Canales News Briefs

February 22, 2007

" ...(Mid-Scene- Elmer Fudd has just had a misfire while

aiming at Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny)

Elmer- ' Well, what do you know, no more buwwits! '

Bugs Bunny- ' No more buwwits? Hey Laughing Boy,

no more buwwits! '

Daffy Duck (doubtful)- ' No more bullets? Here, let me see

that thing...'

(Daffy takes shotgun from Elmer Fudd and begins to

examine it in an unsafe, but comedic, manner. Shotgun,

on cue, discharges into Daffy's beak.)

Elmer Fudd- ' Well, what do ya know- one buwwit weft! '

Bugs Bunny- ' One buwwit weft? Hey, Laughing Boy, there was...'

Daffy Duck,

singed and exasperated- ' I know, I know!!! ' ..."

- Partial lines from the Warner Brothers Cartoon

classic, " Rabbit Fire", 1951

To All,

Is it not strange as to how "ahead of his time" Daffy Duck could be?

The "Written By An Idiot's" Guide To The Ammo Ban:

In the ongoing controversy in California, over the proposed ban of bullets made with lead for hunting and varminting purposes, the California Fish and Game Commission Website has finally posted a host of relevant documents. Given that there will be a preliminary "vote" or consideration of the proposed ban on either March 1 or March 2, 2007, alacrity seems indicated. (Note: A final vote appears to be scheduled for April 13, 2007, depending upon circumstances.).

Firearms owners continue to be distressed to learn that the DFG staff has recommended a ban on the use of bullets containing lead while an individual is hunting big game, non-game mammals, and non-game birds in certain areas assigned as Deer Zones.

These Zones are South Zone A, D 9, D 10, D11, and D 13. This would mean a ban on traditional ammunition, for taking purposes, in the following counties:

Monterey

San Benito

Western Half of Fresno

Kings

Western portion of Tulare

San Luis Obispo

Santa Barbara

Ventura

Major Northern Portion of Los Angeles County

Most of Kern County

Big game, in this case, is being defined in the proposed regulations as deer, elk, pronghorn antelope, black bear, or wild pig. Various non-game animals can include coyotes and ground squirrels.

Please note that the bullets being banned here include standard jacketed designs suitable for use in modern rifles and pistols, as well as their counterparts for the black-powder community. Added to this are all-lead slugs, "musket balls", shotgun slugs and buckshot, the last which has been proven useful at times when one goes in after bear or pig in close cover.

Comments in opposition to the proposed ammunition ban can be sent to the following:

Traditional Mail:

The Honorable John Carlson Jr.

Executive Director, Fish and Game Commission

1416 Ninth Street, Box 944209,

Sacramento, CA 94244-2090

Telephone:

(916) 653-4899

or speak to Craig Stowers at (916) 445-3553

Fax:

(916) 653-5040

Email:

FGC@fgc.ca.gov or

The Renowned One Click Method at:

http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2007&summary=leadammoban

Deadlines for Comment: April 6, 2007

Links at:

http://www.fgc.ca.gov/2007/353ntc.pdf

http://www.fgc.ca.gov/2007/353regs.pdf

http://www.fgc.ca.gov/2007/475regs.pdf

One Bullet Left:

Further analysis of the proposed ban on lead ammunition, and a bit of market research, may indicate a wider ranging impact than that allowed for by the DFG staff.

As noted in the Fish and Game Commission's "Notice of Proposed Changes in Regulations" (February 6, 2007), DFG staff found:

"...Impact of Regulatory Action

The potential for significant statewide adverse economic

impacts that might result from the proposed regulatory

action has been assessed, and the following initial

determinations relative to the required statutory

categories have been made:

(a) Significant Statewide Adverse Economic Impact

Directly Affecting Businesses, Including the Ability

of California Businesses to Compete with Businesses

in Other States:

Sections 353 and 475

The proposed action will not have a significant statewide

adverse economic impact directly affecting business,

including the ability of California businesses to

compete with businesses in other states.

Businesses relying on the sale of lead bullets also

have the ability to sell non-lead bullets. These

businesses will still have the capability to sell lead

bullets for use in other activities than the proposed

regulation changes such as target shooting, hunting

big game elsewhere in California, or hunting in

other states..."

Apart from this section sounding like it was written by someone with a graduate degree in economics from the University of Havana, one can only wonder as to whether the DFG's own Bean Counters have been brought into the loop on this. Surely they, at least, are familiar with the Laws (not regulations) of Supply and Demand to know that an action that reduces ammunition supplies to an area containing a third or more of the state's population is going to result in price increases. This, in turn, would lead to less demand for hunting ammunition, with a resulting decrease in the associated sales taxes (not to mention Pitman Robertson funds). Excuse me, but if memory serves a portion (at least) of the DFG budget comes from, TAH-DAH, AMMO Sales! (More on this later- Yes, that means a tax-cum-fee is in the offing.).

After all, firearms retail outlets are not charities, nor are they in the business to hold on for long to current inventories of products that cannot be sold before the effective date of any ban approved by the Commission.

Furthermore, the regulation as currently proposed means that only one bullet maker's product would pass muster, which in turn is only carried by 3 fixed ammunition makers currently on the market. Inquiries recently made with sales personnel at such venerable bullet makers such as Sierra, Nosler, and Hornaday indicate that these companies are not yet ready to field acceptable alternatives for the 2007 Big Game Season, nor ready for any of this year's spring activities related to coyote control. Likewise Remington, one of the biggest in the country, is not yet offering a non-lead version of any of their most popular hunting cartridges.

Also, is it possible that DFG staff has been so long out of the field that they do not understand that hunters sight in their firearms with the ammunition they intend to hunt with? Other than with the occasional demolition of a wiley watermelon or two (where precision is not normally a requirement), deer and pig hunters active in the effected zones are going to be forced to sight in and practice with bullets that can be as much as 50% more expensive as components when compared with traditional lead-based ammunition. (After all, that "Try It, You'll Like It!!-style ammo give-away program cannot last forever.). If the bullet component prices at Cabelas.com are any indication, pocket books are about to be adversely impacted for the foreseeable future.

One little gem built into the regulatory declarations in the February 2007 Notice has to do with Paragraph (c). The Commission notifies the public as follows:

"...Cost Impacts on a Representative Private Person or

Business:

A private person or business will be required to pay a new

fee pursuant to proposed regulations geared to recover the

department's cost of administering the program..."

Veterans of the battles in support of Proposition 13 (Bless St. Howard of Jarvis, may his example carry on...) will recognize the old user fee dodge here. A fee is a tax, plain and simple, and will have to be substantial enough to pay for all the wardens needed to check ammo pouches and game check stations in the affected zones. Given the natural disposition of hand-loading hobbyists across the affected counties (including this poster), something tells me that this one is not going to meet the revenue demand quota by a large margin.

If anything, one could imagine that the need for additional wardens to cover the affected zones is going to exist before the DFG and the Fish and Game Commission can set up the funding mechanisms for the "fees" yet to be detailed. In other words, Mr. Carlson may just have to "rob", er...."re-deploy", er...."re-allocate" (yeah, that's the ticket!!) current funds from some other DFG program to cover all the overtime wardens are going to need to keep up with activities this spring. Could it be that some program managers are a bit nervous right about now, up at 1416 Ninth Street?.... Oh well, that's the life of a bureaucrat these days. And the public notice issue remains as well. DFG is going to have to do more than a bit of rush advertising (Pricey advertising at that) to let the public in on this latest bit of regulatory "ledger-eminent-domain".

It is not known at this time if state regulatory actions are allowed to confer a de facto monopoly market condition without some sort of extraordinary review. This is doubly so when it was the original stated intention of the antagonists in this case (NRDC et al) to extend the ban on lead ammunition statewide. But it can be taken to one's nearest FDIC-Insured Institution of Lending that there is going to be a lot more discussion of this matter. Stay tuned.

Link at:

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/licensing/pdffiles/2006BigGameBook/2006map.pdf

A Modern Day Whodunit:

It's odd what one will find on the Web nowadays (and odder still how things get linked, then pulled down), but of interest to the current discussion on the ammo ban is related to the catalyst for it in the first place.

In the case of Wishtoyo Foundation; Anthony Prieto; Leif Bierer; Physicians for Social Responsibility; Center for Biological Diversity; and Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Plaintiffs (NRDC et al hereon) versus Michael Flores, Bob Hattoy, Jim Kellogg, Richard Rogers, Cindy Gustafson, John Carlson Jr., and Ryan Broddrick in their various official capacities with either the Fish and Game Commission or the Department of Fish and Game, an apparent early version of the case filing reads as follows:

"...62. Harmful exposure of California condors to lead

ammunition occurs on a routine basis in California.

As recently as June 12, 2006, free-flying California

condors were observed feeding on hunter-shot

squirrel carcasses at Pinnacles National Monument.

Biologists captured ten of the eleven condors that fed

on these carcasses and tested them for lead. Initial

tests revealed that four juvenile condors had elevated

levels of lead in their bloodstream and had ingested

significant amounts of lead....."

Now, let's set aside any "conjecture" as to how elevated blood levels found in the retrieved condors could be associated with that particular meal of "aged" ground squirrel ala Antoine. Or as to what constitutes "elevated", given that blood levels were not quantified in the filing. Or even that the science for the "ban side" of the argument generally postulates that lead levels in condors generally diminish in the non-hunting months, making June kind of a bad month statistically to find high blood lead levels if ammunition is to be the culprit (On the other hand, wheel weights are another matter, given vacation driving schedules...).

Rather, the mystery has to do with the rather dramatic accusation that the "contaminated" squirrels were a) "hunter-shot"; and b) shot at Pinnacles National Monument.

After all, a simple phone call to the Pinnacles National Monument Visitor Center (831-389-4485) would allow one to discover from staff that hunting is a not permitted at Pinnacles National Monument.

Given that Pinnacles is Federal Land, any such activities might just qualify as poaching in a Federal jurisdiction, one that could result in significant time as a guest of Uncle Sam's Penal System (That would have had to have been one heck of a trophy ground squirrel to justify the risk. Sort of makes one wonder what the heck they are feeding them out there. Or does Biologic make squirrel food as well?).

Stranger yet, a web search indicates that no news services have seemed to have posted stories about any hunting or poaching at Pinnacles. (Contrast that with the wide coverage of a condor shot by some fool over at Fort Tejon). So the question remains- Were the squirrels mentioned in the case filing actually shot at the Monument, or is the filing perhaps in error? How does Plaintiff NRDC et al know it was a hunter, or hunters, unknown who shot the squirrels, to justify their claims to a Federal Court?

This case is perhaps worthy of the "leetle gray cells" of a Poirot, given the seriousness of the charge as well as the past findings by an Arizona court that one of the Plaintiffs maliciously fabricated claims about environmental destruction in another case (One in which a penalty of $ 600,000 was assessed). Perhaps the GPS units of the biologists involved were a bit out of sorts that particular day (After all, the Pentagon has been known to periodically "dither" the signal when they are bombing jihadis somewhere in the world). Or possibly one Park Service groundskeeper went and had a kind of "Caddyshack" moment, in frustration over the degree of tunneling squirrels can inflict, and just neglected to police up the carcasses. But it is safe to say that "inquiring minds" want to know for certain as to this particular report. Stay tuned.

Anthony Canales