Lead Shot Ducks Example

[Blacktail Slayer]

Here is a very very simple example as why lead shot from shotguns is getting banned. There is a lot more information that goes into these models, but it can get very complicated. These are numbers that we used in a wildlife dynamics/statistics class at Oregon State University. This is just an example and does not represent any area.

Maximum adult ducks supported by reserve (food limitation): 40,000
Maximum territories (nest sites on reserve): 1,000
Maximum ducklings produced per pair with territory: 16
(These are just the maximums and does not mean the numbers will be reached)
Density dependent relationship- duckling production(Ricker scramble)

Male Annual Survival Rate
Duckling: 25%
1 Year-old: 60%
2 Year-old: 60%
3 Year-old: 70%
Adult: 80%

Female Annual Survival Rate
Duckling: 25%
1 Year-old: 60%
2 Year-old: 60%
3 Year-old: 70%
Adult: 85%

Suppose the maximum number of ducks allowed to be shot without over-harvesting would be 550 male 1 year-olds and 650 female 1 year-old ducks. That would be a total harvest of 1,200 ducks with a biomass of 900kg. If lead shot from shotgun shells has reduced the fertility of your ducks, cutting their annual duckling production in half. With cutting the annual duckling production in half from 25% to 13%; our harvest goes down. The maximum harvest goes down to 110 male 1year-olds and 210 female 1 year-olds. The total harvest is now only 320 ducks with a biomass of 240kg. I choose both male and female 1 year-olds to gain the maximum harvest and maximum biomass without making the population go extinct. I know that it would be impossible to only take 1 year-olds, but this is only an example. This would only happen if lead shot was bad enough to decrease duckling production 50% in this bird reserve that allowed duck hunting. Hunting that want to hunt for years to come and let generations after them enjoy the same benefits would understand why some places are banning lead shot. Remember this is only an example that does not say every place lead shot is used is going to decrease duckling production down 50%

This is just a very simple example for the hunters that don’t understand how much lead shot in the environment can really affect wildlife. We all know that it is bad, but this may show you how bad it really can be.

[shorthair]

But what the study does not mention the increased % of cripples due to steel shots inefficiency and thats something they all seem not to want to address.
Maybe Elmer Keith was right when he said we should not use shot smaller than # 4 as the small shot did not sink as redilly and thus remained available for waterfowl to ingest.

[baltz526]

since the lead shot ban was touted as a way to save birds of prey from ingesting lead shot in the cripple ducks. then having this lead shot get into the gizzard to be ground, causing the lead to contaminate the birds. where steel shot cripples a much larger number of birds giving the birds of pray a much larger food source. what type of duck ingests pellets in their everyday eating habbits. i can think of only one source of pellets for ducks to ingest, gizzard gravel. my question would be how many of this test population of ducks would "actually" ingest "any" lead pellets in their lifetime.

[billc_sbio]

Originally Posted by baltz526

since the lead shot ban was touted as a way to save birds of prey from ingesting lead shot in the cripple ducks. then having this lead shot get into the gizzard to be ground, causing the lead to contaminate the birds. where steel shot cripples a much larger number of birds giving the birds of pray a much larger food source. what type of duck ingests pellets in their everyday eating habbits. i can think of only one source of pellets for ducks to ingest, gizzard gravel. my question would be how many of this test population of ducks would "actually" ingest "any" lead pellets in their lifetime.

Yes and it gets more complicated than that too...

Even with Lead as "Gizzard Gravel" (what Ducks think the Lead shot in certain sizes they ingest may be), the rate of Lead absorbtion varies (this is data NOT mentioned or included in the above OSU abstract).

It is greatest (and most relevent) during extreme periods of cold weather, when Ducks have switched over to "Hot Foods", primarily Corn that their gizzard has to work hard to grind.

During warmer weather periods, when Ducks feed on softer grains, their gizzard dosen't work so hard and much of the Lead isn't ground into the fine paste that it needs to be to react with their digestive fluids.

In any case, this in all information that was hashed over, both pro and con, by State and Federal biologists 20+ years ago.

There's no question, that ingesting Lead is not good for waterfowl. However, how much most Ducks actually ingest, plus its effect on them can be so varied, that it's difficult to actually ascertain.

The above mentioned paper and biology problem illustrates some of the "Revisionist Science" we have going on today...just somewhat omitting several of the variables that could inconveniently alter the intended outcome.

This is how science "works" when it's Agenda driven.

[ogrejager]

Originally Posted by billc_sbio

The above mentioned paper and biology problem illustrates some of the "Revisionist Science" we have going on today...just somewhat omitting several of the variables that could inconveniently alter the intended outcome.

Like this one?

Originally Posted by Blacktail Slayer

. If lead shot from shotgun shells has reduced the fertility of your ducks, cutting their annual duckling production in half.

This would only happen if lead shot was bad enough to decrease duckling production 50% in this bird reserve that allowed duck hunting.

That's a nifty model and all, but, yeah, isn't it missing the key variable--how much lead effects duckling production?

[WildernessHunter]

Blacktail Slayer

I am impressed and appreciate your studies, but it seems to me, much more valid points are being made. Like how many ducks, actually ingest lead shot. I am not a biologist, nor do I know the internal workings of the studies you sight, but my guess is the department that you sight these facts from has not harvested ducks/geese to perform necrotopsies to one; measure actual amounts of ingested lead, and two; lead that is present in the gizzard. Do you have these facts? I would be curious to see them.

[baltz526]

i'll be blunt: education given by biased educators= uneducated students. look for all holes in your education, and fill them with facts you asertain to be the best available. look at your teachers as polititions, pushing their party agenda. education is a 2 edged sword, don't become the dull edge

[CombinationLicense]

Originally Posted by baltz526

i'll be blunt: education given by biased educators= uneducated students. look for all holes in your education, and fill them with facts you asertain to be the best available. look at your teachers as polititions, pushing their party agenda. education is a 2 edged sword, don't become the dull edge

It sounds like a good deal of "kool-aid" is being dispensed under the guise of fact...

"CL"

[Blacktail Slayer]

Wow guys you need to settle down a little. This was not a research paper at all. This is a MATH/STATISTICS class that I am in for wildlife. We were using an Excel program with all the equations put into the program. We had several different questions for our lab that we had to figure out by changing the harvest of different age male and females, variance %, annual survival of males and females at different ages, max nest sites of reserve, max ducklings produced per pair with territory, max adult ducks supported by reserve, density dependent relationship effect types. The lead shot questions was only one of them. Since this is a math class and just a made up example; that is why there was nothing about cripples. We only had one question out of many that dealt with lead shot and it was not about if birds get crippled or not. As you can see from my above information is this post that we were looking at other influences. That does not mean that crippled birds are not a problem. If we wanted to we could have had a MATH LAB with a million different duck questions in it, but would probably not have enough time in the last week of the term to finish them. Since this is only a MATH LAB and not a research paper class; we did not look at any studies that show how much ducks ingest lead shot. I’m sure if anyone is interested in that you could go to “Google Scholar” and find out. It is funny who some people on this site talk down about professors and research biologist. Some of those people I guarantee scout and hunt harder than 99% of the people on this site. You don’t think hunting means anything to them? Feelings are not supposed to get in the way of research. If it did; I would assume that it would favor hunters, since these people hunt themselves. Where is the agenda in a MATH problem; not a research paper? The MATH problem only stated if and only if lead shot affected 50% of duckling survival. The MATH problem and I never stated that this is happening all over the U.S. I also stated that this is just the tip of the iceberg in how these equations really work and what goes into them. Why don’t you try talking with a waterfowl biologist that hunts and ask them what their thoughts are about lead shot. If that biologist who hunts ducks says that all lead shot should be banned from their studies; would you feel better then?

[Old Goat]

Originally Posted by CombinationLicense

It sounds like a good deal of "kool-aid" is being dispensed under the guise of fact...

"CL"

This is the norm anymore. Most research has a bias based outcome from the beginning. Be it logging, lead shot, cougar, global warming. Remember not too long ago the research from Washington State was that the reason for cougars moving into populated areas was because we were shooting the adult cats as trophies and the younger cougars were moving into territories that they would not have if the older cougars were staking their claims. The conclution was that hunting makes the problem worse.

There are two ways your thinking is driven...

1) There is no God and the environment is our altar.

2) There is a power which we look up to that is much more powerful than us or our environment...and things are on the earth for our use.

Like it or not, these simple differences drive almost all political philosophy and decisions about natural resources. These are emotional decisions and it is hard to impossible to change anyone's mind through discussion. This is why we have such a hard time making changes in Oregon...The tri county area of the state dictates statewide policy with a liberal majority.

Good luck with your math project!!! We just get carried away sometimes.

[Blacktail Slayer]

Originally Posted by Old Salt

This is the norm anymore. Most research has a bias based outcome from the beginning. Be it logging, lead shot, cougar, global warming. Remember not too long ago the research from Washington State was that the reason for cougars moving into populated areas was because we were shooting the adult cats as trophies and the younger cougars were moving into territories that they would not have if the older cougars were staking their claims. The conclution was that hunting makes the problem worse.

There are two ways your thinking is driven...

1) There is no God and the environment is our altar.

2) There is a power which we look up to that is much more powerful than us or our environment...and things are on the earth for our use.

Like it or not, these simple differences drive almost all political philosophy and decisions about natural resources. These are emotional decisions and it is hard to impossible to change anyone's mind through discussion. This is why we have such a hard time making changes in Oregon...The tri county area of the state dictates statewide policy with a liberal majority.

Good luck with your math project!!! We just get carried away sometimes.

Most of these researchers are hunters themselves. Why would they do something that negatively affects them also? I have asked this question a million times on all kinds of topics with never a response. Why do guys avoid this question and avoid calling or meeting with these biologist that hunt and scout probably more than you?

[baltz526]

Originally Posted by Blacktail Slayer

Most of these researchers are hunters themselves. Why would they do something that negatively affects them also? I have asked this question a million times on all kinds of topics with never a response. Why do guys avoid this question and avoid calling or meeting with these biologist that hunt and scout probably more than you?

i think your missing a point. have you taken any physcology classes and political science classes. a point we are making is to learn. a future biologist or any goverment worker will need to read people, and understand the politics of the people you are dealing with. it "may" seem we are just jabbering on the internet. but we are trying to fill holes in everyones education (including our own) and get our political viewpoint into the discussion. "everything is physcology and politics" no matter what field you are educating yourself in.

[Blacktail Slayer]

Originally Posted by baltz526

i think your missing a point. have you taken any physcology classes and political science classes. a point we are making is to learn. a future biologist or any goverment worker will need to read people, and understand the politics of the people you are dealing with. it "may" seem we are just jabbering on the internet. but we are trying to fill holes in everyones education (including our own) and get our political viewpoint into the discussion. "everything is physcology and politics" no matter what field you are educating yourself in.

I try and look over papers or listen to what these bio's have to say. I really disagreed with a women that is working on a lion study here in OR for here masters I believe. The project delt a lot about lion genetics and such. She however gave a higher score or number for her equation for great lion habitat in wilderness areas because of less roads. Then she gave a lower score or number for the equation for private none wilderness areas. She must not know lions tend to follow their food and most of their food is not all in wilderness areas in OR.

I posted my first post on this thread over on another hunting website and people were shocked that lead shot wasn't banned years ago out west here. It seems like all those hunters that don't live in the west think lead shot is bad. I will talk more with them and see why they think it is bad, if they have seen any improvements since thier ban, and if they get any more cripples from not shooting lead shot.

[baltz526]

Huh? lead shot was banned totally for waterfowl in 91 in all 50 states

[Blacktail Slayer]

Sorry I don't hunt waterfowl or any bird except turkey with a bow. I guess this would go with any hunting with lead shot. I just remember having to check pheasant hunters for lead at EE Wilson.

[billc_sbio]

Originally Posted by Blacktail Slayer

Wow guys you need to settle down a little. This was not a research paper at all. This is a MATH/STATISTICS class that I am in for wildlife. We were using an Excel program with all the equations put into the program.

Yes, but that's not how you started this off...

You said, "Here is a very very simple example as why lead shot from shotguns is getting banned."

So, there's so much MORE to all of this. In real life, in order to properly interpret all this, your Excel Spread Sheet would probably need to have 10 more "variables" columns.

Are we talking about Ducks being shot over a designated shooting site, like a Blind Site at a NWR or WMA where there's a long standing and established impact area for the spent Lead shot to accumulate?

Is the bottom there, a hard bottom or soft, mucky bottom the Lead goes through down to hardpan?

Or are we talking about a field situation where we're randomly setting up and firing in all directions, and possibly hunters won't shoot this site again this season and the spent Lead shot is dispersed over such a vast area that any shot is located at a density of one pellet for every several yards? On top of this the waterfowl won't typically "gravel" here on this field anyway. And the field will be plowed under between this season and next.

Or could it be that we're maybe Pheasant hunting, a similar situation to the above but even more spread out with even less shot spread around over a much greater area. But careful, we wouldn't want a Condor to come upon a Pheasant that's got a few pellets in it and escaped only to succumb later.

So see, there really ISN'T a simple quantifiable answer to all this.

Oh, perhaps for a math class linked to biology with some limited set parameters given to be able to test to see if one can come up with the correct answer. Then I guess so.

Of course out in "real" nature NOTHING'S that simple.

[Blacktail Slayer]

Some very good questions that I would have to look up in some research papers. I'm more of a big game hunter, so would have to do a ton more research to answer all your questions. My question for you is if the research bio's are biased in their studies, then how is right and what makes you right? How do you know that lead shot does not affect wildlife that much? I am very interested and will try and do a little research when I'm done with finals. Thanks for bringing up all these questions. I'm glad we can all help each other out and open our minds to new things. The class I am taking is "Fish and Wildlife Population Dynamics", which is pretty much all math and statistics. We get some research papers on the side, but nothing on lead shot or game birds. Thanks for all your replies.

[billc_sbio]

Blacktail Slayer,

Thanks for your interest and concern.

I believe you personally have the wildlife's best interests at heart.

Actually the dynamics of what we've briefly discussed HAVE BEEN aired out pretty thoroughly in the past.

(It's just too bad that you weren't around at that time, or else you could have witnessed them/participated yourself)

I'm sure that out there, somewhere, there is reference to much of this.

Of course there are lots of viewers here on iFish who weren't old enough (if even born ) to have been around when all of this was going on.

It's very interesting how this all got started.

It was initially started by a paper (lecture?) given by Dr. Frank Bellrose, a respected Ornithologist who specialized in waterfowl. In it he expressed his concern to Avian Plumbism (Lead poisoning) amongst waterfowl species.

The USF&WS immediately jumped on this and declared their "intent" to ban Lead Shot. I remember it happened "just like that"!

Apparently, there had been some discussion of this, below the radar, between the USF&WS and Winchester-Western Ammunition Co. and they'd done some preliminary research and some development.

To us hunters we were almost a totally blind sided!

I mean WHAT are we going to shoot with? (There really had been NO discussion of "alternate" ammo)

This was back around 1978.

Almost naturally there was pushback.

One other factor seldom looked at by the hunting fraternity, was the instant Windfall to certain ammo companies that had "something". I mean 100% sales and the end of Reloading your own shells! (You've GOT to figure that in!)

So this heated debate went back and forth for much of the first half of the 1980s.

Lots of ppl were saying, "Show us the damage!" (of Lead Shot poisoning)

Some of the most respected state wildlife agencies took sides and climbed on board the debate.

As I recall both Louisiana and California conducted several experiments and were NOT in favor of a Lead shot ban. Their studies didn't back up the claims of severe Lead Shot poisoning among their waterfowl populations.

Locally, the ODF&W out on Sauvie Is. WMA WERE in favor of a ban and were possibly the first to enforce a ban on Lead Shot shells on a public hunt area. (at least along the Pacific Flyway)

The Oregon Duck Hunters Assn. conducted their own seminars over the course of 3 monthly meetings, where they invited (and flew in) "experts" from both the USF&WS, the ODF&W and Cal DFG as well as some other private speakers that included Tom Roster.

Even on NWRs things went back and forth. Initially the USF&WS banned Lead Shotshells on their refuges. Then, in the late 1980s they rescinded their order and once again allowed Lead.

Finally, some data, involving Eagles ingesting Lead from dead Ducks, became the issue. I remember it quite well as I saw photos of some of the spent Lead pieces taken out of dead Eagles and it DIDN'T look like Lead Shot. (It looked more like Lead battery "pieces" to me, i.e. squared corners and irregular shapes not part of any "spheres")

The Eagle issue was finally "it" and decided that we wouldn't be using Lead shot on waterfowl, especially anywhere around where any Eagles would be residing (commonly NWRs and WMAs).

Even Oregon bios realized that a Lead Shot Ban wasn't really "a problem" in many areas, such as many field hunting scenarios as I previously described.

But actually more to aid enforcement efforts than anything else, Oregon had limited Lead Shot use through the 1991 season in some "parts" of the state.

After that, it's been Non-Toxic for waterfowl everywhere.

[Blacktail Slayer]

Thanks so much billc sbio for taking the time and posting all that information. Very interesting to hear about the history. There is enough information and studies needed for a thousand life times, but I plan on trying to learn as much as I can. I am all for the wildlife and hunters. I glad we have ifish and all the people that come here and share their views.

[Blacktail Slayer]

http://www.texashuntfish.com/app/vie...-vs-Steel-Shot

Here is only the first article that I have read so far about steel and lead. I will need plenty of time to read different articles, but wanted to know what everyone thought about this one. Here is a few things it goes over:
1. Steel holds a better pattern= more shot available to intercept a flying bird.
2. Claims the majority of experts today agree that , at a range of up to 70 yards, a properly selected steel load should be at least as effective as lead.
3. It talks about how new and old shot guns and different size shot will affect performance of shoting steel. What lead shot that may have worked for a person may not have the same results from steel shot. It talks about how the hunter will have to test this out themeselves.
4. Two studies on crippling and harvest rate on lead-vs-steel.

Please let me know what you think with any comments. Thanks

[baltz526]

the steel shot shells we shoot today, are a better product than the shells we had in the late 80's till about 1993. (at least the ones i could afford) about 1993 remington came out with the 2 3/4" 1 1/8oz 1400fps express steel load and federal had 3" 12ga 1 1/4oz loads at 1450fps. this is when the cripple rate dropped for me. some of the junk shells the manufacturers built to cover their behinds from destroying non steel shot approved guns was terrible crippling stuff. 1 1/8 oz at 1150fps did not kill birds

[duckboy]

What about the damage to the birds from ingestion of steel shot? Hemochromotosis/sp? of the liver...

Kills em dead.

[Maverick Maxcat]

My family were avid duck and goose hunters back then, mostly jump and pass shooting. A lot of our shots were long, so we did a LOT of research on chokes, patterns, shot payloads, shot sizes, and lethality.

Originally Posted by Blacktail Slayer

http://www.texashuntfish.com/app/vie...-vs-Steel-Shot

Here is only the first article that I have read so far about steel and lead. I will need plenty of time to read different articles, but wanted to know what everyone thought about this one. Here is a few things it goes over:
1. Steel holds a better pattern= more shot available to intercept a flying bird.

Reply:
Definitely not true! Even with the best steel shells made today patterns are not nearly as dense as good lead loads. In addition, steel pellets must be much larger than lead to retain velocity and penetration at long ranges. The lead loads start out with more pellets in addition to keeping them in a smaller pattern. I will happily wager anyone about this fact, with actual patterns to be the deciding factor.

2. Claims the majority of experts today agree that , at a range of up to 70 yards, a properly selected steel load should be at least as effective as lead.

Reply:
Again, untrue! The smallest steel shot size effective on mallards at 70 yds is BB, and that's a maybe. The pattern density will be poor, for sure. Our old 2 3/4" load is 1 1/2 oz of #2 lead, and would easily put 100 pellets in a 30" circle at that range. It would also penetrate completely through mallards. Again, I will happily put my money where my mouth is if those steel guys want to argue.

3. It talks about how new and old shot guns and different size shot will affect performance of shoting steel. What lead shot that may have worked for a person may not have the same results from steel shot. It talks about how the hunter will have to test this out themeselves.

Reply:
Correct. It take 4 sizes larger steel than lead for similar lethality.

4. Two studies on crippling and harvest rate on lead-vs-steel.

Reply:
My personal observations of birds we shot as well as thousands of others in firing line situations were this: Lead shot had a crippling rate around 10 %. Steel had a rate of over 50%. Crippling was defined as obviously injured birds that did not come down quickly enough to be recovered. We were hunting on the bluffs across from the Hanford area in Washington. Most crippled birds were able to glide to the river from the bluff tops. Waterfowl hunting was not permitted within 1/4 mile of the river, once they were down there we couldn't even attempt recovery. Many people used to hunt there, it was sickening watching 100+ birds go to waste every day. I finally started handloading buffered T-buck, was the best steel shell I found.


Please let me know what you think with any comments. Thanks

My comments may not set well with your instructors/advisers, but they are the truth. I will be happy to do the shotgun trials with them if they do not believe it.

Mark Rubbert

[Blacktail Slayer]

Originally Posted by Maverick Maxcat

My family were avid duck and goose hunters back then, mostly jump and pass shooting. A lot of our shots were long, so we did a LOT of research on chokes, patterns, shot payloads, shot sizes, and lethality.




My comments may not set well with your instructors/advisers, but they are the truth. I will be happy to do the shotgun trials with them if they do not believe it.

Mark Rubbert

Where did you find this at: "My personal observations of birds we shot as well as thousands of others in firing line situations were this: Lead shot had a crippling rate around 10 %. Steel had a rate of over 50%. Crippling was defined as obviously injured birds that did not come down quickly enough to be recovered. We were hunting on the bluffs across from the Hanford area in Washington. Most crippled birds were able to glide to the river from the bluff tops. Waterfowl hunting was not permitted within 1/4 mile of the river, once they were down there we couldn't even attempt recovery. Many people used to hunt there, it was sickening watching 100+ birds go to waste every day. I finally started handloading buffered T-buck, was the best steel shell I found."

I never typed that. I have never hunted birds in my life and you through in someone elses quote? I have only hunted turkey with a bow. Please do not through in someone elses words in under my name. Maybe you didn't mean it, but I don't want people I'm saying something that never came out of my mouth or have ever typed before. Thanks

[Blacktail Slayer]

I'm not sure about this, but it seems through both those studies done in the article there should not be any more cripples between steel or lead shot. I have no idea on this question, but do some people see more cripples because they are taking way longer shots? Here is an example that is probably not the best. If compound bows were banned from archery hunting and traditional bows were the only thing allowed; should hunters still try 60 yard shots with a long bow? Can someone please explain to me why they think steel shot has more cripples. I have only read the two studies in the article that I posted and they show no difference. Thanks again for helping me out.

[baltz526]

field results by avid waterfowl hunters, has led the manufacturers of steel shot shells, to improve their loads in the nearly 20yrs, since steel has been mandated. here is what we found out in the field. if you shoot a steel pellet 2 or 3 sizes larger, at 300 fps faster muzzle velocity. it is simularily as effective as a old lead shot pellet. of course you needed to buy a new gun for the steel shot loads, in most hunters cases. to shoot these new high velocity larger pellet steel loads. for any state to say 70yds and steel pellets in the same sentance is a "bad" joke. my 10ga loaded with the largest legal pellet, at the highest velocity i can reload a shell too, is NOT a 70yrd combo. will it kill at 70yds, yes. just not nearly as effective as a 12ga 2 3/4" 1 1/2oz buffered #2 lead load.

[Blacktail Slayer]

Originally Posted by baltz526

field results by avid waterfowl hunters, has led the manufacturers of steel shot shells, to improve their loads in the nearly 20yrs, since steel has been mandated. here is what we found out in the field. if you shoot a steel pellet 2 or 3 sizes larger, at 300 fps faster muzzle velocity. it is simularily as effective as a old lead shot pellet. of course you needed to by a new gun for the steel shot loads, in most hunters cases. to shoot these new high velocity larger pellet steel loads. for any state to say 70yds and steel pellets in the same sentance is a "bad" joke. my 10ga loaded with the largest legal pellet, at the highest velocity i can reload a shell too, is NOT a 70yrd combo. will it kill at 70yds, yes. just not nearly as effective as a 12ga 2 3/4" 1 1/2oz buffered #2 lead load.

So with a new gun, larger size steel pellet, and higher fps; do you see less cripples now? Thanks

[baltz526]

less then 1991, yes. less than 1987 no

[runningfox]

Can someone please explain to me why they think steel shot has more cripples. I have only read the two studies in the article that I posted and they show no difference. Thanks again for helping me out.

The best explanation is for you to actually go bird hunting. Go pheasant hunting one day with lead shot. (where legal) Go duck hunting (or pheasant) the next day with steel shot. Compare actual real life results first hand at similar ranges. You don't have to take super long shots, but I think you will really see a difference in the number of birds killed cleanly with lead vs. steel.

Also try it on real windy days.

[Limbhanger]

Originally Posted by baltz526

i'll be blunt: education given by biased educators= uneducated students. look for all holes in your education, and fill them with facts you asertain to be the best available. look at your teachers as polititions, pushing their party agenda. education is a 2 edged sword, don't become the dull edge

[James in Idaho]

I've hunted everything from dove to sandhill crane, given the choice I'll use lead every time. I had to start using steel on waterfowl in the mid 80's in NM, wow that was some bad ammo. The only load that I remember being worth a dang was a 3" Active #1 shot, I think that was the first high speed load made. I remember using Federals in a 20 guage that wouldn't make it accross the Rio Grande (maybe as wide a the Clack on a good day). I saw LOTS of snow geese hit hard that just kept going. It was sad. The steel of today is nothing like that, but it ain't lead, the physics just isn't there.

I've shot and thrown an awful lot of ducks in field trial situations (like 1000's). This is not difficult shooting, a long shot is maybe 20 yards. If we're required to use steel, the judges will ring a lot more necks (I know that from being a judge too), good old cheap lead loads kills most of the flyers dead.

But it's a nice math/stats problem!

[ogrejager]

Originally Posted by Blacktail Slayer

Can someone please explain to me why they think steel shot has more cripples. I have only read the two studies in the article that I posted and they show no difference. Thanks again for helping me out.

Since this is a math experiment, I'll put it those terms. Pardon me if I screw up a term or two, it's been 20 years since physics.

A pellet's inertia/kinetic energy determines how hard it hits--how lethal it is. That formula is (simplified somewhat) mass*velocity^2. Steel is lighter than lead so it has less energy and, consequently, less killing force.

So we use larger pellets, bringing the mass back up. But that sacrifices pattern density because there's fewer pellets. So the industry built faster shells, which allowed us to drop a pellet size or so (although still much larger than lead--e.g. 2s versus 5s).

However, steel shot, being larger and lighter, is more affected by air resistance. This means it slows down more quickly than lead in flight. Dropped velocity? Dropped energy.

When you combine fewer pellets (than lead) and less energy when they hit, you get a higher chance of a crippled bird.

Make sense? Ever played airsoft or paintball? Both those take this discussion to an extreme.

[billc_sbio]

Originally Posted by Blacktail Slayer

So with a new gun, larger size steel pellet, and higher fps; do you see less cripples now? Thanks

baltz said it pretty well when he said, "less then 1991, yes, less than 1987 no "

Back in the early 1980s I lived out in Scappoose and had permission to hunt some private land around there.

At the same time I'd often hunt Sauvie Is. WMA because it was just "thick" with Ducks back then.

A typical weekend would see me shooting 2-3/4" Lead loads of 1-3/8 oz. of #5s on Ducks on the private land on one day and 2-3/4" Steel loads of 1-1/8 oz. of Steel #2s on the WMA on the next.

The contrast in effectiveness of those loads was alarming.

For the most part none of the shots were taken at particularly long range, the Lead typically limited to ~40 yd.s max. The Steel was limited to ~30 yds. max.

With the Lead #5s most ducks hit would be dead in the air (this isn't to say that there wasn't an occasional cripple, there sometimes would be). I mean when that Mallard was hit it would go totally limp, head swung back alongside the body as it fell out of the air.

In contrast over on Sauvie WMA Ducks shot at feet down right over the decoys range would get hit, you'd see huge puffs of feathers blow out of them. They'd look like you'd hit a feather pillow with a baseball bat. Upon getting hit, unless you broke a wing, they'd beat their wings frantically, trying to climb up out of there. Sometimes a second or third shot would hit them before they'd go down. Sometimes you'd break a wing and they'd hit the water and start swimming.

Shooting Steel Shot and the resultant cripples made having a good Retriever mandatory.

Today with much higher velocity offerings in Steel Shot shells, the initial effect is better than with the old, low velocity Steel. However the crippling is still there.

You often hear calls for shell limits to discourage skybusting on public huntting areas, however I think of all the times I've seen others (and even had it occasionally happen to me) especially those without dogs, go through 3-9 extra shells trying to finish off a cripple swimming on the water out on the edge of their shotgun's range. A few of these and you've gone through a box of shells right there!

So while today's Steel Shotshells are quite a bit better than the the ones that first came out, they're still not as good as "good" (not cheap) Lead Shot loads or reloads.

It's not that Steel lacks penetration, it has great penetration when the right sized pellets are used, CLOSE IN. However it still loses velocity, which means energy fairly rapidly as the range increases and it lacks the NUMBER of pellets that's what makes the difference between Lead and Steel.

For Ducks

In that old Lead Shot load of 1-3/8 oz. of #5s we were shooting 237 pellets.

In the latest 3" Hi Vel loading of 1-1/8 oz. Steel #2s we're shooting 142 pellets.

For Geese

I'd be shooting a 3" 1-5/8 oz. load of Buffered hard Lead #2s. That load would contain 143 pellets that had enough energy to pass THROUGH a Goose's body out to the edge of where the pattern ran out of sufficient density to put 5 hits into the Goose's body, about 55 yards.

Today shooting a 3" 12 ga., I'm shooting either a Hi-Vel load of 1-1/8 oz. BBs with a total payload of 79 pellets, or a lower velocity load of 1-1/4 oz. BBBs that has a payload of 76 pellets.

Right off the top you see that the Steel Duck load only contains 59% of the payload of the Lead load, while the Steel BB Goose load has 55% of the pellet count of the Lead #2 loading.

With the Lead loadings NOT running out of penetrating energy before they run out of pattern density, you can see that starting out with just over half the pellet count and Steel shot losing its equivalent close range energy faster than Lead, at longer ranges its efficiency falls off rapidly.

Anyone who says that Steel Shotshell loads are efficient killers at 70 yards is badly misinformed, whether they diseminated that in writing or not.

You can calculate it out, and shot energy and pattern density results just won't support the claim.

[runningfox]

Thanks billc_sbio, for the great "real life" explanation! You cannot get a better comparison than you have posted here, when you could use lead on private and then hunt with steel on Sauvies. Did you ever hunt in 40 mph winds and compare steel vs. lead?

[billc_sbio]

Originally Posted by runningfox

Thanks billc_sbio, for the great "real life" explanation! You cannot get a better comparison than you have posted here, when you could use lead on private and then hunt with steel on Sauvies. Did you ever hunt in 40 mph winds and compare steel vs. lead?

Yes!

One time that I can vividly remember.

It was that "big storm" the one they still talk about on the T.V. News weather, whenever we have another big wind storm coming up!

It was the one they refer to as "The big one, after the Columbus Day Storm" (which I guess happened sometime in the 1960s?)

This one was in Nov. of 1981 (if my memory serves me correctly).

The northern Ducks out on Sauvie were "in" and all over the place, just THICK on many of the Feed Units, like Mudhen (which used to have awesome Corn standing 8' tall back when I first started hunting there-NO Kidding! Thanks Frank Newton fmr. Area Mgr.)

Anyway a buddy and I managed to snag MH #6 (which is about where MH#5 is today). We didn't go out there until JUST before it was shooting time because the rain was coming down so HARD that it was like someone standing on top of your rig, with a firehose, just shooting it down on top of you. You're GOING TO GET WET!

When we headed out from the "Weatherstation" (middle) parking lot out towards Mudhen there were trees BLOWN DOWN across the road going to Mudhen and we had to walk out into the field in Footbridge Unit to go around them.

When we came over the top of the berm leading to Mudhen we were amazed to see the Corn totally BLOWN OVER down to the ground! The blinds, which back then used to be really well hidden IN the Corn

were standing out like little houses along the shoreline of Mudhen Lake.

We all know that a good windstorm really makes the Ducks fly well, right?

Well, ususally that's the case. But sometimes when the wind gets too strong (>45 mph) you have what I call "The birds get driven to ground"

They don't LIKE being out, flying around in that kind of wind. What they'll do is fly INTO large stands of Cattails or Tules, if they have that option available to them.

Back then Mudhen Lake was all open water, so that wasn't an option for them.

There they were, HUNDREDS of them just standing along the shoreline, Ducks AND Geese! (mostly Duskys)

So you ask, have I experienced it?

Ha ha, well as soon as all these hunters started coming out to their shooting spots, the birds did get up and start flying around.

I can vividly remember this one particular Greenhead. He was only ~15 yards in front of me, flying left to right. He was flying pretty fast and only at eye level, right "there", and barely moving. I put the bead right on the front of his bill and pulled the trigger. Nothing! So I think, "O.k., DOUBLE the lead" Now, I've got ~4' of lead on him. I pull the trigger and again, NOTHING! So I double the lead again, this time ~9' and pull the trigger. At the shot, there's a puff of feathers and he blows backwards, and crashes crumpled on the shoreline ~45' to my left!

Back then I always took 2 boxes PLUS of shells out hunting with me on a Sauvie hunt. So I had plenty of shells.

It was really tough shooting Steel in that high wind and it was pretty obvious that we couldn't really "figure" shots and lead at anything beyond ~22 yards, until the wind dropped. So we just limited our shots and waited for them to come by real close (it was mostly pass shooting that day as they were flying all over the place and didn't pay any attention to decoys)


We had so many Ducks and Geese, flying so CLOSE to the deck that day that we were able to limit out on both Ducks and Geese (a mix of Pintails and Mallards AND my 2 Duskys, which you could do back then) But you really did have to COMPENSATE for that wind...even at really close ranges-Wiffle Balls!

These days I can usually shoot a limit with ~12 shells and I only take 1 box out with me on most hunts.

So yeah, the new shells are better.

[Maverick Maxcat]

Originally Posted by Blacktail Slayer

Where did you find this at: "My personal observations of birds we shot as well as thousands of others in firing line situations were this: Lead shot had a crippling rate around 10 %. Steel had a rate of over 50%. Crippling was defined as obviously injured birds that did not come down quickly enough to be recovered. We were hunting on the bluffs across from the Hanford area in Washington. Most crippled birds were able to glide to the river from the bluff tops. Waterfowl hunting was not permitted within 1/4 mile of the river, once they were down there we couldn't even attempt recovery. Many people used to hunt there, it was sickening watching 100+ birds go to waste every day. I finally started handloading buffered T-buck, was the best steel shell I found."

I never typed that. I have never hunted birds in my life and you through in someone elses quote? I have only hunted turkey with a bow. Please do not through in someone elses words in under my name. Maybe you didn't mean it, but I don't want people I'm saying something that never came out of my mouth or have ever typed before. Thanks

Sorry about that! I was trying to intersperse my comments with your points. I don't know how to change the shading, so I edited the post to try to make it clearer. Maybe a Mod will PM me on how to separate the replies from your quote.

[Wingman Or.]

:lurk:

I 100% agree that the first attempt(s) at steel loads were the worst shells EVER made but I think some of us might have a tendency to place those 2 3/4 high brass lead loads on a pedestal that is undeserved.


The truth is although interesting, this debate is a mute point. We will never see lead for waterfowl again no matter what you can prove or disprove. THE TRUTH… Shells manufactures love that fact that waterfowl hunters will pay 20+ dollars a box for STEEL loads (No I’m not talking about the tungsten loads). They love us and laugh all the way to the bank….

[Threemuch]

I think that the whole steel shot thing is a conspiracy. By whom, you might ask? Think about it, who benefits most?



That's right, it's those sneaky, conniving, mischievous dogs. I don't know anyone else who is as happy when there is a cripple to chase after.

How they got the bios and ammo manufacturers in on it with them, I'll never know. Lousy no goodniks.

[runningfox]

billc_sbio

Thanks for the "High Winds Story" .

My buddy and I were on the Columbia east of Troutdale, during the "Ice Storm" in January a couple of years ago, we waded out to a small peninsula about 75 yards out across a channel in about chest deep water, white caps were blowing over us and freezing on impact, and when the rain started, it froze on impact.

Ducks were everywhere and flying into the wind looked like they were standing still. We could not hit them, even close in. I did not think the wind could blow your shot that far off target, now I know. The wind was gusting up to the point you could not walk against it. finally got two Greenheads and a pintail that were so close you could almost touch them, (pass shooting as you described during your Sauvies High wind hunt) The freezing rain became so bad my Wingmaster froze up and you could not eject a shell because of ice on the gun.

My buddy then tripped and fell in and came out like an icicle, fished out his shotgun which he dropped when he fell, and we headed back to the truck before he froze (literally).

We had parked off of I-84, and the only one on the road was a State Police officer and he stopped to ask us what we were doing out there, looking at us like we were crazy, and said that all the roads were closed due to the ice storm, including 84 back to Portland.

Pretty wild morning and that is the most ducks I have ever seen in that area. They were everywhere.

Don't know if lead shot would have helped our shooting average that day, but it is pretty wild when you need a 9 foot lead on a bird 20 yards out. The bird looks like it is stationary in mid-air while trying to make headway into a 40-50 mph Columbia River gusting wind, you shoot right at it and nothing! Talk about trial and error.

Moral of the story, take plenty of ammo and don't fall in!!

[billc_sbio]

Runningfox,

Yeah, I've done that too (but in/from a boat) out there!

Gets "tricky" at times...all that ice freezing to everything!

[Old Guys Rule]

Blacktail Slayer I applaud you for sharing your data and the zest you have for your studies. You obviously care for the animals you are studying and genuinely want to improve things.

In my opinion there are a few critical errors in your report. ALWAYS question the assumptions, NEVER assume people's opinions are facts, no matter what position of power they hold, and REVIEW data for yourself to see if you come to the same conclusion the presenter did. If you follow these rules, both in school and life you will not be disapointed.

False assumption #1: 50% decrease in nesting birds due to lead poisoning was the conclusion of the inital post. Based on what? Lots of assumptions. I did not see a 50 % increase in 1972 when we switched to steel shot. I agree, just getting lead out of the environment is a good ideas but there is no data on ingested lead poisoning for birds. Show me.

False Assumption #2: Steel shot is effective out to 70 yds. What a bunch of BS. Steel is effective to 40-45, past that you get real lucky, more likely just cripple the bird. Heavyshot at two bucks a round is effective to 70 yds, but not steel. The original steel vs lead shot study done at Olin Farms in 1971-1972 has some great DATA on cripples vs kills. The shells have improved since then but the ballistic differences remain, I contend we loose a large portion of birds to steel shot cripples, and those birds do not show up in stats.

False Assumption #3: The senior biologists and game management professors have all the answers. NOT! Like everyone else they have opinions, even if it is based on some research their prejudices come into play when making a conclusion. Nothing is black and white in nature, every change made to fix one issue seems to cause another. Which one is worse?

One example of this is our current Willamette Valley goose management plan. Close all refuges to hunting, add new non-hunting refuges, build big artificial ponds for night roosts, and brag about how your plan has 80% of the valley geese roosting on refuge ponds, rather than destroying farmers fields. Sounds good on the surface and it works for the bios becuase they now have their own study area and they successfully mitigated the farmer crop damage. Pat yourself on the back until we see west Nile of the avian flu come, then you have a disaster as all the birds are massed in small shallow water areas. But if I bring up the disease assumption, the bios refuse to accept that as a factor in the calculation. Never mind that the biggest outbreak of West Nile in the US is 300 miles away by Parma ID and that ODFW has agreed West Nile is the reason for the Sage Grouse population crash, it could not happen here. Prime example of a bad assumption screwing up the entire calculation.

Can't happen here....The same thing was said about West Nile 10 years ago, DHLS spread from asian lice from imported deer, CWD from game farms feeding bone meal. Many other examples out there.


Bottom line is question the assumptions and don't accept the professor's conclusion as fact. Look at it yourself, review fresh data points, and come to your own conclusion. Then if you are challanged, you will have a VERY convincing argument and can use your own data and conclusions - after all, sounds like you will be in the next generation of biologists.

In the end, Kurt is correct, it is all a big conspiracy by the dogs.....

[Blacktail Slayer]

Originally Posted by Old Guys Rule

Blacktail Slayer I applaud you for sharing your data and the zest you have for your studies. You obviously care for the animals you are studying and genuinely want to improve things.

In my opinion there are a few critical errors in your report. ALWAYS question the assumptions, NEVER assume people's opinions are facts, no matter what position of power they hold, and REVIEW data for yourself to see if you come to the same conclusion the presenter did. If you follow these rules, both in school and life you will not be disapointed.

False assumption #1: 50% decrease in nesting birds due to lead poisoning was the conclusion of the inital post. Based on what? Lots of assumptions. I did not see a 50 % increase in 1972 when we switched to steel shot. I agree, just getting lead out of the environment is a good ideas but there is no data on ingested lead poisoning for birds. Show me.

False Assumption #2: Steel shot is effective out to 70 yds. What a bunch of BS. Steel is effective to 40-45, past that you get real lucky, more likely just cripple the bird. Heavyshot at two bucks a round is effective to 70 yds, but not steel. The original steel vs lead shot study done at Olin Farms in 1971-1972 has some great DATA on cripples vs kills. The shells have improved since then but the ballistic differences remain, I contend we loose a large portion of birds to steel shot cripples, and those birds do not show up in stats.

False Assumption #3: The senior biologists and game management professors have all the answers. NOT! Like everyone else they have opinions, even if it is based on some research their prejudices come into play when making a conclusion. Nothing is black and white in nature, every change made to fix one issue seems to cause another. Which one is worse?

One example of this is our current Willamette Valley goose management plan. Close all refuges to hunting, add new non-hunting refuges, build big artificial ponds for night roosts, and brag about how your plan has 80% of the valley geese roosting on refuge ponds, rather than destroying farmers fields. Sounds good on the surface and it works for the bios becuase they now have their own study area and they successfully mitigated the farmer crop damage. Pat yourself on the back until we see west Nile of the avian flu come, then you have a disaster as all the birds are massed in small shallow water areas. But if I bring up the disease assumption, the bios refuse to accept that as a factor in the calculation. Never mind that the biggest outbreak of West Nile in the US is 300 miles away by Parma ID and that ODFW has agreed West Nile is the reason for the Sage Grouse population crash, it could not happen here. Prime example of a bad assumption screwing up the entire calculation.

Can't happen here....The same thing was said about West Nile 10 years ago, DHLS spread from asian lice from imported deer, CWD from game farms feeding bone meal. Many other examples out there.


Bottom line is question the assumptions and don't accept the professor's conclusion as fact. Look at it yourself, review fresh data points, and come to your own conclusion. Then if you are challanged, you will have a VERY convincing argument and can use your own data and conclusions - after all, sounds like you will be in the next generation of biologists.

In the end, Kurt is correct, it is all a big conspiracy by the dogs.....

I have said this a few times know about this math problem not being a real study, but only a made up problem if lead did affect 50% duckling survival. I never sad that lead in any real life situation anywhere affected duckling survival 50%. Again, this was only a MATH problem in my "Fish and Wildlife Population Dynamics" class. The math problem did not have anything to do with shooting out to 70 yards. Go back to my post and read it again. I was just stating that if lead can be used to shot far like a compound bow and steel can not be shot far like a long bow; would bird hunters not just start shooting closer shots? I was just saying some compound guys shoot out to 70 yards at targets; while long bow shooters take way closer shots. Would steel shot hunters not take closer shots with the increase of cripple birds compared to long range lead shots that did not cripple birds. That was what I was trying to get at. It was not part of the study at all. Just my own thought.

I'm surprised that the ballistics has not changed since 1971 like you stated. What is up with that. Does anyone have an idea why the ballistics has not changed?

I'm not saying the refuge pond example you gave is the best solution. I don't understand you point about its bad to have a study area like Starkey Experimental Forest. The bio's may learn more things and at a faster rate this way. You have to realize that it is ODFW job to help out the public if they complain about damage. It is all part of the process they have to follow. What do you think the chain-of-command would do to the bio's if they did not follow up and help these farmers with some type of solution? Yes disease could be a huge problem because of this, but is there really a perfect solution? I would think not. Wildlife management is extremely hard and you will never make every group or person happy. The bio's do their best and try to do the most ethical thing they can; which does not mean it will be the perfect solution. I don't believe there is any 100% perfect solution. You just try and get as close as possible.

I never knew West Nile is what has killed off most our Sage Grouse. Can you post a link on where that information is. I would like to read up on that. Thanks

[Old Guys Rule]

OK I missed the part about made up stats for a wildlife study class, what bothers me is a lot of young biology students who don't hunt birds will take these numbers as facts, just like me, they missed the part about made up for a stats class, but unlike me they will not question the answer. That is the point of my entire post is to get you to question the answer and come up with one yourself. If it matches, then great, but what if you disagree? Maybe there is more than one way to manage wildlife.

As for the 70 yd shooting, you quoted a texas hunt fish article that backed the position of banning lead shot has no negative impacts, one of the quotes was it is an effective round out to 70 yds. This article was written by Mother Earth News, hardly a bastion of wigshooting knowledge. Most of the Ifishers who hunt agreed that steel shot cripples many ducks that would be killed with lead, my point is this is a real tradeoff in steel vs lead, ignored by the ban lead do-gooders. Yes hunters should keep their shots inside killing range but it boils down to a personal ethics choice, same as with your bow.

As for ballistics not changing since the 70's, improvements have been made in wad and powder technology but the physics of 1 1/4 oz of steel coming out at 1450 fps is the same now as it was 30 years ago. Barrel and breech pressure limit payload and speed, density of lead drives retained energy.

With refuges and study areas I agree, you have to be able to study fish and wildlife in a controlled fashion to make good decisions when managing wildlife. Starkey is a good example. Hunters are used as a tool in conjunction with the biologists studying many complex cause and effect relationships. Same with the Tackle Restriction area we have off the rockpile. Biologists study the catch rates to evaluate fish populations and develop new methods for releasing non-target fish unharmed. All done in cooperation with hunters and fishermen.

Now look at the National Wildlife Refuges in the valley. All paid for by hunters, 10% of the entire NFS budget comes from hunters, yet hunters are locked out entirely. The bios I talked to had no intention of ever allowing hunting there again. Now we have five bird watching sanctuaries in the valley where migrating birds mass, and the bios love to point out how many birds they have massed as good for crop damage mitigation. I contend the massing of birds is bad as it makes things ripe for disease. I contend we would be better off managing the geese like we did in the 70s. Allow hunting to disperse birds during the fall and plant feed that ripens on the refuge in the spring. This worked well until the feds got involved in the dusky issue and locked it all out. Now the birds pile into the refuges during the early seasons, by Jan it is all fed out and then they hit the farmers fields hard all spring. I feel the old way worked better and as it kept the birds scattered it was more natural, put less pressure on fields as birds were in smaller flocks and had less chance for disease.

As for sage grouse and west nile, I could only find one article http://www.dfw.state.or.us/news/2006/aug/023.asp
It is from 2006, I thought there was another in 2007 but can't find it.

This entire post is aimed at trying to get you to question wildlife management techniques. Don't accept anybody's word as gospel, but come up with your own plan. Just the fact that you posted this on ifish to get opinions and ideas is great. More data is never bad and these discussions either make you change your mind or more solid on your point, you can not loose either way. What I have seen over the past 40 yeasr is a trend of government beauracrats to lock out the public, rather than involve them.

[Blacktail Slayer]

Thanks for the reply and link to that article.

[Tar Heel]

Blacktail, you will have a PhD in lead shot by the time the thread is over!

Funny how none of us critique your math!!

I remember when steel shot came in and out of curiousty we started cutting duck gizzards open to see if we would find any lead. Low and behold, we found it in many gizzards. Granted, this was Currituck Sound, NC, which has a very high sand content, and the area has been hunted intensivly for a long time. Still, it was enough to convince me that lead wasn't such a great idea for waterfowl.

Anyone routinely cut gizzards open and look for steel?

We should do what's best for the sport in the long term, and do as little as we can to negativly impact the environment in which our beloved critters live, even if in some situations it may not be necesary or may add to crippling.

[Threemuch]

Originally Posted by Tar Heel

Blacktail, you will have a PhD in lead shot by the time the thread is over!

Funny how none of us critique your math!!

I remember when steel shot came in and out of curiousty we started cutting duck gizzards open to see if we would find any lead. Low and behold, we found it in many gizzards. Granted, this was Currituck Sound, NC, which has a very high sand content, and the area has been hunted intensivly for a long time. Still, it was enough to convince me that lead wasn't such a great idea for waterfowl.

Anyone routinely cut gizzards open and look for steel?

We should do what's best for the sport in the long term, and do as little as we can to negativly impact the environment in which our beloved critters live, even if in some situations it may not be necesary or may add to crippling.

I cut gizzards open pretty routinely, so I can understand what the birds I have shot are feedin on, try to figure out the pattern, and occasionally to fry a batch up, and I have yet to see a steel pellet.