The Mojave Desert tortoise population is losing ground

[Sal]

well MMM we know that lead is bad for life forms. We have outlawed it in gasoline. Condors are suffering because of exposure to carcasses that have been shot with lead bullets.

I guess your position is that in spite of the evidence showing lead to be dangerous, we should allow its use in sensitive environments until some species becomes obviously and legally affected by it.

This kind of position comes from the knee jerk response to any rules protecting the environment. Off-roaders typically regard any protection as threatening their "right" to ride.

Guess what. There are now near 40 million people living in CA. The effects of so many people are having serious impacts on nature. You think we should just allow our natural areas, plants, critters to die off? Then you could ride to your heart's content and contemplate empty acres of blowing dust!

[Dan]

well MMM we know that lead is bad for life forms. We have outlawed it in gasoline. Condors are suffering because of exposure to carcasses that have been shot with lead bullets.

I guess your position is that in spite of the evidence showing lead to be dangerous, we should allow its use in sensitive environments until some species becomes obviously and legally affected by it.

This kind of position comes from the knee jerk response to any rules protecting the environment. Off-roaders typically regard any protection as threatening their "right" to ride.

Guess what. There are now near 40 million people living in CA. The effects of so many people are having serious impacts on nature. You think we should just allow our natural areas, plants, critters to die off? Then you could ride to your heart's content and contemplate empty acres of blowing dust!

Sal, we know that lead ingested in high concentrations is bad for some life forms. Not everything that's outlawed has that status because of well-reasoned and scientific research.

I don't know exactly what Mike's position is on the issue you bring up, but I know mine. We should not label environments as "sensitive" unless reality and settled science presents irrefutable evidence of such. Yes, we should wait until we've got that evidence before outlawing human economic activities. Unlike animals, we organize ourselves as a nation, and our nation has a Constitution. Our Constitution demands that we have the peoples' blessing before we take away their rights. When you speak of "knee jerk response", you should include environmentalists' "knee jerk response" to free enterprise, human liberty, and the pursuit of economic security. That response is to oppose it and attempt to force others to stop pursuing it. What gives you that "right"? People want a relatively clean and healthy environment, but that's not what your friends in major environmental groups do any longer. Nowadays, it's a political movement, not an environmental one. It's simply disguising itself as an environmental movement to gain support and raise money. People are becoming well aware of that fact.

I'd say California is doing just fine with 40 million people. It's by no means the most populated area in the nation. In fact, only about 5% of our landmass in the US can be considered "populated". That means 95% is "unpopulated". While I realize you want to control both, your movement is running out of reasons why we should allow you to do that, Sal. So far, you've been dead wrong about all the major "catastrophes" you lot have predicted, as well as nearly everything else in the last two or three decades. Your movement has obviously become a political one, rather than a scientific or reality based one. Phil Klasky proves that daily.

This is what happens when movements and programs become politicized. The facts go right out the window, and Americans lose liberties. It's time we stopped listening to the political grandstanders posing as environmental groups, and started doing what's right.

[Sal]

Dan it doesn't take a scientist in a lab coat to see the damage caused by unregulated human activities in the desert. We all know the desert is a sensitive area. We all know that the tortoise is dying off in spite of well-meaing measures to save them.

Why play with the possibility of losing more resources? What's the difference if hunters use copper bullets instead of lead--do hunters have a right to use lead bullets when we can see the effects of their use?

Sheesh!

[Mike]

copper bullets?
Psst, Sal, your slip is showing.

[MMM]

Lead has negitive impacts on life, granted. However, to the best of my knowledge, torts are not omivors and only eat plant materials. Now most people do not "hunt" plants with guns, but maybe sal does? And as far as sensitive areas in the desert, most if not all are under either wilderness protection, preserve protection, monument protection or military abuse. sals so called unregulated OHV use is in fact one of the most regulated form of recreation in the desert. Something which escapes sal and others. sal will continue to issue anti-ohv retoritic, and never give any soloutions to what he preceves as a threat. First OHVs, then hunting, what next sal?

Mike

[Sal]

here's some info about copper bullets

http://www.condorinfo.org/What_the_Experts_Say.pdf

As far as MMM's comments. Do we know that lead bullets do not contaminate the ground when dropped or fallen there? Do we know that game shot with lead bullets do not contaminate the ground or the water sources there? I think MMM is willing to gamble with the health of the desert wildlife. Most Americans are not.

[Brew]

We all know that the tortoise is dying off in spite of well-meaing measures to save them.

Perhaps the wrong measures are being used. If there was a thinning out of the predators that enjoy a good turtle meal and more emphasis on reducing the respiratory problems, the little guys might actually make a come back.

Brew

[Waynno]

We all know that the tortoise is dying off in spite of well-meaing measures to save them.

Perhaps the wrong measures are being used. If there was a thinning out of the predators that enjoy a good turtle meal and more emphasis on reducing the respiratory problems, the little guys might actually make a come back.

Brew

Yea right, Like they would actually do something to promote recovery

They know fully well how to promote recovery of the desert Tortoise,

If they did, they would lose their most powerful closure tool and
all those high paid biologists and scientists would be in the unemployment
line.

[Mike]

here's some info about copper bullets

http://www.condorinfo.org/What_the_Experts_Say.pdf

Interesting ad. Thanks Sal.

[Dan]

First, there is good reason lead is used. It provides the best chance for a humane kill, as its density is actually best of all affordable metals. Bismuth is close, but its cost is prohibitive, and it's still a heavy metal. Copper and other lighter weight metals will result in a greater incidence of wounding and animal suffering.

Environmental groups are adamant that hunting with lead bullets results in direct lead poisoning in condors. They have one study that supposedly links the same lead isotope from bullets sold within the condor's range to a similar isotope found in condors, and have repeatedly publicized that "study". What they don't tell you is that there are other studies which suggest just the opposite, that few condors are negatively affected by lead, and that there is significant suspicion that the lead is from another source besides hunting and lead bullets. The isotopes actually rarely match those form ammunition. Yet, they press on with the lead ban parade.

Bans on lead shot in waterfowl hunting are reasonable, in my estimation. The likelihood that ducks, who are bottom-feeders, will ingest small lead pellets is fairly significant. Further, lead oxide dissolving in the water as those pellets corrode is an existing probability. The likelihood that condors will ingest lead from bullets or hunting ammunition is highly unlikely, and suspect as a real issue of any significance. Rather, it's far more likely that it's simply a tool to make hunting more costly, ammunition less available, and the whole activity more difficult and less desirable for people to participate in.

If they were actually looking to reduce the effects of any lead these scavengers might possibly ingest, lead-ban proponents would not oppose the plated and jacketed lead projectiles which are available. Copper jacketed and plated lead projectiles of all types are available, and that particular solution offers the advantages of both a quick kill and reasonable affordability, as well as a barrier to the absorption of any lead. But they vehemently oppose, because the agenda isn't protection of the species, but instead it's placing endless incremental burdens on the activity of hunting. They don't like hunting at all, so they seek to institute bans on multiple aspects of the activity, while avoiding the appearance of their real agenda. Read it and weep, Sal:

http://calnra.com/newsbriefs/090627.htm

With environmental groups, there is always a hidden agenda.