Lead Ban Chronicles – CA Lead Ammo Ban Updates from Fish and Game Commission
Before I even start, I really want to say that for all the griping that we do about the State of California’s government, they’ve got some things right. By putting the Fish and Game Commission meetings on video, and providing them immediately through the Internet, they enable interested constituents (like me) to catch up on the events first-hand… to hear the commentary from the horse’s mouths, so to speak.
And when it comes to the Lead Ammo Ban issue, trust me, you don’t want to rely on the information being passed along by the NRA, NSSF, any more than you want to rely on the messages from the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of Wildlife, or Action for Animals. The propaganda is overwhelming, and the slanted interpretation is hard to overcome without your own decoder ring.
So after saying all of that, be aware that what I’m gonna provide is my own interpretation of what I saw, and it is filtered through my own set of biases. I’ll try to be level and fair, but you really should review this stuff for yourself and form your own opinions. You can see the all on the Cal-Span website: http://www.cal-span.org/cgi-bin/media.pl?folder=CFG
First the factual stuff:
The meetings from June 24 and 25 had two key lead ammo issues on the agenda. The first, on June 24, was a report on the blood-lead levels of condors during 2008. This report is required as part of the lead ban law, AB821, and should enable the FGC, the legislature, and the condor advocates to see the results of the lead ban.
Dr. Eric Loft of the DFG Wildlife Branch presented the report findings, but buried his comments in disclaimers. To begin with, the report apparently had to be wrangled out of the hands of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, since they are the actual lead on Condor recovery. Without benefit of having collected the data internally, Loft was careful to point out that the DFG did not perform their own analysis of the findings, and relied instead on the USFWS analysis.
I haven’t seen all of the actual data myself, but from what I saw in Dr. Loft’s presentation, the information is pretty sketchy. The testing was irregular, and the sample sizes were very small. While there appears to be an overall reduction in the amount of lead found in the birds after the lead ban was enacted (June 30, 2008), it’s hard to make any kind of valid statistical determination as to cause and effect. In f act, Loft himself stated that the information is not conclusive of a cause and effect relationship. The source of lead is assumed (hunters’ ammunition), but not known.
The official position of the CA DFG is that it is too early to tell if the regulations are having an impact (which pretty well sums up what I expected).
The bright side is that this initial report provides a baseline for the following reports. There was a lot of discussion about how best to get accurate and consistent data for the next round of reporting, and how to work with the USFWS to get the information in a more timely manner. You can read the report as approved by the Commission on the FGC website.
The second agenda item had to do with the proposal to expand the lead ammo ban to include small game. There are actually two options in the proposal. The first, in essence, is to expand the ban to native small game mammals, which would cover tree squirrels, rabbits, and hares. The second option goes a step further to include all upland game, to include birds as well as mammals. The third, unlisted option, is to make no changes. Here are the options as they’re listed on the FGC website.
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
Doug Updike of the DFG Wildlife Branch opened the discussion with the DFG’s recommendation to make no changes, based on the lack of compelling data. Updike noted the reports introduced in the earlier agenda item, and also earlier discussions to the effect that there is no solid information on the condor’s feeding habits that would link small or upland game to condor lead toxicity.
Common sense, right? Then why is it that folks, including Commissioner Michael Sutton, insist that the lead ban needs to be expanded, not only to small game, but across the entire state? You can listen to the audio yourself, but what I’m hearing is, “who cares if there’s an actual connection between the ammo and the death of the condors, I just want to make this grand gesture that really won’t impact me anyway.”
It’s like he didn’t listen to any of the previous discussion… either the report data, the arguments put forth during public comment periods, or the recommendations of the Department of Fish and Game. This isn’t about his personal opinion. The lead ban decisions impact a lot of folks, including many who are far more dedicated hunters and shooters and far less economically stable than any of the commissioners. Regulations have to be based on some kind of compelling rationale, not simply some elitist opinion.
Speaking of the public comment, I picked up on an interesting trend amongst the NRA and California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) speakers. Walt Manzelle of the CRPA asked for the Commission to include the “big picture” in all reports released to the public. For example, when listing the causes of condor mortality, the issues of microtrash, electrical wires, and other sources should be included. This made sense to me, since the focus on lead toxicity makes it seem as though the only threat to condors is lead ammo. There are a lot of issues out there.
They also asked the Commission to work with them to provide all of the raw data. This will enable independent research. It’s another idea I kind of liked. Unfortunately, I’m pretty sure that any results coming from the NRA or CRPA will be met with pretty extreme skepticism from the non-hunting public. Even so, it would be interesting to see what they come up with.
A good bit of the public comment was also pretty ignorant, including that from a few folks I really thought should know better. One example is ex-Commissioner, Judd Hanna. For those who don’t remember, Hanna was the Commissioner who was forced to “step down”, allegedly due to pressure from the NRA. Hanna held the belief that the lead ban is simply “the right thing to do”, and I generally agreed with him on principle. Unfortunately, he’s also bought into the idea that the lead ban doesn’t represent any kind of significant hardship on hunters. Despite his claim that he’s a hunter too, he showed his true colors with the following statement. “If it takes a box of ammunition to fill your deer tag, you ought not to be hunting.”
In order for a hunter to make those clean kills, he needs to practice. I know all hunters don’t shoot hundreds of rounds per year at the range, but many shoot at least a box or two… at least they did until a box of ammo started costing close to $50. A lot of hunters are going to give up that range time before they quit hunting, and that’s a shame.
Among the commenters was attorney Shaun Brady. Brady didn’t say exactly who he represented, but he addressed something I’ve wondered about… the state’s requirements that any regulation must meet certain criteria. Before a regulation can be enacted,the State must show “necessity”, especially if the regulation will have a negative financial impact on the State, business, or private individuals. Brady argued (rightly I think) that this requirement was never met in the first place, and isn’t being addressed in the proposed regulation changes either. Of course the words “law suit” were never mentioned, but I can see where groundwork could be put in place. And as much as I hate a lot of the litigiousness in our culture, maybe that is the answer.
Which brings up one other thing… don’t ever forget that the whole lead ban came about as a result of a lawsuit against the State. It was never about the FGC “doing the right thing”… it was about avoiding a costly court battle.
There was a lot more worthy of comment in the meeting, but I’ve already wandered all over the place. Bottom line is that the DFG has recommended against making any changes to the current lead ban regulations. The report was inconclusive, and didn’t really offer any kind of indication that the lead ban was or was not working. The proposed regulation changes will be determined at the August 5-6 FGC meeting, which will be held again at the Yolo Flier’s Club in Woodland. See the agenda and further information at the FGC website.
Excellent write-up, Phillip. I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the lead ban and you hit the key point I’ve been thinking about – yes, you shouldn’t need more than a couple bullets or shells to kill many, many game animals (excluding, of course, the high-limit, fast-flying birds). But you do need a ton of them to practice and stay sharp. I’m awfully selective about how much I practice with my rifle, which is sighted in for copper, because each shot costs so damn much.
July 8th, 2009 at 4:35 am
Thanks, Holly. I spent a lot of time trying to get this thing into some kind of manageable form, because there was an awful lot going on at that meeting which I really wanted to comment on. I may yet write up a follow-up to this first post.
A couple of other key points…
Even given that many hunters don’t spend hours and hundreds of rounds at the range per season, the argument that “it only takes one bullet” falls apart when it comes to small game or varmints. It’s not at all unusual for a ground squirrel shoot to run through hundreds of rounds in a single day.
Of course, folks like commissioners Sutton and Rogers who pretend to be knowledgeable hunters should know this… but it’s pretty obvious that they’re as clueless as the animal rights folks who spoke. This doesn’t seem to stop them from pushing for policy based on their poorly informed opinions, of course.
Another point…
The entire discussion about the regulation changes hinges on small game, which are generally hunted with rimfires and shotguns. Certainly, there are plenty of non-toxic shotgun loads available, but for rimfire shooters, the list of available options is extremely limited. Despite the ridiculous insistence by Commissioner Rogers and some others that “.22 non-lead ammo is readily available”, the facts are quite different.
True enough, two manufacturers now make .22 magnum ammo with non-lead bullets (although general availability is still limited, as anyone who has tried to order it has found), but there is absolutely nothing available for the far more common .22 long-rifle.
Herb Bauer, owner of one of the largest sporting goods stores in the condor zone, spoke to this during the public comment period, saying that he has yet to recieve ANY .22LR non-lead ammo at his store. Which, of course, would make sense since none is available for anyone… even gun and hunting writers.
I recently contacted my own source for Winchester ammo (I’ve been waiting for a test batch of non-lead .22LR) and was told that release has been delayed until at least late August… and that’s just to get review samples. You can count on several more months after that before the ammo might truly be “readily available”.
As of right now, I have yet to hear so much as a solid rumor about the release of non-lead versions of .17 rimfire ammo (HMR, Mach2, etc.), another wildly popular small game and varmint caliber.
And that’s not all…
July 8th, 2009 at 7:29 am
[...] This post was Twitted by shustonphotos [...]
July 8th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Great post! I’m particularly drawn to this:
“Regulations have to be based on some kind of compelling rationale, not simply some elitist opinion.”
I believe that this is a stronger legal case than the “necessity” argument, which takes a line from the Legislature to prove, and, due to the listed status of condors, is going to be pretty easy to show.
However, your comment goes to the “arbitrary and capricious” argument, stemming from our right to substantive as well as procedural due process. The government can’t, willy-nilly, restrict our actions; it must prove cause.
As for the science around lead in condors, I think the study samples will always be too small for scientists, but managers still have to make management decisions, and uncomfortably small sample sizes are the nature of endangered species management. I would LOVE to see the NRA and CRPA help fund studies of the effects of other pollution on condors and in habitat, in general – perhaps a dollar-for-dollar match between them and CBD? That way, it won’t look like they are just trying to throw up road blocks (which they are). One place where the science can really help is in understanding foraging habits of condors vis a vis shot small game. My biggest concern is over varmint hunters leaving ground squirrel carcasses, as I’d expect tree squirrels and rabbits to be eaten. But, a lot of guys plink ground squirrels – do condors then eat ‘em?
July 8th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Josh,
The ESA protections for the condor are certainly the grounds on which the lawsuit against the State was founded. If it can be proven that hunters’ ammunition is a true threat to the birds’ survival, then the “necessity” is proven and that’s all that’s required. (Keep in mind that I DO believe there’s a plausible connection, by the way… I’m not personally disputing it.)
Mr. Brady’s argument is that such a connection has not been proven, and that the State acted inappropriately in setting the initial ban (that ban was set in place by the legislature, not the FGC, by the way). Expanding the ban to small game and/or upland game makes that even worse, especially given that there’s no real evidence that small game (or small varmints) are typically eaten by condors. With the exception of an anecdotal reference, there’s no record that condors eat small game carcasses in the wild. Traditionally they feed on megafauna carcasses, although of course they’d be opportunistic. But they’d have to beat the ravens, crows, and four-legged scavengers (including other ground squirrels) to the feast… which isn’t particularly likely.
The connection to ground squirrels and lead toxicity in condors is purely hypothetical. That the rimfire ammunition usually used to shoot them is largely unavailable in non-lead materials is a fact. Unfortunately, the other fact is that the lead ban already applies to varmints, so they’re really not part of the picture right now. As Holly has pointed out several times, once that train leaves the station, it’s highly unlikely that we’ll see it called back.
All that said, I totally agree that I’d like to see the NRA and other involved organizations publicly involved in funding and carrying out research to prove or disprove the lead ammo risk. I’ve mentioned this before, of course. I know that the NRA and some others are involved in collecting their own data and research, but there’s an appearance of false motives, especially given the propagandistic slant of their public relations documents (press releases, news “blasts”, “action alerts”, etc.).
July 8th, 2009 at 10:43 am
A couple of things I’ve been wondering about. Has anyone actually figured out how much of the average condors diet is made up of animals killed by firearms? I would think only a very small percent given the limits of when the seasons fall and other then gut piles most hunter kills are removed. If it is like around here the vultures feed more on road killed animals and old aged and diseased critters. I can’t see small game being a significant amount of their diet either.
Non lead rifle ammo has that seen the same sharp increase regular ammo has over the past 10 months or so? Rifle ammo here is risen 30 to 40% in cost and availability can be difficult. I was walking through Wally World the other day and saw they had 3 boxes of 243 ammo so I bought with taxes and all it was almost $20 dollars a box last year it was $14 a box. If it has then it will make it harder for some to keep their shooting skills up.
Lastly I think that is great CA is putting the meetings on line. I wish NC would do that as well.
July 10th, 2009 at 5:31 am
Good questions, Moose.
What you’re asking really drives to one of the key issues around this whole lead ban, and the fact is that nobody really knows the answer. Traditionally, the condor fed on dead megafauna, large animals such as elk, whales, sea lions, and deer. Of course, elk were almost eradicated from the state, and due to coastal development, dead sea mammals are not allowed to lay around and “stink up” the beach.
The American Ornithologists’ Union released a report on the condor suggesting that sport hunters are a necessary part of the equation for the survival of condors in the wild, particularly if the plan is to stop feeding them at feed platforms. The implication is that they must find a lot of food from hunters’ leavings.
You have to keep in mind that in CA the hunting seasons never end. Folks are in the field year-round out here, shooting deer in season, but hunting pigs all year long. Ranchers and farmers are killing them on depredation permits as well. Varmint shooters are also at it all year long, although there’s still a big question about just how many varmint carcasses the condors actually eat.
As far as ammo prices, the components for bullets have all escalated significantly. Copper, brass, and lead costs are high, and availability is limited, which is not a good sign for the budget-conscious hunter right now. I think the increase in the cost of non-lead ammo has been a little more moderate because the industry is starting to ramp up production, but it is still increasing.
Thanks for dropping by, Moose. I’ve been watching your coverage of the NC WRC meetings back home. Looks like “interesting times” for everyone these days.
July 10th, 2009 at 7:38 am
[...] As many Hog Blog readers know, this meeting is supposed to address the lead ammo ban. At stake is whether or not the Commission will expand the ban to include small game and upland birds in the “Condor Zone”. Two of the Commissioners, Dan Richards and Jim Kellogg are fairly practical about the expansion and appear to support taking no action. The other two, however, Richard Rogers and Michael Sutton are clearly in favor of expanding the ban. Sutton has even gone so far as to push the idea of expanding the ban statewide. Unless things have changed recently, that leaves an even split on the issue. [...]
August 4th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Excellent summary; very well written.
My concern about the condor question was that the sample size is so small that it is difficult, if not impossible, to draw any definite conclusion. I also want to know (1)what part of a condor’s diet consists of shot gut piles, (2) how much lead is in a typical gutpile, and (3) how much of this has to be consumed by a condor in order for it to be affected. If FGC does not have the answers to these quetions then I think any regulations concerning lead ammunition is premature. They don’t seem to want to do the hard research that is necesary when pontificating is so much easier.
September 6th, 2009 at 3:32 pm