later released. We present guidelines for decision-making when treating lead poisoning of wild raptors. Future work based on experimental studies will clarify the role of lead poisoning for specific species and be important to refine these guidelines to improve effectiveness.

“Due to limitations of chemical analysis procedures, small concentrations cannot be precisely measured. These concentrations are said to be below the limit of detection (LOD). In statistical analyses, these values are often censored and substituted with a constant value, such as half the LOD, the LOD divided by the square root of 2, or zero. These methods for handling below-detection values two distributions, a uniform distribution for those values below the LOD, and the true distribution. As a result, this can produce questionable descriptive statistics depending upon the percentage of values below the LOD. An alternative method uses the characteristics of the distribution of the values above the LOD to estimate the values below the LOD. This can be done with an extrapolation technique or maximum likelihood estimation. An example program using the same data is presented calculating the mean, standard deviation, t-test, and relative difference in the means for various methods and compares the results. The extrapolation and maximum likelihood estimate techniques have smaller error rate than all the standard replacement techniques. Although more computational, these methods produce more reliable descriptive statistics.”


This study was published:: April 6, 2011
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0017656
Clinical signs associated with lead toxicity were not observed in any of our birds, although this may be difficult to assess in the field setting. In this study, 53% of golden eagle and 18% of turkey vultures sampled prior to implementation of the ban, and 18% of the golden eagles and 3% of turkey vultures sampled post-ban had blood lead concentrations consistent with subclinical lead toxicity (>20 µg/dL) [51]. Only one captured golden eagle had a blood lead concentration at a level that has been reported to cause lead poisoning and death in raptors (>100 µg/dL) [51]. Sampling of free-ranging birds using the capture methods we employed here may underestimate burdens of lead exposure and poisoning in scavenging and predatory bird populations, especially for birds with blood lead concentrations that are high enough to cause debilitation and preclude birds from flying and searching for food [52].



Estimates of up to a million or more birds a year are killed by turbines in the US but that is far exceeded by collisions with communications towers (6.5 million); power lines, (25 million); windows (up to 1 billion); and cats (1.3 to 4.0 billion) and those lost due to habitat loss, pollution and climate change



Lead contamination in raptors in Europe: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Major lead exposure from hunting ammunition in eagles from Sweden
 
Already using those. ;-) And expensive they are -- whoa! Exceptionally good pellets though; I started using them in my .177 caliber airguns long ago, before I realized or much cared about using something lead free. I'll probably use something cheaper (H&N Barracuda Green or Match Green) for day to day, but I think this is definitely one of those "you get what you pay for" things. Great performance! Thanks for the recommendation.
@bubbapearson Thanks for the H&N recommendation. I was looking for a cheaper alternative to the GTO pellets that are priced considerably higher.
 
What a ridiculous analogy. A lead pellet being considered the "nuclear" option of weaponry. Silliest thing I've read on the internet in a long time.

And the drivel in most of the rest of your post only serves to harm the airgun/hunting/shooting community. Reads like the talking points of the misinformed, bored, bleeding hearts that seek to disrupt our sport with theories not in any way supported by science.

Ok, hard science. How about these bits of science:

Approximately 35 times more vertebrate animals are killed in the US each year from vehicle collisions than are killed from lead poisoning.
Approximately 20 times more birds are killed in the US each year from vehicle collisions than are killed from lead poisoning.
Approximately 60 times more birds are killed in the US each year from colliding with glass windows than are killed from lead poisoning.
Approximately 240 times more birds are killed in the US each year from house cat predation than are killed from lead poisoning.
Approximately 71 times more birds are killed in the US each year from industrial sources such as power lines, wind turbines, and communications towers than are killed from lead poisoning.

So, science man that actively hurts our sport with non-sense, are you still driving a car? Have windows in your house? Have a cat? Use electricity or a cell phone?

I assume you must also be giving up these things that kill WAY more birds/animals than lead if you are so concerned about saving them.

Stop believing the lies that are perpetuated by the anti-hunting crowd. Because that is their real goal: to stop hunting, not to stop lead.

Sources:
Jensen, Derrick; Keith, Lierre; Wilbert, Max (2021). Bright Green Lies: How the Environmental Movement Lost Its Way and What We Can Do About It. Monkfish Book Publishing. pp. 346–347. ISBN 978-1948626392. via wikipedia
I PERSONALLY chose to reduce my use of lead -- what's the big deal with that??? I haven't stopped, or urged anyone else to stop, using lead ammo and pellets, but the hard scientific fact remains that lead is toxic, regardless of the cars, windows, cats and industrial bric-a-brac you mentioned. How in the world is my cutting down on lead hurting our, and I use the word because I'm a part of this community, sport? I've been accused of spreading misinformation, which is the only reason I've taken this outside my original question, which in effect remains simply: what else are other airgun enthusiasts using? I'm not anti-hunting in any way! Why are you so angry about this?
 
Ok, hard science. How about these bits of science:

Approximately 35 times more vertebrate animals are killed in the US each year from vehicle collisions than are killed from lead poisoning.
Approximately 20 times more birds are killed in the US each year from vehicle collisions than are killed from lead poisoning.
Approximately 60 times more birds are killed in the US each year from colliding with glass windows than are killed from lead poisoning.
Approximately 240 times more birds are killed in the US each year from house cat predation than are killed from lead poisoning.
Approximately 71 times more birds are killed in the US each year from industrial sources such as power lines, wind turbines, and communications towers than are killed from lead poisoning.

So, science man that actively hurts our sport with non-sense, are you still driving a car? Have windows in your house? Have a cat? Use electricity or a cell phone?

I assume you must also be giving up these things that kill WAY more birds/animals than lead if you are so concerned about saving them.

Stop believing the lies that are perpetuated by the anti-hunting crowd. Because that is their real goal: to stop hunting, not to stop lead.

Sources:
Jensen, Derrick; Keith, Lierre; Wilbert, Max (2021). Bright Green Lies: How the Environmental Movement Lost Its Way and What We Can Do About It. Monkfish Book Publishing. pp. 346–347. ISBN 978-1948626392. via wikipedia
You've worked hard to find some mis-direction you can spread to obfuscate this discussion, but you haven't told me what it was I said that was lies and misinformation, and you refuse to tell me why this is such a sore subject for you. I still don't understand why you feel the need to berate and insult me, just because I chose to use less lead for my airgun hobby. I'm not saying anything that isn't true here, but I never intended this to become a pro or anti lead debate in the first place. Please provide proof of the lies I'm spreading and I'll not only shut up, I'll apologize. In fact, I'll go ahead and apologize now to all the other members of the group for allowing myself to be drawn into a debate I never meant to start.

And by the way, I'm not giving up driving or using windows or bothering any cat owners (I like cats) or not using electricity or any of the other ridiculous 'suggestions' you mentioned. I'm not going to stop shooting either, which may on occasion mean I'll be adding my own extra lead to the great outdoors. Either provide proof of my lies or just stop, please -- I never meant my post to provoke this sort of, in my opinion, very unusual, reaction.