Biden admin takes aim at hunters in latest regulation

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'd have to read more about the proposals but the science does show that lead introduced into these environments can negatively impact the targeted species but also many other species in the environment connected with the target species. That being said, more studies need to be done but there are plenty that show it can be a problem short term and long term. There is a reason we don't use lead in a variety of products now. I think it is important to remember that humans are short sighted when it comes to the environment and don't have the capacity to think about repercussions down the road. Whether it is introduction of a plant or animal that should not be in that eco-system, or burying waste or letting fuel leak into the ground from old airfields, we have done and continue to do a lot of things that we think will be no big deal. We are proved very wrong many times. I use plenty of lead myself but I don't think keeping the USFW refuges free of lead is an attack on hunters/gun owners or is unreasonable.
 
Last edited:
I’m pretty sure it’s got to do more with the creeping incrementalism of infringing on gun rights instead of any real concern for the environment. But it makes a good excuse, just like other excuses used to justify gun control.
 
Lead in shot and bullets can be an environmental problem for lead toxicity in wildlife. For some species like carrion feeders and waterfowl ingesting lead produces sufficient lead poisoning to reduce populations. That's not inconclusive, but other questions about lead from shot and bullets is more nuanced and less conclusive.
 
Last edited:
Non-toxic shot is nothing new, and does have science behind it that has demonstrated the effects of lead shot ingestion by feeding waterfowl and then in predators including eagles that feed on the remains. Although these studies related to wetlands and concentrated hunting, we have eliminated lead in paint and greatly reduced lead levels in fuels when injury was proven.

That does not mean that solid bullets used in hunting in national grasslands or forests pose an environmental threat or have any impact on the health of wildlife there (other than the quarry of hunters). Without scientific and peer reviewed study of that precise issue, closing lands to hunting or use of lead rifle bullets is purely political.
 
Well.... if you want to wade through some science on the issue, these guys have done some studies on ravens in the jackson hole area. They have some data but they state at the outset that they can't determine if any actual HARM is done.

I'm not sure but I think the Craigheads are anti hunting so there's that.
https://www.beringiasouth.org/publications
 
Until the advent of bismuth and tungsten shot (both $$$$$, not that lead is much cheaper) more ducks were lost to crippling from steel shot than ever were to lead ingestion. This is because the regs were dumped on hunters before they had a chance to research how to best utilize steel shot. (Loosen chokes one level, better decoy spreads, better calling, etc.)
Yes, apex predators and carrion eaters were affected more, but to believe lead ( jacketed or not) rifle and handgun projectiles are enough if a threat to them is ludicrous.
 
Think Sleepy Joe woke up on the wrong side of his bed from one of his numerous naps!

No, someone woke him up and handed him the script so he could say this. The senile old buffoon isn't capable of dreaming it up on his own. The US has had some really sorry SOBs for president but this idiot stands head and shoulder above all of them. He is lke one of the muppets, a sock puppet with others speaking for him.
 
I've always wondered about the studies that show significant amounts of waterfowl ingesting lead shot. Seems to me that lead shot would sink down into the silt that's at the bottom of most waterways that waterfowl would be feeding in.
 
They only care what the supreme court has to say when it agrees with their agenda.

I don’t see that they care then.

They just double down with more “stuff”, at least they get their way until it’s struck down and they pile on a bunch of other stuff, to see what sticks and repeat. Not like it harms them, if it’s something you don’t like and want taken to court, you are paying for the lawyers on both sides…
 
1. The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting.
2. That said, hunters are valuable allies for the RKBA. For that reason, although I'm not a hunter myself, I'm not going to badmouth them.

The proposed regulations may inconvenience hunters, but they're not going to ban hunting. Let's keep this in perspective.
 
Just something to consider. It is possible for someone to be concerned about raptors dying from lead poisoning and also be pro gun/2A at the same time. Also, I'm absolutely no fan of his, but I'm not seeing where Biden himself had anything to do with this. What did I miss?
 
@AlexanderA will it inconvenience some hunters enough to just give it up and sell their guns? Over time will they get enough hunters to give up to tip the balance? I don't know. Maybe.

@bearcreek the article and most folks here says Biden admin....
Also, as the chief executive Biden sets the policy. So even if he didn't dream this up, he apparently supports it because he hasn't squashed it.
 
Just something to consider. It is possible for someone to be concerned about raptors dying from lead poisoning and also be pro gun/2A at the same time. Also, I'm absolutely no fan of his, but I'm not seeing where Biden himself had anything to do with this. What did I miss?
Like my wife………
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3345.jpeg
    IMG_3345.jpeg
    129.6 KB · Views: 35
  • IMG_9415.jpeg
    IMG_9415.jpeg
    70.8 KB · Views: 30
I think it is best to read the facts and not make assumptions about everything. The issue is preventing lead in those environments. Could there be a nefarious plot to get at gun owners? Maybe. Can you prove that based on the facts? No. Not everything is done to screw a certain group of people. Sometimes purposeful thought into protecting the environment is the only issue. Speculating achieves nothing.
 
What will this do to black powder hunting?

Also, if they are so concerned about preserving the raptor population, what about the ever-expanding wind farms that butcher so many of these birds?

They make copper bullets for muzzleloaders.

The government is spending a lot of money to try to figure how to keep birds from hitting windmill blades. Painting blades, shutting down turbines when birds are near, sound, UV light.
 
I’m going to be that guy and say some city slicker shooting a deer once isn’t dumping lead like cleetus is in that hill that’s also in the national forest.
 
I think it is best to read the facts and not make assumptions about everything. The issue is preventing lead in those environments. Could there be a nefarious plot to get at gun owners? Maybe. Can you prove that based on the facts? No. Not everything is done to screw a certain group of people. Sometimes purposeful thought into protecting the environment is the only issue. Speculating achieves nothing.

Yep. Everyone seems to have missed that this applies only to Federal wildlife refuges where hunting is allowed. Nothing in there about state/local/private hunting land.
 
NSSF Condemns USFWS Proposed Rule to Ban Traditional Ammunition on New Refuge Openings

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, condemns the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Proposed Rule that would ban the use of traditional lead ammunition on 48 new distinct hunting opportunities across approximately 3,000 acres of National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs). This is another illustration of the Biden administration’s Department of the Interior (DOI) and USFWS kowtowing to anti-hunting activists by promulgating policies that lack sound scientific data.



“This is the latest example of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service creating rules that punish hunters, threaten conservation funding and advance special interests without sound scientific evidence that traditional lead ammunition cause is causing detrimental wildlife population impacts,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “This administration is ignoring its promise to ‘follow the science.’ In fact, it is ignoring the need for scientific evidence in order to advance an antigun and anti-hunting agenda. The need for Congress to pass the Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act has never been more urgent.”



The USFWS announced three national wildlife refuges are proposing to expand opportunities for hunting. These refuges are Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge in Alabama, Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge in Florida and Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge in Minnesota. The proposed rule, appearing in the Federal Register, includes proposals to phase out lead ammunition at eight national wildlife refuges. USFWS claims to follow the best available science yet offers no peer-reviewed site-specific scientific data to demonstrate traditional ammunition is causing detrimental wildlife population impacts.



NSSF urges Congress to quickly pass U.S. Rep. Robert Wittman’s Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act, H.R. 615, which would ensure America’s number one resource of conservation funding remains in place and that hunters, recreational shooters and anglers throughout the nation can continue to enjoy America’s sporting heritage. Excise taxes paid by firearm and ammunition manufacturers have contributed over $16 billion since 1937, or $25 billion when adjusted for inflation, for wildlife and habitat conservation. It is the leading funding source for wildlife restoration. Over $1.6 billion was apportioned to the states for wildlife conservation projects last year, with $1.19 billion of that sourced to excise taxes paid by firearm and ammunition manufacturers. The bill passed the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee on a bipartisan vote earlier this week.



Rep. Wittman’s legislation, along with U.S. Sen. Steve Daines' (R-Mont.) companion legislation S. 1185 of the same name, would require the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to provide site-specific peer-reviewed scientific data in cooperation with state agencies that demonstrates traditional lead ammunition or fishing tackle is causing detrimental wildlife population impacts before prohibiting their use by hunters and anglers.



The Final Rule published last year to similarly ban traditional ammunition and fishing tackle while opening hunting and fishing opportunities was part of “sue and settle” litigation between the Center for Biological Diversity and the USFWS and was implemented without scientific evidence or consultation of state agencies.



Requiring the use of alternative ammunition would put a significant cost barrier to participation in hunting and fishing on lands. Alternative ammunition is, on average, 25 percent more expensive than traditional lead ammunition and less available. That barrier would “price out” many hunters and anglers and decrease the excise tax funding paid by firearm and ammunition manufacturers they support.



NSSF urges all outdoorsmen and women to provide comments on the Proposed Rule voicing their concerns that this threat to conservation funding lacks any sound scientific data and only harms participation in hunting and fishing on public lands
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hso
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top