North American Non Lead Partnership Opinions

[Marble]

I'll bring up teo pints I learned from our lawyer that represents us at the state level. I'm part of a large wildlife organization.

1. The lead isotope found in the dead California condors is not the same that is found in ammunition. It is lead, but it is not from bullets. Where it come from,who knows.

2. The XRAY everyone has seen of the deer with white spots scattering of lead projectiles spread throughout, was fake. It was created as a representation of what a deer was believed to have looked like after being shot.

Politicians knew this when they voted for the lead ban in CA and it didnt matter.

This state is insane. And I hope it doesnt spread around like I fear it is. The democratic party that claims the science supports global warming, wont use science available tot hem if it isnt convenient.

People who know nothing about it, making decisions about stuff that doesnt affect them.

 

[Where's Bruce?]

Metallurgy testing of the dumb condors in my state (Calif) confirmed the lead poisoning came from peeling paint on abandoned government buildings, not ammunition. Don't believe the BS.

 

[Okhotnik]

I'll bring up teo pints I learned from our lawyer that represents us at the state level. I'm part of a large wildlife organization.

1. The lead isotope found in the dead California condors is not the same that is found in ammunition. It is lead, but it is not from bullets. Where it come from,who knows.

2. The XRAY everyone has seen of the deer with white spots scattering of lead projectiles spread throughout, was fake. It was created as a representation of what a deer was believed to have looked like after being shot.

Politicians knew this when they voted for the lead ban in CA and it didnt matter.

This state is insane. And I hope it doesnt spread around like I fear it is. The democratic party that claims the science supports global warming, wont use science available tot hem if it isnt convenient.

People who know nothing about it, making decisions about stuff that doesnt affect them.

Oh boy now you hurt the op's feelings with logic

.Better to use hysterics and emotion

 

[Valkyrie]

If anyone believes that this is anything else but incrementalism by the antis, you’re delusional. Buying into this is nothing different than acquiescence to the antis. It’s cleverly disguised but the goal remains the same.

don’t be so gullible.

 

[OXN939]

2. The XRAY everyone has seen of the deer with white spots scattering of lead projectiles spread throughout, was fake. It was created as a representation of what a deer was believed to have looked like after being shot.

100% agree that you guys' state has gone off its rocker, and that they manipulate data to suit political agendas on the reg. Could you find the source for this? Would be really interested to see it.

I think the whole animals ingesting lead is a bit dubious and I haven’t been convinced it is a huge problem based on the studies I have read about. I also can’t imagine that the volume of lead hunters are putting into the environment is anything compared to other forms of pollution.

Very valid point that there are much greater environmental concerns out there than any of this. I also think it's safe to say that more legislation like California's will be floated by the antis in the future, and I'm having a hard time seeing how it hurts to be able to say that it's already being confronted.

But hey, I appreciate the input! To reiterate, I'm not associated with any of the organizations mentioned in this thread in any way, just curious as to what the general attitude regarding this would be and playing devil's advocate a little bit.

 

[Brendan]

Haven't read every comment, but here's my take.

Any path that leads towards more expensive ammo across the board, leads to less shooting, leads to less Pittman Robertson funding, which is bad for hunters across the board. If I remember correctly, the bulk of PR funding comes from shooting, not hunting.

So, while I personally am looking into all copper options for hunting, I think protecting our ability to use lead across the hunting and shooting sports has a financial impact to conservation that may be far more important than the negative effects of lead (if any)

But, interested in trying Cutting Edge and Hammer myself.

 

[OXN939]

Haven't read every comment, but here's my take.

If I remember correctly, the bulk of PR funding comes from shooting, not hunting.

So, while I personally am looking into all copper options for hunting, I think protecting our ability to use lead across the hunting and shooting sports has a financial impact to conservation that may be far more important than the negative effects of lead (if any)

Absolutely correct on this- it varies, but last I heard around 70% of PR funding is derived from shooting.

Since it's gotten a little hard to tell at this point, the initiative being discussed is basically just entering people into a raffle to win free guns, hunts and gear if they voluntarily use non-lead ammo. I'm all ears if someone can find it, but I'm not seeing any effort to restrict use of lead ammo in any way or increase the cost to do anything.

 

[Desk Jockey]

100% agree that you guys' state has gone off its rocker, and that they manipulate data to suit political agendas on the reg. Could you find the source for this? Would be really interested to see it.



Very valid point that there are much greater environmental concerns out there than any of this. I also think it's safe to say that more legislation like California's will be floated by the antis in the future, and I'm having a hard time seeing how it hurts to be able to say that it's already being confronted.

But hey, I appreciate the input! To reiterate, I'm not associated with any of the organizations mentioned in this thread in any way, just curious as to what the general attitude regarding this would be and playing devil's advocate a little bit.

Seems to me you are citing some studies that have been criticized by 3rd parties relating to their methodology and conclusions. If you don’t think there is an anti gun / anti hunting bias at work here then maybe you could dig a little deeper into who is funding those studies and promoting them. The NRA and more moderate 2A groups have been fairly clear about anti 2A crowds using legislative attacks against ammunition as a backdoor strategy to implement gun control so it shouldn’t surprise you that many people, myself included, are staunchly opposed to this type of concept that can quickly turn into restrictive regulation or legislation by anti 2A politicians looking to score points with their anti 2A constituents and supporters.

I live in New York where they proposed to ban purchases of more than 40 rounds per year of evil, military calibers like 223, 308, 6.5 creedmor and 30-06 and hand guns are limited to 7 rounds in a 10-round magazine because “common sense” suggests that 7 rounds is more than enough for anyone. There are municipalities that limit ammo possession to 200 rounds and it can take over 6 months to be approved for a purchase of a handgun even if you are already a permit holder. They also make the process so cumbersome that it adds about 40% to the retail cost of a pistol.

I would love to see a study with some reasonable integrity that compares mortality causes among wild life from various sources. I bet even in California the amount of golden eagles and turkey vultures being brought down by lead from hunters or peeling paint or wherever it really comes from is a speck compared to birds killed by house cats, windshield, windmills, buildings with glass curtains, and about 100 other man made causes. Maybe the politicians can work their way down the list from top to bottom and go after the most significant causes first and then let’s talk about ammo. Either that or face the truth that supporting an anti 2A stance is a quick way for a politician to score points with liberals. So let’s not bullshit ourselves and claim that this is really about eagles and vultures.

 

[Marble]

i cant buy into it. it will lead to a wholesale ban on lead ammo state wide if you give them a chance. some of the most attended rifle matches in the nation are held in phoenix and there is not one non lead bullet shot in competition. it would kill the shooting at phoenix.



just like this;
Friday, February 21, was the bill introduction deadline in the California legislature. We anticipate the legislature will make another aggressive push at our Second Amendment Rights and hunting heritage in the Golden State. At this time, the full picture of what we can expect from the introduced bills is not clear because of placeholder/spot bills that are common ahead of the deadline. Your NRA will continue to keep you updated as the bills evolve, however, gun owners should be aware of two incredibly dangerous bills that were introduced.

AB 3071, sponsored by Assembly Member Kevin Mullin (D-22), prohibits the use of ammunition that has not been certified as lead free at sport shooting ranges and indoor ranges. It also prohibits shooting ranges from selling or giving away ammunition that has not been certified as lead free and requires signage that lead ammunition is prohibited for use at the facilities.

This law is an example of what we say when we mention the slippery slope. First it was ban lead, now it is suggested it need to be certified. I'm sure that will also boost costs. How does someone get their reloads certified? Everytime they get something passed, they add to it, make slightly
more expensive, more difficult, less available and thus more restricted.

The point of all this is too make hunting and guns go away.

 

[spike camp]

Everyone getting their feathers ruffled, but read it once again, and then once more....the Non-Lead Partnership I'm talking about is a completely voluntary initiative started by hunters for hunters to protect wildlife, and is not affiliated with any kind of government agency in any form.

 

[KurtR]

Everyone getting their feathers ruffled, but read it once again, and then once more....the Non-Lead Partnership I'm talking about is a completely voluntary initiative started by hunters for hunters to protect wildlife, and is not affiliated with any kind of government agency in any form.

But are you really protecting wildlife? Would efforts time and money be more effective if placed some where that has been proven to help wildlife like say habitat.

 

[spike camp]

But are you really protecting wildlife? Would efforts time and money be more effective if placed some where that has been proven to help wildlife like say habitat.

Not placing known toxins in the environment, helps wildlife. You simply can’t argue the contrary.

Who’s to say that habitat improvement coupled with this voluntary measures doesn’t help wildlife two fold?

Everyone is so damn sensitive to 2a or whatever, they’re loosing sight of the basics.

 

[Trial153]

But are you really protecting wildlife? Would efforts time and money be more effective if placed some where that has been proven to help wildlife like say habitat.

Why does it have to be an either or question? There is time an money to go around for both. it seems to that getting in on the ground floor, where we as hunters set the parameters, lead by example and maybe circumvent non voluntary restrictions ...could very well be a net benefit to the sport. I think as group hunters have been guilty of sitting on hands and only getting off our asses when it’s time to be reactive.
It’s nice to see some pro action for a change.

 

[OXN939]

Effects of lead from ammunition on birds and other wildlife: A review and update - Ambio

Poisoning of wild birds following ingestion of lead from ammunition has long been recognised and considerable recent research has focused on terrestrial birds, including raptors and scavengers. This paper builds upon previous reviews and finds that both the number of taxa affected and...

link.springer.com

I live in New York where they proposed to ban purchases of more than 40 rounds per year of evil, military calibers like 223, 308, 6.5 creedmor and 30-06 and hand guns are limited to 7 rounds in a 10-round magazine because “common sense” suggests that 7 rounds is more than enough for anyone. There are municipalities that limit ammo possession to 200 rounds and it can take over 6 months to be approved for a purchase of a handgun even if you are already a permit holder. They also make the process so cumbersome that it adds about 40% to the retail cost of a pistol.

I would love to see a study with some reasonable integrity that compares mortality causes among wild life from various sources. I bet even in California the amount of golden eagles and turkey vultures being brought down by lead from hunters or peeling paint or wherever it really comes from is a speck compared to birds killed by house cats, windshield, windmills, buildings with glass curtains, and about 100 other man made causes. Maybe the politicians can work their way down the list from top to bottom and go after the most significant causes first and then let’s talk about ammo. Either that or face the truth that supporting an anti 2A stance is a quick way for a politician to score points with liberals. So let’s not bullshit ourselves and claim that this is really about eagles and vultures.

Here's one that's pretty comprehensive, and has nothing to do with California. Findings are the same, basically.

To be clear, if anyone has information showing that any part of this initiative supports limiting the quantity or kind of ammo you can buy, or any firearms-related legislation, I'll be the first one to call them out as a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is literally why I started this thread. So far, though, all I've seen are arguments that California is a socialist joke... which we have all agreed on from the beginning.

 

[KurtR]

Why does it have to be an either or question? There is time an money to go around for both. it seems to that getting in on the ground floor, where we as hunters set the parameters, lead by example and maybe circumvent non voluntary restrictions ...could very well be a net benefit to the sport. I think as group hunters have been guilty of sitting on hands and only getting off our asses when it’s time to be reactive.
It’s nice to see some pro action for a change.

This is bigger than just hunters it would have an affect on shooting sports in general. How is it sitting on our hands if there is nothing really happening?

 

[KurtR]

Effects of lead from ammunition on birds and other wildlife: A review and update - Ambio

Poisoning of wild birds following ingestion of lead from ammunition has long been recognised and considerable recent research has focused on terrestrial birds, including raptors and scavengers. This paper builds upon previous reviews and finds that both the number of taxa affected and...

link.springer.com

Here's one that's pretty comprehensive, and has nothing to do with California. Findings are the same, basically.

To be clear, if anyone has information showing that any part of this initiative supports limiting the quantity or kind of ammo you can buy, or any firearms-related legislation, I'll be the first one to call them out as a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is literally why I started this thread. So far, though, all I've seen are arguments that California is a socialist joke... which we have all agreed on from the beginning.

That study mentions abandoned shooting ranges more than once. Thats where it starts and then the do gooders make their real move to limit ammunition for target shooting

 

[Where's Bruce?]

Everyone getting their feathers ruffled, but read it once again, and then once more....the Non-Lead Partnership I'm talking about is a completely voluntary initiative started by hunters for hunters to protect wildlife, and is not affiliated with any kind of government agency in any form.

Lead (like many things) is a naturally occurring element on our planet...some of it may be adversely impacting your thought processes. Pay attention to what others are teaching you! This Non-Lead partnership is partnered with hard left enviros who preach about "global warming" and "persecution: of raptors by humans. https://peregrinefund.org/threats-birds-prey-landing-page. You are getting sucked into a world of BS! The FN Oregon Zoo is hiding behind Leland Brown's credentials because (like you) he was duped (and paid) into supporting their cause. Dig a hair deeper and you learn this organization is clearly aligned with ANTI-HUNTING GROUPS and deny requests for documentation supporting their position because it cost too much. https://oregonoutdoorcouncil.org/the-oregon-zoos-anti-lead-ammunition-crusade-continues/

Does anyone do their homework anymore or do you base your beliefs on memes?

 

[Smithb9841]

Not placing known toxins in the environment, helps wildlife. You simply can’t argue the contrary.

Who’s to say that habitat improvement coupled with this voluntary measures doesn’t help wildlife two fold?

Everyone is so damn sensitive to 2a or whatever, they’re loosing sight of the basics.

Come to a state like California deal with the gun laws that we do here and youll Understand the “slippery slope” theory a lot more and youll
Understand why some people are so “sensitive” about 2A regulations. Ask the guys in Arizona with what’s starting to be pushed there as well from
A 2a standpoint.

if there was actually conclusive evidence that shooting lead for big game was having a serious adverse effect in a meaningful population I would be all for it.. but there isnt the spread of misinformation on this topic has clouded the actual studies and what the actual studies proved.

 

[Brendan]

Here's the problem with voluntary initiatives like this. What if they have a down side, and could potentially be BAD for hunters and hunting in the long run? What if this starts as feel-good non-binding social media posting and hashtagging and slowly over time moves towards more regulation and non-voluntary elimination of lead that impacts funding, and then hunters?

I personally haven't looked at the science of lead poisoning, but can absolutely see a potential downside to eliminating it if we're not careful. Combine that with unsettled science on it, I think a much better track is to make sure there's better objective science on it, and better communication on the potential downsides of regulating it further or eliminating it, especially if it carries over to target shooting.

Now, if we could find a way to make non-lead alternatives available at a similar or lower cost over time (which maybe we can) then maybe it's a different story.

 

[ODB]

Not placing known toxins in the environment, helps wildlife. You simply can’t argue the contrary.

Who’s to say that habitat improvement coupled with this voluntary measures doesn’t help wildlife two fold?

Everyone is so damn sensitive to 2a or whatever, they’re loosing sight of the basics.

Man, you need to read up... the basics are that there are certain groups who work 24/7/365 to impose their belief on others, and will use voluntary initiatives like this as a means to show that there is “widespread support among the hunting community to ban lead projectiles to ensure the safety of vulnerable species,” as they introduce a bill to compel a reduction in Lead ammo, etc. See how easy that was? I literally made that up on the fly, but it is exactly how stuff like this is used by those against you. Don’t lack the imagination to see how stuff like this is used by others...

im all for better...I use copper and bonded lead bullets only in rifles, but I don’t do it because I want to be part of a woke group.