Lead Ban Chronicles – A minor manifesto?
“In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a brave and scarce man, hated and scorned. When the cause succeeds, however, the timid join him… for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.” -Mark Twain
In light of all this recent notoriety, thanks to the CNN article, I was thinking I should re-state my position on lead ammo. I know, I did this before, but who wants to go back to the archives and read old stuff? But before I did it, I decided to go back through the archives myself… a listing of posts, articles, and commentary that goes back to the earliest days of this blog.
One of the first things I saw was that my position has been evolving as things have come along. That wasn’t a surprise, as I know that any time I learn more about a topic, my understanding and opinion will morph. But what did surprise me was that the change wasn’t as big as it may have been. Probably the biggest difference is that I do think that recent studies and research have opened some interesting… even troubling… possibilities.
But let’s begin with the basics… my manifesto, if you would.
- I do not support a lead ammunition ban, nor have I ever supported such a ban. The CA ban, in particular, is unreasonable and unfair to thousands of hunters whose weapons have been rendered useless, albeit temporarily, due to the lack of lead-free ammo alternatives.
- I also believe that lead-free ammunition is not the only option, and that there are more ways to address specific concerns. There are lead-safe alternatives, such as bonded bullets, that leave minimal lead residue in game meat. Research has also shown that muzzleloader bullets and shotgun slugs do not spread residue through the meat in the same way that high-velocity rifle bullets do, and should be considered reasonably safe choices for meat hunters as well as for use in condor zones.
- I believe the switch to non-lead ammunition should be an educated, voluntary decision of each hunter. It should be based on an understanding of the impacts of lead on the ecosystem and to human health, and an informed choice to take a specific course of action.
- I believe that the general risks to human health are nominal, although I would really like to see some definitive research. As of yet, nothing I have seen can be interpreted to make an obvious case one way or another. I don’t think most people are at any risk, but I am concerned at some level for the developing fetus and nursing infants. The evidence I’ve seen so far is enough to convince me that, if my wife were pregnant or nursing, I would take extra precautions with the meat I provide… either by using non-lead or “lead-safe” ammo, or by feeding her only whole cuts from areas of the animal that are unlikely to be contaminated. That’s no great sacrifice, and worth every bit of effort in the name of the baby’s safety.
- I believe that it is plausible that lead, from ammunition, is entering the food chain and does create health issues for certain species… particularly scavenging birds. I think it is entirely realistic that condors have been impacted by lead from hunter-killed animal carcasses, although I also believe that the extent of that impact has been over-emphasized. I think the only reason lead ammunition is significant now, is because losing only a few birds out of such a small population can be nearly catastrophic. I agree with the American Ornithologists Union that the only way the condors will survive is with an ongoing program of feeding and medication, essentially turning the Southwest into a big aviary. They will never be a truly viable, wild population again, with or without lead ammunition in the environment. In short, banning lead ammo to save the condor is ineffective and puts an excessive burden on the sport hunters.
- I believe that as a sport hunter and a citizen of this earth, I have a responsibility to mitigate my impacts on the ecosystem at some level. I recognize and accept that hunting is recreation, and in the bigger scheme is not a necessity. Therefore, if there is a possibility that my choice of ammunition is harming creatures besides those I’m specifically targeting, then I should take some reasonable measures to avoid that harm.
- I believe that the tactics of denial and discrediting information sources are a failure and are counterproductive to achieving any kind of positive and constructive resolution. Any argument based on these tactics is immediately suspect, because we are, ourselves, a self-interested community. It is only through fact and data that we can reasonably counter the arguments against our sport. The fact is, the research right now is still inconclusive. That does not make the case for either side of the debate.
- I believe that the hunting and shooting industry and community should join forces to produce reliable, objective research to conclusively determine the health and environmental risks of lead ammunition. Until such conclusive evidence exists, the propaganda and fear-mongering on both sides of the debate should be muted. Should such research ever be conducted, and the results show that there is, in fact, a risk to the environment or human health, then the community and the industry should take constructive and appropriate steps to mitigate the risk… steps which may, or may not include replacing lead ammunition with lead-free alternatives.
- I also believe that the hunting and shooting industry and community should take advantage of opportunities to demonstrate a real concern for the environment, and should live up to our claims of conservationism and stewardship. We should be aware of the value and impact of public opinion and be aware that our sport is constantly being judged by the people who have the power to put it to an end. The general public’s acceptance of sport hunting has hovered around the 70% mark for several years, in large part due to the perception that hunters are good for the environment. If there is truly an anti-gun/anti-hunting agenda behind the lead ammo issue, then part of that agenda includes changing that perception. If the antis can show that hunters don’t really care about the environment (through comments such as, “I don’t care about the damned condor,” or “so what if a few vultures die”), then they can whittle away at that public support for our sport. If we want to continue telling the public that lead ammo isn’t a threat to the ecosystem, then we’d damned well better start collecting and presenting data to prove it. Failure to disprove an allegation in the public eye is tantamount to admitting its truth.
- I believe that, in the long run, lead ammunition will be banned across the United States. This is not my choice, but my recognition that the organizations behind the movement will continue to work towards this goal until they achieve success. Hunters have the options of absolute resistance, in which case the end result will likely be similar to what happened in CA (unfair and largely untenable), or we have the option of working proactively now to challenge untruths and identify and resolve real issues behind lead ammunition. Or, of course, we can whine to one another, deny that there’s a problem, and hope it just disappears.
I think that all of this is generally consistent with what I’ve been saying all along.
A key point is that, while there may or may not be an anti-hunting driver behind the lead ban proponents, that’s really irrelevant. The wheels are in motion, and what is going to matter from here on out is what we, as a community and an industry, are going to do about it. Simply standing there screaming, “well this is just an anti-hunting plot,” isn’t going to get us a single step closer to resolving the issue. Nobody outside of the hunting community is going to buy that.
We need to deal in facts. We need to work with the data that is available, and if that’s not sufficient, we need to do the work required to get more data. And when the facts ARE all in, we need to take heed and take action. That will be the time to either say, “See, there is no problem!”
Or, it will be the time to accept responsibility for finding a solution to the problem… even if it means making changes that we don’t like.
Interesting perspective…but akin to the current religion of “Man Induced Global Warming” that has the average individual wondering if any scientific study can be believed…it is based in good intentions rather than emphirical evidence and common sense.
Since I am both affluent enough and educated in environment matters…it really doesn’t effect me. I will either pay the additional amount for the alloy ammo and end up wounding more game (due to the differences in ballastics) or hunt out of state (or country).
Since this ban on lead ammo started with the idea of protecting the California Condor…hopefully a suggestion I made years ago about recognizing the symbiotic relationship between the Condor and the Grizzley Bear will be followed up. The vision of some my fellow Californians running into a full grown Grizzley while out on their Sierra Club hike brings a the same warm glow to my heart as does when I read about one of them running into a protected Mountain Lion or Great White.
If “we” are truly worried about our “impacts” on the environment…then we will start paying attention to the root of the problem (Octomoms and over population)and stop bothering one another over symptoms (everything else).
All my best…
March 5th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Thanks for giving the anti-gun/hunting organizations more factless firepower you JERK. Keep your ignorant non-fact based opinion in CA.
People like you are the reason hunter #’s are decreasing and shooting is becoming VERY expensive. Good job!!!
March 5th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Greg: I’ve fired two copper bullets at two big game animals and had two textbook kills. I do believe you have to be a better shot with copper because you can’t rely on fragmentation to make up for a misplaced shot. But it kills just fine.
JD: Phillip is NOT the enemy. And he knows what he’s talking about. I’m a hunter, and a former politics reporter, and I’ve got a decent knack for marketing, and I can tell you this: “I want lead bullets because they’re cheap and they have fat wound channels and f*** the condors if they can’t digest lead” isn’t effective marketing. It makes us look like selfish, inbred retards. It makes it very easy for policymakers to dismiss us. If you want to be dismissed, carry on. But if you want your voice to be heard, Phillip’s advice is worth heeding.
March 5th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Thanks, JD! I needed that. That was a flat-out intelligent, well-considered, and finely crafted response to a complex issue. It certainly added value to this conversation. And the best thing is, it’s interchangeable. I bet you can use that one for just about any hunting or gun issue that you disagree with, and you don’t even have to change the words (which is a good thing, because I’m sure that pretty much exhausted your vocabulary).
Jumpin’ jesus folks… is it any wonder the public thinks hunters are monosyllabic bubbas?
March 5th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
JD
I’m a new hunter, and what’s more I bring money INTO the USA. Philip has never been anything other than courteous and encouraging. If you don’t want to create any new hunters, and wish to make hunters seem like mindless hicks carry on, if you DO really want to see hunting grow and prosper, an apology would be a great place to start. I bet you’d be surprised how many people write in to congratulate you on doing the right thing.
Cheers
SBW
March 6th, 2009 at 12:09 am
Greg: The performance of non-lead ammo is commonly (and should be) brought into play on this issue. I, however, have to disagree that its use will lead to more wounded game. This of course is a personal opinion. I’ve shot about 2 dozen hogs with it (barnes TSX), as well as 2 white-tail deer in Wisonsin (winchester XP3 shotgun slugs and Barnes muzzle loader bullets). In all cases I’ve had tremendous success.
As Phillip has noted in previous posts, 1,105 hunters that drew tags on the Kaibab Plateu were surveyed on the performance of non-lead bullets on game. The results showed that 93% rated the non-lead bullets performance “as good or better than lead on game”. That number is astounding when realizing that the only non-lead bullet available to these hunters at that time were Barnes (thats amazing results for such a limited # of options). There are many more alternatives now, and I think they are only going to get better (and hopefully cover all calibers). I think it’s also important to note that Barnes bullets were not designed to be less toxic, but were designed to be more efficient (which is why most bullets are designed).
JD: In my opinion, Phillip is doing nothing more than helping the hunting community. We need to try to work with the environmentalists (Believe it or not, the majority realize hunting is an important wildlife management tool) and make sure we have a resource to continue hunting/managing.
For example, if you’re a duck hunter you should be happy that the lead shot was banned. It resulted in more than 1 million ducks being available per year (this is not because less are being shot, but that less are ingesting lead shot and succumbing to lead poisoning). This is great for hunters as well as birders. I think there is an unnecessary divide between hunters and biologists. I truly believe that the majority of us are looking for the same thing. Better habitat and healthier wildlife populations. As far as hunting goes, both of these are great!
Does lead need to be removed from rifle bullets across the US? I have no idea. I’ll tell you this though, as a hunter (and I’m sure you doubt this by now), I do believe it’s a responsible voluntary action that I will be taking in ALL my hunting applications.
March 6th, 2009 at 1:55 am
I did an interview with The San Jose Mercury News (Friday February 4th 2005) titled: “Vote Set Today On Lead Ban To Aid Condors”.
In that interview I suggested that “more study was needed before any conclusions could be made” (the reporters: Paul Rogers/Glennda Chui ommited my statement about that part) and I also suggested that an alternative to an all out ban would be to place into law a Gut Burying Policy, as California is one of the few states which did not currently have that particular law in effect.
At that time my experience with the then “new” copper bullets was limited to a small number of hunters whom had already, as did Phillip, were experimenting with copper and how it would perform in the field.
In most all cases the copper bullets would completely pass through the animal, and then the real work would begin by having to track the animal up and into the brush.
My personal shooting experience with copper ammo began last year with Phillip guiding me out on a Mule Deer hunt up in North Eastern Cali.
The “Barnes” bullet performed beautifully! Animal did not go more than 40 yards before expiring!
Retrieval was with minimum effort!
I believe that two main factors were involved with my particular success one being shot placement (after 5 previous shot attempts, I told Phillip that I was not a good long range shooter, L.O.L.!)
The other being that I believe copper bullet technology’s have improved dramatically in their performance and availability of grain and type since 2005.
I still was not completely convinced about copper until I began reading all the study’s which I could find about lead and Phillip’s posts upon the subject. And the one thing which convinced me completely was the fact that “Lead” is proven to be toxic to humans, animals and especially unborn fetuses.
That was enough for me, I will now continue to promote and require the use of copper bullets even if the ban is rescinded. Because, I refuse to be a contributor to poisoning our environment with a known toxic substance if there is an available alternative, and there is!
March 6th, 2009 at 4:10 am
Thanks for the good words, folks.
A couple of notes to add.
First of all, as to the effectiveness of non-lead ammo, both copper and gilding metal, I am willing to attest that it’s both accurate and deadly. I have had the opportunity to use this ammunition on animals from the little 60-80lb blackbuck antelope to 200lb hogs, and have yet to have to track anything. I’ve heard the horror stories, and while many of them are plausible, I believe the hunters who tell them would have experienced the same challenges with lead ammo. I’ll add as well, that every tale of copper bullet “failure” that I’ve heard has been accompanied with a picture of a dead animal.
My second note is probably more relevant…
Hunters, as a community and an industry, should be leading the discussions of lead ammo. You can’t win any battle if you stay on defense. We should be out in front of this, because the only way any of the solutions are going to take our interests into account, is if we’re there promoting them and explaining to the masses.
Remember, most of the opponents of lead ammo know very little about hunting or firearms. This is why they think it’s no big deal for all hunters to simply switch to non-lead bullets. They don’t understand… and if we don’t help them understand, and show that we’re concerned as well, then they will proceed to work against us out of nothing more than ignorance.
March 6th, 2009 at 6:24 am
Highly informed dissertation. I have a few questions, though. If it is plausible that lead from ammo is leaching into the environment and harming wildlife, why shouldn’t there be a ban? I understand that some calibers are not yet available, but the free market should soon take care of that, right? And eventually shoudn’t the price of lead free bullets should come down, too?
March 6th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Thanks, Chris.
Your questions are logical, and they really are at the root of most of this discussion.
The mistake a lot of people make, particularly non-hunters, is the assumption that replacing lead ammo is a simple matter. It really isn’t.
Lead has a set of fairly unique properties that make it ideal for bullets… at the same time as firearms technology has been completely based on the lead-bullet for over two centuries. Finding a safe replacement for lead that provides the same physical properties (density, malleability, etc.) is not a small thing. I’m no physics professor or metallurgist, but if you can, try to imagine all the forces that are exerted on a bullet during firing and flight.
The folks looking for a replacement for lead are constrained by the existing dimensions and capabilities of modern firearms. They need something that flies accurately at velocities that range from 1700 feet per second to over 3000 feet per second, then expands reliably on impact to deliver the energy required to upset the quarry’s life systems. Too much expansion, and you destroy the meat. Not enough, and you risk punching through without enough damage for a quick, humane kill. Other considerations include the density of the metal, so that the cartridge doesn’t generate too much pressure in the chamber and blow the gun to pieces.
Once you’ve found a material that is suitable, then you have to manufacture it for a dazzling variety of calibers and bullet weights. A lot of people point out how quickly the shotshell manufacturers responded to the lead shot ban for waterfowl, but what they don’t realize is that there really aren’t that many variations on shotgun cartridges. There are about four common chamberings, with the 20ga and 12ga comprising the vast majority. There are a small range of shot sizes that are all made by the same process.
That was the long way of answering part of your short question. Until the issues described here are resolved, a lead ban would essentially amount to a gun ban… which is why organizations like the NRA are so up in arms about this whole thing.
The other side of this is that there are other options that we can adopt to minimize the reputed impacts of lead ammo. There are many bullets available that do not fragment or powder on impact, and actually leave minimal lead residue in the animal’s carcass.
Doing away with lead bullets is not the only solution, and when taken against the bigger picture of human impacts on the environment, it’s actually a REALLY small thing altogether. Given that the risk to the environment is primarily theoretical, and that with the exception of condors, it’s pretty clear that lead ammo isn’t putting any other species at risk (as evidenced by the plentitude of scavenging birds and animals), a legislated ban on lead ammo really isn’t called for… especially in light of the negative impacts it would have on hunters and shooters.
March 6th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Phillip, what about leaching? My understanding is that lead leaching into the environment isn’t the issue – that it’s lead ingested by scavengers. Or have I missed something?
March 6th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Holly, you’re right, of course. The key driver behind the current lead ban is the risk of lead toxicity in condors. The point of other arguments is lead toxicity in other scavengers (which, as I’ve said is plausible, but the impact appears to be negligible as far as harming populations), or the risk of toxicity to humans… which bears investigation, but looks nomimal to the average adult.
Lead leaching into the soil and groundwater is a different, but equally important issue… but this one applies to shooting ranges. I’m still surprised this one hasn’t raised its head more prominently in these discussions.
Most public and private ranges are monitored, and required to mitigate the problem if it’s detected, and some ranges are already restricting the use of lead. The military and law enforcement have been researching alternatives to lead for practice, and the military went so far as to switch to all tungsten ammo… until they found out that the tungsten created an even larger toxic footprint.
A compounding issue, particularly at indoor ranges, is vaporized lead which actually comes from the primers (ah, that lovely smell of “cordite”). Lead is used as a stabilizing agent in most commercial primers. Truly “green” ammo (as I tried to explain to Mr Sutter in our interview) is ammunition that has no lead components whatsoever. Unfortunately, removing lead from primers is also a real challenge… and without it, primers become unstable, which is not something you want to have happen in a full magazine. There’s a whole book from OSHA (I have a copy if you wanna read it) about how to set up an indoor range with ventilation and lead traps.
So, there’s about everything I can tell you about the issues around lead ammunition.
March 6th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Oh no, so when I’m deeply inhaling that intoxicating smell like I’m Tony Montana in Scarface, I’m inhaling lead vapor? Crap. I love that smell.
March 6th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
JD…sorry about the delay in the response (I’m currently supervising three separate groundwater investigations and two HAZMAT surveys).
As for giving the anti-gun/hunting organizations more factless firepower – can you be specific without the ad-hominine attack? I think my response to Phillip’s writings on lead ammo ban was accurate in drawing the comparison to the current debate on “Global Climate Change” and the focusing of a single species covered by the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
In that those individuals of our society who want to ban hunting (let alone any discussion related to infringement on the Second Amendment) weren’t finding sufficient traction in limiting the actions of their targeted community (hunters)…they’ve turned upon the focusing of an issue that can be neither confirmed nor refuted by simplistic research (although I’m pretty sure we’ll see more than a couple of doctoral dissertations from this topic in the days ahead). For this reason it is akin to the specious debate on “Man Induced Global Warming”…no simplistic cause and relationship is/has been demonstrated. In effect “we” need to change now until such time as the data can be evaluated, even if this change comes with personal impacts.
In that Lead (Pb) is a naturally occurring element (and a historically common refining additive) that is ubiquitous in our environment…its presence in the tissue of harvested game animal can only be attributed to the means of taking it — if the animal was kept in a sterile control environment up to the point of its being taken. The potential for cross contamination of any analytical data related to this issue would be a Forensic Geologist’s dream (e.g. aerial derived lead (ADL) being present on the hide or coat of the animal at the point of impact would in fact introduce lead into the wound tissue as easily by a falcon’s talon as a projectile). So if the discussion is to be on the total prohibition of elemental lead introduced in our diet…I imagine we have our work cut out for us.
In that the original ban on lead-bases ammunition here in California was based upon the concern over our condor…I was both amused and irritated. In that I routinely hunt in the vicinity of the condor sanctuary (Los Padres National Forest) on a friend’s private property and have had the animal all but land on me …I didn’t mind spending the additional twenty dollars for the box of authorized rounds, but thought back to nearly forty years ago of my days of hunting with High School buddies. Given my meager income at the time “that would have been the end of that”. But I guess it was pretense of the lead ammo’s ban being done for the benefit of the condor that had me most irritated.
In that the condor is remnant species from the last Ice Age (found in abundance in the fossil record recovered from the La Brea Tar Pits)…it always struck me that the animal was symbiotically tied to a large carnivore (i.e. Grizzly Bear). In that I have been told that the last Grizzly in California was taken in the vicinity of the Filmore/Piru area…I always wondered if the condor’s reintroduction to this area was mere coincident. Since we as a society seem to be obsessed with the survival of this animal (to the extent of the current prohibition on lead-based ammo) then shouldn’t the re-introduction of a symbiotic partner species be considered? Unfortunately I personally believe the re-introduction of the condor and the ensuing actions taken for its benefit is more based upon its value for controlling human behavior than for concern for the species (again a purely personal belief). If there have been species specific studies that have correlated condor mortality to lead ammo use – I would appreciate someone identifying the author and the peer-reviewed journal in which it was published.
JD — my flippant comments in my initial post were meant to be inflammatory. Having been professionally involved in the environmental/water resource field for well over twenty years now, my sensibilities toward issues of toxicological “fear-mongering” are based upon numerous examples where advances in the analytical laboratory detection capabilities have over-reached our ability to discern “what is anthropologically introduced versus what is the naturally occurring background”.
My “dog in this fight” is that I am both a scientist and a hunter. If this current groundswell for a moratorium on the use of lead ammo is based on concern for an isolated species of concern, then please provide the public with the research and data – prior to the prohibition. If the discussion is going to move towards the potential issue of lead ingested in harvested game…and the susceptibility of a specific targeted population…then wouldn’t it make sense to expand the discussion to include a comparison of all the chemicals ingested in both game and domestically raised produce? I would imagine some in the Vegan community would love for this discussion to be publically aired.
Since anyone who enjoys hunting is painted as a “gun-loving anti-environmentalist” by some in our current society – this issue is symptomatic of an incremental approach to behavioral modification (i.e. if we make it difficult enough, they will change). As for far too many of our societal issues today – we get caught up in the addressing of symptoms (i.e. this discussion on the merits/detriments of lead ammo) and somehow lose focus of what is truly at the core of the debate.
In conclusion, I resent being lead sheep-like into an action without a full explanation. I do not believe in changing my behavior due to the stated “belief” of another. No amount of “discussion” on the merits of how much better an animal taken with a copper round is for me will sway my decision as to what round I would voluntarily choose to use. Sure I’ll abide by the law…I just find the pretense for it ludicrous. Perhaps if our elected officials and senior game enforcement officers would take the time to post the rationale and research behind their decrees…I might have more respect for the individuals making the rules and the rules themselves. But I guess it’s easier to make the rules and then find the rationale for them…if questioned.
All my best…
March 7th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Dear Mr. Loughlin,
Are you willing to openly discuss the copper toxicity problem that a Barnes bullet would have in riparian environments? Or that Pamela Flick of Defenders of Wildlife wants investigations on copper toxicity related to ammunition?
Are you also willing to discuss the microtrash problems documented in Mee et al (2007), and the affinity of bears, wolves, crows, condors, raptors, and vultures to scavenge at garbage dumps in and outside of the Condor Zone?
Any comments on the DFG Findings in the Final Environmental Document of December, 2007, which was approved by a unanimous vote of the CA Fish & Game Commission and which declared on Page 20 that there was no direct link between ammunition used in hunting and elevated blood lead levels in condors?
Respectfully,
Anthony Canales
March 9th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Hi Anthony,
I believe I recognize the name, but I’ll leave it to you to identify yourself and your role in this discussion. I have listened to a good bit of what you’ve had to say about these topics, and you raise some very interesting points.
For what it’s worth, I’ll OPENLY discuss anything I know about… as long as I know enough about it to discuss. That’s my limitation.
As far as the toxicity of copper, the best I can tell is that there’s currently ZERO evidence that switching hunters to copper presents a real environmetal or public health risk. Everyone recognizes the toxic potential of this metal, but to the best of my knowledge, it hasn’t been identified as a realistic threat. Remember that the jackets on the bullets we’ve all been using for ages contain copper, not to mention that hunters have been using copper bullets and copper-plated shot for a couple of decades now.
Unfortunately, that’s about all I know enough about the scientific side of this issue. I do expect more to come, and as it does I’ll follow as closely as my layman’s mind will allow.
If you have detailed information, research, documentation, etc., I’d appreciate if you provided them, or links to them… the more I learn, the more I realize I don’t know.
As far as Ms Flick’s proposals, is anyone surprised that she and her organization are looking for more ways to present roadbloacks to hunters? There is no question that anti-hunting organizations are digging for leverage from this issue, and perhaps she thinks she’s found it. If the argument can be made that there is NO material that is safe for hunters to use without adverse effects on the wildlife or habitat, then it puts hunters and shooters in a pretty bad spot.
Unfortunately, at least part of the “copper is bad too” argument came directly from pro-hunting advocates, including the NRA, during the lead ban discussions. I’ve heard it more from hunters than I have from antis or environmentalists. If someone thought they were doing the hunters’ cause a favor by claiming lead is the lesser of two evils (and therefor we should use lead instead of switching to copper), then they were making a serious error that could very well play right into the hands of the antis. That’s all we need to do is support the argument that neither alternative is safe!
“Microtrash”, I do know a little about… and I think anyone who’s paid attention to the condor issue knows they are notoriously bad at scavenging up non-food that is either toxic (e.g. lead scrap) or causes digestive system impactions. I, personally, think this is a much larger threat to the birds over the long term than hunters’ ammo.
The thing is, that doesn’t change the fact that the condor people have established a plausible argument that hunters’ bullets ARE a risk to the condors, and as such, they’ve established a firm handhold over both public and political opinion. (The 2007 findings were overshadowed by the lead isotope research which supposedly provided the link to ammo… disputed as it was, it was still enough to sway the Commissioners).
That leaves us in a position of either conclusively disproving their arguments, or taking a public stance that appears to say that hunters, those self-proclaimed conservationists and stewards of the environment, don’t really care if we’re killing an endangered bird.
True, the DFG will present their findings regarding the impacts of the lead ammo ban this spring/summer, but I’d lay money on the argument that they’ll have nothing conclusive. There hasn’t been time, especially since depredation hunters were using lead up until December of 2008. If anything, depredation leaves a lot more carcasses laying around the woods than sport hunting. If lead levels are still high, it will NOT be seen as a failure of the lead ban policy.
Personally, I believe that as far as the condor discussion, it’s all done. We’re not going to turn this around. If we want to sit around and keep beating that horse, we’re missing the fact that the anti-lead folks have marched on, and they’re taking a new, much more effective tack… bearing down on lead as a public health issue. It’s not just about the condor anymore (if it ever was), and it isn’t just about California.
This is all repetitive with stuff I’ve said all along. I don’t want to see a ban on lead ammo, and I don’t even agree that there’s a good cause for every hunter to switch right now. At some point, I think lead will go away and it probably should. If we, as hunters, want to have any say about when that happens, we need to take a proactive, constructive position… and we ALL need to get actively involved in the discussion.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Dear Mr. Loughlin,
Thank you for your kind response.
I am one of the volunteer researchers helping out with the NRA effort on the lead bullet/condor issue. I presented a number of scientific documents that I believe helped the DFG staff reach it’s conclusions in the Final Environmental Document back in 2007 of no direct link.
I continue to do research, and “help out” as I can on this issue.
As for copper toxicity, both as an ion or a salt product formed due to corrosion, copper is a well known toxic in livestock and aquatic biosphere circles.
A list of references/URL’s that may interest you are as follows:
http://www.sheepandgoat.com/articles/coppertox.html
copper toxicity in livestock flier
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2008AM/finalprogram/abstract_148308.htm
remediation of copper toxicity aquatic environments study
http://books.google.com/books?id=-Pj4ee-ljGIC&pg=PA475&lpg=PA475&dq=copper+toxicity+aquatic&source=bl&ots=TDMI3OwiNQ&sig=rfTZIM2Pk4SobTZliipPwQdQAu0&hl=en&ei=sYi1ScLgCpnMsAOG1ZGNAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPA475,M1
toxicity of free copper ion, page 475
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T4G-4P6VD20-1&_user=10&_origUdi=B6T4G-4HSY4FP-2&_fmt=high&_coverDate=10%2F30%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_orig=article&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d037edaec407d9f610f5bc9cbddf49be
copper toxicity aquatic environment fish development
http://www.aehms.org/pdf/Serrasb_lyon.pdf
copper is a phytotoxic heavy metal, adversely effects photosynthesis and algae
development in low concentrations
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/copper/2007/table-1.pdf
EPA document noting copper toxicity to salmon, trout, various food insects
boreal toad tadpoles fresh water- Acute toxicity numbers copper
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/copper/2007/table-2a-freshwater.pdf
EPA document noting chronic copper toxicity levels various aquatics
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/copper/2007/index.htm
Other EPA copper data, calibration standards, etc.
To be honest, I think I recollect Hopper Mountain reporting 1 condor fatality due to copper in the past. I will double check my set of their field notes and get back to you.
Remember, mortality/injury factors to condors not only include toxicity effects, but mechanical effects such as experienced in the microtrash problem. The issue with Barnes and other expandable solids is the petal formation post expansion, which could hypothetically prove a laceration threat should it be ingested from a gutpile (Remember the old “Black Talon” campaign?).
I think it should be obvious by now that Wayne Pacelle and his boys at USHS are working on this issue, and the close relations that the other environmentalist groups and HSUS should not be ignored for the sake of getting one’s “stewardship merit badge”. A ban lead campaign will be followed by a ban copper campaign, ban tungsten campaign, and ban bismuth campaign to the point that it will do away with hunting alternatives or price all but the very rich out of the market. One just has to read the AOU/CA Audubon report of 2008 to see their recommendation to ban lead ammo nationwide for even target shooting to read the handwriting on the wall. That others were unwilling to see the “handwriting on the wall”, or fail to recognize the tried and true battle tactics of the antigun and antihunting crowd, will have to be left to the consequences of their inaction.
As for the plausible argument issue, the problem was that folks jumped to accept the isotopic association argument presented in Church et al (2006) without going through the labor of the science presented. To believe Church, one has to assume that the 18 condors tested ate carrion only shot with Remington or Winchester ammo, not Federals or anyone else’s. Not only that, but it is clear from the isotopic signatures in the Dunlap Flegal and Steding study (2000) that there are at least 3 sources of environmental lead that matched the narrow range proposed by Church et al. That’s equivalent to saying that there are 4 sets of fingerprints on the murder weapon at a crime scene, leaving it up to authorities to figure out the “whodunit”.
Of course, Church does not even address the 4 ug/dL to as high as 8 ug/dL blood lead levels in “pre-release” condors as noted in the AOU/CA Audubon study. These condors have blood lead levels at least double that of the blood lead levels measured in the 732 respondents in the CDC/ND venison consumption study (avg Pb B was 1.19 ug/dL). Sort of makes one wonder what the heck they are feeding their precious birds up there.
Proving or disproving the science on this one can also have to do with the scientific objectivity of the relevant agencies and their deciders, rather than the claims of the science itself. Otherwise, Arizona would already be banning lead ammo after the California result (Note- There are indications that Ron Sieg, Region II Manager at AZ Game and Fish, verbally told the AG Game & Fish Commission in an open hearing in March 2008 that the Church study would not be used in determining policy in AZ. So, the science can be analyzed and dealt with in a public forum.). If one were to take Commissioner Rogers at his word, he had decided that ammo was the problem well before the October 11, 2007 Draft Environmental Study was completed and presented to the Commission. That is hardly a fair and impartial process, wouldn’t you say?
As to your argument about depredation hunters, I believe that you are misinformed except for those that do not get permits or who ignored the conditions of their permits. By executive order since August 1, 2007, all new depredation permits issued by DFG for the condor zone proposed under Ridley Tree were to require non-lead ammo use only. I have a copy of that memo, should you want to see the time dates and signatures.
I too agree that the condor issue is not contained to the condor any longer. But NRA activities in AZ, UT, and WA states have so far kept the expansion of lead bans from happening. It’s a tough battle, but one does not win by conceding pseudo science up front.
Remember also, the CA Fish & Game Commission agreed to a settlement in Wishtoyo et al that they would “agendize” a condor country ban on lead ammo for upland game mammals by June 2009. In other words, the fight is not over just yet.Of course, all these are supposed to lead to a statewide ban, despite revelations as to alternative forms of lead exposure potentially threatening protected species (It turns out that the microtrash/garbage problem is even greater than first thought.). Even if we are only left with containing AB 821 to the current range here in California, then that will be an improvement over being disarmed by ammo bans, and watching the condor program not meet the recovery requirements due to inbreeding/population bottlenecks and/or program mismanagement anyway. I apologize, but fighting such attempts are the only things I know how to do. I am not one to let one-tailed analysis “slide”.
Respectfully,
Anthony Canales
March 9th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Hi Anthony, and thanks for the information.
Obviously I’m going to have to take some time to read through the info you’ve provided here, but I wonder exactly what the NRA has in mind with this line of argument. Is the NRA actually going to try to make a case against copper ammo?
If copper IS proven to be dangerous, then proving it is a worse ammo component than lead will almost certainly be a pyrrhic victory at best. I’m sure I’m only seeing part of a strategy, but I’m not real thrilled with the pieces I’m putting together here.
Anyway, look, it’s not me you have to convince about lead. Anyone who’s read what I’ve had to say on this issue over the years will recognize that. I think some reasonable concerns have been raised that deserve to be followed up, but in general, I don’t think lead ammo is that big of a threat to humans or wildlife.
The problem is, the public has been convinced (including some of the public that sits on our Fish and Game Commission), and that’s the battle we’re fighting… not one another, or for that matter, not even the antis. We’ve got to change the public’s mind.
If the NRA can come up with something to win that battle… to convince the public and the lawmakers, then I’m all for it. That’s something I’ve been calling for since the beginning… the organizations that hunters support should be using some of that money for the real research efforts instead of marginalizing themselves with press releases and propaganda.
You can’t just call bullshit and expect that to change law or opinion. You have to prove it’s bullshit. That’s what I’ve been asking for… someone to prove it. I sure can’t do it, as I have neither the means nor the knowledge.
But the question is, if you CAN’T prove it, then what? Let’s say the NRA’s objective researchers can’t prove that lead isn’t killing condors, or can’t prove it isn’t a potential health risk… what will they advocate then? Or even more importantly, what is the approach if the researchers prove that the condor folks are right?
Because that’s the angle I can work with. The way I see it, some of us can switch and some of us can’t. Well then, let’s understand the potential risks, and mitigate them. Why not? There are, as I’ve said before, ways to do that without giving up lead bullets… and certainly without giving up our guns. That’s not conceding to “junk science”. It’s being practical and proactive. It’s a clear understanding that, if we don’t move with the modern world, it will move without us.
I’ll be honest and say I don’t have a lot of faith in the outcome of this “scientific” approach. I think it’s possible to further obfuscate the truth, but I seriously doubt anyone is going to expose it.
In the meantime, the general public (as well as a good population of hunters) needs to see that actual action is being done to resolve this in the best interests of hunters, the public health, and the environment… and that the linch-pin of this entire debate rests on more than the claims that this is, “just another gun grabbers’ effort to take away our guns.”
It doesn’t matter who’s behind it… that gate has already been opened. Hunters sat on their butts and let it happen, and the NRA tried and failed to close it with their 800-pound gorilla act.
I’m not trying to be confrontational here, Anthony. I very much appreciate your reasonable tone and effort to provide real information. But what I’ve seen so far from the NRA has been very disappointing. What I think I’m seeing now, with this copper toxicity stuff… well, that flat out scares the crap out of me because I see all the earmarks of a classic backlash.
And yes, I’m totally on your side as far as fighting the expansion of the CA lead ban by demanding objective proof that lead ammo is causing harm. I’m hopeful that maybe now, in light of the passage of AB821, CA hunters will speak up and turn out in numbers sufficient to show that we even care.
As I understand it, the Commission can continue to expand the ban without going back to the legislature. Hunters should not allow this to happen.
**Note –
As best I got it, the memo regarding lead ammo for depredation in August ‘07 was a recommendation, but not part of the actual regulation. The regulatory change came as part of the agreement on 12/3/08 that also promised to agendize the topic of lead ammo for upland and small game. I wrote about it on 12/3 here on the blog.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Dear Mr. Loughlin,
Thank you for your kind reply.
Like with any firearms issue, the strategy here is one of education of the public while doing the best possible at holding the line on one-tailed science. If you want to call it a “hearts and minds campaign”, so be it.
This would not be the first time when NRA volunteers spent time educating the public as to the efficacy of an opposing position to “conventional wisdom” on a firearms issue. From shall issue CCW to even the right to keep and bear arms itself, the NRA is most effective when it gets the message out on the whole story on any one topic. It is through this ability to communicate that I believe we will be able to change the public’s mind on the issue of lead ammunition from the current one formed by biased reporting.
As for “proving that lead is not killing condors”, that’s been done already for us in the Final Environmental Document. DFG staff noted in the report, and the Fish & Game Commission accepted and approved the report unanimously, that only 1 condor has died due to lead poisoning in CA, up to the time of the Document (December 2007), since the program to restore the condor was releasing birds in the first place. Staff disputes a second case, noting that it was a case of visceral gout rather than lead poisoning. I presume that staff would not “stick their necks out” on such a definition if they did not have some kind of “autopsy” or necropsy report to refer to. Please also note that death by lead poisoning does not necessarily prove that the source of lead was from ammunition. I am aware of the subjectivity of the claims starting with the Snyders, and in effect that is what this campaign is all about.
I am not sure what you mean or infer by “the NRA’s 800 pound gorilla act”. We volunteers spent months reviewing data and Fish & Game hearing video, attended the December 2006 hearing in Santa Monica, and we volunteers started in getting the message out and pouring over the science for input into the public record process starting in June 2007 (We were almost too late, if anything.). If by 800 pound gorilla you mean the Judd Hannah affair, I was there in Sacramento of August 2007 and I know for a fact that NRA had nothing to do with the subsequent lobbying among Republican legislators for his removal. What is more, I was there in the October Fish & Game Hearing in Concord when then Commission President Richard Rogers was told by NRA State Liaison Ed Worley that NRA had nothing to do with the Hannah issue. I know this to be so also because Hannah himself had opened a “back door channel” with Dr. Don Saba as far as an interchange on the science being “discussed” in the public hearing process. NRA had no interest in closing that link, in fact we were able to establish a rapport to a degree despite Hannah’s “convictions” on the issue. (The data dump by Hannah set in the public record seems to indicate that Hannah had accepted the pro-ban side’s arguments well before the public comment period was complete.). Rogers and a lady staffer present also confirmed verbally in Concord that they knew who the instigator of the lobbying effort to get Hannah fired really was, and as far as I know that is where things stand today.
The copper issue is what it is. I personally tried to tell one of the Barnes engineers in attendance at the August 2007 Special Hearing that there were a number of copper toxicity studies waiting in the wings for the period after a lead ban, but he seemed unduly disinterested. Check the reference documents I sent, there are more as well, and you will see how things can go from the frying pan into the fire quite quickly.
In any case, the issue here has to do with whether traditional lead ammunition is the threat claimed by “pro-ban” groups, and whether hunters and shooters are being painted into a corner, or even being “herded off the cliff”. Of course, holding the line is the first thing to accomplish. I believe that we have done that to a good degree. Now comes time to expose the case made on behalf of the lead ammo ban, and get it out as effectively as possible.
In a Southern California meeting in 2008, I noticed when giving presentations to NRA volunteers about the condor-lead issue that the best way to educate the newly initiated was to show a mix of data and pictures. Of the later, what seemed to get the message through the most clearly were copies of the radiographs of garbage ingestion by condors, and photos posted at the LA Zoo’s Condor website showing the garbage recovered from the gullets of chicks, and videos of condor “garbage scrounging” behaviors. Much of the industrial detritus so-scrounged posed either a mechanical threat to condors and condor chicks (I still have a hard time believing that condor’s ingestion of broken glass shards does not lacerate the parent birds), or consists of metal items that in themselves lend to zinc or other metal exposure and toxicity.
Many of those in attendance, including board members and others from the Executive side of the NRA, have commented that the pictures and videos presented helped clarify things that dry tables and discussions of blood lead levels had not previously done. They have come to accept that there are serious defects in the case presented to date by the pro-ban forces, and are renewing efforts to get to the bottom of what the raw data truly shows is the problem with condor recovery and any purported threat of lead ammunition to any number of animal species.
This in turn leads to your “prove it’s bullshit” point. Let’s discuss the case made by pro-ban forces so far.
In my opinion, I believe that we made a case to the DFG staff that Fry (2003) under-represented the various kinds of alternative lead threats to condors in “condor country”. DFG staff noted some deficiencies in the Fry study in the Final Environmental Document, some of which Dr. Fry seems to overlook in his references in the AOU/CA Audubon study he helped author. Fry also did not deal at all with the microtrash problem in the 2003 study, despite internal reports and the Mee study showing that it was a serious problem known by the Hopper Mountain folks since 2000-2001. One case in point regarding a Fry “undercount” or “under-representation” of lead threats has to do with the lead wheel weights problem.
One of the more gratifying moments in the efforts of 2007 was when the Draft Final Environmental Document recognized the threat that wheel weights could pose to condors. Even if one were to concede that metallic lead alloys were to dissolve in condor “stomachs” as alleged by the pro-ban side(which I do not), I presented to the Commission for placement in the public record 2 studies by the EPA and the USGS on the amount of lead wheel weights deposited on public roads over the course of a year. (Bridgeport, CA meeting, July 2007, verifiable on the video of the hearing). Their estimates of 8 ounces per year per car are significantly larger amounts of metallic lead going into the environment than ammunition shot into game and left in gut piles. DFG staff noted the potential for condor access to wheel weights in the process of their scavenging of road kills in the Draft Final Environmental Document. While the Final Document reduced the treatment of the wheel weight issue to an inclusion of wheel weights as a threat, it’s clear from the data that condors have both the opportunity to scavenge alternative forms of lead trash from the environment, but because of the “junk food habit” found in “post release birds” they have the tendency as well.
As for the case made in Church et al (2006), the so-called isotopic relationship study, it’s clear that the lead used in ammunition manufacture has a broad range of isotopic ratios across the entire population of ammunition containing lead. That Church’s own reference bibliography contained studies noting this broad range did not somehow preclude the study authors from claiming ammunition had a narrow range that just happened to fit a narrow range “mixing line” of elevated blood lead levels claimed to have been found in condors as defined by the study authors. In any case, information presented into the public record and comments by Dr. Smith himself at the Bridgeport hearing indicate the limited applicability, if any at all, of the Church study. And as previously noted, I also have reason to believe that Arizona Game and Fish won’t use the Church results in any determination of policy regarding lead ammo and the “10(j)” flock currently rotating between the Vermillion Cliffs in the Grand Canyon, and Kolob Terrace area just south of Cedar City, Utah.
On the other hand, Church et al is the only “peer-reviewed” study out there right now on isotopic ratios involving or claiming a link between condors and lead ammo. “Unpublished” data from Parmintier and Chesley has been presented at a variety of environmentalist symposia and the Peregrine Fund’s “Lead Ammo Summit” in May of 2008 in Boise, but nothing subject to open peer review has been released yet despite it being 10 months from last year’s presentation, and that Chesley has “been working” on his data set since funds were paid by the State of Arizona in 2004.
Peregrine Fund’s Hunt et al study (2006) is another case in point. Purportedly a study demonstrating “explosive” ammunition fragmentation, review of the raw data in the tables attached show that the sample of ammunition was skewed to where 43% of the bullets used by Peregrine Fund personnel or their friends and relatives were of a “polymer tip” type. It is my belief that Nosler ballistic tips were selected here, in .270 Win caliber, in such a way as to increase fragmentation results in the radiographs (It is my experience that Nosler ballistic tips fragment significantly more than other brands, to the extent that the copper jacketing “tears” more due to the nature of the design.). In any case, radiographs are unable to determine the difference between copper jacket fragments, purported lead fragments, and bone fragments that should be expected from any impact on bone in the thoracic cavities of big game. Also in Hunt, the radiographs are presented in such a way as to label all fragments as lead fragments, even thought there has to be copper jacket fragmentation in there somewhere. Given that the Hunt study notes that the radiographs published were processed chemically in such a way as to “enhance” fragment visibility, I personally believe that the fragmentation issue has been overstated substantially. Given that the Hunt radiographs and the Minnesota Department of Wildlife study both show exit wounds (Hunt did not control for distance from the muzzle, Minnesota controlled the distance to the muzzle at 50 meters using .308 ammunition on sheep)in their radiographs, it’s clear that a significantly large amount of the lead component of a modern bullet did not fragment into the game animal at the least. (Given that lead is malleable and not frangible, I have certain reservations as to the fragmentation/frangibility claims made by the pro-ban side in this case.).
Other studies used by the pro-ban side, like Sorenson (2007) which claims a seasonal spike in condor blood lead levels that are claimed to match deer season in August and September, do not take into account year round pig hunting/depredation efforts in the Monterey County area and in the neighborhood of Pinnacles National Monument. If gut piles were more available in other months of the year, due to pig hunting/depredation, why not a higher blood lead level year round? Or do condors eschew pig gut piles for deer gut piles and deceased cattle?
Believe me, there are more studies used by the pro-ban forces that leave too much unproven. What is more, I believe that the raw data that is now subject to NRA PRAR’s will show that the condor recovery program is in more serious trouble than that explained in the AOU/CA Audubon study, over things like microtrash, power pole behaviours which still continue to this day, and a genetics/population bottleneck problem that highlights an inbreeding concern that could cause a failure to meet the species recovery requirements noted in the 1996 Restoration Plan.
But it takes volunteers and open and critical minds to deal with the “bullshit” being propagated here. All that can be asked is for a chance to do it in open forum, by presenting information subject to rigorous debate. But I believe that we can roll back the current mis-perceptions on lead ammo, given enough time and opportunity. But I believe that the hunting and shooting community cannot be “divided” on the issue, because that division today is being exploited by the pro-ban side. To concede the point in the face of information to the contrary is just doing the work of the pro-ban side for them.
That is why I and many other NRA volunteers do what we do, in trying to get the message out to anyone and everyone we can. With perseverance, we can prevail.
Note: Let me send you a PDF capture of the depredation memo. As far as I read it, it’s an executive order to not allow future depredation permits without a lead ammo exclusion, after 8-1-2007. It was in Judd Hannah’s famous document dump, one of 200 some odd pages, and it has to be captured to see it rather than send as it’s own file.
Respectfully,
Anthony Canales
March 9th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Mr. Canales, I think you missed Phillip’s point. Let’s try again: What will you do when the Fish and Game Commission begins work on banning copper ammunition, and one of the pieces of evidence they present is YOU, saying how toxic copper ammunition is, in a discussion on a hunting blog?
You study lead very thoroughly. I study politics, and nothing delights antis more than being able to say, “even hunters say…” With your words here, they’ll be tickled to add, “even the NRA says!”
It’s great that you study this so thoroughly, but if you’ve been involved in this issue, you should know by now that the outcome of a political debate is not based on science; it’s based on perception, persuasion and public image. Your 2,314-word dissertation does not take that into account.
Your comments on this blog are the equivalent of saying to the police, “This LSD I’ve been manufacturing is not dangerous in any way whatsoever, but the meth you’ve forced me to switch to is awful stuff.”
March 10th, 2009 at 4:47 am
Wow, Anthony! That, my friend, is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you very much for taking the time to put this all together and get it on this blog.
The more I learn, the more I know I don’t know. This is the level of discussion and information that people need. It is MUCH more valuable than the fear-based, least-common-denominator “press releases” the NRA has been spewing out on this issue. Why aren’t they sharing this level of real information with the public… or even with the membership?
You mention the need NRA’s ability to communicate, to get the message out to the public… but that’s not what I, as a member of the public and a member of the NRA, am seeing. What I see instead is fear-mongering and propagandizing, and that is, indeed, the general public perception of whatever the NRA releases. The NRA has marginalized itself, and the level of credibility outside of the relatively small population of “gun nuts” is painfully low. The organization needs to recognize and address this.
What you wrote in this last reply is very valuable, I think, particularly to people who haven’t been closely in touch with the issue.
For my own part, while I’ve had neither the opportunity to get more personally involved, nor the expertise to completely dissect the information I do have available, I have been following pretty closely, and seen much of what you described. Most of it reinforces what I already understood.
I know that no conclusive link connected lead ammo to condor mortality. I believed, in my own layman’s understanding, that the results of research on the issue were skewed… either by the researchers themselves (which I doubt) or by the folks providing the interpretation (which I believe is more likely). Regardless, the pro-ban parties have, as I said before, established a plausible connection that has yet to be successfully disputed. I hope that the research efforts you refer to can achieve that… and that when it is done, it is properly communicated to the public.
I will also defer, at least partially, to your knowledge as an insider to the “800lb gorilla” role of the NRA in political machinations that, in my opinion, had more to do with the passage of AB821 than any misrepresented science could have done. I still firmly believe that whoever caused this uproar is responsible for turning the debate into a political power play instead of a discussion of science and environmental health. At that point, the condor became irrelevant. I wonder though, why the NRA never clarified their role in any of this? What I saw, heard, and read implied complicity, if not outright involvement.
In my own opinion, I think the discussion needs to move on to the next level… the implication of lead as a public health risk. I also had some skepticism toward the research done by the Peregrine Fund, but I haven’t seen the data that tells what kind of “hunting bullets” were used to develop the graphics they used. I wouldn’t doubt that they used the most frangible bullets available (e.g. ballistic tips, Winchester “silver tips”, etc.). However, the Minnesota fragmentation tests seem to be more reliable, and I’d imagine that the specific ammunition data is available from that one.
I very much appreciate the efforts of yourself and the other volunteers and NRA staffers who are working to fight this ban. I’ve said before and continue to say, it is a bad law, unfair and unjustified. If the pro-gun/pro-hunting organizations can find the leverage to overturn it, then you will be doing all of us a great favor. I may not agree with all of the tactics, but I do appreciate the goal and the work.
And I still believe that the copper thing is a really dangerous and ill-advised gambit.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:25 am
Dear Ms. Norcal Cazadora,
You said-
“…Mr. Canales, I think you missed Phillip’s point. Let’s try again: What will you do when the Fish and Game Commission begins work on banning copper ammunition, and one of the pieces of evidence they present is YOU, saying how toxic copper ammunition is, in a discussion on a hunting blog?…”
What in heck do you think they have been doing on lead because the folks in the hunting community that “swallowed” the information they presented without question?
The issue as to toxicity is in a sense simple- Everything can be considered toxic in one form or another. The fuel used to get to the hunting ranges and zones “causes” increase in global warming. Urban hunters, simply by being, redirect water from critical species habitat, causing increase in toxic salt concentrations that threaten smelt. The chromium used in hardening steels or passivating stainless hunting barrels threatents the environment. The plastics used in tipped green bullets and shotgun hulls are not biodegradable. No primer compound yet patented is non-toxic. And on, and on, and on.
The real question is coming up with enough political energy to offset the one-tailed science being used to set up the hunting and shooting community for a regulatory “fall”. And accumulating that mass is to study the science, “out” the numerous defects, and educate the public to obtain the political “gravitas” to effect change that can be lived with.
As for specific tactics on copper or lead bullets, I think it would be foolish to expose those in an open forum if we intend to be successful.
“…You study lead very thoroughly. I study politics, and nothing delights antis more than being able to say, “even hunters say…” With your words here, they’ll be tickled to add, “even the NRA says!”…”
In a way, you are correct. When “hunter representatives” accepted the findings in Fry, Church, and a number of other reports WITHOUT READING THEM, RESEARCHING THEM, CROSSCHECKING THEM, CHALLENGING THEM, “they screwed the pooch”. They set hunting back by not adhering the to second part of the old adage (trust, but verify). Surely we know enough about agenda science by now to not comment on something without having the chance to verify it????? In essence, they had no business accepting the reports at face value. And now the “follow on” forces have to clean up the mess.
“…It’s great that you study this so thoroughly, but if you’ve been involved in this issue, you should know by now that the outcome of a political debate is not based on science; it’s based on perception, persuasion and public image. Your 2,314-word dissertation does not take that into account….”
I am not sure how closely you followed the public comment process prior to AB 821 being signed by the governor. In the June 2007 Fish & Game Commission hearing, after we began the process to insert peer reviewed studies and information that would call the lead ammo/condor blood lead level issue into serious question, the Commission voted to proceed to regulation OUT OF ORDER AS REQUIRED BY LAW AND REGULATION. In effect, they did not want to hear about science that discredited the proposition in the first place. Some previous efforts by some sportsman’s groups focused on cost impacts (anecdotal, not supported by data no less), loss of hunting tradition, loss of use of venerable firearms, etc. These were wholly ineffective, in my opinion given the way the Commissioners voted at that hearing.
Unfortunately for them, DFG staff and legal counsel “realized” that they had shortcut the required public input process (sweet nothings had been whispered into some key ears) and the ENTIRE public review process had to be effectively restarted with the July 2007 hearing in Bridgeport. We got a “second bite” at the apple only because of the expertise that NRA has at it’s disposal in the public and regulatory arena. And the result was that other groups “screwed the pooch” on the Hannah issue, and a political decision caused AB 821 to be signed well before the public comment process was complete, and barely 2 calendar days after the publication of the Draft Environmental Document. Up to that point, there was every indication politically that the Governor was going to veto AB 821. It was internal special interest lobbying, not political mass, that changed the AB 821 equation.
I believe that you do not understand that one has to re-educate on the environmental issue, so as to change the public’s current misperceptions about toxicity in general and the way the regulatory process is overstating the problem. It’s comparable to the effort to “re-teach” the Second Amendment as an individual right after the disasters of he post 1968 Gun Control Ban through “Morton Grove” time period on public education on firearms issues (1968-1980).
“…Your comments on this blog are the equivalent of saying to the police, “This LSD I’ve been manufacturing is not dangerous in any way whatsoever, but the meth you’ve forced me to switch to is awful stuff.”…”
No, I believe my comments are the equivalent of saying “the emperor has no clothes, and you common folks too can understand this issue…” . And no amount of putting one’s head in the sand will change the fact that the preservationist movement will use whatever political, judicial, or regulatory technique or opportunity to ban consumptive activities such as hunting. Lead ammo bans are but a first step, which will reduce the number of hunters/cum voters/cum political supporters due to price pressures. There will be fewer political actors ON OUR SIDE OF THE DEBATE over time if you let regulatory “attrition” take folks out of the game now. In the end, you get a kind of “Niemoller” dilemma, with no one left to help you fight a preservationist agenda largely funded by large corporation danegeld.
Fight now, or be defeated incrementally later, that’s what I say.
Respectfully,
Anthony Canales
March 10th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Phillip Loughlin said:
“…The more I learn, the more I know I don’t know. This is the level of discussion and information that people need. It is MUCH more valuable than the fear-based, least-common-denominator “press releases” the NRA has been spewing out on this issue. Why aren’t they sharing this level of real information with the public… or even with the membership?…”
Personally, I am not sure what you mean as far as “fear-based” and “least-common denominator”. An ammo ban by any other name is an ammo ban. Using a regulatory approach to institute an ammo ban is just that. If you want the scientific discussion, I have been blogging on it for quite a while at our Member’s Council Website for the state volunteers. But in you opinion, don’t you think we will lose the attention of a more general audience by starting off the message with ” …Pb 207/Pb 206 isotopic ratios of lead alloys used in ammunition manufacture are wider than represented in Table such-and-such of Church et al, as sited by Randich et al blah blah blah..”?????
Hell, I have been working on this thing for 5 years and it’s still not easy to explain in a few words what the dilemma is. The only thing I can say is that pictures of radiographs showing condors eating every type of garbage, and video clips of condors scavenging roadside and garbage dump “leavings” have had more impact on pointing out the bunkum side of the ban lead ammo argument than any intellectual discussion.
You said:
“…You mention the need NRA’s ability to communicate, to get the message out to the public… but that’s not what I, as a member of the public and a member of the NRA, am seeing. What I see instead is fear-mongering and propagandizing, and that is, indeed, the general public perception of whatever the NRA releases. The NRA has marginalized itself, and the level of credibility outside of the relatively small population of “gun nuts” is painfully low. The organization needs to recognize and address this….”
I don’t know, why don’t you send me a link to what you call “fear mongering” and “propagandizing”. I don’t believe I have seen anything untoward from NRA HQ in Virginia. Give me an example, and let’s look at it thoroughly.
You said:
“…I know that no conclusive link connected lead ammo to condor mortality. I believed, in my own layman’s understanding, that the results of research on the issue were skewed… either by the researchers themselves (which I doubt) or by the folks providing the interpretation (which I believe is more likely). Regardless, the pro-ban parties have, as I said before, established a plausible connection that has yet to be successfully disputed. I hope that the research efforts you refer to can achieve that… and that when it is done, it is properly communicated to the public….”
Plausibility is in the mind of the beholder, hence the effort to educate on what the science “says”. Cornatzer discredited himself a lot after the CDC/ND study, especially after Iowa could not find any samples of donated venison with 55,000 ppm lead in any of their food banks. I believe that the public perceptions, which have been so far influenced by the Greek Chorus of a media in the tank for preservationism (a largely antihunting media at that) can be changed through education and discussion. I personally know of folks at the beginning of this little adventure who had “swallowed” the Church study hook, line, and sinker. They have changed their minds since, and are now riding to the sounds of the guns (figuratively speaking, of course…).
You said:
“…I will also defer, at least partially, to your knowledge as an insider to the “800lb gorilla” role of the NRA in political machinations that, in my opinion, had more to do with the passage of AB821 than any misrepresented science could have done. I still firmly believe that whoever caused this uproar is responsible for turning the debate into a political power play instead of a discussion of science and environmental health. At that point, the condor became irrelevant. I wonder though, why the NRA never clarified their role in any of this? What I saw, heard, and read implied complicity, if not outright involvement…”
Personally, I have stopped relying on the press for getting the story “straight”, without having the opportunity to review the “hard data” first, for years. I saw the press conference just before the August 2007 Special Hearing, it was on ABC News that evening. Strangely enough, the reportage that day did not include the presentation of Mee et al (2007) that I started off my day’s work that day. I can tell you that there was significant discomfort on the part of pro-ban activists on the presentation of that report, and my Powerpoint included Mee’s radiographs showing garbage ingestion. They tried to downplay the issue as “microtrash”, when Dr. Mee in his own report (and in an email to me) indicated that the average size of garbage ingested by condors was 3 cm (1.25 inches). Nor did they cover Dr. Saba’s commentary on the defects of Church, nor any of the other “contradictory” information presented at the public comment process.
Funny how that works.
I don’t believe that the condor is irrelevant, not when it can be used as the “Trojan Horse” to swallow up whole chunks of private holdings like Tejon Ranch. They intend to ride that Lojacked Bird for all they can get across the Rocky Mountain West, in terms of critical habitat “expansions” and reduced activities on public land. The condor has just barely “gotten off the ground” when it comes to relevance. Just think of the grizzly bear or the wolf programs, and see if I’m far off base.
As for pubic clarification, it’s as I noted before. Besides, do you really think an anti-hunting press is going to print such a story?
You said:
“…In my own opinion, I think the discussion needs to move on to the next level… the implication of lead as a public health risk. I also had some skepticism toward the research done by the Peregrine Fund, but I haven’t seen the data that tells what kind of “hunting bullets” were used to develop the graphics they used. I wouldn’t doubt that they used the most frangible bullets available (e.g. ballistic tips, Winchester “silver tips”, etc.). However, the Minnesota fragmentation tests seem to be more reliable, and I’d imagine that the specific ammunition data is available from that one…”
I disagree. The discussion has to involve a review of the problems with the “claims” of the pro-ban side, so that their “credibility” can be properly known both in the hunting community and the general public. Personally, folks who have “fibbed” that much should not be accepted at face value in the future. Again, if lead is such a threat, why does EPA give dispensation for permissible land deposition/fertilization of crops and landscaping with biosolids containing lead salts in them? Why does Minnesota use biosolids as fuel for cogeneration when said biosolid contains lead and a host of other “permissible” levels of toxic metals? Or is it okay for certain public agencies to avoid certain costs incurred in BACT practices while the private sector is effectively shut down?
I found the Minnesota study interesting, in that once again there was no distinction between copper fragments, bone fragments, and purported lead fragments. But I believe that the “explosive” fragmentation concept discussed in Hunt is not supported by the Minnesota test, due to the exit wound issue. After that, one would have to do a follow up study on how pieces of lead core would hypothetically fragment in a “frangible” manner as discussed in Hunt, when lead is not frangible chemically/physically. Hunt claims frangibility, but fails to explain the exit wound issue as well as the inability to distinguish fragments through the radiographic method.
Pre-Heller, NRA and others did discuss the downside of a 5-4 ruling upholding the collective rights model advocated by the gun ban side. Everyone had to know the downside of the argument, so that the political mass could be obtained through knowing what’s at stake. Heller ultimately went down as 5-4, with Kennedy the swing vote, as an individual right in part due to the recognition that a large portion of the public believed that the Second Amendment involved firearms ownership as an individual right. I think that the hunting and shooting public has both a right, and a need, to know what the downside is here in the lead ammunition issue. Perhaps then they will sit up and take notice, maybe even learn a thing or two about the tactics and methods of those who would ban firearms and hunting by any means necessary.
Thanks for letting me express myself in this forum. I am hopeful that folks will become more educated on this issue, and I hope that I have lent to that effort.
Respectfully,
Anthony Canales
March 10th, 2009 at 10:23 am
I allow, encourage, and appreciate all respectful commentary on this blog, in large part because I know I don’t have all the answers. In some cases, I may not even have a counterpoint. But more importantly, I’d like the readers of this site to see all the sides of an issue… not only mine. I could be wrong, and I know there is no way I could present all of the information, even if I had it.
But when I gather information, I gather from many sources… and I often present it here as it came from the source, sometimes with my own commentary, but usually as an opportunity for readers to make their own decisions. I do not simply “swallow” what the major media provides, but I don’t simply swallow info from other sources either… including the NRA, HSUS, or others who are on the extreme edges of the issues that are important to me. And I will challenge anyone who comments here to support their position.
As I’ve mentioned before, the data you present here regarding the lead/condor issue is fairly compelling, but you seem to be under the impression that it contradicts my own understanding and point of view. It certainly does not. But I’ve said all this before.
I don’t know how much of my past writing on this topic you’ve read… but I’ve had a lot to say, not only here at the Hog Blog, but in response to numerous Internet forums, blogs, and columnists who believe the lead ban is justified. I’ve spent a lot of time defending hunters’ positions against the lead ban, trying to address the myths and misunderstandings… including challenging the “scientific evidence”. But in the process, I’ve also had the opportunity to see how the heavy hitters like the NRA are perceived by many people, both in and out of the gun-owner/hunter communities. It doesn’t bode well for the organization, or the future of gun rights if the strongest ally in the preservation of gun rights becomes irrelevant.
Whether that’s simply my own pessimistic opinion or a real threat isn’t the thing though.
The point is, the NRA has consistently played on the fear and paranoia of its membership, even going so far as to misrepresent the facts. Example? The email blast that followed the last FGC meeting totally misrepresented who was calling for a lead ban expansion.
Sure, besides the headline, the piece was relatively factual, but through the use of implication made it sound as if a vote on statewide expansion was imminent… and it definitely is not. It was only “considered” insomuch as the Commission is required to “consider” any public comment at the meeting. The release only provided part of the facts. As a result of this emailing and the viral nature of the Internet, you have hunters around the state fuming about something that didn’t really happen. And no one can tell me that this wasn’t the intent of the message.
True, the email generated more hunters’ calls and emails to the FGC, but does the ends justify the means?
And what were the ends? To Rogers, Sutton, and Gustafson, these misinformed hunters simply reinforce their preconceptions and sense of superiority. “These poor, uninformed hunters obviously can’t understand the complexity of this situation, so we will do what we think is best.” They will continue to discount the opinions and comments from the hunters.
And the hunters? What do you think is going though their minds when the FGC replies to their emails that no such vote is imminent, and that a statewide expansion of the lead ban is not on the agenda? What do you think is the impression when they go to watch the video of that meeting to see exactly what was proposed, by whom, and how the proposal was received and dispensed with? How do you think they’ll feel when they’re treated like idiots because they acted on bad information?
And of course, if challenged, the NRA can reply with plausible deniability… the hunters misread the press release. They never SAID the Commission was actually putting a statewide ban on the agenda, or planning to vote on it. They only said it was “being considered”.
It’s a standard propaganda technique. Demonize the “enemy” and paint the issues as all black and white. Make it easier to lead the charge, by over-simplifying the issue to the rank and file. They just need to shut up and march. The bosses can do the thinking. It’s not the first time this tactic has been used by the NRA, but I will not sit here and catalogue the occasions for the benefit of debate.
We need hunters in this state to flood the FGC meetings, and to speak up with a united and intelligent voice against the lead ammo ban. That cannot be accomplished by feeding them misinformation or by chanting that this is all a plot driven by the antis.
I’m not laying any of this at your doorstep, by the way. I believe that you are doing the best you can to get the real information and make a real difference. But you have to understand why many people have serious doubts about the credibility of anything the NRA puts forth as “truth”. There’s a lot of value in the course you’re pursuing, even if I’m not extremely optimistic about the long-term success.
I have a pretty good reason to expect that whatever you turn up will be dismissed as biased, exactly as the NRA is dismissing the data turned up by the condor folks. That’s the risk of taking and promoting an extremist position, and it’s one heck of a hurdle to overcome.
More information is available to people than ever before. Some is true, some is false. But people are becoming more informed, for good or ill. This means that the old tactics of deception and misdirection are going to start coming back on those who still rely on them.
March 10th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
[...] In my view, it is neither, regardless of one’s choice of bullet. Others, including the Hog Blog (whose author is a vocal proponent of non-lead bullets), [...]
March 10th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
To All,
First off let me thank both Phillip and Anthony for some very insightful dialog on he issue of lead ammo and its current use by some members of our society that seem intent on the incremental elimination of a citizen’s ability to hunt. Although the issue at the moment is the type of ammo used – it would appear that this is in fact just a vehicle for those who are opposed to the “current” lawful act of hunting.
So far from the discussion I’ve read over, let me know if I have the following correct:
It would seem that the initial ban on lead ammo was based on condor mortality. In that the science upon which this ban was based upon is/was questionable at best, it seems that now the discussion of expanding this ban is based upon toxicological studies of lead being introduced into the harvested game animal and passed onto the consumer.
Rather than directly opposing the basis of the ban outright, it would seem to make sense to take the leadership role of determining the direction of this debate. Therefore thoughtful dialog on the merits of alternative alloys to be used in the projectiles of choice has been entered upon, with the hope that in directly addressing the primary issue (lead ammo) – the critics of the initial action (hunting with lead ammo) will be placated.
Perhaps I’m missing something in the gist of all of this, but it would seem that the incremental nature of this debate does not bode well for anyone who enjoys hunting as a pastime.
Many thanks for your time and consideration in this matter. I have found it to be quite educational (depressing – but educational).
All my best…
March 10th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
[...] Lead Ban Chronicles – A minor manifesto? [...]
March 10th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Dear Mr. Loughlin,
Thank you for your kind reply.
You wrote:
“…But in the process, I’ve also had the opportunity to see how the heavy hitters like the NRA are perceived by many people, both in and out of the gun-owner/hunter communities. It doesn’t bode well for the organization, or the future of gun rights if the strongest ally in the preservation of gun rights becomes irrelevant….”
With all due respect, the NRA is an effective organization in the field of firearms rights protection. I will debate anyone, anytime, anywhere about the chances that the NRA will become “irrelevant” just because it campaigns to win on any firearms issue. Sometimes being the “Lead Sled Dog” has it’s downside in perceptions, but life is funny like that.
You wrote:
“…The point is, the NRA has consistently played on the fear and paranoia of its membership, even going so far as to misrepresent the facts. Example? The email blast that followed the last FGC meeting totally misrepresented who was calling for a lead ban expansion.
Sure, besides the headline, the piece was relatively factual, but through the use of implication made it sound as if a vote on statewide expansion was imminent… and it definitely is not. It was only “considered” insomuch as the Commission is required to “consider” any public comment at the meeting. The release only provided part of the facts. As a result of this emailing and the viral nature of the Internet, you have hunters around the state fuming about something that didn’t really happen. And no one can tell me that this wasn’t the intent of the message.
True, the email generated more hunters’ calls and emails to the FGC, but does the ends justify the means? …”
The NRA CALAlert of 2-5-2009 says:
“…CAL-ERT 02/05/09 — Midnight
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
CALIFORNIA REGULATORY ALERT
This information is accurate at the time this CAL-ERT was written and originally distributed. The NRA Members’ Councils of California will keep you informed as issues affect your gun-rights in California.
STATE-WIDE BAN ON LEAD AMMUNITION MAY BE AROUND THE CORNER
The Fish and Game Commission is considering a state-wide ban on the use of lead ammunition for hunting. Almost two years ago, a bill (AB821) 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.
From the beginning, proponents of the current ban have wanted to lead ammunition banned state-wide. The California condor was simply being used as an excuse by the anti-hunters and anti-gunners to carry out this agenda. They have already achieved a partial ban. The next step is to take it state-wide. If they are successful, they will push to ban the use of lead ammunition for everyone, not just hunters.
There is no scientific evidence that lead ammunition is the source of lead affecting the health of condors released to the wild. There is no scientific evidence that lead ammunition is a risk to human health and the environment in California. What is evident is that there are a group of special interests that have friends on the Commission who will not stop until the most affordable, available, and balistically superior ammunition available is banned in our state. When that happens they know the damage it will do to hunting and shooting participation.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Please write and call the California Fish and Game Commission and request that they oppose all efforts to extend the ban on lead ammunition.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Although the NRA vigorously opposed AB821 back in 2007, it is now law. However, it is unfortunate that the CA. Fish & Game Commission expanded the restrictions much farther than those required by AB821. Therefore, the NRA urges you to contact the CA. Fish & Game Commission and voice your opposition to even more enhanced restrictions that exceed the scope and intent of AB821.
CONTACT INFORMATION FOR THE CA. FISH & GAME COMMISSION:
Mailing Address:
California Fish and Game Commission
1416 Ninth Street
P.O. Box 944209
Sacramento, CA 94244-2090
Phone Number:
(916) 653-4899
Fax Number:
(916) 653-5040
E-Mail: (Please include “State-wide Lead Ammo Ban” in the e-mail subject line.)
Submit written comments, via electronic mail to:
John Carlson, Jr., Executive Director fgc@fgc.ca.gov
Jon K. Fischer, Deputy Executive Director – Regulations and Policy jfischer@fgc.ca.gov
Adrianna Shea, Deputy Executive Director – Special Advisor to the Commissioners ashea@fgc.ca.gov
Note: If you prefer to send only one email, you can send a single email to the Fish and Game representatives by using the special “ONE CLICK” email address that you can find HERE . By sending one email to the special “ONE CLICK” address, each one of the Fish and Game representatives (listed above) will receive a copy of your message (so it is probably a good idea to address your messages with: Dear Fish & Game Commission,).
WHAT ELSE YOU CAN DO:
* If you are not already a member of your local NRA Members’ Council, JOIN NOW! It costs you nothing but a little of your time – volunteering to help the NRA regain our Second Amendment rights in California.
* If you received this CALIFORNIA-ALERT SYSTEM (CAL-ERTs) message from sources other than your own personal subscription, we encourage you to subscribe to this free service. We won’t send you messages very often, but when we do, something important is happening.
* Circulate this alert to every firearms owner, shooter, hunter, club, and freedom-loving American that you know and ask them to help.
* Be proud of your accomplishments and be especially proud that YOU are willing to fight for all of our rights to enjoy our Second Amendment freedoms!”…”
I disagree, I do not consider the alert to be misrepresentative as you claim.
From the Alert, how does that differ from Sutton wanting to agendize the lead shot ban, knowing that behind the scenes the Commission through it’s lawyers signed off on an agreement to agendize??? One has to remember that NRA saw the agreement through the PRAR process prior to the hearing. And since the agreement allows the Plaintiffs to refile despite any result from Commission Hearings, who is really using threats and intimidation here? The NRA and the public response of it’s members, or pro-ban environmentalists trying to hit the personal pocket books of appointed commissioners through a badly written section of the Endangered Species Act???
To be honest, I watched the entire meeting on the Internet Live, and our NRA Members Coucil has video clips up at YouTube that include Commissioner Sutton’s attempts to “agendize” the addition of a lead shot ban for upland game mammals such as squirrels and rabbits. You can perhaps let everyone else decide for as to the intent of Commissioner Sutton. Given the time frames in the agreement, 2-3 months is truly short notice for the public.
The Link to our YouTube Section is:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=SFValleyNRA&view=videos
The clip with Sutton attempting to agendize an expanded ban:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbN6FuyoD2I&feature=channel
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89tzMXKPWMk&feature=channel_page
Please note that DFG Staff did not feel that an agendizing of an expanded ban was called for here. But it is clear from a perusal of the agreement that Commissioner Sutton, Commissioner Rogers and the other commissioner’s personal liability risk in the lawsuit disappears with the settlement as long as Plaintiff’s Wishtoyo, NRDC and others actually pull the lawsuit, which in turn is dependent upon the agendizing of the expanded ban which would lead to an expansion of the current ban. Plaintiff’s reserve the right to re-file the lawsuit, but because the March 2009 Commission agenda included an Executive Session discussion of “the NRDC lawsuit on condors and lead ammunition”, currently Commissioner’s Sutton, Rogers, Kellogg, and Gustafson are PERSONALLY at risk in an active lawsuit. Whether changing the law so as to receive relief of personal liability is an issue or not, that would have to be left up to the lawyers and the public at large. But after signing on to an agreement that had to be PRAR’ed from the Commission, and that was not openly discussed in the public domain prior to signature, it’s clear that an expanded ban is in the offing and the NRA Alert is accurate. They agreed to agendize a process between April and June of 2009, which would call for public hearings, comments, and whatever scientific submission would be needed.
The first time around, Commissioner Rogers wondered at the Truckee Meeting in June 2007 as to why the NRA as a stakeholder waited so long to get into the process. Am I now to understand that we are to be criticized for getting in at the “ground floor” of the next expansion?
You wrote:
:…True, the email generated more hunters’ calls and emails to the FGC, but does the ends justify the means?
And what were the ends? To Rogers, Sutton, and Gustafson, these misinformed hunters simply reinforce their preconceptions and sense of superiority. “These poor, uninformed hunters obviously can’t understand the complexity of this situation, so we will do what we think is best.” They will continue to discount the opinions and comments from the hunters.
And the hunters? What do you think is going though their minds when the FGC replies to their emails that no such vote is imminent, and that a statewide expansion of the lead ban is not on the agenda? What do you think is the impression when they go to watch the video of that meeting to see exactly what was proposed, by whom, and how the proposal was received and dispensed with? How do you think they’ll feel when they’re treated like idiots because they acted on bad information? …”
Well, for starters, the info wasn’t bad at all, given what we know about the timing of the settlement agreement.
Again, given the sympathies of Commissioners like Commissioner Rogers, perhaps he needs to hear a bit more from hunters getting information from the NRA, if the below listed YouTube clip is any indication:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fMMni-Cn8s&feature=channel
Lobbying is part and parcel of “the game” of politics. How else do you explain the way that the pro-ban “environmentalist forces” stuffed a scoping meeting in Sacramento in October of 2007, swamping DFG staff with a probably pro-state-ban audience and threatening lawsuits? Are hunters and shooters supposed to deny ourselves of the same methods and techniques used by the side that wants ammo bans, out of some sense of fair play or sympathy for political appointees? What about the deference the pro-ban side gets at hearings, where they are allowed generous time allotments of 15-20-30 minutes or more to be able to do their presentations (Though, to be honest, the Barnes “exploding prairie dog video” was a hit in 2007. It was easy to see who the hunters were, and who the “Bambi lovers” were in that hearing- the animal rights folks turned puce.).
You wrote:
“…It’s a standard propaganda technique. Demonize the “enemy” and paint the issues as all black and white. Make it easier to lead the charge, by over-simplifying the issue to the rank and file. They just need to shut up and march. The bosses can do the thinking. It’s not the first time this tactic has been used by the NRA, but I will not sit here and catalogue the occasions for the benefit of debate.
We need hunters in this state to flood the FGC meetings, and to speak up with a united and intelligent voice against the lead ammo ban. That cannot be accomplished by feeding them misinformation or by chanting that this is all a plot driven by the antis….”
We have already spoken on this issue as to the science, and whether the hunters out there as a whole won’t go comatose over blood lead levels, lead isotope ratios, and recovery goals and targets on a bird that is going to be dependent, at the very best, on cattle ranching in public and private land for the foreseeable future (Condors are gonna-kinda put a stopper on the movement to end cattle grazing in the National Forests and BLM land, giving how dependent they are on cattle and how Peregrine Fund does not have the private funds to keep up their charity banquets forever….). While some like myself and yourself are probably enthused to go over the details, others usually ask me to just tell them who to write to say “NO” to, so that they can go back to hunting their favorite critter or tin can or piece of paper. It all depends upon what moves you, I suppose.
As for hunters showing up in droves to FG Hearings, the fisherman tried that during the MLPA hearing. Boy, did that work out, no? Personally, I believe in the NRA’s methods, they are tried and true and for my book one cannot beat success. Politics is like MMA- One does not just win, one gets their opponents to tapout if they expect to effect change, or even just protect their own.
You wrote:
“…I’m not laying any of this at your doorstep, by the way. I believe that you are doing the best you can to get the real information and make a real difference. But you have to understand why many people have serious doubts about the credibility of anything the NRA puts forth as “truth”. There’s a lot of value in the course you’re pursuing, even if I’m not extremely optimistic about the long-term success.
I have a pretty good reason to expect that whatever you turn up will be dismissed as biased, exactly as the NRA is dismissing the data turned up by the condor folks. That’s the risk of taking and promoting an extremist position, and it’s one heck of a hurdle to overcome….”
Thank you, I believe that I have been trying. As for the believability issue, I was quite heartened by the content in the Final Environmental Document of 2007, even though the Governor signed AB 821. I felt that we got an honest hearing from Dr. Loft and staff, and have told him so personally in a phone call recently. So forgive me if I am perhaps a bit more optimistic about the reception of the science I believe we are able to present. Perhaps next time, the Governor won’t be so quick to give away the farm. But next time, we will be coming back with even more information for the public record (I kinda wanna dump the “Hogzilla” of info submissions into the public record, if you don’t mind the use of what is probably someone’s trademark by now…) than before. After all, some of us love a good rhubarb…
Respectfully,
Anthony Canales
March 10th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Greg Middleton wrote:
“…It would seem that the initial ban on lead ammo was based on condor mortality. In that the science upon which this ban was based upon is/was questionable at best, it seems that now the discussion of expanding this ban is based upon toxicological studies of lead being introduced into the harvested game animal and passed onto the consumer….”
Personally, I believe that one could say “alleged” condor mortality, since the DFG Staff only found one dead condor due to lead in the report. Expansion to a lead shot ban, based on a potential threat to human health, is in my personal opinion not relevant due to the lower than average blood lead levels found in the CDC/ND study of 732 respondents. A 0.30 ug/dL blood lead level difference between hunters and non-hunters in North Dakota, when other environmental lead sources were not controlled for, still has hunters who ate game regularly at lower blood lead levels than the current national standard. The highest blood lead levels they found in adults with possible skeletal accumulation was 9 ug/dL, still under the CDC’s alert level for children (Adults is 20 ug/dL).
You wrote:
“…Rather than directly opposing the basis of the ban outright, it would seem to make sense to take the leadership role of determining the direction of this debate. Therefore thoughtful dialog on the merits of alternative alloys to be used in the projectiles of choice has been entered upon, with the hope that in directly addressing the primary issue (lead ammo) – the critics of the initial action (hunting with lead ammo) will be placated….”
I am sorry, but I personally have never seen appeasement work in the “gun rights” game here. Perhaps you can mosey over and read the AOU/CA Audubon study. The propose a nationwide ban on lead ammo for all uses as part and parcel to condor recovery, because lead ammo has market advantages of Barnes and Nosler loads that are twice the price. The propose that there are insufficient police and warden resources to properly prevent hunters from using the cheaper lead ammo. The cite studies from Canada, where natives chose lead rather than “non-toxic” ammo due to price.
I wish to express my utmost appreciation for your giving me the time and the chance to try to make my case. Thank you.
Respectfully,
Anthony Canales
March 10th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
To All,
With apologies- The scoping meeting I referenced two posts ago happened in October of 2006, not 2007.
Please accept the correction of the post.
Respectfully,
Anthony Canales
March 10th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Thanks, Anthony… sorry my spam filter doesn’t seem to like you very much. Links and such are generally blocked automatically, so I appreciate your letting me know that your posts didn’t appear.
As to your response to me, there’s a lot there that boils down to a couple of key things… at least for me.
First, I agree that the NRA is one of the best hopes we have of fighting the overall agenda of gun control advocates. I am a very strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and find it ridiculous that we’re so often under assault to defend something so basic as this civil right. I am a life member of the NRA, and totally support the overarching goal of this organization… but that doesn’t mean I can’t be critical of tactics. I am, and will remain that way.
I’m not going to spend a lot of time debating the press-release about “expanding the lead ammo ban”, because I’ve had my say on it before. It was misleading. Period.
This is not simply my opinion. I’ve read and listened to dozens of hunters suddenly up in arms under the false impression that release generated. When I explained it to them, or sent them to view the video of the meeting, most of them feel a little foolish.
Yes, we have at least two Comissioners, Rogers and Sutton, who I think would vote to expand the ban in a heartbeat. Yes, Sutton wanted to put something on the agenda prematurely. We need hunters and gun owners in this state to take them to task for that position. Unfortunately, when these guys jump on the phones and email only to be shot down because they have bad info (the FGC is not officially considering a statewide ban right now), then their motivation is seriously dampened. Getting them to get involved the next time will be that much harder. That’s why I have a problem with the approach.
We see this differently, and that’s what makes the world go ’round.
As far as packing the meetings, no, it didn’t work so great for the fishermen… but why not? What can we learn? We can flood that meeting with comment cards just like the Environmental groups did… even if we all donate our five minutes to the NRA and CRPA spokesmen to make our case. We should be flooding the email and voice mail boxes with the real voices of concerned hunters, but the messages should be clear, coherent, and correctly informed.
By the way, I have great respect for Dr Loft and most of the DFG staff. I know they would do the right thing if they could, but the way the FGC is set up, it really doesn’t give DFG much leeway. That’s a shame.
And Greg… I’m not ignoring your question by the way. Mr Canales here has raised some killer great issues and points, and it’s taking a lot of energy and thought to give them the response they deserve.
But what you might see is that he and I are coming at this from different spaces. He’s focused on shutting this issue down by challenging the science, and that’s an excellent and necessary approach. I agree with it, and support it.
However, there’s the other side, and I think this is what you’re seeing here… we should be taking a leadership role in the issue, but part of that leadership role is doing exactly what Canales and his compatriots are doing… researching the issue to build a factual case to contradict the allegations that lead bullets present the risk to the condors, the environment, or to humans.
At the same time, we need to look at what we can do should the facts actually support the allegations at any level(or should the facts become irrelevant due to political and public pressure).
What I’ve been trying to do is get people to start looking at the alternatives to an all-out lead ban, but also to consider the possibilities of switching ammo. For me, I made the personal choice to switch until the proof shows that there is no risk. It seemed like a proper, pro-active approach, not as some kind of “appeasement”.
For me, I don’t have a lot of hope that science is going to win out in this case. I am pretty certain that lead ammo will be banned across the country at some point in the relatively near future. We need to be thinking about how we can manage that change to our best benefit, rather than risk getting hit with an all-out and senseless ban like we got in CA.
The one thing I think Anthony, the NRA, and I all agree on is that hunters and gun owners should be involved, actively, in this discussion. We need to help ourselves, and not sit back and hope someone else does it for us.
March 10th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Phillip,
I appreciate the response and stewardship that both you and Anthony are showing in this matter. I think we all can agree on the fact that we (law abiding hunters) are under assault. The Center of Biological Diversity and other similar organizations are not interested in the welfare of the condor…least they would publically rescind their statements regarding the specious accusations of lead ammo impacts.
As you point out, both you and Anthony are working towards the same goal – essentially the lifting of this assault on hunting. I for one am very appreciative of this effort. Being a father who has two children who enjoy going out for what my non-hunting wife calls our weekend “drives” because of the number of times we haven’t taken any game, their future pursuit of this pastime most likely will be decided by this generation. So for both my daughter and son – I thank you again for your efforts.
I wonder what the response of those actively engaged in the undermining of hunting would be if the majority of hunters banded together to actively seek the undermining of the endangered species act or if we were to simply focus on the elimination of the condor from the wild (due in large part to its inherent cost to sustain in the wild)? I know that I’ll get a number of people saying that I’m providing ammo to the anti’s…but if hunting were to be significantly curtailed – why would we need any wildlife management?
Has anyone checked to see what type of impact the increased cost will have on the number of people who were thinking about going hunting? I imagine that if the cost were to continue to increase, that over time the population of hunters would decline. If there is a significant decline in the number of people hunting…could not the public expect a relational reduction in the amount of tax dollars being spent on wildlife management and studies?
Perhaps some strategy effecting Détente between the anti’s and the hunting community needs to be found if we’re going to continue to enjoy this pastime in any form. Hopefully between you and Anthony we’ll find that point where those who have no desire to partake of our pastime – do not feel obligated to force their opinions and feelings onto the society that we both have to share.
All my best…
March 11th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Dear Mr. Middleton,
You wrote:
“…I wonder what the response of those actively engaged in the undermining of hunting would be if the majority of hunters banded together to actively seek the undermining of the endangered species act or if we were to simply focus on the elimination of the condor from the wild (due in large part to its inherent cost to sustain in the wild)? I know that I’ll get a number of people saying that I’m providing ammo to the anti’s…but if hunting were to be significantly curtailed – why would we need any wildlife management?…”
I am fairly certain that the public wants some kind of Endangered Species Act. But it’s up to us, and folks like Mr. Loughton with their websites and me with my little electronic soapbox to “pass the word” on the downside in the ESA. It’s old legislation, and with all the experiences we have seen with failed recovery programs, and it should be safe to say it needs revision so as to improve recovery. But a campaign like that requires much education, moral suasion, and would most likely need both multiple and consecutive legislative cycles as well as a possible change in Congressional and Presidential orientation.
You wrote:
“…Has anyone checked to see what type of impact the increased cost will have on the number of people who were thinking about going hunting?…”
Yes, Walt Mansell of CRPA requested that information informally at the 2-5-2009 Fish & Game Commission Hearing. I am pretty certain that info will fall under the PRAR’s currently ricocheting around DFG right now. Just be prepared to remember that the preservationist crowd, along with environmentalists in general, usually discount negative cost impacts when they want a particular legislative or regulatory policy.
You wrote:
“…Perhaps some strategy effecting Détente between the anti’s and the hunting community needs to be found if we’re going to continue to enjoy this pastime in any form. Hopefully between you and Anthony we’ll find that point where those who have no desire to partake of our pastime – do not feel obligated to force their opinions and feelings onto the society that we both have to share….”
Personally, I am entirely more pessimistic than you on the thought of appeasement here. The two don’t seem to mix, just look at the ALF’s treatment of medical researchers at UCLA (terrorist firebombs, death threats, etc…) to see some of the passions on “their” side. And I am sure that we have passionate folks on our side (Though terrorism I have not yet seen evidence of. Dumb, yes. Terrorism, no. ).
Of course, there is always hope that Wayne Pacelle and the Boys at HSUS will join us for a turkey hunt or two. Cross your fingers.
Respectfully,
Anthony Canales
March 11th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Anthony,
I feel your pessimism also…seems as if our society rewards those who don’t play by the rules (or that deal in rationale debate and dialog). I’m sure that if the incremental approach toward squeezing out law abiding hunting were to be ultimately successful – there would be some in the anti crowd that would feel justified in their methods.
With this said…perhaps there needs to be some means to let the “other side” know that there will be a definitive cost for their antics. A game plan if you will, that includes the gutting of their scared cows. These folks have their pressure points and perhaps it is coming to the time that we need to invest some time and effort in identifying what would they regret losing the most.
As for the acts of civil disobedience…well wasn’t it Thomas Jefferson that said that the “As our enemies have found we can reason like men, so now let us show them we can fight like men also.”? I believe that if pushed into a corner, the anti’s will find that hunters are patient by nature and very goal oriented.
All my best…
March 11th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Anthony,
Thanks for all the information. It was very interesting to read through as I’ve been questioning this a lot lately. I also went through the links you provided. I appreciate the work you’re doing, however, I question whether the amounts of copper, tungsten etc. from bullets would be cause for concern. I understand copper is toxic at high levels, but I don’t think it is comparable to the toxicity of lead (probably the most studied toxic metal).
I recently met a professor from Canada that has been doing a lot of work with this. I asked him specifically if we were going to run into problems with non-lead bullets and shot being toxic to wildlife. He claimed that his research has shown nothing to worry about with these alternatives and gave me some of his recent publications. In these he looks primarily at sintered tungsten bronze shot. However, he also breaks down the “ingredients” to look at the possibility of the shot breaking down into the individual materials that make the alloy. I don’t have the links, but here’s the references I’m talking about:
-Thomas VG, McGill I. Dissolution of copper, tin, and iron from sintered tungsten-bronze shperes in a simulated avian gizzard, and an assesment of their potential toxicity to birds 2008. Sci Total Environ 2008;394:283-289.
-Thomas VG, Santore RC, McGill I. Release of copper from sintered tungsten-bronze shot under different pH conditions and its potential toxicity to aquatic organisms. Sci Total Environ 2007;15:147-60.
-”Given the conditions stipulated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, heavy loading from discharged tungsten-bronze shot would not pose a toxic risk to potable water, or to soil.”
-”It would appear that no toxic risks to aquatic organisms will attend the use of tungsten-bronze shot of the approved composition…It is expected that the use of this new material in these applications will not be associated with toxic risks to aquatic life.”
Thomas VG, et al. Assesment of the environmental toxicity and carcinogenicity of tungsten-based shot. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 2009, doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2009.01.001
-”Extremely heavy theoretical shot loadings of 69,000 shot/ha were used to generate estimated environmental concentrations (EEC) for two brands of tungsten-based shot containing 51% and 95% tungsten. The corresponding tungsten EEC values were far below the 1% toxic threshold. The same shot loading in water produced tungsten EEC values at levels that are not toxic under experimental conditions.”
-”Dosing rats’ drinking water with soluble tungsten salts under experimental conditions with amounts of tungsten far above the ‘worst-case’ aquatic EEC from shot has not led to tumor development.”
-”The use of tungsten in lead-free shot is not associated with environmental toxicity, even when such shot are present in soil and water at levels exceeding the heaviest known shot burdens.”
I confess that this is not my specific area of expertise, but I just thought you may be interested in these if you have not seen them. After switching to non-lead already (hunt in CA lead ban zone), I would hate to lose these other options. I just ask that you please be careful in arguing that these other alternatives are toxic.
At this point, I don’t think the issue is lead-bullets or lead-sinkers. I think the issue is lead. We know its toxic and I believe its much more of a problem than these other alternatives will be. Maybe you’re right and the actual risks are grossly exaggerated, but does it hurt to voluntarily switch?
March 11th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Anthony,
I also want to quick comment on your statement of only one condor dying of lead poisoning. I tend to think that stating the number of deaths from lead toxicosis is quite misleading when referring to these birds. I say this because they are monitored so closely that the biologists are able to monitor their blood lead levels quite closely and then treat those that need treatment (Whether these blood lead levels are actually coming from bullets seems to be a never ending debate).
I’m not sure what the exact number of emergency chelations is, but I seem to remember that AZ had to chelate 60% of their flock in 2006 or 2007. There is no easy way to calculate how many more dead condors that would amount to, but I think its safe to say that there would be more.
We also tend to only think of lethal doses of lead. Lead can effect coordination and could possibly lead to some of the power-line collisions and predations. I like to think of it like driving drunk. Think of a drunk driver that crashes into a tree and dies. He didn’t die of alcohol poisoning, however, the alcohol likely was the factor that led to the accident.
Again, I appreciate you’re work with the NRA, thank you. I’m sure we agree on more than we disagree on.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Jake,
You sound very knowledgeable on the physiology of the condor. By any chance do you have any data related to an analogous species (perhaps the common turkey vulture)?
The reason I’m asking, is that I wouldn’t be surprised to find that the condor is perhaps not capable of adaptation back into the wild (for a number of possible reasons). Its use as an indicator species would therefore be an inappropriate means of assessing the possible impacts of anthropological activity. If it wasn’t lead, it might be some other activity (let’s say disturbance by routine airline traffic).
I wonder if there has been any genetic testing of the condors, perhaps we’ll find that due to their limited genetic stock that they’re ultimately doomed to extinction regardless of how many tax dollars we throw at them. I think it would be very interesting to see if there was some correlation to another similar species – before we place all of our stock into a species that appears to be extremely fragile.
In regard to the data related to tungsten bronze shot, in addition to the ecological and toxicological assessments that have been completed to data are you knowledgeable of any economic studies of the forecasted cost differentials in not only the availability of the raw ores – but the retooling of the industry for these new ores to meet the current demand?
Also since we’re dealing with a rather abbreviated period of record for both the ecological and toxicological studies, do you know of any fate and degradation models that have been completed for the tungsten bronze alloys in the various environments that they might be introduced?
The problem with recommending any change based upon a single observance…is that one has no guarantee of a long term solution. I truly appreciate you contribution, I just wonder if by readily accepting a change to a tungsten bronze alloy – we don’t end up incrementally transitioning to ceramics in the long run (although the frangible rounds that I have used in the military are extremely efficient at close range).
All my best…
March 11th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Greg, I’m not going to pretend to expertise on the condor or the science, because I’m not. No bones there.
What I do know is that the condor isn’t being represented as an indicator species. It’s being utilized in this argument because of its status as an endangered species. The ESA provides a ton of leverage in the lawsuit filed against the State, because that status requires the State to make an extra effort to ensure that the birds aren’t being threatened by otherwise legal activities… no different from the spotted owl, when it comes down to it.
If they tried this with the “turkey buzzard”, it would have fallen flat before it ever got started. Sure, if hunters’ lead sickens condors, then it will likewise sicken other scavenger birds because they share the same digestive processes. In fact, there are many bird folks claiming that lead ammo is impacting crows, vultures, and even bald eagles.
I don’t doubt for a moment that there are many people with no interest beyond protecting the condor, but it’s pretty safe to say that an awful lot of the folks pushing this lead ban have jumped on the issue because the condor makes a really convenient rallying flag. Their intent has nothing to do with ecology. (Yeah, there’s my radical side coming out.)
As far as tungsten bullets, frangibles aren’t legal for hunting game animals in CA, and the majority of sintered tungsten bullets on the market today are frangible. I’ve used them in Texas, and the expansion is devastating, even at ranges in excess of 200 yards (the longest shot on that trip)… but I wouldn’t use them again for meat hunting. They are TOO devastating.
Just wanted to add… there are some significant questions about the environmental safety of tungsten as well. More to come on that…
This discussion is worthwhile, even if it does appear to be limited to this small handful of voices. Thanks to all.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Dear Jake,
Thanks for the new references, they appear to be very interesting in their defense of certain kinds of shot apparently suitable for waterfowl hunting, under limited dosage conditions.
You wrote:
“…I question whether the amounts of copper, tungsten etc. from bullets would be cause for concern. I understand copper is toxic at high levels, but I don’t think it is comparable to the toxicity of lead (probably the most studied toxic metal)….”
Here is the “rub” regarding the different metals, in that copper is more soluble in the acidic side of the avian gut than lead. I think Thomas and McGill are reporting in the first study you are referring that eight 3.48 mm alloy spheres dissolve totally in 14 days, pH of 2 and temperature of 42 Deg. C (107.6 F). While the 42 Deg. C temperature looks to be a bit high related to temperatures reported for such comparable birds as Griffon vultures (36.6-40.6 Deg C, Bahat, Chosniak, and Houston 1998; See http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Condor/files/issues/v100n01/p0168-p0171.pdf), the real issue seems to be more related to the narrow 9.47 grain dosage level (equivalent based on % weight dissolved) being measured in this particular study.
Centerfire Barnes Bullets made of copper with copper containing no more than 1% lead have considerably more copper than the eight spheres noted in Thomas and McGill’s first study you noted above. Popular weights for deer ammo alone are 130 grains and 150 grains (.270 Win and .30-06, respectively). The potential dosage from the ingestion of one bullet by a condor would be some 8,422.6-9,718.4 mg of Cu. The rate of dissolving is also is potentially and significantly quicker with copper in artificial stomach contents than a comparable quantity of lead, if one can read the implications from such researchers as Pattee. Of course, if one also takes into account the effect to riparian environments of copper as I had previously mentioned, then alternative threats are posed by copper-containing ammunition to other endangered species in the condor’s range.
In addition, Hopper Mountain reports three condor chick deaths in the Oct-Dec 2002 period where elevated copper levels were noted. The chicks from a mating of condors # 100/108 and condors # 107/122 were recorded where the only apparent (in the notes anyway) issues were “elevated” Cu levels. The chick from a mating of condor # 95/155 had elevated copper and a microtrash problem noted as the issues related to mortality. This is more hard data on mortality at Hopper than they have with lead ammunition.
The second Thomas/McGill study you site, dealing with the dissolution of copper, from a cursory review of the abstract only, seems to confirm the higher solubility rate in acidic environments of copper than lead. On top of that, the abstract does not discuss whether the bronze alloy combination used involves Zn (zinc), which is considered toxic to avians and is common in some bronze formulations. Obviously the same dosage issues apply, given the differences between the masses of all-copper centerfire slugs and bullets versus alloy duckshot not suitable for big game hunting.
As for tungsten, well that is a much scarier issue if one believes the Cape Cod Times, and apparently the state of Massachusetts. In a story by Amanda Leimert from December 17, 2006, she reports findings of tungsten toxicity (possible teratogenicity) from large scale first use of tungsten-nylon composite 5.56 mm military rounds. She reports that water measurements approximating 560 parts per billion were found under an applicable military shooting range, which was apparently enough for then Governor Mitt Romney to ban the use of this “nontoxic” bullet for National Guard training use.
Link at:
http://archive.capecodonline.com/special/tungsten/howtungsten17.htm
You wrote:
“…I confess that this is not my specific area of expertise, but I just thought you may be interested in these if you have not seen them. After switching to non-lead already (hunt in CA lead ban zone), I would hate to lose these other options. I just ask that you please be careful in arguing that these other alternatives are toxic…”
With all due respect, toxicity is not something that can be hidden from the environmentalist crowd, just because we don’t speak about it or try to shove reports into the circular file. If manufacturers stepped up with alternate materials for ammunition, touted them as “nontoxic”, but were then discovered to have “hidden” other aspects of toxicity from the public so that they conceivably could have been accused of launching a higher-priced product for “earnings” reasons, the manure will really hit the old reciprocating cooling device. But it will also leave hunters and shooters without a usable substitute for a significant amount of time.
You wrote:
“…At this point, I don’t think the issue is lead-bullets or lead-sinkers. I think the issue is lead. We know its toxic and I believe its much more of a problem than these other alternatives will be. Maybe you’re right and the actual risks are grossly exaggerated, but does it hurt to voluntarily switch?…”
“We” knew that MTBE was toxic too, yet regulators demanded that it be used as a substitute oxygenate in lieu of lead tetroxide in gasoline. Unfortunately, it’s extremely hard to strip from water, and now in turn has been banned to be replaced with ethanol. MTBE contamination is now a very serious problem in groundwater, reservoirs, and soils, all because folks did not study the whole problem thoroughly and openly. The result of that inaction led to increased costs to the public and the environment. I do not want to see that happen to hunters and shooters, simply because a corporate entity or two wants dominant market share. Given some of the total toxicity issues with the currently proposed substitutes, I am coming to believe that lead may be the best choice for ammunition after all.
Respectfully,
Anthony Canales
March 12th, 2009 at 12:57 am
Dear Jake,
You wrote:
“…I also want to quick comment on your statement of only one condor dying of lead poisoning. I tend to think that stating the number of deaths from lead toxicosis is quite misleading when referring to these birds. I say this because they are monitored so closely that the biologists are able to monitor their blood lead levels quite closely and then treat those that need treatment (Whether these blood lead levels are actually coming from bullets seems to be a never ending debate)…”
I must respectfully disagree with this, because it takes major staff and volunteer efforts and resources to accomplish only 1 annual blood measurement and any needed vaccinations per bird per year. 1-2 measurements using equipment that may or may not have been accurately calibrated (It has not yet been determined that the lead measurement program for condors is registered properly with the state of California, as is required for human blood measurement programs in clinics and hospitals.). Given that other kinds of illness or toxic effect can have similar outward appearances as lead toxicity, it is not yet known to the public as to what or how many “false positives” may have occurred as well.
As for my statement, it’s also the official staff statement from the Final Environmental Document from December 2007. There is direct attribution, and then there is suspicion based upon the staff’s citation of Risebrough (2005). Either way, and given the amounts of other forms of lead in the environment, it’s still a long way to say lead ammo is the culprit. From Page 20-
“…Based on these reviews, other data the Department is aware of, and expertise past and present, the Department has compiled the following summary statements that represent
what is believed to be factual information related to the lead, condor, and hunting issue:
• There is no direct evidence that hunter-killed big game, nongame birds, or nongame mammals resulted in the illness or death of a condor due to lead poisoning in California.
To date, no condors in California that have been observed feeding on gut piles or game carcasses believed to be hunter-killed, and perhaps believed to have lead fragments in
them, died as a result of feeding on such animals.
• The Department knows of one confirmed lead-related death in California (see Table 1, Appendix 3 of the Draft ED) in the 14+ years since releases began in 1992: condor #132, found dead in late January 2001. There are two cases for which lead toxicity “appears to have caused or contributed to the deaths” (Risebrough 2005): #175 died sometime before Nov 15, 1999, and #181 died in late September 2000). Another
California bird that died after treatment for acute lead toxicosis in June 2003 was determined to have died of visceral gout; in 2005, the Department had incorrectly
described this bird as a confirmed lead poisoning death. Ongoing lead analyses of condor deaths of unknown cause in California may yet reveal other instances of confirmed or suspected lead poisoning mortalities.
• The Department knows of two deaths of California condor (see Table 1, Appendix 3) in California where copper levels were considered high and possibly contributed to death;
additionally two other birds died with high levels of copper. The Department is of the understanding that copper is less toxic than lead, and copper bullets are less likely to
fragment than lead bullets, however, copper toxicity should be investigated further…”
Again here the DFG staff under Dr. Loft notes the copper issue. While much of the public presumably has not read the Final Environmental Document, be assured that the NRDC, CA Audubon, Center For Biodiversity, and the Humane Society have.
You wrote:
“…I’m not sure what the exact number of emergency chelations is, but I seem to remember that AZ had to chelate 60% of their flock in 2006 or 2007. There is no easy way to calculate how many more dead condors that would amount to, but I think its safe to say that there would be more….”
Given that Arizona has documented/claimed relative success with their voluntary “non-toxic” ammunition coupon program, with it’s implied reductions of the use of lead ammunition in the area around the Vermillion Cliffs and the Grand Canyon, one can have suspicions as to why any sudden increase of chelations took place. Given that there are less restrictions, and thus less liabilities when performing procedures on an experimental “10(j) flock”, and that chelation if not administered properly causes calcium and other critical metals loss, one also has suspicions as to the true health and success of the AZ-UT condors now that there is evidence of microtrash consumption with these birds as well.
You wrote:
“…We also tend to only think of lethal doses of lead. Lead can effect coordination and could possibly lead to some of the power-line collisions and predations. I like to think of it like driving drunk. Think of a drunk driver that crashes into a tree and dies. He didn’t die of alcohol poisoning, however, the alcohol likely was the factor that led to the accident….”
One of my key arguments to the Commission in June, July, August, and October of 2007 was that Fry had under-counted the various environmental exposures in condor country, while focusing on the Snyder hypothesis that lead ammunition is the only possible source. We presented information as to the potential ingestion of lead wheel weights, inhalation of soils containing lead salts, ingestion of water potentially contaminated with lead salts, and consumption of animals potentially exposed and containing bio-accumulated lead. And that’s just the lead threats in condor country. Other threats to condor recovery include the pesticide angle, the lack of biomass problem brought up by Dr. Loft and staff, the microtrash problem brought up by Dr. Mee, the behavioral problems noted throughout the program due to double-clutching the chicks limits the availability of wild mentor parents, inbreeding problems related to the 3 matriarchal lines/27 remaining wild birds “starting point”, population bottlenecks (not all the artificially bred traits are naturally viable ones), and a host of other problems. It is my contention that continued wild release of condors is actually a threat to their existence, let alone their recovery from Endangered status. I believe that the non-ammunition-related problems must be addressed first, before continuation of releases can go forward. Anything else threatens endangered birds, and is a violation of the Endangered Species Act.
I think all hunters and shooters can join on this issue, at a very minimum by education and learning about this issue thoroughly enough to dispel the “junk” side of this debate from the right side. No one wants to be snookered into paying more for a bad fix, and I know no hunter that wants to be disarmed over faux science.
Respectfully,
Anthony Canales
March 12th, 2009 at 1:43 am
Phillip,
Thanks again for the rational reasoned response. I guess my question then is “if the initial lawsuit was brought on the basis of the “potential” impact to the identified species – then it wouldn’t it stand to reason that we would see the same or similar impact to other species demonstrating similar characteristics or habits”. In absence of this impact wouldn’t we have to return to the species of concern itself and determine if there was some other factor (say genetic defect perhaps) that was causing the potential impact?
Those involved in the return of the condor have quite a bit a stake also, which could potentially bias their objectivity. If it were found that the animal had an inherent genetic defect that precluded its potential for success – then it stands to reason that more than a few people would be in need of finding a new occupation (not the most enjoyable thought I imagine in these economic times). The simple causal relationship developed in the condor and lead ammo discussion has me more than a little curious as to how it was determined that lead ammo was the prime culprit in sickening the animal. Common sense leads me to believe that since turkey buzzards are more likely to come across the carcass of an animal having been unsuccessfully harvested by a hunter, they due to their lower body mass index would be even more susceptible to lead poisoning. Also common sense leads me to believe that for the animal to ingest that amount of lead…there must be a large number of hunters who are routinely not claiming their animals (something that is illegal I believe and would merit further investigation by the CDF&G).
Now if I were tasked with the monitoring of the condor’s welfare, I would want to know the specific source the potential impact to condor. In that lead ammo has been identified as the prime suspect, my simple question is “where is the collaborating evidence”? So far I have only heard of the studies related to the condor, leading me to suspect either; the reports are valid and lead ammo is the culprit, the animal potentially has a genetic flaw and is therefore not viable for potentially a number of reasons, and/or the researchers are potentially biased and capable of coloring their data to protect a special interest.
In light of the information I have at this time – I would tend to believe the animal is genetically flawed and not capable of viability (low number of initial genetic stock). As such, it would be very convenient to have an anthropological issue to hide the animal’s flaws behind, to extend its doomed attempt at re-introduction. Enter the lead ammo issue based upon anecdotal evidence gathered from the waterfowl studies. No matter that the linkage is extremely weak. In effect the lead ammo debate provides a convenient smoke screen to hide behind for an extended period of time until some other rationale can be found why the animal isn’t viable.
Meanwhile the focus is currently on the lead ammo. This rather convenient don’t you think? Unless one is wholeheartedly invested in finding an alternative to lead ammo – they can be branded an uncaring despoiler of the environment and an enemy of the poor species of concern. This strikes me as poor science at best and possible criminal fraud at the extreme. Can we find alternatives to lead ammo…of course we can. It may cost more to manufacture and potentially have other issues that over time will manifest themselves. Speaking of other potential issues, have there been any studies related to the suggested alloy replacements? The reason I asked is purely personal. During the recent conflicts in the Middle East a number of my buddies reported suffering from physical symptoms they thought might have to do with our using depleted uranium (DU) rounds. Although subsequent studies have been inconclusive, a number of the guys thought cycling a high volume of the DU rounds through the small arms we were using possibly had some lingering health issues. The reason I bring this up, is where we have a long history in regard to lead ammo health effects…I’m not so sure we have all the data in regarding the various alloy rounds that have been forwarded up. I’d hate for the potential cure of one problem (condor mortality) to result in another more severe problem (hunter mortality).
Ultimately this debate will continue. While I find it interesting on an intellectual level, I hope the same level of academic scrutiny will be applied to all sides of the debate. I for one would say lets set the stakes at: if lead is found to be the culprit – then by all means lets phase it out, if it is the condor – then let us save our limited financial resources for more deserving species and return the remaining members of the flock to the safety of a controlled environment and be done with them, and if it is the researchers coloring the data – then let society strip them of any and all professional credentials and take the necessary steps to ensure that they never practice in the field of any science again (since publically horsewhipping them might be thought extreme).
All my best…
March 12th, 2009 at 4:31 am
Anthony,
Thanks for the response. I appreciate any new information I can look at. I’ll never know everything about anything. I will definitely be thinking about all that you’ve had to say.
Greg,
Thanks for bringing up some interesting questions. I’ve got some preliminary thoughts, but I want to double check some stuff before I throw out false information. I’ll look into those things and hopefully get back to you soon.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Ok, so now that some of the facts are out on the table for discussion, here’s a reality check for everyone to think about.
All metals are toxic in high enough concentrations to almost all living things, some more than others. Even oxygen and water are toxic in high enough concentrations and under the right conditions. But water and oxygen are needed to sustain life, as well as traces of most elemental metals. It’s the conditions and their concentrations that are important, along with their solubility. In fact, some are far more soluble than lead and far more detrimental. If we don’t know the pitfalls of the alternatives we are truly hiding our heads in the sand. Remember some folks are walking around with bullets in their bodies because it’s safer than removal and most have few if any problems associated with that other than the discomfort of the physical occlusion in direct approximation to the bullet.
So what we should take note of is that lead may be one of the more stable metals, with relatively fewer side effects for making bullets out of. Some other metals have far greater problems that may have been overlooked by the “experts”. If we decide to give in to those who would ban a substance without clear, convincing and compelling scientific evidence that there are better alternatives, we WILL lose our ability to hunt, target shoot or use our firearms outside of a hi-tech indoor ranges.
Having been raised in a family machine shop and having a good understanding of metals, I can tell you there are problems with almost ANY metal that I can think of that are at all suitable for projectiles. Lead actually has fewer problems than most other metals. Its stability at temperatures and Ph are pretty good when compared to other metals. One of the few exceptions would be gold or platinum, and I hardly think anyone but the greenies would want us to be shooting gold or platinum bullets. Of course fouling would be a new adventure, and then the other metals used to alloy, to make it hard enough, could still have leaching problems. Lead is just todays issue.
Bottom line is, if we are willing to simply give this up without a huge fight and with real science, we will have lost the entire war, not just the battle. Those who are so concerned about the environment that they would ban lead without proof will not stop there. If you think they will, you aren’t paying attention to what they are saying and doing. Spend a little time reading their blogs and see for yourself. They are incrementally attempting to stop all hunting & fishing. And just like with the Brady’s, they will not stop until they get rid of everyone’s firearms. It matters not what you think about their motives, what matters is what they do and not what they say in hearings or to the cameras. They have no desire or plan to tell the whole truth because they “believe” they have a righteous cause, with a kind of religious fervor. Facts are not material to their overall goals. If they have to prevaricate to achieve their goals, they are okay with that. Just like the Gorebal warming crowd, don’t let the facts or anyone’s Rights get in the way. The goal is bigger than individuals or their individual Rights. Conservation of species, in this case the “California Condor”, is only a means to an end.
The information on genetic viability of the captive raised condors is not available anywhere that I can find either. So I am suspect that the condors that are being released may not even be “California Condors” but some sort of hybrids. I also question how if captive raised salmon, trout and steelhead are not counted, by court order, when consideration for endangered species populations goes into courts, how is that California Condors get a pass on those rulings? I don’t know the answer, nor have I heard anyone ask it. In a “perfect” world could the species be viable again? Isn’t it fair to ask and get answers to those questions too? They certainly seem as important in scientific terms as the questions over a better bullet material.
March 13th, 2009 at 5:52 am
Alex,
I think you’re correct in your characterization of the “battle ultimately going to those who maintain the momentum”. It is for this reason that I think that it is important that rather than just to respond to the issue of whether lead ammo is specifically responsible for an impact to a listed species…that the hunting community should consider expanding its response to include the animal in question.
I also don’t think that by politely debating the issue that we fully understand the tactics of the CBD or their ultimate strategy. They can make a baseless accusation and if it is found out to be without merit…they move on to the next baseless issue until they find one that provides them with some traction.
By changing the focus of the response to include a challenge to whether the condor is in fact even a viable species meriting coverage by the ESA…we now provide a very significant paradigm shift to those involved in the community inclusive of the CBD. The more they throw the condor out as indicative of the lead ammo impact…the more those in the hunting community could challenge whether the condor is in fact an actual unique species worthy of protection. If it is found that the animal is either not genetically capable of re-establishing itself in the wild (or if it was hybrid) then the argument could be made that no level of protection would be sufficient to allow for its re-establishment and that it would be cost effect and humane to take the remaining animals out of the wild and return them to a controlled environment.
I found your comment of the condor possibly being a hybrid a fascinating twist. With genetic engineering being what it is today, I imagine it would be possible to genetically engineer additional condors on massive scale. With the amount of money that has spent on trying to re-introduce the current population into the wild…I wonder if it wouldn’t be more cost effective to just genetically engineer ten thousand or so of the animal and save the money we’ve been spending on tracking them. Over a period of time an established population of the animals would potentially evolve to the point where there wouldn’t need to be any additional discussion as to there viability.
You know that this concept would be pure blasphemy to the community in which the members of the CBD are included. I imagine that if pushed hard enough…they may want to have a long talk with the “Mensa members” that came up with the “nifty” idea of making a baseless charge in identifying lead ammo as the basis of the condor mortality.
I should conclude that I’ve got nothing personally against the condor…but since it’s a pretty easy target for attack, I don’t think we should overlook it. There has to be a price for academic laziness and scientific fraud…and if it turns out to be the condor, so be it. We in the hunting community didn’t start the fight – but we might be able establish the ground rules for this and future engagements.
All my best…
March 14th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Your are Great. And so is your site! Awesome content. Good job guys! Interesting article, adding it to my favourites!
March 21st, 2009 at 4:45 pm
[...] survivallady.com » Could You Prepare In 24 Hours?Kentucky Politics Blog » Blog Archive » State of the Commonwealth by Governor Steve L.BeshearThe FAQ « Les StroudExistensis » Blog Archive » Some thoughts on responsibility- Let’s have a dialogue.The Hoplophobes | Reason for Liberty Lead Ban Chronicles – A minor manifesto? – The Hog Blog – The Hog Hunting Blog [...]
May 20th, 2009 at 6:56 am
[...] Lead Ban Chronicles – A minor manifesto? – The Hog Blog – The Hog … [...]
November 8th, 2009 at 7:15 pm