Lead and Wildlife

[Scorch]

Yes, lead is toxic when birds ingest it, we've known this for years. And yes, birds ingest lead shot and it grinds up in their craw, killing them. And yes, there are alternatives to lead, have been for many years. But lead is cheap, and if you think people whine about the cost of steel shot, you should hear the wailing over the cost of bismuth, tungsten, tin/iron/tunsten matrix, or tungsten/polymer matrix shells. $30 for a box of 10 rounds is not uncommon. Lead shotshells sell for $5-$10/box of 25. Is it worth it to eliminate lead? That's a good question, and asking it is a great way to start either a debate or an argument among hunters.

[plattski]

Several years ago a geologist hunting buddy and I did a bunch of reading on lead shot and bullets and there is a significant amount of information (including good state game agency x-ray studies from rifle-shot animal carcasses and packages of burger at the food pantry) that shows bullet fragments are found in game meat, especially when poorly constructed bullets fired at high velocity are used. There is also much data on non-target wildlife (i.e. condors and other scavengers) ingesting and being harmed by lead fragments found in the gut-piles of rifle-killed animals not to mention shot accidentally ingested by feeding birds. Finally there is quite a bit of research into the harmful impact of elemental lead ingested by humans, especially causing developmental problems in young children. I used to hunt elk and deer with cheap and accurate Remington "core-loss" bullets but I got tired of bad bullets after I recovered a dozen slugs from game that had literally blown apart and shed half of the lead into the animal including little lead fragments I've found in my dinner.

Because of all this I decided to shift over to all-copper bullets and bismuth shot for hunting so as to leave no poison in my wake or in my dinner. I still shoot lead bullets and shot at the range to practice but no longer in the field. Sure no-lead ammo is expensive but any premium bullet is costly and the Barnes TSX and TTSX are great bullets that really have done the job on 4 elk, a half-dozen antelope and numerous deer, grouse, chukars and turkeys. So far I've only recovered two copper slugs, both from quartering shots into large elk that lodged in the brisket area, and both mushroomed perfectly and retained 99% of their original weight. I don't see an anti-hunting conspiracy in the movement to require better hunting technology that helps to reduce the possibility of collateral damage to our wildlife, which I think includes scavenger birds and animals - "varmints." If I'm not specifically trying to kill it then I don't want it to die by my mistake. And I am very happy to do everything possible to protect my family, especially my young son who loves to eat wild game and who I hope will grow one day into a skilled hunter himself.

[treg]

Wyoming only requires non-toxic shot for upland birds in specifically defined Wildlife Habitat Management Areas and national wildlife refuges where pheasants are hunted, which are usually peripheral to wetlands. This doesn't apply to most upland bird hunting on public lands. You can still hunt forest grouse and sharptails in most public places with lead shot outside of the WHMAs, which are a very small percentage of land in the eastern part of the state.

That sounds like a good case study. Is there a measureable difference in the number of pheasants (or other birds) per square mile in the WHMA's?

[James H]

As far as I know, the WHMAs are about the only places with suitable habitat for pheasants in WY. It wouldn't be a fair comparison to areas outside the WHMAs.

I'm not absolutely sure, though...I've only lived here a little over a year. I suspect the birds are stocked also. That adds another variable.

[JohnKSa]

...there is a significant amount of information (including good state game agency x-ray studies from rifle-shot animal carcasses and packages of burger at the food pantry) that shows bullet fragments are found in game meat, especially when poorly constructed bullets fired at high velocity are used. There is also much data on non-target wildlife (i.e. condors and other scavengers) ingesting and being harmed by lead fragments found in the gut-piles of rifle-killed animals not to mention shot accidentally ingested by feeding birds.

Both of these topics have been recently brought up by anti-hunting groups.

The lead fragments in game issue being a hazard to humans was pretty thoroughly debunked by comparing lead levels of humans who ate primarily hunted meat and humans who ate primarily farmed meat. Those eating farmed meat had higher levels because they tended to live in more urban surroundings and picked up more lead from their surroundings. The study didn't show that eating hunted meat resulted in elevated lead levels.

I've never seen actual data supporting the contention that gutpile bullet fragments are causing health problems in condors or other scavenger birds. I've seen some studies that strongly suggest it might be a possible cause of elevated lead levels in condors but nothing showing that it's actually what is causing the problem. I'd be interested in seeing data that actually ties gutpile bullet fragments to elevated lead in condors. It would surprise me if anyone could produce such data given that gizzards in raptors are quite different from those of birds such as ducks.

[ripnbst]

Really if you ask me the bulk of this lies with the ammunition manufacturers. Stop manufacturing lead shot, only make steel and the entire discussion becomes moot.

The people at remington and Federal and Winchester are likely sportsman themselves and as such should appreciate the wildlife and realize they have a HUGE impact on something like this.

I hope in a couple years that lead shot will be illegal no matter what you are shooting where.

[James H]

"The lead fragments in game issue being a hazard to humans was pretty thoroughly debunked by comparing lead levels of humans who ate primarily hunted meat and humans who ate primarily farmed meat. Those eating farmed meat had higher levels because they tended to live in more urban surroundings and picked up more lead from their surroundings. The study didn't show that eating hunted meat resulted in elevated lead levels."--JohnKSa

This I believe, plattski. I admire your desire to protect your offspring, but I think the amount of lead your son might ingest is negligible regardless of wild game or USDA approved farm animals. And I'd be more suspicious of the USDA.

As far as raptors or predatory birds vs. ducks and grouse and pheasants there probably is a difference in the way gizzards process things. JohnKSa, do you have any resources to point to? Just wondering...I've cleaned and eaten many, many gizzards from ducks and grouse and chukars, but I've never seen one from a raptor.

[JohnKSa]

It's all available online but I don't have a specific source.

Raptors regularly expel the contents of their gizzards (throw up) after eating to eliminate the indigestible portions of their prey. This is unlike seed/grain eating birds which retain small stones and other hard objects in their gizzards to aid in grinding their food.

Raptor gizzards are much less muscular because they aren't required to grind seeds the way seed/grain eating birds' gizzards are. They wouldn't grind off tiny pieces of lead from shot or bullet fragments that could pass through the rest of their digestive system and possibly be assimilated.

In addition, the gizzards of raptors do not contain digestive glands.

So there's not enough musculature or grinding action to make tiny fragments from lead shot or from larger bullet fragments. Even if there were the indigestible parts of raptors' meals are regularly expelled along with the contents of the gizzards after eating without ever coming in contact with digestive juices.

I am very interested in biology and am a wildlife lover. I don't like to see animals harmed unnecessarily. I also don't like to see unethical people (like anti-hunters) use well-meaning people's love of animals to further their own agendas by trying to twist the facts to suit their arguments and views.

It's clear there are some valid concerns regarding lead toxicity and its effects on humans and wildlife. The problem is, for the most part, I don't see those concerns being addressed rationally with a focus towards solving real-world problems that have well-established data to support them with a verifiable cause and effect chain. Instead it seems far more common to see anti-hunting/animal rights groups using junk science, sound bite logic and scare tactics about lead to try to further their goals.

We need to be careful not to let our valid concerns about the real issues involving lead cause us to be too ready to accept any negative things we hear about lead.

[HiBC]

Well said,Johnska.
The idea that lead is somehow scattered throughout the carcass of a game animal does not make any sense.The effects of temporary cavitation make bloodshot meat that gets trimmed away.
I have certainly shot,dressed,.cleaned up and processed a fair number of animals.Given the primary penetration is in the direction of bullet travel,given it consumes energy to break off a tiny lead particle,given the tiny lead particle has very little mass and a really lousy sectional density,and given any lateral velocity will be a small fraction of forward velocity,what strange magical force scatters it about in the meat?

[James H]

I'll check on this sometime, but I believe you JonhnSKa that the gizzards of raptors don't contain digestive glands. As far as I know, plants are a bit more difficult to digest (from a human's standpoint) than meat is. The cellulose of plants (indigestible fiber) makes me run to the can more often than meat. It would make sense regarding differences between the raptors and vegi eating birds.

[Art Eatman]

Lord knows I've spat out a bunch of #8 from dove and quail. Probably got more lead in me from residual lead in highway dust than from any other source. Or maybe from a bunch of IPSC practice. As near as I can tell, I'm not yet goofy or senile, even at age 76.

I've yet to see how lead can travel from a deer's heart/lungs to the backstrap or hams. Duh? Dumb notion.

And as far as gut piles, I really doubt that as a source of lead--certainly not for one single scavenger, anyway. By the time some scavenger might--repeat, might--have consumed enough lead to be harmful, he's gonna be dead from old age or other causes.

And that's way different from lead in the craw of a seed/grass-eating duck.

[plattski]

When it comes to environmental hazards (especially those I can control) I believe in the precautionary principal, which states that it is wise to avoid exposure to suspected harm until an activity is proven harmless. Pretty simple especially when excellent alternatives are available as in the case of hunting ammunition, unleaded gasoline, lead-free paint, etc. The only meat I eat is wild game I kill or local farm animals with a history I can trace, and the same goes for other foods to the extent possible, from my garden or from local farmers (I don't have much faith in the USDA based on its many recent failures to ensure the safety of our food supply).

When it comes to using non-toxic ammunition some folks do their own research and decide for themselves that lead-free makes sense, but others see a dark conspiracy that reaches far beyond personal health and protection of non-target wildlife. I'd rather see non-toxic ammunition adopted voluntarily by hunters but the conspiracy camp (driven by the firearms industry including organizations like the NRA and NSSA) works hard to cloud the issue so reason isn't given a chance to prevail. The challenge the hunting community faces is that we are a very small minority in this country and we continue to hunt with the support of a large majority of non-hunters who are mostly agnostic about hunting but are broadly in support of protecting wildlife. When the voice of the hunting community is loud in opposition to moderate measures that protect public wildlife I think it undermines our credibility with our fellow citizens who do not hunt and exposes us to greater risk that we will lose our hunting privilege altogether. Fortunately many hunters are making the transition to non-toxic ammunition based on its superior performance and this shift helps to ease the manufactured controversy over lead-free ammunition as a tool of blue-helmeted anti-hunters coming in black helicopters to take granddad's hunting rifle. You can lead some horses to water but you can't make them think.

[JohnKSa]

...I believe in the precautionary principal, which states that it is wise to avoid exposure to suspected harm until an activity is proven harmless.

Nothing is "harmless". What you means is "sufficiently harmless"--in other words, "reasonably safe".

At any rate, living by such a principle is your prerogative and assuming that my restatement is actually what you meant then I suppose it's not an unreasonable principle to voluntarily apply in one's personal life--as long as it isn't taken to extremes.

And as long as that's as far as it goes. The problem is that many don't want to stop there.

Legislating that everyone else must adopt this principle is not at all reasonable. It is absolutely abominable to make laws based on the principle that we should outlaw anything that is suspected to be harmful unless we can prove it to be reasonably safe.

Laws restrict human freedom and personal choice, they ration the most precious commodities on earth. Laws should be made because they are absolutely necessary, not enacted on the basis that something might be harmful, that something hasn't yet been proven harmless or at least sufficiently harmless.

...others see a dark conspiracy that reaches far beyond personal health and protection of non-target wildlife.

There are two things at issue here.

1. It is incontrovertible that the negative "research" on lead and wildlife has recently come from anti-hunting/animal rights groups. Pretending that's not relevant isn't productive.

2. There's a huge difference between a person's being voluntarily cautious about lead exposure and the use of lead versus forcing everyone to adopt the same standard or be punished. One is a personal choice--the exercise of freedom. The second is exactly the opposite of a personal choice--the exact opposite of freedom.

The idea that freedoms should be restricted based merely on the suspicion that something might be harmful is not only misguided it's alarming. Yet that's where many would take us if they could.

It's our responsibility to stand up and point out the truth to prevent it from being twisted and used against us.

[rowdyrabbit]

I've always figured that the amount of lead shot that actually gets consumed by waterfowl was overstated. I don't doubt that it would kill a bird, but I never figured there were as many dying from it as you are lead to believe. But, then again, many of you have done alot more research on the subject than I have.

RamSlammer brought up an interesting point that has always been my theory on the lead vs steel debate, though. Is the number of birds being killed by eating lead shot greater than the number of birds being crippled and unrecovered by steel? As far as facts go, I've got one for you--steel shot cripples birds, lead shot kills them.

[HiBC]

Actually for at least the last 100 years hunters and the revenue they provide are why we still have the wildlife poputations and habitat we have.Sportsmen put excise tax laws on sporting goods long ago to fund taking care of our wildlife.While I do not necessarily worship Teddy Roosevelt,his hunting and fishing adventures have something to do with why we have National Forests and National Parks.In the state of Colorado,big game hunting outranks the ski industry for the state economy.It is true not all Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants Unlimited members are hunters,but by far the membership,volunteer funds and efforts of these organizations are hunters.I recall when opening days of hunting seasons were some form of administrative day off in the school systems in support of the experience of familiies going hunting.What is ilt like now?
One of the ways the Make a Wish Foundation was able to support a dream for a terminally ill kid was outfitters would give a kid a free hunt.The PC crowd put a stop to that.There is the threat to the future of hunting,and wildlife.The birdwatchers and non-game wildlife check-off wont get it done.
Your comments to marginalize the folks who speak up against you as dark conspiracy whackos is textbook "Rules for Radicals"
I absolutely do support your right to choose the projectile of your choice.I believe in Liberty"
I take very serious exception to the sort that says"I prefer non lead and so I want to ban all lead" that is not Liberty,that is Tyrrany.
Since the Condor has been introduced as a pawn in this discussion,I suggest the issue of lead in gut piles is a red herring to make folks "Do something!" and in the grand scheme of things banning lead will not save the Condor.The threat to the Condor is far more about the people who inhabit the state of California and what they have done to that state.
It is where they build their houses and marinas and beaches and resorts and hiways and malls .
If your motives about saving the Condor are at all serious,forget the few days of hunting and a little lead that could be there,
Move the people out of the homes built on what was habitat for the Condor and many other species,and bulldoze them.Reclaim and restore the land to pristine.Return California(which seems to be the epicenter for "good" ideas) back to something similar to Wyoming for population.The wildlife will recover.It is people,not lead,that endanger species.
Oh,you don't think those folks want to do that? Hmm.
I'm a long way from any Condors.Leave my lead alone.

[roy reali]

If lead is so toxic, why do doctors soemtimes leave bullets in patients when removing them would cause more harm then good? If lead was such a hazard, a surgeon would do whatever it takes to remove the bullet.

I have a friend that has had a 22 caliber lead pellet in his hand for over forty years. I swear to you that is he is very much alive.

[LSnSC]

I believe its a knee jerk reaction to psuedo science pushed by folks with an agenda.

If you want to shoot non toxic, shoot it. But keep your hands off my lead projectiles until you show me concrete proof from an impartial source that its a real danger.

[plattski]

"It's clear there are some valid concerns regarding lead toxicity and its effects on humans and wildlife. The problem is, for the most part, I don't see those concerns being addressed rationally with a focus towards solving real-world problems that have well-established data to support them with a verifiable cause and effect chain. Instead it seems far more common to see anti-hunting/animal rights groups using junk science, sound bite logic and scare tactics about lead to try to further their goals." JohnSKa, above.

JohnKSa you started out pretty well but at the end of your statement you returned to the skeptic's position by labeling science you don't agree with as "junk." This is one of my points, that there are valid concerns about lead ammunition but a small group of advocates on the left and right are trying to control the dialog for the rest of us and one way to do that is to challenge available science that yields conclusions that we disagree with. To be considered valid science, research must test an hypothesis, have a transparent methodology and be repeatable, and be subject to review by experts in the field. Peer-reviewed science is not a popularity contest that we can agree or disagree with. I think you can say both extremes use sound bite logic and scare tactics but to label all science involved as "junk" is dismissive of the state fish and game agencies that have done research in the area.

Scorch, your statement "Yes, lead is toxic when birds ingest it, we've known this for years" supports my point that there is clear data on this issue available if you give credence to any science at all, and by extension it supports my point that lead is bad for humans when ingested, especially young children. Look around for health studies on what happens when lead trinkets from China are accidentally eaten by little kids and you will find an acute effect much different than roy reali's example of a piece of lead lodged in an adult's muscle. Anyone out there mad that we banned lead trinkets that hurt our kids? If so do you still smoke while your kids are in the car? "Sorry about that asthma Junior but don't blame my cigs because you can't prove a connection, cough cough."

Regarding the precautionary principle, it works for individuals very well but it also necessary for society at large and should be a guide for us when we contemplate allowing activities we can reasonable expect to be harmful. The precautionary principle says instead of permitting something we might reasonably expect to be harmful (complex chemicals or tiny lead fragments in our food) we should thoroughly examine the possible impact and our alternatives before allowing their use. Sure the precautionary principle imposes costs on society but are the social costs shared among us all a greater burden than the personal costs imposed by cancer or a baby with birth defects on hundreds and thousands of individuals and families?

Look at pesticides. No one questions that pesticides can be effective for helping farmers improve crop production (good for the farmer) but we now know that some pesticides are very harmful and persistent in the environment, DDT and 2,4,5,T for example, and that harm is shared by everyone who is exposed to those chemicals. Perhaps we didn't originally know the chemicals were so bad for wildlife, consumers or pregnant mothers but when scientists figured out the harm, we Americans collectively decided to ban them. This really annoyed a lot of farmers and a few big chemical companies but that is how a republic works - we inform ourselves about issues and are allowed to express our opinions and vote to achieve our goals, and the most votes represents the greatest good in America. Sidebar: in a republic good information is a choke point which is why so much money gets spent on advertising, tv networks, talk radio, and political campaigns to convince voters of one thing or another, and why we need to protect the scientific community as a neutral referee.

Finally, perhaps some of you think it isn't ME or MY family getting harmed and I won't allow anyone to infringe on my LIBERTY nor will I suffer TYRANNY at your hands. But in a very large, very complex society what you or someone else calls "liberty" and "tyranny" can be pretty confusing. The so-called "anti-hunters" probably consider it tyranny that a small minority of gun-owning, deer-hunting Americans would prefer to risk the exterminate our condors rather than shoot non-toxic bullets, fer crying out loud! A lot of guys love to mock California but study the numbers and you'll see that more people there would rather have condors than lead ammo and Amazing! that's what they have. And that is what could happen in every state in the U.S.A. if we don't wise up and support good research that settles the issue in a responsible, transparent way.

And now for my final point. Wildlife science costs money and a lot of hunters don't want to use license fees or excise tax revenue to support research, which is why we need to say thanks! to hunters for protecting our wildlife all these years and now it is time for public wildlife, parks, and waters to be supported by money from general tax revenues, in order to remove the conflict of interest created when the hunter who pays only wants to spend money on projects that yield more game to hunt or fish to catch. We do need more money for both game and non-game wildlife, and hunters are a ever-shrinking minority that is losing the ability to support fish and game agency budgets. Perhaps it is time for the nation as a whole to pay the cost and share both the responsibility and the opportunity to decide what is best for wildlife! Uh-oh, hope I didn't stir up a tea party!

[JohnKSa]

JohnKSa you started out pretty well but at the end of your statement you returned to the skeptic's position by labeling science you don't agree with as "junk."

That's just it. I DO understand the science and the arguments don't follow nor does the research prove the points it is claimed to prove.

For example, one study is quoted as saying that the lead "fingerprint" in lead found in condors with elevated blood levels is "similar" to that from "a sample of ammunition purchased in Southern California". This sounds pretty scientific but it leaves a lot of information out.

Is the lead in that sample of ammunition mined in California? If so, then the study is meaningless.

Does the lead in that sample of ammunition also have a "similar" fingerprint to sources of lead in the condors' environment? Again, a very important bit of information.

How "similar" is the fingerprint? Is it a conclusive match or only a rough similarity?

How specific is the kind of "fingerprint" used in the study. Are the chances of two different samples being similar 1 in 1,000? 1 in 10? 1 in 1,000,000?

Are there other reasonable explanations for how that fingerprint similarity could come about? Were any other reasonable explanations even sought?

Has anyone demonstrated a mechanism that results in raptors being lead poisoned from metallic lead given the significant differences in their digestive systems versus seed/grain eating birds, particularly their gizzards?

Why don't they give us any information about this "sample of ammunition"? If Southern CA is like my area you can buy ammunition made locally from local materials or foreign materials or ammunition made virtually anywhere in the world.

The condor situation stands in stark constrast to the problem with waterfowl where there really is good evidence that lead poisoning is a valid issue.

Sure the precautionary principle imposes costs on society but are the social costs shared among us all a greater burden than the personal costs imposed by cancer or a baby with birth defects on hundreds and thousands of individuals and families?

This argument is an emotional argument, not a rational, scientific argument.

We all live with risk every day. It is an unavoidable part of life and attempts to eliminate it are futile. Are you going to have the speed limits set at 4 mph and then try to justify it by saying any inconvenience to society can't be compared to loss of children hit by cars and killed in car accidents?

We've all seen this same general argument used against guns as well by those with an agenda. "We have to get rid of guns because children are killed by guns." It's a great argument for those with "sound bite logic" or who reason with their feelings instead of their intellect but it doesn't hold up under logical scrutiny.

The problem is that if legislating away potential risk based on supicion not only infringes heavily on freedom it brings any productive activities to an end. Man could never have created air travel, gotten into space, learned to perform surgery, developed X-Ray machines or motor vehicles if he had taken the attitude that anything potentially risky had to be banned until it could be proven safe.

By the way, how did we get from talking about a population of 150 condors which may or may not be affected by lead ammunition to associating the hazards of lead ammunition with "cancer or a baby with birth defects on hundreds and thousands of individuals and families".

It's appalling that you think it's reasonable to use the word "science" in the same post with that sort of pseudo-scientific emotional terrorism.

Finally, perhaps some of you think it isn't ME or MY family getting harmed and I won't allow anyone to infringe on my LIBERTY nor will I suffer TYRANNY at your hands. But in a very large, very complex society what you or someone else calls "liberty" and "tyranny" can be pretty confusing.

Pure unadulterated male bovine excrement.

The difference between liberty and tyranny is not at all confusing although there are certainly people who want to impose tyranny and CALL it liberty.

[roy reali]

If lead is indeed so toxic, how come folks live long, healthy lives with bullets in them? I know another guy that was peppered in his rear-end with birdshot. The lead pellets were left in. He is also very much alive and quite healthy I might add.

[HiBC]

I do not necessarily buy your assertion that the majority of Cal people would ban all lead for the Condors.The outcomes of polling can be profoundly manipulated by how the questions are worded.
However,if I humor your assertion,it is very easy to target a group of "other" people to make the sacrifice.I will say again,it is what the Califorians have done to California that is killing ff the Condor.
California was once like Alaska.The Condors were fine.
The eagles do quite well in Alaska.Here in Colorado,too.
I suspect if California would clear the coast back a three mile limit,make it a Coast National Wildlife refuge,think what it would do for the marine life,the ocean,the Condors,the turtles.I bet if we worded the survey question right,over 50% of the nation would favor it.I could at least make the wild claim,oh,and all those homes in the foothills,gotta go.
When your loyalty to wildlife is strong enough that you will sacrifice what is precious to you and your family,then come talk to me about what I should give up.
If you value the views of the majority of Americans,think,.hypocracy(big jets,many big houses,gross consumption) Al Gore.East Anglia,altered data,etc.Junk science. Much more supporting the fraud revealed in Wikileaks.
Fraud and manipulation for the sake of power and the greed to make money with carbon credits and taxes.All barn carpet exposed for what it is.
Gutpile and anti-gun anti hunters are suing the EPA to ban lead bullets.
The stroke of non toxic bullets will make many firearms non usable.
Your statement that non toxic bullets out perform lead bullets is either a deliberate lie or an ill informed statement of ignorance,
The very most important factor in non toxic bullets require sophistcated manufacturing processes which will therefore make ammunition much more controllable,taxable,and expensive.Through this ,the shooting sports will be further reduced and maginalized.The second Ammendment will be weaker without active shooters.
One part of preserving Freedom is being able to home cast a bullet out of reclaimed lead,and if necessary,use a piece of flint and home made black powder.
Another brilliant stroke is the banning of incanescant bulbs in favor of the mercury flourescents.How is the mercury in the fiosh,lately.Lets ban flouescent bulbs.

[jammin1237]

i believe its a matter of how much lead gets in the digestive track rather than if it just exists in raw form embedded in tissue - the acids in the digestive track break down lead and create hazardous lead based compounds to living tissues delivered by the blood stream... simply having lead on your skin or having a lump in your buttox wont do it... besides that, anything in an over concentration will kill you.....

just a thought

cheers

[roy reali]

the acids in the digestive track break down lead and create hazardous lead based compounds to living tissues delivered by the blood stream...

What if someone swallows a lead pellet and it shoots on out of the person, no pun intended, how much acidic breakdown are we talking about? Kids ingest pennies all the time, they seem to come out pretty much in the same shape they went in. Copper, or most metals for that matter, are toxic in high enough levels. Yet, when a kid swallows a coin, even doctors want to let nature take its course.

[2damnold4this]

If we are going to argue about what the science is, why don't we link the studies? I know the CDC did one on folks that ate game killed with lead ammunition. That might be a place to start.

[JohnKSa]

Metallic lead is pretty inert. Acids can break it down, but not as easily as one might expect. Still, there is a considerable difference between the amount of lead that will be assimilated from consuming lead vs. getting a lead "implant".

The body isn't very acidic and it also tends to encapsulate foreign objects which isolates it from the rest of the body's subsystems.

The problem with seed/grain eating birds and lead shot is that the lead shot is retained in the gizzard and over time small pieces are ground off of it and then pass through the acidic digestive system. It's very different from what would happen to a person who swallowed a lead pellet or two since there's no grinding action in the human digestive tract and also because no significant material is retained in the human digestive tract. It all passes through fairly rapidly--generally in a matter of a few hours.

Raptors (including condors) have a digestive system that is, in some ways, more similar to the human system than it is to the digestive system of seed/grain eating birds. They don't retain material in their gizzards for grinding and they also regularly expel the indigestible contents of their gizzards by regurgitation.