Quantcast
Channel: Eidolos
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 2

The NRA, Condors, Lead, and You

0
0

The California condor's sharp-eyed old-man stare peering out of a wrinkly face almost, but not quite devoid of feathers means you probably won't find it sitting across from a wealthy heiress at the next black tie Peregrine Fund benefit dinner.  But even though it doesn't look it, the condor has been intensively engineered by millions of years of evolution to the very pinnacle of carrion-cleaning prowess.  It, simply put, makes a glider look like two pieces of plywood duct-taped to a brick.  Which is why it's excellent news that the Peregrine Fund, together with a host of federal agencies and other nonprofits, have achieved success against the odds, bring the condor population from 22 in the 1980's to over 300 today1, despite the massive number of obstacles lined up against it.

For a species on the edge, it seems the condor isn't particularly interested in surviving.  Its range underwent a decline with the extinction of the megafauna around 10,000 years ago, and declined again following the white man's appearance in California1.  In modern times, the condors' continued survival in the wild is completely dependent on intensive veterinary care due to their tendency to light up like a Christmas tree on the x-ray machine from all the lead in their feathers1.

The reason for this startling propensity to accumulate toxic heavy metals has long suspected to be lead from bullets, which was verified in a survey published by Jeffrey Walters et al. last year (Source 1).  The authors pointed to bullets present in game, pre- and post-processing, left on condor turf to rot.  This would be excellent, were it not for the fact that when a bullet hits a large mammal, it turns into a veritable cloud of fragments that are easy to miss.  Condors, like most animals that rely on scavenging to make a living, have a highly potent cocktail of acids and enzymes to digest any microbes that might have taken up residence on the corpse before they arrived on the scene.  This makes them really good at dissolving and absorbing lead from fragmented shot.  Because the decline of predators in present-day condor territory has left a dearth of carcasses prepared au naturale, odds are good that any given meal is a dietary landmine.

And condors aren't the delicate flowers of the bird world, either.  They can withstand doses that pump their blood lead levels up to 100 micrograms per deciliter1, and are capable of drawing that level down to 10 micrograms per deciliter (which the CDC defines as its level of concern2) over the period of about a month to a month and a half1.  In order for a standard human (who has 56 deciliters of blood) to achieve a blood lead level that high, they'd have to consume 5.6 milligrams of lead, a whopping 75 times the CDC's maximum allowable daily intake for adult males2.  It is only with chronic exposure to lead ammunition that condors eventually succumb to lead poisoning, and currently the free-living birds must be rounded up and treated in order to remove the lead from their blood, a time-consuming and expensive process1.

California condors are what ecologists would describe as "K strategists": they are long-lived, exhibit low mortality at all stages of their life cycle, and have extremely low fertility rates.  This makes the loss of even a few birds every year from the current population unacceptable and unsustainable.  A lead ammunition ban in condor territory was enacted by the state of California in 2007, but has been ineffective in preventing lead poisoning.  Why?  Writers have cited poor enforcement3, poachers who continue to use lead ammunition1, and the fact that the legislation only banned use of lead ammunition for hunting and not for other uses1.  Not only that, but as condor territory continues to expand across state and even national boundaries, a coordinated lead ammunition ban must take place in order to save the condor.  As Walters et al. conclude:

We are convinced that condor recovery cannot be achieved unless exposure to lead from ingesting ammunition fragments while feeding on carcasses and gut piles is eliminated. On the other hand, we also believe it is quite possible that wild populations that did not require human intervention to be self-sustaining could be established were this threat removed. We are skeptical that, even with excellent compliance, voluntary programs promoting the use of nonlead ammunition can reduce lethal exposure to lead sufficiently to wean condor populations from constant veterinary care. Similarly, the efficacy of area-specific requirements for nonlead ammunition ... remains uncertain, especially when some legal uses of lead ammunition are retained in those areas. Replacement of lead with nonlead ammunition needs to be achieved on an ecologically relevant scale and thereby positively affect survival rates over all or a significant portion of the condor’s range if self-sustainability is to be achieved. We predict that if lead ammunition remains available, some of it will find its way into carcasses on which condors feed, sometimes in unanticipated ways.

The biggest enemy of the condor's recovery right now is, predictably, the Koch brothers.  No, of course, I am only kidding around in order to entertain you so that you will continue to read my attention-span-attenuatingly long article.  It is actually the NRA, which, unlike the Koch brothers, throws itself into a tizzy that would make a stereotypical housewife with a mouse problem proud whenever a national lead bullet ban is proposed, and for proof I recommend you check their web site, as I will be relying only on a small number of articles to make my case.  For example, in "Radical Group Launches Complete Lead Bullet Ban Campaign," July 23 2010 (Link)

As announced in a recent fundraising letter to its members, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) will launch a “once-in-a-lifetime campaign” this summer to “ban all lead bullets everywhere in the United States.”  Make no mistake, hunters and shooters are in the crosshairs of this extremist group.

With regard to issues pertaining to wildlife and the environment, the NRA focuses on science when formulating its decisions and policies, not politics and emotion.  We would all be better off if CBD did the same.  With no scientific justification for a lead ban, CBD’s campaign is a deceptive attack on hunting.  Radical environmental groups like the CBD have already contributed to declining hunter numbers by helping to eliminate access to vast public hunting lands.

From "California: Statewide Ban on Lead Ammunition Could Be Around the Corner!", dated February 6, 2009 (Link):

From the beginning, proponents of the current ban have wanted to ban lead ammunition statewide.  The California condor was simply being used by the anti-hunters and anti-gunners to carry out this agenda.  They have already achieved a partial ban.  The next step is to take it statewide.  If they are successful, they will push to ban the use of lead ammunition for everyone, not just hunters.

There is no scientific evidence that lead ammunition is the source of lead affecting the health of condors released to the wild.  There is no scientific evidence that lead ammunition is a risk to human health and the environment in California.  What is evident is that there is a group of environmental extremists who have friends on the Commission who will not stop until the most affordable, available, and ballistically superior ammunition is banned in your state.  They know the damage that such a ban will do to both hunting and shooting participation.

That's right, ladies in gentlemen: raptor researchers have no interest in using the condor for anything other than a prop to further their extremist anti-hunting agenda.  Over thirty years' worth of sweat, blood, and tears was nothing more than an elaborate plot to take hunters' guns away, and the elaborate, grueling veterinary care nothing more than a charade to keep up appearances while the radical extreme greenie legislation is crafted and enacted.  Once that happens, condor funding will drop like a stone, if the birds themselves don't first from the massive amounts of lead they accumulate in their feathers.  

The jewel in the NRA's crown of misinformation, however, is the "Lead in Venison FAQ."  This particular article is so full of egregious selective reporting, rhetorical legerdemain, and poor citation, that it is harmful to humans and condors alike, that I almost broadened my title to "Why Does the NRA Hate Everyone Except the Lead Bullet Industry?" which is wordy and inelegant, but I swear to you the condors reappear in the end.

NRA:

Q: When did health concerns over lead in venison surface?

A: Health concerns over lead in venison were virtually nonexistent until March 2008 when Dr. William Cornatzer, a Bismarck dermatologist and board member of the Peregrine Fund, informed the North Dakota Department of Health that he’d tested 95 one-pound samples of ground venison donated through state food pantries and found lead fragments in 53 of them.

National Parks Service

More than 500 scientific studies published since 1898 have documented that worldwide, 134 species of wildlife are negatively affected by lead ammunition.

The CDC

In response to reports of lead fragments in wild game meat, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) collected blood samples from wild game consumers in North Dakota. CDC also administered a questionnaire designed to provide demographic information and wild game consumption habits. CDC found that eating wild game was associated with a small (0.30 ug/dl) but significant rise in blood lead levels. The increase was highest in people who ate all three types of game meat included in the study (venison, birds, and other game), but no linear trend was detected with an increase in the number of game types eaten. In addition, people who reported having eaten game meat within the month prior to blood testing had significantly higher
blood lead levels compared to people who had not... The best course of action would be to stop using lead bullets to harvest venison.

The important gist of this one is that the NRA is playing games with the word "lead poisoning," using it to refer to acute lead toxicity which occurs at high doses and has very obvious symptoms.  Chronic lead poisoning can occur over time and is likely to produce milder, less noticeable symptoms which wouldn't trigger an instant diagnosis.  The CDC cites studies demonstrating symptoms of lead poisoning at around 2 micrograms per deciliter in children, well below the threshold for concern3.  Furthermore:

Although we know of no formal studies of lead poisoning resulting from ingestion of lead bullet fragments in large game animals, the presence of lead in game birds is well established (Tsuji et al. 1999) and some studies (e.g. Johansen et al. 2006) have measured elevated blood lead (>10 µg/dL in adults) among subsistence hunters who regularly consume waterfowl shot with lead pellets. Several reports have demonstrated clinical lead poisoning among adults retaining two or more lead shot in the appendix (Madsen et al. 1988, Hilman 1967).2

NRA:

Q: Has anyone actually called for a ban on lead ammunition, based on human health or other concerns?

A: Yes. Unfounded fears over lead bullet fragmentation, or ingestion by certain birds, have caused some to call for a ban on the use of lead ammunition.

The Audubon Society:

When lead projectiles hit large mammals they shatter, impregnating swaths of soft tissue as wide as three feet with toxic fragments; just one the size of a BB can fatally poison an eagle.

(Source)

Why has all this pain and suffering has been inflicted on birds, and - potentially - humans, as well?  What fundamental right is the NRA fighting so hard and with so many lies and misrepresentations to protect?  Why, our right to cheap stuff:

Non-lead ammunition is more expensive than lead.  In one online example, we found Winchester .270 130-gr. lead bullets selling for $18.99 for 20; a similar copper load—Federal’s all-copper Triple Shock Barnes 130-gr. bullet—sells for $44.99.

It is this onus of price that the NRA blames for the statistically insignificant decreases in the hunting population.  And it turns out the myth of price is a lie, too:

Nontoxic bullets and shot that perform as well or better than lead are readily available, but the gun lobby opposes them, claiming that they’re a crippling financial burden. Prices vary widely according to gauge of shotgun shell, size of shot, and weight and caliber of bullet. But I found 25-round boxes of 20-gauge No. 6 shotgun shells (used for pheasant and grouse) offered at $7.39 for lead and $7.49 for steel. And I found 30 caliber 168-grain bullets (often used for deer) offered per order of 50 at $13.50 for lead and $34.99 for copper. Ten shots at deer per season is a lot for any hunter.

(Source)

The saddest part of all?  The researchers really, really, want to work with the hunters on this one:

We conclude that a reduction in hunting, depredation permits, or other types of shooting would not promote condor recovery. Such actions might effectively reduce lead in the environment, but they would also result in a significant reduction in the condors’ food supply. Humans are the dominant predators in most of the condor’s range, and carcasses and gut piles resulting from hunting and other types of shooting are important food sources for condors. It is essential that humans continue to harvest deer, pigs, and other wildlife throughout the condor range—but using nonlead rather than lead ammunition, so that a clean source of wild food is available to condors beyond food subsidies. It is unlikely that condors could be sustained in the wild after food subsidies are reduced without this source of food. Emphasizing the importance
of hunting to condors might be an effective means to gain support from the hunting community for conversion from lead to nonlead ammunition. It is also important that hunters be made aware of the potential for adverse effects of lead exposure from spent ammunition on other species, including humans.1

The continuing of hunting is currently vital the condors' recovery because, quite frankly, there's not a whole lot of big predators left in their native range.  The NRA has a golden opportunity to polish its conservation bona fides, but its refusal to help the condor throws all of its braggadocio into question.  Is the NRA interested in preserving the wild because it recognizes its important role in mediating the boundary between our largely synthetic modern society and a more rough and tumble mode of existence, or is it solely for the entertainment of its members?  How would the hunters who the NRA claims to represent so fiercely feel about the issue if they knew what the NRA wasn't telling them?  It is striking that the NRA would claim 100% compliance on the lead bullet ban (something that Walters et al. reluctantly agree with, but again refer to their giant caveat of "by hunters rather than idiots," and "the range of a giant vulture tends to be pretty big and hard to manage") and yet claim that nonlead bullets represent an untenable financial burden on their constituents.  It is also striking that despite the ability to save millions of dollars a year in federal and private spending on chelating the condors it treats with such cavalier disregard, the NRA is choosing to, to use its own words, putting politics and emotions instead of real science.

It is important that people, hunters and ordinary citizens alike, keep this in mind, because, while the condor is the most conspicuous example, lead harms other species of vulture, as well as eagles and songbirds; and because our newly radicalized Congress may soon be pondering S. 838, a bill named with all the Orwellian irony you've come to know and love from the government, the "Hunting, Fishing, and Recreational Shooting Protection Act."

Works Cited
1. Waters, Jeffrey R. "Status of the California Condor (Gymnogyps californianus) and Efforts to Achieve Its Recovery." The Auk. 127.4 (2010): 969-1001.

2. US Department of Health and Human Services. "The Potential for Ingestion Exposure To Lead Fragments in Venison in Wisconsin." (2008). Link

3. Coombs, Amy. "Will Hunters Have to Bite the Bullet?." Good Times 29 MAR 2011, Link.


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 2

Latest Images

Trending Articles





Latest Images