© Flickr/Andy MorffewThe Associated Press recently published an article about how lead from bullets and shotgun pellets “in wildlife carcasses left behind by hunters” was causing deaths of bald eagles. Eagles, once endangered, have rebounded dramatically following the ban of DDT 45 years ago—a ban that was fervently opposed by many. President of the Virginia Wildlife Center, Ed Clark (who I met decades ago), reported that the facility treats 35 to 40 eagles per year. Lead is an extremely toxic substance, and Clark reports that even a rice-grain sized piece left behind in a carcass scavenged by an eagle can kill the eagle in 72 hours.[teaserbreak]
It’s not “just” eagles at risk, of course. It’s any number of species that, like eagles, will scavenge the remains of dead animals. Wounded animals will wander off and, ultimately, they will enter the food chain. Even in cases where the animal recovers from the gunshot wound, the lead may remain in its body. The lead may become encapsulated within scar tissue, staying with the animal even if there is no neurological damage. Or, the lead may pass through the gut of waterbirds. And, of course, gunshot wounds do often kill the animals. But, whenever an animal injured by lead ammunition eventually dies, predators and scavengers are at risk from lead poisoning.
It’s an old story. In my youth, we fought an uphill battle to get a ban on the use of lead in shotgun pellets used in waterfowl hunting. The pellets that did not find targets—and there were literally tons of them—would sink to the bottom of wetlands. Waterfowl require “grit”—small pebbles—in their gizzards to aid digestion, and these birds could not distinguish between pebbles and lead shot.
We succeeded. But, even though lead has been banned for decades, it is still subjecting wildlife to slow deaths. (To learn how wounding is inevitable in waterfowl hunting, click here.)
There are alternatives to lead, such as copper or steel. But, hunters and ammunition manufacturers claim that the ballistic properties of the lighter metals render them less effective materials for bullets or shot… By which they mean, these bullets are even more likely to wound instead of kill.
If one option means creating fatal neurological problems for numerous animals, and the other means removing the toxicity but increasing the likelihood of more wildlife being wounded, I would like to suggest a third option: Join the majority of us who don’t hunt! If that is unthinkable, I do understand, but please… If you’re a hunter, don’t go on about how you are a conservationist and how much you “love” animals.
Keep Wildlife in the Wild,
Barry