- Joined
- Mar 11, 2001
- Messages
- 70,011
- Reaction score
- 1,007
IMPACTS OF NON-LEAD AMMO REQUIREMENT -- matthews-ONS -- 11mar09
Lead ammo ban running hunters from sport, costing DFG funding
By JIM MATTHEWS, Outdoor News Service
Nearly five percent fewer deer hunters and 15 percent fewer wild hog hunters took to the field in deer zones and the pig hunting region where hunters were mandated to use non-lead hunting ammunition last year, costing the Department of Fish and Game over $200,000 just in lost tag fees.
While deer tag sales rose significantly in California in 2008, sales in the seven deer hunting zones affected by the lead ammunition ban saw tag sales plummet after three years of steady gains in those same regions. Overall hunting license sales in California also dropped to their lowest level since license sales hit their peak in 1970.
Exorbitant gasoline prices and a general downturn in the economy didn't affect deer tag sales in the rest of the state, so the blame for the dramatic downturn in deer and pig tag sales can and should be placed squarely on the new regulations banning the use of lead ammunition within the range of the California condor.
In the three years leading up to the lead ban in 2008, the seven deer hunting zones affected by the ban (D7, D8, D9, D10, D11, D13, and the southern portion of the huge A zone) increased each year, going from 59,208 in 2005, to 59,696 in 2006, to 59,978 in 2007. In 2008, the first year of the lead ban, the tag sales dropped to 58,023, a nearly 2,000 tag decrease.
Two of the deer zones in the lead ban region saw their entire quotas sell out in 2008, just as they had done in the previous three years. But the first-come, first-serve tags in D7 and D9, sold out later for 2008 than they did the previous year, indicating less hunter interest in the tags. In 2007, the 9,000-tag quota in D7 sold out July 27, but last year it wasn't until August 11 when the quota sold out. The D9 quota of 2,000 tags sold out August 9 in 2007 and five days later in 2008 on August 14.
As further evidence that hunters simply quit hunting in the non-lead zones, wardens reported after the deer season last year that their contacts with hunters were down 50 to 70 percent from the previous year in the southern A zone and D13. This figure makes you wonder how many hunters bought their deer tags and then, once they started pricing ammo and gas prices continued to climb, simply decided to stay home.
In contrast, deer tag sales were higher on a statewide basis than they've been since 2002. The total of 193,929 tags sold in 2008 was significantly higher than the 186,927 total in 2007, and it was also the third year in a three-year upward trend.
The sale of wild pig tags dropped to their lowest level since tags started being sold individually instead of in books of five in 2004. Since the lead ban area encompasses much of the best wild hog hunting region in the state, the impact was even greater on wild hog hunters. Pig tag sales dropped from 55,393 in 2007 to 47,266 in 2008, a loss of 8,127 tags.
Statewide hunting license sales continued their downward trend in 2008, likely driven by hunters in the non-lead region who gave up the sport rather than deal with the increased costs and hassle involved with shooting non-lead ammunition. In 2007, hunting license sales were 297,694, the lowest level recorded in California since declines began after 1970, the peak hunting license sales year on record when 690,790 hunters purchased licenses in this state. They fell again in 2008, dropping to 296,790, a new record low.
Why were statewide deer tag sales up when hunting license sales declined? There were 175 fewer premium rifle deer tags for the coveted X-zones and special hunts and five fewer muzzleloader tags, so the odds of getting drawn for a premium deer hunt were less. Gas prices were through the roof, the economy was stumbling, and hunting license and tag fees were up again. All of those things typically would have driven statewide tag sales down. So why were tags sales up?
The simple answer is that many California hunters, who normally would have traveled to out-of-state locations, stayed home in 2008 and hunted close to home. Many did two hunts here instead of one in-state hunt and one out-of-state trip. It was all about saving money.
But, yet again, California has managed to drive more hunters out of the sport with increasingly complex regulations, more expensive licenses and tags, and now a forced lead ammunition ban that many hunters don't believe is necessary and adds significantly to their hunting costs. Each cost increase and regulatory change causes people to leave the sport and adds barriers for new people entering.
It is almost incomprehensible that we have lost 400,000 hunters in California since 1970, while our state's population has nearly doubled over the same period, much of the increase with Hispanics who have a great hunting heritage. The reason for the decline is because of costs and complex regulations. The lead ban is just another wedge that pushed more sportsmen away from the hunting tradition.
When I first started big game hunting in the early 1970s, my deer tag book (which had two deer tags) cost $3 -- only $1.50 per tag -- and you could hunt anywhere in the state with those two tags during three broad seasons. Hunting licenses and tags were bought over the counter at sporting good stores. No complex and cumbersome application process.
Ironically, we had more than twice as many hunters then, more hunter pressure everywhere, better deer herds than we do now, and blue collar hunters could afford the sport. It's not that way today. Even adjusted for today's cost of living and inflation, that $1.50 tag should only cost $7.65, but it's actually $26. Even if we account for the nearly 60 percent fewer hunters today and pay that much more for a deer tag, it should only be $12.25. But it's more than twice that amount. All DFG license and tag fees have increased way out of proportion to the consumer price index and inflation.
Working stiffs struggle to afford to hunting big game today.
Anyone who tries to tell me that a $60 box of .30-06 ammunition, especially when added to all the other costs, is not a deterrent needs to talk with DFG warden captain Roland Takayama. This past fall he went into one hunting camp where the hunters had divided up a box of non-lead ammo between the five of them. They each might be able to afford a $12 box of budget lead ammo from Wal-Mart, but not a $60 box. So they simply split the cost and each took four rounds for hunting. Talk to anyone who works the gun counter at Bass Pro Shops or Turner's Outdoorsman or any other store that sells non-lead ammunition and you will hear stories about customers complaining about the cost of ammunition.
Yet, even before we know if the lead ban is helping California condors, we have people pushing for -- and a Fish and Game Commission willing to entertain the idea of -- a statewide lead ammunition ban for all hunting. This is before we're sure it's helping condors. This is before we know the real economic impacts such a ban would wreck on the Department of Fish and Game's budget. This is before we know how many more hunters it would drive out of the sport arbitrarily.
A conservative estimate, based on this past year's decline in hunter numbers just in the non-lead hunting area, suggests a statewide ban would run several thousand hunters from the sport and cost the DFG somewhere around $1 million in lost revenue from license, tags, and stamp sales.
And we're doing this before we have the supportive proof that banning hunter's lead ammunition is having a positive affect on condors and would help other wildlife in the state.
This is bad science and worse economics. It is discriminatory. It is wrong.
Lead ammo ban running hunters from sport, costing DFG funding
By JIM MATTHEWS, Outdoor News Service
Nearly five percent fewer deer hunters and 15 percent fewer wild hog hunters took to the field in deer zones and the pig hunting region where hunters were mandated to use non-lead hunting ammunition last year, costing the Department of Fish and Game over $200,000 just in lost tag fees.
While deer tag sales rose significantly in California in 2008, sales in the seven deer hunting zones affected by the lead ammunition ban saw tag sales plummet after three years of steady gains in those same regions. Overall hunting license sales in California also dropped to their lowest level since license sales hit their peak in 1970.
Exorbitant gasoline prices and a general downturn in the economy didn't affect deer tag sales in the rest of the state, so the blame for the dramatic downturn in deer and pig tag sales can and should be placed squarely on the new regulations banning the use of lead ammunition within the range of the California condor.
In the three years leading up to the lead ban in 2008, the seven deer hunting zones affected by the ban (D7, D8, D9, D10, D11, D13, and the southern portion of the huge A zone) increased each year, going from 59,208 in 2005, to 59,696 in 2006, to 59,978 in 2007. In 2008, the first year of the lead ban, the tag sales dropped to 58,023, a nearly 2,000 tag decrease.
Two of the deer zones in the lead ban region saw their entire quotas sell out in 2008, just as they had done in the previous three years. But the first-come, first-serve tags in D7 and D9, sold out later for 2008 than they did the previous year, indicating less hunter interest in the tags. In 2007, the 9,000-tag quota in D7 sold out July 27, but last year it wasn't until August 11 when the quota sold out. The D9 quota of 2,000 tags sold out August 9 in 2007 and five days later in 2008 on August 14.
As further evidence that hunters simply quit hunting in the non-lead zones, wardens reported after the deer season last year that their contacts with hunters were down 50 to 70 percent from the previous year in the southern A zone and D13. This figure makes you wonder how many hunters bought their deer tags and then, once they started pricing ammo and gas prices continued to climb, simply decided to stay home.
In contrast, deer tag sales were higher on a statewide basis than they've been since 2002. The total of 193,929 tags sold in 2008 was significantly higher than the 186,927 total in 2007, and it was also the third year in a three-year upward trend.
The sale of wild pig tags dropped to their lowest level since tags started being sold individually instead of in books of five in 2004. Since the lead ban area encompasses much of the best wild hog hunting region in the state, the impact was even greater on wild hog hunters. Pig tag sales dropped from 55,393 in 2007 to 47,266 in 2008, a loss of 8,127 tags.
Statewide hunting license sales continued their downward trend in 2008, likely driven by hunters in the non-lead region who gave up the sport rather than deal with the increased costs and hassle involved with shooting non-lead ammunition. In 2007, hunting license sales were 297,694, the lowest level recorded in California since declines began after 1970, the peak hunting license sales year on record when 690,790 hunters purchased licenses in this state. They fell again in 2008, dropping to 296,790, a new record low.
Why were statewide deer tag sales up when hunting license sales declined? There were 175 fewer premium rifle deer tags for the coveted X-zones and special hunts and five fewer muzzleloader tags, so the odds of getting drawn for a premium deer hunt were less. Gas prices were through the roof, the economy was stumbling, and hunting license and tag fees were up again. All of those things typically would have driven statewide tag sales down. So why were tags sales up?
The simple answer is that many California hunters, who normally would have traveled to out-of-state locations, stayed home in 2008 and hunted close to home. Many did two hunts here instead of one in-state hunt and one out-of-state trip. It was all about saving money.
But, yet again, California has managed to drive more hunters out of the sport with increasingly complex regulations, more expensive licenses and tags, and now a forced lead ammunition ban that many hunters don't believe is necessary and adds significantly to their hunting costs. Each cost increase and regulatory change causes people to leave the sport and adds barriers for new people entering.
It is almost incomprehensible that we have lost 400,000 hunters in California since 1970, while our state's population has nearly doubled over the same period, much of the increase with Hispanics who have a great hunting heritage. The reason for the decline is because of costs and complex regulations. The lead ban is just another wedge that pushed more sportsmen away from the hunting tradition.
When I first started big game hunting in the early 1970s, my deer tag book (which had two deer tags) cost $3 -- only $1.50 per tag -- and you could hunt anywhere in the state with those two tags during three broad seasons. Hunting licenses and tags were bought over the counter at sporting good stores. No complex and cumbersome application process.
Ironically, we had more than twice as many hunters then, more hunter pressure everywhere, better deer herds than we do now, and blue collar hunters could afford the sport. It's not that way today. Even adjusted for today's cost of living and inflation, that $1.50 tag should only cost $7.65, but it's actually $26. Even if we account for the nearly 60 percent fewer hunters today and pay that much more for a deer tag, it should only be $12.25. But it's more than twice that amount. All DFG license and tag fees have increased way out of proportion to the consumer price index and inflation.
Working stiffs struggle to afford to hunting big game today.
Anyone who tries to tell me that a $60 box of .30-06 ammunition, especially when added to all the other costs, is not a deterrent needs to talk with DFG warden captain Roland Takayama. This past fall he went into one hunting camp where the hunters had divided up a box of non-lead ammo between the five of them. They each might be able to afford a $12 box of budget lead ammo from Wal-Mart, but not a $60 box. So they simply split the cost and each took four rounds for hunting. Talk to anyone who works the gun counter at Bass Pro Shops or Turner's Outdoorsman or any other store that sells non-lead ammunition and you will hear stories about customers complaining about the cost of ammunition.
Yet, even before we know if the lead ban is helping California condors, we have people pushing for -- and a Fish and Game Commission willing to entertain the idea of -- a statewide lead ammunition ban for all hunting. This is before we're sure it's helping condors. This is before we know the real economic impacts such a ban would wreck on the Department of Fish and Game's budget. This is before we know how many more hunters it would drive out of the sport arbitrarily.
A conservative estimate, based on this past year's decline in hunter numbers just in the non-lead hunting area, suggests a statewide ban would run several thousand hunters from the sport and cost the DFG somewhere around $1 million in lost revenue from license, tags, and stamp sales.
And we're doing this before we have the supportive proof that banning hunter's lead ammunition is having a positive affect on condors and would help other wildlife in the state.
This is bad science and worse economics. It is discriminatory. It is wrong.
