[GUN RIGHTS]
 |
Lead ammo ban averted, fishing in jeopardy
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency denied a petition seeking to ban the production and distribution of traditional ammunition. The agency, however, has not yet denied the petition to ban the use of lead in fishing sinkers.
In a letter sent Aug. 27 to the lead ban petitioners from Steve Owens, EPA assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, he indicated the agency did not have the legal authority to review traditional ammunition. When Congress passed the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976, it specifically exempted traditional ammunition from scrutiny.
Owens indicated, however, that the EPA has the statutory authority to review the second portion of the petition seeking a ban on lead fishing sinkers and would respond soon on the question.
"This is a tremendous victory for all sportsmen, hunters and gun owners," said Stephen L. Sanetti, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which was echoed by Rob Sexton, U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance vice president for government affairs.
"The engine that drives wildlife conservation is fueled by the dollars generated by the American sportsman," said Sexton. "This is certainly a positive ruling for all who care for and care about wildlife."
NWTF CEO George Thornton agreed, "Sportsmen and women across the country use lead-based ammunition and fishing tackle to introduce their loved ones to the traditions of the outdoors, to feed their families and to participate in the active scientific management of wild game populations. Banning lead from hunting and fishing would cause undue financial burden on these families and could have dire consequences on the effectiveness of the North American model for wildlife conservation."
On Aug. 3, the Center for Biological Diversity, American Bird Conservancy and several other groups filed a petition under the TSCA, which regulates dangerous chemicals. It claimed that the use of traditional ammunition is dangerous to certain types of wildlife, including numerous birds that scavenge on parts of game that remain in the field. No reliable scientific data backs up the claim.
While hunters and sport shooters have been given a reprieve, fishing with lead sinkers is still under fire. Outdoorsmen and women should stand together to protect the traditions of fishing and hunting and are encouraged to write to the EPA to express their opposition to this ban. — from U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance and NWTF reports
 |
Kurt Wilson/Missoulian |
Delisting the Great Lakes wolves a step closer
The battle over removing wolves from Endangered Species Act protections is one step closer to a resolution.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced the opening of a public comment period for the possible removal of Western Great Lakes wolves from the endagered species list and returning the management of wolves to the states affected.
The USFWS's announcement comes after the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation, NWTF Wisconsin chapters and four other petitioners sent a letter indicating they will sue the agency unless it issues a finding on their earlier petition of May 18 to remove the wolf from the list.
The ESA and the Administrative Procedure Act allows the Secretary of the Interior 90 days to issue a finding on petitions. No finding was issued within that period, prompting the threat of legal action by the six petitioners.
"We're very pleased the USFWS is moving forward with the petition to delist the wolves in the Western Great Lakes region," said Bud Pidgeon, USSAF president and CEO. "The USSAF and many others have worked for years on this and firmly stand by the idea that states, not the federal government, should be managing their wildlife populations once those populations have recovered."
According to NWTF Chief Conservation Officer James Earl Kennamer, Ph.D., "If wolf populations have recovered and are thriving, hunting is the best way to keep these populations at a healthy level. Hunting also brings revenue to the states, creates jobs and supports other wildlife through Pittman-Robertson funds, reducing the need for states to spend taxpayer money on alternative, and less effective, population controls. Most importantly, once wolf populations have reached sustainable levels, the states need the right to manage those populations."
The departments of natural resources in Minnesota and Wisconsin also filed separate petitions seeking the removal of ESA protections for the Western Great Lakes wolves in March and April of 2010 respectively.
Two previous efforts by USFWS to delist the Western Great Lakes gray wolves were reversed as a result of lawsuits filed by anti-hunting groups and some procedural mistakes made by the USFWS in the waning days of the Bush administration. — U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance