# Banning lead bullets to save condors?



## truemule (Sep 12, 2007)

First lead, then copper jacketed, then....


----------



## Gumbo (Sep 22, 2007)

Sounds worthwhile to me to save the condor. Keep in mind it's only in areas where the condor lives.


----------



## callofthewild (Sep 7, 2007)

they are pushing for a total ban because as was said on the news last night it is not just the condors eating these gut piles but the bears could get lead poisoning as well. :roll: :roll: :roll: don't get me wrong i am all for saving the condor's from extintion all hunters probably feel the same way. but keep the options real.

i have heard that the state of arizona when you draw the kaibab will actually buy the hunter a couple of boxes of lead free bullets to use while on the hunt. that i can live with but a complete ban not so much.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

As a professional environmental policy analyst, I have to call bull crap on this one. The quotes in the article used the word "may cause" and not a single "have been proven to cause". This is another freaking example of extremist wildlife biologists going WAAAYYYYYY over the top. In wildlife biology school, don't they teach statistics? Don't they examine probability? Don't they research cause and effect relationships? This crap just drives me completely nuts. 

Just applying a couple of examples from my own hunting experiences to this scenario. In my life, I've killed 15 deer, two elk, one pronghorn and one bear. I've shot all of them with a 30-06. Of those 19 animals killed, 14 deer were 1-shot kills, 1 a two- shot. The elk were two shots each. Three hits on the pronghorn, and one shot one bear. So that comes out at 24 hits where there is potential to have a bullet somewhere in the animal. Of the 16 bullets that hit deer, 14 were complete pass throughs, and the other two were recovered - so far - no bullets for a condor to eat. Four hits on elk - two pass throughs, two recovered bullets - no bullets. Three pronghorn hits - two pass throughs - one bullet recovered. Bear - pass through. So in my lifetime of hunting thus far, no bullets have remained in the gut piles. I don't use some super hyped up magnums either - factory loaded 30-06. But assuming I didn't recover the bullets I did - 5 in total. Then figure they are in the gut pile somewhere. What are the chances a condor will fly by, and then once more, what are the chances it will consume the lead bullet? And if it does, I can tell you that lead poisoning won't do it in - it will be the shrapnel going down the gullet and through the digestive system. And that problem won't be solved by banning lead bullets!

This is such a load of biostitution (that's prostitution disguised as biology) I cannot believe it. I'm not a huge beliver in the vast conspiracy of liberals out there trying to take away my bullets, guns, and meat on the bbq, but this stinks of extreme "junk science" driven by some special interested wildlife biostitute in a cube somewhere with no concept of the real freaking world. This is garbage. If Utah's DWR caves on this one, it shows they are a bunch of absolute wuss dogs who have no clue or care about reality in their chosen science. Paaallleeezzzzz. 

The scary part on this one if your keeping score folks, is that the condors don't stick around Zion. They have followed the Colorado River drainage all the way to Flaming Gorge, and have been officially sighted and tracked from Zion to the Gorge. That includes areas like the Henry's, Book Cliffs, Pausegaunt, and Diamond Mountain. Sound like some of the best deer units in the State? This is some scary stuff here folks.


----------



## Al Hansen (Sep 7, 2007)

It happened with the ducks it can happen with anything. :idea: How bout they outlaw politicians for all the crap they put out to pollute the envirement. :mrgreen:


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I get it with ducks. Hundreds of pellets with each shot - millions of ducks. The math is different. The math doesn't work for the condors.


----------



## chuckmiester (Sep 9, 2007)

> Ideology, as opposed to science, is driving public policy and has been for years.


too true.


----------



## Petersen (Sep 7, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> As a professional environmental policy analyst, I have to call bull crap on this one. The quotes in the article used the word "may cause" and not a single "have been proven to cause". This is another freaking example of extremist wildlife biologists going WAAAYYYYYY over the top. In wildlife biology school, don't they teach statistics? Don't they examine probability? Don't they research cause and effect relationships? This crap just drives me completely nuts.


I'm not so sure that there isn't some good science taking place regarding lead poisoning in California condors. Here are some links to abstracts, peer-reviewed journal articles, and final reports of scientific studies.


Assessment of Lead Contamination Sources Exposing California Condors
Molecular fingerprinting leads [/*:m:dc3cb][*]to culprit in condor lead poisoning[/*:m:dc3cb]
Survival and Reproduction of California Condors Released in Arizona[/*:m:dc3cb]
Condors and Lead[/*:m:dc3cb]
Bullet Fragments in Deer Remains: Implications for Lead Exposure to Avian Scanvengers[/*:m:dc3cb]
Bullet Fragmentation Study: Supplementary Data[/*:m:dc3cb]
I can't vouch for the accuracy or validity of these studies, but a quick read through some of them doesn't provide me with a good reason to simply dismiss them. So if lead bullets are threatening North America's largest bird with extinction, is it worth switching over to non-lead ammunition to save them?


----------



## grousehunter (Sep 11, 2007)

It seems that the gun owners in California have given up or they have just completely lost, so odds are that they will ban lead in the people's republic of California. They just effectively banned all new guns due to the micro-stamping issue. As for the lead being dangerous for the Condors, if those biologists aren't intelligent enough to know that loss of habitat is the problem not lead than there is no reason to argue with them. Why is habitat loss so hard to understand, if you displace animals and they cannot survive in another area they will die. Lets focus on the real problem, not some iffy hypothesis.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

I guess my question is why are we keeping the Condor alive anyway? He has LONG LONG overlasted his stay on this earth. He is a leftover from a time when huge herds of animals roamed our continent leaving abundant carrion available for him to consume. Extinction is a nature and normal part of our earth's wildlife history and I m not sure our interference keeping him alive is not just as bad as any interference mankind might have in our taking part in the demise of any species. Man has played a very very minor, if any, part in the slow extinction of this magnificent bird and we should not try and ease our conscience about past mistakes by keeping this bird alive under un-natural manmade conditions.


----------



## tapehoser (Sep 10, 2007)

I know, I know! Let's ban water to prevent drownings!!!


----------



## grousehunter (Sep 11, 2007)

Just a guess, but I don't think lead ammunition and condors are what’s behind this. It's the reason we are shooting steel out of our shotguns. This is about hunting and gun ownership, look at the cost difference between lead and steel shot. Steel is out, for rifle and pistol ammo because using steel equals armor piercing, Mr. Hillary already banned it in the nineties. So I guess it will have to be tungsten or another exotic metal, anti's are easy to see through if you remember their other crackpot theories. If we cave on this then it’s just one more step in their master plan. They can’t convince everyone guns are evil so they use emotions or endangered species to get what they want, I may be wrong but I believe this same argument was used to for the Eagle. The Eagle just moved off the endangered list and lead wasn’t banned.


----------

