September 17, 2014
For those who haven’t been keeping up, it’s worth note that the lead ammunition issue isn’t limited to those of us in the U.S. Bans and restrictions on the use of lead ammo can be found all over Europe and the UK, and, at least in some cases, the issue has become just as contentious.
In the UK, for example, where lead is generally banned for waterfowl or for shooting over wetlands, there’s been an ongoing push (similar to the US) to ban lead ammo across the board. The predominant argument in favor of a ban is that the only way to ensure that lead stops showing up in the environment and in human food sources (market hunting is still a thing over there) is to ban it outright. If it is removed from the marketplace, it will no longer be used in the field. The primary counter-argument is that there’s no evidence that lead shot is harmful to the environment or to human health, and that a ban would not serve any real purpose.
Sound familiar? It should. Most of the articles, columns, and blogs I’ve read from Britain echo the discussion that’s happening here.
However, it is interesting to note that some of the leading British hunting/shooting organizations are not taking the same approach as many of the US organizations. Instead of simple denial and refusal to admit any possibility that lead ammo use is an issue (a la the NRA, NSSF, and some others), the British folks are urging sportsmen to strictly obey the current laws. To be clear, this approach isn’t so much about mitigating the potential impacts of lead ammo as it is to manage public image. It appears that some UK hunters are still “sneaking” the occasional lead shot, and as a result, that lead is showing up in waterfowl sold at market. This provides a talking point for the anti-lead contingent who argue that the only way to stop illegal use of lead ammo is to make it completely unavailable. To their minds, the current law is obviously not sufficient.
In short, some UK hunters are shooting the whole hunting and shooting community in the foot. A few bad apples…
The whole thing is summed up pretty nicely in this piece from The Western Morning News. It’s really worth a read, if only to see how this discussion is happening across the Atlantic.
There was the interesting juxtaposition in my newsfeed of the article from the Western Morning News, and a piece from Arizona’s KJZZ public radio.
The KJZZ report describes the results of recent testing that show a significant reduction in the number of condors requiring treatment for lead poisoning. While science requires more than a short-term change to infer causality, there’s a good likelihood that the decline in lead poisoning cases is a result of voluntary, lead ammo reductions among hunters in the sensitive areas of both Arizona and Utah. These findings are consistent with other reports, showing that the incidence of lead poisoning appears to be down in that area.
Of course, a little is never enough for some folks, as you can see in this snip from the article:
Arizona Game and Fish officials estimate that about 90 percent of hunters participate in the state’s voluntary program and the rate is growing in Utah. However, the Center for Biological Diversity’s Jeff Miller said measuring success from hunter participation is misleading, adding that an outright ban like the one in California is the only way to make a difference.
It is worth note that, despite the “outright ban” in California, and a reported compliance rate of almost 100% (based on field checks), the number of lead poisoning cases among condors does not appear to be declining.
So, infer what you will. All I’ll add to this is that maybe those folks in Great Britain have the right idea. As with so many issues, hunters can be our own best friends, or our worst enemies. Whether or not you agree with the laws or the science around lead ammunition, it behooves us all to follow the rules. In CA, the lead ban is largely unenforceable simply by virtue of the size of the ban area. It’s not hard to skirt the law. But that’s not a good reason to ignore it. And in AZ and UT, it’s not the law… you don’t have to use lead-free ammo… but you still have the opportunity to mitigate your potential impact by either voluntarily switching, or by removing any lead-killed carrion from the field.
If the apparent success of the voluntary programs in AZ and Utah continues, then it gives some leverage to folks in other states like Oregon and Washington to advocate similar approaches instead of legislated bans. That can only be a good thing.
And in California, if the lead ammo ban for hunting does not produce positive results, you can bet the calls for an outright ban of all lead ammo will only get louder. Incontrovertible evidence may yet turn up that the condors are getting the lead from other sources, but right now almost every finger is pointing at hunters.
September 11, 2014
In 2013, he US Fish and Wildlife Service, along with a couple of other groups, sent out a survey of dove hunters to get some information on both demographics and attitudes related to dove hunting. Part of the survey included questions related to the use of lead-free shot.
According to a recent article in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review’s online news, the results made it pretty clear that most dove hunters (85% of those surveyed) are using lead shot, and about two-thirds of them don’t see any reason to change that. From the article:
“Overall, given what they know right now, two-thirds of dove hunters oppose a requirement for use of non-lead shot, with about half of them believing efforts to restrict lead ammunition is a tactic by animal rights groups to eliminate hunting and/or a tactic by gun control advocates to encroach on gun ownership rights,” the report reads.
“As usual,” the report added, “most hunters are willing to take significant actions for conservation if they are convinced of the need.”
Fifty-four percent said they would be willing to use non-lead alternatives if there was scientific evidence that lead shot was harming dove populations.
But that, evidently, isn’t available.
In a Houston Chronicle column about the same survey, writer Shannon Tompkins points out that the results show that over half of the hunters surveyed (55%) believe that education about lead ammo’s effects and alternatives has been insufficient.
While I do agree with the sentiment that lead ammo restrictions generally aren’t called for, I think it’s a shame that so many hunters are still uneducated about the topic.
There are a lot of reasons for this lack of knowledge, although I won’t agree that all of these reasons are good ones. One of the biggest detriments to factual knowledge about lead-free ammo is the sheer amount of unmitigated propaganda… on both sides of the argument… has so muddied the waters that many hunters don’t really know what to believe. However, since they are hunters, the tendency is to side with the “pro-gun/pro-hunting” arguments coming from organizations like the NRA and the NSSF instead of information from environmental organizations (“tree-huggers”). And, sadly, a lot of the information from the gun rights organizations is completely off-base. Worse, these organizations ascribe an agenda to the lead-ban proponents and then cash in on the fear and mistrust they’ve engendered. This also shuts the door on any productive conversation.
The truth is, though, that even the objective research can be difficult for the layman to digest. I used to believe that the average person could review the research and make some general, accurate, common-sense interpretations. But that kind of research takes initiative, and a large part of the hunting community simply doesn’t have it. It also turns out that, apparently, too many hunters who do bother to find the research only read the first couple of paragraphs of the abstract and consider themselves “educated”. When it comes to reviewing scientific research, the devil really is in the details. You have to read it all to understand the conclusions. I never saw myself as a Pollyanna, but I must confess that I think I overestimated the average hunter.
I also thought that, as this lead-ban issue gained momentum across the country, more of this research would be reported and made available to mass media consumers. Instead, the national media coverage of the lead issue has, primarily, consisted of reprints of propaganda columns from the likes of Wayne Pacelle, and various representatives of the Center for Biological Diversity. In addition, there are a fair number of “articles” about various raptors… particularly bald eagles… that have been poisoned by lead, and almost always implicating hunters and lead ammunition as the culprits (with little factual support for the argument).
Of course, expecting the media to present a thorough, factual and balanced look at such a complex topic is asking a lot. I recognize that. Most complicated, scientific issues tend to get short-shrift in the newspapers. It’s hardly specific to topics related to hunting or firearms. But these articles and columns should raise questions in the minds of hunters, and they should spark self-directed efforts to learn more.
One thing that would go far toward alleviating some of the ignorance and misinformation would be for the outdoors media, the hook-n-bullet magazines and TV productions, to take some time to address the issue in a factual and practical manner. It’s not the first time I’ve called this out, but seriously, there’s just not much factual information available from the traditional hunting resources about this topic. With the exception of a few columns from the NRA and NSSF that serve no real educational purpose (they deny almost every negative claim about lead ammo, often with misinformation or implications of an anti-gun/anti-hunting agenda), there’s almost no mention of the topic at all.
I recognize that the issue is politically loaded, and I expect many publishers or producers don’t want to open a can of worms (nobody wants to get “Zumboed”). And it’s true, a lot of people reject the truth when it conflicts with the party line. I’ve certainly been accused of being a secret anti-hunter when I offer fact-based arguments about lead ammo, or when I challenge some of the ridiculous claims from the gun groups. But I also recognize that, as a small-time blogger, I’ve got very little to lose, in regards to advertisers and sponsors. Repercussions are a valid concern for the “big guys” in the industry… which is a shame because this really doesn’t have to be a controversial discussion.
But here’s something that really kind of surprised me.
I recently reviewed the Hunter Education resources from the International Hunter Education Association (IHEA) website and found one, single, mention of lead-free ammunition… and that was an old shot-size chart for waterfowlers switching to lead-free ammo. While I was there, I ran through the online Hunter Education training, and never saw so much as a comment about the lead ammo question… even in the chapter on Hunter Ethics and Responsibility. I’m sure, of course, that some individual Hunter Ed instructors address lead ammo in their classes. I expect that in places like CA, it would be almost negligent not to talk about lead ammo and the use of alternatives. But you would think the Association would at least provide basic resources or links to relevant websites to inform those conversations. Even better, of course, would be to provide educational information, specific to the topics of lead ammo safety, risks, and ways to mitigate those risks (lead-free ammo, burying carcasses, removing offal, etc.). There is a section of the site that is restricted, so maybe there’s something there that I didn’t see… and I really don’t intend to throw mud on the IHEA, because they do a good and necessary thing… but I’m a little nonplused that the topic of lead ammunition isn’t openly and clearly addressed in their site.
Things aren’t always as simple as I think they should be, but it seems to me that the industry has a responsibility to openly and honestly discuss this topic. Just put it on the table, provide the facts, and let it flow. The results of this USFWS survey make pretty clear that education is needed, and lord knows there’s a ready-made platform for disseminating the information. With at least three television networks dedicated to hunting and fishing programming, and too many periodicals for me to count (both online and traditional), there’s no excuse for a hunter, anywhere in this country, not to know if the use of lead ammo has a potentially negative effect on wildlife, or to not understand the extent of those effects… except that these outlets are too timid to open that conversation.
August 25, 2014
“In past years, the coupon for free non-lead ammunition was mailed with the hunt tag. However, this year, the department has been working to expand its network of retailers that will accept the coupon to better accommodate hunters. In addition, now a limited supply of the most common ammo will be available for coupon redemption at the Phoenix and Flagstaff department offices (note: it will not be offered for regular sale).
Coupons will be mailed to affected hunters soon, and hunters are encouraged to buy their non-lead ammo to avoid a possible supply shortage. Hunters can choose either one box of loaded ammunition or one box of bullets for reloading their own ammunition with the coupon. There are multiple non-lead ammunition manufacturers to choose from as well as several available calibers and grain weights. Hunters in Arizona have proven their commitment to wildlife conservation in the past six years with 85 to 90 percent of hunters in Arizona’s condor range voluntarily using non-lead ammo during their hunts, or if they used lead ammunition, removing the gut piles from the field.
This year, Game and Fish is reminding hunters that if they have trouble finding non-lead ammunition, they can still support condor recovery by removing gut piles from the field that were shot with lead ammunition. Hunters that remove their gut piles (lead ammunition only) will be eligible to be entered into a prize raffle.
Note that, in addition to using lead free ammo, there are other measures you can take to reduce the potential impact of lead ammunition. If it’s not possible to remove the gut pile, consider burying it. Where the ground is too hard to dig, build a rock cairn. It’s not that difficult, and if your efforts result in one less, lead-poisoned condor… well, most of us think it’s worth it.
Up in Washington, the discussion about lead ammo has been going on for several years. However, so far, little action has been taken. From now through September 20, the Department of Fish and Wildlife is taking comments in regards to proposed changes to the regulations. These changes include:
- Develop voluntary programs to encourage hunters to utilize lead alternatives.
- Work with hunters to develop local restrictions that reduce lead poisoning of wild birds.
- Develop an outreach plan that helps hunters understand the lead- ammunition issues and encourages reduced use of lead for hunting.
- Promote use of nontoxic ammunition for department activities where applicable.
- Conduct a survey to ensure hunters’ opinions are considered in future discussions about lead ammunition.
Learn more about the proposals at the Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife website.
In Utah, the Division of Wildlife Resources has modeled their lead ammo abatement effort on Arizona’s successful program. Hunters drawn to hunt specific zones (I believe it’s just the Zion unit right now) received a coupon for a box of lead-free ammo. As with Arizona, Utah hunters are encouraged to act early in order to redeem their coupons. Lead free ammo supplies are limited, and hunters who wait until the last minute may not be able to get their ammo. Nevertheless, those who hunt with lead ammo in these areas can pack out the entrails and carcass, and then turn it in for entry into a prize drawing.
Now for a little editorial content…
If you’re not hunting in an area with condors, the truth is that using lead ammo probably isn’t doing any appreciable harm in the big picture. It’s certainly possible that your choice could result in the lead poisoning of a scavenger bird, but the threat is pretty slight. You’re doing more damage to the health of the animals and the environment just driving to and from your hunting area than you ever will by hunting with lead ammo. That said, it really is your choice. You can opt to use lead-free bullets, shot, or slugs and mitigate your footprint. You could make the choice to bury or remove carcasses and gut piles in order to keep the lead fragments away from scavengers. Or you can choose to keep doing what you’ve been doing and not worry about it. At the very least, though, you should educate yourself enough to understand your options.
On the other hand, if you’re hunting in an area where condors scavenge, the stakes are higher. The evidence linking lead ammo and condor mortality is pretty compelling (even if there is no “smoking gun”). Evidence or not, every time a condor shows up sickened by lead, hunters will get the blame. You can argue the “facts” and the “science” with the non-hunters and environmentalists until you’re blue in the face, but they are not buying it. So even if the potential death of another condor isn’t high on your list of personal concerns, your choice has a much more significant impact… not only to the condor population, but to all hunters. It behooves us all to take the extra measures, whether it’s switching to lead-free ammo or removing/burying carcasses and offal so that the birds can’t get to it. It’s not just about YOU.
A lot of people are still resistant to lead-free ammo because they’ve heard a lot of negatives and myth. The fact is, most of the lead-free ammunition on the market today is very good stuff. I have used it extensively on everything from hogs, deer, and exotics to rabbits and squirrels. I have hunted with or guided scores of other hunters who used it, and I’ve seen the results first hand… time and time again. It works, and it works well.
There are some caveats, just as you’ll find with most lead bullets. Some guns don’t handle certain bullet types or weights very well. Some bullets, like the older style Barnes, don’t seem to do well at velocities over 3000 fps. Copper shotgun slugs and muzzleloader bullets don’t seem to expand so well at extreme (150 yards or more) range. And just as with lead ammo, as a skilled, ethical hunter, it’s up to you to do your homework to understand these caveats and overcome them… such as choosing a different bullet manufacturer, changing up the bullet style or weight, and taking shots at more appropriate distances (shotguns and muzzleloaders are not intended to be 200 yard guns… no matter what you’re feeding them).
Be safe. Be smart. Have fun. The hunting seasons are upon us!
July 31, 2014
California hunters (and hunters from other states take note), according to the Humane Society’s “world’s leading expert in the use of nontoxic ammunition”, lead-free ammunition is readily available in California.
I’m not sure how one gets the title of “world’s leading expert in the use of nontoxic ammunition”, but this fellow has apparently done extensive research and determined that any hunter in CA who needs lead-free ammo can get it in plenty of time for hunting season. I guess any of you who were planning to attend the CDFW lead ammo workshops in hopes of expressing your concerns about the lack of ammo availability can just stay home. The problem is solved. I mean, we can take a press release from the Humane Society at its word, right?
Here’s what the press release says. There’s a link to the actual study in the release. The PDF is really, REALLY worth a read.
A new study from one of the world’s leading experts in use of nontoxic ammunition shows that nonlead ammunition is widely available throughout California. The study (see PDF) surveyed retail stores in California and online sources, concluding there is widespread market and retail availability of all popular shotgun and rifle ammunition types for the take of wildlife in California.
Last year, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 711, requiring the state’s Fish and Game Commission to implement regulations requiring the use of nontoxic, nonlead ammunition for all hunting in California by 2019. In his signing message approving the bill, Gov. Jerry Brown urged the Commission to phase in this implementation in the “least disruptive” manner possible. The study addresses Gov. Brown’s request and addresses any concerns regarding the uncertainty about the market and retail availability of nonlead ammunition in California.
“With nonlead ammunition already this widely available before the law is even implemented, we can only expect this availability to increase even more once the law is active,” said Dr. Vernon Thomas, who presented his study to the Commission’s Wildlife Resources Committee on Monday. “The findings should give the Department and Commission confidence that they can implement AB 711 as soon as possible without disrupting hunting activity in California.”
Thomas’ report was commissioned by the sponsors of AB 711 (Audubon California, Defenders of Wildlife and The Humane Society of the United States).
According to Thomas, five major U.S. companies already produce nonlead rifle ammunition in more than 48 different calibers that are readily available online and in major sporting/hunting goods stores in California. These calibers include those suitable for hunting all designated species in California.
Of the 111 retail stores in California surveyed for this study, 76 percent carried at least some nonlead ammunition for the purposes of hunting. Availability of nonlead calibers in these stores ranged across the most common hunting ammunition types. In cases where nonlead ammunition cannot be found in a retail store, online retailers are often able to provide the desired ammunition.
Thomas noted that many retailers are actually waiting for the state to implement AB 711 before they begin stocking nonlead ammunition, or expand their current offerings.
“For the minority of stores that had low or no inventory of nonlead ammunition, they reported that lack of customer demand was the primary reason, suggesting that the sooner customers must comply with AB711, the sooner availability on store shelves will increase,” said Thomas.
The California state legislature approved AB 711 in response to mounting research showing that lead from ammunition poses a danger to wildlife and human health. More than 130 wildlife species have been found to be at risk of poisoning by spent lead ammunition left behind by hunters in the field, and people consuming meat hunted with lead ammunition have been shown to have higher levels of lead in their bloodstream.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prohibited the use of lead shot for waterfowl hunting in 1991, and California passed a law requiring the use of nonlead ammunition within the range of the California condor in 2007.
July 28, 2014
Compelling stuff, huh? Did you read the report yet?
So all snark and facetiousness aside, this is what CA hunters are up against. The language of AB711 says that full implementation is dependent on the availability of lead-free options. This report suggests that the availability question has been resolved, and that there should be no further barriers to full implementation of AB711.
Of course, the report is bullshit. Seriously, read it.
The timing of the report was well choreographed, since today (08/01) marks the end of the CDFW’s input period for public feedback regarding lead-free ammo. The obvious hope is that hunters failed to participate in the process, leaving little competition for this half-assed report. It’s a slick move, but that’s what HSUS does best.
If nothing else, I hope this makes clear what I’ve been saying. CA hunters, you have to take an active role in the process, or your opportunity is going to be taken away from you. Whether it’s the lead ban, bans on bear hunting, or any other attack on hunting, you are your only reliable allies. There are organizations that can help, but they depend on you for their strength… especially in California. This report is a pretty clear indication of what will happen if you do nothing.
And hunters across the country should be taking note. This is how the game is being played, and organizations like HSUS are masters. They are a well-funded and motivated opponent. Don’t underestimate them.
July 22, 2014
Maybe this is lazy, but I’m going to share a link to someone else’s post about a topic I have never directly addressed. HSUS and their alleged campaign to “curb the most inhumane and unsporting abuses”
In the column, Mallicoat responds to a challenge to his criticism of the HSUS and their anti-hunting agenda. The commenter raised the argument that HSUS is not anti-hunting, but only seeks to promote ethical and humane hunting practices. As Mallicoat points out, HSUS’s record speaks for itself… efforts to ban mourning dove hunts, bear hunts, and other popular hunting practices.
But it was something else that I saw in the HSUS response to Mallicoat’s original column that I think deserves attention… and that’s the statement that “rank and file hunters” are in agreement with the HSUS efforts.
Where do they get that sort of idea? It doesn’t take a research expert to find examples of hunters attacking hunters over issues from high fence hunting to predator hunting. The HSUS can take its pick of hunters’ arguments that support their platform… or at least as much of that platform as they’re willing to disclose. And the hunters just keep feeding them.
I’m not using this as an opportunity to argue that hunters need to stand together regardless of our opinions, or that we have to support methods and practices with which we disagree. I think an open and ongoing discussion about ethics, safety, and conservation is valuable and good.
At the same time, I really wish more hunters would take a little more care in their criticisms of other hunters. Are you perpetuating a stereotype with your comments? How much do you really know about the practice with which you disagree? Consider your motivation for taking a stance against a practice, and ask yourself who is doing more harm to the future of our sport… the participants, or those who vilify them?
Just something to chew on. You can spit it out if you don’t like it.
July 8, 2014
Because a single, coherent thought is too much to ask right now…
First of all, California hunters should really be paying attention… and attending.
CDFW To Hold Public Workshop on Lead Bullet Ban Implementation
July 7, 2014
Janice Mackey, CDFW Communications, (916) 322-8908
Gail Turner, CDFW North Central Region, (916) 358-1075
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) will hold a public workshop Tuesday, July 29 to discuss the implementation of the lead bullet ban. The workshop will be held at the Rancho Cordova Library at 9845 Folsom Blvd. in Sacramento from 7-8:30 p.m.
A CDFW representative will detail a proposed implementation plan, the PowerPoint is available on the CDFW website. Following the short presentation, interested parties can make comments and provide input that will help shape CDFW’s final recommendation to the Fish and Game Commission, which CDFW anticipates presenting at the Commission’s meeting in Sacramento in September.
Last year, Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 711 requiring that the Commission adopt a regulation to ban lead ammunition in the state no later than July 1, 2015, with full implementation of the ban to occur no later than July 1, 2019. Governor Brown has directed CDFW and the Commission to work with all interested parties in order to produce a regulation that is least disruptive to the hunting community.
In order to determine what is least disruptive to hunters, CDFW has been reaching out to interested parties this year in a number of ways, including question and answer sessions at sportsmen’s shows, meetings with hunting organizations and now a series of public workshops throughout the state. A public workshop was held in Ventura in April and Eureka in June. Another is planned in Redding on July 19. After Sacramento, planning is underway for workshops in August in San Diego, Fresno and Riverside/San Bernardino. In addition, individuals and organizations may email comments to firstname.lastname@example.org (please use “Nonlead implementation” in the subject line) or mail hard copy correspondence to:
CDFW, Wildlife Branch
Attn: Nonlead implementation
1812 9th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
Louisiana hog hunters and farmers might be interested to learn that the Pelican State may soon legalize the use of helicopters to shoot feral hogs. Taking a cue from Texas, LA wildlife managers and agriculture agents are looking at expanding the use of helicopters on private lands. According to this article from the Times-Picayune, all Louisiana hog hunters aren’t happy about the possibility because they are afraid the sharpshooters will kill off all of the hogs and leave none for sportsmen.
(State wildlife veterinarian Jim) LaCour said he wishes it were that easy, but he told commissioners the state would have to kill 75 percent of its hogs every year just maintain a static population. The creatures are remarkably fecund, producing two litters a year with an average of six piglets per litter.
By the way, wildlife officials in Arizona are warning hunters to shop early if they hope to find lead-free ammunition for use this season. As many hunters learned last year, the “ready availability” so often touted by lead-ban proponents is not really the case at all. Finding lead-free ammo, even for standard calibers, was a challenge… especially for those shopping at smaller, local stores. But even the major outlets, including Cabelas and Bass Pro Shops ran short on the shelves, and even the online inventory went dry for periods of time.
On the national picture, the Senate is moving ahead with S2363, the Sportsmen’s Act. According to a release from the NSSF, the vote to move ahead was substantial, with an 82-12 majority in favor. Of course, next comes the crush of irrelevant amendments and such as the political wrangling gets serious, but hopefully we’ll see the bulk of this thing come through without too much damage.
At any rate, I’m not planning to become an outdoor news aggregator site anytime soon, but I did find all of these topics worth sharing… partly in the interest of keeping you folks informed, and partly just because it’s all I’ve got for content right now. But stay tuned… who knows what secrets lie in the hearts of hogs?
June 4, 2014
There’s little real news on the lead ammo ban front, at least since the last time I posted. Rhode Island is still looking down the barrel of a lead ban. That hasn’t cooled much since I mentioned it a few weeks ago.
But I still get lots of email, news feeds, and even Facebook contacts regarding the lead ammo ban. Fairly recently, an English gun maker, Ian Summerell, sent me a friend request. Now, since I’ve pretty much combined my personal Facebook with my HogBlog contacts, I’m often a little picky about adding strangers. But after a visit to his website, I felt like I ought to at least make the contact and see what he’s got going on.
From the website, I jumped over to see some videos he’s posted on a YouTube channel. I’ve been reading, occasionally, about the ongoing conflict over lead in the UK and Europe, but this video was… well, interesting. If nothing else, the parallels between the arguments in the UK and the arguments in the US are pretty clearly drawn. Take a look at one of the videos Summerell shared, and see what you think. He has more on his channel, and some good discussion on his website as well.
May 15, 2014
Well, look at me. My very last post was about cleaning out my blog roll and removing folks who haven’t been posting regularly… and here I let the whole, bloody week slip by without so much as a peep. Ah, well… I’ll fall back to my favorite Whitman. “Do I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself. etc.”
All that aside, I just haven’t had a lot to report of late.
There’s some occasional news coming in from my news feeds in regards to feral pigs and wild boar, but I tried the news aggregator approach here before, and I don’t think it added much value to the blog. There’s a certain sameness to most of the news articles anyway… sort of an, “if you’ve read one, you’ve read them all” atmosphere. I’ll sum it up.
Wild pigs are in X neighborhood (or county, township, community, state). They’re bad. People are scared. Officials are trying to do something about it that may include:
- shooting them
- trapping them
- scaring them away
I’m also keeping an eye on news related to lead ammo, of course. And it looks like there’s a strong movement afoot in Rhode Island to ban lead for hunting… led by none other than our friends at HSUS. But I just couldn’t bring myself to do an entire “Lead Ban Chronicles” post on this one. I did, however, provide counterpoint to an editorial on the topic in the Providence Journal online edition.
On the other hand (and the other side of the Atlantic), according to this piece from Ammoland news, Norway is considering a repeal of their ban on lead shot outside of wetlands and clay shooting courses. Here’s the guts of the story from that site:
The Norwegians have concluded, following sustained lobbying from the Norway Hunters’ Association (Jegernes Interesseorganisasjon), that there is no evidence of any real harm from the use of lead in shotgun cartridges and they believe that none of the alternatives to lead ammunition are as effective.
The Norway Hunters’ Association summed up the key facts for a repeal effectively – the amount of lead discharged throughout the countryside has a negligible impact on the environment, in comparison to both the potential welfare implications of using alternatives and the unknown environmental implications of those alternatives. The arguments about alternatives to lead shot are well rehearsed (read more about alternatives in our own Case for Lead here), but the simple fact is that it is vital we meet our responsibility to kill wild game in the most humane and effective way.
An interesting side note in this article is that Norway’s neighbors in Denmark are apparently adding tungsten to their list of banned shot materials, along with lead. As the US military found out in their own “green ammo” testing, tungsten is a carcinogen, and is actually less stable in the ground than lead. Thus, it presents a greater risk of leeching carcinogenic material into groundwater sources. Tungsten is commonly used as an alternative material for lead-free shot, and has also been used in the development of lead-free rifle and handgun bullets.
Personally, I think most of the risks are miniscule and overstated, but it should give folks pause in the blind, headlong rush to ban lead ammo and give some serious thought to what we’re replacing it with.
Finally, on a local note, the Hillside Manor deer herd is coming along nicely. While some of the bucks were still wearing headgear right up into the first of April, I’m also seeing the first nubs of new growth on several others. We only killed one buck here last year, and pressure was pretty light at the camps around us, so I’m expecting to see a bunch of last year’s youngsters coming into their own this coming season.
I’m heading out this weekend for a hunt with a group of guys from CA, AZ, and UT. We’ll be looking to put some meat in the freezer. On the list are aoudad ewes (I haven’t eaten aoudad yet) and axis does… as well as any unfortunate hogs that stumble into view. At least one of the guys is hoping to tag a trophy-quality animal as well. If nothing else, that should give me some pictures to put up next week.
April 16, 2014
Just because it’s the law, doesn’t necessarily mean everything is a done deal. There’s still time for input, and the CA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife is asking for your feedback now. Still having trouble finding ammo that meets the law’s requirements? Do you shoot something for which there is no lead alternative?
Then get your comments in, and attend the meetings when they occur. I know it may seem hard to believe, with HSUS embedded in the Fish and Wildlife bureaucracy, but your voices are still critical in making sure this is a law you can live with. Or, you’ll take what you get. Your choice, CA sportsmen.
Here’s the release from CA-DFW:
Attention Hunters: Your input is needed!
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is seeking your assistance regarding the development of the “phase-in” regulation for the use of non-lead ammunition for the take of wildlife as required under Fish and Game Code Section 3004.5(i). The law requires that this regulation be established by the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) no later than July 1, 2015, with full implementation to be effective no later than July 1, 2019. Governor Brown has directed CDFW and the Commission to work with all interested parties in order to produce a regulation that is least disruptive.
CDFW presented a draft regulatory proposal to the Commission’s Wildlife Resources Committee (WRC) in January 2014 (a copy of this presentation is available at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/Hunting/ under the “Alerts” section entitled “Non-lead Implementation”). Uncertainty about ammunition supply and availability forms the basis for the proposal, which preliminarily proposes the following implementation schedule:
- 2015 – Require the use of non-lead ammunition for all hunting on wildlife areas and ecological reserves. Require the use of non-lead ammunition for bighorn sheep hunting;
- 2016 – Require the use of non-lead ammunition for larger (waterfowl sized) birds, and for small mammals, non-game species, furbearers and for depredation purposes when using a shotgun;
- 2019 – Full implementation; use of non-lead ammunition required for dove, quail and snipe; small game mammals (including rifle/handgun); non-game species, furbearers and depredation (including rifle/handgun); all big-game species including those hunted with muzzle-loading firearms.
In order to meet the statutory deadline for adoption, CDFW is seeking to propose a final draft regulation to the WRC at its September 2014 meeting. Because we are anticipating a large number of comments, CDFW is requesting that all comments be received by August 1, 2014.
Individuals and organizations may email comments to email@example.com (please use “Non-lead implementation” in the subject line) or hard copy correspondence to the following address:
CDFW, Wildlife Branch
Attn: Non-lead implementation
1812 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95811
March 20, 2014
In general, the campaign to vilify hunters and demonize lead ammo is still underway as evidenced by ongoing editorials and columns (some posing as “articles”) around the country. It’s still the same misinformation and implications (lead ammo is “wiping out” birds”), and supported by the same tired arguments (it’s easy to switch from lead to lead-free ammo). And then there’s the unfortunate, counter-arguments that are too often weighed down by weak or misdirected rhetoric (there’s no “proof”… this is a “gun grab”). The resulting mistrust and general signal-to-noise-ratio turns the whole thing into a net loss, particularly for folks like myself who’d like to see an honest, but positive, discussion with some realistic and balanced outcomes.
One of the things that I have supported all along is an effort to increase voluntary adoption of lead free ammo through education. I honestly believe that many hunters (Most? I dunno.), when provided with the facts about lead’s impact on scavenging birds and the truth about lead free ammo performance will make the change… if they can, A.) afford it, and B.) find it. Aside from the myths and misinformation and the handful of guns that simply don’t like copper bullets, cost and availability continue to be the biggest sticking points to a wider acceptance of lead-free ammo.
I also believe that legislating a ban, as CA has done, only deepens the distrust and resistance from hunters. (The credibility gap between CA sportsmen and the Fish and Wildlife Commission is already stretched pretty wide… in most cases, rightfully so.) On the other hand, Arizona and Utah have adopted a more productive, “let’s work together” approach and encourage voluntary use of lead-free ammo… even to the point of giving it away to hunters in specific areas. What’s more is that AZ (I don’t know about UT) also provided incentives for hunters who are using lead to bring out and properly dispose of carcasses and gut piles, which mitigated the amount of lead-laced carrion in the field.
Well, this definitely doesn’t imply a valid, cause-and-effect relationship, but over the past few weeks I’ve seen several articles about the decline in lead toxicity among condors in AZ and UT. We’re not talking little drops either, but a significant change. According to one article, published in the Grand Canyon News, only about 16% of trapped condors showed “extreme exposure” to lead. That’s still not perfect, but it’s a big step from the 42% showing lead toxicity the previous year. Of course, it will take several more years to establish any real trends, or to know if this is simply an anomalous year or if the reduced amount of hunters’ lead in the environment really is making a difference. Considering that lead levels appeared to be higher in CA since the lead ban was instituted in the “Condor Zone”, there could certainly be other factors at work. Time will tell.
But it’s promising, and like some of the folks from the various condor projects, I choose to be heartened by the news. If AZ and UT can demonstrate that voluntary compliance, along with other mitigation efforts (removing carrion) are as effective as legislated ammo bans, we could be on the right road to reducing the impacts of lead ammo across the country without creating new laws and more barriers to sportsmen and gun owners.