Lead Ban Chronicles - The CA Ban Extends!
Well, thanks again to Holly… glad someone’s looking out for me because I didn’t even see this one coming! Looks like the State of CA and the Center for Biological Diversity have continued the haggling over the lead ammunition and the condor even while the rest of us thought the deal was done.
They’ve now extended the lead ammo ban to depredation hunting, filling what many saw as a crucial gap in the lead ban regulations. I suppose, in the interest of consistency, this made sense. But I wonder now, what (if any) flak the State will catch now from farmers who’ve relied on depredation shooting to manage the hogs, deer, coyotes, and other wildlife that prey on their crops and livestock. I can just about guarantee that there aren’t many farmers and ranchers out there willing to pay $2 or more per shot to kill crop raiders.
But I’m even more concerned about the rest of the press release… the State is considering extending the ban even further to include small mammals.
Anyway, here’s the press release in its enirety. Read it and do as you will… but remember, words are pointless without action. If you don’t like what’s going on, it’s up to you (and others like you) to let YOUR government know.
For Immediate Release, December 3, 2008
Contact: Adam Keats, Center for Biological Diversity, (415) 436-9682 x304, akeats@biologicaldiversity.org
Josh Mogerman, Natural Resources Defense Council, (312) 780-7424, (773) 853-5384 (cell), jmogerman@nrdc.org
Jessica Lass, Natural Resources Defense Council, (310) 434-2300, (202) 468-6718 (cell), jlass@nrdc.orgLead-Free: Settlement Protects California Condors From Toxic Heavy Metal
Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council Help
Extend Lead-Ammunition Ban to Protect Iconic BirdsLOS ANGELES— A settlement announced today between environmentalists and the State of California will strengthen protections for California condors by placing limits on the use of ammunition containing lead throughout the species’ range. Lead ammunition is a significant threat to the big birds because they are likely to scavenge prey that has been shot with the heavy metal. Studies show that the cumulative effect of ingesting lead, a process called bioaccumulation, causes reproductive problems and ultimately death for this majestic and endangered bird of prey. Recent reports show a similar problem for grizzly bears in the northern Rockies.
After the Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council, and other groups filed suit, the state Legislature responded by providing substantial protections for the bird through the Ridley-Tree Condor Conservation Act, which limits the use of lead ammunition throughout much of the condors’ range. Today’s settlement with the California Department of Fish and Game and the California Fish and Game Commission extends these protections by eliminating lead ammunition for depredation hunting. The Commission has also agreed to consider prescribing a similar ban on lead ammunition for the hunting of small mammals that are part of the condors’ diet, such as jackrabbits and opossums. The settlement still requires court approval.
“We’re happy that the State of California is taking this positive step to further protect this iconic species,” said Adam Keats, senior counsel with the Center for Biological Diversity. “Unfortunately, many other species, as well as people, are harmed by lead ammunition every day. So we look forward to working with the state to further these protections and get the lead out of all ammunition.”
“We are all aware of the danger lead poses to humans,” said Damon Nagami, staff attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “We’ve taken the lead out of paint. We’ve taken it out of gas. The science confirms the same threat to condors, so it was time to offer the same kinds of protection for one of this state’s best conservation stories, the endangered California condor.”
California Condors
North America’s largest species of land birds nearly went extinct in the 1980s and ’90s. Thanks to reintroduction, small populations can now be found near the Grand Canyon; in northern Baja California, Mexico; and in western California. More information is available at: www.savethecondors.org and http://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/habitat/esa/california03.asp.
The Center for Biological Diversity is a national nonprofit conservation organization with 200,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.
The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, nonprofit organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has 1.2 million members and online activists, served from offices in New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Beijing. www.nrdc.org
###
The one thing which has been looked over entirely Phillip is the fact that anyone can simply go into Nevada and pick up all of the lead ammo they want.
Come home and shoot all of the animals on a dep. permit they want and who is going to enforce this law?
It would have been the same (and still can be) concerning AB1634. The State just does not possess the manpower nor the finances to enforce these laws which the extreme left are coming up with these days.
We will eventually see an implosion of the extreme leftist/animal rights organizations just by way of simple economics.
I will still continue to attend the meetings, send letters and express my thoughts to the proper officials but,
The way that they are conducting business as usually they do, is just “not” sustainable!
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Hey Michael, the thing is you can still buy all the lead ammo you want, even in the heart of condor country. They just don’t want you to shoot it… apparently not at anything.
You’re right that economics is a huge driver, but the fact is that the animal rights/welfare organizations have the State over a barrel with the threat of lawsuits, which is why the State is making stupid, unenforceable laws like this one. It’s cheaper to make concessions and pass unenforceable regulations than it is to fight the lawsuit in court… even if the suit is winnable (which I believe it would be).
The only valid counterattack, as I’ve mentioned before, is for the sportsmen of CA to get organized to push for some sort of litigation to roll these regulations back. Unfortunately, the NRA and a couple of other organizations have already decided there are not enough legal grounds to challenge the State, so they’re apparently not interested in pursuing the issue. I’m definitely no legal expert, so I can’t really argue with their reasoning.
Personally, I would think we could somehow utilize the stipulation in the F&G Commission rules that new regulations must be weighed against any undue hardship they would place on hunters… and the absolute lack of non-lead rimfire ammunition (except CCI .22mag ammo), and the very limited (and expensive) options for many centerfire calibers would be sufficient. I think it’s every bit as solid as the grounds used by the self-proclaimed condor saviors.
Problem is, this kind of thing takes money, and the organizations that have that money (NRA-ILA, California Hunting Heritage Foundation, etc.) apparently aren’t willing to pony up because they don’t see the value.
The spin-off from this, of course, is that organizations like the Peregrine Fund and HSUS have seen that they can push this down our throats here in CA, and are now on a campaign to roll a lead ammo ban across the country. Maybe California has missed its chance to form a bulwark against this tide, but if the battle isn’t joined somewhere and soon, the momentum will be unstoppable. It’s only a matter of time before someone can gather enough plaintiffs to file suit against the state and federal governments charging that lead ammo endangers their health and well-being, based on the current debacle in North Dakota.
December 5th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Well, if it does get pushed, and becomes a nationwide move, shouldn’t we expect economies of scale to lower prices for non-lead alternatives? When will the tipping point force the market to cater to the new ammunition?
December 6th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Hey Josh, I think that you’d generally be right about the economy of scale, except that things are a little topsy turvy out there right now.
Bullet components are getting a little scarce, and as a result, the price on even basic lead ammo is streaking upward. Copper is already astronomically expensive, and there’s no change in sight. With the demand for raw materials overseas matching or outstripping supply, and the ability of overseas buyers to outbid domestic markets… well, it doesn’t look good for US hunters.
Right now, it’s difficult for non-lead ammo suppliers just to meet current demand since the CA regs went into effect. If that demand goes nationwide, the strain will be unprecedented. This is made worse by the fact that there simply aren’t that many alternatives to lead that provide the ballistic properties needed for accurate and effective bullets. I’m not sure, but I believe that between Lapua and Barnes, the copper bullet patents are pretty well locked up. Gilding metal, such as that used by Nosler for the ETip bullets seems to be a good alternative, but I’m not sure how many variations you’ll be able to find on that, or what the patent issues may be. There are a ton of frangible offerings, but those aren’t well suited for most hunting applications… and, in fact, aren’t even legal for big game here in CA.
So yeah, in the theoretical vacuum, the increased market would eventually drive the price down (and it may yet), but with current conditions, it’s most likely that the price will increase as availability staggers.
December 6th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Well all this fits in well with obama’s gun take away mentality. If you can’t get ammo then why do you need a gun of any type? The price of copper has fallen drasticly in the last month, but it will take awhile for this to show up in bullet prices, if they pass it on at all. I have not seen much form the big bullet makers about this whole problem. What does Sierra the other big guys think about the problem? I have talked to folks at the local range and many don’t even know about the ban on lead. Several went hunting this year in the restricted area with lead and were never checked and had no problems. Some folks are just lucky!!
December 6th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Welcome aboard, Jeff!
While the lead ban movement predates Obama by several years, I do agree that this new administration is going to give the anti-lead folks a lot more leverage than they’d have had otherwise. With Tom Daschle in the Health and Human Services role, arguments against lead ammo based on the North Dakota fiasco will likely have a willing ear. That’s doesn’t bode well for a sensible approach to managing lead, but I guess time will tell.
As far as the big bullet manufacturers, I’ve spoken to most of them on this topic every year for the past five. At first, the “big three” were taking a wait and see approach. The smaller makers were mostly in denial that any such ban could happen. Nosler was the only “small” bullet maker to indicate that they were looking into “some ideas”.
A few years later, with the CA ban looming, the big makers were taking it much more seriously. Federal had already made their bed with Barnes. Winchester had just partnered with Nosler. Remington was “looking at a solution” and later partnered with Lapua. Most of the smaller bullet makers were taking things a little more seriously, but because it was “just California”, they couldn’t justify the costs to change up production and do the necessary R&D to develop their own non-lead bullet. Nosler wasn’t quite ready to release the ETip, and were actually very secretive about it… only telling me again that they were “working on some ideas”.
This year I’ll be back at their booths, asking the same questions again. While I’m hoping to hear some positive news (more available calibers, more factory loadings, etc.), I expect that I’ll find pretty much the same picture as last year. I predict that when I ask them about the North Dakota lead-in-venison debacle and the possible national fallout, many of them will pooh-pooh the likelihood of a national ban, just as they once did the CA ban.
As sportsmen and consumers, it’s up to us to push for a sensible solution and a strategic position BEFORE the uproar for a lead ban deafens those who might listen to our case. We should be putting pressure on the manufacturers to consider the future and provide LEAD-SAFE ammunition options.
“Lead safe”, by the way, is a term I’d suggest we all get familiar with and use it to counter “lead free”. There are several bullet types out there that leave minimal lead traces in meat, and Minnesota’s own bullet testing experiments support that argument. While some, like the premium bonded bullets, are still more expensive than the old-school soft points, they do offer an alternative to the purely lead-free ammo. These bonded bullets are also easier to make and available from more manufacturers and in more calibers and loadings.
If nothing else, lead-safe represents a compromise position between no ban and an all-out ban on lead bullets. But more importantly, it would represent a willingness on the part of sportsmen to address a growing environmental health concern, as well as to address the personal health concerns of many within our community… it’s a way to remove the majority of lead residue from game animals without completely removing lead from our ammunition. It’s the first step in a sensible, phased approach to removing lead from our ammo.
Otherwise, sportsmen in the rest of the country will soon find themselves in the same position as California hunters… jumping in to fight after the battle has already been lost.
December 7th, 2008 at 7:46 am
Amen to that Phillip!
Also, with any other issues which we all talk about but do not get up off our lazy butt’s and “Do” something about.
If hunters out there do not take a stand and unite instead of allowing the opposition to continually divide us on topics such as “Ethics” or the “High Fence” controversy” and we continue to argue amongst ourselves, then “all” hunting will cease to exist and much sooner than we think!
I fully agree with you about pushing for “lead safe” ammo because the opposition uses catch phrases and spin terms themselves to incite public sentiment towards their cause.
The opposition also have solidly joined to form a more cohesive machine than we have, and this will be our demise just as the Native Americans did not listen to the Shawnee Chief Tecumseh “pronounced: Tecumthe, when he warned of the impending white invaders dominion over them if they did not act now to repel the invaders.
They would not join together as one solid tribe and the rest is history!
December 9th, 2008 at 4:51 am
phil, i cant comment on this topic due to my short fuse,
all i can say is what a shame….. probably just the tip of the iceberg.
December 16th, 2008 at 10:24 am
We should at least push for some grandfather firearms like the lever actions and old pistols, since people think they are poor hunting rifles anyway…(and I happen to own my own 45-70 Marlin Guide Gun) and cast my own lead based ammo and reload myself. What will reloaders do? How will we tool up? Will we have to go buy expensive hyrdrolic presses to press our own bullets? Also this whole frangible thing…if you are hunting grizzly, you don’t want your bullet to powder when it hits a hard thick shoulder!
March 5th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Kevin, I wish they would have made some common-sense allowances for “antique” or non-standard firearms and calibers. At least for your 45-70 you can load the Barnes flat-nose bullets, or you can buy them factory-loaded by Cor-Bon. Options for many less common calibers are even shorter, though.
As far as “tooling up”, my standard Lee press manages just fine with both the Barnes and ETip bullets. No changes required, except to adjust the recipes.
Frangibles are not legal in CA for big game, not that you’d be hunting grizzly bears in CA anyway. There are some frangibles that are really awesome for varmints/predators, though. I’ve used one brand, Extreme Shock, on exotics down in TX, and they were really impressive… a little too destructive for a meat hunter like me, but extraordinarily effective, even on marginal hits.
March 5th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Phillip,
When I commented about re-tooling, I meant to actually press your own bullets, since I cast my own now. I understand that I can buy bullets and use my current equipment, but as I understand the newer non-lead alternatives, they are compressed metal powders, which I’m sure is done in some sort of hydrolic press.
Also, while I do not hunt grizzly in California, I’m projecting a bit becuase it looks like this legislation is going to spread (since no one is really doing anything about it)..
You know I’d love to see the “research” showing how much actual lead is getting into these Condors. I mean it sounds like people are shooting game animals and then just leaving them on the ground for the Condors? Why didn’t they make a law that says you have to pick up the carcass and take it with you??
This all just seems to be an anti-gun tactic. Just like serial numbers on the bullets, casings, and firearm… all designed to eliminate private gun ownership…The Socialist Mantra is Gun Control, and RE-Education.
March 5th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Ahh, I’m afraid I don’t have much experience with making my own bullets. However, I can tell you that most of the CA approved ammo is made either of ductile copper (Barnes, Remington, Lapua) or of gilding metal (Nosler, Hornady). The powdered stuff is generally for frangibles, which are not legal for big game in CA.
I have no idea what it takes to mold or press copper or gilding metal (although if I understand correctly, gilding metal is a lot like tin when you’re working it), so you may be right.
As far as the condor… well, there’s a lot more there than I can even begin to address in this response. In short, there really is SOME evidence that lead ammo may be a factor in SOME condor deaths. No hard proof, and I honestly doubt that it’s nearly as significant as electrocution by powerline, ingestion of garbage from the roadside and old homesteads, and miscellaneous toxins. But the bottom line is, the connection between lead ammo and condor mortality is plausible… not solid, but plausible… and that’s enough for the condor protectors and the environmental activists to latch onto. It makes the public take notice. If we can’t prove it ISN’T true, then as far as the voting public is concerned, it IS true.
I won’t say there’s not an anti-gun element to the current discussion. However, let me be absolutely clear that the source or driver doesn’t matter at this point. The cards are on the table. We have to do more than point fingers if we want to find a productive solution.
March 5th, 2009 at 9:11 pm