Some Research on Lead Shot in Pheasant

J

John Singer

Well-known member
This is from the UK. Realize that pheasant is sold in markets.

I switched from lead shot to steel and bismuth several years ago. I see no reason to go back.

phys.org

Pheasant meat sold for food found to contain many tiny shards of toxic lead

Eating pheasant killed using lead shot is likely to expose consumers to raised levels of lead in their diet, even if the meat is carefully prepared to remove the shotgun pellets and the most damaged tissue.
phys.org phys.org
 
John Singer said:
This is from the UK. Realize that pheasant is sold in markets.

I switched from lead shot to steel and bismuth several years ago. I see no reason to go back.

phys.org

Pheasant meat sold for food found to contain many tiny shards of toxic lead

Eating pheasant killed using lead shot is likely to expose consumers to raised levels of lead in their diet, even if the meat is carefully prepared to remove the shotgun pellets and the most damaged tissue.
phys.org phys.org
Click to expand...
Did you switch because of the potential for lead poisoning? I don't see lead fragmenting at all in pheasants I shoot. (certainly not like bismuth does) Maybe they use super soft lead in the UK. Either way, I don't believe fragmented lead puts me, personally, at risk in any way.
 
A5 Sweet 16 said:
Did you switch because of the potential for lead poisoning? I don't see lead fragmenting at all in pheasants I shoot. (certainly not like bismuth does)
Click to expand...

I quit using lead for several reasons.

First, I hunt a number of places where lead shot is not allowed. Second, I have hunted waterfowl for years with nontoxic shot. Third, I see no reason to feed my family meat that contains lead when other alternatives are available.

Realize that because you do not see the lead fragments does not mean they are not present. That is one point in the above cited article.
 
Last edited:
John Singer said:
I quit using lead for several reasons.

First, I hunt a number of places where lead shot is allowed. Second, I have hunted waterfowl for years with nontoxic shot. Third, I see no reason to feed my family meat that contains lead when other alternatives are available.

Realize that because you do not see the lead fragments does not mean they are not present. That is one point in the above cited article.
Click to expand...
Sure, I get that. But the fact that every lead pellet I encounter seems completely intact (although maybe deformed) means any fragments are practically (and probably literally) microscopic. Even if they don't just pass through my digestive system, they'll never pose a problem for me. The article isn't much more than fear mongering. To each his own though. (And no, the example of eagles or geese ingesting lead pellets & dying isn't a good analogy.)
 
Last edited:
My uncle has said for years he wishes lead shot would just be banned in all ammunition, shotgun, rifle, etc. He uses bismuth only and his thought process is that if hunters/target shooters could only buy non toxic, the price would go down (if one can believe in supply and demand) and make it more affordable. I'm sure the #1 reason people that don't use non toxic (when they don't have to) is due to price.
 
A5 Sweet 16 said:
Comparing some birds that ingest lead pellets & supposedly get lead poisoning & die to the potential for something similar to happen to a person.
Click to expand...

Got it.

Realize a couple of things. First, the deaths of eagles and geese due to ingesting lead is evidence that lead is toxic.

Understand too that death is not the only negative outcome when an animal, including a human, ingests a toxin such as lead.
 
I believe that there was legislation in the works recently here in MN on the banning of lead in ammo AND fishing tackle. Apparently loons pick lead off the bottom and ingest them. Bald Eagles pick away at gut piles of deer after they've been shot by a hunter and ingest lead fragments. It never passed because 1) the bald eagle population in North America has never been higher, and 2) the cost of replacing your lead ammo and fishing tackle would be astronomical for some.

Full disclosure, I exclusively use lead shot for pheasants. I used to hunt waterfowl and I used steel for that, obviously. Haven't duck hunted in 3 years now though. I use lead ammo for spring turkey hunting and there is lead in my rifle cartridges for deer hunting.

If they banned it, I would follow the law. As it turns out, I believe the ban on lead ammo would only apply to public land hunting so that would not affect me anyways. If I had to get rid of all my lead fishing tackle, that would be burdensome but I could do it.
 
I am bumping on 60, it is not the lead I ingest that will hurt me at this point. My kids ate very little wild game. I did switch to copper bullets in my muzzleloader for deer. It seemed the copper jacketed ones I had been using were very soft lead and I could tell there was fragmented lead, I didn't like wasting the meat around the wound channel. Yes, the copper bullets cost way more, but I shoot very few of them. Still use lead shot on pheasants and no plan to switch...very seldom hunt any public ground and never in areas that require NT shot. It is a cost thing, If I could buy NT shot at a price similar to lead, I might....full disclosure, I should have enough lead shot to get me to my sunset.

I suspect the limited amount of lead shot game that we eat as adults, poses much of a health risk to us.
 
Lead is still my first choice for shotshells where it's still legal. I remember the really pathetic first attempts at steel shot by the manufacturers and how it was singularly unsuited to dropping waterfowl dead. Through the years, yes, steel shot has improved but in my opinion it is still inferior to good old lead #4, 5 or 6 when you need to drop a gamebird " dead right there". It's unethical as hell to shoot at game with anything less than enough punch to kill it.
 
Yeah this is a topic I have recently started looking into more. I have purely been an upland hunter (no waterfowl) and only archery so the idea of non lead simply hadn't really came up. This year I have bought a lot of non toxic options that I am going to be testing out to see if they provide enough of an alternative to make it worth it. I do see both sides of the coin. Lead can be much cheaper than non toxic and density makes it superior for ballistics. However lead is absolutely toxic, you can't deny that. What is up for debate though is at what levels and are we at those levels. The way I see it, most hunters probably wouldn't eat enough to substantially effect them, but it certainly is a chance. The bigger thing is the effect on the environment. One person shooting each year won't equate too much, but we have such crowded public lands that the lead has to be stacking up and effecting things. The science is already showing that raptors are dying because of it. Which I think is going to be our wake up call.
In my opinion there will be a point at which it will be illegal everywhere. I'm just hoping to get my preferred loads figure out before then.
 
John Singer said:
Got it.

Realize a couple of things. First, the deaths of eagles and geese due to ingesting lead is evidence that lead is toxic.

Understand too that death is not the only negative outcome when an animal, including a human, ingests a toxin such as lead.
Click to expand...
I realize eagles dying from ingestion of lead pellets/bullets is evidence that that type of behavior can be lethal....to birds. I don't know anyone who'd argue that lead can be toxic to almost any animal, if absorbed into the body, bloodstream, etc. But I also think if there was evidence that teeny, tiny bits of lead eaten by a person was harmful, the article you posted would've stated such evidence. Instead, all it did was showed that tiny lead fragments were present in dead birds. There are new revelations every day, but I think lead shot has been used long enough that if it were a problem for humans, we'd know about it. Until reliable evidence is published that says otherwise, I'm not going to worry about it. Much as I'm not going to worry about ingesting bismuth fragments & being constipated for a week afterward. The evidence isn't there. How someone else chooses to react to the knowledge that their pheasant may contain tiny lead fragments is up to them.
 
A5 Sweet 16 said:
I realize eagles dying from ingestion of lead pellets/bullets is evidence that that type of behavior can be lethal....to birds. I don't know anyone who'd argue that lead can be toxic to almost any animal, if absorbed into the body, bloodstream, etc. But I also think if there was evidence that teeny, tiny bits of lead eaten by a person was harmful, the article you posted would've stated such evidence. Instead, all it did was showed that tiny lead fragments were present in dead birds. There are new revelations every day, but I think lead shot has been used long enough that if it were a problem for humans, we'd know about it. Until reliable evidence is published that says otherwise, I'm not going to worry about it. Much as I'm not going to worry about ingesting bismuth fragments & being constipated for a week afterward. The evidence isn't there. How someone else chooses to react to the knowledge that their pheasant may contain tiny lead fragments is up to them.
Click to expand...

While I can agree with much of what you stated, I will disagree with you about something.

If given the choice between ingesting food that contains fragments of lead and ingesting food that does not, I choose the food without lead every time.

It makes no sense to me to incur such a known risk when viable alternatives are available.

Keep an eye on what is happening in the UK. Since pheasants, harvested during shoots, are sold to the general public.
Market forces are likely to drive the transition to nontoxic shot.

To me and my family, and to many consumers in the UK, the risks of toxic shot outweigh the benefits.
 
Lead really performs better than anything*, that's why I use it. Hard lead shot, a little copper coating(that might get rid of all fragmentation) and it's good to go. I do have a bunch of bismuth, not as good. Steel is not great, but if you do your research on shot sizes and loads you can make it work.

*tss, tungsten matrix, and similar price-inhibitive metals not realistic for hunting upland, unless of course your name is Richie Rich.
 
Bob Peters said:
Lead really performs better than anything*, that's why I use it.
Click to expand...
Yep, the high performance/cost ratio of lead outweighs the risk of developing health problems because I might eat a few milligrams of lead each year. To me. I'm pretty sure my life is much more at risk simply by driving to work each morning. I've got other things to worry about, like how to put MORE lead in MORE roosters' bodies.
 
Kre said:
If you're afraid of lead in the birds you shoot, I wonder how you feel about other foods you eat.

I'd rather eat a pheasant or grouse (shot with lead) than a Big Mac.

I think there's much greater food risks for people, but it's an individual's choice to decide what they put in their body.
Click to expand...

That is not even the question at hand.

The real question is: Would you rather eat a pheasant containing an average of 39 elemental lead fragments or a pheasant with no added lead fragments?

Now, since you brought it up:

If Macdonald's (or any other restaurants in the US) were able to serve pheasant, and knowing that the meat from lead shot birds contains, on average 39 lead fragments, would our regulatory agencies allow it to continue when effective, affordable alternatives are available?

BTW: I cannot remember the last time that I ate a Big Mac. For that matter, I cannot remember the last time that I ate at Macdonald's. I did enjoy their Southwest Salad when they had it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top