Colorado Lead-Free Pilot Program

This move should not come as a surprise. Some of the biggest names in the hunting influencer space have advocated for giving non hunters a seat at the wildlife management negotiating table. Now the non’s have their seatS. These non hunters do not want a seat at the table. They want to smash the table and burn the pieces.

Take a look at Colorado’s recent commission appointments. How about the recent trapping ban? The leadership in Colorado would love an outright hunting ban.

These are the same people who believe there are more than two genders. How can anyone actually think we will have a conversation based on science with these people?

This is a thread on lead projectiles in the hunting space. See yourself out of this thread.
 
I’d be real curious as to what Raptor species haven’t migrated out of CO by Rifle season, and how many and % remain in the Mtn’s through late fall winter.

Considering there are early rifle mule deer seasons open in Sept as well as a 30 bear rifle season open the entire month of Sept, I'd wager almost no migration events have occurred.
Obviously those seasons don't result in near the amount of carcasses on the ground as 1st 2nd and 3rd rifle seasons and the weather varies greatly from year to year, but I've seen raptors on carcasses in the high country through 1st rifle and likely many of the animals killed during 3rd and 4th rifles are at lower elevations.

With no other information, I'd be willing to tentatively conclude this (seasonality as it relates to rifle seasons) is a dead end argument.
 
Quite a bit. Thousands of microfragments of lead are created every time a bullet moving over 2K FPS impacts an animal, and they are concentrated into a gut pile that enters the food chain through scavenging. Blood lead levels of scavenging birds have been proven to increase during hunting season. Using lead free ammo for big game hunting eliminates this issue.

That being said, these commie states like CO and CA mandating changes to the way we hunt is obviously a slippery slope. Honestly a tough situation though, because there is obviously an issue. If you have questions about switching, feel free to shoot me a PM- I've been shooting exclusively copper with great results for a decade

This is very much news to me about the amount of fragmentation that occurs during impact. I understand the political climate currently and the issues associated with that and how many people feel this is just another thing they are "coming after". As conservationists, I feel as though this is just a small subtlety that if this can help raptor populations from high lead levels, that's fine by me. I'll shoot you a PM.
 
This is very much news to me about the amount of fragmentation that occurs during impact. I understand the political climate currently and the issues associated with that and how many people feel this is just another thing they are "coming after". As conservationists, I feel as though this is just a small subtlety that if this can help raptor populations from high lead levels, that's fine by me. I'll shoot you a PM.

Lot of dudes "divide by zero" so to speak whenever anyone brings this up. But yeah, it is clearly a very real problem that has gotten worse since, especially, modern centerfire rifles became standard.

I'm a big libertarian and hate government overreach as much as anyone. This one, though, seems like the kidn of scenario where we realistically get ahead of it voluntarily as conservationists, or else we leave the anti hunter types with an easy lay up against hunting in general.

Also copper ammo has progressed to the point you really give nothing up by switching. Except carcinogens in your food.
 
Lot of dudes "divide by zero" so to speak whenever anyone brings this up. But yeah, it is clearly a very real problem that has gotten worse since, especially, modern centerfire rifles became standard.

I'm a big libertarian and hate government overreach as much as anyone. This one, though, seems like the kidn of scenario where we realistically get ahead of it voluntarily as conservationists, or else we leave the anti hunter types with an easy lay up against hunting in general.

Also copper ammo has progressed to the point you really give nothing up by switching. Except carcinogens in your food.
Anti hunters will never stop it’s just like anti gun community. Look at California and the gun laws that come out every year. Every inch you concede the same groups will be pushing the next agenda the following year. California banned lead ammo for hunting throughout the state in 2019 a couple years later there was a bill introduced to ban lead ammo at shooting ranges. It’s never ending luckily that didn’t pass but it goes to show it’s never ending. And I’m sure will be introduced again

anti hunting groups don’t give a shit about birds like they claim if they did they would be advocating to shut down windmills not ban lead ammo. Are there some that work with birds who are concerned, yes. but the ones pushing legislation aren’t.
 
This is a thread on lead projectiles in the hunting space. See yourself out of this thread.

I am confused. You mentioned your were curious in your OP. I stated my opinion on why lead projectiles are coming to be in the hunting space and why it will continue to be issue that develops further. There will be other states to go lead free too. Eventually there will be non lead requirements on national forest and blm. Objectively examine other states and localities with lead free requirements and the politics of those places. Unfortunately hunting is going to be political in the foreseeable future whether we like it or not.

You also asked what direction Colorado is trending towards in the last paragraph of your OP. Again I stated my opinion. Colorado leadership would shut off all hunting today if they could get away with it, but that is too big of a step so they will chip away one chip at a time.

Which none lead projectiles would you like to discuss? I have killed a pile of game with the 95 .257 hammer hunter tipped, 92 .257 hammer hunter, 120 7mm hammer hunter, and 124 6.5mm hammer hunter. All have been very easy to work up loads for and have been highly effective at ranges of 288 yards and less for us. I would add that I want to see more from the 95 hht though. My opinion on the hht is that it seems to like more traditional velocities as opposed to ultra high velocities achievable with large capacity belted magnums.
 
Lot of dudes "divide by zero" so to speak whenever anyone brings this up. But yeah, it is clearly a very real problem that has gotten worse since, especially, modern centerfire rifles became standard.

I'm a big libertarian and hate government overreach as much as anyone. This one, though, seems like the kidn of scenario where we realistically get ahead of it voluntarily as conservationists, or else we leave the anti hunter types with an easy lay up against hunting in general.

Also copper ammo has progressed to the point you really give nothing up by switching. Except carcinogens in your food.
FALSE, you are absolutely giving up something to modern projectiles by using copper. This is not even debatable. Faster time to expiration of the animal being first and foremost. BC of bullets and expense among others. There is no legitimate study showing increased risk with human consumption of wild game shot with modern lead projectiles, there is known risk around high volume shooters and reloaders (Wash your hands!!!).

So we have a "rapid" recovery of nearly all raptor species over the last fifty years and have been using lead based bullets for what 130 plus years with high velocity cartridges. So clearly raptor "recovery" is not being greatly hindered. I'm failing to see a major problem.

You know what I'm not seeing reported in the raptor cause of mortality studies? Old age/natural causes. What percentage of raptor carcasses are actually discovered? One could rationalize that the majority, perhaps near entirety of deceased raptors found will be of human related causes, falsely skewing the perception of what is actually leading to raptor death.

Are raptors that eat hunter based carrion at risk for lead toxicity? Yes. Is it a major concern in the grand scheme of things? I'm not seeing it. I am seeing this as just one more unnecessary encroachment on personal choice and an increased time to incapacitation of game animals.

Should every farmer in America stop shooting prairie dogs, predators, and varmits with .22LR and .17 hmr and whatever other inexpensive cartridge they have been using for the last 50 years despite raptor #s climbing? How many raptors have I (or you) witnessed eating praire dog/varmit/predator carcasses vs large game? Come on, not even in the same ball park.

A more effective approach to increasing raptor #s would likely be stopping, neigh reversing human expansion into rural/western environments. Or ban the consumption of wild game that raptors could potentially eat? Does that jive with Libertarian views?

Am I a zero sum, absolute no regulation, pollute the world kind of person. NO. But damn it, does this (or any other number of other regulations) make logical sense? Or does it unnecessarily deprive people of personal choice....? Is the "leadership" of CO looking for any way possible to make shooting/hunting/"consumptive use" more difficult and unappealing? Unequivocally YES.
 
I'm a big libertarian and hate government overreach as much as anyone. This one, though, seems like the kidn of scenario where we realistically get ahead of it voluntarily as conservationists, or else we leave the anti hunter types with an easy lay up against hunting in general.
Yeah, this is where I'm at with it. If hunters lead the effort here, we can shape the narrative better. Voluntary adoption in focused areas where it actually matters. If we dig our heels in and turn this into a political fight with no room for discussion, we might have a losing battle that ends up in bad legislation and blanket mandates. I also think CA shot themselves in the foot with their lead bans, and that it isn't going to lead to the outcome they wanted anyway.
Also copper ammo has progressed to the point you really give nothing up by switching. Except carcinogens in your food.
I mostly shoot copper ammo, have for about ~10 years. It's clearly got its own limitations and I think a lot of folks who've had bad experiences with it, it's because they didn't understand or appreciate those differences. It needs to go fast, the low density means it's a longer bullet and you may need to step down in bullet weight to use the same twist rate, and it has a pretty narrow wound channel. Almost like a broadhead that can break through bone.

BC is usually on the low side because copper is less dense, but for the vast majority of hunters who shouldn't be shooting past ~300 yards anyway, that's not significant. For a lot of the more specialized, skilled, long-range shooters here, that might be a different story than your average "one box of ammo a year" hunter.

Personally, I'm happy with a 300-400yd effective range, and I don't mind the tradeoff to minimize meat loss and not leave lead on the side of a mountain where it's definitely getting golden eagles scavenging on it. I don't begrudge people making different choices.
 
I am confused. You mentioned your were curious in your OP. I stated my opinion on why lead projectiles are coming to be in the hunting space and why it will continue to be issue that develops further. There will be other states to go lead free too. Eventually there will be non lead requirements on national forest and blm. Objectively examine other states and localities with lead free requirements and the politics of those places. Unfortunately hunting is going to be political in the foreseeable future whether we like it or not.

You also asked what direction Colorado is trending towards in the last paragraph of your OP. Again I stated my opinion. Colorado leadership would shut off all hunting today if they could get away with it, but that is too big of a step so they will chip away one chip at a time.

Which none lead projectiles would you like to discuss? I have killed a pile of game with the 95 .257 hammer hunter tipped, 92 .257 hammer hunter, 120 7mm hammer hunter, and 124 6.5mm hammer hunter. All have been very easy to work up loads for and have been highly effective at ranges of 288 yards and less for us. I would add that I want to see more from the 95 hht though. My opinion on the hht is that it seems to like more traditional velocities as opposed to ultra high velocities achievable with large capacity belted magnums.

I appreciate this response over your first, it is thought out and provides sustenance in which I was looking for in giving examples of non-lead bullet options. I just do not wish to engage in Facebook style political conversations on this forum that can lead the thread askew, which I've seen a lot here.

I have no doubt that traditionally blue states are leaning more towards going lead-free. That definitely seems like the trend and agreeing with the gentleman responding above, being a libertarian, I'm torn on the overreach aspect vs conservation. I hope this pilot program does have scientific backing, and is not purely political, however, this is maybe a naive way of thinking.

I'm currently shooting a 178 grain eld-x out of my 30-06, which is generally my elk gun, and a 130-grain swift scirocco out of my 6.5-300 weatherby for deer/pronghorn. I definitely have options it seems like for factory loads for my 30-06, the 6.5-300 not so much (I could develop, maybe in time). With my deer tag being in one of these units, maybe I'll just shoot the 30-06 this year and opt into the program.
 
I’d be real curious as to what Raptor species haven’t migrated out of CO by Rifle season, and how many and % remain in the Mtn’s through late fall winter.
Golden eagles for sure, they'll stick around all year depending on elevation and food availability. Fall migration brings all sorts of raptors through in Sep to Oct. Rough-legged hawks show up by early winter.
 
I appreciate this response over your first, it is thought out and provides sustenance in which I was looking for in giving examples of non-lead bullet options. I just do not wish to engage in Facebook style political conversations on this forum that can lead the thread askew, which I've seen a lot here.

I have no doubt that traditionally blue states are leaning more towards going lead-free. That definitely seems like the trend and agreeing with the gentleman responding above, being a libertarian, I'm torn on the overreach aspect vs conservation. I hope this pilot program does have scientific backing, and is not purely political, however, this is maybe a naive way of thinking.

I'm currently shooting a 178 grain eld-x out of my 30-06, which is generally my elk gun, and a 130-grain swift scirocco out of my 6.5-300 weatherby for deer/pronghorn. I definitely have options it seems like for factory loads for my 30-06, the 6.5-300 not so much (I could develop, maybe in time). With my deer tag being in one of these units, maybe I'll just shoot the 30-06 this year and opt into the program.
I used the 124 hammer hunter with 90 grains of h870 in my 6.5x300. H870 works good if you can find it, as it has been discontinued.
 
That statement is virtually meaningless. It's exactly what we get from the game "management" people all the time; and the dupes fall for it every time.
I'm a believer in the assertion that lead form dead animals shot by a rifle can cause lead poisoning in these birds. However, when the population is steady and climbing, why do they want to do this? I believe it the same reason they come up with all of the dumb gun laws. Their end game is to end hunting and ban guns.

Per Chat GBT..

Golden eagle populations in the western United States, including Colorado, have generally been considered stable to slightly increasing, with a significant increase in breeding pairs observed in recent decades, though concerns remain regarding human-caused mortality. While historical declines occurred due to factors like habitat loss and prey abundance issues, current data from the USGS and US Fish & Wildlife Service suggest a stable to slightly increasing trend in the western US.
 
FALSE, you are absolutely giving up something to modern projectiles by using copper. This is not even debatable. Faster time to expiration of the animal being first and foremost. BC of bullets and expense among others. There is no legitimate study showing increased risk with human consumption of wild game shot with modern lead projectiles, there is known risk around high volume shooters and reloaders (Wash your hands!!!).

So we have a "rapid" recovery of nearly all raptor species over the last fifty years and have been using lead based bullets for what 130 plus years with high velocity cartridges. So clearly raptor "recovery" is not being greatly hindered. I'm failing to see a major problem.

You know what I'm not seeing reported in the raptor cause of mortality studies? Old age/natural causes. What percentage of raptor carcasses are actually discovered? One could rationalize that the majority, perhaps near entirety of deceased raptors found will be of human related causes, falsely skewing the perception of what is actually leading to raptor death.

Are raptors that eat hunter based carrion at risk for lead toxicity? Yes. Is it a major concern in the grand scheme of things? I'm not seeing it. I am seeing this as just one more unnecessary encroachment on personal choice and an increased time to incapacitation of game animals.

Should every farmer in America stop shooting prairie dogs, predators, and varmits with .22LR and .17 hmr and whatever other inexpensive cartridge they have been using for the last 50 years despite raptor #s climbing? How many raptors have I (or you) witnessed eating praire dog/varmit/predator carcasses vs large game? Come on, not even in the same ball park.

A more effective approach to increasing raptor #s would likely be stopping, neigh reversing human expansion into rural/western environments. Or ban the consumption of wild game that raptors could potentially eat? Does that jive with Libertarian views?

Am I a zero sum, absolute no regulation, pollute the world kind of person. NO. But damn it, does this (or any other number of other regulations) make logical sense? Or does it unnecessarily deprive people of personal choice....? Is the "leadership" of CO looking for any way possible to make shooting/hunting/"consumptive use" more difficult and unappealing? Unequivocally YES.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_8210.gif
    IMG_8210.gif
    726.8 KB · Views: 5
This article is a pretty good one and balanced, written by someone who is a legit scientist involved directly in this topic. It supports many of the arguments made by those who dont want to see lead bans, and it also refutes some of their other arguments, as well as provides some much-needed nuance.

Regardless of where you sit on this particular issue, if hunters have any legitimate claim to the title "conservationist", then taking an action that can be shown to probably be very beneficial for a few key species has to be on the table, regardless of whether anti-hunters exist or will try to exploit that action. The fact that anti-hunters have and might continue to use this as a tactic cannot stop us from doing something if it has merit. I strongly believe the quickest path to lose the current level of broad public support for hunting we have now, will be to dig in and refuse to take a leading role in addressing legitimate concerns where they do exist, out of fear of anti-hunters exploiting our effort.
 
Yeah, this is where I'm at with it. If hunters lead the effort here, we can shape the narrative better. Voluntary adoption in focused areas where it actually matters. If we dig our heels in and turn this into a political fight with no room for discussion, we might have a losing battle that ends up in bad legislation and blanket mandates. I also think CA shot themselves in the foot with their lead bans, and that it isn't going to lead to the outcome they wanted anyway.

I mostly shoot copper ammo, have for about ~10 years. It's clearly got its own limitations and I think a lot of folks who've had bad experiences with it, it's because they didn't understand or appreciate those differences. It needs to go fast, the low density means it's a longer bullet and you may need to step down in bullet weight to use the same twist rate, and it has a pretty narrow wound channel. Almost like a broadhead that can break through bone.

BC is usually on the low side because copper is less dense, but for the vast majority of hunters who shouldn't be shooting past ~300 yards anyway, that's not significant. For a lot of the more specialized, skilled, long-range shooters here, that might be a different story than your average "one box of ammo a year" hunter.

Personally, I'm happy with a 300-400yd effective range, and I don't mind the tradeoff to minimize meat loss and not leave lead on the side of a mountain where it's definitely getting golden eagles scavenging on it. I don't begrudge people making different choices.
I think you are gravely mistaken to think any dealing we do with current Co state leadership will be in good faith… essentially like letting foxes design our hen house. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t
 
Yeah, this is where I'm at with it. If hunters lead the effort here, we can shape the narrative better. Voluntary adoption in focused areas where it actually matters. If we dig our heels in and turn this into a political fight with no room for discussion, we might have a losing battle that ends up in bad legislation and blanket mandates. I also think CA shot themselves in the foot with their lead bans, and that it isn't going to lead to the outcome they wanted anyway.

I mostly shoot copper ammo, have for about ~10 years. It's clearly got its own limitations and I think a lot of folks who've had bad experiences with it, it's because they didn't understand or appreciate those differences. It needs to go fast, the low density means it's a longer bullet and you may need to step down in bullet weight to use the same twist rate, and it has a pretty narrow wound channel. Almost like a broadhead that can break through bone.

BC is usually on the low side because copper is less dense, but for the vast majority of hunters who shouldn't be shooting past ~300 yards anyway, that's not significant. For a lot of the more specialized, skilled, long-range shooters here, that might be a different story than your average "one box of ammo a year" hunter.

Personally, I'm happy with a 300-400yd effective range, and I don't mind the tradeoff to minimize meat loss and not leave lead on the side of a mountain where it's definitely getting golden eagles scavenging on it. I don't begrudge people making different choices.
I am of the belief that all of these laws serve the purpose of the people who want to ban hunting and guns. They do not have an altruistic motive of doing good. Everything they do with good intentions really is masked behind another narrative. Wolves, copper, other predators being introduced. I think it's all BS.

Banning lead reduces ammo supplies, costs more and is less effective (although marginally at best) for hunting. It creates another barrier we have to get through to get ammo.

I don't believe them. You shouldn't either.

And there is not a problem with the raptor population, including the golden eagles, in CO. So if there is no problem, why are they creating a solution? It's because their motive is other than what they say.
 
I am of the belief that all of these laws serve the purpose of the people who want to ban hunting and guns. They do not have an altruistic motive of doing good. Everything they do with good intentions really is masked behind another narrative. Wolves, copper, other predators being introduced. I think it's all BS.

Banning lead reduces ammo supplies, costs more and is less effective (although marginally at best) for hunting. It creates another barrier we have to get through to get ammo.

I don't believe them. You shouldn't either.

And there is not a problem with the raptor population, including the golden eagles, in CO. So if there is no problem, why are they creating a solution? It's because their motive is other than what they say.
Enforcement seems decently tough as well.
This isn’t waterfowl where you have a box or two of shells, lots of guys carry like 10 rounds total, usually using 1 maybe 2…
 
Back
Top