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.

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…

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.