Hunters....you still think they don't want your guns too......banning lead ammo...

[ogibillm]

California Condors and Lead

Ventana Wildlife Society believes that hunters and ranchers have a strong tradition of wildlife conservation ethics. We promote the use of non-lead ammunition because of the effect of lead on California Condors and other wildlife.

How does lead poisoning happen in condors and other scavenging birds anyway? Scavengers eat many different types of animals, some of which are shot with lead projectiles. Animals either left behind in the field, such as ground squirrels and coyotes, or animals shot and unable to be recovered, contain lead fragments left behind in the shot animal. Animals shot with shotgun pellets are also available to scavengers as well as waterfowl depending on where the shooting takes place. Condors and other wildlife often ingest large chunks of flesh and sometimes bone and cannot distinguish between a tiny lead fragment from a bullet versus a pebble for example. Once ingested, the digestive system interacts with the lead bullet which leaches the lead into the bloodstream of the animal that ingested it. Lead in blood rises dramatically after ingestion of a lead object and within days the animals feels the effects. Lead poisoning is an awful way to die because it paralyzes the digestive system often killing the animal slowly through starvation. If any of this is new to you or you are skeptical, please do your own research and start by reviewing the links, video, etc. at the bottom of this page.

The literature linking lead poisoning in condors to lead from spent ammunition is strong. In fact, we have contributed some of it. But what really convinces us is the direct evidence we have seen during our 15 years of managing the central California Condor population. As a recent example, a 10 year-old male condor (#318, Figure 1) died in November 2012 after ingesting a lead .22 caliber bullet, presumably while feeding on a carcass. The bird was found in San Benito County barely alive and unable to feed or use its legs to stand. Despite valiant efforts, veterinarians could not save him. Cause of death, through necropsy, was determined to be lead toxicosis. A radiograph showed multiple metal fragments and a bullet-shaped object in the digestive tract (Figure 2). The object was removed and determined to be a .22 caliber lead bullet (Figure 3).

The death of condor #318 is a huge loss for the central California population. This bird was a breeding male, the first at Pinnacles National Park in more than 100 years. With only a few breeding pairs established in the region, his loss leaves a void which might not be quickly filled. His surviving mate has left the breeding territory, and it is not clear if and when she will pair with another condor and breed again. The loss of even a small number of breeding pairs, and the offspring they produce, puts the entire population at risk.

We thank the many hunters who participated in our free non-lead ammunition program. We raised more than $50,000 in 2012 to support local hunters making the switch through this program, and we hope to raise more funds to continue in 2013. We greatly appreciate the 221 hunters who completed our online survey. For a summary report of the 2012 free non-lead ammunition program, including results of the survey, click here.

If it so important to you then I'm sure you would gladly contribute to a fund to cover the increased costs for hunters.

You're saying hunters can't or won't be responsible without more subsidies?

Not from the government, from YOUR pocket. If its that important, pony up.

I don't have the responsibility to make your hobby cheaper. You do have a responsibility to protect and preserve the environment.

You are not being asked to make it cheaper, you are being asked to compensate for it being made more expensive due to your desire for a change.

If you really cared about the Condor you would do this without question.

My desire is for environmental responsibility. I don't care if you hunt or not, but if you choose to you will do so responsibly, snd if that costs more tough titty.

 

[SteadyMercury]

I'm not the one messing with a 2nd amendment right. the people trying to do that are the ones who need to prove it.

Yep I remember learning that in social studies back in high school!

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to freely choose the toxic alloy from which hunting projectiles are made, shall not be infringed."

I still get goose bumps when I think about it.

 

[WinterBorn]

Link?

Shut the fuck up if you don't know what you are talking about.

.

Right, so you can't show that they are footing the bill. MY TAXES support public land, therefore, the hunters are NOT footing the bill, moron.

The special taxes and fees paid by sportsmen cover the lion's share of most state conservation efforts.

 

[ogibillm]

Link?

Shut the fuck up if you don't know what you are talking about.

.

Right, so you can't show that they are footing the bill. MY TAXES support public land, therefore, the hunters are NOT footing the bill, moron.

The special taxes and fees paid by sportsmen cover the lion's share of most state conservation efforts.

Very true, but then the lion's share of a state's conservation efforts are aimed at protecting and managing game fish and wildlife.

 

[Ravi]

Right, so you can't show that they are footing the bill. MY TAXES support public land, therefore, the hunters are NOT footing the bill, moron.

Your tax dollars don't even come close to the fees and contributions hunters and fishers pay or contribute annually towards conservation and wildlife management.
Like I posted ... If you had a clue what you were talking about ... I wouldn't have to tell you that.

If you knew about the material regarding the measures passed in California ... You would know that the initial efforts were financed by a group of organization and the contributions of five individual hunters.

.

Mine don't but collectively tax payers fund much more of public lands than hunters and fisher people do....and you can throw in hikers and ATVers and you still won't come close.

 

[BlackSand]

The special taxes and fees paid by sportsmen cover the lion's share of most state conservation efforts.

That is not even counting organizations such as Ducks Unlimited and the likes.
We don't want the areas we hunt and the wildlife to disappear ... It would be entirely counterproductive.

.

 

[BlackSand]

Mine don't but collectively tax payers fund much more of public lands than hunters and fisher people do....and you can throw in hikers and ATVers and you still won't come close.

No particular offense ... But you are way out of your depth in this matter.
The hunters and corporations that benefit from the activity have always led the efforts to preserve and conserve wildlife and habitat.
Sorry if you cannot make that connection ... It is simply an indication you are not familiar with the processes, requirements and measures involved.

"Federal Lands" does not indicate any particular measure to protect nor conserve the assets within.
As I mentioned in the first post ... If conservation, rehabilitation and management are a concern ... We pay the bulk share of those funds by far.

.

 

[WinterBorn]

Link?

Shut the fuck up if you don't know what you are talking about.

.

Right, so you can't show that they are footing the bill. MY TAXES support public land, therefore, the hunters are NOT footing the bill, moron.

The special taxes and fees paid by sportsmen cover the lion's share of most state conservation efforts.

Very true, but then the lion's share of a state's conservation efforts are aimed at protecting and managing game fish and wildlife.

The state conservation people look to protect the investment. Nothing wrong with that. And if you are protecting the game fish and wildlife, you are protecting all of the wildlife. Biologists have to look at the entire system, not just a few species.

 

[WinterBorn]

Part of the problem is the relatively large drop in the number of hunters and anglers in recent years. That makes for some serious shortfalls in the conservation budgets. But it is, at least partly, the result of the demonization of hunters and fishermen.

Not so long ago, sportsmen accounted for up to 90% of some state conservation budgets.

 

[ogibillm]

Link?

Shut the fuck up if you don't know what you are talking about.

.

Right, so you can't show that they are footing the bill. MY TAXES support public land, therefore, the hunters are NOT footing the bill, moron.

The special taxes and fees paid by sportsmen cover the lion's share of most state conservation efforts.

Very true, but then the lion's share of a state's conservation efforts are aimed at protecting and managing game fish and wildlife.

The state conservation people look to protect the investment. Nothing wrong with that. And if you are protecting the game fish and wildlife, you are protecting all of the wildlife. Biologists have to look at the entire system, not just a few species.

Oh i dont disagree, just saying that it's not exactly charity when a hunter buys a license. They're getting a service in return.

 

[WinterBorn]

Shut the fuck up if you don't know what you are talking about.

.

Right, so you can't show that they are footing the bill. MY TAXES support public land, therefore, the hunters are NOT footing the bill, moron.

The special taxes and fees paid by sportsmen cover the lion's share of most state conservation efforts.

Very true, but then the lion's share of a state's conservation efforts are aimed at protecting and managing game fish and wildlife.

The state conservation people look to protect the investment. Nothing wrong with that. And if you are protecting the game fish and wildlife, you are protecting all of the wildlife. Biologists have to look at the entire system, not just a few species.

Oh i dont disagree, just saying that it's not exactly charity when a hunter buys a license. They're getting a service in return.

Indeed I am getting a service. But then, the state is getting a service as well. Population control for animals that can overpopulate in short order.

As an example, the state of Alabama (the last I saw) has an estimated whitetail deer population of around 1.5 million head. The wildlife biologists say that roughly 1/3 of that population needs to be removed annually. So how do you remove 500,000 animals and make money off of it? Hunters.

So, while I am getting a service, I am providing one of at least equal value. If you look at states that banned hunting you will see fatal accidents involving animals and vehicles went thru the roof. So, in actuality, I (and my fellow hunters) are saving lives.

 

[Ravi]

The special taxes and fees paid by sportsmen cover the lion's share of most state conservation efforts.

That is not even counting organizations such as Ducks Unlimited and the likes.
We don't want the areas we hunt and the wildlife to disappear ... It would be entirely counterproductive.

.

Lol, Ducks Unlimited receives funding from (gasp) taxpayer money. You really don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Ravi]

Mine don't but collectively tax payers fund much more of public lands than hunters and fisher people do....and you can throw in hikers and ATVers and you still won't come close.

No particular offense ... But you are way out of your depth in this matter.
The hunters and corporations that benefit from the activity have always led the efforts to preserve and conserve wildlife and habitat.
Sorry if you cannot make that connection ... It is simply an indication you are not familiar with the processes, requirements and measures involved.

"Federal Lands" does not indicate any particular measure to protect nor conserve the assets within.
As I mentioned in the first post ... If conservation, rehabilitation and management are a concern ... We pay the bulk share of those funds by far.

.

Then you should be able to prove it.

 

[WinterBorn]

The special taxes and fees paid by sportsmen cover the lion's share of most state conservation efforts.

That is not even counting organizations such as Ducks Unlimited and the likes.
We don't want the areas we hunt and the wildlife to disappear ... It would be entirely counterproductive.

.

Lol, Ducks Unlimited receives funding from (gasp) taxpayer money. You really don't know what you are talking about.

Indeed they do. They are called Habitat Reimbursements. If you own enough land, you can get the same thing.

 

[BlackSand]

Lol, Ducks Unlimited receives funding from (gasp) taxpayer money. You really don't know what you are talking about.

Who contributes more to Ducks Unlimited ... The state or the private/corporate donors?

I have repeatedly indicated that they exist within the context of each other ... With the greater portion of the burden being covered by the hunters.
Again you fall short of necessary understanding ... Stop grasping at straws trying to make a point that is beyond your comprehension.

What is it that makes people like you so damn persistent in being wrong in attempts to deny the positive actions of others?
For all practical purposes ... The hunters have been doing what they have been doing long before you got interested in this thread.

.

 

[Ravi]

The special taxes and fees paid by sportsmen cover the lion's share of most state conservation efforts.

That is not even counting organizations such as Ducks Unlimited and the likes.
We don't want the areas we hunt and the wildlife to disappear ... It would be entirely counterproductive.

.

Lol, Ducks Unlimited receives funding from (gasp) taxpayer money. You really don't know what you are talking about.

Indeed they do. They are called Habitat Reimbursements. If you own enough land, you can get the same thing.

No, they are grants for conservation.

 

[Ravi]

Lol, Ducks Unlimited receives funding from (gasp) taxpayer money. You really don't know what you are talking about.

Who contributes more to Ducks Unlimited ... The state or the private/corporate donors?

I have repeatedly indicated that they exist within the context of each other ... With the greater portion of the burden being covered by the hunters.
Again you fall short of necessary understanding ... Stop grasping at straws trying to make a point that is beyond your comprehension.

What is it that makes people like you so damn persistent in being wrong in attempts to deny the positive actions of others?
For all practical purposes ... The hunters have been doing what they have been doing long before you got interested in this thread.

.

And yet you cannot provide proof.

 

[BlackSand]

No, they are grants for conservation.

They are grants for conservation because Ducks Unlimited does what the State does not in providing for the Conservation.
They qualify for the grants when applicable because they have met the requirements applicable in the law.

You ask for proof you essentially provide in your objections and still fail to see the connection.
What is wrong with you ... How can you be so jaded as to continue to fail to understand how the actual conservation you desire takes place?

Instead of attempting to discredit any attempts by others to more effectively and efficiently accomplish the goals necessary ... Get your head out of your ass and look at the writing on the wall.

.

 

[Ernie S.]

How about you pony up the extra 300% cost of non lead bullets so hunters can afford to keep hunting?

300%? Not according to this.

Bullet Types

Screw the crybabies, what right do they have to pollute the forests anyway?

So there is zero naturally existing lead in forests? So a few bullets (the ones that miss mind you) spread among the tons of top soil causes catastrophic "pollution"?

How about the people supporting this create a fund to subsidize the increased cost? How about they also lobby the feds to lift the restrictions on non-lead bullets?

Maybe its because gun control is the primary cause, and "teh enviornments" is just a convenient ploy?

If there is lead in forests it is in ore and not something that can or will be eaten by wildlife.

How about just not allowing people to cause problems and ban lead for hunting? Why must everyone do what YOU in your selfishness want them to do?

Lead shot has been banned for waterfowl hunting for years.
The birds eat it thinking it's gravel for their gizzards and get lead poisoning.
Now if they try and ban all lead ammo I'm going to have a problem with it and will consider it a backdoor attack on the 2nd.

Saving the condor is worth banning lead bullets in California.

If it is only an excuse that would be one thing, but, significant numbers of dead condors had lead fragments in them, from eating discarded game waste with lead fragments in it.

How many condors is it actually killing as a percentage of overall population?

California Condors and Lead

Ventana Wildlife Society believes that hunters and ranchers have a strong tradition of wildlife conservation ethics. We promote the use of non-lead ammunition because of the effect of lead on California Condors and other wildlife.

How does lead poisoning happen in condors and other scavenging birds anyway? Scavengers eat many different types of animals, some of which are shot with lead projectiles. Animals either left behind in the field, such as ground squirrels and coyotes, or animals shot and unable to be recovered, contain lead fragments left behind in the shot animal. Animals shot with shotgun pellets are also available to scavengers as well as waterfowl depending on where the shooting takes place. Condors and other wildlife often ingest large chunks of flesh and sometimes bone and cannot distinguish between a tiny lead fragment from a bullet versus a pebble for example. Once ingested, the digestive system interacts with the lead bullet which leaches the lead into the bloodstream of the animal that ingested it. Lead in blood rises dramatically after ingestion of a lead object and within days the animals feels the effects. Lead poisoning is an awful way to die because it paralyzes the digestive system often killing the animal slowly through starvation. If any of this is new to you or you are skeptical, please do your own research and start by reviewing the links, video, etc. at the bottom of this page.

The literature linking lead poisoning in condors to lead from spent ammunition is strong. In fact, we have contributed some of it. But what really convinces us is the direct evidence we have seen during our 15 years of managing the central California Condor population. As a recent example, a 10 year-old male condor (#318, Figure 1) died in November 2012 after ingesting a lead .22 caliber bullet, presumably while feeding on a carcass. The bird was found in San Benito County barely alive and unable to feed or use its legs to stand. Despite valiant efforts, veterinarians could not save him. Cause of death, through necropsy, was determined to be lead toxicosis. A radiograph showed multiple metal fragments and a bullet-shaped object in the digestive tract (Figure 2). The object was removed and determined to be a .22 caliber lead bullet (Figure 3).

The death of condor #318 is a huge loss for the central California population. This bird was a breeding male, the first at Pinnacles National Park in more than 100 years. With only a few breeding pairs established in the region, his loss leaves a void which might not be quickly filled. His surviving mate has left the breeding territory, and it is not clear if and when she will pair with another condor and breed again. The loss of even a small number of breeding pairs, and the offspring they produce, puts the entire population at risk.

We thank the many hunters who participated in our free non-lead ammunition program. We raised more than $50,000 in 2012 to support local hunters making the switch through this program, and we hope to raise more funds to continue in 2013. We greatly appreciate the 221 hunters who completed our online survey. For a summary report of the 2012 free non-lead ammunition program, including results of the survey, click here.

If it so important to you then I'm sure you would gladly contribute to a fund to cover the increased costs for hunters.

I think obamacare should cover bullets. Hell it covers birth control and I've seen no Constitutional Amendment saying the right to keep and bear rubbers shall not be infringed.

 

[Missourian]

Obviously wind turbines should all be thickly coated in Nerf material.

Wind turbines are killing condors

Credit: BY JIM WIEGAND: Special to Western Outdoor News: Oct 07, 2009 wonews.com ~~

Two of California’s highest priority environmental causes — promoting renewable energy and saving the California condor — are on a collision course. The proliferation of prop wind turbines and their well-documented history of killing birds of prey have put the future of the California condor at great risk.

Wind turbines are killing condors Wind Energy News
​