Hunting in national parks legal?

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fisherman_48768

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
483
Location
Thumb of Mich.
Maybe I've missed something but isn't hunting in national parks illegal? Or will it become legal as long as you don't use lead?? Perhaps this is a backdoor way to keep concealed weapons out of national parks.

Lead Ammo Ban by National Park Service an Anti-Hunting Move
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=12216

Wednesday, March 11, 2009


Fairfax, Va. -- The National Park Service has announced its intention to ban traditional ammunition containing lead in all its parks. The move would needlessly push hunters to use more costly ammo like tungsten, copper, and steel. The restrictions, set to take affect by the end of 2010, were announced without regard to science or soliciting feedback from sportsmens’ groups.

"The NPS announcement demonstrates either complete ignorance or complete arrogance as to the effect that this policy will have on hunters,” says Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “There is no science to support NPS' contention that the use of lead ammunition in hunting is causing environmental contamination, having a negative effect on wildlife, or posing a threat to the health of visitors or park staff. This policy, and the lack of communication in advance with the sportsmen's community, is a deliberate attempt to reduce the number of people who will want to hunt in the 60 parks that are open to hunting. This plays directly into the hands of radical anti-hunting organizations like the Humane Society of the US which is advocating that hunters be banned from using lead ammunition."

The NRA will continue to be a voice of opposition against this unnecessary action and is committed to protecting the rights of hunters to use the ammo that is best suited for their hunting needs and budget.

-NRA-

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.
Click to expand...

Just seems odd to me that the NPS would ban the use of something that is already a banned activity.
 
The National Park Service is part of the Department of the Interior. The NPS oversees National Preserves as well as National Parks, Monuments, Historic Sites, Historical Parks, Memorials, Battlefields, Cemeteries, Recreation Areas, Seashores, Lakeshores, Parkways, and Trails. I am guessing that this ban would apply to those places under its jurisdiction that allow hunting.
 
Isn't this the backdoor tactic that we were warned about a while back? (i.e. They are going to come after ammo in a number of ways, the first being a war on the periodic table's element of lead?)

Firearms were allowed into national parks recently for the purpose of self defense and if this movement prohibits ammo containing lead, then they've effectively prohibited the vast majority of those firearms if they are loaded with conventional ammo.

This is simply couched as a hunting restriction, but doesn't it affect all the firearms that were recently allowed? That, at least, is how this looks to me. What do you think?
 
The National Park Service is part of the Department of the Interior. The NPS oversees National Preserves as well as National Parks, Monuments, Historic Sites, Historical Parks, Memorials, Battlefields, Cemeteries, Recreation Areas, Seashores, Lakeshores, Parkways, and Trails. I am guessing that this ban would apply to those places under its jurisdiction that allow hunting.
Click to expand...
None of these areas are open to hunting and until recently legal concealed carry was prohibited.

C0RoMo: You got it.
 
None of these areas are open to hunting and until recently legal concealed carry was prohibited.
Click to expand...

Nope. The Park service periodically allows hunting on its lands for species it deems as predatory and in excess of the desirable limits to keep a natural balance. They periodically sell hunting rights to cull those species.

What the law is focused upon is those hunters shooting on their land with their permission. I agree it is not based on science, but it is withing their purview to regulate.
 
None of these areas are open to hunting and until recently legal concealed carry was prohibited.
Click to expand...

National Preserves sometimes allow hunting. National Seashores, National Lakeshores, and National Recreation Areas do too.
 
Last edited:
Look guys, it's right in the effin text!

"deliberate attempt to reduce the number of people who will want to hunt in the 60 parks that are open to hunting. "
 
Several national parks in Alaska grant subsistence hunting rights to local towns and villages bordering their lands (see Cantwell, AK and Denali National Park).

Since their are not 60 of these areas in Alaska (Good reference ThrottleJockey, I think we sometimes rush through things and forget to read the answer in front of us), it would seem fair to assume that there are other parks with similar plans or other means of harvest programs.
 
Look guys, it's right in the effin text!

"deliberate attempt to reduce the number of people who will want to hunt in the 60 parks that are open to hunting. "
Click to expand...

As written by the unbiased, all knowing NRA with absolutely no agenda whatsoever...just the facts. Yeah, right.
 
NavyLT, since there is no basis in fact for such a ban, what other reason would you expect? I ask in part because of how much political effort it took to get the CHL authorization in the face of NPS opposition.

When you have to drag people kicking and screaming into the paths of righteousness, it is quite reasonable to remain suspicious of their motivations in kindred matters.
 
Well, Art, if you will look here:
http://nationalparkstraveler.com/20...ing-gear-draws-ire-shooting-sports-foundation

you will see that the NPS is attempting to ban all lead associated with the taking of game and fish, not just ammunition. It would seem to me that the only reason associated with their plan is protection of the environment. Please, do not take this as any support that I have for this at all, because I do not support it.

However, I think that the pro-gun media such as NRA-ILA and others are just as sensationalistic as the anti-gun media. The anti-gun media takes every little thing gun or gun crime related and spins it to try to enact gun control. The pro-gun media, IMHO, does exactly the same thing and takes every piece of legislation propose by groups that are also known to be anti-gun and attempts to make it into some kind of anti-gun legislation. The wilderness land bill is a prime example. Not one word of gun control in it, and yet all the pro-gun media is hysterical over it.

The same with the lead free movement - OMG, it's all about us not being able to have our SD guns in the National Parks... no, their agenda is for protection of the environment and wildlife, in this one. However, I DO fully agree that the legislation is stupid, expensive and that there is NO evidence to support that the use of lead ammunition and fishing lures is in any way affecting the environment or wildlife.

Just like the gun control legislation which as no basis in fact or logic, much of the environmental control legislation has no basis in fact or logic either, but I do not think that we can always associate the two together, like the pro-gun media just seems to love to do.
 
I surely won't argue in favor of the sensationalistic language of the pro-gun folks. However, the emotionalism of their language has little or nothing to do with the facts or the alleged motivations of the anti-gun or anti-hunting people.

E.g., I'd merely say that Speaker Pelosi favors gun control laws that create problems for law-abiding citizens. An emotional type would natter on at length and include some verbiage like, "She's coming after your guns!" Fundamentally, we're both correct, as long as one understands she'll not physically show up at your door.

So, all I do is look at track records of behavior and impute motivations which seem consistent with history.

:), Art
 
NavyLT, perhaps the lead free movement ISN'T intended to regulate guns in any way. Even so, it is going to effectively do so. This in itself is reason enough for me to want to fight it. Every day laws are passed that accomplish things other than/in addition to their alleged intention. Look at the patriot act as an example.
 
http://home.nps.gov/applications/release/Detail.cfm?ID=855
The new lead reduction efforts also include changes in NPS activities, such as culling operations or the dispatching of wounded or sick animals. Rangers and resource managers will use non-lead ammunition to prevent environmental contamination as well as lead poisoning of scavenger species who may eventually feed upon the carcass. Non-toxic substitutes for lead made in the United States are now widely available including tungsten, copper, and steel.
Click to expand...
Payback (Naaaah) or Timely environmental coincidence?

Eliminate steel rifle ammo right away (cop killers oh my gawd). You know what effect tungsten/steel shot did to waterfowl hunting. Tho it has perhaps had some favorable impact on some species w/ the elimination of some lead poisoning.

Will certainly change the face of hunting ammunition. Looking forward to see what Nosler, Sierra etc have to say about their in house studies (cause you know they've got to have seen this coming). I'm kind of surprised that ammo mfgs haven't taken the lead, er... leed (sic) on this as opposed to facing some type of govt mandate.

Gov't is going green elsewhere (google green ammunition program).

Green means $$
 
If memory serves me well Rocky Mountain National Park was doing some culling of the Elk herds. But the hunts were done by professional hunters only so I guess that does not really count. They were going to donate the meat to local food banks to help feed the needy.
 
Methinks this is a backdoor way to banning CCW in national parks, since, oh, about 99.9% of SD ammo is jacketed lead, or does it specifically say "hunting" ammunition somewhere?
 
NPS is attempting to ban all lead associated with the taking of game and fish, not just ammunition
Click to expand...

As the sentence says, ALL LEAD, I would read this to mean even jacketed, since the ban will also affect fishing sinkers I guess they don't want any lead.
 
WRT CHLs, the deal is about lead used for hunting and fishing for naturally-wild critters, not for unnaturally-wild people. :)

Navy LT, a cynic would say that the primary reason that Pelosi & Reid call HR 45 a dead issue is that they don't ever want to be associated in the news with the bill's introducer, Shaw, a former felon who was a Black Panther. I'll take whatever I can get. :D
 
If they ban lead in the location, and you carry lead self defense rounds and go through those locations it could be illegal.


There is no other suitable metal for use in ammunition.

People may say tungsten, but tungsten has actualy proven itself to be more harmful than lead to the environment. It is also "armor piercing".

Bismuth costs several times more than lead, is far less plenetiful in the earth meaning it will cost even more with higher demand, and is primarily produced as a byproduct of lead mining.
That is right, most bismuth actualy comes from mining and processing of lead, as a byproduct.
If not for the use of lead most available bismuth would not even be processed.

Bismuth costs over $15 a pound reaching about $18 last year, while lead is currently less than .50 cents per pound. And there is not even a huge demand for Bismuth yet sot that figure does even adjust for the increase in price by forced demand.
Bullets alone would cost 3,000% more at current rates. Likely 5,000% or higher as demand increased for the limited world supply of bismuth.
Do you know what that would do to the cost of ammunition?


Other affordable though less effective metals are already banned under federal law in handguns or rifle calibers which have been chambered in a production handgun.
This means that most other affordable metals are illegal in both handguns and the majority of rifles as projectiles.
Iron, steel, etc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
South Dakota Newspaper Supports National Park Carry
Replies
1
Views
275
chrlefxtrt
C
M
  • Locked
Good News on Right to Carry in National Parks
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
Fisherman_48768
F
G
  • Locked
NATIONAL PARK GUN BAN you can help!
Replies
5
Views
793
44Brent
4
S
  • Locked
National Parks gun ban - time to go
2 3
Replies
55
Views
3K
Smurfslayer
S
W
  • Locked
Interior Secretary Proposes to End Ban on National Park Carry
Replies
20
Views
1K
Balrog
B
Back
Top