The Hog Blog

Dan Goad is a friend of mine from Southern CA.  He recently completed a successful hunt at Vandenberg AFB, and while he was able to fill both of his tags, he wasn’t totally impressed with the performance of the Barnes 12ga slugs.  Here’s his report:

Phillip,

 

As you may remember, I’m a retired Industrial Hygienist well trained in observation and a student off cause and effect.  And you know how I feel about lead-free ammo.

 

I’ve now officially hunted with the new lead-free alternative ammunition and am now able to provide a first hand report.  Since my partner and I tagged out, I’ll also provide the results of 4 autopsies.

 

First, I’d like to say that I’ve always been a huge fan of Nosler Partitions for many years, both in .30 cal and in 12 ga. slugs and have killed many deer with both calibers.  I know how the Nosler’s perform when it relates to accuracy and how they behave at terminal impact.  This is the standard against which I judge my recent experience with Federals Vital Shok 12 ga in 2 ¾, loaded with Barnes Tipped Triple Shock Expander slugs.

 

The folks at Federal claim that you can get 4 inch groups at 150 yds with this TTSX, if you use a fully rifled shot gun.   They get high marks from me on distance.    They will indeed shoot 150 yds and I feel comfortable taking 200 yd shots with this round.  I think the 4 inch group part is optimistic.  Although I have shot less than 3 inch groups at 100yd, I couldn’t do it consistently, even with the shotgun in a rest and bolted to the bench.

 

I took my first deer at 163 yds on an uphill shot, taking him through the spine (forgot to aim low).  It didn’t kill him.  In fact, other than breaking the spine, it did very little other damage and required a finishing shot to the neck.  The second shot didn’t kill him either, right away.

 

The second deer was a 25 yd quartering away shot, the behind the left forequarter.  It was a perfect heart-lung combo taken from a slightly elevated position.  I could closely observe the impact and the result.   My experience with Nosler slugs (385 grains) led me to expect an instant knock down with this shot.  It didn’t happen, the deer made it 25 yards before going down.

 

My partners deer were both shot at about 25 yes, one went down instantly.  The other was wounded twice, once in the leg and once in the right rear hind quarter.  This second deer took about 1 ½ of tracking with very little blood trail.  He went about ¼ mile before finally dying.

 

We field dressed and skinned all 4 deer.  All shots were complete pass through hits.  There was a small entrance and exit wound and the wound channels were about 2 inches around the flight path, even when the bullet passed through bones.  The evidence suggests that the rounds didn’t expand, or if they did, not enough to cause a DRT wound channel.  I’d call this over penetration.  Jellification was low to moderate and I’d call the tissue damage the same.  The smaller wound channel did equate to less meat loss.

 

There is good news.  We took three deer to the butcher and he saved what he recovered from the meat.  It was one wad and 1 plastic ballistic tip.  No copper debris what so ever. 

 

In my opinion, the Barnes TTSX is a satisfactory round, but rather unforgiving.  You must make a perfect kill shot to bring down an animal.  Otherwise, hone up on your tracking skills. 

 

It certainly has the range to do the job, but even at extended range it did much less damage then I expected from such a large slug.

 

Note to Phillip:  A guy in camp showed me a Remington Copper Solid that he recovered from a pig after taking a Texas heart shot.  The round transited about 2 feet of pig and lodged in the chest.  Only 2 petals opened on the hollow point.  I can make this lead-free stuff work, but the manufacturers need to work on it some.  These Barnes would be great on African big game or moose/elk.  Way too much hitting power for these thin skinned CA deer.  Talked to buddies that used the e-tip and they claim the same problems, marginal accuracy and over penetration, but that’s second hand info.

 

Anyway, we had a great time during the rut, there were deer everywhere we looked. I may skip the spring exotic hunt this year (saving for some swavroski’s) and do the pig o’ rama instead.  I GOTTA figure out this pig thing, its killing me.  I’m a lousy pig hunter and I figure I can learn at the POR.  Look forward to hunting with you again

 

Dan (ltdann)

I’ve never been a big fan of shotgun slugs, so none of this strikes me as unusual.  Getting a .68cal hunk of lead (or copper) to expand seems like it would take an awful lot of resistance.  Most of the deer I’ve seen shot by slugs went down, sure enough, but didn’t show much evidence of expansion.  I imagine the copper slugs are no difference.

The other thing, since I’m on about it, is that I’ve got a real issue with all this marketing of shotgun slugs as 200 yard rounds.  The shotgun was never made for that kind of work, and a big ol’ hunk of metal loafing along at a sub 2000 fps muzzle velocity… even with the Barnes loads.  Sure, they can tweak the accuracy with sabots and rifled barrels, but there’s only so much you can do for terminal performance.  I believe that this trend is going to increase the number of wounded and lost animals… again, regardless if we’re talking lead or copper, but maybe even moreso with the non-lead slugs.

Enough of my little rant.  I don’t knock Dan for taking his shot.  I’m sure the accuracy is there, and I know Dan wouldn’t take the shot if he didn’t think it was do-able…  but I just don’t believe the ammo is up to the task.

So what do ya’ll think?  This is two reports so far by folks who aren’t so enamoured of the Barnes performance.  You’ve read my own reports, and my experiences with the non-lead.  You may also have noticed the poll on the page as well, that shows about 65% positive reports over a couple of negatives (oddly enough, only one respondent reported making a bad shot).   

Since last year’s “revelatory” discovery that lead fragments “contaminate” hunter-killed venison, several states have begun taking measures to address the fears of consumers and politicians.  So far, an all-out lead ban has been avoided, but the panic hasn’t abated.  The response of state food banks has been all over the board, though.

North Dakota, where this all started, has just announced that food banks will only accept venison taken by archery… at least for now.  This should cut the donations significantly, which is a shame as this meat is an affordable source of protein for many needy families.

In Minnesota, after going around and around, the decision was made to allow venison back into the food bank, but they will only be accepting whole cuts.  Ground venison, which has generally shown to have higher concentrations of lead fragments, will not be permitted. 

What’s happening in your state?  Can you still donate your venison to the local food banks? 

A while back, and maybe a time or two since then, I’ve mentioned that with all the talk about lead ammo and its alleged effects on condors, what we haven’t really talked about is lead at shooting ranges.  It’s a major issue, and one that is likely to become a lot bigger in the very near future.  It’s also the loose edge under which the anti-lead crusade is likely to wedge their levers. 

For a quick refresher, there are a couple of key issues around lead ammo and shooting ranges.  First, and most obvious is the deposit of lead bullets and shot pellets into the ground around the range.  It’s significant, and the threat to groundwater is real and documented. 

The second risk at ranges is lead gases.  The airborne lead isn’t just from bullets, but comes from the primers as well (lead is used as a stabilizing agent in most centerfire primers).  OSHA has dedicated an entire book to the issue of lead at shooting ranges, both indoor and outdoor ranges. 

Anyway, as lead ammo becomes more and more widely discussed, the shooting range issue is likely to become a key topic.  The first salvo was fired long ago, but this morning’s issue of the SF Chronicle sends another volley downrange. 

Lead litter endangers wildlife and waterways, scientists say. Lead is so toxic that if consumed, it stunts the growth of animals and plants, and causes the loss of biological diversity, according to scientists at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Runoff from ranges can be rich in lead, said Tom Mumley, assistant executive officer of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, which halted the use of lead shot at shooting ranges near water in the mid-1990s.

 

Nic Barca is a hog hunter and wildlife biology (or something like that ) student in Hawaii.  I’ve long sat and drooled over his stories of hunting in the islands for wild hogs, goats, and wild cattle (don’t laugh… these cattle are wild and rank… the poor man’s Cape Buffalo).  It’s not just that he gets to do all this great hunting, it’s the beautiful place where he’s doing it!

Anyway, Nic has been doing some video work in addition to his hunts and stories.  Most of them are worth seeing, and if you take a look at YouTube and look up nbarca, you can find some great stuff.  But when I saw this video that lays out the process for gutless field dressing, I thought it was worth sharing.  I’ve used the method on elk, deer, and hogs, and it’s worked great.  Folks have asked me about it, and while I’ve explained it, maybe seeing it on video will make it a little more clear.

So, without further ado…

 

Just read this in my feeds today. A Texas man has been charged with intentionally releasing feral hogs in Wisconsin. The charges stem from a 2002 incident, in which the accused, Robert Scott Johnson, allegedly brought a trailer load of feral hogs from Texas to Wisconsin, and released them into the wild.

Here’s the article from the Houston Chronicle.

Much of the blame for the massive expansion of feral hogs throughout the U.S. has been placed on the doorstep of people importing and releasing the animals in order to create a huntable population in their area.  Hogs are prolific breeders and can survive a wide variety of environmental conditions, so once established, they’re hard to control and almost impossible to eradicate.

While I’ve expressed my own doubts about the actual negative impact of feral hogs on habitat and native wildlife, there’s no question that wild swine can do a lot of damage to agricultural interests.  Texas, the state with the largest population of feral hogs, estimates annual crop loss and damage at around $52 million, and spends millions of dollars per year on control and eradication efforts… not counting the amount spent by ranchers and farmers out of their own pockets.  (There is a flip side in Texas, however, as hog hunters from around the country flock to TX for a taste of wild pork.  While hog hunts in TX are relatively inexpensive, the volume of hunters is likely to continue to increase, creating a pretty lucrative industry for the ranchers, outfitters, and property-owners interested in capitalizing on the boom.)

The point is, importing these animals and releasing them uncontrolled into the wild is both environmentally irresponsible and detrimental to our sport.  I’ve heard an awful lot of people argue that hunters aren’t to blame for the spread of feral hogs, but cases like this one make it awful hard to defend the ethical majority in our community.  The fact is, the practice is a lot more prevalent than many people would like to admit or believe. 

Look, I love hog hunting.  It’s something of a minor obsession for me, and I think every hunter should have the opportunity to go after these wonderful game animals.  But honestly, spreading them across the country, releasing them into wild places where they simply don’t belong… that’s a bad practice.  Not only is there potential to damage habitat and native species, there’s also the likelihood that continuing the practice will bring down more draconian laws that make it hard on legal, ethical hunters.  You’re going to see more states taking the approach of Kansas and prohibiting the recreational take of feral hogs.  You’re also going to see more and more tax money diverted from necessary wildlife management and habitat programs in order to address this newly created problem. 

It’s not that expensive to take a long weekend trip to Texas or Florida and hunt the large population of feral hogs (I do not include CA in this list, although we have the second-largest herd of feral hogs in the country, because it’s become ridiculously expensive for a non-resident to hunt hogs here).  Head on down and see what it’s all about in a state that already has a “problem” and welcomes the assistance in controlling it.  Don’t be part of creating a new problem, both for the State and for hunters.

 

 

Yeah, the title sucks. Sorry…

But here’s the deal.  In comments to my recent post about Washington state’s position on lead ammo, the conversation diverged into some speculation by Holly (the NorCal Cazadora) about whether more people would start hunting as a result of the economic downturn.   She wrote:

Another blogger out there just asked recently if others are seeing evidence that the poor economy is driving licenses and hunting UP because of people’s desire to fill their freezers.

Michael Riddle, from NativeHunt, replied that he doubted that a person could, legally, subsist on wild game.  I would disagree with that from a theoretical perspective… but only at that academic level.  It would be quite possible, especially if you factor in wild hogs (year-round, no limit, etc.) to gather enough game, fish, and fowl.  The catch is, it would cost a small fortune and require a huge investment in time and effort. 

Which brings his final point to light:

The drop in hunter numbers only coincides with correlating numbers of people simply tightening up their belts during a rough economic turmoil and they have cut out extraneous activities.
When the economy picks up we will see those numbers pick up and increase alongside of our paycheck increases.

I agree with Michael that the reality is that the economic situation is much more likely to drive people away from hunting than into it.  It’s not a necessity for anyone in this country, and if things really get tight, most folks aren’t going to spend the money for a 5% chance at killing a deer (much less two deer), or drop $20 a pop for a tag, then spend $400 or more to go shoot a hog on private land (forget about public land hunting.. the cost to success ratio is ridiculously low there). 

Point being, hunting for meat is not an economical alternative to buying it from the store… at least not if you’re doing it legally.  Sure, there may be the exception here and there, but generally speaking, it doesn’t make any sense

What you will likely see, if things get really-really bad, is a slight uptick in poaching, just like they saw during the depression.   

Keep in mind that, historically, the most significant upswing in recreational, sport hunting didn’t take place until the country was in an economical upswing, following WWII.  There were a ton of factors at work, but not the least was that people had spare money and spare time. 

The current economic trend is certainly ugly, but we’re still a very prosperous society.  The bloat of the hunting and shooting sports industry is a testament to the fact that hunters still have plenty of spare money to spend on our sport… and apparently plenty of spare time to use all those new gadgets and gizmos.    All this is good and fine now, but it sets the stage for a devastating collapse of the industry if Americans really have to start tightening their belts. 

The prosperity and growth of the “industry” concerns me as well because of the upsurge in “pay-to-play” hunting opportunities.  As guides and outfitters lease more property, and property owners recognize the financial incentive to charge tresspass fees, the opportunities for “free” hunting appear to be fading away.  This may be simple perception versus reality, but that perception already has had a negative impact on the number of hunters.  As folks find it harder to justify the cost of a hunt, that impact will worsen.  The idea of hunting as a “rich man’s sport” may very well become the dominant reality. 

As a whole, the hunting community is already hemorraghing members at a critical rate due to other factors besides the economy.  A significant and prolonged economic downturn may very well be the telling blow to our sport, relegating us once and for all to fringe status… an unlikely coalition of the very wealthy and the hardcore.   

I’ll still be there, one way or the other…

 

Just read the following press release out of Florida. 

Florida Cautions Hunters on Wild Hogs

2008-09-18

TALLAHASSEE, Fl. — The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) is encouraging hunters to take precautions when dressing and handling harvested wild hogs.

Wild hogs, though not originally native to Florida, are now found within all 67 counties, and like any wild animal, can carry parasites and diseases - some of which can be transmitted to people. One such disease for hunters to be concerned with is swine brucellosis.

The FWC is advising hunters handling wild hog carcasses to take the following precautions to protect themselves from exposure to this bacterial disease:

- Avoid eating, drinking or using tobacco when field-dressing or handling carcasses.

- Use latex or rubber gloves when handling the carcass or raw meat.

- Avoid direct contact with blood, reproductive organs and fecal matter. Wearing long sleeves, eye protection and covering any scratches, open wounds or lesions will help provide protection.

- Clean and disinfect knives, cleaning area, clothing and any other exposed surfaces when finished.

- Wash hands frequently with soap and water.

When cooking wild hog, as with any wild game, care in handling is an important part of disease prevention, and the meat should be cooked thoroughly to 170 degrees. Swine brucellosis is not transmitted through properly cooked meat.

“Hunters shouldn’t be overly concerned with swine brucellosis, but they should practice these good-hygiene, safety precautions when field-dressing wild hogs,” FWC wildlife veterinarian Mark Cunningham said.

Brucellosis in people is called undulant fever and could be transmitted if a hunter cut himself while field-dressing a wild hog or was exposed to the animal’s blood or bodily fluids. Symptoms include a recurrent fever, chills, night sweats, weakness, headaches, back pain, swollen joints, loss of appetite and weight loss.

Hunters who exhibit these symptoms or may have been exposed should contact a physician.

It’s a great reminder for all of us. 

 

Well, a while back I asked for first hand stories of your experiences with lead-free ammunition.  I didn’t get a lot of responses, but I did recently get the following email from Josh Stark, a regular contributor/commentor on this blog, and host of his own great blog on sporting ethics. 

Anyway, Josh is just starting to feel his way through the non-lead ammo maze, and starting with a tough one… a .30-30!  Not many choices of ammo for that caliber, but Josh was able to get his hands on some of Corbon’s loads, topped with the Barnes TSX-FN (Flat Nose).  Here’s his initial report:

Dear Phillip,

Well, after telling you I was going to shoot last Wednesday, I finally got out to the Rancho Cordova Shooting Center today, Sunday. 

First, I must say that I’ve not shot my 30-30 in over five years.  I have been bow hunting and shotgunning for the last few years, and so it’s been put away.  However, having missed my bow chance this year, I took down the old Winchester Ranger, and tried it out. 

As you know from my comments to your blog, I’m okay with the non-lead requirement, but I had never shot them before, and so I wanted to make sure I was okay with the ethical nature of the ammunition, esp. in light of your friend’s post about his troubles with the .270.

I took it to the range today, and was very happy with my results.  I’m not the best shot on Earth (far from it), and my Winchester’s trigger-pull is about six inches long, but I have shot since I was seven, and I was on rifle team in high school for four years, so I am comfortable behind a gun.

I gotta say, a 3″ group at 100 yds. is a happy shock for me (I’d forgotten how far 100 yards is), but that’s what I got.  Granted, I only took three shots at the 100 yd. target (so it could be a fluke), having spent most of my time on the 25 yd. target getting my scope aligned, and I couldn’t shoot more at the 100 yd. range because the ammo. is prohibitively expensive, which is a drawback worth noting.  However, I am comfortable with shooting this ammunition at an animal, and that is what I’m going to do (hopefully) this Saturday.

My hunting this weekend will all be inside of 60 yards (it’s the nature of the hill I’m hunting this time, not a self-imposed limit), so I’m not as worried about really reaching out to hit a deer.

I’ll keep you posted as to my hunting success.  I don’t know anybody else who has shot Barnes bullets out of a 30-30, probably because nobody has been loading them except Corbon, and then I’ve only been able to buy them online (I got them at Midway, which had really good service, by the way).  This is another problem needing mention. 

Thanks for listening, and if any of this information helps, I’m glad. 

Sincerely,
Josh

 Well, first of all I have to say that a 3″ group at 100 yard with a 30-30 isn’t bad shooting!  I know a lot of folks talk about shooting 150 yards or more with a 30-30, but in my opinion this rifle is a 100 yard or less gun.  If a hunter can put three shots into a three-inch circle at 100 yards, then there’s not a lot to complain about.

Of course, as we’ve been hearing, accuracy is only part of the story.  Terminal performance is pretty critical too.  Best wishes, Josh, on your deer hunt this weekend.  I hope to hear (and see pictures) of a successful trip and top-notch bullet performance.

If you’d like to share your own, (not second-hand,or a “friend-of-a-friend”) lead-free ammo story with me, please feel free to do so in the comments, or even better, in an email.  Please provide as much detail as you can, by the way, including the caliber and weight of your bullets, where you hit the animal, the range of the shot(s), and your personal opinion of the terminal performance based on what you see when you disassemble your animal.  Pictures are welcome and appreciated, although I’ll reserve the right to decide if something is appropriate for display on this blog.    

---

Meanwhile, have a look at the poll.  Haven’t had a ton of responses so far, but the majority of respondents appear to be pretty happy with the performance of the non-lead ammo.  Is this accurate?  It sure isn’t statistically significant, considering we’ve only had 12 responses so far… but compared to other surveys, this is actually pretty close to the norm. 

I’ll leave the poll up for a while, and as the CA deer seasons get fully underway over the next few weeks, maybe those numbers will evolve into a better picture of what’s really going on out there. 

 

 

Boy, turn your back on this lead ban stuff for a second and, WHAM, you get blindsided by an effort you never even heard of before. 

That’s the case with a movement afoot in the state of Washington, and a proposal to remove lead from the environment that includes lead ammunition.  Here’s an excerpt from a publication summary:

Lead from ammunition is one of the many sources of this metal covered in the draft Lead Chemical Action Plan (CAP). The CAP is a planning tool to guide statewide efforts to reduce lead exposures in the environment. The goal is to lower the amount of lead people are exposed to. The Washington Department of Ecology is committed to reducing toxic threats. The chemical action plan (CAP) is one of the tools used to carry out this priority work. CAPs deal with substances considered “the worst of the worst” for human health and the environment. Each CAP looks at the sources of exposure from a toxic substance and recommends ways to reduce that threat. Earlier CAPs have dealt with mercury and PBDE flame retardants.

The Lead CAP is now available for public review and comment. For more information, link online to: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0807053.pdf

The discussion is apparently not a new one, although this is the first time it’s get enough publicity to capture my attention.  The NRA (of course) is already deriding it, as the plan is now being submitted for public comment.  http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/pbt/leadcap/

I urge all hunters, shooters, and sportsmen to speak up now.  If you wait for someone else to do it for you… well, you saw what happened here in CA.  Before responding, though, take the time to read the plan and understand exactly what it’s about.  For one, the Department of Ecology is calling for a “voluntary, educational approach,” rather than a legislated ban… at least for now. 

The entire draft plan is about 335 pages, and loaded with justifications for removing lead from the environment.  It can be an educational read, if you’ve never seen some of this stuff, but it’s also quite overwhelming.  In a nutshell, it lays out the case against lead as a poison in the environment and in the human body.  Not really news there.

What should be news is the fact that lead ammunition has yet to be linked to human health issues.  I’ve said this so many times I hesitate to keep saying it… but I will until proven otherwise…  there’s no link!  It bears research, and that research is underway.  The limited studies to date, however, in tandem with common sense and experience, suggest that meat taken with lead ammo is reasonably safe for humans. 

I won’t deny that lead does have some impact on the environment and some animal life.  It’s worth review, and an alternative should be considered.  It should be a cooperative effort with sportsmen and the State’s environmental experts working toward a solution that benefits everyone.  But if sportsmen don’t get involved, the State will do what states usually do… find the simplest, quickest “solution” and implement it through legislation. 

And the simplest, quickest solution to lead ammo in the environment is to ban it outright.