California’s AB 711, part 2

This is the second blog post in a three part series about the California bill AB 711, which is designed to regulate the use of lead-based ammunition for hunting statewide.  Stay tuned for part three, which will be posted one week from today.

In this post we will be hearing the arguments in opposition of AB 711.  Although there are a number of organizations that oppose this bill, the representative from the National Shooting Sports Foundation is the only one who is given a significant amount of time to make his case.

Most of the arguments that are made here we’ve heard a thousand times, but there are a few interesting points.  It is stressed that this should not be a legislative decision, but a decision made by the California state fish and game commission.  This is a point that we have heard over and over again, going back to the 2008 debate over the regional lead ammo ban, but it is an argument that at its face seems reasonable.  The biologists and game managers at the state fish and game commission are the experts, so shouldn’t they be the ones to make this decision?  We’ll get a good response to this point later from one of the assembly members.  The only new argument that we hear from the NSSF is based off of the the Gun Control Act of 1968.  In this act the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is granted the right to regulate ammunition that is defined as “armor-piercing.”  The definition of “armor-piercing” that is used in this act is somewhat vague, and could potentially be inclusive of non-lead ammunition.  So the NSSF and others are claiming that this bill has the potential to ban ALL ammunition, effectively ending the use of firearms in the state.

Now we get into the comments from the members of the assembly.  First we hear from CA State Assembly member Mike Gatto, who directly responds to the opposition’s claim that this issue should be handled by the state fish and game commission, not the legislature.  Gatto explains that the legislature created the state fish and game commission, and has retained its right to step in when it wishes.  “We are not doctors, but we legislate on the practice of medicine, we are not criminologists, but we set the punishments for crimes.  We are the legislature, we respond to the people… this is conclusively the proper venue.”  Although it does initially seem to makes sense that the responsibility for this issue would fall into the hands of the state game and fish commission, I find it difficult to argue with Mike Gatto on this; as he said, they created the state game and fish commission.

In next week’s post we will hear more questions and concerns from the California state assembly members and address some of the issues central to this bill.

California’s AB 711, part 1

This will be a three-part blog article focusing on the California bill AB 711 and its passage through the Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife, so stay tuned for part 2, which will be published one week from today. 

California’s AB 711 is a bill introduced by CA Assembly Member Anthony Rendon on February 21^st of 2013.  The bill is designed to regulate the use of lead-based ammunition for hunting statewide, and includes a 2-year phase-in period for the requirement to use non-lead ammo for the taking of all wildlife with any firearm.  This bill passed through the Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife on April 16^th, and was passed by the California State Assembly today, May 16th.  Next it will move on to the State Senate for a vote.

It’s surprising to me that despite the amount of controversy surrounding this bill and the prevalence of strong rhetoric on both sides, almost no one has actually watched this footage of the bill’s hearing at the Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife.  Through watching this footage, we are able to get a really good sense of how these legislators feel about this bill, and how they are responding to arguments on both sides.  First, let’s watch Committee Chair Anthony Rendon introduce the bill.

Next we hear from Donald Smith, who provides an argument in support of this bill.  Donald led the effort to put together the recent consensus statement of scientists about the detrimental effects of lead exposure in wildlife and humans from ammunition.  Donald makes a number of strong points here, but nothing that we haven’t heard before.  The conclusion that he comes to is that “reducing and eventually eliminating the introduction of lead into the environment from lead-based ammunition is both a reasonable and an equitable action to protect both human and wildlife health.”  I find it hard not to agree with Donald on this – the fact that this legislation calls for the ban to be phased in over a realistic period of time definitely makes it more attractive and reasonable.

Our second statement of support for this bill comes from a hunter and a Republican, who stresses the importance of the responsibility that hunters have to protect their right to hunt.  This is an argument that I’ve heard a number of times from Condor Project Director Chris Parish (who is featured in our film Scavenger Hunt).  It goes like this; if the goal here is really to protect the right to hunt, then shouldn’t it be a priority to not only do what is right for the environment, but to stand up and show the public that hunters care about protecting wildlife?  Chris has maintained that most hunters really do consider themselves to be conservationists, and this supporter of the bill seems to be making a similar argument.

In our next post we will hear the opposition arguments that were presented at the Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife.

Is California ready for a statewide ban on the use of lead-based ammunition for hunting?

In Scavenger Hunt, California Condor biologists working for the Peregrine Fund in Arizona and Utah argue that a ban on lead-based ammo will not solve the lead poisoning issue.  Condor recovery project director Chris Parish insists that education and outreach are the only way to prevent poisoning of wildlife from lead ammunition.  This debate over the best strategy to reduce available lead in the environment has been going on since 2006.  That year, the first scientific paper conclusively documenting lead poisoning from spent rifle ammunition as a primary cause of death in Condors was published.  In Arizona, the game and fish department implemented an education and outreach program designed to convince hunters to voluntarily switch to non-lead alternatives.  In California, lead-based ammunition was banned from use within the Condor’s range in 2008.  So which of these two strategies has been more effective?

X-ray of a California Condor with lead ammunition fragments in its digestive tract.

Although the California Department of Fish and Wildlife has reported very high compliance rates with the lead ban, it seems unlikely that these high compliance levels are accurate.  It can actually be quite difficult to differentiate between lead-core and solid copper rounds, and what hunter would admit to a game warden that they are illegally using lead-core ammo?  A study that was published in May of 2012 in Population Biology provided us with a careful examination of the effect of lead poisoning on the Condor population in California.  In this paper it is explained that, “if restrictions were in place that resulted in only 1% of carcasses containing lead, the annual probability that a Condor would feed on one or more contaminated carcasses would only be reduced to 31-53%.” (Finkelstein et al. 2012)  This is because a single Condor will feed on approximately 75-150 carcasses in a given year, meaning that compliance rates would have to be very close to 100% for this law to effectively reduce lead exposure rates.  This paper compared the blood lead levels of Condors pre and post ban and, “found no indication that blood lead levels had declined in 2009-2010 compared with 2006-2007, suggesting that, at least thus far, the regulations to help reduce lead exposure in Condors have not been effective.” (Finkelstein et al. 2012)

In Arizona, the state game and fish department reports participation levels in their voluntary non-lead ammunition program to be between 80-90% every year since 2008.  I find it a lot easier to believe these statistics, because there is no penalty for hunters using lead, and every hunter is required to report their kill at a deer check station.  It shouldn’t be surprising however, that these high participation rates have not resulted in a decrease in lead exposure rates for the Condor population.  With 10% of available gutpiles still containing lead fragments, there’s still a pretty high chance of Condors being exposed.  In addition, in the years since Arizona’s voluntary program was established the Condor’s range has expanded to include a vast area North of Zion National Park in Utah.  These days, a majority of the population spends much of the fall hunting season foraging on the Kolob Plateau in Utah where gutpiles are abundant.  Although a voluntary non-lead ammunition program was set up by the Utah Department of Natural Resources in 2010, they have yet to achieve the high participation rates seen in Arizona.

So it would appear as though both of these strategies have been equally ineffective in reducing lead exposure in Condors up until this point.  That’s not to say that nothing has been gained – convincing close to 90% of hunters to voluntarily switch to non-lead ammunition is a serious accomplishment that is certainly benefiting the wildlife of Arizona’s Kaibab Plateau.  It’s just not quite enough to prevent Condors from being poisoned.  The question we find ourselves asking at this stage is: Is it even possible to reduce the availability of lead enough to prevent the poisoning of Condors?  I have to remind myself constantly how long it took to get lead out of paint and gasoline.  Those political battles raged for decades, whereas we’ve only been working on the lead rifle ammunition issue since 2006!  We also must remember how difficult it was to implement a ban on the use of lead shot for hunting waterfowl.  That political debate also lasted for decades, and despite the well-documented evidence of the ban’s beneficial effects on waterfowl populations across the continent, there remain skeptics who refuse to stop using lead.

This brings us to the proposed statewide ban on the use of lead ammunition for hunting in California.  Will this extension of the current lead ban be able to effectively reduce lead exposure in the Condor population?  While it is obviously impossible to answer this question at such an early stage, my initial reaction to this proposed legislation is that it could be a step in the right direction.  While it may not immediately reduce lead exposure rates in Condors, it will certainly increase demand for non-lead ammunition, which will in turn decrease cost and make non-lead ammo more competitive in the market.

On the other hand, it seems clear to me that this issue will never be resolved without cooperation from hunters and hunting organizations.  As long as the NRA (along with the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Federation, Safari Club International and innumerable others) continues to deny the science behind lead poisoning of wildlife, there will be people who continue to hunt with lead-based ammo.  So how can we convince these powerful organizations to support efforts to reduce available lead in the environment?  With our hour-long film, Scavenger Hunt, we hope to show that many of the folks who are advocating for the use of non-lead ammunition are hunters themselves who have already made the switch.  Our goal all along has been to eliminate the stereotypes that have become associated with hunting and show that hunters truly are America’s first conservationists.  In the film we show how easy it is to convince hunters to switch to non-lead ammo when they are given the opportunity to review all the available information and are treated with the respect they deserve.

Condor project director Chris Parish with a wild pig that he harvested using non-lead ammunition.

I had never been on a hunt when I began working on Scavenger Hunt, but now I can proudly say that I am a hunter.  I can think of few things more rewarding than filling my freezer with venison that I harvested myself.  This newfound hobby has given me a new perspective on the ongoing political battle over lead-based ammunition.  The proposed statewide ban in California is co-sponsored by The Humane Society of the United States, which has prompted many to claim that this bill isn’t really about lead poisoning, but is instead an attempt to end hunting.  That seems like a pretty ridiculous claim, and is not one that I initially took very seriously.  Some exploring on the Humane Society’s website however led me to this statement; “As a matter of principle, The HSUS opposes the hunting of any living creature for fun, trophy, or sport because of the animal trauma, suffering, and death that result.  A humane society should not condone the killing of any sentient creature in the name of sport.”  Would any hunter support a bill that is sponsored by an organization that actually does advocate an end to hunting?  And if we have a bill here that very few hunters would ever conceivably support, is there any chance of it being truly effective?

Luckily, there are organizations and individuals in California who are approaching this issue from a hunter’s perspective.  The Institute for Wildlife Studies has established a hunter outreach and education program that is committed to addressing the lead poisoning issue on a grassroots level.  They hold public shooting demonstrations on a regular basis, showing hunters just how effective non-lead ammunition can be.  They also have ammunition trade-in programs allowing hunters to exchange their lead-based ammo for non-lead alternatives.  They have helped set up the excellent website, huntingwithnonlead.org, which provides a great deal of unbiased information on the lead poisoning issue.

Ultimately, it will likely take both legislative and grassroots efforts to achieve the level of lead reduction necessary to achieve a self-sustaining California Condor population.  My hope is that the groups that are involved in addressing this issue from these two different approaches will find a way to work together and keep in mind the importance of involvement from the hunting community.