RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

CA: Lead ammo ban is essentially a ban on hunting

9K views 34 replies 21 participants last post by  BHB 
#1 ·
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...nting-Disguised-As-Statewide-Ban-On-Lead-Ammo

http://tinyurl.com/ovcnw3r

California Republican: Lead Ammo Ban Essentially a Ban on Hunting

by AWR Hawkins 8 Oct 2013, 1:41 PM PDT

California Assemblyman and gubernatorial candidate Tim Donnelly (R-33rd
Dist.) says the proposed ban on lead ammunition awaiting Governor Jerry
Brown's (D) signature is a de facto ban on hunting.

Donnelly was referring to AB711, which would ban lead ammo throughout
California under the guise of protecting the state's Condor population.

"This is a ban on hunting that is disguised as a lead ammo ban,"
Donnelly told Breitbart News on October 8. "It would force people to go
non-lead bullets, but non-lead bullets are considered to be armor
piercing, and if they can be fired through a handgun they are illegal to
own. It is a breach of federal law to own arming piecing ammunition for
handguns."

"This will effectively end ammunition options for hunters, ending
hunting in CA as well," he explained. "And this makes no sense because
hunters help us manage the wildlife population. And through licenses and
other fees they actually pay the state to let them do the management."

- more -
 
See less See more
#3 ·
Geez Keith, you're expecting a politician to look something up when he's in the opposition and working hard for votes? Never happen, his mind is made up, unless he can get more votes by switching sides of course.

I do find it objectionable to have to pay $1.50 to over $2.00 a bullet for 30 06 ammo though.
 
#4 ·
Theres NOTHING wrong with those Keith, if that is YOUR choice to use them.. But when Uncle Sam becomes a Nanny and Forces you to use them,, THATS whats wrong..

Gooser

P.S.

Have shot Barnes "X"bullets for quite sometime..... MY CHOICE
 
#5 ·
I think it was this part:

"It would force people to go non-lead bullets, but non-lead bullets are considered to be armor
piercing, and if they can be fired through a handgun they are illegal to
own.
 
#9 ·
I don't agree with the law, but my experience with the Barnes TSX has been just the opposite of Paul's. I have seen more knockdown, and awesome shock with them. We "played" with a variety of bullets over the years, and the Barnes have been the best so far. Also tend to be pretty accurate as well. Excellent weight retention as well. Recovered one from a Black Bear in AK with something like 96% +original weight. But, everyone has their preferences as it should be.

Mike
 
#11 ·
Understand my point about CHOICE now?

Uncle Sam. You have way more important things to worry about than what bullet I shoot or some bird. Quit F'n around and get to work!
 
#14 ·
Well, for one thing, as Bubba mentioned, large calibers on deer often result in devastating results. I shot a deer at 200 yards with a 300 win mag one time broadside high in the rib cage and it literally picked him up and flipped him over. The 243 for deer is a much better choice if distances are reasonable. Also, regardless of bullet, shot placement is going to make a world of difference. Rib bones don't put up much resistance but you drive a bullet through a front shoulder bone and any bullet is probably coming apart. While I know the marketing material says an X bullet doesn't come apart that's not what i've seen in probably 15 deer and a few elk. When it hits and opens up, those 4 wings peel back and depending on what they hit come off the bullet. Partitions on the other hand have that core that stays together and in soft flesh, the exit wound will be large and you'll have some clean up to do around it. If it hits a shoulder that ball of lead is gonna knock whatever off its feet. I prefer the partitions for Elk, Beer because I want them off their feet. I've also got some guns that seem to prefer certain bullet types. One of my 270's loves the X bullets, extremely accurate. My other 270 is the same with partitions. They are both customer built guns but sitting on a remington 700 action. Go figure. Either way, shot placement is probably more important overall so pick a bullet the gun shoots well, let her get comfortable with the gun and go have a good time. The debates on which bullet is best is just as bad as the Show vs Field, Lab vs Golden, British vs American, FF vs No FF debates that go on here. Of course we all know a FF American Field lab is the best, some people just like to debate....:)

/Paul
 
#15 · (Edited)
Lead has been around forever, when you got something that works why bother to develop anything else, something that's perhaps better? Looks like an untapped market to me. The Bunny-huggers are gonna push it down our throat eventually. Anyone want to put some thought into developing Eco friendly, better performance, maybe even a cheaper material than steel, copper, etc..Seems like there should be a lot of different materials that you could fling with gun powder and make a pretty nice hole. Copper and Steel are too expensive and too hard; perhaps a softer alloy-mixture (integrating readily found materials aluminum/zinc?). Seems like a guaranteed, money maker to me. The Govt. creates the market, some enterprising person just needs to cash in. Alas I don't have the expertise; I'm sure somebody does, (metallurgy/blacksmith?). Still if the ammo companies didn't see such coming (after they already had the Fed. change waterfowl to non-Lead), and don't have a contingency plan; They are pretty much morons.
 
#16 ·
I read the book "Black Hawk Down" One of the SEAL's used the "green" bullets and he said he'd hit guys and see a red hole appear right before they ran off. His partner that was carrying a M-14 with lead bullets would hit a bad guy and he'd go down and not get back up. Granted different caliburs, but the SEAL with the green bullets said he'd never use them again.
 
#17 ·
Its a bit about being responsible if you CHOOSE to use a different bullet than what you are use to.

I have used barnes 'X" bullets for some time.

I found through experimentation, and load development, that you have to pay attention to velocity of the round you shoot.

You cant just substitute a solid copper for a lead bullet.

I have found if you slow down the velocity when using a Barnes X,, them penetration is excellent, along wiith expansion and bullet weight retention.

With a .270, and the fact it shoots relatively fast velocity wise with 130 grain bullets, I had to reduce velocity a bit, to get the performance I wanted when the bullet hit the animal.. My groups because of this wernt as nice as when I used a lead bullet,, BUT, PLENTY good to hunt with,, and Like I said bullet performance has been excellent.

Most all game animals I have taken with them, was a 1 shot drop in tracks deal. Bullet DID pass through,, but a well placed shot, taking out the heart, finished the dea lpretty well.

As far as targets running off,, I would question where the bullet was placed.

Same thing for Hornady SX (Super expansive) bullets.
I use a 55 grain SX in .223 for Varmint hunting (Coyote)
Hornady advises you dont shoot them over 3400 FPS.or you might experience the bullet coming apart before it gets to the target, because of the very thin Copper Jacket.BUT,,, when I shoot a Coyote, I want a decent pelt after the shot. I want the bullet to go in,, then immediately come apart inside the animal, with NO exit hole. You MUST experiment with your Load. the type and Charge of powder you use, to get that performance.

When deciding a CHOICE of what bullet you use,,, there is some homework involved.
 
#18 ·
I dont know how ANYONE can go to a sporting good store and just purchase a box of ANY type of ammo,, and then just go Hunt with it expecting great performance.
It just doesnt work that way IMHO.
Thats the beauty of reloading.
 
#20 ·
I love Winchester Ballistic Supremes just for this reason I shoot 1/2 groups at 100 with that round in 22-250. It is also the best round for what you said earlier is goes in and blows apart.
 
#19 ·
I will say also, that I have taken deer with Sierra Game King lead bullets, that I get my best grouping with,and great velocity,but the shot placement was a pure lung shot, and I experienced the animal running for some distance, much like what Bow hunters experience with an arrow through the lungs.

The deer still had a horrible day.

Gooser
 
#21 ·
As a bow hunter, ever since I started using the Rage, I have yet to have a deer go more than 40 yards and drop dead. Your shot placement is the most critical of any of it. Heck you can drop a deer with a .22 with a properly placed shot.
 
#22 · (Edited)
The problem is not the bullets, it's the control that a state legislature with a super majority(democrat) is trying to establish. It's like they're saying, "Well, we got a super majority. Now let's just over-regulate the right-wing(most hunters) out of existence to please our constituency!"

Like Gooser said, it is our ability to choose that's being threatened.

What we really have is a majority of misinformed urban dwellers(LA area and SF Bay Area) here that live in an asphalt and concrete world with lots of laws to keep their neighbors out of their yards. Being misinformed by other urban dwellers(the media) they mistakenly think that all others outside the asphalt and concrete world need to live by the same rules(essentially no freedom to choose). So, they elect a super majority of other misinformed, urban dwelling politicians to regulate everyone!

As far as the "armor piercing" thing goes,... according to an LEO that I know, any bullet from most deer rifles will penetrate a bullet-proof vest, even lead. I've never tried this out, though and hope to never have to!

BHB
 
#23 ·
This sounds like the typical movie on politics where the politician takes a radical stance to get votes. This will never get passed... at least I hope not. On a side note Washington state has a ban on lead bird shot (not bullets) in many many waterfowl areas, but that makes a little more sense.
 
#24 ·
They have a super-majority. They can pass anything they want with no consequences.

A lead ban on bird shot for waterfowl is just a start. Don't drink the kool-aid!

BHB
 
#25 ·
all this legislation was predictable...in their hearts they know they cant beat the 2A so the next best way is to go after the ammo. By making lead a toxic substance they can make it cost prohibitive or make all the existing ammo obsolete by making it illegal to possess or shoot the ammo, which in effect furthers the anti's agenda

Where it will really impact those of use that train dogs in Calif. is that it will force us to use non tox shotshells exclusively

From a hunters standpoint , doesnt look like I will be buying any Calif hunting licenses in the near future

From a gun owners standpoint I am deeply concerned that this trend is continuing to infringe on my rights
 
#26 · (Edited)
My posts about bullet performance wasn't an attempt to hijack or continue the different topic gun dog started. What is was, was, a way to show that we have choices as to what we personally want to use based on experience. The "nanny" wants to go behind our backs, and further her their lowly anti gun causes.

They are pure cowards.

I am very proud of the folks in southern Colorado that recalled the despots that started the anti gun legislation that got passes recently, and now they (we) are going after others with possible recall elections.

MAYBE there is hope.
 
#28 ·
Or, maybe the push to move away from lead ammo has nothing to do with banning guns. (I know, crazy talk.) Maybe, just maybe, it's because lead toxicosis is the leading cause of mortality in juvenile and adult California Condors. Here's a citation:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22247378

At the Washington State University Raptor Rehab Center, lead toxicosis is the primary reason Golden Eagles are brought in.

Call me a bunny hugger, but I'd like to imagine that a few hundred years from now, there'd still be a few wild animals left.
 
#29 ·
I call BAD SCIENCE!! There has been flaws in the studies that have been proven false because of faulty assumptions. It's a smokescreen to cover their agenda. 95% of species that were on the earth years ago went extinct before mankind was even here. Who are we to say that a species can't go extinct! I digress,...

The science states that a lot of condors are dying because of lead in the bullets being left in the gut piles of game animals. If you think about it, the chances of any lead being left in the gut pile is pretty remote as most hunters don't shoot their game in the guts. And, if they did the bullet usually just pass through that area because of no bone to break it up. Couple that with the chances of any condor even eating a game animal with lead in it is pretty remote as that part is usually removed with the carcass. Besides, turkey vultures are thriving while eating the same animals. This is just an excuse(a weak and far reaching one) for them(the all knowing and wise;) govt) to excersise their agenda and control over people that hunt and own guns.

It seems to me that we should just let nature take it's course and let the condor go extinct instead of spending MILLIONS and MILLIONS of our tax dollars for a species that can't adapt. It's time has come! Just my .02.

There is an indian tribe in Northern California that wants to expand the condor in their area. The reason: They get govt grants to put into their coffers! It's really all about the money!

BHB
 
#31 ·
More proof... read the bottom underlined section.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE REVIEW OF AB 711

MAY 21, 2013.

Sacramento, CA - The California Department of Finance (DOF) analysis of the fiscal effect of Assembly Bill (AB) 711 was released on May 13, 2013, revealing that AB 711 could cost California $34 million, and probably a lot more.

Even with the potentially enormous costs associated with AB 711, including the loss of federal, state and local funding from hunting licenses, the loss of California jobs and revenue from a reduction in hunting and the loss of federal funding for California conservation programs, lead ammunition ban proponents still seek to ban hunting with lead ammunition nationwide.

The DOF’s calculations are based on three components. The first is the potential loss of revenue due to decreased sales of hunting licenses that the DOF estimates at about $9 million. The second is a proportional loss of California’s $14 million annual revenue from federal funding due to decreased sales of hunting licenses, which is based on geographic size and the number of hunting licenses sold. Compounding the loss of this revenue, the federal funding is specifically earmarked to support wildlife conservation efforts in California. The third factor is increased costs that AB 711 establishes in a program to provide hunters with “free,” or reduced charge, non-lead ammunition. This could cost California as much as $11 million annually.

Most importantly, there are two cost components that the DOF did not include in its analysis. The first is the fiscal impact that hunters and hunting expenditures have on the state. In 2011, hunting expenditures in California totaled $964 million, which included equipment, food, lodging, and transportation. The second is the additional Department of Fish and Wildlife wardens required to enforce a statewide lead ammunition ban. But, the AB 711 proponents have concealed the enforcement issue. Indeed, at 2012 Department of Fish and Game Commission hearings on lead ammunition, researchers and environmental groups themselves blamed the Department’s lack of enforcement in the “condor zone” as the primary reason why the 2008 lead ammunition ban (AB 823) did not result in a reduction of lead poisoning in condors, despite a 99% compliance rate by hunters with the lead ban.




We have had a ban on lead rifle ammo in the southern part of the state since 08. Since then there have been no reduction of lead poisoning in condors in that vast area. Need I say more?

BHB
 
#33 ·
Condors are affected more by lead than coyotes for several reasons.

1. Birds (having no teeth) grind food in their gizzards, often using grit or gravel to help. Ingested lead pellets and fragments get ground up as well. Some birds will even intentionally ingest lead pellets because the pellets are the preferred size of grit for them. Swans and other waterfowl, for example, intentionally ingest lead pellets that fall in muck; which is why the first big push to ban lead was for wetland hunting. Lead passes through coyotes fairly quickly compared to birds, and the digestive system of coyotes isn't designed to pulverize the lead pellets like that of birds.

2. Condors have a very long lifespan. They do not reach sexual maturity until they are 5 or 6 years old, when they first begin looking for a mate. They have to potential to live 50-60 years. That is a very, very long time. They chances that a condor can make it to sexual maturity, never mind 50 years, without stumbling upon a carcass with lead fragments is slim. The effects of lead are cumulative. It is not easily excreted. Coyotes can have pups by the time they are a year old and they rarely live more than a few years in the wild. Coyotes rarely live long enough to accumulate enough lead to kill them.

3. Condors are specialist on large animal carrion. Coyotes will eat just about anything from melons in fields to unfortunate cats, but the vast majority of their diet in most areas consists of small rodents, which rarely contain large amounts of lead pellets. Coyotes eat any carrion they find, but its the large animals that are more likely to contain lead shot. Hunters generally pack out the entire bodies of small animals, but they often leave much of the carcass of a large animal.

Combine all those factors: a long life span, grinding ingested lead in a gizzard, and being a large animal carcass specialist, and you have an animals that is the poster child for lead toxicosis.

Hunters today wear clothes made of Gortex instead of oilskin, they use carry a GPS instead of a compass, they haul carcasses out with ATVs instead of horses. Everything about hunting has changed dramatically in the last 50 years, except they still have to use lead bullets? The country that invented iPhones and cold cereal can't create a decent bullet that doesn't contain lead? I don't believe it.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top