Lead Ban Chronicles – AB 2223 Killed In Committee

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.”

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.

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

Amen.

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.

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.

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…