Project Gutpile's Unleaded News

Responses to Anthony's Op-Ed piece in the NY Times

2010-12-17T09:51:00.000-08:00

We've received a number of responses to Anthony's editorial in the NY Times, most of them positive. We generally only receive negative comments, getting so much positive feedback over such a short period of time warranted posting. We have removed names to protect the privacy of the individuals who wrote. Below are a handfull of emails we received over the last two days. We'll continue to add to this post as the emails arrive......

--------------------------

Project Gutpile,

I read Anthony Prieto’s opinion in the New York Times dated December 15. 2010, or at least as much as I could stomach. You expect to be taken seriously when you kill animals with a rifle? At least play fair, and go out there with a slingshot. Give the defenseless animals a fair shot. And you worry about lead poisoning? I’m sure the elk appreciate your concern as they lay dying from a high-powered rifle bullet. I know I would be concerned in their position. Maybe you should extend your campaign to include the American police forces. You don’t want them killing people with lead bullets, do you? Taken in that context maybe it’s easier for you to understand. Or do you consider human life to be as expendable as non-human?

J.D.
--------------------------

Anthony,

After watching Jim Petterson's lead vs copper ballistics research on YouTube and reading your Op/ed in the NYT I would like to step into the fray as a spokesperson for the cause.

I live in Vermont and write monthly columns for two sporting magazines. I also run a guide service and a mentoring program for at-risk youth.

My constituency is comprised of those who vociferously support anything that the NRA claims and, with the exception of a few hunting partners, it appears that the entire state is against getting the lead out.

I know that expressing this opinion may cause many of my readers to be rather vocal and maybe even boycott my columns, but I believe this information MUST get disseminated and would like to add it to my blog and make mention of the column and research behind the issue.

May I have your permission to do so?

Thank You,
B.C.
--------------------------

Mr. Prieto,

I just read your piece in the NY Times. Though I can agree with your motives your demand for an outright ban is counter-productive. Why is there always such a knee jerk reaction when such a demand is made? The reason you get such a backlash is that you are trying to tell hunters that they will have to throw away all the ammunition they now own if a ban is passed. I still have boxes of lead #2 &4 shotgun loads for water fowl from years ago. Now you want to tell me I have to throw out all my stock of rifle ammo and start over? No way you're going to get my support. Ammo is an expensive part of hunting if one practices shooting enough to make a humane kill. I can easily shoot the equivalent cost of a Leupold scope in ammo each year practicing. And what of guys that just like to shoot?
Nope, you're on the wrong track.
You'd be much better off lobbying to mandate that the bullet manufacturers have to switch to copper by a certain date. All existing ammo would be grandfathered in, it could be used up until the shooter had to buy newer copper bullets. Eventually lead would be phased out. But if you insist on an outright ban, you will be fought every step of the way.

BTW, this ignores the fact that the evidence you speak of is strictly anecdotal. No study has ever proved that raptors are dying of lead poisoning. But if it makes you feel better to ban lead, this is how you should go about it.

Hey, what about all those lead wheel weights that fall off on the side of the road each year? Should we make those from copper also? And if you're serious about your blog you may want to post more often than every two years.

regards,

R.S.

South Salem, NY
--------------------------

Anthony,

Thanks for your oped piece in the NYTimes today. I'm 75, have never hunted before this year, but got a license to take some game/food on my Mendocino Co property. As the government taught me to shoot in the 1950's I thought I would give hunting a try. The fact that the EPA folded on this very obvious issue is amazing. Do you have support from Congressman Mike Thompson in my area? If not, I'll sign up to make contact.

Again, this is obviously a tough political, long term issue. I'll help if I can.

D.K.
--------------------------

Dear Mr. Prieto,

I just read your op-ed piece in the NY Times (online), and it was a rare pleasure to read something good in that venue!

I'm an NRA life-member and a Reagan Conservative, and I wholeheartedly agree with you on getting rid of Lead. As soon as Copper bullets became available, I switched. As an engineer, I find copper to be superior to lead in every way. Even its lower density I find to be advantageous: just use a longer, more streamlined bullet!

I don't really like the approach of using the EPA, but I do see the logic behind it.

I'd like to join Project Gutpile. As a Benefactor NRA member, I'll try to influence them to change their position on this. One thing you might want to consider is the economic impact this would have on the ammunition manufacturers. A bill to provide them with Federal funding (say, in the form of tax credits) to switch from Lead to Copper might allay some of their fears.

Regards,
Dan Nutley
--------------------------

howdy mr prieto et al,
out here in southern indiana, i'd be proud to use only non-lead ammo and fishing hardware. heck, i'll even proselytize-accordingly. u know of a web site where non-lead goodies can be ordered? especially fishing weights, 22LR, 44mag and 50cal muzzlelaoder bullets.

thx for all u do,
nathan pate
--------------------------

Note: I originally wrote this as a letter to the editor at the Times, then decided it would be better directed directly to y'all.

-Jeff Levene
Atlanta

Disclosure: I am not a hunter. Even so, it is obvious why vocal opposition to the proposed lead-bullet ban is inevitable: most bullets are not used for hunting. Most bullets are used at target ranges, or carried and (hopefully) never fired, for self protection. I know many firearm owners, and only a small minority of them hunt (granted, I live in an urban area), but they each use thousands of rounds per year at the target range. This proposal would increase their costs significantly, and unnecessarily.

The proposed regulation is a member of the extremely large class of regulation that goes far beyond what is necessary to protect what is ostensibly being protected.

Does everyone remember "killer air bags"? They were MANDATED by the original airbag regulation, because the bureaucrat who wrote the regulation decided they should be powerful enough to protect an unbelted large man, and did not realize that this was enough power to seriously injure or kill a smaller person.

Here, too, the proposal goes beyond what is required. Would not a simple ban on HUNTING with lead bullets or shot accomplish the stated goal? To go further, a ban on lead rifle ammunition and shotgun shells would fully accomplish the stated goals, while not forcing all handgun owners to likewise bear the higher costs, and reducing the costs for the majority of hunters who also own handguns. Since it is very unusual for the same ammunition to be used by handguns and rifles, this would be straightforward, enforceable, and effective.Mr. Prieto may find that the opposition to his proposal is based mostly on its simply being unreasonably heavy-handed.
--------------------------

Mr. Preito -

Saw your Op-Ed in the NYT. It makes sense to use copper. Or copper alloys. The cost difference is minimal for a hunter. There are a lot of choices already for a popular bore like the .30-06 bolt action that I use. Once your rifle is sighted in you just don't need to use that much ammunition. The NRA takes odd positions on many issues.

J.A.
Berkeley, CA
--------------------------

Anthony,

I live in Bucks County PA and my understanding is that you can only hunt with shotguns or bow. Do the gun companies produce any shotgun ammo without lead?

D
--------------------------

How exactly is enough lead getting in a gut pile to poison anything? It just isn't possible, even if it were, what animals are you talking about, coyotes? There doing more damage than lead ever will. As for Condors, there is no concrete proof that the lead that effected them came from bullets, in fact, it is statistically unlikely(look it up). Don't do your research on U-Tube! If you are really a hunter and shooter (which I doubt) you would never push an agenda that started with PETA and other anti-gun and anti-hunting groups. You, and people that follow you are working against the rights of the American hunter and shooter and must stop.

P.S.

Anthony's Op-Ed piece in the NY Times

2010-12-17T09:45:00.000-08:00

Get the Lead Out of Hunting

By ANTHONY PRIETO

Published: December 15, 2010

Santa Barbara, Calif.

I’VE hunted elk, deer and wild pigs in the American West for 25 years. Like many hunters, I follow several rules: Respect other forms of life, take only what my family can eat and the ecosystem can sustain, and leave as little impact on the environment as possible.

That’s why I hunt with copper bullets instead of lead. We’ve long known about the collateral damage caused by lead ammunition. When bald and golden eagles, vultures, bears, endangered California condors and other scavengers eat the innards, called gutpiles, that hunters leave in the field after cleaning their catch or the game that hunters wound but don’t capture, they can ingest poisonous lead fragments. Most sicken, and many die.

When I began hunting, I buried the lead-laden gutpiles. It would help if more hunters did this, but it’s not enough. Scavengers often dig gutpiles up anyway. And the meat that hunters take home to their families could be tainted. I’ve seen X-rays of shot game showing dust-sized lead particles spread throughout the meat, far away from the bullet hole. The best solution is to stop using lead ammunition altogether.

So last summer conservationists — along with the organization I run — formally petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to ban lead bullets and shot nationwide (there are limited bans for some hunting areas and game). The E.P.A. rejected the petition, and we’ve since filed a lawsuit to get the agency to address the problem.

Unfortunately, there is vocal opposition to any ammunition regulation from groups like the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which see the campaign as an attack on hunting rights, and fear that the cost of non-lead ammunition would drive hunters away from the sport.

But this campaign has nothing to do with revoking hunting rights; if it did, I would not be involved. It’s an issue of using non-toxic materials. Was the removal of lead paint from children’s toys a plot to do away with toys? Did the switch to unleaded gas hide an ulterior motive of removing vehicles from our roads?

And although copper bullets can be more expensive than lead ones, the cost of ammunition is a small fraction of what I spend on hunting, which includes gear, optics, food, gas and licenses. No one will quit hunting over spending a few more quarters per bullet. Besides, the more hunters switch to copper, the faster prices will come down. Back in the ’90s, before pre-loaded copper cartridges could be bought over the counter, I had to hand-load my copper bullets. But already it’s easy to find them in many calibers, including those for my Browning .270 and my Winchester .300.

The dozen friends I hunt with love shooting non-lead bullets, and it’s not just because they’re doing something good for the environment. The ballistics are better. I’ve killed more than 80 pigs and 40 deer shooting copper. These bullets travel up to 3,200 feet per second and have about a 98 percent weight retention — meaning they don’t fragment as easily as lead. Copper kills cleanly. It can help keep our hunting grounds clean as well.

Anthony Prieto is the founder of Project Gutpile, a hunting group that advocates lead-free ammunition.

***************************************

Original, unedited version

A Hunter’s Perspective: Time to Get the Lead Out of Hunting Ammunition

By Anthony Prieto

I’ve been a hunter for 25 years. I hunt elk, deer and wild pigs, and I feed the meat I harvest to my family. My hunting ethics are in line with the traditions of my indigenous ancestors and with those of many other hunter-conservationists in this country: Respect other forms of life, take only what I need and what the ecosystem can sustain, and leave as little impact as possible on the environment.

After I started hunting I became aware of collateral damage caused by lead ammunition. Bald and golden eagles, vultures, bears, endangered California condors and other scavengers eat carrion shot by hunters, either from gutpiles left in the field or injured game that dies later. If that game was shot with lead ammunition, scavengers ingest toxic lead fragments.

I have held in my hand fragments of lead ammunition that were removed from the stomachs of lead-poisoned birds. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to determine that lead ammunition is the cause of lead poisoning of wildlife, but scientists have compiled extensive and undeniable forensic evidence proving this.

When I first began hunting, I buried the lead-laden gutpiles from my game to keep them away from raptors and mammals. I helped found Project Gutpile to get other hunters to do the same and to provide educational resources for lead-free hunters and anglers. Unfortunately, few hunters regularly bury or pack out gutpiles, and scavenging animals often dig up buried gutpiles anyway. The best answer has always been to stop using lead ammunition.

Fortunately, nonlead bullets made of copper and other nontoxic metals are increasingly available. I started hand-loading copper bullets in 1997. Now it’s a lot easier to find nonlead bullets in many calibers, and I can buy preloaded cartridges over the counter for my Browning .270 and my Winchester .300 Mag.

The health issues from hunting with lead have really opened my eyes. I care about my family’s health, and I can’t see feeding lead-tainted meat to my four-year-old or anybody else. I was shocked when I saw X-rays of shot game revealing dust-sized particles of lead spread throughout the meat, up to a foot and a half away from the impact zone. This is lead we can’t see, spread throughout the meat we feed to our families.

Last month Project Gutpile joined a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency to get a court to order the agency to finally address the epidemic of lead poisoning of wildlife. Although many hunters are now shooting unleaded, there has been vocal and misguided opposition to any regulation from groups such as the NRA and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which fear the campaign is a backdoor attack on hunting rights and that the cost of nonlead ammunition would drive hunters away from the sport.

If this campaign had anything to do with revoking my hunting rights, I would not be involved. But it doesn’t. This is about using less toxic materials. Was the removal of lead paint from children’s toys actually an “underlying movement” to do away with toys? Did the switch to unleaded gas have an “ulterior motive” to remove vehicles from our roads?

We are seeking regulations to address lead exposure to wildlife, and this will not affect ammunition for law enforcement, home defense, nonhunting activities or the military, which is already developing its own “green bullet.”

I can’t understand the commotion about switching to nonlead ammo. The price? The cost of ammunition is a small fraction of what I spend on hunting. My main costs are hunting gear, optics, food, gas and hunting licenses. Requiring the use of nontoxic ammo will increase the demand and availability, and as production costs fall, prices for hunters will too. Supply and demand is already working: Some of the nonlead ammo I buy is cheaper than the lead equivalent.

The dozen friends I hunt with love shooting nonlead, and not just because they like to “feel good” about their bullets. It’s all about ballistics. I’ve killed more than 80 pigs and 40 deer shooting copper. Copper bullets have superior ballistics and shoot better than lead, with velocities over 3,200 feet per second and about 98-percent weight retention. Copper kills cleanly and has more than enough stopping power for large game.

In a decade we will wonder what all the fuss was about. Our children will thank us for making a change to nontoxic ammo and ask why it took so long. Future generations will be able to enjoy hunting and fishing knowing that they’re not poisoning other animals or their families. That’s my Second Amendment right and I stand by it. It’s time to get the lead out for wildlife.

Anthony Prieto of Santa Barbara, California, is the founder of Project Gutpile, a hunting group that advocates for lead-free ammunition and has been raising lead awareness in the hunting community since 2002.

EPA Denies Petition to Protect Wildlife From Toxic Lead-based Ammunition

2010-08-28T08:56:00.001-07:00

WASHINGTON— Conservation groups expressed dismay today after a decision by the Environmental Protection Agency to deny a petition to ban toxic lead bullets and shot that commonly kill and harm bald eagles, trumpeter swans, endangered California condors and other wildlife. An estimated 10 million to 20 million birds and other animals die each year from lead poisoning in the United States.

“The EPA had ample evidence that lead bullets and shot have a devastating effect on America’s wildlife, yet has refused to do anything about it. It’s disappointing to see this country’s top environmental agency simply walk away from the preventable poisoning of birds and other wildlife,” said Darin Schroeder, Vice President for Conservation Advocacy at American Bird Conservancy.
On Aug. 3, American Bird Conservancy, Center for Biological Diversity, Association of Avian Veterinarians, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, and the hunters’ group Project Gutpile petitioned the EPA to ban lead in bullets and shot for hunting, as well as fishing tackle. The petition referenced nearly 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers illustrating the widespread dangers of lead ammunition and fishing tackle. While the EPA is still considering the petition’s request for the regulation of lead fishing tackle, it denied the petition’s request regarding lead ammunition on the grounds that the Toxic Substances Control Act contains a specific exemption for lead ammunition.
“We strongly believe that the EPA has the clear authority and duty to regulate this very harmful and toxic substance as used in bullets and shot, despite the so-called exemption for lead ammunition that is written into TSCA. We had hoped they would take that responsibility seriously but we remain committed to making sure toxic lead is removed from the environment and we’ll redouble our efforts to see that through,” said Adam Keats, senior counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity.
Lead is an extremely toxic substance that is dangerous to people and wildlife even at low levels. Exposure can cause a range of health effects, from acute poisoning and death to long-term problems such as reduced reproduction, inhibition of growth and damage to neurological development.
Animals are poisoned when they scavenge on carcasses shot and contaminated with lead bullet fragments, or pick up and eat spent lead-shot pellets or lost fishing weights, mistaking them for food or grit. Some animals die a painful death from lead poisoning while others suffer for years from its debilitating effects.

Bush to Relax Protected Species Act

2008-08-12T11:05:00.000-07:00

Tuesday, Aug. 12, 2008
By AP/DINA CAPPIELLO

(WASHINGTON) —Parts of the Endangered Species Act may soon be extinct. The Bush administration wants federal agencies to decide for themselves whether highways, dams, mines and other construction projects might harm endangered animals and plants.

New regulations, which don't require the approval of Congress, would reduce the mandatory, independent reviews government scientists have been performing for 35 years, according to a draft first obtained by The Associated Press .

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said late Monday the changes were needed to ensure that the Endangered Species Act would not be used as a "back door" to regulate the gases blamed for global warming. In May, the polar bear became the first species declared as threatened because of climate change. Warming temperatures are expected to melt the sea ice the bear depends on for survival.

The draft rules would bar federal agencies from assessing the emissions from projects that contribute to global warming and its effect on species and habitats.

"We need to focus our efforts where they will do the most good," Kempthorne said in a news conference organized quickly after AP reported details of the proposal. "It is important to use our time and resources to protect the most vulnerable species. It is not possible to draw a link between greenhouse gas emissions and distant observations of impacts on species."

If approved, the changes would represent the biggest overhaul of endangered species regulations since 1986. They would accomplish through rules what conservative Republicans have been unable to achieve in Congress: ending some environmental reviews that developers and other federal agencies blame for delays and cost increases on many projects.

The chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, which oversees the Interior Department, said he was "deeply troubled" by the changes.

"This proposed rule ... gives federal agencies an unacceptable degree of discretion to decide whether or not to comply with the Endangered Species Act," said Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va. "Eleventh-hour rulemakings rarely if ever lead to good government."

The new regulations follow a pattern by the Bush administration not to seek input from its scientists. The regulations were drafted by attorneys at both the Interior and Commerce Departments. Scientists with both agencies were first briefed on the proposal last week during a conference call, according to an official who asked not to be identified.

Last month, in similar fashion, the Environmental Protection Agency surprised its scientific experts when it decided it did not want to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

The rule changes unveiled Monday would apply to any project a federal agency would fund, build or authorize that the agency itself determines is unlikely to harm endangered wildlife and their habitat. Government wildlife experts currently participate in tens of thousands of such reviews each year.

The revisions also would limit which effects can be considered harmful and set a 60-day deadline for wildlife experts to evaluate a project when they are asked to become involved. If no decision is made within 60 days, the project can move ahead.

"If adopted, these changes would seriously weaken the safety net of habitat protections that we have relied upon to protect and recover endangered fish, wildlife and plants for the past 35 years," said John Kostyack, executive director of the National Wildlife Federation's Wildlife Conservation and Global Warming initiative.

Under current law, federal agencies must consult with experts at the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service to determine whether a project is likely to jeopardize any endangered species or to damage habitat, even if no harm seems likely. This initial review usually results in accommodations that better protect the 1,353 animals and plants in the U.S. listed as threatened or endangered and determines whether a more formal analysis is warranted.

The Interior Department said such consultations are no longer necessary because federal agencies have developed expertise to review their own construction and development projects, according to the 30-page draft obtained by the AP .

"We believe federal action agencies will err on the side of caution in making these determinations," the proposal said.

The director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Dale Hall, said the changes would help focus expertise on "where we know we don't have a negative effect on the species but where the agency is vulnerable if we don't complete a consultation."

Responding to questions about the process, Hall said, "We will not do anything that leaves the public out of this process."

The new rules were expected to be formally proposed immediately, officials said. They would be subject to a 30-day public comment period before being finalized by the Interior Department. That would give the administration enough time to impose the rules before November's presidential election. A new administration could freeze any pending regulations or reverse them, a process that could take months. Congress could also overturn the rules through legislation, but that could take even longer.

Between 1998 and 2002, the Fish and Wildlife Service conducted 300,000 consultations. The National Marine Fisheries Service, which evaluates projects affecting marine species, conducts about 1,300 reviews each year.

The reviews have helped safeguard protected species such as bald eagles, Florida panthers and whooping cranes. A federal government handbook from 1998 described the consultations as "some of the most valuable and powerful tools to conserve listed species."

In recent years, however, some federal agencies and private developers have complained that the process results in delays and increased construction costs.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, called the proposed changes illegal.

"This proposed regulation is another in a continuing stream of proposals to repeal our landmark environmental laws through the back door," she said. "If this proposed regulation had been in place, it would have undermined our ability to protect the bald eagle, the grizzly bear and the gray whale."

"This is the fox guarding the hen house. The interests of agencies will outweigh species protection interests," said Eric Glitzenstein, the attorney representing environmental groups in the lawsuit over the wildfire prevention regulations. "What they are talking about doing is eviscerating the Endangered Species Act."

No More Lead Head by Anthony Prieto

2008-07-26T10:32:00.000-07:00

Thursday, July 17, 2008, Santa Barbara Independant
By Anthony Prieto, a Santa Barbara hunter.

New hunting regulations requiring non-lead ammunition in the range of the California condor in Central and Southern California went into effect July 1, to prevent further lead poisonings of the giant, ancient vultures.

I am the cofounder of Project Gutpile, a Web site for California hunters that gives the latest data, technology, availability, and ballistic information for non-lead ammunition. I've been a volunteer for 10 years with the condor recovery effort and have hunted Southern California for blacktail deer and wild pigs for the past 22 years.

I've seen and heard both sides of the lead ammunition debate and have been side-by-side with both hunters and conservationists in the field. Hunting with lead ammo left me no choice but to bury my lead-tainted gut piles. In 1998, I was introduced to the Barnes 100 percent copper bullet. It shot better. It was faster, retained nearly all its weight, and delivered a humane knockout blow to the deer and pigs I shot. Everything a hunter could possibly ask for in a round of ammo.

More importantly, it kept lead out of the environment. For eagles, condors, and black bears, as well as my own and my family’s consumption, lead poisoning is no longer coming from the end of my gun barrel. Lead is a toxic metal. It most adversely affects birds. Vultures and other carrion-eating birds, including raptors, suffer a slow, agonizing death from lead poisoning.

I am just one of 30,000 to 50,000 hunters affected by the new non-lead ammo requirements. We've switched from leaded gas to non-leaded, removed lead from paint, and we continue to pull lead-painted toys from the shelves. Why the resistance with lead ammo? It was done with bird shot for waterfowl hunting, by replacing lead with more than a dozen non-toxic shot types in the 1990s.

In this initial year of the ban, non-lead ammo may be tough to buy over the shelves, unless you go to a Bass Pro Shop or Cabelas—or you can purchase it online. Hands-free phones are also hard to find, but I'm sure most of us will take the time to research and invest in one since using a cell phone without one, while driving, is also now illegal. The simple rule of supply and demand will make non-lead ammo more available.

There has been misinformation in the press regarding the price of non-lead ammo. The price for a box of non-lead ammo, ready to shoot, is on average $3-$5 more than for lead. That's it. The prices of rifles, hunting knives, optics, and all hunting gear have also gone up dramatically in the past 20 years.

Those in the hunting community reflect on what California must have looked like 300-400 years ago. I have witnessed increased growth, noise, and pollution looming over the coastline during the past 40 years. We cannot continue on this path without eliminating birds, fish, and wildlife. Are we so selfish as to resist the slight inconvenience of switching over to non-lead ammo, to preserve the wildlife we have remaining?

My first sighting of a California condor took my breath away. I can't speak for other hunters, but I know we will have robbed our children of a magnificent bird unless we get the lead out of the food chain. I was taught at an early age to only kill what you need to eat, to respect all wildlife, and to leave as little impact on this earth as humanly possible. I will continue to hunt the mountains, hills, and valleys of Central and Southern California with all respect to all wildlife that have called it home long before you or I were ever here.

Steve Merlo: Time for a little clarity on new lead ammunition law

2008-07-11T22:37:00.000-07:00

By STEVE MERLO, contributing columnist | Thursday, Jul 10 2008 11:29 PM

Last Updated: Friday, Jul 11 2008 8:53 AM

All hunters need to be aware of the new laws in effect since July 1 regarding the use of lead bullets while hunting big game or coyote.

Longtime hunter Dan Damerow calls to his dog King Tut near blind No. 11 at the Kern National Wildlife Refuge. Hunters are no longer aloud to possess lead ammunition while hunting in the field.

The highly contested ban, supposedly enacted to protect the endangered California condor from ingesting lead from the carcasses they feed on, has caused mass confusion among the hunting and shooting fraternities. Hopefully, this column will settle the problem once and for all.
Hunters and shooters may continue to shoot their .22 rim fire and high-powered rifles within the eastern boundary of Highway 99 and the western edge of Interstate 5. Shooters may continue to fire lead bullets at any known shooting range, such as the one at 5-Dogs, but hunters may not possess lead ammunition or the rifles to shoot them while hunting in the field. To be caught in possession of both will result in immediate and expensive citations. Shotguns are not included in the ban.
Regular .22 (Long Rifle, Long, or Short) shells and rifles are banned altogether within the zone, because no ammunition manufacturer currently makes a non-toxic bullet for them. However, both CCI (Federal) and PMC have started manufacturing .22 Winchester Rimfire Magnum cartridges with non-toxic bullets, which should be on their way to dealers at this moment. The cartridges will have a 30-grain copper bullet with a muzzle velocity of 2,050 feet per second, and will be legal to use on coyotes and other vermin within the impacted area.
Pete Cattani, owner of the popular Ammo Dump on Easton Avenue, says his sales on copper projectiles have skyrocketed over 25 percent, while his lead bullet sales remain constant. "I sell a lot of ammo to sportsmen hunting out of state, and most want lead."
However, lots of them are already switching over to the Barnes Triple Shock X Bullets or Nosler E-Tip, which have proved devastating to big game all over the world. In a more light-hearted moment, Cattani also pointed out that, "Copper projectiles would work just fine on condors, too, in case someone ever gets attacked by one and has to protect himself."
Most big-game and coyote hunters in our area have already made the leap from reloading lead bullets to the more expensive copper.
In fact, some of us who have are enjoying some incredible accuracy and knockdown power with the "new" bullets, even though some people are having continuing problems with accuracy with the new-style ammo.
With 25-40 percent less contact with a rifle's lands and grooves than conventional bullets, it may take a while to get things on the right track. Look for that problem to be solved within the very near future, when new loads and loading literature come out.
The condor protection zone extends from the border of Mexico well into over a third of the state, ending at the northern border of deer hunting Zone D-7 on the eastern side of the San Joaquin Valley and the northern part of the coastal zones past San Francisco. Only the area between I-5 and Highway 99 remains open, because the California Fish and Game Commission members could not call that space a "traditional condor habitat" as they did the rest of the contended area.

Lead-free Ammunition Requirements for Hunting in California Condor Range Go Into Effect July 1st

2008-07-01T15:57:00.000-07:00

Non-toxic Bullets Will Help Prevent Condor, Eagle, and Human Poisonings

SACRAMENTO, Calif.— New state hunting regulations requiring the use of non-lead ammunition for most hunting activities in the range of the California condor in central and southern California go into effect tomorrow, July 1st. The regulations are designed to reduce the incidents of lead poisonings of the iconic and extremely endangered California condor. Condors, eagles, and other scavengers can consume lead-bullet fragments and lead-shot pellets from carcasses of animals shot by hunters. Seven southern California condors suffered lead poisoning in May, likely after feeding on lead-tainted carrion, and one died during treatment.

“California is taking an important step in getting toxic lead out of the food chain and hunters will now play a critical role in the recovery of the condor ,” said Jeff Miller of the Center for Biological Diversity. “We will continue to work for a statewide switch to non-lead ammunition to protect other wildlife poisoned by lead, such as eagles, and to safeguard human health.”

Lead poisoning from ingesting lead fragments in carcasses is the leading cause of death for reintroduced condors in California and Arizona. Since condors were reintroduced to California in 1992, at least 14 condor deaths in the state have been confirmed or linked to lead poisoning, and dozens more poisoned condors have required invasive, life-saving chelation therapy to “de-lead” their blood after feeding on lead-tainted carcasses.

The Center for Biological Diversity and a coalition of health and conservation organizations, hunters, and Native Americans launched a “Get the Lead Out” campaign in 2004 to eliminate lead from condor habitat. Several years and one lawsuit later, Assembly Bill 821, the Ridley-Tree Condor Preservation Act, was signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger last fall. The Act requires hunters to use non-lead ammunition for hunting all big game (such as deer, elk, pigs, and bighorn sheep) and shooting coyotes within the condor range, which encompasses all or portions of 13 central and southern counties and seven deer-hunting zones. The California Fish and Game Commission approved additional regulations in December of 2007 that expand the non-lead requirements to hunting of non-game mammals and non-game birds (and prohibit the use of lead .22-caliber and smaller-rimfire cartridges for non-game hunting) in the condor range.

The California condor is one of the world’s most endangered species. As of April 2008, only 151 of the birds were flying free in the wild, 80 of them in California. Scientific studies provide overwhelming evidence that the lead poisoning condors comes from ammunition fragments in carcasses and gut piles left behind in the condor range by hunters. In 2007, more than 45 prominent wildlife biologists signed a “Statement of Scientific Agreement ” concluding that lead ammunition is the primary source of the lead that is poisoning condors.

A recent conference sponsored by the Peregrine Fund, Ingestion of Spent Lead Ammunition: Implications for Wildlife and Humans, presented compelling scientific evidence of significant risk to human health, as well as harm to condors and other wildlife, from the use of lead ammunition for hunting. In a recent Peregrine Fund study of deer killed by hunters, x-rays revealed that lead bullets explode into dozens of tiny pieces. Half the deer carcasses in the study were riddled with at least 100 lead fragments, raising human health concerns for those eating wild game shot with lead. Lead is an extremely poisonous metal – even very low levels can cause neural degeneration, digestive paralysis, brain injury, and mental retardation, especially in children.

The poisoning of Southern California condors in May is suspected to be due to ingestion of lead ammunition in carcasses shot by hunters on Tejon Ranch. Although Tejon Ranch Corporation announced a ban on lead ammunition for all hunting and predator control beginning last fall, and claims on its Web site that it requires the use of non-lead ammunition for all hunting on its property, Tejon has been slow to implement the ban. The recent condor poisonings suggest that it is not enforcing its own rule. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will run an analysis of the metal fragments that poisoned these birds on July 9th.

Tejon has applied for a federal permit to “take” or harm condors and other rare wildlife in association with its massive development plans in the Tehachapi Mountains north of Los Angeles. Tejon seeks to exclude its hunting program from the list of activities covered by the permit, in spite of the fact that AC-8, one of the last condors to be born in the wild, was shot and killed on Tejon Ranch in a pig-hunting event in 2003.

Safe, reliable non-lead bullets and shot made from copper and other materials are widely available for big-game hunting and perform as well as, or better than, lead ammunition. Federal law already requires the use of non-lead shot for waterfowl hunting, to prevent lead poisoning of waterfowl and eagles. Over 150 types and calibers of non-lead rifle and pistol bullets and non-lead shot are available that may be legal for hunting in California. A list of certified bullets, packaged ammunition and a map of the areas encompassed by the ban are available at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/condor/.

Copper bullets predicted to benefit hunters

2008-07-01T15:55:00.000-07:00

By Timm Herdt (Contact)
Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Becky Davis, vice president of a Goleta ammunition manufacturer, believes a ban on lead ammunition that takes effect today in much of the state will have one very noticeable impact on California sportsmen: They will bag more deer.

"My suspicion is that they'll have a higher take rate this year," said Davis, whose Custom Cartridge firm is one of eight manufacturers to produce ammunition certified by state regulators as lead-free.

The reason, she said, is that a copper bullet fired from a good-quality cartridge "gives you a very high-quality, humane kill."

The ban on lead ammunition applies to areas of the state within the condor range, generally from the coast to the eastern Sierra and from Stanislaus County on the north to Los Angeles County on the south. It was signed into law last fall by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, capping a years-long campaign by conservationists to better protect the California condor.

Lead poisoning is the leading cause of death among condors in the wild, a reality underscored last month when seven condors were taken from the wilderness for emergency treatment and one died. Mounting scientific evidence points to lead bullet fragments in animal carcasses as the primary source of the poisoning.

Assemblyman Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara, who steered the new law through the Legislature last year, said conservationists "are looking at July 1, 2008, as the beginning of the condors' recovery."

Although a few dozen of the endangered birds now fly free in California, their lives are constantly monitored by biologists who leave them lead-free calf carcasses to scavenge from and regularly test them for lead poisoning. Biologists hope the ban on lead ammunition will lead eventually to a day when condors can roam in the wild without such intensive management.

Although most hunting and firearms groups opposed the bill last year, Davis said indications are that hunters are preparing for the law's implementation. She said her company has seen "a good increase in demand" for its copper ammunition designed for big-game hunting.

"We're backlogged two to three weeks right now, when we're usually backlogged two to three days," she said.

The Department of Fish and Game has printed a notice of the new law on all deer permits and promises to step up education efforts to make hunters aware of the change.

"We're doing everything we can to make sure hunters have the information they need to follow the law and know which bullets are legal," said Eric Loft, chief of the department's Wildlife Branch.

Custom Cartridge, a small company that sells mostly through phone and Internet orders, is offering a 15 percent discount on copper ammunition to any customer who mentions the word "condor" in his order.

The Department of Fish and Game has also certified ammunition from large manufacturers that have a greater retail presence, such as Remington and Winchester.

The copper ammunition is more costly, as much as twice as expensive or more, than lead ammunition, but Davis said once hunters try it and experience the added value the cost concerns will be alleviated.

She said the company will offer its condor discount for the remainder of the year to help customers experience improved performance and understand "what quality ammunition really costs."

Nonlead ammo the law

2008-07-01T15:39:00.000-07:00

Guest editorial by hunter Anthony Prieto on the new non-lead ammunition regulations.

By Anthony Prieto
Sunday, June 29, 2008

New hunting regulations requiring nonlead ammunition in the range of the California condor in Central and Southern California go into effect this week to prevent further lead poisonings of California condors.

I am the co-founder of Project Gutpile (http://projectgutpile.blogspot.com/), a Web site for California hunters on the latest data, technology, availability and ballistic information on nonlead ammunition. I've been a volunteer for 10 years with the condor recovery effort and have hunted Southern California for blacktail deer and wild pigs for the past 22 years.

I've seen and heard both sides of the lead-am-munition debate and have been side by side with both hunters and conservationists in the field. Hunting with lead ammo left me no choice but to bury my lead-tainted gutpiles. In 1998, I was introduced to the Barnes' 100 percent copper bullet. It shot better. It was faster, retained nearly all its weight, and delivered a humane, knockout blow to the deer and pigs I shot. It is everything a hunter could possibly ask for in a round of ammo.

More importantly, it kept lead out of the environment. For eagles, condors, black bears and our own human consumption, lead poisoning is no longer coming from the end of my gun barrel.

Lead is a toxic metal. It most adversely affects eagles, vultures and other carrion-eating birds that suffer a slow, agonizing death from lead poisoning.

I am one of the 30,000 to 50,000 hunters affected by the new nonlead ammo requirements beginning Tuesday. We've switched from leaded gas to nonleaded, removed lead from paint, and continue to remove lead-painted toys off the shelves. Why the resistance with lead ammo? It was done with bird shot for waterfowl hunting, by replacing lead with more than a dozen nontoxic shot types in the 1990s.

In this initial year of the ban, nonlead ammo may be tough to buy over the shelves, unless you go to a Bass Pro Shop or Cabelas — or you can purchase it online. Hands-free phones are also hard to find, but I'm sure most of us will take the time to research and invest in one come Tuesday, the day the handheld-cell-phone-while-driving ban also goes into effect.

The simple rule of supply and demand will make nonlead ammo more available.

The bane of lead bullets

2008-06-16T18:52:00.000-07:00

June 14, 2008

Restrictions on traditional ammo should help condors, but enforcement can be difficult.

Hunters and California condors have a paradoxical relationship. With the diminished numbers of large predators, such as mountain lions, in the state's wilderness areas, hunters help fill the role. By leaving behind part of their kill, as is common, they provide a portion of the carrion eaters' indelicate diet.

But when that diet contains lead bullets, hunters are a prime threat to the survival of the majestic, endangered species. Two weeks before California imposes a ban on such ammunition throughout condor habitat, the discovery of lead poisoning in six birds -- one of which died -- points to both the need for such a ban and the obstacles to enforcing it.

Condor territory covers a vast region -- a rough U shape formed by the southern Sierra, coastal mountains and Tejon Ranch linking the two -- that encompasses national forests, state parks and private land, with myriad entry and exit points. If hunters don't accept the ban, the state will need to put most of its thin enforcement staff into the effort.

Tejon Ranch, a premier private hunting spot that was six months ahead of the state in banning lead bullets, has shown how it should be done. Before imposing the ban, it spent months educating hunters. It limited access to two entrances, where hunters must show they have non-lead ammunition, and it is looking at increased patrols of its perimeter to prevent poaching. After the six condors with high lead levels were found -- there are only 34 of the birds flying free in California -- Tejon banned hunting for 30 days, even though it's not known whether the birds ingested lead on ranch property.

The California Department of Fish and Game plans to send enforcement staff to check hunters in the field. But with only 200 agents patrolling the entire state -- and fewer than that dedicated to condors -- cracking down on recalcitrant hunters will undoubtedly prove difficult. The state should be looking at partnerships with federal and private land managers to provide restricted access for hunters, who should have to show their non-lead bullets.

The condors' best friend might end up being the soaring cost of gasoline. Hunters' primary objection to non-lead ammunition is its cost -- about $20 more a box than similar-quality lead. A hunter who recently bought his first copper bullets paid $53 a box for the high-quality stuff, enough to last at least half a season. The cost of copper bullets for a hunting trip is now peanuts compared with the cost of gas to get there and back.

STATEMENT FROM CONDOR EXPERTS: Tejon Ranch Conservation Agreement: A Tragedy for Condors

2008-06-11T09:57:00.000-07:00

STATEMENT FROM CONDOR EXPERTS
Tejon Ranch Conservation Agreement: A Tragedy for Condors

From: Dr. Noel F. R. Snyder, David A. Clendenen, Janet A. Hamber, Dr. Eric V. Johnson, Dr. Allan Mee, Dr. Vicky J. Meretsky, Bruce K. Palmer, Anthony Prieto, Dr. Arthur C. Risser, Jr., Fred C. Sibley, and William D.Toone

Date: June 7, 2008

To:Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814

Assemblymember Pedro Nava
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249

Kern County Board of Supervisors
1115 Truxtun Ave., 5th floor
Bakersfield, CA 93301

Ken McDermond
Deputy Regional Director, California Nevada Region
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825

Re: Tejon Ranch Conservation Agreement: A Tragedy for Condors

Dear Sir(s) and Madam(s):

At a press conference on May 8, several environmental organizations celebrated a deal with the Tejon Ranch Company that calls for permanent protection of large amounts of open space in exchange for a pledge from the organizations to not oppose Tejon’s proposed housing developments. But although they called the agreement a “great conservation achievement,” these organizations neglected to mention that one of the residential developments, Tejon Mountain Village, would place thousands of dwellings in the heart of officially designated “Critical Habitat” for the endangered California Condor.

As former and present participants in the condor conservation program we are firmly opposed to any development proposals for condor Critical Habitat, and we know of no evidence to support claims that the recent agreement is generally endorsed by condor experts. In fact, the agreement is almost uniformly opposed by condor experts who are independent of compensation from Tejon Ranch. Proponents have misrepresented the agreement by not revealing these negative aspects to the public, a problem we try to remedy here.

If built, this development would result in substantial harm to condors, posing a significant threat to the recovery of this well known and highly revered species. That any environmental organization might agree to such consequences is alarming and raises troubling questions about how the recent agreement was reached.

Critical Habitat, established on the Tejon Ranch in 1976, is the highest level of federal protection given to areas most crucial for endangered species and is designed to prevent significant degradation of these areas. The lands involved were a major focus for foraging and roosting activities and served as a hub for movements of condors throughout their range.

The recovering condor population is again occupying Critical Habitat on Tejon with frequency, and it is questionable that a fully satisfactory recovery of the species can be achieved in its historic range if significant degradation of these lands is allowed. Condors are sensitive to many direct and indirect threats from human activities and they uniformly avoided urban and suburban areas in historical times. A major housing development in the heart of one of their most important use areas simply should not be permitted.

Incredibly, private environmental organizations with no special authority and with very limited experience with condor issues have now agreed to a deal that would allow substantial residential development of condor Critical Habitat. Sadly this deal was based on secret negotiations from which virtually all experienced condor experts were excluded. This is the worst sort of deal-making imaginable, particularly for a species that has become a public trust.

The lands sacrificed in this agreement are of major and likely irreplaceable value to condor conservation, while many of the lands slated for protection have not normally been used by condors and likely will never be of importance to condors. Furthermore, many of the protected lands would likely never be developed because of steep terrain and other practical problems.

Unfortunately, in their eagerness to protect such lands a few well-meaning organizations have become parties to a major threat to condor conservation. They seem not to recognize that the price being paid for formal protection of undeveloped lands, some of them undevelopable, represent a huge net loss for conservation.

Critical Habitat designation has the force of law and deserves the respect and support of all parties, including land owners, governmental agencies, and environmental organizations. The recently announced plans are fundamentally inconsistent with Critical Habitat protection for the condor. If implemented, they would set a precedent for disregard of Critical Habitat protection for many other endangered species, a precedent with far-reaching and potentially disastrous consequences.

Tejon has many developable areas that lie outside Critical Habitat for condors, and surely the ranch could restrict its development plans to such locations if it were serious about its support of condor conservation. Unfortunately, such support has been in doubt since Tejon sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the mid 1990s to remove endangered species protection from released condors and to prevent condor restoration efforts in the vicinity of the ranch. The lawsuit failed in the first respect but succeeded in the second, and no releases have been conducted in the near vicinity of Tejon.

The importance of Critical Habitat on Tejon Ranch to the California Condor has been repeatedly recognized in historical USFWS and CDFG documents and official statements, and has not diminished today. Some examples follow:

It is the opinion of the recovery team that the condor’s survival would be severely
jeopardized by any major change in the use and/or management of the core
portion of the Tejon Ranch (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1979)

The condor will not survive without Tejon (in litt., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
November 10.1971

…the ranch is one of the most important links in the preservation of this
endangered species (in litt., California Department of Fish and Game, May 21,
1979)

[Tejon Ranch}…is essential to condor survival and without it value of the Sespe
area would be questionable (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1972)

The future of the California condor could hinge on maintaining the Tejon Ranch
habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1972)

It would be disastrous to have any major new developments very far inside the red
line [central portion of the Tehachapi Mountains] (in litt., U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, June 7, 1979)

I am mainly concerned about permanent or long term disturbances, or major
changes in the level of human activites. Homesites or ongoing mining activities,
for example, I feel would be incompatible with proper condor management (in
litt., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, June 7, 1979)

Allowing Tejon Mountain Village to be built in condor Critical Habitat would represent a victory only for unnecessary trophy-home development in the wrong place. This development would be a sad defeat for a species in which society has invested tremendous conservation resources, and an even worse defeat for the future of Critical Habitat protection for all endangered species.

These are no grounds for celebration.

Sincerely,

Dr. Noel F. R. Snyder
USFWS biologist in charge of condor field studies 1980-1986, member of Condor Recovery Team 1980-1985
P.O. Box 189
Portal, AZ 85632
(520) 558-2413

David A. Clendenen
Condor researcher and USFWS lead biologist for condors 1982-1997, member of Condor Recovery Team 1995-2000

Janet A. Hamber
Condor biologist, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, 1976-present

Dr. Eric V. Johnson
Field condor researcher, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, 1978-1986

Dr. Allan Mee
Postdoctoral condor researcher for Zoological Society of San Diego 2001-2006

Dr. Vicky J. Meretsky
Field biologist, Condor Research Center 1984-1986

Bruce K. Palmer
USFWS California Condor Recovery Program Coordinator 2000-2004

Anthony Prieto
Co-founder of Project Gutpile and condor field biologist 1999-present

Dr. Arthur C. Risser, Jr.
Condor Recovery Team member 1980-1985

Fred C. Sibley
USFWS biologist in charge of condor field studies 1966-1969

William D.Toone
Condor Recovery Team member 1984-1992

Nonlead ammo required in condor areas, starting July 1

2008-06-06T09:09:00.000-07:00

By Capitol Weekly Staff (published Thursday, June 05, 2008)

California’s landmark new law requiring the use of nonlead ammunition in the state’s historic condor range takes effect July 1.
The law is intended to protect the habitat of the rare condors, who have been injured by feeding on carcasses that were shot by hunters.

According to the state, different brands and types of certified bullets meeting the nonlead requirements are currently available from eight different companies and come in a variety of calibers and styles. A list of certified bullets, packaged ammunition and a map of the areas encompassed by the ban are available at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/condor/certifiedammo.html.
“We’re doing everything we can to make sure hunters have the information they need to follow the law and know which bullets are legal,” said Eric Loft, chief of the Department of Fish and Game’s wildlife branch.

Assembly Bill 821, by Assemblyman Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara, was signed into law last October. It bans lead bullets for hunting in historic condor range that encompasses all or portions of 13 central and southern counties and seven different deer-hunting zones. The bill addressed the fact that endangered condors have died from lead poisoning and c

oncluded that lead fragments from hunters’ bullets pose potential risk.

Last December, the California Fish and Game Commission expanded the lead ban to include ammunition from shotguns, muzzle-loading rifles and rimfire firearms. The ban encompasses hunting of deer, bear, wild pig, pronghorn antelope and nongame species like ground squirrels. Lead ammunition was prohibited for taking coyotes in AB 821.

In April, the Commission approved a nonlead certification process for ammunition to be administered by DFG. DFG invited manufacturers to submit bullets for certification and has approved dozens of ammunition types for rifles, muzzleloaders and pistols. More brands and styles are expected to be added to the list as the certification process continues.

DFG’s Enforcement Branch will be contacting hunters in condor range to help ensure compliance with the lead ban. A key provision in the new law prohibits the possession of lead projectiles (bullets) and a firearm capable of firing such projectiles while big game or nongame hunting in historic condor range.

More information, including commonly asked questions, about nonlead issues is available at the DFG Web site at
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/condor/html.

Humane Society calls for ban on lead ammo after condor crisis

2008-06-06T09:08:00.000-07:00

The Humane Society of the United States today urged a nationwide ban on lead-shot ammunition after the lead poisoning of critically endangered California condors. One of the birds has died, "evidence that this ammo keeps on killing long after it leaves the gun barrel," the society said.

"Like asbestos, lead shot is a lethal and cruel pollutant that has no place in our modern society,” Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the society, said in a statement released today.

“Discharging countless tons of lead-shot ammunition and dispersing it in open space areas throughout the nation is a prescription for slow agonizing deaths for wildlife, particularly for scavengers such as condors who feed on animals killed by lead shot and are then poisoned themselves," he said. "It's time for policymakers to stand up to the extremist voices within the hunting lobby and demand that hunters use nontoxic shot.”

The poisoned condors account for one-fifth of the entire Southern California population of the creatures.

California enacted a law forbidding the use of lead shot, and lead bullets, in condor territory beginning July 1.

-- Francisco Vara-Orta

Tejon land pact divides environmentalists

2008-05-09T07:24:00.000-07:00

Tejon land pact divides environmentalists
BY STACEY SHEPARD, Californian staff writer
e-mail: sshepard@bakersfield.com | Thursday, May 8 2008 10:49 AM

Last Updated: Friday, May 9 2008 7:16 AM

The majority of Tejon Ranch will be preserved and some areas may be open to public recreation while allowing three major developments to proceed without opposition under a deal announced Thursday between the ranch’s executives and environmental groups.

An aerial view of Tejon Ranch land that is part of the largest conservation and land use agreement in California history. The agreement would provide permanent protection of 240,000 acres of the historic ranch, approximately 90 percent of the entire landholding.

The agreement followed two years of confidential negotiations between the ranch and an environmental coalition that includes Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council and Audubon California.

But it has also fractured the local Sierra Club, with some members resigning from executive committee posts to protest their disapproval of the secret meetings that resulted in the deal.

High-ranking Sierra Club officials negotiated without consulting local members who could be impacted by the massive developments Tejon has proposed, said Jan de Leeuw, a UCLA professor and Sierra Club member in the Frazier Park area.

“All the concerns we have about traffic, air quality, sprawl, enormous commutes — all those concerns have gone out the window,” de Leeuw said.

Under the arrangement, Tejon will dedicate 178,000 acres to conservation and make an additional 62,000 acres available for purchase to realign 37 miles of the Pacific Crest Trail and create a state park.

Tejon could develop the option-to-buy acreage if it’s not purchased by 2010, but Sierra Club's senior regional representative Bill Corcoran said the groups are sure the acquisitions are fundable and feasible.

During a news conference at Tejon Ranch headquarters Thursday morning, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger hailed the agreement as an example of how two sides can work together to “protect the environment and the economy at the same time.”

The deal more than doubles the 100,000 acres Tejon Ranch had previously pledged to preserve when it announced plans several years ago to build two large communities.

The 23,000-home Centennial community would be in Los Angeles County while the 3,500-home Tejon Mountain Village, featuring golf courses, shopping centers and hotels is planned for southern Kern County.

Environmentalists said a key to striking the deal was Tejon’s willingness to scale back development from several ridgelines where endangered California Condors are known to forage.

The ranch is the largest chunk of privately owned land in the state. Its 426 square miles encompasses the ecological crossroads of the Mojave Desert, San Joaquin Valley and the Tehachapi and Coastal ranges.

Despite the deal, Tejon’s developments must still undergo state-required environmental reviews and obtain approval from Kern and Los Angeles counties. The project is still expected to face some challenges from nearby residents and other environmental groups not in on the deal over air quality, traffic and availability of water supplies.

At the news conference, Sierra Club’s Corcoran said “it was a difficult choice but we agreed this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” in response to questions about the groups’ pledge not to comment on environmental reports or oppose any aspect of Tejon’s developments.

Individual Sierra Club members can still comment or oppose some of the plans, Corcoran later said, just not under the club’s name.

But some feel that without the club — which has experts and the money to back lawsuits — their concerns won’t carry much weight.

Mary Ann Lockhart, who belongs to the mountain communities’ Condor Sierra Club, said local members will meet Monday with regional Sierra Club officials to discuss their concerns.

“It’s just like with anything, there’s always people with opinions that don’t agree with the main thought,” Lockhart said. “We’re trying to examine all the options and that might be different from what Sierra Club proper is doing.”

But the issue has clearly divided some locally.

De Leeuw posted a blog Thursday criticizing Sierra Club for excluding local members from negotiations with Tejon Ranch and he’s resigned his position on the executive committee of the Kern-Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club.

In response, Kern-Kaweah member Gordon Nipp said: “If the locals want to oppose it, they can do so ... Let them get involved, attend hearings, testify, write letters, find attorneys, instead of waiting for the Sierra Club (usually me in Kern County) to do it for them.”

The split also reached higher into the environmental realm. Center for Biological Diversity was part of the negotiation process until several months ago when it pulled out because of disagreements with some aspects of the plan.

“While there are a few aspects of today’s accord we can celebrate, including the potential acquisition of 49,000 acres for a state park, this deal contains numerous ‘poison pill’ provisions, including the development of Tejon Mountain Village in the heart of condor critical habitat and Centennial, the largest single development ever to be proposed in California,” said Peter Galvin, conservation director at the Center for Biological Diversity.

Full story from Bakersfield Californian here : http://www.bakersfield.com/hourly_news/story/439008.html

Lead advisory forces N.D. food pantries to pull venison

2008-03-28T06:38:00.000-07:00

By James MacPherson, Associated Press
Published Thursday, March 27, 2008

BISMARCK — State health officials have told food pantries in North
Dakota to throw out donated venison, saying it may have lead
fragments. And the doctor who discovered the fragments is urging
hunters who shot deer with high-velocity lead bullets to discard the
meat.

Health officials found that samples from vension destined for food
pantries tested “strongly positive” for lead, said Sandi Washek, the
Health Department’s lead coordinator.

Washek said about 17,000 pounds of venison was donated in North
Dakota this year through the Sportsmen Against Hunger program in
which hunters donate their deer to the needy.

The venison was given to about 110 pantries in North Dakota, Washek
said. “There are still 4,000 to 5,000 pounds out there in pantries,” she
said Wednesday. “We’re asking all the food pantries to throw it out
in a landfill and not throw it out on garbage day, so no one will
rifle through it.”

Health officials say children age 6 and younger and pregnant women
are at greater risk for lead poisoning, which can cause confusion,
learning problems and convulsions, and in severe cases can lead to
brain damage and death. Washek said Wednesday that no sickness has
been reported from potentially lead-tainted venison.

Dr. William Cornatzer, a Bismarck physician and hunter, said he
became worried about the potential for lead fragments in venison
after seeing a report by The Peregrine Fund of Boise, Idaho. He said
the nonprofit group, of which he is a member, studied the effects on
birds that ingested bullet fragments left behind in deer carcasses.
Lawmakers in California last year made it illegal for hunters to
possess or fire lead ammunition when they are in California condor
habitat, to protect North America’s largest flying bird.

“There have been studies about what it does to condors but nothing
about humans,” said Cornatzer, a dermatologist and professor at UND
medical school.“Unfortunately, nobody has ever looked at this for humans — I wanted
to see what’s in this stuff,” he said.

Cornatzer said he collected about 100, one-pound packages of ground
venison from food pantries in December, with the help of health
officials.

“Sixty percent of the packages had multiple fragments of lead in them
— I about fell out of my chair,” said Cornatzer. He said Bismarck
radiologist Ted Fogarty helped run CT scans on the meat.

Many of the fragments are microscopic, but can still cause harm to
humans if ingested, Cornatzer said. “What’s very scary about this is you can’t feel them — they’re like
lead dust,” he said.

Cornatzer said he found that microscopic lead fragments can splatter
as far away as 2 feet “on either side of the wound” on a deer.
“When a high-velocity bullet hits a deer, it explodes like a
grenade,” Cornatzer said.

Cornatzer plans to present his findings at a conference sponsored by
The Peregrine Fund in May, at Boise State. He has been hunting deer
and he and his family have been eating venison for nearly 40 years,
he said.

Solid copper bullets or jacketed lead bullets are available as
alternatives to lead, Cornatzer said, and he intends to use that
ammunition in the future.

Lead Linked to Aging in Older [human] Brains

2008-01-28T07:59:00.000-08:00

Jan 27, 3:28 PM NEW YORK (AP) -- Could it be that the "natural" mental decline that afflicts many older people is related to how much lead they absorbed decades before?

That's the provocative idea emerging from some recent studies, part of a broader area of new research that suggests some pollutants can cause harm that shows up only years after someone is exposed.

The new work suggests long-ago lead exposure can make an aging person's brain work as if it's five years older than it really is. If that's verified by more research, it means that sharp cuts in environmental lead levels more than 20 years ago didn't stop its widespread effects.

"We're trying to offer a caution that a portion of what has been called normal aging might in fact be due to ubiquitous environmental exposures like lead," says Dr. Brian Schwartz of Johns Hopkins University.

"The fact that it's happening with lead is the first proof of principle that it's possible," said Schwartz, a leader in the study of lead's delayed effects. Other pollutants like mercury and pesticides may do the same thing, he said.

In fact, some recent research does suggest that being exposed to pesticides raises the risk of getting Parkinson's disease a decade or more later. Experts say such studies in mercury are lacking.

The notion of long-delayed effects is familiar; tobacco and asbestos, for example, can lead to cancer. But in recent years, scientists are coming to appreciate that exposure to other pollutants in early life also may promote disease much later on.

"It's an emerging area" for research, said Dr. Philip Landrigan of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York. It certainly makes sense that if a substance destroys brain cells in early life, the brain may cope by drawing on its reserve capacity until it loses still more cells with aging, he said. Only then would symptoms like forgetfulness or tremors appear.

Linda Birnbaum, director of experimental toxicology at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, said infant mice exposed to chemicals like PCBs show only very subtle effects in young adulthood. But more dramatic harm in areas like movement and learning appears when they reach old age.

Animal studies also show clear evidence that being exposed to harmful substances in the womb can harm health later on, she said. For example, rodents that encounter PCBs or dioxins before birth are more susceptible to cancer once they grow up.

Studying delayed effects in people is difficult because they generally must be followed for a long time. Research with lead is easier because scientists can measure the amount that has accumulated in the shinbone over decades and get a read on how much lead a person has been exposed to in the past.

Lead in the blood, by contrast, reflects recent exposure. Virtually all Americans have lead in their blood, but the amounts are far lower today than in the past.

The big reason for the drop: the phasing out of lead in gasoline from 1976 to 1991. Because of that and accompanying measures, the average lead level in the blood of American adults fell 30 percent by 1980 and about 80 percent by 1990.

That's a major success story for environmentalists. But work by Schwartz and Dr. Howard Hu of the University of Michigan suggests that the long-term effects of the high-lead era are still being felt.

In 2006, Schwartz and his colleagues published a study of about 1,000 Baltimore residents. They were ages 50 to 70, old enough to have absorbed plenty of lead before it disappeared from gasoline. They probably got their peak doses in the 1960s and 1970s, Schwartz said, mostly by inhaling air pollution from vehicle exhaust and from other sources in the environment.

The researchers estimated each person's lifetime dose by scanning their shinbones for lead. Then they gave each one a battery of mental ability tests.

In brief, the scientists found that the higher the lifetime lead dose, the poorer the performance across a wide variety of mental functions, like verbal and visual memory and language ability. From low to high dose, the difference in mental functioning was about the equivalent of aging by two to six years.

"We think that's a large effect," Schwartz said.

Hu and his colleagues took a slightly different approach in a 2004 study of 466 men with an average age of 67. Those men took a mental-ability test twice, about four years apart on average. Those with the highest bone lead levels showed more decline between exams than those with smaller levels, with the effect of the lead equal to about five years of aging.

Nobody is claiming that lead is the sole cause of age-related mental decline, but it appears to be one of several factors involved, Hu stressed.

If so, it would join such possible influences as high blood pressure, diabetes, stroke, emotional stress and maybe education level, said Bradley Wise of the National Institute on Aging. Nobody knows exactly what causes mental decline with age, he said.

Although the studies by Hu and Schwartz suggest lead is involved, Wise and others say they don't prove the link.

"I think many things impact how we age, but I think right now it's maybe premature to be giving lead a huge role in our age-related cognitive decline," said Dr. Margit L. Bleecker, director of the Center for Occupational and Environmental Neurology in Baltimore. Still, she called the lead hypothesis "a very interesting idea" deserving more study.

Others were more impressed.

"The new evidence from these studies should concern people" said epidemiologist Andrew Rowland of the University of New Mexico. "These two research groups are finding adverse effects on the aging brain at low levels of lead exposure. More work needs to be done, but these studies are raising important questions."

In any case, scientists still face some basic mysteries about the delayed effects of lead. For example, when does it actually harm the brain? Does a high level in the shinbone merely identify those who were the most harmed by chronic exposure decades ago? Or does lead in the bone continue to do its dirty work over a lifetime, leaching into the bloodstream and continuously hammering the brain?

"I think that both things are happening," Schwartz said, though he suspects most of the damage occurred in the past, during years of higher exposure. Hu's suspicions are similar.

Just how lead impairs brainpower is still a mystery. And so is the question of whether anything can be done to help people who have absorbed a lot of lead over a lifetime.

A medical procedure called chelation can remove lead from the body, but it wouldn't help in this case, said experts, who had few suggestions.

For younger people, prevention is a clearer strategy, Hu said. He called for tougher federal standards on lead exposure in the workplace.

And plenty of low-income neighborhoods could use a strong effort to remove lead from old houses, many of which still have lead paint, Rowland said. "It's there on the walls, it's on the radiators, it's underneath the top layers of paint. In places where the paint is crumbling, there's still exposure going on," he said.

Yet another question: Who really has to worry about long-ago lead affecting their brainpower? What about people born after the high lead levels of the 1970s were history?

Schwartz noted that most Americans younger than 30 have gotten much less lead from the environment than the men in his study did. And Hu hopes that the lead effect will peter out in the future.

However, Hu points out that there's still lead in the environment, and exposure remains especially high in many developing countries. And citing evidence that lead can cross the placenta, he says women who grew up in the 1970s might dose their fetuses with the metal.

"Kids who grew up in the 21st century have a lot less to worry about" than their elders, Hu said. But "it's hard for me to be totally optimistic the current generation is completely scot-free."

By MALCOLM RITTER
AP Science Writer

Draft DFG Regulations on Lead Ammo Use in CA

2007-11-21T11:51:00.000-08:00

November 14, 2007

Download a PDF of the Draft DFG Regulations on Lead Ammo Use in CA here:

http://projectgutpile.org/archives/pdf/Draft_DFG_Regs.pdf

Wildlife commissioner blames NRA for his ouster

2007-09-25T08:19:00.000-07:00

Hanna, who supports banning lead bullets in condor habitats, says hunting activists pressed Schwarzenegger to demand his resignation

By Deborah Schoch Los Angeles Times Staff Writer, September 25, 2007

The wildlife commissioner forced to resign this month by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Monday that he believes he was fired because he supports banning lead bullets in some areas of the state to protect the rare California condor from lead poisoning or death.

R. Judd Hanna was asked to resign from the state Fish and Game Commission one day after 34 Republican legislators wrote Schwarzenegger, requesting Hanna's ouster because of their "grave concern" that his stance against lead bullets made him a biased member of a commission that is taking up the issue.

Hanna, an avid hunter, chided the National Rifle Association and others who oppose a ban, saying they are ignoring scientific evidence that lead poisoning from bullets is killing and sickening one of the most endangered birds in North America. He believes the NRA pushed for his removal.

"It seems to me that the hunters are not living up to their mantra that hunters are the first line of conservation. They need to be proactive," said Hanna, 66, a retired real estate developer, former Navy commander, former NRA member and lifelong Republican who said he voted twice for Schwarzenegger.

"This is not about me. It's about the condor. It's about the NRA hijacking the system," he said.

The NRA and some hunting groups oppose a ban, saying that the science linking lead bullets to condor casualties is inconclusive, that nonlead bullets cost too much for many hunters, and that government is trying to regulate hunter behavior.

Hanna's departure seven months after his appointment has thrown the lead bullet debate in Sacramento into disarray. Environmentalists said they see the removal as an omen that the governor will veto a bill passed by the Legislature Sept. 5 to ban use of the bullets in condor country.

Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said Hanna, a resident of Mill Creek near Lassen Volcanic National Park, was removed so a Southern California member could be added to the commission, which now has three members from Northern and Central California and one from Carpinteria.

"This had to do with geographic diversity," McLear said. "I think people are reading too much into it." He said Schwarzenegger has not made up his mind on the bill.

The NRA never contacted the governor's office about ousting Hanna, McLear said, adding that the gun lobby has criticized the governor on some other gun-related measures.

The NRA on Monday denied playing a role in Hanna's departure.

"If we were to call for the ouster of anyone, we would let people know, and we would be open," said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam

Only 75 condors remain in the wild in California, despite a $40-million, 25-year restoration effort by government and private groups to save the species from extinction.

A number of leading scientists believe bullets caused the lead poisoning blamed in the deaths of as many as 12 condors in the state and the sickening of 16 more.

Condors feed largely on animal carcasses, and researchers believe the birds can swallow fragments of lead bullets lodged in carcasses left behind by hunters. In July, 44 scientists and other experts from around the world issued a joint statement calling the science strong enough to merit a ban on lead bullets in condor country.

The evidence that lead bullets are harming condors "is pretty darned close to overwhelming," said Donald Smith, a professor of environmental toxicology at UC Santa Cruz and co-author of one of the studies, which linked the isotope ratios, or chemical signatures, of lead bullets to those in poisoned condors.

David W. Winkler, professor and curator of birds at Cornell University, wrote in an e-mail to The Times: "Bottom line: Everyone I know who works closely with the bird is clear that lead is an important, ongoing threat to the condors. It is hard to imagine a recovering wild condor population in CA without a ban on lead ammunition."

For months, both the Legislature and the Fish and Game Commission have studied prohibiting lead bullets in the condors' range, coastal areas of Central and Southern California.

Five days after the bill banning bullets -- sponsored by Assemblyman Pedro Nava (D-Santa Barbara) -- passed the Legislature, 34 GOP lawmakers wrote the governor to request Hanna's removal.

They complained that Hanna had circulated a packet of information to his fellow commissioners -- totaling more than 160 pages -- with handwritten notations that they believed showed his bias.

"In short," stated the Sept. 10 letter, "there is grave concern that Mr. Hanna is not being impartial relative to his participation in the commission's decision-making."

It asked that Hanna be replaced by "an unbiased representative from Southern California."

Hanna said state Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman asked for his resignation one day later.

Hanna's packet, which The Times obtained from the commission through the state Public Records Act, contained four articles from respected scientific journals, news clippings, material from the Audubon Society and other groups, and 40 pages of lead bullet survey results from the Arizona Department of Fish and Game.

The material is heavily underlined, highlighted and notated, "much like I did when I was in college," Hanna said.

State Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth (R-Murrieta), who spearheaded the GOP legislators' letter to Schwarzenegger, did not return telephone calls, nor did two other legislators who signed the letter.

Commission President Richard B. Rogers said the panel remains committed to taking action this fall. He said the panel opposes the Nava bill because members think they should be setting the policy, not the Legislature.

Rogers believes Hanna was removed because he was too overt in his opinions in meetings and in written material he gave other commissioners. "His crime, if it was one, was one of being passionate about the issue and naïve about the appropriate process," he said.

Rogers said Hanna should not have distributed reports with handwritten notations.

Deputy Atty. Gen. William Cunningham, the commission's counsel, said Hanna did nothing illegal by circulating the material or notating it.

He said he encourages commissioners to make background material public, including notations.

"To have the public be able to see a commissioner's written thoughts," he said, "I would suggest is a good idea."

deborah.schoch@latimes.com

Groups push for lead bullet ban to protect birds

2007-09-25T08:16:00.000-07:00

By SONU MUNSHI, Cronkite News Service September 21, 2007

PHOENIX - Poisoned by lead, California condor No. 134 was severely dehydrated and unable to stand or swallow food by the time it reached Kathy Orr, staff veterinarian at the Phoenix Zoo.
Orr's team performed several surgeries to put a feeding tube in the male condor's stomach, and it received a transfusion of blood shipped from a breeding complex in San Diego. It "winced like a child" when removed from its cage for procedures, including twice-daily injections to clean its blood, she said.

"They're really strong birds, and to see one so sick is painful," Orr said.

It's likely that the condor ate lead bullet fragments in the entrails of a deer or elk gutted by a hunter near the Grand Canyon. These "gut piles" are magnets for California condors, which scavenge animal carcasses.

Condor No. 134 survived, but state officials say at least 12 other California condors in Arizona have died of lead poisoning since the species was reintroduced to northern Arizona in 1996.

In July, the Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council and Arizona Zoological Society sent a letter urging the Arizona Game and Fish Commission to protect condors by requiring hunters to use non-lead ammunition statewide.

California might make such a change. The Legislature recently forwarded to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger a bill to ban the use of lead ammunition in hunting big game and coyotes in condor territory.

In 1991, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service imposed a nationwide ban on the use of lead shot for waterfowl hunting because the pellets were poisoning birds that ate them off the bottoms of streams and lakes.

Arizona officials say they're doing plenty already. With cooperation from hunting groups, the state Game and Fish Department educates hunters about the danger lead poses to condors and offers free non-lead ammunition to those who hunt big game in condor territory.

In 1982, only 22 California condors remained in existence. Captive breeding programs have brought their numbers to more than 300 in California, Arizona and Baja California. There are now 59 in Arizona, said Kathy Sullivan, condor program coordinator for Game and Fish.

Sandy Bahr, conservation outreach director with the Sierra Club's Grand Canyon chapter, said lead poses the greatest threat to what's otherwise been a successful effort to save the California condor.

"Here they are again in danger over something completely preventable," Bahr said.

Since 2005, Game and Fish has provided coupons for free non-lead ammunition to those with tags for big game on the Kaibab and Paria plateaus. About 1,800 drew tags for this year's hunt, which begins in October.

The department has distributed a DVD explaining the dangers of lead to those hunters and to another 4,000 who will hunt near condor territory.

Sullivan said a 2005 survey found a 50 percent reduction in the number of hunters using lead ammunition.

"A lot of groups in California are spending too much time fighting. We're trying to avoid that," Sullivan said.

Steve Clark, president of the Arizona Elk Society, said scientific data provided by the Game and Fish Department solidified hunting groups' support for the effort. He said hunters are even more committed to conservation than the general public.

"An average person may like to look at condors," Clark said. "A sportsman actually donates money and time to their preservation cause."

Clark and other hunters noted that non-lead ammunition is more expensive and isn't available in all calibers.

Rick Cofone, gunroom manager at Sportsman's Warehouse in Phoenix, said the store has occasionally run out of non-lead ammunition since it began participating in the program.

"This is a good way to initiate hunters," Cofone said. "Otherwise they'd be forced to spend almost twice as much on non-lead ammunition."

State officials team in the condor recovery effort with the Peregrine Fund, an Idaho-based nonprofit group.

Chris Parish, the Peregrine Fund's program director, said that despite the drop in lead ammunition use, field tests last fall showed that 95 percent of Arizona's condors had been exposed to lead and 70 percent required treatment. At least four condors died of lead poisoning in 2006, he said.

"I'd like to see 100 percent compliance, but it's difficult to make people change," Parish said.

Birds requiring treatment for lead are taken to a facility in Marble Canyon or, in the most serious cases, the Phoenix Zoo.

Donald Smith, professor of environmental toxicology at University of California, Santa Cruz, co-authored a paper on a study confirming lead poisoning as a threat to condors. He called Arizona's voluntary approach inadequate.

"If lead continues to be present in carcasses, condors will continue to die," Smith said.

©Casa Grande Valley Newspapers Inc. 2007

Simple solution to saving the condors: Get the lead out

2007-09-24T15:29:00.000-07:00

By Kelly Sorenson

One of California's most iconic species, the condor, is wavering near extinction due to lead poisoning from lead ammunition - and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has the solution on his desk.

In California, 12 condors have died from lead poisoning, making it the most significant source of condor mortality. As a member of the California Condor Recovery Team, I help to test wild-flying condors for lead poisoning. In the fall, immediately following deer hunting season, blood lead levels in condors rise significantly higher than any other time of year. We have recovered lead fragments, pellets, and whole projectiles from the digestive systems of dead condors.

In 2005, I trapped condor 208, a female whose blood test showed a lead level of 1.70 parts per million - 17 times higher than the recommended not-to-exceed level in humans. After rehabilitation at the Los Angeles Zoo, this condor was released and went on to hatch the first chick in the Ventana Wilderness in over 100 years. Our intervention in this and many other cases is all that is keeping condors in the wild. But this kind of intensive management would not be necessary if we could get the lead out of the condor's habitat.

Lead ammunition has a tendency to fragment into hundreds of pieces upon impact, which should also be of concern to hunters who provide game meat to their families. Lead is toxic; we've banned it from our gasoline and our paint. It doesn't make sense to pump it into the environment in the form of bullets.

There is no hope for condors until non-lead ammunition becomes more widely used throughout their range. Schwarzenegger now has a unique opportunity to make that happen, by signing AB 821 into law. Signing this bill, which would require the use of non-toxic, non-lead ammunition throughout the condor's range, would show that he is truly an environmental leader, and not beholden to the gun lobby.

The hunting community has a longstanding tradition of conservation, and should be embracing the use of widely available non-lead ammunition. Barnes Bullets, the leading manufacturer of non-lead ammunition, produces 137 kinds of projectiles for 74 cartridges. The National Rifle Association awarded Barnes Bullets its "Golden Bullseye Award" for best new product of the year for its most recent non-lead variety, the MRX (Maximum Range).

Non-lead ammunition is gaining widespread support in the hunting community; two military and national guard bases, Fort Hunter Liggett and Camp Roberts, both popular hunting areas, have already phased out the use of lead bullets in hunting big game, specifically because of the danger lead poses to condors and the environment. The largest private hunting preserve in the state, the Tejon Ranch, has also banned lead in big-game hunting.

The rights of hunters are not affected by replacing toxic lead ammunition with safer alternatives. Regardless of whether the governor signs AB 821 into law, hunters will still hunt. But if the use of lead ammunition is continued in condor range, we will lose one of the most magnificent species of birds in the world.

There is a simple solution: use non-lead ammunition. Voluntary efforts have been in effect for 10 years, and they do not work. The only way to solve this problem is to stop using toxic lead ammunition.

In a nod to the condor's magnificence, Schwarzenegger chose the condor as the symbol of California on the state quarter. The governor now has another choice to make - whether the condor will remain California's symbol, or disappear again from California's skies.

KELLY SORENSON is the executive director of the Ventana Wildlife Society and a member of the California Condor Recovery Team. She wrote this article for the Mercury News.

Schwarzenegger, Gun Owners, Environmentalists Battle Over Lead-Based Ammo

2007-09-24T11:00:00.000-07:00

Brewing Conflict Centers on Condors, Proposed Ammo Ban
By Shirley Gregory
Published Sep 19, 2007

A controversy is brewing in California over proposed restrictions on lead-based ammunition, with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, state legislators, fish and game commissioners, gun owners and environmental groups taking opposing stances on the issue, according to news from both sides, pro and con.

The brouhaha started with Assemblyman Pedro Nava's (D, Santa Barbara) proposal to require hunters in areas occupied by the endangered California condor to use non-lead ammunition when hunting coyotes and big game. Nava has pointed to scientific evidence showing that lead from spent ammunition is not only hampering the condor's recovery but harming other birds of prey, other wildlife and humans as well.

"The elimination of lead ammunition will not only benefit the condor, it will also benefit all wildlife and the environment," Nava said in discussing the proposed legislation earlier this year.

Nava's proposal, Assembly Bill 821, has since passed both the state Assembly and Senate and is now awaiting Gov. Schwarzenegger's signature to be signed into law. However, the Gun Owners of California (GOC) is actively seeking a gubernatorial veto, and pro-lead-ban Fish and Game Commissioner Judd Hanna was forced to resign last week -- largely due to, according to the Center for Biological Diversity, pressure from two dozen Republican legislators and the National Rifle Association.

In a Sept. 13 email to fellow commissioners and supporters, Hanna defended Nava's legislation, which is being opposed by other member of the commission.

"The matter at stake here is not my position on the Commission; it is the information itself: scientific data to support a thesis," Hanna wrote. "The mission of the Commission has been deflected by a special interest group. Thus, an issue bearing on one of the Commission's most important mandates, protection of an endangered species, has been hijacked."

Gov. Schwarzenegger has until Oct. 22 to sign or veto AB 821. If he signs it, the ammunition restrictions would take effect July 1, 2008.

"Putting the condor on the state quarter isn't good enough; the governor needs to sign the Condor Preservation Act into law, to ensure that condors do not continue to be poisoned by lead ammunition from hunting," said Jeff Miller, conservation advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity.

In a statement on its Website, the GOC said, "This is the resurrection of the bill to ban lead ammunition, same as 2006's AB 2123 by Assemblyman Pedro Nava. The legislation specifies that the ban applies in the vicinity where the California Condor flies. In 2005, Assemblyman Nava carried the same bill, AB 1002, and received back intense GOC opposition. The bill failed. We will be working to make sure it fails again this year. Concerns of Sportsmen and predicted revenue losses to the state doomed both bill's passage in previous years."

According to the Center for Biological Diversity, lead poisoning is the leading cause of death for condors reintroduced into the wild. The birds ingest the metal by eating from carcasses that have been shot with lead-based ammunition. The center says at least 15 condors in California and Arizona are believed to have been killed by lead poisoning since 1992, and 17 in California alone have been sickened in recent months after eating lead ammunition.

Listed as critically endangered, the California condor lives only in Baja California, the Grand Canyon and the western coastal mountains of the U.S. At last count, only 127 remained free in the wild.

Political Interference May Prevent Protection of Endangered California Condors

2007-09-24T10:59:00.000-07:00

Will Governor Schwarzenegger Stand Up to Gun Lobby and Government Bureaucrats to Sign Bill to Ban Lead Bullets?

By: Dr. Michael Fry, Director of Conservation Advocacy, American Bird Conservancy
Published: Sep 19, 2007 at 08:33

The California Senate and Assembly recently passed a historic protection measure for endangered California condors, Assembly Bill 821 (Nava, D-Santa Barbara), the Ridley-Tree Condor Preservation Act, requiring non-lead ammunition for big-game hunting in condor habitat. The legislation will require hunters to use non-lead ammunition for hunting big game and coyotes within the California condor range in central and southern California, beginning July 1, 2008. The Condor Preservation Act will significantly reduce lead poisoning of condors in California and is an important first step in getting lead out of the food chain.

The bill is now before the Governor, who has until Oct. 14 to sign or veto it. The California Department of Fish and Game sent a letter opposing the bill, claiming it will undermine the authority of the Fish and Game Commission.

"We urge Governor Schwarzenegger to ignore the special interests, ignore the bureaucratic turf wars, and do what's right for the California Condor by signing this bill into law," said Dr. Michael Fry, American Bird Conservancy.

The Commissions letter did promise action on the proposed lead ammunition ban this fall, and now the Commission is facing extreme political pressure from allies of the National Rifle Association (NRA) not to enact a ban. On September 10, a group of 34 Republican Legislators requested that Commissioner Judd Hanna be removed from the Commission so that he would not vote on a lead bullet regulation scheduled for the next Commission meeting. Hanna's transgression was doing his homework on the lead ammunition issue (see attached letter). Hanna, a hunter, veteran of the Viet Nam war and Republican, submitted his resignation Sept. 13 after being asked to so by Schwarzenegger's Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman. In a telephone interview with the Sacramento Bee Hanna said, "It's not about me, it's about the condor and it's about the NRA hijacking the system."

It appears the authority of the Commission has already been undermined by political and lobbying interference in a successful effort to remove any commissioner in favor of non toxic ammunition. The Condor Preservation Act does not ban hunting, but only requires the use of lead-free ammunition in the range of California Condors. Non-toxic bullets are currently manufactured by two major companies, and are available for most popular hunting rifles.

The San Jose Mercury News reports that other Commissioners are angered by the interference. Chairman of the Commission Richard Rogers said Hanna did nothing wrong and that the Commission would vote on the issue Nov. 1. "�the scientific evidence is overwhelming that lead from bullets is a major component � if not the major component � of the lead in condors," said Rogers. "That's a fact. It's not something to debate."

"It is very important for the Governor to sign this bill now because of the political pressure exerted on the commission and its likely inability to act in November." said Dr. Fry. "It appears any commissioner who looks at the scientific evidence may lose their job."

Condors vs. the NRA

2007-09-24T10:57:00.000-07:00

-post removed due to complaint by Salon.com-

CAMP ROBERTS HUNTING PROGRAM IS GOING GREEN

2007-05-16T12:40:00.000-07:00

CAMP ROBERTS HUNTING PROGRAM IS GOING GREEN

It is an Army goal to systematically conserve biological diversity on Army lands within the context of its mission. To protect species, the Army also recognizes the importance of habitat management, the key to effective conservation of species.

The California Condor Recovery Team and Ventana Wildlife Society have all indicated that lead poisoning from ammunition left behind in carcasses is not only the single greatest threat to California condors but could in fact prevent the recovery of the once nearly-extinct California condor.

Camp Roberts acknowledges that lead toxicity has been identified as one the leading causes of deaths in condors. Also, that lead is a toxic element that has been linked to numerous harmful effects to humans as well. Hunters who use lead ammunition also risk poisoning by accidentally eating shot or bullet fragments embedded in meat. Health effects in humans following ingestion of whole lead shot pellets have been reported in many cases.

Camp Roberts realizes that switching to non-lead ammunition for hunting will not only benefit condors but everything that feeds on game in California, including eagles, foxes, mountain lions, bobcats, coyotes, and humans.

To that end, beginning July 1, 2007 new regulations will include a requirement to use non-lead bullets in its hunting program. Furthermore, beginning July 1, 2008 a requirement to use non lead shot for upland game hunting will be implemented.

The California National Guard (CANG) fully supports the efforts of the Condor Recovery Team and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to protect the California condor and its habitat.
For additional information regarding condors visit:

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/i/B0G.html

For information on manufacturers of NON-lead ammunition visit:

www.azgfd.gov/pdfs/w_c/condors/Non-lead%20ammo%20retailers.pdf

Project Gutpile - The Unleaded Sportsman’s Resource Site:

http://www.projectgutpile.org/

LET CONDORS FLY FREE

2007-04-30T06:59:00.000-07:00

Lead-bullet ban would reduce need to trap, monitor birds, By JOHN MOIR
Guest commentary

Article Last Updated: 04/29/2007 01:40:21 AM PDT

It's a thrilling experience to see a California condor flying over the Big Sur coastline or at Pinnacles National Monument. The giant birds sweep across the sky while white triangular patches on their wings' undersides flash in the sun. Shivers run up your spine.

But in spending the past several years writing about the heroic effort to save our largest bird, there are two disquieting words I have heard all too often: lead poisoning.

Lead poisoning was the main reason that by 1982 this majestic bird's population had plummeted to only 22 condors. And lead poisoning continues to this day as the condor recovery program's greatest obstacle.

Condors eat only dead animals, and the birds can inadvertently consume poisonous lead-bullet fragments found in hunter-shot game. It was lead that forced the capture of the last wild condor in 1987. Nevertheless, 20 years later, many hunters are still using lead ammunition — and released condors continue to die.

Now there is a chance to make a much needed change to protect the condor and other wildlife. The California Fish and Game Commission (www.dfg.ca.gov) is currently considering whether to require the use of non-lead bullets for big game hunting. The commission is scheduled to vote on the ban next week. It's an idea whose time has come.

When a lead bullet slams into a game animal, it shatters into scores and sometimes hundreds of highly toxic pieces. Biologist Grainger Hunt showed me dozens of X-rays he had taken

of hunter-shot deer. A typical black-and-white image revealed an astonishing sight: Scattered among the deer's shadowy ribs and vertebrae were more than 200 brilliant white particles of lead. "This 'lead snowstorm' spreads widely from the wound site," Hunt said. Consuming even one of these tiny fragments can poison a condor, other wildlife or even hunters.

In hiking with biologists to back-country flight pens and remote wilderness areas, I came to realize that the 135 condors now released in the western U.S. are not truly free. Biologists must focus much of their attention on an intensive management program aimed at preventing or treating lead poisoning.

Though varmint control by ranchers also spreads lead into the environment, it is considered a relatively minor factor in condor poisoning because the birders prefer larger mammals such as deer and pigs to coyotes or squirrels.

Released birds have to be regularly trapped and have their blood tested for lead exposure. Condors with high lead levels have to be confined and injected twice daily with a chemical that binds with lead and carries it out of their bodies. Dozens of condors have gone through this expensive medical treatment, known as chelation. Some poor birds have been poisoned several times and needed multiple chelation treatments. Despite biologists' best efforts, some condors suffer long and horrible deaths by starvation when lead poisoning paralyzes their digestive systems.

The condor cannot fully recover until the lead bullet issue is solved. The solution lies with sport hunters switching to non-lead ammunition.

Although it was clear as early as 1984 that condors were dying from lead, skeptics have questioned whether bullets were the poisoning source. Never mind that biologists have been finding lead-bullet fragments in the digestive tracks of poisoned condors for years, and that lead poisoning episodes spike during hunting season. Last year, a study from the University of California-Santa Cruz looked at the specific "fingerprint" of the lead isotope composition found only in lead bullets and discovered that it matched the lead in the blood of condors.

There is no doubt.

While it's true that alternative ammunition is more expensive, bullets are a minor part of a hunting trip's costs. Nevertheless, California would do well to replicate an Arizona program that provides coupons for free alternative ammunition with the purchase of a hunting license. Subsidizing or even giving away the alternative ammunition will ease the transition away from lead bullets.

Switching to non-lead ammunition also protects other wildlife. In addition, it could benefit hunters. Bill Heinrich at the Peregrine Fund described a recent study in which he took several deer that had been shot with lead bullets to butcher shops and had the meat prepared for eating. The packaged venison steaks — exactly what a hunter would take home to cook — were then X-rayed.

Some of those steaks still contained tiny lead fragments. Heinrich, a hunter himself, said, "I wish hunters knew what they are feeding to their families. After seeing those X-rays, I'll never use lead bullets again."

Transitioning to non-lead ammunition is good for condors, it's good for other wildlife and it's good for humans. The time has come to restrict the use of toxic lead bullets and let the condor fly free.

John Moir of Santa Cruz is author of "Return of the Condor: The Race To Save Our Largest Bird From Extinction."

For information on condors, see http://returnofthecondor.com.