Thread: Is lead ammon necessary? Condor related

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

You do realize that most hunters aren't trophy hunters or recreational hunters? Even if they enjoy it and find it fulfilling, for most hunters its about getting meat, in fact thats part of why its fulfilling, is getting your own food for cheaper than you could buy it but paying for it mostly with your sweat. All the really serious hunters I know are not wealthy.

I understand that, but it is still recreation as far as I'm concerned. I eat what I kill, or feed it to my birds (not deer, that's for ME), which is part of why I enjoy it. And doing something that is expensive doesn't mean you're wealthy. Lots of skiers aren't wealthy, yet skiing isn't cheap.

Originally Posted by flyandski365

I understand that, but it is still recreation as far as I'm concerned. I eat what I kill, or feed it to my birds (not deer, that's for ME), which is part of why I enjoy it. And doing something that is expensive doesn't mean you're wealthy. Lots of skiers aren't wealthy, yet skiing isn't cheap.

You eat what you kill, but many people kill what they eat. There is a world of difference, although it may seem semantical.

From now on, I'm only loading bird vitamins and vulture viagra when I hunt condors.

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

You eat what you kill, but many people kill what they eat. There is a world of difference, although it may seem semantical.

so leroy, how does this apply to the LPNF and Fort Hunter-Ligget?

edit: I'm going to shoot gopher poontang splat. commonlaw loaned me some. condors love it.

On a serious note,

My cat just fought a Racoon on the front porch. I was expecting a torn up kitty. He seemed to get the upper hand and ran if off the porch.

This worries me, he is getting a bit too brave. He still wont come in he is doing the gaurd duty thing at the stairs.

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

You eat what you kill, but many people kill what they eat. There is a world of difference, although it may seem semantical.

I'm not sure why you seem to think that I don't "get it", but trust me, I do.

What I'm curious about is how much lead naturally exists in the wild. If there's copper ore in the area, as well other types of ore that contain lead, seems logical that concentrations of lead would be naturally high in those areas. Now, it's a given that human activity doesn't help the situation, especially with mining/smelting activity, but I wonder if a few lead bullets are a drop in the bucket compared to what's already out there. Was there lead poisoning already going on long before studies were being done? Before the West was settled by the white-man?

Yes there is more lead in soil then in lead bullets, but since most animals don't eat dirt, the amount of natural lead in soil is relatively unimportant. Eating hunks of lead in meat does cause known toxicity, and according to the first linked article it has been shown to be lead from bullets.

Waterfowl lead toxicosis is a different matter, since that is from dabbler ducks picking up spent shot off pond bottoms. It is toxic to the duck, and to the peregrine that eats the duck. I suppose some duck feeding raptors eat lead from cripples that hunter hit but don't kill.

Originally Posted by Dildo_Baggins

there has to be some effort on the part of hunters to preserve the wildlife and ecosystems they want to hunt in.

This is one of the most completely ignorant things I've read in a long time.

Originally Posted by Jer

This is one of the most completely ignorant things I've read in a long time.

I don't see how that's ignorant at all. Just like skiers want to protect their mountains, kayakers want to protect their rivers, and fisherman want to protect their streams and lakes.

Unless you're incredibly short sighted, you should want to be active in the long term health of the areas you recreate in so some other group doesn't step in and take it away.

Originally Posted by Dildo_Baggins

I don't see how that's ignorant at all. Just like skiers want to protect their mountains, kayakers want to protect their rivers, and fisherman want to protect their streams and lakes.

Unless you're incredibly short sighted, you should want to be active in the long term health of the areas you recreate in so some other group doesn't step in and take it away.

Hey idiot - have you ever heard of Ducks Unlimited? Whitetails Unlimited? Where do you think the $$ you pay for licenses and stamps goes, moron?

Yeah - hunters are a bunch of destructive freeloaders. Really Dildo - post first, then smoke crack.

Of course you don't see the ignorance in your statements. That's because you are a full retard. Goddam you are a dumb sumbich. The thought of you walking around in the woods with a gun is spooky.

Jer, I think in your rush to take offense at me, you've sort of missed my point, and proved it at the same time.

Originally Posted by Dildo_Baggins

Jer, I think in your rush to take offense at me, you've sort of missed my point, and proved it at the same time.

I'm not proving anything. Your own words tell the sad story of your immense stupidity:

Originally Posted by Dildo_Baggins

there has to be some effort on the part of hunters to preserve the wildlife and ecosystems they want to hunt in.

Once again - the effort's been ongoing for decades and decades.

And once again - you are really really dumb. Really.

Dude, really?

My point this whole time is that the reasonable people need to step in and take the reigns away from all of the consipiracy theory nitwits and have a real discussion about options that doesn't involve insults or references to black helicopters over their house.

I worked for a Congressman in Utah right out of college and one of the things he did was sit down with sportsmen, ranchers, ORV users and environmentalists to come up with a plan to keep Southern Utah land out of the hands of the oil and gas interests in the area. I know first hand about hunting groups protecting the land they use.

I don't see that happening in this case, which is bad for hunters in general, since they don't have a legitimate presence in the argument as far as I can tell. If you show me that Ducks or Whitetails is involved I'll retract. Until then, I stand by what I said.

Dude, yes - really.

This is a conspiracy. This isn't about hunting, it's about shooting. Ask the board of directors at any range. As far as I know condors don't hang out at ranges eating the sand in the berms. Yet the lead thing is used to shut down ranges too. I'm insulting you because your arguement is absurd.

You want to restrict people's ability to travel? Don't put up roadblocks or checkpoints - that's way to obvious. Just make gas way too expensive or hard to get. You want to get rid of guns? Don't go door-to-door rounding them up - way too obvious. Much more subtle to make ammo almost impossible to procure. A gun without ammo is an expensive club. Shit - you don't actually put a gag on somebody to restrict their right to free speech. Instead you yell over and over about how they are paranoid conspiracy nitwits. I mean - you don't want to agree with some conspiracy freak, do you? That kinda puts you in a bad light. Maybe you need re-education.

WE NEED TO THINK OF TEH CHILDREN AND STOP THE TERRORISTS!!!! THIS IS WHY YOUR GRANDMA MUST BE ANALLY PROBED!!! YOU DON'T HATE CHILDREN, DO YOU?!?!?!?!

Originally Posted by Jer

Dude, yes - really.

This is a conspiracy. This isn't about hunting, it's about shooting. Ask the board of directors at any range. As far as I know condors don't hang out at ranges eating the sand in the berms. Yet the lead thing is used to shut down ranges too. I'm insulting you because your arguement is absurd.

You want to restrict people's ability to travel? Don't put up roadblocks or checkpoints - that's way to obvious. Just make gas way too expensive or hard to get. You want to get rid of guns? Don't go door-to-door rounding them up - way too obvious. Much more subtle to make ammo almost impossible to procure. A gun without ammo is an expensive club. Shit - you don't actually put a gag on somebody to restrict their right to free speech. Instead you yell over and over about how they are paranoid conspiracy nitwits. I mean - you don't want to agree with some conspiracy freak, do you? That kinda puts you in a bad light. Maybe you need re-education.

WE NEED TO THINK OF TEH CHILDREN AND STOP THE TERRORISTS!!!! THIS IS WHY YOUR GRANDMA MUST BE ANALLY PROBED!!! YOU DON'T HATE CHILDREN, DO YOU?!?!?!?!

Has lead for target shooting been banned anywhere yet? I know there was a petition for all lead ammo to be banned, which is stupid, but it fell flat IIRC. I'm really just concerned with lead used in hunting in sensitive areas such as the range of the condor.

Hunting and fishing organizations have done a tremendous amount of conservation work, which seems to often go unrecognized because of more vocal but ultimately less effective non-use preservationist activist type groups. Or the government takes credit, citing the ESA, which is by and large a broken piece of legislation that all but encourages the SSS mentality among landowners and developers.

Sadly, hunting and fishing license sales have been seeing a downward trend over the last twenty years in many areas, and people's views of hunting and hunters have been influenced by idiots like Ted Nugent. Preaching to the choir I'm sure, but I worry for the future of hunting and sustainable use conservation in this country.

Is it reasonable to ban lead for hunting use, but leave it for target/practice shooting? Would hunters be reasonable about not using lead to hunt with or are they likely to just say "fuck the man" and continue hunting with lead?

It sounds like there are viable options for hunting. Yes they are a little more expensive, but compared to the over all cost of hunting, pretty insignificant. Is target shooting even an issue? Are there significant calls for the ban of lead for such uses.

It seems like waterfowl hunters have gone over to steel shot.

Originally Posted by hutash

It seems like waterfowl hunters have gone over to steel shot.

Actually, this is why I think it would eventually work. I remember back in the dark ages when lead shot was legal. When it switched to steel a lot of guys would have a box of steel in the skiff along with two boxes of lead. I mean - it was pretty obvious that lead shot knocked down the birds way better than steel. But eventually everybody made the switch. I'm not into waterfowl anymore, but I really don't think there are any significant number of lead violators. And lead shot - at least to me - is a lot different than a copper-jacketted lead bullet at least when it come to the sheer volume of lead being scattered hither and to.

Hut - lead is one of the reasons NIMBY's use to try to shut down ranges (which is happening at an alarming rate). Why would anybody move next to a range that's been there for 50+ years and expect the shooting to stop? It's like the dipshit city yuppies who move to some fresh subdivision at the edge of the woods and then complain that the deer rae eating their begonias.

Some dumb broad down south actually flung a few casings in her backyard, took pictures of them and went to the local paper with her example of how stray shots were endangering her well-being. Not realising of course that the casing stays in the gun or ends up two feet away from where it was fired.

If California wants to outlaw lead that's fine by me. It's not like they don't already have completely ridiculous laws when it comes to firearms. But IMO - it's bullshit. It's the same ridiculous crap as MJ Vandeman PhD's opinions on mtbs. Maybe if you are an insane hikernazi it makes sense, but not so much in reality.