1"

VOLUNTARY*LEAD*REDUCTION*EFFORTS*WITHIN**

THE*NORTHERN*ARIZONA*RANGE*OF*THE*CALIFORNIA*CONDOR*

"

"

RON"SIEG

1

,"KATHY" A."SULLIVAN

1

,"AND"CHRIS"N."PARISH

ABSTRACT.—Lead exposure is a significant factor affecting the success of the California Condor (Gym-

nogyps californianus) reintroduction program in northern Arizona and southern Utah. Lead toxicity is the

leading cause of mortality, with 12 confirmed cases, and the primary obstacle to a self-sustaining condor

population. Research has identified incidental ingestion of spent lead ammunition found in animal car-

casses and gut piles as the major lead exposure pathway. Peaks in condor lead exposure rates have corre-

sponded with big game hunting seasons on the Kaibab Plateau in northern Arizona.

In response, the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) initiated a public education campaign in

tensified lead reduction efforts in 2007. Modifications included improved hunter outreach in the form of

articles in sportsman’s publications; distribution of an educational DVD and brochure; increased field

communication; and added incentives for gut pile retrieval. Despite non-lead ammunition supply problems,

2007 voluntary efforts were successful and yielded over an 80% compliance rate from hunters. No lead tox-

icity fatalities occurred during the 2007 hunting season and preliminary data revealed that condor lead ex-

posure rates declined. Voluntary lead reduction efforts must be further augmented to achieve a self-

sustaining condor population. Future lead reduction efforts should also include southern Utah. Received 16

May 2008, accepted 18 June 2008.

SIEG, R., K. A. SULLIVAN, AND C. N. PARISH. 2009. Voluntary lead reduction efforts within the northern

FOR NEARLY TWO DECADES, biologists have linked

lead poisoning in wild California Condors (Gym-

nogyps californianus) to the ingestion of spent lead

ammunition in animal carcasses (Janssen et al.

1986, Weimeyer et al. 1988, Snyder and Snyder

1989, 2000, Pattee et al. 1990). More recently lead

from spent ammunition has been linked to lead ex-

posure and lead toxicity in recently reintroduced

‐"SIEG"ET"AL."‐"

as to educate the public and engage hunters in vol-

untary lead reduction efforts, began in 2003.

The first release of California Condors in Arizona

occurred on 12 December 1996. As of 15 March

2008, 102 condors have been released in northern

Arizona. Sixty-three condors, including six wild-

hatched chicks, inhabit northern Arizona and south-

ern Utah. Although the project is making progress

towards its goal of 150 free-flying birds, 40 condors

lead exposure has occurred in Arizona. Condor

blood tests have identified over 300 cases of lead

levels indicative of lead exposure, while in 124

cases condors have been treated with chelation

therapy to reduce dangerously high lead levels. Fur-

ther, ingested lead pellets or more frequently bullet

fragments have been recovered from 14 individual

condors (Parish et al. 2007). Without the interven-

tion of chelation therapy and other measures, addi-

tional condors would have succumbed to lead poi-

they forage on carcasses of wild animals such as

Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus), Elk (Cervus

elaphus) and Coyotes (Canus lantrans). Since

2000, the highest frequency of lead exposure in

condors has been associated with increased condor

movements away from the release site, and the con-

sumption of non-proffered carcasses potentially

containing lead (Hunt et al. 2007). Although field

biologists have managed to reduce the number of

condor deaths due to lead toxicity by pursuing a

While California has implemented a ban on the use

of lead ammunition within the condor range starting

in July 2008, efforts in Arizona have focused on

voluntary measures to reduce the amount of lead

from spent ammunition available to condors in the

wild. This is due to a consensus among the main

project cooperators that voluntary measures are the

best course of action to take in Arizona. Also, un-

like releases in California, condors in Arizona are

In May 2003, the lead mitigation subcommittee of

the California Condor Recovery Team produced a

report on condor-lead issues (Redig et al. 2003). As

one of several recommendations, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (USFWS) contracted with Wildlife

Management Institute (WMI) to conduct surveys of

hunters’ knowledge and attitudes on the condor-

lead issue in California, Arizona and Utah. WMI

that year in the core condor range (Responsive

Management 2003). There were three key questions

for the hunters in these phone surveys, 1) were they

aware that lead poisoning was a problem faced by

condors; 2) were they aware of any educational ef-

forts to try and raise awareness of this issue; and 3)

would they be willing to take action to help reduce

lead exposure in condors (Responsive Management

2003). Key findings from this survey were that only

23% of surveyed hunters were aware that lead poi-

‐"VOLUNTARY"LEAD"R EDUCT ION"FOR"CON DORS"IN"ARIZONA"‐"

lead ammunition when they completed the manda-

tory check in of their harvested deer. The survey

did reveal that between 83 and 97% of surveyed

hunters would be somewhat to very willing, de-

pending on the requested action, to take some ac-

tion to help condors (Responsive Management

2003). The actions requested included removing all

carcasses from the field, burying or hiding all gut

piles, removing bullets and surrounding impacted

flesh, and using non-lead ammunition (Responsive

conducted three focus group meetings in Arizona

where the test messages were discussed and rated

on a five-point scale (D. J. Case 2005). The best

scoring (1.89) communication message based on

these focus groups was “Hunters and ranchers have

a long history of caring for the land and conserving

all kinds of wildlife. They can continue this tradi-

tion and help prevent lead poisoning in California

Condors by taking one or more of the following ac-

tions in condor range: remove all carcasses from

ammunition was a problem for condors and re-

quested credible data linking lead from spent am-

munition and condor lead poisoning (D. J. Case

2005). They expressed a willingness to help con-

dors if shown the data link and if asked by a credi-

ble source, such as the Arizona Game and Fish De-

partment or sportsman’s groups (D. J. Case 2005).

Based on this information, D. J. Case proposed a

communications strategy that included increased

education, communication and cooperation between

Based on the phone survey and focus group infor-

mation, it was apparent that more information on

the link between lead from spent ammunition and

condor lead poisoning needed to be provided to

hunters (D. J. Case 2005). AGFD and The Pere-

grine Fund (TPF) responded by funding and con-

ducting research projects related to the issue. First,

TPF biologists detailed lead exposure and lead

ammunition ingestion by condors starting in 1999

satellite transmitters to more precisely track condor

movements and relate movements to lead exposure

rates (Hunt et al. 2007). This comparison showed

that the highest lead exposure period coincided with

the hunts on the Kaibab Plateau (Game Manage-

ment Unit 12A Figure 1). Fourth, TPF conducted

research from 2002 to 2004 to determine the extent

of lead bullet fragmentation in rifle-killed deer

(Hunt et al. 2006). This study demonstrated that

standard lead bullets fragment into hundreds of

of Arizona in Tucson using TPF provided biologi-

cal samples as well as lead fragments removed

from condors. Lead isotope ratios of condor blood

and the removed fragments are being compared to

lead isotope ratios from ammunition and other envi-

ronmental sources (Chesley et al. 2006). Prelimi-

nary results have established a direct match be-

tween lead ammunition and lead found in condor

blood samples and digestive tracts (Chesley, pers.

comm.).

‐"SIEG"ET"AL."‐"

and focus groups AGFD set out to create an educa-

tion and communication strategy to encourage

hunters to support voluntary lead reduction efforts

in Arizona’s condor range. In 2003 and 2004, these

efforts included a full page information piece in the

annual hunting regulations booklet as well as mail-

ings to between 2,000 and 7,000 hunters drawn for

a big-game tag in the condor range (Figure 1). Dur-

ing this same period, AGFD made presentations to

all the major sportsmen’s organizations in the state

ciety, the Arizona Deer Association, the Arizona

tional Wild Turkey Foundation. Also in August

2005, WMI and D. J. Case presented two sessions

of “one-voice” communication training for program

partners and hunter group representatives to en-

courage uniform, consistent and accurate informa-

tion dissemination in all outreach efforts regardless

of who initiates the outreach. In addition to these

efforts, the general public started to receive the

condor conservation and lead reduction message in

all outreach forums such as educational presenta-

‐"VOLUNTARY"LEAD"R EDUCT ION"FOR"CON DORS"IN"ARIZONA"‐"

5"

store purchases and Cabela’s

and sent each hunter drawn for a deer, pronghorn,

sheep or bison tag in Game Management Units 12A

and 12B (Figure 1) a coupon they could redeem for

two free boxes of non-lead ammunition. These

coupons came with a letter outlining condor lead

poisoning issues and asking hunters to voluntarily

help in reducing the amount of lead available to

condors from spent ammunition. In 2005, 65% (n =

1,551) of eligible hunters redeemed their coupons

ticipants and one for non-participants. Surveys were

mailed to all 2,393 eligible hunters with 46%

(1,105) surveys returned, including 943 participants

(61%) and 162 non-participants (19%). For the par-

ticipants, 85% tested the ammunition before their

hunt, 60% rated the ammunition accuracy as excel-

lent or above average, 70.5% said it performed as

well as lead with 22.6% saying it performed better

than lead. Most would use it again if provided free,

with 55.8% saying they would use it again even if

was free and because they had heard or read that

non-lead ammunition had good ballistics (D. J.

Case 2006).

The primary reason for those not participating in

the program was that the non-lead ammunition was

not available in their caliber. The next most impor-

tant reasons were that the non-lead ammunition was

not available in their preferred bullet weight and

that it takes too long to sight in new ammunition.

that non-lead didn’t perform as well as lead and

they had tried non-lead and it didn’t meet their ex-

pectations (D. J. Case 2006).

When non-participants were asked what could be

done to encourage more participation they offered

that the ammunition should be offered in more

calibers and bullet weights, that more information

should be provided on how lead from spent ammu-

nition is a problem for condors, that bullets for re-

In 2006, the voluntary free non-lead ammunition

program was continued in nearly the same manner

as 2005. The primary difference was an effort to

provide significantly more information about the

link between lead from spent ammunition and con-

dor lead poisoning. Along with the free ammunition

program, individual mailings to hunters in non-core

areas were sent information which also requested

their voluntary help. Although we were responding

year, but due to increased field outreach during

hunts, 60% of successful Kaibab deer hunters took

lead reduction actions during their hunt, an increase

of 10% from 2005. Even with this level of partici-

pation, 95% of the birds were exposed to lead (Par-

ish et al. 2009, this volume). One factor that is

likely contributing to this continued high exposure

is that the condors are increasing their use of south-

ern Utah habitats (Figure 2). To date Utah has not

implemented any extensive outreach or programs

‐"SIEG"ET"AL."‐"

should therefore include southern Utah.

With this high lead exposure rate and only slightly

increasing participation, we gathered a group of

were viewed as credible sources of information.

Second, we increased general media stories about

how hunters were helping to recover condors

through their voluntary efforts and this was another

example of how hunters were aiding recovery of a

species. Third, we decided to simplify our outreach

message to “use non-lead ammunition.” Previous

outreach had included options such as hiding or

burying gut piles or removing impacted flesh but

these messages seemed to confuse people and were

in the field. And finally, we implemented a gut pile

raffle. This came from the realization that once a

hunter was in the field with lead ammunition, op-

tions for asking for their help were more limited.

Trash bags were provided, along with a flyer, dur-

ing field contacts and hunters were asked to bring

their gut pile, if shot with lead ammunition, to the

mandatory check station when they checked in their

deer. The Peregrine Fund provided $1,000 to pur-

chase gift certificates to a sporting goods store as an

tion in the voluntary program increased to 83%,

with 62% of successful hunters using non-lead

ammunition and 21% participating in the gut pile

raffle. One of the biggest obstacles to increasing

participation was the lack of available non-lead

ammunition from our vendors for anyone who

waited until close to their hunt and then looked for

the free ammunition. This was in spite of the fact

that this was the third year of the program, and the

number of eligible hunters was provided early to

There are many factors to consider when designing

an outreach program that asks people to do some-

thing different. Using social psychology and mar-

keting principles can aid in outreach design. We

used six principles of influence identified from the

field of social psychology (Cialdini 1993) to design

our outreach program:

‐"VOLUNTARY"LEAD"R EDUCT ION"FOR"CON DORS"IN"ARIZONA"‐"

multi-year dedication to a voluntary program

and a consistent message.

3. Social proof—show that others are also par-

ticipating—achieved by use of sports group

publications for outreach.

4. Liking—show that others like them are also

participating—achieved by the use of hunter

quotes in outreach materials and also by con-

sistently thanking hunters for their help.

5. Authority—exert influence on the decision—

dates or regulations.

We also incorporated lessons learned from similar

experiences in the past. In the early 1990s, a ban

was put in place on the use of lead ammunition for

waterfowl hunting throughout the United States. A

survey among people involved in that ban revealed

useful ideas on what they would have done differ-

ently in hindsight (Association of Fish and Wildlife

Agencies 2007). Among their ideas were:

3. Moving too fast on the issue didn’t allow

groups to be informed, educated, and con-

vinced, and this included agencies, nongov-

ernmental organizations, manufacturers, deal-

ers, and the media.

4. Education is the key to a smooth transition.

5. One negative media article can nullify all the

factual information.

6. Training sales people, especially in large

stores, is important because they may be the

liable, accurate information, and a common

understanding of the goal.

9. Ideas should be advanced through leaders of

change in hunting and sports groups as well as

outdoor retailers.

10. Having a consistent, united voice by all parties

is important.

11. Hunter education instructors can play an im-

portant role in getting the message to new

hunters.

In Arizona, we have found that manufacturers re-

spond slowly to demand, so a significant transition

time is needed to reach appropriate production and

distribution levels. We have found that, like us,

people respond better to requests so we should ask

for their help and bring them along, rather than tak-

ing the short term fix of a mandate. We realize that

the cost of non-lead ammunition is going to be a

continuing issue. While non-lead ammunition is

comparable in price to premium lead ammunition,

also aid in determining who should do the out-

reach. A continuing challenge is working with

those groups and organizations that the focus

groups view to be non-credible to keep them en-

gaged in the program while limiting their outreach

efforts. We are proud of the response of our hunt-

ers and partners to the call for a voluntary effort to

reduce the amount of lead from spent ammunition

available to condors, and think our program can

serve as an example to others.

‐"SIEG"ET"AL."‐"

Ad Hoc Mourning Dove and Lead Toxicosis

Working Group. Unpublished report, 19 Sep-

tember 2007.

CADE, T. J., S. A. H. OSBORN, W. G. HUNT, AND

C. P. WOODS. 2004. Commentary on released

California Condors Gymnogyps californianus in

Arizona. Pages 11–25 in R.D. Chancellor and

B.-U Meyburg (Eds.), Raptors Worldwide: Pro-

ceedings of VI World Conference on Birds of

Prey and Owls. World Working Group on Birds

Wildlife and Fisheries. Joint Annual Meeting of

the Arizona/New Mexico chapters of the Wild-

life Society and the American Fisheries Society,

2–4 February 2006.

CIALDINI, R. B. 1993. Influence: The Psychology of

Persuasion, Rev. Ed. William Morrow and

Company, New York, USA.

D. J. CASE AND ASSOCIATES. 2005. Communicating

with hunters and ranchers to reduce lead avail-

able to California Condors. Unpublished report,

Flagstaff, Arizona, USA.

FRY, D. M. AND J. R. MAURER. 2003. Assessment

of lead contamination sources exposing Califor-

nia Condors. Final report to the California Fish

and Game, Sacramento, California, USA.

HUNT, W. G., W. BURNHAM, C. N. PARISH, K.

BURNHAM, B. MUTCH, AND J. L. OAKS. 2006.

Bullet fragments in deer remains: implications

for lead exposure in avian species. Wildlife So-

ciety Bulletin 34:168–171.

Washington, DC, USA.

JANSSEN, D. L., J. E. OOSTERHUIS, J. L. ALLEN,

M. P. ANDERSON, D. G. KELTS, AND S. N. WIE-

MEYER. 1986. Lead poisoning in free ranging

California Condors. Journal of the American

Veterinary Medical Association 189:1115–

1117.

MERETSKY, V. J., F. R. SNYDER, S. R. BEISSINGER,

D. A. CLENDENEN, AND J. W. WILEY. 2000.

Demography of the California Condor: Implica-

Watson, M. Fuller, M. Pokras, and W. G. Hunt

(Eds.). Ingestion of Lead from Spent Ammuni-

tion: Implications for Wildlife and Humans. The

Peregrine Fund, Boise, Idaho, USA. DOI

10.4080/ilsa.2009.0217

PARISH, C. N., W. R. HEINRICH, AND W. G. HUNT.

2007. Lead exposure, diagnosis, and treatment

in California Condors released in Arizona.

Pages 97–108 in A. Mee and L. S. Hall (Eds.),

California Condors in the 21

Century. Series in

of the California Condor. Condor 92:931–937.

REDIG, P., N. ARTZ, R. BYRNE, B. HEINRICH, F.

GILL, J. GRANTHAM, R. JUREK, S. LAMSON, B.

PALMER, R. PATTERSON, W. SANBORN, S.

SEYMOUR, R. SIEG AND M. WALLACE. 2003. A

report from the California Condor lead exposure

reduction steering committee. Unpublished re-

port to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Cali-

fornia Condor Recovery Team.

RESPONSIVE MANAGEMENT. 2003. Hunters’ knowl-

‐"VOLUNTARY"LEAD"R EDUCT ION"FOR"CON DORS"IN"ARIZONA"‐"

setts, and The American Ornithologists’ Union,

Washington, DC, USA.

SNYDER, N. F. R., AND H. F. SNYDER. 1989. Biol-

ogy and conservation of the California Condor.

Current Ornithology 6:175–267.

SNYDER, N. F. R. AND H. A. SNYDER. 2000. The

California Condor: A Saga of Natural History

and Conservation. Academic Press, San Diego,

California, USA.

US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 1996. Final Rule:

ronmental contaminants in California Condors.

Journal of Wildlife Management 52:238–247.

WOODS, C. P., W. R. HEINRICH, S. C. FARRY, C. N.

PARISH, S. A. H. OSBORN, AND T. J. CADE.

2007. Survival and reproduction of California

Condors released in Arizona. Pages 57–78 in A.

Mee and L. S. Hall (Eds.). California Condors

in the 21

The Nuttall Ornithological Club, Cambridge,

Massachusetts, and The American Ornitholo-