USFWS wants to bans lead ammo

That is quite a coincidence that he signed that Order one day before Obummer leaves office and Trump takes over!
 
Yeah, that public land, clean air/water, equal rights, improve education, conservation stuff is really F-ed up.
 
I have said this before. What happens in CA. will flow over to other states. Our majority Democrat lawmakers started banning lead bullets in the Condor zone and all of CA. will have a lead bullet ban in 2019. Get ready to pay a higher price for your hunting ammo.

RELH
 
>Yeah, that public land, clean air/water,
>equal rights, improve education, conservation
>stuff is really F-ed up.
>

I had no idea all that was tied to lead free bullets! Cool!

Zeke
 
I'm not educated on this topic so this isn't necessarily my opinion, but thought I would share a post from a different forum from somebody that is highly educated on the topic.

This was posted by Ben Lamb, a writer for Outdoor Life and other publications (hopefully its okay that I shared this with credit given)...
________

1.) This is not a ban, but an order to establish a timeline for implementing an expansion of non-toxic ammo & fishing tackle on USFWS lands

2.) It only applies to USFWS land, not all public land.

3.) Non-toxic is generally required for all upland and waterfowl on USFWS lands already. This order would expand it to fishing and rifle ammunition.

4.) I've been using non-toxic sinkers for fishing for over a decade and find them just as effective and the cost difference is negligible.

5.) Studies on lead and raptors indicate that it's a serious issue.
 
Just Like I've Said for Years!

Everybody Laughs at what Happens in KALI!

2-3 Years Later they Ain't Laughin because all of a Sudden it's Here!

Truthfully Nemont?

Did You Vote for that SOB?









[font color="blue"]It Was them Damn Lake Trout that took them Elk
out!:D[/font]
 
I Told You!

When they seen them Guys Shootin Carp out of the Back of that Boat Shite was gonna hit the Fan!











[font color="blue"]It Was them Damn Lake Trout that took them Elk
out!:D[/font]
 
United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

"The purpose of this Order is to establish procedures and a timeline for expanding the use of nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle on Service lands, waters, and facilities and for certain types of hunting and fishing regulated by the Service outside of Service lands, waters, and facilities."

Service lands are BLM and Forest Service lands?
 
>Service lands are BLM and Forest
>Service lands?


There are four different managing agencies...

The Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, and the National Park Service

This only applies to USFWS land, not BLM or USFS.

Grizzly
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-20-17 AT 11:27PM (MST)[p]This is just the first step toward a total ban. Any hunter in CA can tell you that. At first they said that the ban would only be in the Condor range and that they would evaluate it based on science. Well, the science showed that it had zero impact on Condors' survival. But instead of reversing the ban, they decided to expand it to all of CA.
 
Isn't great that our government has become so effective, they change law s and procedure with memo to all their staff. (sarcasm) Again we will just continue to lose more ground and more money and eventually all our freedoms. I hate to say it but I find myself becoming more apathetic by the day. No matter how hard we push back or who we vote for or what organizations we support, we just lose. Sad to see our heritage slip away in just a couple of decades.
 
Sierra, I think you're right that this was the first step towards a ban. Hopefully the new administration will straighten things out.

PS. It's been a while since we spoke. I hope all is well with you.

Grizzly
 
I thought I head Pres. Trump's press secretary announce today, in a very brief but very "direct" statement, that all Federal bureaucracies were to stop sending out any new directives and to put on "hold" any unimplemented directives, until further notice. He repeated it for the press twice, if I understood what I was hearing correctly. I am sure the new administration has been seeing and hearing of many of these kinds of Bureaucratic memos this last 6 weeks. Now, I may have been hearing something related to just Health Care but I didn't get that impression.

I could be wrong, so I apologize if this is "fake" information.

DC
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-21-17 AT 04:57AM (MST)[p]
Reread the lawyer verbiage in eels post #10. It's a wide loop. It's the first step on a slippery slope. Similar to declaring a piece of ground to monument status. Some enjoy being the frog in the warm pot of water.
 
How did the settlers ever survive without Big govt?
USFWS needs to be reorganized into a much smaller entity with much less power.
 
Its science. Just ignore it and find some loudmouth to tell you what you want to hear. Enjoy that Flint MI Koolaid, made w tapwater.
 
>Its science. Just ignore it and
>find some loudmouth to tell
>you what you want to
>hear. Enjoy that Flint MI
>Koolaid, made w tapwater.


Post up the study proving the ban lowered the lead level in condors blood. I'd love to read it.
 
>Post up the study proving the
>ban lowered the lead level
>in condors blood. I'd love
>to read it.

Lead is a neurotoxin, as in poisonous to nerves/brains.

Unsure what prompted you decided to question me about data on condors? Issue I raised is the general rejection of science in favor of the loudest or richest denier du jour.

Enquiring minds may google "risk of lead exposure to humans and wildlife." Minds made up, google science = lies, or whatever eases your mind.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-21-17 AT 08:29PM (MST)[p]
>>Post up the study proving the
>>ban lowered the lead level
>>in condors blood. I'd love
>>to read it.
>
>Lead is a neurotoxin, as in
>poisonous to nerves/brains.
>
>Unsure what prompted you decided to
>question me about data on
>condors? Issue I raised is
>the general rejection of science
>in favor of the loudest
> or richest denier du
>jour.
>
>Enquiring minds may google "risk of
>lead exposure to humans and
>wildlife." Minds made up, google
>science = lies, or whatever
>eases your mind.


So there is no study proving banning lead ammunition has lowered the lead level in condors? Ok thanx. And what does lead shot have to do with the water in Michigan? Please and thank you.
 
Elk dud. When I was in college(BS Microbiology) we looked into the studies the feds did on artificial sweeteners to "prove" they were dangerous. Using lab rats as the subject they dumped what would be the equivilant of a dumptrucks worth of aspertame on them daily until they saw the effect they were shooting for, then they could claim its harmful effects. See, the thing with science is, you can set up the experiment to prove your preconceived ideas, then claim your results reinforce your ideas. Is lead a neurotoxin? Yup. Is eating lead paint chips not a great idea? Nope. But, if you painted over asbestos with lead paint to keep it from being airborne, suddenly that lead paint is beneficial right?

I think its the camels nose in the tent on this one as well. However, as a waterfowler who underwent the lead to steel change, the reality is it didn't hurt me any. It hurt the skybusters. It hurt guys with 36" goose guns. But it didn't hurt me any.

Reality is, we have gone from muskets to ARs, yet our bullets haven't changed, not because they can't, but because theres not been a reason. I think we have some big fights on our hands, public land, "assult rifles", trophy hunting/opportunists, wolves. I'm not sure this one is worth expending capital on. We will most likely only get so many chances with Trump, I would prefer those chances be used on something more important.

Plus, as a reloader, playing with less lead, probably good, as I look at my spelling its pretty obvious the lead has affected me!




"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
>So there is no viable alternative
>to lead?
>
>"Courage is being scared to death
>but
>saddling up anyway."


In some cases it costs 10 times as much.
 
>the thing with science is,
>you can set up the
>experiment to prove your preconceived
>ideas, then claim your results
>reinforce your ideas. Is
>lead a neurotoxin? Yup.
> Is eating lead paint
>chips not a great idea?
> Nope. But, if
>you painted over asbestos with
>lead paint to keep it
>from being airborne, suddenly that
>lead paint is beneficial right?

Wrong. That is like covering millions of tons of radioactive uranium tailings with radon soil. This actually exists, on the bank of the Colorado River @ Moab UT.

What is bullsh!t about this thread is its clear illustration of the strategy of overgeneralization, employed by politically-oriented science deniers: Find any element in one of many studies that was not proven via the scientific method. Use that example to reject all study on the topic, scientists, the scientific method, and those who rationally accept scientific proof. Doesn't matter what has been proven, how or by whom. All that matters is the politics of denial, as demonstrated today @ the White House.

Hossblur, if there was no bottom line of scientific proof in your study of microbiology, would you have a BA degree instead? You know the point of the scientific method is to test a theory by controlling for one variable while keeping the others constant. You know that a small or otherwise unrepresentative sample, or a flawed research question, among many other biases and variables, can yield invalid research. Science yields proofs tested beyond speculation and opinion, ultimately confirmed by peer review. In fact, peer review for proof is the difference between arts and sciences. Between fact and unsubstantiated opinion.

When I wrote that lead is toxic to organisms, DW replied, "So there is no study proving banning lead ammunition has lowered the lead level in condors?" Why did he introduce condors and reduced lead levels to my argument? Does that somehow challenge the fact that lead is a proven neurotoxin, harmful to all organisms?

DW is running the deniers' illusion of overgeneralizing. See also evolution, climate change to illustrate political persecution of the scientific method. By identifying or just suggesting that there is one narrow research question (condors will eventually have lower levels of lead in areas where lead ammunition is banned, perhaps) which has so far not been proven, he tries to deny there is proof that lead is bad for all animals including humans.

I am not willing to abandon megavolumes of peer-reviewed research that proves ingesting or even handling lead is toxic to me, you, fish, birds, and children in Flint MI. Even condors.

My point all along: I oppose poisoning animal habitat with lead, because is toxic to animals. DW, post up studies disproving just this: Lead is toxic to animals. Start looking here, a study of lead levels in condors around leaded and unleaded ammunition. And it is peer-reviewed.
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/28/11449
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-22-17 AT 09:32PM (MST)[p]After learning the truth about the lynx, the spotted owl, the red wolf, and a few other studies that I can't think of right now, some of us have started to think maybe we can't trust much any thing these studies conclude.

Once "the system" starts to lose it's credibility it becomes more difficult to convince the public there is a problem, even when there actually is one.

It goes back centuries, to when humans began to live together in social groups and began to learn the virtues of honesty vs deceit. The consequences eventually bit you in the butt if you get caught stretching the truth too often.

For myself, these studies have become too politically driven for me to trust just about any of them. If I was more intelligent and had more first hand knowledge about the subject, I could trust my own knowledge, whereas I don't, based on the past, I'm suspect of the science, on general principle. Trick me once, shame on you, trick me twice, shame on me.

DC
 
In California, after banning lead bullets in the Condor Zone, condors were exhibiting even higher amounts of lead. Their solution was to ban lead bullets state wide, although nobody has explained why.

I kind of gave up because it's set in stone now. We're lead free starting 2019. Welcome to California.

 
Science has proven time and time again, the wooly mammoth and sabertooth cat were driven to extinction as a result of cavemen using lead spearheads. Lucky for elkdud, Al Gore paranoia dictates global cool...er global warm....eh climate change driven by man will make lead a non-topic....not to mention Al Gore and company very wealthy.
4abc76ff29b26fc1.jpg
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-25-17 AT 08:52AM (MST)[p]>>the thing with science is,
>>you can set up the
>>experiment to prove your preconceived
>>ideas, then claim your results
>>reinforce your ideas. Is
>>lead a neurotoxin? Yup.
>> Is eating lead paint
>>chips not a great idea?
>> Nope. But, if
>>you painted over asbestos with
>>lead paint to keep it
>>from being airborne, suddenly that
>>lead paint is beneficial right?
>
>Wrong. That is like covering millions
>of tons of radioactive uranium
>tailings with radon soil. This
>actually exists, on the bank
>of the Colorado River @
>Moab UT.
>
>What is bullsh!t about this thread
>is its clear illustration of
>the strategy of overgeneralization, employed
>by politically-oriented science deniers: Find
>any element in one of
>many studies that was not
>proven via the scientific method.
>Use that example to reject
>all study on the topic,
>scientists, the scientific method, and
>those who rationally accept scientific
>proof. Doesn't matter what has
>been proven, how or by
>whom. All that matters is
>the politics of denial, as
>demonstrated today @ the White
>House.
>
>Hossblur, if there was no bottom
>line of scientific proof in
>your study of microbiology, would
>you have a BA degree
>instead? You know the point
>of the scientific method is
>to test a theory by
>controlling for one variable while
>keeping the others constant. You
>know that a small or
>otherwise unrepresentative sample, or a
>flawed research question, among many
>other biases and variables, can
>yield invalid research. Science yields
>proofs tested beyond speculation and
>opinion, ultimately confirmed by peer
>review. In fact, peer review
>for proof is the difference
>between arts and sciences. Between
>fact and unsubstantiated opinion.
>
>When I wrote that lead is
>toxic to organisms, DW replied,
>"So there is no study
>proving banning lead ammunition has
>lowered the lead level in
>condors?" Why did he introduce
>condors and reduced lead levels
>to my argument? Does that
>somehow challenge the fact that
>lead is a proven neurotoxin,
>harmful to all organisms?
>
>DW is running the deniers' illusion
>of overgeneralizing. See also evolution,
>climate change to illustrate political
>persecution of the scientific method.
>By identifying or just suggesting
>that there is one narrow
>research question (condors will eventually
>have lower levels of lead
>in areas where lead ammunition
>is banned, perhaps) which has
>so far not been proven,
>he tries to deny there
>is proof that lead is
>bad for all animals including
>humans.
>
>I am not willing to abandon
>megavolumes of peer-reviewed research that
>proves ingesting or even handling
>lead is toxic to me,
>you, fish, birds, and children
>in Flint MI. Even condors.
>
>
>My point all along: I oppose
>poisoning animal habitat with lead,
>because is toxic to animals.
>DW, post up studies disproving
>just this: Lead is toxic
>to animals. Start looking here,
>a study of lead levels
>in condors around leaded and
>unleaded ammunition. And it is
>peer-reviewed.
>http://www.pnas.org/content/109/28/11449



You wish to speak of overgeneralizations?

"DW, post up studies disproving just this: Lead is toxic to animals"

I don't need a study to prove this, we have plenty of paint lickers right here as living proof. I'm also fortunate to have been given common sense which is becoming rarer by the day!




"When I wrote that lead is toxic to organisms, DW replied, "So there is no study proving banning lead ammunition has lowered the lead level in condors?" Why did he introduce condors and reduced lead levels to my argument? Does that somehow challenge the fact that lead is a proven neurotoxin, harmful to all organisms?"

Not sure I'm the one who introduced this into the thread but the condor has been one of the poster children for the illogic of banning lead ammunition. Yet all the studies have shown that now that they're dining on lead free carrion the lead levels in their blood have not dropped. You know the whole scientific theory you spoke of in your post? This theory of banning lead ammo lowers lead levels in condors blood has been scientifically proven false! So which one of us does this make the science denier? Here's the deal, I see eagles and other raptors feeding on wounded waterfowl all season long. I'm ok with steel shot in waterfowl hunting as I can see it possibly being an issue with my own eyes. But I can't see much lead being consumed by these raptors from wounded ungulates. I'll patiently wait for the link to the study area that shows lower lead levels in condors that I'm sure you have at your finger tips.
 
Would someone like to explain to me why they think this needs presidential attention? You don't think we could phase out toxic lead projectiles over the next 5 years? Seems pretty reasonable to me.
 
If someone could tell me definitively either way whether I need to worry about this on my upcoming barbary sheep hunt in New Mexico (starts Feb 1), I'd be most grateful. I'll be hunting Forest Service and BLM land. The few articles that I've been able to google on it seem to be split down the middle, depending on their politics.
 
Just received this from NMDGF:

Good morning ?

Thank you for contacting us. After researching and speaking with our Colonel, the executive order banning lead bullets on USFS and BLM lands will not be in affect during your February Barbary sheep hunt.

Regards,
 
Sec. 3 What is the Service?s overall policy? It is the Service?s policy to:



a. Require the use of nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle to the fullest extent practicable for all activities on Service lands, waters, and facilities by January 2022, except as needed for law enforcement or health and safety uses, as provided for in policy.



b. Collaborate with state fish and wildlife agencies in implementing this policy.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-25-17 AT 02:29PM (MST)[p]My understanding is that this only applies to USFWS land, which, in the Lower 48 is basically federal bird refuges.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Grizzly
 
>Read post 10 again.

There is a reason "Service" is capitalized in that paragraph. It only applies to land under Fish & Wildlife Service management.

In fact, this is also part of the declaration...

"Where individual Federal land units administered by other Federal agencies including the National Park Service, the National Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Department of Defense, or other agencies, have enacted requirements for the use of nontoxic ammunition or fishing tackle, Regions should adopt such requirements on Service lands, waters and facilities in the same states as those units through amendments to Service hunting and fishing regulations, as appropriate."

The reason that BLM, USFS, etc... land was listed separately is because they want USFWS to work with those agencies, but this document does not have jurisdiction over their land and does not apply.

Grizzly
 
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

"The purpose of this Order is to establish procedures and a timeline for expanding the use of nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle on Service lands, waters, and facilities and for certain types of hunting and fishing regulated by the Service outside of Service lands, waters, and facilities."


The part I'm referring to grizz is "and for certain types of hunting and fishing regulated by the Service "outside" of service lands and waters and facilities."

Like I said, it's a wide loop.
 
That's only "for certain types of hunting and fishing regulated by the Service."

This only applies to any hunting/fishing already regulated by USFWS. I'm not schooled (no pun intended) on which parts of fishing are regulated by USFWS; but for the hunting aspect, doesn't this only apply to waterfowl which are already non-toxic?

My question is, How do you see this affecting which deer bullet you use on USFS, BLM, State, or Private land since deer hunting isn't regulated by USFWS and this has no jurisdiction on land managed by other agencies?

Grizzly
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-25-17 AT 05:00PM (MST)[p]



https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Charles_M_Russell/visit/rules_and_regulations.html



Big Game Hunting

Big game hunting seasons and harvest quotas on the Refuge may be more restrictive than State regulations. Check Refuge regulations, available on the Refuge web site or at the Refuge headquarters and field stations by May 1 of each year, for specific information.

Portable tree stands and ground blinds are permitted. All stands and blinds must have the user's name, address, phone number, and automated licensing system (ALS) number visibly marked on the stand/blind. Tree stand identification must be visible from the ground. Ground blind identification must be visible from the outside of the blind.
 

Similar threads

gr8fuldoug
For Sale Current Sales, Specials and News
Replies
2
Views
216
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
SHOT Show Wrap Up
Replies
0
Views
236
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
For Sale Time To Save Big - Check It Out
Replies
0
Views
130
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_1382.JPG
STC_1552.JPG
2001 Buck.jpg
IMG_3178.JPG
Screenshot_20230122_165445_Gallery.jpg
9AA6AB4F-6B6D-4908-8E9C-12A0F4740C2A.jpeg
EF537ACD-1EEA-4D64-BFC8-FEC62425F878.jpeg
162DB63E-4518-4A1C-9817-A81766C4C8E2.jpeg
P2290003.JPG
IMG_5428.MOV
[000138].jpg
F303DF89-CE11-4938-9E06-D73AEE91D261.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom