anyone ever see California Condor???

I saw one years ago at Pinnacles National Monument. It is in what used to be called their "core area".

Nontoxic bullets are generally available (Barnes makes bullets out of solid copper). IIRC, Federal Premium comes loaded with Barnes bullets.
 
The triple shok is a solid copper bullet that functions as well as anything from what I've read, never shot them myself. This is more krazy kalifornia regs, how many condors do you think ever honestly ate a lead bullet from a gutpile?? Talk about a one in a million chance...
 
Are you sure it wasn't "turkey vulture"? They too are big and urgly bird. I don't think any of the condo are killed by lead bullet. Just some stupid activist from Sexcramento who doesn't know what to do with their spare time! There is going to be alots of criminals out of good hunters this coming hunting season in California.

As for the condo, it is on the way to extinct. We should let it go along with the dinos and leave the hunters alone.
 
Are you sure it wasn't "turkey vulture"? They too are big and urgly bird.
Click to expand...

I have lots of turkey vultures around my house and while large, they are nowhere near the size of a CA Condor. I think a 6 foot wingspan and 3 or 4 lbs is average for a turkey vulture whereas the condor goes something like a 10 foot wingspan and 15 lbs.
 
In the wild in mtns north of LA ... not far from Reagan Ranch. Then, often in the San Diego Wild Animal Park! :D

Yep, big. At the Park there are usually vultures around for easy comparison.

These things are real exciting (as are vultures, eagles, geese, ...) when in a small plane! :eek:
 
I saw a pair over 30 years ago at either the LA or San Diego Zoo. Never in the wild. Maybe when I visit the Grand Canyon this spring.
 
One of the best pastimes we all share is getting away from our jobs and spending our vacation or hunting in pristine areas.

I don't know about you guys, but unless you're a varmint hunter, you might expend perhaps one box of cartridges during the entire gun season in your area. And frankly, no one requires you to hunt in a condor area. You can go wherever you wish.

I'm a reloader. If I had to buy/cast a bullet out of non-toxic materials for a hunt, what's the problem? A four-wheel drive truck costs tens of thousands of dollars. A decent rifle and scope might cost another grand. Even warm hunting clothes and boots are several hundred dollars. And then there's fuel costs to the area...

So let's figure way off the charts. Let's say that "Chico's Magic Condor Free Bullets" cost ten bucks a pop. Even if it took a Mr. Magoo a five shot spray out of his semi-automatic rifle to drop his deer, it would still cost less than his pair of boots or restaurant food for a complete day.

The woman who sang at my wedding is using a box of 30-30 cartridges that are no longer produced. She fires one round for one deer. Yikes, if I charged her 100 bucks for every cartridge, it would still be the cheapest part of her hunt.

I don't want to breathe air from Gary, Indiana. I want to go where I don't have to chew the air I inhale. So what if I use a 'green bullet' for hunting. Just exactly how many rounds do you guys need to drop one animal?
 
If I had to buy/cast a bullet out of non-toxic materials for a hunt, what's the problem?
Click to expand...
The point is that they passed this law on the basis of information that was known to be, at best, ambiguous.

Our government should not be placing restrictions on the people (even restrictions that aren't particularly onerous) merely on the basis of what a few people think MIGHT be a good idea.

When the government adds to the restrictions it places on its citizens, it should have to demonstrate why those restrictions are NECESSARY by providing hard facts. It's NOT ok to pass laws simply because they don't cost the citizenry very much.
You can go wherever you wish.
Click to expand...
No, you can NOT go wherever you wish if where you wish is now part of the restricted area.

The whole premise of your post is badly flawed. The idea that it is possible justify a law purely on the basis that it doesn't cost the citizens very much is antithetical to the ideas that this nation was founded upon.
 
JohnKSa said:
Our government should not be placing restrictions on the people (even restrictions that aren't particularly onerous) merely on the basis of what a few people think MIGHT be a good idea.
Click to expand...

We agree more than you think. As you know we are also having a debate on how many song-birds are being projected to be killed.

To that end, I cast bullets--for almost four decades--lead bullets. As a boy I remember the Milwaukee Gun Club shooting skeet over open water so the shot and clay birds would fall "harmlessly" into the river. We know better now.

The first thing we tell kids is not to eat paint. We recall Chinese toys and I've had my blood checked.

I'd cast bismuth if I had supplies and someone taught me how.

I don't think the range of a condor ties up that much land, nor is a hunter chained to one area. Lots of people come to Wisconsin, I go to South Dakota. Big deal.

The whole concept of Ducks Unlimited was a good one for both hunters and conservationists. This is just another facet of that idea. We just can't go on poisoning things out of carelessness.
 
We just can't go on poisoning things out of carelessness
Click to expand...

Wise

When the government adds to the restrictions it places on its citizens, it should have to demonstrate why those restrictions are NECESSARY by providing hard facts
Click to expand...

Wise

Silly california gun grabbing under the guise of environmentalism.
Click to expand...

Wise

I still vote for them to be on their way with the dinos
Click to expand...

Not so wise.

How about when deer, moose, hogs, ducks and elk are "on their way with the dinos"? I think then, we'll be on our "way with the dinos"!
 
I saw two condors at the Grand Canyon back in '99. It was a very neat sight.

People have a hard time with lead, but most don't understand how it can affect you. It has to be in dissolved form for your body to absorb. That is why a lead bullet in your leg (or elsewhere) will not kill you (if you make it through the being shot part).
 
As you know we are also having a debate on how many song-birds are being projected to be killed.
Click to expand...
The two debates are not similar.

While the absolute number of song-birds killed may be in question (as with any estimate), the study leaves no doubt that the magnitude of the problem is significant. There is also no doubt as to what is killing the songbirds and no contradictory studies have surfaced, to my knowledge.

The bullet ban under discussion on this thread was based on a study which claimed that the source of lead found in condor blood was from lead bullets but omitted critical data which contradicted the conclusion of the study. Further studies to determine the source of the lead indicated that it could not be traced to the use of lead bullets in hunting. The law was passed anyway.

In one case the evidence is clear, only the exact size of the problem is in question--and even if the number from the study were found to be a magnitude too large, the problem is still critical. In the second case there is both contradictory evidence and a lack of evidence.
I don't think the range of a condor ties up that much land...
Click to expand...
Looks like a lot to me. But the point is moot--it is logically bankrupt to justify laws purely on the basis that they won't hurt people too much. There needs to be a clear and verifiable benefit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top