anyone ever see California Condor???

[JohnKSa]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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!:barf:

[Ranger Al]

Please don't give the Sierra Club people anymore idea!!!!!!

[YukonKid]

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]

No, we dont allow them here.

[langenc]

No, we dont allow them here-Michigan.

[MeekAndMild]

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?

[Ranger Al]

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!

[hogdogs]

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]

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]

Perhaps we should work to legalize steel core bullets again instead of banning lead bullets. Think of the wildlife we will save.

[hogdogs]

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