It's time to ban ammunition - for the poor birds
- Thread starter thegriz
- Start date
- Status
Cosmoline
Member
If there's even a chance it will save the species, it's a step well worth taking. There's not much left of what was once a pristine and wonderful state, so you'd better try to save what you can. Personally, I'd reintroduce some of our local brown bear and I have no doubt they'd generate some carrion for the birds to eat.
To discard an entire species because you think it looks ugly is mighty low. It's the sort of attitude that comes from living around too much pavement, and is the flip side of the same rotten coin that PETA is on. People who are out of contact with the wild either damn it all as useless waste full of dirty and ugly animals or worship it as a Disney cartoon full of plush animals who just want a hug. Both views are a form of mental illness.
Yes. And California keeps getting worse and worse and worse as more and more of it gets paved over. It's not a question of saving some animal. It's a question of ensuring that our posterity has a world to live in where there is a viable wilderness and not just endless pavement. Without the wild we become adult children and no longer view the world properly. Humanity needs the lesson of tooth and claw or it becomes soft and useless. It's not about the birds, it's about the wilderness they represent. Or whatever is left of it. Kill off the last of the Condors, just like the last of the Griz before them, and you're putting one more nail in the coffin that is California.
If you can look at one of those birds in flight and tell me they don't matter, I think you have your priorities way out of whack. To make purile jokes about how ugly the bird is while your grandchildren and great grandchildren are robbed of any chance to see them is a deep sickness.
To discard an entire species because you think it looks ugly is mighty low. It's the sort of attitude that comes from living around too much pavement, and is the flip side of the same rotten coin that PETA is on. People who are out of contact with the wild either damn it all as useless waste full of dirty and ugly animals or worship it as a Disney cartoon full of plush animals who just want a hug. Both views are a form of mental illness.
Yes. And California keeps getting worse and worse and worse as more and more of it gets paved over. It's not a question of saving some animal. It's a question of ensuring that our posterity has a world to live in where there is a viable wilderness and not just endless pavement. Without the wild we become adult children and no longer view the world properly. Humanity needs the lesson of tooth and claw or it becomes soft and useless. It's not about the birds, it's about the wilderness they represent. Or whatever is left of it. Kill off the last of the Condors, just like the last of the Griz before them, and you're putting one more nail in the coffin that is California.
If you can look at one of those birds in flight and tell me they don't matter, I think you have your priorities way out of whack. To make purile jokes about how ugly the bird is while your grandchildren and great grandchildren are robbed of any chance to see them is a deep sickness.
The Deer Hunter
Member
We all know the only sources of lead are paint and bullets.
Is it its impossible for scientists to fathom that lead comes from the ground?
Is it its impossible for scientists to fathom that lead comes from the ground?
Lead is a real problem with waterfowl because they eat the tens of thousands of pellets that gather under the water over years of shooting.
That is not the case with these birds. What they are attempting to do is ban its use for all animals because of a single animal that eats other dead animals.
Single projectiles in a single large animal that a hunter does not want a bird to eat to begin with is not a major issue. The only potential problem is if the projectile is left in the gut pile when field dressed. That is the education a hunter can benefit from.
However if you believe that education will ever be seen as a solution, then you have not lived in CA. The solution will be a ban on the object that offends, in this case lead, not education in its safe use. That is why it is so easy and often more productive to mock, because in the end it is laws based on regulating the lowest common denominator which is the solution for uneffected legislators and voters.
How many citizens do you think are hunters? How many not hunters? How many pet owners and can be made to illogicly and emotionaly vote based on one sided information slanted to make them feel they are helping wildlife?
The numbers quickly favor non hunters, playing on emotions of people who love thier pets (like most of us do), live in urban locations, and will only know or understand what is spoon fed to them, and vote in favor of the solution that is handed to them as a way to stop it.
The effect however is not just on hunters, the market will shift, and all lead ammunition becomes more expensive because it lose some of its dominance in the market and supply will shift accordingly.
Many lead alternatives actualy contain a high amount of lead. Most lead free ammunition is illegal in handgun calibers as "armor piercing" per ATF ruling, meaning many cartridges and all handgun hunting is essentialy outlawed (that includes having a sidearm while hunting with a long arm.)
Dead animal carcasses with lead in them are often going to be from poachers illegaly killing for sport, not legal hunters that usualy take the animal for either meat or a trophy or both. Most condors die being hit by cars or by flying into power lines. Perhaps the speed limit in thier entire range should be reduced to 10mph so that people will be able to safely avoid them. All power lines should be mandated as below ground only. If we are going to overreact to ammunition we should follow the same logic to the threats that are even more serious to them and can be remedied with similar solutions.
That is not the case with these birds. What they are attempting to do is ban its use for all animals because of a single animal that eats other dead animals.
Single projectiles in a single large animal that a hunter does not want a bird to eat to begin with is not a major issue. The only potential problem is if the projectile is left in the gut pile when field dressed. That is the education a hunter can benefit from.
However if you believe that education will ever be seen as a solution, then you have not lived in CA. The solution will be a ban on the object that offends, in this case lead, not education in its safe use. That is why it is so easy and often more productive to mock, because in the end it is laws based on regulating the lowest common denominator which is the solution for uneffected legislators and voters.
How many citizens do you think are hunters? How many not hunters? How many pet owners and can be made to illogicly and emotionaly vote based on one sided information slanted to make them feel they are helping wildlife?
The numbers quickly favor non hunters, playing on emotions of people who love thier pets (like most of us do), live in urban locations, and will only know or understand what is spoon fed to them, and vote in favor of the solution that is handed to them as a way to stop it.
The effect however is not just on hunters, the market will shift, and all lead ammunition becomes more expensive because it lose some of its dominance in the market and supply will shift accordingly.
Many lead alternatives actualy contain a high amount of lead. Most lead free ammunition is illegal in handgun calibers as "armor piercing" per ATF ruling, meaning many cartridges and all handgun hunting is essentialy outlawed (that includes having a sidearm while hunting with a long arm.)
Dead animal carcasses with lead in them are often going to be from poachers illegaly killing for sport, not legal hunters that usualy take the animal for either meat or a trophy or both. Most condors die being hit by cars or by flying into power lines. Perhaps the speed limit in thier entire range should be reduced to 10mph so that people will be able to safely avoid them. All power lines should be mandated as below ground only. If we are going to overreact to ammunition we should follow the same logic to the threats that are even more serious to them and can be remedied with similar solutions.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
According to the recent National Geographic (the one with New Orleans - Should We Rebuild It on the cover), the lead has been "traced" to the type of lead used in ammunition and the proposed ban does not cover merely birdshot; but all lead ammunition in the state of California. As is typical of National Geographic these days, they offered no other view besides the "California Condor is endangered. Everyone must stop using lead ammo." solution.
Considering that probably less than half a percent of ammunition sold in California ends up in a condor meal, it seems like extreme overkill to me to propose a total ban. It also ignores that several of the lead-free alternatives that have been pushed on the military are apparently more environmentally hazardous than the lead they replaced.
The same article also has a very one-sided piece on Inuit hunting narwhal with rifles - basically implying that the inuit are abusing their native hunting privileges bu using rifles and that most of the animals are wounded and die in the wild.
Considering that probably less than half a percent of ammunition sold in California ends up in a condor meal, it seems like extreme overkill to me to propose a total ban. It also ignores that several of the lead-free alternatives that have been pushed on the military are apparently more environmentally hazardous than the lead they replaced.
The same article also has a very one-sided piece on Inuit hunting narwhal with rifles - basically implying that the inuit are abusing their native hunting privileges bu using rifles and that most of the animals are wounded and die in the wild.
wuchak
Member
They have been dying off since the beginning of time, but it's only recently that we became the reason for them dying off. We have put the natural order so far out of whack due to our carelessness that we have an obligation to future generations to take steps to correct it. Once a species is gone, it's gone for good and no one will ever have the opportunity to see it again from now until the end of time. Not all of the creatures that need saving are cute and cuddly like the Panda but that doesn't mean they are not worth saving or that they don't have a role to play in the world. We are not owners of the Earth, we are stewards, and we have done, and continue to do an embarrassingly bad job.
MrTuffPaws
Member
Yeah, because introducing highly toxic substances to the environment is cool
. Why don't you sit down and calculate the number or rounds shot in California, and then determine the amount of lead from shooting and hunting that is pumped into the environment each year.
Sure,, on a range it hardly matters. It is mostly contained in one area, but for hunting, there is no real reason to keep using lead ammo in light of its impact to the environment other than cost of switching to a new technology.
Agreed wholeheartedly. To my eyes, one of the deep sicknesses of our civilization is the dense accumulation of people in urban areas and the concomitant separation and alienation from the natural world. The latter is full of astounding beauty, deep intellectual interest, and food for moral or philosophical thought--if you take the time to really see and study the constant cycling of life and death and watch how wild creatures live and consume each other. Yet we've suppressed or cut out a fundamental part of our human heritage by distancing ourselves from nature at every turn.
People who disparage the environment and mock environmentalists forget (perhaps because they grew up surrounded by concrete and spent most of their formative days in living rooms in front of Nintendos) that the environment is not some abstraction, but rather the air that you and your family breathe, the food you and your family eat, and the places where you can hunt, hike, canoe, climb, and play. As far as many of us are concerned, the environment is also a sacred creation worthy of protection and deep veneration. Dominion does not mean selfish abuse.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
We have been using lead as a firearm projectile since the invention of the firearm. Can you show me where this has resulted in widespread environmental damage?
That is exactly my point. California intends to outlaw ALL lead ammunition whether it is used on a range or not. Even ammunition used on indoor ranges would be banned. Where is the logic or safety in that? Are they truly concerned about the environment or do they want to make shooting cost prohibitive for most people?
Non-lead shot is already mandated for waterfowl hunting, so where if there is such an immense amount of lead being poured into the California landscape solely from hunting activities, let's see some proof.
Say someone misses twice and hits twice for every kill they make. Heck, let's say they miss twice, hit twice, and wound another animal without retrieving it twice every season. That is what - 6 rounds a year per hunter? I guess I miss how this equates to an environmental catastrophe. Perhaps you have some facts to educate me on the subject?
Sharps-shooter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 488
Which brings me to my next question: Does anyone offer depleted uranium shotgun ammunition? Preferrably in paper with #8 birdshot?
auschip
Member
I wonder how the kill rate of lead vs the wound and lost bird kill rate compare. Anyone done any studies on this, or is it the proverbial "Wildlife department's new clothes"?
PercyShelley
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,075
This news is from a while back, and I specifically remember it being stated that the lead contamination in condors was isotopically matched to the lead in firearms.
That sounds fancy and all, but why on earth would firearms lead have a different isotopic signature to lead used in anything else?
Which is to say, what if we ban lead ammunition, and the condors are still dying?
That sounds fancy and all, but why on earth would firearms lead have a different isotopic signature to lead used in anything else?
Which is to say, what if we ban lead ammunition, and the condors are still dying?
I'm always left scratching my head at some of these types of comments. Yes, you do lose something valuable when a species dies, but you also lose something valuable when almost anything dies be it one creature amongst trillions of its own kind, or one amongst only a dozen.
We belong here on this planet just as much as these condors do, if not more so. The reason we live and they die is because we're the more capable species. Nature is a mother. We live, they die.
This has been going on for untold millions of years and it's not going to stop until the world ends by some means. To try to save every last little animal in existence is just neurotic. If anything we're interfering by trying to preserve this species.
Now I agree there are very practical reasons for trying to manage wildlife and I can understand why it's worth the time to try to preserve species long enough to learn about them, but the hard fact of the matter is that if it's really that important, it shouldn't ever be trusted to the government.
Many people have been denied the simple right to build on or develop their own land because some biologist decides it's a habitat for some obscure critter because only a handful of them live there. Never mind there could be a huge concentration of them somewhere else.
Some people say "You need to get your priorities straight". Yet the penalty for drunk driving is usually less than the penalty for killing an endangered animal. Fines of over a hundred thousand dollars and long jail terms are quite possible for killing a certain animal by accident, whereas deliberately harming human beings often carries a light penalty.
Yes it would be nice to have enough specimens of each species which ever existed on earth in perpetuity for various purposes. But that's not practical, nor is it natural. We as humans are not aliens who have interfered in nature and disrupted its balance, we are a part of this planet, and this planet does rather incredible things, like discard entire species. And some day, there may be a species whose existence on earth means humans are next to go the way of the Dodo bird.
Rather, we should study these birds and see if there is a useful product we can obtain from them, be it a chemical reagent, foodstuff, or even perhaps their service as natural carrion eaters. Heck, put a colony of them in a preserve somewhere to insure they never completely disappear and that we can always learn from them. But do it on your own dime if you think it's so important, and stop making ridiculous demands like a ban of lead ammunition which infringes on the rights of other people.
We belong here on this planet just as much as these condors do, if not more so. The reason we live and they die is because we're the more capable species. Nature is a mother. We live, they die.
This has been going on for untold millions of years and it's not going to stop until the world ends by some means. To try to save every last little animal in existence is just neurotic. If anything we're interfering by trying to preserve this species.
Now I agree there are very practical reasons for trying to manage wildlife and I can understand why it's worth the time to try to preserve species long enough to learn about them, but the hard fact of the matter is that if it's really that important, it shouldn't ever be trusted to the government.
Many people have been denied the simple right to build on or develop their own land because some biologist decides it's a habitat for some obscure critter because only a handful of them live there. Never mind there could be a huge concentration of them somewhere else.
Some people say "You need to get your priorities straight". Yet the penalty for drunk driving is usually less than the penalty for killing an endangered animal. Fines of over a hundred thousand dollars and long jail terms are quite possible for killing a certain animal by accident, whereas deliberately harming human beings often carries a light penalty.
Yes it would be nice to have enough specimens of each species which ever existed on earth in perpetuity for various purposes. But that's not practical, nor is it natural. We as humans are not aliens who have interfered in nature and disrupted its balance, we are a part of this planet, and this planet does rather incredible things, like discard entire species. And some day, there may be a species whose existence on earth means humans are next to go the way of the Dodo bird.
Rather, we should study these birds and see if there is a useful product we can obtain from them, be it a chemical reagent, foodstuff, or even perhaps their service as natural carrion eaters. Heck, put a colony of them in a preserve somewhere to insure they never completely disappear and that we can always learn from them. But do it on your own dime if you think it's so important, and stop making ridiculous demands like a ban of lead ammunition which infringes on the rights of other people.
I picked up 2 free boxes of Federal .308's with the all brass Barnes bullet today. The certificate came in the mail with my Kaibab deer tag due to the condors in that unit. It seems like a nice solution, but probably too logical for CA to duplicate.
FieroCDSP
Member
From what I've seen, most environmental and animal-above-human groups fail to realize that man has been in the equasion for thousands and thousands of years. We ARE a factor in the equasion, though not necessarily a detractor. Some groups call for an end to all hunting. Do they realize the damage caused by a sudden drop in predators among prey animals? The first year would be all nice and happy. The second would be bad, it goes downhill from there, ending in a massive die-off, that is more likely to make a species extinct than the hunting would. During this, many predators would become extinct or at least endangered, mainly from the diseased animals.
Not to mention how that would affect us.
I think we should reduce lead where we can, but the Mod has a point. Lead has been used in firearms and many other applications since the founding of this country, and centuries before in europe. We havent seen proof positive of a massive effect that can be credited to lead bullets.
I think a reduction in lead use could be beneficial overall. Heck, make it bonus. If you use all-brass bullets or steel shot, you get some cost cut off your license fee.
The biggest point to be made here is that a ban on something often does more harm than good. When there are alternatives to a ban, they should be tried first.
Not to mention how that would affect us.
I think we should reduce lead where we can, but the Mod has a point. Lead has been used in firearms and many other applications since the founding of this country, and centuries before in europe. We havent seen proof positive of a massive effect that can be credited to lead bullets.
I think a reduction in lead use could be beneficial overall. Heck, make it bonus. If you use all-brass bullets or steel shot, you get some cost cut off your license fee.
The biggest point to be made here is that a ban on something often does more harm than good. When there are alternatives to a ban, they should be tried first.
This is a good way to ban handguns and handgun shooting. Hard cheap metals are illegal in handguns. There is no all copper ammunition for handguns because federal law outlawed it. So if lead is banned for use, then handgun use becomes pretty impractical.
"(B) The term 'armor piercing ammunition' means-
(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.
(C) The term 'armor piercing ammunition' does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Secretary finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes (ATF), or any other projectile or projectile core which the Secretary finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device."
So except for specific rounds for which exemptions were made on an individual basis and marketed for that specific purpose at the national level, handgun rounds would become illegal in CA. Having a sidearm with lead would be illegal, having a sidearm with something else would usualy be illegal.
I guess according to some locations, like San Francisco, banning handgun ammunition is a good thing, as they have successfuly voted to ban handguns in the past themselves.
I wonder what new legal handgun rounds would replace lead. Obviously they would cost far more, and value packs of them would not exist. That should help in reducing the amount of firearm owners and shooters by making it more prohibitively expensive.
"(B) The term 'armor piercing ammunition' means-
(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.
(C) The term 'armor piercing ammunition' does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Secretary finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes (ATF), or any other projectile or projectile core which the Secretary finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device."
So except for specific rounds for which exemptions were made on an individual basis and marketed for that specific purpose at the national level, handgun rounds would become illegal in CA. Having a sidearm with lead would be illegal, having a sidearm with something else would usualy be illegal.
I guess according to some locations, like San Francisco, banning handgun ammunition is a good thing, as they have successfuly voted to ban handguns in the past themselves.
I wonder what new legal handgun rounds would replace lead. Obviously they would cost far more, and value packs of them would not exist. That should help in reducing the amount of firearm owners and shooters by making it more prohibitively expensive.
Guncrazy45
Member
Actualy reading the law again it says "beryllium copper", so I guess other types of solid copper bullets are legal. So I guess one could remain legal using all copper ammunition for handguns. Copper jackets exceeding 25% of the weight of the bullet is illegal though. Isn't that ironic? You can have it made 100% from copper, but not 25.1%-99.9%. Firearm laws can be so strange sometimes.
We belong here, to be sure, but unlike all the other species, we have a combination of intellectual prowess, self-reflection, verbal and written communication, forethought, and capability for coordinated group action that puts us in a unique place to help or harm and to create lasting repercussions for good or bad through conscious action. We also have a moral sense and, traditionally, moral and spiritual/religious duties.
As for being the more capable species, because of the aforementioned virtues, we clearly can do amazing things. Yet the human tendency towards foolhardiness and self-destruction needs no introduction. If we flourish in the short term but foul our nest to the point where we destroy our own living space and the resources we need to survive in a healthy and happy manner, just how capable are we?
It's like a child taking a dump in his room because he's too lazy to walk to the bathroom, and then when someone points out the folly of his behavior, he throws a tantrum and screams it's his right to do whatever he feels like. Just as owning a firearm ideally implies the capacity and desire to use it responsibly so as not to unduly harm self or others, so does living on the planet imply a responsibility not to damage it to the point that it inflicts lasting and unnecessary harm on it and, by necessary extension, ourselves.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
