Gov. Brown Bans Lead Ammo In Hunting, Vetoes Other Gun Control Bills

[listopencil]

By Patrick McGreevy and Melanie Mason October 11, 2013, 1:09 p.m.

http://www.latimes.com/local/politic...,6334949.story






You can read the article at the link I posted. I just wanted to put this quote out there:



“I don’t believe that this bill’s blanket ban on semiautomatic rifles would reduce criminal activity or enhance public safety enough to warrant this infringement on gun owners’ rights,” Brown said.








When does he get assassinated?

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Bowser

Are you saying he's in danger of being assassinated by pissed off democratic Californians? What are they going to do, rain down on him with insufferable nagging and borderline harsh language?

And I see nothing wrong with what he enacted and didn't enact.

Neither do I, really. It was a back handed compliment.

[Dayze]

Lead ammo leads to lead poisoning on the brains of criminals splattered on my walls should someone break into my house

[suzzer99]

Lead ammo is killing condors. http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/california_condor_lead.shtml

The science isn't clear because the NRA pays shills to fight anything and everything.

[LiveSteam]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Lead ammo is killing condors. http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/california_condor_lead.shtml

The science isn't clear because the NRA pays shills to fight anything and everything.

You are a mouth breathing ****ing idiot.

[oldandslow]

Originally Posted by LiveSteam

You are a mouth breathing ****ing idiot.

The science is pretty clear on the impact of lead in birds and mammals. I think the Gov did a good thing here...compromise w/o being stupid. Good on him.

[CrazyPhuD]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Lead ammo is killing condors. http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/california_condor_lead.shtml

The science isn't clear because the NRA pays shills to fight anything and everything.

Actually no it's not, they definitively have not proven that yet. Lead may or may not be killing condors but they have yet to establish WHY. They want to claim that it's due to ammo, but there are MANY potential sources for lead exposure. One of the most damning points is actually made in a publication trying to claim that lead ammo is the problem.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/28/1...9-33cacbdba4bd

We compared blood lead levels in birds in 2006–2007 (preban) with levels in 2009–2010 (postban) and found no indication that blood lead levels had declined in 2009–2010 compared with 2006–2007 (Fig. 2A and Fig. S5A), suggesting that, at least thus far, the regulations to help reduce lead exposure in condors have not been effective.

California already HAS a ban on lead ammo in condor inhabited areas. It has so far shown NO effect in lowering lead levels in condors. This regulation signed is NOT about protecting condors. It cannot be because if the impact on banning lead ammo use where condors live is already ZERO, then the benefit of banning lead ammo in areas where condo aren't is certain to be less than zero impact.

This is about trying to functionally ban hunting by raising the costs so that it becomes too expensive for rural citizens.

[LiveSteam]

Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD

Actually no it's not, they definitively have not proven that yet. Lead may or may not be killing condors but they have yet to establish WHY. They want to claim that it's due to ammo, but there are MANY potential sources for lead exposure. One of the most damning points is actually made in a publication trying to claim that lead ammo is the problem.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/28/1...9-33cacbdba4bd



California already HAS a ban on lead ammo in condor inhabited areas. It has so far shown NO effect in lowering lead levels in condors. This regulation signed is NOT about protecting condors. It cannot be because if the impact on banning lead ammo use where condors live is already ZERO, then the benefit of banning lead ammo in areas where condo aren't is certain to be less than zero impact.

This is about trying to functionally ban hunting by raising the costs so that it becomes too expensive for rural citizens.

[Eleazar]

Thank goodness these politicians are here to do anything they can to make ammo more expensive, I mean, to protect the environment from the massive threat that leaded bullets must be.

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD

Actually no it's not, they definitively have not proven that yet. Lead may or may not be killing condors but they have yet to establish WHY. They want to claim that it's due to ammo, but there are MANY potential sources for lead exposure. One of the most damning points is actually made in a publication trying to claim that lead ammo is the problem.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/28/1...9-33cacbdba4bd



California already HAS a ban on lead ammo in condor inhabited areas. It has so far shown NO effect in lowering lead levels in condors. This regulation signed is NOT about protecting condors. It cannot be because if the impact on banning lead ammo use where condors live is already ZERO, then the benefit of banning lead ammo in areas where condo aren't is certain to be less than zero impact.

This is about trying to functionally ban hunting by raising the costs so that it becomes too expensive for rural citizens.

Ha ha, nice out of context cherry-pick. Did you even read that study? Did you hope no one else would?

Conclusion
Our data show that the prevalence of lead poisoning in California condors is of epidemic proportion and that the principle source of lead poisoning is lead-based ammunition. Restricting the use of lead ammunition is a complicated political process and illustrates the challenge of merging political and conservation-oriented goals. For example, if restrictions were in place that resulted in only 1% of carcasses containing lead, the annual probability that a condor would feed on one or more contaminated carcasses would only be reduced to 31–53% (Fig. 4B). When considering the need for long-lived birds to avoid lead poisoning for many years, the necessity for extremely low carcass contamination rates is even clearer: if only 0.5% of carcasses are contaminated with lead, the probability that, over 10 y, a condor will feed on a contaminated carcass is still 85–98%. Thus, very low carcass contamination rates are required to avoid high probabilities of lead poisoning within the condor population.

These results are especially pertinent given recent regulatory efforts in California to mitigate the lead exposure hazard to California condors by partial bans of lead ammunition use in condor habitat (39, 40). Although these regulations have been in place for only a few years, we looked for evidence that they had impacted the prevalence of lead poisoning in California condors. We compared blood lead levels in birds in 2006–2007 (preban) with levels in 2009–2010 (postban) and found no indication that blood lead levels had declined in 2009–2010 compared with 2006–2007 (Fig. 2A and Fig. S5A), suggesting that, at least thus far, the regulations to help reduce lead exposure in condors have not been effective.

Here, we describe a situation in which intensive ongoing management efforts conceal the lack of true recovery of a critically endangered species. Despite the recovery efforts for the California condor, this species is not on a trajectory to a self-sustaining wild population. Our demographic model clearly illustrates that, without reduced lead poisoning, the California condor will require extraordinary management efforts in perpetuity to avoid again declining to extinction in the wild. Additionally, our analyses show that, if the lead exposure hazard is removed and thus lead deaths are halted or severely reduced, California condors could once again achieve a sustainable wild population. Although we present work only on condors in California, the condor populations in Arizona and Baja California are also experiencing impacts from lead poisonings (7). Moreover, lead exposure is a pervasive problem for multiple species in a diversity of ecosystems (41⇓–43), and we are only slowly coming to understand how many species are impacted by exposure because of ammunition in carcasses. Our work highlights the extent to which scavenging species are lead-exposed and also emphasizes that small reductions in exposure are unlikely to sufficiently protect the most vulnerable species.

Lol at "the science not being settled". The science is completely settled. The authors of this study, that you quoted, are just saying the bans need to be longer-lasting and more effective. A bird needs to go its whole life without being exposed to lead. A three-year ban obviously isn't gonna be good enough to make a difference.

Either you really misunderstood this study, or that's some serious disingenuous spin.

Yes slightly more expensive ammo is going to kill hunting. **** condors right? The pro-gun side would do well to give in every once in a blue moon just to not appear like reasonable nutjobs. But that move just isn't in your play book obviously.

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by LiveSteam

You are a mouth breathing ****ing idiot.

You represent your side well as always. Do you ever get tired of being a brainwashed pawn of the rich?