# Old lead shot on lake bottoms



## SDoldtimer

Many years ago we shot a bunch of lead into the waters of good duck lakes. Where did it go? Has it sunk deep into the mud, never to be seen again? Does it desolve in time over the years? Or could it remain a possible threat to waterfowl? Anyone seen study results on this issue?


----------



## Goon

According to Liberals it posions ducks when they dive to the bottom of the lake and eat the toxic shot.


----------



## always_outdoors

Goon: What liberals? Can you provide any evidence on your post?


----------



## apeterson

I dont know much about the subject... would be interesting to learn how many birds are lost to cripples with steel and how many die of lead poison... I am sure someone has done this study and knows.... anyone here?


----------



## R y a n

I'm certain more birds are now lost to cripples with steel shot... switching over from lead was almost entirely about political correctness run amuck...

Yes there may be some lead in ND waters, but little remains. The sad thing is that it was a federal decision to ban lead because of politics.

The lead problem was much more of an issue in the southern states where the waterfowl get pounded for months on end, often over some of the same waters. After several hundred thousand rounds get shot over some of the lakes that hunting clubs own, you darn right there will be a high concentration of shot in those bodies of water.

The northern tier of states don't have that issue in anywhere near the same magnitude as the wintering areas of the coast and Arkansas, MS, LA, TX...

Ryan


----------



## Goon

live2hunt said:


> Goon: What liberals? Can you provide any evidence on your post?


See Ryan's post below that will pretty much sum it up.


----------



## Goose Guy350

Hopefully I can find the journal where I believe I read this but I thought it said that almost as many birds died of lead posioning as were harvested by hunters throughout the season so it was not just a political reason. I think it also affects reproductivity in hens so broods are also smaller if the lead content is not high enough to be fatal. Lead is a nasty thing to have excessive amounts of in an ecosystem.

As far as lead in the system, over time it will settle down into the sediments because of its density and eventually become unavailible to waterfowl but some of it will also leach out into the system but we should be past most of the leaching stages unless there are major disturbances in the water system such as dreading or major droughts and such.


----------



## Leo Porcello

I remember watching some videos of geese that were dying of lead poisoning. It made me pretty sad as I don't think anything should suffer like that.


----------



## Goon

Goose Guy350 said:


> Hopefully I can find the journal where I believe I read this but I thought it said that almost as many birds died of lead posioning as were harvested by hunters throughout the season so it was not just a political reason. I think it also affects reproductivity in hens so broods are also smaller if the lead content is not high enough to be fatal. Lead is a nasty thing to have excessive amounts of in an ecosystem.
> 
> As far as lead in the system, over time it will settle down into the sediments because of its density and eventually become unavailible to waterfowl but some of it will also leach out into the system but we should be past most of the leaching stages unless there are major disturbances in the water system such as dreading or major droughts and such.


Yeah please post it, it would make for an interesting read. 
It seems that lately I have cut down on the number of lost birds by using 3 1/2 xpert 2 shot, the killer power is phenominal and you don't lose very many birds. Also for geese I shoot nothing but black death. I have also cut down on the number of lost birds since I got a lab.


----------



## h2ofwlr

There was many research reports published 30 yearsa ago, and they resulted in the ban of lead shot for ducks hunting and and no lead shot on any Federal landing when upland hunting.

As for Steel shot and cripples, I disagree. When the old steel was used(10+ years ago) then I would have agreed. But the new steel with it speed is every bit as lethal as lead is. Heck ballistically, a 3.5" BBB load with a1500fps speed is lethal to 73 yds on geese. ---IF, and that is a big IF, if the hunter knows howto shoot long ranges and has the proper choke. Butthe vast maajority of hunters are crappy shots over 35 yds anyways, regardless of lead of steel, thus a moot point.


----------



## Goon

h2ofwlr said:


> There was many research reports published 30 yearsa ago, and they resulted in the ban of lead shot for ducks hunting and and no lead shot on any Federal landing when upland hunting.
> 
> As for Steel shot and cripples, I disagree. When the old steel was used(10+ years ago) then I would have agreed. But the new steel with it speed is every bit as lethal as lead is. Heck ballistically, a 3.5" BBB load with a1500fps speed is lethal to 73 yds on geese. ---IF, and that is a big IF, if the hunter knows howto shoot long ranges and has the proper choke. Butthe vast maajority of hunters are crappy shots over 35 yds anyways, regardless of lead of steel, thus a moot point.


Shot a blue wing teal at 65 yards with a 3 1/2 2 shot the other day. That bird was moving. I have seen long shots with BBB black death. I think your right.


----------



## R y a n

h2ofwlr said:


> There was many research reports published 30 yearsa ago, and they resulted in the ban of lead shot for ducks hunting and and no lead shot on any Federal landing when upland hunting.
> 
> As for Steel shot and cripples, I disagree. When the old steel was used(10+ years ago) then I would have agreed. But the new steel with it speed is every bit as lethal as lead is. Heck ballistically, a 3.5" BBB load with a1500fps speed is lethal to 73 yds on geese. ---IF, and that is a big IF, if the hunter knows howto shoot long ranges and has the proper choke. Butthe vast maajority of hunters are crappy shots over 35 yds anyways, regardless of lead of steel, thus a moot point.


Without starting a whole topic on the physics of lead vs. steel, you forget to take into account the downrange punch that lead retains. It is not all about FPS.... and that is often forgot about.

I consider myself a very good shot (or at least I used to be before moving), having won my trap shooting leagues for many years, and winning a gold medal in trap at the ND prairie rose games. Yet when the switchover to steel happened, I can remember being vividly shocked at the lack of punch steel shot had. Even with the new steel shot, you do not have the further mid range to long range knock down power. I can't tell you how many times we've watched birds get "ripped" in the breast at 40-50 yds up, with no effect. It's almost like the pellets bounce off their breast. I've come to the conclusion that the only true method of trying to shoot something that high is to pull ahead a bit further and shoot for the head/neck.

I realize that much of this is a subjective conversation, but it has happened to many times to be just smoke and mirrors.

The problem we will always have with Steel shot is the fact that it slows down quicker at longer ranges, thereby reducing the velocity and knock down power that lead used to have. For guys who hunt birds into decoys this is not as significant a deal, but for those like me who enjoy a pass shooting challenge more(and face longer shots), it has drastically affected my effectiveness.

My $.02

Ryan


----------



## ndduckman

Goon said:


> According to Liberals it posions ducks when they dive to the bottom of the lake and eat the toxic shot.


Don't call me a Liberal :wink:, nor call waterfowl biologists/researchers such a vulgar name. Its called scientific research. Data were collected, analyzed, reported, and management decisions were made in the best interests of waterfowl and waterfowlers.



apeterson said:


> would be interesting to learn how many birds are lost to cripples with steel and how many die of lead poison... I am sure someone has done this study and knows.... anyone here?


We do know. Go here and read to you hearts content: Search Result. Then change search to crippling loss for further review. Lotta other e-resources for those not having a library full of journals handy (JSTOR, google.scholar, etc...).



Ryan said:


> I'm certain more birds are now lost to cripples with steel shot... switching over from lead was almost entirely about political correctness run amuck...


Wrong, see above linky. "Crippling losses to waterfowl populations from steel shot are less harmful than crippling losses plus lead toxicosis from lead shot. Finally, seasonal differences in the time of losses are important. A cripple lost during the hunting season has less impact on the breeding population than a lead-poisoned duck lost during the winter or spring." Also understand the target species vs. non-target species impact (read: birds plentiful enough to harvest {i.e. mallards} vs. birds not plentiful enough to harvest {i.e. whooping cranes}) of lead shot.

GG350 and h2ofwlr touch on good points, steel can kill. Spend time with an expert shooter (one that can kill at silly ranges with any media), take a Roster (CONSEP) class, and either custom load to your fancy or buy high performance loads to suit your mission. I can kill at silly ranges with even junk steel (Experts, Sportsmans) but prefer my own recipes. Ethics and skill trump the entire topic, know both and work to improve.

I don't mean to sound like a prick and wish I had time to explain further, but you can wish in one hand... BTW, I used to harrass my share of trapshoots, PRGs, and 5 stand SCs across the Dakotas.


----------



## Plainsman

You might want to google the name Mathew Perry. I forget what you called the machine, but it was like a small portable X ray machine. He had it mounted in the side of a van. It was about the size of a microwave. Anyway, put a duck in an turn it on and you could observe body shot or shot in the gizzard through the green colored glass front. They survive body shots, but if they get one in the gizzard they are done. 
This guy was set up on Tweety Lake the week before duck season, back in about 1978 or 79. He was checking Canvasbacks. About 30 percent of the adult ducks had body shot. No young of the year had shot in the body. Three percent of adults and young of the year had ingested shot. This was before season. Canvasback probe the sediments as one of their favorite foods is the tubers of Potomogeton pectinatus. Find a slightly brackish wetland and you will find Canvasback and swans. Some of these traditional hunting wetlands will have problems until the sediments get five or six inches deep. But then sedimentation rates that put this kind of deposits in the wetlands will destroy those wetlands. It's kind of a catch 22. Sediments cover lead, but destroy wetlands.


----------



## Tator

we've shot multiple 9 man limits so far this year on geese. You can tell the difference from lead to steel, but you can still kill birds...........think about how many birds you've sent to the slough to die in all the years you've hunted, every time we've been out in the field, multiple birds die hours after we've shot at them.

It would be nice to be able to shoot lead while field hunting, but how many honest folks would stick to that rule, especially the ones driving down I-94 with their nice little duck boats 

have a good night


----------



## ndduckman

Tator said:


> ...........think about how many birds you've sent to the slough to die in all the years you've hunted, every time we've been out in the field, multiple birds die hours after we've shot at them.


 :eyeroll: Uh, I can count my number of unrecovered birds in the past 10 years on 1 hand, and I shoot a silly number of birds/yr. IMHO, it sounds to me like you need to think before you shoot. Learn; decoy placement, calling, concealment, shotgunning (principles, patterning, terminal ballistics), and get a dog.


----------



## Tator

oh my god :withstupid:


----------



## ndduckman

I presented an easy to use web resource for you to better understand why regulations were enacted banning the use of lead shot on waterfowl. You reply with statement stating "every time... multiple birds die hours after we shot at them." That is unethical and unsportsmanlike. I suggested things you can do to reduce your crippling rate.

People come to the internet seeking information that others possess, others come to expel bs. Hopefully (though doubtfully) people are adept at sifting through the volumes of bs to get good info. And you guys wonder why no real biologists contribute to these sites, nor bother trying to educate keyboard duck commandos.

"Arguing on the internet is like running the 100m dash in the Special Olympics. Even if you win you're still retarded."

OUT!


----------



## Tator

my hats of to you for only shooting a handful of cripples in your lifetime how old are you............5 ? , you are a true sportsman, I'm an honest one


----------



## dakota31400

Two processes are occuring:

1) The lead shot is settling and/or being covered by rotting vegetation and sediment making it less accessible to waterfowl.

2) the random deposition of non-toxic shot along side the former lead lowers the probability and rate of toxic shot ingestion.


----------



## Habitat Hugger

Well put NDDuckman! People that argue this type of controversy too often remind me of a statement one of my professors said years ago ande still true, even moreso, today! "some guys have the attitude that one anecdotal halfvast (deliberately misspelled for the autocensure program) biased observation by themselves is of far more relevance and truthfulness than dozens and dozens of scientifically designed, well controlled, statistically analyzed, double blinded,crossover longitudinal studies done by dozens of reputable scientists the world over!" 
Yes, the keyboard duck commandos and bar stool biologists are always active, and I've noticed you can never educate them enough to change their minds.
Good huntin'


----------



## Habitat Hugger

Gorgot to point out, while we are on the lead topic, that we are probably killing lots of upland birds and songbirds, too. I and some friends have been using #3 steel for pheasnts for several years, (except when we occasionally pull out our original 150 yr. old muzzleloaders that can't shoot lead!) and if anything, we seem to cripple less birds with the steel than lead! Oops - now here I come with an anecdotal halfvast observation - although I'm trying to be unbiased, at least.
Didn't that guy, ?Tom Roster? pretty well find the same with his exhaustive studies on killing ranges, shot sizes and steel for upland?? 
Of course someone will probably say "the ammunition companies paid for it...." Probably did, but who else is going to foot the bill??? It certainly behooves the ammo companies to find some acceptable lead subsitute or possibly face extinction of their business, and our hunting - that's why they are putting millions and millions into research so that when the anti's scream to stop waterfowl or upland shooting, they'll have the hard data to PROVE their point, so we can all continue hunting......nothing wrong with that! 
And as for the original question I think you are right Dakota 31400!


----------



## Csquared

Good topic. How many of you guys are experts in chemistry and/or biology? If any are, please enlighten me.

My quick answer to the original question is, it's still there, and doing exactly as much damage to waterfowl as it did when it was still legal to shoot it.

I don't know how old you guys are, but I'm old enough to have been hunting when the USFWS was "campaigning" the steel shot issue from state to state. They had no scientific data to back up the claims that lead shot was poisoning ducks. What they had was a butt-load of threats concerning no waterfowl seasons if non-toxic shot standards weren't adopted by 1990 something, I believe.

When pressed HARD at our local meeting for data, all the reps from the USFWS could provide was ONE bald eagle was found dead in CA that did in fact die of lead poisoning, and they THOUGHT (you read it correctly...THOUGHT) it got the lead by eating a duck with lead shot in it. Numerous studies at the time concluded that a wild duck does not, on average, live long enough for ingested lead to lead to lead poisoning (how's that for creative use of the English language).

As far as I'm concerned, all that 20+ year old info goes along with Ryan's opinion, and cerainly illustrates the pull the CA liberal machine has with the USFWS.

My personal feeling is that we have known for years that the USFWS didn't know how to count. The steel shot fiasco shows they can't read very well, either! It also shows that hunters, collectively, are push overs. We should have just said "OK, we won't hunt". And than set back and watch the chaos as the feds scrambled to find ways to get PETA, and the Audubon Society, and every other liberal ant-hunting group's members to put their money where their mouths were and fork up the cash to keep the parks open, and the game wardens paid, etc., etc., etc.

Keep this thread going. I REALLY want to understand the issue!


----------



## stearns24

TATOR
I am with you, there is no way NdDuckman would have any idea how many ducks died after they left his field.

NdDuckman we arent talking about ducks who fall a couple hundred yards from the decoys, or ducks that die even a 1/2 mile away. We are talking about the ducks that make it back to water just to die there over night. You are NOT being very honest with yourself if you think you are excluded from these situations. I am VERY glad we don't have more hunters with your mentality!!


----------



## eyes to the skies

lead shot in lakes read the post pulling out all the stops for terrorism in open forum


----------



## barebackjack

I agree with Ryan. Steel sucks.

We watched a group last weekend hunting snows, of the 8-10 birds they dropped dead, I bet 20 sailed off obviously hurting back to the water. I bet they didnt make it through the night.

Everyone claims to be phenomenal shots at 50+ yards, and some are, but most arent, I sure as hell aint. The other thing is, most people dont know what a goose looks like a 50 yards, which is why I see ALOT of people skybusting at birds they think are in range.

I do know this, having shot birds with both, lead is far better than even the modern steel.

And I dont care, I aint gonna spend $3 a round for hevi-shot.


----------



## buckseye

> Many years ago we shot a bunch of lead into the waters of good duck lakes. Where did it go? Has it sunk deep into the mud, never to be seen again? Does it dissolve in time over the years? Or could it remain a possible threat to waterfowl? Anyone seen study results on this issue?


Well I'll tell ya what, I have a pond that has been shot into for years and it is dry now.. I'll walk around out there and see if I can see any...most waterfowl and or animals can tell the difference between rock and metal.

Heck I prefer metal.. bring on Slipknot!!!! :lol:


----------



## buckseye

a million empty snail shells... a few plastic shotgun shells... feathers... thats all I could see


----------



## AvianQuest

R y a n said:


> I'm certain more birds are now lost to cripples with steel shot... switching over from lead was almost entirely about political correctness run amuck...


Actually crippling rates with steel are way down from the old lead shot days.

Old lead shot often sinks down into the mud in many lakes and marshes and no longer is a major problem. However, lakes such as Catahoula Lake in Louisiana have a hard bottom with a thin layer of silt on top which offers a fine feeding zone for canvasbacks. Unfortunately, all the old lead shot that was fired over decades is still there and it continues to kill large numbers of canvasbacks year after year.

Lead shot that is fired over ag fields gets disked under, but each time it get disked again, it brings up old shot to the surface and that becomes a killer as well.

And it's not just waterfowl, lead kills upland birds as well. A dove or quail that eats a single #8 lead shot has a 50-50 chance of dying from it. Even if it lives, the lead will destroy it's reproductive system. We are currently losing 12 million doves a year to lead poisoning.

While lead is toxic to all animal life, you could eat a few lead shot and other than losing a few IQ points, you would survive. However, grind those same pellets into a fine power, and it will kill you dead after a long period of extreme pain.

That's why lead shot is so deadly on birds. They have gizzards and they eat grit along with seeds. The strong muscles of the gizzards utilize the grit to grind up seeds into a fine power so they can absorbed the nutrients. To a bird, lead shot is no different than the hard coated black seeds the like or the grit that they pick up.


----------



## barebackjack

Where did you get your numbers AvianQuest?

Dove is the most sought after gamebird in the US, so im still thinking more are lost to cripples (even with lead), or just not found, than to lead poisoning.

I do not doubt for one second that lead shot in certain areas under certain conditions where it remains accesible to birds is dangerous. But I think these circumstances are few and far between. Just watch any group of duck and goose hunters, and see just how many birds sail off into the sunset only to die that night, or become flightless only to freeze to death a month later.

Steel cripples ALOT of birds from ALOT of guys who dont know what their effective range is. If you do good with steel, kudos to you, if you put the time and effort into patterning your gun, and seeing what loads work for you, great. But most dont.

H2OFowler, you say you do ok with steel, and im guessing youve done your homework on it so you know what works and what ranges they work in. But remember, most dont have your ethics, and dont care if they cripple five or six birds everytime they go out.


----------



## Chuck_5

ndduckman said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm certain more birds are now lost to cripples with steel shot... switching over from lead was almost entirely about political correctness run amuck...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, see above linky. "Crippling losses to waterfowl populations from steel shot are less harmful than crippling losses plus lead toxicosis from lead shot.
Click to expand...

The effects may be more harmful but your going to have less cripples. THe lead is going to knock more of them down and allow them to be retreived, whereas steel is going to send them flying away to die later on. There may be 10,000 birds a year sent out crippled by steel, and only 5,000 if they were hit by lead. I'm in no way saying that we should use lead. I don't think we really need it. If you want more knock down power go buy heavy shot or tungsten bismuth or whatever other stuff out there that has more power. I think that if they are going to make us use steel while duck hunting why don't they make us use steel when pheasant hunting around state owned lakes or dove hunting in such areas where lakes and ponds are present. I think if waterfowlers use it then so does everyone else.


----------



## Bob Kellam

www.deltawaterfowl.org/magazine/2005_01/01_shooting.php

At the bottom of the report when you click the above link you will get the charted results of all of the shells/loads tested

Revealed: The Most Lethal Mallard Loads

How to Find the Best Load for Your Shooting

By George Secor

The number of optimum loads for any type of waterfowl hunting is likely proportional to the square of the number of hunters in the discussion.
Much of the confusion probably stems from the great variety in loads now being offered. The possible combinations of gauge, shell length, load weight, velocity, pellet size and pellet material add up to a staggering number.
Because no individual could physically test even a small percentage of the offerings, this paper uses mathematical criteria based on practical considerations for the ideal mallard load. These criteria are designed to result in bagging 90 percent of the time. This study is restricted to mallard loads because the terminal ballistics for mallards has been thoroughly studied and the results are readily available in literature.
Before we begin, however, there are a couple of caveats that must be addressed. First, good field craft trumps superior ballistics every time. The shotgun shell hasn't been developed that can compensate for poor shooting skills or the inability to get ducks into shooting range. It's critical that hunters hone their shooting skills and resist taking shots at birds beyond their effective range.
Further, it's very unlikely that two different barrel-choke-load combinations will pattern with identical results. To determine the exact coverage efficiency of your favorite load, it will be necessary to pattern-test your gun and choke with that load.
There are a number of loads that didn't make the "pass list" that are effective at distances closer than the 35-yard minimum used here. By knowing the patterning characteristics of your favorite load in your gun, whether it passed or failed, you can use the tables to determine the effective range.
For a load to be lethal, it must contain enough pellets to provide adequate coverage of the target (see Coverage Factor) at whatever distance the hunter is shooting, and those pellets must have sufficient energy (see Oomph Factor) to bring the bird down. The oomph is a function of the weight, size and velocity of the pellet.
Increasing the pellet's mass generally implies reducing the number of pellets in the load, which decreases the coverage. Increasing the velocity of the load can imply a reduction in load weight and hence a reduction in pellet coverage.
The Catch 22 is finding the right balance between oomph and coverage.
I'll be the first to admit that the criteria to determine the optimum load are somewhat subjective. However, the criteria are based on extensive lethality data collected on over 4,400 mallards, and the coverage criteria are based on the practical experiences of clay target shooters and the morphology of the mallard.
Methodology
A data base containing 513 loads was developed from information found on the web sites of the major manufacturers of waterfowling ammunition. The shells run the gamut from 10-gauge down to .410 bore using seven different pellet materials with shot sizes ranging from T (.20 inch) to No. 8 (.09 inch). 
Five lead pellet loads, which are no longer legal for waterfowl, were included for the purpose of comparison to the non-toxic materials. One of these is the Winchester Super-X 1 ½ ounce, buffered No. 4's, which was the standard to which all other mallard loads were compared until lead shot was banned.
Although the data base contains 513 different loads, it would be inaccurate to claim it includes every currently available non-toxic load. It does not include loads from the smaller companies in the United States or most shells made in Europe and imported to the US. 
It also should be pointed out that shells do not always behave as advertised. This is particularly true of pellet counts and three-foot velocities. 
The Results
Of the 513 loads tested, 440, or 86 percent, were rejected for failing one or both of the established criteria detailed below. Many of the "failed" loads-the .410 and 28-gauge-were never intended to be used for ducks, nor were some of the loads with very small or very large pellets.
Keep in mind that virtually all of the loads will cleanly kill mallards under the right conditions. But only the ones that made the "pass list" can be counted on to kill 90 percent of the time at distances greater than 35 yards.
Of the 73 loads that passed, only 70 are waterfowl loads, the other three being lead loads used for comparative purposes. There are no degrees of passing or failing, no just-missed or "almost passed". Those determinations are left to the discretion of the reader based on the range of the shots they take.
Eight loads qualified in Class 1, which means they had sufficient oomph (Energy Density) and coverage at distances greater than 45 yards. There were 21 loads in Class 2, which means they had sufficient ED and coverage between 40 and 44 yards. Class 3 loads were effective at distances ranging from 35 to 39 yards, and 41 loads made that designation. (Hunters who limit themselves to 30-yard shots may find that loads not on the list also are sufficiently lethal. See instructions with chart.) 
The Kent Cartridge Company topped the list of manufacturers with 22 passing loads-19 Impact Tungsten Matrix (ITM), two Fasteel and one Hevi-Steel. Remington had 14 HEVI-Shot loads on the pass list along with one steel load. The Bismuth Cartridge Company had 17 loads on the list, Federal had eight steel and five tungsten-iron loads that passed and Winchester had three steel loads.
Most of the 70 loads that made the pass list were 12-gauge (55), but nine 10-gauge, four 20-gauge and two 16-gauge loads also qualified.
Of the 12-guage loads that made the pass list, 22 are 3½ -inch, 19 are 3-inch and 13 are 2 3/4-inch.
Of the optimum loads listed, 18 were No. 4 shot and 20 were No. 5. Those two pellet sizes represent 54 percent of the loads on the list.
The three-foot coil velocity of the optimum mallard loads ranges from 1,220 to 1,550 feet-per-second, while the mean velocity is 1,358 fps and the median velocity is 1,340 fps. 
Here's a look at how we determined which loads made the list.
The Lethality Model
In order to kill a bird cleanly and bring it to bag, I would argue that at least one pellet must penetrate and disrupt the function of a vital organ or critical bone. The vital organs include the brain, spinal cord, heart and lungs. The critical bones include the vertebra, the upper wing bone and possibly the lower wing bones. Collectively, the vital organs and critical bones make up what is defined in this article as the critical area.
Even a major disruption of the vascular system may not halt the bird's immediate flight, and a duck that flies several hundred yards into dense cover is rarely retrieved.
There is one argument that says the hydrostatic shock effect of multiple hits will bring a bird down, but other studies dispute that claim. The best argument for multiple hits is to raise the probability that at least one of those pellets will penetrate and destroy a vital organ or critical bone. 
The Oomph Factor
Tests conducted by the Olin Corporation at Nilo Farms in Illinois and the US Fish and Wildlife Service at Patuxent, Maryland almost 40 years ago compared the effects of lead shot to steel and copper shot on mallards.
In both tests, the birds were "flown" in a harness across the line of fire and the shot was triggered electronically so the bird was perfectly centered in the pattern. Carefully thought-out criteria were applied to determine the number of birds that were bagged, crippled and lost, or that survived.
The shooting distances ranged from 30 to 80 yards at generally 10-yard increments. Nilo tested four loads while Patuxent used three. One hundred mallards were used for each load/distance test, with 4,400 birds used by both groups.
The external ballistics of the seven Nilo and Patuxent loads are documented or can be readily calculated. The load/distance combinations that produced bagging percentages of between 95 and 99 percent were selected to develop the threshold energy density (ED).
The Nilo No. 4 steel, No. 4 copper and No. 6 steel loads and the Patuxent No. 4 steel load met the bagging criteria at 30 yards. The Nilo No. 4 buffered lead load met the criteria at 40 yards. The mean pellet Energy Density for those five loads at the distances noted is 235 foot-pounds/square inch.
Will energy density of less than 235 ft-lbs/in2 kill mallards? The answer is "yes", but not at the 95 percent or higher probability level. The consequence of straying too far below the 235 ft-lbs/in2 level is increased crippling, and no ethical hunter wants that.
The conclusion is that pellets must have minimum ED's of 235 ft-lbs/in2 to be considered lethal at the 95 percent probability levels. The final step is to determine the distance at which the pellet's ED achieves 235 ft-lbs/in2.
I've decided to use 35 yards as the minimum distance for the pellet's ED to achieve a minimum ED of 235 ft-lbs/in2. This distance stretches the average kill distance, which is about 30 yards, but honors the fall-off in pellet energies in the 40 to 50-yard range. 
Thus, loads in the data base having ED distances of less than 35 yards will be rejected.
The Coverage Factor
The development of the Coverage Factor is a complicated four-step process. First, the size of the target must be determined. Size is defined as the cross-sectional area of the vital organs and critical bones, not the size of the feathered bird as it appears to the hunter. 
In the case of the mallard, the size is 12 square inches, about the same area as a circle 3.9 inches in diameter.
In order to assure that at least one pellet hits that target 95 percent of the time requires that an average of almost three pellets hit the target. Given a 12 square-inch target, that means the pellet density must be about .25 pellets per square inch, or one pellet per four square inches.
To give the shooter a little room for aiming errors and based on clay target experiences, it was decided to require the pellet density of .25 pellets per square inch to extend over a circle with a minimum diameter of 19 inches. 
It also was decided that maximum pattern percentage would be 90 percent-that is 90 percent of the pellets in the load falling on or within a 30-inch circle. It can be shown that the load must contain a minimum of 188 pellets to meet that criterion.
It's entirely possible that a given load will have sufficient ED out to 40 yards, but failed to make the list because it lacked coverage at that distance. It's also possible that a load has ample coverage to 50 yards, but loses the necessary ED at 40.
Finding a load that maintains the energy and coverage for the hunter's average length of shot is the key. Using the tables provided by clicking here will allow hunters to make that determination.


----------



## AvianQuest

Chuck_5 said:


> The effects may be more harmful but your going to have less cripples.


Sorry but that doesn't square with the facts. The FWS and other agencies have run crippling tests for decades and today's modern steel loads have been proven to cripple less game than lead loads.

Fact is that anti-hunting groups were able to get a total ban on duck hunting in several states in Australia after hunters were too stubborn to voluntarily switch to steel and the anti's were able to prove in court that lead loads were crippling too many ducks to say nothing to poisoning them.

Tom Roster, the man that headed up the nationwide CONSEP Study which documented the effectiveness of steel shot and determined what loads and sizes of steel shot worked best, was able to shoot more geese than any one in history with the benefit of federal research permits which allowed him to shoot geese without regard to limits, seasons, or methods.

Since then, Roster has conducted special clinics across the county where he invites top hunters, sports writers, guides, and other folks that are known to be good shots and work in positions where they can pass on what they have learned. At the end of each clinic shooters work their way up through various shooting situations culminating in trying to break 6 out of 8 clays thrown at 50 mph and crossing. Out of 12,000+ shooters only 9 have accomplished that feat, and yet Roster can do it everytime. It doesn't matter if one uses lead or steel, they just can't hit that shot with any constancy.

What the clinics have proven is that even among this group of far above average shooters, they can't hit with consistency past 27 yards. The average hunter can't even do that well, and with poor shot selection and outright skybusting it gets much worse.

I know there's plenty of folks who will claim they can kill ducks every time at 50+ yards, but those who have tried to demonstrate that at Roster's clinics have fallen on their faces.

Bottom line is that using a fast load of #3's for ducks or #BBB for geese out of an improved cylinder choke tube and keeping your shots inside 27 yards will allow you to shoot like a pro and you should be nailing them dead in the air with no cripples.

There are two easy ways to tell that you are skybusting at out of range birds. One is if shot is found inside the bird, they were probably out of range because a proper load fired at a bird in range should result in the shot passing through the birds. The second is if you ever hear your shot hitting the bird, it is well out of range. If you do the math, you will find that your ears are still recovering from the sound of the muzzle blast in the short time that it takes for the shot to hit the bird and for the sound of the impact to come back to your ears. If you can hear the impact, the bird was way out there well past being in range.


----------



## collarcatcher

Just when you thought it was safe to go online and learn something, we get "according to the liberals it poisons ducks..." we must have gone to different schools together(or something). Please keep your silly knee-jerk political opinions to yourself, stay on topic, and do a web search for Frank C. Bellrose (a life-long and highly respected waterfowl biologist).With any luck, you might consider reading before typing next time.


----------



## Csquared

Who are you talking to and what's your point? The original question was what has happened to old lead shot and is it a danger to waterfowl anymore. What is your opinion exactly?


----------



## Plainsman

collarcatcher said:


> Just when you thought it was safe to go online and learn something, we get "according to the liberals it poisons ducks..." we must have gone to different schools together(or something). Please keep your silly knee-jerk political opinions to yourself, stay on topic, and do a web search for Frank C. Bellrose (a life-long and highly respected waterfowl biologist).With any luck, you might consider reading before typing next time.


Why would I go online? I have a few of his publications in my library. The last I talked with him he had a few graduate students on a field trip near Spirit Lake, Iowa.

As an after thought if you think I am liberal check out the political form. If I am liberal the Pope is Muslim.

This isn't about politics, it's about reality. However, we do need to be vigilant that the anti gun crowd doesn't somehow blow it out of proportion to fit their twisted agenda.


----------



## Csquared

Plainsman, I have spent countless hours trudging through the very same mud where Mr. Bellrose conducted his field research, Rice Lake, to name one specific location. I also had the opportunity to meet him on several occasions at DU functions and committee meetings here in his home state.

I find it interesting that although his research was conducted in the 40's and 50's, it wasn't an issue until much later. I guess it's just coincidental that it became an issue after the anti's had gotten a foothold in CA, and also about the same time as cougar and black bear seasons were being halted across the country due to similar pressure from the same groups.

I desperately long to see proof that the steel shot mandate was furthered purely due to the scientific data on hand at the time, but I suspect you and I both know that's not the case.

I will keep checking this thread in hopes to learn something, and in so doing possibly decrease my skepticism on the issue as a whole. But my main concern is what I think you may have eluded to in your last post, that being the danger posed by apathy among the ranks. I FIRMLY believe hunters as a group are WAY too impressionable, and we have to remind people that we don't work for the USFWS..........I think after BILLIONS of dollars in revenue (350 MILLION in duck stamps alone) we've earned the right to be the boss! We at least have the right to expect decisions to be based solely on the effect on the resource, don't you think?

Sorry for rambling, but of all the issues affecting hunters and shooters today its the complacency of those in the sport(s) that bothers me the most. How many of the people reading this are gun owners, but not NRA members?

I could go on but I'm off the subject. Sorry.


----------



## collarcatcher

Csquared, sorry if i was too vague...my point (one apparently shared by many on this thread) is simply this-to throw around terms like "the liberals think.." is missing the point. It is also an insult to the work of Mr. Bellrose and many other objective and dedicated biologists/scientists who share(d) a genuine concern for wetlands and waterfowl. Call me naive if you will, but i believe the lead shot ban was based on SCIENCE, not politics. My opinion? Let's leave science to the scientists, and if we have to err on the side of caution to protect the resource we all value, so be it.


----------



## Berto4527

Lead or Steel, deal with it, your shooting steel. The real way to knock down more birds.....Get your *** out and shoot some skeet!!! And have someone throw the skeet from one side to another, not just from right next to you. don't ***** and complain, learn to shoot better.


----------



## Csquared

collarcatcher, now I understand. Thank you. I respect your opinion, and in retrospect it is certainly easy to illustrate why the mandate was issued. My biggest problem is how it was handled, not necessarily the outcome. Would you agree that the impetus behind the urgency of the issue was provided by the very same groups that dream of ending sport hunting all together? Furthermore, do you believe the parties supporting and pushing for the lead shot ban did so in the interest of the overall duck population, with no subversive personal agenda?

I assume you are a hunter. If so, where do you draw the line on assaults on our sport? I doubt the same people in question like us dumping tons of steel into marshes to rust, and thereby polluting otherwise good duck habitat, so what's next? Noise pollution from gunshots?

Scientific data collected by non-biased sources will always be good enough for me to determine if the end justifies the means. But we didn't get that in the 80's. We got only threats and odscure study data, some of which actually flew in the face of what they were trying to sell.

And no, I don't think you're naive. I just think you fit into that large group of sportsmen who are far to willing, in my opinion, to keep moving the line in the sand back every time we get pushed. I think it's time we start pushing back.

We all need to be less willing to accept that every time we get slapped in the face it's because we had a mosquito on our cheek. I firmly believe that VERY few people behind the steel shot mandate had our best interests at heart, but I'm willing to listen to any info that might prove me wrong.

Thanks again.


----------



## Plainsman

collar catcher

Oh, now I understand.

I am sort of in the same boat with you and Csquared. If scientific data is provided it is ok with me, but the emotional part from the antihunters is worth nothing to me. 
We sportsmen need to know what is going on, and respond to the needs of the resources. If we had fought the lead ban and science provided the data the antihunters would have been real happy to see our credibility go down the tubes. We should always appose those forces like PETA, but not let ourselves get into the position that makes us look like uneducated ********. We need society to see us as responsible, and responsive to natural resources. We all know we are, but there are those who constantly try put us in a bad light. Like on another thread that says those involved in school shootings are influenced by hunting. What a crock.


----------



## loads

Tator said:


> we've shot multiple 9 man limits so far this year on geese. You can tell the difference from lead to steel, but you can still kill birds...........think about how many birds you've sent to the slough to die in all the years you've hunted, every time we've been out in the field, multiple birds die hours after we've shot at them.
> 
> It would be nice to be able to shoot lead while field hunting, but how many honest folks would stick to that rule, especially the ones driving down I-94 with their nice little duck boats
> 
> have a good night


 :eyeroll: Yep, all us MN hunters with our nice little duck boats are cheats and poachers...

I hope your fubarred opinion doesn't represent the majority of ND residents... That HAS NOT been my experience.

Sportsmen are sportsmen, and sorry if your experience has taught you that we are a bunch of poachers.


----------



## Tator

actally you only need to post it once, I read the first one just fine :lol:


----------



## Plainsman

I think that the people who wound ducks will always wound ducks. No matter what you give them they will shoot beyond reasonable range. Remember the description of the rifle in da 30 point buck? You could outfit a shotgun with spent uranium pellets, laser guided, 40 inch long triple barrels, compensated for recoil from an eight ounce load, capable of killing geese at 300 yards, and some yahoo is going to cripple them at 400 yards. The problem isn't the shell's, it between the ears.


----------



## chrispbrown27

I thought I read somewhere that the ben on lead had something to do with mortality rates on bald eagles that ate waterfowl that were crippled and later died.


----------



## R y a n

chrispbrown27 said:


> I thought I read somewhere that the ben on lead had something to do with mortality rates on bald eagles that ate waterfowl that were crippled and later died.


I think you are thinking of the pesticide DDT

Do a google search on it, and see...

Ryan


----------



## ndduckman

R y a n said:


> I think you are thinking of the pesticide DDT
> 
> Do a google search on it, and see...
> 
> Ryan


He was partly correct; bald eagles were dying via acute lead toxicity from scavenging waterfowl crippled by lead shot. It was not however, the only reason for implementing non-toxic shot regulations.

DDT had deleterious effects on egg formation via calcium and mineral deposition. Eggs became brittle and when the adults incubated, egg shells broke. Recruitment was curtailed, adult survival wasn't effected to a large degree. I'm sure some keyboard comandos won't believe this either.

Sorry to interrupt, carry on...


----------



## roostbuster

if you have ever read anything on the issue put out by government agencies such as the USFWS you would know that between 1.5-3 million ducks dies each year due to lead poisoning.


----------



## Bob Kellam

One of the better papers I have read on the subject.

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/bird ... rtalit.htm


----------



## buckseye

I wonder who the biggest lobbyist is in favor of steel shot.... without much thought I'm guessing its the people who make it and will profit from the change that was made... common sense isn't it???

Follow the money.... I remember a lot of people had to buy new guns to shoot steel shot safely too. It's a market scheme IMHO!!! I've never seen any wild or domestic critter so stupid it didn't know the difference between rocks and metals... of course there are accidental ingestion's in every species but not the numbers spoken of. I know a few of people and many dogs who carry lead in their bodies.. no problems for them other than how the lead was forced into their bodies.


----------

