FAST FACTS . . .

Lead or Traditional Ammunition

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association of the firearms industry, opposes the banning of lead ammunition. Further scientific research with conclusive results, not hypothesis or consensus, is needed before a measure as drastic as banning lead ammunition is even considered.

The California Condor and Lead Ammunition

In California, anti-hunting groups and radical environmentalists are actively engaged in a lobbying campaign to ban lead ammunition, citing allegations that lead is poisoning the California Condor.

The Executive Committee of the Condor Recovery Team supports the adoption of science-based voluntary, non-ban measures that would serve to interrupt the potential pathways for the ingestion of lead bullet fragments by condors. Surveys prove most hunters agree with the Committee.

There are also unconsidered impacts and adverse consequences of a lead ban that may affect condors including higher toxicity levels with alternative metals. What research has been conducted on this subject? It would seem that banning lead ammunition might only shift a possible source of toxicity from one metal to another.

Furthermore, alternatives to lead ammunition can expand upon impact thereby creating several very sharp, jagged edges that could severely cut the tissues of the digestive tract if ingested by a condor, leading to death by internal bleeding.

In spite of the above considerations, the supporters of banning lead ammunition sponsored the introduction of two bills to stop the use of lead ammunition in California during the 2005-2006 session of the state legislature. The two bills, AB 1002 (Nava) and AB 2123 (Nava), both failed passage. Supporters recently filed a federal lawsuit under the federal Endangered Species Act against the California Department of Fish and Game to force suspension of the use of lead ammunition for hunting. The lawsuit is still pending. In 2005 these groups sought to have the Department ban the use of lead ammunition. The Department rejected that demand in favor of pursuing voluntary measures by hunters that would disrupt the exposure pathway. At the time the Department made that decision, it was aware that surveys had shown California hunters would voluntarily adopt those measures.

The Department has expended funds and staff time to educate hunters to adopt one of the several voluntary measures, including:

• Retrieve all killed animals (including coyotes and small game) from the field.
• Hide carcasses or gut piles by burying them, covering them with brush or rocks, or placing them in an inaccessible area.
• Remove bullets and surrounding impacted tissue when leaving carcasses or gut piles in the field, or
• Use lead-free ammunition, in which case none of the above is necessary.

A more recent survey1 conducted in late 2006 by the Responsive Management Company, reconfirms the results of the earlier survey research and has shown again that California hunters continue to strongly support a program of voluntary measures, not a lead ammunition ban, which would help avoid the ingestion of lead bullet fragments by condors.

In summary, the survey results showed the following:

• The majority (68 percent) of California hunters oppose a mandatory ban on the use of lead ammunition. Most are in strong opposition to such a ban.
• Approximately 25 percent of hunters would either quit big game hunting or hunt less in California if a ban was adopted (15% would hunt in another state, 8% would hunt less frequently, and 2% would quit hunting altogether).
• Most hunters (73 percent) indicated that they would be likely to participate in some or all of the voluntary measures that would help prevent condor exposure to lead from ammunition.

A ban on the use of lead ammunition for hunting in California would have a significantly negative economic impact on the Department of Fish and Game and its ability to operate programs related to big game hunting and overall wildlife management and enforcement of the Fish and Game Code, including Title 14. There would be a noticeable loss to the state and local economies, particularly in rural areas.

The following is a brief summary of estimated economic losses based on analysis of existing data related to hunting license/tag sales, sales of firearms and ammunition, and expenditures of hunters while preparing for, and while engaged in or traveling to or from, big game hunting:

• A loss of $624,000 per year in Federal Pittman-Robertson grant money to the Department of Fish and Game
• A loss of $3.9 million to the Department resulting from a decline in California hunting license/tag sales
• A net loss to the state of $266 million
• A decline in retail sales of $131 million
• A reduction of $15 million in state and federal income taxes
• A loss of 2,230 jobs

At present, non-lead big game hunting ammunition is essentially a “sole source” technology. Only one brand suitable for taking big game is available to hunters. Furthermore, non-lead ammunition is available only in a limited number of calibers and cartridges. Many hunters would not be able to find non-lead ammunition for their own particular big game rifle. And while the Department mentioned an ammunition incentive program in their Statement of Reasons, conspicuously absent were any expense estimates for the campaign.

The State Fish and Game Commission should not adopt a ban on lead ammunition for hunting big game. Instead, they should support the more broad science-based management practices that have been supported by CDFG, The Condor Recovery Team Executive Committee, hunters and the shooting sports industry.

Resources

Joint Sportsmen's Organization Letter to California Fish and Game Commission

_________________________________________________

1 California Hunters' Awareness of and Opinions on a Potential Ban of Lead Ammunition, Responsive Management, 2006.