More proof... read the bottom underlined section.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE REVIEW OF AB 711
MAY 21, 2013.
Sacramento, CA - The California Department of Finance (DOF) analysis of the fiscal effect of Assembly Bill (AB) 711 was released on May 13, 2013, revealing that AB 711 could cost California $34 million, and probably a lot more.
Even with the potentially enormous costs associated with AB 711, including the loss of federal, state and local funding from hunting licenses, the loss of California jobs and revenue from a reduction in hunting and the loss of federal funding for California conservation programs, lead ammunition ban proponents still seek to ban hunting with lead ammunition nationwide.
The DOF’s calculations are based on three components. The first is the potential loss of revenue due to decreased sales of hunting licenses that the DOF estimates at about $9 million. The second is a proportional loss of California’s $14 million annual revenue from federal funding due to decreased sales of hunting licenses, which is based on geographic size and the number of hunting licenses sold. Compounding the loss of this revenue, the federal funding is specifically earmarked to support wildlife conservation efforts in California. The third factor is increased costs that AB 711 establishes in a program to provide hunters with “free,” or reduced charge, non-lead ammunition. This could cost California as much as $11 million annually.
Most importantly, there are two cost components that the DOF did not include in its analysis. The first is the fiscal impact that hunters and hunting expenditures have on the state. In 2011, hunting expenditures in California totaled $964 million, which included equipment, food, lodging, and transportation. The second is the additional Department of Fish and Wildlife wardens required to enforce a statewide lead ammunition ban. But, the AB 711 proponents have concealed the enforcement issue. Indeed, at 2012 Department of Fish and Game Commission hearings on lead ammunition, researchers and environmental groups themselves blamed the Department’s lack of enforcement in the “condor zone” as the primary reason why the 2008 lead ammunition ban (AB 823) did not result in a reduction of lead poisoning in condors, despite a 99% compliance rate by hunters with the lead ban.
We have had a ban on lead rifle ammo in the southern part of the state since 08. Since then there have been no reduction of lead poisoning in condors in that vast area. Need I say more?