Now, does this affect how many freedom eagles equal a pound, or whatever it is they use in the metric system?
The side effects of such widespread gun usage in the US are a bummer, but at least that proliferation of guns protected your country from being overrun by a tyrannical facist government.
It's amazing how well their gun culture stopped the tyrannical dictatorship from taking over!!!!
The gun culture is the fascists. So yeah it was a success.
Step one was convincing these paranoid morns that the "real fascists" were people asking other politely to stop using slurs.
Best they could do for 4 years after an armed, violent attempted coup..... was nothing.
Good point, thank god, wait a minute...
"Choose lead free ammunition"
No?
Just stop shooting guns and murdering things like a crazy ape?
The American mind cannot comprehend this. Probably due to neurological symptoms from lead poisoning or sth
What are you even talking about? There are plenty of people that hunt even here in Germany.
Americans don't have a monopoly on hunting.
I'm talking about a whole country being obsessed with owning and firing guns. I don't observe that in Germany. Also a hunters license comes with mandatory education about responsibility and preserving wildlife.
So do hunting licenses in the US. Wildlife enforcement has some of the most authority in the state.
The issue is the states allow inherently unsafe munitions to be used. If they changed hunters in the US would comply
Let's try the not poisonous bulltes first. Because something tells me that Americans can't even do that.
The overwhelming majority of bullets are used against paper or steel targets. Most hunters take the entire carcass for butchering, so the eagles aren't eating lead from animals shot and left in the wilderness. And given the volume needed, I wouldn't be surprised that they're eating fragments fired at steel targets that they mistake for rocks to keep in their stomach to grind up food.
Don't know what they do over there, but we usually get the lungs and guts out as soon as possible in order to keep the meat from spoiling. Long lived predators that likes to scavenge can develop lead poisoning from those remains if it's their main source of food.
If confusing with rocks was the main source you'd expect it to be just as common in other birds.
This is untrue, gastroliths are associated only with birds that eat plants. They grind up food, which isn’t necessary for meat. Eagles eat bullets from animals that have either been shot and abandoned, lost, or had parts of them discarded as zqxwas pointed out.
OK, I think this is an incredibly stupid argument.
From the ethical perspective of anti-meat, hunting animals is so much better. They get to live natural lives, and they die in a similar manner to they do in nature (maybe a little faster, which is good).
From an environmental perspective, hunting keeps pray populations in naturally healthy levels, since most of their predators are driven out of populated areas, because people don't like to be attacked by wild animals. It also doesn't consume many resources, as they're just living their lives in nature.
I don't think there's any valid argument against hunting honestly, besides just being grossed out by it. That's fine, and you can just not do it. I've never hunted in my life, and I suspect I never will. It's not really something I want to do. I can't construct a good argument against it though, and I suspect you can't either. If you can, give it a shot, and remember animals dying and being eaten is natural, and frequently necessary to maintain an equilibrium that was evolved to be maintained by external factors. Deer, for example, will die horrible deaths of starvation, and do damage to the environment, if they aren't hunted by humans.
Just because something happens on its own in nature doesn’t mean it’s a good thing per se - for instance, I prefer the warmth of my heated house over the "natural" cold temperatures of the winter months. That’s the famous "appeal to nature" fallacy right there.
Also, like others already pointed out, hunting deer is only necessary because we eradicated most of their natural predators. Making the case for hunting today in order to fix a problem hunting created in the past feels oddly circular to me.
Crazy ape comment aside (i'd put it closer to apes with delusions of grandeur but that's just me), not shooting guns and allowing hunting aren't mutually exclusive.
Especially given all the hunting that happened pre-gun.
I don't know if it's on purpose but your answer seems to be ignoring a lot of the realities of how the things you are proposing would work (or not work, as the case may be).
Sure, you can hunt without guns. I don't really see an argument for not using them though, as long as there's no lead. What's really the ethical or environment argument in favor of only allowing bows, or whatever? I see the emotional appeal, if people have a negative view of guns. Not a logical appeal though, besides maybe making them harder to access to prevent deaths by firearms. If you can ban hunting with firearms, you can also just ban using lead ammo, so I don't see how banning them is the best option in general.
I didn't make any proposals in my above comment. It's entirely statements of observations. I don't know what you mean by saying you don't see how they would work or not. I gave explanations of why hunting isn't negative, and is often positive, but not any proposals of how anything should be done. Would you care to elaborate?
We killed the predators on a lot of our continent. Deer hunting is ecologically necessary here. And thats before we get into the boar problem
This is not exclusively an American problem. Eagles in the Italian alps are dying mostly of lead poisoning, too.
It's the leading cause of death for many birds of prey in Europe too. Partly because hunters leave killed animals or their guts lying around, where the birds find them. It's not just vultures who eat already dead prey, many species do if it's available, like eagles. But even birds who only eat freshly killed prey (like falcons) are dying at alarming rates. Why? Because their prey often has lead embedded in their bodies. It's not just that they eat lead because they mistake the pellets for food. One in three living ducks and geese in Europe has been shot before and has lead permanently embedded inside their body. Hunters will shoot at a swarm, kill one animal and hurt many more.
You can use steel shot
The US banned lead birdshot in 1991. Are they eating squirrels?
Eagles will eat just about anything they physically can so probably lots of squirrels, rabbits, smaller possums and raccoons but also eagles will sometimes eat carrion so I could certainly imagine they sometimes get this off something like a deer carcass.
Why is lead used at all? Why not steel?
Lead is denser, it weighs more per volume, so it travels farther and faster when propelled by an explosion. Uranium works even better, which is why they use depleted uranium in some military applications, as it's more dense than lead, quite a bit better. Gold or platinum would work better too as they are heavier.
Fun fact, in a half billion years or so, the element of uranium decays into lead.
Ban lead bullets then. Allows people to keep hunting while preventing more pollution in the wild.
Plenty of time after that to ban other things.
We did that in California. It worked.
That's a very un-American solution. I think it would be much better to sell fire arms to eagles so they become aware of the problem and they can effectively hunt fresh prey and thereby circumvent the entire issue.
Pretty sure eagles are in the out group, so they deserve to die. /s
Maybe if Dear Orange Leader tells them to give a shit about eagles, they might...
Unfortunately, the most American thing this girl had ever heard of is also strongly affecting white-tailed sea eagles and other raptors in Germany and neighboring countries. Choose lead free ammo, folks. https://www.bund.net/themen/naturschutz/jagd/bleimunition/
I read this twice. I'm trying to comprehend. The problem, I think I comprehend absolutely perfectly but my soul doesn't want to. Am this close to screaming until hoarse and sweaty. Am at work so will see if I need to do this in the parking lot.
I dream sometimes of all the regressives in the world getting into a rocket ship and blasting off for some fantasy Planet B, leaving the progressives behind to clean up the mess.
And we do, and it's terrible, but slowly the world heals.
Then the regressives realize that Planet B is too far away, and that Earth is actually faring pretty well now, and they try to come back.
When we don't let them set foot on Earth, they promise to nuke us from space, and then there's this standoff with them in orbit pointing a weapon at the only place that can support their progeny.
This is partly why I haven't got into air rifles, I have wanted to for a long time, but there is no good place to shoot it nearby.
Some may say that I should just go out in the woods and shoot there, but I don't want to spread lead in nature.
I know there are lead free pellets, but I have heard mixed opinions about them.
Why an air rifle specifically?
Because I can get a low power one (10J muzzle energy) without a license, and I can't be arsed to get a license for a proper firearm as it requires a fair commitment here.
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
