Ban on lead on Federal land

Status
Not open for further replies.

Twiki357

Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,040
Location
Prescott Valley, AZ
I’m not sure what section this should be in so Mods, please move if appropriate.


The outgoing director of Fish and Wildlife Service on 1/19/17, the day before he leaves office to ban the use of lead on Federal lands. It appears to be all encompassing to include hunting and target shooting.

Here is the article:
http://freebeacon.com/issues/obama-official-issues-ammunition-ban-federal-lands-last-day-office/

And here is the directive:
https://www.fws.gov/policy/do219.html
Be sure to read all the way down to section 6.
 
Dang. I do some shooting on National Forest and BLM land. Looks like I need a suppressor so I can be sneakier about it.

Hey, it looks like we're practically neighbors! You'll probably know what I mean when I say I do some shooting in the Dosie Pit area.
 
Quotes from the directive. I'm not reading this as a ban, but a requirement that studies be done to justify future bans on lead to be implemented within the next 5 years.

The purpose of this Order is to establish procedures and a timeline for expanding the use of nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle on Service lands, waters, and facilities and for certain types of hunting and fishing regulated by the Service outside of Service lands, waters, and facilities.

Require the use of nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle to the fullest extent practicable for all activities on Service lands, waters, and facilities by January 2022,
 
The purpose of this Order is to establish procedures and a timeline for expanding the use of nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle on Service lands, waters, and facilities and for certain types of hunting and fishing regulated by the Service outside of Service lands, waters, and facilities.

Require the use of nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle to the fullest extent practicable for all activities on Service lands, waters, and facilities by January 2022.
That's not just a call for studies, though. That's the announcement of a phased ban with a hard end date of 1/2022, to be implemented however they can get it done.

c. To ensure the public experiences a consistent approach to nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle requirements, over the next 24 months, each Regional Director, in coordination with relevant Assistant Directors, should work with individual states, regional state fish and wildlife associations, and tribes to identify opportunities to expand existing state, Federal, or tribal requirements for use of nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle on Service lands, waters and facilities.


i. Where states have enacted nontoxic ammunition or fishing tackle requirements for certain forms of hunting and fishing on state lands such requirements should be expanded to national wildlife refuges in those states through amendments to state or Service regulations, as appropriate.


ii. Where states have enacted nontoxic ammunition or fishing tackle requirements for certain forms of hunting and fishing that apply to state, private, and Federal lands throughout their states, Regions should ensure these requirements are enacted and enforced on Service lands, waters, and facilities in those states.


iii. Where individual Federal land units administered by other Federal agencies including the National Park Service, the National Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Department of Defense, or other agencies, have enacted requirements for the use of nontoxic ammunition or fishing tackle, Regions should adopt such requirements on Service lands, waters and facilities in the same states as those units through amendments to Service hunting and fishing regulations, as appropriate.


iv. Where individual tribes have enacted requirements for the use of nontoxic ammunition or fishing tackle, the Regions should adopt such requirements on Service lands, waters and facilities in the same states as those tribal lands through amendments to Service hunting and fishing regulations, in consultation with the appropriate tribe and state.


d. When available information indicates negative impacts of lead ammunition or fish tackle on sensitive, vulnerable or Service trust resources, the appropriate Regional Director, in coordination with the appropriate Assistant Director(s), will take steps to expeditiously require the use of nontoxic ammunition or fishing tackle to the fullest extent practical under Service jurisdiction to benefit such species or resources.


e. The Assistant Director, Migratory Birds, in consultation with National Flyway Councils and individual states, will establish a process to phase in a requirement for the use of nontoxic ammunition for recreational hunting of mourning doves and other upland game birds.

This one needs to be reversed, ASAP.
 
Cold hard fact is that metallic lead isn't absorbed into the soil in any meaningful (or often even measurable) degree in pH levels commonly occurring in liquids it comes in contact with in the nature. Just that plain and simple physical fact is enough to put an end to all this nonsense, but the people advocating all kinds of bans can't be bothered with facts in the first place.
 
This is another thrilling the sky is falling pieces from the free beacon. Did anyone read the actual order? It's a Hail Mary shot in the dark by an outgoing political appointee. That directive has a snowballs chance in hades of becoming law: It became a moot on 20 January, 2017.

"Sec. 6 When is this Order effective? This Order is effective immediately. It remains in effect until we incorporate it into the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, or until we amend, supersede, or revoke it, whichever comes first. If we do not amend, supersede, or revoke it, the provisions of this Order will terminate on July 31, 2018."

https://www.fws.gov/policy/do219.html
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure what section this should be in so Mods, please move if appropriate.


The outgoing director of Fish and Wildlife Service on 1/19/17, the day before he leaves office to ban the use of lead on Federal lands. It appears to be all encompassing to include hunting and target shooting.

Here is the article:
http://freebeacon.com/issues/obama-official-issues-ammunition-ban-federal-lands-last-day-office/

And here is the directive:
https://www.fws.gov/policy/do219.html
Be sure to read all the way down to section 6.

Irrelevant. When Republicans get done you will have to public lands to hunt on.
 
I'll admit I do not keep up with things like this since I hunt private land if I hunt, but I am surprised at the mention of lead fishing tackle. Is this in most of the attempted bans like this or is it just this one? I had never heard mention of a ban on lead fishing tackle before.
 
Irrelevant. When Republicans get done you will have to public lands to hunt on.
What, because they are the party trying to ban guns, common ammo, and hunting? Or because they love federal land ownership so much they keep locking down millions of acres to private access that had been usable under flimsy ecological preservation arguments?

From my view in Texas & having grown up in a state with enormous federal holdings, it looks like most of you folks clamoring for public land just want something for nothing, and damn the consequences or expense to others.

This order can only have an effect of federal public land, after all. A government powerful enough to give you something, can take it away as well. In Texas, I have little expectation an order like this could effect us since so little land is federally controlled.

Guys in Utah or Nevada will have a bit to worry about, though, all because of an arbitrary pen stroke and petty outgoing president.

TCB
 
It doesn't matter what the study outcome says. The outcome could say, "the effect of lead is negligible in its environment impact" and it would be spun regardless to make it into a public health crisis or an environmental disaster where hunters are "destroying our national heritage sites". This isn't about lead. It's about banning guns. It's just easier to do it this way.

They implement this and the next step is examining "residual effects of unburned gunpowder on the environment" or even 'examining' the effects of copper or brass.
 
President Trump singed a order right after taking office that stops all of Obama's directives to department heads.
Yet to be seen, President Trump seems to be on the right track.
buflow
 
What, because they are the party trying to ban guns, common ammo, and hunting? Or because they love federal land ownership so much they keep locking down millions of acres to private access that had been usable under flimsy ecological preservation arguments?

From my view in Texas & having grown up in a state with enormous federal holdings, it looks like most of you folks clamoring for public land just want something for nothing, and damn the consequences or expense to others.

This order can only have an effect of federal public land, after all. A government powerful enough to give you something, can take it away as well. In Texas, I have little expectation an order like this could effect us since so little land is federally controlled.

Guys in Utah or Nevada will have a bit to worry about, though, all because of an arbitrary pen stroke and petty outgoing president.

TCB
Your comment made me curious about public lands percentages, so I looked them up: Nevada 87.8%, Utah 75.2%, Idaho 70.4%, Oregon 60.4%, Arizona 56.8%. The grand prize goes to Alaska with 95.8%. Here's a handy chart.
 
Lead/toxic shot was banned by the Feds for waterfowl hunting back in 1991. Before then several states had already banned the use of it for waterfowl. Since 1991, 26 states have implemented restriction against lead projectiles beyond the Federal mandate. South Dakota, well known as a prime destination for pheasant hunting has required the use of non-toxic shot for all small game on most state and federal lands since 1998. The order in the OP seems to target wetlands and the ingestion of lead shot by migratory birds and waterfowl. Ducks Unlimited, one of the largest of sportsman's organizations heavily supports the use of non-toxic shot. The order also seems to suggest that regional and state agencies will be the ones to propose and implement any new restrictions and this is not a sweeping overnight ban by a single stroke of the pen. I'll stay calm until I know the whole story.
 
This is a feel good announcement. It is more of a weak reinforcement of existing lead bans. Read this very closely. It is worded to increase to the donations from PETA.
 
Didn't Congress pass a law stating that the EPA may not regulate lead on federal lands as it pertains to sporting equipment (e.g. shot, bullets, and fishing sinkers)? That was supposed to put a stop to this a few years ago unless Congress passed a law regulating it.
 
#38 AL Public Land 7.1% Private Land 92.9%

Nice. :)

The gun/lead haters would ban lead from any use at all if they had their way. Hopefully saner minds will prevail.
 
I'll admit I do not keep up with things like this since I hunt private land if I hunt, but I am surprised at the mention of lead fishing tackle. Is this in most of the attempted bans like this or is it just this one? I had never heard mention of a ban on lead fishing tackle before.
I remember hearing such talk decades ago.
It's really nothing new since they first started discussing banning lead shot in the mid 80's
 
This does not affect Recreational BLM leases. That is the BLM lands leased for the largest shooting ranges in the country. This does not affect the lands under the Taylor Grazing Act etc. This is all hype.
 
It doesn't matter what the study outcome says. The outcome could say, "the effect of lead is negligible in its environment impact" and it would be spun regardless to make it into a public health crisis or an environmental disaster where hunters are "destroying our national heritage sites". This isn't about lead. It's about banning guns. It's just easier to do it this way.

They implement this and the next step is examining "residual effects of unburned gunpowder on the environment" or even 'examining' the effects of copper or brass.


Yep, and if that doesn't work....they will try to find some 'Cave Spider' or 'Snail Darter' and shut down access to the lands altogether.
 
the federal government should own no land except the 100 square miles authorized by the Constitution
The Enclosure Clause is a little broader than that and you are forgetting about the Property Clause. My opinion is that we have read way too much into the Property Clause in a way that makes the Enclosure Clause superfluous and this is clearly wrong. I have read many opinions on the subject and I think this intermediate "Protective Theory" position gets original meaning correct: http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/126/property-clause

The Northwest Ordinance was being debated in Congress during the Constitutional Convention and the two bodies were communicating. The Property Clause was added to make the Northwest Ordinance constitutional. The Northwest Ordinance as written devolved most of the sovereignty over the land to the states to be formed,

In summary:
1. Plenary police powers under very limited amount of lands owned under the Enclosure Clause
2. Plenary police powers under land owned under the Property Clause until that land becomes part of a state.
3. Limited police power only to protect the Federal Government's property interest in that land once it became part of a state.

Mike
 
Your comment made me curious about public lands percentages, so I looked them up: Nevada 87.8%, Utah 75.2%, Idaho 70.4%, Oregon 60.4%, Arizona 56.8%. The grand prize goes to Alaska with 95.8%. Here's a handy chart.
Yup; what kind of an Orwellian joke is it that Alaska can be considered a state with sovereignty equal to the others when the state government & citizens can only control (or even access) a tiny sliver of their territory? It's an absolute crime what has been allowed to happen to the western US; it amounts to a concerted federal effort to de-incorporate all the states that were recognized during the last days of the Wild West. My theory is the goal is large-scale manipulation of population growth, funneling them into a very small number of cities that will tend to become liberal, as opposed to more sprawling suburbs & smaller towns that retain conservative values (as in the case of Texas; we'd have gone blue long ago if our rural areas had been prevented from sprouting new townships)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top