- Joined
- Mar 11, 2001
- Messages
- 70,011
- Reaction score
- 1,007
IS LEAD BAN HELPING CONDORS? -- ONS-matthews column -- 30jul09
Lead ammunition ban doesn't appear to be helping condors
By JIM MATTHEWS, www.OutdoorNewsService.com
The preliminary data is in, and it doesn't appear the lead ammunition ban is helping reduce the blood lead levels in endangered California condors, but the half-baked data collected and provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service makes any kind of accurate assessment almost impossible.
The coastal deer hunting season kicks off in the gigantic A zone beginning Saturday, August 8, and much of the south portion of this zone is inside the area where lead hunting ammunition is banned for big game. It would have been nice to tell deer hunters that all the speculation was correct about lead ammunition being the sole source of elevated lead levels that virtually all condors exhibit after being released into the wild. It would have been nice to be able to say that we've been helping condors with all the extra costs we've endured, all the trouble and extra effort to sight-in with the vastly different copper ammunition, and the way we followed the law even when we didn't feel it was needed or appropriate.
But now it seems likely we're not the sole cause of lead in condors, according to a report presented to the Fish and Game Commission in late June and just recently added to its web site. Even with incomplete and sketchy data, it's looking more and more like the scientists need to go back to the drawing board and see where else condors are getting lead in their systems.
There is no question that hunter lead left in gutpiles has been a cause for alarm in condors (and other wildlife) because there is rock-solid data it has killed the big, endangered birds before. There is increasing evidence that it would be prudent for hunters to look more carefully at the risks we face when eating game meat (especially ground meat) shot with jacketed lead slugs at high velocity because lead is sprayed through a vast area well away from the main wound channel. That lead often end up in the packaged meat we eat.
But with massive compliance by hunters this first year of the lead ban (an overly optimistic Department of Fish and Game report earlier this year said there was nearly 100 percent compliance), the report prepared by the DFG using USFWS data showed the improvement in background lead levels in condor blood was almost negligible between the first six months of 2008 (pre-ban) and the later half of 2008 (post-ban).
During the January through June time frame, 59 percent of the condors tested had blood lead levels above what is considered a normal or acceptable background level. In the second half of the year from July through December only 45 percent of condors had blood lead levels above normal. Because of the low sample sizes, the USFWS says we should not jump to conclusions about impacts in condor blood lead levels provided by the ban. I say that's bull because the data didn't show what they said it would show before the ban. Or maybe they just did a poor job in looking at the data they had at their disposal.
If hunter lead was the 'only' source of condor lead, which has been speculated by a lot of scientists for over a decade or more, the background lead levels should have fallen by more than 50 percent, even if hunter compliance was only 60 or 70 percent. Condors showing elevated lead levels should have been no more than 30 percent of the birds tested if hunter lead was the only source of the lead -- even in this sample size.
Part of the problem with making this assumption, however, is with the USFWS data. The fall hunting season was in full swing when the lead levels were measured in 2008, and why the Fish and Wildlife Service didn't compare the lead ban data with the same period from the previous year (July-December, 2007) before the ban is a huge mystery. Perhaps the data from 2007 would have indeed shown a 50 or 60 percent decline, indicating the lead ban was working. This would have been comparing data between hunting season and hunting season. The USFWS report also wasted a lot of space breaking down the Central California and Southern California flocks of condors and how the data broke out in those two regions, but it was irrelevant data because lead hunting ammunition was banned in both areas.
In fact, why the USFWS didn't look at all their data from the past 20 years and compare it to the first six months on the lead ban is also baffling. If hunter lead was the main culprit, as they say, youd have thought they would have wanted to give as much data to support their claim as possible.
If I was a Fish and Game Commissioner or in the DFG charged with giving the report, I would have been outraged at the incomplete data and sloppy analysis that was provided this first year of the lead ban by the feds. There are already groups pushing for a complete lead ban for all hunting ammunition in the condor zone, and more complete data would have helped support that idea or shoot it down. Now the Commission is almost forced to wait three years while the USFWS gets more data to try and prove that hunter lead is the sole culprit in the condor-lead problem.
The fact is this: the lead ammunition ban will never be rescinded. It will likely be expanded by the Commission or the legislature for reasons other than condors. And hunters will live with it. But for the sake of the condors, if lead ammunition is not the whole problem, the USFWS needs to be trying to discover where the birds are getting the rest of the lead in their systems. The incomplete and incompetent data provided so far suggests there's another source of lead out there poisoning condors.
Hunters are doing our part, it's time for the feds to step up to the plate and start doing the science necessary to protect these great vultures.
Lead ammunition ban doesn't appear to be helping condors
By JIM MATTHEWS, www.OutdoorNewsService.com
The preliminary data is in, and it doesn't appear the lead ammunition ban is helping reduce the blood lead levels in endangered California condors, but the half-baked data collected and provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service makes any kind of accurate assessment almost impossible.
The coastal deer hunting season kicks off in the gigantic A zone beginning Saturday, August 8, and much of the south portion of this zone is inside the area where lead hunting ammunition is banned for big game. It would have been nice to tell deer hunters that all the speculation was correct about lead ammunition being the sole source of elevated lead levels that virtually all condors exhibit after being released into the wild. It would have been nice to be able to say that we've been helping condors with all the extra costs we've endured, all the trouble and extra effort to sight-in with the vastly different copper ammunition, and the way we followed the law even when we didn't feel it was needed or appropriate.
But now it seems likely we're not the sole cause of lead in condors, according to a report presented to the Fish and Game Commission in late June and just recently added to its web site. Even with incomplete and sketchy data, it's looking more and more like the scientists need to go back to the drawing board and see where else condors are getting lead in their systems.
There is no question that hunter lead left in gutpiles has been a cause for alarm in condors (and other wildlife) because there is rock-solid data it has killed the big, endangered birds before. There is increasing evidence that it would be prudent for hunters to look more carefully at the risks we face when eating game meat (especially ground meat) shot with jacketed lead slugs at high velocity because lead is sprayed through a vast area well away from the main wound channel. That lead often end up in the packaged meat we eat.
But with massive compliance by hunters this first year of the lead ban (an overly optimistic Department of Fish and Game report earlier this year said there was nearly 100 percent compliance), the report prepared by the DFG using USFWS data showed the improvement in background lead levels in condor blood was almost negligible between the first six months of 2008 (pre-ban) and the later half of 2008 (post-ban).
During the January through June time frame, 59 percent of the condors tested had blood lead levels above what is considered a normal or acceptable background level. In the second half of the year from July through December only 45 percent of condors had blood lead levels above normal. Because of the low sample sizes, the USFWS says we should not jump to conclusions about impacts in condor blood lead levels provided by the ban. I say that's bull because the data didn't show what they said it would show before the ban. Or maybe they just did a poor job in looking at the data they had at their disposal.
If hunter lead was the 'only' source of condor lead, which has been speculated by a lot of scientists for over a decade or more, the background lead levels should have fallen by more than 50 percent, even if hunter compliance was only 60 or 70 percent. Condors showing elevated lead levels should have been no more than 30 percent of the birds tested if hunter lead was the only source of the lead -- even in this sample size.
Part of the problem with making this assumption, however, is with the USFWS data. The fall hunting season was in full swing when the lead levels were measured in 2008, and why the Fish and Wildlife Service didn't compare the lead ban data with the same period from the previous year (July-December, 2007) before the ban is a huge mystery. Perhaps the data from 2007 would have indeed shown a 50 or 60 percent decline, indicating the lead ban was working. This would have been comparing data between hunting season and hunting season. The USFWS report also wasted a lot of space breaking down the Central California and Southern California flocks of condors and how the data broke out in those two regions, but it was irrelevant data because lead hunting ammunition was banned in both areas.
In fact, why the USFWS didn't look at all their data from the past 20 years and compare it to the first six months on the lead ban is also baffling. If hunter lead was the main culprit, as they say, youd have thought they would have wanted to give as much data to support their claim as possible.
If I was a Fish and Game Commissioner or in the DFG charged with giving the report, I would have been outraged at the incomplete data and sloppy analysis that was provided this first year of the lead ban by the feds. There are already groups pushing for a complete lead ban for all hunting ammunition in the condor zone, and more complete data would have helped support that idea or shoot it down. Now the Commission is almost forced to wait three years while the USFWS gets more data to try and prove that hunter lead is the sole culprit in the condor-lead problem.
The fact is this: the lead ammunition ban will never be rescinded. It will likely be expanded by the Commission or the legislature for reasons other than condors. And hunters will live with it. But for the sake of the condors, if lead ammunition is not the whole problem, the USFWS needs to be trying to discover where the birds are getting the rest of the lead in their systems. The incomplete and incompetent data provided so far suggests there's another source of lead out there poisoning condors.
Hunters are doing our part, it's time for the feds to step up to the plate and start doing the science necessary to protect these great vultures.
