Lead Ban Chronicles - Grizzly Bears Show Elevated Lead Levels, No Clear Link To Lead Ammo

Home > Lead Ban Chronicles – Grizzly Bears Show Elevated Lead Levels, No Clear Link To Lead Ammo

My lead ammunition alerts have been pretty steady over the past couple of weeks, despite the fact that I haven’t really posted up any new bits for the Lead Ban Chronicles. Most of what I’ve been seeing has been editorials and letters from concerned citizens, largely deriding the hunting community for failing to switch to lead-free ammo, and for killing the “majestic” eagles. When I can, I usually try to reply to the columns and letters in the comments sections, addressing misconceptions and myths as best I can. What I’m not going to do is link back to every one of them via the blog.

However, this piece I just received today is a little different. The Jackson Hole News and Guide ran a piece about recent findings that show elevated blood/lead levels in grizzly bears around the Greater Yellowstone area. There’s been an awful lot of speculation about the impact of lead bullet fragments and shot on scavenging mammals, but as best I can tell no one has really been able to tie a direct correlation. According to this article, the most current research also fails to connect the dots, or even to establish that the lead levels in these animals (the research focused on wolves, mountain lions, and grizzly bears) are even harmful.

The grizzly bears surveyed did show a higher level of lead in their blood, but none of the evidence pointed to hunters or lead ammo as the cause. Unlike the eagles surveyed that seemed to show a higher lead level during the hunting season, the bears showed that the increase began when they left hibernation, and gradually increased until they returned to their dens for winter. Examinations of scat did not reveal lead bullet fragments or other evidence of lead bullets or shot.

There’s a much lengthier discussion of the study and the findings in the article, if you’d like to read it. What gets me though, is the logical contortions the researchers go through to make sure that, even though the link between ammo and the lead in the bears’ blood is tenuous at best, the reader is left with the impression that lead bullets are still “bad.”

The study doesn’t confirm a link between the lead in bears’ blood and bullet fragments from gut piles, but it doesn’t rule out a link either, said Tom Rogers, the lead author of the study and a former graduate student at the University of Montana. A larger study might have different results, he said.

“Within the limits of the scope of our research, we didn’t find a link,” Rogers said. “But that doesn’t mean that there is no link.”

Regardless, lead poisoning from bullet fragments probably isn’t an issue in terms of the level of exposure or its prevalence in the population, Rogers said.

So, it’s not a problem but it could be a problem even though it isn’t a problem. Oh brother…

TonyC

Posted December 15, 2011 at 7:46 AM

Phillip,
Very Interesting. CB South seems to be indicating a source of lead exposure in wildlife NOT related to lead ammunition. And in a region where there is a lot of hunting going on.

No fragments being found is not as unusual. The vast majority of cases of condors with elevated blood lead levels come without radiographic findings of ingested fragments or particles. Even then, until the fragment or particle is removed, one has to determine forensically if it is from ammunition, or from microtrash.

I will have to go back and see if I won an “office pool” somewhere.


laura

Posted December 15, 2011 at 10:23 AM

Phillip, I would have to say that in this case, there is reasonable cause to believe that lead is bullets is making a contribution to the lead levels. I don’t think this is something for hunters to be defensive about.It is a reasonable issue to be discussed and monitored. While there are others reasons for elevated lead in the blood, it is also plausible that some is coming from lead ammunition.
- Reply
  
  Phillip Loughlin
  
  Posted December 15, 2011 at 7:40 PM
  
  Laura, I think the biggest thing that got me about this was the tone of the researcher in the interview. Despite the fact that everything about the study showed absolutely no correlation to lead ammo or hunters, he had to make sure to make a dig at lead ammo, tying it back to the eagles. I’m sure he thought it was innocent enough, but that reflects a bias and openly biased researchers are always suspect… especially in a conversation as heavily loaded as this one. This is what makes many hunters “defensive” when they see stuff like this.
  
  It’s not that I doubt that large mammals ingest lead fragments, or even that I doubt that these fragments can cause a certain increase in blood-lead levels. But it’s critical to note that even though there did appear to be an increase in the lead levels in these bears, there was simply no way to relate this to hunting activity. It’s even more critical to note that despite a slight increase in lead levels, there were no health effects… nor have there been any reports of lead poisoned large mammals related to bullets or shot. Point being, even if lead ammo is involved, it’s not a threat to these animals. I think the author of the article did a great job at keeping the piece balanced, despite the anti-lead comments from the researcher he interviewed.
  
  Mike, I think Tony can explain to you why lead-alternative ammo isn’t without its own bugaboos and could easily become the next target of these groups.

mike

Posted December 15, 2011 at 8:07 AM

hmmm…it all sounds complicated. it would be nice to see some research that is for the sake of research and not ulterior motives. it would be nice if the shooting industry could invent some non lead amo that shoots as well as lead (or better) and is the same price as lead or better yet cheaper. researchers then would have to find a new witch hunt or actually research something that matters.

Dennis Krupnak

Posted December 16, 2011 at 6:46 AM

It surprizes me how no one seem to take into account the exposure to naturally occurring lead.It’s always something to do with human interaction like hunting or tailings piles from mining. The Yellowstone basin is a mineral rich area and it is not only possible but probable that there is lead in the environment from past and present geothermal activity. And it is not necessarily metallic lead. There could be lead compounds in the soil or in natural salt licks. This would seem to more suitably explain why the lead levels build gradually as opposed to ingesting lead fragments which you would think would cause spikes in the lead levels. The environmental movement seems to want to make Man the bad guy in everything and ignore the fact Mother Nature can be the cause of a lot of “bad” things too. There is no good or bad in nature, it just is what it is.

Neil H

Posted December 17, 2011 at 9:03 AM

Thanks for keeping an eye on this Phillip.

I agree the tone is of concern. If you look for something hard enough, you will find it. It reminds me me of something my dad used to say when he was a homicide investigator- most cops find a guy they think is guilty, and then hunt for evidence that backs that up, rather than search for the truth. It’s human nature, and can be true of researchers too.

If you look at anything humans do, there will unfortunately be some effect, and the goal should be to balance these things as best we can. Habitat loss is by far the greatest threat to species, but we haven’t banned all new housing, or banned having more than one child, nor have we banned fossil fuels and all industrial bleach use, etc. Those things are all by far issues that are more important to look at. They are all huge, but would be unpopular with too large a group. So it’s convenient to go after some fringe aspect that MIGHT be a factor. I would argue that someone commuting 40 miles a day has a greater impact than the three to six rifle bullets I use in the field every year, and every solution comes with it’s own environmental impact.

The real question should be: How are these species’ populations doing?

Mike, I’ve recently switched to copper, and they seem to shoot well. They were designed to be more effective than lead (whether they are is a matter of opinion)before all of this became an issue. So why am I opposed to this witch hunt? Because there are uses of lead ammo such as affordable practice, home defense, etc that would be caught up in a general ban, and I’m also concerned they won’t stop there. I think it would be a fine thing for non-lead ammo to be popularized for hunting, but that’s a different angle than a ban.

Lead Ban Chronicles – Grizzly Bears Show Elevated Lead Levels, No Clear Link To Lead Ammo

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Phillip Loughlin

Blogroll

Fish and Game Contacts

General

Outdoor Industry and Media

Outdoor News

Outfitters I've Used

Web Forums

Archives
Categories