California Expanding Ban on Traditional Ammunition
Sign In SHOPPING CART:0 ITEMSTOTAL: $0.00View Cart

Helping You Get the Most From Your Hunting Dogs


California Expanding Ban on Traditional Ammunition





The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance has joined the National Shooting Sports Foundation in condemning the May 13 decision by the California Fish and Game Commission to expand the state’s ban on lead ammunition.

The Commission’s decision comes as the result of a lawsuit settlement between California, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Center for Biological Diversity. The settlement required the Commission to make rules mandating that small game inside of the condor range must be taken with alternative ammunition.

The decision is not supported by the Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Additionally, there is no scientific evidence that condors are at risk of consuming lead by feeding on smaller game, as this does not constitute the condor’s main food source.

Sportsmen nationwide should be concerned as the cost of non-traditional ammunition drives hunters out of the field.

“Hunting has already declined in the region where traditional ammunition was recently banned for taking big game, potentially costing California millions of dollars for wildlife conservation,” said Steve Sanetti, NSSF president and CEO. “The decision to expand the ban on traditional ammunition for hunting upland and small game without any scientific basis will further reduce hunting in the state and the economic and social benefits that hunting provides.”

The CDFG indicated that practically all small game is recovered by hunters while still in the field. The USSA has also argued that appropriate actions taken in the field by sportsmen would be more effective than a ban on lead ammunition.

“It’s easy to just expand the long reach of the law, but the key to dealing with this issue is education,” states Bud Pidgeon, USSA president and CEO. “California is taking a meat cleaver approach to preserving its condor population when a scalpel is more appropriate.”

We want your input: