Colorado Lead-Free Pilot Program

Damn, I'll have to let these guys know. All one shot DRT kills with monos from 20 to 350 yards from Alaska to Florida lol

View attachment 913727
Not saying they don't work, they absolutely do. You should have the choice to use what you prefer, as should others. You use monos for prairie dogs and such?

We should all be wary of those waiving the virtue flag, even if it is for "conservation".
 
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.
Rather than capitulate when someone waives a conservation flag, I believe it is very reasonable and necessary to point out the incongruities and hypocrisy. You/we/ I need to learn to evaluate and being able to correct/redirect, in a way that fosters conversation, the narrative if it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
 
We should all be wary of those waiving the virtue flag

Nobody is waving the virtue flag. I'm simply offering facts and help to guys who voluntarily decide they'd be interested in switching to lead free in light of that information.

I understand why guys panic when people bring this topic up- Colorado and California are poster children for government overreach. I just hope we as a community start to understand the facts of a situation that will probably be legislated for us at some point in the not too distant future if we don't start to read the writing on the wall.
 
I'm a believer in the assertion that lead form dead animals shot by a rifle can cause lead poisoning in these birds.
We are all free to believe whatever we want.
I'm curious, what evidence is your belief based on?
And please define "lead poisoning".

As I pointed out previously, statements like "Blood lead levels of scavenging birds have been proven to increase during hunting season" are virtually meaningless. And being such, are usually meant to deceive rather than inform accurately.
So, how much did they increase? 00.0001? ? 1000%?
Are there no other factors that could contribute to that undefined increase?
Did that increase have ANY negative effects on those birds? If so, what were they?

The intention of this proposal is crystal clear to any thinking person.
 
Back
Top