180pilot
04-02-2007, 08:05 PM
The DFG in MHO has used slanted figures to push their proposal to Commission, on April 13th at Bodega Bay
My Letters to Commission:
April 1, 2007
Honorable Commissioners,
Concerning Item 19B of your Agenda:
Amendments to methods of take, game and non game animals:
I and other sportsmen understand the purpose of these amendments to protect the California Condor. And, that time is of the essence. However, it is not totaly true to say that there are non-lead alternatives at hand for all hunters at this time. When I refer to a "bullet" here, I am talking about just the projectile, not the cartridge it is loaded into.
Only one Company, Barnes Bullets, is in a position to sell a non-lead bullet to those shooting a custom caliber (wild-cat) cartridge, in all calibers of hunting rifles and pistols. Hunters like myself, who reload our own ammunition to our specifications for increased accuracy over factory loaded ammunition, would only have one manufacture to buy bullets from at this time. Factory cartridges will not fit our rifles or hunting pistols. If Barnes has to turn it's manufacturing capabilities to supplying the major ammunition companies at this time such as Remington and Winchester etc., the supply of bullets for handloaders will be impacted negatively by supply and demand. This will cause shortages and very increased pricing of bullets for reloading. Lowering the price per cartridge is the point of reloading. making it possible to shoot enough to become very proficient when the hunting opportunity arrives.
It is yet to be seen if major ammunition manufactures are willing to produce no-lead ammunition just for California, or how long it will take other bullet manufacturers to re-tool to all copper or other forms of non-lead bullets. This amendment, if implemented state wide at this time, would excessively put the burden of greatly increased costs to sportsmen throughout the state, who load their own ammunition or buy it over the counter, and could lead to many disregarding the law altogether.
Because of the above reasons, it seems only prudent to phase in any state wide ban on non-lead bullets, over a period long enough for these problems to be solved. Starting the ban in present Condor habitat, and doing further studies on that impact on Condor mortality seems the best course of action before expanding such a ban to historical habitat or the entire State of California. The current directives to remove all lead contaminated carcasses from the field or burying them, in the case of varmints, is easy enough for most sportsman to adopt in the interim. And, I feel the Department should spend some more resources educating hunters in those practices, in the interim, until more manufactures can start producing no-lead bullets.
Honorable Commissioners:
Concerning Item 19B of your April 13 Agenda:
Amendments to methods of take, game and non-game animals:
This is my second letter to about the above. As I have now read DFG's proposal. I don't know where the figures for the price of .270 ammunition came from, on page 4 of the proposal, it appears only premium bullets were figured in, with the statement that the difference a box of cartridges was only 1$-5$ for non-lead bullets. Using Federal brand ammunition, a manufacturer that uses Barnes bullets in their premium line, a box of 20 regular lead core Federal brand cartridges with 130-grain bullet, can be purchased for $ 13.49 at Midway usa.com, the largest online ammunition merchant. The same .270 using the Federal/ Barnes bullets (only non-lead now available), from Midway cost $ 34.49, that's a 61% increase in cost! There are other brands of premium bullets approaching Barnes cost, but there are many good ones much less expensive.
As for the 7-millimeter bullets I use for reloading, the Sierra brand of 150 grain cost $ 22.50 dollars for 100. The Sierra brand is a lead core bullet of high quality. The Barnes no lead cost $ 32.00 for only 50, or $ 64.00 for 100 an increase of $ 41.50 or near 100% increase. The Barnes bullets are the only non-lead bullets available. California would be forcing hunters to buy from only one premium source for all their bullets. DFG's claim the increase per box is only 2%-22% is very misleading.
It is not a fair comparison for Fish and Game to compare just premium lead core bullets against Barnes prices, as there are much cheaper good bullets available. It is also unfair to say that a hunter only buys one box of 20 bullets a year. Varmint hunters shoot hundreds of rounds a year.
These amendments need a lot of scrutiny in the fact, the major bullet manufactures I have talked to today, Sierra and Hornady, tell me they cannot afford at this time to develop non-lead bullets just for California's hunters. This leaves the State forcing all to buy from only one manufacturer. And Sierra and Hornady are telling me they have not been contacted by California Fish and Game as to if or when they would ever produce any such bullets!
Fish and Game Commission Meeting April 13 8:30am
Lecture Hall
UC Davis Bodega Marine Laboratory
2099 Westside Rd.
Bodega Bay, CA 94923-0247
My Letters to Commission:
April 1, 2007
Honorable Commissioners,
Concerning Item 19B of your Agenda:
Amendments to methods of take, game and non game animals:
I and other sportsmen understand the purpose of these amendments to protect the California Condor. And, that time is of the essence. However, it is not totaly true to say that there are non-lead alternatives at hand for all hunters at this time. When I refer to a "bullet" here, I am talking about just the projectile, not the cartridge it is loaded into.
Only one Company, Barnes Bullets, is in a position to sell a non-lead bullet to those shooting a custom caliber (wild-cat) cartridge, in all calibers of hunting rifles and pistols. Hunters like myself, who reload our own ammunition to our specifications for increased accuracy over factory loaded ammunition, would only have one manufacture to buy bullets from at this time. Factory cartridges will not fit our rifles or hunting pistols. If Barnes has to turn it's manufacturing capabilities to supplying the major ammunition companies at this time such as Remington and Winchester etc., the supply of bullets for handloaders will be impacted negatively by supply and demand. This will cause shortages and very increased pricing of bullets for reloading. Lowering the price per cartridge is the point of reloading. making it possible to shoot enough to become very proficient when the hunting opportunity arrives.
It is yet to be seen if major ammunition manufactures are willing to produce no-lead ammunition just for California, or how long it will take other bullet manufacturers to re-tool to all copper or other forms of non-lead bullets. This amendment, if implemented state wide at this time, would excessively put the burden of greatly increased costs to sportsmen throughout the state, who load their own ammunition or buy it over the counter, and could lead to many disregarding the law altogether.
Because of the above reasons, it seems only prudent to phase in any state wide ban on non-lead bullets, over a period long enough for these problems to be solved. Starting the ban in present Condor habitat, and doing further studies on that impact on Condor mortality seems the best course of action before expanding such a ban to historical habitat or the entire State of California. The current directives to remove all lead contaminated carcasses from the field or burying them, in the case of varmints, is easy enough for most sportsman to adopt in the interim. And, I feel the Department should spend some more resources educating hunters in those practices, in the interim, until more manufactures can start producing no-lead bullets.
Honorable Commissioners:
Concerning Item 19B of your April 13 Agenda:
Amendments to methods of take, game and non-game animals:
This is my second letter to about the above. As I have now read DFG's proposal. I don't know where the figures for the price of .270 ammunition came from, on page 4 of the proposal, it appears only premium bullets were figured in, with the statement that the difference a box of cartridges was only 1$-5$ for non-lead bullets. Using Federal brand ammunition, a manufacturer that uses Barnes bullets in their premium line, a box of 20 regular lead core Federal brand cartridges with 130-grain bullet, can be purchased for $ 13.49 at Midway usa.com, the largest online ammunition merchant. The same .270 using the Federal/ Barnes bullets (only non-lead now available), from Midway cost $ 34.49, that's a 61% increase in cost! There are other brands of premium bullets approaching Barnes cost, but there are many good ones much less expensive.
As for the 7-millimeter bullets I use for reloading, the Sierra brand of 150 grain cost $ 22.50 dollars for 100. The Sierra brand is a lead core bullet of high quality. The Barnes no lead cost $ 32.00 for only 50, or $ 64.00 for 100 an increase of $ 41.50 or near 100% increase. The Barnes bullets are the only non-lead bullets available. California would be forcing hunters to buy from only one premium source for all their bullets. DFG's claim the increase per box is only 2%-22% is very misleading.
It is not a fair comparison for Fish and Game to compare just premium lead core bullets against Barnes prices, as there are much cheaper good bullets available. It is also unfair to say that a hunter only buys one box of 20 bullets a year. Varmint hunters shoot hundreds of rounds a year.
These amendments need a lot of scrutiny in the fact, the major bullet manufactures I have talked to today, Sierra and Hornady, tell me they cannot afford at this time to develop non-lead bullets just for California's hunters. This leaves the State forcing all to buy from only one manufacturer. And Sierra and Hornady are telling me they have not been contacted by California Fish and Game as to if or when they would ever produce any such bullets!
Fish and Game Commission Meeting April 13 8:30am
Lecture Hall
UC Davis Bodega Marine Laboratory
2099 Westside Rd.
Bodega Bay, CA 94923-0247