A recent hearing by the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries considered a commonsense act to protect the great outdoors. Supported by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act would require a science-based approach to potential new government regulations.
Specifically, it would mandate the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior rely on peer-reviewed scientific conclusions in enacting rules concerning traditional lead ammunition or fishing tackle.
In other words, it would have to be proven that the use of centuries-old sporting equipment creates harmful effects on wildlife before prohibitions could be enacted.
The NSSF effort resulted from an underhanded act last year by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). Facing pressure from the Center for Biological Diversity, which opposes hunting, the USFWS settled a lawsuit that sought to end the use of traditional ammunition and lead fishing tackle.
The agency then issued a rule complying with the demands of the anti-hunting lobby.
The USFWS combined a positive with a negative in the new regulation. It opened and expanded access for sportsmen to 18 National Wildlife Refuges, something that all outdoor enthusiasts may celebrate. But there was an insidious extra step to this move.
The agency then prohibited traditional ammunition and fishing tackle from being used by sportsmen on federal lands through a phased-in process. In a press release, the USFWS claimed that the action was based on the best scientific data available.
That, however, is false. There is a glaring lack of data determining that traditional ammunition and fishing tackle is causing detrimental effects on wildlife at any federal refuge.
Rep. Rob Wittman (R-VA) is the sponsor of the Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act. He stridently urged the administration to base the decision on facts, not on allegations by a fringe group that opposes traditional outdoor sports.
“I think we ought to make sure that decisions are based on sound science. When there is a relationship between the use of lead, whether it’s ammunition or for fishing sinkers or for that matter lures…to just carte-blanche say that we’re going to allow agencies to ban lead across the spectrum just doesn’t make good sense.”
Wittman added that his bill enables lawmakers and regulators to apply actual scientific data to these regulatory decisions.
There have been multiple studies on lead used in outdoor sports shown to utilize small sample sizes and data hand-picked to support the conclusion the “researchers” set out to prove. Data disproving anti-lead theories has been excluded, and there have even been lawsuits against the withholding of findings that contradict the anti-sportsmen’s claims.
The California condor is a shining example of how evidence to the contrary of researcher’s aims is ignored. Lead has several points of origin into the environment, including lead-based paint, gasoline, nuts, bolts, screws, pesticides, and multiple others.
Activists note that lead has been found in the birds’ nests, digestive tracts, and their young.
In 2007, California lawmakers banned lead ammunition on the promise that condors would be spared exposure to poisoning through this legal action. So, how did that turn out?
Fifteen years later, California data shows that 99% of hunters complied with the prohibition of lead ammunition. However, the presence of lead has remained steady and even slightly increased in the condor population.
On the other side of the ledger, Southwick Associates found that up to
36% of hunters were expected to be forced to give up the traditional sport. Similar expectations were found in Europe from a proposed sweeping lead ammunition ban there.
Sweeping government regulations that claim a scientific basis should be supported by scientific facts. It is hardly radical to expect lawmakers and regulators to have a sound basis before enacting measures that affect so much of the sporting public.
