Invite to participate in hunting study??

[tkdguy]

no.

 

[OldBroad44]

Non lead bullets suck for animal removal....we don't want the data and it does nothing to support our work. Years back they tried to get us (usda) to go lead free.....exactly 1 nutria shoot and 1 pigeon shoot and our mind was made up!

@Tlock -- What loads/brands of non-lead bullets did you use on the nutria? Pigeons? And why were you unhappy with them? Was it just the exorbitant cost or something else?

 

[Tlock]

@Tlock -- What loads/bullets did you use on the nutria? Pigeons? And why were you unhappy with them? Was it just the exorbitant cost or something else?

The 22 for nutria was green label cci, it was inaccurate and very inconsistent. Noticeable difference in crippled animals when I could get a hit. The pellets where some random lead free pellets out of my old Beeman rx2, possibly tin? I can't honestly remember. I do remember they where about as accurate as throwing a rock! I have never used non lead for larger animals, as I want a fast humane kill. The bear or courger are already under enough stress in the situations I'm in. What I use works very well and I don't plan on changing what I do!

 

[Koda]

The 22 for nutria was green label cci, it was inaccurate and very inconsistent. Noticeable difference in crippled animals when I could get a hit.

I can personally attest that CCI and Norma lead free 22lr was very inaccurate. I tested these in my rifle since I occasionally hunt rabbit and dont want to eat lead particles but the accuracy was so bad there was no point. They also had issues cycling the action.

As far as big game... this will be the "elephant in the closet" because there is plenty of hunters using them on big game and from what Ive read many of the reports is they are performing better than their lead counterpart. I've only recently explored monos for big game and took a deer with a TTSX and it created a devastating wound channel as it mushroomed perfectly, unlike lead bullets I was able to harvest up very close to the wound channel except for bloodshot areas of course.

Terminal performance on game isnt the issue.

The issue is hunters need to be the ones to make the choice because every guns different and there are not enough factory hunting ammo in monolithics in all the calibers hunters use let alone find one thats as accurate as their current load.

 

[Croat]

It's not a study. It's an agenda. By participating you're simply supporting his agenda. Don't be a fool. Ignore him.

 

[Mikej]

It's not a study. It's an agenda. By participating you're simply supporting his agenda. Don't be a fool. Ignore him.

It has to be.

 

[cameron25]

I responded to it. I use both lead and non lead cause i handload and like to tinker. I saw no harm in telling my experience with both types of bullets i shoot(156 berger EOL and 200gr cutting edge lazer). Never had a problem killing with one shot with either type bullet so far. But i will say for closer shots i prefer the monos, much less meat damage

 

[Tlock]

This guy is becoming a pain.....I just got another email from him.

 

[OldBroad44]

This guy is becoming a pain.....I just got another email from him.

Willing to share?

 

[Tlock]

 

[Tlock]

Maybe he sends a email out for each tag. I drew my elk and deer tag this year

 

[Superxjeff]

Hi all,

Leland Brown here. Someone emailed me a link to this thread. Figured since you all had questions I could try to answer a few of them. Maybe we can get some of the conspiracy theories off the table.

I've been working on making sure Oregon doesn't move to a regulatory approach around non-lead bullets since I was hired in 2015. When I was hired I told the interview panel that I would not work on bans, but would only partner with the hunting community to support voluntary choices. That includes working closely with ODFW, OHA, RMEF, BHA and any other hunting group to support hunting, provide the best possible information on bullet performance to hunters, and supporting the voluntary choice of ammunition. I'm very proud of the fact that we've been able to build some good programs that give people access to information that is otherwise hard to find and we've been able to stay away from regulation or legislation to force people to change. I just don't think that's the right way to go.

I have been using non-lead bullets for 13 years and have had good success with them, both while conducting invasive removal work on feral pigs and goats, and in my personal hunting. That said, every time I attend a sports show or do a range day I hear stories about bullets failing to work as intended, both lead and non-lead bullets. I've been lucky in that I've been able to test a ton of different bullets through ballistic gel which gives me a decent idea of how they compare. Ballistic gels are great, but realistic field testing needs to happen to show when and where bullets are or aren't working, and hopefully identify where they can be improved. Even a controlled test on live animals (which would never be approved by an oversight committee) would not be as useful as field testing. Personally, I'm don't like relying on marketing or media on bullet performance. I'd like to see some real data on performance. Some of the best I find is on forums because you don't have the influence of marketing on the discussion.

While working doing invasive species removal, we had to select bullets for hunting which isn't really a problem, we have plenty of experience choosing bullets that kill things. The issue is that there is little to no data in the scientific literature to support staff in that selection, and that leaves agencies in a vulnerable position. An organization that opposed the removal could (and has) argue that the selection of ammunition is "inhumane" and attempt to stop the removal work. Without data to support the decision it becomes a much more likely that a lawsuit can move forward. I've spoken with several agencies that conduct removal work, and they really want this type of data on bullet performance to support their work.

To be honest, I completely understand the skepticism. Hopefully this helps a bit in thinking about the project. Good luck this season.

Leland Brown - Non-Lead Hunting Education Program ...

LinkedIn
https://www.linkedin.com › leland-brown-a17428103

This is who you are and this is your agenda. You want us to use non-lead bullets.

Portland, Oregon, United States · Non-Lead Hunting Education Program Manager · Metro

 

[Camelfilter]

Leland Brown - Non-Lead Hunting Education Program ...

View attachment 1473535
LinkedIn
https://www.linkedin.com › leland-brown-a17428103

This is who you are and this is your agenda. You want us to use non-lead bullets.

Portland, Oregon, United States · Non-Lead Hunting Education Program Manager · Metro

"...Work with stakeholders to protect hunter's wildlife conservation and hunting heritage through increasing the use of non-lead ammunition. Develop and implement program plan, identify funding resources, and manage communications. Coordinate activities with a variety of individual stakeholders, organizations and agencies..."

Seems as though this individual is misrepresenting himself. He has the above agenda.

As his job.

 

[GrayGoose]

I can support non-lead projectiles. Just give us depleted uranium instead!

 

[OZ_hunt]

I can personally attest that CCI and Norma lead free 22lr was very inaccurate. I tested these in my rifle since I occasionally hunt rabbit and dont want to eat lead particles but the accuracy was so bad there was no point. They also had issues cycling the action.

As far as big game... this will be the "elephant in the closet" because there is plenty of hunters using them on big game and from what Ive read many of the reports is they are performing better than their lead counterpart. I've only recently explored monos for big game and took a deer with a TTSX and it created a devastating wound channel as it mushroomed perfectly, unlike lead bullets I was able to harvest up very close to the wound channel except for bloodshot areas of course.

Terminal performance on game isnt the issue.

The issue is hunters need to be the ones to make the choice because every guns different and there are not enough factory hunting ammo in monolithics in all the calibers hunters use let alone find one thats as accurate as their current load.

Yes, we've had problems with the .22 LR ammo as well. I know a few people who's rifles will shoot it well, but it's inconsistent across different rifles which makes it hard to recommend. The Norma options have theoretically made some terminal performance improvements with the expansion of one of their options. I tend to recommend that if people are looking for a rimfire to shoot non-lead they are much better off using a .17 hmr. Which sucks because .22 lr is such a standard option for young hunters getting started with small game. .22 is one of the most challenging for manufacturers to find a different option for. It doesn't have the same flexibility of design that you get with spitzer style bullets when you change the density of materials.

Discussions around terminal performance are consistent and ongoing. The lack of data is a serious issue for evaluating bullet performance. Most forums have multiple threads on bullet performance and are pages long of opinions. I've used a wide variety of bullets for depredation work and had good success with most of them. Some of them have been lead, and some have been non-lead. Almost everyone I talk to has questions about terminal performance of bullets, whether they have had issues with a bullet, or are just looking at other options on the market.

I've made no secret about my job, or my stance on the correct way to work with hunters around non-lead ammo. Sharing information so hunters can make a choice about the types of bullets they use, is not the same as forcing people to change. I've been consistent on my stance around hunters having a choice and making sure that we have access to the best available information to help understand the options. If you've ever talked to me you know that I tend to be cautious about recommending bullets that I haven't personally tested, or have some data to back up performance.

I agree completely that we need to make sure that if people are choosing to use non-lead they have options available to them. That's a big reason why I push so hard for voluntary programs. Hunters need to be the ones leading the discussion about how to address the concerns so that the public continues to support hunting (in Oregon I think we are close to 80% support for hunting with the public). We need to bring more people into hunting so they support the tradition, contribute to wildlife conservation, and are active participants on the landscape, instead of being isolated from the natural world.

 

[OZ_hunt]

Leland Brown - Non-Lead Hunting Education Program ...

View attachment 1473535
LinkedIn
https://www.linkedin.com › leland-brown-a17428103

This is who you are and this is your agenda. You want us to use non-lead bullets.

Portland, Oregon, United States · Non-Lead Hunting Education Program Manager · Metro

Yes I want you to be aware of the options, know the impacts, and be able to make a choice based on the best available science so that hunting and hunters maintain our position as leaders of wildlife conservation in North America.

 

[OZ_hunt]

Maybe he sends a email out for each tag. I drew my elk and deer tag this year

Yep, I tried to limit emails where I could but if you drew tags for multiple species you'll get a couple emails.

 

[Koda]

I've made no secret about my job, or my stance on the correct way to work with hunters around non-lead ammo. Sharing information so hunters can make a choice about the types of bullets they use, is not the same as forcing people to change.

I believe you but I don't believe the agencies or political motivations of the state that would use such a research study. I do believe in the science of lead ammo pollution on wildlife but I dont think the hunting community will embrace it thanks to the constant push to prohibit guns, anything gun related gets swept up into the gun control agenda. You can thank the liberals for that distrust, and they deserve not being trusted...

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Cost of non lead ammo...will prevent me , and perhaps many others from hunting with firearms...
If all lead ammo is made verboten .

Case in point...
My big game hunting is done with a .54 Caliber Hawken rifle...I use patch and ball...not some modern sabot combo.
A bag of 10 non toxic .54 caliber round ball is $11.99....I can't afford that , to be blunt.
You gotta practice with what load you hunt with...over a $1 a shot...nope...can't afford that.

Lead .54 round ball , if store bought will run around $19.00 per hundred...that said...
I cast and mold my own...but still...far cheaper to shoot lead ammo...the same load for both practice and hunting.

Since , we will go to no lead hunting , as in for all hunting eventually...
I am glad that I shoot my long bow well.

Please note that I am not in favor of non lead projectiles...
To be honest...I don't trust the so called science data...and I think that it is nothing but a way to phase out hunting...and firearm ownership...as well as being a racket so the non lead ammo companies can make money.
Andy

 

[Andy54Hawken]

The term "Best Practices" has been used....
Speaking only for myself here :
Grouse...
Coyote...
Antelope...
Deer...
Elk...
And Black Bear...

Have been taken by me , using my Hawken rifle with powder , patch and lead round ball.
All have been one shot kills....and all have been pass through...so no lead remains in the offal and the like.
Granted...I am picky about my hunting shots....and the above is only my expereince.

However...that seems like a so called Best Practice....at least for me.
I see no need to use someone else's idea of "Best Practice" here.
Andy