I can't remember where we had the discussion about lead weight and ammo, but here's an article that talks about the poisoning of condors from lead ammo in gut piles: http://bit.ly/aM7U5w

Quote from Brian R on Nov 16^th, 2010, 3:49am:

 
This topic has been pretty hotly debated here too. Surprised it didnt completely blow up overnight actually.
Wouldn't take too much effort to search past threads on this forum that make pro and anti-lead  arguments. Those past threads might also contain links to articles on this issue if you're really interested in the subject.  
 
I am not a hunter, but by no means am I a flaming bunny lover / tree hugger either; and I think it makes sense not to leave lead in sensitive areas, especially if at risk species might be impacted by it. Unfortunately, there are a few groups on the radical enviro side of the fence that have pushed the lead ban issue pretty forcefully... Which tends to bring out the knee jerk "from my cold dead hands" attitude in a lot of folks. Those folks, mostly avid hunters and hardcore protectors of personal freedoms, are more concerned with the "where does it stop?" question. Both sides make good points.  
 
Seems to me that if there is a viable, non-toxic alternative to lead ammunition (or split shot), then we ought to be willing to make some small sacrifices in the area of our personal rights, in order to promote the existence of condors (and wild trout) for our kids in the future.  
 
b

Personally I think non-lead doesn't expand as well.  Leaving the animal to suffer until you can get another shot to finish it off.  Shot a pig with a thru and thru shot and the exit wound was no bigger than the entry wound.  The ballistics may be the same, but the non-lead just doesn't seem to expand as well.
 
If you use the proper caliber and shot location there shouldn't be any lead in the gut pile.  That's why they call it a gut pile.  I try not to shoot an animal in the guts  .  
 
Don't get me wrong, we took the Condor to the brink of extinction.  Problem is we inbred it back to be a very inept scavenger.

Well said Pete, I too agree that non lead bullets make animals suffer needlessly. Last year after switching to copper I shot a deer through the heart dead center, by the way he ran off (500yards at least) I thought I missed. I thought it was a fluke until I shot a 375lb. pig a few weeks later (perfect vitals shot) and he ran about 300 yds. This wild pig had about 1.75'' of armor on both sides and the exit hole was 1/4''. I was shooting a .257 weatherby magnum in both instances (1/4'' bullet). I reload and understand ballistics, and  copper bulletts perform nowwhere near lead bullets. I wasn't raised to make my quarry suffer like that and lost my desire to hunt that way, I have however spent alot of time on the water since then,let's see what these highly educated, elite, so called experts come up with next. I really hope someone from Sac. doesn't decide that fly line is toxic.

Sorry to take this off track a little, but......
 
Depending on what side of the isle you stand, some good/bad news. The EPA rejected the ban on lead, in all fishing tackle. This was a somewhat hotly debated subject in fly fishing forums. For sure, in conventional tackle forums.  
 
Ok. Carry on.  
 
briansII

Quote from BradW on Nov 16^th, 2010, 6:27pm:

 
I'm not sure a "substantial" study would be practical.  How many condors are left, a few hundred, right?  It's not like they can perform hundreds of necropsies.  Nor should it be necessary.  Testing for lead in warm blooded animals is pretty standard.  Feathers can be tested, and for dead animals, the bones as well.  A few probably die every year, so test those for lead.  I think I read somewhere that live condors are monitored somehow for signs of lead poisoning, and if the scientists see signs of it, the bird is re-captured, and major surgery is performed to remove the lead from it's digestive system.  If that happens with any regularity, and the lead is expended ammunition, it's pretty definitive.
 
And just for the record, I don't really have an opinion one way or the other.  I don't hunt, though I do target shoot once in a long while.
 
Lead weight in fishing tackle is another story.  As you might deduce from my handle, I dryfly alot, and don't often need weight, but when I do, I'm perfectly happy using tungsten or tin.  I can think of no concrete evidence that it's necessary to ban lead yet, just the overall thought process that lead is known to be very toxic, so do we really want to be losing a bunch of the environment?
 

I attended a presentation at the San Diego zoo.  The ornithologist dealing with the condors made a pretty good case for lead poisoning.  And I mean not from high velocity impact.  I dont big game hunt anymore but it is all about target acquisition and shot placement.  For birds I switched to non-lead shot.  After "patterning" the shot gun I find that it does just as well as lead.  For skeet.....old skool is cheaper...a lot cheaper.
 
In the time before exclusive fly fishing I stopped using lead weights.  A friend killed a bucket mouth ( I am still twisted that the genes didn't go back into the pool) inside her were three bullet weights.  The hooks were gone but the weights were there.  That changed my view.
 
1 or 2 weights here and there are probably not gonna cause a problem but multiply that by the thousands of fishers and hunters...and well you get the picture.  Just MHO....

http://www.ventanaws.org/pdf/species_condor_lead/FragmentationDataandRadiographs .pdf
 
Like I said previously, I have no stake in this whatsoever, and haven't shot anything since I blasted a tree squirrel at close range with a 20 gauge shotgun at the age of 12 or so. Picked A LOT of lead outta what was left of it before Granny fried it up and made me eat it.  
 
If this is a legit study, the whole debate seems moot. If it's not, would love to hear somebody's logic as to why it is not.
 
For Brad and Pete: Have actually been entertaining taking up hunting lately. I see it as far more noble and humane than buying mass produced animals that led really pretty horrible lives. But that's a whole other argument.  
 
What's the deal here? Is this data any good?
 
b