Lead Ban Chronicles – Lead Ammo Back On CA Fish and Game Commission Agenda
June 24-25. Get it on your calendar! The CA Fish and Game Commission is meeting in Woodlands, CA on these dates, and high on the agenda are two key topics.
First, there is supposed to be a report on the levels of lead found in the CA condor since the lead ammo ban was enacted. While I have my doubts as to the statistical significance of data collected so far, I’d be real interested in hearing what they do have to say, particularly since the two sick condors were found earlier this spring and winter. Of course, this case will be blamed on someone who broke the law, but watch and see if it isn’t used by at least a couple of commissioners to justify the expansion of the lead ban to include upland birds and small game.
And that’s the second hot topic… proposed regulation changes that will bring small game and upland birds under the lead ammo ban. Why? Are condors eating tree-squirrel gut piles, or feasting on the remains of hunters’ quail? Not bloody likely. Then what is the purpose of the expansion to a bill that is specifically intended to protect the California condor?
Here’s a look at what the proposed regulations say.
From the proposed regulations change announcement:
The existing regulations provide for methods to be used to take small game, including rabbits, squirrels and resident upland game birds. Traditionally, projectiles (bullets) containing lead and lead shot have been used. The regulation changes proposed as options would require non-lead projectiles for resident small game hunting in the geographic area determined by the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) to reduce risk of indirect lead toxicity to free-ranging California condors. Lead-alternative projectiles are considered effective for hunting and are not considered to be toxic to the California condor.
The proposal will allow the Commission to consider whether to establish that it is unlawful to possess any projectile containing lead in excess of the amount permitted and a firearm, pellet gun, or air rifle capable of firing the projectile while taking or attempting to take resident small game.
The proposed rulemaking is intended to provide the Commission with two options to consider in addition to the recommended “no change” option:
Option #1: establish that it is unlawful to possess any projectile containing lead in excess of the amount permitted and a firearm, pellet gun, or air rifle capable of firing the projectile while taking or attempting to take jackrabbits, varying hares, cottontail rabbits, brush rabbits, pigmy rabbits, and tree squirrels within the area described in 3004.5 of the Fish and Game Code; or
Option #2: establish that it is unlawful to possess any projectile containing lead in excess of the amount permitted and a firearm, pellet gun, or air rifle capable of firing the projectile while taking or attempting to take any resident small game species (the same species as in #1, plus resident game bird species) as defined in Title 14, CCR, Section 257, within the area described in 3004.5 of the Fish and Game Code.
The following species would be included in Option #2:
- jackrabbits and varying hares (genus Lepus);
- cottontail rabbits, brush rabbits, pigmy rabbits (genus Sylvilagus);
- tree squirrels (genus Sciurus and Tamiasciurus);
- Chinese spotted doves, Eurasian collared-doves, ringed turtle-doves, of the family Columbidae;
- California quail and varieties thereof;
- Gambel’s or desert quail;
- mountain quail or varieties thereof;
- blue grouse and varieties thereof;
- ruffed grouse, sage grouse (sage hens), white tailed ptarmigan;
- Hungarian partridges, red-legged partridges, including the chukar and other varieties;
- Ring-necked pheasants and varieties
- Wild turkeys of the order Galliformes
You can view or download the entire proposal at the CA Fish and Game Commission site.
The opportunity to comment at the Commission meeting is passing (although if you can attend, it would be great to show some solidarity), but you can comment on the proposed regulations change until August 3. Please take the time to send your comments to the commission. Let them know that you disagree with the expansion of the lead ban because there’s no evidence at all that lead used for small game and upland birds presents any risk to condors. The expansion places undue burden on hunters, due to the cost and lack of availability of lead-free ammo for many small game rifles. In your letter, demand that objective, scientific proof be provided prior to any expansion of the lead ammo ban.
It would be helpful as well to send comments to the Governor, since he’s the only “boss” the Fish and Game Commission reports to. Remember that the Commission has no accountability to the citizens of the state. No matter how much you disagree with them, they are not elected officials. Let the Governor know that some of the Commissioners, particularly Rogers and Sutton, are pushing their personal agenda without due consideration of the facts or science, and that, as a voter, you’re fed up with the misrepresentation.
I doubt we’re going to turn the lead ban around, but it’s time to take a solid stance and work toward sensible legislation. Get busy, and take an active role in the process… because the process will certainly have an active role in the future of our sport.
I thought that lead was banned from all rifles in the zone, which is why people were upset at the .22 stuff (only mags. have the non-lead option).
Although I fall just slightly on the other side of this issue from you, I don’t think it is good governance to use language protecting condors in banning lead. It sounds like it probably wouldn’t stand up to a charge of “arbitrary and capricious” in court.
June 22nd, 2009 at 11:33 am
[...] Hog Blog takes a pretty detailed look at California’s proposed extension on the lead ammunition ban. It doesn’t look good. And that’s the second hot topic… proposed regulation changes [...]
June 22nd, 2009 at 11:38 am
Hey Josh,
As of right now, only ammo used for big game and non-game (coyotes, ground squirrels, crows, bobcats, etc.) is prohibited in the condor zone. Game animals such as tree squirrels and rabbits can be shot with lead bullets or shot.
The proposed law extends the ban to include all hunting within the zone. I know we don’t all see eye-to-eye on the ban or the need for it, but this takes it way beyond what the original law was meant to do. To me, this exposes the agenda of organizations who are only using the condor as a rallying flag.
One of the things that really gets me is the eagerness with which Commissioners Rogers and Sutton are embracing the expansion (Sutton was pushing to get a vote way back in the winter), despite the absolute lack of rationale. It makes no sense.
The other thing that chafes my butt is the detail at the end of the Proposed Regulation Change document (http://www.fgc.ca.gov/regulations/new/2009/311_1ntc.pdf), Impact of Regulatory Action, claiming that the change will have nominal effect on business or individuals.
June 22nd, 2009 at 11:50 am
Thanks for the clarification. As a proponent of good governance, I am going to support your position on this particular case.
I really do think it is important for government to meet a substantive burden of proof when limiting something, and that it must go through a substantive and extensive process before it can implement such a restriction. That is one reason why I am a big fan of laws like NEPA and CEQA, because they define processes and they make clear the requirement of facts.
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:24 pm
[...] could take a trip out to California and get an update on the lead ban. I’m sure Phillip would let us fling a few rounds of non-lead ammunition, and let us get a [...]
June 24th, 2009 at 5:20 am
[...] Lead Ban Chronicles – Lead Ammo Back On CA Fish and Game … [...]
June 28th, 2009 at 5:38 am