Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
Polls
Barnes TSX/TTSX vs Nosler Partition
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Shootin4fun" data-source="post: 849065" data-attributes="member: 28741"><p>Apologies in advance for highjacking the thread to the lead ammunition ban argument that has sufraced as a Senate bill to ban all lead ammo for hunting in California....I wanted to dig a little deeper to get at the truth of the claims and found this research paper by several University of Calif. and other agencies. This could be your state next!</p><p></p><p>Link to study:</p><p><a href="http://www.ventanaws.org/images/species/species_condor_lead/Lead_poisoning_and_the_deceptive_recovery_of_the_critically_endangered_California_Condor.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.ventanaws.org/images/species/species_condor_lead/Lead_poisoning_and_the_deceptive_recovery_of_the_critically_endangered_California_Condor.pdf</a></p><p></p><p>My short take on it:</p><p>It is dense reading and we see assumptions being made, however it is some of the important data being considered. Firstly, in the graphs I don't see big drops in the lead poisoning since lead ammo was banned in the prescribed area. Also they do not talk about hunting statistics in Calif. Has it increased or decreased over the years? Did a rise in the number of hunters lead to a rise in Condor lead poisoning? They do talk about matching PB isotope ratios which may be telling. I don't know if there are other applications for the same lead isotop as is used in hunting. Do they? So I had to push through to the "what ifs". Still I'm uncertain of the truth or efficacy of conclusions.</p><p></p><p>In the paragraph below, they seem to be saying that even with the best mitigation techniques (banning lead ammo, etc.) it will take 1,800 YEARS FOR NATURAL INCREASE OF THE CONDOR POPUPLATION TO 150 BIRDS!!! HELLO- ***??? 2,000 YEARS TO SPAWN AND SUSTAIN A POPULATION LEVEL OF 150 BIRDS? WE HUMANS WILL DESTROY THE EARTH BEFORE THEN! AND THEY'RE ONLY 53% SURE THAT INCREASE WILL HAPPEN?? THAT MEANS THE ONLY WAY TO INCREASE THEIR POPULATION SIGNIFICANTLY IS TO BREED AND RELEASE. IN THAT CASE WHY NOT JUST BREED 150 OF THESE GUT MUNCHERS, RELEASE THEM, DO IT SEVERAL TIMES, AND KEEP THE EXISTING AREA BAN? </p><p></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family: 'serif'">With current levels of intensive management, the California</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'serif'">condor population is predicted to be roughly stable (best esti-</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'serif'">mate of annual growth = 1.0003) (Fig. 4</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'serif'">A</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'serif'">). Thus, without future</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'serif'">releases of captive-reared birds, the population would take</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'monospace'">∼</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'serif'">1,800 y to meet the recovery goal of a noncaptive population of</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'serif'">150 individuals within California (9). Importantly, this estimate of</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'serif'">population stability is dependent on the continuation in perpetuity</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'serif'">of the current level of management interventions, including near</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'serif'">daily monitoring and targeted trapping and treatment if individual</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'serif'">behaviors indicate lead poisoning. In addition, accounting for</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'serif'">parameter estimation uncertainty shows that even this stability</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'serif'">is unclear, with a 53% probability of growth rates less than one</span></p><p>under current conditions</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Shootin4fun, post: 849065, member: 28741"] Apologies in advance for highjacking the thread to the lead ammunition ban argument that has sufraced as a Senate bill to ban all lead ammo for hunting in California....I wanted to dig a little deeper to get at the truth of the claims and found this research paper by several University of Calif. and other agencies. This could be your state next! Link to study: [url]http://www.ventanaws.org/images/species/species_condor_lead/Lead_poisoning_and_the_deceptive_recovery_of_the_critically_endangered_California_Condor.pdf[/url] My short take on it: It is dense reading and we see assumptions being made, however it is some of the important data being considered. Firstly, in the graphs I don't see big drops in the lead poisoning since lead ammo was banned in the prescribed area. Also they do not talk about hunting statistics in Calif. Has it increased or decreased over the years? Did a rise in the number of hunters lead to a rise in Condor lead poisoning? They do talk about matching PB isotope ratios which may be telling. I don't know if there are other applications for the same lead isotop as is used in hunting. Do they? So I had to push through to the "what ifs". Still I'm uncertain of the truth or efficacy of conclusions. In the paragraph below, they seem to be saying that even with the best mitigation techniques (banning lead ammo, etc.) it will take 1,800 YEARS FOR NATURAL INCREASE OF THE CONDOR POPUPLATION TO 150 BIRDS!!! HELLO- ***??? 2,000 YEARS TO SPAWN AND SUSTAIN A POPULATION LEVEL OF 150 BIRDS? WE HUMANS WILL DESTROY THE EARTH BEFORE THEN! AND THEY'RE ONLY 53% SURE THAT INCREASE WILL HAPPEN?? THAT MEANS THE ONLY WAY TO INCREASE THEIR POPULATION SIGNIFICANTLY IS TO BREED AND RELEASE. IN THAT CASE WHY NOT JUST BREED 150 OF THESE GUT MUNCHERS, RELEASE THEM, DO IT SEVERAL TIMES, AND KEEP THE EXISTING AREA BAN? [FONT=serif]With current levels of intensive management, the California[/FONT] [FONT=serif]condor population is predicted to be roughly stable (best esti-[/FONT] [FONT=serif]mate of annual growth = 1.0003) (Fig. 4[/FONT] [FONT=serif]A[/FONT] [FONT=serif]). Thus, without future[/FONT] [FONT=serif]releases of captive-reared birds, the population would take[/FONT] [FONT=monospace]∼[/FONT] [FONT=serif]1,800 y to meet the recovery goal of a noncaptive population of[/FONT] [FONT=serif]150 individuals within California (9). Importantly, this estimate of[/FONT] [FONT=serif]population stability is dependent on the continuation in perpetuity[/FONT] [FONT=serif]of the current level of management interventions, including near[/FONT] [FONT=serif]daily monitoring and targeted trapping and treatment if individual[/FONT] [FONT=serif]behaviors indicate lead poisoning. In addition, accounting for[/FONT] [FONT=serif]parameter estimation uncertainty shows that even this stability[/FONT] [FONT=serif]is unclear, with a 53% probability of growth rates less than one[/FONT] under current conditions [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
Polls
Barnes TSX/TTSX vs Nosler Partition
Top