Lead Ban Chronicles – AB 2223 Killed In Committee
I haven’t heard a lot lately on AB2223, the proposal to ban lead shot on CA Wildlife Areas. I suppose that’s partly because I’ve been as busy as a one-legged man in an ass kicking contest, but also because the issue has been relatively quiet. Most folks in-the-know were confident that this bill would be defeated, and it turns out that they were right!
Yesterday’s article in the Redding Record-Searchlight sums it up about as well as anyone can:
A bill that would have banned hunters from using lead shot on state wildlife areas has been killed in committee.
The Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee rejected AB 2223 last week. The bill would have banned lead shotgun shells on state Wildlife Management Areas.
There are 667,000 acres in the Department of Fish and Game-managed network of wildlife areas, including a handful in the north state.
This should be cause for a breath of relief, but the lead ammo battle is probably not over yet. Stay vigilant.
Speaking of vigilance, CA hunters and shooters should be aware of other things going on in the Legislature right now (besides not having a budget approved).
On June 29, the Senate Public Safety Committee approved AB 1810, which would require registration of rifles and shotguns so that a database can be kept for law enforcement purposes. It would be similar to the way handguns currently are tracked.
The bill, authored by Assemblyman Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles, passed the Assembly last month on a party-line vote.
AB 1810 will next be heard in Senate Appropriations Committee in August before moving to the Senate floor for final approval. The governor also would need to sign the bill before it could become law.
This is a plain and simple attempt to create a database of gun owners, which many gun rights advocates believe is a violation of Constitutional protections. A lot of people may not recall that certain firearms registration schemes passed in Los Angeles several years back, and were almost immediately followed-up by law enforcement searches of private homes (to verify that the individuals actually possessed the firearms they had just registered?). At risk of sounding paranoid, this scenario could easily play out again on a state-wide basis.
A more realistic concern about this bill is that such databases and registration schemes do nothing to prevent or reduce crime. What it will do is add yet another administrative cost to the State’s already stressed budget. Some of this cost will also be passed to gun dealers, who’ll in turn pass it along to the buyers. I can see a couple of outcomes here… and neither is positive for California hunters and shooters.
First, the added expense and hassle will curtail gun buying. This will hurt businesses, and we’ll see even more gun shops close their doors. As the costs go up and convenience/availability go down, we’ll see less people coming into the hunting community. This will particularly apply to folks who don’t come from a strong hunting and shooting tradition in the first place. Why jump through all those hoops?
Also, I can see an increase in illegal gun transactions. I have no doubt it goes on now, but as it becomes more of a pain (not to mention an intrusion of your privacy) to buy a gun legally, folks will buy and sell in personal transactions… the law be damned. Is it a good excuse for breaking the law? Of course not. But don’t tell me it won’t happen. The more The People get fed up with legislation and taxation, the more they will find ways to evade it.
Anyway, as always, the best thing any of us can do is be involved. Contact lawmakers and elected officials. Keep it constructive and respectful, no matter how angry you may be.
That’s about as close as I intend to get on a Second Amendment or political rant on this blog, but that doesn’t mean the issues aren’t important.
Crap! I knew about this when it happened (AB 2223), and completely forgot to pass it along!
My humble advice to the hunting community: Run offense, right bleeping now. Get to a centrist Democrat, and provide him/her with a bill that would begin research into whatever impacts are occurring on these wildlife areas, with reports by five years. Show them that we care about these lands, we want to improve them, and we want to know what/how they are being impacted.
This will keep coming back, and the only way to know the right course of action is to know the facts. This is worth our time and some of our money – and if we don’t carry it, somebody will.
July 6th, 2010 at 11:10 am
Good point, Josh!
Re the long-gun registry, we face a predictable outcome: The Legislature will pass it; Schwarzenegger will veto it.
The scarier prospect is what happens when Jerry Brown takes office (because that’s a predictable outcome too). It may be that legislators are willing to pass the bill this year knowing Arnold will veto it – that’s a game they love to play – and that they’ll find a way to quietly kill it when there’s no guarantee of a gubernatorial veto. But who knows.
I may disagree with you on one thing, though, Phillip: I think new hunters and shooters won’t necessarily shy from buying guns because of this, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it edged them toward activism. When you don’t own guns, it’s easy to assume the gun laws just affect nutcases and criminals, but when you find your own personal self, a law-abiding citizen, caught in the same snare, it tends to piss you off.
July 6th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
What Joshua needs to know is that the National Rifle Association, CRPA, and a large group of hunters are already researching the science related to environmental lead in California and other locales. Hunters do not need to spend additional time or money best spent on habitat improvement.
So far, our efforts on the lead shot ban in 2009, and now these “prelims” on AB 2223, have borne fruit. I hope to see additional success in the future.
July 6th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Holly, I wish I had your confidence in the “predictable outcomes”, but I swear that the more I think I have it figured out, the less I really know. You have a much better feel for the pulse of the political beastie, though, so maybe you’re right.
Same goes for your optimism for the new hunters. I hope they’re as dauntless as you believe. The sport and the community could sure use it.
July 6th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Tony, with all due respect, I disagree. We need third party research into this issue, not the NRA. In fact, I’d recommend staying very far away from the NRA over the science, because they are dedicated to (and should be) the rights of gun owners, not habitat protections. If they found that lead, without a doubt, impacted bird populations, would they believe that protecting birds is more important than protecting the 2nd Amendment?
Besides, my recommendation is to do scientific research into all possible pollutants on these lands, not just lead. There is a bigger picture here, a love for these places, that we are missing when we start getting scared over one issue. We love these places, and we want to see them treated right; yet, there is very little monitoring going on over the types of pollutants that impact these lands.
To the general public, it ain’t about lead, and it ain’t about guns. It’s about a toxin. So, encourage research into the toxins impacting our lands, and by doing so show the public that we love these places more than anybody, and we are ready and willing to treat them right, and fight for their conservation.
July 6th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Joshua,
What we have already found, and are proving, is that other sources of environmental lead are the more likely culprit in adversely effecting wildlife like condors. No other group but one led by NRA was able to muster a large enough group of volunteers and scientists to tackle the job and defeat a “conventional wisdom” based upon a false premise.
As far as research towards other pollutants, NRA presentations have demonstrated evidence of biosolids contamination, continuing evidence of DDE adversely affecting condor reproduction, endocrine disruptors adversely affecting waterheds where hunting takes place (think of The Pill here…), and the adverse effects of domestic bird feeders and waterbaths on migratory game bird populations (trichomoniaisis).
I know, because elements of these have been in any one of the number of presentations done by myself or others working in conjuction with the NRA, CRPA and COHA.
I can tell you now that it is “wishful” thinking by some that this NRA-led coalition will back down after what it has accomplished so far. Facts are stubborn things, and I can assure you that they will continue to be utilized to defend ALL the shooting sports, hunting included.
Tony
July 6th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Josh’s point, if I understand correctly, is that we need third-party research because research by the NRA will be viewed by the liberal majority as biased – whether it is or not.
Tony, since you seem like you were involved in these efforts, could you tell us what made Lois Wolk change her mind?
July 6th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Dear “Norcal Cazadora”,
The science and the raw data was presented to Senator Wolk in a clear and concise manner demonstrating that condor blood lead levels were up despite AB 821. No decrease in PbB can be seen in the raw data for 2009. That is perhaps why Dr. Loft could not find any “cause and effect” relationship between lead ammunition and the enactment of AB 821 two years in a row, and said as much in his report. In this case, Senator Wolks listened, and acted accordingly.
Part of this success is related to the furnishing of raw data, including condor blood lead measurements taken by the various partners. This data accompanied the presentations noting data manipulation by the Condor Partners as well. This is raw data that the Department (Dr. Loft) said was not being provided by the Condor Recovery Team to the Department, as required in the Memorandum of Understanding dated from August 2006.
The presentation to Senator Wolk was essentially the same presentation material that can be seen on the video archive for the Commission Hearing on June 23, though it was not constrained to the 3 minute limit as the Commission needs to conduct business.
Should you see the video, please notice how Commissioner Sutton declined to ask any questions regarding the presentation on the 23rd, despite having his own harcopy of the presentations and binders in front of him as provided to each Commissioner separately by our effort. I personally found that very interesting, given the amount of time that I had prepared to be ready for his questions beforehand.
As for there being a “Liberal Majority”, I personally believe that to be an unsupported premise statewide. Given voter demographics even in the Central Valley, I would perhaps argue that things are not as liberal as presented in the media. But perhaps that debate remains for another day.
In any effect, if our reports and documents survive peer review, as they have in the past and will most likely in the future, facts produced by the NRA-led coalition will survive scrutiny no matter the “Hear-No-Evil” proclivities of the radical opposition here. Facts are stubborn things, after all. And this won’t be the first time NRA and it’s allies have gone about trying to change “conventional wisdom”. I like to think it is something we have some small experience with.
Tony
July 6th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Dear “Tony” –
The media did not make up voter registration statistics, which as of this spring gave us a voter make-up of 44.49 percent Democrat and 30.8 percent Republican. Decline-to-states are 20.17, but it would be wrong to assume that they’re all conservative, boosting the Republicans to the majority position.
Nor did the media make up the more important statistic in this case, which is the balance of the Legislature, which is overwhelmingly Democratic (50 Dems to 28 Reps and 1 Independent in the Assembly; 25 Dems to 14 Reps in the Senate).
But it is interesting that Sen. Wolk was swayed by condor data on a bill that isn’t ostensibly about condors.
July 6th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Tony, I’m going to be frank with you here. You obviously have a passion for the issue, and you are obviously putting a lot of time into it. That’s wonderful.
Now, listen to some folks who have experience in applying this to the political sphere. You need to tone down for the mass audience, you need to understand their general inclinations and their ignorances, and especially the things about which they care deeply. This isn’t a liberal conspiracy, it’s a democratic republic, which means the popular view is very important to understand.
I take it from your comments that you don’t seem to care as much about habitat impacts as you do about protecting lead as a projectile for guns. This is not a put-down on my part, it’s an observation. If I, a pro-hunting advocate, don’t think you have habitat in mind when you go looking into these issues, then you’d better believe that a typical non-hunting person will see even less of a connection.
There is a lot of evidence for lead ingestion impacting wildlife, it is the vector that is disputed. Since you agree with me, then step up with me and call for a third-party research into pollution impacts on wildlife.
To make my NRA point: Has the NRA written and pitched a bill restricting the use of endocrine disruptors, or at least regulated their disposal to a better degree? Has it even offered a bill which would direct DFG or Cal/EPA to find the vector for the endocrine disruptors into the habitat? Did NRA start this research on its own, prior to the lead ban proposals, or did it only do so when lead ammo became threatened?
We all really know the answers to these, because it’s written in the mission statement for the NRA… which is why we need to get a third party in here.
It’s not about egos among the advocates, or at least it shouldn’t be. It should be about getting good, solid habitat protections.
July 6th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Dear “Norcal Cazadora”,
I believe that, despite the various registration statistics that should be subject to a “cull” over “deadwood” registrations, I believe personally it is incorrect to assume that all Democrats are of the liberal side of the political spectrum.
There can be center-right Democrats interested in immigration regulations and lower taxes on businesses just as much as there can be “progressive” Democrats interested in deconstructing the current system. I know, because I have run into more than a few at a variety of venues. There is more than one Victor Davis Hanson out there.
As for why the condor data may have had an impact with Senator Wolk despite AB 2223 not having anything to do with the condor, all of us following the various committee presentations by Assemblyman Nava noted his active promotion of his experiences related to the condor and AB 821 as part of his “campaign”. Since Assemblyman Nava brought up the issue, it was appropriate to bring out the raw data related to the subject to rebut his claims.
Respectfully,
Tony
July 7th, 2010 at 7:52 am
Interesting discussion, and thanks for having it. Good points all around.
For those who don’t know, Tony has been involved in this issue for quite some time, and his efforts (in concert with several other folks) have produced some pretty compelling evidence to counter the claims that lead ammo is the leading cause of lead toxicity in condors. It’s a focused effort, and really doesn’t expand into the other areas Josh points out… but I’d argue that it doesn’t need to.
Tony and I haven’t always seen eye-to-eye on the best approach to counter the lead ammo ban, but we do both agree that something should be done, and he’s definitely burning up the boot leather (and databases) to make something happen. It’s a VERY worthwhile endeavor.
I do agree, to a point, with what Holly and Josh are saying regarding the PR considerations of having the NRA linked to the “fact finding” efforts. I am no expert, but I think I have a general understanding of the theatre of public opinion… certainly enough to realize that yes, a lot of people will view any “facts” provided by the NRA or other gun rights organizations with a certain level of distrust. It does create an uphill battle.
BUT…
There is a certain point beyond which you cannot choose your allies. The NRA has resources, and combined with CRPA and COHA, they create a pretty powerful coalition for hunters. We asked for someone take our cause, and they did so. Nobody else is doing the research. No one else even has the funds for this kind of work. Seriously, who else is stepping up to the plate on this one? The bullpen is empty, folks.
When this whole thing started up, I was pretty vocal in calling for some solid science and facts to either support or debunk the question of lead ammo’s effects, and to prove or disprove the suggestion that banning lead ammo would stop the poisoning of condors. I’m pretty sure I wasn’t alone.
I would have preferred a totally impartial inquest, but that hasn’t been forthcoming. Like so many other issues (every other issue?), this one has become polarized and political. There are two opposing factions offering contradictory arguments. Each comes from a background of bias, and neither trusts the other. And, honestly, any “third party” would be just as suspect because someone, somewhere, has to be funding the research and providing the researchers.
Those of us in the middle are stuck in a position of weakness, because honestly, how many of us have the background knowledge in blood chemistry, toxicology, physiology, etc. to argue with any authority that one side or the other is “right”? Put away the perception of bias (both “sides” are biased.. duh), and consider the data that’s being presented. This is what we ask our elected representatives to do every day, right?
The fact that the NRA has a narrow perspective doesn’t discount the information they’re presenting. No, they don’t pretend to be interested in offering environmental or ecological solutions to the bigger problem. That’s neither their role nor their intent. They’re not an environmentalist organization.
It’s also not the question on the table right now, and right here. AB821 never was about “good, solid habitat protections,” and really, neither was AB2223. Neither bill addresses the bigger picture, nor were they meant to.
The question at hand is whether or not lead ammo is truly as culpable for the demise of the condors as some people have argued. This is what the NRA/CRPA/COHA coalition is trying to settle. Is the ban, which is arguably a hardship on some hunters, really providing the benefit it promised? If not, is it worth maintaining? And, at the very least, does the science support an expansion (apparently, the F&G Commission and the CA Legislature think not)?
July 7th, 2010 at 8:04 am
I would like to add that AB2223 isn’t about condors in the least. By the author’s own remarks (a lame-duck author who just lost a statewide primary, btw), it’s about mourning doves and raptors.
I would be thrilled to see even the tiniest bit of data about the numbers of lead-poisoned raptors and doves being found in California anywhere near hunting areas. Despite the fact that I, personally, am a softie who has switched to non-lead just in case, we need to remember that decisions about game animals and hunting in this state are supposed to be based on effects on an entire species, not individual impacts. To do that, we need to know how an entire species is being affected.
Anecdotally, I think it’s safe to say the species in question in the case of AB2223 are thriving. Mourning doves are ridiculously abundant. Bald eagles made a comeback from the endangered species list even as hunters continued using lead shot and lead bullets outside of waterfowl hunting.
I think the state needs to 1) commission a study about the real and known impacts of lead ammunition on Cali WMAs, which is harder and more expensive than wagging a finger and saying “no” to lead; 2) if it wants to move away from lead ammo, it needs to start developing a system of incentives and persuasion campaigns, which is also harder and more expensive than saying “no.”
July 7th, 2010 at 8:25 am
Dear Joshua,
With all due respect, I feel that I must take exception to your comments about “ignorances” among the public, especially in a system such as our republic where debate is the lifeblood of a free system. In the various political campaigns that I have volunteered for, I have seen actual voters study the issues, tackle diverse opinions, and make logical decisions as part of the public governance process. It is only when information is “withheld” from the public that decisions can become skewed. I would prefer that the voters have a complete set of the information relevant to all but perhaps certain issues of national security related to covert operations and statecraft. Even here, this last can be partially addressed by release to the historians in some future “document dump”. It is my strong belief that voters and the public can “figure things out” for themselves when such information is available.
It is also the right of anyone to stand on a soapbox and make his or her arguments as to why something is supportable or unsupportable. If you present the argument with substantiation, possibly even revealing new information previously hidden from public knowledge, causes can be advanced and people can make better decisions based upon more complete information. People and groups can join in if the case has been properly made, making even more impact on the debate’s final results.
Your “lead vector” argument is interesting, in that we made the argument that the Condor Recovery Team was overlooking more significant sources of lead poisoning in the environment to condors and wildlife since at least the Special Hearing on condors and blood lead in August 2007. Even as Dr. Fry himself noted the different ingestion and inhalation pathways of the various forms of lead in his 2003 study (just before he “retired” and moved on to a second career as a lobbyist), his sole focus on ingestion of a relatively insoluble form of metallic lead was criticized even by the Department on a number of key factors. His “reluctance” to address other forms of lead that can be ingested, or even any of the more prevalent inhalation models, is also an item of note.
After reviewing a significant portion of data previously withheld from the public, it is my belief that evidence exists that will show that the case made against lead ammunition over the past decades has been well overstated. Like false criminal convictions in courts of law, I believe that with the proper amount of information being brought to the surface the situation can be remediated, possibly even “rolled back” significantly.
Regarding habitat, let me ask you this- What makes you think that the NRA or the other allies working on the condor and state wildlife area issue do not have, or had not had, influence on habitat legislation past and present? Surely someone of your political experience knows how these groups have an effect on legislation, and that many times it’s not advertised in neon as to their input into the introduction or modification of proposed legislation? Personally, I think you are in error as to what interests the NRA and the other partners.
Specific to vectors for endocrine disruptors, it’s clear that quite a number of activities or sources contribute to measurements of these in effluent or ground runoff water. The question is, will the public take kindly to legislation that bans endocrine disruptors in urban effluent given claims that a primary source is synthetic estrogen used in birth control (Actually, one of the Condor Scientists has contributed to that line of research…). Can you tell me what other groups would join a coalition campaign to end the use of The Pill, or at least have a “zero discharge” rule apply to estrogen residues from residential and commercial property? The plating industry got hammered in California over zero discharge rules, so there is plenty of precedent for it. And that doesn’t count the other sources I believe you are familiar with, such as pesticides and those hormones used in livestock production.
Lastly, third party research on lead or any other contaminant is the province of that third party. I believe that a hard look at all the raw data available on the condor/lead issue, or the ammunition claims of made by the USFWS campaign to ban lead ammunition needs to be reviewed. For my purposes, the more the merrier, especially if it means that the Condor Recovery Team “gives it up” on all the taxpayer funded data and records related to the program. But I see nothing in your arguments that would cause me to recommend that NRA and it’s allies to let others do the research for them. So far, all that has produced in the past was the current situation. In other words, “…When you want something done right, do it yourself…
Respectfully,
Tony
July 7th, 2010 at 9:34 am
If this turns into something about habitat first, impacts on the wild first, then hunters will come out of this looking golden. Right now, the vast majority of people neither know nor care about this issue, but if we took this to the next level, and raised the pollution issue, we would play up our virtues to the public and mitigate the impacts caused by our apparent desire to continue to use a toxin (whether or not that is even true).
As hunters, we need to have a desire to minimize our negative impacts, and we need to let the world know about it. The NRA will drop this issue the second it sees that it no longer impacts ammunition. I’m okay with that, because that is what’s important to them.
But if COHA doesn’t see the vital importance, coupled with the political efficacy, of taking this fight to the broader realm of pollutants in our own places where we hunt and feed our families, or at the very least along the lines of what Cazadora mentioned here regarding lead (a danged good idea), then they are letting OPP (other people’s politics) influence their decisionmaking process.
Like I said, I commend Tony on his time in this fight. But, he should really consider that he comes across caustic to even his allies. He should play up his strengths, and look for others in his camp to play the PR role.
I do have one question: If the NRA found that, indeed, lead from ammunition had been impacting condors, or that it is impacting particular species like rough-legged and ferruginous hawks (when’s the last time you saw one of those?), would they actively support a lead ammunition ban in places where this is happening? And if they did, how long do you think they’d last as an organization? It isn’t even their political polarity that puts into question their position, it is a clear-eyed understanding of how they simply must behave over this issue if they want to survive as an institution.
The research funding stream could easily be taken care of. First, there are tons of private companies that write EIR’s and EIS’s for major companies and agencies. Pay them 1:1 between organizations like Center for Biological Diversity and EDF, and COHA and NRA. The peer-review process provides an additional layer of protection.
I’m willing to bet that EDF would love a bi-partisan call for field research into pollutants.
As an economist, I’m tickled pink over some regional bans on lead ammunition. I only shoot non-lead when hunting, and I want options! The major ammo. manufacturers are seriously dragging their feet, but even a small ban in condor country brought out myriad new non-lead alternatives. Also, one can now buy steel shot for the same price as lead. In this case, I believe the market will solve for price and alternatives, but it will only do so if we push them as consumers. With their oligopoly, that becomes nigh-impossible beyond regulation.
July 7th, 2010 at 9:50 am
Tony, I posted my earlier comment before reading your comment.
Many people assume “ignorance” means “stupidity”. It does not; it means “a lack of information”. The general public does have a lack of information about this issue. I agree with the education process.
As for groups looking to control endocrine disruptors… many, many organizations would support zero discharge rules on the environmentalist side, absolutely yes.
I am not in error as to what impacts the NRA. I’m still waiting for COHA to come out with some strong language calling for public money into researching pollutant impacts on public hunting grounds, much less in allying themselves with air and water quality controls, climate change issues, etc.
Your last comment illustrates my point about the NRA in the issue. What is “right”? Is it proper science, or is it a conclusion that lead should be allowed because it should be protected by the 2nd Amendment? I understand the latter argument from the NRA’s perspective, and I think they would find themselves in a heap of trouble with their members if they supported a lead ban because of its impacts on wildlife. That’s not to say that every staffer at NRA doesn’t want to protect wildlife; just that they couldn’t come out with that position.
July 7th, 2010 at 10:04 am
I personally believe that Joshua is mistaken about the mitigation of negative impacts line of reasoning because it is precluded by the very definitions of sustainable use and sustainable use policy as currently configured.
Current sustainable use policy would only allow hunting AFTER natural predator-prey relationships were “restored” AND after it was “scientifically determined” that there was an additional surplus that could be hunted without harm to the involved species. For those years in which populations had declined past the sustainable use threshold, there would be no hunting nor revenues for wildlife habitat related to hunting licenses, ammo sales, etc (Pittman-Robertson). If predator populations expanded to take advantage of a “boom cycle”, then hunting would have to take a back seat once again (Think Montana or Idaho on the wolf issue).
You can’t produce a mitigation of negative impacts without eventually confronting this definitional problem, this “Catch 22″ built into the system right now. Sustainable use definitions and policies will need to be changed over the long run with more education and debate, and the funding needed by the Department to deal with the studies needed here should not disappear down the General Funding rathole like it has been over the past years.
Related to “nontoxic ammunition”, the definition is a non sequitur because tungsten, copper, plated steels, and even the non-plated steels will lead to conditions that are already precluded by law, or closely restricted by regulation.
For example, the Condor Recovery Team knows, and has discussed, the toxicity of copper behind the scenes. Copper has lead to condor mortalities. And they intend to address this issue once the lead issue is resolved.
Likewise the National Park Service, a condor partner, has banned the use of tungsten ammunition by it’s personnel since 2006.
In both ammunition type examples, we have produced public documents demonstrating the above facts.
In my personal opinion, it is about an ammunition ban, though an incremental one designed to paint hunters and shooters into a corner. This kind of ammunition ban trend adversely effects all hunters and all shooters, not just some subset cut out of the herd.
Put it this way, and given that you all know how assembled ammunition components work, and what they contain, and that Sierra Club today is asking for a bans on lead ammunition and lead shot today at CalEPA, how can it not be about banning ammunition?
Respectfully,
Tony
July 7th, 2010 at 10:20 am
Tony, I understand your position, and the fear of a slippery slope.
However, you are unfortunately proving my point. You are not concerned about the potential for toxicity (since you start by saying that we can never mitigate negative impacts), you are concerned about the impacts to the 2nd Amendment. That is understandable, commendable even. But by bringing out that argument, you seriously weaken your position vis a vis research into toxicity, because you would be hard-pressed to support a ban for the reason of toxicity. You also leave the realm of hunting, which requires healthy habitats, first.
Also, current sustainable use policy obviously does allow hunting, so I have no idea where you are going with this. Your definition leaves out humans as members of the system, as we have been for millenia here. You assume that we are automatically a misplaced, negative impact by our mere presence. This is untrue.
It looks like you are trying to define what you believe to be the environmentalist position on the political left to such an extreme position that you undermine your own ability to find common ground. It’s better to let others define themselves, and then work from that definition, than it is to try to frame debate by defining your opponent. At the very least, you then know what you are up against, instead of fooling yourself into believing what “they” are.
If you are trying to define me by this comment, then you’ve definitely barked up the wrong tree.
July 7th, 2010 at 10:47 am
Josh, don’t get me wrong here, but I think you’re barking up the wrong tree. The issue isn’t now, nor has it been, about large-scale habitat protection, pollution, or conservation. You can’t turn it into that now… especially not now.
It’s a narrow battle with a narrow focus… the impact of spent lead ammo on wildlife.
You’re not likely to find NRA, COHA, or anyone else out there in the hunting and shooting community rallying to kick off a new Earth Day movement. It’s been done, and that front is being carried by other hunting and conservation organizations such as DU, CWA, and others (although I think COHA has been involved in some water and habitat quality fights), in addition to environmentalist organizations (to which many hunters belong).
All that said…
I do, by the way, share your question about what would happen if the NRA’s researchers discovered a very direct and significant correlation between spent lead ammo and poisoning of condors and other scavengers. I’ve become much too cynical to have high hopes of a positive outcome there… despite the damage that would do to the credibility of the organization should any attempt at deception be uncovered.
I guess that’s the biggest reason that the NRA’s involvement here has given me pause. I’d like to have that blind faith, but I can’t quite get there.
July 7th, 2010 at 10:54 am
Phillip, if we as hunters don’t push groups like COHA into that realm, we will relegate ourselves to these continuing, tiny little battles that get us nowhere good. All we get are bad media representations because, let’s face it, we are rallying around something that most people understand to be toxic to ingest.
That’s one reason why I think we should move this from the narrow focus to a broader conversation. If it is true that lead shot and bullets don’t harm the environment, and at the same time we are shown to be stewards of these places to a huge degree because we live and eat these places, we can re-start a movement older than Earth Day and for which many urbanites hunger, but don’t know it.
For Nava, this was about habitat first. Then, he thought, “where can I have a win on habitat that helps propel my career?” Neither of these are bad things in and of themselves. The poor numbers of hunters, but even more so the political polarity they offer in fights like this (losing fights most of the time in California), lead politicians to pick on them. One of the most common terms used in the Capitol is “low-hanging fruit.” They get good shock media value, and more often result in a win for the restriction, or at least a re-election.
As long as we consider ourselves either too elite or too fatalistically small, we will keep fighting these narrow fights. Right now, we have a huge win. Where will we take it? To the F&G Commission, to squabble about soluble vs. non-soluble? Or, will we take it to the opposition, and show them that this is a worthwhile, important exercise not just for those who now practice it, but for many more? And, it comes with a desire to see healthy habitat?
I think it’s time to move beyond our little fight, and improve habitat while we do it.
July 7th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Amen.
July 7th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Josh, moving this from a narrow focus to a broader stage isn’t an option. Whatever debate there is (and I’d argue that there’s been as much or more here on this blog than there ever was in Sacramento) is focused on a single idea… that banning lead ammo will keep spent lead bullets from killing condors and other unintentional targets.
In this case, the focus needs to stay narrow. At this point, it’s a discussion that will be settled in the details. The emotional, rabble-rousing stage is past and will serve no good purpose except to further confuse things.
Sure, it’s a kind of big deal that AB2223 got defeated, but it’s not that big a deal. And I would argue that the reason we got that win was largely due to the narrow efforts of Tony and Co. to provide data and detail to the commission, DFG, and legislature. They focused on the science, and were able to show that the data used to justify the lead ammo ban was faulty and unreliable. That dent in the anti-lead faction’s credibility may have been enough to sway the decision against expanding the lead ammo ban.
The lead ban discussion has, by the way, sparked those other conversations you mention. A lot of hunters have stood up to say that going lead-free is the “right thing to do,” because they don’t want to be responsible for unintended mortality (scavengers, etc.). A lot of people have been educated about potential risks of lead ammo, and some are acting on that knowledge. Let’s not forget that.
As far as pushing COHA to do more habitat/environmental work, I’m not opposed to that. I get your point there. But again, that has nothing whatsoever to do with their part in killing AB2223. It’s really a whole, different topic. I don’t see why you think the two are intrinsically tied.
July 7th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
I hate to disagree with you on this Phillip (OK, that’s a lie, you know I love duking it out w/you
, but I think Josh makes an important point: that it’s time for HUNTERS to step forward in this arena, not just at our duck dinners, and tell lawmakers that the health of our habitat and wildlife is important to us, and we want our public policy decisions to be driven by science and fact, not emotion.
The fact is, the Legislature won’t do anything that costs money anyway. But it’s important for us to show we care, because we’ve spent several years now, as a group, making the public think we care more about cheap ammo than about the potential that toxins we deposit might be damaging the overall health of some species out there.
Notice, Mr. Canales, that I said “the potential” – I am perfectly content to let science drive here.
July 7th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
I don’t think we disagree at all, Holly. At least not on that point. And I KNOW we agree on the point that we want science driving wildlife management, rather than emotion.
I think what’s getting me stuck here is that hunters (or at least hunters’ organizations) absolutely ARE showing that we care about wildlife and conservation. I don’t think that challenging the science behind the lead ammo ban discounts any of that, although of course some people would like to paint it that way. But those people are going to paint any negative picture they can come up with anyway.
July 7th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Phillip, I see the two intrinsically tied because I’m closer to the other side in this than most folks. And what the other side is concerned about are toxins.
I think we’ve gotten lost in the woods over lead. We peruse and sort and test and retest a known toxin, specifically in regards to its impacts on habitats. Then, when we claim that the science is faulty or unreliable, we believe we’ve “won”.
However, after we take off our reading glasses and look around at the room, we notice that many people are looking at us funny, or even with astonishment… because really, what have we won? We feel proud that we’ve found and magnified chinks in the science, but society-at-large generally sees us merely trying to justify a toxin in the habitat, and besides, animals continue to be impacted by some toxin. Later, when we run around saying, “we practice conservation! We love nature!” we get some really incredulous looks.
This is why we need to honestly understand what the bigger picture is for the public: pollution. That’s all this is about to them, and to many politicians. Is this a pollutant, and if it is, where is it coming from? Last, politicians ask, “how/why should I put political capital on the line for getting rid of it?”
As for “disproving” science, I’ll say this: When I argued with Yosemite’s science chief over whether social science was, indeed, a science (I’m a social scientist, she’s a botanist, but she was the one saying it was a science), she said, effectively, “Look: When a study shows a 70% accuracy rate, scientists run around like we won the lottery. The scientific method isn’t math.” It’s not difficult to find irregularities and such in research.
I’m not suggesting we throw science or peer-review out the window. I am saying that it’s an order of magnitude easier to find fault with particulars in research than it is to gather, analyze, and report new data. What we are lacking about these wildlife areas is the latter; we simply do not have the data on what pollutants are there, and, as importantly, where they originate.
What we need to show is that we care about negative impacts first, and we are willing to put our own negative impacts on the line. I’m guaranteeing you we will find industrial impacts and sprawl will make hunting impacts look like an ant on Everest.
If you’ve ever seen the movie, “Serenity”, we are the rag-tag little ship. If we pull in the big dogs to fight each other, we’ll get away… and the message we send out can change many hearts and minds.
July 8th, 2010 at 8:18 am
Josh, I don’t disagree with your ideas here, but I just don’t get why you’ve delivered such a negative reaction to the work done by the NRA/COHA/CRPA coalition on the lead research.
First of all, I believe that it is an entirely valid effort to prove that a law (the lead ban in this case) was at least partially driven by poor science and misleading information. If Canales and Co. can do this by presenting facts and exposing inaccuracies in the previous research, and that’s ALL they’re trying to do to the best of my knowledge, then it is a victory. They may not overturn the law, but they can help to prevent unwarranted expansion of it.
So yes. We’ve won that battle (AB2223). Not the war. No one thinks we won the war. Only the battle. I don’t think anyone is planning to kick back on their laurels and call it good. There are more fights coming.
I think I’ve been pretty clear all along, in saying that we need to do more than simply resist the ammo ban, but we need to learn more about the impacts of lead ammo and find a sensible way to mitigate them. That probably means an eventual move away from lead ammo. I’m also sure that I’m not the only one who’s been saying that. There are people like yourself and Holly all over the country, not just in the Condor zone, who are taking a different look at their choices of ammunition and making voluntary changes as a result. The groundswell is already rolling, even if it doesn’t have a lot of momentum behind it.
As far as expanding the discussion beyond lead, well that’s a fine idea too. I say, “go for it!”
What you’re proposing in most of the preceding comments is nothing short of a great PR ploy. And in truth, it’s a grand idea. A little fantastical, in my opinion, but certainly grand. But it’s nothing new. Hunters have been doing exactly what you describe through conservation organizations for decades. DU, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Quail Unlimited, etc. are all out there trying to do good things for habitat, wildlife, and the environment… and to garner good PR for the sport and sportsmen.
Is it enough? Is it everything to everyone? Of course not. But the number of sportsmen involved in these organizations, both actively and financially, contradicts your implication (or others’ perceptions) that hunters are not publicly demonstrating concern and consideration for the environment.
With that in mind, I’m not sure that creating a “Woodsy the owl”, anti-pollution organization led by hunters is really going to make that big of a difference on the public opinion scale. Sure, it can’t hurt, and don’t let my opinion be the one to stop you trying.
July 8th, 2010 at 10:00 am
I see your points – both of you.
Yes, hunters do enormous conservation work. And every single time we bring it up, the public notes that we do it in self-interest, which is largely true, though that does not preclude our pride and pleasure in contributing to a healthy habitat that supports all species. But we must be honest.
In the context of this particular debate, I don’t believe the public sees any of the things we do to protect, preserve and restore habitat. They see us complaining that our ammo is being taken away. Even my arguments seem callous: I think it’s ok to keep poisoning animals as long as the overall impacts on their species are not problematic. So I see Josh’s point that our arguments within this debate must be focused on the greater health of the habitat. And I think we MUST be willing to say that if the science demonstrates a real problem, we will act accordingly – “accordingly” not meaning we will immediately attack the science. I think some of us are saying that, but I don’t think that message is being heard by the non-hunting public.
On a side note, I think in the time we’ve spent typing these arguments, we definitely could’ve driven to a central location, done some target shooting and then gone out for beers that would facilitate arguing in person. We could’ve videotaped the debate so you’d still have blog fodder (blodder?). Just a cheerful thought…
July 8th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
You’re right, Holly. We MUST be honest.
And honestly, I don’t think the general public or even the majority of hunters are actually paying any attention, whatsoever, to this debate anymore.
Sure, there was big noise when AB821 went through (noise that was a day late and a dollar short), and a lot of folks said some pretty regrettable things. But that furor has died, and I’d be willing to bet that you couldn’t find five people off the street outside of the hunting/environmental community who even know what the issues are. Hell, for that matter, I doubt you’d find two informed people if you took the question east of the Four-Corners.
Let’s keep this in perspective.
For a little more honesty, I believe most of us ARE perfectly willing to say, “hey, if my spent bullets or shot pellets kill a few mourning doves, ravens, or even a couple of bald eagles, so what? Their populations are strong and generally growing.”
That’s simply the rationalization that our species is so good at. It’s like saying, “yes, I know that driving my car burns fossil fuels, creates toxins and particulates that pollute the air, kills wildlife, displaces wild lands, and maybe sucks a little more wildness out of my soul… but I’m gonna do it anyway, because taking the train adds an hour to my daily commute, and sometimes there aren’t even any seats available.”
The point is, no matter what kind of front we try to paint over it, this is what we do. Honesty is admitting that we are human. Messages are only as good as the truth behind them. Give all the song and dance you want, but for most hunters, the rationale for fighting the lead ammo ban has nothing whatsoever to do with the environment. You can’t make this into something that it’s not. That’s honesty.
And yes, there are some of us out here who do think beyond that. A lot of hunters are willing to listen and to take the extra measures to mitigate their impacts, even if it may turn out that those impacts are nominal. I think the number of folks like this is growing, but it’s still not what I would call, “the norm.”
Anyway, they just announced that a verdict was reached in the Mehserle trial, and they’re sending all of us Oakland employees home… more later.
But Holly, if you want to continue the discussion over tequila, Josh and I will be heading up to Hedgepeth Ranch this weekend.
July 8th, 2010 at 2:03 pm