Bald Eagles Keep Dying - Interior secretary repeals ban on lead bullets.

Anyone that would shoot at a Bald Eagle would care less what kind of ammunition they used. The act of it itself tells what kind of people they are. Sadly, they are everywhere.


Largest threats to Bald Eagles:

1. Humans. Even with the humans who would nurture and protect them, the shooters outweigh their efforts.
2. Osprey, Horned Owl and Raccoon. The Osprey and Bald Eagle fight for high perch and territory. The Owl and Raccoon go after eggs and chicks.
3. Environment. Like so many other species, they are threatened with loss of habitat.

a reply to: D8Tee

Valve seats don't see engine oil. Also, the valve seats on a NG vehicle are carbon hardened, not stock. NG will blow out stock valves in a heartbeat.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Valve seats don't see engine oil. Also, the valve seats on a NG vehicle are carbon hardened, not stock. NG will blow out stock valves in a heartbeat.

I'm aware the valve seats don't see engine oil. You are right about those primary drivers having hardened valve seats. Modern day engines are engineered for the fuels they burn.
What issues and what engines are you seeing that only last 100,000 miles before a major overhaul?

a reply to: D8Tee

Land Rover is a great example. The Series 1 engine required lead substitute to be added to every fill up or you'd blow the engine slicker than snot. Even now in the later series engines, 100,000 miles is your "watch closely" flag to start expecting your seals and rings to go bye bye. I think the American and Japanese manufacturers have improved, and I don't know how much of the engine problems seen are actually the result of the incredibly stupid and mechanically damaging policy of adding ethanol to gas, but the old engines designed to run on gas with lead were tough old birds to kill.

a reply to: D8Tee

True enough..you understand my point though? to me the big problem is shotgun pellets, fishing sinkers is another problem but I don't see it to the same degree.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I have owned vehicles post leaded gas with well over a quarter million miles on with no rebuilds, my current Acura has over 230,000, my little 3 cylinder Suzuki before that was retired at 340,000 not due to any engine issue, passed aircare with barely readable emissions.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: D8Tee

Land Rover is a great example. The Series 1 engine required lead substitute to be added to every fill up or you'd blow the engine slicker than snot. Even now in the later series engines, 100,000 miles is your "watch closely" flag to start expecting your seals and rings to go bye bye. I think the American and Japanese manufacturers have improved, and I don't know how much of the engine problems seen are actually the result of the incredibly stupid and mechanically damaging policy of adding ethanol to gas, but the old engines designed to run on gas with lead were tough old birds to kill.

Yea, I'd put the Land Rovers down to engineering issues, valve seats can be engineered for fuels with next to no lubricating properties and still be durable. Ethanol is a disaster no matter how you look at it. For one thing, taking agricultural land out of production to make fuel is retarded. We can't even buy real gasoline here, it's all blended, legislated by law. Total disaster, and I'm convinced it's detrimental to the engines we run.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: D8Tee

True enough..you understand my point though? to me the big problem is shotgun pellets, fishing sinkers is another problem but I don't see it to the same degree.

Yes, I understand.
I just lump it all into 'lead litter' and don't see any issues with it going away.
Nobody walks around the urban landscape tossing out handfuls of lead pellets, why should it be any different in the country?
There's alternatives that can be used, lead isn't the only substance that fills the bill.

a reply to: D8Tee

No argument from me, we on the same page.

originally posted by: ANNED
this is anti hunter BS.
Very very few hunters leave dead carcasses with bullets still in them.
If hunter were required to bury or remove dead carcasses it would work better then banning lead bullets.

Eagles are more likely to get lead from fish that have lead weighed hooks in them.

When i hunted i would recover my bullets to see how well they expanded.

Even that isn't terribly likely.

Speaking as someone who fishes and knows quite a few fishermen. A fish has to be fairly large to take off your line and tackle most times. If you lose tackle including sinker, you are more likely to lose it by having it stuck in brush or rocks.

And if the eagle does manage to snag a fish that has a hook in its mouth, the way most poles are rigged, the sinker is up the line from the hook, so it would be dangling back from the hook, not right with it. The eagle would be more likely to get tangled in the line between hook and sinker than to accidentally swallow the sinker as part of its meal.

And most modern fishing hooks are designed to corrode quickly in case they do get hooked into a fish and lost.

a reply to: Logarock

that's what i was gonna say the bald eagle has been around along time. in fact they were here in the U.S. back when hunting was one of the ways people supplemented feeding themselves 250 years. they didn't start going extinct until 40"s and and that was due to pesticides that caused male to be sterile/ and the calcium problems that made the females eggs shells to brittle.

they were taken off the engendered list 1995 and moved to threatened, then in 2007 removed from that so now they are nether endangered nor threatened. they have gotten so numerous that they have become pests in many areas. hell it was just last year that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service raised the number of them that could be killed by wind farms to 5000 before they start to fine them.

no it's not bullets and their not endangered or threatened. there's something else going on for banning lead bullets.

ETA: i should have said the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed raise to 4200.

a reply to: Area201

I found this about lead bird shot and state laws.
www.leadfreehunting.com...

I read through this entire thread and all I can say is how shocked I am at how people can be so easily mislead and manipulated.

As to the OP; there is exactly ZERO proof there is any connection between lead levels in eagles and lead shot in shotshells...ZERO!! Oh, I'm sure some eagle somewhere has been shot with a shotgun, and this bird is the ONLY bird any of these people making their claims have used for testing (poor bird has probably been dissected and had parts cut off him so many times there's nothing left!!). Absolute load of complete and utter RUBBISH!!

This whole issue is about an agenda trying to make ANY ammunition harder to get. Make it more expensive, less available...anything, just try something!

For my part, I don't have a problem with alternative shot out there (bismuth, etc.) and I even use it, not because I have to, but because I want to. That's my choice, but it ain't cheap. However, to make an assertion that bismuth could replace lead in competition sports is, frankly, laughable!

The eagle population is declining???? Really???? In Alaska there's an old saying, it's a joke..."oh look, an eagle". Eagles are more common than seagulls! Now I'm not slamming eagles, but I'll bet the people pushing legislation like this would have a completely different opinion if they had 50 eagles sitting on their boat (or house, or lawn) for just a single day!!! Sound far fetched? Not even! It's not uncommon to see 20-30 eagles sitting on a single boat...and most people have no idea how much of a mess just a single eagle can make, let alone 20-30 of them all congregated in one spot. Think geese x50...and geese only eat grass and vegetarian diet. Eagles are carnivores...just a wee bit different when it comes to poop.

The eagle is an icon for sure, so it serves as a good lightning rod to advance a anti-gun measure like this.

It is aggravating beyond description to see people twist these 'touchy-feewey' issues into some political agenda! Want to reduce lead in the food stream? Fine, but don't use eagles to advance this cause. Let's try using humans first. Lead shot cannot be linked to increased lead levels in any food supply. In fact, go to countries other than the US, countries who have completely outlawed guns and check the lead levels in things. They'll be 100x worse than in the US...just another example of why lead shot has nothing to do with it.

Bottom line...CUT THE CRAP!

P.S. I have no issue with doing away with lead shot, but let's do it in a smart, non-knee-jerk way. Let's find viable alternatives first which are cost effective, while at the same time focusing on the REAL contributors to lead infiltration to the food stream (for both humans AND animals). Don't allow yourselves to be suckered into agendas which use the "poor bald eagle" and its iconic nature as the justification.

here is a fact sheet for the bald eagle.
the last count was done on 2006 with almost 10,000 breeding pairs. Minnesota and Florida lead with 1,312 pairs and 1,166 pairs and 23 of the lower 48 having a 100 or more pairs.

Bald Eagles Life History and Conservation Success
The Bald Eagle's recovery is an American success story. It no longer needs the protection of the Endangered Species Act because its population is protected, healthy, and growing. Here are some facts about the bald eagle and its journey to recovery.

Between the early 1980's and 2000, most States conducted annual bald eagle surveys. Since then, many states recognized that annual surveys were no longer necessary. That is why you will not see annual data after 2000.
Chart and Table of Bald Eagle Breeding Pairs in Lower 48 States

this is what U.S. Fish and Wildlife has to say about their decline,

Why the Bald Eagle almost went extinct in this country
Habitat was lost when virgin forests were cleared
Animals that eagles eat (like shorebirds and ducks) also declined because of overhunting
Eagles were shot because they were thought to threaten livestock
DDT, an insecticide with widespread use, built up in adult eagles and caused them to lay thin-shelled eggs that cracked before the chicks could hatch.

this is reason for recovery

What we did to bring the Bald Eagle back
We banned DDT
We prohibited killing of eagles
We improved water quality in many of our lakes and rivers
We protected nest sites
We restored eagles back to areas where they had been eliminated

a reply to: vonclod

Apparently you haven't been fishing in a while. People break lines off all the time and leave the garbage all over the banks and bottoms of lakes, rivers.
Ice fishing is real bad for this.

I live in a state forest with a one the best trout rivers in the world. I walk the river banks alot, and guess what I find all over?
Fishing rigs broke off in the trees, and what they call Texas rigs(heavy banana shaped sinker that is a weedless weight ) that end up on banks when the water is low. People cast the undercut banks looking for fish, and lose their rigs when they get snagged on brush.

I live rural and hunt/ fish 5 days a week.

Maybe you don't know wtf your talking about.

I live in eagle country, see em every day. I'm on the south Shore of Lake superior 20 minutes from
EAGLE ISLAND.

a reply to: Area201

So, directly to your questions (based on the above)...

What do you gun owners and hunters think?

First of all, I have a problem with your lexicon. The terms "gun owners" and "hunters" suggests people who fall into these groups are somehow different than everyone else. They aren't. It's a labeling issue. Virtually everyone is a "hunter". Some hunt in the field, and others in a grocery store, but the net result is the same...sustenance, nutrition and survival. Some 'hunt' with their wallet/purse, and others do it the more traditional way...with a (gasp) "gun", a bow or a rock.

Second of all, again to lexicon, the term "gun owner" categorizes people where the categories are irrelevant. There's probably more justification to label people "non gun owners" more so than the other way around. I say this not because of numbers or statistics, but rather because it's a state of mind. A person who owns a single gun and who sells it doesn't think of himself as a 'non-gun-owner', nor do they think of themselves as a 'gun-owner'. However, a person with anti-gun beliefs very much does view themselves as a "non-gun-owner" (and probably adds, and damn proud of it too!), not just a person whom doesn't own a gun. So, given this distinction, it is really the 'non-gun-owner' who belongs in a special category, not the other way around.

Is there any situation which any type of regulation on bullets or guns would you be on board with? For example, if the bold eagle, the symbol of the U.S., would be in in jeopardy of extinction by being killed by proxy?

I probably should have broken this up into the two separate questions you asked, but seeing as how you grouped them the way you did I will endeavor to answer with one response. Ummmm, nevermind, I can't...

Your first question is a non-question. All people who own firearms believe in many forms of laws presently on the books. Your question really should have stated "MORE regulations, not already on the books", and then the answer would become more clear. In a word, no, there are plenty of laws already, we don't need more. The regulations already on the books are hardly enforced so why more? Well, because it's not about the environment with these people...it's about the GUNS themselves and the ammunition which is fired in them. They use these "crutches", the eagles in your case, to justify a piece of what they really want. What they really want is "NO guns, not one, zero, zilch...nada, not a single one". The anti-gun community talks about 'middle ground', but nothing could be further from the truth. They don't want "common sense" legislation (despite their cries to the contrary), no, they want total, 100%, absolute...PROHIBITION. Period. No exceptions. So there is no middle ground with them, they'll keep pushing until they get what they want. ZERO. Not one, but ZERO.

Now to the second half of your question; you've posted a false straw man. The "bald eagle, the symbol of the US" as you put it, is not in danger. It's not. Using the bald eagle to give traction to your argument by stating it as a consideration in your question is a false notion. What if the Sun didn't come up tomorrow? What if the oceans just vanished? Sure, we could debate those notions for hours, but they're irrelevant to your point. Bottom line...what if I told you you'd starve to death tomorrow if lead shot/bullets were outlawed? Answer - It's not a relevant question, and therefore doesn't deserve an attempt at answering.

Do alternative bullets that are safe for other scanvengers cost too much?

In a word, Yes. So before you go posing questions like this, please explain why you don't have your lab coat on and are in the lab trying to invent new ones, rather than proposing existing ones be outlawed.

...how is that unreasonable or 2nd amendment right to bear arms means no condition exists for any regulations to any degree?

It's unreasonable because the people making these regulations could care less about the eagles! The eagles are just a means to their end-game. In this case they've picked a really bad example to use as well. It's unreasonable because the same people making these requests have absolutely no intention of finding viable solutions. Once the laws are passed they'll move on to the next thing on their agenda...more bans. It never ends.

In some respects you can draw parallels between the anti-gun crowd and PETA. Given their way PETA would ban the killing of animals completely...yet they eat meat. How does that work? It doesn't, plain and simple. To use a metaphor..."that dog don't hunt". It's called hypocrisy, and while the cause of the eagles may be important to you, it's just another excuse for them. Again, it never ends...never. If PETA stood up and said it was okay to eat animals, guess what, PETA would cease to exist. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

It just never ends...that's why. And frankly, in a lot of people's minds (mine included), it's not going to even start on this subject...not with the eagles anyway. Provide some concrete evidence and we'll talk. Until then...

Thanks for playing.

a reply to: Natas0114

Yeah, that happens, but the question is how an eagle ingests it. It's not they're flying around pecking the sinkers up off the ground. Fish don't tend to eat them either.

If the lead was that big a problem, then we'd be getting it from the fish we eat out of those systems in amounts big enough that we wouldn't be allowed to eat the fish out of those waters which is not the case in most waterways in the country. There are few rivers and such where you can't eat what you catch and that's mostly only fish over a certain size and of a certain types.

For example, I think catfish above a certain size are not considered edible out of the Missouri River, but those cats would all be too big for an eagle to fish. Plus, cats are bottom feeders and not likely to be on a bird's menu anyhow except as carrion.

shall.not.protect.wildlife.

a reply to: ketsuko

I've pulled trout that had them in their guts before. When a split rig washes down stream the trout chase them thinking it's a minnow chasing a bug.
Sturgeon also ingest them being bottom feeders, as do lamprey. Frogs are real good at eating em too.

Even bottom feeders get to shallow pools from time to time.


I wouldn't know about the southern end of the country, I'm up at the top, in northwest wisconsin, on the south Shore of Lake superior.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Natas0114

...


If the lead was that big a problem, then we'd be getting it from the fish we eat out of those systems in amounts big enough that we wouldn't be allowed to eat the fish out of those waters which is not the case in most waterways in the country. There are few rivers and such where you can't eat what you catch and that's mostly only fish over a certain size and of a certain types.

...

AND...the principle issue there is Mercury, not lead so much. Further to the nebulous nature of the OP...last time I checked mercury wasn't an ingredient in shot or bullets. Yet, it's in the fish...so yeah, let's ban lead shot and bullets! Makes a lot of sense, huh?