Lead Ban Chronicles – CA DFG Considers Lead Ban Expansion?
You’ve probably already heard the rumors. If you’re on the NRA mailing list, you got the email “alert”, and if not, you’ve probably heard about it from someone else.
Rather than replicate the NRA’s latest panic-inducing message, I’ll summarize here. During the recent (February 5) Fish and Game Commission meeting, the sixth agenda item was, “Update on statewide lead bullet/shot toxicity impacts to wildlife, including game birds and raptors, and compliance with regulations concerning the use of non-lead bullets in California Condor habitat.”
The NRA release made it sound like the key topic was a discussion of extending the lead ban across the entire state, and of course it was worded in a way to make it sound like the extension is virtually a done deal. Even the headline of the release, “Statewide Ban on Lead Ammunition Could Be Around the Corner!” (Note the exclamation point… I didn’t add that, it’s part of the headline) would lead the reader to think there was significant discussion and that a vote by the Commission would be immediately forthcoming.
I’m always a bit skeptical of the NRA’s “news” and “alerts”, so before I jumped on this bandwagon I needed to know exactly what went on at the meeting, and exactly where the Fish and Game Commission really stands on the issue. Since it’s generally been impossible for me to attend the Fish and Game Commission meetings, I have to wait for them to post the agenda and video of the meetings on Calspan. It’s a great resource for anyone who wants to know exactly what goes on at one of the Commission’s meetings. Sure, the videos are pretty boring, but next to being at the meeting, it’s the best way to get a first hand understanding of the context of the things that were said and discussed.
The video for the Feb 5 meeting proved to be pretty enlightening, especially after seeing the NRA’s email blast.
Here’s the first paragraph from the NRA email:
The California Fish and Game Commission is considering a statewide ban on the use of lead ammunition for hunting. Two years ago, a bill was signed into law that imposed a ban on the use of lead ammunition for hunting in areas occupied by the California condor. Through its hunting regulations, the Commission extended the ban to include .22 rimfire ammunition and expanded the boundaries where the ban applies. With this track record, the Commission is likely to be receptive to carrying the ban to the borders of the state.
Man, that would be pretty bad news if it were entirely true. When I watched the video and listened to what was actually said, it looks like the press release may have taken some slight liberties.
True, the “environmental” organizations that spoke certainly did recommend initiating steps to extend the ban across the state. This certainly seems to prove what many folks have believed all along, that the condor was never really the issue driving the lead ammo ban. But this is nothing new.
What was key here, was that Commissioner Michael Sutton seemed to jump at the suggestion to start discussing “next steps” or “actions”, which may include an extension of the ban. His rationale was that the Commission should stay ahead of the legistlature on the issue, on the premise that such a proactive stance would keep the legislature from developing and passing a bill. As folks who followed the original lead ban should recall, the legislature forced the Nava bill (Condor Bill) to a vote before the Fish and Game Commission was able to finalize their own recommendations. Sutton’s argument was that “proactive” decisions on the part of the Commission would circumvent this type of action in the future.
Did his comments indicate a willingness to expand the ban? I’m not sure. I was certainly left with the impression that both he, and former Commission President, Richard Rogers, were sympathetic, if not downright supportive, of the environmentalists’ point of view.
Commissioner Jim Kellogg candidly expressed his own doubts about both the validity of the original ban, and the value of expanding it without any real, solid data the detail the effects of lead ammo on wildlife or human health. He argued that no further action should be taken until research could show that the current ban was actually protecting condors, and that lead ammunition was presenting a real threat to other wildlife. Commissioner Dan Richards sided with Kellogg’s argument.
Newly appointed Commission President, Cindy Gustafson remained neutral in her own comments, although she encouraged the Commission to keep the topic alive due to public interest and potential impacts on hunters. Further discussion on the topic is slated for the June meeting of the Commission.
So I suppose it’s true enough that there is some consideration of the idea of expanding the lead ban, but it is certainly nothing more at this time than consideration. Nothing is imminent, at least not now. The NRA needs to stop crying “wolf”, or people are going to stop listening.
I do agree with the NRA on one important point, however. Speak up to the Fish and Game Commission, and let them know you’re paying attention!
Please contact the members of the Fish and Game Commission TODAY and respectfully request that they oppose all efforts to extend the ban on lead ammunition. The Commission can be contacted by phone at (916) 653-4899, by fax at (916) 653-5040, or email fgc@fgc.ca.gov.
There was a lot more on the table than a consideration of extending the ban, by the way. First of all, the Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Branch presented some current “data” on the status of the ban. Unfortunately, this “data” was awful speculative and I couldn’t see any real value to most of it. None of it really indicated, one way or another, that the lead ban was having either a positive or negative impact in CA.
The other thing that bothered me was the obvious disconnection between some of the Commissioners and the reality in the field, particularly in the case of Mr. Roberts. When informed of Winchester Ammunition’s announcement of a lead-free .22 LR and .22WMR, Roberts acted like the whole problem of ammo availability was resolved. Never mind that the ammo isn’t even on the shelves yet, or that it’s yet to be proven in the field for accuracy or effectiveness. His dismissiveness of the availability issue tells me that he probably hasn’t listened to the hunters who are being affected. But in every meeting, Roberts has been particularly condescending toward the hunters and shooters who stood up to speak against the lead ban.
You can watch the video for yourselves to see and hear this stuff, and I encourage you to do so. The link again, in case you missed it earlier, is: http://www.cal-span.org/cgi-bin/media.pl?folder=CFG
It’s not over yet, folks, and it’s likely to get worse instead of better… especially if sportsmen don’t get actively involved.
Oh, and a thank you to the representatives from the California Rifle and Pistol Association (Walt Manzelle) and the NRA for being there to speak up for sportsmen. While I certainly disagree with the NRA’s communications approach, I do appreciate that they’re at least making an effort to be involved with this issue.
Philip,
Great, comprehensive coverage. Certainly an issue for everyone to keep an eye on.
Albert
February 9th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Thanks for sorting through all of this, Phillip. I saw those alerts and was so slammed I didn’t have time to make sense of it (or, sadly, to even go to the meeting).
I know one thing: While it is important to rally the troops, rallying them with misinformation and hysteria will backfire on us, particularly when hunters are already really freaked out about the lead ban. It ultimately makes us look stupid, which can’t possibly help.
February 9th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Thanks, but I didn’t capture half of what was in the video. Some really interesting stuff, and a clear division is appearing in the ranks of the Commission, with Cindy Gustafson riding the middle rail.
Point is, these could be interesting times for hunters and fishermen in CA. If we ever needed to be a real presence at meetings, now is that time.
February 10th, 2009 at 8:40 am
I’m glad you posted this. I just happened to watch the commission meeting prior to getting the NRA newsletter/alert. I’ve been somewhat worried about the “exaggerated” response from the NRA. I’m a proud member of the NRA, but feel they need to refrain from scare tactics and need to stick to the facts. Otherwise, they’re strategy is to close to the “anti-hunting” groups that capitalize on scare tactics. I’d rather base my opinions on facts. Thanks again for sorting this out for everyone.
February 10th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
[...] Lead Ban Chronicles – CA DFG Considers Lead Ban Expansion? – The … [...]
February 14th, 2009 at 4:42 am
Why not ban the use of lead in recreational hunting and fishing throughout the entire country? It could be done in a gradual manner, rather than abrupt, and could open the market up for alternatives like copper, steel, and tungsten. I understand these alternatives have not yet been perfected and their range, accuracy, and cost are all issues, but a “gradual” ban is entirely feasible.
A good deal of scientific studies, especially ones done by USGS, suggest that lead used in recreational hunting and fishing is the cause of the death of a number of birds, some of which are critically endangered like the California condor. This damage is often irreparable and should be avoided if possible. In this case it is possible.
I appreciate you posting this and opening up a rational dialogue on the topic. There has to be some sort of middle ground here and I hope policy makers, ammunition and tackle manufacturers, and outdoorsmen can find it. It’s up to all of us to solve this problem.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:00 am
Zachary, thanks for the note.
In general, what you describe is exactly the solution I’ve been talking about for a long time. A phased approach is the realistic way to go about what a lot of folks, including myself, think is inevitable anyway.
The biggest challenge is going to be making the case to sportsmen who are largely suspicious and critical of plans like this one. The other challenge is going to be to make an affordable lead alternative that provides for all shooters… not just those who shoot the three or four most common calibers.
Sportsmen, environmentalists, and lawmakers definitely need to be talking WITH each other, not AT each other.
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:03 pm
You may be interested to know that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service is currently in discussions with the Yurok Tribe in northern California to release California Condors on tribal lands.
http://www.fws.gov/arsnew/print/print_report.cfm?arskey=25529
If this happens, then northern California will become “condor range”, and it stands to reason that the lead ban will indeed be expanded.
March 4th, 2009 at 1:02 pm