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.

 

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. 

A friend of mine just forwarded me the following message from the North Dakota Department of Health.  As some of you will likely remember, North Dakota pulled all hunter-killed venison off of the food bank shelves after a local dermatologist announced that he’d discovered lead fragments in a majority of the meat he sampled.  It caused a panic across the country, but especially in North Dakota and the neighboring states. 

In a follow-up that actually made sense, the panic was followed by blood testing of several citizens who’d eaten venison.  Like many others in the hunting community, I’ve been watching and waiting for the results.  It looks like they’re just now coming back in.  Read for yourselves.

NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
NEWS RELEASE
 
For Immediate Release:
Sept. 5, 2008
 
For More Information, Contact:
Loreeta Canton
Stacy Eberl
Office of Public Information
North Dakota Department of Health
Phone: 701.328.2372
E-mail: lcanton@nd.gov
            sleberl@nd.gov
 
Individual Blood Lead Level Test Results Sent to Study Participants
Preliminary Report on Effects of Consuming Lead Bullet Fragments
Expected Within Four to Six Weeks
 
BISMARCK, N.D. – Individual blood lead level test results have been sent to participants of a study conducted by the North Dakota Department of Health and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in late May and early June 2008, according to Stephen Pickard, M.D., epidemiologist with the North Dakota Department of Health.
 
The study was designed to determine whether people who eat wild game harvested with lead bullets have higher blood lead levels than people who don’t. A total of 738 North Dakotans volunteered to have their blood tested for the presence of lead. Within the next two weeks, each participant will receive a letter with his or her blood lead level, as well as information to help participants interpret the results and a phone number to call if they have questions.
 
Although a high percentage of people who were tested had lead in their blood, none had levels higher than 10. A lead level of zero is preferred for health reasons, but it is not unusual to see lead levels of up to 2 in people across the United States.
 
“This information, in and of itself, does not confirm the presence or absence of risk associated with eating wild game harvested with lead bullets,” Pickard said. “Instead, the part of the study that will answer that question should be available within four to six weeks, once the CDC has analyzed the data collected from the participants. At that time we should have a better understanding of the relationship between the consumption of lead bullet fragments and the level of lead in a person’s blood.”
 
In late March 2008, the North Dakota departments of Health, Agriculture, and Game and Fish advised food pantries across the state not to distribute or use donated ground venison because of the discovery of contamination with lead fragments. A few weeks later, the Minnesota departments of Health, Agriculture and Natural Resources made a similar advisory after laboratory tests discovered lead in venison that had been donated to food pantries in Minnesota. At that time, the North Dakota Department of Health asked the CDC for assistance in conducting the blood lead level study.
 
“Although no single study is definitive, the results of this study are expected to provide an estimate of the risk to health of eating wild game that has been taken with lead bullets,” Pickard said. “The results of this study and other studies ongoing in other states should help us develop more definitive recommendations to hunters about the safety of consuming wild game for themselves and for their families and the best ways to minimize any risk. As we have said before, people who have concerns about the possibility of lead fragments in their wild game should not serve it to children and may decide whether to eat it themselves.”
 
Blood lead levels higher than 10 micrograms per deciliter for children and 25 micrograms per deciliter for adults are considered elevated. However, even levels below 10 can cause health problems, including high blood pressure and reduced kidney function among adults and permanent brain injury among infants and preschool children. For children ages 6 and younger, any exposure to lead is considered too much:
*       In young children, lead exposure can cause lower IQs, learning disabilities, stunted growth, kidney damage, attention deficit disorder (ADD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
*       In pregnant women, high lead exposure can cause low birth-weight babies, premature births, miscarriage and stillbirth.
*       In adults, lead can cause high blood pressure, hearing loss and infertility.
 
Other information related to the lead-in-venison issue includes the following:
•         According to Ann Pollert, Community Action Partnership director, the program is waiting for the CDC preliminary report before deciding whether gun-shot venison will be donated to food pantries this year through the Sportsmen Against Hunger Program.
•         The North Dakota Department of Agriculture has sent guidelines to processors concerning ways to minimize the risk of lead in processed meat, including venison.
•         The North Dakota Game and Fish Department included an article in its latest issue of its North Dakota Outdoors magazine concerning the lead-in-venison issue and hunting.
 
More information about the lead-in-venison issue, including the documents referenced above, is available on the North Dakota Department of Health’s website at www.ndhealth.gov/lead/venison.
                                                                                               
– 30 –
 
Please note: To access archived news releases and other information, visit the North Dakota Department of Health Press Room at www.nddohpressroom.gov <http://www.nddohpressroom.gov/> .

 

As I reported after last year’s SHOT Show, CCI has come out with a line of “Green” 22 magnum ammo that is lead-free and legal for use in the CA Condor Zone.  As I have probably mentioned a time or two since then, it took them forever to get any of this ammo into the stores.  I got to shoot some at the show, and several other writers and publications received samples, but it seemed like it was never coming to market.

Well, it’s finally here.  I don’t own a .22 mag, unfortunately, so I can’t run out and buy a brick, but my friend and hard-core varmint shooter, Eric Mayer over at Varminter.com got his hands on some and put it through the paces.  Go over and check out his review, and see what you think.  Then call your local sporting goods shop and see if they have some.  Good stuff, and long-awaited for varmint hunters in the Condor Zone.

Then, get on the phone or email to the ammo makers and start screaming for more rimfire offerings in .22lr and .17!  I’ve been told by several folks that it’s completely do-able, although the cost may be a little prohibitive.  Still, get it on the market and I’m sure the price will moderate as demand levels off.

Well, just to cut to the chase on my “catchy” title, yeah… a copper bullet will definitely kill a hog.  I’ve done it a couple of times now, and seen it done as well.  The non-lead ammo has worked fine for me whether I’m hunting hogs or deer (or exotics, for that matter). 

But I’m starting to get some questions anyway, especially as far as certain calibers.  Some of you might remember I mentioned that I’d had some problems getting good groups from a .270 with the Black Hills Gold ammo (loaded with Barnes TSX).  I have the components to handload some rounds for that rifle, but haven’t tried them out yet. 

Holly, the NorCal Cazadora also had issues getting good groups from her boyfriend’s (Hank, the HunterAnglerGardenerCook) .270.  Some of you may have seen her blog post about this frustrating experience. 

And here lately on Jesse’s Hunting and Outdoors, several of our forum members have spoken up about similar problems… almost all with the .270. 

Are we seeing a trend here?  Is there something about the .270 that doesn’t jibe with the characteristics of the copper bullets?  It’s really piqued my curiosity now.

So my question, dear readers, for any of you who’ve had a chance to shoot the copper ammo, how many of you have had problems getting decent groups, and what calibers are you shooting?  Please, don’t tell me what you heard from a friend, or what someone wrote somewhere… I’m looking for first hand experiences.  What have you guys and gals been seeing out there? 

I just realized no one has really done a good, all-around primer for CA hunters impacted by the lead ban.  Sure, there’ve been press releases and that weak and outdated FAQ from the DFG website, but nothing really addresses the questions that hunters are asking, and the issues we’re facing.

Well, I put together this video.. and when it was done I realized that still, no one has done a really good, all-around primer…  but I tried.  Maybe someone will think this is cool and pay me to put together a real, production quality video. 

But in the meantime, I hope you find some useful information in the following presentations (in two parts, due to YouTube file-size limits). 
Part 1
 
Part 2

In my RSS feeds the other day, I stumbled across this article by David Malakof in the ScienceNOW Daily News.  In the article, Malakof describes the condor recovery efforts as successful, but then turns around and basically describes what any other normal person would consider abject failure.

Confusing? Read the article.

Malakof is citing a recent report presented by the American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU), in which the current state of the condor recovery program is examined.  In the review, the authors suggest that the program is at a success because there are now 150 condors flying at large in their historic range.

But the program is also a failure according to the article and review, because these birds can’t survive without human intervention.  The report says that, currently, the existing condor population is little more than a zoo animal in the wild that can’t survive without expensive interaction with its “handlers”.  The “wild” population hasn’t been restored.  The captive population has just been given a bigger cage.

All of this, of course, doesn’t come as a very shocking contradiction considering the fact that scientists can never agree on anything.  In fact, I agree with the findings that the program has not achieved anything except to spend a lot of money to maintain free-flying zoo animals.  And in order to keep that population flying, they’ll have to spend a lot more money.

But, here’s where I wonder if someone’s trying to throw a blanket over the heads of hunters and shooters across the west…  according to the review, the sole thing that will save the condors is the removal of lead ammunition. 

Any discussion of the condor program must begin with the issue of lead. A basic tenet of conservation biology is that reintroductions will inevitably fail if the factors that caused the species to decline in the first place have not been addressed (Meretsky et al. 2000). It is now apparent that the reintroduction of condors illustrates this principle, lead exposure being the recurring factor. Habitat loss and direct persecution through shooting and poisoning of carcasses surely were involved in the decline of the condor through the nineteenth and into the twentieth century (Snyder 2007), but there is compelling evidence that elevated mortality due to lead poisoning was a major cause of continuing decline at the time the birds were brought into captivity (Meretsky et al. 2000; Snyder 2007). Although just a few years ago there was debate about the significance and source of lead exposure in reintroduced condors (Beissinger 2002;Riseborough 2002), there is now widespread consensus and overwhelming evidence that poisoning due to ingestion of spent lead ammunition in carcasses and gut piles currently precludes the establishment of viable populations in the wild (Cade 2007). 

Is this really widespread consensus, or is it an agenda showing its ugly face?  I dunno, but here’s part of their conclusion:

We are convinced that condor recovery cannot be achieved unless exposure to lead from ingesting spent ammunition while feeding on carcasses and gut piles is eliminated. We conclude that as long as lead ammunition is available,even with excellent compliance voluntary programs promoting the use of non-lead ammunition are unlikely to reduce lethal exposure to lead sufficiently to enable condor populations to be selfsustaining. Similarly, the efficacy of area-specific requirements for non-lead ammunition such as the local regulations on the Tejon Ranch or even the state regulations in California remains extremely uncertain. We therefore conclude that total replacement of lead with non-toxic ammunition at least within the potential range of the condor, and preferably nationally, is necessary (but perhaps not sufficient) for condor recovery. We recommend that USFWS work with ammunition manufactures, state game agencies, and shooting and hunting organizations to spearhead an effort to replace lead ammunition with non-lead alternative ammunitions nationally or at least within the potential range of the condor. The program requires national leadership from USFWS on this issue, but state wildlife agencies must be full partners in this effort because of their jurisdiction over hunting regulations.

Now, in the interest of fairness, the review also cites the ongoing feeding program and association of humans with food as parts of the problem.  The report does recommend moving feeding programs further from human habitation, as well as changing the program to encourage more wild foraging.  The report also suggests that the response to this call for a lead ban NOT BE ONE THAT DIMINISHES HUNTING, BECAUSE THE CONDORS NEED MORE CARCASSES TO EAT.  It paints a picture of a strange, and conflicting symbiosis, doesn’t it?

Elimination of lead ammunition should not be accomplished by a reduction in hunting, but rather by replacement of lead ammunition with non-lead alternatives. Hunters are the dominant predators in most of the condor’s range, and dead animals and gut piles left by hunters provide important food sources for condors. It is essential that hunters continue to harvest deer, pigs and other wildlife throughout the condor range using non-lead ammunition, so that a clean source of wild food is available to condors beyond food subsidies. This is the only way that condors will be able to be sustained in the wild after food subsidies are reduced. Therefore eliminating the threat of lead must be accomplished while simultaneously promoting sport hunting for large game and depredation hunting for feral pigs. The campaign to convert the hunting community from lead to non-lead ammunition should include increased awareness of that community’s important role in condor recovery as a critical source of the condor’s food supply.

Throughout the discussion of lead ammo, the review does cite the issue that other carrion feeding birds are also being exposed to lead fragments, which of course gives some weight to their argument for an all-out lead ammo ban.  They even manage to stick in a jab at the possibility that lead fragments are a risk to humans. For a report that’s supposed to be about the viability of the condor program, this thing sure does swing wide afield. 

Regardless the agenda, or lack thereof, the review makes a pretty compelling case in light of the fact that it’s being presented as scientific research and the current hysteria that’s already surrounding lead ammo.  This thing has traction, and hunters as well as target shooters should really be paying attention.

Is the condor going to survive over time?  Personally, I doubt it…lead or no lead.  From the tone of the review, I don’t think the AOU folks really believe it either.  Let’s just repeat a key statement from the report:

We therefore conclude that total replacement of lead with non-toxic ammunition at least within the potential range of the condor, and preferably nationally, is necessary (but perhaps not sufficient) for condor recovery.

But it’s pretty obvious that the condor isn’t the real issue here. 

I’ve said before and still believe, that getting the lead out is not a bad idea.  But pushing too hard and too fast, as California has done, is the wrong way to go about it… simply throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  It puts the onus on the hunters, and we are the very ones who have the least ability to effect this change.  Let’s get the ammo makers to step up, and get the government to provide some positive support.  If this is, as the Peregrine Fund and Audubon researchers suggest, a much larger environmental and health issue, then it seems justified that government funding would be available to research and develop lead-alternatives. 

Anyway, enough about what I think…  

Read the AOU review.  Yeah, it’s long and full of big words, but it’s important to know what they’re saying in order to determine where you stand.  Inform yourself.  Then let me know what you think.