IMPACTS OF NON-LEAD AMMO REQUIREMENT. JIM MATTHEWS COLUMN 11 Mar 2009

[MJB]

Last year Tejon was shutdown for a month to all firearms for hunting (I think some hunter said they were using copper but were really shooting lead) A couple of condors were found to have lead in them that were feeding on the ranch, so their must be something to this but I agree their needs to be more studies on what they eat and where so we don't ban everything.
Even better the manufactures of bullets need to come up with some better alternatives to the bullet design they have now so we don't lose more animals to the hard copper, plus this pass through of the copper bullets is dangerous to hunters and the hunted. We need a bullet that has the hard copper jacket but a frangible core so it acts more like the lead bullets.

Fishing weight ban is just ridiculous IMHO. I can see how it could get in some animals by the fish having the lead in it's system from swallowing lead but the odds of swallowing a hole sinker or lead jig head is real hard to believe it happens often.

 

[Speckmisser]

Easy, if you read what Eric (Wildlife Branch) posted, you'd see that the DFG DID give input to the Commission, and that input suggested that a ban was NOT justified based on the evidence to date. The Commission acted against the DFG recommendations.

As far as their enforcement role, that is their job, regardless of how they may feel about the laws they enforce... no different from any other law enforcement officer.

There are two things we've got to work against here.

First is the lawsuit pressed against the state by the environmental organizations. This is under-reported, in my opinion, because it is THE driving factor. The F&GC and the legislature considered the cost of fighting this suit against the cost of upsetting the hunting community, and we lost.

It really doesn't matter if the Center for Biological Diversity and other groups had solid, compelling evidence to support their claims... once the suit was filed, the State had to effectively dispute those claims AND defend that evidence in court. That costs a lot of money, and takes a lot of time. That's really what it came down to... not science. Economics.

The problem is, these guys have been building their case for years. A large part of the condor reintroduction project was managed by the organizations who are now pushing for this ban, which means that all of the research going into it comes from their own sources. Meanwhile, DFG was thrown into a position of playing catch-up, and having to rely on data that was largely collected by the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

When the issue raised its head five or six years ago, the hunting industry and community largely blew it off as another "anti-hunting" conspiracy and really didn't do a damned thing about it. A lot of people are apparently still in that mindset, which is the second big challenge we face.

It doesn't take a genius to see who created this situation. Anti-hunters are all over this bandwagon. Duh! The question is, what are we going to do about it?

One of the key arguments against the lead ban was that it would cause hunters to drop out of the sport. Matthews's column provides some evidence that this may actually be happening. Is it really productive to take this opportunity to go on about his alleged "complicity" in the lead ban?

If we keep moving backwards to go on about what's in the past, we're gonna get left behind by those who are moving forward.

We have a lot of things stacked up against us in this issue. Not the least of them is this counter-productive bickering amongst our own community. If we can't come together we're falling apart...cliche or no, it's the truth.

Public perception is another one... it's hard to generate the general public's support for an issue that doesn't directly affect them. Whether or not we hunt makes no difference to them. If they believe we're poisoning their environment, on the other hand; then they're going to stand against us.

I don't know any other ways to say this... it doesn't make any difference right now if the science the condor people have presented is solid. The public believes it. At least two members of the Fish and Game Commission appear to believe it. And a lot of hunters believe it too.

If someone cannot PROVE that lead is not killing condors and other scavengers, then we need to accept the fact that we're not going to be able to turn the ban around. So what then?

There's a reality that we all need to face. There are efforts underway to prove that lead ammo is not a significant risk to scavengers, people, or the environment, but they will be fighting an uphill battle. I support those efforts, but I don't have high hopes. I'm no scientist, but I do know that drawing conclusive evidence out of a puzzle like this one is not that simple. I'm also no lawyer, but I know that countering a lawsuit takes more than simply arguing that something is or isn't so.

The State is poised to extend the ban to upland birds and small game this summer, and I wouldn't be completely shocked to see it happen. Maybe, if our community is vocal and active against an extension, we can hold it back. It's worth trying. But if we keep bickering, tearing one another down, going off on misinformation, and whining about anti-hunting conspiracies, we're not going to get anywhere in the long term.

And one more thing to keep in mind... with all the efforts to prove that lead ammo is not a threat to condors and scavenging birds, it's entirely possible that the science will show that it IS a problem. Then what?

 

[rodneyshishido]

Speckmisser-
Very well put!

You are soo correct that in the public arena, perception and not truth can be the overriding factor.

I for one would just like to know the truth. Quite frankly if all the scientific evidence points to lead ammo as being the problem, I would support the ban. In this day, there is so much misinformation and twisted truths being used to manipulate thinking, I often don't know who to believe.

 

[Speckmisser]

In this day, there is so much misinformation and twisted truths being used to manipulate thinking, I often don't know who to believe.

I think that's the real, unspoken problem. We don't know who to believe. We don't trust the media. We don't trust our government. We don't trust each other... The double-edged sword of the information age.

 

[easymoney]

Mr Misser, very well put.
And I admit, was baiting, "Easy, if you read what Eric (Wildlife Branch) posted, you'd see that the DFG DID give input to the Commission, and that input suggested that a ban was NOT justified based on the evidence to date. The Commission acted against the DFG recommendations",
to see if I could smoke out the DFG as to the logic and reasoning... And you're last post speaks volumes, "I think that's the real, unspoken problem. We don't know who to believe. We don't trust the media. We don't trust our government. We don't trust each other... The double-edged sword of the information age."
I for one don't trust the government nor the management of the agencies sworn to represent us taxpayers...
You are correct, that we alone need to take the bull by the horns and make our voices heard. I have done so, but I always wonder if anything I have sent ever gets read. I know it does not from our legislators, boxer, feintsein and pelosi. I get happy face replys "thanking me for my comments"...