Email this page
Print this page
del.icio.us
digg
yahoo!
Comments
FeedCDC study confirms Peregrine Fund warning about lead bullets
BOISE, Idaho – BOISE, Idaho – A new study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control showing that people who eat wild game shot with lead bullets appear to have higher levels of lead in their blood than people who don’t confirms a warning first raised by The Peregrine Fund in May, when the organization showed lead fragments were widely dispersed in deer carcasses shot with lead bullets.
For more information about the study released today by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and the North Dakota Department of Health:
http://www.ndhealth.gov/lead/venison/Blood%20lead%20level%20test%20preliminary%20results.pdf
The Peregrine Fund first detected the problem when several endangered California Condors died from lead poisoning after ingesting carcasses and gut piles from hunter-killed game animals.
“When the extent of the lead problem for condors became clear, we began to wonder if people who eat venison shot with lead bullets might also be exposed to the toxic heavy metal,” said Rick Watson, vice president of The Peregrine Fund. The raptor conservation organization breeds rare California Condors at its World Center for Birds of Prey in Boise and releases them near the Grand Canyon in northern Arizona.
In recognizing the harm done to wildlife and people by lead in bullets used to hunt game, the organization felt it would have been irresponsible not to alert people to a potential danger. “We are not anti-hunting,” Watson said. “Our agenda is solely to restore California Condors to the wild where they may be enjoyed by future generations.”
Gut piles and other remains of game animals shot by hunters provide an important source of food for condors, Watson said. For three years, The Peregrine Fund has worked with the Arizona Game and Fish Department to encourage hunters to voluntarily use non-lead bullets in condor range. In 2007, 80 percent of hunters used non-toxic alternatives and condor deaths dropped from four in 2006 to none in 2007.
“These hunters have not only improved the survival of condors, but also reduced their exposure to a toxic substance. They are our heroes,” Watson said. “We continue to encourage hunters to use solid copper bullets when they hunt with a rifle, to benefit both wildlife and their own families.”
Watson said copper bullets are a viable alternative and he is optimistic that hunters will continue to choose alternatives that are not toxic to condors.
In May, The Peregrine Fund sponsored a conference of scientists, biologists and health experts at Boise State University to discuss the issue and raise awareness about its implications for human health. At the conference, The Peregrine Fund released a study showing that processed ground venison from 80 percent of the deer sampled contained metal fragments, many of them so small they could not be seen, felt or tasted. No amount of lead is considered safe, especially in pregnant women and children because even tiny amounts can cause brain development and behavioral problems in children.
For more information about The Peregrine Fund’s research:
http://www.peregrinefund.org/press_category.asp?category=Spent%20Lead%20Ammunition
Posted at 05:38 PM | Permalink
Reader Comments:
This is a tough decision for most hunters, unleaded ammo is very expensive. I read an article a few weeks back regarding the lead ban in california condor territory. The article included an interview with a game warden, he stated that the amount of hunters is down seventy percent in the condor area, he also stated that he came upon a group of two hunters and they told him that in order to afford to go hunting they bought one box of unleaded ammo and shared it. I feel that the state should at least give coupons or vouchers to help hunters to offset the cost of this ammo. I reload my own ammo but I use unleaded bullets that are discontinued, I get them at about forty percent less than the current unleaded bullets that are now manufactured.
The only reason this ammo is expensive is that not much is being made. And not much is being made ‘cause it’s not required nationwide. And just how expensive is it really? Can a hunter who can buy a thousand-dollar rifle, $150 boots, $60 license, and maybe a 4X4 really not afford it? I doubt it. And how many shots does a halfway competent hunter take at deer in a season? When I worked for a game and fish department I heard dozens of “reports” from hunters every day--most of which were of dubious reliability and many of which were pure BS. When steel was first required for waterfowl I recall hearing all this doom-and-gloom stuff from hunters, from the game-and-fish bureaucrats I worked for, even from respected conservation writers like by late friend John Madson. Steel was too expensive; it was going to ruin our shotguns, it was going to cripple birds, blah, blah, blah. I wrote the dissenting opinion for Audubon in a piece I entitled “Let Them East Steel.”
Best,
Ted
Ted: Just about all the ammo companies load steel shot however it still costs alot more than lead shot. I was at Walmart the other day, you can get a box of light trap/quail loads for about four bucks a box of 25 rounds, the cheapest steel shot I saw was about eleven bucks a box. For hunting I can see using the steel shot but what about trap shooters, thee guys shoot three or four boxes per match, that can get expensive.
I guess it would depend on where the trap/skeet field is. If it’s overlooking standing or flowing water, shooters need to suck it up and buy steel.
Best,
Ted