BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2223
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 13, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
Jared William Huffman, Chair
AB 2223 (Nava) - As Amended: April 5, 2010
SUBJECT : State Wildlife Management Areas: Nontoxic shot
SUMMARY : Requires the use of nontoxic shot when shooting or
hunting in state wildlife management areas. Specifically, this
bill :
1)States uncodified findings regarding the values of
California's wildlife management areas, the effects of lead
poisoning on various species of birds, the critical role of
hunting in wildlife management and conservation, and the
inconsistency with best management practices of allowing
continued use of lead shot ammunition in state wildlife areas.
2)States legislative intent to eliminate the use of lead shot
for purposes of shooting or hunting in wildlife management
areas.
3)Prohibits the possession or use of any shotgun shell loaded
with anything other than nontoxic shot approved by the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) when hunting
migratory game birds, resident small game, or nongame species
taken under the authority of a hunting license within a
wildlife management area.
4)Defines wildlife management area to mean a waterfowl
management area, deer range, upland game bird management area,
or public shooting ground.
5)Provides that violation of this requirement shall be an
infraction punishable by a fine of $500 for a first offense,
and not less than $1,000 or more than $5,000 for a second
offense.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Prohibits the use of lead shot to hunt waterfowl (United
States Fish and Wildlife Service regulation). The ban has
applied nationwide since 1991. Defines nontoxic shot as any
shot type that does not cause sickness and death when ingested
AB 2223
Page 2
by migratory birds.
2)Requires the use of nonlead centerfire rifle and pistol
ammunition when taking big game and coyote within the
California condor range in California.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : The purpose of this bill is to reduce lead poisoning
among wildlife species, particularly birds. The author notes
that lead poisoning has been observed in 37 species of birds
beyond waterfowl, with impacts on mourning doves appearing to be
particularly acute. Since the federal government banned the use
of lead shot for hunting waterfowl in 1991, research continues
to identify additional threats posed by lead to wildlife. Lead
ingestion and poisoning from ammunition sources has been
documented in many avian predators and scavengers, such as bald
eagles, golden eagles, red-tail hawks and others. The author
notes that failure to address these problems will impact both
wetland and upland bird populations and diminish opportunities
for hunting on these lands. The sponsors of this bill further
note there is widespread consensus among conservationists,
hunters, public agencies and land managers that use of lead shot
for waterfowl is dangerous to bird populations, and lead shot
has thus been banned for waterfowl hunting since 1991. However,
the current loophole which allows use of lead shot to hunt other
migratory birds and small game upland species within wildlife
management areas still allows significant amounts of lead to be
introduced into these wetland environments.
The USFWS adopted a nationwide ban on lead shot for all
waterfowl hunting in 1991 after studies showed waterfowl can
ingest expended lead shot and die from lead poisoning.
According to the USFWS, a study in the mid-1990s suggested that
the nationwide ban in the United States on the use of lead shot
for waterfowl hunting has had remarkable success. Six years
after the ban, researchers estimated a 64 percent reduction in
lead poisoning deaths of surveyed mallard ducks and a 78 percent
decline in lead pellet ingestion. The study concluded the
restrictions on lead shot have prevented the deaths of thousands
of waterfowl.
Since the ban on use of lead shot for waterfowl, concern has
grown over the impact of lead shot on other species. At least
twenty-one states have adopted some lead shot prohibitions for
AB 2223
Page 3
hunting beyond those required by the federal government for
waterfowl. Most recently, California banned the use of lead
ammunition in the California condor range. The state of
Missouri banned use of lead shot in state conservation areas
three years ago, after finding that 6.5% of mourning doves ate
lead shot, which killed almost as many doves each year as
hunters did. They also found that due to the concentration of
hunters in state wildlife areas the amount of lead shot left on
the ground, where it is available to be ingested by other
animals, was particularly significant.
This bill would require use of non-lead shot when hunting small
mammals and game birds, but does not restrict the use of lead
ammunition when hunting big game beyond the restrictions under
current law. This bill in effect extends the existing federal
ban on use of lead shot in federal wildlife refuges and when
hunting waterfowl, to other game birds and small mammals which
are hunted with shotguns when hunting within state wildlife
management areas.
According to the United States Geologic Service (USGS) National
Wildlife Health Center, lead is a metal with no known
biologically beneficial role, and its use in gasoline, paint,
pesticides and solder in food cans has nearly been eliminated.
Although lead shot was banned for waterfowl hunting in 1991, its
use in ammunition for upland hunting and shooting sports remains
widespread. Wild birds, such as mourning doves, bald eagles,
California condors, and loons, can die from the ingestion of
lead shot or bullet fragments. According to the USGS, the most
significant hazard to wildlife is through direct ingestion of
spent lead shot and bullets, lost fishing sinkers, tackle and
related fragments, or through consumption of wounded or dead
prey containing lead shot, bullets or fragments. Research on
lead poisoning has focused on bird species, with at least two
studies indicating that the ban on use of lead shot for
waterfowl hunting in North America has been successful in
reducing lead exposure in waterfowl. The authors found that
upland game, like doves and quail, and scavenging birds, such as
vultures and eagles, continue to be exposed to lead shot,
putting some populations at risk of lead poisoning, most notably
California condors. According to Dr. Barnett Rattner, a USGS
contamination expert, "The magnitude of poisoning in some
species such as waterfowl, eagles, condors, swans and loons, is
daunting." USGS indicates a variety of alternatives to lead
shot are available, and have been used for hunting waterfowl
AB 2223
Page 4
since lead shot was banned for that purpose in 1991. The USFWS
has approved over a dozen types of nontoxic shot for use in
hunting waterfowl.
Arguments in Support : Supporters note that state wildlife areas
are islands of habitat for wildlife and humans who visit them
for both hunting and wildlife viewing, and should be managed in
accordance with the highest standards of wildlife management.
Allowing continued use of lead shot in these areas is
inconsistent with best practices. Supporters further note that
lead shot is extremely toxic to wildlife and can linger in the
environment for years, where it is often swallowed by mourning
doves, pheasants, quail, wild turkey, and 33 other bird species
beyond waterfowl. Animals that feed on lead-poisoned species
can also become sick, particularly scavenger and predator
species. Due to its toxicity, lead has been eliminated from
gasoline, cookware, water pipes, paint, pottery, and other
consumer products, but is still used extensively in wildlife
areas. The sponsors of this bill also note the important role
that hunters play in wildlife management and conservation, and
stress that this bill does not attempt to restrict hunting, but
only to ensure that state wildlife management areas are managed
according to best standards to ensure that wildlife continue to
thrive.
Arguments in Opposition : Opponents argue there are no species
in danger of becoming threatened or endangered because of
hunting with lead shot, and that this bill would create
confusion for hunters as to the rules for hunting in different
areas. Opponents further argue that alternatives to lead shot
are more expensive or are not as effective, and that decisions
about use of ammunition should be left to the Department of Fish
and Game and the Fish and Game Commission, and based on science.
Some opponents also note that proposals to expand the current
prohibition on the use of lead ammunition for hunting big game
within the California condor range to other parts of the state
have been rejected by the FGC. On this point, the committee
should note this bill does not propose to expand the lead ban
for big game hunting, but applies only to use of lead shot for
hunting migratory birds and small game within state wildlife
management areas.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
AB 2223
Page 5
Audubon California (sponsor)
Action for Animals
California Coastal Coalition
Center for Biological Diversity
Defenders of Wildlife
Forests Forever
Ojai Wildlife League
Sierra Club California
The Humane Society
Ventana Wildlife Society
Opposition
Calif. Association of Firearms Retailers
Calif. Rifle and Pistol Association
Calif. Outdoor Heritage Alliance
National Rifle Association
National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc.
Outdoor Sportsmen's Coalition of Calif.
Safari Club International
The California Sportsman's Lobby
Wildlife Management Institute
Analysis Prepared by : Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096