Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Trust the science.:Bald eagles are doing incredibly well, populations are double what they were just a few decades ago.
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?
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.
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.
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 againLot 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.
This is a thread on lead projectiles in the hunting space. See yourself out of this thread.
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!!!).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.
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'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.
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.Also copper ammo has progressed to the point you really give nothing up by switching. Except carcinogens in your food.
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.
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’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.
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.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'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.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.
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 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’tYeah, 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.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.
Enforcement seems decently tough as well.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.