High Sierra Topix

If this goes the way of ammunition restrictions, then this is just the beginning because the people behind it have a hidden agenda. Case in point: CA banned lead ammunition and shot in 3 zones to help to CA Condor even though research was not definitive—some claimed most of the the lead uptake was environmental not from ammunition. During the decades old ban, the lead levels in Condor have actually increased indicating ammunition is not the culprit—but the ban still stands and there is a pending bill to ban all lead ammunition throughout CA in direct defiance of the results of the previous restriction as well as new evidence that no other predators have been affected by lead poisoning from ammunition. The three co-sponsoring groups are all anti-hunting groups who have a public goal of eliminating all hunting in CA. This is their backdoor—make ammunition prohibitively expensive and hunting will decline precipitously. It's a dirty under-handed "end justifies the means" game and hurts the reputation of the conservation cause.

I don't know the hidden agenda here or am I certain there is one, but the pattern is the same so I suspect there is one: ignore the real culprits, largely irreversible, of the species decline and focus the blame on a scape-goat behavior you want to militate against using species protection as a ruse because of it's judicial and legislative power. Frogs are on the decline across the globe—are Trout to blame everywhere? Should we preserve some habitat? Perhaps, but so much? Doubtful and it probably will not save them anyway.

“It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.”
― Joseph Goebbels

Lead is bad. We had to abandon it for waterfowl as well. Yes the alternatives cost more but the resolution is inert to everyone and everything, and given some of our water flows through the delta, that is actually a good thing.

Also, you have two too many quotations on your sig in my opinion.

rlown wrote:Lead is bad. We had to abandon it for waterfowl as well. Yes the alternatives cost more but the resolution is inert to everyone and everything, and given some of our water flows through the delta, that is actually a good thing.

Also, you have two too many quotations on your sig in my opinion.

I agree with the water fowl restriction—it as based on good science, the bullet one is not and masks another agenda, but we are getting off topic. My point was less the legitimacy of the bullet ban and more on the tactics to support another hidden agenda. That is the point.

They are not banning bullets. they are banning lead bullets. There are options, and us yahoos will still hunt.

The funny thing is I asked this exact question to Yose about lead sinkers. All they responded with was "they were looking into it." I know other parks have banned lead sinkers.