11 September 2013 California Gets the Lead Out! Posted by: Kim Delfino | 2 comments | Share: CA state legislators agree that lead ammunition is too toxic to use, now we hope the governor will, too Kim Delfino, California Program Director What do the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the California Medical Association, Defenders of Wildlife and Children Now have in common? We all agree that we should not continue to allow unnecessary amounts of toxic lead to seep into our environment, into our wildlife and into our bodies. A California condor flies over Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge (c)USFWS This week, the California Legislature agreed with us as well. Both the California Senate and Assembly voted to pass AB 711, a bill written by Assemblymember Anthony Rendon that would reduce human and wildlife exposure to the poisoning effects of lead by requiring the use of non-lead ammunition when hunting throughout California. California is now one signature away from becoming the first state in the United States to require the use of non-lead ammunition in hunting – Governor Jerry Brown has until October 13th to sign the bill into law. If the bill becomes law in California, it will be a substantial victory in the long fight to eliminate the use of toxic lead ammunition in hunting. More than one hundred years of scientific research shows that lead is poisonous to humans, condors, golden eagles and over 130 other species, having severe neuromuscular and neurological impacts that can lead to death. Indeed, a five-year review of the status of the iconic, but endangered, California condor recently completed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) found that poisoning from the ingestion of fragments of lead ammunition in carcasses is the leading cause of death among condors and the biggest threat to the birds’ recovery. While the switch from toxic lead ammunition to non-lead ammunition would seem to make good sense, the National Rifle Association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation and other extreme organizations have created a frenzy of opposition by scaring hunters into thinking that AB 711’s non-lead ammunition requirement would promote an end to hunting in California. Nothing could be further from the truth. Non-lead ammunition does not fragment like traditional lead ammunition.(c) huntingwithnonlead.org There is no evidence to suggest that if non-lead ammunition is required for hunting, hunting would cease in the state. In fact, we have seen quite the opposite. When a requirement for the use of non-lead ammunition in hunting of big game in California condor range went into effect in 2008, the number of deer hunting tags INCREASED instead of decreased. Further, there are widely available non-lead ammunition types for every kind of hunting. Peer-reviewed studies have shown that not only are non-lead ammunition alternatives available and effective, they can be obtained for the same cost as their traditional toxic counterparts. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, a leading proponent of hunting, supports the use of non-lead ammunition. (c) CA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Even the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) – one of the leading proponents of hunting in California and a beneficiary of hunting revenue – agrees that AB 711 makes sense and will not inhibit hunters from engaging in their sport. Furthermore, in a letter to the bill’s author, Assemblymember Rendon, DFW Director Chuck Bonham stated that, “[t]he best available science related to wildlife health shows that spent lead ammunition creates the risk of lead poisoning for wildlife.” Director Bonham requested three specific changes to the bill, including an additional year for the Department to implement the non-lead requirement, and with those three changes stated that the California DFW would “support” AB 711. The bill was amended to accommodate DFW’s request and, with those changes, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife became the first state wildlife agency to support a statewide requirement for the use of non-lead ammunition in hunting. The bill’s requirement to use non-lead ammunition instead of toxic lead ammunition when hunting just makes sense. When there are safer ammunition alternatives widely available, there is no good reason for hunters to risk the health of their families by providing game filled with toxic lead particles, and there is no good reason for wildlife to suffer the tormenting effects of ingesting carcasses filled with toxic lead ammunition. Fortunately, California’s doctors, veterinarians, environmentalists, progressive hunters, animal protection advocates, Department of Fish and Wildlife and state legislature all agree. Now, we wait to see if California’s governor will join this large and diverse group to protect California’s people and wildlife from an unnecessary threat that we actually have the power to control. 2 Responses to “California Gets the Lead Out!” D Harris September 27th, 2013 READ THIS: Amendment II “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” For those paranoid about this amendment being compromised, we say to you that we have learned, over the course of history, that there are limits in the types of USE of bearing arms. 1.) We should limit the capacity of ammunition clips to better protect the innocent from the insane, 2.) We should modify the nature of bullets and propellants when we discover that the composition of the ammunition is endangering the environment. Jbh October 17th, 2013 You guys ae so misguided its almost hilarious. First off, the amount of lead ingested by wildlife is minuscule. Second, non-lead bullets have much different ballistics than regular lead bullets, since the lead is heavier, it delivers much more energy and expansion upon impact of animal, leading to a faster, more humane shot. Before debating, gain some knowledge about both sides of the debate. If anybody here is a real hunter, they would understand. Post Your Comment Click here to cancel reply. Name (required) Mail (required) (will not be published) You May also be interested in The Votes Are In… You voted, and we listened – now the winners of Defenders’ 2014 Photo Contest are here! See if your favorite won, and take a look at some of the amazing runner-ups. We’ve Got to Protect What’s Left of the Sagebrush Sea New research shows that after a fire, the Sagebrush Sea (home to the imperiled greater sage-grouse) could take up to 20 years to fully recover. With other factors already threatening so much of this habitat, what does that mean for the species that call it home? California prepares to welcome wolves home, but delays on providing state protections Now, as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to remove Endangered Species Act protection for wolves throughout most of the rest of the country, gray wolves are once again at risk. Delisting would short-circuit wolf recovery in the Pacific West and would effectively mean giving up on one of our country’s most important and iconic species. Fortunately, California has an opportunity to play a meaningful role in helping the gray wolf continue to recover in the coming months and years.