Schwarzenegger signs California lead-bullet ban

[Speckmisser]

Free, I had the same thoughts about not banning lead for varmints/small game too, but according to the "experts", condors don't eat small game like ground squirrels and birds, so it's not supposed to matter to them.

What I'm most interested in right now is hearing whether they'll find funding to provide the free ammo vouchers. I have doubts, but it'd be good for a lot of people if they do. It would be ideal of they could base the vouchers on a needs basis, so the people who honestly can't afford to go to non-lead would have first dibs. Probably too complicated, but it would be worthwhile.

 

[Caninelaw]

I saw a great video on the Barnes X bullets...after seeing that I think I could live without lead, (At least for rifle bullets), in fact I was thinking of changing to them anyway. Now, don't think I'm happy about the new law. I would rather be able to choose, but I'm just sayin' there's a good alternative (at least from what I've seen).

 

[Common Sense]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Speckmisser @ Oct 27 2007, 10:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

I have doubts, but it'd be good for a lot of people if they do. It would be ideal of they could base the vouchers on a needs basis, so the people who honestly can't afford to go to non-lead would have first dibs. Probably too complicated, but it would be worthwhile.[/b]

My guess is the folks who "honestly" can't afford it will not have a license, tag, or abide by open seasons or bag limits.

Ammo is the least expensive part of our pasttime.


(But I still don't like the law.)

 

[myfriendis410]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sfhoghunter @ Oct 23 2007, 07:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Although I'm not really happy with the lead bullet ban, it seems to me that there is enough evidence to justify the new law. It is easy to refuse to compromise on these types of issues, but the relatively minor inconvenience from banning lead bullets in that area is justified if it makes a difference in the survival of an entire species.

The only people to really be affected are those that can no longer hunt with their preferred firearms, because no pure copper ammo is available. I often shoot ammo loaded with barnes out of my 25-06, and it does an exceptional job at putting down hogs.

This might be an unpopular sentiment, but from a practical standpoint, what's the big deal?[/b]

Here's the big deal: does the ban cover shotgun shells too? You bet! So, come dove season next year, Dad's old .410 gets to stay in the safe, 'cause there ain't ever going to be non lead .410 shells. The only equivalent to lead is Tungsten/Iron at $3.00 per shell in 12 and 20 gauge. Yeah, I'm going bird hunting with that. So, bird hunters are screwed, and if you only hunt big game and don't care, believe me your time is coming! I like to use a 28 gauge on quail--guess what? No luck there either.

 

[pbrdog]

It doesn't effect shotshells or rimfire cartridges. Yet.

 

[Jean]

Just wondered if that "Commission Approved Ammunition"will include my reloads. The wording in this casts some doubt in my mind. When we have a commission that is friendly toward hunters it would get written up to allow this. If we get a bunch of PETAphiles in the commission, we have a bigger problem.

I've done a little bullet casting and reloading and thought it was pretty neat. Still looking forward to bringing home dinner with a home built round.

Jean

 

[myfriendis410]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pbrdog @ Oct 30 2007, 07:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

It doesn't effect shotshells or rimfire cartridges. Yet.[/b]

Tell that to the people hunting Camp Roberts and FHL.

 

[pbrdog]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (myfriendis410 @ Oct 31 2007, 10:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pbrdog @ Oct 30 2007, 07:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It doesn't effect shotshells or rimfire cartridges. Yet.[/b]

Tell that to the people hunting Camp Roberts and FHL.
[/b][/quote]

Is it going to effect Vandenberg? I haven't heard anything.

 

[myfriendis410]

Nothing yet. My understanding is they are going to go along with the State guys when they pull it out. We are pretty far from their area though. Only time will tell.

Hogs are moving. Seeing lots of pigs right now. We got a bit of rain and it softened things up a bit.

 

[snake river rufus]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sfhoghunter @ Oct 23 2007, 09:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Although I'm not really happy with the lead bullet ban, it seems to me that there is enough evidence to justify the new law. It is easy to refuse to compromise on these types of issues, but the relatively minor inconvenience from banning lead bullets in that area is justified if it makes a difference in the survival of an entire species.

The only people to really be affected are those that can no longer hunt with their preferred firearms, because no pure copper ammo is available. I often shoot ammo loaded with barnes out of my 25-06, and it does an exceptional job at putting down hogs.

This might be an unpopular sentiment, but from a practical standpoint, what's the big deal?[/b]

The problem is that there has not been a single biologist working on these studies. No DVMs either. The closest thing to an expert was a physicist from Berkley IIRC. The studies have been deeply flawed, seems that the scientific method has no place if there is a political agenda. Lead is toxic to waterfowl, the shot remains in the craw for long periods of time and they ingest it often. Raptors do not have craws to the best of my knowledge. A lead bullet, if ingested, will pass through a condors digestive track in less than a day. I can't believe any condor is eating enough bullets to make a fair comparison. They have systems but no link to causation, they just made one up.
Much of the above information came from the Vet. @ the sedgwick co. zoo.

 

[Rancho Loco]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (snake river rufus @ Nov 3 2007, 06:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sfhoghunter @ Oct 23 2007, 09:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Although I'm not really happy with the lead bullet ban, it seems to me that there is enough evidence to justify the new law. It is easy to refuse to compromise on these types of issues, but the relatively minor inconvenience from banning lead bullets in that area is justified if it makes a difference in the survival of an entire species.

The only people to really be affected are those that can no longer hunt with their preferred firearms, because no pure copper ammo is available. I often shoot ammo loaded with barnes out of my 25-06, and it does an exceptional job at putting down hogs.

This might be an unpopular sentiment, but from a practical standpoint, what's the big deal?[/b]

The problem is that there has not been a single biologist working on these studies. No DVMs either. The closest thing to an expert was a physicist from Berkley IIRC. The studies have been deeply flawed, seems that the scientific method has no place if there is a political agenda. Lead is toxic to waterfowl, the shot remains in the craw for long periods of time and they ingest it often. Raptors do not have craws to the best of my knowledge. A lead bullet, if ingested, will pass through a condors digestive track in less than a day. I can't believe any condor is eating enough bullets to make a fair comparison. They have systems but no link to causation, they just made one up.
Much of the above information came from the Vet. @ the sedgwick co. zoo.
[/b][/quote]

Whether you agree with it or not, or if the science is enought to satisfy you or not - Bios have worked on this.

And raptors do have crops.

 

[snake river rufus]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rancho Loco @ Nov 3 2007, 11:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (snake river rufus @ Nov 3 2007, 06:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sfhoghunter @ Oct 23 2007, 09:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Although I'm not really happy with the lead bullet ban, it seems to me that there is enough evidence to justify the new law. It is easy to refuse to compromise on these types of issues, but the relatively minor inconvenience from banning lead bullets in that area is justified if it makes a difference in the survival of an entire species.

The only people to really be affected are those that can no longer hunt with their preferred firearms, because no pure copper ammo is available. I often shoot ammo loaded with barnes out of my 25-06, and it does an exceptional job at putting down hogs.

This might be an unpopular sentiment, but from a practical standpoint, what's the big deal?[/b]

The problem is that there has not been a single biologist working on these studies. No DVMs either. The closest thing to an expert was a physicist from Berkley IIRC. The studies have been deeply flawed, seems that the scientific method has no place if there is a political agenda. Lead is toxic to waterfowl, the shot remains in the craw for long periods of time and they ingest it often. Raptors do not have craws to the best of my knowledge. A lead bullet, if ingested, will pass through a condors digestive track in less than a day. I can't believe any condor is eating enough bullets to make a fair comparison. They have systems but no link to causation, they just made one up.
Much of the above information came from the Vet. @ the sedgwick co. zoo.
[/b][/quote]

Whether you agree with it or not, or if the science is enought to satisfy you or not - Bios have worked on this.

And raptors do have crops.
[/b][/quote]

Please cite your source.

 

[Rancho Loco]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (snake river rufus @ Nov 3 2007, 10:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rancho Loco @ Nov 3 2007, 11:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (snake river rufus @ Nov 3 2007, 06:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sfhoghunter @ Oct 23 2007, 09:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Although I'm not really happy with the lead bullet ban, it seems to me that there is enough evidence to justify the new law. It is easy to refuse to compromise on these types of issues, but the relatively minor inconvenience from banning lead bullets in that area is justified if it makes a difference in the survival of an entire species.

The only people to really be affected are those that can no longer hunt with their preferred firearms, because no pure copper ammo is available. I often shoot ammo loaded with barnes out of my 25-06, and it does an exceptional job at putting down hogs.

This might be an unpopular sentiment, but from a practical standpoint, what's the big deal?[/b]

The problem is that there has not been a single biologist working on these studies. No DVMs either. The closest thing to an expert was a physicist from Berkley IIRC. The studies have been deeply flawed, seems that the scientific method has no place if there is a political agenda. Lead is toxic to waterfowl, the shot remains in the craw for long periods of time and they ingest it often. Raptors do not have craws to the best of my knowledge. A lead bullet, if ingested, will pass through a condors digestive track in less than a day. I can't believe any condor is eating enough bullets to make a fair comparison. They have systems but no link to causation, they just made one up.
Much of the above information came from the Vet. @ the sedgwick co. zoo.
[/b][/quote]

Whether you agree with it or not, or if the science is enought to satisfy you or not - Bios have worked on this.

And raptors do have crops.
[/b][/quote]

Please cite your source.
[/b][/quote]


http://www.ucsc.edu/news_events/press_rele...ext.asp?pid=927

http://www.google.com/search?q=vulture+con...n-US%3Aofficial

Any other requests?

 

[snake river rufus]

Other than being authored by a grad student the first one looks OK. I've e-mailed her to see if I can get a printable copy on-line. I would note that there were no biologists on that study. I'll check the other reference later.

 

[bayedsolid]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Please cite your source.[/b]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

http://www.ucsc.edu/news_events/press_rele...ext.asp?pid=927

http://www.google.com/search?q=vulture+con...n-US%3Aofficial

Any other requests?[/b]

Oooooooh. So condescending as usual Rancho. Bravo!
A study from a hippy at UC Hippytown and a google search.......I'm sold!

 

[Rancho Loco]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bayedsolid @ Nov 4 2007, 09:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

Please cite your source.[/b]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

http://www.ucsc.edu/news_events/press_rele...ext.asp?pid=927

http://www.google.com/search?q=vulture+con...n-US%3Aofficial

Any other requests?[/b]

Oooooooh. So condescending as usual Rancho. Bravo!
A study from a hippy at UC Hippytown and a google search.......I'm sold!
[/b][/quote]

Thanx! Make sure you ring me up with one star in my profile. If I work hard enough today I can get it down to two overall.

As for my sources, do you disagree only on an ad homineum level, or is there some inaccuracy with the subject findings that you have identified?

 

[Rancho Loco]

Thanx Snake River. I'm at two stars now!!

 

[snake river rufus]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bayedsolid @ Nov 4 2007, 11:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

Please cite your source.[/b]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

http://www.ucsc.edu/news_events/press_rele...ext.asp?pid=927

http://www.google.com/search?q=vulture+con...n-US%3Aofficial

Any other requests?[/b]

Oooooooh. So condescending as usual Rancho. Bravo!
A study from a hippy at UC Hippytown and a google search.......I'm sold!
[/b][/quote]
Actually, I googled their toxicologist and he looks pretty good
http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabpeople.nsf/...to?OpenDocument

But the studoes author is a greenie with statements in print pre-judging lead as an enviromental danger. The test protocals need to be looked at closely.

 

[WildlifeBranch]

While I would not go as far as Snake River did, we in CDFG do have some concern that some of the work is being done, and conclusions being drawn, by scientists who are not ecologists/biologists. There are however biologists involved in the condor work, as there are DVMs.

Condor work can surely be shown to need more work on food habits and behavior-- ie more field studies than laboratory studies. Hopefully, this last year of focus and scrambling has adequately shown where data on condor and what affects them are lacking.

In the biologist/ecologist versu DVM thinking, there has long been concern that DVM's were too focused on the individual animal while we bio/ecol. types think in terms of populations.

Snake R. (or others) -- send an email to wildlifestrategy@dfg.ca.gov with "method of take" in the subject to get the env. doc. on this topic from dfg. Suggest looking at App. 3.

AZ game & fish website also has some of the science-- AZ situation is way different than CA though.

 

[bayedsolid]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

As for my sources, do you disagree only on an ad homineum level, or is there some inaccuracy with the subject findings that you have identified?[/b]

Those bastards wouldn't let me in to work on my own toxicology report. Go figure. I do however have a report on the detremental olfactory effects that UCSC is having on the surroundings. Wrote it up all on my own and I'm not letting a single one of those hippies have any say on MY findings.
There is one thing I am sure of, if you asked them, those same 'experts' doing the Condor studies could produce numerous documents on how all hunters are the devil.
So...how are you smelling these days bud?