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.

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.

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.