BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2223
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 5, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2223 (Nava) - As Amended: April 19, 2010
Policy Committee: Water, Parks and
Wildlife Vote: 8-4
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill prohibits the use of toxic shot in state wildlife
management areas. Specifically, this bill:
1)Effective July 1, 2011, 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.
2)Defines wildlife management area to mean a waterfowl
management area, deer range, upland game bird management area,
or public shooting ground.
3)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.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Ongoing costs, likely during the first few years of
implementation-2011-12 through 2013-14-to the Department of
Fish and Game as game wardens educate hunters on new shot
restrictions and enforce them in the field (Fish and Game
Preservation Fund (FGPF)).
2)Potential loss of revenue to DFG of an unknown amount as some
hunters balk at paying for higher-cost nontoxic shot and so
give up hunting in the state's wildlife management areas
AB 2223
Page 2
(FGPF).
3)Potential minor ongoing savings to DFG, the wardens of which
will be able to more easily manage the use of shot in wildlife
management areas, especially after the lead shot ban becomes
implemented and accepted. This is because of the consistency
of rules achieved by this bill, under which wardens will
enforce a uniform ban on toxic shot in wildlife management
areas, rather than a selective ban that depends upon the type
of wildlife hunted.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . Supporters contend wildlife management areas
should be managed in accordance with the highest standards of
wildlife management. Supporters further note that lead shot
is extremely toxic to wildlife and can linger in the
environment for years. Supporters point out that lead has
been eliminated from gasoline, cookware, water pipes, paint,
pottery, and other consumer products, but is still used
extensively in wildlife areas. The author intends this bill
to ensure state wildlife management areas are managed
according to best standards so that wildlife continue to
thrive while still allowing these lands to be used for
hunting.
2)Background .
a) Lead Is Toxic and Widely Prohibited . The United States
Geologic Service (USGS) National Wildlife Health Center
reports that lead is a metal with no known biologically
beneficial role. Its use in gasoline, paint, pesticides
and solder in food cans has been almost eliminated.
According to the USGS, the most significant lead 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.
Responding to concerns over wildlife poisoning, in 1991,
federal law banned lead shot for waterfowl hunting. A
USGS study of the effects of the ban concluded the
restrictions on lead shot prevented the deaths of thousands
of waterfowl. Since the federal ban, many states extended
restrictions of use of lead shot to cover animals other
AB 2223
Page 3
than waterfowl.
More recently, California passed a law banning the use of
lead ammunition for hunting big game and nongame species in
the range of the California Condor. The ban took effect in
July 2008.
b) Potential Lead Contamination of California Wetlands
Still a Problem . Many wildlife management areas encompass
wetlands. While hunters cannot use toxic shot to hunt
waterfall within these areas, California law permits the
use of toxic shot to hunt other wildlife in these areas. As
a result, legal hunting still can introduce toxic lead into
California's wetland environments.
c) Alternatives to Toxic Shot Available and In Use, But
Cost More . The ban on toxic lead shot for waterfowl has
been in effect for nearly 20 years. As a result, a variety
of nontoxic alternatives are readily available and familiar
to hunters. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service
has approved over a dozen types of nontoxic shot for
waterfowl hunting. The United States Environmental
Protection Agency reports that shot alternatives currently
cost approximately two to 20 times more than lead shot.
3)Birds Eat Lead Shot . The federal government reports that a
variety of bird species consume lead shot. For example,
Department of the Interior Fact Sheet 2009-3051 reports:
"Terrestrial bird species reported with ingested spent lead
shot include mourning doves, ring-necked pheasants,
northern bobwhite quail, wild turkey, and chukars. These
species may consume lead shot as they feed on seeds on the
ground or when they ingest small stones as grit, especially
in heavily hunted areas. In areas managed for mourning dove
hunting, biologists have found that about 3-5 percent of
birds consume spent shot."
The fact sheet goes on to note that avian predators and
scavengers can ingest lead shot when feeding on other
wildlife.
4)DFG Finds Lead Bans Lower Wildlife Lead Blood Levels . Current
law requires DFG to report on lead blood levels in condors in
June of 2009, 2010 and 2013. Its June 2009 report found a
AB 2223
Page 4
decrease in condor blood lead levels in the first six months
following the lead shot ban; however, DFG noted the
limitations of the data and described the findings as
"preliminary."
DFG also contracted with the University of California, Davis,
Wildlife Health Center to investigate the effects of lead shot
on scavenger species such as turkey vultures, ravens, and
golden eagles. The study spans the period before and after
the ban on lead ammunition in the condor range. DFG reports
that results indicate significantly lower lead blood levels in
target species after the ban when compared to those blood
levels before the ban. A final report is now being developed.
5)Opponents Don't See Evidence of a Problem . Opponents claim
there is no credible evidence that lead shot seriously harms
wildlife or that banning lead shot will reduce blood lead
levels in target species. To support these contentions,
opponents note that none of the upland migratory birds hunted
with lead shot are threatened or endangered. They also note
DFG has yet to complete its three-part study on the
effectiveness of the ban on lead ammunition in reducing condor
blood lead levels. Opponents contend the findings of those
reports should help guide decisions to expand hunting-related
lead restrictions and, therefore, the bill is premature.
6)What's the "Deer Range?" The bill proposes to ban use of lead
shot in, among other places, the "deer range." According to
DFG, "deer range" is a vague term and may be interpreted to
include the entire state, a geographic scope well beyond that
which the author indicates he intends to affect. Should the
committee vote to pass this bill, it may want to consider
amending it to refer to the "deer range management area," a
term DFG characterizes as less ambiguous and much more
geographically limited.
7)Support . This bill is supported by numerous conservation and
environmental groups, who contend wildlife management areas
should be managed according to best practices, which avoid the
introduction of toxic materials, while allowing these areas to
be used for hunting.
8)Opposition . The bill is opposed by many hunting and gun rights
organizations, including the National Rifle Association, who
argue there are no species in danger of becoming threatened or
AB 2223
Page 5
endangered because of hunting upland game species with toxic
lead shot, and that this bill creates 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 as toxic shot, and that
decisions about use of ammunition should be left to DFG and
the Fish and Game Commission using science-based evidence.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081