Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gouldsboro, Pennsylvania
    (Wayne County)
    Age
    51
    Posts
    2,470
    Rep Power
    21474849

    Default Re: California Becomes the First State to Enact Total Lead Bullet Hunting Ban

    Personally, I haven't got a problem with this.

    The science behind it is sound. Hunters in CA have had 6 years to prepare for it. It doesn't ban all lead ammo, just that used in hunting. You can plink and skeet shoot with lead ammo until you drop from fatigue. You just can't hunt with it. The price will do down as more and more manufacturers provide non-lead offerings and most folks don't shoot more than a couple rounds/year when hunting anyway.

    I've said it before. If hunters would stop being such stuck-in-the-mud, irrational Fudds and embraced the legitimate issue for this being enacted, and taken the issue on voluntarily because it's the right thing to do, there would have been no need for the .gov to have gotten involved in the first place. We are our own worst enemy sometimes.
    "How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessnes."

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    127.0.0.1, Pennsylvania
    (Lancaster County)
    Posts
    17,601
    Rep Power
    21474867

    Default Re: California Becomes the First State to Enact Total Lead Bullet Hunting Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Sandcut View Post
    Personally, I haven't got a problem with this.

    The science behind it is sound. Hunters in CA have had 6 years to prepare for it. It doesn't ban all lead ammo, just that used in hunting. You can plink and skeet shoot with lead ammo until you drop from fatigue. You just can't hunt with it. The price will do down as more and more manufacturers provide non-lead offerings and most folks don't shoot more than a couple rounds/year when hunting anyway.

    I've said it before. If hunters would stop being such stuck-in-the-mud, irrational Fudds and embraced the legitimate issue for this being enacted, and taken the issue on voluntarily because it's the right thing to do, there would have been no need for the .gov to have gotten involved in the first place. We are our own worst enemy sometimes.
    Do you have a rough estimate to the number of birds that are killed over the past 50 years due to the ingestion of lead pellets vs the number of birds that have been killed by environmentally friendly windmills in the past 20 years?

    I don't believe for an instant that this push is actually about saving wildlife, it's just more hassle for hunters, and it's no secret that if CA had their way no one would be allowed to hunt there.
    Rules are written in the stone,
    Break the rules and you get no bones,
    all you get is ridicule, laughter,
    and a trip to the house of pain.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Glockin, Pennsylvania
    (Montgomery County)
    Posts
    2,460
    Rep Power
    19235943

    Default Re: California Becomes the First State to Enact Total Lead Bullet Hunting Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Sandcut View Post
    Personally, I haven't got a problem with this.

    The science behind it is sound. Hunters in CA have had 6 years to prepare for it. It doesn't ban all lead ammo, just that used in hunting. You can plink and skeet shoot with lead ammo until you drop from fatigue. You just can't hunt with it. The price will do down as more and more manufacturers provide non-lead offerings and most folks don't shoot more than a couple rounds/year when hunting anyway.

    I've said it before. If hunters would stop being such stuck-in-the-mud, irrational Fudds and embraced the legitimate issue for this being enacted, and taken the issue on voluntarily because it's the right thing to do, there would have been no need for the .gov to have gotten involved in the first place. We are our own worst enemy sometimes.
    I'd have no problem personally moving to non-lead hunting ammunition. However I'm leary over this because it's just another California encroachment on gun rights disguised as altruism.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    lewistown, Pennsylvania
    (Mifflin County)
    Posts
    475
    Rep Power
    10083960

    Default Re: California Becomes the First State to Enact Total Lead Bullet Hunting Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by streaker69 View Post
    Do you have a rough estimate to the number of birds that are killed over the past 50 years due to the ingestion of lead pellets vs the number of birds that have been killed by environmentally friendly windmills in the past 20 years?

    I don't believe for an instant that this push is actually about saving wildlife, it's just more hassle for hunters, and it's no secret that if CA had their way no one would be allowed to hunt there.
    Exactly , All about inconvenience to the Hunter

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ercildoun, Pennsylvania
    (Chester County)
    Posts
    3,659
    Rep Power
    21474846

    Default Re: California Becomes the First State to Enact Total Lead Bullet Hunting Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Sandcut View Post
    Personally, I haven't got a problem with this.

    The science behind it is sound. Hunters in CA have had 6 years to prepare for it. It doesn't ban all lead ammo, just that used in hunting. You can plink and skeet shoot with lead ammo until you drop from fatigue. You just can't hunt with it. The price will do down as more and more manufacturers provide non-lead offerings and most folks don't shoot more than a couple rounds/year when hunting anyway.

    I've said it before. If hunters would stop being such stuck-in-the-mud, irrational Fudds and embraced the legitimate issue for this being enacted, and taken the issue on voluntarily because it's the right thing to do, there would have been no need for the .gov to have gotten involved in the first place. We are our own worst enemy sometimes.
    You've got the whole idea wrong. This act by California has nothing to do with wildlife or the environment. Most legislators in California have never stepped in the woods in their life. The closest most of them have come to wildlife are the bath houses in San Francisco. This act was for the elimination of hunting and hunters. Ammo manufacturers, firearms manufacturers and retailers tire of having to bend to the excessive needs of California. It's just not the firearm and hunting businesses that have cut back their bowing to these ridiculous California legislators many industries refuse to make products especially for the California market. Pretty soon they're going to have shoot their piss like wine out of biodegradable squirt guns.
    Last edited by JenniferG; June 5th, 2019 at 06:58 AM.
    Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Chalfont, Pennsylvania
    (Bucks County)
    Posts
    1,732
    Rep Power
    21474847

    Default Re: California Becomes the First State to Enact Total Lead Bullet Hunting Ban

    I agree that it is about Ca.'s intent to eliminate blood sport.
    I'm not buying the lead thing. I have lead fragments from bullets lodged under my hide that my doctor calls "encapsulated"
    It's not worth the effort to dig out of the bone. He says the risk from removal outweighs just leaving alone.
    Ca. is full of shit like a Christmas turkey.
    Crusader's local #556 South Central Asia chapter

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gouldsboro, Pennsylvania
    (Wayne County)
    Age
    51
    Posts
    2,470
    Rep Power
    21474849

    Default Re: California Becomes the First State to Enact Total Lead Bullet Hunting Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by streaker69 View Post
    Do you have a rough estimate to the number of birds that are killed over the past 50 years due to the ingestion of lead pellets vs the number of birds that have been killed by environmentally friendly windmills in the past 20 years?

    I don't believe for an instant that this push is actually about saving wildlife, it's just more hassle for hunters, and it's no secret that if CA had their way no one would be allowed to hunt there.
    In actuality, it doesn't matter a hill of shite what the comparison between the two is and you know it. One is not predicated or reliant on the other in any way. They both have impacts to birds. The difference is that folks are still trying to figure out how best to limit bird deaths from wind turbines while we already know how best to limit known sources of mortality in Condors. But, according to your response and the few after you, the answer is to double down on resisting doing anything because because you think the motives for it are questionable.

    I don't think you're completely wrong. But I think that your approach is wrong. Had CA hunters loosened their tin foil hats a bit and learned how to play chess a bit, they would have realized that getting ahead of the curve on this would have given them the moral high ground and taken away the anti's ability to use it as a tool to begin placing restrictions on ammo. Had hunters taken steps to voluntarily used non-lead ammo in condor-prone areas, they could legitimately claim themselves to be the conservationists that they frequently claim themselves to be, thus removing the need to forcibly legislate the activity. But in reality, very few hunters understand wildlife conservation in the least. Just sign on to any of the billions of Facebook groups or web fora for hunting and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.
    "How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessnes."

  8. #18
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    127.0.0.1, Pennsylvania
    (Lancaster County)
    Posts
    17,601
    Rep Power
    21474867

    Default Re: California Becomes the First State to Enact Total Lead Bullet Hunting Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Sandcut View Post
    In actuality, it doesn't matter a hill of shite what the comparison between the two is and you know it. One is not predicated or reliant on the other in any way. They both have impacts to birds. The difference is that folks are still trying to figure out how best to limit bird deaths from wind turbines while we already know how best to limit known sources of mortality in Condors. But, according to your response and the few after you, the answer is to double down on resisting doing anything because because you think the motives for it are questionable.

    I don't think you're completely wrong. But I think that your approach is wrong. Had CA hunters loosened their tin foil hats a bit and learned how to play chess a bit, they would have realized that getting ahead of the curve on this would have given them the moral high ground and taken away the anti's ability to use it as a tool to begin placing restrictions on ammo. Had hunters taken steps to voluntarily used non-lead ammo in condor-prone areas, they could legitimately claim themselves to be the conservationists that they frequently claim themselves to be, thus removing the need to forcibly legislate the activity. But in reality, very few hunters understand wildlife conservation in the least. Just sign on to any of the billions of Facebook groups or web fora for hunting and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.
    I'm sure that you know my point is that as long as something is considered green, it doesn't matter a hill of shite how many birds or desert tortoises it kills. So far I haven't see any solution from the green people about how to limit bird deaths, instead they keep on putting up more windmills that can never pay for the costs it took to create, install and maintain them. Lead was nothing more than a low hanging fruit and something that is easy to ban. You're a man of science, right? We should be basing decisions upon actual data. Of course in this case it's always said "we can't possibly know how many birds die because of lead", but we certainly do know how many birds die of windmills because their carcasses are laying at their base.

    I guess if banning lead saves just one bird, it's all worth it, even though you'll never have any data as to whether birds were saved or not.
    Rules are written in the stone,
    Break the rules and you get no bones,
    all you get is ridicule, laughter,
    and a trip to the house of pain.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gouldsboro, Pennsylvania
    (Wayne County)
    Age
    51
    Posts
    2,470
    Rep Power
    21474849

    Default Re: California Becomes the First State to Enact Total Lead Bullet Hunting Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by streaker69 View Post
    I'm sure that you know my point is that as long as something is considered green, it doesn't matter a hill of shite how many birds or desert tortoises it kills. So far I haven't see any solution from the green people about how to limit bird deaths, instead they keep on putting up more windmills that can never pay for the costs it took to create, install and maintain them. Lead was nothing more than a low hanging fruit and something that is easy to ban. You're a man of science, right? We should be basing decisions upon actual data. Of course in this case it's always said "we can't possibly know how many birds die because of lead", but we certainly do know how many birds die of windmills because their carcasses are laying at their base.

    I guess if banning lead saves just one bird, it's all worth it, even though you'll never have any data as to whether birds were saved or not.
    Gee, maybe it's because bird strikes leave dead birds that can easily be counted, while studying wild populations that may suffer from chronic exposure rather than rapid toxicity is less convenient. But I know that you understand this. You're just trying to make a point about "greenies" brushing off the inconvenience of turbine bird deaths because it doesn't fit their "clean energy is good" narrative. I get this, truly I do. Just look at my last lost on the oil and gas debate.

    But being on the side of the aisle where "logic and numbers" override "emotions", we're supposed to be better than that.

    There is no overarching study to support, refute, or substantiate the lead toxicity on a national level because Congress hasn't funded Dept. of the Interior to do one yet. Hunters probably squawked and got the funding killed in committee, because they don't want to face what the gathering evidence points to. Much like deer population data here in PA.

    If you want to read a half de ent study carried out with decently drawn conclusions, read this from the University of Minnessota.

    https://www.raptor.umn.edu/our-research/lead-poisoning


    If you want a half-decent summary of literature from NPS (whi h you'll nave to read the citations to get a truly unbiased report, read:

    AIN, D. J., I. J. FISHER, AND V. G. THOMAS. 2009. A global update of lead poisoning in terrestrial birds from ammunition sources. In R. T. Watson, M. Fuller, M. Pokras, and W. G. Hunt (Eds.). Ingestion of Lead from Spent Ammunition: Implications for Wildlife and Humans. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, Idaho, USA. DOI 10.4080/ilsa.2009.0108


    I can only find a .pdf, which my Kindle only downloads. It won't copy .urls.

    These studies will have to give you snapshots from local rehab. enters and vets from which you'll have to extrapolate by all rehab and veterenary. enters that do this kind of work, which won't be many and it only accounts for those birds who are discovered. Yes, it's a skewed number, but it's what is available.

    Oh, and I ran across quite a few studies that that strongly defended bunting, hunters, and shooters and the lifestyle and placed emphasis soley on removing access to lead as long as it was successful. Mainly because 90%+ of all wildlife studies majors are also hunters. At least in my experience dealing with them. And that spans 30+ years working relatively closely with them.

    Next to bat, Streaker!

    Sandcut on deck.
    "How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessnes."

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    OUT TO LUNCH
    Posts
    3,965
    Rep Power
    15034415

    Default Re: California Becomes the First State to Enact Total Lead Bullet Hunting Ban

    We aren't permitted to hunt waterfowl with lead ANYWHERE. I hunt in the Erie National Wildlife Refuge and am not permitted to use lead shot while hunting except for turkey. I have been using Remington copper solid slugs for decades. Why? Not because I worry about raptor lead exposure, but because they are devastating on deer. I also use a copper monolithic slug in my inline muzzle loader for the same reason. Having said all of that, if I hunt groundhogs, I place their carcasses back in their holes or hide them under brush piles etc. to avoid having them be seen by raptors. If it would ever come to pass that I couldn't use lead rifle or pistol rounds to hunt in PA, I would be fine with that. I don't see that happening here anytime soon.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Lead bullet vs. plated bullet????????
    By bigboy69 in forum General
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: May 19th, 2013, 10:18 PM
  2. lead bullet ban?
    By c45man in forum Delaware
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 26th, 2010, 09:19 PM
  3. One thing California SHOULD lead the way with
    By H.E. Pennypacker in forum General
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: June 9th, 2009, 08:48 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Local gun shops | Local shooting ranges | Philadelphia Shooting Ranges | Philadelphia Gun Shops | Pittsburgh Shooting Ranges | Pittsburgh Gun Shops