omgb
03-02-2007, 01:53 AM
The DFG in the PRK is talking about banning all lead bullets from a number of counties in Calif. The ban would apply to all big game hunting as well as small game and non-game hunting. I sent the following letter to the DFG and to my state Rep. You might want to do something similar if you live in Calif.
Sir:
As a sportsman I am very concerned about the proposed ban on lead
ammunition. Doing this will pose an extreme hardship on all hunters and will
very likely not only eliminate all of the 18th and 19th century type
firearms being used in fair chase hunts, but bring an end to most if not all
small game hunting in major regions of the state.
Let me explain. All 18th and 19th century firearms and their modern copies
must use lead bullets. They simply will not shoot anything else due to their
basic design. It is patently unfair to remove this entire class of firearms
from the hunting tradition based on very incomplete and frequently
conflicting and inconclusive data. From the studies published to date, it is
clear that condors are far more likely to be killed by power lines than by
eating the entrails of game killed by lead bullets. Further, the entire
lead bullet issue is rendered moot when entrails are disposed of properly as
outlined in the DFG hunting regulations. The powerline problem is not so
easily solved however. No one is seriously suggesting that we ban power
lines or trench them all so as to take them out of the path of condors.
Clearly, it is believed that the cost to do so would exceed any benefit to
the public. If the DFG is not willing to take on the power utilities which
kill the majority of condors, one must wonder why they would propose to ban
something as inconclusive as lead bullets. Perhaps it is because they feel
they must make a show of doing something and attacking the relatively small
number of sportsmen and their lead bullets would be an easier fight. That's
bad science and bad government both of which make bad public policy.
In addition to the above reason, one must also consider what this will do to
the harvesting of small game in general. Unlike big game which is usually
taken by high velocity, high energy rounds such as the 30-06 and the 270
Win, both of which can be adapted to all copper bullets, small game and
non-game species are usually taken using small arms such as the 22 long
rifle and the 32-20. These types of firearms need lead bullets to be
effective and humane. They rely on the soft expansive qualities of lead as
well as its density and mass to make quick and humane kills. In addition,
lead bullet use is also a safety issue. Lead bullets break up when they hit
rocks and hard surfaces, copper bullets will not and are far more likely to
ricochet and strike an unintended target. With civilization encroaching on
more and more public hunting land, switching over to non-lead projectiles
will very likely lead to an increase in accidental injury to people,
livestock and property. Inevitably, banning lead bullets in these firearms
will very quickly necessitate eliminating them from the list of acceptable
hunting cartridges. This will make it difficult for women, children and the
handicapped, all of whom prefer to hunt with these cartridges due to the
decreased recoil and noise factor, to enjoy the hunting tradition. The end
result of the ban would be highly discriminatory against the above mentioned
hunters and as a whole, effectively end small game hunting in California.
So one must wonder what the real reasoning is behind the proposed ban. I
would suggest that it is a thinly veiled attempt to ban firearms in their
entirety by eliminating one of their stated legitimate uses. Perhaps too,
it is the beginning of a plan to ban all hunting in the state. Either way,
what it will not do is save the condor or any other species from extinction.
The decline in habitat and the proliferation of high voltage power lines
will continue to drive the numbers of condors down, lead ban or no. The
proposed lead bullet ban is the wrong action to take for all of the wrong
reasons. If it passes, it will place an unfair an unnecessary burden on
hunters in California and in the process, cost the state untold millions in
the revenue these hunters generate for the state each year. I respectfully
request that you reconsider such a ban and vote no.
Sir:
As a sportsman I am very concerned about the proposed ban on lead
ammunition. Doing this will pose an extreme hardship on all hunters and will
very likely not only eliminate all of the 18th and 19th century type
firearms being used in fair chase hunts, but bring an end to most if not all
small game hunting in major regions of the state.
Let me explain. All 18th and 19th century firearms and their modern copies
must use lead bullets. They simply will not shoot anything else due to their
basic design. It is patently unfair to remove this entire class of firearms
from the hunting tradition based on very incomplete and frequently
conflicting and inconclusive data. From the studies published to date, it is
clear that condors are far more likely to be killed by power lines than by
eating the entrails of game killed by lead bullets. Further, the entire
lead bullet issue is rendered moot when entrails are disposed of properly as
outlined in the DFG hunting regulations. The powerline problem is not so
easily solved however. No one is seriously suggesting that we ban power
lines or trench them all so as to take them out of the path of condors.
Clearly, it is believed that the cost to do so would exceed any benefit to
the public. If the DFG is not willing to take on the power utilities which
kill the majority of condors, one must wonder why they would propose to ban
something as inconclusive as lead bullets. Perhaps it is because they feel
they must make a show of doing something and attacking the relatively small
number of sportsmen and their lead bullets would be an easier fight. That's
bad science and bad government both of which make bad public policy.
In addition to the above reason, one must also consider what this will do to
the harvesting of small game in general. Unlike big game which is usually
taken by high velocity, high energy rounds such as the 30-06 and the 270
Win, both of which can be adapted to all copper bullets, small game and
non-game species are usually taken using small arms such as the 22 long
rifle and the 32-20. These types of firearms need lead bullets to be
effective and humane. They rely on the soft expansive qualities of lead as
well as its density and mass to make quick and humane kills. In addition,
lead bullet use is also a safety issue. Lead bullets break up when they hit
rocks and hard surfaces, copper bullets will not and are far more likely to
ricochet and strike an unintended target. With civilization encroaching on
more and more public hunting land, switching over to non-lead projectiles
will very likely lead to an increase in accidental injury to people,
livestock and property. Inevitably, banning lead bullets in these firearms
will very quickly necessitate eliminating them from the list of acceptable
hunting cartridges. This will make it difficult for women, children and the
handicapped, all of whom prefer to hunt with these cartridges due to the
decreased recoil and noise factor, to enjoy the hunting tradition. The end
result of the ban would be highly discriminatory against the above mentioned
hunters and as a whole, effectively end small game hunting in California.
So one must wonder what the real reasoning is behind the proposed ban. I
would suggest that it is a thinly veiled attempt to ban firearms in their
entirety by eliminating one of their stated legitimate uses. Perhaps too,
it is the beginning of a plan to ban all hunting in the state. Either way,
what it will not do is save the condor or any other species from extinction.
The decline in habitat and the proliferation of high voltage power lines
will continue to drive the numbers of condors down, lead ban or no. The
proposed lead bullet ban is the wrong action to take for all of the wrong
reasons. If it passes, it will place an unfair an unnecessary burden on
hunters in California and in the process, cost the state untold millions in
the revenue these hunters generate for the state each year. I respectfully
request that you reconsider such a ban and vote no.