The Hog Blog

Earlier this afternoon, the EPA announced that they had no legal authority to ban lead bullets, despite the arguments of the Center for Biological Diversity and other petitioners (see the press release here).  The rejection was not particularly extensive or involved, but centered on the fact that ammunition is excluded from the tenets of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). 

However, lead fishing sinkers are not excluded, and are still on the table for a potential ban.  Not sure how that’s going to play out, but the animal welfare folks have been after it for a while. 

Anyway, below is the letter from the EPA in response to the petition. 

So, will the CBD be following this up with a lawsuit?  Anyone taking bets?

Man, it just keeps coming!

First the NRA-ILA challenge the Center for Biological Diversity’s petition to ban lead in ammo and fishing tackle, and now the NRA and the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) have served notice to the CA Fish and Game Commission that they intend to sue over the lead ammo ban in the “Condor Zone”.  Crazy, right? 

OK, so truthfully, politics, bureaucracy, and legalese largely make me tired.  Most of the time it’s more about angling for advantage and seldom about the actual topic on the table.  But this time it seems to be pretty direct and to the point… although I’ve got to say it takes a tack I’m not sure I would have expected. 

Here’s the press release with a link to the letter.  I definitely recommend giving the letter a thorough read.

On August 23, 2010 the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) Foundation, through their joint California “Legal Action Project,” sent a petition letter to the California Fish and Game Commission challenging certain hunting regulations. These regulations were adopted by the Commission to regulate the mere possession of firearms and/or lead ammunition when engaged in certain activities and/or when present in certain areas, such as designated wildlife areas.

Click here to view a copy of the letter.

The letter requests that the Commission repeal these regulations because they conflict with both laws granting the authority to carry firearms for self-defense, and with constitutional Second Amendment protections. The letter further explains that the Commission lacks the authority to adopt such regulations in the first place.

To fight for the self-defense civil rights of all Californians, the NRA and CRPA Foundation have joined forces to create the Legal Action Project (LAP). Through LAP, NRA/CRPAF attorneys fight against ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances, educate state and local officials about available programs that are effective in reducing accidents and violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners, and produce valid science about game and wildlife resource management.

To contribute to the NRA / CRPAF Legal Action Project (LAP) and support this and similar efforts and Second Amendment litigation in California, visit www.crpafoundation.org.

I don’t know what kind of traction this thing might get, but remember… this whole thing started with a lawsuit against the State.  It would stand to reason that a similar threat could turn the tide.

The EPA is considering the CBD Petition to ban lead ammo and fishing tackle, and is now accepting public comment.  Consider this your first, best, and potentially last opportunity to enter your opinion and feedback.  Go to the Regulations.Gov site to read the petition and enter your comments.

UPDATE:

The EPA is considering the CBD Petition to ban lead ammo and fishing tackle, and is now accepting public comment.  Consider this your first, best, and potentially last opportunity to enter your opinion and feedback.  Go to the Regulations.Gov site to read the petition and enter your comments.

OMG!

OK, seriously now…  I’ve been a little behind on some issues, especially since my personal laptop died on Sunday.  Fortunately, I’ve got a new source of hunting and outdoors news to keep track of the little things I’ve missed.  The new Camo Underground site is a repository of news articles, columns, and blogs about all things outdoors.  One of the things I’d have missed without this new site is the following:

On August 20, the NRA-ILA (National Rifle Association – Institute for Legislative Action) submitted a position document to the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) in response to the CBD (Center for Biological Diversity) petition to ban pb (lead) in ammunition and fishing tackle.  I posted on the CBD petition a little while back, and it seems to have drawn little attention since then.  I guess the NRA and Co. have been getting their ducks in a row.

The letter is largely legalese, but in essence it challenges the CBD’s argument that the EPA should ban lead bullets and shot from ammunition.  The CBD uses the auspices of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to suggest that the EPA must ban these components.  The NRA-ILA letter, on the other hand, points out that Congress excluded ammunition from the reach of the EPA, and that since bullets and shot are integral components of ammunition, the EPA would be overstepping its authority in banning them.  They appear to say, as I read it, that without the lead bullets or shot, ammunition wouldn’t be ammunition. 

I’m not so sure it’s a completely sound argument when I look at it from a layman’s perspective (I think there’s a hole in it… do you see it too?). 

 The whole thing takes place on a level of the legal playing field that I don’t think I’m qualified to play on, but I’d suggest that anyone interested read the letter before commenting.  If nothing else, I think it delineates the way the arguments are going to face off.  

You can read the whole thing here.

This may or may not have any relevance to anyone here, although I’m thinking it will soon.  But I just read in this morning’s SFGate (online news) that the Yurok tribe is planning to reintroduce condors into their range along the Klamath River. 

Biologists with the Yurok tribe, which has lived for centuries along the Klamath River, are studying ways to reintroduce the giant black vultures to the mountainous region, where they haven’t been seen for a century.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/20/MNLK1ETQA6.DTL#ixzz0x9TACyEQ

Why am I posting this here, now? 

Well, it may or may not be reason for concern, but the reason the lead ammo ban has so far been contained to the central part of CA is because there really are no condors up north.  If a population is established, then the same lawsuit, and the Endangered Species Act protections that spurred it, will return to the fore.  In other words, this will give momentum to the move to expand the lead ammunition ban.

I don’t fault the Yuroks for their desire to bring back the Condor, as it is apparently a part of their tradition and ritual.  But I’m afraid it’s going to lead to new tensions for the hunting community, and increased restrictions that, so far, haven’t been proven to make much difference in the survival of these endangered scavengers. 

I guess we’ll see.

Two upcoming events that some of ya’ll might want to know about…

First, CA DFG and CWA are working together to offer some dove hunts on private land. The second event is another opportunity to try out lead-free ammo, this time at Camp Roberts.  Here are the press releases.

California Waterfowl
2010-2011 Hunt Program News

Time is running out to register for Dove hunts available through California Waterfowl’s 2010-2011 Hunt Program. This program is providing Exclusive Private Land Hunting Opportunities to all California Hunters!

The final day to reserve your opportunity to take part in one of these fantastic opportunities is Friday, August 20, 2010.
 
Dont Miss Out…Click on the link below NOW!
 
https://www.SignUp4.net/ip.aspx?EID=20102171E&IID=h2S3xu%2bJWaU%3d

Haven’t seen one of these in a while.  On Friday the 13th, there will be a lead-free shooting event at Fort Hunter Liggett.  Hunters and shooters are invited to come out and put some of the non-lead ammo downrange, and to talk with a few folks about selecting ammo for the upcoming season.  It’s pretty tight timing, with the A-zone rifle season opener the next morning, but it will be a great opportunity for interested folks to get a first hand experience with some of this ammo. 

For those who can’t make it, there will be another event the following Friday (8/20) right down the road at Camp Roberts. 

The flyer is below.  Click it for a larger, more legible view.

OK, so this is a dangerous maneuver…  but I honestly want as many opinions as I can get.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is the organization that represents the shooting industry.  In the past few years, they seem to have become more and more a direct mouthpiece of the NRA… which shouldn’t be that big a deal, except they’ve also adopted the NRA’s propagandistic way of addressing issues.  Of particular interest to me, right now, is the way they’re dealing with the lead ammo issue. 

I totally understand that they are opposed to any effort to limit the use of firearms and ammunition.  They are, after all, the public face of the firearms and ammo industries.  This is, literally, dollars in pockets we’re talking about.  But this is what brings me here now…

In response to the recent attacks on lead ammunition, the NSSF (and the NRA) have decided that they should somehow obfuscate the issue by referring to lead ammo as “Traditional Ammunition”.  I’m not sure who’s idea this was, but to me, it seems an awfully stupid attempt to avoid the truth of the argument… that lead is a toxic metal (in certain situations), and that it may present a risk to the health of wildlife, or even to humans. 

I’m not going to rehash the lead ammo issue right now.  What I’m asking instead is for you, who are mostly members of this hunting and shooting community, to offer me your honest opinions. 

Does it make a difference if we call it “traditional ammunition” as opposed to “lead”?  Or is it really not much more than a bald-faced attempt to hide from the reality? 

I know how I feel about it, of course, and I’ve said as much in emails and Facebook messages to the NSSF.  But I don’t know if they’re getting the message.  Before I push harder against this brick wall, I really wonder if I’m the only one (I think I know the answer to this).  But if I’m right, and not alone, I think it’s time that we make our voices heard to the NSSF.  We are not the industry, but we are far more important… we are the consumers! 

So sound off, please.  This may seem a small thing, but I honestly think it’s much more than that.

Everybody feeling mellow?  Comfy and content in the belief that, except for those wackos in CA, nobody is going to come for your lead ammo? 

Well then, let me just upset that apple cart for you.  The Center For Biological Diversity, in concert with a couple of other organizations, today filed a petition to force the EPA to ban lead ammunition and fishing tackle…  not just in “The Land of Fruits and Nuts”, folks, but all over the country. 

The rhetoric itself is pretty much unchanged.  Here are the introductory paragraphs from today’s CBD press release: 

WASHINGTON— A coalition of conservation, hunting and veterinary groups today filed a formal petition with the Environmental Protection Agency requesting a ban on the use of toxic lead in hunting ammunition and fishing tackle. Major efforts to reduce lead exposure to people have greatly reduced the amount of lead in the environment, but toxic lead is still a widespread killer in the wild, harming bald eagles, trumpeter swans, endangered California condors and other wildlife.

“It’s long past time do something about this deadly – and preventable – epidemic of lead poisoning in the wild,” said Jeff Miller of the Center for Biological Diversity. “Over the past several decades we’ve wisely taken steps to get lead out of our gasoline, paint, water pipes and other sources that are dangerous to people. Now it’s time to get the lead out of hunting and fishing sports to save wildlife from needless poisoning.”

An estimated 10 million to 20 million birds and other animals die each year from lead poisoning in the United States. This occurs when animals scavenge on carcasses shot and contaminated with lead bullet fragments, or pick up and eat spent lead-shot pellets or lost fishing weights, mistaking them for food or grit. Some animals die a painful death from lead poisoning while others suffer for years from its debilitating effects.

“The science on this issue is massive in breadth and unimpeachable in its integrity,” said George Fenwick, president of American Bird Conservancy. “Hundreds of peer-reviewed studies show continued lead poisoning of large numbers of birds and other animals, and this petition is a prudent step to safeguard wildlife and reduce unacceptable human health risks.”

American Bird Conservancy, Center for Biological Diversity, Association of Avian Veterinarians, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, and the hunters’ group Project Gutpile are asking for the ban under the Toxic Substances Control Act, which regulates dangerous chemicals in the United States.

We’ve heard or read all of this before, and those who’ve bothered to dig deeper have learned that there’s not a ton of substance underneath the sensationalistic language.  With the arguable exception of the California Condor, no species is at risk or even being “decimated” by spent lead ammo, lead bullet fragments, or fishing weights.  To be sure, there certainly is some mortality.  Whether it’s as high as the CBD’s “estimated 10 to 20 million animals” or not is subject to argument, but anyone who has bothered to review the research must concede that some deaths are occurring. 

Is this acceptable?  Well, that’s a definite point of contention and a philosophical debate that belongs anywhere but the floor of a bureaucratic agency such as the EPA. 

As far as a human health risk, the science simply isn’t there.  Sure, as I’ve mentioned before, I’d have some concerns about feeding significant amounts of lead-killed game to young children or pregnant/nursing mothers.  However, those concerns can be simply alleviated without the burden of legislation banning ammunition.  Proper processing alone can eliminate the majority of risk, and this has been demonstrated in studies conducted in North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.  But even without the precautions, the real threat of lead toxicity from ammunition is largely unproven. 

In short, the situation is not nearly as grave (for wildlife or humans) as the Center for Biological Diversity would paint it to be.  The press release is misleading, and the petition to the EPA is little more.  It’s offensive to me, as someone who simply wants to know the truth and to do the best thing.  I’d like to trust someone to give me that truth, but the recent actions of the CBD show more a fringe agenda than the mainstream message I thought they once promoted.  Like so many other organizations, they’re trying to create a black and white issue out of something far more complex.  The whole thing reeks.

So, to the petition…  I’m afraid they have leverage here, using the terms of the Toxic Substances Control Act to compel the EPA to take action.  My non-lawyer read on this is that it’s the groundwork for a lawsuit.  If the EPA does not take positive action on the petition, the CBD and gang will use this as the basis to sue the Federal Government to force a lead ban. 

What can we do about it?  I’m honestly not sure.  I’d like to get all Pollyanna and say that we can leverage the power of the blogosphere to challenge and stop this thing, but in light of the CA lead ban, AB962 (the ban on mail-order sales of handgun ammo), and other similar legislation in which the affected parties (hunters and shooters) sat on their thumbs, I don’t have much hope left for that kind of thing.  I’m all for doing what I can to get the word out, but the apathy I’ve witnessed so far doesn’t inspire a lot of faith in America’s hunting and fishing community. 

Besides, the insidious thing about this tactic by the CBD is that it would be pretty tough for a grass-roots movement to have an impact at this level… at least in any kind of timely manner.  We can raise all kinds of hell, but the EPA isn’t really tasked with listening to “the people.”  With mid-term elections only a couple of months away, representatives are going to be far more interested in the big ticket issues, and not very willing to seem anti-environment anyway (who wants to be seen voting against saving the bald eagles?). 

I’m afraid the best we can hope for right now is that the industry, through the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and the NRA, will be able to counter the CBD’s claims with enough evidence to keep the EPA from taking action.  That will lead to a lawsuit, of course, but that’s the kind of thing I expect the NRA to use my membership money to fight (yeah, I can be a little naive for a cynic). 

So here I sit…hopefully hopeless.

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.

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.