lead shot???

[icecold]

Some guy was trying to tell me u can use lead shot on private property for geese if there is no water within 500 feet, true or false???

[Huntin&Fishin]

False, lead shot is banned for all waterfowl hunting use.

[luckycrank]

yep no lead period

[strait-meat]

You should be able to use lead on waterfowl--it is just all the environmentalist wackos out there that have convinced people that lead is hurting the environment, killing eagles and poisoning the ducks. More ducks die from being wounded from steel that would have been kill shots with lead than with the ducks eating lead pellets. A birds metabolism is so fast there isn't enough time for lead to be absorbed to even get lead poisoning.

[Musky Buck]

Have any of you speaking of lead been worried when a CO checks your birds meaning I got a goose one day and was I in for a surprise when the rear end of it was peppered with lead pellets, found while cleaning it, how do you talk your way out of that 1 ? Not that a CO has ever heard an outdoorsman lie to them before.

[shortfatguy]

I asked my hunting partner the same thing. I am sure its pretty common for some clown to put a few lead bbs in duck.

[brittman]

You should be able to use lead on waterfowl--it is just all the environmentalist wackos out there that have convinced people that lead is hurting the environment, killing eagles and poisoning the ducks. More ducks die from being wounded from steel that would have been kill shots with lead than with the ducks eating lead pellets. A birds metabolism is so fast there isn't enough time for lead to be absorbed to even get lead poisoning.

I grew up shooting lead. Steel shot kills birds plenty well if you let the ducks work to you under 40 yards. Our loss rate using conventional steel loads is very low. The mid-velocity Federals were under $10/box this fall at MFF - cost not much of an issue either.

If you want to crush them than buy the $25/box loads and a custome choke.

Steel knocks down (kills half or more) ducks and geese pass shooting out to 60 yards. Beyond 60 it becomes sky busting for most hunters. The trick here is to only pass shoot where the birds fall into an area where retrieving them is not an issue for dog and/or human.

[strait-meat]

I agree steel shot can kill ducks. My point was that lead is far more efficient than steel and how can we believe these environmentalists on their claims of lead shot when they have a higher agenda for the US--namely making us a 3rd world banana republic. Does global warming ring a bell or maybe how bad oil is, or what about all the evil things that come from capitalism and colonialism. The same people that told us using lead shot is bad for duck hunting and the environment are the same people who are trying to band the hunting of wolves. Everyone wants a clean environment but be careful what you give up because it will never be enough for these people.

[brittman]

I do not believe you are correct in your correlation between lead shot and wolves. Not even close. Most wildlife agencies either supported or did not oppose the elimination of lead shot on waterfowl. Not true on the wolf hunting issue.

While lead shot could certainly be used in most fields without issue, enforecement would be almost impossible. That is why the USF&WS made the clear and distinct change over 20 years ago.

Lead is a dangerous element when not managed properly. Leaded gasoline was an issue, lead paint can be an issue, lead shot and lead rifle bullets can be an issue.

What about asbestos ? Another material used liberally in many products? It was a great material, but its risk to human health outweighs those benefits.

I do not believe your comment that lead shot is far more efficient that steel either. Maybe when steel shot was first introduced, but Winchester, Remington, Federal, and others have done much in designing shot, shell, powder, and wads ... they are just as good as lead if the birds are in range. I will admit that I still prefer lead 5s for pheasants, but I seem to kill as many with steel 3s and have never really noticed a difference in the number of lost birds between the two.

I have nothing against big oil or the chemical industry. Both have been rather good to me. The US has the resources to become energy self sufficient and cut the cash flow to the MidEast. Can be done in a relatively environmentally friend way too.

All that said, have you ever been in Shanghai or other large city in China ? Go live their for a month or even a week and you will quickly come to realize that pollution control is a good thing.

[fishuhalik]

Have any of you speaking of lead been worried when a CO checks your birds meaning I got a goose one day and was I in for a surprise when the rear end of it was peppered with lead pellets, found while cleaning it, how do you talk your way out of that 1 ? Not that a CO has ever heard an outdoorsman lie to them before.

Never thought of this before. Anyone know how to approach this if it ever happened?

[Ufatz]

Thank you Brittman, for the reasoned and accurate reply. Refreshing.

[koonie]

I do not believe your comment that lead shot is far more

efficient that steel either. Maybe when steel shot was first introduced, but Winchester, Remington, Federal, and others have done much in designing shot, shell, powder, and wads ... they are just as good as lead if the birds are in range. I will admit that I still prefer lead 5s for pheasants, but I seem to kill as many with steel 3s and have never really noticed a difference in the number of lost birds between the two.

You don't believe lead is more efficient than steel? Wow! That's funny right there. Apparently you didn't grow up shooting lead for ducks and geese or you would know there is no comparison. Don't even bother trying.

[brittman]

You don't believe lead is more efficient than steel? Wow! That's funny right there. Apparently you didn't grow up shooting lead for ducks and geese or you would know there is no comparison. Don't even bother trying.

Actually I did and that is why I can stand behind my comments noted above I can back them up with experience shooting both lead and steel at ducks and geese.

So how was lead better than steel for you - share a little more ?

[strait-meat]

Quote:

So how was lead better than steel for you - share a little more ?

Nice remarks Brittman--I am sure he is not referring to shooting ducks with lead now--maybe he is referring to pheasant hunting or when one could use lead on ducks.

I can tell you one thing when I shoot pheasants with lead there is a lot less wounded birds and runners.

I guess it is pretty apparent that not all sportsman are politically conservative in their views and even liberals can owe a gun and can enjoy hunting by some of the comments in this thread. In my opinion, it is to bad that liberalism has spread as far as it has.

[brittman]

Exactly straight and I am asking him to dig back in his memory and compare the two ... I noted that many modern steel loads are as good or better than lead loads were 30 years ago.

Who you calling liberal ?

[koonie]

No idea where the liberal thing came from.

I won't argue the steel/lead thing anymore. Steel is better than it used to be. The new chokes help as well. I just don't agree that it is as effective as lead "was". I'd like to shoot "todays" lead and see how it performs on ducks and geese. :-) For the record I'd take Hevishot over both though.

[Kettle]

Wildfowl had a good article on shot size, shot material and shot distance in regards to kinetic energy, if I recall correctly the faster and larger shot had nearly twice as much energy than your standard steel in your 2 and 4 shot size. I know this is going to sound crazy but I shoot 1 shoot in a high velocity for ducks (teal and wood ducks) in an improved cylinder choke. For mallards and geese I shoot BB's in a high velocity steel in either Mod or Extra tight full depending on the range of the birds I will be shooting at. Here is the article, call me crazy but archers have looked at kinetic energy for years in regards to how much punch a arrow has. Although everytime I have had lead in for pheasants I knock em out.

http://www.wildfowlmag.com/tips_strategies_wf_nothingbutfast_200808.html

Happy Hunting

Kettle

[strait-meat]

Lead is better tan steel hands down and there hasn't been any adverse effects with 60-70 years of using lead to shoot waterfowl/pheasants--but lets keep bowing at the alter of Mother Nature.

[CANOPY SAM]

Okay, so back to the questions asked. If by chance a CO were to pull the old lead sweeper detection thingy, and found you had lead in a bird, or birds, all you can do is tell the truth.

Show him/her that you have no lead shells on your person, or in your vehicle. No empties that contained lead, etc..

Then carefully pluck the bird to see if the entry holes are fresh, or if they're old. If you can find the actual lead pellets in the bird, and show the CO that they've been there for a while, you've got a chance of them letting you off. If the pellet holes are fresh, you may have a problem.

Lead was banned years ago because of it's magnification, and concentration affect as it travels up the food chain. Waterfowl, other migratory birds, and non-migratory birds that eat lead shot from the bottom of a slough, can and will absorb lead in their gut. When and if they die, another critter eating them will now absorb that lead. This is of particular importance with Raptors, and varmints with which a large portion of their diet is made up of shore birds, and migratory waterfowl.

Back when this ban was first being considered there were A LOT more waterfowl hunters out there, and it was shown that a large percentage of the birds moving thru the flyway were indeed carrying lead in their flesh, or gut. The lead shot burned thru feather and penetrated seemingly better than steel. Hence, a non-mortally wounded bird could easily be carrying several shot just under it's skin for a long time. These shot would ultimately result in lead poisoning to the bird, and subsequent lead poisoning to any other critter eating the bird once it was dead. This is known as bio-concentration.

I have to agree, based on years of previous experience, that lead shot was a more lethal load for waterfowl. Back in the 80's we rarely had cripples, and big geese folded on impact. Now, I'm always amazed when I shoot a greater Canadian goose several times inside 25 yards, and I can actually see and hear the pellets simply bouncing off the bird.

Then, with the next group coming in, I can fold two birds quickly and they're dead before they hit the ground. I honestly can't explain this, other than perhaps shot angle (configuration of feathers to pellet entry?), and of course a head, neck, or wing shot vs. just pounding em' into the chest.

I imagine the best explanation is shot pattern at impact. The first shot could certainly be "off" a bit, and only hit the bird with a few random pellets, while the second shot might be right on, and maximize the number of pellets on target.

Anyway, the lead shot ban was a merited move to protect our environment, and insure a bit more protection of our resources for years to come. The people that made this decision did their research, and they weren't doing it to just hassle hunters. It was a selfless decision, not a selfish one. As hunters, and people who appreciate wild things, we, and our generations to come, should be grateful for their forward thinking.

[strait-meat]

The people that made this decision did their research, and they weren't doing it to just hassle hunters. It was a selfless decision, not a selfish one. As hunters, and people who appreciate wild things, we, and our generations to come, should be grateful for their forward thinking.

Totally disagree with you on this point--people who do their research on this subject is biased and has an agenda to push. Do environmentalists ring a bell? Let not shoot wolves. Is drilling for oil or natural gas good for the environment? How about coal or nuclear power plants? How about the implant of "man made" CO2 on our planet? Ya I guess shooting lead shot at waterfowl is bad for the environment too.

[CANOPY SAM]

And overt sarcasm is a good tool for debate?

You can disagree all you want. There's tons of scientific research that shows that lead is highly toxic to living creatures of all shapes and sizes, and to call all science "biased" is simply foolish.

My friend, I'm a laboratory scientist. I've done blood-lead testing on kids all over Minnesota. If we see a kid with high levels of blood lead poisoning we have to act fast to prevent permanent health problems. It's mandatory testing for school aged children, to PREVENT serious permanent health issues, not because of some political agenda!

This type of lead poisoning in humans doesn't come from lead shot being intentionally placed in the flesh, or thru eating lead-based paint chips. It comes from lead-based plumbing that transiently releases tiny amounts of lead thru the drinking water. It also comes from transient, tiny amounts of lead released into the air from lead-based paint. That's why lead-based paints have been removed from the market as well, and lead pipes are no longer used in new construction.

If such micro volumes of lead can cause toxicity in humans, how much more toxicity is introduced into comparatively small animals thru lead shot ingestion, or thru being shot?

I'm sorry, but your argument above makes little to no sense what-so-ever. Just do a quick search on lead poisoning. Spend of few hours reading on the subject and perhaps you'll find a different, better educated perspective.

Comparing this topic to environmental impact thru our natural resource utilization? Dude, please do a little homework.

[mainbutter]

All that said, have you ever been in Shanghai or other large city in China ? Go live their for a month or even a week and you will quickly come to realize that pollution control is a good thing.

Too darn true. The exhaust from vehicles without emissions controls in the city of Cusco had me hacking to no end, and I'm never going back there again.

A family friend lived in a middle-eastern city for two or three years working for an oil company. Upon returning to the US, he had a physical with his doc, who accused him of being a chain smoker because of lung damage.

To those saying there are/aren't environmental effects from the use of lead shot on waterfowl: don't forget that simply stating your opinion is pretty meaningless without any data to back it up.

[mallardnwalleye]

I think from the thread it is self evident that lead causes cognitive distortion.

[Musky Buck]

Right on Canopy, have the CO inspect the cleaned bird, hopefully proving it, however I may not be able to show any steel in the bird either as that stuff doesn't penetrate the way # 4 buckshot did, the difference is lead often times would go right through the bird at close ranges, it definitely tore them up better than steel, those pellets even in good range later season bounces right off geese with their 1/4 inch or more or less of fat, it busts things like the wing, still though if you have a good lead and hit them in the melon they're done lead or not and I think I got away with leading years back with lead because it would tear right through the body unlike steel at the same ranges so lead can wound plenty to because you may stretch a few shots at it's limits, I'm fine with steel though, got my gun and self figured out on it's ranges, just took a little time to adjust.

[strait-meat]

To bad there are so many environmentalists that are sportsmen too!! Lead should be allowed. It is allowed for all other hunting and fishing.