On Aug. 23 readers were treated to a third article telling us how hunters must eschew the use of lead-based ammunition in order to save the condors. That’s just hogwash. Unlike that and the two preceding condor articles that refer to “studies show,” I’ll reference the actual sources of points made in this letter.
“Despite the current ban, incidences of lead poisoning in condors are not on the decline.” Gun Nuts Media
“Lead poisoning has increased in lead ammo ban areas.” Coachella Valley Independent
“How Lead Affects Birds” — some alternate sources of lead contamination are paint chips or improperly disposed lead paint, pesticides, and or mining wastes and byproducts. Gosh, could there be mining wastes in the Copper State? — from about.com: Birding / Wild Birds
The writer says; “Studies have shown that lead-free ammo costs about the same as lead based ammo.” Wrong! Stop by (don’t phone) Rim Country Guns and ask them about prices. The last I heard, alternate ammo cost 150 percent of standard ammo. Also, there’s the availability problem.
To the best of my knowledge, nobody is manufacturing .520 diameter non-lead balls for muzzleloaders and although I can pour lead at home, I don’t have the capabilities to melt copper or bismuth.
Some of this lead could be left over from when Coronado was here in 1540.
For additional information, go to Google and look at all the sources other than just the Roundup. Try: “CA Condor numbers decline despite lead free ammo ban” and “CA Condor decline reasons.”
What’s next, ban lead ammo to save the wolves?