Outdoors
Sponsored by

Steel Shot For Dove?

4,598 Views | 42 Replies | Last: 19 yr ago by Stinky T
Ducks4brkfast
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Interesting...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...s/3726810.html
quote:

Studies suggest lead poisoning is killing millions of doves


By SHANNON TOMPKINS


RESOURCES
DOVES AND LEAD SHOT POISONING


• With a North American population estimated at 475 million in the 1980s, mourning doves are the continent's most common game bird and one of its five most common birds of any species.
• Mourning doves are the most popular game bird in the country, attracting an estimated 1.9 million hunters each season. Texas fields the most dove hunters, an estimated 300,000 each season.

• About 75 percent of the shotgun shells purchased each year are bought for dove hunting. Those shotshells are loaded with lead pellets.

• Waterfowl hunters , who have had to use non-toxic shot since 1991, purchase about 10 percent of the shotgun shells sold in the U.S.

• Research indicates 1-6 percent of doves taken by hunters have ingested lead shot in their gizzards.

• Studies have found 6-11 percent of doves taken by hunters have elevated lead levels indicating past exposure to ingested lead shot.

• Lead poisoning caused by doves ingesting spent lead pellets as grit for their gizzards could be responsible for the death of 8-16 million doves each year.

• Recent research in Missouri suggests doves ingesting as few as one or two lead pellets have about a 50/50 chance of dying from the toxic effects within three weeks.

• Some states have imposed bans on use of lead shot for hunting doves and other upland game birds on state-controlled tracts. Use of lead shot is prohibited for all wingshooting on federal refuges, waterfowl production areas and other tracts controlled by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

• Lead shot is prohibited for use when hunting doves on four of the 53 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department wildlife management areas that allow dove hunting.

Mounting evidence that ingestion of lead pellets poses an as-yet-unquantified detrimental effect on dove populations has wildlife managers across the country beginning to look seriously at the issue.

Already, the federal government and some states have banned lead shot for all wingshooting, including hunting for doves and other upland birds, on some government-controlled areas such as federal refuges, state wildlife management areas and government-leased hunting tracts.

No sweeping rule mandating a switch to non-toxic shot for dove hunting has been proposed by either federal or state wildlife agencies. And any such rule at the federal level could take years to impose.

But the subject is gaining scrutiny.

Recently, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies alerted its members to new research on the issue of lead poisoning of doves and raised the question of whether non-toxic shot should be required for hunting doves.

At a Monday meeting in Austin of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's Game Bird Advisory Board, Jay Roberson of TPWD's wildlife division offered the citizen advisory group an overview of the issue and some of the research triggering the topic's increasing significance among wildlife managers.

Any move to require non-toxic shot for dove hunting would have a huge impact on wingshooters across the nation and, in particular, Texas.

Doves are the most popular and populous game bird in the nation. An estimated 1.2-1.6 million wingshooters hunt doves in the United States, with 300,000 or so in Texas, the most of any state.

A switch from using shotshells loaded with lead pellets, traditional shot material for doves and other upland game birds, to those packed with non-toxic pellets would precipitate a near total upheaval of ammunition manufacturing and cost hunters a lot more money.

Dove hunters are shotshell manufacturers' biggest customers. Dove hunters purchase almost 75 percent of the shotshells sold in the US, according to Tom Roster, leading researcher and instructor for the Cooperative North American Shotgunning Education Program.

Almost all of those "dove" loads are filled with lead shot.

Currently, a 25-shell box of No. 7 1/2 lead shot "dove loads" costs $3-$5.

A 25-shell box of similar shotshells loaded with small (No. 7) "steel" shot costs $8-$12. Shotshells loaded with No. 7 1/2 shot in one of the more exotic and ballistically superior non-toxic materials such as Hevi-Shot cost as much as $2-$2.50 per shell.

Wildlife scientists have known for decades that birds ingesting spent lead shot suffer from the metal's toxic effects.

Birds ingest the small lead pellets, which look much like the small pieces of sand and gravel they swallow to use in digestion. This hard "grit" is used in a bird's muscular gizzard to crush and break down seeds and other forage.

The lead pellets are ground down, and lead is absorbed into the bird's bloodstream, where its toxicity can kill a bird quickly through acute toxicosis or, at lower levels, decrease a bird's immune system, making it susceptible to secondary illnesses and delayed mortality.

Studies involving waterfowl indicated an estimated 4 percent of the continent's ducks and geese died each year from the effects of lead pellets they ingested as grit.

Federal regulations beginning a phase-out of lead shot for waterfowl hunting were imposed in the 1970s. A nationwide ban on using lead shot when hunting ducks and geese took effect in 1991.

While considerable continent-wide research documented the chronic and persistent problem of lead poisoning in waterfowl, comparably little has focused on the effects of lead shot ingested by doves.

But that scattered research has shown doves do ingest spent lead shot and suffer its toxic effects.

A 1982-83 study involving about 3,000 hunter-harvested mourning and white-winged doves taken on wildlife management areas in South Texas indicated about 2 percent of those doves had lead shot in their gizzards.

Studies in other states suggest overall lead shot ingestion rates by doves are as low as 0.2 percent to as high as 6.4 percent. But in some specific areas, as many as 20 percent of doves were found to have ingested lead shot.

Some doves were found to have ingested as many as two dozen lead pellets.

Plenty of spent lead shot is out there for the birds to find. Most dove hunting occurs over and around feeding fields or, in Texas and other Southwestern states, water holes — just the places where doves pick up grit. And the same fields and water holes tend to be hunted year after year.

How much lead is being spewed onto their fields?

A lot.


Telling numbers
If each of Texas' 300,000 dove hunters were to fire only 16 shots a season (far below the real average), that's about a pound of lead per dove hunter, or 150 tons of lead each year. Actual amount of lead fired dove hunting is several times that amount.


Recent studies conducted by the Missouri Department of Conservation, one of the nation's most-respected state wildlife agencies, indicate a dove ingesting spent lead shot is almost certain of suffering its toxic effects.

To test the acute toxicity of lead on doves, the Missouri study used 180 mourning
doves divided into seven
groups during three separate trials.

One group was fed no lead pellets. The others were fed a one-time dose of 2, 4, 8, 12, 18 or 24 lead No. 7 1/2 pellets from commercially available shotshells. The birds were monitored for 21 days.

By the end of the 21-day period, 104 of the treated doves had died, with 53 surviving.

All 22 doves that had not ingested lead shot survived the study.

The more lead pellets the doves ingested, the more likely and the quicker they were to die, the study showed. But even doves that ingested only two pellets were quickly impacted — almost half died by the end of the 21-day study. And only 22 percent of the doves that ingested 5-8 pellets were alive after three weeks.

Research in other states has indicated elevated lead levels in the blood of 2-11 percent of doves, pointing to those birds having at least some exposure to lead pellets.


Research to continue
Some researchers believe data indicate lead-caused mortality could be as widespread in doves as it was in waterfowl before the lead shot ban. If so, that would mean lead poisoning annually claims about 16 million doves.


The annual legal dove harvest in the U.S. is estimated to be 19-21 million birds.

Texas wildlife managers are looking at the lead/dove issue and hoping to increase their research in that area.

"One of the things we're looking for is research that will give us some real-world insight into the scope and depth of the problem — if it is a problem," Vernon Bevill, director of TPWD's small game and habitat assessment programs, told the Game Bird Advisory Board. "We don't need to get to a decision on this until we have a lot more information."

But, he added, "It's certainly an issue that deserves our interest."

shannon.tompkins@chron.com
schmellba99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If they force everybody to go to steel shot, you will more than likely see a significant drop in the number of hunters every season. One of the greatest things about dove and quail hunting is the realative inexpensiveness of the hunt. Like the study pointed out, lead shot is about $2-$3 per box of shells, whereas the last box of steel shot I paid for was around $8. I understand the validity of the study, but in reality it would be a significant economic impact on shell manufacturers, hunters, landowners as well as the state with respect to the number of licenses sold every year. It will be interesting to see where this goes over the next few years.
birdman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I imagine the price of steel shells will drop if that happens. Price has dropped for waterfowl steel since the first few years of legislation. If quail/dove require steel, the demand will increase tons.
Hagen95
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If demand increases greatly, why would prices drop?
Ducks4brkfast
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think if demand increases via having to shoot steel at dove, quail, etc. then more manufactures begin producing steel and and price wars begin.

Isn't raw steel cheaper than lead anyway?
Kramer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Exactly. What makes it so expensive now is the small amount that they sell. Since they sell less, they make less, and therefore have to set the machines up to produce that small amount, making it almost like a specialty.

Producing 1 product is almost always cheaper than producing 2 products even if the 2 products are of lesser quantity.
aggielostinETX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
it's called economies of scale..
Stinky T
How long do you want to ignore this user?
One of the biggest head scratchers I have is trying to figure the reasoning behind allowing a group to dump 50 boxes of lead shells out over a pond during dove season and then having to shoot non-toxic shot over that same pond during duck season. Lead doesn't go anywhere in water or in soil. It is very stable in both.

Shotgun Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Particularly as it applies to quail hunting, the cost of the shells is a non-factor. With most quail hunts/shoots, whether of wild birds(hunting) or of pen-raised birds(shooting), the cost of acquiring the land on which to hunt, dog training, boarding of dogs, transportation, etc far outstrips the cost of steel, tungsten, etc. shells. Plus, it is correct that the cost will come down as the use increases. Dove hunting is basically the same thing, only to a slightly lesser extent.



Gun safety is no accident.
MasterAggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Price has dropped for waterfowl steel since the first few years of legislation

Ummm no it hasn't! Lower quality steel is cheaper but price hasn't dropped.

What's more 80+% of dove die every year anyway. I say for the most part the study is way overstating the effect of lead on dove.
MasterAggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
By the way steel shot is far more expensive to produce than lead shot and the price will NEVER be comparable.
Potlicker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
F that.

B
Shotgun Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MasterAggie,
I believe you are correct in that steel shot and lead shot aren't likely to ever be the same price. However, I don't think anyone said that it would.. What was postulated was that with greatly increased demand, there would be a reduction in price for steel shotshells. I also believe this to be true.
One other comment. I think that IF they do this, the sporting clay courses are going to do a land office business for the month or two preceding the opening of Dove season.

Gun safety is no accident.
FJB
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It may be nothing, but I haven't seen anyone say one way or another.... how does bird flu effect doves / quail?
tree91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Birds wounded and unrecovered with the lower-energy steel shot will equal or surpass the number of birds that die from lead poisoning. This idea is just stupid. Just like it is stupid for waterfowl.

[This message has been edited by tree91 (edited 3/18/2006 10:12p).]
str8shot1000
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
• Lead poisoning caused by doves ingesting spent lead pellets as grit for their gizzards could be responsible for the death of 8-16 million doves each year.


and.......

quote:
Mounting evidence that ingestion of lead pellets poses an as-yet-unquantified detrimental effect on dove populations has wildlife managers across the country beginning to look seriously at the issue.


I agree with tree91 and these two statements point out that this is all heresay and unsubstantiated.


[This message has been edited by str8shot1000 (edited 3/19/2006 1:04a).]
Ramblin Rogue88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If "more expensive" "non-toxic" shot ends up being required for doves, will a result be a whole new breed of dove elitists consistent with the results of previous non-toxic shot for waterfowl regulations?
Stinky T
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Birds wounded and unrecovered with the lower-energy steel shot will equal or surpass the number of birds that die from lead poisoning.


This would also be one of those as-yet-unquantified statements. The issue of energy and penetration would be much less of an issue with doves than it is with larger mass, heavier feathered waterfowl. I see a lot of doves hit with lead shot that keep flying. In my observation, 9 times out of 10 that is the result of someone taking a shot that is out of range. This would probably not change much with non-toxic shot.
tree91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What exactly do you think steel shot will do to the effective range?
aalan94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
I think if demand increases via having to shoot steel at dove, quail, etc. then more manufactures begin producing steel and and price wars begin.

Isn't raw steel cheaper than lead anyway?


Have you not been watching steel prices recently? Last I heard, they were through the roof.
Ducks4brkfast
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Last I heard lead was about 4 times more expensive per ton than steel.

[This message has been edited by Ducks4Brkfast (edited 3/20/2006 4:16p).]
ZONE410
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I agree with tree. Steel just doesnt have the range and the wounded and unrecovered will go up drastically.
Hap
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ducks is correct.

Currently, raw lead costs about $.50 to $.60 per lb. Raw carbon steel costs about $200/ton, which is about $.10/lb.

The higher cost of steel shot shells is due, not to the raw costs of the respective metals, but the cost to manufacture.

Lead shot is easily manufactured using a process wherein molten lead, which has a low melting point (for a metal), is dripped through a plate with small holes located at the top of a tall tower. The molten lead drops are allowed to fall through the tower, cooling and hardening as they fall through the air, and are eventually quenched when they fall into the water bath at the bottom of the tower.

Then as the molten lead falls, it quickly takes on the shape of a sphere and hardens quickly in the air, not losing its spherical shape when it hits the quenching water.

Making steel shot that is spherical and a consistent size is much more problematic. I'm not certain, but I think steel shot is made utilizing some sort of extrusion process, wherein steel wire is forced through a sizing die, then cut into small pieces and then rolled into a spherical shape. And all this is done at relatively high temperatures.



[This message has been edited by Hap (edited 3/20/2006 4:51p).]
Ducks4brkfast
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Did I just own someone?
SanAntoneAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The good news is that maybe with the more expensive steel shot all those Houstonians who come out to Hondo by the millions on opening weekend and sit 20 yards apart from each other on fencelines will think twice about skyblasting doves whizzing by at altitudes of 50, 60, and 70 yards overhead.

On second thought, naw, that'll never happen.
Stinky T
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
What exactly do you think steel shot will do to the effective range?


Then just like when shooting steel at waterfowl - you adjust to the effective range. Unfortunately, the majority of the lead chunkers I see shooting doves doesn't have a clue about the effective range of lead or steel. That was my point that you obviously missed.

I'm not advocating a change to steel, but your statement is simply not a foregone conclusion. My dad will be the first to tell you that his cripple rate on waterfowl did not change with the switch to steel shot. Why? Because he adjusted to the new range. What makes you think that a person that doesn't adjust to the effective range of steel is going to be abiding by the effective range of lead to start with?
tree91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
What makes you think that a person that doesn't adjust to the effective range of steel is going to be abiding by the effective range of lead to start with?
I don't - that's the whole point.

Obviously, my statement that 'the number of wounded and unrecovered birds will increase' is not supported by hard numbers since we don't hunt dove with steel, yet. A little factor called common sense comes into play here.
Stinky T
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ok, I will try one more time. It isn't the shot that wounds most birds, it is the shooter. I really can't make it any clearer than that. Bad shooters with lead will be bad shooters with steel over the long term. You might be correct in your assumption that the number of wounded birds might temporarily increase until the effective range of steel shot is learned by the average hunter. If you are a moron that can't make that adjustment over a season or two - then you shouldn't be hunting in the first place.

So in the end, we are left with the same idiots throwing out 60 yard shots through an IC or modified choke with steel that were throwing out 60 yard shots with lead, and thus roughly the same number of birds wounded. In any case, long term, common sense tells me that there wouldn't be the huge increase that you claim.

I will do some checking around, but I believe I saw a study that claimed that this is exactly how the switch to non-toxic shot played out in waterfowl.
Stinky T
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BTW, The report that I saw was a group of test by Tom Roster. I haven't been able to put my finger on the actual study, but here is a snippet from an article that references the study. As you will see, Tom Roster came to the same conclusion that I did. Bad shooters wound birds regardless of the type of shot.

quote:
Shotgunning expert Tom Roster has gathered more data on waterfowl hunters and their shooting abilities than anyone alive. He lives in Klamath Falls, OR where he continues to research non-toxic shot. He’s a highly skilled shooter who, on behalf of the Cooperative North American Shotgunning Education Program (CONSEP) as well as the USFWS, has conducted nearly all of the research projects on lead and non-toxic shot done to date. His work has been considered controversial in the past, though it shouldn’t have been. During the Reagan years, high-ranking officials who were opposed to the shift to non-toxic shot spent much time and effort aimed at discrediting Roster and ultimately succeeded in having his contracts with the USFWS, terminated. But, while information can be suppressed for a while, political administrations are not forever and Roster’s test results eventually went public.

To date, there have been 16 tests utilizing real hunters shooting lead and steel shot pellets at real birds with trained observers recording the results. Of those tests, one showed lead shot to be more efficient, another favored steel but all of the rest showed no statistical difference between them. Roster supervised all of the tests except for one, which was conducted in Louisiana. Since their release, no organization or individual has questioned the validity or scientific manner in which the research was conducted. And no researcher has a larger database on hunters and their shooting skills than Roster, who says his includes over 100,000 shotgunners.



http://www.tonydean.com/articles.html?sectionid=6189

Here's another study on steel shot used for pheasants.

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fwt/back_issues/september01/article5.html

[This message has been edited by Stinky T (edited 3/22/2006 12:54p).]

[This message has been edited by Stinky T (edited 3/22/2006 12:55p).]
tree91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Holy crap. I AGREE THAT BAD SHOOTERS ARE THE BIGGER PROBLEM. But when you add bad ammo to bad shooters you get more wounded birds.
quote:
So in the end, we are left with the same idiots throwing out 60 yard shots through an IC or modified choke with steel that were throwing out 60 yard shots with lead, and thus roughly the same number of birds wounded.
This statement is true. But then you have to factor in that the birds that were dropping at 40 yds with lead shot are now unrecovered wounded birds with steel shot.
Stinky T
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
But then you have to factor in that the birds that were dropping at 40 yds with lead shot are now unrecovered wounded birds with steel shot.


No they are not!!!! Did you even read any of the links I provided?? Your statement above is just plain false and there are studies to prove it. Did you see the wounded loss rate on pheasant for steel shot of all sizes and distances - 12.2%. Studies show it to be around 30% on waterfowl for BOTH STEEL AND LEAD BOTH!!!!

Bad shooters are not part of the problem - THEY ARE THE PROBLEM. It is a fact proven in studies. Your insistence that steel shot automatically equates to more wounded loss birds just isn't so - at any distance. I have data to back it up. What do you have - common sense?

Stop confusing common sense with common ignorance. Do some research.
Pontificator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Stinky's right. The counties I grew up duck hunting was one of the first counties in the nation to mandate steel (Jefferson/Chambers).

The first few years sucked b/c they couldn't get the powder right and 4s or 6s were our only options.

Nowadays, it's totally different. Not only did the loads get better, but once we learned how to shoot steel we've seen zero difference between lead and steel when it comes to crips. Personally, if given the option, I'd choose 3 inch. No. 2 Estate steel over 3 inch No. 4 NitroMag lead everyday. The reason being that I can shoot steel instinctively now. Clean killing a big duck at 45 yds is no problem.

Lead, otoh, there's no way for me personally....I'd ass shoot him every time.

It's one of the reason I don't dove hunt that much, and I suspect it's one of the reasons that duck hunters have a hard time after the first week of dove season. The first week the birds aren't skittish and flying high. The 2nd week...that's a different story.

Steel may not have as much mass or force at impact as lead at +40 yds., but that doesn't matter. 99% of the people hunting can't kill shot 1 out of 10 at +40 anyway. They may THINK they can, but 40 yds is a damn long shot....a lot longer than you think on the wing (and in calm conditions go ahead and add +2 yds. to that 40 with each wingbeat a duck makes).

What matters most is knowing your gun, knowing your limits, and above all having the confidence to put your pattern in the right place.

And to hone those 3 conditions usually means countless hours spent on the 5 stand range.

Shooting steel.

There ain't no shotgun shooting savants. Good shooters are made, not born.

Stinky T
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pontificator,

I think you are right on the money. And I think that the misconceptions about kill rates and steel shot has been passed down by those guys that had to shoot those crappy loads for the first few years.

tree91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Stinky, the two articles you posted do not convince me at all. The second article does not even study lead, only the difference between sizes of steel. To no surprise, they determined that the bigger pellets penetrated farther into the target regardless of the range. Not exactly earth shattering news. I don't buy the limited information in the first article because it does not provide many details of the experiment. It is difficult to test the two types of shot in the field because there is no way to know exact distances of the targets, conclusively which unrecovered targets were truly misses, or whether shot placement between the lead and steel were exactly the same.

The laws of physics tell us that objects with greater mass will have more energy than objects of lesser mass travelling at the same velocity. Thus, it is correct that the lead shot will have more energy than the same sized steel shot, and will penetrate better and produce a cleaner kill.

THAT SAID...

If you compare larger steel pellets to smaller lead pellets, you may have something. The added size of the larger pellet will compensate for the lower density of the metal and produce comparable energy. The article linked below addresses this comparison well and also addresses the perceived disadvantage of the resulting fewer pellets per shot using larger shot.

http://www.motherearthnews.com/library/1983_January_February/Lead_vs__Steel_Shot

It is obviously an education issue, as I have been educated, to use larger shot and possibly wider chokes to make a changeover to steel shot. However, I like to shoot #8s at dove, so until I can find #6 steel at $3.25 per box at Academy, I'll stick with lead.
Stinky T
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And I have no problem with you sticking with your #8 lead for dove. No one ever claimed you could stick with #8 steel and get the same performance. That is part of the adjustment that I discussed. If you think you can stick with #8 steel and shoot at the same range as you did with #8 lead - then you belong to the class of idiots that I mentioned in my earlier post. And why are we talking about price now? Price has nothing to do with wounded loss rates.

I also understand the laws of physics. Here is some more physics for you straight from the Remington website.

quote:
Tom Roster, working in conjunction with the Cooperative Nontoxic Shot Education Program (CONSEP) over the past several years, has amassed an incredible database on the performance of lead shot vs. steel. Included in this study was an X-ray analysis of over 16,000 ducks and geese and over 300 pheasants taken with both lead and steel shotshells. A little-known fact revealed by this study: a steel pellet, with an energy level equivalent to that of a lead pellet, provides 5% to 10% deeper penetration on waterfowl due to its superior roundness and ballistic efficiency.



translation: #6 steel penetrates farther into a bird than #7 1/2 lead. #2 steel penetrates farther than #4 lead. At equal distances.

Here is some more good info on steel vs. lead.

http://www.gunnersden.com/index.htm.steelvslead.html

The bottom line is that your assumption of higher wounded loss rates with steel shot is wrong. I am not going to argue with you on which costs more - I know you are right on that issue.



Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.