December 19, 2007

 

                                                           

 

 

 

 

"...I'm moved to comment, that, um, that it's very important for people to understand

    that for the last 20 years, and the next speaker can attest to this, in waterfowl

    hunting you are arrested if you have a lead, a shell, in your possession.

    Um, there is no difference, we've been doing this for 20 years, but then again

    the NRA represents gun owners, not hunters..."

 

                                        - California Fish & Game Commission President

                                          Richard B. Rogers, at a December 7, 2007

                                          Fish & Game Commission hearing, on the issue

                                          of banning possession on the persons and in the

                                          vehicles of traditional ammunition while hunting

                                          big game, coyotes, squirrels, and non-game

                                          birds in roughly one third of the State of California.

 

 

    

 

To All,

     While this hunter, at least, is more than happy to have the NRA represent my interests, it should be said that perhaps that Governor Arnold's hand-picked Commissioner should be forgiven a tad, for he not only does not know what he has said, but he truly does not know what he has done:

    

 

Condor Pasa Update: Pandora's Box and the Three Amigos-      

     After 6 months of intense late night Internet research sessions, the reading of several dozens of papers scientific (and, of course, less than scientific when rigor is concerned), midnight Powerpoint editing, long distance phone consultations, travel across the Fool's Golden State, and hopeful discourse with the California Fish & Game Commission, input submitted by NRA volunteers and certain allied groups have led in part to the following declaration in the "Final Environmental Document Regarding: Sections 353 and 475 of Title 14, California Code of Regulations-  Methods Authorized for Taking Big Game and Methods of Take for Nongame Birds and Nongame Mammals":

 

        "...Based on these reviews, other data the Department is aware of, and expertise past

         and present, the Department has compiled the following summary statements that

         represent what is believed to be factual information related to the lead, condor, and

         hunting issue:

 

            - There is no direct evidence that hunter-killed big game, nongame birds, or nongame

              mammals resulted in the illness or death of a condor due to lead poisoning in

              California. To date, no condors in California that have been observed feeding on

              gut piles or game carcasses believed to be hunter-killed, and perhaps believed

              to have lead fragments in them, died as a result of feeding on such animals..."

 

     In other words, there is no "CSI"-type scientific case conclusively linking traditional ammunition to condors and their current failure to recover as required by law. 

 

     Small consolation it is to know that pro-gun and pro-hunting forces have made a good case to the scientists at the Department of Fish and Game that the linkage of lead ammunition to the current problems with condor recovery is unproven, only to lose the current meeting engagement to the efficacies of politics in Sacramento (such as they are).

 

     This is especially so in light of specific data presented by volunteers and others showing that alternative sources of environmental lead compounds a) exist in the condor's range; b) have the same isotopic "fingerprint" as that alleged by certain researchers, and c) and that Fish & Wildlife Service-related researchers have published studies and evidence that the condor's tendencies to consume stray garbage on the ground cause it to be exposed to these alternative hazards.( In all the hoopla over ammunition, the issue of condor mortality by internal laceration caused by garbage ingestion has also been totally overlooked by all but one stalwart, pro-hunting commissioner.).

 

    The above summary statement was ratified by a vote of 4-0 of the members of the California Fish & Game Commission, again on December 7, 2007. In other words, it was ratified by Commission President Richard B. Rogers, among others.

 

     One should assume that President Rogers reads the material submitted to him by Department of Fish & Game staff. Personal observation demonstrates that he at least read documents and materials submitted by the public, something that one would expect of a conscientious public appointee.

 

    But this conscientiousness does not explain his agreeing, along with his preservationist colleagues Vice President Cindy Gustafson and Commissioner-To-Be Michael Sutton, to expand the regulations banning lead ammunition beyond the bare minimum required by AB 821, which was signed by Governor Arnold back in October.

 

    Not only that, but in the "rush" to placate the implacable NRDC and Center for Biological Diversity, Commission President Rogers agreed to a "smorgasboard" approach that ended up with a kind of "pump-fake" which resulted in the banning of .22 rimfire when used in controlling ground squirrels, rats, and other ranching and farming pests (Apparently condors don't eat rattlesnake, despite the similarity with chicken, so it may be safe to blaze away with the knowledge that a rattlesnake is not a nongame mammal.). Nowhere was there public discussion on the environmental impact about a decision that would limit ranchers and farmers to such "area weapons" as poisons, or worse, that ranchers and farmers would now be using shotgun rounds containing as much as an ounce and a half of lead when the .22 rimfires usually are in the 39 grain class ( There are 437.5 grains to the ounce, so if a rancher were to use a 20 gauge shotgun to control squirrels instead of his Ruger 10-22, he would be introducing roughly eleven times as much lead per trigger pull as he would with the rimfire.). How's that for "no adverse impact"?

 

    Or, for example, the problem of possession of lead rounds and their accompanying firearm comes to mind. Commission President Roger's now infamous comment (noted above) appears to show a certain lack of recognition of the needs of law enforcement, among others. Off-duty police officers do hunt on occasion, and law enforcement personnel might periodically feel the need (not to mention certain department's policies) to carry their duty firearm with them when hunting deer or pigs in those zones now to be limited by the change in regulation. Are law enforcement now to be consigned to firearms and/or ammunition not approved by their departments when an off-duty emergency arises? Or are they simply to be disarmed like the rest of the public, just because there are intriguing claims over issues of field identification? (For example, bismuth used in waterfowl hunting is non-magnetic, so what is the problem?). Only time, and litigation, will tell.

 

    Of course, the Commission has been put on notice that they have 180 or so days to come up with a complete ammunition certification process and approved ammunition on store shelves in substantial quantities, or watch the 2008 Big Game Season and 2008 Depredation Permit activities come to a screeching halt (If the Humane Society gets wind of the nonlead ammunition requirements of AB 821, versus the decision to only regulate projectiles by the Commission, the season may come to a halt anyway.).

 

    Facts unknowable at this date remain as to hunter's acceptance of higher priced ammunition, at prices dismissed by the Commission as not having any bearing on the so-called "greater good" of restoring these "goats-with-wings" to previous haunts. If the Commission has guessed wrong on the economics, and that a significant price increase of ammunition will cause a real diminishment of hunting and varminting activities, then the Commission and the Department of Fish & Game may just end up trying to charge non-resident license fee levels to resident hunters to maintain Department budgets, a tough sell in any economy. Suffice it to say that we will all "stay tuned" for what will probably be the bumpiest of rides.

 

 

Respectfully,