Lead Ban ChroniclesBefore 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.

Related Posts