I think you’re correct in your characterization of the “battle ultimately going to those who maintain the momentum”. It is for this reason that I think that it is important that rather than just to respond to the issue of whether lead ammo is specifically responsible for an impact to a listed species…that the hunting community should consider expanding its response to include the animal in question.

I also don’t think that by politely debating the issue that we fully understand the tactics of the CBD or their ultimate strategy. They can make a baseless accusation and if it is found out to be without merit…they move on to the next baseless issue until they find one that provides them with some traction.

By changing the focus of the response to include a challenge to whether the condor is in fact even a viable species meriting coverage by the ESA…we now provide a very significant paradigm shift to those involved in the community inclusive of the CBD. The more they throw the condor out as indicative of the lead ammo impact…the more those in the hunting community could challenge whether the condor is in fact an actual unique species worthy of protection. If it is found that the animal is either not genetically capable of re-establishing itself in the wild (or if it was hybrid) then the argument could be made that no level of protection would be sufficient to allow for its re-establishment and that it would be cost effect and humane to take the remaining animals out of the wild and return them to a controlled environment.

I found your comment of the condor possibly being a hybrid a fascinating twist. With genetic engineering being what it is today, I imagine it would be possible to genetically engineer additional condors on massive scale. With the amount of money that has spent on trying to re-introduce the current population into the wild…I wonder if it wouldn’t be more cost effective to just genetically engineer ten thousand or so of the animal and save the money we’ve been spending on tracking them. Over a period of time an established population of the animals would potentially evolve to the point where there wouldn’t need to be any additional discussion as to there viability.

You know that this concept would be pure blasphemy to the community in which the members of the CBD are included. I imagine that if pushed hard enough…they may want to have a long talk with the “Mensa members” that came up with the “nifty” idea of making a baseless charge in identifying lead ammo as the basis of the condor mortality.

I should conclude that I’ve got nothing personally against the condor…but since it’s a pretty easy target for attack, I don’t think we should overlook it. There has to be a price for academic laziness and scientific fraud…and if it turns out to be the condor, so be it. We in the hunting community didn’t start the fight – but we might be able establish the ground rules for this and future engagements.

All my best…

All metals are toxic in high enough concentrations to almost all living things, some more than others. Even oxygen and water are toxic in high enough concentrations and under the right conditions. But water and oxygen are needed to sustain life, as well as traces of most elemental metals. It’s the conditions and their concentrations that are important, along with their solubility. In fact, some are far more soluble than lead and far more detrimental. If we don’t know the pitfalls of the alternatives we are truly hiding our heads in the sand. Remember some folks are walking around with bullets in their bodies because it’s safer than removal and most have few if any problems associated with that other than the discomfort of the physical occlusion in direct approximation to the bullet.

So what we should take note of is that lead may be one of the more stable metals, with relatively fewer side effects for making bullets out of. Some other metals have far greater problems that may have been overlooked by the “experts”. If we decide to give in to those who would ban a substance without clear, convincing and compelling scientific evidence that there are better alternatives, we WILL lose our ability to hunt, target shoot or use our firearms outside of a hi-tech indoor ranges.

Having been raised in a family machine shop and having a good understanding of metals, I can tell you there are problems with almost ANY metal that I can think of that are at all suitable for projectiles. Lead actually has fewer problems than most other metals. Its stability at temperatures and Ph are pretty good when compared to other metals. One of the few exceptions would be gold or platinum, and I hardly think anyone but the greenies would want us to be shooting gold or platinum bullets. Of course fouling would be a new adventure, and then the other metals used to alloy, to make it hard enough, could still have leaching problems. Lead is just todays issue.

Bottom line is, if we are willing to simply give this up without a huge fight and with real science, we will have lost the entire war, not just the battle. Those who are so concerned about the environment that they would ban lead without proof will not stop there. If you think they will, you aren’t paying attention to what they are saying and doing. Spend a little time reading their blogs and see for yourself. They are incrementally attempting to stop all hunting & fishing. And just like with the Brady’s, they will not stop until they get rid of everyone’s firearms. It matters not what you think about their motives, what matters is what they do and not what they say in hearings or to the cameras. They have no desire or plan to tell the whole truth because they “believe” they have a righteous cause, with a kind of religious fervor. Facts are not material to their overall goals. If they have to prevaricate to achieve their goals, they are okay with that. Just like the Gorebal warming crowd, don’t let the facts or anyone’s Rights get in the way. The goal is bigger than individuals or their individual Rights. Conservation of species, in this case the “California Condor”, is only a means to an end.

The information on genetic viability of the captive raised condors is not available anywhere that I can find either. So I am suspect that the condors that are being released may not even be “California Condors” but some sort of hybrids. I also question how if captive raised salmon, trout and steelhead are not counted, by court order, when consideration for endangered species populations goes into courts, how is that California Condors get a pass on those rulings? I don’t know the answer, nor have I heard anyone ask it. In a “perfect” world could the species be viable again? Isn’t it fair to ask and get answers to those questions too? They certainly seem as important in scientific terms as the questions over a better bullet material.

Thanks for the response. I appreciate any new information I can look at. I’ll never know everything about anything. I will definitely be thinking about all that you’ve had to say.

Greg,

Thanks for bringing up some interesting questions. I’ve got some preliminary thoughts, but I want to double check some stuff before I throw out false information. I’ll look into those things and hopefully get back to you soon.

Thanks again for the rational reasoned response. I guess my question then is “if the initial lawsuit was brought on the basis of the “potential” impact to the identified species – then it wouldn’t it stand to reason that we would see the same or similar impact to other species demonstrating similar characteristics or habits”. In absence of this impact wouldn’t we have to return to the species of concern itself and determine if there was some other factor (say genetic defect perhaps) that was causing the potential impact?

Those involved in the return of the condor have quite a bit a stake also, which could potentially bias their objectivity. If it were found that the animal had an inherent genetic defect that precluded its potential for success – then it stands to reason that more than a few people would be in need of finding a new occupation (not the most enjoyable thought I imagine in these economic times). The simple causal relationship developed in the condor and lead ammo discussion has me more than a little curious as to how it was determined that lead ammo was the prime culprit in sickening the animal. Common sense leads me to believe that since turkey buzzards are more likely to come across the carcass of an animal having been unsuccessfully harvested by a hunter, they due to their lower body mass index would be even more susceptible to lead poisoning. Also common sense leads me to believe that for the animal to ingest that amount of lead…there must be a large number of hunters who are routinely not claiming their animals (something that is illegal I believe and would merit further investigation by the CDF&G).

Now if I were tasked with the monitoring of the condor’s welfare, I would want to know the specific source the potential impact to condor. In that lead ammo has been identified as the prime suspect, my simple question is “where is the collaborating evidence”? So far I have only heard of the studies related to the condor, leading me to suspect either; the reports are valid and lead ammo is the culprit, the animal potentially has a genetic flaw and is therefore not viable for potentially a number of reasons, and/or the researchers are potentially biased and capable of coloring their data to protect a special interest.

In light of the information I have at this time – I would tend to believe the animal is genetically flawed and not capable of viability (low number of initial genetic stock). As such, it would be very convenient to have an anthropological issue to hide the animal’s flaws behind, to extend its doomed attempt at re-introduction. Enter the lead ammo issue based upon anecdotal evidence gathered from the waterfowl studies. No matter that the linkage is extremely weak. In effect the lead ammo debate provides a convenient smoke screen to hide behind for an extended period of time until some other rationale can be found why the animal isn’t viable.

Meanwhile the focus is currently on the lead ammo. This rather convenient don’t you think? Unless one is wholeheartedly invested in finding an alternative to lead ammo – they can be branded an uncaring despoiler of the environment and an enemy of the poor species of concern. This strikes me as poor science at best and possible criminal fraud at the extreme. Can we find alternatives to lead ammo…of course we can. It may cost more to manufacture and potentially have other issues that over time will manifest themselves. Speaking of other potential issues, have there been any studies related to the suggested alloy replacements? The reason I asked is purely personal. During the recent conflicts in the Middle East a number of my buddies reported suffering from physical symptoms they thought might have to do with our using depleted uranium (DU) rounds. Although subsequent studies have been inconclusive, a number of the guys thought cycling a high volume of the DU rounds through the small arms we were using possibly had some lingering health issues. The reason I bring this up, is where we have a long history in regard to lead ammo health effects…I’m not so sure we have all the data in regarding the various alloy rounds that have been forwarded up. I’d hate for the potential cure of one problem (condor mortality) to result in another more severe problem (hunter mortality).

Ultimately this debate will continue. While I find it interesting on an intellectual level, I hope the same level of academic scrutiny will be applied to all sides of the debate. I for one would say lets set the stakes at: if lead is found to be the culprit – then by all means lets phase it out, if it is the condor – then let us save our limited financial resources for more deserving species and return the remaining members of the flock to the safety of a controlled environment and be done with them, and if it is the researchers coloring the data – then let society strip them of any and all professional credentials and take the necessary steps to ensure that they never practice in the field of any science again (since publically horsewhipping them might be thought extreme).

All my best…

You wrote:

“…I also want to quick comment on your statement of only one condor dying of lead poisoning. I tend to think that stating the number of deaths from lead toxicosis is quite misleading when referring to these birds. I say this because they are monitored so closely that the biologists are able to monitor their blood lead levels quite closely and then treat those that need treatment (Whether these blood lead levels are actually coming from bullets seems to be a never ending debate)…”

I must respectfully disagree with this, because it takes major staff and volunteer efforts and resources to accomplish only 1 annual blood measurement and any needed vaccinations per bird per year. 1-2 measurements using equipment that may or may not have been accurately calibrated (It has not yet been determined that the lead measurement program for condors is registered properly with the state of California, as is required for human blood measurement programs in clinics and hospitals.). Given that other kinds of illness or toxic effect can have similar outward appearances as lead toxicity, it is not yet known to the public as to what or how many “false positives” may have occurred as well.

As for my statement, it’s also the official staff statement from the Final Environmental Document from December 2007. There is direct attribution, and then there is suspicion based upon the staff’s citation of Risebrough (2005). Either way, and given the amounts of other forms of lead in the environment, it’s still a long way to say lead ammo is the culprit. From Page 20-

“…Based on these reviews, other data the Department is aware of, and expertise past and present, the Department has compiled the following summary statements that represent
what is believed to be factual information related to the lead, condor, and hunting issue:

• There is no direct evidence that hunter-killed big game, nongame birds, or nongame mammals resulted in the illness or death of a condor due to lead poisoning in California.
To date, no condors in California that have been observed feeding on gut piles or game carcasses believed to be hunter-killed, and perhaps believed to have lead fragments in
them, died as a result of feeding on such animals.

• The Department knows of one confirmed lead-related death in California (see Table 1, Appendix 3 of the Draft ED) in the 14+ years since releases began in 1992: condor #132, found dead in late January 2001. There are two cases for which lead toxicity “appears to have caused or contributed to the deaths” (Risebrough 2005): #175 died sometime before Nov 15, 1999, and #181 died in late September 2000). Another
California bird that died after treatment for acute lead toxicosis in June 2003 was determined to have died of visceral gout; in 2005, the Department had incorrectly
described this bird as a confirmed lead poisoning death. Ongoing lead analyses of condor deaths of unknown cause in California may yet reveal other instances of confirmed or suspected lead poisoning mortalities.

• The Department knows of two deaths of California condor (see Table 1, Appendix 3) in California where copper levels were considered high and possibly contributed to death;
additionally two other birds died with high levels of copper. The Department is of the understanding that copper is less toxic than lead, and copper bullets are less likely to
fragment than lead bullets, however, copper toxicity should be investigated further…”

Again here the DFG staff under Dr. Loft notes the copper issue. While much of the public presumably has not read the Final Environmental Document, be assured that the NRDC, CA Audubon, Center For Biodiversity, and the Humane Society have.

You wrote:

“…I’m not sure what the exact number of emergency chelations is, but I seem to remember that AZ had to chelate 60% of their flock in 2006 or 2007. There is no easy way to calculate how many more dead condors that would amount to, but I think its safe to say that there would be more….”

Given that Arizona has documented/claimed relative success with their voluntary “non-toxic” ammunition coupon program, with it’s implied reductions of the use of lead ammunition in the area around the Vermillion Cliffs and the Grand Canyon, one can have suspicions as to why any sudden increase of chelations took place. Given that there are less restrictions, and thus less liabilities when performing procedures on an experimental “10(j) flock”, and that chelation if not administered properly causes calcium and other critical metals loss, one also has suspicions as to the true health and success of the AZ-UT condors now that there is evidence of microtrash consumption with these birds as well.

You wrote:

“…We also tend to only think of lethal doses of lead. Lead can effect coordination and could possibly lead to some of the power-line collisions and predations. I like to think of it like driving drunk. Think of a drunk driver that crashes into a tree and dies. He didn’t die of alcohol poisoning, however, the alcohol likely was the factor that led to the accident….”

One of my key arguments to the Commission in June, July, August, and October of 2007 was that Fry had under-counted the various environmental exposures in condor country, while focusing on the Snyder hypothesis that lead ammunition is the only possible source. We presented information as to the potential ingestion of lead wheel weights, inhalation of soils containing lead salts, ingestion of water potentially contaminated with lead salts, and consumption of animals potentially exposed and containing bio-accumulated lead. And that’s just the lead threats in condor country. Other threats to condor recovery include the pesticide angle, the lack of biomass problem brought up by Dr. Loft and staff, the microtrash problem brought up by Dr. Mee, the behavioral problems noted throughout the program due to double-clutching the chicks limits the availability of wild mentor parents, inbreeding problems related to the 3 matriarchal lines/27 remaining wild birds “starting point”, population bottlenecks (not all the artificially bred traits are naturally viable ones), and a host of other problems. It is my contention that continued wild release of condors is actually a threat to their existence, let alone their recovery from Endangered status. I believe that the non-ammunition-related problems must be addressed first, before continuation of releases can go forward. Anything else threatens endangered birds, and is a violation of the Endangered Species Act.

I think all hunters and shooters can join on this issue, at a very minimum by education and learning about this issue thoroughly enough to dispel the “junk” side of this debate from the right side. No one wants to be snookered into paying more for a bad fix, and I know no hunter that wants to be disarmed over faux science.

Respectfully,

Anthony Canales

You wrote:

“…I question whether the amounts of copper, tungsten etc. from bullets would be cause for concern. I understand copper is toxic at high levels, but I don’t think it is comparable to the toxicity of lead (probably the most studied toxic metal)….”

Here is the “rub” regarding the different metals, in that copper is more soluble in the acidic side of the avian gut than lead. I think Thomas and McGill are reporting in the first study you are referring that eight 3.48 mm alloy spheres dissolve totally in 14 days, pH of 2 and temperature of 42 Deg. C (107.6 F). While the 42 Deg. C temperature looks to be a bit high related to temperatures reported for such comparable birds as Griffon vultures (36.6-40.6 Deg C, Bahat, Chosniak, and Houston 1998; See http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Condor/files/issues/v100n01/p0168-p0171.pdf), the real issue seems to be more related to the narrow 9.47 grain dosage level (equivalent based on % weight dissolved) being measured in this particular study.

Centerfire Barnes Bullets made of copper with copper containing no more than 1% lead have considerably more copper than the eight spheres noted in Thomas and McGill’s first study you noted above. Popular weights for deer ammo alone are 130 grains and 150 grains (.270 Win and .30-06, respectively). The potential dosage from the ingestion of one bullet by a condor would be some 8,422.6-9,718.4 mg of Cu. The rate of dissolving is also is potentially and significantly quicker with copper in artificial stomach contents than a comparable quantity of lead, if one can read the implications from such researchers as Pattee. Of course, if one also takes into account the effect to riparian environments of copper as I had previously mentioned, then alternative threats are posed by copper-containing ammunition to other endangered species in the condor’s range.

In addition, Hopper Mountain reports three condor chick deaths in the Oct-Dec 2002 period where elevated copper levels were noted. The chicks from a mating of condors # 100/108 and condors # 107/122 were recorded where the only apparent (in the notes anyway) issues were “elevated” Cu levels. The chick from a mating of condor # 95/155 had elevated copper and a microtrash problem noted as the issues related to mortality. This is more hard data on mortality at Hopper than they have with lead ammunition.

The second Thomas/McGill study you site, dealing with the dissolution of copper, from a cursory review of the abstract only, seems to confirm the higher solubility rate in acidic environments of copper than lead. On top of that, the abstract does not discuss whether the bronze alloy combination used involves Zn (zinc), which is considered toxic to avians and is common in some bronze formulations. Obviously the same dosage issues apply, given the differences between the masses of all-copper centerfire slugs and bullets versus alloy duckshot not suitable for big game hunting.

As for tungsten, well that is a much scarier issue if one believes the Cape Cod Times, and apparently the state of Massachusetts. In a story by Amanda Leimert from December 17, 2006, she reports findings of tungsten toxicity (possible teratogenicity) from large scale first use of tungsten-nylon composite 5.56 mm military rounds. She reports that water measurements approximating 560 parts per billion were found under an applicable military shooting range, which was apparently enough for then Governor Mitt Romney to ban the use of this “nontoxic” bullet for National Guard training use.

Link at:

http://archive.capecodonline.com/special/tungsten/howtungsten17.htm

You wrote:

“…I confess that this is not my specific area of expertise, but I just thought you may be interested in these if you have not seen them. After switching to non-lead already (hunt in CA lead ban zone), I would hate to lose these other options. I just ask that you please be careful in arguing that these other alternatives are toxic…”

With all due respect, toxicity is not something that can be hidden from the environmentalist crowd, just because we don’t speak about it or try to shove reports into the circular file. If manufacturers stepped up with alternate materials for ammunition, touted them as “nontoxic”, but were then discovered to have “hidden” other aspects of toxicity from the public so that they conceivably could have been accused of launching a higher-priced product for “earnings” reasons, the manure will really hit the old reciprocating cooling device. But it will also leave hunters and shooters without a usable substitute for a significant amount of time.

You wrote:

“…At this point, I don’t think the issue is lead-bullets or lead-sinkers. I think the issue is lead. We know its toxic and I believe its much more of a problem than these other alternatives will be. Maybe you’re right and the actual risks are grossly exaggerated, but does it hurt to voluntarily switch?…”

“We” knew that MTBE was toxic too, yet regulators demanded that it be used as a substitute oxygenate in lieu of lead tetroxide in gasoline. Unfortunately, it’s extremely hard to strip from water, and now in turn has been banned to be replaced with ethanol. MTBE contamination is now a very serious problem in groundwater, reservoirs, and soils, all because folks did not study the whole problem thoroughly and openly. The result of that inaction led to increased costs to the public and the environment. I do not want to see that happen to hunters and shooters, simply because a corporate entity or two wants dominant market share. Given some of the total toxicity issues with the currently proposed substitutes, I am coming to believe that lead may be the best choice for ammunition after all.

Respectfully,

Anthony Canales

What I do know is that the condor isn’t being represented as an indicator species. It’s being utilized in this argument because of its status as an endangered species. The ESA provides a ton of leverage in the lawsuit filed against the State, because that status requires the State to make an extra effort to ensure that the birds aren’t being threatened by otherwise legal activities… no different from the spotted owl, when it comes down to it.

If they tried this with the “turkey buzzard”, it would have fallen flat before it ever got started. Sure, if hunters’ lead sickens condors, then it will likewise sicken other scavenger birds because they share the same digestive processes. In fact, there are many bird folks claiming that lead ammo is impacting crows, vultures, and even bald eagles.

I don’t doubt for a moment that there are many people with no interest beyond protecting the condor, but it’s pretty safe to say that an awful lot of the folks pushing this lead ban have jumped on the issue because the condor makes a really convenient rallying flag. Their intent has nothing to do with ecology. (Yeah, there’s my radical side coming out.)

As far as tungsten bullets, frangibles aren’t legal for hunting game animals in CA, and the majority of sintered tungsten bullets on the market today are frangible. I’ve used them in Texas, and the expansion is devastating, even at ranges in excess of 200 yards (the longest shot on that trip)… but I wouldn’t use them again for meat hunting. They are TOO devastating.

Just wanted to add… there are some significant questions about the environmental safety of tungsten as well. More to come on that…

This discussion is worthwhile, even if it does appear to be limited to this small handful of voices. Thanks to all.