New state hunting regulations requiring the use of non-lead ammunition for most hunting activities in the range of the California condor in central and southern California go into effect tomorrow, July 1st. The regulations are designed to reduce the incidents of lead poisonings of the iconic and extremely endangered California condor. Condors, eagles, and other scavengers can consume lead-bullet fragments and lead-shot pellets from carcasses of animals shot by hunters.
The immediate question that comes to mind is: "What about those 'animals shot by hunters'?" This is the important question, but I also wonder how do they think this is even an enforceable law? The release goes on to mention Tejon Ranch, noting:
Although Tejon Ranch Corporation announced a ban on lead ammunition for all hunting and predator control beginning last fall, and claims on its Web site that it requires the use of non-lead ammunition for all hunting on its property, Tejon has been slow to implement the ban. The recent condor poisonings suggest that it is not enforcing its own rule.
OK, and how are the state hunting regulations going to be enforced any better? The Center for Biological Diversity is concerned that, "Tejon seeks to exclude its hunting program from the list of activities covered by the permit, in spite of the fact that AC-8, one of the last condors to be born in the wild, was shot and killed on Tejon Ranch in a pig-hunting event in 2003." That brings us back to the first question. It is in the context of Tejon's "hunting program" that they seek an exclusion and it was in the context of "a pig-hunting event" that the condor AC-8 was shot. So how would the use of non-lead bullets help condors in these situations? It sure doesn't help any of those non-condor animals who are the primary targets of hunters' gun violence.
In the United States, policies on hunting and "wildlife" management/control are intertwined with the firearms and ammunition industry. The Pittman-Robertson Act, also called the "Federal Aid in Wildlife Act," collects an excise tax on firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment, which the federal government uses to pay up to 75 percent of a state's "game" and "wildlife" programs. In order to get funding, states are required to make the promotion of hunting, gun ownership, and shooting ranges a central feature of the programs. So it's all part of a self-perpetuating system. Oh yeah, and states are actually forbidden to use this federal aid to fund the enforcement of hunting regulations, such as a ban on lead ammunition.
I think it is worth noting that on Thursday the US Supreme Court just overturned D.C.'s ban on handguns. Even though people don't normally stalk and kill free-living nonhumans with handguns, the tax on the manufacturers of these firearms still support hunting programs across the US. And we ought to include the military, police, and other law enforcement institutions as part of this system violence against nonhuman animals. Of course, this is in addition to the groups of humans who are more directly targeted by military and law enforcement violence.
