Well is it from Bullets or is EnviroMENTALism just a pack of dumb asses

[R1-Limited]

"That is likely the outcome that California authorities were hoping for when, in 2008, they instituted a ban on lead ammunition for hunting many species within the condor’s range in southern California. But when the researchers compared blood lead levels in condors before the ban (2006-2007) and after (2009-2010), they found no improvement."

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012...nia-condors-still-face-lead-poisoning-threat/

Has nothing to do with Bullets accept for the fact that these Santa Cruz Sissies have an agenda to band guns in Calif,

Period end of story

Have fun

 

[dub599]

that birds face looks like a baboon's ass. why would anyone want to save it?

 

[DaveT319]

What's so wrong with letting species become extinct? It's the natural progression of things. Doesn't matter if humans are to "blame" for that extinction. Some species are just meant to go extinct. I have a feeling that protecting and reviving these species actually does more harm than good, though I have no knowledge or data to back that up.

 

[MrIncredible]

What's so wrong with letting species become extinct? It's the natural progression of things. Doesn't matter if humans are to "blame" for that extinction. Some species are just meant to go extinct. I have a feeling that protecting and reviving these species actually does more harm than good, though I have no knowledge or data to back that up.

Really?

 

[DaveT319]

Really what?

 

[matt fe2o3]

that birds face looks like a baboon's ass. why would anyone want to save it?

The condor is a very important part of the lifecycle of the planet. More worthwhile than many humans.

 

[Mike95060]

"That is likely the outcome that California authorities were hoping for when, in 2008, they instituted a ban on lead ammunition for hunting many species within the condor’s range in southern California. But when the researchers compared blood lead levels in condors before the ban (2006-2007) and after (2009-2010), they found no improvement."

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012...nia-condors-still-face-lead-poisoning-threat/

Has nothing to do with Bullets accept for the fact that these Santa Cruz Sissies have an agenda to band guns in Calif,

Period end of story

Have fun

Did you even read the article you posted?

 

[matt1216]

What's so wrong with letting species become extinct? It's the natural progression of things. Doesn't matter if humans are to "blame" for that extinction. Some species are just meant to go extinct. I have a feeling that protecting and reviving these species actually does more harm than good, though I have no knowledge or data to back that up.

you cant be serious

once a species is extinct, it's gone forever. the california condor is cool. one of the largest wingspans. they are in danger of becoming extinct because of people.

we have a responsibility to watch over the planet, how could saving a species from man made extinction be a bad thing?

 

[greener]

Has nothing to do with Bullets accept for the fact that these Santa Cruz Sissies have an agenda to band guns in Calif,

Period end of story

Oh here's the part of the story you left out:

The researchers are currently evaluating the ineffectiveness of the ban so far, including a look at whether hunters are fully complying with the new rule. Myra Finkelstein, a University of California-Santa Cruz researcher involved in the project, told Ars that “even if only a few people are still using lead ammunition, there will be enough contaminated carcasses to cause lead poisoning in a significant number of condors. We found that over the course of ten years, if just one half of one percent of carcasses have lead in them, the probability that each free-flying condor will encounter a contaminated carcass is 85 to 98 percent, and one exposure event could kill a condor.”

So just a few d-bags with lead ammo and a fuck-all attitude like yours and Dave's could be causing an extinction, instead of switching to non-lead ammo which is readily available anywhere.

The limit is on one type of AMMO only in certain areas while hunting, and you declare that an attempt to 'band guns in Calif'

Fail. Way to completely discredit yourself.

 

[R1-Limited]

You really believe this research?

You really believe that this UC Santa Cruz Study had zero political agenda, used false science and are not anti gun proponents.
So another words (AND BTW I DID READ IT ALL AND THEN SOME) they were f***king wrong, jumped to a pre-disposed already biased conclusion and all the wackos got all flustered and this stupid law passed. This is why EnviroMENTALism is evil

Common on BULL SHIT BULL SHIT BULL SHIT is all over the place here, I bet you still think Al Gore is a Sane individual and needs to be taken serial

I am all for conservation, and thanks for the D-Bag comment Nut I want real science, not some numbnut hippie in Santa Cruz with an agenda.
I HIGHLIGHTED IN BOLD you failed to read obviously

Oh here's the part of the story you left out:

The researchers are currently evaluating the ineffectiveness of the ban so far, including a look at whether hunters are fully complying with the new rule. Myra Finkelstein, a University of California-Santa Cruz researcher involved in the project, told Ars that “even if only a few people are still using lead ammunition, there will be enough contaminated carcasses to cause lead poisoning in a significant number of condors. We found that over the course of ten years, if just one half of one percent of carcasses have lead in them, the probability that each free-flying condor will encounter a contaminated carcass is 85 to 98 percent, and one exposure event could kill a condor.”

So just a few d-bags with lead ammo and a fuck-all attitude like yours and Dave's could be causing an extinction, instead of switching to non-lead ammo which is readily available anywhere.

The limit is on one type of AMMO only in certain areas while hunting, and you declare that an attempt to 'band guns in Calif'

Fail. Way to completely discredit yourself.

 

[CoorsLight]

Off the wagon, eh? I have to say I did miss reading your half-cocked BS.

But back on topic: do you think the UCSC researchers faked their data? What do you think their results would be like if they had a conclusion already made up? Do you think 0.5% is the number they'd come up with?

 

[planegray]

How many years did it take for the eagles to "come back" after the banning of DDT?

I think it was 10 to 20?

I'd rather have the condors than the people.....there's plenty more of us.

(Oh yeah.... "food chain";, learn it, love it, live it )

 

[enki]

It's a fucking back door ban and nothing else. By the way, how often does a bullet stay in the varmit anyway?

 

[planegray]

I remember getting my panties in a bunch when they banned lead shot from duck hunting. For the first few years the steel shells DID suck, but as usual, man made technology his bitch and developed some great ammo. I MUCH prefer the steel shot now....it's faster and generally goes right through the bird (they don't feel good when you DO bite one though )

 

[Mike95060]

It's a fucking back door ban and nothing else. By the way, how often does a bullet stay in the varmit anyway?

Until the condor eats it.



PS, any element is pretty much around forever, it just finds somewhere else to go.

 

[Mike95060]

You really believe this research?

You really believe that this UC Santa Cruz Study had zero political agenda, used false science and are not anti gun proponents.
So another words (AND BTW I DID READ IT ALL AND THEN SOME) they were f***king wrong, jumped to a pre-disposed already biased conclusion and all the wackos got all flustered and this stupid law passed. This is why EnviroMENTALism is evil

Common on BULL SHIT BULL SHIT BULL SHIT is all over the place here, I bet you still think Al Gore is a Sane individual and needs to be taken serial

I am all for conservation, and thanks for the D-Bag comment Nut I want real science, not some numbnut hippie in Santa Cruz with an agenda.
I HIGHLIGHTED IN BOLD you failed to read obviously

You need pharmacological help. I'm sure I get way more second hand weed smoke living in Santa Cruz Than you ever will and I'm not even 1/1000th as paranoid as you are.

 

[enki]

A condor died from drinking anti-freeze one time. Let's ban all motor vehicles in Sierra, mkay?

 

[planegray]

A condor died from drinking anti-freeze one time. Let's ban all motor vehicles in Sierra, mkay?

hmmmm..... how about we compromise and just make everything air cooled ?

 

[R1-Limited]

My Group said its ok to do 5.3 posts here a day


Bad Data, yes I surely do, just like the Gullible warming crap and the same bad data psuedo science that shut down CCMA for us dirt riders

Here let me show you examples and then you can use your common sense

All from the Article, I will bold in the KEY Areas

Researchers compiled the results of over 1,100 blood samples taken from 150 California condors between 1997 and 2010. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that children with blood lead levels above 450 ng/ml undergo treatment, and this is roughly the level at which the condors are taken in for treatment as well. About 20 percent of the birds sampled each year exceeded this level, and 48 percent of individuals living in the wild exceeded it at some point during the 14-year period. Blood lead levels as high as 6,100 ng/ml were seen.

Ok so lets work with that, Just read that for a moment or two and let it sink in

NEXT

Because blood samples only provide a snapshot of lead levels, the group also analyzed feathers from 18 condors. The concentration of lead in each segment of the feather depends on the concentration in the body at the time that segment formed. That means that each feather records a few months of exposure history. From comparisons of the most recent segment to blood levels, they were able to estimate blood lead levels over the duration of the feather.

The feathers showed that after ingesting lead, the birds’ blood concentrations exceeded 450 ng/ml for about a month. Unsurprisingly, blood samples often miss the peak lead concentrations, which were 1.4x to 14.4x higher. About 34 percent of the average feather history was higher than the level at which the condors are treated.

With me

But how can we be sure the lead in those condors came from ammunition in carcasses and not some natural source? Of those samples, 79 percent were consistent with lead ammunition and 27 percent were within the range of “background” ratios in captive birds (there’s some overlap). Several birds had isotopic signatures similar to lead-based paint, and had been observed roosting in an old fire tower with peeling lead paint.

Note the question mark, is this a rhetorical question a I suppose so question or a absolute conclusion

Here is the Achilies heal for me

If lead ammunition is a real problem for California condors, where does that leave the effort to restore the population? To answer that question, the group used population models and several scenarios. If present conditions continue, with the same lead exposure and active care of the birds, the wild population would just barely grow. The authors write, “without future releases of captive-reared birds, the population would take ∼1,800 [years] to meet the recovery goal of a noncaptive population of 150 individuals within California.”

And the Nail in the coffin these people are making shit up

That is likely the outcome that California authorities were hoping for when, in 2008, they instituted a ban on lead ammunition for hunting many species within the condor’s range in southern California. But when the researchers compared blood lead levels in condors before the ban (2006-2007) and after (2009-2010), they found no improvement.

So where is the lead coming from, where is the published findings and the NON-BIASED collaboration to substantiate the findings. So no I certainly do not believe these Enviro-Nazi's findings.

Off the wagon, eh? I have to say I did miss reading your half-cocked BS.

But back on topic: do you think the UCSC researchers faked their data? What do you think their results would be like if they had a conclusion already made up? Do you think 0.5% is the number they'd come up with?

So they jumped the gun again with bad science, banned a groups "RIGHT" to hunt by forcing legislation once again based on Pseudo science and political agenda.

Done for the day, I am getting the shakes.

 

[enki]

Yep. Passed a bad law that cannot be enforced or barely enforced. Why? Because game warden salaries are paid for by fish and game fees, which are spiraling down. Game wardens are not allowed to get overtime and must take comp time. That means few game wardens stretched too thin to enforce a widely unpopular law among the Sierra population. Bad law encourages disrespect for all law.