Condors and lead

[willie]

Bubby-
While I may not agree with all of JW's views, and I would think less of him, were he to agree with all of mine, I have the up most respect for JW, as he always has been a gentleman in his words to others as far as I know. I assure you that I have no ill intent, and will leave it at that, until he has a chance to respond, should he choose.

[iowabow]

The reply is......yes to humans and other animals. These are not difficult concepts. Now figuring out how to keep humans from wiping out things like condors when it is preventable now that is a challenge that this post demonstrates. Children eating lead...bad idea. Now how do we prevent this? Stop producing lead paint so kids don't eat it. Dang that was easy. Now are there other way kids aquire lead...yep. Just handle some lead and now eat a sandwich. Ok so this reduces lead in children. Wow that was easy. For condors apply same concepts and what do you think will happen? That's right, you got it....reduce contact reduces contamination. Well that wasn't so hard after all.

Correct me if I am wrong iowa. As I understand it you and I have had a very
reasonable relationship on these boards. Complimentary in our thinking about
difficult issues like Abo vs the rest of flintknapping.
So I would like to also be on the same page with you here.
Do you think you would send your child into a world that the experts
 say is full of enough lead to kill your child/ Condor??
If you find this whimsical, what would you say if you were the Condor?

I see you are asking questions about releasing birds into a toxic environment.  Is your stand now that the environment  is  toxic? 

[Zuma]

Iowa,
I don't think my stand per say has changed. Perhaps trying to keep this thread on topic and defend it from agenda type assaults has made me dig a little deeper into the plight of the abused creatures and their future. Lead poisoning is totally old news. If anyone that is eligible for a hunting licence is not aware of it, they must live under a rock. I would hope that it would be taught as part of the
Hunter Safety courses nationally. But that is not the topic and if folks want to beat that rug to death they should start a thread of their own.
By the do gooders own science they un wittingly admit to bird abuse, that's pretty telling.
If nothing else I hope my brashness has at least brought that bird home to roost.
I hope they get all the Condors out of harms way until the lead problem is resolved.
I wouldn't want those folks baby sitting my children.
Zuma

[iowabow]

According to the folks that did the research--
they wanted to blame a large part of the implanted/
transplanted Condor deaths on lead poison.
This study was in the Grand Canyon area.
The thing that struck me peculiar was that they
blamed it on hunting losses, creatures that are
shot and not tracked or recovered. The Condors then
eat these creatures and the lead that they consume
 brings about their demise.
I say BS. Any thoughts
Zuma

Ok so the thread is about a study that identifies lead from  hunting as leading to condor deaths. Also,you beleive the studies are "BS". Other than the thoughts of poo, having  read the research do you think the lead is making the birds ill? I have read your post a number of times and I don't see where you have offered another explanation or conducted your own research to argue the poo position.

[iowabow]

JW
when you speak highly of the peer review process, aren't you implying that transparency is the best way to prevent bias?

I presume that the non-profit you represent obtains work funded by the taxpayer? Would it not be prudent to disclose your possible conflict of interest when presenting your views and citing findings? There have been questions about the effectiveness of the peer review process in other well funded areas of research that I shall leave unnamed in this thread, perhaps for these very reasons.

I understand that you identify with and are proud of your affiliation with sportsmen, and I would even go so far as to say that you and I would enjoy a day in the field as fellow hunters and sportsmen, even if we have never met in person, but If push comes to shove with a government contract administrator that supports anti hunting measures, would you sacrifice your non-profit for the good of the sportsman?

Ergo decedo

[Urufu_Shinjiro]

Zuma, cmon, you're just trolling now. You start this thread saying that condors getting lead from hunters is BS, then by page five you're saying it's a forgone conclusion that it's hunters lead and the problem is the cruel biologists that send condors out to get poisoned?! Seriously? C'mon man, you're not that dumb so you're either trolling or intentionally trying to insult everyone who holds views in opposition to yours.

On the off chance that you are serious, then it's not the biologists that are hurting the condors, it's people who refuse to acknowledge there may be an issue with lead ammo, stop shooting lead and no more problem folks, this is not rocket surgery.


P.S. I can respect most any opinion as long as one is willing to have an honest debate, I may not agree but I can respect you, but the moment you laps into insincerity, ridicule, and mockery you can no longer be respectable but have shown yourself to be contemptible.

[LittleBen]

Before I start, I will admit i have not read the peer reviewed literature whinch has been cited here.
I found this website interesting because it clearly outlines the logic chain which leads to the conclusion that spent ammunition is a significant contributor to lead poisoning in Condors.
http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/california_condor_lead.shtml

I agree fully with JW.
The empirical evidence supports the conclusion that lead ammunition contributes to poisoning of condors. Perhaps it is not the sole factor, but regardless, it's a pretty simple fix. Pay a bit more for ammunition and save a species. Seems a no brainier to me. Lead has been banned for waterfowl hunting for a long time at least in my state, and we all still manage to hunt ducks just fine.

Frankly I think this is a case as it often is with scientific research that one group of individuals will follow the evidence, and one group will deny the evidence and go with feeling. I don't mean this to be a personal attack in any way, but this sort of debate occurs constantly.

The scientific method proved the world is round, perfected the ammunition we use, and allowed for development of the nano-scale fabrication that gives us the computers we all use to commune here. To now go and suggest that the scientific method is flawed in some way, and as a result, to deny the conclusions of solid science is profoundly misguided. That's not to say that every scientific conclusion is fact, it just says that in order to dispute the conclusion, you need to approach the problem scientifically; that means more than simply saying 'I don't believe it because I think there aren't enough birds and there aren't enough carcasses'.
You need to provide an alternative hypothesis for example: about how condors and other birds are ingesting lead fragments, or you need to provide evidence that ingested lead fragments do not cause an increase in tissue lead levels.

I'll conclude my comments with a quote I particularly enjoy: "you can't reason someone out of a position that they have not reasoned themselves into" ... Perhaps it's a bit philosophical, but I think that basically encompasses my view on scientific denial.

Cheers

[JoJoDapyro]

I guess if we aren't allowed to use studies of other birds to come to a conclusion, then we need to use the studies on condors themselves. Here is a link to the Arizona game and fish department that states "Free-flying condors have frequently been observed with elevated levels of lead in their blood, with evidence of variable lead levels and re-occurring periods of high exposure.

Elevated blood lead levels are temporally (seasonally) associated with increased availability of hunter-killed deer carcasses and gut piles (i.e., when hunters are using lead bullets in condor foraging areas).

To date, no other source of lead has been identified to be:

Prevalent in the geographic range of condors,
Available to condors in concentrated form via a plausible route of ingestion,
Available to condors in a pattern consistent with observed temporal patterns."

http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/california_condor_lead.shtml

To answer a question some one asked way back in the thread. All you need to do is search the hunting units in Northern Arizona, and Southern Utah to see that there is a lot of hunting going on in the Condors 160 mile range.

So, I have presented evidence that Condors are being poisoned by lead from hunting, now, the way science works is you counter with a study that refutes what I have presented, or not.

For further reading on how to debate a topic, please see the following link on what is not ok. A lot of the Anti group on this one have used some of the fallacies listed in the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

[iowabow]

I guess if we aren't allowed to use studies of other birds to come to a conclusion, then we need to use the studies on condors themselves. Here is a link to the Arizona game and fish department that states "Free-flying condors have frequently been observed with elevated levels of lead in their blood, with evidence of variable lead levels and re-occurring periods of high exposure.

Elevated blood lead levels are temporally (seasonally) associated with increased availability of hunter-killed deer carcasses and gut piles (i.e., when hunters are using lead bullets in condor foraging areas).

To date, no other source of lead has been identified to be:

Prevalent in the geographic range of condors,
Available to condors in concentrated form via a plausible route of ingestion,
Available to condors in a pattern consistent with observed temporal patterns."

http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/california_condor_lead.shtml

To answer a question some one asked way back in the thread. All you need to do is search the hunting units in Northern Arizona, and Southern Utah to see that there is a lot of hunting going on in the Condors 160 mile range.

So, I have presented evidence that Condors are being poisoned by lead from hunting, now, the way science works is you counter with a study that refutes what I have presented, or not.

For further reading on how to debate a topic, please see the following link on what is not ok. A lot of the Anti group on this one have used some of the fallacies listed in the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

x2

[Outbackbob48]

On a little lighter note, I got to see 2 Bald Eagles today while checking my traps, it amazes me how many of them I see in NW Penna. Always a plesant site. Bob

[Zuma]

That's great Bob. We have them all over my place too.
I have film of them in dog fights with our Ospreys.
Dog fights eeer bird fights :embarassed:

[Zuma]

For those that must have missed it---
Oh yeah it's from this thread

Yes Jack it is a high dollar industry but I think the
idea and attempts are somewhat noble.
I guess I question the notion of these creatures
 supposedly being released back into the wild.


Jw your reply was lengthy, yes but informative to those
that are interested in more than just the documentary
that aired recently. I high lighted what they said in the documentary.
What they didn't say was that the Condors may be getting
lead poisoning from the guts of recovered deer that get killed by
high velocity ammo. I also saw no mention of the guts in the links I read.
It would be cool if you have some pull to bring this to the attention of
 those trying to solve these problems. Glad you brought it to our attention.

The topic is about these birds not lead poisoning in general.
Eddie asked us to stay on it. thanks Zuma
 
Bare in mind this study was done in 2008 so if they are still complaining
about the mortality and poisoning it must be because they continue to
subject the poor birds to that fate. Or the documentry was way old?
Please tell me your take on it.

I included the conclusion. I read the paper in it's intireity


Effectiveness of Action to Reduce Exposure of Free-Ranging ...

to Effectiveness of Action to Reduce Exposure of Free-Ranging ...

Dec 24, 2008 ... Condors were routinely recaptured and treated to reduce their lead levels as ... We simulated the effect of ending the existing lead exposure ...

 
 
We used a previously published population model [8] to assess likely long-term trends in the numbers of condors in the absence of further releases and without chelation and other treatment of birds with elevated blood lead concentrations. According to this model, the condor population would tend to decline under present conditions unless natural adult mortality was at the lower end of the likely range or reproduction was at the “maximum conceivable” level (Table 5). Since the assumptions of the “maximum conceivable” scenario are extremely unlikely to apply to any real population of condors, this indicates that the Grand Canyon condor population is unlikely to be self-sustaining at current levels of exposure to lead.

[JoJoDapyro]

According to this model, the condor population would tend to decline under present conditions unless natural adult mortality was at the lower end of the likely range or reproduction was at the “maximum conceivable” level (Table 5).

So then, is lead poisoning considered "Natural"?

http://www.peregrinefund.org/condor

According to the linked information 51.8% of deaths are from Lead poisoning, 5.4% is related to either Starvation, or Shooting. So, we are (Hunters) directly related to about 53% of the deaths of these birds (Factoring in 1/2 of 5.4% for starvation).

The thread is either about Condors, or as the title suggests, Condors and Lead. What is it? It is one or the other. Changing the direction on page 5 is a little strange.

A gut pile that is buried in my home state would likely be dug up by scavengers, and if not totally eaten would then be available for any other scavenger (Coyote, Fox, Crow, Raven, Raptors, and yes, Condors).

As asked before, why is it so much to ask of people to not shoot lead while hunting? I know old habits die hard. it is just strange to me that the stewards of the outdoors won't even try to help if they won't get an immediate result.   

The truth of the matter is that without human intervention California Condors would be gone. Dust in the wind. And sadly, without long term intervention, they would still be gone. There are simply too many people that don't see any reason to change the way they do things that don't directly hurt them.

[willie]

ergo decedo ??

not at all. My comments have all been inviting  JW to enter the discussion in a more comprehensive manner.

[JoJoDapyro]

ergo decedo ??

not at all. My comments have all been inviting  JW to enter the discussion in a more comprehensive manner.

But we have been told by the poster to stay on topic and only give information pertaining to Condors. So, What else needs to be said?