With all due respect, you are not being totally candid on what the reports say regarding alternatives to lead-based ammunition used in the condor's range.
From the Federal Condor Recovery Plan, 3rd Revision (1996), page 11-
"...Post-mortem examinations performed on four California condors found dead since 1983, indicated that three of the birds died from the effects of lead poisoning (Janssen et al. 1986, Wiemeyer et al (1988), and one died of cyanide poisoning (Wiemeyer et al, op cit). High lead levels, presumably obtained from the ingestion of fragments of lead bullets in shot mammal carcasses, may be a pervasive problem throughout the historical foraging range of the California condor. For example, Bloom et al (1989) and Pattee et al. (1990) found elevated levels in one-third of 162 golden eagle blood samples taken in the range of the California condor in 1985-1986, and Wiemeyer et al (1988) concluded that lead exposure was the major factor having an adverse impact on the wild California condor population between 1982-1986. The possible effects on condors of another highly toxic metal, copper, have not been investigated, but Wiemeyer et al. (1983) reported high copper levels in the liver tissue of an immature condor found dead from unknown causes in 1974..."
While a certain number of condors have been identified in the current campaign against ammunition to have died from ingestion of lead, it is clear that condor recovery advocates identified copper as a potential target of a possible ban back in 1996.
As far as I can determine from web searches, Project Gutpile and the other "hunter" advocates who have joined with the NRDC and the Center For Biological Diversity in the lawsuit against the Fish and Game Commission are currently only advocating use of the Barnes' copper slug as the "environmentally-friendly" replacement for standard lead ammunition. Once lead is out of the way, NRDC et al will then proceed to "document" the toxic effect of copper to condors in the historical foraging range, as well as the add on range in Northern Arizona and Southern Utah. Then they will proceed with the same game plan on banning copper ammo.
In other words, without intervention from a knowledgeable hunting community, big game hunting in the condor's historical range (west of the Continental Divide) is on death watch.
If the Project Gutpile folks cannot read this in the documentation, they are surely blind. And, by such "sleeping with the enemy" tactics as suing other hunters, they only divide pro-hunting and pro-gun forces for the purposes of eventual defeat at the hands of the the Endangered Species Act.
Remember, condor mortality is not only related to lead ammo. Condor mortality is also related to habitat that is "man-free" (Biologists currently maintain that condors will stop nesting activity unless all human activity is halted within 1.5 miles radius from a nest site). Yet condors have been ever-increasingly dependent upon cattle carcasses as a replacement for the long-dead megafauna the condors foraged on in the Pleistocene era. In other words, without man condors would have starved out long ago, except for those sub-populations that were able to feed on sea-mammal carcasses along a narrow strip from Ventura to Big Sur. Given concerns over mercury and chemical contamination in some sea mammal populations (orcas, pinnepeds), condors may not have a way out unless NRDC et al can successfully sue to halt all human chemical industries.
Condor mortality has also been documented to be related to power lines in their forage area, when Edison has not yet completed modifications to keep condors from perching on towers. Some power lines off of the main trunks serve as successful perches for other raptors (redtails, eagles, sparrowhawks, Coooper's hawks), yet scientists have reported in the past that condors who show ANY proclivity to perch near power poles and lines have to be removed from the wild, hopefully for re-training.
Another case in point is the reportage from the Big Sur area about condors ingesting common garbage (bottle caps, wire, roadside garbage) so as to require their recapture and surgical remediation. Otherwise, said condors would have surely croaked. And is the NRDC et al suing the State of California in Federal Court over the insufficient policing of roadside litter in such places as Ventura, Los Angeles, and Santa Barbara Counties? Hardly.
Yet another case in point is the issue of West Nile disease, and the future impact of avian flu. The risk from West Nile was considered so severe as to warrant the recovery of re-introduced condors and inoculate them with a modified west nile vaccine (derived from those forms approved for horses). Given that release of condors may expose them to a presently incurable flu virus, it could even be a violation of the Endangered Species Act to knowingly release condors when an exposure to avian flu could wipe the existing population.
In other words, there appears to be some merit in an original Audobon position that formal condor recovery, in terms of release to the wild, may not be practical nor feasible. Condors may have to remain "pets of the state", in the form of being maintained in captivity, until such time as their fate can be finally determined. Left to nature, they could have passed on already.
It is true that hunters should be aware of the current science, and be conservationists too. But they should not be patsies in allowing themselves to be cornered into being disarmed through incremental administrative means. It is up to all to know the difference, and act accordingly.