Earlier this week I asked if a bill to ban lead bullets in California’s condor range was reasonable (see here ). Your responses were very mixed. Several said the bill is reasonable and represents an opportunity for sportsmen to take the lead as conservationists. Others questioned how detrimental lead really is to these and other animals. Some believe that a ban on lead is a precursor to a ban on hunting.

It’s a good debate on an important topic, so lets take it a step further.

From the Associated Press:

_Researchers say fragments from lead bullets continue to poison scavengers like ravens and eagles in the Jackson Hole area…

The study involved drawing blood from 302 ravens trapped during the 2004 and 2005 hunting seasons, as well from birds trapped between hunting seasons.

Scientists say levels of lead in ravens’ blood increases fivefold during hunting season… [a]nd [that] the lead could poison people who eat meat from game animals killed by lead bullets.

“It’s a pretty easy problem to fix, considering that non-lead ammunition is readily available and not that much more expensive,” [researcher Bryan] Bedrosian said. “As a hunter myself who has switched, I haven’t noticed any change in hunting success. The only change I’ve noticed is that I’m eating lead-free meat.”

What’s your reaction? Is it time to consider a more widespread ban? A voluntary switch?