Ted, I think that you need to read the statement from the National Park Service a little closer.  This is not just a ban on lead ammunition; it is also a ban on the lead products used in fishing.
 
Yep, those lead weights, jig heads and lead tippets will be a thing of the past.  However, by your logic, this is a good thing.  Who knows how many fish 'could have been caught' had their numbers not been diminished by all those lead pollutants in the water.
There is a true struggle between true conservationists and those that want to simply impose their will upon others.  One side normally relies on emotional pleas with little to no scientific basis.  The other has a proven track record of sound management of this nation's renewable resources.

Eodltc: If you will go back and read "Breaking Good News" which I posted on March 5 (a full week before the media and lead lobby got wind of this) you will see that I don't need "to take a closer look."  I don’t know anyone who fishes more with sinkers than I do.  I fish with worms for perch in N.H.  Feed 15-25 people at my camp with fillets every Sat.  I consider this more like gardening than sport.  But I love it.  Lead sinkers have been banned in NH for about a decade.  The only difference between lead and non-toxic is that the non-toxic sinkers perform better.  They don’t blacken up your tackle box.  They don’t bend.  They stay shiny.  And they cast just fine.  Maybe they have to be a tiny bit bigger to equal the same weight, but this is negligible.  There is no difference in price.  Non-toxic sinkers ARE ALL OVER the market.  So are non-toxic fly-tying weights.  Anyone who has held a lead-poisoned loon that was to weak to raise its head (like I have) would be in favor of this ban.  Yellowstone National Park has banned lead for years.  Good thing because the white pelicans wait till my rod is bent, then eat the cutthroat trout with my non-toxic weighted flies still attached.

 Yed, you are wrong when you say California hunters are not burdoned by unleaded ammo. Hunting has dropped off quite a bit in condor territory, a game warden stated that he saw a seventy percent reduction in hunting activity in unleaded territory. The park service went to far and to fast with this decision. I handload my own ammo, I use mostly unleaded ammo, alot of hunters don't load their own ammo and must pay the high cost of buying loaded factory ammo. Hopefully their will be some legislation or a lawsuit filed to stop this fiasco.

Well now, Fred!  A game warden told someone who told someone who told you that the game warden said he saw a reduction in “the unleaded territory.”  Baloney!  The game warden didn’t cover the “unleaded territory”--i.e, former and current condor range.  He covered a tiny, tiny fraction of it; and his anecdotal information (if it’s even correct) is meaningless.  Cal Fish and Game says different.  Arizona (which passes out coupons to hunters so they can buy copper shot cheap) says different.  You don’t have a problem; so why should other hunters not make the same minor effort you did?  If they don’t want to load, they can buy for a couple more bucks.  Are they too lazy?  Too cheap?  Do they believe it’s okay to wipe out a species to save them a little bit of effort and minor expense?  Look at all the duck hunters who claimed they were “burdened” in 1991 when the USFWS banned lead waterfowl shot.  Poor guys!  Lead was killing a minimum of 300,000 waterfowl a year.  As soon as they were forced to go to steel shot that carnage stopped.  And all of a sudden no one was “burdened.”  How do you explain that?

Ted, for one thing Arizona is helping out the sportsmen with the cost of unleaded ammo, California is not and thats why there is a decrease in hunters.  The price difference between lead shot and steel shot  is not as big a difference  as there is between leaded and unleaded rifle ammo. You can buy a box of leaded shotgun loads for about five bucks, steel shot runs about eleven bucks, this is for 25 rounds, very affordable, leaded ammo for a 30-06 runs about fifteen bucks, unleaded runs no less than thirty five  bucks, this is for twenty rounds, big difference. You say 300,000 waterfoul died from lead poisioning, that is probably true because they ingested the lead shot while feeding, but if a hunter shoots a deer with a lead bullet and takes the deer home, how does it hurt an endangered speice if there is no animal to eat? If you shoot a deer in the chest and the bullet goes straight through and exits the animal and you leave the gut pile exposed how does the lead get to the gut pile if the bullet exits the chest? As far as the NSSF being greedy, that is not true, they defend the shooting sports, what did you expect them to do, just give up and except every restriction that is placed upon sportsmen whether it is wrong or right. If the NPS wants hunters and fishermen to stop using lead they should help them with the cost of converting over to unleaded bullets and tackle, Arizona is doing it they should too.

Fred: Why do you suppose steel waterfowl shot is now as cheap as lead?  Think about it.  It’s because the switch to lead was mandatory.  Even now, when only Cal. has banned lead, the industry is pumping out copper bullets.  You sound exactly like the myopic and self-centered hunters who--prior to 1991 and recycling BS shoveled by the industry--screamed and moaned that they would have to spend a few more bucks for steel shot.  Better to let 300,000 ducks and geese and animals that eats them die every year.  You ask a legitimate question about the threat to endangered species.  When lead rips through bone and flesh it fragments.  Copper does not.  Perhaps you are not familiar with the 2008 studies in Midwestern states which found heavy lead contamination in venison donated to the poor by “Sportsmen Against Hunger.”  As a result, some of that venison (which hadn’t already been distributed and/or eaten) was recalled.  Birds and mammals that feed on gut piles and wounded game that isn’t recovered pick up lead fragments and die.  As a result eagles have elevated lead levels; and many die.  Lead bullets would almost certainly have caused the extinction of condors had Cal. not banned them in the bird’s range.  NSSF is a trade outfit, funded by the gun industry.  Sorry, but it and its members are not just greedy; they’re also STOOOPID.  They couldn’t see that steel waterfowl shot was in their best interests.  And they can’t see that non-toxic bullets are in their best interests.  As I said:  “Sad.”

  So anyone of you "copper bullet experts" care to explain to me and the thousands of traditional muzzle loader shooters and hunters what we're suppose to use as a lead replacement?
 I read and understand the issues facing the enviroment better than most sportsmen; but I can not understand why some self proclaimed experts continue to use arguements against our hobbies and lifestyle.
 Did anyone ever consider that if lower 48 condors and eagles were not hand fed from birth they might just seek out food on their own instead of handouts from humans. How many states have gut piles or feeding stations for birds of prey along the roads?
 Humm
 Hey that's OK, just push us off the plank real fast like,so when they come for your stocked fish and birds and call them invasive species us lead flingers will have plenty of time to help you protest.
 Bill
 

Bill: Are you not aware that if California condors had not been “hand fed” and then hacked to the wild, they would now be extinct.  And once released, they have NEVER “sought our handouts from humans.”  Condors are now successfully breeding in the wild because their range is less contaminated with lead.  Your notion that eagles are hand fed is absurd.  WHERE did you get that?  Is it your contention that we should continue poisoning our biota to preserve a “lifestyle”?  Bad argument that was used by the most dangerous foreign enemy this nation has ever faced--the Confederate States of America.

The NSSF is not stupid, there job is to protect the interests of hunters and gun owners from attacks by anti gun anti hunting organizations, that is what they do. You can't expect them to just sit there and accept every kind of restrictions on our sport and no say anything. Even if they are wrong I want them to be there for me and other sporsmen.

Fred:

You are confused and misinformed.  The job of the NSSF is to protect the financial interests of its members--gun and ammo manufacturers.  The NSSF is indeed stupid if it thinks that it is in the long-term best financial interests of its members to continue to poison our land and water with a deadly neurotoxin instead of investing more in readily available non-toxic substitutes which are more expensive only because they’re not now in large supply.  Why do you imagine that protecting game, non-game, and humans from plumbism is a “restriction on our sport”?  Do you believe that saving 300,000 ducks and geese a year with steel waterfowl shot is a “restriction on our sport”?  “Even if they are wrong” you want the NSSF to continue working against your long-term best interests????  Please explain this nonsensical statement.

Ted, I don't remember saying it was a restriction, maybe I did but I do know that the NSSF thinks it is, to me it is more of an inconvenience, however I don't have any plans of hunting or fishing in any national parks at this time.  I never said there was anything wrong with saving 300,000 geese and ducks, there is a big difference between the cost of steel shot and unleaded high powered rifle ammo, if the NPS wants to save  a few endangered species thats fine but the way they are going about it is wrong, they are cramming it down sportsmens throats without much warning and incentives. Where is the science that proves that animals are harmed by leaded ammo, not condors but other wildlife.  Sportsmen only have a year and a half to prepare for the new regulations, why didn't the NPS invite the NSSF and other sportsmens groups to a conference and try to discuss the matter? Maybe offer an incentives like coupons to help offset the cost of unleaded ammo untill the price drops, there is nothing wrong with trying to find common ground on sensitive issues.

Once again the NRA sticks it's misinformed head into a subject and hurts conservaton. See the recent failure oif the Public lands bill to pass in the House.
 
This is a bloated organization that does absolutely no good for public land and wildlife.

Fred:

“The NSSF thinks it is.”  Surely you are not serious.  Do you really consider this a logical argument that we should subscribe the this particular fantasy.  The Christian Knights of Kansas think that evolution is a lie and that God created the earth 4,000 years ago and in six days.  Is this a reason for Christians to subscribe to this notion?  You obviously never hunted ducks in the late 80s.  There was a huge difference between the price of lead shot and steel shot.  Somehow duck hunters didn’t go busted; and before long the ammo companies were pumping out steel at reasonable prices.  The same thing will happen (is happening) with copper.  Do a google search of eagles and lead; and you’ll find all kinds of data on gross plumbism in eagles, to mention just one species.  You can expand that search to others, including humans.  Are you aware of the CDC and ND Dept. of Public Health studies that found that people who eat game shot with lead bullets have higher lead levels in their blood?  That study came out in 2008.  Are you aware that Midwestern states recalled venison donated to the poor by Sportsmen Against Hunger because it was riddled with lead fragments?  I’m against poisoning the poor.  The NPS spent two years “discussing the matter” with groups that would listen.  The NSSF wasn’t one of them.

 

Mikeh, the NRA is not misinformed, I am sure they know whats going on, the NRA which I am a member of it is a great organization and without them we probably would not be able to own any firearms. If the NPS wants to ban lead bullets then they should help sportsmen by giving out coupons to help offset the cost of unleaded ammo. Another problem with unleaded ammo is that factory ammo is not available in all calibers, here is an example, when the lead ban was passed in California it caused some real problems, there was this fellow who wanted to take his daughter deer hunting in condor territory, due to her gender and size he let her use his 257 roberts rifle, one problem however, no major ammo makers loads unleaded ammo for that cartridge. There is a custom ammo maker who loads that cartridge, but the cost is about $ 45.00 a box, reloading is out of the question, today it costs about $250.00  just to get started, and if you only  have one or two guns to load for it is not worth it.
I read your blog about the encounter with a sportsman, you are a greenie and slightly anti hunting and trapping. Certain kinds of trapping may be cruel but hearing a baby antelope or lamb scream after being attacked by a coyote is cruel also. I hate coyotes and I shoot them whenever I see one. Farmers have a right to kill them, it is tough enough being a cattle or sheep rancher without having to put up with predators. I don't think praire dogs are very good tasting, maybe the Indians used to eat them. By the way I am not anti conservation, besides belonging  to sportsmens organizations like the NRA and SCI  I also belong to the Mule deer foundation, Rocky mountain elk foundation and Theodore Roosevelt conservation Alliance, I used to belong the the Nevada wildlife federation and Issak Walton league but it got too expensive, membership dues and donations can get quite expensive.

Hey Fred: Don’t forget that the NRA brought some of this on lead-bullet lovers with its asinine and successful push to get guns (allegedly for self defense) into national parks.  This was a last parting “gift” to the Denny Crane crazies by Dubya.  What happens when one of these idiots thinks he sees a wolf or bear or cougar or coyote or eagle looking at him “hungrily.”  Great move NRA!

Ted, you are wrong on that one, the change in policy only  allows citizens who have concealed weapons permits to carry their weapons concealed in a national park, the laws of the state that the park is located must be obeyed. It is not that big of a deal because you can take a weapon into just about any national park anyway, however the weapon must be unloaded and incased. I have visited a few national parks in my time, if I camp out I take the weapon and load it and put it in my tent, when I leave I take the weapon and unload it and then put it away. No responsible gun owner is going to shoot an eagle or coyote or any other animal just because they look at them in a funny way. If I was to camp in Yellowstone or Glacier national parks I would definitely have my 44 mag with me, grizley bears are not always friendly, besides I am more worried about the two legged animals than the ones with four legs.

Fred: I was talking about the the ban on concealed, loaded weapons--overturned by Dubya in early Dec. 2008, as a last gift to the NRA and its flock of Denny Crane crazies.   It is not the “responsible gun owners” that I and the NPS are worried about.  A guy who thinks he needs to pack concealed heat in a national park is a threat to wildlife as well as to two-legged animals, inc. himself.  Dubya's ignorant, groveling action was part of what motivated the NPS to take this bold action.  Now even the rangers will have non-toxic loads in their weapons.

Ted, you keep mentioning Denny Crane, who is this guy? I don't have a CCW permit and I doubt that I will ever get one, here in Nevada we can carry a loaded weapon in our vehicles but  the chamber on a semi auto pistol must be empty, only a loaded magazine  is allowed. Like I said I bring my gun with me when I camp in national parks, I keep it in my tent a night. So the park rangers now have to carry unleaded ammo, hope the NPS has enough money in their budget to pay for the extra cost, they will probably raise their entrance fees, just remembered that my wife has a senior citizens lifetime pass, we can get into any national park for free.

Fred -
The NRA and SCI are not conservation groups.  I have no idea where you got that idea from.  The NRA opposes the ultimate form of conservation which is the preservation of roadless habitat (Which also produces the biggest trophies BTW). 
As far as the coyote comments, it's true they can be "cruel" in terms of what they do. But humans are supposed to be the superior species. We are able to dispatch our game with speed and quickness - with respect for the game and the pursuit in general.
All real sportsmen use what they kill, and kill their prey as quickly as possible. People who leave 100 prairie dogs to rot in the sun after shoooting arcade style form their pickups are not sportsmen. They are slobs.

Earlier in the thread  you said "we have the right to shoot a coyote any time we want", and then you say that responsible gun owners won't shoot animals in national parks.
Which is it?
 

Hi Fred:

 

Denny Crane is the NRA’s most influential spokesman.   My Belmont Hill schoolmate, David Kelley, gave him this important platform.  You MUST familiarize yourself with Mr. Crane’s articulate and convincing advocacy!  Cut and paste this link into your browser, then turn up your volume:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKvVOhIkMu8

Mekeh, I never said that the NRA and SCI were conservation groups, I said that they are sportsmens organizations. The MDF and RMEF are conservation organizations, I am also proud to belong to them also, they have done more for wildlife conservation than any of the extremist greenie groups could ever think of doing, groups like the Natural resouces defence council and Defenders of Wildlife are a joke. The RMEF and MDF have saved hundred of thousands of acres of wildlife habitat and have done it without attacking the rights of sportsmen or fileing lawsuits against the Fish and Wildlife service.

I was not talking about shooting a coyote in a park, if I am out  in the desert and see one I am going to shoot it. I would not shoot any animal in a nationl park unless I was being attacked.

I have seen that clip before, I just love Capt Kirk. Ted, I hope you are not suggesting that you are both anti lead and anti gun.

Fred:

 

I wouldn't gush quite so much about the RMEF.  Here's a letter CC’d to me by a great writer, and published here with his permission.  Hal is a hunter and an angler, and a strong voice in defense of sportsmen.  He hardly fits your definition of an “extremist greenie.”

 

Mike Mansur

Editor Society of Environmental Journalists

 

Dear Mr. Mansur, I have held off in writing this personal story until a two-part series that I wrote, called “Elk Country and the Price of Energy” was safely published in Bugle magazine, the publication of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

 

I don’t mean to be mysterious—the explanation follows. I am an SEJ member, freelance journalist and a contributing editor at Field and Stream. I am asking for advice from you or your readers as to how to proceed. I wrote a feature story for Field and Stream magazine about mercury pollution. The story ran under the title “Don’t Eat That Fish,” and appeared in the April 2004, issue. I was extremely proud that such a venerable and conservative magazine as F&S would run such a controversial story, and allow me to truly research and report it.

 

And I was happy with the fact that I had overcome some obstacles in carrying it to publication. EPA spokeswoman Cynthia Berger had been helpful, but oddly unfriendly during our conversations about the plan for a “cap and trade” solution to the mercury pollution problem—at one point she responded to one of my (legitimate) questions by saying “it looks to me like you’ve already written your story.”

 

Then, the fact checkers at F&S spoke with some one at EPA who told them that several of my facts—most notably one about dispersal of pollution from power plants—were wrong, and would have to be cut from the story. Since I had drawn these facts directly from EPA data or sources, I was puzzled, but was having a difficult time convincing my editor that I was correct, since some of the models and documents had been sent to me by email, and others were described to me over the telephone by EPA staffers.

 

Whoever they were speaking to at EPA was simply denying the validity of the facts. Finally, a source that asked for anonymity gave me the volume and page numbers that contained the information, the fact-checkers quoted them to the EPA staffers, and the entire matter came immediately to rest.

 

The story ran as I wrote it. In the June, 2004, issue F&S published this exchange of letters. MORE ON MERCURY In reference to Hal Herring’s “Don’t Eat That Fish,” the Environmental Protection Agency would like to point out that it recently proposed a rule that will, for the first time, require power companies to cut their mercury emissions and meet specific reduction requirements within specific deadlines. Your article echoed many of the inaccuracies that have been used to criticize this proposal. We need a regulation that sets aggressive emission reduction requirements, but that is grounded in what we can reasonably expect from emerging mercury control technologies.

 

The EPA is charged with writing a regulation that works for an entire industry. Technology is not currently capable of getting a 90 percent reduction of mercury for every type of boiler burning every type of coal.  

 

Mike Leavitt, U.S. EPA Administrator Hal Herring replies: First, it should be noted that Mr. Leavitt declined my request to add his comments to the story. Second, he neglects to point out supposed “inaccuracies.” Third, the technology exists, right now, to achieve tremendous reductions in mercury from power plants. The fact that every single power plant can’t reduce its mercury pollution now is not a valid reason to wait until 2018—the EPA’s estimated date—for reductions.

 

The EPA already issued its consumption advisory this year. So, what are we waiting for? I welcomed the exchange, and was flattered that Leavitt would respond to the article. I thought the matter was at rest. Over the following months I was lucky enough to land a dream assignment, researching the natural gas and coal bed methane boom’s impact on elk herds and other big game around the West, for the hunting and conservation magazine Bugle, the publication of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

 

Bugle is a very well respected journal with a strong, traditional conservationist bent—it is perhaps the only magazine on earth that delves so deeply into hunting ethics, the notions of fair chase, and the responsibility that hunters have to support wildlife and wild places. I have worked for them for years. At one point in the reporting, my editor, Dan Crockett, asked me to call and arrange an interview with Rebecca Watson, the Deputy Director of the Department of the Interior, who is tasked with guiding energy development on public lands. Ms. Watson’s assistant was cordial and helpful, and immediately set up an interview for the coming week.

 

When I returned from lunch that same day, Crockett called me. He said, “The CEO of the Elk Foundation just called me and asked me what we are doing. Why are we doing a story on energy development, and why do we have you doing it?”* ( email text of message available) Dart had told him that I was “noted critic of the Bush administration,” who had taken “many potshots at them in the past.” Neither Crockett nor I knew what that meant or where it could have come from. I did not link it to the F&S mercury story right away. We did link the questions to Dart’s recent trip to President Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, and his subsequent column in Bugle about how sportsmen must support Bush. The column had caused some consternation because the Foundation is very divided on the issue of current politics, and for that matter, on the leadership of Mr. Dart, and it was believed that Dart’s message might raise questions about the Foundation’s 501c3 status.

 

We discussed the answers to Dart’s questions, which seemed obvious—the energy boom was in the heart of elk country, many members had been writing and expressing their concern(and their horror) at what was happening. As for me, I had handled controversial stories for Bugle for over five years, much pre-dating the arrival of new Foundation CEO J. Dart, and I had written about natural gas issues in the West for the Economist and the Christian Science Monitor. Dart and Crockett spoke again, and Dart had asked if the story in any way criticized the Bush administration’s environmental, energy, or public lands policies, and said that this would not be acceptable. He also mandated that the story would not run until after the Presidential elections.( which turned out to be a moot point, because although I had finished writing it by then, the edits, corrections, rewrites were not complete.)

 

Two days later Crockett called me again. This time he had received a call from Dana Perino, of the President’s Council on Environmental Quality, who told him that they were concerned about what I would write, because I had written “inaccuracies” before in criticizing the Bush environmental plans. I do not have a transcript of this one, but it was clear to me that my reputation was being impugned. But the quote about “inaccuracies” rang a bell, and I realized where all this was coming from. I contacted Perino, told her that she had crossed the line, and demanded an apology and a call to Crockett to clarify what she had said. The runaround and silliness of email exchanges and phone calls that followed was difficult to believe. After several weeks, Perino did call Crockett, admit that she was not familiar with my work, and had not meant to impugn my reputation. But I was left in a bad position. The only reason that I had been warned about the calls to Dart and by Ms. Perino was that I had a long standing and trusted relationship with my editor. Had this happened to me with the editors of another magazine or newspaper with I work, or will work in the future, no one would have called me.  They would have terminated my contract.

 

So I wrote Michael Leavitt, explaining that our exchange of letters in Field and Stream, which was so welcome to me, had taken on a life of its own, and was being used to hinder my career as a reporter. I asked that Leavitt please list the inaccuracies that he found in the Field and Stream story, so that I could address them. I asked that he please do so within the month, because I was worried about the effect his words could have on my career—I am the sole breadwinner for my wife and two children, in a jobs-poor area of Montana. I received no reply. After a month I called Leavitt’s office and was told by a staffer that they did plan on responding to my request. To date, I have not received a response. The first part of my story on elk and energy development, called “Elk Country and the Price of Energy” appeared in the Jan/Feb. Bugle. Before it could appear, Dart emailed a copy of the manuscript to a man named Chris Smith at the White House, to make sure that it contained nothing offensive. I have not yet heard about the fate of part two. I would welcome your advice as to how I should proceed, or if perhaps, I should let the story end here.

 

Thank you, Hal Herring Augusta, Montana

Ted, what is your point? Are you saying that the boss of the elk foundation wanted the article modified so as not to attack the president. If it is the article that I am thinking of it was kind of interesting, made some good points. Speaking of energy, there is a movement by our government to produce clean renewable energy  and that reminds me of a story that I read in my local newspaper a few months back. It seems that some energy company wants to build a wind farm in eastern Nevada, that wind farm will be located right in the middle of what is now one of the best trophy deer/ \elk units in the state. That wind farm would do more harm than lead bullets and I will do whatever I can to keep that windfarm from being built. I am not anti greenie, just on some issues.

What I’m saying is that the guy the RMEF picked to lead it is a despicable, anti-wildlife, anti-environmental, anti-First-Amendment stooge for the most anti-wildlife administration in the history of this nation.  RMEF used to cough up $100,000 (maybe still does) for the Sportsmen’s Alliance (formerly the Wildlife Legislation Fund of America)--an NRA-type, anti-environmental, property-rights outfit that was and is an embarrassment to ethical hunters and anglers.  If RMEF can pick themselves up after Dart, God bless ‘em. 

The science is 100% behind lead tackle bans and lead ammo bans.
 
See here:
 
http://www.jwildlifedis.org/cgi/content/abstract/17/3/423
 
and here:
http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/doc/lead_sinkers.htm
 
The Park Service is absolutely 100% correct in banning all uses of lead which can harm wildlife. Honestly, what is there actually to be upset about? How does this hurt you in any way other than conserving a bit more ammo and spending an extra 50 cents for lead-free sinkers and jigs?
Why do some people have such a problem with ethics?

 Ted, He is no longer in charge of the RMEF, way back the RMEF did give money to the Sportsmens alliance, it was used to fight ballot iniatives sponsored by the extremist HSUS that attacked the rights of sportsmen. The Sportsmens alliance is not anti enviromental just because they support property rights, there are amendments to our constitution that protect my property and your property.  I don't understand you Ted, you claim to be a hunter but you are against the USSF,NRA, SCI and whatever else. While at the SCI convention earlier this year I was talking to a popular outdoor writer, I mentioned your name, he said "I know who he is, he is greener than green, one more thing, I would rather have  Bush or  even Obama as my president rather than ozone man Al Gore. If Gore would have been elected instead of Bush we would not have any places to hunt anymore, all federal lands would be locked up in order to protect those poor animals from the hunters and the oil companies. He would spend most of his time working on his global warming fantasy, that is a hoax for sure.
 

Yes, Fred.  I am aware that Dart left.  But what does it say about the RMEF that it could have picked a guy like that to lead it?  I don’t know what the “USSF” is.  You are correct that the “Sportsmen’s Alliance is not anti-environmental just because they support property rights.”  It is anti-environmental because it can be counted on to be on the wrong side of virtually every environmental issue.  And re. SCI:  It’s trophy book (which I purchased for research) is crammed with records taken by “sportsmen” who shot animals in cages, including “wild boars” fed on commercial hog chow.  I have these friends who are special agents for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  SCI is wise to their ruse now, but when the agents wanted to bust fat-cat trophy hunters who were illegally importing endangered species they just went to the SCI annual convention and announced their names over the loud speaker.  These guys were so ego-crazed about who had the biggest horns that they’d trot up to the podium, thinking they’d won something--whereupon the agents would handcuff them and lead them through the assemblage to waiting paddy wagons.  Why do you imagine that “green” is bad?  And if you want to learn about the NRA’s anti-wildlife agenda, do a search of this blog or, for that matter, Google.  Ninety-eight percent of the world’s scientists believe that global warming is real (says Shell Oil!).  But Rush and Bill told you different.  Okay, Fred.  Finally, Gore WAS elected instead of Bush.

 

Ted, I meant USSA,  not USSF, never said green was bad, extreme green is bad. I don't have a problem with saving our public lands, keeping our water clean, protecting wildlife habitat from development etc, what I don't like is having regulations crammed down my throat without giving me a chance to swallow it before you give me more. I don't know where you get your information on animals shot in cages, maybe you mean a 10,000 acre ranch with a high fence. On another subject, there is a story in the hog blog about some idiot shooting a condor, really pissed me off.

Fred:

The cages are, alas, a good deal smaller than you imagine and that, apparently, SCI has led you to believe.  Here's a piece I did on the kind of canned hunts SCI conducts and encourages:

 

Canned Hunts

 

by Ted Williams

 

 

          "Don't judge us by today," declares the girl with the straight black hair as I peel out three tens and a five which, along with my $25 deposit check, will entitle me to join the circle around the pheasant tower at Lido's Game Farm in Taghkanic, New York.  Usually, she tells me, they throw two hundred birds for forty guns, but with the long weekend and all...well, only thirteen guys signed up.

 

          Already, in my coverts back home, hillside popples are smoky gold, bracken burnt with frost, apples on the ground... Already Wilton, the new Brittany, has left his milk teeth in my sock and pointed his first woodcock wing.  Already the 1991 upland bird season is two weeks old, and I haven't been out once.

 

          This is a morning made for hunting -- bright and cool and still, with fog hanging in the river bottoms and flights of geese blowing like black crepe across a cobalt sky.  How I wish I could hunt today.  But I am here to participate in my first "tower shoot" as part of my research for this column.

 

          Inside the clubhouse, Lido -- undershirt and gut protruding through an unbuttoned camouflage shirt -- leans on the bar.  On his right a gray squirrel with wings sprouting from its withers clutches a varnished stick.  On his left a crudely mounted whitetail buck chews a tuft of hay the way Lido chews his Italian cigar.  Lido lays his cigar on the edge of the bar and lectures us about safety and etiquette: "Don't shoot no cranes," he commands.  "And don't shoot no deer.  Lotsa guys up here been spraying deer and cranes and beavers.  Only shoot what you're supposed to.  You know the rules."

 

          George, who has brought a group up from the Bronx, announces that this time he wants a good spot.  With that, he snatches a station ticket.  "Hold on now," exclaims the girl with the straight hair, only half in jest.  Later I hear Lido whisper to a guide: "If he don't rotate, stop the hunt right then.  If he pulls that shit again, I'm not letting him back here."  Still later, Lido says: "I gotta get down to the tower.  We got some crazy guys today."

 

          I follow him outside, past the owl-proof pens where professorial pheasants strut about with plastic, non-transparent glasses wired to their upper mandibles -- pink for the hens, blue for the roosters.  (Without their eyewear game-farm pheasants attend to their own plucking.)  At the tower, guide Arthur hitches the crates of pheasants to the rope while guide Dave hauls them by pulley to the release platform.  On the way up each crate exudes copper and buff breast feathers that hang in the morning air like milkweed silk.  Dave, who will be throwing for us, allows that he's been lucky -- he's only been hit twice, and each time he's been able to pick out the lead with his fingers.

 

          Presently, Lido resumes the lecture.  "Actions open guys," he says.  "Every five birds you will rotate to your right.  Everyone will have chances at birds, so don't worry about that.  Keep your gun in the air.  Don't shoot the tower because some of you guys got deer slugs on you; you don't think you do, but you do.  What else?"

 

          "Tell 'em about the cranes," someone hisses.

 

          "Oh yeah.  Fellas, don't shoot cranes.  Don't shoot nothing you're not supposed to shoot.  The guys see a deer, they shoot the deer for no reason.  That's a sin.  Have a good time guys."

 

          You find the shooting stations at Lido's by looking for the plastic shell casings.  There are thousands of them in a rainbow of colors, most from past years.  I load up at Station 18 as Dave holds a fat rooster aloft in his right hand and walks around the platform four times.  "Awright," he hollers.  "Ready guys.  Keep those shots up high.  Here we go."  He hurls the bird skyward  "Open up now.  Open up now.  Open up now."  A dozen muzzles bark and the bird somersaults into the birches, trailing feathers.  The next bird crumples after just two shots.  One rooster orbits the entire perimeter, drawing unspeakable fire, the shots building in volume as he approaches from my left.  I never see him go down because I am holding my forearm in front of my eyes, but finally Dave calls: "Good shooting guys."

 

          Four times Dave throws birds that are apparently injured or diseased for they crash to the ground before anyone can touch off a round.  Once someone shoots while Dave still is holding the bird.  "Hey what you shooting at?" he screams.  "Don't *never* play games wid me!"

 

          Spent shot rains around me on at least half the releases.  Once I am struck painlessly on the left shoulder.  Another pellet hits my gun barrel, but it too is spent.  A hen sculls over my head, and I miss on all three shots.  The next hen flutters like a woodcock, and my load of number sixes catches her cleanly.  In all I burn nine shells, assisting on three kills.

 

          When the last of the 75 birds has been thrown we open our actions and filter through the brush, eyes to the earth.  I do not pick up the single kill I find because it is from a previous season and lacks meat.  Of the fifty or so birds that clearly took shot, we retrieve twenty-two.

 

          Back in the clubhouse George is very upset about the tower shooter we saw easing foxlike into the woods, gun at port arms.  He fears that most of the MIAs will be cleaned up before his party can return to the fire zone for mop-up operations.  "We want to hunt *now,*" he informs Lido.

 

          "There's no shooting till we divide up the birds," booms Lido.  "You can't shoot till I say."

 

          Just before I leave, Lido says he hopes none of us has hidden any birds.

 

          "This I am worried about," says George.

 

                           ********

 

          As habitat shrinks and posted land proliferates "canned hunts," as they are being called by their detractors, are catching on everywhere.  There are in the United States over 5,000 shooting preserves (predominantly for birds but also for mammals), only a few of which do a decent job of simulating natural hunting conditions.  In Florida there now are 43 establishments where, in pens ranging from one to 600 acres, you can run your hounds on coyotes or foxes which are supposed to get away but sometimes don't.  That's about twice as many as in the mid-1980's.  In Texas where canned hunts for exotic big game -- some of it endangered -- is a major industry there are just under 500 "game ranches" where you can kill the trophy of your choice in the enclosure of your choice.  That's up from about 380 five years ago.

 

          "No Kill -- No Pay Guarantee" proclaims the brochure of the Priour Ranch, in Ingram, Texas.  Indeed, in any state major effort is required to find a big-game-shooting preserve that doesn't guarantee success.  At the "No Game-No Pay" Texoma Hunting Wilderness in Norman, Oklahoma (recently shut down by the state) you could shoot a "Texas elk" -- a cross between a European red stag and a North American wapiti -- for $2,895 and a "male African lion with good mane" for $5,995.  The case, said the District Attorney, had nothing to do with illegal hunting, only with "the deplorable state of the animals' housing."

 

          At the 777 Ranch in Hondo, Texas you can check out one of the Iranian red sheep and, if you find it to you liking, kill it for $6,500.  If you get an invitation to the annual celebration at the YO Ranch in Mountain Home, Texas, you can dine on "wild boar shish-kabob, roasted Botswana eland, grilled white-wing dove, blackbuck fajitas, venison crepes, young nielgi cabrito on a spit, frog legs, rattlesnake, mountains of shrimp, oysters (both ocean and mountain variety), caviar and tons of ribs," watch "huge fireworks," enjoy an "almost-overkill of dancing, eating, carousing, western fashion watching, schmoozing and so forth," listen to famous country singers, eat breakfast at midnight, drink at the bar till dawn, be kept "corralled and peaceful" by "uniformed constables on horseback," then go out and kill any or all of 20 varieties of big game including three genetic concoctions engineered by YO breeders: white Corsican ram, black Corsican ram and YO ibex.  "No Game/No Pay."

 

          A much less fancy game ranch, also in Mountain Home, is Rancho De Dios.  "We have an elk we're going to kill this year," proprietor Royce Rodgers told me.  "And a couple real nice axis.  One might go 34 inches [as measured along the main antler beam].  The brow tines got a real nice curve to 'em, measure about twelve inches.  He costs a thousand.  If you don't like him, you don't pull the trigger."

 

          I forgot to ask Royce if his 34-inch axis had a name.  But I did learn some of the names of the African lions who have been shot in Texas.  Even in adulthood, just prior to being "harvested," Rachel, Bathsheba, Paul, John, Matthew and dozens of other pet lions would amble over to you and lick your hand.  One operation charged $2,500 for old, toothless specimens, $3,500 for younger cats with better dentition.  Canned-lion-hunting outfitter Larry Wilburn of Dayton ran afoul of the law, but only because he left a brace of skinless, headless lions on land managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  Ticketed for littering and running a commercial venture on government property, Wilburn paid $125 in fines.

 

          And then there is Dr. Sonny Milstead, an orthopedic surgeon from Shreveport, Louisiana, who made national TV news this past September when the Fund for Animals obtained a video tape of his canned cat hunt at a game ranch near Fredericksburg, Texas.  After riding out to the lion pen in a pickup truck, Dr. Sonny approaches the trophy as it reclines trustingly on the ground.  Dr. Sonny is protected by backup gunners.  When Dr. Sonny shoots, the lion leaps to his feet, clawing dirt.  You can see a divot fly from his flank as the heavy bullet slams home.  Dr. Sonny fires twice more; the lion dies.  Nothing in the least illegal about that.

 

          But the tape also shows Dr. Sonny shooting a penned Bengal tiger as it naps beneath a tree.  At the first shot the big cat gets up and runs to the right, dragging its shattered hind quarters.  When Dr. Sonny shoots again it somersaults three or four times.  Dr. Sonny cautiously approaches, prods the dead trophy with his gun barrel, then flashes the thumbs-up sign.  Unfortunately for Dr. Sonny, the Endangered Species act makes it illegal to kill even tame tigers without special permits, and he's now under investigation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Division of Law Enforcement.

 

          Along with Milstead's exploits the networks aired a video, obtained by Fish and Wildlife agents, of a canned cat hunt set up by nationally-known outfitter Dan Moody on a ranch 75 miles west of San Antonio.  A little black leopard -- surrounded by eight or nine frenzied dogs, each as big as it is -- cowers in a cage.  When it is prodded from the cage it attempts to hide under a pickup truck, then runs into the open where the dogs maul it.  Enter Ty Bourgeois of Lake Charles, Louisiana, brandishing a scoped pistol, desperately trying to find a hole in the spinning dog flesh.  The cat, a declawed pet, isn't fighting back.  Finally, Bourgeois dispatches it.  The canned hunt cost him $5,000 -- $3,000 for the outfitter, $2,000 for the federal government as a fine for killing an endangered species without a permit.

 

          California Ram Hunt -- a game ranch in Lockwood, California -- got into illegal cat hunting during the spring and summer of 1990.  The tame cats -- tigers, jaguars, leopards and cougars -- were kept in cages inside a livestock trailer and fed chickens.  When it came time for them to be shot most were reluctant to leave their cages; several were ventilated while still inside, then dragged out for the obligatory hero photos.  One customer paid $10,500 to kill a leopard, cougar and a Bengal tiger.  He didn't have any trouble with the first two, but when the tiger left its cage Bwana fainted and had to be taken back to the ranch to be revived, whereupon he returned and killed the tiger, too.  At least one tiger had been a pet; his name was Tony.  "Well, sure we had a little business going there," proprietor F. Lester Patterson told the *San Jose Mercury News.*  "What's the difference if they put the thing to sleep in a zoo or if somebody wants to mount it?"

 

                           ********

 

          Finding the source of canned-hunt trophies is like finding the source of crack cocaine.  The legal market and the black market suck them out of dark, dirty places littered with everything save paper bearing return addresses.  The Texas exotics industry is largely self sustaining.  In fact, many of the state's 123 alien species have escaped and are breeding in the wild to the detriment of native fauna.  Except for acquiring new species of hoofed stock, Texas game ranches wouldn't need zoos and perhaps could get along without private breeders.

 

          Canned-cat-hunting operations are the exception.  Fish and Wildlife Service Special Agent Jim Stinebaugh says there are at least six legal sources in Texas and scores of breeders who lack permits; and he says that he could pick up the phone and set up a cat hunt in forty minutes.  "I don't know anybody I respect in the cat-raising business," he told me.  "They'll tell you they love the cats and they only place them in good homes.  That's bull.  If someone comes up with three thousand dollars, they've got a cat."

 

          A jaguar and a leopard supplied by Mickey Sapp of San Antonio, who claims to have bred cats longer than anyone in Texas, wound up getting shot in their cages by Jimmie Weir of Eunice, New Mexico, apparently for their hides.  Sapp shrugs it off, observing that there are no guarantees in life and professing such love for his cats that he serves one of them beer.

 

          Major zoos are not supplying many cats and probably only a small percentage of the hoofed stock.  But, then, most zoos are not major.  There are some 15,000 animal exhibitors in the United States, about half of which would fit most peoples' image of a zoo.  Of these, only 160 are members of the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums (AAZPA) -- the zoo-industry trade group which claims to proscribe sale of animals either at wildlife auctions (which frequently supply game ranches) or directly to the ranches themselves.  "Our association would not tolerate any of our members contributing to this abhorrent slaughter of wildlife," pronounces AAZPA president Steve Taylor.  Except that it does, just a little.

 

          Last September Lisa Landres, a former elephant keeper at the San Diego Zoo and now with Friends of Animals, released documents proving that two sika deer from the zoo had been sold, supposedly as breeding stock, to the Priour Ranch in Ingram, Texas and that three mouflon sheep had been purchased by a New York game farm that supplies game ranches.

 

          Both transactions were mistakes, explained the zoo.  But less than two years earlier CBS had caught it, along with the Oklahoma City Zoo, in another mistake -- selling animals to dealers who then brought them to the annual wildlife auction at Cape Giradeau, Missouri.  One of the dealers, Earl Tatum, still buys animals from the San Diego Zoo.

 

          The CBS report was unfair, avers zoo spokesman Jeff Jouett.  "The Thirteenth Cannon of Journalism [is] 'Never let the facts stand in the way of a good story.'"  Humane types are "low class, no class slimeballs who will tap dance on the graves of your friends if it suits them."  Also, they are "vultures."

 

          But Landres told me this: "Most of the big zoos have been dumping animals for years.  So what we did in San Diego is expose the tip of the iceberg.  The big problem is there is no paper trail."  Indeed there is not.  This is because the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 requires zoos to share their transaction records only with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the documents aren't normally available under the Freedom of Information Act.  Further, no law (other than AAZPA's "code of ethics") prohibits zoos from selling directly to auctions and game ranches.

 

          For a variety of reasons -- not the least of which is that the public loves to see cute babies cuddling with their moms -- zoos produce a flood of surplus animals (1,200 a year from San Diego alone).  Of those that can't be placed in other collections, the lucky ones get euthanized or knocked off at game ranches.  The rest wind up living hideous lives in cramped cells well insulated from public view.

 

          "Most zoo babies are born in the spring, so the [40] mid-summer births caught zookeepers by surprise," gushes a story in the *Detroit Free Press* entitled "Zoo Enjoys Boom."  "But [Detroit Zoo spokesman] Shelby is hoping to capitalize on it to bolster sagging attendance.  The zoo is averaging 5,000 visitors a day, 8,000 on weekends -- the fewest people since 1988."  Whatever could be the reason for such a serendipitous anomaly?  "'We weren't able to get the males and females separated in time,' Shelby said."

 

                           ********

 

          What astonishes about the "hunting fraternity," as we like to call ourselves, is our eagerness to take on the role of thrown pheasant.  There are nearly 14 million hunters in America.  And then there are roughly 500,000 tame-animal shooters.  You'd think hunters, fretting as they do about their image, would be leading the charge against stop-'n-pop game shopping.  Instead, they've left the battle to the ubiquitous and despised "anti's" who are enjoying a tower shoot of their own.  "The good news, if any is to be found in shooting tame animals," reports the Animal Rights Network, "is that the growth of canned hunting marks the beginning of the end of all hunting.  Canned hunts strip away the pretense that hunting is about anything other than killing."

 

          The hook-and-bullet press/industry, which scarcely can draw breath between rambling harangues on the wickedness of anti-hunters, has turned billboard for canned hunts.  "Is A Ranch Elk Hunt For You?" inquires the cover story in the September 1990 *Sports Afield.*  Could be; among other "pros": "Success runs 100 percent...  The hunting is less competitive...  Ranch elk hunting is safer...  Less time is required."

 

          Lido's was recommended to me by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a "non-profit, educational, trade-supported association" dedicated to shooting sports and "practical conservation."  Such poultry processors are, according to the foundation's *Directory of Hunting Resorts,* "conservation showcases" and "the ultimate in game management."  Moreover, "Sportsmen now say: 'The only difference in *open hunting* and hunting on a quality hunting resort is that you practically set your own seasons and bag limits -- and you know the birds are *there*...  Aldo Leopold, the 'father of wildlife management' in the early 1900's, recognized the fact that private landowners were the custodians of public wildlife."

 

          Other commentary by Leopold, which the foundation didn't get around to quoting, includes the following.  "The recreational value of game is inverse to the artificiality of its origin."  And: "The objective of the game management program is to retain for the average citizen an opportunity to hunt...  This implies much more than the annual production of shootable surpluses of live birds to serve as targets.  It implies a kind of quality of wild game living in such surroundings and available under such conditions to make hunting a stimulus to the esthetic development, physical welfare, and mental balance of the hunter."

 

          On the wall at Lido's Game Farm hangs a framed certificate revealing that it has "fulfilled all the requirements" for accreditation by the National Rifle Association.  I couldn't help wondering what you have to do to flunk.

 

          Professing to set the standard for big-game hunters everywhere is Safari Club International.  Club rules stipulate that in order for a trophy to make it into the *SCI Record Book* "it must be from a breeding population that is self-sufficient where it lives, except for occasional supplemental feeding; it must not have been taken while closely confined."  Yet the *SCI Record Book* contains page after page after page of trophies killed inside game-proof fences, and "occasional" seems to be loosely defined.

 

          For instance, of 17 entries in the category of introduced North American wild boar all 17 are from a game ranch in Nova Scotia called Shangri-La.  SCI contends that this is the only place on the continent you can go to shoot a pure-blooded animal, all wild populations having been tainted with feral-pig genes.  Maybe so.  But at Shangri-La you do your "hunting" in an enclosure that averages 75 acres, and the "wild boars" are fed commercial hog grower all winter.  SCI member Baron Carlo Amato has accounted for four of the 17 records and has guided fellow SCI members to five more.  He owns Shangri-La.

 

          SCI has an especially big presence in the Gulf states.  In Texas the 777 Ranch advertises that it "supports Safari Club International and recommends the *SCI Record Book."*  Kevin Christiansen, who with his father owns and operates 777, chairs SCI's Records Subcommittee for North American Exotics -- at which watch he recently relieved Louis Schreiner, general manager of the YO Ranch.

 

          Also representing big-game hunters in the Gulf states is (or was) a canned-cat shooter from Louisiana you may have seen on TV last September.  He's the former president of SCI's Ark-La-Tex Chapter -- Dr. Sonny Milstead.

 

                           ********

 

          After the tower shoot at Lido's I walked up the hill with George's handsome young friend Miguel who hadn't hunted before except once, unproductively, for deer.  Sixty dollars had been a lot for him to spend on pheasant shooting.  Had the experience been worth it?  "Oh yes," he effused.  "It's nice, you know.  Everyone gets a chance to shoot."  He told me how wonderful it had been to get out of New York City and come up here hunting in this beautiful, clean place.

 

          "They do this here every weekend?" he inquired.

 

          "Yes," I said.

 

          As we reached my truck at the brow of the hill Miguel paused before joining his buddies.  He looked at my shredded brush pants.  "You been out hunting lots this fall?" he asked.

 

          "Not even once," I said.

 

 

 

 

Ted, thanks for trying, but I already know all about it, once a month a get a newspaper from SCI and the ad pages are full of what you described. You see Ted, the problem with Texas is that there is hardly any public land, ninety eight percent of all hunting is done on private ranches and most of these ranches are working cattle ranches so they have fences, what else is new. If you owned a ranch you to would have a fence, just because it has a fence does not mean it's a canned hunt. As far as the cat in the cage thing goes I have no response because this is the first I heard about this type of thing going on. I am going on a wild pig hunt next month in California, the ranch covers 25,000 acres, the only fence is a short barbed wire one, to keep the sheep in, is this  a canned hunt in your opinion.??? The ranch is not located in unleaded territory but I will be shooting unleaded ammo by my own choice.

Ah, I see, Fred.  And this is why Texas hunters and SCI big shots like the former president of SCI's Ark-La-Tex Chapter -- Dr. Sonny Milstead --  have to illegally shoot endangered species in cages and de-clawed, pet leopards under trucks.  Thanks for straightening this out.  Again, from my piece:

 

“But the tape also shows Dr. Sonny shooting a penned Bengal tiger as it naps beneath a tree.  At the first shot the big cat gets up and runs to the right, dragging its shattered hind quarters.  When Dr. Sonny shoots again it somersaults three or four times.  Dr. Sonny cautiously approaches, prods the dead trophy with his gun barrel, then flashes the thumbs-up sign.  Unfortunately for Dr. Sonny, the Endangered Species act makes it illegal to kill even tame tigers without special permits, and he's now under investigation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Division of Law Enforcement.

 

“Along with Milstead's exploits the networks aired a video, obtained by Fish and Wildlife agents, of a canned cat hunt set up by nationally-known outfitter Dan Moody on a ranch 75 miles west of San Antonio.  A little black leopard -- surrounded by eight or nine frenzied dogs, each as big as it is -- cowers in a cage.  When it is prodded from the cage it attempts to hide under a pickup truck, then runs into the open where the dogs maul it.  Enter Ty Bourgeois of Lake Charles, Louisiana, brandishing a scoped pistol, desperately trying to find a hole in the spinning dog flesh.  The cat, a declawed pet, isn't fighting back.  Finally, Bourgeois dispatches it.  The canned hunt cost him $5,000 -- $3,000 for the outfitter, $2,000 for the federal government as a fine for killing an endangered species without a permit.”

 

Ted, I don't care about  this doctor fellow, if he did what you said he did then he should lose his hunting license for a couple of years. If these people are doing this type of unethical hunting why isn't something being done about it, how did it get started in the first place? If  Texas had more public land available then this type of stuff would not be happening, states that have vast amounts of public land don't have any of these so called canned hunt operations.

...but also incredibly disturbing. The lack of ethics displayed by these canned hunt meatheads really brings a dark cloud over the entirety of outdoor sports.
 
I'd like to see this sort of activity completely banned and charges filed in all honesty.

if the national park service wants hunters and fishermen to stop using lead, they should provide assistance by shouldering a portion of  the cost of converting over to unleaded bullets and tackle, like what arizona is doing it.
___________
arizona pr firm

Converting?  There is no “converting.”  If you’re a hunter, you buy copper.  A couple bucks more expensive for a box.  Big deal.  If you’re a fisherman, you buy non-toxic sinkers for the same price.  Why should taxpayers pay sportsmen for NOT poisoning their wildlife?