Outdoor Writer,

Don't recall calling you you names, or otherwise insulting you. Just questioned your position.

Now here it is, though. You make no sense on the lead issue.

I do think you know about couse deer hunting though.

Oxon,

Not threatened. Did I seem so? I'm sorry.

First the use of "game" I guess it is in how you understand it. I didn't mean huntable. I consider game to be wild animals, huntable or not. However, I might be and apparently am wrong about that. I wouldn't give a rat's fart whether or not they were destined for list of animals I could hunt. There are lots of animals I could hunt that I have no interest in hunting. Now a California doe hunt.....

I also have nothing against going lead free if it is beneficial to the environment. My issue is with the tactics being used, and the shotgun affect of the laws. There also should be a phase out, give time to companies to develop lead free and alternative bullets. And there needs to be some common sense to it as well. On animals that aren't going to be eaten, i.e. coyote, why does it need to be lead free? If it is a carrion issue couldn't you just as easily make the law "use lead free or dispose of the carcass/gut pile". I carry a sidearm also when camping or hunting, not for killing animals, it's for 2 legged varmints as well as snakes. I don't even plan on killing snakes I see, I believe they're important to the ecosystem, I'd back away, walk around. but I have two little kids. and to best of my knowledge there's no lead free snake shot, and honestly I'm not a good enough shot to say for certain I could hit a snake in the head, stationary let alone if it were moving.

My point is, use solid reasons, set reasonable limits. what about charging less for a limited hunting license that required use of non-lead ammo?

this really deserves comment
"6. The comments about the non-lead bullet issue as an attempt to get rid of hunting are humorous at best and ridiculous at worst, considering the AZ Game Department is fully involved in the restoration here. Thus, it would be senseless for them to cut their own throat, so to speak. Without hunting revenues, which accounts for a major chunk of the department's budget, that agency no longer exists."

come on, really? LOGIC, please use it. HAVE THE NUMBER OF HUNTERS/LICENSES/TAGS DECREASED? If not then they won't see it as cutting down on hunting. There are likely people in the fish and game that truly believe in what they are doing and don't see it as harming hunters. And it sounds like they were intelligent about it, rolling out the lead free in a more palatable way and in areas that truly had condors. If they can track condors with satellites they know where they really range. They should release that map here in CA and those are the areas that should be covered, if they're going to use condors as the reason.

Red