Defenders of Wildlife Blog

Kim Delfino, California Program Director

Bald eagle, ©Wes Gibson

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.”

X-ray of lead shot in the digestive tract of a young bald eagle. ©USGS

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!

Sea otters rest wrapped in kelp beds along the California coast (c) Bruce J. Lichenberger

The tax deadline is looming, but there’s still time for Californians to help make a difference for threatened sea otters by donating as little as $1 to the California Sea Otter Fund on their state tax forms.

Though they once numbered in the hundreds of thousands, today there are fewer than 2,800 sea otters along the California coast. And with continuous threats of being poisoned by oil spills or other pollution, these charismatic critters are struggling to make a comeback.

In these tough economic times, donations that go to provide vital research dedicated to helping sea otters survive are more important than ever. That’s why Defenders worked with California lawmakers to establish the California Sea Otter Fund, giving California taxpayers the opportunity to contribute to the recovery of these animals just by entering $1 or more on line 410 of their California state tax form.

Each year, the Franchise Tax Board sets a target amount that the program has to raise in order to be on the form again the following year. For the last six years Californians have dug deep and donated enough for the tax check-off to return. This year, the tax check off must raise $273,025 — so if you’re in California, as you finish filling out your tax forms this year don’t forget about our furry aquatic friends.

2012 was a better year than usual for California’s sea otters, with the spring census showing a slight increase in the total population for the first time in four years. In December, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also officially abandoned their failed no-otter zone, allowing sea otters to expand their natural range to California’s southern waters without the threat of being moved back north across an invisible line in the Pacific Ocean. Between pollution and disease, sea otters still face many serious challenges, but with your help we can work to keep them on this path to recovery.

Click here to find out more on sea otter conservation and Defenders’ work with the California Tax Check-off.

Not in California? You can still help save sea otters by adopting one of these marvelous marine mammals. Not only will you be sharing your appreciation for this imperiled species, but you’ll also be helping to support Defenders’ work on their behalf. Click here to visit our Wildlife Adoption Center.

Suzanne Stone, Northern Rockies Representative

OR-14, a wolf from the Umatilla River pack. (c) ODFW

In 1999, a female wolf from Idaho crossed over into central Oregon before the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service tracked her down, darted her, caged her and then returned her to Idaho. She was the first known wolf to return to Oregon since the mid-1930s, when the species was officially eradicated. Her journey set efforts into motion that led to the creation of the Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan. Other legislation, knee-jerk county decrees and countless news stories followed, all speculating on what impact wolves might have as they returned to their historic homeland.

I served on the original team that helped draft the earliest versions of what eventually became the state’s wolf plan. That’s where I met Carl Scheeler, wildlife biologist for the Umatilla tribe in northeast Oregon, who would continue to help the state craft conservation strategies that were adopted in 2005. Carl is a great biologist and also good with people. His sometimes irreverent humor was always well timed to lift discussions that had become muddied or polarized. He seemed to know that, no matter what, things were going to work out. His optimism helped many of us endure the endless (and often thankless) work of forging a plan that would secure the restoration of wolves while meeting the needs of diverse residents.

Carl always looked forward to the day that wolves would be documented on the Umatilla reservation, and would call from time to time with reports of tracks, sightings and other hopeful signs. It wasn’t until last year, however, that his hopes were finally fulfilled. Carl’s department assisted the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) in efforts to confirm the first wolf den site near the reservation. ODFW wolf biologists documented four pups last summer, and Defenders helped the tribe purchase several infrared, motion-detection wildlife cameras to continue monitoring the pack. In the fall, tribal biologists used the cameras we provided to document the alpha male of the pack. Then, just a few weeks ago, they captured this footage of the pack. We don’t know what startles the young wolf during the video, but notice how he submissively wraps his tail under his hindlegs. That’s normally the response of a lower-ranking wolf or pup when frightened.

Last week, Carl and I met with local ranchers and tribal and state wildlife managers to discuss nonlethal strategies for reducing conflicts between livestock and wolves on the reservation. We talked about the use of carcass disposal, increased human presence, fladry and other deterrents to reduce wolf and livestock losses. After the meeting, we followed up on a tip from a wildlife manager of another possible pack near tribal lands. It’s a beautiful national forest area that looks like the expansive valleys and rolling mountains in Yellowstone. There were loads of elk and plenty of deer sign in the large, open meadows and gorgeous red-barked Ponderosa pines towering above us as we drove through the rolling hills. After driving over washboard-pitted dirt roads with a blizzard bearing down on us, we found the spot where the tracks were reported. Tracking conditions were pretty good in the thin blanket of snow that covered most of the ground. Eager to confirm a new pack, we examined the tracks and quickly determined they were canine, but not wolf. Wolves have huge feet and leave a track that typically measures about five inches in length and three to four inches in width. That’s about the size of my hand, which is useful when I don’t have a ruler handy. Unfortunately, these were dog tracks – a big dog to be certain, but not his wild ancestor.

I always welcome the chance to return to the Umatilla country, and it’s even more powerful now with wolves back on the reservation. As one tribal leader assured me, “Wolves are welcome here and we hope to never lose them again.” Defenders will be part of that effort to ensure that wolves have a secure future on their historic homeland that they once again share with the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla.

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.

Golden eagle

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.

A California condor flies over Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge (c)USFWS

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.

Pelayo Alvarez, California Rangeland Conservation Coalition Program Coordinator

California grasslands (c) Alan Vernon

In the Golden State, an odd alliance has taken root. Two groups with distinct (sometimes opposing) views of how land should be used are teaming up to work together: the conservation community and the state’s ranchers. Across California, there are more than 11 million acres of privately-owned rangelands — grasslands, oak woodlands and vernal pool habitats that a myriad of species depend on, including the San Joaquin kit fox, Swainson’s hawk and the California tiger salamander. Yet as valuable as all this land is to wildlife, those who own it are often under pressure to convert it to more lucrative land uses, such as urbanization and intensive agriculture. So long as a rancher owns the land, they keep the habitat intact while using it for grazing – a practice that is particularly important in California where grazing animals help keep invasive plant species from gaining a foothold in the native ecosystem. This means that the fate of this region’s biodiversity — its wildlife, plant life, and all pieces of this living landscape — is inextricably linked to private ranching.  By working with ranchers to help them stay in ranching and manage their land with wildlife conservation in mind, we can keep countless acres of habitat from being plowed up for crops or built into housing developments.

And so, the California Rangeland Conservation Coalition was born:  a broad and diverse alliance of conservation organizations, government agencies, academics and the ranching community working together to protect rangeland habitats in California’s Central Valley. Defenders is a founding member of this group of odd bedfellows that first came together in 2005 to curb the devastating effects that the conversion of rangelands to urbanization and intensive agriculture is having on species and habitats in California.

California Program Director Kim Delfino speaks at the 2013 summit.

The Coalition had its 8th Annual Summit at UC Davis last month, held in conjunction with the Rustici Science Symposium. The event brought together more than 390 attendees to learn about the latest science on rangeland ecology and management, and to discuss and present solutions for the challenges that ranchers face when trying to balance the needs of wildlife with the realities of keeping a viable livestock operation.  As with every year’s Summit, it was great to see scientists, conservationists and land managers working together.  Our California Program Director, Kim Delfino, delivered the opening remarks, reminding all present that for the Coalition to succeed in protecting rangelands, we would all have to change our long-entrenched views and presumptions about one another.

The Coalition was created based on scientific evidence that with proper management, grazing could benefit species in open grasslands and delicate habitats such as vernal pools.  But science alone will not be enough to protect grasslands from conversion when ranchers must decide whether or not to sell the land.  The Summit keeps that focus on solid science while recognizing the important roles that social and economic factors can play in driving conservation, and the agenda provided an excellent mix of talks by ranchers, researchers and conservationists with topics ranging from invasive species control to the challenges of producing grass-fed livestock while grazing on a wildlife refuge. Such a variety of speakers and topics allows for great conversations around the table.

The San Joaquin kit fox is one of the many species that rely on California’s grasslands (c)Barry Peterson

The Annual Summit provides an exceptional opportunity to meet other folks with different perspectives but with one thing in common: a love for rangelands.  The evidence was everywhere. A few ranchers were spotted buying manuals from the California Native Plant Society. The director of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife spoke to representatives of Resource Conservation Districts, and a Farm Bureau representative got to talk to experts in ecosystem services.  Of course, there can also be disagreement. One of this year’s most interesting exchanges occurred when a rancher argued with the USDA that feral pigs, far from being a nuisance, actually provide valuable ecological services to his ranch.  While we do not agree on everything, it is the ability to connect and learn from each other’s perspectives that allow us to work collaboratively – and that collaboration continues to be more and more important as new challenges arise.

Aside from the common theme of fighting rangeland conversion, there are a number of issues ahead that will keep testing the strength of this Coalition, including climate change and wildlife-livestock coexistence. But these relationships that have been forged over the years among scientists, ranchers and conservationists allow us to better manage and protect these complex ecosystems for both people and wildlife, and to tackle new challenges together.  The survival of grassland habitats and species depends on it.

New MT Guv signs bad wolf bill – Even though he signed off on a bill that makes it easier for Montanans to kill wolves, we’re still hopeful that Steve Bullock, Montana’s new governor, will be a strong proponent of science-based wildlife management. He indicated as much by saying biologists, not politicians, ought to be managing wolves (read more from KPAX). Bullock has also asked the state wildlife director “to make sure that we are educating hunters about collared wolves around the parks and also to reengage the wolf management council that used to be part of our state in the past.” Both are excellent ideas that we fully support.

What’s troubling, however, is that the bill’s sponsors are perpetuating the same-old wolf fallacies. In an op-ed published by the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, they contend that “as our state’s wolf population continues to grow, so do the problems for Montanans.” Yet in 2012, Montana’s livestock loss board compensated ranchers for just 122 animals. With about half a million head of cattle and 30,000 sheep in western Montana, those wolf impacts seem pretty minor. Far more animals are lost to other causes including other predators, and ranchers don’t get reimbursed when cows get struck by lightning or sheep get eaten by coyotes. Then there’s the tired complaint about wolves decimating big game populations, even though Montana still reports having about 150,000 elk – double the number of elk Montana had 30 years ago when there were no wolves at all. Elk populations need to be held in balance with habitat needs, which wolves help promote.

Unfortunately, this bill does prevent Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks from closing wolf hunting and trapping zones around national parks, nixing the creation of buffer zones around Yellowstone National Park. So we’ll have to focus our efforts now on making sure the state sets a low quota in these areas to limit the risk to wolves that leave the park.

Sign on to save wolves –Reps. Peter DeFazio (D – Oregon) and Ed Markey (D – Mass.) are fighting to protect wolves in the West, and they need your help! The congressman are sending a letter to Dan Ashe, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, asking him to maintain federal protections for wolves where they are not yet recovered. This applies particularly to wolves in the Pacific Northwest, where they have only recently returned, and places like Colorado and Utah, where there are currently no known wolves. These are important parts of the species historic range that should not be written off. Unfortunately, the Service conducted a scientific review last year of wolf populations and is expected to strip federal protections across much of the West later this year – maybe as soon as March. This could be our last chance to make a difference before the delisting proposal is released. Tell your congressman to help protect our wolves!

A fount of wolf wisdom – Norm Bishop knows a thing or two about wolves. He spent 36 years working as a national park ranger, serving as a naturalist and interpretive guide at Yellowstone National Park leading up to the reintroduction in 1995. Since then, he has remained engaged as a wolf advocate and diligent researcher. In a talk this week in Bozeman he pulled together some of the latest studies on wolf biology, interactions with prey species, and the future of wolf conservation it the West. His review serves as one-stop shopping for a scientific rebuttal of the wolf myths that we hear over…and over…and over again.