Is CWA neutral on AB711???!!!! I'm done with them if its true

Discussion in 'California Flyway Forum' started by jmonte35, Sep 3, 2013.

  1. Mean Gene

    Mean Gene Elite Refuge Member Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    20,208
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2000
    Location:
    Finally in a free state.
    And still we argue that it's about hunting. I truly hope I'm wrong, but I don't believe for an instant that this is all about hunting in any way, shape or form.

    I'd love to be wrong......
     
  2. letmwurk

    letmwurk Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,885
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    California
    J. Bennett already dissected most of those articles on that site and was absolutely spot on. What a freaking JOKE that site is. Is that our best rebuttal to this legislation?? There wasn't one study in there that addressed the issue. What an embarrassment.

    When the first five studies address a tangential subject the reader already discredits the research. Mind you this is the only research to my knowledge put forth by hunters against this bill. Studies about birds being poisoned by mining activities??? Good god we have a PR problem.
     
  3. letmwurk

    letmwurk Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,885
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    California
    Yes, refer to my prior post where I posted study after study that showed this.

    A very wise man I was extremely fortunate to meet once told me "invert, always invert". Thus, as in mathematics, prove the contrary false to prove your point.

    One way to determine if lead ammunition is causing poisoning of carnivorous animals, and in my opinion the best way, is to view those animals pre- and post-lead ammunition ban in the condor range and gauge serum lead levels.

    The following study provides evidence that serum lead levels in those animals declined precipitously immediately after the condor zone lead ammo ban.

    Please take the time to educate yourself and read the entire study which is not lengthy. In it the authors show that local, non-migratory Golden Eagles in the condor zone experienced a 60% decrease in median serum lead levels in the year after the lead ban and NONE of the non-migratory eagles after the ban had levels exceeding 10 ng/dl whereas 83% of those exact SAME birds (they were banded initially) had levels exceeding 10 ng/dl in the year preceding the ban.

    Further, local, non-migratory turkey vultures experienced a decrease of 57% in median serum lead levels in the year after the ban. Only 14% of the Turkey Vultures had lead levels in excess of 10ng/dl after the ban versus 60% in the year prior to the ban.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3071804/

    It is to me abundantly clear, after reading that study plus around fifty others - both for and against, that lead-based ammunition is severely toxic to carnivorous animals who feed on carrion.
     
  4. Green is Gold

    Green is Gold Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,852
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2004
    Location:
    Chico, CA
    Nice try but junk once again. Here are the problems with your "study":

    1. "While this regulation significantly reduced lead pellet ingestion and estimated lead-associated mortality in North American waterfowl, it did not result in decreased numbers of lead-poisoned eagles presenting from multiple states to a raptor rehabilitation center in Minnesota during a five year period following the ban [8]. The authors attributed these ongoing lead poisoning cases in part to ingestion of fragmented lead bullets in discarded viscera from field processed deer, as the highest rates of eagle poisoning coincided with the deer hunting season."
    Of course they did because that suits their agenda. Was there any evidence or has there EVER been any evidence to support that? NO. Where are the isotope studies showing that the lead in these birds is the same as that in lead ammunition. There are none because they don't want to publish the information because it refutes their claims. Their claim is pure conjecture and is not based in any factual evidence whatsoever. It's just as likely that the lead is coming from other sources rather than lead ammunition but the fact that this statement is made in the Introduction already points to the probable bias in the study.

    2. In an attempt to bolster their claims and add to their data, they also used "historic" Pb lead levels from 1985-86 in addition to their own collected "pre-ban" data. The differences between the numbers in that 85-86 data and their own "pre-ban" data from 2007-08 is statistically just as variable as the difference between their own "pre-ban" and "post-ban" data to suggest that either their sampling size is too small or, more likely, that there are other causes for the changes in lead concentrations rather than lead ammunition. Of course, they chose to ignore that fact because it didn't suit their agenda. Once again, where are the isotope analyses to prove that the Pb in these birds systems is the same as that found in ammunition? Even if they did show a difference in Pb concentrations, they haven't proven the effects.

    3. When analyzing the vulture data, the overall range of Pb levels and frequencies are not different enough to satisfy statistical significance parameters. With the sample size and the ranges, this is just as likely due to chance as it is a true statistical difference. Of course, they didn't comment on that.

    4. "The reduction in lead exposure was much greater for our subset of non-migrant eagles compared to the overall sample which most likely included eagles originating from outside of the banned area that may have ingested lead contaminated carcasses prior to migrating into our study area."
    Yeah that, or that they are getting lead from other sources.

    5. "Our analyses of golden eagle lead exposure also showed that blood lead concentration was significantly higher in adults compared to subadults. There are a number of studies demonstrating higher blood and tissue lead concentrations in older birds [42]?[46] suggesting that age-related differences in blood and tissue lead concentration may be the result of dissimilarities in lead uptake into bone with enhanced uptake in growing birds with ossifying bone"
    If Pb uptake in bone is enhanced in growing birds, shouldn't the concentration be higher in subadults???? Are these guys scientists or not?

    6. "The very low lead exposure we observed in turkey vultures and golden eagles captured post-ban, despite relatively high hunting pressure in these two counties, suggest there was extensive hunter compliance with the ban on lead ammunition in these study areas."

    "Ongoing lead exposure incidents in eagles and turkey vultures may also be explained by the use of lead ammunition for hunting activities not included in the regulation or less than full compliance. "

    Well, which is it?? Whatever suits your agenda for the claim you're making in that paragraph??

    7. "...so even a few lead contaminated carcasses or animal remains can provide a source of lead exposure for a substantial number of individuals."

    Yeah, because I'm sure that any crippled game animal/bird that was irretrievable because it was only injured contained so many lead pellets that it infected an entire flock.

    8. And finally, although it probably should be first and foremost, as this is the speculation and conjecture that the study claims without a single factual basis,
    "Clinical signs associated with lead toxicity were not observed in any of our birds"

    Could it be that lead exposure from ammunition is not the cause of bird deaths after-all??? They wouldn't want to admit that as it doesn't suit their agenda despite the fact that there's more evidence to support that claim than there is to support the other ludicrous claims in this "study."

    I'm done with this one. I could go on as there's more ridiculous stuff in this one just like the rest but I've got better things to do than try to convince people who refuse to acknowledge the facts and indisputable evidence if it means they might have to admit their own lack of intelligence.
     
  5. blackdog58

    blackdog58 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,573
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2000
    Location:
    Calif
    How many other states in the union has a total lead ban??
     
  6. lewdogg21

    lewdogg21 Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    686
    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2013
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    I've read this entire thread. The best way to summarize is that there are basically two sides in this thread.

    One side that believes we cannot give any ground as once you start down the slippery slope it will have dire consequences


    The other side feels that this is an ok issue to give in on and it won't create a slippery slope. A smaller minority of this side believes this will be good PR for hunters






    I agree with Gene. The anti's are very smart and have a lot of political and financial backing with a blueprint to eliminate the most vocal firearms users and in turn further restrict the ownership and use of firearms. Look at the slew of bills still alive.


    When the hound hunting ban occurred I told my wife that eventually duck/upland dog hunting will be banned as well. She looked at my funny and I then described to her why I felt that way.

    All it's going to take is a few pictures of labs shivering with ice on their face for the anti's to declare it cruel and start putting up billboards and/or commercials. Combine that with the "poor birds still alive in the dogs mouth and look at it suffering" narrative and you immediately will have calls to ban it.


    If you think this is silly how do you think the mountain lion ban got passed? With no facts it was broadcast all over that lions were endangered and that b/c you didn't see them they were. The public ate it up....


    I won't go into the political side but from only reading what I have in this thread I have some pretty good ideas of where some people stand and believe in and I think that shapes their reasoning on this issue.
     
  7. BR Gunner07

    BR Gunner07 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,388
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    These studies are great.

    "The authors attributed these ongoing lead poisoning cases in part to ingestion of fragmented lead bullets in discarded viscera from field processed deer, as the highest rates of eagle poisoning coincided with the deer hunting season"

    Then why not make it illegal to leave any part of your animal behind. You have to validate your viscera with your antlers?

    I have no idea how people believe this stuff:scratch
     
  8. Calikev

    Calikev Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    12,114
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2000
    Location:
    Oakdale, Ca , USA
    All of these gun laws or ammunition laws have never had anything to do with hunting. These are all designed to limit or prohibit complete access to guns and ammunition. That is why the creators of this Legislation have such support from HSUS and other like minded groups.

    All of the legislation they have created is intended to break down the supply of ammunition and restrict access to the point that folks can no longer legally buy ammunition in this State.

    The hound hunting bill was a tactic used to play to the emotions of the general public. This was the first line of more legislation that will come forward that will try to appeal to their senses. We cannot stop all of this as they have the SM in the Legislature now. All we can do is choose our battles wisely and stock up on the highest priority issues. It is survival until the next round of elections.

    If we don't turn some of these district seats around we won't have any hunting in the State of California in 10-12 years.
     
  9. Calikev

    Calikev Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    12,114
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2000
    Location:
    Oakdale, Ca , USA
    Many of you are arguing about the lead shot poisoning studies. What is the point?

    The liberal Democrat enviros who are behind this legislation do not need data to get passage of this legislation. They already have the # of votes they need and that is all they need.

    So this completely useless debate about the validity of lead shot poisoning studies is solving nothing.

    GIG,
    Why don't you write every Democrat who is going to vote on this and explain to them how flawed these studies are. At least then you will be directing your anger at the right audience. Let me know how that works out for you.
     
  10. Luigi Daniele

    Luigi Daniele Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    3,805
    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2007
    Location:
    in a blind watching the specks and sprig work

    I can not believe that every Dem rep will vote for this. There are many in rural-ish districts.
     

Share This Page