[HighBirds]

Today an Arizona district judge threw out a lawsuit that would have banned lead ammunition on US Forest land under the provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Many would consider it a win for federalism as the judge maintained that wildlife management and hunting are the domain of state agencies and not the Federal Gov't.

 

[bearfoot1]

Whos initiating such BAD things for us sportsmen/ women ? You know you got to include everyone to be politicaly correct, AH, TGs people, LOL....

 

[az-jim]

Whos initiating such BAD things for us sportsmen/ women ? You know you got to include everyone to be politicaly correct, AH, TGs people, LOL....

Bunny huggers

 

[HighBirds]

Whos initiating such BAD things for us sportsmen/ women ? You know you got to include everyone to be politicaly correct, AH, TGs people, LOL....

I had to do a little digging on the case, but it comes from the Center for Biological Diversity. It started back in 2012 in an attempt to subject lead ammo to federal regulation in the Kaibab Forest in order to protect endangered condors.

Apparently the case had already been blocked multiple times with the 9th circuit ruling back in 2019 that the case had to be heard. After yesterday's decision I presume it will get an automatic appeal to the most liberal court in the country.

 

[John McLaughlin]

The Perigrine Fund needs more money. Since the small falcons came off the endangered species list the fund has been firmly attached to the condor money teat. I once asked the gal who was the USFS national director for endangered species why the condors were so lead sensitive when the turkey vultures and ravens that live in the same areas and eat the same carrion, coyote and game gut piles that supposedly kills the condors are doing fine. Her answer was "I don't know. It definitely needs more study. "
I like the condors, they are a neat critter and I see them often over the No Kaibab area and up close and personal at the marble canyon bridge. I wish them well and the AZGFD will give anyone who draws a turkey or deer tag free non tox ammo. A much better way to handle the situation than by govt fiat over the whole country. FWIW. Thus endeth the sermon. JM

 

[460 S&W]

Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Thursday, April 1st, 2021, a federal judge in Arizona sided with NRA-ILA and Safari Club International and held that hunters’ use of traditional ammo does not violate federal environmental law.

The case dates back to 2012 when a group sued the U.S. Forest Service. The group alleged that by allowing hunters to hunt with traditional lead ammo in the 1.6-million-acre Kaibab National Forest—which is authorized by Arizona state law—the Forest Service was violating the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. That Act was originally passed in 1976, to address the increasing amount of municipal and industrial waste that was being disposed of at the time. But over time, it has been used to attack gun owners and shooting ranges.

Today the judge held that the Forest Service is not disposing of any waste by allowing hunters to hunt in accordance with state laws. But the case had even bigger implications. The Plaintiff was asking the court to order the Forest Service regulate hunting. But the states own the wildlife, even while it is on federal lands. “Each national forest,” the judge said, “is required to cooperate with state wildlife agencies to allow hunting in ‘accordance with the requirements of State laws.”’ A ruling to the contrary would have given the federal government the authority to enter a field of regulation that belongs to the states on lands where hunting takes place. Those implications would be huge because 640-million acres (about twenty-eight percent of the country) is owned and managed by the federal government. Thankfully, the judge sided with NRA-ILA and Safari Club.

The case is called Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Forest Service. The National Shooting Sports Foundation also intervened as a defendant in the case.

 

[dangerranger]

I don't know much about Condors in AZ but the California Condor is a proven garbage eater! They regularly capture sick birds and remove bottle caps, pull tabs, aluminum foil, etc... from the birds gizzards and stomach's. and they have proven over and over that the lead alloys that make up bullets are not where the poisoning comes from. It is most likely from lead paint. and very probably from the yellow paint used to stripe asphalt!
But the lead bans have nothing to do with facts! DR

 

[Buster]

Lead poisoning and the deceptive recovery of the critically endangered California condor

Direct quote from above study:

“Lead isotopic analysis shows that lead-based ammunition is the principle source of lead poisoning in condors.”

In layman’s terms, advanced chemistry links the source of lead directly to lead ammo!

The evidence is fairly clear on this. The above comment by @dangerranger is not what the scientific evidence points to. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts!

 

[dangerranger]

The problem is there are other studies that directly refute that quoted study and the group in the study above refuses to share any data or put it up for pier review. They can say what they want but their data wont stand up to careful review. And this is a case of both sides having their own set of facts!. The Court case is winding through the slowest path they can make it go. We are not expected to even get our day in court for another 10 years or so!
The CA desert has been a dumping ground for the US military for well over 100 years. There have been so many toxic substances dumped out there the science community has no idea where exactly the lead poisoning is coming from. And this is the home range of the CA Condors.
According to the Bird Biologist here, The Condors are living on borrowed time. They lived and thrived on Whale carcasses when the whaling industry was a big thing. When that went away The birds moved inland to clean up cattle carcasses. In the early years of the cattle industry cows were just left out to grow on there own till harvest time. Those that died were just left for the scavengers, and those that lived were fattened up to sell in fall.
These days cattle are valued enough that if one is sick it pays to call a vet! We don't leave dead carcasses laying around. And the Condors are out of another easy food source.
Which has led them to become garbage eaters! And are dependent on feeding stations where Biologists feed them cattle Offal. [ left over parts].
If they were left to their own they would have starved out years ago. But they have a well funded group that unnaturally feeds them and takes care of them. They have spent Billions of dollars artificially propping up the small population. Where other birds that actually have a future are left with no funding. We are wasting our time and money on a pre historic bird that can not survive on its own. Those are the Ca Condors facts! DR

 

[Buster]

Please post other studies! I’ll wait

 

[rk]

I assume they survived for eons without whaling, ranching, or biologists?

 

[Quail Hunter]

I have no issue using non lead ammo in the condor range but not ready to do it state wide. CBD is more of a law office than a conservation organization.

 

[HighBirds]

The lead ban debate is a fascinating one. Over in the UK the Game Dealers Association just announced that it will end the sourcing all of game shot with lead by next summer. This effectively will kill lead since so many of the shooting clubs and estates are tied up in the game meat market. On top of that their government is considering a legal ban on lead ammo.

While the science is not kind to the effects of lead ammo, the legal case for a federal ban here in the states seems pretty weak. Be that as it may, we should all be preparing for a non-tox future.

 

[Buster]

The question isn’t whether lead is harmful to certain types of animals, since there is consensus of scientific data for decades. The question is whether or not our society currently wants to make the changes necessary to preserve species like the CA Condor. At present, our state has taken the approach of asking hunters to voluntarily not use lead while in certain units. This is not an effective approach as many just choose to use lead still.

Some may say that it is not worth the cost to save CA condors and other lead sensitive species. Others see lead shot use as toxic litter. The latter group is increasingly becoming larger as the general public is becoming aware of the facts!

In regard to the UK, the sporting clubs have taken a proactive approach of self limiting themselves. This forward thinking puts their Sportsman ahead of the issue and will help them continue to protect the shooting traditions they enjoy.

Here in the USA, too many spread false information and attempt to deflect from the issue by stating that lead isn’t as toxic as it really is. This approach does not put our sportsman on the right side of the issue! Hunters are a minority group, while many more people just hike, camp, and take pics. The majority of people will not defend the use of lead in hunting ammo. This is clear!

The real question is not if lead will be banned, but when will lead be banned on public lands.

 

[HighBirds]

I agree that a lead ban is inevitable, but I am very doubtful of its imminence. Is it good science to enforce a blanket lead ban across the country to save a limited species like the Condor? Probably, but is it good policy? I wonder what would happen to the Pittman-Robertson fund if you banned lead ammo on all federal land since a lot of target shooting takes place on BLM. You saved the prehistoric bird, but you defunded conservation in the process. Kind of like biting the hand that feeds.

And the UK case is quite a bit different. They have a large game meat market and there are legitimate concerns about selling lead-tainted meat to the general public.

 

[Buster]

@HighBirds I appreciate your perspective, but you’re still downplaying the toxicity of lead. I’m not saying I entirely agree with this article, but will post it for perspective.

Trump’s interior secretary reverses ban on lead ammo on national wildlife refuges as his first official act

I agree that a ban is not likely going to happen in the near future, but would bet in our lifetimes. As for the toxicity of lead in waterfowl and birds of prey, I have worked directly in this area while in college and post college in the field of environment reclamation. Our society has done silly things with substance we knew were toxic, but downplayed. Just look at federal brownfield sites in the northeast for examples.

 

[HighBirds]

I never said anything about the toxicity of lead, so I don't think I can be downplaying it

I am questioning whether the ill-effects of lead ammo so clearly outweighs its possible benefits. The fact is our entire modern society rests on a whole host of toxic stuff, most of which we don't even know or care about. But if you put a poisoned animal in front of someone they lose their minds!

And I think comparing a brownfield to the use of lead ammo is called a false analogy

 

[Buster]

Is it good science to enforce a blanket lead ban across the country to save a limited species like the Condor? Probably, but is it good policy? I wonder what would happen to the Pittman-Robertson fund if you banned lead ammo on all federal land since a lot of target shooting takes place on BLM. You saved the prehistoric bird, but you defunded conservation in the process. Kind of like biting the hand that feeds.

And the UK case is quite a bit different. They have a large game meat market and there are legitimate concerns about selling lead-tainted meat to the general public.

In your above statement, you’re treating science as policy, which it is not. Good policy should be science based. Please excuse my mistake as I interpreted your comment of saving a limited number of species as downplaying the effects of lead in the environment. My perspective is from someone who has literally cleaned up countless tons of lead laced chromium byproduct from the auto industry of the 50’-60’s.

Only one of the tenants to U.K. lead ban is for the sale of meat. But to add to the conversation:

Lead in Game Meat a Health Risk for Hunting Families and Food Bank Recipients - The Allegheny Front

 

[HighBirds]

Yes, policy should be guided by science, but science shouldn't dictate policy. That was the point I was trying to make.

 

[Savageman2506]

I'm not quite as informed as Buster, but as someone who is both trying to get a degree in wildlife biology, and grew up in prime condor habitat and dealt with them every hunting season, I can understand a localized moratorium on the use of lead bullets for hunting large game. I may not like it from a hunter's perspective, but I can understand.

What I do NOT understand is a statewide or national ban on lead ammo for ALL purposes, hunting and sport shooting alike. As others have said, that would be stripping millions in funding for Game departments, which is shooting yourself in the foot (with non-tox bullets, hehe). Condors are a relict species. Should they be protected? Absolutely. Should some compromise be made in high-impact zones where they are likely to be threatened by lead-poisoning? Probably. Should an outright ban be implemented? In my humble opinion, no.

I've had two sightings of condors in my life, (other than the tame ones at the Grand Canyon that swallow nickels for fun). They're majestic birds. But I also had 20,000 acres of public hunting land, some of the only publicly accessible land in my county, closed for a condor sanctuary where they were still being artificially fed like dr said, because of their decreased abundance of offal and carcasses. That was a bitter blow to a lot of hunters in my area. Because of the DFG's unwillingness to cooperate with hunters, and the eventual ban of ALL lead ammo in the entire state-that-shall-not-be-named, condors have a bad rap there which is a shame.

My point in all of that rambling is that condors and hunters need to be on the same side of conservation, and find a middle-ground. State-subsidized non-tox ammo for use in zones where condors are prevalent is a good start. An outright ban is going too far, and will only negatively affect condors and other game species, as well as the hunting industry, in the decades to follow.