Contact your state Assemblyman IMMEDIATELY

Earlier this week, the California Assembly Appropriations Committee voted 11 to 5 to approve a proposed statewide lead ammunition ban for all hunting, Assembly Bill 711.  AB 711 would make California the first state in the nation to prohibit the use of all lead ammunition for hunting.  This bill now goes to the state Assembly floor where it is expected to be brought up for a vote soon.  The NRA urges all hunters, recreational shooters and gun owners to actively oppose AB 711.  We strongly urge you to contact members of the state Assembly.  Please forward this alert to your family, friends, fellow sportsmen and gun owners throughout California and urge them to do the same.  Contact information for all state Assemblymen can be found here.

Be sure to check out HuntForTruth.org’s shocking new video opposing AB 711 and its recent hard-hitting rebuttal to the bill sponsor’s alleged “facts” sheet in support of the bill.  This video and the rebuttal reveal the truth regarding lead ammunition, and expose the misinformation being spread by the ammunition ban proponents in their latest attack on hunters that is being disguised as a campaign to “get the lead out.”

Please act now!  Visit the HuntForTruth.org website and Facebook page and “like” us, “share us with your friends, and anyone else you think may be interested in helping to fight this serious assault on hunting.  You can also follow HuntforTruth.org on YouTube.

Click here to receive e-bulletins from Hunt for Truth

Click here to forward to a friend. Please help get the word out! Forwarding and posting this email in its entirety is allowed and encouraged.

You can also remain informed on important issue to hunters, like California’s AB 711 and other attempts to ban traditional ammunition at NRAhuntersrights.org.

Hunt for Truth has also published a Rebuttal to the Audubon Society’s “Fact Sheet” that Audubon recently published to allegedly support the passage of AB 711.  Additionally, we have produced a new video with information on all of the important AB 711 issues, Hunting for the truth about condor lead poisoning.

Their “Myth” – The 2007 ban on the use of lead ammunition in the range of the California condor hasn’t worked, despite high levels of compliance among hunters.

Their “Fact” – The situation for condors and other wildlife species has improved because of the ban. A recent study by researchers at the UC Davis Wildlife Health Center found that lead exposure in both Golden Eagles and Turkey Vultures declined significantly after the condor ban was implemented.

Their “Fact” – Condors continue to suffer because it only takes a small amount of lead in the environment to do a great deal of damage. One contaminated carcass can easily jeopardize six or more condors feeding on the same carcass.

Their “Fact” – While preliminary studies of condors in its California range from 2008 indicate that lead levels are declining, a more comprehensive study completed in 2012 by UC Santa Cruz researchers found that condors continue to be exposed to deadly levels of lead.

Their “Fact” – The California Department of Fish and Wildlife reported high levels of compliance a year after the 2007 law went into effect, but further reports from the field unfortunately call that result into question. With fewer than 200 wardens patrolling the entire state at any given time, compliance with the law from both lawful hunting and unregulated activities due to poaching is difficult to measure.

The Truth: Blood-lead levels in California condors have not declined for within the “condor zone” because condors are being significantly exposed to alternative sources of bioavailable lead, including documented evidence of lead paint chip and lead-contaminated microtrash ingestion.  The AB 821 lead ammunition ban (the Ridley-Tree Condor Preservation Act) has done nothing to prevent the alternative sources of lead in the condor zone.

The Truth: The paper by researchers at the UC Davis Wildlife Health Center was fatally flawed.  The authors attempted to compare blood-lead levels in golden eagles and turkey vultures before and after the AB 821 lead ammunition ban.  However, 70% of the authors’ blood-lead tests were taken after a lead ammunition ban was put into place at Tejon Ranch, but those samples were characterized as pre AB 821 lead ban blood-lead tests. Despite the flaw, this paper is still cited and is a prime example of the faulty science used by self-proclaimed environmentalists.

The Truth: Several scientific studies have shown that it is extremely difficult to poison raptors with metallic lead, even with constant forced feeding of large amounts of metallic lead shot with food over extended periods of time. In contrast, it is quite easy to poison raptors and other wildlife when they exposed to an alternative source of soluble lead such as lead paint chips and other lead-contaminated microtrash.

The Truth: A paper published by The Wildlife Society found that lead ammunition fragments in game carcasses were not a source of lead exposure or poisoning in large carnivores and concluded that hunting season has no effect on the blood-lead levels in large carnivores. In addition, the study’s data indicate a continuous, year-round alternative source.

Their “Myth” – Non-lead bullets cost twice as much as lead bullets, and aren’t nearly as accurate.

Their “Fact” – A recent comprehensive review of the market for non-lead ammunition concluded that “there is no major difference in the retail price of equivalent lead-free and lead-core ammunition for most popular calibers.”

Their “Fact” – The researcher found that “lead-free ammunition has set benchmark standards for accuracy, lethality, and safety. Lead-free bullets are made in 35 different calibers and 51 rifle cartridge designations. Thirty-seven companies distribute internationally ammunition made with lead free bullets.

Their “Fact” – Never before has non-lead ammunition been so affordable and the price continues to decline.

The Truth: The price of non-lead ammunition has dropped, but it still costs more than lead-based ammunition, up to 30% more. Additionally, the ultimate cost is the unknown effects on wildlife that come from using alternative ammunition such as copper, which has been shown to be toxic, and tungsten, which has been shown to be a carcinogen.  In general, alternative ammunition metals are known to have harmful effects on wildlife, and are likely to cause many new problems if lead is no longer available.

The Truth: The availability of non-lead ammunition in different calibers is questionable at best, and there are still many calibers that are not available.  Even if the caliber is being made and marketed, hunters are still reportedly having a difficult time finding and purchasing the ammunition.

Their “Myth” – There is no evidence that poisoned birds got the lead from ammo/gut piles. Lead could be coming from other sources.

Their “Fact” – The UC Davis Wildlife Health Center study showed that blood lead concentration in turkey vultures was significantly higher during the deer hunting season compared to the off-season, and blood lead concentration also increased with increasing intensity of wild pig hunting at study sites.

Their “Fact” – The UC Santa Cruz researchers definitively identified the isotopic fingerprint of lead from ammunition and associated it with the source of exposure and poisoning in condors.

The Truth: Most of the condors’ diet is cattle carcasses from nearby ranches, not hunters’ gut piles. Cattle are very prone to lead poisoning. Feeding on lead-poisoned cattle is more dangerous than feeding on lead ammunition because the lead in the cattle is more bioavailable than the lead in ammunition.

The Truth: The UC Davis Wildlife Health Center study regarding turkey vultures is fatally flawed.  The authors did not properly assess the California Department of Fish & Wildlife’s hunter’s take data, which was integral to their conclusions. Even with the flawed assumptions, methodologies and conclusions by the UC Davis researchers, self-proclaimed environmentalists still cite the paper, despite the faulty science.        

The Truth: The UC Santa Cruz researchers claimed that they identified the lead source of exposure and poisoning in condors using an isotopic compositional analysis. The truth is that isotopic compositional analysis cannot be used to positively identify a single source of lead from commercially available ammunition.

Their “Myth” – Non-lead ammunition is not as accurate or effective as lead ammunition.

Their “Fact” – It is the effectiveness of non-lead ammunition that first ignited interested in alternatives to lead. Safari Club International was the first to sing non-lead ammunition’s praises during safari hunts in Africa. Many hunters are voluntarily changing ammunition type because of the improved “knock down” power and accuracy of non-lead ammunition.

Their “Fact” – A 2006 survey by the Arizona Game and Fish Department found that hunters overwhelmingly approved of both the accuracy and performance of non-lead ammunition compared to their experience with lead.

The Truth: Because most alternative metals are less dense than lead, they lose energy and velocity in flight faster than lead and retain less down-range energy. For rifle ammunition, alternative metals are able to offer similar performance to lead at close range, but the generally lower density of non-lead alternatives undermines their ballistic performance above 100-150 yards and makes lead a superior ammunition for long-range targets. In addition, bullets used for large game mammals during safari hunts in Africa are generally of solid construction, not the expanding design usually approved for taking big game in North America. Lead ammunition also provides superior terminal performance and a more humane kill, as harder alternative ammunition can allow game to escape and remain in the field to die.

The Truth:  Bullets used for large game mammals during safari hunts in Africa cannot be compared to the bullets used for taking big game in North America. The bullets used in safari hunts are generally of solid construction while the bullets used in North America are designed to expand. Comparing the two different types of bullets is like comparing apples with oranges. 

Their “Myth” – Federal law preempts any lead ammunition limits because of the body armor piercing issue.

Their “Fact” – This is just the latest red herring generated by the manufacturing industry intended only to slow the progress of lead ammunition abatement policy. The industry’s claims are especially dubious given that they continue to manufacture and sell non-lead ammunition for sporting purposes, despite their alleged legal concerns.

Their “Fact” – The federal law banning armor piercing ammunition has been on the books since 1968 and contains a specific exemption for “sporting purposes.” The law has never been interpreted as prohibiting ammunition for hunting purposes, and ATF has made no effort to interfere with either the longstanding federal waterfowl ban on lead ammunition or California’s recent condor habitat ban.

The Truth: The ATF has made a determination that non-lead ammunition for rifles and handguns meets the tests for armor piercing ammunition, because of its chemical composition.  Add in the fact that various makes and models of handguns exist that can shoot virtually all of the alternative ammunition. Thus, it is illegal under both state and federal laws to use or possess such armor piercing ammunition. To date, ATF has not granted any waivers for alternative ammunition under the “sporting purpose” exemption.

Their “Myth” – Alternatives to lead ammunition are also highly toxic and problematic for the environment.

Their “Fact” – While non-lead ammunition does contain substances that can be considered toxic under some circumstances, there is absolutely no evidence that these materials pose anything close the environmental threat that lead ammunition presents.

The Truth: Alternative ammunition containing bismuth, tungsten, copper, and jacketed steel have all raised various concerns among conservationists. Recent studies show that bismuth has been found to leach into the soil and groundwater and interfere with soil bacteria. Other studies demonstrate that tungsten, which is transformed to a soluble form by oxidation, can accumulate in the spleen of wildlife and possibly cause immune system disorders. Even copper has been shown to be toxic under certain circumstances, and has been found to be the primary cause of mortality in certain condors exposed to copper fragments and microtrash containing copper.

The Truth: Lead ammunition from the Civil War has been in the field for over a century with no negative environmental impact. Minie balls found on 150 year-old battlefields retain most of their shape and mass because metallic lead is not very soluble and does not tend to migrate.  In other words, lead ammunition does not tend to dissolve and wash away in surface or ground water and is not the threat that environmentalists claim.

Their “Myth” – This campaign is a thinly disguised effort to limit hunting.

Their “Fact” – As noted above, hunters have been shifting toward non-lead ammunition for both technical and conservation reasons for years.

Their “Fact” – A 1991 federal ban on the use of lead shot for hunting waterfowl had little impact on the number of hunting licenses issued in California, and subsequently enabled the resurgence of many populations of ducks, geese, and other species being killed off by poisoning from lead shot.

Their “Fact” – The 2007 requirement of non-lead ammunition in the condor range did not reduce the number of deer tags issued.

Their “Fact” – Condors and eagles benefit from animal remains left over from hunting if lead contamination is not a factor. Hunting can actually be a conservation benefit by increasing available food supplies for scavenging species.

The Truth: AB 711 is sponsored by the Humane Society of the United States.  Nearly two decades ago, the present Humane Society President and CEO Wayne Pacelle stated, “We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States. We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state.”

The Truth: Hunting is Conservation. There are many conservation benefits of hunting. The population of elk, whitetails, ducks, wild turkeys, and pronghorns has increased dramatically thanks to the money and hard work by hunters to restore and conserve habitat. Additionally, the tax hunters pay for their equipment has raised more than $2 billion for wildlife conservation, which comes to about $280 million per year. Most important, hunting is a wildlife management tool that helps balance wildlife populations with its habitat, which in turn limits property damage (e.g., crops) and curtails outbreaks of disease. 

Their “Myth” – This campaign is taking advantage of current anti-gun sentiment.

Their “Fact” – Each of the sponsoring organizations supported the use of non-lead ammunition long before the recent political push for gun control legislation.

Their “Fact” – Audubon’s founder first extolled the risks from lead ammunition in 1894, and Audubon was the primary sponsor of the 2007 legislation.

The Truth: There is no dispute that the sponsors of this bill have been pushing for a lead ammunition ban for many years, but they are using the current anti-gun sentiment and tried and true scare tactics to push their “get the lead out” campaign.  These anti-lead ammunition groups seized the opportunity despite the California Fish and Game Commission’s urging to “allow us the opportunity to try to make this work before you go to the legislature and get a bill going. That’s what rushed it through the last time. Give us an opportunity [to address this issue] first.” 

The Truth: The California Fish and Game Commission set up a working committee to investigate both sides of the lead ammunition debate, and to make an informed decision based on the facts and sound science. But before the working committee even started, the lead ammunition ban proponents disregarded the Commission’s admonishment, circumvented the Commission’s committee process, and convinced an assembly member to introduce AB 711 in the legislature, where the science will not be scrutinized.

Their “Myth” – This law would place an undue burden on all gun owners.

Their “Fact” – Assembly Bill 711 only creates a requirement for non-lead ammunition for hunting in California.

Their “Fact” – This excludes law enforcement, home security, target shooting, and other non-hunting uses.

The Truth: The undue burden on all firearms owners is based on the limited availability and the higher cost of non-lead ammunition. The cost of non-lead ammunition is up to 30% higher than traditional lead-based ammunition and non-lead ammunition is not available in all calibers. With the ATF’s determination that non-lead ammunition for rifles and pistols meets the test for armor piercing ammunition due to its chemical composition, if AB 711 is passed hunters may not be able to hunt because there will be no legal ammunition for hunting in California.

Assembly Bill 711 is scheduled to be heard by the Assembly Appropriations Committee on Wednesday, May 8.  It is crucial that you call AND e-mail members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee and your Assemblyman respectfully urging them to OPPOSE this egregious anti-hunting bill.  Contact information for members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee can be found here.  Contact information for your Assemblyman can be found here.

To assist policymakers and to educate the public, hunters and recreational shooters, Hunt for Truth’s website has all of the facts and science on the lead ammunition debate available for your review. Policymakers and hunters are urged to visit the Hunt for Truth website and to subscribe to the Hunt for Truth e-mail list to receive e-bulletins with the latest breaking news and information on the proposed lead ammunition ban in California (AB 711), and all lead ammunition issues.

Self-proclaimed environmental organizations are trying to prohibit the use of traditional ammunition consisting of lead core components in hunting and recreational shooting.  They claim that some scavenging animals, like the California condor, ingest and are poisoned by small pieces of lead contained in the carcasses of game and gut piles left in the field by hunters.

But there is substantial evidence that the groups attacking the use of lead ammunition have employed faulty science, which uses questionable scientific methodologies and selectively cherry picked, and/or excluded data to support preconceived conclusions in their campaign to ban all traditional ammunition. In fact, some researchers from public institutions who have published studies funded with taxpayer dollars that support the lead ammunition bans are actually thwarting attempts by peers to independently review their work.  They refuse to provide the original data on which their studies were based available for scientific scrutiny.

The real truth is that lead ammunition is an unlikely cause of the alleged poisoning, because the metallic lead used in bullets and shot is relatively insoluble in the digestive tract of birds of prey and scavengers. Scientific studies have confirmed that it is very difficult to poison some birds with lead, even by repeatedly feeding them lead shot mixed with food over time.

On the other hand, lead compounds found in legacy paint, gasoline, insecticides and micro-trash are quite soluble in the digestive tract and are responsible for many of the highly publicized lead poisonings attributed to lead ammunition. These lead compounds are common in the environment, and should be investigated first in cases of lead poisoning of wildlife.  The anti-lead ammunition researchers, however, typically ignore “alternative sources” of lead in the environmental, because the existence of such sources undermines their “get the lead out” campaign and the anti-hunting agenda.

Lead ammunition ban proponents also routinely ignore the fact that metals proposed for use in alternative ammunition can cause serious environmental consequences.  Alternative ammunition containing bismuth, tungsten or copper coated steel all presents various environmental concerns. Bismuth leaches into the soil and groundwater and interferes with soil bacteria.  Tungsten, which is transformed to a soluble form by oxygen, accumulates in the spleen of wildlife and can cause immune system disorders.  Even copper is toxic under certain circumstances, and can do far more environmental damage than lead.  Steel shot does not perform as well as lead on game, leading to higher numbers of crippled game that escape and die in the field, and injuries to humans from ricochets.  Traditional ammunition containing lead is still the best, and safest, alternative.

Everyone needs to learn the real truth behind the all out assault on lead ammunition, not only in the battleground front of California, but everywhere in the United States.  Anti-lead ammunition groups will not rest until all lead ammunition, and perhaps hunting, is banned within the United States.  One of the sponsor’s of AB 711 was recently quoted as saying:  “We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States.  We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California.  Then we will take it state by state.” (Humane Society of the United States President and CEO Wayne Pacelle)

Please don’t wait. Visit the Hunt For Truth website and Facebook page and “like us, “share us with your friends, and anyone else you think may be interested in helping to fight this serious assault on hunting.  You can also follow Hunt for Truth on YouTube.

Click here to receive e-bulletins from Hunt for Truth

Click here to forward to a friend.  Please help get the word out! Forwarding and posting this email in its entirety is allowed and encouraged.

For more information on defending your freedom to hunt, please visit us at NRAHuntersRights.org.

One potential explanation for CBD’s noteworthy failure to provide facts is that CBD is simply speculating as to the actual cause of the recent condor deaths referred to above.  Unless CBD has traded its legal team in for scientists trained in toxicity, CBD is likely unqualified to make definitive proclamations to advance its agenda against lead ammunition.  Indeed, if CBD did have the qualifications required to identify hunter-shot ammunition as the cause of a condor’s death, CBD would surely have “shown its work” to support the representations made in the April 16 press release.

Another potential explanation for CBD’s unsupported assertions is that CBD has obtained some form of information from a member of the Condor Recovery Program that work directly with condors (e.g., the Peregrine Fund), but that information is being concealed from the public to prevent rigorous scientific scrutiny.  It is often difficult for the public to obtain condor-related data for the purpose of scientific review, for several reasons.

First, obtaining data from condors directly will generally require a special permit issued by the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS).  Without such a permit, any attempt to obtain condor-related data (for example, feathers or blood samples) is likely to be considered a violation of the Endangered Species Act.  Second, though the Peregrine Fund often collects condor-related data for the Condor Recovery Program, it is a private organization, and it is not bound to disclose any records as are governmental entities like the FWS.  Third, as to Condor-related research being performed in publicly-funded state colleges and universities, recent court rulings in California suggest that judges often weigh the value of researcher secrecy over the public’s right to know the specifics of the research being performed with taxpayer’s money.

Regardless of why CBD chose to publish its dubious press release, the effect is clear: CBD is able to focus public attention on its “get the lead out” campaign without having to prove its case.  In fact, other anti-lead ammunition organizations (e.g. the Audubon Society) have already started citing to CBD’s April 16 press release as if it is a news report, and not what it is–a biased lobbying effort.  CBD’s campaign is clearly in support of AB 711, a bill that is currently being considered in California’s legislature.   AB 711 would make it illegal to hunt anywhere in California with lead ammunition.  Unfortunately, there is a real risk that CBD will be able to delay true scientific evaluation of its claims until after a final vote on that bill.  Of course, once a vote has occurred, efforts to disprove CBD’s assertions will likely be ineffective as a lead ban may then be a done deal.

In HSUS v. Regents, the Court allowed UCD to keep certain requested documents secret because it found “the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.”  Thus, though the Court expressly disregarded UCD’s heavily argued position that there is an “academic researcher’s exemption immunizing disclosure of university documents[,]” it nonetheless ruled that, based on the balancing test applied by the Court, UCD could keep certain research-related documents secret from the public.  The documents have to do with a scientific study UCD researches created that was related to a California ballot initiative intended to modify California law to prevent farmers from using certain animal confinement practices.  The study was prominently cited during the public debate on that controversial issue.

In its ruling, the Court noted that, “disclosure of prepublication research communications would fundamentally impair the academic research process to the detriment of the public that benefits from the studies produced by that research” because researchers and those consulted by researchers would be less candid and open in their discussions if such discussions could be made public.  Accordingly, the Court’s view was that the foregoing “clearly outweighed” the public’s interest in evaluating “the objectivity of public university[.]”   Thus, it seems that, when research-related records held by a university researcher are sought and the university refuses to produce them, it becomes the duty of the one seeking records to show that the public interest served by disclosure of the records clearly outweighs the public interest served by not disclosing them.  This standard is contrary to the regular rule that applies to requests for public records: it is normally the government’s job to persuasively explain why it should be allowed to keep certain records secret.

It is foreseeable that publicly funded research facilities will use this ruling as a shield to hide the very data that is required for scientific verification and evaluation of possible improper influence over legislatures and agencies.  Nonetheless, the ruling expressly states it does not “create an academic researcher’s exemption immunizing disclosure of university documents[.]”  Indeed, prior to the issuance of this ruling, the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) sought records from the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC), regarding publications UCSC researchers had created that identified spent lead ammunition as causing lead poisoning in California condors.  UCSC refused to provide certain key documents and data, and CRPA was forced to file a petition in the Superior Court of Santa Cruz.  Though the Court agreed that some of documents requested were subject to production, it basically refused to recognize the value of the information sought, giving little weight to CRPA’s interests in verifying the researchers’ conclusions, and heavy weight to the researchers’ interests in keeping information and data secret.  In that regard, the ruling on CRPA’s petition was similar to the ruling in HSUS v. Regents.

It is worth noting that, as a result of CRPA’s lawsuit, UCSC did eventually admit that some data was withheld from a publication.  That publication is consistently cited to support the anti-lead ammunition agenda.  Public record lawsuits may provide some valuable information to the public when the documents sought have to do with the relatively secret research process occurring at public universities. Unfortunately, HSUS v. Regents provides, for the first time, a published ruling of a California appellate court that strongly supports secrecy regarding documents created by those working in the research facilities of our publicly funded institutions.

This is especially problematic because those relying on studies like the one at issue in CRPA’s case, a group that seems to include certain members of the California Fish & Game Commission and even members of the state legislature, seem to treat “peer reviewed” university research as the “gold standard” for implementing public policies and regulations.  By doing so, members of the public are effectively being told that they cannot challenge the merit of a university publication and the “peer review” process unless they take on the burden to fund independent scientific research and publications to rebut the fallacies of the publicly funded publications.

This outcome is not only implausible and unreasonable, but somewhat disturbing as well, seeing as the mission of public universities is, at least in California, to perform research on behalf of the public.  (Educ. Code § 66010.4(c) ["The University of California shall be the primary state-supported academic agency for research."].)  And in any event, the average person can’t collect samples from California condors; unless one has a difficult to obtain “take” permit, it is a criminal violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to collect California condor blood, tissue, bone, or even feathers.

Access to data is crucial in the Hunt for Truth.  To combat the misguided efforts by environmental activists and researchers seeking to infringe on hunting and shooting sports regulations, Hunt for Truth has collected tens of thousands of documents via public records act requests over the last several years pertaining to the use of lead ammunition.  Many of these documents raise serious doubts about the veracity of claims that lead ammunition is poisoning California condors, wildlife, or humans.  Hunt for Truth has used these documents to debunk the faulty science being used to implement various lead ammunition bans across the country.

These efforts are critical in defending the status quo for hunters and recreational shooters nationwide and have resulted in the rejection of several proposed and ill-conceived lead ammunition bans throughout the United States.

Humane Society of the United States v. Super. Ct. (Regents), Case No. C067081. (link: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C067081.PDF).