The environmentalist lunatics are at it again

coyote 1

New Member
Unless we can get all of the sportsman groups and outdoor enthusiasts to get involved, we are going to the way of. :smiley-target-yellow:
 

Bishop

Moderator
Sadly there's some DFW people that are pushing for a statewide ban.  One in particular is the biologist (Marc Kenyon) in charge of the bear and pig hunting programs.  He wants no lead at all rifle, shotgun allowed for any hunting.  He gave a presentation at last years So. Cal. Counties F&G commissioners conference on the subject.  He brought some condor people with him to support his push for lead free.  When they  were presented with the results of the most recent surveys that showed MORE condor lead poisoning cases then there were before the lead ban; they said it was because hunters were ignoring the new law.  
So how is that?  Before the lead ban 90-100% of the hunters were using lead.  So even if only 50% of hunters obeyed the new law, there should be a 50% decline in lead poisoning cases, not a increase.  
 

Cazador Suerte

Lucky Hunter
Time to send some more money to CWA...
 
In my experience, the liberal or environmental cause is not worried about the facts....this is not about protecting the damn bird....its about stopping all hunting in California....bit by bit.....
 

fish dog

Well-Known Member
By the center for biological diversity own admission hunters are in 99.9% compliance with the lead ban in the condor zone so the problem should be completely solved if hunters were the source.  Look up condors and micro trash and you'll see these idiot birds eat anything shiny, which includes stuff like AA & AAA batteries....any guess as to where they're getting their lead?   I'm betting this little factoid wasn't even mentioned in Mr. Kenyon's little presentation.  I have to go somewhere but I'll post more on this later....
 

ilovesprig

Moderator
Eric,
 
Don't confuse me with the facts.............It has been a well known fact for a long time that the condors were not getting their lead from fragmented bullets...........This whole issue is total BS!
 

fish dog

Well-Known Member
Banning lead IMHO is pseudo-science. Let's do a little thinking here:
 
What is a condor? - A super sized vulture.
 
What do condors do? - Eat dead things (carrion).
 
How many turkey vultures are there in the world? -
 
 
The current world population of this New World species almost certainly exceeds five million birds. Most populations of this adaptable species appear to be thriving.
 
 
(source: http://www.hawkmountain.org/raptorpedia/hawks-at-hawk-mountain/hawk-species-at-hawk-mountain/turkey-vulture/page.aspx?id=644 )
 
What do turkey vultures do? - Eat dead things (carrion).
 
So, 'splain this to me - WHY AREN'T TURKEY VULTURES DROPPING LIKE FLYS (OR CONDORS) DUE TO LEAD POISONING SINCE THEY FILL THE SAME EXACT NICHE (AND EAT THE SAME EXACT THINGS) AS THE CONDORS??
 
If 10% per year of these populations (condor and turkey vulture) were dying of lead poisoning that would mean there would be 500,000 turkey vultures laying all over the landscape...ya think maybe people would be finding a few of these?
 
What some more pseudo-science? In 35+ years of duck hunting I have never found any shot, lead or steel, in the crop of any duck I have shot (with the exception of shot that entered from the outside when I shot the duck). And I've opened up many a crop in my time. Anybody here found any shot in the crop of any duck they have shot?? The supposed reason we have to use steel shot is because the ducks are ingesting it into their crops because they think they're small pebbles like they would normally pick up to use to grind the food in their crops. Since lead is heavier then steel I would think you'd find steel shot in the crops more often then you would have found lead shot (when you could use it) because the lead shot, being heavier, would be more likely to sink in the mud then the steel shot. With the horendus mud we have here in So. Cal. I doubt there is any shot available for the ducks to pick up, its two feet down in the mud just like my feet are when I try to walk through it. Maybe this is different for areas with hard bottoms but here it's total BS.
 
I have a sneaking suspicion that someone's been lying to us....gee, what a surprise!
 
I remember, not too long ago, there was a documentary on TV about the Grand Canyon. In one segment they interviewed, and went out in the field with, a biologist studying condors in the G.C. area. He went on and on about how the evil hunters were killing all the condors by leaving their lead laced gut piles all over the place. Well, happened to be that they got a call regarding a dead condor nearby. All the way over to pick it up this num-nuts is saying how he's betting it was lead poisoning and this will be another lead related death and so on. Well they get the bird back to the lab and start to examine it and come to find out the stupid thing choked to death on a quarter...that's right...a 25 cent piece. This biologist was so disappointed that it wasn't lead poisoning he could hardly stand it.
 
This is the type of "expert" that people are relying on for this bogus lead ban.
 
One more thing. I read somewhere that in California Fish & Game were finding that 99% of hunters in the lead ban area were in compliance with the lead ban. Believe it or not the source for this report was the Center for Biological Diversity, then folks probably most responsible for the lead ban. Don't believe me? Look for yourself.
 
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2009/condor-lead-02-10-2009.html
 
So, if hunters have been 99% in compliance with the lead ban which has been in effect for 4or 5 years then where are these condors getting their lead? Maybe some of these greenies are lacing carcasses with lead? (Nah, they wouldn't do that would they....) Or, maybe, these condors like picking through the mine tailing piles at some of the thousands of old abandoned mines in the condor areas? Just a little more to think about. By this groups own admission hunters are complying with the lead ban and it, apparently isn't helping. The only conclusion I can come to is that hunters are not the source of this (alleged) lead.
 
No one in their right mind thinks that lead isn't toxic.
 
Now, the real question is, if condors are getting lead from hunter's bullets then how or where are they STILL getting it if hunters are 99% in compliance with the lead ban?
 
If you reduce the alleged source of the lead by 99% and the condors are still be poisoned at about the same rate then we obviously have not removed the source of their lead.
 
This thereby proves that hunters are NOT the source of this lead that the condors are allegedly ingesting.
 
My bullets are about as likely to poison a condor as my fishing sinkers that are sitting in my garage.
 
I remember, not too long ago, there was a documentary on TV about the Grand Canyon. In one segment they interviewed, and went out in the field with, a biologist studying condors in the G.C. area. He went on and on about how the evil hunters were killing all the condors by leaving their lead laced gut piles all over the place. Well, happened to be that they got a call regarding a dead condor nearby. All the way over to pick it up this num-nuts is saying how he's betting it was lead poisoning and this will be another lead related death and so on. Well they get the bird back to the lab and start to examine it and come to find out the stupid thing choked to death on a quarter...that's right...a 25 cent piece. This biologist was so disappointed that it wasn't lead poisoning he could hardly stand it.
So there you have a documented case of a quarter killing a condor. Now what? Are we going to ban coins from the condor areas now?
 
Let's again do a little thinking with our brains instead of the left liberal method of thinking with our "heart". In 2006 in California's A zone deer area there were 33,160 tags issued. The south half of A zone covers approximately 1/2 of the condor area in the state. If you figure 2/3 of the hunters hunted in the south half of A zone (the half in the condor area) that would give you 22,107 hunters in that area. Of the total number of hunters 9.5% were successful at harvesting a deer or 3,159 deer for the entire A zone area. Take 2/3 of that number, (since we're taking out the north end of the zone that's not in the condor area) and that gives you 2,106 deer harvested. (Although that number would probably be high as the north half of A zone is usually better hunting then then south end). If 10% of those were taken with a bow then that removes 211 deer from having potential lead in them, which takes the number of deer harvested down to 2,085. If each of those deer were taken with a 150 grain bullet AND then entire bullet stayed inside the deer's gut area to be available for the condors to eat (extremely unlikely as most of these small costal deer (100 - 150 pounds) suffer pass-through wounds) that would leave a potential 312750 grains of lead for the condors to pick out of the gut piles. As you probably know there are 7000 grains in a pound. This would give you a whopping 44.67 pounds of lead spread out through an area from Ventura to San Francisco and from the middle of the central valley to the coast, an area approximately 300 miles x 200 miles. Now, if you realistically figure 20 % of that lead is left inside the deers' gut piles that leaves you 8.93 pounds of lead in that same area. Now, your telling me 9 pounds of lead spread out over 60,000 square miles is poisoning the condors? Really? Give me a break.
 
I have seen quotes by "experts" that the source of lead poisoning condors was "likely" hunter's bullets, or as in the article quoted above, now its poachers...
 
This is exactly the type of BS science that they're putting out there to get the ban. Can you imagine this type of evidence in a court for lets say a murder trial....
Defense Attorney - "So, you say these victims died of lead poisoning?"
"Expert" witness (aka - greeny "scientist") - "Yes."
DA - "And the source of that lead is...?"
EW - "We don't know for sure."
DA - "And of the 39 other deaths that weren't attributed to lead, what did they die from?"
EW - "Different things but a lot of them we couldn't tell so we decided to blame lead from hunter's bullets for those too."
DA - "Why?"
EW - "Because it was easy to blame something as unpopular as hunting."
DA - "So, how many of these victims have died of lead poisoning?"
EW - "We don't know but I'm betting at least half of them did."
DA - "Do you have any proof of this?"
EW - "No. But I know it in my heart."
DA - "Then how can you say that?"
EW - "Because we had to come up with something and it was easy to blame lead and hunter's bullets."
 
Ah, yeah....that would hold up in court....
 
A fellow hunter on one of the hunting web sites I frequent (could be here, I don't remember and didn't include it in my file on this) did a little research and found out that most of the condors that are dying are succumbing to "micro-trash". This is documented on the condor-huggers web sites and blogs. I will quote his post from that site...
 
 
They (condors) frickin' eat anything. Apparently they are attracted to shiny objects, cause they keep eating METAL!!! Hello?
 
I did some research on these damn birds (reading the condor lovers own info) and they are not well adjusted to modern times. To say these birds are dieing because of hunters is like saying a drug addict isnt responsible for taking drugs. The condor recovery people have "CLEAN UP DAYS" in the LPNF (Los Padres National Forest) in order to collect small bits of metal so the stupid condors don't end up eating it. I am serious, this info is on the web. But all we hear about is the EVIL hunter's LEAD and how dangerous lead bullets are. This is HYPE!!! 100%
 
The Bottom Line:
These birds have an unnatural genetic drive to consume METAL. Period! How then is anyone responsible for their actions, but them alone?
 
Eating trash & "Clean up days" links:
 
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?ui...85&topic=12032
http://bsatroop303scv.com/index.php?...view&ANN_id=29
http://lpfw.org/eventsarchives.htm
http://lpfw.org/news/0801microtrash.htm
http://www.habitatwork.org/condor.htm
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/junk-food
 
 

...Everything from metal springs and glass fragments to bits of electrical wiring and cloth has been found in the crops and gizzards of the deceased chicks, as well as in condor nests. The body of one nestling contained a veritable trash pile: 30 metal items, 54 glass, 28 pieces of plastic and 2 miscellaneous items—a total of 200.5 grams of junk. Another contained 193.5 grams, and several others held 60 grams or more...
 
 
This list is not exhaustive. I don't have enough time to finish it. There is a LOT of research on these prehistoric animals.

 
 
 
Had some x-ray pictures of condors with micro-trash inside but it says "You are not allowed to use that image extension on this community."
 
..and a little more info...
 
 
a report issued by the
California Fish & Game Commission on blood lead levels in California
condors was inconclusive and supported the National Shooting Sports
Foundation's contention that there is no scientific basis for the
state's ban on traditional ammunition in condor regions. The department
and commission noted that the "sources of lead in sampled condors are
unknown, relationship of sampled condors to hunting activity are
unknown, and . . . the condor feeding habits for this period . . . are
unknown."
 
Here's what is known: Condors feed on small pieces of garbage called
micro-trash. Micro-trash includes batteries, plastics and painted-fence
pieces. Certainly, a much more reasonable explanation for why some
condors have elevated blood lead levels is that they are feeding on
these lead-based products comprising micro-trash. Of course, this
likelihood is also overlooked by the Audubon Society.
 
 
(source: http://birdingonthe.net/mailinglists/HIMC.html )
 
Gee...what a surprise...conveniently overlooked by the Audubon Society I'd say...
 
Also, to top that off, the explosion of lethal prop-style wind farms being built in condor habitat is putting the hard-won future of the condor at risk.
 
 
Many condors undoubtedly perish at such wind farms, although official reports attribute losses to other causes. Remember, great financial investments often warrant great cover-ups by those who stand to lose money.
 
 
"although official reports attribute losses to other causes"...like maybe lead from hunter's bullets??? Gee...what a surprise....
 
(source: http://www.examiner.com/wildlife-conservation-in-national/california-condors-wind-farms-on-collision-course )
 
So, now we have "micro-trash" and wind farms...and my 140 grains of lead is the big problem?!?!? Give me a break....
 
 
The government began releasing condors in 1992, and there are now about 130 condors in the wild, 68 of them in California. Of 127 condors released in California from 1992 through 2006, 46 birds (36 percent) died or disappeared and are presumed dead. Scientists say poisoning from scavenging carcasses tainted by lead ammunition is likely responsible for many of the deaths”.
These figures were published three years ago when wildlife advocates filed suit to replace toxic lead bullets with safer alternatives. Now 3 years later, despite the ban on lead bullets, the number of number of missing and presumed dead Condors is even higher.
 
 
...again, proving my point...
 
Condors were on their way out long ago. I read where around the 1890's there were supposedly about 600 condors left...all in California (none in their "traditional" range in Mexico or Arizona). Why were they already disappearing (without people "helping" them disappear)? I've also read that for any type of animal to have a viable, sustainable population in the wild they need to have at least 5000 individual animals in their population. If condors were already down to 600 in the 1890's and were only living in a small percentage of their historical range isn't that evidence that they were already on the way out. Aren't we just postponing the inevitable at great cost and the imposition of unnecessary regulations?
 
Here an idea for the greenies if they really and truly thought banning lead ammo was the panacea for their condor lead poisoning. Why don't they put some of those millions of dollars they waste testing, treating and artificially rearing condors and give subsidies to the ammo companies so that this "life saving" non-toxic ammo would cost the hunters the same as comparable lead ammo? It would probably be much cheeper and then there would be no excuse for hunters to use anything else. (even though we're in 99% compliance now). You know why they don't do this? Its because this whole thing is a march towards banning hunting. Why wouldn't they do something as simple as providing the non-toxic ammo and just solve the alleged "problem"? Because that's not the agenda. After all, if you think about it, since we (hunters) are supposedly creating the problem (with lead ammo) if they provide a way with no excuse for everyone to use non-toxic ammo then they shouldn't have to do anything else and these birds would begin to flourish! Yeah....right.
 
(Apologies for some of the dead links. I'll have to re-research some of this but I can assure you there were all active and what is described was accurate when I first researched it. When I get some more time I'll re-research it and post some updated links the next time.)
 
http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=1ef541dad0e09e0f2235125c0&id=d04b7914f2&e=56c04fc4e5
 
July 23, 2012
 
Greater Yellowstone Area:  In a recent study published by The Wildlife Society, researchers from the University of Montana and the Avian Program of Craighead Beringia South found that lead ammunition fragments in game carcasses were not a source of lead exposure or lead poisoning in large carnivores.
 
From 2007-2009, researchers captured and sampled blood from 82 grizzly bears, 35 black bears, 12 wolves and 6 cougars within the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem.  The researchers also collected over 400 scat samples from these same animals to test for lead projectile fragments.  No statistical difference in blood-lead levels was noted between samples collected before hunting season and samples collected during hunting season.  Further, no lead fragments were found in any of the over 400 scat samples taken by the researchers. 
 
The grizzly bears had the highest blood-lead levels of all the animals sampled.  On average, their blood-lead level was 5.5 micrograms/deciliter, well below the 45 microgram/deciliter threshold toxicity level typically used by wildlife organizations, such as the Condor Recovery Program. The other animals studied did not show lead exposure in any significant blood-lead levels.
 
The study concluded that the hunting season has no effect on the blood-lead levels in large carnivores.
 
The results surprised the researchers, who pre-conditionally expected scavenging carnivores, such as the grizzly and black bear, to exhibit high blood-lead levels during the hunting season due to hunters’ gut-piles and carrion left in the field within the Greater Yellowstone area.  Indeed, the bears in the study rely heavily on carrion as a food source in order to gain over 100 pounds before hibernating during the winter. 
 
The study results cast serious doubt on the anti-lead ammunition campaign’s claims that lead ammunition is the primary source of lead poisoning in wildlife.  The data clearly indicates a more continuous, year round alternative source of lead exposure within the Greater Yellowstone range of these large carnivores.
 
To combat the misguided efforts by environmental activists and researchers seeking to infringe on hunting regulations, the NRA and California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation (CRPAF) have collected thousands of documents via public records act requests over the last several years on the use of lead ammunition.  Many of these documents raise serious doubts about the veracity of claims that lead ammunition is poisoning California condors, wildlife or humans.  In fact, many documents obtained indicate these claims are based on “faulty science,” and the NRA and CRPAF have used these documents to debunk the “faulty science” being proffered to implement various lead ammunition bans across the U.S.  The NRA’s and CRPAF’s efforts are critical in defending the status quo for hunters and recreational shooters nationwide.  For more information regarding lead ammunition, join the Hunt for Truth
 
http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=1ef541dad0e09e0f2235125c0&id=d5fe43c16a&e=56c04fc4e5
 
Ventura, California—On August 8, 2012, the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) rejected a proposed expansion of the ban on the use of lead ammunition. The proposed lead ammunition ban would have extended the existing AB 821 lead ammunition ban in the “Condor Zone,” to include hunting in State Wildlife Areas, Ecological Reserves and for depredation hunts. 
 
After reviewing past discussions and information alleged to support the expansion of lead ammunition bans in California, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the National Audubon Society (Audubon) both presented new information on the issue, and the Commission rejected the proposed expansion and abandoned any attempt for a vote to “go to notice” on the proposed regulations, stopping the lead ban in its tracks.
 
The proponents for the lead ammunition ban relied on recent publications by UC Davis and UC Santa Cruz researchers to support their desired expansion, even though they provide contradictory conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the AB 821 lead ammunition ban. UC Davis researchers, Terra R. Kelly and Christine K. Johnson published two studies that purported to show that golden eagles and turkey vultures have a significantly higher blood-lead level during hunting season in comparison to the off-season, and that lead exposure in both species declined significantly after the implementation of the AB 821 lead ammunition ban. 
 
But NRA’s presentation convinced the Commissioners that the AB 821 lead ammunition ban was ineffective. NRA obtained and analyzed tens of thousands of pages of public records and data and presented the findings to the Commission. NRA showed how the studies were fatally flawed, and how the real data actually showed the opposite—that blood-lead levels not only remained static, but actually slightly increased after AB 821 was implemented. NRA also obtained information regarding the Department’s own law enforcement survey, which indicated that 99% of all hunters were found to be in compliance with the lead ammunition ban.
 
UC Santa Cruz researchers Myra Finkelstein and Donald Smith recently published a paper that admitted that the AB 821 ban on hunters’ lead ammunition in the “Condor Zone” has had no effect on reducing condor blood-lead levels. But, they insist that their research supports their conclusion that condor lead exposure and poisoning is due to hunters’ lead ammunition. The NRA’s prosecutor showed that their conclusions are unfounded. 
The UC Santa Cruz researchers’ latest publication purported to show that isotopic ratios of lead found in the blood of condors matched the lead isotopic ratios of lead found in ammunition. The researchers again used the discredited isotopic compositional analysis to claim that the isotopic ratios of lead from the captive condors fall within background range of lead in the California environment, while free-flying condors had lead isotopic ratios that more closely matched hunters’ lead ammunition.
 
NRA again analyzed public records and data, and peer-reviewed papers, including the UC authors’ own publications, and showed that the most recent article was based on data that was “cherry picked” to reach their predetermined conclusions.  Indeed, the researchers’ own conclusions in earlier publications clearly contradicted their most recent conclusions regarding the isotopic ratio range for lead in ammunition and paint. 
 
After NRA and National Audubon Society gave their respective presentations, Commissioners were convinced that lead ammunition is not the sole contributor to lead exposure in wildlife.  Alternative sources, such as lead paint, gasoline and pesticides also play a role in lead exposure and poisoning in wildlife.  In response, Commissioners decided to form a committee to get to the bottom of the scientific debate.  The committee will include Commission President Jim Kellogg, Commissioner Michael Sutton, and scientists from both the NRA and Audubon.
 
The NRA has been spearheading an effort to gather information and science to oppose claims by environmental groups seeking to limit or ban recreational shooting, hunting and lead ammunition.  To assist in these efforts, NRA has engaged the expertise of environmental experts and scientists, as well as the civil rights and environmental law firm of Michel & Associates, P.C. The efforts include coordinating with interested parties to plan, research, conduct clerical work, and make numerous formal requests for documents from government agencies through Public Records Act and Freedom of Information Act requests. NRA’s team has obtained and analyzed over one hundred thousand pages of public records concerning information relied on to propose and allegedly support recreational shooting, hunting and lead ammunition bans, including “original data” and internal documents not previously obtained or reviewed by independent analysts or the public at large.
 
The effort has already resulted in the rejection of several proposed and ill-conceived bans throughout the United States.
 

JNDEER

Well-Known Member
A lot of good information Fish Dog thanks for taking the time to post it up!
 
 
 
I have always been under the mind set that you Cannot reason with the Un-Reasonable. Unless someone forks over $$$ to pay off which ever politician or judge is in the ruling it will just go to the highest bidder.
 

fish dog

Well-Known Member
BTW - Steve and John.  Since you're both on the F&G..or I guess it would now be F&W commission of your respective counties, maybe you know someone to pass this info on to where it will do some good?
 

ilovesprig

Moderator
Eric,
 
Thanks for the great read........A lot of info I can use when I'm debating the "greenies"........ :smiley-wnk-yellow:
 
One little story about what lengths these people will go............At a commissioners grant request meeting a couple of summers back. We had a person come in from some agency requesting money for studies on the eagles. He gave us his pitch and ended it by stating they needed the money for radio collars because hunters had killed two eagles earlier in the year..........I was fairly bored with his request until he said this. After he had finished. I asked where the birds were found dead. He stated they were on VID property (Lake Henshaw). Then I asked him what time of year. As I recall it was in like June. I then stated there was no hunting on VID property that time of year. He started stumbling on his words after that......I then did some research myself on these two eagles......They were found in fact on the property, but had been put back in the nest twice. In fact, even during turkey season. We were NOT allowed to hunt this canyon. The conclusion by the biologist was they probably starved to death......... Found out later, this guy was very aware about how these young eagles died........He has since been removed from the area.
 
Anyway, the point is, these people will do anything to get hunting banned.
 

hatchet1

100% AMERICAN & LION KILLER!!!!!
FISH..AMAZING DATA ..YOUR NOT RELATED TO SDHNTR ARE YOU??
 
 
 
**grandfather always said...boy..you cant change stupid..unfortunatley the scientists behind the madness are just that..stupid**
 

Cazador Suerte

Lucky Hunter
I nomintate FISH DOG to lead the battle against this bill.  
 
Fish Dog....how bout sending that information to the CWA lobbyist, and all of the State Legislators who will hear the bill in committee.

Good stuff.
 

sloth1833

New Member
Im going to share this thread with my Environmental Science Professor (he hunts don't worry). We just went over "faulty" or "flawed" science reports and how to sniff out the bad ones. He should get a kick out of this. 
 
Thanks fishdog. great job compiling all this info for us. im glad someone is keeping up with all of this and keeping us informed. once again thank you.
 

Bishop

Moderator
fish dog said:
BTW - Steve and John.  Since you're both on the F&G..or I guess it would now be F&W commission of your respective counties, maybe you know someone to pass this info on to where it will do some good?
 
As advisory commissions to our boards of supervisors, we can recommend to them that they notify the state legislature of their opposition to the bill.  
Next month we also have the conference of the So. Cal. Counties F&G Commissions in Riverside.  Hopefully, we can several or most of the other counties to oppose the new bill.
 

wakmasterr

New Member
Outstanding reporting there fishdog...
 
and the truth of the matter is that there is only one truth and that is MONEY.
 
Money used to sway public opinion, money used to gain votes, votes used to make money.  There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that the truth ever prevails where money is involved.  In fact, if any of you remember way back when Proposition 117 was passed (the so-called Mountain Lion Initiative), the real heart of the petition was to fund the purchase of properties for parklands and conservation to the tune of $30 million a year for 30 consecutive years.  At that time no bills ere passing that included expenditures like that and this "Green Bill" could not have hoped to pass as well.  Someone got the bright idea to attach a paragraph to the bill that included eliminating mountain lion hunting and the kitty became the Jerry Lewis MDA poster child.  NO ONE discussed the money that was going to be granted.  It was all about the lions, and the fact is that we had not had a lion season in California since the very early 70's when a moratorium shut down the lion seasons and was never lifted.
 
The lead shot issue is the very same smoke screen and I'm glad that you guys see through that.  Thanks for all of the great information here.
 
Top