This surprised me. By now, I am used to the usual suspects of species degradation: urban sprawl, loss of habitat, pollution, shrinking resources. Those are almost always given as the explanation for why a particular species is threatened or endangered.

Not so with the California condor. Those factors certainly put pressure on the condor to survive in California, but surprisingly, there is one factor that trumps all of those, according to wildlife biologists.

Lead bullets.

Not because condors are shot by guns with lead bullets – no, lead bullets are dangerous to condors because they eat them.

Condors are like vultures; they feed on carrion. Dead animals. And many animals in the wild die when they're shot by hunters. So when an animal is shot, and then gets away from the hunter before it dies, or when a hunter guts an animal in the field and leaves the remains behind, that meat has lead fragments in it. So it's easy for California condors to ingest lead, and that can be fatal.

Lead has been shown to be hazardous to humans in even small amounts. Condors weigh about 20 pounds, so it doesn't take much lead to harm them.

The state legislature passed a law in July that bans lead bullets from areas with condors, from the San Francisco Bay Area south to San Diego.

Hunters are reluctant to simply throw away all of their lead ammunition, though, to purchase copper bullets at a higher price. And many of them are unaware of the law – or unaware that the ammo they're using is lead. Many lead bullets are topped with copper, so they look like copper bullets. This not only makes it hard for hunters to identify which of their bullets are lead-based, but it makes it difficult for state parks rangers to identify them, as well.

Listen to the Condor Return radio report online.

One thing you try to learn, covering these stories, is how to navigate around the tricky subject of climate change. The trickiness isn't if it's happening, but rather what, exactly, it's doing, what the effects are.

Take this year's particularly nasty fire season, for example. We've had the driest spring in 80 years, and warm weather, too. So, can we blame that on climate change? UC Berkeley fire researcher Max Moritz gets asked this all the time, and I sense it's one of his least favorite questions. After all: Next year might be rainy and cold. Will we take that to mean that climate change isn't happening after all?

Here's the best answer I've heard: The fire season of 2008 may or may not itself be the result of climate change, but it's the kind of weather we're likely to see more of in the future. That explains the Governor's call to arm CalFire with more helicopters and fire trucks.

But it also means there's a lot more to learn about how, exactly, climate change will drive fires in California. And if you ask Moritz, we tend to neglect those questions. No, it's no surprise that Moritz — the researcher — wants more money for research. Still, it's worth noting that while more than a billion dollars will be spent on fire fighting this year, UC Berkeley's Center for Fire Research and Outreach may go broke before winter.


Listen to the California Ablaze Radio report online.