PDA

View Full Version : anyone ever see California Condor???


Ranger Al
January 28, 2008, 02:13 AM
80% (prime hunting areas) of California hunting lands will be require to use "non-toxic ammo"...
I'v seen the pic and it is urgly bird! Anyone ever use these non-toxic ammo, not suppose to have any trace of lead?

check out the website... http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/condor/


Al

grymster2007
January 28, 2008, 08:01 AM
I've seen them at The Pinnacles National Monument. It's a huge bird.

BIGR
January 28, 2008, 10:49 AM
I saw some at the Grand Canyon. It is a big ugly bird :eek: with a long wingspan.

Scorch
January 28, 2008, 12:05 PM
I saw one years ago at Pinnacles National Monument. It is in what used to be called their "core area".

Nontoxic bullets are generally available (Barnes makes bullets out of solid copper). IIRC, Federal Premium comes loaded with Barnes bullets.

tyrajam
January 29, 2008, 11:08 PM
The triple shok is a solid copper bullet that functions as well as anything from what I've read, never shot them myself. This is more krazy kalifornia regs, how many condors do you think ever honestly ate a lead bullet from a gutpile?? Talk about a one in a million chance...

Ranger Al
January 29, 2008, 11:23 PM
Are you sure it wasn't "turkey vulture"? They too are big and urgly bird. I don't think any of the condo are killed by lead bullet. Just some stupid activist from Sexcramento who doesn't know what to do with their spare time! There is going to be alots of criminals out of good hunters this coming hunting season in California.

As for the condo, it is on the way to extinct. We should let it go along with the dinos and leave the hunters alone.

Fat White Boy
January 29, 2008, 11:48 PM
They eat good, too! Somewhere between a Bald Eagle and a Spotted Owl...

Sgt.Fathead
January 30, 2008, 01:10 AM
They've got one at the Bronx Zoo and it looked none too happy. I wouldn't want to live in a cage in the Bronx either...

grymster2007
January 30, 2008, 12:27 PM
Are you sure it wasn't "turkey vulture"? They too are big and urgly bird.

I have lots of turkey vultures around my house and while large, they are nowhere near the size of a CA Condor. I think a 6 foot wingspan and 3 or 4 lbs is average for a turkey vulture whereas the condor goes something like a 10 foot wingspan and 15 lbs.

williamd
January 30, 2008, 03:31 PM
In the wild in mtns north of LA ... not far from Reagan Ranch. Then, often in the San Diego Wild Animal Park! :D

Yep, big. At the Park there are usually vultures around for easy comparison.

These things are real exciting (as are vultures, eagles, geese, ...) when in a small plane! :eek:

Beretta16
January 30, 2008, 04:20 PM
Maybe they should also ban planes in kali because there's a risk of them getting hit by one.

JJE
January 30, 2008, 04:25 PM
I saw a pair over 30 years ago at either the LA or San Diego Zoo. Never in the wild. Maybe when I visit the Grand Canyon this spring.

Ranger Al
January 31, 2008, 02:00 AM
wow! Big and urgly bird! I still vote for them to be on their way with the dinos...:D

BlondieStomp
January 31, 2008, 02:10 AM
i saw a few at the grand canyon. They're really big. Silly california gun grabbing under the guise of environmentalism.

The Tourist
January 31, 2008, 02:41 AM
One of the best pastimes we all share is getting away from our jobs and spending our vacation or hunting in pristine areas.

I don't know about you guys, but unless you're a varmint hunter, you might expend perhaps one box of cartridges during the entire gun season in your area. And frankly, no one requires you to hunt in a condor area. You can go wherever you wish.

I'm a reloader. If I had to buy/cast a bullet out of non-toxic materials for a hunt, what's the problem? A four-wheel drive truck costs tens of thousands of dollars. A decent rifle and scope might cost another grand. Even warm hunting clothes and boots are several hundred dollars. And then there's fuel costs to the area...

So let's figure way off the charts. Let's say that "Chico's Magic Condor Free Bullets" cost ten bucks a pop. Even if it took a Mr. Magoo a five shot spray out of his semi-automatic rifle to drop his deer, it would still cost less than his pair of boots or restaurant food for a complete day.

The woman who sang at my wedding is using a box of 30-30 cartridges that are no longer produced. She fires one round for one deer. Yikes, if I charged her 100 bucks for every cartridge, it would still be the cheapest part of her hunt.

I don't want to breathe air from Gary, Indiana. I want to go where I don't have to chew the air I inhale. So what if I use a 'green bullet' for hunting. Just exactly how many rounds do you guys need to drop one animal?

JohnKSa
January 31, 2008, 03:49 AM
If I had to buy/cast a bullet out of non-toxic materials for a hunt, what's the problem?The point is that they passed this law on the basis of information that was known to be, at best, ambiguous.

Our government should not be placing restrictions on the people (even restrictions that aren't particularly onerous) merely on the basis of what a few people think MIGHT be a good idea.

When the government adds to the restrictions it places on its citizens, it should have to demonstrate why those restrictions are NECESSARY by providing hard facts. It's NOT ok to pass laws simply because they don't cost the citizenry very much.You can go wherever you wish.No, you can NOT go wherever you wish if where you wish is now part of the restricted area.

The whole premise of your post is badly flawed. The idea that it is possible justify a law purely on the basis that it doesn't cost the citizens very much is antithetical to the ideas that this nation was founded upon.

The Tourist
January 31, 2008, 04:10 AM
Our government should not be placing restrictions on the people (even restrictions that aren't particularly onerous) merely on the basis of what a few people think MIGHT be a good idea.

We agree more than you think. As you know we are also having a debate on how many song-birds are being projected to be killed.

To that end, I cast bullets--for almost four decades--lead bullets. As a boy I remember the Milwaukee Gun Club shooting skeet over open water so the shot and clay birds would fall "harmlessly" into the river. We know better now.

The first thing we tell kids is not to eat paint. We recall Chinese toys and I've had my blood checked.

I'd cast bismuth if I had supplies and someone taught me how.

I don't think the range of a condor ties up that much land, nor is a hunter chained to one area. Lots of people come to Wisconsin, I go to South Dakota. Big deal.

The whole concept of Ducks Unlimited was a good one for both hunters and conservationists. This is just another facet of that idea. We just can't go on poisoning things out of carelessness.

grymster2007
January 31, 2008, 08:06 AM
We just can't go on poisoning things out of carelessness

Wise

When the government adds to the restrictions it places on its citizens, it should have to demonstrate why those restrictions are NECESSARY by providing hard facts

Wise

Silly california gun grabbing under the guise of environmentalism.

Wise

I still vote for them to be on their way with the dinos

Not so wise.

How about when deer, moose, hogs, ducks and elk are "on their way with the dinos"? I think then, we'll be on our "way with the dinos"!

Barber2678
January 31, 2008, 09:10 AM
I saw two condors at the Grand Canyon back in '99. It was a very neat sight.

People have a hard time with lead, but most don't understand how it can affect you. It has to be in dissolved form for your body to absorb. That is why a lead bullet in your leg (or elsewhere) will not kill you (if you make it through the being shot part).

JohnKSa
January 31, 2008, 10:46 PM
As you know we are also having a debate on how many song-birds are being projected to be killed.The two debates are not similar.

While the absolute number of song-birds killed may be in question (as with any estimate), the study leaves no doubt that the magnitude of the problem is significant. There is also no doubt as to what is killing the songbirds and no contradictory studies have surfaced, to my knowledge.

The bullet ban under discussion on this thread was based on a study which claimed that the source of lead found in condor blood was from lead bullets but omitted critical data which contradicted the conclusion of the study. Further studies to determine the source of the lead indicated that it could not be traced to the use of lead bullets in hunting. The law was passed anyway.

In one case the evidence is clear, only the exact size of the problem is in question--and even if the number from the study were found to be a magnitude too large, the problem is still critical. In the second case there is both contradictory evidence and a lack of evidence.I don't think the range of a condor ties up that much land...Looks like a lot to me. (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/condor/docs/Ridley-TreeCondorPreservationAct.pdf) But the point is moot--it is logically bankrupt to justify laws purely on the basis that they won't hurt people too much. There needs to be a clear and verifiable benefit.

stinger
January 31, 2008, 11:37 PM
To me, the biggest part of the ban is that it is only the first of many steps. I bet that if this ban holds up for five more years, it will also have spread throughout most of the state, and maybe into other western states.

It won't be long that lead bullets will be banned at shooting ranges as well because mosquitos *might* be put at risk from lead poisoning.

The Tourist
February 1, 2008, 12:51 AM
It won't be long that lead bullets will be banned at shooting ranges as well because mosquitos *might* be put at risk from lead poisoning.

In a very realistic way, I can easily see where lead will be phased out of bullet making. And I'm not even sure it's a bad idea. The constant refinement in making firearms has been going on for many centuries.

Look, even the way we make primers has changed a lot since WWII.

I've cast bullets for several decades. I remember when I started. I used to "gang cast" with a riding buddy in his basement. He was a smoker, and we cast, smoked, even drank coffee and ate lunch down there exposing ourselves to every toxin under the sun.

Within just a few years, we cast outside using masks and eye protection. And I no longer kept ingots inside my home.

Now we no longer even let children play with Chinese toys, much less lick them.

I can see a time very soon when bullets will be cast of bismuth, or entirely encapsulated. Would it be so bad if our plinking bullets were made from a completely inert material?

In Wisconsin, war materials for Vietnam were made on a huge chunk of land we call Badger Ordnance. This facility was handled in such a sloppy manner that fires were commonplace, spills were everywhere and now base metals leach into ground water.

There is a scene in the movie Erin Brochovich where water is served to polluters taken from their own wells. They decide not to drink it.

I don't think the most diehard lead bullet fan would drink water from the Badger Ordnance aquifer, unless you're not getting enough mercury, lead, and other base metals several times the limits designated by government as dangerous.

I don't think I'd even wash my truck in that stuff.

JohnKSa
February 1, 2008, 03:12 AM
Would it be so bad if our plinking bullets were made from a completely inert material?As long as people didn't mind their plinking ammo costing them around 10 times more--and that price difference would increase as the demand for Bismuth went up as a result of the switchover from lead. Lead is also more dense which makes for a better ballistic coefficient, all things being equal and is about 3 times softer than Bismuth. The softness of lead is a big plus for the king of the plinking calibers, the .22LR. I doubt that there are many .22LR firearms with bores that would hold up to much use with projectiles that are made of the harder Bismuth.Look, even the way we make primers has changed a lot since WWII.YES, they've gotten a lot better--and now they contain lead. :D

Seriously, the elimination of lead projectiles is not a "refinement" of firearms design, it is actually a step backwards in terms of firearm performance. There may be other benefits from eliminating lead bullets, but to imply that it's a good idea from a firearms design standpoint is not based in fact.I don't think the most diehard lead bullet fan would drink water from the Badger Ordnance aquifer...It would be more reasonable to say something like: "I don't think the most diehard carbon tetrachloride fan would drink water from the Badger Ordnance aquifer..." In other words, while it's a spectacularly good example of manmade pollution it's hardly a problem caused by "lead bullets".

Ranger Al
February 1, 2008, 12:48 PM
I am with "Stinger" If you looks at the map where it is being regulated. These lands are all unpopulated and the area in between are filled with cities and highways. You have to ask yourself, it is like a spong sooner or later they would creap upward toward the north. When Billy Clinton was at the endd of his term, he "monumented some of the prime hunting ground near King Canyon National Park". I am thinking of if Hillary take office we are going to lost more hunting ground or won't be able to own gun.

Fokes, please go to the poll and vote and vote wisly. Politicians are all evils, we just have to vote for the lesser of the evil one.

The Tourist
February 1, 2008, 01:09 PM
As long as people didn't mind their plinking ammo costing them around 10 times more

Initially, I agree. But I also feel that any innovation, like computers and cell phones, gets cheaper as technology progresses.

Sure, I like to shoot and drive my motorcycle. But the fact is that we can't keep treating the world like a toilet without some serious side effects.

Lots of people like to come to certain areas in Wisconsin to see a thriving bald eagle population. We almost lost our national system by over using DDT which softens their eggs. I don't know what causes CWD, but we could lose our deer and elk if it goes unchecked.

We make adjustments in all facets of technology. For example, anybody can easily see the refinements in my 2004 Dyna when compared with a 1930's flathead Harley. Time marches on.

And frankly, I don't want to live in a world where every breath smells like an ashtray, or the soil is tainted with mercury, the fish are dying and the forest game are scarce. Do you really want an EPA filter has to be attached to everything? We already have a problem with litter from old computers and cell phones and that's a new wrinkle less than 20 years old.

Perhaps the problem is the condor. It's not a cute animal nor do many hunters want one.

However, if trophy bucks where dying at an alarming rate, or withering down to 80 pounds with racks not fit to display, the same hunters would be marching on Washington demanding an answer.

In my area there's Wyalusing State Park. Ever since I was kid there's been a monument to the idea of sloth, filth, greed and over hunting. It's a monument to the Passenger Pigeon.

http://www.ulala.org/P_Pigeon/Monument.html

This is the future of hunting if we don't start cleaning up our messes and begin thinking beyond the end of our noses.

JohnKSa
February 1, 2008, 11:36 PM
Initially, I agree. But I also feel that any innovation, like computers and cell phones, gets cheaper as technology progresses.Not the same thing. Technology gets cheaper the more people buy it because of advances in manufacturing during the product's lifespan and because the more copies of a product that are sold, the thinner the development/design costs can be spread.

Metals and other natural resources are priced based mostly on supply and demand. Lead is far more plentiful than bismuth so it costs much less. Bismuth prices will DEFINITELY not come down with more demand (caused by the switchover from lead) unless someone suddenly discovers a huge new supply of bismuth. In other words, it ain't gonna happen. It's as good now as it's ever gonna be--the more people forced to use bismuth, the higher the prices will go.Sure, I like to shoot and drive my motorcycle. But the fact is that we can't keep treating the world like a toilet without some serious side effects.No one, not even the far left environmental wackos are saying that lead bullets are turning the world into a toilet. In fact, the study that resulted in the law in question turned up evidence that contradicted the conclusion that lead bullets were the problem in this situation. EVEN if they were, the effect is so minor as to only be an issue for one particular species that has LONG been endangered for other reasons.And frankly, I don't want to live in a world where every breath smells like an ashtray, or the soil is tainted with mercury, the fish are dying and the forest game are scarce. Frankly I can't understand why you won't discuss the topic at hand instead of trying to turn this thread into a broad-based rant against pollution in general. Nobody likes pollution, but implying that lead bullets make "every breath smell", "taint the soil with mercury", cause fish to die or make forest game scarce is REALLY a stretch.almost lost our national system by over using DDT which softens their eggs.Has NOTHING to do with lead or lead bullets.I don't know what causes CWD, but we could lose our deer and elk if it goes unchecked.Has NOTHING to do with lead, lead bullets or pollutants, PERIOD. The most likely cause for CWD proliferation is overpopulation, it's a prion disease.It's not a cute animal nor do many hunters want one.Has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING. This thread is not about hunting condors (it's been illegal for decades) so whether or not "hunters want one" is about as completely irrelevant as is possible to imagine.In my area there's Wyalusing State Park. Ever since I was kid there's been a monument to the idea of sloth, filth, greed and over hunting. It's a monument to the Passenger Pigeon.TOTALLY irrelevant. This thread is not about sloth, filth, greed or over hunting. It's about people passing laws that restrict hunting based on studies which are not supportable.

The reason you're railing about pollution in general, sloth, filth, greed, mercury, DDT, overhunting, Badger Ordnance, CWD, etc. is because, like the people that passed the law you have no evidence that lead bullets are actually causing any problems with condors. Therefore the only thing to do is to try to make the law sound like a good idea in general based on the idea that it's going to reduce pollution overall (it won't, lead isn't CREATED, it's not a manmade substance--all the lead that will ever exist already exists now and always has) and that the impact of the law will be minimal.

In other words:

"We can't prove the law will do what it's supposed to do, but it seems like a good idea--and anyway, it won't bother anyone very much. Ok, so everyone who hates pollution raise your hand... GREAT, the motion carries."

That is NOT the way laws should be made.

ActivShootr
February 2, 2008, 02:02 PM
Could lead bullets be killing condors? Sure. Where is the proof? Does anyone know the gutpile to condor ratio? How many of these gutpiles contained bullets vs. how many were pass thru shots? How many were taken with archery equipment. Its easy to blame hunters for the decline of a speices. Its harder to prove it.







(No condors were harmed during the posting of this thread)

The Tourist
February 2, 2008, 02:22 PM
John, I might not be referring to the condor issue as a singular conservation problem, however it is part of a mindset that has to change in this country.

For example, will condors "eat bullets" and be exposed to lead? Probably not, but we shouldn't be poisoning land. Will a 4-wheeler destroy a lot of land. Probably not, but he leaves a mark. Will a lazy mechnaic who releases CFC out of an older automobile's A/C instead of capturing it destroy the ozone? Probably not, but it is a slothful practice.

And taken as cumulative acts over time will the areas become toilets? Of course they will. Think of Gary, Indiana or California smog or rivers that catch fire or bald eagles that almost foolishly slipped away.

And then think of successes like Ducks Unlimited.

As I've stated, the last time I went to The Badlands I saw cigarette butts all over the trails. Probably from an idiot vcationing from back east who thought, hey what's the harm in tossing one butt.

Coupled with slob hunters, waste from paper factories, cadium spills from industry, guys who won't tune their vehicles, and disrepect for public land, I'm surprised there's clean air and game anywhere.

A few years ago I went so deep into the wilderness there was no trail, and I got a little panicky about finding my way out. Then I tripped over something. It was a Mountain Dew can.

I hiked into Indian land and found a perfectly formed dry falls cistern with layered strata so beautiful it almost made me cry. On one of the stones was graffiti, "Harvey rocks!"

You don't need to chuck lead into the few areas where condors live. Yikes, you have the entire rest of the whole fracken USA, Alaska and parts of Canada. But I get the idea that if there was a four-lane to Hawaii there would be four-wheelers ripping up Maui.

JohnKSa
February 2, 2008, 10:35 PM
John, I might not be referring to the condor issue as a singular conservation problem, however it is part of a mindset that has to change in this country.No, it's not. Pollution is a mindset that has to change, but this thread is not about pollution. This thread is about a law that was created when the evidence did not warrant that action. It's about restricting people when there's no evidence that the restriction will have the intended beneficial result--when, in fact there's evidence that it will NOT....we shouldn't be poisoning land.Who could argue with that? The only problem is that a few lead bullets every year (as you pointed out earlier in this thread) do not amount to "poisoning land", especially since lead is a naturally occurring substance in that area. Adding a few ounces (or even a pound or two) a year spread over and around 10-20 counties could hardly be called "poisoning land".Think of Gary, Indiana or California smog or rivers that catch fire or bald eagles that almost foolishly slipped away.Nobody wants those things--fortunately hunting with lead bullets where condors range won't cause any of those things. So while it's great to oppose pollution in general, that still doesn't create sufficient rationale for banning the use of lead bullets where condors range....I saw cigarette butts all over the trails.Irrelevant. Cigarette butts do not occur naturally in nature, lead does. In fact, the second study indicated that the naturally occurring lead in the area was a more likely cause for the condor's elevated blood lead levels than bullets.Will a lazy mechnaic who releases CFC out of an older automobile's A/C instead of capturing it destroy the ozone? Probably not, but it is a slothful practice.
Lazy mechanics are not hunters, CFC is not lead bullets, hunting with lead bullets is not a "slothful practice."I hiked into Indian land and found a perfectly formed dry falls cistern with layered strata so beautiful it almost made me cry. On one of the stones was graffiti, "Harvey rocks!"Graffiti is not lead bullets, stones are not condors. Lead bullets do not destroy the beauty of "Indian land".Will a 4-wheeler destroy a lot of land. Probably not, but he leaves a mark.4-wheelers are not lead bullets.

Do I REALLY need to keep doing this?You don't need to chuck lead into the few areas where condors live.We're not talking about dumping lead into the environment, we're talking about a few hunting bullets spread over several hundred square miles. If it doesn't cause any problems (and to date it has not been shown to cause any problems) then there should be no restrictions placed on the citizenry. Laws should not be created to solve nonexistent problems.For example, will condors "eat bullets" and be exposed to lead?Now, THERE'S a sentence that's actually on the topic of the thread. And it's one that I agree with wholeheartedly.

The Tourist
February 3, 2008, 02:18 AM
John, a buddy of mine told me that before I marry a woman I should look inside her car. The philosophy is that the way she treats things, people and possessions can be ascertained by the condition of her car.

I believe that. In fact, you could tell a lot about my Dad by looking at how he kept his workshop. I've had surgery in operatories that weren't as neat.

And so it is with a man's hunting, the way he keeps his tools, where he tosses his litter, his treatment of his clients and even the manner in which he takes care of children and small animals.

I see a guy flip a cigarette butt or an empty soda can and I will bet real money on how he treats people and resources.

If I was invited to hunt in an area inhabited by our returning bald eagle population (or any stressed species), I'd simply reload my hunting rounds with Barnes bullets or other copper bullets. I'm a reloader, a box of fifty bullets would last me a lifetime, I make my hunting ammo anyway, and it's correct thinking. It might be nothing, but so was monitoring our use of DDT.

There's another big reason, and we debate it now in my area. Land closure.

Area to hunt is a fixed resource. Lots of guys buy land to build or as get-aways for their family, and they don't want idiots shootin' the place up or dumping trash. They open it only to trusted friends, and post it for everyone else.

In fact, I actually heard a beef recently from an angry hunter about a family who bought some land and posted it. This family wasn't using the land, (translation: they weren't about to let him use the land), and these outsiders were supposedly keeping all the trophy bucks to themselves.

I'd seen the guy's truck before--a rusted out POS. It was clear why this family did want a guy like this on their land.

Now multiply these concerns by the hundreds of thousand of hunters in the USA. The good guys get invites, the slobs keep making their own problems.

And the problem with a reasonable answer is resource management. What's the number of condors here? Is it fifty breeding pairs at most? We can't accommodate 100 stressed animals and a single piece of land?

Here's a novel idea. Hunt somewhere else.

JohnKSa
February 3, 2008, 04:17 PM
We can't accommodate 100 stressed animals and a single piece of land?

Here's a novel idea. Hunt somewhere else.You're missing the point (intentionally?).

There is no need to "accommodate" them, because the studies indicate that hunting with lead bullets is not causing a problem.

Here's a novel idea. The government shouldn't restrict people's law-abiding activities if they're not causing a problem. so was monitoring our use of DDT.You're joking, right? DDT restrictions were passed because there was PROOF that it was causing problems with endangered species. It's a valid example of a responsible restriction that had a known benefit. If there were any PROOF that lead bullets were harming condors, I think that virtually everyone would be for the restriction. However there is none, in fact the study used to justify the law provided CONTRADICTORY evidence that was ignored. This is absolutely NOT like the DDT restrictions.And so it is with a man's hunting, the way he keeps his tools, where he tosses his litter, his treatment of his clients and even the manner in which he takes care of children and small animals.

I see a guy flip a cigarette butt or an empty soda can and I will bet real money on how he treats people and resources.You're either saying that using lead bullets is like littering, mistreating children & small animals, not maintaining one's vehicle properly or that NOT using lead bullets shows that a person, thinks correctly, doesn't litter or mistreat children & small animals and maintains his vehicle properly. Or maybe both.

Either way its BS, pure and simple, over and out. That is absolutely and totally bankrupt logic at best, and at worst is an extremely underhanded debate technique. I don't think you really intend to do the latter and probably don't realize how it's coming across, so I'll give you an example.
The Tourist, my dad once told me that you should always ask a woman who you're dating about her view of governmental restrictions. You see, if she feels like it's ok for the government to restrict the population merely because it sounds like a good idea and might have some benefits and as long as it doesn't really hurt most people much then she's likely to carry over those ideas into other aspects of her life.

I see a woman who wants to needlessly restrict people simply because it sounds like a good idea and I would bet real money that given the chance she would also build ovens to burn the bodies of those who don't match her racial ideal. To say nothing of how she would treat children and small animals.

Now I, on the other hand, take the view that the government should keep out of people's lives unless there's a REAL, PRESSING and PROVEN need to interfere. That's correct thinking and victory over the Nazis in WWII is a good example of why that's true and what kind of benefits it provides. (http://www.yourdictionary.com/pontificate)

I'm absolutely not implying that you or people who think like you are Nazis, just trying to provide an example of why your "debate technique" is so distasteful to people on the other end of it.

Pilot
February 3, 2008, 04:25 PM
Maybe they should also ban planes in kali because there's a risk of them getting hit by one.

Oh they're trying allright. General Aviation has similar problems as RKBA. I wouldn't want to tangle with a Condor or any bird in a small plane. I've seen planes that have come back with bird strike damage. Ain't pretty and sometimes fatal.

Flying Groundhog
February 5, 2008, 01:30 AM
I am a SoCal hang glider pilot, and I frequently see and fly with the condors in the NE San Fernando Valley, on the edge of the very populated LA basin. I have also flown with the condor over Cedar Mtn near Cedar City, Utah.

They are big ugly beasts, and many have very poor flying skills. We try to stay away from them for fear they will end up crashing against our gliders.

williamd
February 5, 2008, 10:20 PM
Beretta16 ... don't give Arnie any ideas re banning planes.

Condor range may not be huge. But ad Kangaroo Rat range, butterflies, toads, tortoise, certain trees and shrubs, .... And you have literally thousands of square miles of CA closed.

Scala has had vast areas closed with chain link fencing the last few year. California Conservancy, no guns, no vehicles, no dogs ... no ****! ... backed by Barbara BoxerShorts. But, the fencing costs a fortune and it is TAX $$$$$ fencing citizens out!:mad::barf:

Ranger Al
February 11, 2008, 01:15 AM
Please don't give the Sierra Club :eek:people anymore idea!!!!!!

YukonKid
February 14, 2008, 08:10 PM
98 percent of creatures that have inhabited earth ar extinct, if i was the human race i would not be so sure of ourselves, we are animals to.

I like birds, they are fun to watch and hunt. If i have to use a different kind of ammo to respect the birds then i will

YK

langenc
February 15, 2008, 11:25 PM
No, we dont allow them here.

langenc
February 15, 2008, 11:27 PM
No, we dont allow them here-Michigan.

MeekAndMild
February 16, 2008, 04:41 PM
It occurred to me as I was watching a dozen turkey vultures and black vultures soaring earlier this week that if lead out in the middle of nowhere in the California desert was killing condors why wasn't it killing vultures in the southeast where everyone and his brother hunts and leaves lead peppered critters laying all over the place. I'd say that in Dixie we probably have ten times the chance of lead contaminated carcasses so why aren't our buzzards dying?

Reason is these people are absolute liars. I don't suppose any remembers a few years ago the big whoop te doo when these same liars sabotaged some new power lines out there because they said the biggest cause of condor death was getting caught in wires? :mad:

Ranger Al
February 19, 2008, 11:27 AM
I've heard that power lines shocked bald eagles when they perch onto the line. I am sure they have excuse for the condo as well, I am not sure if condo could perch on powerline since they are such a big bird!:eek:

hogdogs
February 19, 2008, 03:53 PM
If the giant slothful california condor is such a weak specimen in the animal world that it gets sicky from eating a lead bullet than it is HIGH TIME they are GONE! From what I have been taught, read heard and seen in documented study... lead is only harmful in the dissolved form. Globs of lead are passed thru the system and pooped out. Now you may have some ingestion from stomach acids but heck I can't tell you the number of split shot I opened and closed with my teeth. On the lower life form ladder rung, junior has a Boa constrictor that has eaten ONLY birds shot with shot gun loads for a few years and it is a very healthy vibrant colored critter...
Brent

Yellowfin
February 19, 2008, 09:55 PM
It's astonishing to me that anyone really believes in the lead harming condors nonsense, until I remember the words of the late P.T. Barnum.

Crosshair
February 20, 2008, 02:02 AM
Perhaps we should work to legalize steel core bullets again instead of banning lead bullets. Think of the wildlife we will save.:D

hogdogs
February 20, 2008, 11:11 AM
I wonder how much that slothful slacker condor depends on the gut piles for survival? If they are gone all together will that hurt the species further?
Brent