Lead Ban Chronicles – New Website With Non-Lead Ammo Info
Just got an email from my friend, Jim Petterson. As some of you may remember, Jim was the fella from the National Park Service who took me and Holly on a hog hunt down near Pinnacles National Park (you can read about my take here, and Holly’s report here), and then spent a good bit of time with us talking about the condor program and lead ammo issues.
Jim’s perspective comes from a couple of places. First, he’s a lifelong hunter. I know, a lot of cynics out there are going to doubt this credential because of his involvement in the condor project, but after spending the better part of a day in the field with him, and having the opportunity to converse more via email, I’ll vouch for him any time. He’s committed to the sport, and to a high ethical standard. Like many of us, he believes the responsibility of hunters goes beyond basic safety and good manners. We are supposed to be stewards of the environment, and part of that stewardship includes caring about all of the creatures out there, and not just the ones we shoot.
His perspective is also shaped by his experience working with raptors and condors. He cares a LOT about these birds… more than the average person… and he’ll be the first to say that this certainly tempers his attitude when it comes to the impacts of lead. He has seen, first hand, the effects of lead poisoning in eagles and condors, and it affected him deeply. As a result, he believes that we (hunters) should be doing everything reasonable to minimize our impacts on these birds.
Now let me take a quick aside, and say what I’ve said all along… that I believe the majority of the folks who are fighting so hard to save the condor and protect raptors are, like Jim, deeply committed to the birds, and not necessarily opposed to hunting (some hunt, and some don’t). Sure, anti-hunting organizations have piled onto the bandwagon and even driven much of the debate well outside the realm of protecting the endangered birds, but don’t let that take away from the honest concerns that the bird advocates hold. I’ll also add that Jim, and most of the other condor advocates have NEVER said that lead ammo is the ONLY source of the lead that’s affecting the birds.
OK, back to the topic.
Jim’s email introduced a new website that he and several associates have been working on. The site is intended to serve as a clearinghouse of information about lead ammo, lead-free ammo, and related issues. Jim’s email said that the plan is to keep the site objective and informative, and from what I saw in my review of the site, they’ve done a pretty good job. It’s just information, not editorializing or proselytizing about the “evils of lead ammo.”
It’s still in the beginning stages, and I expect it’ll grow significantly as they continue to work on it. There’s a whole lot of information out there. I’d definitely recommend checking it out, and if lead ammo issues are of interest to you, bookmark it too. There’s a guestbook feature as well, so you can leave your comments, suggestions, or ideas.
Go on over and have a look.
Mr. Petterson’s website is an interesting re-statement of old claims.
It is a pity thought that he is not discussing the various aspects of copper toxicity that he and the Condor Recovery Team have been keeping from the public.
Given that evidence of his personal knowledge related to copper toxicity, and his request for dosing studies related to copper toxicity after the fallow deer study was distributed to the team, it will be of note to see any such discussion on his website.
Anthony Canales
July 28th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Tony,
The website is, as stated and intended, nothing more than a clearinghouse of information. With that in mind, a “restatement of old claims” is exactly what it’s supposed to be. It is a collection of existing articles, pro and con the lead ammo ban. Hunters and shooters can read, review, and make their own minds.
If you have something to add to his site, or a direct criticism, I suggest you contact Jim and his group directly rather than airing out your accusations here.
I thank you for your comments, and for the work you’re doing re: lead toxicity. But I’m not interested in hosting your sniping at another site here.
July 28th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Phillip, thanks for sharing this site; I’ll check it out soon.
I’ve been meaning to explain the mindset of environmentalists involved in this issue here, because I honestly believe the hunting community gets very little exposure to the other side in this case. I know that environmentalists who meet me and learn that I hunt are very often thirsty for understanding, curious about hunting and hunters, and from their questions, often completely unfamiliar with the traditions, laws, and other aspects of hunting. I assume the reverse is also true.
With that in mind, I’d like to clarify environmentalists’ position for folks.
Most environmentalists in this issue, like I said, do not hunt. The vast majority are okay with a subset of hunting – for meat & nature loving – but really don’t give the idea much thought, if any at all. Those environmentalists working on legislative and regulatory advocacy are rarely animal rights’ advocates. Not once have I ever seen or been party to any internal environmentalist conversation over the 2nd Amendment, or the desire for gun restrictions. In fact, it would have been considered a silly waste of time to talk about it, and if anybody had raised it, I’m 99% sure it would have been pushed out of the conversation. It’s just not something environmentalists think about at all.
When they push for lead bans, they do so from the perspective that lead is an environmental toxin. That’s it.
A couple of years back, when I saw both sides (enviros and hunting groups) dragging their feet in supporting common causes, I did some thinking on the subject, and I realized something: These groups are split on OPP – other people’s politics – and this was a major cause of their inability to cooperate. Both groups must listen to their constituency, and oftentimes the constituencies drove their politics away from issues merely because of party affiliation.
Constituents who are knee-jerk members of environmentalist groups like Defenders of Wildlife are often knee-jerk members of animal rights groups, too – and so employees of Defenders must consider their constituency, even though Defenders is just about the only group to actively advocate for game wardens’ numbers, pay and benefits, and DFG funding overall.
I say this because environmentalists advocate for what they see as the environmentally preferable decision first, but they must consider their membership, or else they die. When it comes to lead, it’s a no-brainer, then: It’s a toxin, so remove it – and since you aren’t offending any constituency by confronting hunting, and may in fact build some credibility among people more likely to give you money, you go for it. If you lose, no biggie, and if you win, you’ve removed a toxic substance.
It really is that simple on the other side – there are no hidden agendas, at least among the rank-and-file advocates (I have no idea what the leadership is saying in their smoke-filled rooms… although the idea that it’s smoke-filled, and not GORP-filled, is pretty funny to me).
Future suggestions? Hunters need to become vocal members of these organizations.
July 29th, 2010 at 6:51 am
Josh, this is something I’ve written about in the past as well. If hunters joined some of these organizations, en masse, the direction of the groups could be redirected to become more hunter friendly.
The catch is, I dump enough money every year into organizations for conservation and habitat improvement. I’m not about to drop another annual membership fee to an organization that will use that fee to fund anti-hunting efforts. I think most hunters feel the same way.
For example, I was hopeful when the Sierra Club started their “Sierra Sportsmen” organization, but they quickly showed their true colors in recent fights against bear hunting, as well as other statements where they’ve essentially equated most sport hunting with “trophy hunting”… complete with all negative connotations. I will not provide funding for any such organization.
The other big problem is that environmentalists tell us a lot of things we don’t want to hear. The recurrent message is one of limiting use and access, cutting back on impacts… and that flies in the face of the general sense of entitlement shared by the general population, hunters and non-hunters alike. Folks rebel against limitations. Hunters don’t want to be told that they can’t drive their 4-wheelers wherever they want, that they have to replace the two-stroke outboard on their duck boat because it’s polluting the waterways, or that they shouldn’t use their favorite ammo because it might be killing unintended targets.
That said, real environmentalists and hunters share many goals and philosophies. If we could get some folks past that innate distrust, turn down the propaganda from certain factions, and take a closer look, we’d find a lot of ways we can and should be working together.
July 29th, 2010 at 7:28 am
Good information, I’ll use it. Thanks
July 29th, 2010 at 7:29 am
I’d like to add to what Joshua and Phillip had to say re: the difficulty of some hunters and “environmentalists” to see eye-to-eye about issues related to conservation. I have to admit to feeling baffled that so much of the public see the two camps as being mutually exclusive. After all, the man sometimes referred to as “the original conservationist” Teddy Roosevelt, was a strong advocate of both the hunter’s role in wildlife management and also the need for a general population-wide conservation ethic. Why and when did the two philosophys become separated?
Now I know that it’s difficult to make broad generalizations and maybe it’s a matter of semantics, but I define an environmentalist as someone who has concerns about the health of the ecosystems on our planet and also recognizes that human activities many times have consequences that negatively affect human health, wildlife habitats, and wildlife populations. As such, I guess I see the line between a “conservationist” and an “environmentalist” as being pretty thin because I think they share many of the same goals. You will always have extremist groups no matter what category is being discussed and I don’t align my views with those extremist groups.
But I do agree with Joshua that many “conservationists” “environmentalists” support the concept of hunters harvesting what we eat and connecting with nature while doing it. I also think Phillip is correct in his assertion that many outdoorspeople do not want to accept restrictions in how they follow their recreational pursuits. But don’t we as hunters recognize that limits and restraint are indeed necessary to protect and conserve the species we hunt and fish? Don’t we accept limits in how many animals we can harvest, when we can harvest, and how we can harvest? I think we all recognize that throughout human history the “tragedy of the commons” has been played out time and time again with property and exploitable populations of animals that are held by the public.
I as a hunter, conservationist, and environmentalist am willing to accept some limits in how I pursue my activities, if those limits are based on solid science and reasoning. Of course, everyone has their own set of criteria in what is “acceptable” but in support of what Phillip has eloquently stated, I too am hopeful that as hunters and “enviro groups” take more time to really listen to each other, we will realize that we have a lot more in common than not.
July 30th, 2010 at 10:48 am
I will agree that conservation is a self preserving and logical extension of the sport (hunting) but in this case I believe the burden on the hunter is excessive and far out of proportion to the actual proven risk to the condors. I live and hunt in the condor preserve areas and since the lead ban went into effect, I have hunted a lot less, partly because of the added expense, and the availability of legal ammo for my favorite guns (.17 HMR).
Honestly, I don’t care in the least if the last few California condors snuff it….They are not a game bird, they are not particularly pleasant to look at and since there are so few left, I don’t think there is any legitimate argument that they serve any kind integral purpose in the enviroments they inhabit.
I have read that about 98% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct so I would assume that it’s just their time and for whatever reason they are no longer able to compete…my gut feeling (I have no scientific evidence to say either way) is man had very little to do with this, but even if we are 100% responsible, it doesn’t really matter….we are part of the natural environment and, at this point in history, we are the dominant species and it is perfectly natural for the dominant species to dominate and exercise our will…this is the natural order. This is not to say that we plunder the earth and all it’s resources, and going back to my original point that conservation is logical and in our best interest.
Anyway, I know that this and just about every other firearm or hunting restrictive law past in California has very little to do with conservation and more to do with politics and social engineering. I know this post will piss a few off but debate and differing views are a sign of a healthy and free society. Hunt 2 Live, Live 2 Hunt.
July 31st, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Mr. Rabbit, it’s too bad that you don’t realize a diverse habitat as a necessary condition to good hunting.
Mr. Leopold pointed out that something new happened under the Sun the last century, when we realized the gravity of losing the last passenger pigeon. He also said that the first rule of intelligent tinkering is to, “keep all the pieces.” I’m sure you understand where I’m going with this, so I’ll stop now.
August 1st, 2010 at 5:34 pm
The lamentable reality, Rabbit, is that I know your sentiments are echoed pretty widely across the hunting community. I don’t think it’s that unusual, of course, not to care a heck of a lot about something that wouldn’t have a direct impact on your life whether it lives or dies. To be honest, in the hierarchy of things that matter to me, the demise of the condor barely registers… and if it weren’t for the fact that most of my hunting is in the “Condor Zone”, I don’t even think it would register at all.
I also agree that the lead ammo ban put an undue burden on hunters. I’ve said as much several times over. It’s a badly written, terribly implemented law that was passed for the wrong reasons.
That’s all pretty much moot though. We’ve had these discussions (although most people came to the table way too late) and the law passed anyway. The odds of seeing it overturned are pretty feeble, despite the efforts of folks like Mr. Canales to provide evidence that lead ammo isn’t the culprit.
The best we can do now is continue to learn about the issue, get the facts, and stay involved in the political process. At the same time, as we learn more about lead ammo and alternatives, folks should continue to make up their own minds about how they will respond.
And that’s where sites like http://www.huntingwithnonlead.org come into play… They put the info up there. The good and the bad, so to speak. Read what they’ve provided. Go find more in other places if you’re so inclined. And then adapt as you will.
First comes awareness. Then comes understanding. And finally comes change.
Sometimes.
August 2nd, 2010 at 8:30 am
“Rabbit” has as valid a position as any. Especially when the failure of condor recovery is not predicated on the lead ammunition hypothesis so much as it is on the genetic bottleneck issue, the DDE issue, and “microtrash” issue first, and in that order.
The limit of matriarchal lines to Condor’s # 10, 11, 12, and 13 when it was also assumed at the beginning that all condors were related as closely as being half-siblings will have the ultimate bearing on long term generational survival. Simple genetics would seem to indicate that the prognosis for long term survival for condors, without massive human intervention AND “rewriting” the rules on what recovery means, is extremely poor after 8-12 generations.
There is also the conundrum that flocks in geographically separate areas would not be able to intermix successfully in the long term should condors become more widely spread, due to the same genetic bottleneck issue. Each group has to stay geograhically separate, because only physical barriers can limit the genetic problems brought on by consanguine breeding which is a current problem.
Also, as the Condor Team well knows, “natural” chick rearing is on hold until the DDE issue in marine carrion can be licked along the California coast, if ever. Current chicks are the result of captively bred eggs being “swapped” for naturally laid eggs, which in itself is another form of “stocking” of condors.
Microtrash is a proven problem to the program, and is a proven alternate pathway to industrial chemical exposure as well.
I don’t have a problem with private money allowing the release of “stocker” condors for public viewing, if that is what the Audubon types really want. But the idea of additional critical habitat listings occurring over such an artificially maintained species population is something that I oppose strongly. No amount of misrepresentation of the science of lead alloys will lead me to change that personal opinion.
Respectfully,
Anthony Canales
August 2nd, 2010 at 2:40 pm