Defenders of Wildlife Blog

Kim Delfino, California Program Director

Yesterday, we took one more important step in the effort to protect wildlife and human health from the toxic effects of lead ammunition. The California Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee passed a bill, by a vote of 9-5, that would require the use of non-lead ammo for all hunting in the state, putting California well on its way to being the first state to enact non-lead ammunition requirements.

The committee vote came one day after the bill’s authors, Assemblymember Anthony Rendon and Assemblymember Richard Pan, stood on the steps of the State Capitol with a scientist, a hunter, a veterinarian and Tesla the golden eagle, to outline why it is critical for California to remove lead from ammunition used to hunt wildlife. “Lead is a toxicant that is bad for human health and the environment, and lead ammunition exposes humans and other animals to this life-threatening poison,” said Assemblymember Rendon.

Lead is a known toxin that we have already removed from everything from paint to gasoline to pencils to pipes. Fifty years of scientific research has shown that the presence of lead in the environment poses an ongoing threat to the health of the general public and the viability of the state’s wildlife, including the California condor, bald eagle and golden eagle. Dr. Don Smith, Professor, Department of Microbiology and Environmental Toxicology at UC Santa Cruz stated, “Lead based ammunition is likely the greatest, largely unregulated source of lead knowingly discharged into the environment in the U.S.”

Lead bullets fragment into tiny pieces when they hit an animal during hunting. These small lead fragments are then easily digested by humans as well as wildlife that eat the gut pile of dead animals. Animals also ingest lead when foraging in fields and pick up spent ammunition mistakenly. These lead fragments are highly toxic in the humans and animals that digest them. In humans, exposure to lead causes brain damage, learning problems and slowed growth and, for children, no amount of lead exposure is allowable. In wildlife, lead poisoning causes an agonizing death through paralysis and starvation.

Given the toxic threat from lead ammunition, there is no legitimate reason to oppose the use of non-lead ammunition when non-lead alternatives are available, effective and comparative in price with lead ammunition. As Assemblymember Mike Gatto stated in the committee hearing, “This is the right thing to do. We don’t hunt with poisoned darts for a reason and we shouldn’t use toxic ammunition for hunting.”

Former Fish and Game Commissioner and an avid hunter Judd Hanna testified in support of the bill in committee. Mr. Hanna was one of 27 distinguished hunters from California – including the current President and Vice President of the Fish and Game Commission – who sent a letter in support of the bill because they believe it is a reasonable and prudent solution to a public health and environmental threat. Defenders has been working on this issue for years, is a sponsor of this bill, and one of the organizations leading a broad coalition working to pass it. Now we’ve secured a majority of the members of the California Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee to vote to ban this toxic substance. Let’s hope the full California Assembly embraces the cause as well. Stay tuned.

Kim Delfino, California Program Director

Who do you think we should be listening when it comes to wildlife policy? Scientists or lead ammo lobbyists? That’s the key question confronting the California state legislature as it considers a bill requiring the use of non-lead ammunition for hunting.

Lead ammo poses a significant threat to wildlife, not the least of which is the imperiled California condor. Hunters shoot their prey with lead ammo and carrion eaters like condors and eagles come along and feast on the remains, swallowing lead shot in the process. The poison then works its way into their system and they slowly die an agonizing death.

But a bill introduced into California’s Legislature (AB 711) would require the use of non-lead ammunition in the killing of wildlife in California. It faces its first vote April 16th when it will be taken up by the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee.

Opponents of this bill claim that there is insufficient science to justify requiring non-lead ammunition in the killing of wildlife. But those arguments ring hollow, especially after 30 nationally and internationally known scientists issued a strongly worded statement, “Health Risks from Lead-Based Ammunition in the Environment: A Consensus Statement of Scientists,” on March 22nd.

These scientists are experts in lead and environmental health from universities, hospitals and laboratories from around the United States, England and Canada. And they were unequivocal in their assessment of lead’s toxicity and their support for the reduction and elimination of the use of lead ammo in order to protect human and environmental health. Here are a few excerpts from this statement:

• “Lead is one of the most well-studied of all anthropogenic toxins and there is overwhelming scientific evidence that demonstrates . . .[l]ead is toxic . . ….”
• “There is no level of lead exposure to children known to be without deleterious effects (CDC, 2012).”
• “Lead-based ammunition is likely the greatest, largely unregulated source of lead knowingly discharged into the environment in the United States. In contrast, other significant sources of lead in the environment, such as leaded gasoline, lead-based paint, and lead-based solder, are recognized as harmful and have been significantly reduced or eliminated over the past 50 years.”
• “The discharge of lead-based ammunition and accumulation of lead-spent ammunition in the environment poses significant health risks to humans and wildlife.”
• “Lead poisoning from ingestion of spent lead-based ammunition fragments poses a serious and significant threat to California wildlife.”

This last point was sadly illustrated when the golden eagle mentioned in my last blog post died in mid-March, just five days before the scientists’ statement was issued. The eagle was poisoned by eating lead ammunition fragments in a carcass. Despite heroic efforts by the veterinary staff at the Bird and Pet Clinic in Roseville, California, to bring down the extraordinarily high lead levels in this majestic bird, the damage was done and the eagle died of respiratory failure.

There is no scientifically valid reason why wildlife and humans should continue to be threatened with lead poisoning from lead ammunition. Opponents of the bill are just ignoring the facts – just like those who fought against getting lead out of gasoline, paint and cans used for food. Fortunately, science and common sense prevailed in those efforts. I can only hope we listen to the scientists again and California legislators ultimately approve this important bill. Stay tuned!

Kim Delfino, California Program Director

This year, California has the opportunity to become a leader in the effort to protect wildlife and people from lead poisoning. Assemblymember Anthony Rendon has introduced a bill (AB 711) into the California State Assembly to require the use of non-toxic ammunition when hunting. Because we are committed to protecting native animals in their natural environments, Defenders of Wildlife – along with with our partner organizations – will be working hard to help pass this important bill. If California enacts the law this year, it will be the first state to eliminate the use of lead ammunition for hunting statewide. More than fifty years of scientific research has shown that the presence of lead in the environment poses an ongoing threat to the health of the general public and the viability of the state’s wildlife, including federally-listed endangered and threatened species such as the California condor, and our national symbol, the bald eagle. The time is long overdue to protect people and wildlife from this toxic threat.

You don’t have to look very far from Sacramento – where this bill was introduced and will be voted on — to see the urgency behind the effort to get lead ammunition out of the environment. Just last week, a bald eagle died from lead poisoning at the California Raptor Center at the University of California at Davis. The bird was rescued from a creek bed in Tehama County after it was found blind and listless, unable to take care of itself or its nest. This is nesting season in California, and the eagle was likely out looking for food to feed its mate. With the death of this eagle, its mate will have to leave the nest to find food, greatly increasing the odds that the nest will fail.

The very same week, a golden eagle suffering from lead poisoning was picked up at a reservoir near Maxwell in Colusa County. She was found on her belly, pulling herself along the hillside using her wings, with her useless legs dragging behind her. She is currently receiving very expensive treatment at the Bird and Pet Clinic in Roseville, California. It is very likely that both birds were poisoned from eating carcasses left over from hunters using lead ammunition, and these are just two examples of an issue that has plagued wildlife for decades throughout the state and across the country.

Lead isn’t only a threat to wildlife. It also puts humans in danger. California Assemblymember Richard Pan is a co-author of AB 711, and as a pediatrician and chairman of the Assembly Committee on Health, he understands the effects that eating game shot with lead ammunition can have on people. As a potent neurotoxin, there is no safe exposure level to lead for humans. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defines lead as toxic, stating that it can affect almost every organ and system in the human body, including the heart, bones, intestines, kidneys and reproductive and nervous systems. It is also extremely toxic to children, causing potentially permanent learning and behavioral disorders.

The requirement in AB 711 to eliminate the use of lead ammunition in hunting is the next step in a long effort by environmental and public health organizations to eliminate lead in its many forms from our environment. This bill would protect both people and wildlife by requiring the use of non-toxic – meaning non-lead —ammunition when hunting. This rule would be phased in over a two-year period in order to give hunters and sporting goods stores time to make the switch. Thankfully, non-toxic, non-lead ammunition is readily available and affordable, which will make the transition even easier.

In 1991, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service required the use of non-toxic shot for waterfowl hunting and, in 2007, the California Legislature required the same for big-game hunting within California condor territory. After these restrictions on the use of lead ammunition went into effect, hunting continued to thrive instead of disappearing as some critics had argued would happen. Indeed, we have seen an increase in the availability of non-toxic ammunition, which has been found to perform as well as, or better than, lead-based ammunition (click here for a video demonstration). Unfortunately, current restrictions on lead ammunition, while benefiting waterfowl and condors, are limited in geographic scope and to the hunting of specific species, which leaves most other wildlife vulnerable to this toxic metal. More protections are needed, and needed now.

In April, the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee will vote on this important bill. Defenders – along with Audubon California, the Humane Society of the United States and Physicians for Social Responsibility – will be heading up the effort to pass AB 711 and protect California’s wildlife from the deadly effects of lead poisoning. As the vote gets closer, we will keep you informed about this bill’s progress and, for our members in California, the opportunities for you to weigh in with your state legislators. Working together, we can get the lead out of California.

Kim Delfino, California Program Director

This week, the California Fish and Game Commission was supposed to demonstrate the use of non-lead ammunition.  They were going to show how there was no practical difference in the use of non-lead ammunition and lead ammunition – except for one very important distinction:  non-lead ammunition is not toxic and won’t poison wildlife and humans.  Unfortunately, that demonstration never happened because the shooting range owners pulled the plug on the event at the 11th hour.

It is too bad because the demonstration of the use of non-lead ammunition would have been an important educational moment for the hunting community – one that would have benefited their health and safety, as well as that of their family and of California’s wildlife.  The dangers of lead as a poison to humans is widely known.  That is why it is banned from everyday items such as gasoline, paint, pencils and water pipes.  Everyone knows that even a little exposure to lead can seriously poison a child.  What some may not know is that even a little exposure to lead can seriously poison wildlife as well.  A single ingested shotgun pellet or lead fragment can cause a horrible death in birds and other wildlife.  Lead poisoning isn’t pretty.  It affects the brain and collects in the bloodstream and organs.  Birds with lead poisoning are slow and lethargic, unable to sustain flying or eating.  They lose weight and are unable to navigate around things like wind turbines, buildings and power lines.  They are too slow and tired to avoid predators.

Lead was such a threat to waterfowl that in 1991, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service banned the use lead ammunition in waterfowl hunting. This was great news for waterfowl, but today other birds are still threatened by lead ammunition. Raptors, such as the highly-endangered California condor, the golden eagle and the bald eagle, suffer most from lead poisoning because they eat the carcasses of animals left behind by hunters.  Lead poisoning is one of the leading obstacles to the recovery of the California condors.  Biologists have to bring in condors regularly to “chelate” them – that is, treat their blood to remove lead.

States are beginning to address the problem of lead ammunition.  At least 25 states have banned lead shot for hunting specific species beyond what the federal government prohibited for the hunting of waterfowl.  Sixteen states have banned the use of lead ammunition in dove hunting. In 2007, Defenders of Wildlife worked to enact a state law banning the use of lead ammunition within the range of the California condor.  A recent study by the University of California at Davis Wildlife Health Center found that lead levels in raptors such as golden eagles and turkey vultures within the range of the ban were reduced after the ban went into effect .  Unfortunately, that ban covers less than 15 percent of the state of California, and wildlife is being poisoned by lead in the rest of the state.

Despite these limitations on the use of lead in some hunting activities, hunters are still depositing huge amounts of the toxic metal into the environment through the hunting of all animals other than waterfowl (and doves in some states).  In fact, frequently-used upland hunting fields, including those in California, may have as many as 400,000 shotgun pellets per acre.   And biologists are continuing to find carcasses of birds dead from lead poisoning. The time has come to ban the use of lead ammunition in hunting statewide in California.

Some in the hunting community resist a ban on the use of lead ammunition.  They claim that there are no good alternatives to lead ammunition.  That isn’t true.  If the California Fish and Game Commission demonstration on the use of lead ammunition had taken place, they would have seen that there are very viable and low-cost non-lead ammunition alternatives on the market today.  These are bullets that hunters are already buying and using.

What the Fish and Game Commission demonstration would have also shown is that lead ammunition fragments inside the body of whatever the hunter is shooting and also poses a risk to whoever is eating the meat from that animal.  For example, x-rays of deer carcasses shot by lead ammunition show a body riddled with tiny fragments of lead.  These tiny pieces of lead can’t be removed and are eaten by whoever is eating the meat – the hunter and his/her family.  Tests by the Center for Disease Control have shown that eating venison and other game can raise the amount of lead in the human body by 50 percent!  This has caused states like North Dakota to issue health warnings to pregnant women and children not to eat game shot by lead ammunition.

With the overwhelming evidence of the threat of lead poisoning to humans and wildlife from the use of lead ammunition, and the fact that there are safe, cheap and viable non-lead ammunition alternatives, why do we still allow the use of lead ammunition in hunting?  The time has come to get the lead out!

Kim Delfino, California Program Director

It’s almost February, and on the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge Complex, things are getting interesting.  The great Pacific Flyway migration is winding down — up to a million waterfowl have visited the refuge, including Ross’ geese, Aleutian cackling geese, snow geese, green-winged teal, mallard and American widgeon.  The Tule Elk bulls are getting ready to shed their antlers, and the showy wildflowers that ring the unique endangered vernal pool wetlands are about to bloom.  Vernal pools are seasonal, temporary pools of water in grasslands that provide habitat for more than 40 different kinds of species.  As the water evaporates in these pools, different kinds of flowers bloom in concentric rings around them – it’s quite a show! Amid all of this natural hullabaloo is another kind of hubbub – a debate over whether or not the San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge, part of the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge Complex, should be expanded into San Joaquin County.

While San Joaquin County is home to four rivers and part of the ecologically-critical Bay Delta, this county does not have a national wildlife refuge.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which manages the San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge, has proposed to expand the refuge to include a new corridor of river habitat stretching from Merced County into San Joaquin County.  Willing landowners – mainly farmers – would be able to sell land to the FWS to become part of the refuge if they are interested in doing so.  Then the FWS would replant these former agricultural lands with oaks, cottonwoods and willows along the San Joaquin River, restoring some of the vast riparian forests that were lost long ago when the Central Valley was developedand changed from a massive wetland and riparian forest to a sea of cropland, orchards, cities and towns.

All in all, the Central Valley has lost more than 95 percent of its riparian forests, resulting in a huge decline in migratory birds, shorebirds, raptors, reptiles, amphibians, fish and mammals.  Some of California’s most endangered fish and wildlife call this area home.  The critically endangered San Joaquin kit fox roam the region, and Swainson’s hawks soar over the valley grasslands. Riparian brush rabbits hide in the brush near rivers and streams while giant garter snakes make their homes in riverbanks. Even the endangered least Bell’s vireo has been found in the valley’s riparian forests.  And Chinook salmon migrate through Delta rivers and streams while delta smelt spend their lives moving around different parts of the Bay Delta’s estuary.

The proposed expansion of the San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge could provide habitat for more than 325 species of wildlife.  Unfortunately, we could miss out on this opportunity to protect and recover some of California’s most endangered species.  The San Joaquin County Farm Bureau does not want to see an expansion of the refuge into San Joaquin County.  They argue that they don’t believe that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will manage the refuge land well, and they worry about endangered species coming onto their property.  Some opponents of the expansion even argue that the federal government will take their land for the refuge, despite the fact that the FWS has repeatedly stated that they will only acquire land from willing sellers.

These fears are all misplaced.  Expanding the refuge will actually provide economic benefits to area farmers and landowners by increasing property values in the area.  Further, FWS refuge staff have successfully recovered endangered species — like the riparian brush rabbit — on federal lands without a single documented negative impact to adjacent landowners.  Farmers are stewards of the Central Valley’s environment, and if they choose to work with the FWS to recover threatened and endangered species, they can help enhance that environment and avoid future conflicts over land use and conservation as recovered species are removed from the endangered species list and from further regulation.

Defenders of Wildlife has worked to protect and restore the myriad of threatened, endangered and declining fish and wildlife in the Central Valley for more than a decade.   We have partnered with fishermen, hunters, ranchers, farmers and other environmental organizations to secure protections for the region’s wetlands, grasslands, vernal pools, migratory birds and declining fish populations.   We have supported the FWS staff in their efforts to obtain funding for this refuge, secure water for wildlife on the refuge, and even get a brand new visitors center in Los Banos, providing much-needed public access and education to a part of the Central Valley that has been underserved for decades.  This refuge expansion is yet another opportunity to improve the protections for Central Valley fish and wildlife as well as an important opportunity to provide San Joaquin County with a new place for public education and access to the outdoors.

The proposed expansion of the San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge is one of those rare win-win situations:  a win for wildlife and a win for San Joaquin County and the Central Valley.  The FWS wants to know what you think.  The public comment period on the refuge expansion is open, but closing soon! It will be over this Friday on February 1.  Defenders has sent a letter urging the FWS to expand the refuge, and so should you!

To view the proposal, go to:  http://go.usa.gov/YMWY  To comment, just send an e-mail to fw8plancomments@fws.gov with “San Joaquin River” as the subject.  Together, we can help secure this victory for California’s wildlife!

 

Kim Delfino, California Program Director

The Bay Delta ecosystem extends from the rivers flowing from the Sierra Nevada into the San FranciscoBay and out into the Pacific Ocean. It is the largest estuarine ecosystem (where freshwater and saltwater mix) along the entire west coast of North and South America, and one of California’s most important ecosystems, providing critical spawning grounds for some fish species, and rearing areas and migratory pathways for others.  The Bay Delta is home to Chinook salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, delta smelt, longfin smelt, Sacramento splittail and other fish species.  It is also home to millions of migratory birds, numerous raptors like the California state listed Swainson’s hawk, and other threatened and endangered species such as the riparian brush rabbit and giant garter snake.

Almost every year since 1967, from September to December, California Department of Fish and Wildlife biologists put trawl nets into the waters of the Bay Delta to determine how fish populations are doing, which helps them measure the overall health of the estuary.  This survey is known as the Fall Midwater Trawl, and over the years it has illustrated in stark terms that fish populations in the Bay Delta are drastically declining, with some species hovering near extinction.

In 2002, the fish population crash really started for six species, including the tiny but important Delta smelt.  The Delta smelt is the Delta ecosystem’s proverbial “canary in the coal mine,” with its population numbers hovering at less than one percent of its historical population.  This ecological crisis comes on the heels of decades of armoring our rivers with levees, building dams, diverting huge amounts of water for our agricultural fields and urban areas, dumping toxic chemicals into our rivers and streams and introducing non-native species, both intentionally and accidentally.  The Bay Delta has also become ground zero in a battle over water in California, with large urban and agricultural water agencies fighting to keeping draining water out of the Delta.

For the past six years,  we have been working with other conservation organizations, water agencies and local, state and federal agencies on a plan to create a solution for the Bay Delta.  The planning effort – known as the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (“BDCP”) – has struggled mightily to reconcile the equally important goals of restoring and recovering the Bay Delta ecosystem and providing California with a reliable water supply.

For a long time, we focused on a project that would involve a huge habitat restoration effort in conjunction with a massive twin-tunnel facility to move water where it is needed. This approach raised major questions about how much it will cost water agencies and the public, how well it will really recover the Bay Delta, and how much water it will actually provide to water agencies.  So in July 2012, we set off on a different track. Defenders joined with its environmental organization partners to outline what I hope will be the ultimate outcome of this important planning effort.

After working hard with our coalition of conservation and business groups, this month we released our new proposal – a Conceptual Alternative – on how to “fix” the Bay Delta ecosystem, and address the complex water issues it faces. This alternative focuses on a smaller, less expensive water conveyance tunnel in the Bay Delta, with the savings directed towards water recycling, water conservation, increased water storage south of the Bay Delta and improvements to the Delta’s aging levee system.

This approach is good news for the Bay Delta’s wildlife species, such as sandhill crane, Swainson’s hawk and giant garter snake, because it will result in fewer impacts to sensitive riparian, wetland and river habitats. It may also keep more water in the Bay Delta system at key times of the year for salmon, steelhead and smelt.  Our plan will also provide important information about how much water should be in the Delta ecosystem at times that are critical for species like the Delta smelt, and it will show that Delta habitat restoration can be more focused on less risky projects that are more likely to benefit both fish and wildlife, particularly migratory birds. In addition to all these benefits, the package will also cost less than the $18 billion price tag for the current BDCP.

While the Conceptual Alternative may not be the final, ultimate solution for the Bay Delta, I believe that it is essential for the state and federal agencies responsible for the BDCP to analyze  the critical information that this package offers about cost, water operations, habitat restoration and alternative water supplies – all of which are key components for a successful solution. We hope that the federal and state agencies involved will take a long look at this proposal and see that it will help them move closer to attaining the goals articulated by the environmental community in July 2012.

Just one month ago, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife reported that the Fall Midwater Trawl came back with bad news – the fish populations are continuing to dwindle – with the threadfin shad setting a record low population.  This most recent news highlights how critical it is that we find a solution – fast – to save the Bay Delta and its species from extinction.

Time is running out for the Bay Delta.  Multiple planning efforts have been tried and failed.  Defenders of Wildlife and our partners believe that the BDCP might be the last, best hope for saving the Bay Delta and the species that depend on it, but in order for the BDCP to come up with the winning solution, we needed a “game changer” – a proposal to highlight what we believe is essential if a plan is to work for all those who have a stake in it: for the Bay Delta, for water users, and for California.  With our Conceptual Alternative proposal, we believe we finally have that piece of the puzzle, and hope it will finally spur some action toward restoring the Delta for all those who rely on it for survival.